Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panel Systems

COPY NO.
1
NCHRP 12-65
FULL-DEPTH, PRECAST-CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK

PANEL SYSTEMS
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Transportation Research Board
National Research Council
Sameh S. Badie
The George Washington University,
Washington DC
and
Maher K. Tadros
Amgad F. Girgis
University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, Nebraska
November 2006
NCHRP 12-65

PANEL SYSTEMS
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Transportation Research Board
National Research Council
Sameh S. Badie
The George Washington University,
Washington DC
and
Maher K. Tadros
Amgad F. Girgis
University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, Nebraska
November 2006
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SPONSORSHIP
This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was
conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administrated by
the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council.
DISCLAIMER
This is an uncorrected draft as submitted by the research agency. The opinions and
conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research agency. They are not
necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the
Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, or the individual states participating in the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 12-65 by the Civil
and Environmental Engineering Department, The George Washington University, Washington
DC, Tadros Associates, LLC, Omaha Nebraska, and the Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The George Washington University was the contractor for this
study. The work undertaken at Tadros Associates, LLC, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
was under individual subcontracts with The George Washington University.
Sameh S. Badie, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Civil and Environmental

Engineering Department, The George Washington University, was the principal investigator.
Coauthors of this report are Maher K. Tadros, The Charles J. Vranek Distinguished Professor of
Civil Engineering, and Amgad F. Girgis, Research Assistant Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
The following individuals provided assistance during various phases of the project:
Walter Mesia, Nghi Nguyen, Parul Patel and Krissachai Sriboonma, graduate research students
of The George Washington University, Karen A. Bexten, senior engineer and partner of Tadros
Associates, LLC, and Carlos Encarnacion and Yuri V. Jukarev, graduate research students and
Kelvin J. Lein, Senior Laboratory Technician of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY
4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Problem Statement, ...............................................................4
Objective and Scope of the Research, ...................................4
Research Approach, ..............................................................5
Organization of the Report, ...................................................6
Applicability of Results to Highway Practice, ......................7
8 CHAPTER 2 Background and Literature Review
Introduction, ..........................................................................8
Panel-to-Superstructure Connection, ....................................9
Transverse Panel-to-Panel Connection, ................................9
Longitudinal Reinforcement, ................................................11
Grout Material, ......................................................................13
History of the Shear Connector Spacing Limits of
the AASHTO Standard and LRFD Design
Specifications, .......................................................................15
Summary of the Literature Review........................................17
Figures....................................................................................18-24
25 CHAPTER 3 Research Results
Introduction, ..........................................................................25
Recommended Full-Depth, Precast Concrete Bridge
Deck Panel Systems, .............................................................26
Design Criteria, ...........................................................26
Recommended System CD-1, .....................................27
Recommended System CD-2, .....................................30
Panel-to-Panel Connection Details, ......................................32
Investigation of Grout Material, .................................33
Group #1: Direct Tensile Test of Four
Connection Details, .....................................................34
Group #2: Direct Tensile Test of Selected
Connection Details, .....................................................35
Full-scale Bridge Specimen, .......................................36
Test Results, ....................................................38
Demolition of the Precast Panels, ...................40
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report i

CONTENTS (CONT.) CHAPTER 3 (cont.) Research Results
Analytical Investigation of the Development
length of Confined Reinforcing Bars, .........................40
Panel-to-Concrete Girder Connection, ..................................42
Description of the Connection Detail, ........................42
Experimental Investigation, ........................................44
Test Results and Discussion, ...........................45
Analytical Investigation, .............................................47
Panel-to-Steel Girder Connection, ........................................48
Description of the Connection Detail, ........................49
Push-Off Specimens, ...................................................50
Description of the Push-Off
Specimens, ......................................................50
Fatigue and Ultimate Capacities of
Steel Studs, ......................................................52
Test Results and Discussion, ...........................55
Finite Element Investigation of the
Push-off Specimens, .......................................57
Full-Scale Beam Test, .................................................58
Fatigue Testing of the Beam, ..........................59
Ultimate Testing of the Full-scale
Beams, .............................................................62
Removal of the Precast Panel of the
Full-Scale Beams .............................................67
Guidelines for Design, Detailing, Fabrication and
Installation of Full-Depth Precast Concrete Deck
Panel Systems, ......................................................................67
Proposed AASHTO LRFD Specifications
Revisions, ..............................................................................67
Tables.....................................................................................68-78
Figures....................................................................................79-149
150 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research
Conclusions and Recommendations, .....................................150
Panel-To-Panel Connection Details
using Conventional Reinforcement..................150
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report ii

CONTENTS (CONT.) CHAPTER 4 (cont.) Conclusions and Suggested Research
Panel-to-Concrete Girder Connection
Detail................................................................150
Panel-to-Steel Girder Connection
Detail................................................................151
Recommended Guidelines for Full-
Depth, Precast-Concrete Bridge Deck
Panel Systems ..................................................151
Proposed AASHTO LRFD Revisions
to Section 9 ......................................................151
Suggestions for Future Research, ..........................................152
153 References
Appendix A National Survey and Literature Review
Appendix B Design Calculations of Proposed System CD-1
Appendix C Design, Detailing, Fabrication & Installation Guide
Appendix D Proposed AASHTO LRFD Specifications Revisions
Appendix E Specifications of Selected Commercial Grout Material
Appendix F Finite Element Analysis
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report iii

LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Nil
CHAPTER 2 Background and Literature Review

Nil
CHAPTER 3 Research Results

Table 1. General Features of the Conceptual Designs Cd-1 & CD-2............................................68
Table 2. Comparison between Various Types of Commercial Grout Material .............................69
Table 3. Design criteria and test results of the pullout specimens (Group #1)..............................70
Table 4. Design criteria and test results of the pullout specimens (Group #2)..............................71
Table 5. Displacement measurements at P1-P2 and P2-P3 Joints .................................................72
Table 6. Dimensions of the Equivalent Square Area used for the Finite Element Analysis .........72
Table 7. Design criteria of the Push-off Specimens ......................................................................72
Table 8. Ultimate Capacity of the Stud Cluster using Various Models.........................................72
Table 9. Test results of the Push-off, Panel-to-Steel Specimens ............................................. 73-76
Table 10. Summary of the Finite Element Analysis Results for the Push-off Specimens.............77
Table 11. Summary of the Full-scale Beam Ultimate Test Results...............................................78
CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research

Nil
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report iv

LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Nil
CHAPTER 2 Background and Literature Review

Figure 1. Deck/Superstructure connection details of the Delaware River Bridge, ......................18
Figure 2. Panel dimensions and cross section of the I-80 Overpass project, Oakland,
California ...............................................................................................................18
Figure 3. Welded channel section detail used in the New York Thruway Experimental
Bridge ....................................................................................................................18
Figure 4. Bolted detail used in the New York Thruway Experimental Bridge .............................19
Figure 5. Grout dam built using light-gauge side forms (Queen Elizabeth Way-Welland
River Bridge, Ontario, Canada) .............................................................................19
Figure 6. Grout dam built using elastomeric strips (Clark's Summit Bridge, Pennsylvania
Turnpike)................................................................................................................19
Figure 7. Leveling screw detail .....................................................................................................20
Figure 8. Non-grouted match-cast joint.........................................................................................20
Figure 9. Various grouted female-to-female joint details .............................................................20
Figure 10. Effect of tight and loose tolerances on panel-to-panel joints.......................................21
Figure 11. Wood forming of the panel-to-panel joint used in the Arch Tied Bridges,
Texas ......................................................................................................................21
Figure 12. Exposed aggregate roughened surface used in the Arch Tied Bridges, Texas ............21
Figure 13. Non-reinforced panel-to-panel connection used on bridges by AKDOT ....................22
Figure 14. Lap splicing of longitudinal reinforcement used on Structure C-437, Wanship,
Utah........................................................................................................................22
Figure 15. Continuity detail over the cross piers used on Castlewood Canyon Bridge,
Colorado.................................................................................................................22
Figure 16. Panel-to-panel connection using spiral confinement ...................................................23
Figure 17. Post-tensioning detail used on Bridge-4 constructed on Route 75, Sangamon
County, Illinois ......................................................................................................23
Figure 18. Longitudinal post-tensioning concentrated at girder lines used on the Skyline
Drive Bridge, Omaha, Nebraska............................................................................24
Figure 19. Push-off test specimen of Reference (19) ....................................................................24
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report v

CHAPTER 3 Research Results
Figure 1. Cross Section and Plan View of CD-1A........................................................................79
Figure 2. CD-1A, Sections A-A, B-B and C-C .............................................................................80
Figure 3. CD-1A, Panel-to-Panel Connection Detail, Detail .......................................................81
Figure 4. CD-1A, Installation of a New Panel ..............................................................................82
Figure 5. Cross Section and Plan View of CD-1B ........................................................................83
Figure 6. CD-1B, Sections A2-A2, B2-B2 and C2-C2 .................................................................84
Figure 7. CD-1B, Panel-to-Panel Connection Detail, Detail D2...................................................85
Figure 8. Sections C-C & E-E for Steel Girders ...........................................................................86
Figure 9. Sections C-C & E-E for Concrete Girders .....................................................................87
Figure 10. Detail H, Panel-to-Barrier Connection Detail..............................................................88
Figure 11. Design Parameters of the Shear Key............................................................................88
Figure 12. Cross section and plan view of CD-2...........................................................................89
Figure 13. CD-2, Sections A-A and B-B.......................................................................................90
Figure 14. CD-2, Details E & H ....................................................................................................91
Figure 15. CD-2, Sections B-B & K-K for steel girders ...............................................................92
Figure 16. CD-2, Sections B-B & K-K for precast concrete girders.............................................93
Figure 17. Compressive Strength versus Age of the SS Mortar and Concrete Mix......................94
Figure 18. Details of the Pullout Specimens of Groups #1 and #2 ...............................................95
Figure 19. Specimens used in Group #1 during Fabrication .........................................................96
Figure 20. Test Setup and Failure Modes of Group #1 Specimens...............................................96
Figure 21. Specimens used in Group #2 during Fabrication .........................................................96
Figure 22. Failure Modes of Group #2 Specimens........................................................................96
Figure 23. Cross Section and Plan View of the Full-scale Bridge Specimen ...............................97
Figure 24. Sections A-A, B-B & C-C of Panels P1, P2 & P3 .......................................................98
Figure 25. Panels P1, P2 & P3 during Fabrication........................................................................99
Figure 26. Panel P1, P2 and P3 after Seven Days of Moist-Curing............................................100
Figure 27. Concrete Strength Gain versus Time of the Concrete Mix and SS Mortar
Grout ....................................................................................................................100
Figure 28. Test Setup...................................................................................................................101
Figure 29. Arrangement of the Four 2½ in. diameter Pipes ........................................................102
Figure 30. Installation of the Precast Panels ...............................................................................103
Figure 31. Grouting of the Shear Pockets and Shear Keys .........................................................104
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report vi

Figure 32. Test setup at the North Transverse Joint and the Water Pool around the Joint .........104
Figure 33. Locations of the Measuring Devices..........................................................................105
Figure 34. P1-P2 Joint, Connection Detail A ..............................................................................106
Figure 35. P2-P3 Joint, Connection Detail BB............................................................................107
Figure 36. The Precast Panels after Demolition..........................................................................108
Figure 37. Various Options for Setting the No. 5 bar .................................................................109
Figure 38. Group #1 of the Slab/Concrete Girder Specimen ......................................................110
Figure 39. Group #2 of the Slab/Concrete Girder Specimen ......................................................111
Figure 40. Test setup of the Slab/Concrete Girder Specimen .....................................................112
Figure 41. Fabrication and Test Setup of the Slab/Concrete Girder Specimen...........................113
Figure 42. Structural Behavior of Group #1 Specimen of the Slab/Concrete Girder..................114
Figure 43. Structural Behavior of Group #2 Specimen of the Slab/Concrete Girder..................115
Figure 44. Location of Sections 1, 2 and 3..................................................................................115
Figure 45. Dimensions of the 1¼ in. Diameter Stud ...................................................................116
Figure 46. Concrete Dimensions of P-4-CT-U............................................................................117
Figure 47. Concrete Dimensions of P-4-ST-U ............................................................................117
Figure 48. Concrete Dimensions of P-8-CT-U............................................................................118
Figure 49. Concrete Dimensions of P-8-ST-U ............................................................................118
Figure 50. Concrete Dimensions of P-4-CT-F/U ........................................................................119
Figure 51. Concrete Dimensions of P-4-ST- F/U........................................................................119
Figure 52. Concrete Dimensions of P-8-CT- F/U .......................................................................120
Figure 53. Concrete Dimensions of P-8-ST- F/U........................................................................120
Figure 54. Typical Reinforcement of the Push-off Specimen.....................................................121
Figure 55. Fabrication of the Push-off Specimens ......................................................................122
Figure 56. Welding of the 1¼ in. Studs and the Quality Control Tests ......................................123
Figure 57. Compressive Strength versus Age of the Concrete Mix and Grout...........................124
Figure 58. Test Setup...................................................................................................................124
Figure 59. Failure Modes of Group #1 Push-off Specimens.......................................................125
Figure 60. Load-Displacement Relationship of Group #1 Push-off Specimens .........................126
Figure 61. Load-Displacement Relationship of Group #2 Push-off Specimens due to
Fatigue Load before and after the 2E+6 Cycles........................................... 127-128
Figure 62. Failure Modes of Group #2 Push-off Specimens............................................... 129-130
Figure 63. Arrangement of Stud Clusters of Beam #1 and #2 ....................................................131
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report vii

Figure 64. Sections A1-A1 and B1-B1........................................................................................132
Figure 65. Sections A2-A2 and B2-B2........................................................................................133
Figure 66. Forming and Casting of the Precast Concrete Panels ................................................134
Figure 67. Building the Composite Beams..................................................................................135
Figure 68. Elastic Properties of the Composite Section .............................................................136
Figure 69. Fatigue Test Setup .....................................................................................................137
Figure 70. Fatigue Fracture of the Steel Beam and Separation between the Haunch and
the Steel Beam .....................................................................................................137
Figure 71. Composite Section Stresses (Theoretical and Pre- and Post Fatigue) .......................138
Figure 72. Composite Section Deflection (Theoretical and Pre- and Post Fatigue) ...................139
Figure 73. Ultimate Test Arrangement of Beam #1 ....................................................................140
Figure 74. Ultimate Test Arrangement of Beam #2 ....................................................................141
Figure 75. Stress Distribution at Plastic Stage ............................................................................142
Figure 76. Failure Modes of the Full-scale Beams......................................................................143
Figure 77. Bursting Longitudinal Cracks on Top surface of the Slab.........................................144
Figure 78. Load-Deflection Relationship of the Full-scale Beams .............................................145
Figure 79. Load- Horizontal Slip Relationship of the Full-scale Beams ....................................146
Figure 80. Strain Distribution of the Full-scale Beam #1 ...........................................................147
Figure 81. Strain Distribution of the Full-scale Beam #2 ...........................................................148
Figure 82. Shear Studs after Deck Panel Removal......................................................................149
CHAPTR 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research

Nil
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report viii

PANEL SYSTEMS
SUMMARY
Public inconvenience and loss of income during bridge construction and

rehabilitation have prompted exploration of rapid construction methods. Cast-in-place
(CIP) bridge deck slab represents a significant part of construction or rehabilitation of
stringer-type bridge superstructures, as much of the construction time is consumed in
forming, placement and tying of steel reinforcement, and placement and curing of CIP
concrete. As a result, full-depth, precast concrete deck panel systems have been
increasingly used to replace CIP decks to enhance speed of deck construction.
In addition to high construction speed, full-depth, precast panel systems have
many advantages, such as high quality plant production under tight tolerances, low
permeability, much reduced volume changes due to shrinkage and temperature change
during initial curing, and low maintenance cost.
Full-depth precast panel systems with no overlays or longitudinal post-tensioning
are particularly attractive because: (1) Eliminating overlay helps to open the bridge to
traffic in a short period, especially for deck replacement project. This is because no CIP
concrete is needed except for local joints between the prefabricated panels. Rapid set
concrete mixes can be used for these joints without need for skilled concrete placement
and finishing workers, and (2) Eliminating field post-tensioning enhances the
construction speed, lowers the cost of the deck, and simplifies the process of partial deck
placement and replacement.
The objectives of this project were to develop: (1) recommended guidelines and
LRFD specifications language for design, fabrication and construction of full-depth,
precast-concrete bridge deck panel systems without the use of post-tensioning or
overlays, and (2) connection details for new deck panels systems. The researchers
carried out the following actions to achieve these objectives:
(1) Conducted a comprehensive literature review,
(2) Conducted a national survey with highway authorities and design engineers,
(3) Developed new details for panel-to-panel and panel-to-superstructure joints, and
(4) Conducted an experimental and analytical investigation to validate these new
connection details.
The outcomes of the research can be summarized as follow:
(1) Comprehensive literature review: Information on bridge projects built with full-
depth, precast concrete panel systems were collected, reviewed and summarized.
For each project, the summary provides specific information on critical issues
such as grouting material, shear-key details, panel-to-panel connections, panel-to-
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Summary 1

superstructure connections, design, reinforcement details, fabrication, and
installation of the deck panel system.
(2) Summary of results of the national survey: The national survey helped the
researchers to document available specifications and polices developed by
highway authorities who have used full-depth precast panel systems. The
material collected from the national survey was instrumental in developing the
guidelines manual and the LRFD specifications language.
(3) Guideline Manual: Recommended guidelines for design, detailing, fabrication,
installation, and construction were developed. The manual was developed to
promote the use of full-depth precast panel systems among design engineers and
highway authorities. It covers all issues that need to be considered with this type
of construction, in a concise and well organized format.
(4) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Language: Proposed LRFD Specifications
language for design, fabrication, installation, and construction were developed.
These proposed specifications are intended to replace Article 9.7.5 of the 3rd
edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2004).
(5) New connection details:
(5-a) Panel-to-panel connection details: Two panel-to-panel connection details
were developed. The connection details were developed to splice the
longitudinal reinforcing bars to fully develop their yield strength while
minimizing the required development length. This goal was achieved using
a new confinement technique.
(5-b) Panel-to-concrete girder connection detail: A new panel-to-concrete girder
connection detail was developed using a cluster of three 1¼ in. (31.8 mm)
studs embedded in the top flange of the concrete girder. The new detail
solves the mismatching problem currently encountered between the vertical
shear reinforcement of the girder and the shear pockets of the precast
panels.
(5-c) Panel-to-steel girder connection detail: A new panel-to-steel girder
connection detail was developed using 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs. The studs
are clustered in group 48 in. (1220 mm) apart. The proposed 48 in. (1220
mm) spacing between clusters exceeds the 24 in. (610 mm) LRFD
specifications limit.
(6) New full-depth, precast concrete deck systems: The new connection details
developed in the previous item were used to develop two new full-depth, precast
concrete deck systems. The first system is transversely pretensioned and the
second system is transversely conventionally reinforced. Both systems do not use
overlay or longitudinal post-tensioning. These systems can be used for new
construction projects or deck replacement projects. Step-by-step design
calculations of the first system were developed to educate design engineers on
how to handle various design issues they may encounter when using full-depth,
precast concrete deck panel systems.

(7) Experimental and analytical investigation of the new connection details and full-
depth, precast concrete deck systems: A comprehensive experimental and
analytical study was conducted to validate and check the structural behavior of the
new connection details and full-depth, precast concrete deck systems.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Highway construction projects have considerable impact on the public. The most readily
apparent consequences are increased travel times in congested construction work zones and the
resultant degradation in traffic safety. Field assembly of prefabricated bridge systems offers one
mean of significantly reducing construction time. Bridge elements that can be made of precast
concrete include girders, deck panels, pier columns, pier caps, abutments, and railing systems.
Most bridge decks are constructed using cast-in-place concrete. The forming may be
removable wood, stay-in-place metal or stay-in-place concrete panels. Use of can easily consume
30 to 60 days on a typical bridge construction project. CIP deck is common because of the
relatively low initial cost, without allowance for cost of traffic delay, and because of its ability to
tolerate errors in girder placement positions and top-of-girder elevations.
Development of a full-depth, precast-concrete bridge deck panel system, without CIP
overlays, and with riding quality suitable for high-speed traffic contact would be a major
achievement. It would help produce a significant contribution towards developing a totally
prefabricated bridge construction system. Elimination of deck panel system post-tensioning,
would also contribute to avoiding delays and use of specialty subcontractors. Previous research
(1,2,3,4,5,6) has resulted in implementation of post-tensioned and overlaid systems for
connection durability and ride quality. Issues that have been addressed include panel fabrication
and placement tolerances; shear connections, vertical alignment, final grade adjustment,
drainage, and parapet connections. Based on previous research and past practice, a significant
body of data is available for development of a guide specification for design, fabrication, and
construction of post-tensioned and overlaid full-depth, precast-concrete bridge deck systems.
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

The objectives of this project were to develop: (1) recommended guidelines for design,
fabrication and construction of full-depth, precast-concrete bridge deck panel systems without
the use of post-tensioning or overlays, and (2) connection details for new deck panels systems.
To accomplish these objectives, the following tasks were performed:
Task 1. Relevant literature on bridge projects built with full-depth, precast concrete panel
systems were collected, reviewed and summarized. Also, information on issues related
to these systems, such as grouting materials, shear-key details, and precast panel-to-
superstructure were collected and studied. Also, relevant practice and other
information related to the design, fabrication, and installation of full-depth, precast-
concrete bridge deck panel systems were collected and studied.
Task 2. A national survey was prepared and sent to bridge divisions of state DOTs in United
States and Canada, consulting firms, precast concrete producers, and members of the
PCI Bridge Committee and the TRB AFF30 Concrete Bridges Committee.
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 4

Task 3. Connection details for full-depth precast concrete deck systems, which can be used
with steel and prestressed concrete girders, were developed and evaluated
experimentally. These details satisfy the following conditions: high durability, high
construction speed, good riding quality, and high structural performance. The focus
was on deck systems with no longitudinal post-tensioning and overlay. The
connections details included panel-to-panel and panel-to-superstructure connections
and were used to develop two precast deck systems. The first system is transversely
pretensioned, and the second system is conventionally reinforced. Both systems are
conventionally reinforced in the longitudinal direction and do not use an overlay.
Task 4. A detailed experimental research plan, which included pullout specimens, push-off
specimens, a full-scale bridge specimen, and two full-scale beam specimens, was
developed and conducted to evaluate the structural performance, capacity and
constructability of the connection details.
Task 5. Guidelines for design, detailing, fabrication, and construction of full-depth precast
concrete bridge deck panel systems were developed.
Task 6. Specification language and commentary for the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (7) necessary to implement full-depth, precast concrete bridge deck
panel systems were developed.
RESEARCH APPROACH
Various types of full-depth precast concrete bridge panel systems have been developed
and used during the past 50 years. From the data collected from the literature review and the
national survey, it was clear that the majority of these systems have used: (1) longitudinal post-
tensioning, and (2) an overlay.
The longitudinal post-tensioning is typically used to put the panel-to-panel connection in
compression that may prevent water leakage, and to provide for the longitudinal reinforcement
required for distribution of the live loads. However, utilizing post-tensioning may increase the
cost of the deck construction, especially if a qualified contractor is required. Also, lack of
practical quality control procedures related to splicing and grouting the post-tensioning ducts,
may lead to corrosion of the longitudinal post-tensioning reinforcement and jeopardize its
function. These issues have stopped many state DOTs from using full-depth precast concrete
deck panel systems on their bridges.
Precast concrete deck system overlays typically provide added corrosion protection of the
deck reinforcement, and hide the difference in color between the precast panels and the grouted
areas, such as the shear pockets and panel-to-panel joints. Also, it is used to provide the deck
with a smooth riding surface. However, using an overlay reduces the construction speed of the
deck and raises the cost of the system.
In order to encourage the bridge designers to use precast concrete deck systems, the
following approach was used in this research project:
1. The connection details and the proposed systems that were developed in this project
satisfy the following conditions:
a. They do not use longitudinal post-tensioning

b. They do not use any proprietary products
c. The precast panels can be fabricated off the construction site or at a precast yard
d. The grouted areas are minimized and kept hidden as possible
e. No overlay is required
2. Design, detailing, fabrication and installation guidelines were developed
3. Specification language for the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7) were developed
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report consists of four chapters and four appendices, as follow:
Chapter 1 provides the introduction and research approach, and describes the problem
statement and research objectives.
Chapter 2 summarizes the findings of the literature review (Task 1) and the national
survey (Task 2) related to full-depth, precast concrete bridge deck systems, panel-to-panel and
panel-to-superstructure connection details, and the grouting materials used with these systems.
Chapter 3 provides the following information: (1) details of two proposed full-depth,
precast concrete deck panel systems, where new details of panel-to-panel and panel-to-girder
connections were developed and used (Task 3), (2) details of the experimental program used to
test for the structural performance and constructability of the developed connection details (Task
4), (3) design, fabrication and installation guidelines, (4) specification language for the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7,8) related to design, fabrication and installation of full-depth,
precast concrete deck systems (Tasks 5 & 6).
Chapter 4 summarizes the significant conclusions of this project and suggestions for
future research.
Appendix A provides a summary of the information collected from the national survey
and literature review.
Appendix B provides the design calculations of the proposed full-depth precast concrete
bridge deck system CD-1.
Appendix C provides proposed guidelines for design, detailing, fabrication and
installation of full-depth precast concrete bridge deck panels.
Appendix D provides proposed revisions to Section 9 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (7).
Appendix E provides information on the specifications of selected commercial grout
material.
Appendix F provides information on the finite element analysis conducted for the new
panel-to-girder connection details.

APPLICABILITY OF RESULTS TO HIGHWAY PRACTICE
The project was structured to provide design and details that can be directly implemented
on highway bridges designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7). The
design, fabrication and installation guidelines presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of this
report can be used by designers in various steps of a project design, such as preliminary and final
design, production shop detailing, production and installation, and quality control.
Several items, presented in Chapter 3 of this report, are intended for possible inclusion in
the AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications (7).

CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The use of full-depth precast concrete deck panels in highway bridges in the United
States started as early as 1965. The motive behind using this construction system has been to
increase the speed of construction of the deck for rehabilitation projects, especially in areas with
high traffic volume where traffic closures have high costs and cause inconvenience to the public.
Over the years, design engineers have started to see that this construction system is advantageous
not only for rehabilitation projects but also for new construction. This is due to the relatively
high construction speed and higher quality of precast decks that minimize future maintenance
costs and increase their service life.
This chapter presents a summary of the results collected from the literature review and
the national survey conducted in the NCHRP 12-65 project. The survey was sent to highway
agencies in the United States and Canada, and members of the PCI Bridge Committee and the
TRB A2C03 Concrete Bridges Committee. The goal of this summary is not to report on all of
the bridges built with full depth precast panels, but to show the diversity of the connection details
between panels and between the panels and the superstructure. Appendix A gives the national
survey and the results collected from it. Also, it gives a comprehensive coverage of the
information collected from the literature review.
Several bridges were constructed using full depth precast panels (9,10) prior to 1973.
Among them were the Pintala Creek Bridge, Montgomery County, Alabama, the Kosciuszko
Bridge, Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, New York, the Big Blue River Bridge, Kingstown,
Indiana, and the Bean Blossom Creek Bridge, Bloomington, Indiana. Biswas (10) reported in his
paper that these structures had, in general, performed well. However, some structures exhibited
partial failures at panel-to-panel joints. Features common to these bridges can be summarized by
the following: (1) the deck-girder systems were primarily non-composite, (2) the spans did not
have skews or superelevations, (3) more projects involved new construction than rehabilitation,
(4) fewer geometric fit-up problems were experienced with new construction than with
replacement decks, and (5) a full depth precast panel deck system was used for both temporary
and permanent bridges.
Since 1974, significant advances have been made in the construction of bridge decks built
with full depth precast concrete deck panels. Most of them were made composite with the
superstructure. The following sections give a summary of some of the connection details and
grout material that were used in these bridges. More information can be found in references 9 to
26 and in Appendix A of this report.

PANEL-TO-SUPERSTRUCTURE CONNECTION
The majority of the bridges built during this period were made composite with the
superstructure. This was achieved by extending steel shear studs or structural steel channels into
the precast deck through prefabricated pockets. The spacing between pockets ranged from 18 in.
to 24 in. (457 to 610 mm) and the number of studs per pocket ranged from 4 to 12. In some
cases, one stud per row was used, as in the three-span bridge over the Delaware River between
Sullivan County, New York, and Wayne County, Pennsylvania, as shown in Figure 1. In other
cases, as many as four studs per row were used, as in the I-80 overpass project in Oakland,
California, as shown in Figure 2.
As an alternative to steel shear studs, standard channel sections welded to the top flange
of the stringer beam were used, such as in the experimental bridge in Amsterdam, New York
(13), as shown in Figure 3. Although the experimental study showed that the channel welded
sections performed well, their use was limited because of the relatively high labor cost required
for welding compared to shear studs. On the same experimental bridge, a bolted connection was
also used as shown in Figure 4. In the bolted connection, the panels were first placed using steel
shims for leveling. After the holes for the bolts were drilled in the top flange of the steel girder
through the sleeves in the panels, high strength bolts were fastened. Achievement of full tension
in the bolts could not be achieved because breaking of the precast slab due to excessive
tensioning was expected. This connection detail was not used on any subsequent projects.
In most of the projects built during this period, the panels were supported on the girders
using steel shims and a 1 to 2 in. (25 to 50 mm) high haunch was provided between the precast
panel and the girders. Once the grout filling the haunch achieved design strength, full bearing of
the precast panels on the supporting girders could be expected, eliminating any possible stress
concentrations in the panels. Many details were used to form dams for the grout, such as the
light-gauge side forms that were used on Queen Elizabeth Way-Welland River Bridge in
Ontario, Canada, as shown in Figure 5, and the elastomeric strips used on the Clark's Summit
Bridge on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, as shown in Figure 6. In both cases, tie anchors, bolted on
the bottom surface of the panels, were used to secure the grout dam against leakage.
In order to adjust the panel elevation, leveling screws were used as shown in Figure 7.
Typically, two screws per panel were used at every girder line. These screws were designed to
support the panel weight and expected construction loads. After the grout filling the haunches
and pockets gained strength, the screws were removed or flame cut.
TRANSVERSE PANEL-TO-PANEL CONNECTION
The transverse edges of the precast panels were usually provided with shear keys, which
play an important role in the service performance of the finished deck. The shear key must be
designed to protect adjacent panels from relative vertical movement and transfer the traffic load
from one panel to the next without failure of the panel-to-panel joint. Under traffic load, a panel-
to-panel joint experiences two types of forces: (1) a vertical shear force that tries to break the
bond between the panel and the grout filling the joint, and (2) a bending moment that puts the top

half of the joint in compression and the bottom half in tension. Two types of shear keys that
have typically been used with full-depth precast concrete panels. These are:
(1) The non-grouted match-cast shear key, see Figure 8: This type was used with longitudinal
post-tensioning on the Bloomington Bridge in Indiana. Thin neoprene sheets were installed
between adjacent panels to avoid high stress concentrations. Although match casting can be
achieved in a controlled fabrication environment, such as in a precast concrete plant, it was
found that achieving a perfect match in the field was difficult due to construction tolerances
and the necessary elevation adjustment of the panels. Cracking and spalling of concrete at
the panel joints were observed after five years of service (17), which eventually lead to
leakage problems at the joints.
(2) Grouted female-to-female joints: In this type of joints, grout was used to fill the joint
between adjacent panels. Inclined surfaces were provided in the shear key detail to enhance
the vertical shear strength of the joint. Therefore, vertical shear forces applied at the joint
were resisted by bearing and bond between the grout and the panel. The shear key was
recessed at the top to create a relatively wide gap that allowed casting the grout in the joint.
Figure 9 shows some of the details that were used in bridges between 1973 and present.
With grouted joints, a form must be provided at the bottom surface of the panels to protect the
grout from leaking during casting. Two methods of forming have been used:
(a) Polyethylene backer rods in the tight space between panels at the bottom of the joint, as
shown in Figure 10: This detail has been used for a very long time by many highway
authorities. Although this detail does not require any construction work to be done from
below, it has been reported (21,22,23) that due to fabrication and construction tolerances,
the joint in some cases ended up partially full, as shown in Figure 10. Partially filled
grouted joints cause high stress concentrations at the panel edges, especially if longitudinal
post-tensioning is applied, and initiate cracking close to the bottom surface of the panels.
(b) Wood forming from under the panel, as shown in Figure 11: In this detail, a gap of 1 to 3
in. (25 to 76 mm) is maintained between adjacent panels and wood forms are installed from
under the panel. The forms are hung from the top surface of the precast panels using
threaded rods and nuts. This detail usually results in a full-height grouted joint with
excellent service performance (21,22). Although this technique allows complete filling of
the joint with grout, it requires access from below for form erection and removal.
The bond between the grout and the shear key surface can be significantly enhanced by
roughening the shear key surface (23). This has been found to be extremely important when
connecting precast panels with no longitudinal post-tensioning. Roughening can be achieved by
sand blasting, followed by a thorough washing procedure. This operation can be done in the
precast plant before shipping, or at the bridge site before installing the panels on the bridge.
Also, roughening can be achieved during fabrication of the panels by painting the side forms
with a retarding agent. After removing the side forms, the shear key is washed with water under
high pressure, so that the aggregate of the concrete will be exposed and a uniformly roughened
surface is created. This concept was used by Texas Department of Transportation on the precast
concrete panels used for the Arch Tied Bridges, as shown in Figure 12.

The literature review results of the performance of the transverse panel-to-panel connection can
be summarized as follow:
(1) The non-grouted match-cast shear key joint detail was used on a small number of projects
and had unsatisfactory performance as cracking and spalling of concrete were noticed after
a bridge was in service for a short period of time.
(2) Joints made with polyethylene backer rods have performed satisfactorily in most of the
cases especially when longitudinal post-tensioning is provided on the deck.
(3) Using wood forming has recently become more common than using polyethylene backer
rods
LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT
Longitudinal reinforcement in deck slabs is used to distribute the concentrated live load in
the longitudinal direction. Also, it is used to resist the negative bending moment due to
superimposed dead and live loads at the intermediate supports of continuous span bridges. For
deck slabs made with full depth precast panels, splicing this reinforcement at the transverse joint
between panels is a challenge for design engineers because:
(1) The panels are relatively narrow, 8 to 10 ft (2440 to 3050 mm). Therefore, a wide concrete
closure joint (2 to 3 ft, 610 to 915 mm) is needed if the longitudinal reinforcement splices
were to be lapped. This would require wood forming under the panels and extended period
of time for curing.
(2) The longitudinal reinforcement is spliced at the transverse grouted-joint between panels
that is considered the weakest link in the system. Therefore, great care has to be taken in
detailing the splice connection to maintain the construction feasibility and avoid leakage at
the joint during the service life of the deck.
(3) Splicing the longitudinal reinforcement requires a high level of quality control during
fabrication to guarantee that the spliced bars will match within a very small tolerance.
(4) Splicing the longitudinal reinforcement requires creating pockets and/or modifying the side
form of the panels, which increase the fabrication cost.
As a result, a few highway agencies such as the Alaska Department of Transportation

(AKDOT) and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) have opted not to
splice the longitudinal reinforcement for simply supported span bridges. Figure 13 shows the
transverse joint of the precast deck system that has recently been used on Dalton and Pedro
Creek Bridges on Route FAP 65 in Alaska. Although AKDOT design engineers have reported
that there is neither significant cracking nor leakage at the joints, the reader should note that the
average daily traffic on these bridges is very low compared to bridges built in metropolitan cites.

The majority of highway agencies prefer to provide some type of reinforcement across the
transverse joints. Various methods have been used in the past to provide and splice the
longitudinal reinforcement. These are:
(1) Using a lap splice: This detail was used in the full depth precast concrete deck panel system
for the rehabilitation project of the deck of the C-437 of the County Road over I-80 to
Wanship, Utah, as shown in Figure 14. In this project, the design engineer allowed the use
of threaded couplers at the face of the transverse joints to simplify the side forms used in
fabrication.
(2) Using U-shaped pin bars: This detail was used on the Castlewood Canyon Bridge in
Colorado. Figure 15 shows the U-shaped pins bars where they are overlapped and confined
with rectangular stirrups.
(3) Using spiral confinement: This detail has been developed to reduce the lap splice length
and give higher construction flexibility for the spliced connection (2,3,5). Figure 16 shows
the spliced connection where a loose bar confined with high strength spiral is used. This
detail reduces the lap splice length by about 40 to 50 percent and helps in simplifying the
fabrication of the panel because no bars extend outside the transverse edges of the panel.
(4) Using longitudinal post-tensioning: Longitudinal post-tensioning has been used on the
majority of bridges built with full-depth precast panels during the last 30 years. It puts the
transverse panel-to-panel joints under compression that eliminates the tensile stresses
resulting from live load. The amount of the post-tensioning stress on the concrete after
seating losses used in bridge decks ranges from 150 to 250 psi (1.03 to 1.72 MPa).
Longitudinal post-tensioning is typically conducted after the transverse panel-to-panel
joints are grouted and cured, but before the deck/girder connection is locked. This
procedure guarantees that all of the post-tensioning force is applied to the precast deck.
In most cases, high strength threaded rods uniformly distributed between girder-lines are
used. The threaded rods are fed through galvanized or polyethylene ducts that are provided
in the panels during fabrication. Figure 17 shows the post-tensioning details that were used
on Bridge-4 constructed on Route 75, Sangamon County, Illinois. Longitudinal post-
tensioning can be provided in stages and coupled as shown in Figure 17. After the threaded
rods are post-tensioned and secured, the ducts are grouted with non-shrink grout to protect
the threaded rods from corrosion.
Recently, longitudinal post-tensioning concentrated at the girder lines has been used on the
Skyline Drive Bridge in Omaha, Nebraska. Figure 18 shows a cross section of the bridge at
a girder line. The post-tensioning consists of 16- ½ in. (12.7 mm) diameter, 270 ksi (1.86
GPa), low relaxation strands. The strands are fed into open channels created over the girder
lines, and a special end panel that houses the anchorage device is used as shown in Figure
18.

GROUT MATERIAL
Several grout material have been used in filling the shear pockets and the transverse
joints between adjacent panels. Some of these grout material are commercial products and some
are developed by state highway agencies. The common properties that exist among all types of
grout are: (1) relatively high strength (2,000 to 4,000 psi) at young age (1 to 24 hours), (2) very
small shrinkage deformation, (4) superior bonding with hardened concrete surfaces, and (3) low
permeability. Through the literature review, the researchers have noticed that the majority of
state highway agencies specify the properties required for the grout material rather than
specifying a certain type of grout material. Therefore, the contractor has to take the responsibility
of choosing the type of grout material and then seeks the approval from the highway agency.
The following sections provide a summary of the most common types of grout that have
been used with full depth precast panels. Also, the following sections provide information about
some of the recent research that has been conducted to compare the performance of various types
of grout.
Commercial Products
Various commercial types of grout material have been used with full depth precast
concrete deck, such as: SET 45, SET 45 Hot Weather, SET GROUT, EMACO 2020, SS Mortar,
Masterflow 928, 747 Rapid Setting Grout, S Grout and SonoGrout 10K. A comparison of the
physical and mechanical properties of some of these products is given in Chapter 3.
In a recent study conducted by Issa et al (23), the researchers studied the behavior of a
female-to-female joint detail using SET 45, SET 45 HW, SET GROUT, and EMACO 2020. The
joint was tested for direct vertical shear, direct tension, and flexure. A total of 36 specimens were
tested. The compressive strength of the elements that represented the precast panels was about
6,250 to 6,500 psi (43 to 45 MPa). For all the specimens, the joint surfaces were sandblasted and
thoroughly cleaned. Also, no reinforcement crossing the interface between the joint and the
precast panel was present. In addition to the full scale testing of the joint, the permeability and
shrinkage properties of the grouting material was conducted in accordance with ASTM C 1202-
97 and ASTM C157 respectively.
Findings of the experimental program can be summarized as follow: (1) The shear,
tensile and flexural strength of joints made with EMACO 2020 were the highest among all types
of grouting material, (2) The shear, tensile and flexural strength of joints made with SET
GROUT were higher than those of SET 45 and SET 45 HW, (3) Failure of specimens made with
EMACO 2020 occurred away from the joint in the precast panels, while failure of the specimens
made with SET GROUT occurred simultaneously through the joint and in the precast panels. For
specimens made with SET 45 and SET 45 HW, failure occurred through the joint, (4) Moisture
and carbonation at the joint surface adversely affected the bond and strength of joints made with
SET 45, (5) EMACO 2020 and SET 45 set very fast, which require fast mixing and installation
process, and (6) EMACO 2020 was significantly less permeable and showed much lower
shrinkage deformation compared to other grout material.

Non-commercial Grout Material
The non-commercial grout materials presented in this section were used for regular
construction schedule, where the bridge was closed for extended period of time, and the grout
needs extended period of time of continuous curing (at least 7 days).
Hydraulic Cement Concrete (HCC)
HCC mixes were used on some the bridges built before 1972. The specifications for these
mixes contained a minimum concrete strength of 4,000 psi (27.6 MPa), relatively high slump
(about 6 in., 153 mm), and a maximum aggregate size of ½ in. (12.7 mm).
Latex Modified Concrete (LMC)
LMC mixes are different from HCC mixes in the essence that a latex admixture is added
to the mix. The latex forms a thin film on the aggregate surface, which enhances the bond
between the paste and the aggregate and results in high compressive strength and less permeable
concrete mix.
Many state highway agencies have developed their own LMC mix. The following are the
specifications of the LMC mix that has been developed and used by Virginia Department of
Transportation (24,25).
Portland cement III (minimum) 7 bags, 658 lb/yd3 (388 kg/m3)
Water (maximum) 2.5 gal/bag of cement
W/C 0.35 to 0.40
Styrene butadiene latex admixture 3.5 gal/bag of cement
Air content 3 to 7%
Slump (measured 4.5 minutes after discharge) 4-6 in. (100-200 mm)
Cement/Sand/Aggregate by weight 1.0/2.5/2.0
Menkulasi and Roberts-Wollman (26) conducted an experimental investigation using two
types of grout material. These are LMC and SET 45 HW, where angular pea gravel filler was
added for both types. The test included only direct shear specimens that simulated precast
concrete panels supported on prestressed concrete girders, as shown in Figure 19. Three
specimens with different amount of reinforcement crossing the interface were used, no
reinforcement, 1#4 (1#M13) bar and 1#5 (1#16) bar. The height of the haunch used in all
specimens was 1.0 in. (25.4 mm). The experimental investigation revealed that specimens made
SET 45 HW and LMC had almost the same shear capacity when no or small amount of shear
reinforcement was presented. However, at high amount of shear reinforcement, the specimens
made with SET 45 HW showed higher strength than those made with LMC. The researchers
were in favor of using SET 45 HW over LMC as the recommended grout material. The
experimental investigation also showed that changing the height of the haunch from 1.0 to 3.0 in.
(25.4 to 76 mm) had almost no effect on the shear capacity of the specimens made with SET 45
HW grout.

Type K-cement Concrete Mix
Type K-cement concrete mix was used on the Skyline Bridge in Omaha, NE (6) to fill the
longitudinal open channels that house the post-tensioned cables. The concrete mix had a
specified concrete strength of 4,000 psi (27.6 MPa) and only cement Type K was used in the
mix. The concrete mix had no fly ash and the maximum aggregate size was 3/8 in. (9.5 mm).
Type K cement is an expansive cement that contains anhydrous calcium aluminate, which being
mixed with water, forms a paste, that during the early hydrating period occurring after setting,
increases in volume significantly more than does portland cement paste.
HISTORY OF THE SHEAR CONNECTOR SPACING LIMITS OF THE AASHTO LRFD

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Creating a composite action between the precast deck and the supporting girders has been
one of the challenges that faced the design engineers in design of precast concrete panel decks.
Intermediate pockets over the girder lines have to be created in the panel to accommodate the
shear connectors extending from the supporting girders into the precast deck. Also, the shear
connectors have to be clustered in groups lined up with these pockets.
Typically, forming of the shear pocket typically slows down the fabrication process of the
panels and eventually raises the fabrication cost. Therefore, the design engineers try to space the
shear connectors as far as the specifications allow them. The AASHTO Standard Specifications
(27) and AASHTO LRFD Specifications (8) state that spacing between the shear connectors for
steel or concrete girders should not exceed 24 in. (610 mm). The following discussion provides
a brief summary on the history of this limit in the specifications.
The first composite concrete slab on steel I-beam bridges in the United States was
constructed in the early to mid 1930s in Iowa. A composite bridge design example, prepared as
part of a paper by Newmark and Siess (28) in accordance with the 3rd Edition of the American
Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
(1941), states “the spacing of the shear connectors shall be not more than 3 to 4 times the depth
of the slab”. While this limit did not appear in the AASHO provisions, it appears to have been
used as a convention or rule-of-thumb. Newmark and Siess (28) recognized in their text that
while these connectors are generally only designed to transfer horizontal shear that they also play
a dual role of preventing the separation of the beam and the slab.
The 2-foot maximum limit on shear connector spacing or pitch first appeared in the 4th
Edition of the AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges in 1944. This requirement
appears without commentary, which was typical of that era and the source of this change was not
given. It may be attributed to the research work produced in the late 1930s and early 1940s in
Germany. However these reports were all published in German and a free exchange of
information was hardly present at that time.
A 1953 paper by Viest and Siess (29) contains a discussion of why mechanical
connectors are needed. Their arguments include: 1) to prevent relative movement (either
horizontal or vertical) between the beam and the slab during all loading levels up to ultimate and

2) to transfer horizontal shear from the slab to the beam. The discussion that supports these roles
for shear connectors is primarily directed at insuring linear-elastic behavior of the composite
system.
Viest and Siess returned to this subject in a 1954 (30) paper that reports conclusions
made from their experimental results and makes design recommendations. It should be noted
that these experiments where carried out using the channel-type shear connectors that were
conventional at the time. Although they did not comment on the origin of the 24-in. (610 mm)
maximum connector spacing in the AASHO provisions, the experimental results support
retaining the limit. The testing considered connector spacing of 18 in. (457 mm) and 36 in. (914
mm). While the 18-in. (457 mm) spaced connectors performed as necessary, the 36-in. spaced
connector specimens experienced lift-off between connectors under load in the experiments.
This result motivated the authors to recommend that “the maximum spacing of channel shear
connectors be not greater than four times the thickness of the slab, but in no case greater than 24
inches.”
Further investigation has revealed that when the headed stud shear connector became
available to the steel bridge construction industry in the late 1950s, the steel industry people
relied on Viest and Siess to help formulating the design provisions for these connectors that were
eventually incorporated into the AASHTO specifications in the early 1960s. Based on their
previous work (29,30), Viest and Siess again recommended a limit of 24 in. (610 mm) maximum
spacing for these provisions. This time frame also coincides with industry acceptance of
precast/prestressed concrete girders as an alternative to steel girders for highway bridge
construction.
In 2003, the effect of number of studs per cluster and the number of clusters per specimen
was studied by Issa et al (31). In this research quarter- and full-scale push-off specimens were
made with various configurations. The research concluded that the increase in ultimate strength
of a cluster of studs was not linearly proportional to the number of studs. The research stated
that for all specimens an initial slippage of about 0.02 in. was noticed before the studs started to
initiate the composite action, and that shear failure was recorded at the stud base. The failure
was accompanied with local cracking and crushing of the concrete close to the stud base. Once
the concrete at the stud base crushed, the stud lost its bearing support and started to act as a
partial cantilever, which finally lead to the shear failure at their base. Also, it was reported that
the ultimate capacity of a cluster of studs determined by Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the LRFD
Specifications was overestimated by as much as 22 percent in some specimens. This conclusion
was drawn based only on testing of push-off specimens and was not confirmed by any full-scale
beam test.
Recently, on the US Interstate 39/90, Door Greek Project, Wisconsin Department of

Transportation has used a precast deck panel system (32), where a 48 in. (1220 mm) spacing of
clustered studs was used. The decision of violating the maximum spacing limit given by the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications was based on the experimental investigation conducted by
Markowski (32), where a half-scale composite beam was tested. One-half of the beam length
had studs at 24 in. (610 mm) spacing and the other half had studs at 48 in. (1220 mm) spacing.
The test results have shown that full composite action was achieved under full service load and
no signs of stiffness deterioration were noticed after applying 2,000,000 cycles of repeated

loading. The beam continued to show full composite action when it was overloaded beyond the
service load level, however, the researcher could not test the beam at ultimate due to the limited
capacity of the loading frame.
SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
This section summarizes some of the literature review findings that affected the research
plan:
Panel-to-panel connection:
1. Female-to-female joints (i.e. shear key details), filled with cast-in-place non-shrink grout,
have superior performance to match-cast, male-to-female joints. Sharp corners of the shear
key enhance the shear transfer across the joint.
2. Design criteria of a successful joint detail are no cracks under repeated service loads and no
water leakage.
3. Various methods were used in the past to provide and splice the panel-to-panel longitudinal
reinforcement:
Longitudinal post-tensioning, which puts the joint in compression and secure it against
leakage. Although longitudinal post-tensioning increases the cost of the deck system, it
was used with the majority of full-depth precast concrete deck panel systems.
U-shaped pin bars and/or lap splice details: These details require a wide joint and/or thick
precast panel to provide for the required lap splice length and concrete cover.
Panel-to-girder connection:
1. The majority of full-depth precast concrete deck panels systems were used on steel girders:
Typically, headed steel studs are used to compositely connect the girder with the deck.
Two sizes of steel studs are typically used, which are ¾ in. and 7/8 in. (19 and 22 mm).
Recently, one successful attempt was made to extend the shear pocket spacing to 48 in.
(1220 mm).
2. Very limited amount of research was conducted to study the panel-to-concrete girder
connection:
Practically, it is very difficult to cluster the vertical shear reinforcement of the concrete
girder to match the shear pockets of the deck panel.
Recently, some attempts have been made to separate the vertical shear reinforcement
from the horizontal shear reinforcement.

Figure 1. Deck/Superstructure connection details of the Delaware River Bridge
Figure 2. Panel dimensions and cross section of the I-80 Overpass project, Oakland, California
Figure 3. Welded channel section detail used in the New York Thruway Experimental Bridge

Figure 4. Bolted detail used in the New York Thruway Experimental Bridge
Figure 5. Grout dam built using light-gauge side forms (Queen Elizabeth Way-Welland River
Bridge, Ontario, Canada)
Figure 6. Grout dam built using elastomeric strips (Clark's Summit Bridge, Pennsylvania
Turnpike)

Figure 7. Leveling screw detail
Figure 8. Non-grouted match-cast joint
(a) Trapezoidal-shape shear key detail (b) Semi-circle shear key detail used in the George
used in the Pedro Creek Bridge, Alaska Washington Memorial Parkway Bridges, Washington DC
(c) V-Shape shear key detail used in the Skyline (d) Rectangular shear key detail used in the
Drive Bridge, Omaha, Nebraska Delaware River Bridge, New York
Figure 9. Various grouted female-to-female joint details

Figure 10. Effect of tight and loose tolerances on panel-to-panel joints
Figure 11. Wood forming of the panel-to-panel joint used in the Arch Tied Bridges, Texas
Figure 12. Exposed aggregate roughened surface used in the Arch Tied Bridges, Texas

Figure 13. Non-reinforced panel-to-panel connection used on bridges by AKDOT
Figure 14. Lap splicing of longitudinal reinforcement used on Structure C-437, Wanship, Utah
Figure 15. Continuity detail over the cross piers used on Castlewood Canyon Bridge, Colorado

2'-3"
2" 6" + 1/4" ** #7 splice bar, 2'-2 1/2" long
4 1/8"
3 3/4"
4" OD, 1" pitch, 27" long,
1/4" diameter wire
Figure 16. Panel-to-panel connection using spiral confinement
Figure 17. Post-tensioning detail used on Bridge-4 constructed on Route 75, Sangamon County,
Illinois

Figure 18. Longitudinal post-tensioning concentrated at girder lines used on
the Skyline Drive Bridge, Omaha, Nebraska
Figure 19. Push-off test specimen of Reference (19)

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results and findings of Task 3 through Task 6, which are listed
in Chapter 1. Additional information on the material covered in this chapter, are provided in
Appendices B to F in order to keep the size of this report within acceptable limits. This chapter
presents information on the following issues:
(1) Recommended full-depth, precast concrete bridge deck panel systems: Two systems were
developed, a transversely pretensioned system and a transversely conventionally reinforced
system. Both systems do not use longitudinal post-tensioning or overlay. New panel-to-panel
and panel-to-girder connection details were developed and used in these systems, as follow:
a. Panel-to-panel connection: Four connection details were initially developed and tested in
direct tension. Based on the structural performance of these details, two details were
selected and used in the recommended systems.
b. Panel-to-concrete girder connection: A new connection detail that uses clusters of three
1¼-in. (31.8 mm) diameter, double-head, steel studs was developed. The clusters are
spaced at 48 in. (1220 mm).
c. Panel-to-steel girder connection: A new connection detail that uses clusters of eight 1¼
in. (31.8 mm) diameter steel studs was developed. The clusters are spaced at 48 in. (1220
mm).
(2) Analytical and experimental investigation of selected details:
a. Panel-to-panel connection:
a.1. Direct tension test using pullout specimens
a.2. Full-scale bridge specimen
b. Precast panel-to-concrete girder connection:
b.1. Full-scale direct tension test
c. Precast panel-to-steel girder connection:
c.1. Push-off (direct shear) specimens tested for ultimate
c.2. Push-off (direct shear) specimens exposed to fatigue loading then tested for ultimate
c.2. Full-scale beam test (two composite beams)
(3) Guidelines for design, detailing, fabrication, and installation of full-depth precast concrete
bridge deck panel systems.
(4) Proposed revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (7).

RECOMMENDED FULL-DEPTH, PRECAST CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK PANEL
SYSTEMS
Design Criteria
The following general criteria were set in advance to pave the way for the development
of the deck systems. Please, note that these criteria were set after careful study of the bridges
covered in the literature review and the national survey. Also, they were discussed with a panel
of national experts on this type of construction to make sure that they are widely accepted.
1. Type of superstructure: The slab/I-girder bridge type was used. This decision was made
based on the fact that approximately 50 to 60 percent of the bridges in USA are made of this
type (33).
2. Construction material: The deck slab is made from conventionally or prestressed reinforced
concrete. The supporting I-girder can be made of prestressed concrete or steel.
3. Composite versus non-composite superstructure: It was evident from the literature review
that the superstructure of the majority of bridges built with precast deck panels is made
composite with the deck. Typically, composite systems have many advantages over non-
composite system, such as: (1) shallower depth of the superstructure, (2) longer spans, (3)
smaller deflection and less vibration due to moving traffic and (4) larger clearance.
4. New construction projects versus deck replacement projects: The details of the precast deck
systems presented in this chapter were developed to fit new construction projects as well as
deck replacement projects. This decision was made because there is almost a 50/50 percent
split between new construction and deck replacement project nation wide.
5. No longitudinal post-tensioning was used: This criterion was mandated by the problem
statement
6. No overlay was used: This criterion was mandated by the problem statement
Two systems were developed. Table 1 gives the general features of these systems. Please,
note that although these systems were developed without utilizing longitudinal post-tensioning or
overlay, they can be easily modified to accept them.
The following model bridge was considered to develop the recommended systems:
Total width 44 ft (13.41 m)
Superstructure Four steel girders spaced at 12 ft (3.66 m) with top flange width = 12 to 14
in. (300 to 356 mm) OR Four BT-72 or NU1800 prestressed precast
concrete girders spaced at 12 ft (3.66 m). The 12-ft (3.66 m) girder
spacing was chosen to provide extreme straining actions in the deck, and
consequently, the highest amount of reinforcement.
Concrete deck panels Total thickness = 8¼ in. (210 mm)
Structural slab thickness = 8 in. (200 mm)
Normal weight concrete, unit weight = 150 pcf = 23.6 kN/m3
Compressive strength at 28 days = 6.0 ksi (41.37 MPa)

Grout material Compressive strength at time of opening the bridge for traffic = 6.0 ksi
(41.37 MPa)
Live load HL-93 (AASHTO LRFD Specifications)
Side barriers NJ barrier, 600 plf (2.19 kN/m) per side
The design was carried in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7).
Recommended System CD-1
Figures 1 to 10 show the details of recommended system CD-1. The panel is 8-ft (2.44
m) long and covers the full width of the bridge, 44 ft (13.41 m). The panel has a structural
thickness of 8 inches. However, the panel is made 8¼ in. (210 mm) thick because no overlay is
used. The top ¼ in. (6 mm) of the panel thickness is used as a sacrificial layer for texturing the
top surface of slab. Texturing is executed by machine grinding after the panels are installed and
grouted. The texturing process helps to have a uniform elevation of the finished deck slab and
provides for high quality riding surface.
The panel is transversely reinforced with 8- ½ in. (12.7 mm) diameter pretensioned
strands and 12- No. 5 (16) bars distributed on two levels. A 2-in. (50 mm) top and bottom clear
concrete cover is provided for the two layers of reinforcement. This amount of reinforcement is
sufficient to cover the required flexural capacity at positive and negative moment area. Step-by-
step design calculations of the system are given in Appendix B.
The longitudinal reinforcement of the panel is made of No. 6 (19) bars at 13.3 in. (338
mm). In order to splice these bars across the transverse panel-to-panel joints, two connection
details were developed, CD-1A and CD-1B.
CD-1A (Figures 1 to 4): On one side of the panel, the No. 6 (19) bar is embedded 6 in. (152 mm)
in a galvanized bulged hollow structural steel tube, HSS 4x12x3/8 in. (102x305x10 mm). On
the other side of the panel, the No. 6 (19) bar extends 7½ in. (190 mm) outside the panel. The
HSS tube is a 4-in. (102-mm) cut and is installed on its side. It is bulged in the middle to a
total height of 5 in. (127 mm). The HSS tube is kept empty during casting of the panel’s
concrete by covering its sides with thin cardboard sheets. A 1-in. (25-mm) diameter plastic
pipe is attached to the top surface of the HSS tube and is used to fill the tube with flowable
grout. The HSS tube has an oversize 1¾ in. (45 mm) diameter hole on the free side of the
panel to help in installing the new panel without interference with the shear connectors. The
panels are installed so that the HSS tubes are ready to receive the No. 6 (19) bars of the next
panel, as shown in Figure 4. During installation, the new panel, i.e. to be installed, will be
tilted in order to avoid interference with the shear connectors of the superstructure.
CD-1B (Figures 5 to 7): On both sides of the panel, the No. 6 (19) bar is embedded 12 in. (305
mm) in a HSS 4x12x3/8 in. (102x305x10 mm) tube. The dimensions of the HSS tube are
exactly the same as those of HSS used in CD-1A. However, the HSS tubes are not bulged and
they are provided with a 1.5-in. (38-mm) wide top slot. The slot extends all the way to the top
surface of the panel. The new panel is installed vertically, and then a 24½ -in. (622-mm) long
splice bar is dropped from the top surface of the panel through the slot.
The goal of using the HSS tube is to confine the grout surrounding the No. 6 (19) bar,
which enables the bar to develop its yield strength in a distance shorter than that required for
unconfined bars. According to the LRFD Specifications (7), an unconfined No. 6 (19) bar

requires at least 18 in. (457 mm) to develop its full yield strength. In CD-1A and CD-1B, the
No. 6 bar has only about 6-in. (152 mm) of embedment length and 12 in. (305 mm) of lap splice
length, respectively. These new details were tested for direct tension due to static load and for
flexure due to repeated loading and the test results have shown full development of the No. 6
(19) bar yield strength. Information on the experimental investigation is provided in the
following sections of this chapter. A similar technique that uses a high strength spiral wire was
successfully used with the NUDECK precast system, see References 2 and 3 for more
information.
Forms needed for grouting the transverse joints can be built by attaching strips of
plywood hanged from the top surface of the panel, as discussed earlier in Chapter 2. This
method is recommended to guarantee complete filling of the shear key with grout.
The panel is made composite with the supporting girder through hidden shear pockets.
The shear pockets are 12-in. (305 mm) wide, 14-in. (356 mm) long, 5-in. (127 mm) high, and
they are spaced at 48 in. (1220 mm). The dimensions of the pockets are optimized to minimize
the volume of grout needed to fill the pocket, which eventually will enhance the system
economy. The 48-in. (1220 mm) spacing of the pockets was chosen to simplify the fabrication
process of the panels by minimizing the number of shear pockets to be formed and eventually
reducing the fabrication cost. An experimental validation was conducted, through push-off
specimens and full-scale beam testing, because the 48-in. (1220 mm) spacing was in violation of
the LRFD Specifications (7) that limit the spacing to 24 in. (610 mm). Details of the
experimental validation are given in the following sections of this chapter. After the panels are
installed and their elevation is adjusted using the leveling screws, the shear pockets and
transverse joints between panels including the HSS tubes are filled with flowable grout.
Two panel-to-girder connection details were developed. The first detail is used for steel
girders, where 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) diameter steel studs are used. The goal of using the 1¼ in.
(31.8 mm) studs, rather than the 7/8 in. (22 mm) diameter studs commonly used, is to minimize
the dimensions of the shear pockets, because two 7/8 in. (22 mm) studs are replaced with one 1¼
in. (31.8 mm) stud (34). The studs are set in groups at 48 in. (1220 mm) and each group has
eight studs, as shown in Figure 8. A 3-in. (76 mm) spacing between studs in the longitudinal
direction is proposed, which violates the LRFD Specifications (7) that require a minimum
spacing of four times the stud diameter to be used, 4x1.25 in. = 6 in. (152 mm). The intent of the
LRFD limit has been to guarantee that the compressive stresses in concrete or grout in front of
the stud will not exceed the allowable bearing strength due to overlapping of stress distribution
of adjacent studs. The shear pocket is confined with a Hollow Structural Steel (HSS) tube in
order to increase the compressive strength of the grout. Another alternative is to confine the
shear pocket using three No. 6 (19) closed ties. Both alternatives were experimentally
investigated.
The number of studs per pocket was determined based on a parametric study (2)
conducted on a wide range of steel bridges with spans between 60 and 130 ft (18 and 40 m) and
girders spacing between 6 and 12 ft (1.82 and 3.66 m). The study concluded that one 1¼ in.
(31.8 mm) stud at 6 in. (152 mm) would be sufficient to maintain full composite action between
the deck and the steel girder. It is recommended that the designer runs the analysis for the
horizontal shear and determines the required number of studs for the bridge under consideration.

Figure 9 shows the recommended detail for concrete girders, where clusters of three 1¼
in. (31.8 mm) diameter double-headed studs are set at 48 in. (1220 mm). The studs are
embedded in the top flange of the prestressed concrete girder. The benefit of using double-
headed studs as horizontal shear reinforcement, rather than the vertical web shear reinforcement
of the girder that is commonly used, is to minimize the shear pocket dimensions. If vertical web
shear reinforcement used for this model bridge, 12 legs of No. 5 (16) bars would be needed per
cluster. Also, the stud’s head provides full anchorage without consuming large space compared
to the No. 5 bars that need to be bent on L-shape or inverted U-shape. The number of studs per
cluster was determined based on information collected from: (1) the design examples given in
chapter 9 of Reference (35), and (2) DOT bridge designers. However, it is recommended that the
designer runs the analysis for the horizontal shear and determines the required number of studs
for the bridge under consideration because the amount of required horizontal shear reinforcement
depends on many variables, such as the width and surface condition of the interface, span length,
girder spacing, girder depth, etc.
Figure 10 shows the recommended detail for the panel to barrier connection. A closed
pin bar is cast in the panel and extended outside the top surface of the panel. The bar’s size and
spacing depend on the barrier’s design. The top surface of the panel at the interface between the
barrier and the panel is intentionally roughened to enhance the bond capacity.
The transverse edges of the panel are provided with a vertical shear key. The dimensions
of the shear key are designed to guarantee full transfer of wheel loads from one side of the joint
to the other. The modified shear friction theory (36) is used to determine the vertical shear
strength of the shear key joint. The theory depends on depicting possible modes of failure of the
joint. These modes are (see Figure 11):
(a) Bearing failure at side “bc” of the shear key:
( )
Pu ≤ φ 0.85 f c' (12 * Lbc ) kip/ft (1)
Where: φ = strength reduction factor for bearing = 0.7 (Section 5.5.4.2.1, LRFD)
f c' = specified concrete strength of the precast panel or the grout material,
whichever is smaller = 6.0 ksi
Lbc = length of the side “bc” of the shear key = 1.06 in.
Pu = factored wheel load with dynamic allowance, calculated in kips per linear ft
in the transverse direction.
Pu ≤ (0.7x0.85x6.0x12x1.06) = 45.4 kips/ft
(b) Shear failure along line “be” inside the grout filling the shear key:
Pu ≤ φ (c * 12 * Lbe + µAv f y ) kip/ft (2)
Where: φ = strength reduction factor for shear = 0.9 (Section 5.5.4.2.1, LRFD)
f c' = specified concrete strength of the grout material = 6.0 ksi
Lbe = length of the distance from “b” to “e” = 5.0 in.
c = cohesion strength of the grout material

µ = friction coefficient of the grout material
For concrete cast monolithically, c = 0.15 ksi and µ = 1.4 (Section 5.8.4.2, LRFD)
Av = longitudinal reinforcement crossing the shear interface per foot
= 0.44x12/13.3 = 0.397 in2/ft
fy = yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement = 60 ksi
Pu ≤ 0.9(0.15x12x5 + 1.4x0.397x60) = 38.1 kips/ft
Therefore, Pu = 38.1 kips/ft (556 kN/m)
According to Section C3.6.1.2.5 of the LRFD Specifications (7), which gives guidelines to
determine the tire contact area of the design truck of the HL-93 live load, the width of the contact
area in inches = (P/0.8), where P = design wheel load in kips = 16 kips.
Therefore, the width of the contact area = (16/0.8) = 20 in.
The applied factored wheel load = P (load factor for live loads) (dynamic allowance IM)
= 16x1.75x1.33 = 37.24 kips/20 in.
= 22.3 kips/ft (325 kN/m) < 38.1 kips/ft (556 kN/m)
Recommended System CD-2
The Empirical Design Method given in Section 9.7.2.4 of the LRFD Specifications (7)
was used to design for the required reinforcement. The LRFD specifications limit the use of the
Empirical Method only for CIP slabs. This is because all the validation tests of this design
method were conducted on CIP slabs. The Empirical Method depends on the Arching Effect,
where the bottom layer of transverse reinforcement acts as a tension tie to the concrete arch that
is developed between adjacent girderlines.
The research team believes that this method can be equally applied to precast panel deck
systems as long as the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the arching effect is successfully
developed by anchoring the bottom layer of transverse reinforcement at the girderlines to make it
able to fully develop its yield strength, and (2) the transverse panel-to-panel joints are
constructed to simulate monolithic CIP slabs by splicing the longitudinal reinforcement of the
precast panels.
The Empirical Design Method requires that any section of the slab between the exterior
girders should have a top and bottom mesh. Each mesh is made of two layers of reinforcement.
Amount of reinforcement required for each layer of the top mesh = 0.18 in2/ft (381 mm2/m), and
amount of reinforcement required for each layer of the bottom mesh = 0.27 in2/ft (572 mm2/m).
Maximum spacing of reinforcement in any layer = 18 in. (457 mm) and the minimum thickness
of the slab = 7.0 in. (178 mm).
The recommended system CD-2 is made of 8¼ -in. (210 mm) thick solid panel. The top
¼ in. (6 mm) of the panel thickness is used as a sacrificial layer for texturing the top surface of
slab. Texturing is executed by machine grinding after the panels are installed and grouted. The

texturing process helps to maintain a uniform elevation of the finished deck slab and provides for
high quality riding surface. Figures 12 to 16 provide details of the recommended system.
The precast panel has a partial depth continuous channel at the girderlines. The channel is
covered with a 3-in. (76 mm) thick slab that houses the transverse top layer of reinforcement.
After the precast panels are installed and their elevation is adjusted using leveling screws, the
continuous channels are filled with non-shrink grout through grouting pipes provided in the 3-in.
(76 mm) thick slab.
The panel is reinforced with three layers of reinforcement, transverse top and bottom
reinforcement layers and one longitudinal reinforcement layer provided near the mid height of
the panel. The longitudinal layer of reinforcement combines the two longitudinal layers of
reinforcement required by the Empirical Design Method. The amount of reinforcement for these
layers satisfies the reinforcement requirements of the Empirical Design Method as follow:
Top transverse layer between the exterior girders = 1#6 @ 18 in. = 0.293 in2/ft > 0.18 in2/ft
Bottom transverse layer between the exterior girders = 1#6 @ 18 in. = 0.293 in2/ft > 0.27 in2/ft
In order to fit the 18 in. spacing between the transverse bars, the panel is made 9 ft long.
Longitudinal layer of reinforcement
= 1-No. 8 Grade 60 steel with 4-in. long threaded ends @ 15 in.
12
= 0.601 x = 0.481 in2/ft > (0.18 + 0.27) = 0.45 in2/ft
15
The longitudinal No. 8 (25) bars are spliced using HSS 8x4x3/16 in. (203x102x5 mm),
3½ in. (89 mm) long cut, Grade 36 tubes and heavy-duty nuts, as shown in Figure 14. The HSS
tube is installed in 10x6 in. (254x152 mm) prefabricated pockets located on one transverse edge
of the panel. The No. 8 (25) bars extend about 4 in. (102 mm) inside the pocket and about 4 in.
(102 mm) outside the other transverse edge of the panel. The panel, to be installed, is vertically
lowered and then it is moved horizontally until the No. 8 (25) bars are inserted in the HSS tubes.
The thickness of the HSS tube is designed to provide 125% or more of the yield capacity of the
No. 8 (25) bar as follow:
Yield capacity of the No. 8, Grade 60 with threaded ends = 0.601x60 = 36.1 kips (161 kN)
Yield capacity of the 3/16 in. thick HSS
3 1
= 2x x3 x36 = 47.5 kips > 125%(36.1) = 45.1 kips (201 kN) > 36.1 kips (161 kN)
16 2
If the bridge owner requires corrosion protection measures to be used for the deck
reinforcement, the top and bottom transverse reinforcement layers can be made of epoxy coated
reinforcement, while the longitudinal reinforcement layer with the coupling accessories can be
made of galvanized steel.
The transverse edges of the precast panels are provided with a female shear key. The
dimensions of the shear key are identical to those used with CD-1. Using the modified shear
friction theory (36) as shown before in CD-1, it can be seen that the shear key detail with No. 8
(25 mm) bars at 15 in. (381 mm) has enough capacity to transfer the weight of the design truck
of the HL-93 live load.

The Empirical Design Method does not apply to the overhang part of the slab. Therefore,
it is required to design the overhang due to the collision effects. The design calculations of the
overhang are provided in Appendix B of this report.
Also, it is important to check the stresses in the bottom layer of reinforcement, 6- #6 (19),
at the girderline locations during shipping and handling. This is because if the panel is lifted at
the girderline locations (the continuous blockout channels), this area will be in negative moment.
The compression force of this moment will be carried by the bottom 6- #6 (19) bars and the
tension force will be carried by the top 6- #6 (19) and 12- #8 (25) bars. The bottom 6- #6 bars
need to be checked against buckling as follow:
Panel weight = (8/12)(0.150)(9) = 0.9 kip/ft
Negative moment = (0.9)(122)/(10) = 12.96 kip/ft
Tension force = (12.96x12)/(4.25) = 36.6 kips (distributed on 6- #6 bars)
= 36.6/6 = 6.1 kips/bar = 6.1/0.44 = 13.9 ksi
 1  Kl / r  2 
1 −   
 2  Cc   Kl / r 2π 2 Es
Allowable stress of #6 bar, Fa = Fy , ≤ 1.0, C =
 5 3  Kl / r  1  Kl / r 3  Cc
c
Fy
 +   −   
 3 8  Cc  8  Cc  
Where, Es = modulus of elasticity of the bar = 29,000 ksi

Fy = yield strength of the bar = 60 ksi
Kl = effective buckling length of the bar = 1.0x12 in. = 12 in.
r = radius of gyration of the bar = 0.25 x the bar diameter
2π 2 (29, 000)
Cc = = 97.67
60
( Kl / r ) = (12)/(0.25x0.75) = 64.00
 Kl / r 
  = 0.655 < 1.0
 Cc 
Fa = 25.1 ksi > 13.9 ksi (safe)
PANEL-TO-PANEL CONNECTION DETAILS

Development of the panel-to-panel connection details, which were used in the
recommended systems CD-1A and CD-1B, was achieved using the following approach:
(1) Investigation and review of grout material available in the market: This investigation was
conducted to decide on the type of grout material that would be used in the experimental
investigation.

(2) Group #1 Specimens: Initially, four connection details were developed and tested in direct
tension using 16 pullout specimens. In these details, a hollow structural steel (HSS) tube is
used to confine the grout surrounding the spliced bars. Typically, confinement increases the
grout strength resulting in significant reduction of the development length required to fully
develop the yield strength of the bar. Based on the experimental results of these specimens,
the top three successful connection details were considered in the next step.
(3) Group #2 Specimens: 9 pullout specimens, representing the top three successful details of
Group #1, were fabricated and tested in direct tension to confirm the experimental results
obtained in Group #1. Based on the experimental results, two connection details were
chosen as the final connection details used in the development of the recommended systems
CD-1A and CD-1B.
(4) Full-scale bridge specimen: After the recommended systems CD-1A and CD-1B were
developed, a full-scale bridge specimen made of three precast panels and utilizing the
candidate connection details was fabricated and tested for 2,000,000 cycles of fatigue load.
Investigation of Various Grout Material
In order to decide what type of grout material should be used in the experimental
investigation of the research project, the research team reviewed the specifications of many grout
material commercially available in the market. The products chosen in the review process were
selected based on the results of the literature review and national survey. Table 2 gives a
comparison between some of the products that were considered in the review process. In order to
choose the grout material that will be used in the entire experimental program, the research team
set the following criteria: (1) non-shrink grout, (2) 6 ksi (41.4MPa) compressive strength at 1-
day, (3) does not react with steel, (4) high flowability, and (5) can be mixed with pea gravel to
increase the yield volume.
The research team decided to use SS Mortar for the experimental investigation of the
connection details. This decision was made based on the fact that SS Mortar is exclusively
designed for splice connections where steel tubes are used to confine reinforcing bars, which is
the same case with the new connection details developed for CD-1A and CD-1B where HSS
tubes are used. Also, SS Mortar was used because of its relatively high flowability that helps in
filling tight connection details.
The research team monitored the compressive strength gain of 2x2x2 in. (51x51x51 mm)
SS Mortar cubes over a period of 28 days. It was found that the compressive strength measured
by the research team was higher than that given by the manufacturer in the early age. The SS
Mortar was able to reach a compressive strength of 6.0 ksi in less than one day, which makes this
type of grout suitable for use in over weekend construction projects. However, the 28-day
compressive strength measured by the research team was less than that specified by the
manufacturer, as shown in Figure 17, but it was higher than the target compressive strength
specified by the research team for use with the recommended systems, 6.0 ksi (41 MPa). No
shrinkage cracks were observed either in the SS Mortar filling the tubes of the pullout specimens
or in the 2x2x2 in. cubes.
Based on a discussion with the SS Mortar manufacturer on how to increase the yield
volume of the mortar, a trial mix of SS Mortar mixed with ¼-in. diameter pea gravel was made.
The ratio of the pea gravel to the SS Mortar was 1 to 2 by weight. 4x8 in. cylinders of the trail

mix were made to monitor the compressive strength gain with time, as shown in Figure 17. SS
Mortar with 50% pea gravel has shown slightly slower gain of compressive strength than the SS
Mortar without pea gravel. However, both mixes reached almost the same compressive strength
at 28 days. Please, note that pure SS Mortar with no pea gravel was used for the pullout
specimens.
Group #1: Direct Tensile Test of Four Connection Details
Sixteen pullout specimens were fabricated and tested. The following variables were
considered in making the 16 specimens:
• Size of the HSS tube: two sizes were used, which are HSS 3x12x¼ in. (76x305x6 mm)
and HSS 4x12x3/8 in. (102x305x10 mm). For both sizes, a 4 in. (102 mm) long strip is
used. These sizes were chosen because they fit the 8-in. (203 mm) thickness of the panel,
while satisfying the minimum top and bottom concrete cover for reinforcement in deck
slabs as specified by the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7), and they are commercially
available from many producers at regular price like the majority of steel products and not
considered a special order.
• Size of spliced bar: Two bar sizes were considered, No. 6 (19) and No. 7 (22), Grade 60
(414 MPa) uncoated bars.
• Connection details: The following connection details are considered:
1. Detail A: A bulged HSS tube with two side holes: The spliced bars were embedded for 6
in. (152 mm) inside the tube but they were not over lapped. The goal of bulging the tube
was to increase the volume of grout that is confined with the tube and optimize the
required development length.
2. Detail B: A straight HSS tube with a 12 in. (305 mm) long slot located on the top surface
of the tube: The developed bars were embedded and overlapped 11 in. (279 mm) inside
the tube.
3. Detail C: A straight HSS tube with a side slot: The developed bars are embedded for 6 in.
(152 mm) inside the tube but set head-to-head. This detail was similar to Detail A except
that the tube was not made bulged.
4. Detail D: A bulged HSS tube with a 6 in. (152 mm) long slot on the top surface of the
tube: The spliced bars were embedded for 6 in. (152 mm) inside the tubes and set head-
to-head.
Table 3 shows the design criteria of the 16 pullout specimens and Figure 18 shows the
details of the test specimens. Each HSS tube was embedded in 8x12x24 in. (203x305x610 mm)
concrete prism and the concrete prism was reinforced with 2-No. 4 (13) top bars and 2-No. 5
(16) bottom bars. This amount of reinforcement was chosen to simulate the reinforcement
required by the empirical design method given by the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7). The
tube was set flush with one face of the concrete prism and one of the two developed bars was
embedded in the prism and extended inside the HSS tube to represent the longitudinal
reinforcement of the panel. This bar was extended outside the concrete prism from the other side
to be hooked with the grip of the testing machine. The HSS tubes were kept empty during
concrete casting of the prisms by covering their sides with thin cardboards. Figure 19 shows the
specimens during fabrication. A normal weight concrete mix with a specified 28-day concrete

strength of 6.0 ksi (41 MPa) was used. The specimens were moist cured for 7 days and 4x8 in.
(102x203 mm) concrete cylinders were made to monitor the compressive strength gain with age.
Figure 17 shows the compressive strength gain with age.
After the compressive strength of concrete mix reached 6.0 ksi (41 MPa), the second bar
was embedded in the tube and then the tube was filled with SS Mortar grout. No pea gravel was
added to the grout mix. The specimens were tested when the grout was 3-day old using the
Tinius Olsen Machine, as shown in Figure 20-a. The specimens were loaded at a fixed rate of
300 lbs (1334 N) per second until failure. Two modes of failure were observed, which were: (1)
Bar slippage (as shown in Figure 20-b), where the failure load was measured at the moment
when the bar started to slip away from the concrete prism. This moment was identified when a
sudden drop of the applied load was observed on the load gauge of the testing machine, and (2)
Prism failure (as shown in Figure 20-c) where the concrete around the HSS tube failed in axial
tension. Based on the test results that are given in Table 3, the following conclusions were
reached:
1. Specimens A-1, B-1 and D-3 had shown higher developed strength than the rest of the
specimens. These specimens exceeded 1.25 times the specified minimum yield strength (60
ksi) of the spliced Grade 60 steel bars.
2. In all connection details, both sizes of the HSS tubes showed almost identical behavior and
developed almost the same amount of strength for the same spliced bar sizes.
3. Connection details made with No. 7 (22) bars have shown lower developed strength than
those made with No. 6 (19) bars. This was expected because the same amount of
confinement and development length was used for the No. 6 (19) and No. 7 (22) bars for
every connection detail.
Based on the test results of the pullout specimen, the research team decided to consider
the connection details A and B with No. 6 (19) bar and HSS 4x12x3/8 in. (102x305x10 mm)
tube for the next step of investigation. Although, the small size HSS 3x12x1/4 in. (76x305x6
mm) tube showed almost the same structural behavior and developed a bar strength similar to
that developed with the HSS 4x12x3/8 in. (102x305x10 mm) tube, the research team decided to
use the HSS 4x12x3/8 in. (102x305x10 mm) as it provides higher construction tolerance.
Group #2: Direct Tensile Test of Selected Connection Details
In this group, 9 pullout specimens were tested representing three connection details, three
specimens per detail. In all specimens, No. 6 (19) bar and HSS 4x12x3/8 in. (102x305x10 mm)
were used. The connection details considered in this group were as follow, see Figure 18:
(1) Detail A: same as Detail A of Group #1
(2) Detail BB: same as Detail B of Group #1 except that the slot on the top surface of the HSS
tube was open all the way to the top surface of the concrete prism. This change was made to
simulate the connection detail that would be used later on the recommended system CD-1B.
(3) Detail AA: same as Detail A of Group #1 except that the HSS tube was not bulged. This
detail was added to check the effect of bulging the HSS tube on the developed bar strength.
Table 4 shows the design criteria of the 9 pullout specimens, and Figure 21 shows details
of the specimens during fabrication. The concrete mix and grout material used for the specimens
of Group #1 were used for the specimens of Group#2, see Figure 17. for the compressive

strength gain with age. The specimens were tested in direct tension when the concrete strength
of the grout was about 6.5 ksi (44.82 MPa). At that time, the concrete strength of the prism was
about 6.1 ksi (42.06 MPa).
Bar slippage failure occurred in all of the specimen, where the failure load is measured at
the moment when the bar started to slip away from the concrete prism, as shown in Figure 22-a.
This moment was identified when a sudden drop of the applied load is observed on the load
gauge of the testing machine. For the specimens made with Detail BB (i.e. specimens with a top
slot), cracks between the grout filling the slot and the specimen were observed very close to the
failure load, as shown in Figure 22-b. The failure load and the equivalent developed bar strength
are given in Table 4. The following conclusions were drawn from the experimental program of
the pullout specimens.
(1) All of the connection details tested with No. 6 (19) spliced bars were able to develop a bar
strength equal to or greater than 125% of the 60 ksi (413.7 MPa) yield design strength, which
is consistent with the requirement of Section 5.11.5.2.2 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (7).
(2) Connection Detail AA made with straight tubes and no slots showed about 5% increase of
developed strength compared to connection details made with slotted tubes (Detail BB).
(3) Connection details made with bulged tubes and no slots (Detail A) showed about 10%
increase of developed strength compared to connection details made with straight tubes
(Detail AA).
Based on the test results of this group, connection details A and BB were considered in the
development of the recommended systems CD-1A and CD-1B.
Full-scale Bridge Specimen
After connection Details A and BB were used to develop the recommended systems CD-
1A and CD-1B respectively, the structural behavior of these connections due to fatigue flexural
loading was investigated. The experimental investigation was conducted by building a full-scale
bridge specimen. The bridge was made of 20-ft (6.1 m) wide, 24-ft (7.31 m) long, 8-in. (203
mm) thick concrete deck supported by two W18x119 steel beams. The steel beams were set at
12 ft (3.66 m) on center. The concrete deck was made of three precast concrete panels, 20-ft
(6.10 m) wide x 8-ft (2.44 m) long each. The design and details of these panels were according
to the recommended system CD-1. The panel-to-panel connection details, Details A and BB,
were used on these panels as follow:
Panel P1: Detail A was used on the North and South transverse joints
Panel P2: Detail A was used on the North transverse joint and Detail BB was used on the South
transverse joint
Panel P3: Detail BB was used on the North and South transverse joints
Figures 23 and 24 show details of the bridge specimen. Figures 25 and 26 show the
precast panels during fabrication and after seven days of moist curing. Top and bottom layers of
the strands were initially tensioned to 205 ksi (0.76 fpu) and concrete was cast on the next day of
tensioning the strands. A normal weight concrete mix of 6.0-ksi specified compressive strength
was used. After the concrete was cast and consolidated, the panels were moist cured
continuously for seven days using wet burlap. The strands were released three days after casting

the concrete. The strands were released using a mechanical hydraulic system that allows gradual
release of the tension force of the strands at one end of the bed. This technique of prestress
release was used to protect the panels against cracking that may results from sudden release of
the prestress force. Also, the research team used this technique during fabrication of similar
precast panels; see References 2, 3, 5 and 6. No cracks were observed at the panel edges during
or after the prestress release. Also, no shrinkage cracking was observed on the top surface of the
panel. Figure 27 shows the concrete strength gain of the concrete mix with age. The curing
process continued for four days after releasing the strands, and the panels were kept exposed to
the laboratory environment afterward, where the average temperature in the laboratory was about
80 degrees in the morning and 70 degrees at night, and the average relative humidity was about
40 to 50 percent. Regular checking of the top and bottom surfaces of the panels at different ages
did not reveal any shrinkage cracks.
Figure 28 shows the test setup, where a self-equilibrium frame was built at the transverse
joint. The self-equilibrium frame consisted of a top and bottom beam connected together with
four 2.0 in. diameter high strength threaded rods. A 110-kip (489 kN) hydraulic actuator and a
load spreader beam were used to apply the fatigue load. The spreader beam was supported by the
precast panel at two points spaced at 6 ft (1.82 m) using two neoprene pads, 9x22 in. (229x559
mm) each. The dimensions of the neoprene pads were determined according to the LRFD
Specifications (7). The supports were positioned on one side of the transverse joint. This load
arrangement simulated the center axle of HS20 truck. The applied load fluctuated between 4
kips (17.8 kN) and 46.56 kips (189.3 kN). The 4-kip (17.8 kN) load was determined in order to
maintain stability of the test setup, while the 42.56-kip (189.3 kN) difference between the high
and low load was determined based on the weight of the center axle of HS20 Truck plus dynamic
allowance, 32 kips x 1.33 = 42.56 kips (189.3 kN). The fatigue load was applied for 2,000,000
cycles at 2 cycles per second as recommended by Reference 37.
The research team used the chance of building the full-scale bridge specimen to address
some questions that were raised on the construction feasibility of the recommended system CD-
1, as follow:
1. Would panels made with connection Detail A be installed without interfering with the shear
stud cluster? This issue was addressed by welding steel pipes, 2½ in. (63.5 mm) diameter and
5½ in. (140 mm) high, on the top surface of the steel beams to simulate the footprint of 8- 1¼
in. (31.8 mm) diameter studs. The pipes were set in clusters at 48 in., four pipes per cluster.
The four pipes in each cluster were welded at the corners of the footprint perimeter of 8- 1¼
in. (31.8 mm) stud cluster, as shown in Figure 29.
2. Was the 1-in. gap of the shear key wide enough to allow efficient filling and consolidation of
the grout? This issue was addressed by attaching 6-in. (152 mm) wide strips of plywood to
the bottom surface of the precast panels at the transverse joints. The plywood strips were
hung from the top surface using short pieces of threaded rods.
3. Would the grout be able to travel the 48-in. distance between the shear pockets to completely
fill the haunch between the precast panels and the steel beam? This issue could not be
addressed in this part of the experimental investigation because no 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs
were welded on the steel beams in order to save these beams for the full-scale beam
specimens. However, this issue was addressed during the construction of the full-scale
beams, as it will be discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

The following steps were taken to build the full-scale bridge specimen: (1) 1-in. diameter
backer rods were glued to the top surface of the steel beams to form for the haunch between the
panels and the steel beams, (2) Panel P2 was installed vertically and set on the steel beams using
1.0-in. high steel shims, (3) Panel P1 was lifted from the prestressing bed. The panel was tilted
about 15 degrees by shortening the length of the chains on one side of the panel. The panel was
successfully installed by inserting the No. 6 (19) bars into the over size holes provided on the
transverse side of Panel P2, then the panel was lowered and moved horizontally. The installation
process took about 120 seconds and went smoothly without the need to change the tilting angle
of the panel during installation, (4) Panel P3, which had connection Detail BB, was installed
vertically, (5) Plywood strips were used to form for the bottom side of the panel-to-panel joints.
The plywood strips were hung from the top surface of the panels using threaded rods, (6) The
shear pockets were filled with SS Mortar Grout through the 2-in. (50 mm) diameter tubes until
the grout came out from the 1-in. (25 mm) diameter vent tubes on the far side of the pockets, (7)
The transverse shear key joints were filled with the SS Mortar Grout. The grout was flowable
enough to set without using any external vibrators. Figures 30 and 31 show some of the
construction steps.
When the grouting material reached the minimum required 6.0-ksi (41.37 MPa) strength,
the test setup was built around the north transverse joint P1-P2, between Panel P1 and P2. The
load was positioned in the transverse direction between the steel beams to produce the highest
flexural effects, as shown in Figures 28, 32, and 33, where each of the two neoprene pads, that
support the load spreader beam, was set at 3 ft (0.914 m) from the centerline of the supporting
steel beam. This arrangement provided a 6 ft (1.828 m) spacing between the neoprene pads to
simulate the LRFD HS20 truck.
In order to investigate the effect of the fatigue load on the structural behavior of the joint,
the following actions were taken:
1. A series of strain gages and displacement devices were installed around the joint on the top
and bottom surface of the precast panels, as shown in Figure 33. First, the full fatigue load,
42.56 kips (189 kN), was applied as a static load and the strain and displacement
measurements were recorded with a data acquisition system.
2. The fatigue load, varying from 4.00 to 42.56 kips (17.8 to 189 kN), was applied for
2,000,000 cycles at 2 cycles per second.
3. A ¾-in. (19 mm) deep-water pool was built around the joint covering the full width of the
bridge, as shown in Figure 32. The pool was continuously kept full of water before and
during the fatigue load was applied. Water leakage was regularly checked at the bottom
surface of the joint every 12 hours.
4. Then, the full fatigue load, 42.56 kips (189 kN), was applied as a static load and the strain
and displacement measurements were collected.
5. Steps 1 to 4 were repeated at south transverse joint P2-P3, between Panel P2 and P3
Test Results
1. The clustered stud shear connectors did not obstruct installation of Panel P1 that was made
with connection detail A.

2. The idea of building the grout forms of the transverse joints on the bottom surface of the
panels worked very well. No leakage was observed during filling of the joints with grout.
Also, no air voids were noticed on the top or bottom surface of the joints.
3. The size and number of the grouting and venting ports of the shear pockets was sufficient to
provide complete filling of the shear pockets and the haunch.
4. No water leakage was detected before; during or after the 2,000,000-cycle fatigue load was
applied.
5. No tension cracks were observed on the bottom surface of the transverse joints or the panels
after the 2,000,000-cycle fatigue load was applied. This observation showed that no slippage
occurred to the spliced No. 6 (16) bar of Detail A and Detail BB.
6. No signs of concrete crushing were observed at the top surface of the joint or the panels after
the 2,000,000-cycle fatigue load was applied.
7. No separation between the grout and the vertical surface of the shear key was observed.
8. The strain measurements at P1-P2 and P2-P3 transverse joints are summarized in the
following Figures 33 and 34 respectively. Table 5 summarizes the displacement
measurement at both joints. Studying the strain and displacement measurements revealed
that:
8.1 The strain gages oriented in the transverse direction (1uE, 8uE, 3uE, 6uE, 9uE &12uE)
showed high stresses compared to the strain gages oriented in the longitudinal direction
(2uE, 7UE, 4uE, 5uE, 10uE and 11uE). This observation confirms the logic that is used
by the Equivalent Strip Method of the LRFD Specifications (7) where the deck slab is
assumed to act as a one-way slab in the transverse direction.
8.2 Comparable gages on the sides of each joint showed almost the same amount of
transverse strains (compare 1uE with 8uE, 3uE with 6uE, and 9uE with 12uE). This
observation showed that the both joints (Detail A and BB) were able to transfer the full-
applied load.
8.3 The strain measurements on the north and south sides of the P1-P2 and P2-P3 joints were
almost identical. This observation showed that the structural behavior of the deck system
was not affected by type of the panel-to-panel connection as long as the connection is
capable of transferring the full load.
8.4 The stress and displacement measurements of both joints before and after the 2,000,000
cycles of fatigue load were almost the same, which indicated that no stiffness
deterioration occurred due to the fatigue load.
8.5 Comparing the strain and displacement measurements of this test with those calculated
using the Equivalent Strip Method of the LRFD Specifications (7) showed that the LRFD
equation used to calculate the width of the equivalent strip leads to a conservative design,
as it distributes the wheel load on a smaller distance than it should be, which results in
higher flexural stresses. This observation may be due to the fact that the panels used in
this test were transversely pretensioned. Transverse pretensioning increases the panel
stiffness, which makes the wheel load be distributed on a wider strip. Effect of transverse
pretensioning is not recognized by the LRFD Specifications as the same equation is used
to calculate the equivalent width of the strip for cast-in-place and precast concrete slabs.

Demolition of the Precast Panels
In order to demolish the bridge, the transverse joints between panels P1 & P2 and P2 &
P3 were saw cut. The small diameter of the blade did not allow for cutting through the full 8-in.
thickness of the panel, therefore only the top 6 in. (152 mm) of the joint was saw cut. This height
was sufficient to cut the No. 6 (19) spliced bars inside the joints. Then the center panel, P2, was
lifted up using the overhead crane, which lead to breaking the bottom 2 in. (51 mm) of the joint.
Investigation of the cut joints showed: (1) complete filling of the joint with grout with no air
voids, (2) no grout crushing, (3) no bond failure between the grout and the shear key of the
panels, and (4) no bond failure between the grout and the No. 6 (19) spliced bars, as shown in
Figure 36.
Analytical Investigation of the Development length of Confined Reinforcing Bars
A concrete member’s strength can be significantly increased with the use of lateral
confinement. Many researchers have investigated this technique over the past two decades.
References 38 and 39 provide a summary of various research activities conducted in this area.
Lateral confinement can be provided by using spiral reinforcement as in the case of circular
columns, circular steel tubes as in the case of concrete filled tube structures, or other shapes of
structural steel such as hollow structural steel (HSS) tubes that were used in this project. Lateral
reinforcement produces lateral confining pressure on the concrete core, which significantly
reduces the core tendency for internal cracking and increases the concrete compressive strength
and ductility.
Many mathematical models that describe the stress-strain relationship of confined
concrete have been developed (38). Among the latest models is the model presented by Sun et al
(39) that can be used for non-circular lateral confinement:
f c 0 = f0 + 4.1kf l (3)
where: fc0 = confined concrete strength
f0 = unconfined concrete strength (i.e. f c' for concrete cylinders)
k = a factor that relates the average lateral pressure fl to the equivalent uniform pressure
(k can be taken = 1.0 for the case of using HSS tubes)
fl = effective lateral confining pressure
=
∑A f s yh
(4)
sbc
As = area of lateral confinement steel
fyh = confinement steel strength
s = pitch of lateral confinement
bc = core dimension, center-to-center of perimeter of lateral confinement
Providing lateral confinement to the concrete core surrounding a reinforcing bar can
significantly reduce its development length. As the reinforcement bar, which is in tension, tries
to slip away from the concrete surrounding it, it creates high longitudinal compressive stresses in

the concrete due to bond and bearing of the bar deformation against concrete. Because concrete
is a semi-elastic material, the longitudinal compressive stresses force the concrete surrounding
the bar to expand laterally, which may cause the concrete to split along the bar and the bar to slip
away from the concrete. The lateral confinement resists the lateral expansion of concrete and
protects it against splitting.
Two approaches can be used to calculate the development length of steel reinforcement
bars embedded in laterally confined concrete:
(1) Developing a mathematical model through an experimental program: This method can be
used for a specific type of lateral confinement, where a large number of pullout specimens
are tested for various variables that may affect the development length, such as the bar size
and concrete strength. The mathematical model uses the unconfined concrete, f c' , as a base
for calculating the development length. This method provides an accurate estimate of the
development length and a flexible model that can be easily adjusted for a wide range of
variables. However, a large number of specimens need to be tested in order to get a reliable
model.
(2) Using the development equation that is given by a code or specification for bars confined by
regular stirrups, but replacing the unconfined concrete strength f c' with the confined concrete
strength, fc0, given by Equation (3). Then the reduced development length can be verified
through a limited number of pullout specimens. This method gives conservative estimates of
the development length.
The second approach was used in this project because the development length of reinforcing bars
confined with HSS tubes was not experimentally investigated before. The development length of
the No. 6 (19) bars confined by a HSS 4x12x3/8 in. tube was estimated as follow:
Step #1: Determine the confined concrete strength, fc0:
fl =
∑A f s yh
=
( 2 x12 x 3 ) ( 36, 000 )
8 = 6,750 psi
sbc (12 x4 )
f c 0 = f0 + 4.1kf l = 6,000 + 4.1x1.0x6,750 = 33,675 psi (232.2 MPa)
Step #2: Determine the development length of the No. 6 (19) using:
Article 5.11.2.1.1 of the LRFD Specifications (7):
1.25 Ab f y
ld = (5)
fc0
where: Ab = cross sectional area of the bar = 0.44 in2
fy = bar yield strength = 60 ksi
1.25 x0.44 x60
ld = = 5.68 in. (144 mm)
33.675

Equation 12-1 of the ACI318-05 (40):
3 f yψ tψ eψ s λ
ld = db (6)
 c + ktr 
40 f c 0  
 db 
where: fy = bar yield strength = 60,000 psi
ψ t = reinforcement location factor = 1.0
ψ e = reinforcement coating factor = 1.0
Check ψ tψ e = 1.0 < 1.7
ψ s = reinforcement size factor = 0.8

λ = light weight concrete factor = 1.0
 c + ktr 
 d  = 2.5, this is the upper limit specified by the ACI318-05
 b 
The ACI318-05 upper limit was recommended for this case because calculations of this
term yielded much higher value than 2.5
db = bar diameter = 0.75 in.
3 x60, 000 x1.0 x1.0 x1.0 x0.8
ld = x 0.75 = 5.88 in. (149 mm)
40 33, 675 x 2.5
Therefore, 6.0-in. (152 mm) development length of the No. 6 (19) bar in Detail A used
for the recommended system CD-1A.
Step #3: Determine the lap splice length of the No. 6 (19) using:
Article 5.11.5.3.1, LRFD Specifications, (7):
Lap splice length = 1.7ld = 1.7x5.68 = 9.66 in. (245 mm)
Section 12.15, ACI318-05 (40:)
Lap splice length = 1.3ld = 1.3x5.88 = 7.65 in. (194 mm)
Therefore, 11.0-in. (279 mm) lap splice length of the No. 6 (19) bar was used in Detail
BB, which was used in the recommended system CD-1B.
PANEL-TO-CONCRETE GIRDER CONNECTION

Description of the Connection Detail
Typically, the girder web reinforcement is extended outside the top surface of the girder
and is embedded in the concrete slab to create full composite action. The maximum size of the
girder web reinforcement is No. 5 (16) bars, and these bars are made of L- or inverted U-shape in
order to develop their yield strength at the interface. As a result of extending the maximum

spacing between shear connectors to 48 in. (1220 mm), a large number of No. 5 (16) bars needs
to cluster and made to fit into the shear pocket dimensions, which cannot be practically done.
Also, the minimum bending diameter of the No. 5 (16) bar will require: (1) increasing the girder
web thickness if the inverted U-bars are set in the transverse direction, (2) increasing the length
of the shear pocket if the inverted U-bars are set in the longitudinal direction, or (3) significantly
increasing the width of the shear pocket if the L-shape bar is used, Figure 37 shows these
options.
A new connection detail for creating full composite action for slab/concrete girders, such
as CD-1, was developed. The new connection detail minimizes the interference between the
horizontal shear reinforcement of the girder and the shear pockets of the panel. The new detail
uses clusters of 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) diameter double-headed studs spaced at 4 ft (1220 mm). The
studs in each cluster are spaced at 3 in. and embedded 8½ in. (216 mm) in the concrete girder.
The studs are made from SAE 1018 Steel that is used to make the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs for
steel girders (34). The top surface of the concrete girder is intentionally roughened to ¼-in. (6
mm) amplitude. Figure 9 shows the details of the connection. A precast NU I-girder is used in
developing this detail, for the following reasons:
q The NU girder represents the most critical conditions encountered in national practice
with thin top flanges and webs. Web thickness of the NU girder is 5.9 in. (150 mm), and
the top flange thickness is 2 7/8 in. (73 mm).
q Majority of the new series of I-girders recently developed in the United States, such as
the Washington State Super Girder, the New England Bulb Tee, and Iowa Bulb Tee, have
almost the same features like the NU girders.
In order to determine the amount of horizontal shear reinforcement, the design examples
given by the PCI-Bridge Design Manual (35) were considered. Four design examples of slab/I-
girder bridge systems are given in this reference, where the bridge structures range from simply
supported span to three continuous span structures, with a span length up to 120 ft and girder
spacing from 9 to 12 ft. Studying these examples revealed that the maximum horizontal factored
shear force at the interface between the deck slab and the precast concrete girders is about 3.7
kip/in. (0.65 kN/mm) of the longitudinal direction of the girder. Therefore, the required
horizontal nominal shear strength for an 8-ft (2.44 m) long precast panel, Vn = (3.71
kip/in.)(8x12 in.)/(φ = 0.9) = 396 kips/panel (1761 kN/panel).
Try 3-1¼ in. (31.8 mm) diameter double head studs per pocket, cluster spacing = 48 in.
(1220 mm), one stud per row. The studs are made from SAE 1018, 54-ksi (372 MPa) yield
strength, 64-ksi (441 MPa) ultimate tensile strength steel. The pocket dimensions are 14-in. wide
and 14-in. (356 mm) long.
The shear friction theory (7) was used to design for the required reinforcement. The
nominal shear resistance of the interface plane according to Equation 5.8.4.1-1 of the LRFD
Specifications (7) is:
Vn = c Acv + µ Avf fy (7)
Where: c = cohesion factor, 0.1 ksi for concrete placed against clean, hardened concrete with
surface intentionally roughened (LRFD Art. 5.8.4.2)

µ = friction factor, 1.0 for concrete placed against clean, hardened concrete with surface
intentionally roughened (LRFD Art. 5.8.4.2)
Acv = area of concrete engaged in shear transfer = (12 in. x 14 in.)(2 pockets) = 336 in2
Avf = area of shear reinforcement crossing the shear plane
1.252
= ( 3.14 x )(3 studs per pocket)(2 pockets) = 7.38 in2/panel
4
fy = yield strength of the horizontal shear reinforcement, 54.0 ksi for SAE1018 steel
Vn = (0.1 ksi)(336 in2) + 1.0(7.38 in2)(54 ksi)
= 432.1 kip/panel (1922 kN/panel) > 396 kips/panel (1761 kN/panel)
Please, note that limits on Vn given by Equations 5.8.4.1-2 and 5.8.4.1.3 of the LRFD
Specifications (7) are not used here as the shear pockets are confined with HSS tubes or closed
ties, which protect the grout surrounding the studs from crushing at the limits given by these
equations.
Experimental Investigation
The shear friction theory depends on the assumption that the shear connectors will be
able to develop their tensile yield strength. The axial tension force will be provided in the studs
once the deck slab starts to slide horizontally on the concrete girder. Due to the roughness of the
top surface of the girder, the horizontal sliding of the deck slab will be accompanied with vertical
separation at the interface. The head of the stud will resist the vertical separation causing axial
tension force in the studs and compression force in the concrete around the stud.
The double-headed stud that is used in the new connection detail should be fully
developed on both sides of the interface. On the girder side of the interface, the studs are
embedded in thin elements with light reinforcement (i.e. the top flange and the web of the
girder), which may not provide enough confinement to fully develop them. Therefore, it was
important to test this connection detail on the girder side to make sure that enough confinement
is provided and the studs can develop their tensile strength. Anchorage of the headed stud on the
slab side was checked with the panel-to-steel girder connection that is discussed in the following
sections of this chapter.
Figures 38 and 39 provide details of the test specimens. The specimens were full size top
part of an NU I-girder and each specimen was made with one cluster of three 1¼ in. (31.8 mm)
studs. Two groups of specimens were designed, three specimens in each group. The first group
of specimens was made with the exact amount of web reinforcement that is usually used with
NU girders, which is No. 4@4 in. (No. 13@102 mm) on each side of the web, as shown in
Figure 38, while the second group of specimens was made with a higher amount of
reinforcement in the web, as shown in Figure 39. The amount of web reinforcement provided in
the second group was determined based on matching the yield strength of the studs as follow:
π
Ultimate tensile force of three studs = (3 studs)( x1.252 in2)(54 ksi) = 200.0 kips
4
Yield strength of No. 4 @ 4 in., which is the typical web reinforcement of the NU Girder
= (0.20 in2 per leg)(2 legs)(4 rows of reinforcement)(60 ksi) = 96.0 kips

Use additional 2- No. 4 (13) inverted U-shape bars per every stud, which will provide
= (0.20 in2 per leg)(2 legs)(6 rows of reinforcement)(60 ksi) = 144.0 kips
Total yield strength of the web reinforcement in the vicinity of the three studs
= 96.0 + 144.0 = 240.0 kips (1067 kN) > 200.0 kips (890 kN)
Figure 40 shows the test setup, where one cluster of three studs was embedded in a full
size top part of an NU girder. The studs were tested in direct tension by anchoring them with a
top reaction beam that was supported by two hydraulic jacks. The specimen was tied to the
strong floor using high strength threaded rods.
Two steel side forms, which are used in fabricating the NU I-girders, were borrowed
from a precast concrete producer and used to fabricate the six specimens, as shown in Figure
41(a). A temporarily steel beam was used to support the long 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs and keep
them perfectly vertical until concrete gained sufficient strength to support the studs. A high
performance concrete mix with 8.0 ksi (55 MPa) specified concrete strength at 28 days was used
for all the specimens, as shown in Figure 41(b). The specimens were moist cured using wet
burlap for 7 days. Concrete cylinders were made and cured by the specimens to monitor the
strength gain with age. Figure 41(c) shows the compressive strength gain with time.
The specimens were anchored to the strong floor using 2-in. (51 mm) diameter high
strength threaded bars as shown in Figure 41(d). Two synchronized hydraulic jacks, 300-kip
(1334 kN) capacity each, and a stiff reaction beam were used to apply load on the studs. The
load was applied at a rate of 300 kips/second (1334 kN/second) until failure occurred.
Test Results and Discussion
Group #1 Specimens with regular web reinforcement
At a relatively low load about 90 kips, two horizontal hair cracks were developed on the
side surfaces of the specimen. These cracks were at the junction between the top flange and
vertical web of the specimen, and very close to the level of the head of the studs embedded in the
flange. During this stage, no signs of failure were observed and the top reaction beam was
perfectly horizontal. Also, the recorded load from the two hydraulic jacks was almost identical.
These signs gave a clear indication that the applied load was uniformly distributed between the
three studs and no stud slippage occurred.
When the total applied load approached about 90 to 98 kips (400 to 436 kN), the side
cracks started to widen and could be easily observed from a distance, as shown in Figure 42.
Also, the recorded load from the two hydraulic jacks started to show a small difference and the
reaction beam started to loose it perfect horizontal alignment. These signs showed that the
applied load was not perfectly distributed between the three studs. Please note that the 90-kip
(400 kN) applied load is about the maximum tensile capacity of web reinforcement provided in
the specimen.
When the applied load reached about 105 kips (467 kN), some cracks started to form on
the top surface of the specimen close to the exterior studs. It was clear that the three studs with
the concrete surrounding them started to pullout of the concrete specimen. The top surface cracks
continued to widen until failure occurred, as shown in Figure 42. The recorded failure loads of
the three specimens were 116.4, 131.4, and 116.2 kips (517, 584 and 517 kN), with an average
value of 121.0 kips (538 kN), which was about 61 percent of the yield capacity of the stud group.

Failure occurred when the studs pulled out of the concrete specimen and a sudden drop in the
recorded load was reported. The amount of stud slippage at failure ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 in. (38
to 51 mm).
It was clear that failure started when the tensile stresses generated at the junction between
the top flange and the vertical web exceeded the tensile strength of the provided web
reinforcement, 90 kips (400 kN). However, the heads of the studs protected them from pulling
out of the concrete specimen by applying compressive stresses on the concrete surrounding the
stud stems. The compressive stresses confined the stud stems and made the studs and the
concrete around them acted as unite that took the shape of inverted pyramid. When the applied
load reached 105 kips (467 kN), the web reinforcement of the girder yielded and started to show
plastic deformation. This behavior was evident by the sudden widening of the horizontal cracks
on the sides of the specimen. Finally failure occurred when the concrete at the junction between
the top flange and the web could not resist the tensile stresses generated.
In one of the three tested specimens, the studs were completely pulled out from the
specimen by jack hammering the concrete around them, as shown in Figure 42. Inspection of the
concrete around the studs showed that: (1) no air pockets were observed in the concrete
specimen in the area around the studs, which indicated that although this area was congested
with heavy reinforcement, standard consolidation practices were able to remove air voids from
the concrete, (2) no crushing of the concrete in the vicinity of the studs was detected, and (3) no
permanent deformation was observed on the stud head that was buried in the concrete.
Group #2 Specimens with additional web reinforcement
In general, the structural behavior of the specimens with additional web reinforcement
was superior to that of the specimens without additional reinforcement. The number and size of
cracks were smaller and the failure capacity was almost doubled.
The first sign of cracking started to appear when the applied load was about 150 kips
(667 kN), where one hair crack was formed on each side of the specimen. These cracks were at
the junction between the top flange and vertical web of the specimen, and very close to the level
of the stud heads embedded in the flange. At this stage, no cracks were observed on the top
surface of the specimen and the reaction beam was in perfect horizontal alignment. Also, the
recorded loads from the two hydraulic jacks were almost identical. These signs gave an
indication that no slippage of any of the three studs occurred and that the applied load was
uniformly distributed between the studs.
When the applied was about 190 kips, some minor hair cracks started to form on the top
surface, and the hair cracks on the side surface started to open and became visible. It was clear
that the inverted pyramid, made of the studs with the concrete surrounding them, was trying to
pull out of the concrete specimen. The top surface cracks continued to widen until failure
occurred, as shown in Figures 43. The recorded failure loads for the three specimens were 215.4,
213.9, and 203.6 kips (958, 952 and 907 kN), with an average value of 211.0 kips (938 kN),
which is about 107 percent of the yield capacity of the stud group. Failure occurred when the
studs pulled out of the concrete specimen and a sudden drop in the recorded load was reported.
The amount of stud slippage at failure was about 1.0 in. (25 mm). The failure load was higher
than the yield capacity of the studs, and smaller than the ultimate strength capacity.

It was clear that the additional web reinforcement significantly helped in anchoring the
studs to the concrete specimen and fully developed their yield strength. Also, the number and
size of side cracks were significantly reduced, compared to specimens of Group #1. Based on the
test results, it is recommended to use the stud yield strength, 54 ksi (372 MPa) in the design to
determine the number of shear connectors, and to provide additional web reinforcement in the
vicinity of the stud clusters, to achieve full composite action.
Please note that due to the test set up, the top flange of the tested specimens in Group #1
or #2, was under longitudinal tensile flexural stresses that expedited failure. In real bridges, the
top flange at the strength limit state is typically under compressive flexural stresses, which will
help to confine the concrete around the studs and increase the failure load. Therefore, the test
results obtained from this test would be considered conservative if compared with real bridge
behavior.
Analytical Investigation
The finite element analysis was used to investigate the behavior of the slab/concrete
girder pullout specimens. A commercial finite element package “NASTRAN” was used in the
analysis. The concrete specimen was modeled using the 8-node cubic 3-D element. Each node
has three displacement degrees of freedom, in the x, y and z directions. The “x” direction is
transverse to the girder longitudinal axis, the “y” direction is parallel to the girder longitudinal
axis, and the “z” direction is parallel to the girder height. The following mechanical properties
were assigned to the concrete specimen: compressive concrete strength = 8 ksi (55 MPa), unit
weight = 150 pcf (23.6 kN/m3), and Poisson ratio = 0.15.
The 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs and web reinforcement bars were also modeled using the 20-
node cubic element. The circular cross sectional area of the stud’s stem and head and the web
reinforcement bars were replaced with the equivalent square cross sectional area, as shown in
Table 6. This simplification helped to refine the mesh in the vicinity of the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm)
studs. The following mechanical properties were assigned to the stud: tensile strength = 64 ksi
(441 MPa), yield strength = 54 ksi (372 MPa), unit weight = 490 pcf (76.9 kN/m3), and Poisson
ratio = 0.30. The following mechanical properties were assigned to the vertical web
reinforcement: yield strength = 60 ksi (414 MPa), unit weight = 490 pcf (76.9 kN/m3), and
Poisson ratio = 0.3. Details of the finite element model are given in Appendix F. Each stud was
loaded with a tensile axial force equivalent to the stud yield capacity, 66.4 kips (295 kN). This
load was applied as a surface load uniformly distributed on the stud cross sectional area, 54 ksi
(372 MPa).
In order to study the internal stress concentration around the studs, three sections were
chosen as shown in Figure 44. Section 1-1 is at the free side of the external stud, section 2-2 is at
the mid distance between two adjacent studs, and section 3-3 is at the centerline of the center
stud. Appendix F gives the z-direction and principal stress distributions for these three sections
as well as the principal stress distribution on the top and side surfaces of the specimens.
Studying these figures indicates that:
1. For Group #2 specimen, the additional web reinforcement helped in widening the base area
of the inverted pyramid, which resulted in lower stress concentration at the junction between
the top flange and the web. This observation is consistent with the experimental program
results, where the size of the side crack at failure of the Group #1 specimens was wider than
that of Group #2 specimens.

2. The additional web reinforcement helped to distribute the tension force provided by the studs
on a wider and deeper volume resulting in reducing the stress concentration around the studs.
This can be seen from the following observations:
1.a) Stress concentration at the flange-to-web junction in Group #1 specimen is higher than
that of Group #2 specimen
1.b) The concrete stress in the vicinity of the stud’s stem in Group #1 specimen is higher and
extends for deeper distance than that of Group #2 specimen
3. The stress distribution at section 3-3 (in the z-direction or principal stress) shows that the
proposed 18 in. (457 mm) embedment of the additional web reinforcement is quite enough to
develop its yield strength. The high tensile stresses generated in concrete between adjacent
rows of additional web reinforcement do not extend to the bottom surface of the concrete
specimen. This finding is consistent with the experimental test results where no signs of
slippage or vertical side-surface cracking parallel to the additional web reinforcement were
observed.
4. The principal stresses at all sections are higher than the z-direction stresses due to the
specimen test up that puts the top flange of the specimen in tension.
5. The compressive stress at the flange-web junction is about 2.0 ksi (14 MPa), which is less
than the concrete bearing strength, 0.85x 8 ksi = 6.8 ksi (47 MPa). This observation is
consistent with the test result as no concrete crushing in this location was observed at failure.
It is believed that the web reinforcement helped to confine the concrete and consequently
protected it from premature cracking.
PANEL-TO-STEEL GIRDER CONNECTION

Steel studs welded to the top surface of steel girders and embedded in the concrete slab
have been the typical technique used to create full composite action for slab-steel girder
construction (2,34). The ¾ in. (19 mm) and 7/8 in. (22 mm) diameter studs have been the
common sizes used in bridges. Recently, 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) diameter stud was developed by a
group of researchers at the University of Nebraska (34). The stem of the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm)
diameter stud has double the cross sectional area of a 7/8 in. (22 mm) diameter stud. Therefore,
one 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) stud replaces two 7/8 in. (22 mm) studs. There are many advantages of
using the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs, such as: (1) higher speed of construction as smaller number of
studs is welded, (2) less congestion of the girder top flange especially in areas of high horizontal
shear stresses, (3) easier deck removal, and (4) less damage to the girder top flange during deck
removal. The 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) stud has been successfully used in bridges in some of the
Midwest states such as Nebraska (36,41,42). The use of the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs with precast
concrete panels adds another advantage, as the shear pocket dimensions are reduced by about 40
percent resulting in a smaller volume of grout to be used and a more economical system.
As discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, the maximum spacing between shear connectors
given by the LRFD Specifications (7) is 24 in. (610 mm). Investigation of the background of this
limit revealed that very limited amount of testing was conducted with stud’s spacing greater than
24 in. (610 mm). Also, the majority of these tests were made for cast-in-place slabs where the
studs are uniformly spaced across the specimen and not clustered in groups as in the case with
precast panel construction.

Recently, two attempts (31,32) have been made to address the issues of clustering the
studs in groups for precast panels and extending the 24-in. (610 mm) maximum spacing to 48 in.
(1220 mm). A brief summary of these attempts is given in Chapter 2 of this report. The first
attempt (31) focused only on the effect of the number of studs and their orientation per cluster on
the ultimate capacity, while the second attempt focused only on the effect of extending the
maximum spacing limit to 48 in. (1220 mm) on the fatigue capacity. Careful studying of these
attempts reveled that:
(1) Extending the maximum spacing to 48 in. (1220 mm) has no negative effect on the fatigue
capacity of clustered 7/8 in. (22 mm) studs.
(2) Clustered studs may not be able to produce their ultimate capacity due to premature crushing
failure of the grout surrounding the studs, or premature failure of the concrete slab
surrounding the shear pocket.
(3) None of these attempts was able to investigate simultaneously the fatigue and ultimate
capacity of clustered studs.
(4) Both attempts used ¾ and 7/8 in. (19 and 22 mm) diameter studs.
Also, reviewing the literature has shown that the fatigue and ultimate capacities of shear
studs were studied individually, which means that the effect of the fatigue load on the ultimate
stud capacity was not investigated. In a real bridge, there is a fair chance that the studs will be
exposed to a large number of live load cycles before the bridge is overloaded and the studs are
loaded up to their maximum strength.
Description of the Connection Detail
As discussed earlier in this chapter, recommended system CD-1 uses clusters of eight 1¼
in. (31.8 mm) studs spaced at 48 in. (1220 mm). The number of studs per cluster was determined
based on the parametric study conducted in Reference (2), where a large number of slab-steel
girder bridges, with spans ranging from 60 to 130 ft (18.2 to 39.6 m) and girder spacing ranging
from 6 to 12 ft (1.82 to 3.66 m), were analyzed. The study revealed that the maximum horizontal
shear stress at the interface required one 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) stud set at 6.0-in. (152 mm) spacing.
In order to prevent the grout surrounding the studs from premature cracking due to the high
compressive stresses generated by the stud group, the shear pocket was confined with a HSS
tube, as shown in Figures 1 to 11. Another alternative for confining the grout that was considered
in the experimental investigation was using individual three No. 6 (19) closed ties. A 2-in. (50
mm) clear concrete cover was maintained on the lower tie, and a 1-in. (25 mm) clear spacing was
maintained between the ties. This arrangement resulted in setting the tie group as close as
possible to the bottom surface of the panel, where the bearing stresses of the studs on the grout
reaches their highest value close to the base of the stud. This finding was revealed by the finite
element analysis of the push-off specimens that will be discussed in the following sections, and
also confirmed by other researchers (43,44).
Two options of manufacturing the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) stud were investigated, which were:
(1) produce a headed stud where the head is made integral with the stud stem, and (2) producing
a headless stud with a heavy duty nut and a washer to form the stud head. The two options were
investigated with three stud manufacturers located at different states, where it was found that the
first option would reduce the cost of making the stud and save time and effort required to install
the heavy nut. However, producing the headed stud requires a special forging machine that may

not be available at every stud manufacturer. The headed stud was used for the push-off
specimens, while the headless stud with a heavy-duty nut and a washer was used for the full-
scale beams. Figure 45 shows the dimensions of the headed and headless 1¼ in. (31.8 mm)
diameter studs. The weight of the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) headed stud was 2.37 pounds compared to
1.10 pounds for a 7/8 in. (22 mm) stud. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 1018 steel
was used to make the headed and headless studs.
In order to validate the proposed concept of extending the maximum stud spacing to 48
in. (1220 mm) and to study the effect of fatigue load on the ultimate capacity, the following
activities were conducted:
(1) Push-off specimens:
(1-a) Group #1: Tested directly for ultimate
(1-b) Group #2: Exposed to 2,000,000 cycles of fatigue load and then tested for ultimate
(2) Full-scale beam testing: two full-scale beams were tested. The first beam was made with
clusters of 4- 1¼ in. studs spaced at 24 in., and the second beam was made with clusters of 8-
1¼ in. studs spaced at 48 in.
Push-Off Specimens
Description of the Push-Off Specimens
Two groups of push-off specimens were fabricated and tested. Group #1 consisted of
eight specimens tested for ultimate. Group #2 consisted of eight specimens exposed to 2,000,000
cycles of fatigue load and then tested for ultimate. Table 7 gives the design criteria of these
specimens. Figures 46 to 54 show the details of the specimens. Figure 55 shows the specimens
during fabrication.
The specimen details of both groups are identical except that:
1. The specimens of Group #1 were made with a 1¼-in. (31.8 mm) thick haunch between the
concrete specimen and the steel plate, while the specimens of Group #2 were made without a
haunch. The haunch was eliminated in the second group of specimens in order to compare
the test results with the ultimate capacity as given by the LRFD Specifications (7) and other
sources such as Ollgaard (45), Oehlers (43) and Viest (46), where these equations were
developed using a symmetric specimen where no haunch was provided in the push-off
specimens. Symmetric specimens are typically made with a steel beam with studs welded on
both flanges and a concrete prism on each side of the steel beam. The symmetric specimen
could not be used in this research because a very high load would be required to break a
specimen with 16- 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs, which was beyond the capability of the testing
facility.
2. External confinement was added to the specimens of Group #2 by two side plates attached to
the specimens. The plates were anchored by ½ in. (12.7 mm) diameter threaded bars and
nuts. The threaded bars were embedded in the specimens and extended 3 in. (76 mm) outside
the specimen on each side, as shown in Figure 54. The external confinement was added to
simulate real bridge deck systems where the slab has extended length on both sides of the
girderline that helps to confine the shear pockets. This technique was successfully used
during the development of the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) diameter studs (42,47).

A standard welding gun, which is used in welding the 7/8 in. (22 mm) studs, was used in
welding the headed 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs. However, a special chuck that can fit the headed 1¼
in. (31.8 mm) stud was fabricated and used, as shown in Figure 56. The studs of first and second
specimen of Group #1 were welded using a tri-leg support to adjust the verticality of the studs, as
shown in Figure 56. However, after the technician gained enough confidence in the welding
process, he shot the rest of the studs without using the tri-leg support. The studs were welded
using a direct current power supply of 2,600 Amps. The welding went successfully at an average
rate of 1.8 seconds per stud. The quality of the stud welding was checked using three measures:
1. Visual inspection: the weld was visually inspected to make sure that the melted material
formed a complete and uniform flash, i.e. dam or weld-collar, at the base of the stud with no
flaws, as shown in Figure 56. Also, the bottom surface of 1-in. (25 mm) thick steel plate was
inspected to make sure that the generated heat did not melt the full thickness of the plate.
2. Bending the stud to 45 degrees: Most of the state agency specifications require that the stud
should be bent 45 degrees without failure. Figure 56 shows the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) stud was
successfully bent to 45 degrees without any signs of failure at the base.
3. Using a portable hydraulic jacking device: A portable hydraulic jacking device that could be
used in the field or in the shop was developed (34,42). The device consists of two collars
placed around two adjacent studs, a small hydraulic jack, and a top tie, as shown in Figure
56. The collar consists of two steel blocks tied together with four screws. By tightening the
four screws, the collar is placed in full contact with the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) stud. The base of
the collar is recessed to accommodate the weld at the stud base. A compact size 100-kip
(445 kN) hydraulic jack is placed between the collars to provide lateral shearing force at the
stud base. The top tie, which consists of two plates and two threaded rods, is used to protect
the studs from bending and to provide safety for the technicians during the test. The quality
control test is conducted by applying a horizontal force that would cause an axial tension
failure in the stud. This force can be calculated by analyzing the studs with the top tie as a
closed frame action, where the studs are fixed at their base and hinged at the top. The device
was successfully used to test studs used in the experimental program. A 85-kip (378 kN)
force was applied on two adjacent studs and no signs of failure were observed at the stud
base.
A normal weight concrete mix with 6-ksi (41 MPa) specified concrete strength was used
to make the specimens. The shear pockets of the specimens were filled with SS Mortar grout
mixed with 50 percent ¼ in. (6 mm) diameter pea gravel. Figure 57 shows the compressive
strength gain with age of the concrete and grout mixes.
The specimens were tested using a horizontal self-equilibrium frame, as shown in Figure
58. Because a non-symmetric specimen was used, it was expected that the specimen would move
upward at the bearing end of the specimen where the load was applied, which would lead to a
premature and an unrealistic failure. Therefore, a steel frame was built around the bearing area of
the specimen as shown in Figure 58. The steel frame was provided with roller supports to allow
for horizontal sliding of the specimen. All specimens were tested when the grout was 28-day or
older.
The specimens of Group #1 were tested by applying the load at mid height of the 8-in.
(203 mm) thick slab at a rate of about 5 kips (22 kN) per second. The relative horizontal

movement between the steel plate and the concrete specimen was recorded using a Linear
Voltage Displacement Transducer (LVDT).
The specimens of Group #2 were tested using the following steps: (1) the specimen was
loaded with a static load equal to the fatigue capacity of the stud group as determined by the
LRFD Specifications (7), and the relative horizontal movement between the steel plate and the
concrete specimen was recorded, (2) the specimen was exposed to 2,000,000 cycles of fatigue
load, the upper limit of the fatigue load was the fatigue capacity of the stud group as determined
by the LRFD Specifications (7), and the lower limit was 5 kips (22 kN) to maintain equilibrium
of the specimen, and (3) the upper limit of the fatigue load was applied as a static load and
relative horizontal movement was recorded. At all steps, the load was applied at mid height of
the 8-in. (203 mm) thick slab.
Fatigue and Ultimate Capacities of Steel Studs
Fatigue Capacity: The fatigue capacity estimated in accordance with Equation 6.10.10.2-1 of the
LRFD Specifications (7) was used. No other models of the of the fatigue capacity was
considered in this study because the literature review has revealed that this equation gives a fair
estimate for all sizes of studs used on bridges including the 1¼ in. (31.8 MPa) stud.
5.5 2
Zr = α d 2 ≥ d (8) (English Units)
2
α (ksi) = 34.5 – 4.28 log (N) (9) (English Units)
Where: Zr = fatigue resistance force of shear connector (kips)
d = stud diameter (in) = 1.23 in
N = number of cycles
For 2,000,000 cycles and 1¼ in. stud:
5.5
α = 7.53 ksi > ksi, and Zr = 7.53x1.252 = 11.77 kips/stud
2
4-stud cluster: Zr = 4 x 11.77 = 47.08 kips (209 kN)
8-stud cluster: Zr = 8 x 11.77 = 94.16 kips (418 kN)
Ultimate capacity: The following sources were used to estimate the ultimate capacity of the stud
group:
(1) The design equation developed by Viest in 1956 (46) for studs with diameter greater than 1.0
in. (25 mm):
Qcr = 5d s f c 4.0 / fc
2 ' '
(10) (English Units)
where: Qcr = critical load (lb)

ds = stud diameter (in) = 1.25 in
f c' = compressive strength of the grout mix surrounding the stud (ksi) = 9.6 ksi
Qcr = 5 x1.252 x9.6 4.0 = 48.4 kips

9.6

4-stud cluster: Qcr = 4 x 48.4 = 193.6 kips (861.1 kN)
8-stud cluster: Qcr = 8 x 48.4 = 387.2 kips (1722.2 kN)
This equation was considered in this research because it was the only equation
that was found in the literature that was developed for studs with a diameter greater than
1.0 in. (25 mm). Also, it was reported in reference 31 that this equation correlates well
with test results when it was used to determine the ultimate capacity of studs clustered in
groups.
(2) The design equation developed by Ollgaard et al in 1971 (45):
This equation was developed using statistical analysis of push-off specimens, where the
slab had not failed prematurely through splitting.
Dmax = 1.1 Ash ( f c' ) ( Ec )

0.3 0.44
(11) (English Units)
where: Dmax = critical load (kip)

Ash = cross sectional area of 1¼ in. stud (in2) = 1.23 in2
f c' = compressive strength of the grout mix surrounding the stud (ksi) = 9.6 ksi
Ec = modulus of elasticity of the grout mix surrounding the stud (ksi)
= 33, 000 w1.5

c f c' (12) (English Units)
wc = unit weight of grout mix surrounding the studs (kcf) = 0.145 kcf
Ec = 33, 000 ( 0.145)

1.5
9.6 = 5,645 ksi
Dmax = 1.1x1.23 ( 9.6 ) ( 4, 463)0.44

0.3
= 119.3 kips/stud
4-stud specimens: Dmax = 4 x 119.3 = 477.2 kips (2122.6 kN)*
8-stud specimens: Dmax = 8 x 119.3 = 954.4 kips (4245.2 kN)*
* The estimated shear capacity is greater than the ultimate tensile capacity.
(3) The design equation developed by Oehlers and Johnson in 1987 (48): Using an approach
similar to that used by Ollgaard et al, Oehlers and Johnson developed the following equation
for the maximum shear capacity of steel studs:
0.35 0.40
 1.3   f c'   Ec 
Dmax =  5.3 −  sh u  f 
A f   (13) (English Units)
 n  u  Es 
where: Dmax = critical load for push-off specimens per stud (kip)
Ash = cross sectional area of 1¼ in. studs per group (in2) = 4x1.23 or 8x1.23in2
fu = ultimate tensile strength of the stud material (ksi) = 64 ksi
f c' = compressive strength of the concrete surrounding the stud (ksi) = 9.6 ksi
Ec = modulus of elasticity of the concrete (ksi) = 5,645 ksi

Es = modulus of elasticity of the stud material (ksi) = 29,000 ksi
n = number of studs per group = 4 or 8
0.35 0.40
 1.3   9.6   5, 645 
4-stud specimens Dmax =  5.3 −  ( 4 x1.23)( 64 )  64   29, 000 
 4    
= 391.7 kips (1742.3 kN)*
0.35 0.40
 1.3   9.6   5, 645 
8-stud specimens Dmax =  5.3 −  (8 x1.23)( 64 )  64   29, 000 
 8    
= 815.4 kips (3626.9 kN)*
* The estimated shear capacity is greater than the ultimate tensile capacity.
(4) Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7): This equation was derived
from the equation developed by Ollgaard et al (45) after changing the exponents of f c' , Ec to
make the equation dimensionally correct and limiting the shear capacity by the ultimate
tensile capacity of the stud.
Qn = 0.5 Asc f c' Ec ≤ Asc Fu (14) (English Units)
where: Qn = nominal capacity (kip)

Asc = cross sectional area of 1¼ in. stud (in2) = 1.23 in2
f c' = compressive strength of the concrete surrounding the stud (ksi) = 9.6 ksi
Ec = modulus of elasticity of the concrete surrounding the stud (ksi) = 5,645 ksi
Fu = ultimate tensile strength of the stud material (ksi) = 64 ksi
0.5 x1.23 9.6 x5, 645 = 143.2 kips

Qn = least = 78.7 kips/stud
1.23x 64 = 78.7 kips
4-stud cluster: Qn = 4 x 78.7 = 314.8 kips (1400.2 kN)
8-stud cluster: Qn = 8 x 78.7 = 629.6 kips (2800.4 kN)
(5) Equation 5.8.4.1-1 of the LRFD Specifications (7):
This equation is derived based on the shear friction theory and is commonly used for the
design of horizontal shear reinforcement for slab/concrete girder composite beams.
However, the LRFD Specifications (7) gives values for c and µ if steel beams are used.
Vn = c Acv + µ Avf fy (7)
Where: c = cohesion factor, 0.025 ksi for concrete anchored to as-rolled structural steel
by headed studs (LRFD Art. 5.8.4.2)
µ = friction factor, 0.7 for concrete anchored to as-rolled structural steel by
headed studs (LRFD Art. 5.8.4.2)
Acv = area of concrete engaged in shear transfer, plan area of the shear pocket

= 113 in2 (for the 4-stud specimens)
= 192 in2 (for the 8-stud specimens)
= (1.23 in2)(4 studs) = 4.92 in2 (for the 4-stud specimens)
= (1.23 in2)(8 studs) = 9.84 in2 (for the 8-stud specimens)
fy = yield strength of the horizontal shear reinforcement, 54.0 ksi for SAE1018
steel
Vn = (0.025 ksi)(113 in2) + 0.7(4.92 in2)(54 ksi)
= 188.8 kip (839.8 kN) (4-stud specimens)
Vn = (0.025 ksi)(192 in2) + 0.7(9.84 in2)(54 ksi)
= 376.8 kip (1676.0 kN) (4-stud specimens)
Please, note that limits on Vn given by Equations 5.8.4.1-2 and 5.8.4.1.3 of the LRFD
Specifications (7) are not used here as the shear pockets are confined with HSS tubes or
closed ties, which protect the grout surrounding the studs from crushing at the limits
given by these equations.
Table 8 summarizes the ultimate capacity using various sources.
Test Results and Discussion:
The test results of Group #1 and #2 are summarized in Table 9 and Figures 59 to 62 as follow:
Table 9 gives the failure load and the mode of failure of all the specimens. Also this table gives
the failure load, Ff, as a percentage of estimated ultimate capacity according to the Viest
(46), Ollgaard et al in 1971 (45), Oehlers and Johnson in 1987 (48), and Equations
6.10.10.4.3-1 and 5.8.4.1-1 of the LRFD Specifications (7).
Figure 59 shows the failure modes of Group #1 specimens
Figure 60 shows the load-displacement relationship of Group #1 Specimens when they tested for
ultimate
Figure 61 gives the load-displacement relationship of Group #2 specimens due to fatigue load
before and after applying the 2,000,000 cycles of fatigue load
Figure 62 shows the failure mode of Group #2 specimens
Examining the test results, the following conclusions were drawn:
(a) Fatigue capacity of clustered studs:
1. No signs of concrete/grout crushing, weld failure or local distress around or inside the shear
pockets were observed when the push-off specimens, with 4- and 8- 1¼ in. studs, were
exposed to 2,000,000 cycles of fatigue load. Also, Figure 61 shows almost no change in the
load-displacement relationship of the push-off specimens after applying the 2,000,000 cycles.
This observation is consistent with the fatigue test that was conducted on full-scale beams
tested later in this research and the fatigue test results of a half-scale beam tested in
Reference (32). The research team strongly believes that this equation can be satisfactorily

used for the design of composite beams made with clusters of 8 or 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs
spaced as much as 48 in. (1220 mm).
(b) Ultimate capacity of clustered studs:
2. Comparing the test results of the 4-stud and 8-stud specimens shows that, regardless the type
of confinement used around the stud group, the ultimate capacity does not proportionally
increased when the number of studs was doubled.
3. Regardless the number of studs, the ultimate capacity of a stud group confined with the steel
tube is higher by about 5 to 15 percent than the ultimate capacity of the same stud group
confined with individual closed ties. The difference is more pronounced with the 4-stud
group than the 8-stud group.
4. Regardless the number of studs per group and the type of stud confinement, Equation
6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7) overestimated the ultimate capacity
by as much as 50 percent. Same observation applies to the equation developed by Ollgaard
et al in 1971 (45) and Oehlers and Johnson in 1987 (48), where the ultimate capacity is
overestimated by as much as 60 percent.
5. For push-off specimens tested directly for ultimate, Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO
LRFD Specifications (7) and the equation developed by Viest (46) correlate very well with
the test results. This observation is consistent with the findings of Reference (31) that were
obtained from testing of quarter-scale symmetric specimens made with 2, 3 and 4- 7/8 in. (22
mm) stud groups.
6. Comparison between the test results of Group #1 and #2 of Table 9 shows that the 2,000,000
cycles of fatigue load reduced the ultimate capacity by about 5 to 18 percent. The reduction
is more pronounced with: (1) stud groups confined with closed ties than those confined with
steel tubes, (2) specimens made with 8 studs than those made with 4 studs, and (3) Equation
6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7) and the equation developed by Viest
(46) than the other three equations.
7. A bond failure between the lower tie and the concrete slab was observed in most of the
specimens made with closed individual ties and subjected to the 2,000,000 cycles of fatigue
load. It is believed that this failure occurred because of the large size of the bar used in this
detail, which led to high stress concentration in this area. Using No. 4 or 5 closed ties might
help to avoid this failure.
(c) Shape of the push-off specimens:
8. For future investigation, it is recommended to use symmetric push-off specimens instead of
the L-shape specimen that was used in this research. However, due to expected high load
that is required to break the symmetric specimen, half- or quarter scale specimens should be
used.
9. Comparing the failure modes of Groups #1 and #2 shows that the side external confinement
of the specimen is very important to overcome the limited-width problem of the push-off
specimens. All the specimens of Group #1 had slab failure, while almost all of the specimens
of Group #2 had stud failure. Unfortunately, no mathematical models are available to
quantify the amount of the side confinement needed to simulate a real bridge.

Finite Element Investigation of the Push-off Specimens
The finite element method was used to investigate the behavior of the push-off
specimens. A commercial finite element package “NASTRAN” was used in the analysis. The
push-off concrete specimen and the grout filling the shear pocket were modeled using a 8-node
cube element. Each node has three translational degrees of freedom (x, y and z direction). The
confining tube and the individual closed ties were modeled using the thin shell element. The
circular cross section of the studs was replaced with a square cross section with equivalent area.
The studs were modeled using the 20-node cube element.
The following mechanical properties were assigned to the concrete mix of the specimen:
compressive strength = 6.2 ksi (42.7 MPa), unit weight = 150 pcf (23.6 kN/m3), and Poisson
ratio = 0.15. The following mechanical properties were assigned to the grout mix: compressive
strength = 9.6 ksi (66.2 MPa), unit weight = 145 pcf (22.8 kN/m3), and Poisson ratio = 0.15. The
following mechanical properties were assigned to the stud: tensile strength = 64 ksi (441 MPa),
yield strength = 54 ksi (372 MPa), unit weight = 490 pcf (76.9 kN/m3), and Poisson ratio = 0.30.
Details of the finite element model are given in Appendix F. In order to check the validity
of Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7) for studs clustered in
groups, each specimen was loaded with a horizontal equal to the ultimate horizontal shear
capacity determined by this equation. The load was loaded as a surface loaded on a 10x10 in.
(254x254 mm) area on the bearing block of the specimen to simulate the test setup. The resultant
of the surface load was at mid height of the 8-in. (203 mm) thick slab. Appendix F gives the
results of the FE analysis of various specimens, and Table 10 gives a summary of the maximum
stresses in the stud, grout and the confinement tool, where the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. The 4- and 8-stud specimens are not able to deliver the horizontal ultimate shear capacity as
given by Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7). This can be seen
from the average axial tensile stress at the stud base, which is higher than the ultimate tensile
strength of the stud material, SAE 1018, 64 ksi (441.3 MPa).
2. The upper limit of Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7), Asc Fu ,
does not recognize the fact that the stud close to failure is subjected to a combination of axial
tensile and normal flexural stresses. This can be seen by checking the average principal
tensile stress at the stud base, which is about 155 percent of the axial tensile stress, as shown
in Table 10. This means that the upper limit of Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 overestimates the
studs shear capacity. This finding was confirmed by the push-off test, where almost none of
the specimens were able to reach the capacity determined by Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7).
3. Maximum bearing stress in the grout is located in front of each stud close to the stud base. It
extends vertically for a distance approximately equal to the stud diameter. The maximum
bearing stress is about 30 ksi (206.9 MPa), which is about 310 percent of the compressive
strength of unconfined grout mix, 9.6 ksi (66.2 MPa). However, if confinement is provided
around the shear pocket, the compressive strength of the grout can be significantly increased,
as follow:

Effective lateral confining pressure, fl, =
∑A f s yh
(2)
sbc
 5 
 2 sides x1in. x in.  ( 36 ksi )
= 
16 
= 1.875 ksi (for steel tube confinement)
(1in.)(12 in.)
=
( 2 legs x 0.44 in 2
per leg x 3 bars ) ( 60 ksi )
= 6.034 (for closed ties confinement)
(1.75 in.)(15 in.)
Confined grout strength, f c 0 = f0 + 4.1kf l (1)
= 9.6 + 4.1x1x1.875 = 17.3 ksi (119.3 MPa) (for steel tube confinement)
= 9.6 + 4.1x1x6.034 = 34.3 ksi (236.8 MPa) (for closed ties confinement)
4. The confinement around the stud group helps to distribute the bearing stresses of the grout
volume on the concrete slab in front of the grout volume. The highest bearing stress is about
2.30 ksi (15.9 MPa) and the average bearing stress over the slab height is about 2.0 ksi (13.8
MPa).
5. The confinement provided by the steel tube helps to distribute the bearing stresses on a wider
part of the slab resulting in reducing the compressive in the slab compared to the case where
the closed ties are used.
6. The truncated shape of the shear pocket and grout volume helps in distributing the bearing
stresses more uniformly across the slab height.
Full-Scale Beam Test
The objective of the full-scale beam testing was to investigate the feasibility of extending
the AASHTO maximum stud spacing from 2 to 4 ft (610 to 1220 mm) by checking difference in
structural performance of two composite beams due to fatigue and ultimate loads.
Two full-scale composite beams, 32-ft (9.75 m) long each, were fabricated. The beams
were identical except that the spacing between the stud clusters was 2 ft (610 mm) for the Beam
#1 and 4 ft (1220 mm) for the Beam #2. Each composite beam was made of 8-in. (203 mm) thick
precast slab supported by a W18x119 steel beam. The slab and the steel beam were made
composite using 64- 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs over the full span length. The studs on the Beam #1
were clustered in 16 groups spaced at 24 in. (610 mm), 4 studs per group. The 24-in. (610 mm)
spacing is the current limit according to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7). The studs on the
Beam #2 were clustered in 8 groups, spaced at 48 in. (1220 mm), 8 studs per group, as shown in
Figures 63 to 65. The spacing between the studs in each group was 3 in. (76 mm) in the
longitudinal direction. Two studs per row spaced at 5 in. (127 mm) in the transverse direction
were used. In each beam, the stud clusters on the south half of beam were confined with HSS
9x7x0.188 in. (229x178x5 mm) and 13x9x5/16 in. (330x229x8 mm) tubes, and the stud cluster
on the north half were confined with individual No. 4 (13) and 6 (19) closed ties, for the 2-ft
(610 mm) and 4-ft (1220 mm) clusters respectively. The concrete slab of each beam was made of
one precast panel, which was reinforced with two welded wire reinforcement (WWR) meshes.
The top mesh was made of 6x6 in.-D10xD10 (152x152 mm-MD65xMD65), and the bottom

mesh was made of 6x6 in.-D14xD14 (152x152 mm-MD90xMD90). This amount of
reinforcement was provided in accordance with the minimum reinforcement requirements of the
Empirical Design Method given in Article 9.7.2 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7).
Figures 63 to 65 show the details of the full-scale beams.
Wood forming and a normal weight, 7-in. (178 mm) slump, 6-ksi (41.4 MPa) concrete
mix were used in making the panels, as shown in Figure66. The panels were moist cured for
seven days and then stored in the laboratory until they were installed on the steel beams. No
shrinkage cracks were observed on the panels. 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) headless studs with heavy-duty
nuts and washers were used on both beams. Due to lack of high voltage source at the testing
facility, the studs were manually welded, as shown in Figure 67. The welding quality was
checked by visual inspection, bending the stud to 45 degrees and using the hydraulic push-off
device that was discussed earlier in this chapter. Foam rods were glued at the edges of the top
flange of the steel beam to build a dam for the 1-in. (25 mm) thick concrete haunch. Each panel
was installed by carrying it with a spreader beam that supported the panel at 7 points spaced
uniformly at 4 ft (1220 mm) and located in the mid distance between adjacent shear pockets.
Finally, the shear pockets were filled with SS Mortar mix with no pea gravel, as shown in Figure
67. The grouting of each pocket continued until grout came out from the venting ports.
Grouting of Beam #1 went smoothly with complete filling of the haunch and no recorded
problems. However, for Beam #2, it was noticed after the grout was cured and the foam rods
were removed that about a 2-ft (610 mm) long distance between two shear pockets was not
completely filled with grout. This was due to the excessive time elapsed between mixing the
grout with water and grouting this area of the beam. This area was batched by injecting grout
directly at the haunch level.
Fatigue Testing of the Beam
Each beam was loaded with one concentrated load at midspan and subjected to 2,000,000
cycles of fatigue load through a hydraulic actuator. The load setup put all of the shear pockets
under the same amount of horizontal load, as shown in Figures 68 and 69. The upper and lower
limits of the fatigue load were determined as follow:
Step #1: Stud Fatigue resistance, Zr, AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7):
5.5d 2
Zr = α d 2 ≥ (8) LRFD, Eq. 6.10.10.2-1
2
α = 34.5 – 4.28 Log N (9) LRFD, Eq. 6.10.10.2-2
= 34.5 – 4.28 Log (2x106) = 7.53 ksi 〉 (5.5/2 = 2.75 ksi)
Zr = 7.53 x 1.252 = 11.77 kips/stud
Step #2: Vertical Shear Force, Vf, AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7):
Vf Q
Vsr = (15) LRFD, Eq. 6.10.10.1.2-2
I
Vf = vertical shear range due to fatigue load
I = moment of inertia of the composite section
Q = first moment of the area above the interface about the neutral axis

Vsr = shear flow range due to fatigue load at the interface, which can be determined by:
nZ r
p≤ (16) LRFD, Eq. 6.10.10.1.2-1
Vsr
p = spacing of the studs = 24 in. or 48 in.

n = number of stud in a cross section
= 4 studs for p = 24 in., or 8 studs for p = 48 in.
I and Q were calculated as follow (see Figure 68):
Effective slab width (LRFD 4.6.2.6.1):
 B = 4 ft = 48 in. 
 
Beff = least of 12ts + 0.5 girder flange = 12 x8 + 0.5 x11.3 = 102 in. = 48 in. (17)
1 
 4 span = 0.25 x32 ft = 8 ft = 96 in. 
Ec 33, 000 x 0.1501.5 8.2 = 5, 490

Modular ratio, n’ = = = 0.189
Es 29, 000
n’Beff of the slab = 0.189x48 = 9.07 in.

n’Beff of the haunch = 0.189x10 = 1.89 in.
( 9.07 x8)( 4 ) + (1.89 x1)( 8 + 0.5) + ( 35.1)(8 + 1.0 + 0.5 x19 ) = 955.66
Depth of the NA = = 8.72 in.
( 9.07 x8) + (1.89 x1) + ( 35.1) = 109.55
 9.07 x83 2
I = + ( 9.07 x8)(8.72 − 4 ) 
 12 
1.89 x13 2
+ + (1.89 x1)(8.72 − 8 − 0.5 ) 
 12 
+  2,190 + ( 35.1)(8 + 1 + 0.5 x19 − 8.72 )  = 7,551 in 4
2
 
Q = (9.07x8)(8.72 – 4) + (1.89x1)(8.72 – 8 – 0.5) = 342.9 in3
Substituting Equation (16) in Equation (15) yields:
nZ r I 4 x11.77 x 7,551
Vf = = = 43.2 kips
pQ 24 x342.9
P (concentrated load at midspan) = 2x43.2 = 86.4 kips

In order to maintain stability of the test setup, a minimum load of 1.6 kips was provided as
the lower limit of the fatigue load. Therefore, the upper limit of the fatigue load = 86.4 + 1.6
= 88 kips.
Step #3: Check stresses at midspan to make sure that they were within the elastic range of
material:

ftop surface of slab = −0.189
( 682 x12 )( 8.72 ) = -1.79 ksi < (0.4 f ' = 0.4x8.2 = 3.28 ksi)
c
7,551
fbottom surface of slab = −0.189

( 682 x12 )(8.72 − 8 ) = -0.15 ksi
7, 551
ftop surface of steel beam =

( 682 x12 )( 8 + 1 − 8.72 ) = +0.30 ksi
7, 551
fbottom surface of steel beam =

( 682 x12 )(19.28 ) = +20.90 ksi < ( f = 50 ksi)
y
7,551
Strain gages and vertical displacement measuring devices were installed at the quarter-
point and midspan sections of the each beam. The upper limit of the fatigue load was applied as a
static load and the measurements were collected (pre-fatigue records), then the beam was
exposed to 2,000,000 cycles of the fatigue load at 2,000,000 cycles per second. Finally, the beam
was loaded statically with the upper limit of the fatigue load and the strain and displacement
measurements were collected (post-fatigue records).
The testing scenario worked well with Beam #1. However, for Beam #2, the hydraulic
system of the actuator needed to be repaired when the beam was exposed to about 1,000,000
cycles. Therefore the fatigue test was stopped, the static load was applied and the measurements
were collected at 1,000,000 cycles. After the hydraulic system was repaired the fatigue test was
resumed. However, the measurements that were planned to be taken at 2,000,000 cycles were
not collected because the steel beam fractured due to fatigue load close to the midspan section at
about 1,950,000 cycles, as shown in Figure 70. The fatigue fracture started at the bottom flange
and propagated through the web, where it stopped close to the web/top flange junction. As a
result of this unexpected failure, a ½ in. (13 mm) separation between the haunch and the steel
beam occurred over a distance of about 2 ft (610 mm) around the failure location. The beam was
thoroughly inspected and no other cracks or signs of distress were detected.
It was believed that the fatigue fracture failure occurred because the steel beam was
previously subjected to 4,000,000 cycles of fatigue load when it was used for the full-scale
bridge test. Also, welding and removing of the 2½ in. (64 mm) diameter tubes that were needed
in the full-scale bridge test resulted in residual stresses in that flange.
Figure 71 shows the pre- and post-fatigue stress distribution at the quarter-point and
midspan sections of the beams and compare them with the stresses calculated by the elastic stress
theory assuming full-composite action. Figure 72 shows the deflection of the beams at the
quarter-point and midspan sections. The quarter-point and midspan sections were chosen
because they were at the mid distance between two adjacent shear pockets, where it was highly
expected that partial composite action would occur. Examining these figure revealed the
following:
1. Regardless the stud cluster spacing and the type of confinement:
1.1 At the quarter-point and midspan sections, pre- and post-fatigue stresses showed almost a
linear distribution at the quarter-point and midspan sections.

1.2 At the midspan section, pre- and post-fatigue stresses at extreme compression fiber of the
composite beams were higher than the stresses calculated by the elastic stress theory by
about 20 percent. However, the opposite trend occurred at the quarter-point sections.
1.3 At the quarter-point and midspan sections, pre- and post-fatigue stresses at extreme
tension fiber of the composite beams were less than the stresses calculated by the elastic
stress theory by about 20 percent.
1.4 At the quarter-point and midspan sections, pre- and post-fatigue stresses at extreme
tension and compression fibers of the composite beams were within the elastic range of
the material.
1.5 At the quarter-point and midspan sections, post-fatigue stresses and deflection showed
almost no increase when compared with the pre-fatigue stresses. On the contrary, at some
locations the post-fatigue stresses were smaller than the pre-fatigue stresses.
1.6 The pre- and post-fatigue deflection was in very well agreement with the deflection
calculated using the elastic stress theory.
2. Regardless the type of confinement provided around the stud clusters, the stress distribution
and deflection measurements of Beam #1 and #2 were almost identical.
3. Regardless the stud cluster spacing, the stress distribution and deflection measurements of
the north side of the each beam, where ties were used, were almost identical to the stress
distribution and deflection measurements of the south side of the same beam, where tubes
were used.
4. Visual inspection of the composite beams before, during and after applying the 2,000,000
cycles of fatigue load, showed:
4.1 No cracks on the top surface of the concrete slab.
4.2 No separation between the concrete haunch and the steel beams, except the separation
that occurred in Beam #2 locally around the location of the fatigue fracture failure.
4.3 No cracks or signs of distress in the haunch.
4.4 No residual deflection at midspan after removing the load.
Based on these observations, the following conclusions were drawn:
(a) It is safe to use Eq. 6.10.10.2-1 of the LRFD Specifications (7) to determine the fatigue
capacity of studs grouped in clusters and spaced as long as 48 in. (1220 mm).
(b) Full composite action between precast concrete panels and steel beams can be maintained up
to 48-in. (1220 mm) of spacing between clusters of studs.
(c) The two types of proposed confinement, closed ties and tubes, provide similar behavior due
to fatigue load.
Ultimate Testing of the Full-scale Beams
To investigate the ultimate capacity of the stud clusters for various types of confinement
individually, the 32-ft (9.75 m) span of each beam was divided into two equal spans, as shown in
Figures 73 and 74.

For beam #1, an intermediate support was installed exactly at midspan point. Then each
half of beam was tested as 15.5 ft (4.72 m) simply supported beam under one concentrated load
close to the midspan point of that span. This was done by removing the external support of the
other half of the span, as shown in Figure 73. Therefore, the applied concentrated load would
provide horizontal shear forces at the interface only on the stud clusters that existed on the
simply supported span. Although the weight of the cantilever span would provide additional
stresses on the studs of the simply supported span, careful checking of these stresses revealed
that it would be about 2 percent of the stresses provided by the concentrated load, which could be
ignored. For Beam #2, two intermediate supports were added because the steel beam was
fractured close to the midspan point. This arrangement resulted in two simply supported spans,
11-ft (3.35 m) long each. In order to make sure that no continuity exited between the two simply
supported spans, the concrete slab was jack hammered at the same location where the steel beam
was fractured to create a real hinge, as shown in Figure 73.
Each test setup used two hydraulic jacks, 300 kip (1334 kN) each, which were supported
on a short spreader beam to apply the load as one concentrated load, as shown in Figures 73 and
74. Two modes of failure were checked to determine the possible mode of failure of each simply
supported beam.
(1) Flexural capacity of the composite beam: It was determined in accordance with Article 6.10.7
of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications as follow see Figure 75:
Assume that the neutral axis depth is less than the thickness of the slab, Dp < 8 in. Ignoring
reinforcement in the longitudinal direction of the slab, equilibrium of forces at the plastic
stage yields:
(0.85x8.2x48)(Dp) = (50)(35.1)
Dp = 5.25 in. < 8 in. (inside the concrete slab)
Classification of the composite section (compact versus non-compact):
 2 Dcp 2 x zero   E 29, 000 
 =  ≤  3.67 = 3.67 = 88.4  (18) LRFD, Eq. 6.10.6.2.2-1
 tw tw   Fyc 50 

Where Dcp = depth of the web in compression at the plastic moment

Therefore, the composite section was compact.
Since Dp > [0.1Dt = 0.1(8+1+19) = 2.8 in.], (LRFD, Eq. 6.10.7.1.2-1), where Dt = total depth
of the composite section, therefore:
 D 
Mn = Mp  1.07 − 0.7 p  (19) LRFD, Eq. 6.10.7.1.2-2
 D t 
Mp = (0.85x8.2x48x5.25)(8+1+0.5x19 - 0.5x5.25) = 27,883 kip-in. = 2,324 kip-ft
Mn = (2,324)  1.07 − 0.7

5.25 
 = 2,182 kip-ft
 8 + 1 + 19

Check ductility, LRFD 6.10.73:
[Dp = 5.25 in.] < [0.42Dt = 0.42(8+1+19) = 11.76 in.] OK

Therefore, if the 15.5 ft (4.72 m) simply supported spans of Beam #1 would fail in flexure,
this would require a concentrated load P = 2,182/3.799 = 574 kip.
and, if the 11.0 ft (3.35 m) simply supported spans of Beam #2 would fail in flexure, this
would require a concentrated load P = 2,182/2.588 = 843 kip, which was beyond the capacity
of the hydraulic jacks.
(2) Nominal shear resistance, Qn:
Qn = 0.5 Asc f c' Ec ≤ Asc Fu (14) LRFD, Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1
where:
Asc = 1.23 in2, Ec = 33, 000 wc f c' = 33, 000 ( 0.150 )1.5 8.2 = 5,490 ksi, and Fu = 64 ksi
Qn = 0.5 x1.23 8.2 x5, 490 = 130.5 kips/stud 〉 (1.23 x 64 = 78.72 kips/stud), therefore
Qn = 78.72 kips/stud
= 78.72x4 = 314.9 kips/4-stud cluster
= 78.72x8 = 629.8 kips/8-stud cluster
Therefore, if Beam #1 would fail in horizontal shear at the interface, this would require
failure of the four shear pockets between the concentrated load and the exterior support as
shown in Figure 73, and horizontal shear force at the interface = 314.9x4 = 1,259.6 kips over
this distance.
1, 259.6
The height of the plastic neutral axis that is equivalent to this force = = 3.77 in.
0.85 x8.2 x 48
The corresponding plastic moment =
= (1,259.6)(8+1+0.5x19 - 0.5x3.77) = 20,928 kip-in. = 1,744 kip-ft
1, 744
The corresponding concentrated load = = 459 kips
3.799
Applying the same procedure for Beam #2, the concentrated load that would be required to
cause horizontal shear failure at the stud cluster between the concentrated load and the
interior support = 356.1 kips
According to this analysis, it was expected that the four simply supported beams would fail in
horizontal shear.
Each simply supported beam was provided with one set of strain gages and a deflection
measurement device at the location of the applied concentrated load. Also, the relative
horizontal displacement between the slab and the steel beam was recorded at the free end of each
beam. The load was applied at 10 kips (44.5 kN) per second until failure occurred or the
hydraulic jacks capacity was reached, 600 kips (2669 kN), whichever occurred first.
Test Results
Beam #1-North and #1-South failed in flexure where the top fiber of the concrete slab
was crushed in compression, as shown in Figure 76. The applied load at failure was about 600

kips (2669 kN) that was equal to maximum capacity of the hydraulic jacks combined. The
flexural failure on Beam #1-North was accompanied with web buckling failure of the steel beam.
Beam #2-North and #2-South did not show any signs of failure in horizontal shear or
flexure. Each beam was loaded up to the maximum capacity of the hydraulic jacks combined,
600 kips (2669 kN).
Inspection of the top surface of the concrete slab showed that a longitudinal bursting hair
crack was formed exactly over the web location of the steel beam, as shown in Figure 77. The
crack covered almost the full length of Beam #1, which was made with 24-in. (610 mm) cluster
spacing, while in Beam #2, which was made with 48-in. (1220 mm) cluster spacing, the crack
covered only the midspan area of the North and South beams. The width of the crack of Beams
#1 and #2 was about 0.04 in. (1 mm) and 0.03 in. (3/4 mm), respectively. Due to the small width
of these cracks, they were not detected until the beams were removed off the supports and set on
the ground. However, it is believed that these cracks started to from when the applied moment
was about 70 percent of the plastic flexural capacity of the composite section, where a loud
explosion was heard during testing of Beams #1-North and #1-South.
A summary of the test results is given by the following illustrations:
Table 11 summarizes the failure mode and the maximum applied load
Figures 78 and 79 show the load-deflection and load-horizontal slip relationships of the full-scale
beams, respectively. In order to help in studying the structural behavior of the four beams, the
load was replaced by the corresponding applied moment as a percentage of the plastic moment
capacity of the composite section.
Figures 80 and 81 show the strain distribution of the full-scale Beam #1 and #2 respectively, at
various levels of applied load.
Analyzing these illustrations, the following conclusions were drawn:
Appropriateness of using the LRFD Specifications for estimating the horizontal shear capacity of
stud clusters:
1. Regardless the stud cluster spacing and the type of confinement, all beams were able to
develop the stud ultimate capacity given by Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the LRFD Specifications
(7).
2. The procedure given by Article 6.10.7 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications gives a fair
estimate of the ultimate flexural capacity of composite sections.
Deflection and horizontal slip, Figures 78 and 79:
3. The slope of the load-deflection relationship, which is a measure of the composite beam
stiffness, of the four beams is almost the same. This means that extending the stud cluster
spacing to 48 in. (1220 mm) does not reduce the composite beam stiffness.
4. The beams where the stud clusters were confined with HSS tubes showed smaller deflection
than the beams where the stud clusters were confined with closed ties. The difference is
about 10 percent.
5. The beams made with 48-in. (1220 mm) cluster spacing showed about 25 percent increase in
deflection and horizontal slip compared to the beams made with 24-in. (610 mm) cluster

spacing. The research team believes that this increase was due the flexural fatigue failure at
midspan that occurred to this beam during the fatigue test. This can be confirmed from
Figure 78, where Beams #2-North and #2-South showed about 0.1 in. (2.54 mm) of
deflection once a small amount of load was applied. Also, in Figure 79 shows that these
beams did not show and horizontal slip until for first period of applying the load (from zero
to about 10 percent).
Stress distribution, Figures 80 and 81:
6. At the same ratio of applied moment-to-plastic flexural capacity, Beams #1 and #2 showed
almost the same amount of stresses produced in the concrete slab and steel beam.
7. Beams made with HSS tube confinement showed almost that same amount of stresses as
beams made with the closed ties confinement.
Transverse slab reinforcement required to resist the transverse bursting force:
8. The horizontal shear force at the interface is transferred from the steel beam to the concrete
slab by direct bearing of the grout volume on the precast panel. This mechanism is similar to
the mechanism of transferring the bearing force of a post-tensioned tendon to the end zone of
a post-tensioned concrete member. According to Article 5.10.9.3.6 of the LRFD
Specifications (7), the transverse bursting force is estimated using the following formula:
 a
Ts = 0.2 Pu  1 −  (20) LRFD, Eq. 5.10.9.3.6-2
 s
Where: Ts = the bursting force
Pu = the factored tendon load on an individual anchor (ultimate horizontal shear
force generated by a cluster of studs)
a = the anchor plate width (width of the shear pocket)
s = the anchorage spacing (stud cluster spacing)
For Beam #1 (2-ft spacing, 4 studs per cluster):
Pu = 4x78.7 = 314.8 kips, a = 12 in., s = 24 in.
 12 
Ts = 0.2 x314.8 1 −  = 0.2 x314.8 x0.5 = 31.48 kips/2ft = 15.74 kips/ft
 24 
Ts 15.74 kips
Required conventional reinforcement: As = = = 0.26 in2/ft/2 layers
fy 60 ksi
For Beam #2 (4-ft spacing, 8 studs per cluster):
Pu = 8x78.7 = 629.6 kips, a = 12 in., s = 48 in.
 12 
Ts = 0.2 x629.6  1 −  = 0.2 x 629.6 x 0.75 = 94.44 kips/4ft = 23.61 kips/ft
 48 
Ts 23.61 kips
Required conventional reinforcement: As = = = 0.39 in2/ft/2 layers
fy 60 ksi

The required conventional reinforcement to resist the bursting force for Beam #1 or Beam #2
is smaller than the required reinforcement determined according to the Empirical Design
Method given in Article 9.7.2 of the LRFD Specifications (7), which is 0.18 + 0.27 = 0.45
in2/ft/2 layers.
Removal of the Precast Panel of the Full-Scale Beams
The precast panels were removed by jack hammering the concrete around the shear
pockets. Then the grout around the studs was removed using manual driller. The following
observation were recorded on the condition of the shear studs and the grout surrounding them,
see Figure 82:
1. No air pockets were detected in the shear pockets or in the haunch.
2. No grout crushing was detected at the base of the studs. Also, the grout was fully bonded
to the studs.
3. The studs were almost vertical. The maximum slope that was observed was about 5
degrees.
4. No cracks were detected at the weld at the base of the studs.
GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN, DETAILING, FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF

FULL-DEPTH PRECAST CONCRETE DECK PANEL SYSTEMS
Guidelines for design, detailing, fabrication and installation of full-depth precast concrete
deck panel systems are given in APPENDIX C. The guidelines do not cover proprietary full-
depth, precast-concrete bridge deck panel systems. Individual deck construction projects may
have their own unique features and constraints, which may affect the design, fabrication and
construction process. The reader should, therefore, evaluate the relevance of the provisions in
accordance with the project requirements.
PROPOSED AASHTO LRFD SPECIFICATIONS REVISIONS

Proposed revisions to Section 9 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7) are given in
APPENDIX D. The objective of the proposed revisions is to inform designers of the
requirements pertaining to use of full-depth precast deck panel systems, and thus promote use of
these relatively new systems.

Table 1. General Features of the Conceptual Designs Cd-1 & CD-2
System designation: CD-1 CD-2
Reinforcement Type:
Transversely Pretensioned Conventional
Longitudinally Conventional Conventional
Supporting girder & construction type:
New construction projects Steel or concrete girders Steel or concrete girders
Deck replacement projects Steel girders Steel or concrete girders
Alteration to existing shear connectors High Minimum
Made composite with the girder: Yes Yes
Longitudinal post-tensioning: No No
Use of overlay: No No
Panel can be crowned to match the No Yes
bridge profile
Notes: Two panel-to-panel
connection details were
developed for this system
(CD-1A & CD-1B).
A full scale bridge This system is not tested
mockup using this system in NCHRP 12-65.
is constructed and tested
in NCHRP 12-65.

Table 2. Comparison between Various Types of Commercial Grout Material**
Brand name Set 45 Set 45 HW Construction SS Mortar Masterflow 928 747 Rapid S Grout SONOGROUT
Grout Setting Grout 10K
Description Magnesium Hot weather, Noncatalyzed, High precision, High precision, Nonmetallic, Shrinkage Shrinkage
phosphate magnesium multi-purpose, high strength, hydraulic cement cement based compensated, compensated,
patching and phosphate mineral cement based, based, mineral grout. nonmetallic, Portland cement
repair mortar. patching and aggregate metallic aggregate aggregate grout. It is used cement based based, high
It sets in 15 repair mortar grout. mortar. Ideal for grouting wherever a grout. strength grout.
minutes. It is used for NMB machines or plates rapid setting It is used for
splice sleeve with precision load material is applications
splicing system. bearing support. needed. requiring strength
and durability.
Comp. 1h 2.0 @ 72 o F - - - - - - -
strength -
(ksi) 3h 5.0 @ 72 o F 3.0 @ 95 o F - - - - - -
-
6h 5.0 @ 72 o F 5.0 @ 95 o F - - - - - -
1.2 @ 36 o F
1 day 6.0 @ 72 o F 6.0 @ 95 o F 1.5 4.0 @ 70 o F 7.5 @ 77 o F 4.0 3.5 @ 77 o F 1.6 @ 70 o F
5.0 @ 36 o F
3 days 7.0 @ 72 o F 7.0 @ 95 o F 5.0 5.4 @ 70 o F 8.2 @ 77 o F 5.0 5.0 @ 77 o F 3.8 @ 70 o F
7.0 @ 36 o F
7 days - - 6.0 7.0 @ 70 o F 10.5 @ 77 o F - 6.0 @ 77 o F 5.1 @ 70 o F
28 days 8.5 @ 72 o F 8.5 @ 95 o F 7.0 11.0 @ 70 o F 12.6 @ 77 o F 8.0 8.0 @ 77 o F 6.2 @ 70 o F
8.5 @ 36 o F
Features - High early - Superior - Can be - Non-shrink grout - Non-shrink grout - Non-shrink - Recommended for - Can not be
strength at 1 hour bonding extended with - High flowability, - Resistant to grout shear key grouting extended by
- Superior - Very low pea gravel suitable for freeze/thaw & - High early - Can be extended adding gravel
bonding drying - Designed for pumping in tight sulfate strength at 1 by adding pea - Shrinkage
- Very low shrinkage the 50 to 90 o F spaces - High flowability, day gravel compensated
drying shrinkage - Resistant to range - Can be used over suitable for - Chloride free - High flowability grout
- Resistant to freeze/thaw, - Non rusting wide range of pumping in tight - Non rusting
freeze/thaw, sulfate & temperature spaces - Not
sulfate & deicing - Design for use - Designed for the recommended
deicing chemicals with splice sleeve 40 to 90 o F range for placing
chemicals system below 35 o F
Yield ft3/bag 0.39 w/o gravel 0.39 w/o 0.45 w/o 0.42 w/o pea gravel 0.50 w/o pea gravel --- 0.5 w/o gravel 0.40
0.58 w 60% gravel gravel 0.6 w 27% gravel
gravel 0.58 w 60% 0.69 w 55% gravel
gravel
** Information provided in this table is extracted from the manufacturer literatures

Table 3. Design criteria and test results of the pullout specimens (Group #1)
Connect Size of the HSS Type of slot Straight(S) Size of Embedment length Mode of Failure Developed fd
ion tube NS= no slot or bar (in.) failure load bar strength, %
detail TS = top slot Bulged (B) (kips) fd (ksi) 60
SS = side slot tube
A 1 HSS 4x12x3/8 (NS) (B) No. 6 6” head-to-head Prism 37.7 85.3 142% √
2 HSS 4x12x3/8 (NS) (B) No. 7 6” head-to-head Bar Slip 43.4 72.2 120% √
3 HSS 3x12x¼ (NS) (B) No. 6 6” head-to-head Bar Slip 32.8 74.2 124%
4 HSS 3x12x¼ (NS) (B) No. 7 6” head-to-head Bar Slip 45.2 75.2 125%
B 1 HSS 4x12x3/8 (12”-TS) (S) No. 6 12” overlapped Prism 36.0 81.5 136% √
2 HSS 4x12x3/8 (12”-TS) (S) No. 7 12” overlapped Prism 40.9 68.0 113% √
3 HSS 3x12x¼ (12”-TS) (S) No. 6 12” overlapped Prism 37.0 83.8 140%
4 HSS 3x12x¼ (12”-TS) (S) No. 7 12” overlapped Prism 40.3 67.0 112%
C 1 HSS 4x12x3/8 (SS) (S) No. 6 6” head-to-head Bar slip 23.3 52.7 88%
2 HSS 4x12x3/8 (SS) (S) No. 7 6” head-to-head Bar slip 34.6 57.5 87%
3 HSS 3x12x¼ (SS) (S) No. 6 6” head-to-head Bar slip 34.4 77.8 130%
4 HSS 3x12x¼ (SS) (S) No. 7 6” head-to-head Bar slip 30.0 49.9 83%
D 1 HSS 4x12x3/8 (6”-TS) (B) No. 6 6” head-to-head Bar slip 35.5 80.4 134%
2 HSS 4x12x3/8 (6”-TS) (B) No. 7 6” head-to-head Prism 24.1 40.0 67%
3 HSS 3x12x¼ (6”-TS) (B) No. 6 6” head-to-head Bar slip 28.5 64.5 108%
4 HSS 3x12x¼ (6”-TS) (B) No. 7 6” head-to-head Bar slip 30.5 50.7 85%

Table 4. Design criteria and test results of the pullout specimens (Group #2)
Connecti Size of the HSS Type of slot Straight (S) Size of bar Embedment length Mode of Failure Developed fd
on detail tube or Bulged (in.) failure load bar strength, %
(B) tube (kips) fd (ksi) 60
A 1 HSS 4x12x3/8 No slot (B) No. 6 6” head-to-head Bar Slip 37.6 85.5
2 Bar Slip 34.2 77.8
3 Bar Slip 38.7 88.0
Average 83.8 139.7%
BB 1 HSS 4x12x3/8 12” Top (S) No. 6 12” overlapped Bar Slip 32.9 74.8
2 slot Bar Slip 32.9 74.8
3 Bar Slip 33.8 76.8
Average 75.5 125.8%
AA 1 HSS 4x12x3/8 No slot (S) No. 6 6” head-to-head Bar Slip 34.7 78.9
2 Bar Slip 32.9 74.8
3 Bar Slip 35.4 80.5
Average 78.0 130.0%

Table 5. Displacement measurements at P1-P2 and P2-P3 Joints
Before applying the fatigue After 2x106 cycles of fatigue
load load
P1-P2 Joint 0.0401 in. 0.0390 in.
P1-P2 Joint 0.0379 in. 0.0388 in.
Table 6. Dimensions of the Equivalent Square Area used for the Finite Element Analysis
Actual diameter Cross sectional area Equivalent square area
2
(in.) (in ) (in. x in.)
Stud stem 1.25 1.227 1.108 x 1.108
Stud head 2.5 4.909 2.216 x 2.216
#4 bar 0.5 0.200 0.447 x 0.477
Table 7. Design criteria of the Push-off Specimens
Push-off Number of Number of studs Type of grout confinement Test type
Specimen specimens per specimen
Group #1
P-4-CT-U 2 4 3- No. 6 closed ties (CT) Ultimate
P-4-ST-U 2 4 steel tubes (ST) (U)
P-8-CT-U 2 8 3- No. 6 closed ties (CT)
P-8-ST-U 2 8 steel tubes (ST)
Group #2
P-4-CT-F/U 2 4 3- No. 6 closed ties (CT) Fatigue/Ultimate
P-4-ST-F/U 2 4 steel tubes (ST) (F/U)
P-8-CT-F/U 2 8 3- No. 6 closed ties (CT)
P-8-ST-F/U 2 8 steel tubes (ST)
Table 8. Ultimate Capacity of the Stud Cluster using Various Models

Ultimate Capacity, kip (kN)
4 studs 8 studs
Viest 1956 193.6 (861.1) 387.2 (1722.3)
Ollgaard et all 1971 477.2 (2122.6)* 954.4 (4245.2)*
Oehlers & Johnson 1987 391.7 (1742.3)* 815.4 (3626.9)*
LRFD 2004, Eq. 6.10.10.4.3-1 314.8 (1400.2)** 629.6 (2800.5)**
LRFD 2004, Eq. 5.8.4.1-1 188.8 (839.8) 376.8
* Shear capacity is greater than the tensile ultimate capacity
** Shear capacity is controlled by the tensile ultimate capacity

Table 9. Test results of the Push-off, Panel-to-Steel Specimens
Viest Ollgaard Oehlers & LRFD 2004 LRFD 2004

1956 et al Johnson Equation Equation
1971 1987 6.10.10.4.3-1 5.8.4.1-1
Test Failure Ld., Failure mode See
Ff kip Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Figure
Qcr Dmax Dmax Qn Vn
Group #1: Ultimate Test, 1.25 in. haunch, no external confinement on the specimen, 4 studs per specimen
P 237 The load was applied by mistake at the interface level 122% 50% 61% 75% 126% 64-a
- . Slab failure:
4 1. Inclined crack on the side of the concrete specimens.
- 2. No grout crushing
S 3. All studs bent to about 5 degrees
T 313 Slab failure: 162% 66% 80% 99% 166% 64-b
- 1. Vertical crack on the side of the concrete specimens.
U 2. No grout crushing
3. All studs bent to about 10 degrees
Average for P-4-ST-U (4 studs + steel tubes) 142% 58% 71% 87% 146%
P 241 Slab failure: 124% 51% 62% 77% 128% 64-c
- 1. Horizontal crack on the side of the concrete specimen
4 2. The slab lifted away from the steel plate and the specimen could
- not take any more load
C 259 Slab failure: 134% 54% 66% 82% 137% 64-d
T 1. Horizontal crack on the side of the concrete specimen
- 2. The slab lifted up from the steel plate and the specimen could not
U take any more load
Average for P-4-CT-U (4 studs + closed ties) 129% 53% 64% 80% 133%
Average for P-4-ST-U & P-4-CT-U 136% 56% 68% 84% 140%
(all 4-stud ultimate specimens)

Table 9 (cont.). Test results of the Push-off, Panel-to-Steel Specimens

1971 1987 6.10.10.4.3-1 5.8.4.1-1
Qcr Dmax Dmax Qn Vn
Group #1: Ultimate Test, 1.25 in. haunch, no external confinement on the specimen, 8 studs per specimen
P 400 Slab failure: 103% 42% 49% 64% 106% 64-e
- 1. Concrete bearing failure at the bearing block of the specimen
8 2. No grout crushing
- 3. Studs remained almost vertical
S 346 Slab failure: 89% 36% 42% 55% 92% 64-f
T 1. Concrete bearing failure at the bearing block of the specimen
- 2. No grout crushing
U
Average for P-8-ST-U (8 studs + steel tubes) 96% 39% 46% 60% 99%
P 376 Slab failure: 97% 39% 46% 60% 100% 64-g
8 318 Slab failure: 82% 33% 39% 51% 85% 64-h
C
T
-
U
Average for P-8-CT-U (8 studs + closed ties) 90% 36% 43% 56% 92%
Average P-8-ST-U & P-8-CT-U 93% 38% 45% 58% 96%
(all 8-stud ultimate specimens)
Average of all specimens in Group #1 (Ultimate testing) 115% 47% 57% 71% 118%

1971 1987 6.10.10.4.3-1 5.8.4.1-1
Qcr Dmax Dmax Qn Vn
Group #2: Fatigue/Ultimate Test, no haunch, with side external confinement, 4 studs per specimen
P --- Could not be tested because the specimen rotated in the horizontal --- --- --- --- --- 67-a
- plan due to improper setup
4 Test failed.
- 231 Stud failure: 119% 48% 59% 73% 122% 67-b
S 1. All studs failed at the welding area.
T 2. The grout around the studs did not crush.
- 3. Some of the concrete outside the confinement tube failed.
F 4. At failure load, some cracks around the confinement tube were
/ observed on top of the specimen.
U
Average for P-4-ST-F/U (4 studs + steel tubes) 119% 48% 59% 73% 122%
P 308 Stud/Grout Failure: 159% 65% 79% 98% 163% 67-c
- 1. Two of the studs failed at the welding area. The other two bent
4 about 30 degrees.
- 2. No cracks observed on top of the specimen.
C 3. Grout inside the confinement area was crushed.
T 4. Concrete outside the confined grout area was crushed.
- 5. Bond failure between the bottom tie and the surrounding concrete.
F 220 Stud/Concrete failure: 114% 46% 56% 70% 117% 67-d
/ 1. One stud failed at the welding area. The remaining studs bent
U about 25 degrees.
2. A cone-shape failure was observed in the grout around the studs.
3. Bond failure between the bottom tie and the surrounding concrete
4. A pronounced crack was observed on top of the specimen.
Average for P-4-CT-F/U (4 studs + closed ties) 137% 56% 68% 84% 140%
Average for P-4-ST-F/U & P-4-CT-F/U 128% 52% 64% 79% 131%
(all 4-stud fatigue/ultimate specimens)

Test 1956 et al Johnson Equation Equation
1971 1987 6.10.10.4.3-1 5.8.4.1-1
Failure-Load Failure mode See
Ff (kip) Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Figure
Qcr Dmax Dmax Qn Vn
Group #2: Fatigue/Ultimate Test, no haunch, with side external confinement, 8 studs per specimen
P 379 The slab lifted off from the steel plate at the far edge and the 98% 40% 46% 60% 101% 67-e
- specimen could not take any more load.
8 1. Plate did not come off the specimen.
- 2. No grout failure was detected
S 3. No cracks observed on top or around the specimen.
T 300 Stud Failure: 77% 31% 37% 48% 80% 67-f
- 1. All studs failed. Two studs failed at the base material, four studs
F failed at the weld location and the remaining two sheared off.
/ 2. Grout crashed around the studs.
U 3. Concrete outside the steel tube confinement did not crack.
4. Slippage occurred between the steel tube and the grout inside
5. At failure load, there was a two-crack v shape at the side of the
specimen.
6. At failure load, there was a very fine crack around the steel tube
on top of the specimen.
Average for P-8-ST-F/U (8 studs + steel tubes) 88% 36% 42% 54% 91%
P 245 Stud Failure: 63% 26% 30% 39% 65% 67-g
- 1. Two of the studs sheared off, the following two failed at the base
8 material and the remaining four bent about 20 degrees.
- 2. A cone-shaped failure was observed in the grout around the studs.
C 3. Bond failure between the bottom tie and the surrounding concrete
T 245 Bond failure of the lower closed tie: 63% 26% 30% 39% 65% 67-h
- 1. The first 4 studs were bent about 15 degrees. The remaining four
F studs were slightly bent.
/ 2. The failure was cone- shaped formed around the group of studs.
U 3. Bond failure between the bottom tie and the surrounding concrete.
Average for P-8-CT-F/U (8 studs + closed ties) 63% 26% 30% 39% 65%
Average for P-4-ST-F/U & P-4-CT-F/U 76% 31% 36% 47% 78%
(all 8-stud fatigue/ultimate specimens)
Average of all specimens in Group #2 (Fatigue/ultimate testing) 102% 42% 50% 63% 105%

Table 10. Summary of the Finite Element Analysis Results for the Push-off Specimens
4-stud specimens 8-stud specimens
P-4-ST-U P-4-CT-U P-8-ST-U P-8-CT-U
(Steel (Closed Average (Steel (Closed Average
tube) ties) tube) ties)
Applied horizontal load (kips)* 314.8 629.6
Maximum axial tensile stress at base of the stud 58.4 99.1 78.8 99.9 74.9 87.4
(ksi)
Maximum tensile principal stress at base of the 92.5 157.0 124.8 162.0 117.0 139.5
stud (ksi)
Maximum longitudinal movement of the stud 0.0075 0.0103 0.0089 0.0109 0.00954 0.01022
head (in.)
Maximum axial tensile stress in confinement 21.0 3.7 NA 30.7 5.3 NA
material in the transverse direction of the
specimen (ksi)
Maximum bearing stress in grout in front of the 29.1 31.8 30.5 27.1 31.6 29.4
stud (ksi)
Maximum bearing stress in the concrete in front 2.31 2.31 2.31 2.30 2.30 2.30
of the grout volume (ksi)
* Determined using Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO REFD Specifications (7)

Table 11. Summary of the Full-scale Beam Ultimate Test Results
Beam Stud Confi- Failure mode Maximum Load required Load required
cluster nement applied to cause to cause
spacing type load (kip) flexural horizontal shear
(ft) failure (kip) failure (kip)
#1-North 2 Ties Flexural failure/ web buckling, Figure 86-a: 588 574 459
Concrete crushing of the top fiber of the concrete slab at
the concentrated load location. Also, a vertical crack
formed at side surface of the slab at the section of the
applied load.
Four inclined cracks in the haunch at 45 degrees. One
crack at each stud cluster located between the applied load
and the exterior support.
The web of the steel beam buckled at the exterior support.
#1-South 2 Tube Flexural failure, Figure 86-b: 600 574 459

Concrete crushing of the top fiber of the concrete slab at
the concentrated load location.
Four inclined cracks in the haunch at 45 degrees. One
crack at each stud cluster located between the applied load
and the exterior support.
#2-North 4 Ties No failure occurred, Figure 86-c: The hydraulic jacks 600 843 356
reached their maximum capacity.
#2-South 4 Tube No failure occurred, Figure 86-d: The hydraulic jacks 600 843 356
reached their maximum capacity.

Detail H
2%
8" + 1/4" **
4'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0"
Cross Section of the Bridge

Short pieces
Two 2-1/2" strands of 2#4
270 ksi, LL
6x2#5
#6 @ 13.3 in. Detail D A B C
1"-φ leveling screw
7'-11"
E E
1'-0"
Two 2-1/2" strands
270 ksi, LL
2#4 A B C
9.4" 1'-0" 1'-0" 10#6 bars @13.3" 1'-0" 1'-0" 10#6 bars @13.3" 1'-0" 1'-0" 10#6 bars @13.3" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9.4"
3 #6 3 #6
@13.3" @13.3"
Plan View of the Precast Panel shwoing Reinforcement
Figure 1. Cross Section and Plan View of CD-1A

(** 1/4 in. is used as a sacrificial layer for texturing)

1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
2"+1/4*
8"+1/4*
2"
Section A-A
1" φ grouting pipe

1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7" 7 1/2"
4 1/4"+1/4"*
3/4"
3 3/4"
6 3/4" HSS 4x12x3/8", #6 bar @ 13.33 in.

4" long Section B-B
1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"

7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
3"+1/4"*
3/4" φ vent 2" φ grouting pipe HSS 14x10x1/4", 6" high piece
5"
Shear pocket Shear pocket
1'-4 1/2" 1'-2" 2'-10" 1'-2" 1'-4 1/2"
Section C-C
1/2" strand #4 bar #5 bar #6 bar
Figure 2. CD-1A, Sections A-A, B-B and C-C
(* 1/4 in. is used as a sacrificial layer for texturing)

1'-0" 3/4"
F F
1" φ grouting pipe 3/4" 3/4"
6"
4 1/4"+1/4"*
1"
1 1/2"
8" + 1/4" **
3/4"
#6 Section G-G
3 1/2"
3 3/4"
3/4"
1 1/2"
Galvanized bulged HSS 4x12x3/8 Shear key details
4" 1'-0" 4"

G G
5"
4"
#6
4"
Ø 1"
Ø 1 3/4"
Section F-F
4"
1'-0" 3/4"
1" Galvanized bulged HSS 4x12x3/8"
#6
7 1/2"
Figure 3. CD-1A, Panel-to-Panel Connection Detail, Detail D

n ew
pane
l
old panel
15.00°
15.00°
10. 00°
5.00°
Figure 4. CD-1A, Installation of a New Panel

Detail H
8" + 1/4" ** 2%
4'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0"

Short pieces
Two 2-1/2" strands of 2#4
270 ksi, LL
6x2#5
#6 @ 13.3 in. Detail D2 A2 B2 C2
1"-φ leveling screw
7'-11"
E E
1'-0"
Two 2-1/2" strands A2 C2
270 ksi, LL
Short pieces of 2#4 B2
9.4" 3 #6 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9.4"
10#6 bars @13.3" 10#6 bars @13.3" 10#6 bars @13.3" 3 #6
@13.3" @13.3"

Figure 5. Cross Section and Plan View of CD-1B

1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
2"+1/4*
8"+1/4*
2"
Section A2-A2
1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"

9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2"
4 1/4"+1/4"*
3/4"
3 3/4"
HSS 4x12x3/8", #6 bar @ 13.33 in.

4" long with top slot Section B2-B2
1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"

7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
3"+1/4"*
5"
1'-4 1/2" 1'-2" 2'-10" 1'-2" 1'-4 1/2"
Section C2-C2
C-C
Figure 6. CD-1B, Sections A2-A2, B2-B2 and C2-C2

3/4" 3/4"
1'-0" 3/4" 1"
F2 F2 1 1/2"
11 1/2"
1.5" wide 3/4"
8" + 1/4"*
4 1/4"+1/4"*
vertical slot
3 1/2"
3/4"
#6 1 1/2"
Section G2-G2
3 3/4"
Shear key details
1'-0" 4"
Galvanized bulged HSS 4x12x3/8, 4" long 10 3/4"
1 1/2"
1 1/2" 1" 1 1/2"
2" 1 3/4"
G2 G2
3/4" 1"
1 1/4" 1 1/4"
4"
1 1/2"
#6
4"
1 1/2"
4"
Section F2-F2
Galvanized HSS 4x12x3/8, 4" long
#6, 24.5" long 2'-0" 4"

splice bar
11 1/2" 1" 11 1/2"
1 1/2"
4 1/4"+1/4"*
X2
#6 #6
3 3/4"
11" X2 11"
1'-0" Section X2-X2

Detail D2
Figure 7. CD-1B, Panel-to-Panel Connection Detail, Detail D2

1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
2" φ grouting pipe
3"+1/4"*
3"+1/4"*
3/4" φ vent HSS 14x10x1/4", 6" high piece
5"
5"
1"
2 1/2" 9" 2 1/2" 8- 1 1/4" studs
Top surface of the steel girder flange
1'-4 1/2" 1'-2" 2'-10" 1'-2" 1'-4 1/2"
Section C-C
1'-0"
2" φ grouting 1 1/4" studs

pipe
3"+1/4"*
Light weight angles used as grout barrier
and to adjust for the panel elevation
5"
1"
3 1/2" 5" 3 1/2" Rectangular bar
Section E-E
Figure 8. Sections C-C & E-E for Steel Girders


1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
2" φ grouting pipe

3"+1/4"*
3"+1/4"*
5"
5"1"
3" 4" 4" 3"
Top surface of the concrete girder flange 3- 1 1/4" double
headed studs
1'-4 1/2" 1'-2" 2'-10" 1'-2" 1'-4 1/2"
1'-0"
2" φ grouting 1 1/4" double headed stud

pipe
3" + 1/4" **
Section C-C
5"
5 1/2"
1 1/4 in. stud

1"
2 7/8"
8 1/2"
1" φ backer rod
4'-0 1/4"
5 7/8" Section E-E
5 1/2"
5 1/4"
3'-2 3/8"
Figure 9. Sections C-C & E-E for Concrete Girders


Width of the
base of the barrier
#5 closed loop
Intentionally roughened
surface
8"+ 1/4 " **
Figure 10. Detail H, Panel-to-Barrier Connection Detail

P P
a a
b b
c c
#6@13.3"
8" R
d d
e e
f f
Bearing failure mode Shear failure mode
Figure 11. Design Parameters of the Shear Key

8" + 1/4" *
2% 2%
Detail H
8" + 1/4" *
2%
4'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0"
A B C D 4- 1" φ grouting
Two 1" φ
leveling screws #8 bar with 5" long holes per girderline
threaded ends 2#6@18" Detail E
K K
8'-11"
A B 4#8@18" C D
2 spacings
2 spacings
6" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 6"
@15"
@15"
8 spacings x 15" 8 spacings x 15" 8 spacings x 15"
6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6"

Figure 12. Cross section and plan view of CD-2


9'-0"
1/2" 8'-11" 1/2"
3/4" 3/4" 3/4"

8"+ 1/4" * 2#6 bar @ 18" 2#8 bar @ 18" 1 1/2"
2"
3"
3/4"
3 1/2"
5"
3/4"
1"
1 1/2"
1'-1" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" 5"
10" Section A-A

#8 bar with 5" long
3/4"
3/4"
4"
6"+ 1/4" *
6" 4" thread ends

2"
4"
4"
2"
5"
1"
Section B-B
2#6 bar @ 18"

8"+ 1/4" *
2"
1"
Section C-C
10"
#8 bar with 5" long
4"
6"+ 1/4" *
6" 4" thread ends

2"
4"
4"
2"
5"
1"
Section D-D
Figure 13. CD-2, Sections A-A and B-B

1" φ all thread bar,
1/2"
3/4"
1/2"
150 ksi 1"
8" 1"
F F
2" 6" + 1/4" *

3/4" 3/4" 1 1/2"
2 1/4"
4"
8" + 1/4" *
3/4"
3 1/2"
3 1/2"
4"
1/4" 3/4"
Section G-G
1" φ Hex nut with 1 1/2"
1/4" thick washer Shear key details
HSS 8x4x3/16"
G G
1/2" 5" 1/2"
6"
Width of the
base of the barrier
Section F-F, Detail E
9"
surface
8 5/8" 8"+ 1/4 " *
φ = 1 1/4"
φ = 2"
3 5/8"
4"
3"
2"
Detail H
2" 2 5/8" 2"

1/4" 1/4" HSS 8x4x3/16", A36
1/4" 1/4"
Figure 14. CD-2, Details E & H


9'-0"
3"
5 1/2"
5"
K Top surface of the flange
of the steel girder
Section B-B
1'-0"
1" 5" 3" + 1/4" *

2" φ grouting Light weight angles used
Steel studs as grout barrier
pipe
Rectangular bar
Section K-K
Figure 15. CD-2, Sections B-B & K-K for steel girders

9'-0"
3"
5"
Top surface of the
flange of the girder Section B-B
K
1'-0"
1" 5" 3" + 1/4" *

2" φ grouting Shear connector
pipe
Section K-K
Figure 16. CD-2, Sections B-B & K-K for precast concrete girders

12
SS Mortar
Specifications
10
SS Mortar
Tested 2x2" Cubes
8 SS Mortar with Pea Gravel

Tested 4x8" Cylinders
Comp. Strength (ksi)
Concrete Mix of
the pullout
4 specimens
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Age (days)
Figure 17. Compressive Strength versus Time of the SS Mortar and Concrete Mix

2'-0" 1'-6 1/2" 2'-0" 1'-6 1/2"
6" 6" 11"
Bulged HSS 4x12x3/8" #4 top HSS 4x12x3/8" #4 top
2"
2"
#6 or #7 #6 or #7
8"
8"
5"
4"
4"
1"
1"
#5 bottom #5 bottom
1'-0"
1'-0"
4" 4"
8" 8"
Connection Detail A, Group #1 & #2 Connection Detail B, Group #1
2'-0" 1'-6 1/2" 2'-0" 1'-6 1/2"

6" 6" 6" 6"
HSS 4x12x3/8" #4 top #4 top
Bulged HSS 4x12x3/8"
2"
2"
#6 or #7 #6 or #7
8"
8"
4"
5"
4"
1"
1"
#5 bottom #5 bottom
1'-0"
1'-0"
4" 4"
8" Connection Detail C, Group #1 Connection Detail D, Group #1

8"
2'-0" 1'-6 1/2" 2'-0" 1'-6 1/2"

11" 6" 6"
HSS 4x12x3/8" #4 top HSS 4x12x3/8" #4 top
2"
2"
#6 or #7 #6 or #7
8"
8"
4"
4"
1"
1"
#5 bottom #5 bottom
1'-0"
1'-0"
4" 4"
8" 8" Connection Detail AA, Group #2
Connection Detail BB, Group #2 (A modified version of Detail A)
(A modified version of Detail B)
Group #1 Tubes
Figure 18. Details of the Pullout Specimens of Groups #1 and #2

Figure 19. Specimens used in Group #1 during Fabrication
(a) Test Setup (b) Bar slippage failure (c) Tension failure
Figure 20. Test Setup and Failure Modes of Group #1 Specimens
Figure 21. Specimens used in Group #2 during Fabrication
Specimen A Specimen BB
Figure 22. Failure Modes of Group #2 Specimens

20'-0"
4'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0"
11" 11"
8"
1'-0 7/8" 1'-0 7/8"
W18x119 W18x119
A B C
N
W E
8'-0"
P1
1'-0"
3'-8"
Detail A
P2
8'-0"
Detail BB
3'-8"
P3
8'-0"
1/2" strand
#4 bar
#5 bar
#6 bar
A B C
Plan view showing the reinforcement details
Figure 23. Cross Section and Plan View of the Full-scale Bridge Specimen

1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2"
2"
8"
2"
1" φ grouting pipe Section A-A of Panels P1, P2 & P3
1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7 1/2"
3/4"
4 1/4"
3 3/4"
6 3/4" HSS 4x12x3/8", #6 bar @ 13.33 in.

4" long Section B-B of Panels P1
1" φ grouting pipe
1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
3/4" 1'-0" 1 1/4" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 1 1/4" 1'-0" 3/4"
4 1/4"
3 3/4"
6 3/4" HSS 4x12x3/8", HSS 4x12x3/8",

4" long Section B-B of Panel P2 4" long with top
slot
1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
3/4" 1'-0" 1 1/4" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 3/4"
4 1/4"
3 3/4"
HSS 4x12x3/8", Section B-B of Panel P3 HSS 4x12x3/8",

4" long with top slot 4" long with top
slot
1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2"
HSS 14x10x1/4"
6" high piece 3/4" φ vent 2" φ grouting pipe
3"
5"
1'-4 1/2" 1'-2" 2'-10" 1'-2" 1'-4 1/2"
Section C-C of Panels P1, P2 & P3

Figure 24. Sections A-A, B-B & C-C of Panels P1, P2 & P3

HSS 12x4x3/8 in. Precast panels ready to receive concrete
Panel P1: Detail A, North side Panel P1: Detail A, South side
Panel P3: Detail BB, North and South sides

Figure 25. Panels P1, P2 & P3 during Fabrication

Panel P1
Panel P2
Panel P3
Figure 26. Panel P1, P2 and P3 after Seven Days of Moist-Curing
10
SS Mortar Grout
9
Concrete Mix
8
Compressive strength (ksi)
0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56
Time (days)
Figure 27. Concrete Strength Gain versus Time of the Concrete Mix and SS Mortar Grout

2" diameter heavy duty nut
12x12x2" bearing plates
1'-0"
Top reaction beam
110-kips
4'-0"
Hydraulic
Actuator 2 in. diameter
threaded bars
Load spreader beam

2'-4" W24x104, L= 8 ft
Neoprene pad
22"x9"x2"
8"
8-in. thick precast panel 1'-0" W18x119, L= 32 ft

6'-0"
Bottom reaction beam

W18x56, L= 14 ft
W E
S
8 1/2" 3 1/2"
8'-0"
P1
9'-3 1/2" 1'-0" 9'-8 1/2"
1'-4 1/2"
Detail A 1"
3'-8"
9"
1'-10" 2'-2 1/2"
P2
8'-0"
3-in. diameter holes
1'-4 1/2"
Detail BB 1"
3'-8"
9"
1'-10" 2'-2 1/2"
P3
8'-0"
3'-0" 6'-0" 3'-0"
4'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0"
20'-0"
Figure 28. Test Setup

15" 15"
2 1/2" 2 1/2" 4- 2.5 in. pipes

8- 1.25 in. studs
1" 4 1/2"
1" 4 1/2"
5"
5"
A A B B
3" 9" 3" 3" 9" 3"
1'-3" 1'-3"
11 1/2" 11 1/2"
7 1/2"
7 1/2"
10"
10"
8- 1.25 in. studs Perimeter of the 4- 2.5 in. pipes Perimeter of the
Section A-A cluster footprint Section B-B cluster footprint
(a) 8- 1.25 in. studs (b) 4- 2.5 in. diamter pipes
Figure 29. Arrangement of the Four 2½ in. diameter Pipes

(a) Panel P2 being lifted from the prestressing bed (b) Vertical installation of Panel P2
(c) Installation of Panel P1
(d) Installation of Panel P1
Figure 30. Installation of the Precast panels

Figure 31. Grouting of the Shear Pockets and Shear Keys
Figure 32. Test setup at the North Transverse Joint and the Water Pool around the Joint

1uE to 8uE: Top surface strain gages
9uE to 12uE: Bottom surface strain gages
D1: Bottom surface displacment device
(same arrangement was used at the second joint)
3'-0" 6'-0" 3'-0"
4uE
2uE
1uE
11uE
3uE
12uE
P1
1'-0"
7" 7"
D1
3"
9"
P2
10uE 9uE
2'-4"
1'-10"
8uE 6uE
7uE
5uE
3" 3"
2'-1" 1'-10" 2'-1" 2'-1" 1'-10" 2'-1"
4'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0"
Figure 33. Locations of the Measuring Devices

(uE = Strain Gages, D = Vertical Displacement Device)

40
30 12uE
20
9uE (dead)
1 uE
10 (dead)
2 uE
0 3 uE
4 uE
Micro Strain
-10 5 uE
6 uE
-20 2uE 7 uE
-30 7uE 8 uE
9 uE
-40 10 uE
1uE
-50 11 uE
8uE 12 uE
-60
3uE
-70
6uE
-80
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240
Time (seconds)
(a) Before applying the 2,000,000-cycle Fatigue Load
40
30 12uE
9uE
20 (dead)
1 uE
10 2 uE
0 3 uE
4 uE
Micro Strain
-10 5 uE
6 uE
-20
2uE 7 uE
-30 8 uE
7uE 9 uE
-40 10 uE
1uE
11 uE
-50
12 uE
3uE
-60 8uE
-70 6uE
-80
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240
Time (seconds)
(B) After applying the 2,000,000-cycle Fatigue Load

Figure 34. P1-P2 Joint, Connection Detail A

60.00
50.00 1uE (dead)

40.00 12uE
30.00 1 uE
9uE 6uE (dead) 2 uE
20.00
3 uE
10.00 4 uE
5 uE
Micro Strain
0.00
6 uE
-10.00 7 uE
-20.00 8 uE
8uE 9 uE
-30.00
10 uE
-40.00 11 uE
-50.00 12 uE
-60.00
3uE
-70.00
-80.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240
Time (seconds)
(a) Before applying the 2,000,000-cycle Fatigue Load
60.00
50.00 12uE
9uE
40.00
2uE
30.00 11uE 1 uE
7uE
20.00 2 uE
3 uE
10.00 4 uE
Micro Strain
0.00 5 uE
6 uE
-10.00
7 uE
-20.00 5uE 8 uE
-30.00 9 uE
1uE
10 uE
-40.00
3uE 11 uE
-50.00 8uE 12 uE
-60.00 6uE
-70.00
-80.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240
Time (seconds)
(B) After applying the 2,000,000-cycle Fatigue Load

Figure 35. P2-P3 Joint, Connection Detail BB

(a) The Haunch fully filled with Grout with no Air Voids
(b) Panels Stacked after Demolition
(c) Condition of the Transverse Edges after Saw Cutting

Figure 36. The Precast Panels after Demolition

1'-0"
1'-3"
5" No. 5 Inverted U-shape bar
K1
5" 3"
1"
Section K1-K1 NU-Girder
1" 1"
5 7/8" 1 1/4" 5 x 2 1/2" 1 1/4"
8 3/8" K1
Minimum required thickness
(a) No. 5 Inverted U-shape Bar set Transversely

1'-0" 1'-11 3/4"
No. 5 Inverted U-shape bar 5"

5" 3"
1" K2
Section K2-K2
NU-Girder
1" 1"
5 7/8" 4 1/2" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 4 1/2"
K2
(b) No. 5 Inverted U-shape Bar set Longitudinally
1'-10"
2 1/2" 1'-3"
1 5/8" No. 5 L-shape bar
5" K3
5" 3"
1"
Section K3-K3
NU-Girder
1" 1"
5 7/8" 1 1/4" 5 x 2 1/2" 1 1/4"
(c) No. 5 L-shape Bar set Transversely K3
Figure 37. Various Options for Setting the No. 5 bar

6 1/2"
35"
1 1/4 in. stud
46"
#4 @ 4 in. 6" 6" 6" 8" 6" 6" 6"

3" 4" 4"
3" 1"
2 1/2"
8 1/2"
#3 1 1/8"
5 3/8"
#4 @ 6 in.
1'-4 1/8" 8#5
1'-10"
2'-0"
4'-0 1/4"
#3
#4 @ 4 in.
#4 @ 4 in. 4" 4" 4" 4" 4"

5 7/8"
Figure 38. Group #1 of the slab/concrete girder specimens

6 1/2"
1 1/4 in. stud
35"
46"
#4 @ 4 in.
3" 6" 6" 6" 8" 6" 6" 6"
4" 4"
3" 1"
2 1/2"
8 1/2"
#3 1 1/8"
5 3/8"
#4 @ 6 in.
1'-4 1/8" 8#5
1'-10"
2'-0"
1'-6 1/8"
4'-0 1/4"
#3
3"
4" 4" 4" 4" 4"
#4 on each #4 @ 4 in. 5 7/8"
side of the
stud
Figure 39. Group #2 of the slab/concrete girder specimens

4" 4"
A 1 1/4"
2 1/4"
2"
HSS 10x10x1/2
43 1/2"
18 1/2" 1 1/4 in. stud
18.5" deep reaction beam
2 1/4"
Load cell
11"
5 1/2"
2 1/4"
440 kip HJ
440 kip HJ
2'-1" 1 3/4" threaded rod
placed in a 2" ID
plastic tube & tied to
the strong floor
A 3'-0"
9" 1 1/2" 5'-0"
6'-0"
5 1/2"
18 1/2"
18.5" deep
reaction beam
43 1/2"
Section A-A
2"
11"
1 1/4 in. stud

2 1/2"
8 1/2"
1 1/8"
5 3/8"
1'-4 1/8"
2'-0"
4'-0 1/4"
5 7/8"
Figure 40. Test setup of the slab/concrete girder specimens

(a) The Test Specimens ready to receive Concrete (b) Casting of Concrete
10000
9000
8000
7000
Compressive strength (psi)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (days)
(c) Compressive Strength Gain versus Time of the Concrete Mix (d) Test Setup
Figure 41. Fabrication and Test Setup of the Slab/Concrete Girder Specimen

(a) Location of the Horizontal Side Surface Cracks that started at about 105 kips
(b) Top Surface Cracks at Failure (c) Side Surface Cracks at Failure
(d) Studs after being Pulled Away from the Specimen

Figure 42. Structural Behavior of Group #1 Specimen of the Slab/Concrete Girder

(a) Side Surface Cracks at failure
(b) Top Surface Cracks at Failure

Figure 43. Structural Behavior of Group #2 Specimen of the Slab/Concrete Girder
1 2 3 1 2 3
Group #1 Specimen Group #2 Specimen

Figure 44. Location of Sections 1, 2 and 3

2 1/8"
1 1/8"
Heavy duty
nut
2 1/2" 3/16 in. thick
3" washer
1/2"
5 1/4" 4 1/4"
1/2"
1/2" 1/2"
3/16 in. 3/16 in.
1 1/4" diamter 1 1/4" diamter
flux ball flux ball
Headed stud Headless stud
Figure 45. Dimensions of the 1¼ in. Diameter Stud

A B
3'-8"
6 1/2" 11" 6 1/2" 6 1/2" 11" 6 1/2" 4" 1'-4"
3" 3"
C C
8"
10"
5"
1.25"
1'-8"
1"
9" 3-#4 closed ties
7"
10"
1'-0 1/2" 2'-0"
Section B-B
A B Section A-A
1'-3 5/8"
6 1/2"
7"
1 9/16" 1'-0 1/2" 1 9/16"
2"
A A
2'-0"
11"
7"
2" 5 spacings @ 4" = 20"
2'-0"
6 1/2"
6 1/2" 11" 6 1/2" 4" 1'-4"
Plan View C-C

Base plate 1-in. thick
with 10- 1" diameter holes
Figure 46. Concrete Dimensions of P-4-CT-U

A B
3'-8"
5 3/4" 1'-0 1/2" 5 3/4" 5 3/4" 1'-0 1/2" 5 3/4" 4" 1'-4"
3"
3"
C C
8"
10"
5"
1.25"
1'-8"
1"
9" 2'-0"
10"
1'-0 1/2"
Section B-B Section A-A

A HSS 12.50X0.188 B
1'-3 5/8"
5 3/4"
1 9/16" 1'-0 1/2" 1 9/16"

2"
1'-0 1/2"
2'-0"
2" 5 spacings @ 4" = 20"
2'-0"
5 3/4"
7 1/2" 9" 7 1/2" 4" 1'-4"
Plan View C-C

Figure 47. Concrete Dimensions of P-4-ST-U

A B
2'-0" 3'-11"
6 1/2" 11" 6 1/2" 6 1/2" 1'-5" 3 1/2" 4" 1'-4"
3" 3" 3" 3"

C C
8"
10"
3-#6 closed ties
1'-8"
1"
9" 1'-1"
10"
1'-0 1/2" 2'-0"

A B
1'-3 5/8"
6 1/2"
1'-1"
1 9/16" 1'-0 1/2" 1 9/16"
2"
A A
2'-0"
11"
7"
2" 5 spacings @ 4" = 20"
2'-0"
6 1/2"
6 1/2" 1'-5" 3 1/2" 4" 1'-4"
Plan View C-C

Figure 48. Concrete Dimensions of P-8-CT-U

A B
2'-0" 3'-11"
6" 1'-0" 6" 7" 1'-4" 4" 4" 1'-4"
3"
C 3" 3" 3" C
8"
10"
1.25"
1'-8"
1"
9" 1'-1"
10"
1'-3 5/8" 2'-0"

A HSS 16x12x5/16 B
1'-3 5/8"
1'-1"
6"
1 9/16" 1'-0 1/2" 1 9/16"

2"
A A
1'-0"
2'-0"
7"
2" 5 spacings @ 4" = 20"
2'-0"
6"
7" 1'-4" 4" 4" 1'-4"
Plan View C-C

Figure 49. Concrete Dimensions of P-8-ST-U

A B
3'-8"
6 1/2" 11" 10 1/2" 1'-4"

6 1/2" 11" 6 1/2"
3"
3"
C C
8" 3 1/4"
4 3/4"
10"
4 3/4"
1"
1'-8"
7" 7"
1'-0 1/2" 3-#4 closed ties
1'-0"
10"
1'-4 1/4"
A B Section A-A
Section B-B
7"
1'-4 1/2"
6 1/2"
2" 1'-0 1/2" 2"
4" 2"
4 1/2" 3" 4 1/2"
A A
2'-0"
11"
7"
1'-0"
2" 4"
6 1/2"
6 3/4" 3" 6 3/4"

6 1/2" 11" 10 1/2" 1'-4"
1-in. thick base plate

Plan View C-C
Figure 50. Concrete Dimensions of P-4-CT-F/U

A B
3'-8"
7 1/2" 9" 7 1/2" 4" 1'-4"

7 1/2" 9" 7 1/2"
3"
3"
C C
3 1/4"
8"
10"
4 3/4" 1'-8"
1"
1'-0"
9"
10"
1'-0 1/2"
Section B-B
A HSS 9.0X0.188" B Section A-A
1'-4 1/2"
7 1/2"
2" 1'-0 1/2" 2"

4" 2"
4 1/2" 3" 4 1/2"
2'-0"
9"
1'-0"
2" 4"
7 1/2"
6 3/4" 3" 6 3/4"
1'-0" 1'-4" 1'-4"

Plan View C-C
Figure 51. Concrete Dimensions of P-4-ST- F/U

A B
2'-0" 3'-11"
6 1/2" 11" 6 1/2"

6 1/2" 1'-5" 7 1/2" 1'-4"
7"
C 9" C
3 1/4"
8"
10"
4 3/4"
1"
1'-8"
3" 1'-1"
3-#6 closed ties
1'-4 1/2" 1'-8"
10"
A B
1'-4 1/2"
1'-1"
6 1/2"
2" 1'-0 1/2" 2"
4" 2"
5 1/2"
A A
2'-0"
11"
7"
4"
1'-8"
9"
6 1/2"
4"
2" 4"
5 1/2"
6 1/2" 1'-5" 7 1/2" 1'-4"

6 3/4" 3" 6 3/4"
Plan View C-C
Figure 52. Concrete Dimensions of P-8-CT- F/U

A B
2'-0" 3'-11"
7 1/2" 9" 7 1/2" 7 1/2" 1'-3" 8 1/2" 1'-4"

3" C C
3 1/4"
8"
10"
4 3/4"
1"
1'-8"
3" 9" 3"
1'-4 1/2"
10"
1'-8"
Section B-B A
1'-4 1/2" B Section A-A

HSS 15 x 9 x 5/16
2" 1'-0 1/2" 2"

7 1/2"
4" 2"
5 1/2"
A A
2'-0"
9"
9"
4"
1'-8"
9"
4"
7 1/2"
2" 4"
5 1/2"
6 3/4" 3" 6 3/4"

7 1/2" 1'-3" 8 1/2" 1'-4"
Plan View C-C
Figure 53. Concrete Dimensions of P-8-ST- F/U

1'-7 1/2"
Section A-A Section A-A
1'-7 1/2"
Section B-B
2 1/4" 1'-7 1/2" 2 1/4"

1/2 in. thick plate
2 1/4"
Section B-B with 4- 3/4" f holes
8"
4 1/2"
1/2 in. diameter, 1 1/4"

28 in. long, 2'-0"
C C
threaded rod
6 1/2"
7 1/2"
A A A A
B B B B
2'-0"
2'-0"
11"
9"
7 1/2"
6 1/2"
6 1/2" 11" 6 1/2" 4" 1'-4" 7 1/2" 1'-3" 8 1/2" 1'-4"

Section C-C Section C-C
C C
Group #1 Specimens Group #2 Specimens
Figure 54. Typical Reinforcement of the Push-off Specimens

Specimen P-4-CT-U Specimen P-4-ST-U
Specimen P-8-CT-U Specimen P-8-ST-U
Figure 55. Fabrication of the Push-off Specimens

Figure 56. Welding of the 1¼ in. Studs and the Quality Control Tests

10
9
SS Mortar Grout
with pea gravel
8
7
Concrete Mix
Comp. Strength, ksi
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Age (days)
Figure 57. Compressive Strength versus Age of the Concrete Mix and Grout
4"
Test Cyclic load jack

L-beam specimen
Self equilibrium frame
Figure 58. Test Setup

(a) P-4-ST-U, Sp. A
(b) P-4-ST-U, Sp. B
(c) P-4-CT-U, Sp. A (d) P-4-CT-U, Sp. B
(e) P-4-ST-U, Sp. A
(f) P-4-ST-U, Sp. B
(g) P-8-CT-U, Sp. A (h) P-8-CT-U, Sp. B

Figure 59. Failure Modes of Group #1 Push-off Specimens
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000
0.000 0.00
-0.100 -0.10
-0.200 -0.20
Sp. B
-0.30
Displacement (in.)
-0.300
Displacement (in.)
Sp. A Sp. A Sp. B

-0.400 -0.40
-0.500 -0.50
-0.600 -0.60
-0.700 -0.70
-0.800 -0.80
Load (lb) Load (lb)
P-4-ST-U P-4-CT-U
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000
0.00
0.00
Sp. B
-0.10
-0.10
-0.20 -0.20
Sp. A
Sp. A
-0.30
Displacement (in.)
-0.30
Displacement (in.)
Sp. B
-0.40 -0.40
-0.50 -0.50
-0.60 -0.60
-0.70 -0.70
-0.80 -0.80
Load (lb) Load (lb)
P-8-ST-U P-8-CT-U
Figure 60. Load-Displacement Relationship of Group #1 Push-off Specimens

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
0 0
Before fatigue load
After fatigue load
-0.02 -0.02
Displacement (in.)
Displacement (in.)
-0.04 No results are available. -0.04
The specimen could not be tested

because the steel plate rotates in its
-0.06
horizontal plan. -0.06
-0.08 -0.08
-0.1 -0.1
Load (lbs) Load (lbs)
P-4-ST-F/U Sp. A P-4-ST-F/U Sp. B

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
0.00 0.00
Before fatigue ld. Before fatigue load

After fatigue ld. After fatigue load
-0.02 -0.02
Displacement (in.)
Displacement (in.)
-0.04 -0.04
-0.06 -0.06
The LVDT is dead

-0.08 -0.08
-0.10 -0.10
Load (lbs) Load (lbs)
P-4-CT-F/U Sp. A P-4-CT-F/U Sp. B

Figure 61. Load-Displacement Relationship of Group #2 Push-off Specimens due to Fatigue Load before and after the 2E+6 Cycles

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
0.00 0.00
Before fatigue load

-0.02 After fatigue load
-0.02
-0.04
No data was recorded for
Displacement (in.)
-0.04
Displacement (in.)
this specimen
-0.06
-0.06
-0.08
The LVDT was

dead -0.08
-0.10
-0.10
-0.12 Load (lbs)
Load (lbs)
P-8-ST-F/U Sp. A P-8-ST-F/U Sp. B
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
0.00 0.00
Before fatigue load
Before fatigue ld. After fatigue load
-0.02 -0.02
After fatigue ld.
Displacement (in.)
-0.04
Displacement (in.)
-0.04
-0.06
-0.06
-0.08
-0.08
-0.10
-0.10 Load (lbs)
Load (lbs)
P-8-CT-F/U Sp. A P-8-CT-F/U Sp. B

Figure 61 (cont.). Load-Displacement Relationship of Group #2 Push-off Specimens due to Fatigue Load before and after the 2E+6 Cycles

(a) P-4-ST-F/U Sp. A (b) P-4-ST-F/U Sp. B
(c) P-4-CT-F/U Sp. A
(d) P-4-CT-F/U Sp. B

Figure 62. Failure Modes of Group #2 Push-off Specimens

(e) P-8-ST-F/U Sp. A
(f) P-8-ST-F/U Sp. B
(g) P-8-CT-F/U Sp. A
(h) P-8-CT-F/U Sp. B

Figure 62 (cont.). Failure Modes of Group #2 Push-off Specimens

1'-0" 15 spacings @ 2 ft = 30 ft 1'-0"
32'-0"
A1 B1
4'-0"
3'-8"
A1 Beam #1 B1
2 ft 7 spacings @ 4 ft 2 ft
32'-0"
A2 B2
4'-0"
3'-8"
Beam #2 B2
A2
N No. 6 Closed Ties Confinment HSS 13x9x5/16 Tube Confinment S
Top layer of reinforcement (6"x6"-W10xW10, Length = 31'-8", Width = 3'-8")
Bottom layer of reinforcement (6"x6"-W14xW14, Length = 31'-8", Width = 3'-8")
Figure 63. Arrangement of Stud Clusters of Beam #1 and #2

4'-0" 4'-0"
11 1/2" 11 1/2"
2"
2"
3"
3"
3" 3"
1/2" 1/2"
8"
8"
5"
5"
4 1/2" 4 1/2"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1" 1"
3-#4 closed ties 5" HSS 9x7x0.188 5"

with 1 in.
clear spacing 9" 9"
1'-7"
1'-7"
Section A1-A1 Section B1-B1
11 1/4" 11 1/4"
W18x119 W18x119
1'-1 3/4"
3/4"
2" 3" 2"
2" 3" 2"

1'-1 3/4"
9 1/2"
7"
7"
3/4"
2" 5" 2" 2" 5" 2"
HSS 9x7x0.188
#4 closed ties
9" 9"
11 1/2"
Figure 64. Sections A1-A1 and B1-B1

4'-0" 4'-0"
11 1/2"
2"
2"
3"
3"
3" 3"
1/2" 1/2"
8"
8"
5"
5"
4 1/2" 4 1/2"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1" 1"
3-#6 closed ties 5" HSS 13x9x5/16 5"

with 1 in.
clear spacing 9" 9"
1'-7"
1'-7"
Section A2-A2
11 1/4" 11 1/4" Section B2-B2
W18x119 W18x119
1'-1 5/8"
2" 3" 3" 3" 2"
2" 3" 3" 3" 2"

1'-9 3/4"
1'-3 1/2"
1'-1"
1'-1"
HSS 13x9x5/16
2" 5" 2" 2" 5" 2"
#6 closed ties
9" 9"
11 1/2"
Figure 65. Sections A2-A2 and B2-B2

9
SS Mortar Grout
8
without pea gravel
Panel Concrete
7 Mix
6
Strength (ksi)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Age (days)
Figure 66. Forming and Casting of the Precast Concrete Panels

Figure 67. Building the Composite Beams

P fatigue upper limit = 88 kips
341 ft-kip 341 ft-kip

682 ft-kip
Bending moment
+ 44 kips Shear force
- 44 kips
15.5 ft 15.5 ft
Beff. = 4'-0"
n Beff. slab = 9.07"
n Beff. haunch = 1.89" 8.72"
8"
N.A.
1"
10"
19.28"
19"
W18x119
1.06"
11 1/4"
Figure 68. Elastic Properties of the Composite Section

Figure 69. Fatigue Test Setup
Figure 70. Fatigue Fracture of the Steel Beam and Separation between the Haunch and the Steel Beam

Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi)
-2.000 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 -2.000 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000
0 0
2 2
4 4
6 6
8 8
Distance from top fiber (in.)

Theoretic
Theoretic
10 10
12 12
14 14
16 16 Pre-
fatigue
18 18
Pre- Post-
20 20 fatigue
fatigue
22 22
24 Post- 24
fatigue
26 26
28 28
North side (Ties)

Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi)
-5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 -5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000
0 0
2 2
4 4
6 6
Theoretical
8 8
Theoretical 10
10
12 12
Pre-
14 14 fatigue
16 16
Pre-
fatigue
18 18
Post-
20 fatigue
20
22 22
Post-
24 24
fatigue
26 26
28 28
Midspan Section
Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi)
-2.000 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000
-2.000 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000
0
0
2
2
4
4
6
6
8
8
Theoretical
10
10
Theoretical
12
12
14 14
16 16 Pre-
Pre- fatigue
18 fatigue 18
20 20
Post-
22 22 fatigue
24 24
Post-
fatigue
26 26
28 28
South Side (Tube)

2-ft cluster spacing 4-ft cluster spacing
Figure 71. Composite Section Stresses (Theoretical and Pre- and Post Fatigue)

0.600
Theoretical Pre- Post-

0.500 Fatigue Fatigue
0.450
0.431 0.437
0.400
Pre- Post- Pre- Post-

Deflection (in.)
Theoretical Theoretical
Fatigue Fatigue Fatigue Fatigue
0.296 0.296 0.293
0.300 0.285
0.261 0.268
0.200
0.100
0.000
North side (ties) Midspan South side (tube)
2-ft cluster spacing

0.600
Theoretical Pre- Post-

Fatigue Fatigue
0.500 0.480
0.470
0.431
0.400
Pre- Post- Theoretical Pre- Post-
Theoretical
Deflection (in.)
Fatigue Fatigue Fatigue Fatigue

0.306 0.301 0.301 0.303
0.296 0.296
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
North side (ties) Midspan South side (tube)
4-ft cluster spacing

Figure 72. Composite Section Deflection (Theoretical and Pre- and Post Fatigue)

Figure 73. Ultimate Test Arrangement of Beam #1

Figure 74. Ultimate Test Arrangement of Beam #2

0.85x8.2 ksi
4'-0"
P concrete
5 1/4"
8"
Plastic NA
1"
19" 10"
P steel
W18x119
1.06"
50 ksi
11 1/4"
Figure 75. Stress Distribution at Plastic Stage

Beam #1-North
Beam #1-South
Beam #2-North Beam #2-South

Figure 76. Failure Modes of the Full-scale Beams
Beam #1 (2-ft stud cluster spacing)
Beam #2 (4-ft stud cluster spacing)
Figure 77. Bursting Longitudinal Cracks on Top surface of the Slab

100%
2 ft spacing
90%
withTube
80%
2 ft spacing
with Ties
70%
4 ft spacing
M applied / Mn (%)
60%
withTube
50%
40%
30%
4 ft spacing
20%
with Ties
10%
0%
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
Displacement (in.)
Figure 78. Load-Deflection Relationship of the Full-scale Beams

100%
90% 2 ft spacing
withTube
2 ft spacing
80% with Ties
70%
M applied / Mn (%)
60% 4 ft spacing
with Ties
50% 4 ft spacing
withTube
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Relative Dsiplacement (in.)
Figure 79. Load- Horizontal Slip Relationship of the Full-scale Beams

Strain x 1E+6
-2,000 -1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
0
4
Mapplied/Mn = 17%
6 Mapplied/Mn = 35%
Mapplied/Mn = 52%
8
Mapplied/Mn = 70%
10 Mapplied/Mn = 87%
Mapplied/Mn = 100%
12
Depth (in.)
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Beam #1-North (2ft with Ties)

Strain x 1E+6
-2,000 -1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
0
4
Mapplied/Mn = 17%
6 Mapplied/Mn = 35%
Mapplied/Mn = 52%
8
Mapplied/Mn = 70%
Mapplied/Mn = 100%
12
Depth (in.)
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Beam #1-South (2ft with Tube)

Figure 80. Strain Distribution of the Full-scale Beam #1

Strain x 1E+6
-1,500 -1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
0
4
Mapplied/Mn = 12%
6 Mapplied/Mn = 24%
Mapplied/Mn = 36%
8
Mapplied/Mn = 47%
Mapplied/Mn = 71%
12
Depth (in.)
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Beam #2-North (4ft with Ties)

Strain x 1E+6
-1,500 -1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
0
4
Mapplied/Mn = 12%
6 Mapplied/Mn = 24%
Mapplied/Mn = 36%
8
Mapplied/Mn = 47%
Mapplied/Mn = 71%
12
Depth (in.)
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Beam #2-South (4ft with Tube)

Figure 81. Strain Distribution of the Full-scale Beam #2

Figure 82. Shear Studs after Deck Panel Removal

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED FUTURE
RESEARCH
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations presented below are given separately for
individual areas of this research:
Panel-To-Panel Connection Details using Conventional Reinforcement
1. Full-depth precast concrete panels can be effectively connected with conventional
reinforcing bars.
2. Bar splice length can be significantly reduced through use of Hollow Structural Steel
(HSS) tubes, which effectively confine the grout surrounding the bars. In this
research, two panel-to-panel connection details were successfully developed utilizing
a 4-in. (102 mm) long cut of an HSS 4x12x3/8 in. (102x305x10 mm) tube, as follow:
The first connection detail requires threading a No. 6 (19) reinforcing bar, which
extends about 7½ in. (190 mm) outside the panel to be installed, into the old
panel, which results in a 6-in. (152 mm) bar embedment length. The testing
program has shown that this embedment distance is adequate to develop the bar
yield strength. However, this connection detail requires tilting of the panel to be
installed.
The second connection detail allows vertical installation of the new panels, where
a No. 6 (19) bar is embedded 11 in. (280 mm) in the HSS tube, in each of the
mating joints. After a new panel is installed, a 24-in. (610 mm) No. 6 (19) long
splice bar is dropped through a vertical slot, which results in an 11 in. (280 mm)
splice length. The testing program has shown that this splice length is adequate to
develop the bar yield strength.
3. The research provided a mathematical model to estimate the required development
length of bars confined with HSS tube. The model uses the development length
formula currently used by the AASHTO LRFD Specifications, modified for the type
of confinement used in this research.
4. The research provided a procedure to calculate the shear capacity of the reinforced
joint and check it against the LRFD Specifications requirements. The procedure is
based on the shear friction theory already covered in the LRFD Specifications.
Panel-to-Concrete Girder Connection Detail
A new connection detail was developed, where clusters of three double head 1¼
in. (31.8 mm) studs are used. The clusters are spaced at 48 in. (1220 mm). This
connection detail opens the way of using full-depth precast deck panels for concrete
girders. Additional reinforcement was shown to be necessary in the web to help reach the
capacity of the studs and distribute the concentrated stud stresses into the beam. Article
5.8.4.1 of the LRFD Specifications can be used to determine the horizontal shear capacity

of the new detail. A group of three 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs clustered at 48 in. (1220 mm)
was found sufficient for bridges with spans up to 130 ft (39.6 m), girder spacing up to 11
ft (3.35 m), and designed in accordance with the LRFD Specifications.
Panel-to-Steel Girder Connection Detail
A new connection detail was developed, where clusters of eight 1¼ in. (31.8 mm)
studs at 48 in. (1220 mm) spacing were used. HSS tubes or individual closed ties were
shown to be effective in confining the grout surrounding the studs. Experimental and
analytical investigation of the new connection detail showed that:
1. The confinement provided by the HSS tubes or closed ties was effective in
distributing the shear force among the studs in each cluster, and in protecting the
grout at the base of each stud against crushing. If closed ties are used, the lowest tie
should be placed as close to the top surface of the girder as possible.
2. Equation 6.10.10.2-1 of the LRFD Specifications, that is currently used to estimate
the fatigue capacity, does not require modification for design of stud clusters at 4 ft
(1220 mm) spacing.
3. Equation 5.8.4.1-1 of the LRFD Specifications may be used to estimate the ultimate
capacity of stud clusters at 4 ft (1220 mm) spacing. Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 should
not be used for stud clusters at 2 ft (1220 mm) or greater spacing. This
recommendation is expected to result in about 30 percent increase in the required
number of studs.
4. The recommendation just given above is based on the results of the of push-off
testing of stud groups at 4-ft (1220 mm) spacing, which gave about 30 percent lower
capacity than the current LRFD equation for single studs. The conclusion may be
unnecessarily conservative as the authors do not believe that the push-off testing is as
realistic in modeling beam behavior as actual beam test, which showed no reduction
in capacity due to use of stud clusters. However, the authors believe that it is a
conservative approach and it does not significantly impact the overall economy of
bridges.
Recommended Guidelines for Full-Depth, Precast-Concrete Bridge Deck Panel
Systems
Recommended guidelines for design, detailing, fabrication and construction of
full-depth, precast-concrete bridge deck panel systems were developed. The guidelines
cover non-proprietary full-depth, precast-concrete bridge deck panel systems. Individual
deck construction projects may have their own unique features and constraints, which
may affect the design, fabrication and construction process. The reader should, therefore,
evaluate the relevance of the provisions in accordance with the project requirements.
Proposed AASHTO LRFD Revisions to Section 9
Proposed revisions to Section 9 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications were
developed to help provide minimum design requirements. The revisions reflect the
findings that were collected from the literature review, national survey and the
experimental and analytical investigation conducted in this research. Also, explicitly

covering precast full depth panel systems in the Specifications should help promote more
extensive application of these relatively new systems.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The recommendation of using Equation 5.8.4.1-1 of the LRFD Specifications (7)
to estimate the ultimate capacity of stud clusters at 4 ft (1220 mm) spacing instead of
Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1, is based on push-off specimen testing, and may result in using as
many as 30 percent more studs than in conventional single stud applications. However,
this recommendation may be too conservative as full scale composite beam testing
revealed no reduction in fatigue or strength capacity as determined by current LRFD
Specifications for single stud design. The authors believe that the push-off specimens are
not as accurate as beams in modeling interface shear behavior in beams. The loading
arrangement and the limited specimen size do not provide the true shear/flexure
interaction or the redundancy that exists in the more expensive beam testing. Therefore,
the authors recommend additional full-scale beam testing if a less conservative approach
than that recommended here is desired.
The authors recommend that a follow up study of an actual demonstration bridge
projects be used to implement the results of this research to observe interaction of the
various system components under actual field conditions.

REFERENCES
1. Yamane, T.; Tadros, M. K.; Badie, S. S., and Baishya, M.C. “Full-Depth Precast Prestressed
Concrete Bridge Deck System.” Prestressed/Precast Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 43,
No. 3, (May-June, 1998), pp. 50-66.
2. Tadros, M. K. and Baishya, M. C., “Rapid Replacement of Bridge Decks.” NCHRP Report 407,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (1998).
3. Badie, S. S.; Baishya, M. C, and Tadros, M. K. “NUDECK- An Efficient and Economical
Precast Bridge Deck System.” Prestressed/Precast Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 43,
No. 5 (September-October, 1998) pp. 56-74.
4. Bassi, K. G.; Badie, S. S.; Baishya, M. C, and Tadros, M. K. “Discussion: NUDECK- An
Efficient and Economical Precast Bridge Deck System.” Prestressed/Precast Concrete Institute
(PCI) Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2 (March-April, 1999) pp. 94-95.
5. Badie, S. S.; Baishya, M. C; and Tadros, M. K., “Innovative Bridge Panel System A Success.”
CONCRETE INTERNATIONAL, V. 21, No. 6 (June 1999) pp. 51-54.
6. Fallaha, S., Suc; C.; Lafferty, M. D.; and Tadros, M. K., “High Performance Precast Concrete
NUDECK Panel System for Nebraska’s Skyline Bridge.” Prestressed/Precast Concrete
Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5 (September-October, 2004) pp. 40-50.
7. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 3rd Edition (2004) with the 2005 & 2006 Interim
Revisions.
8. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washing-ton, D.C., 2nd Edition (2004) with the 2006 Interim
Revisions.
9. Anderson, A. R., “Systems Concepts for Precast and Prestressed Concrete Bridge
Construction.” Special Report 132, System Building for Bridges, Highway Research Board,
Washington, DC (1972), pp. 9-21.
10. Biswas, Mrinmay, “Precast Bridge Deck Design Systems.” Special Report, PCI Journal,
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), V. 21, No. 2 (March-April, 1986) pp. 40-94.
11. Babaei, K., Fouladgar, A., and Nicholson, R., “Nighttime Bridge Deck Replacement with Full
Depth Precast Concrete Panels at Route 7 over Route 50, Fairfax County, Virginia.”
Transportation Research Board, 80th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (January 7-11, 2001)
Paper #01-0196.
12. Culmo, M. P., "Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Using Precast Concrete Slabs." Connecticut
Department of Transportation, 8th Annual International Bridge Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (June 10-12, 1991).
13. Donnaruma, R. C., "A Review of the Department of System for Precast Deck Replacement for
Composite I-Beam Bridges," Report to the Research Committee, International Bridge, Tunnel &
Turnpike Association, Chicago, Illinois (August, 1974).
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, References 153

14. Donnaruma, Robert C. "Performance of Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panels on the New York
Thruway.” Report presented at Session 187, 62nd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research
Board, Washington DC (January, 1983).
15. Farago, B.; Agarwal, A. C.; Brown, J.; and Bassi, K. G., "Precast Concrete Deck Panels for
Girder Bridges." Special Report, Ministry of Transportation Of Ontario (1992).
16. Issa, M., A., et al, “State-of-the-art Report: Full Depth Precast and Precast, Prestressed Concrete
Bridge Deck Panels.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1,
(January-February, 1995) pp. 59-80.
17. Kropp, P. K.; Milinski, E. L.; Gulzwiller, M. J.; and Lee, R. B., "Use Of Precast Prestressed
Concrete For Bridge Decks." Joint Highway Research Project conducted by Engineering
Experiment Station, Purdue University, in cooperation with the Indiana State Highway
Commission and the Federal Highway Administration. Final Report, (July, 1975, revised
December, 1976).
18. Lutz, J. G.; Scalia D. J., "Deck Widening and Replacement of Woodrow Wilson Memorial
Bridge." Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3 (May-June, 1984)
pp. 74-93.
19. Salvis, C., "Precast Concrete Deck Modules for Bridge Deck Reconstruction." Transportation
Research record 871, Segmental and System Bridge Construction; Concrete Box Girder and
Steel Design, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1982. pp. 30-33.
20. Togashi, M.; Ota, T.; Hiyama, Y.; Furumura, T.; and Konishi, T., "Application of Precast Slab
and Sidewall to Construction of Bridge." Journal of Prestressed Concrete, Japan Prestressed
Concrete Engineering Association, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb., 1993) pp. 22-32.
21. Nottingham, D., “Joint Grouting in Alaska Bridges and Dock Decks.” CONCRETE
INTERNATIONAL, Vol. 18, No. 2 (February, 1996) pp. 45-48.
22. Gulyas, R. J., “Precast Bridge Decks: Keyway Grouting Data.” CONCRETE
INTERNATIONAL, Vol. 18, No. 8 (August, 1996).
23. Issa, M., A.; et al, “Performance of Transverse Joint Grout Materials in Full-Depth Precast
Concrete Bridge Deck Systems.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 48,
No. 4 (July-August, 2003) pp. 92-103.
24. Sprinkel, M. M., “Evaluation of Latex-Modified and Silica Fume Concrete Overlays Placed on
Six Bridges in Virginia.” Final report, Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC),
Report No. 01-R3 (August, 2000).
25. Sprinkel, M. M., “High Performance Concrete Overlays for Bridges.” Concrete Bridge
Conference/PCI Annual Convention, Orlando, Florida (2003).
26. Menkulasi, F.; and Roberts-Wollmann, C. L., “Behavior of Horizontal Shear Connectors for
Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Decks on Prestressed I-Girders.” Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 50, No. 3 (May-June, 2005) pp. 60-73.
27. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 17th Edition (2002).

28. Newmark, N. M.; and Siess, C. P., “Design of Slab and Stringer Highway Bridges.” Public
Roads, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1943).
29. Viest, I. M.; and Siess, C. P., “Composite Construction for I-Beam Bridges.” Highway Research
Board Proceedings, Vol. 32 (1953).
30. Viest, I. M.; and Siess, C. P., “Design of Channel Shear Connectors for Composite I-Beam
Bridges.” Public Roads, Vol. 28, No. 1 (1954).
31. Issa, M. A.; Patton, T. A.; Abdalla, H. A.; Youssif, A. A; and Issa, M. A., “Composite Behavior
of Shear Connections in Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panels on Steel Stringers.”
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5 (September-October,
2003) pp. 76-89.
32. Markowski, S. M.; Ehmke, F. G.; Oliva, M. G.; Carter III, J. W.; Bank, L.C.; Russell, J.S.;
Woods, S.; and Becker; R., “Full-Depth, Precast, Prestressed Bridge Deck Panel System for
Bridge Construction in Wisconsin.” Proceeding of The PCI/National Bridge Conference, Palm
Springs, CA (October 16-19, 2005).
33. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,
Published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington DC (2000).
34. Badie, S. S.; Tadros, M. K.; Kakish, H. F.; Splittgerber, D. L.; and Baishya, M. C, “Large Studs
for Composite Action in Steel Bridge Girders.” Bridge Journal, American Society of Civil
Engineering (ASCE), Vol. 7, No. 3 (May-June, 2002) pp. 195-203.
35. PCI Bridge Design Manual, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), Chicago, IL, 2nd
edition (2003).
36. Tadros, M. K.; Badie, S. S.; and Kamel, M. R., "A New Connection Method for Rapid Removal
of Bridge Decks." Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 47, No. 3 (May-
June, 2002) pp. 2-12.
37. “Standard Practice for Laboratory Testing of Bridge Decks.” ASTM D6275-2003, American
Standards of Testing and Materials (ASTM), Washington, DC (2003).
38. Saatcioglu, M., et al. “Displacement-Based Design of Reinforcement Concrete Columns for
Confinement”. ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, January-February (2002).
39. Sun, C.; Girgis, A.; Tadros, M. K.; and Badie, S. S, “Structural Behavior of Flexural Member
with High Strength Concrete.” Proceeding of PCI/National Bridge Conference, Atlanta, GA
(October 17-20, 2004).
40. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI318-05, American
Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, MI 48333-9094 (2005).
41. Fallaha, S.; Sun, C.; Lafferty, M. D.; and Tadros, M. K., “ High Performance Precast Concrete
NUDECK Panel System for Nebraska’s Skyline Bridge.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete
42. Badie, S. S.; Girgis, A.; Nguyen, N.; and Tadros, M. K., “Development and Application of
Large-size Shear Studs to Steel Girder Bridges.” Engineering Journal, American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC), accepted for publication in (2006).

43. Oehlers, D. J. and Bradford, M. A., “Elementary Behavior of Composite Steel & Concrete
Structural Members.” Elsevier Science, United Kingdom, Digital Print (2002).
44. Oehlers, D. J. and Bradford, M. A., “Composite Steel & Concrete Structural Members,
Fundamental Behavior.” Elsevier Science, United Kingdom, 2nd edition (2004).
45. Ollgaard, J. G.; Slutter, R. G.; and Fisher, J. W., “Shear Strength of Stud Connectors in
Lightweight and Normal Density Concrete.” Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC), Vol. 8, (1971) pp. 55-64.
46. Viest, I. M., “Investigation of Stud Shear Connectors for Composite Concrete and Steel T-
beams.” American Concrete Institute (ACI) Journal, (April, 1956) pp. 875-891.
47. Badie, S.S.; and Tadros, M.K., "I-Girder/Deck Connection for Efficient Deck Replacement."
Final Report, Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), Project No. PR-PL-1(035)P516
(December, 2000).
48. Oehlers, D. J. and Johnson, R. P., “The Strength of Stud Shear Connectors in Composite
Beams.” The Structural Engineer (1987).

APPENDIX A
NATIONAL SURVEY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
A.1 NATIONAL SURVEY.................................................................................................. A-1
A.1.1 Hard Copy Of The Survey ............................................................................... A-1
A.1.2 Summary Of The Survey Results ..................................................................... A-7
A.1.2.1 List Of States Where Full-Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panel
Systems In Highway Bridges Have Never Been Used During
The Last 10 Years And The Reasons Why This System Has
Not Been Used ............................................................................... A-7
A.1.2.2 List Of States Where Full-Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panel
Systems Have Been Used In Highway Bridges During The
Last 10 Years ................................................................................. A-8
A.1.2.3 Quantitative Summary Of The Survey .......................................... A-14
A.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
A.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... A-15
A.2.2 Bridges Built With Full-Depth Precast Panels Before 1973............................ A-15
A.2.3 Bridges Built With Full-Depth Precast Panels Between 1973 And 1994......... A-16
A.2.3.1 California Department Of Transportation...................................... A-16
A.2.3.2 Connecticut Department Of Transportation................................... A-16
A.2.3.3 Indiana State Highway Commission ............................................. A-18
A.2.3.4 Maryland State Highway Administration...................................... A-20
A.2.3.5 New York State Department Of Transportation ........................... A-22
A.2.3.6 New York State Thruway Authority ............................................ A-24
A.2.3.7 Pennsylvania Department Of Transportation................................. A-26
A.2.3.8 The Ministry Of Transportation Of Ontario, Canada .................... A-26
A.2.3.9 The Japanese Highway Public Corporation................................... A-28
A.2.4 Bridges Built With Full-Depth Precast Panels Between 1994 And Present
Time .............................................................................................................. A-30
A.2.4.1 Alaska Department Of Transportation .......................................... A-30
A.2.4.2 Colorado Department Of Transportation....................................... A-37
A.2.4.3 District Of Columbia, Dc.............................................................. A-40
A.2.4.4 Illinois Department Of Transportation .......................................... A-54
A.2.4.5 Kentucky Department Of Highways ............................................ A-57
A.2.4.6 Missouri Department Of Transportation ...................................... A-61
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix A A-i

A.2.4.7 Montana Department Of Transportation ....................................... A-64
A.2.4.8 Nebraska Department Of Roads.................................................... A-68
A.2.4.9 New Hampshire Department Of Transportation ............................ A-73
A.2.4.10 New York Department Of Transportation ..................................... A-78
A.2.4.11 Texas Department Of Transportation............................................ A-84
A.2.4.12 Utah Department Of Transportation.............................................. A-87
A.2.4.13 Virginia Department Of Transportation ........................................ A-92
A.2.4.14 Wisconsin Department Of Transportation..................................... A-96
A.2.4.15 Ontario Ministry Of Transportation .............................................. A-99
A.2.5 Miscellaneous Full-Depth Concrete Precast Deck Systems ......................... A-101
A.2.5.1 Full-Depth Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridge Deck System
Developed By University Of Nebraska ....................................... A-101
A.2.5.2 The Effideck System .................................................................. A-105
A.3 SHEAR KEY GEOMETRY, JOINT FORMING AND GROUT MATERIAL............ A-111
A.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. A-111
A.3.2 Shear Key Shape.......................................................................................... A-111
A.3.2.1 Non-Grouted Match-Cast Joint ................................................... A-111
A.3.2.2 Grouted Female-To-Female Joints.............................................. A-112
A.3.3 Shear Key Texture ....................................................................................... A-113
A.3.4 Grout Material ............................................................................................. A-114
A.3.4.1 Commercial Products ................................................................. A-114
A.3.4.2 Non-Commercial Grout Material ................................................ A-115
A.3.4.3 Recent Research Related To Grouting Material .......................... A-116
A.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................... A-120
A.5 REFERENCES OF APPENDIX A ............................................................................ A-120
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix A A-ii

APPENDIX A
NATIONAL SURVEY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
(References that are used in this appendix are listed at the end of the appendix)
A.1 NATIONAL SURVEY
Limited publications, on bridges built with precast panels between 1994 and the present time,
were available in the literature. Therefore, the research team prepared a national survey to collect
this information. The survey was sent to the state DOTs in the United States and Canada,
members of the PCI Bridge Committee, members of the TRB A2C03 Concrete Bridges
Committee, consulting firms and precast concrete producers. The following sections give the
survey and a summary of its results.
A.1.1 Hard Copy of the Survey
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix A A-1

SURVEY
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Project No. 12-65

“Full-Depth, Precast-Concrete Bridge Deck Panel Systems”
Name of the respondent:

Title:
Address:
Phone number:
Fax number:
E-mail:
Please, send all replies and questions to:

Dr. Sameh S. Badie
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
The George Washington University
801 Twenty Second Street, NW
Academic Center, Suite 638
Washington DC 20052
Phone: 202-994-8803, Fax: 202-994-0127, E-mail: badies@gwu.edu
If you prefer to provide your response electronically, you can download this document
from the following website
http://www.geocities.com/badies_2000/NCHRP_12_65_Survey
and send it back to
badies@gwu.edu
Please, respond by August 15, 2003

Introduction
This survey is part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Project 12-65, “Full-Depth, Precast-Concrete Bridge Deck Panel Systems,” sponsored by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The project contractor is the George Washington
University (GWU), Washington DC. Your response to this survey is greatly appreciated.
Full-depth precast concrete panels provide an efficient, quick and reliable system for the
construction of bridge decks, especially for deck replacement projects in high traffic areas. This
is because no cast-in-place (CIP) concrete is needed except for small joints between the
prefabricated pieces. In addition, the prefabricated pieces are produced under high quality control
in precast concrete plants, which results in highly durable products. Also, precast concrete deck
panels undergo little shrinkage, and creep at the time they are installed on a bridge. Further, the
temperature drop experienced in cast-in-place concrete following the intense heat of hydration
can create excessive thermal stresses that do not exist in pre-cured precast concrete.
Most currently used precast deck panel systems require use of longitudinal post-
tensioning or composite concrete overlays, or both. This tends to slow down construction due to
the post-tensioning and curing operations. It also reduces the flexibility required in over-night
and weekend replacement projects.
The objectives of the research project are to:
(1) Develop and evaluate connection details for full-depth precast concrete deck systems
that can be used with steel and prestressed concrete girders, (2) Develop recommended
guidelines for design, fabrication, and construction of full-depth precast concrete bridge deck
panel systems, and (3) Develop recommended specification language and commentary for the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction
Manual necessary to implement the recommended systems. The Emphasis of this project will be
on systems that do not require longitudinal full-length post-tensioning or concrete overlays.

Q1: Has your organization used any full-depth precast concrete deck panel systems in
highway bridges during the last 10 years?
Yes _____
No _____ (please, give reasons):
Incremental cost
Lack of specifications or guidelines
Unsatisfactory performance in the past
Other (specify)
Q2: Approximately, how many bridges, utilizing full-depth precast concrete panels, have
you constructed during the last 10 years? ______
Q3: Approximately, how many square feet of full-depth precast concrete panels have you
constructed in the past 10 years? _____ sq. ft
Q4: Of the bridges listed in answer to Questions 3 & 4, please, indicate the type of
transverse (normal to traffic direction) reinforcement.
Pretensioned in the precast yard %
Post-tensioned in the field %
Conventionally reinforced %
Partially pretensioned and partially conventionally reinforced %
Other (specify) %
Q5: How were the panels connected in the longitudinal direction (parallel to the traffic
direction)?
Using longitudinal post-tensioning %
Splicing reinforcing bars using commercial mechanical couplers %
Using special mechanical devices %
Other (please specify) %
Q6: What is the percentage of the systems built compositely with the supporting
girders? %

Q7: Did you use an overlay?
Yes _____ (if Yes, please, provide the overlay type and percent of decks)
Asphalt % Thickness
Concrete % Thickness
Other (specify) % Thickness
No ____ (If No, did you provide special treatment to the top surface of the precast panels
to provide for ride-ability?
Yes No
If yes, what type? Roughening in the precast plant during production
Grooving in the precast plant during production
Grinding in the field after construction
Sand blasting in the field after construction
Other (specify)
Q8: What is your overall evaluation of the performance of full-depth precast concrete
deck panels?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please comment and indicate whether or not you will use full depth precast deck panel
systems again in future projects:
Q9: Have you developed guidelines or specifications for design, fabrication or construction
of full depth precast concrete panel systems?
Yes (please, attach a copy of the specifications)
No

Q10: Successful grouting of the panel-to-panel and the deck-girder joints is considered one
of the key elements of having a durable and high performance deck. Have you
developed specifications for the grout properties and the grouting process?
Yes (please, attach a copy of the specifications)
No
Q11: In order to simplify the connection between the concrete deck and the steel girders
and to facilitate deck removal in the future, the state of Nebraska has used 1¼ in.
diameter steel studs successfully. One 1¼ in. steel stud is equivalent to two 7/8 in.
studs. Do you see any problems with use of individual or clustered 1¼ in. steel studs
with full depth precast deck panels.
Yes
No (please, give reasons)
Q12: AASHTO Specifications stipulate a maximum spacing of the shear connectors

between the girder and the deck of 24 inches. Relaxing this limit could simplify deck
placement and removal. Do you see a need for research on the performance of shear
connectors at 4, 6 or even 8 feet?
Yes No
Please comment:
Q13: Please, provide the name, phone number and e-mail address of one person on your
staff who can help in answering questions on issues related to design and construction
with precast concrete deck panels.
Name:
Title:
Phone:
E-mail:
Q14: Are you interested in receiving a copy of the findings of this survey?
Yes No
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP

A.1.2 Summary of the Survey Results
A.1.2.1 List Of States Where Full-Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panel Systems In Highway
Bridges Have Never Been Used During The Last 10 Years And The Reasons Why This
System Has Not Been Used
• Alberta, AB (CANADA): Incremental Cost and Lack of specifications and guidelines.
• Arizona Department of Transportation (AZDOT): Due to the construction issues and
performance.
• California Department of Transportation (CADOT): Incremental cost and Lack of
specifications or guidelines.
• Florida Department of Transportation (FLDOT): Tried half-depth panels and were
unsatisfied.
• Hawaii Department of Transportation (HIDOT): Lack of specifications or Guidelines.
• Kansas Department of Transportation (KSDOT)
- Building joints into a deck system (Even with an overlay – reflective cracks)
- Long-term performance vs. speed of construction does not warrant their use. We would
probably require post-tensioning and an overlay.
- The ability to obtain a smooth riding deck without an overlay.
- Future maintenance considerations.
- Obtaining composite action with the girder.
- Grout between the deck panels and the girders.
• Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MADOT): Expensive and the large number of
joints.
• Maryland Department of Transportation (MDDOT)
- They have used this type of design in the past and consider it a viable technique.
- They have not had a suitable application in the last 10 years, however, and so have no
nearest experience to relate.
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT)
- No experience.
- Considering this design for future projects.
• Mississippi Department of Transportation (MSDOT): They have had satisfactory
performance with CIP concrete decks.
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT): Lack of specifications or
guidelines.
• North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT): Believe that cast in place decks
provide better, maintenance-free service than precast panels.

• New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT): They have selected CIP decks using
HPC over precast due to cost and surfacing issues.
• New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT): Lack of specifications or guidelines.
• Nevada Department of Transportation (NVDOT): Lack of Experience.
• Ohio Department of Transportation (OHDOT): Evaluated the use of full depth panels on an
ODOT bridge study. They did not compete in cost with Spliced Deck Bulb-Ts.
• Ontario Department of Transportation (ONDOT)(CANADA)
- They have used this system on one span of a three span bridge as a trial 10 years ago.
- Because of higher cost they did not use this approach on other bridges.
• Oregon Department of Transportation (ORDOT): Concerned about surface smoothness.
• Tennessee Department of Transportation (TNDOT)
- If used as new installation, could not be readily replaced while maintaining traffic in the
future.
- Incremental cost and Lack of specifications or guidelines.
• Washington Department of Transportation (WADOT): In the only job designed to date (in
Washington State) as a full-depth precast deck slab, the contractors all bid on the CIP slab
option as being less expensive.
• Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WIDOT): Incremental cost and Lack of
specifications or guidelines
• Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT): Concern with joint integrity, salts
reaching the steel girders; no design or construction experience.
A.1.2.2 List Of States Where Full-Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panel System Has Been Used
In Highway Bridges During The Last 10 Years.
Alaska Department of Transportation (AKDOT)
Q1: 2 bridges
Q2: 10000 sq. ft
Q3: 100% Conventionally reinforced.
Q4: 100% by Grout keys
Q5: 100%
Q6: Roughening in the precast plant during production
Q7: GOOD
Q8: Used in remote locations where CIP concrete is unavailable. Plan to use more in
the future.
Q9: YES
Q10: YES

Q11: Perhaps, Precast deck panels are often HS concrete ( f c' > 6ksi). More studs are
required for strength limit.
Q12: YES
Q13: YES
Q14: no answer
California Department of Transportation (CALTRAN)
On a phone interview, the research team found that CALTRAN used a hollow core slab system.
Q1: N/A
Q2: N/A
Q3: 100% Pretensioned in the precast yard (panels)
100% transversely Post-tensioned in the field
Q4: Only used for small simple spans with no longitudinal joints.
Q5: 40%
Q6: 100% Polyester Concrete overlay of 1 in. thickness.
Q7: GOOD
Q8: NO
Q9: YES. Use standard specifications.
Q10: NO. But in general we use 7/8” studs and they perform well, if 1¼” used the
concrete slab has to be thick enough to carry the capacity of such stud.
Q11: YES. If such spacing is used, we require that a research done in this area before
we use it.
Q12: YES
Q13: no answer
Q14: YES
Colorado Department of Transportation (CODOT)
Q1: 1 bridge
Q2: 17,400 sq. ft
Q3: 100% Pretensioned in the precast yard.
Q4: 100% by hoop dowel and closure pour
Q5: 0%
Q6: 100% Asphalt with waterproof membrane overlay of 3” thickness.
Q7: GOOD
Q8: YES, faster.

Q9: NO
Q10: NO
Q11: NO, if there is an evidence of testing and performance.
Q12: YES
Q13: YES
Q14: YES
Illinois Department of Transportation (ILLDOT)
Q1: 4 bridges
Q2: 15,000 sq. ft
Q4: 100% using longitudinal post-tensioning
Q5: 100%
Q6: 100% concrete of 2½” thickness.
Q7: GOOD
Q8: YES
Q9: YES
Q10: Welding the larger 1¼-diameter studs may be a problem.
Q11: NO
Q12: YES
Q13: no answer
Q14: YES
Kentucky Department of Transportation (KYDOT)
Q1: 2 bridges
Q2: 270,000 sq. ft.
Q4: 50% splicing reinforcing bars using commercial mechanical couplers
Q5: 100%
Q6: 100% latex overlay of 1¼” thickness.
Q7: GOOD
Q8: Don’t know, will continue to evaluate. Will probably use again.
Q9: NO
Q10: NO
Q11: NO

Q12: NO. Would not recommend spacing over 24”.
Q13: YES
Q14: YES
New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT, CANADA)
Q1: 1 bridge
Q2: 4255 sq. ft.
Q3: 100% Post-tensioned in the field
100% Conventionally reinforced.
Q4: 100% using post-tensioning
Q5: 0%
Q6: 100% Asphalt overlay
Q7: GOOD
Q8: NO
Q9: NO
Q10: YES
Q11: no answer
Q12: no answer
Q13: no answer
Q14: YES
New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT)
Q1: 5 bridges
Q2: 900,000 sq. ft.
Q3: 20% conventionally reinforced.
80% post-tensioned in the precast yard in the transverse direction.
Q4: 80% using longitudinal post-tensioning
Q5: 100%
Q6: 20% asphalt and 80% concrete overlay with water proofing membrane.
Q7: GOOD
Q8: Based on our experience full-depth precast concrete systems perform very well
when the joints are leak proof. Post-tensioning across the joints seems to be the
best way to achieve this. Overlays improve riding quality and may also improve
durability.
Q9: YES

Q10: YES
Q11: NO. We have used clustered stud shear connectors and had no negative problems
from it.
Q12: NO. Shear connector design and detailing is not the main problem with this
system. Connections between the panels are the most vulnerable part of the
system.
Q13: YES
Q14: YES
Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT)
Q1: Only two projects in history of our department:
- SPUR 326 over ATOSF RR (1986) of our department
- A series of tied arches over US 59 on Houston (late 1990’s):4 bridges (Huzard,
Woodhead, Donlavy and Mindell st. over US 59)
Q2: 55,000 sq. ft. for 4 bridges mentioned above.
Q3: 100% pretensioned in the precast yard (Houston tied arches)
100% post-tensioned in the field (Houston tied arches)
The 1986 Lubbock project was conventionally reinforced in both directions.
Q4: 100% using longitudinal post-tensioning (Houston tied arches)
Q5: 0%. The Houston tied arches had precast panels that were attached to the tie of the
two parallel arches. No supporting girders were involved. The 1986 Lubbock
project was designed as a composite system.
Q6: 100% concrete overlay of 2” to 4” thickness
Q7: GOOD. Texas does not have the exposure condition as other states
Q8: They will be used where warranted due to difficult access, long length of
repetitive structure or urban environments that require minimal traffic disruption.
Where speed is not critical, the use of stay-in-place structural panels or steel deck
forms will probably still be the preferred system. The NUDECK system is
something we may explore.
Q9: YES
Q10: NO
Q11: NO. However, need to consider availability of installation equipment and
possibility of more defects in the fused metal of large diameter studs.
Q12: YES. Fewer connections translate into less area exposed to durability problem.
Need to ensure no serviceability problems are induced with wide spacing. Non-
composite systems should be addressed.
Q13: YES

Q14: YES
Utah Department of Transportation (UTDOT)
Q1: 1 project under design and 2 projects are anticipated in near future.
Project #1 (single span) Deck and superstructure are precast, under design
Project #2 (4-span continuous, 45degree skew) Deck rehab, plans and details of
this project will be received by the 1st week of October.
Project #3 (single span) Deck rehab, under design
Q2: Current designs are for conventionally reinforced and post tensioned in the field.
Q4: Second project will use longitudinal post tensioning
Q5: Will be 100% on both projects for seismic load transfer. Mill maximum ¼ in. of
the panel.
Q6: Will be co-polymer overlay of 3/8 in. thickness.
Q8: Planning on continued implementation. Look forward to results of this survey.
Q9: YES
Q10: YES
Q11: NO, Do not see any problems with their use.
Q12: YES. Composite action and horizontal load transfer needs to be investigated for
longer minimum spacing of shear connectors.
Q13: YES
Q14: YES
Virginia Department of Transportation (VADOT)
Q1: 2 projects. VADOT has used full depth precast panel systems in two projects.
These are the I-95 James River Bridge Replacement in Richmond and the Route 7
Bridge over Route 50 in Fairfax County.
Q2: See the paper by Babaei et al.
Q5: 100%
Q8: Mixed results with partial deck panels.
Q9: YES
Q10: YES
Q11: NO, Do not see any problems with their use.
Q12: YES
Q13: YES

Q14: YES
Precast Concrete Producers
Central Pre-Mix Prestress Co., Washington State
Q1: Manufactured full-depth precast concrete panels for 10 bridges.
Q2: 130,000 sq. ft.
Q3: 90% pretensioned in the precast yard
10% conventionally reinforced.
Q4: 5% using special mechanical devices
90% by spliced Dywidag bars
Q5: 90%
Q6: 9% asphalt overlay of thickness 2”-3”
10%concrete overlay of thickness 2”-3”
Q7: Excellent. No complaints received
Q8: N/A
Q9: N/A
Q10: NO
Q11: YES. Forming pockets, shooting studs and grouting pockets is expensive.
Q12: YES
Q13: no answer
Q14: YES
A.1.2.3 Quantitative Summary Of The Survey

Total number Percentage
Total number of surveys sent 110 ---
Response received 32 out of 110 35%
Never used full-depth precast deck panel systems before 22 out of 32 69%
Used this system in last 10 years 10 out of 32 31%
Do not see any problems with use of 1¼” diameter steel studs instead of 7/8” studs
9 out of 10 90%
A need for research on the performance of shear connectors at 4, 6 or even 8 feet
8 out of 10 80%
Interested in receiving summary of the survey 31 out of 32 97%

A.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
A.2.1 Introduction
Large-scale utilization of precast prestressed elements in bridge construction was started
in North America in the late sixties and early seventies (1). This was a direct result of the
significant amount of research conducted in the late sixties and the technological advances in the
areas of fabrication and transportation of precast concrete elements. Until the mid seventies, use
of precast concrete elements in bridges was relatively limited to the longitudinal girders, which
are the main supporting elements of the superstructure.
Over the time, bridge designers continued to gain appreciation of the benefits of using
precast elements, especially in the metropolitan cities where traffic volume has been growing at a
fast pace. Road closures for extended periods, for rehabilitation of existing bridges or
construction of new bridges, can cause serious inconvenience to the traveling public.
Public inconvenience and loss of income during bridge construction have been the
driving motives to explore rapid construction methods. Precast concrete bridge elements can be
used to effectively reduce construction time. A cast-in-place (CIP) concrete bridge deck slab
represents a significant part of the time required to complete a superstructure of a bridge. It
includes a time-consuming process of forming, reinforcing bar placement, concrete placement,
and an extended period of moist curing. As a result, use of full depth precast deck panels has the
potential of replacing CIP decks as a natural extension to the use of prefabricated girders in
bridges.
In the following four sections, a summary is given of the literature review of bridges built
with full depth precast concrete deck panels. For convenience, the summary is divided into three
time periods: before 1973, between 1973 and 1994, and between 1994 and the present time. The
goal of this summary is not to report all the bridges built with full depth precast panels, but to
show the diversity of the panel-to-panel and panel-to-superstructure connection details.
A.2.2 Bridges Built With Full-Depth Precast Panels Before 1973
Biswas (2) gave a comprehensive report on use of full depth, precast concrete bridge
deck panels in the United States. It included a limited coverage of projects before 1973. These
bridges were in Alabama, Indiana and New York. Biswas (2) summarized his finding of
applications of full depth precast panels in bridge deck construction prior to 1973 in the
following points:
1. The deck girder systems were primarily noncomposite.
2. The spans did not have any skews, or superelevations (due to horizontally curved
alignments).
3. More projects involved new construction than rehabilitation.
4. Fewer geometric fit-up problems were experienced with new construction than with
replacement deck.
5. This method of construction was used for both temporary and permanent bridges.
6. The structures Biswas (2) reported on had performed well.
7. Minor problems were mainly due to partial failure of panel-to-panel joints.

Follow-up phone interviews were conducted between the research team and the designers
in the agencies, where these bridges were built. The designers stated that they have believed that
partial failure of the panel-to-panel connections were a result of lack of longitudinal post-
tensioning and/or overlay.
A.2.3 Bridges Built With Full-Depth Precast Panels Between 1973 And 1994
Between 1973 and 1994, significant advances in the construction of full depth precast
concrete deck panels were made. Many major bridges were built during this period with precast
concrete panels. Some of them had spans over 1000 ft (305 m). Most of them were made
composite with the beams. The following sections give a summary of some of these bridges.
A.2.3.1 California Department of Transportation (3)
The I-80 overpass project, in Oakland, California, was completed without disruption of
traffic on the freeway. The bridge had 32 spans and some of them were skewed. Conventionally
reinforced concrete panels were used to replace only the outside southbound lane. Figure
A.2.3.1-1 shows the panel dimensions and details of the shear connections.
Figure A.2.3.1-1 Panel dimensions and cross section of the I-80 Overpass project
After the panels were temporarily seated, four shear studs were welded to the girders
through each pocket. Using two-headed bolts, the panels were leveled and the pockets between
girders and panels were filled with fast-setting concrete. No longitudinal post tensioning was
used across the transverse joints between panels. Early high strength cement mortar was cast to
fill the joints. Each day, the deck was removed in sections of 60 to 80 ft (18000 to 24000 mm)
long by 12 ft (3700 mm) wide. The new panels were 30 to 40 ft (9 to 12 meters) long with
oblong pockets for shear connectors.
A.2.3.2 Connecticut Department of Transportation (4)
The Connecticut Department of Transportation selected precast panels for redecking one
of its bridges on I-84 - Connecticut Route 8 Interchange (Bridge 03200). This bridge was a six-
span, composite plate girder bridge, which had a compound curvature and a vertical grade of
approximately 7 percent. The bridge was 27 ft 6 in. (8400 mm) wide and approximately 700 ft

(213000 mm) long. Four different roadways and a pedestrian bridge were located beneath the
structure, all of which had to remain in service during the redecking process.
The Connecticut DOT shut down the ramp for construction, using a nearby existing
detour. Two major reasons for avoiding night closures and day openings were: (1) the
superstructure was composite; therefore nighttime removal of existing deck would only be done
in small amounts due to the difficulty of demolishing areas around existing shear connectors; and
(2) night closure would leave a small non-composite section between the existing deck and new
deck when the bridge would be reopened. This resulted in unacceptable overstresses in the
girders of the non-composite section near mid-span.
Due to the fact the bridge was on a super elevated curvature with no crown, each panel
was designed as a trapezoid with a uniform thickness of 8 inch (200 mm). The reinforced
concrete panels were 8 ft (2400 mm) wide and 26 ft-8 in. (8200 mm) long as shown in Figure
A.2.3.2-1. A minimal amount of prestressing force was applied transversely to prevent cracking
during handling and installation.
Figure A.2.3.2-1 Typical precast panels of Bridge 03200

A leveling bolt was used to adjust the elevation and grade of the panels. Grout pockets
were provided for the shear connectors (Figure A.2.3.2-1). The transverse joints had a shear key
filled with high strength non-shrink grout. This left a 1/4 in. (6 mm) gap at the bottom of the key
to allow tolerance of the panel sizes (Figure A.2.3.2-2). For longitudinal post-tensioning, a stress
of 150 psi (1.0 MPa) was chosen arbitrarily in the positive moment zone. However, the
maximum post-tensioning stress of 300 psi (2.1 MPa) was needed to maintain the transverse
joints in compression under dead and live loads in the negative moment zone.
Figure A.2.3.2-2 Transverse joint detail

The roadways and pedestrian bridge beneath the construction area were shielded from
falling debris. The precast panels were placed one span at a time and adjusted to grade using the
leveling bolts, Figure A.2.3.2-3 and the post-tensioning strands were inserted in oversized ducts
through the panels. The panels were post-tensioned after the grout in the transverse joint
demonstrated the designated compressive strength.
Figure A.2.3.2-3 Leveling bolt detail of Bridge 03200

Shear connectors were placed through the pockets in the panels and filled with flowable
high strength non-shrink grout (Figure A.2.3.2-4). After installing the precast panels for one
span, a small CIP closure section of the deck was poured.
Reconstruction of the entire bridge was accomplished in 48 calendar days, which
included 5 days of minimal work due to inclement weather. Work was not performed on most
weekends; however, some night work was done in demolition of the existing deck. The cost of
the CIP deck including demolition, parapets, and wearing surface was approximately $71 per
square foot and $75 for the precast deck. This difference in cost was acceptable because the
main purpose for the use of precast panels was to reduce construction time and inconvenience of
travelers.
Figure A.2.3.2-4 Panel-to-girder connection detail

Six months after construction, inspections showed that the performance of the new deck
was excellent. Leakage did not occur at the joints, nor was there cracking in the deck.
A.2.3.3 Indiana State Highway Commission (5)
Bloomington Bridge was a two-lane, 125 ft (38000 mm) span, pony truss. The timber
deck in the bridge was replaced with the precast, prestressed panels normally 4 ft (1200 mm)
wide with the tongue-and-groove joint shown in Figure A.2.3.3-1. The slabs were secured to the

steel beams with railroad tie-down clips (Figure A.2.3.3-2) and then post-tensioned together to
90 psi (620 KPa). The joints had a neoprene sheet to provide for transfer of the post-tensioning
across the joints.
Figure A.2.3.3-1 Shear key detail of the Bloomington Bridge
Figure A.2.3.3-2 Tie-down connection of the Bloomington Bridge

Cracking, spalling, and leakage at the panel joints were observed after five years of
service. The elevation between slabs varied by as much as 1/4 in. (6 mm). Under repeated wheel
loads, damage was experienced. The damage primarily consisted of cracking and spalling,
primarily due to improper materials and application techniques. An inspection in 1980 showed
that water leakage appeared to be a continuing problem. Some of the tie-down clips had
corroded extensively, and one was completely destroyed.
The Knightstown Bridge was a new, three-span continuous steel beam bridge having
spans of 70, 70, and 60 ft (21000, 21000 and 18000 mm). The deck slabs were 38 ft-4 in. (12000
mm) wide, 7 in. (180 mm) thick at each end, and 10½ in (270 mm) thick at the center as shown
in Figure A.2.3.3-3. The shear keys and connections to the steel beams were identical to those of
the Bloomington Bridge.
There were eight cracks approximately 2 ft (600 mm) long, perpendicular to the joints.
Cracks appeared during the post-tensioning due to irregularities in the width of the joints at the
top of the slab. The defective joints were less than 1/8 in. (3 mm) in width and half of them were
completely closed after the slabs were post-tensioned together.
The only immediate effect appeared to be joint leakage because no sealant could be
installed in the closed joint. However, a few months after the bridge was opened, the concrete in
the vicinity of the closed joints began to spall. Six years later, an inspection noted that the joint
sealant did not effectively bond to the edge of the slabs. In addition, many of the beam clips

exhibited signs of severe corrosion due to the continual problem of joint leakage. Little evidence
was found of surface spalling of the concrete.
Figure A.2.3.3-3 Elevation and shear key details for Knightstown Bridge
A.2.3.4 Maryland State Highway Administration
The Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge spanned the Potomac River, south of
Washington, D.C. (6). This bridge was constructed between 1959 and 1962. Peak daily traffic
of this bridge exceeded 110,000 vehicles by 1979, and serious deterioration of the reinforced
concrete deck was evident. The widening and replacement of the deck was completed with full-
depth precast, lightweight concrete panels. The panels were post-tensioned transversely and
longitudinally.
The original exterior girders and continuous stringers supported the precast panels. Cast-
in-place polymer concrete was used as a bearing material on the top flanges. The Maryland and
Federal Highway Administrations tested the methyl methacrylate polymer concrete and mortar
before they approved the project. Specifications for the methyl methacylate polymer included
4,000 psi (27.6 MPa) compressive strength within one hour at temperatures from 20 to 100 F (-
6.7 to 37.8 C) and 8,000 psi (55.2 MPa) at 24 hours. Polymer concrete was also used for
transverse joints between panels and for closure pours at the end of longitudinally post-tensioned
deck segments.
The top flange of the stringers and exterior girders were sandblasted and painted with
zinc rich primer. Steel bearing plates, pad forms, and predetermined height shim packs were
then set in place. After a precast panel was installed in position, polymer concrete was poured in
the bearing pad forms through holes in the panel. After the polymer concrete gained 4,000 psi
(27.6 MPa) compressive strength, the pad form and shim packs were removed.
The typical panel was 46 ft 71/4 in. (14200 mm) wide, 10 to 12 ft (3050 to 3660 mm)
long and 8 in (203 mm) thick with a 5 in. (127 mm) haunch at the exterior girder as shown in
Figure A.2.3.4-1. The panels were pretensioned transversely at the precast plant and post-

tensioned longitudinally at the construction site through segments 140 to 285 ft (42700 to 86900
mm) in length. This segment averaged 17 panels in length.
Figure A.2.3.4-1 Typical precast concrete panel of the Woodrow Wilson

Memorial Bridge
Figure A.2.3.4-2 shows details of the panel-to-panel and panel-to-girder connections. Due
to the geometry of the shear key, only the top half of the transverse connection between panels
was grouted.
Figure A.2.3.4-2 Joint details of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge

Single lanes were maintained for the two-way traffic during nighttime deck replacement.
The original six lanes were reopened prior to morning rush hour by using temporary open grid
deck panels with steel extension barrier. The 1026 precast panels were set in 129 nights, and 350
calendar days were spent to replace the six-lane bridge deck which was over one mile (1.61 km)

long. Recent inspection of the deck has shown deterioration of the panel-to-panel joints and
spalling of the deck concrete.
A.2.3.5 New York State Department of Transportation (7)
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYDOT) used precast panels for
redecking projects on several steel girder bridges.
The first project, a 1,040 ft (317000 mm) suspension bridge, spanned the Rondout Creek
near Kingston, New York. The precast deck was selected for this bridge because of the need to
load and unload the suspension bridge in a specific sequence, and due to the speed of
construction. Each precast panel was 9 ft (2700 mm) wide and 24 ft (7300 mm) long. Panel
thickness varied from 7 in. (178 mm) at the crown to 6 in. (152 mm) at the edges. The panels
were transversely pretensioned to control handling stresses. The transverse joint used to connect
the panels, was a simple V-shaped male-female dry joint tied together by rods, as shown in
Figure A.2.3.5-1.
A three-span structure over the Delaware River between Sullivan County, New York and
Wayne County, Pennsylvania, was 675 ft (206000 mm) in total length. Two panels connected at
the crown-point were used across the bridge. The panels were connected by epoxy shear keys
transversely and longitudinally. Horizontal shear connectors consisted of a single shear stud in
each pocket, as shown in Figure A.2.3.5-2. Reflective cracks appeared along the longitudinal
joint and were later patched. No longitudinal post-tensioning was applied to the deck and the
bridge had reportedly performed well.
Figure A.2.3.5-1 Joint details of the Rondout Creek Bridge

Figure A.2.3.5-2 Connection details of the Delaware River Bridge
In 1979, a three-span bridge was built in southern Erie County, Southwestern Blvd.
Bridge over Cattaraugus Creek. This bridge used precast panels and was 540 ft (150000 mm) in
length with three equal spans. The joints for the precast panels of the bridge were identical to
that of the Delaware River Bridge. The shear connectors were single threaded stud in each
pocket and they were used to tie down the panels to the steel girders, as shown in Figure A.2.3.5-
3. A seating steel assembly made of vertical plates and angles was used to support the panels
before grouting and adjusting the cross slope of the bridge.
Figure A.2.3.5-3 Connection details of the Southwestern Blvd. Bridge over Cattaraugus Creek

In 1982, NYDOT replaced the cast-in-place deck of the Batchellerville Bridge with a
precast panel deck system. The bridge had 21 spans with a total length of 3075 ft (938000 mm).
The bridge superstructure was made of two arched steel trusses supporting cross-floor beams.
Curved conventionally reinforced full-width precast panels were used because the roadway had a
crown at its centerline,. Each panel was supported longitudinally by the two arched steel trusses
and transversely by two adjacent cross-floor beams. Composite action with the superstructure
was created by using steel studs welded to the cross-floor beams. No longitudinal post tensioning
was used. The panels were connected in the longitudinal direction using welded steel plates.
Figure A.2.3.5-4 shows the connection details. The precast panels were overlaid with a 2-in. (50
mm) asphalt concrete mix.
Figure A.2.3.5-4 Panel-to-panel connection details of the Batchellerville Bridge

A.2.3.6 New York State Thruway Authority
The New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) had selected full-depth precast
concrete decks for replacement of deteriorated concrete deck at three different locations. Some
of the features common to all three bridges were: (1) conventionally reinforced precast panels
were used, (2) the panels were made composite with the girders, and (3) Epoxy mortar, one part
epoxy to two parts sand, was used at the joints.
The first project in Amsterdam, New York (8), included an experimental installation of
welded connectors and bolted connectors to evaluate the effectiveness of each connection. The
bridge had four simple spans, 33, 59, 66 and 60 ft (10000, 18000, 20000, and 18000 mm). The
deteriorated deck of one-half of the 66-ft (20000 mm) span was replaced by precast panels. Field
welded standard channel sections were used as shear connectors on four panels, and a “dry”
system detail using long high strength bolts was used on three precast panels, as shown in Figure
A.2.3.6-1.

In the bolted connection, the panels were placed using steel shims for leveling. After the
holes of the bolts were drilled in the top flange of the steel girder through the sleeves in the
panels, high strength bolts were fastened. Achievement of full tension in the bolts could not be
ascertained. Breakage of the precast slab due to excessive tensioning was expected. This
connection detail was not used in any subsequent projects. In the welded connections, the panels
were seated and channel connectors were welded to the steel girders. The pockets in the panels
at connectors were filled with epoxy grout.
Six years later, there was no evidence of any difference in performance among the bolted
panels, welded panels, and cast-in-place deck. The decks, which use a sheet membrane and
asphalt overlay, did not exhibit any moisture leakage.
(a) Welded Connection
(b) Bolted Connection

Figure A.2.3.6-1 Connection details of the New York Thruway Experimental Bridge
The second bridge (9) was a single 50 ft (15000 mm) span overpass on the Thruway,
crossed Krum Kill Road near Albany. 7½ in. (190 mm) thick conventionally reinforced precast
panels were placed on the top flanges of the steel girders on which an epoxy mortar bed was
provided. Headed studs were welded to the steel girders through the pocket openings in the
panel. These pockets were then filled with epoxy mortar. Two precast panels were used across
the bridge and were connected at the crown because the roadway had a crown. Reinforcing bars
were extended from both panels in a 3-ft (910 mm) wide longitudinal joint at the crown and cast-
in-place concrete was used to fill the joint. No longitudinal post tensioning was applied to the

deck. Some cracks were developed in the panels and treated with epoxy sealer. Although several
joints had shown signs of leakage, inspection of the bridge indicated that performance was
satisfactory.
The third bridge (9) was located in the entrance ramp of the Thruway at Harriman, New
York and consisted of three spans. The roadway was on horizontal curve as well as a vertical
curve and all of the spans were skewed. Therefore, precast panels with different geometries
were used. A greater thickness of epoxy on the top flange was used when compared to the first
two bridges due to the super-elevated deck surface. The bridge exhibited no particular problems
in construction. However, cracking and some leakage through the panels were detected.
A.2.3.7 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
The replacement of the deteriorated deck of a non-composite Clark's Summit Bridge on
the Pennsylvania Turnpike was completed for the Clark's Summit Bridge. It was necessary to
maintain traffic on half of the bridge while redecking the other half; therefore, precast panels
were chosen to prevent influence of traffic vibration to the CIP deck. Other reasons for using
precast panels included: (1) elimination of dangerous field work; (2) reduction of redecking time
from one-half to one-third; and (3) comparable cost to a CIP deck. The top flanges of the steel
girders were sandblasted after removal of the old deck. Neoprene strips were attached to the top
flange with epoxy as shown in Figure A.2.3.7-1. Epoxy grout was poured between strips with a
slight overfill, and panels were placed on the neoprene strips. The inserts and bolts were located
near the edge of the slab. Transverse joints had a shear key, which was filled with a non-shrink
grout.
Figure A.2.3.7-1 Connection detail of Clark's Summit Bridge

A.2.3.8 The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Canada (10)
The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario had selected precast concrete panels for the
Queen Elizabeth Way-Welland River Bridge. The main purpose for this selection was to reduce
the time of reconstruction and inconvenience of the travelers.
The structure selected for redecking consisted of two southbound lanes, which total 954 ft
(290780 mm) in length and 40 ft (12260 mm) wide. The existing reinforced concrete deck was
71/2 in. (190 mm) thick. The eighteen spans consisted of three four-continuous spans and two
three-continuous spans. The south end three-continuous span received precast panels.
The precast panels were 43 ft 6 in. (13260 mm) long, 7 ft - 11 in. (2420 mm) wide, and
87/8 in. (225 mm) thick, as shown in Figure A.2.3.8-1. Each panel had twelve blockouts for the

groups of shear connectors. Each group consisted of eight to twelve 7/8 in. (22 mm) diameter
shear studs as required for each specific location (Figure A.2.3.8-2).
Figure A.2.3.8-1 Typical cross section of the Queen Elizabeth Way-Welland River Bridge
Figure A.2.3.8-2 Connection Detail of the Queen Elizabeth Way-Welland River Bridge
Polyethylene corrugated ducts were placed at mid-depth for post-tensioning. The
concrete strength of the panel was 5000 psi (35 MPa) and epoxy coated reinforcing steel was
used. Transverse prestressing was not applied because the deck cross-slopes made the system
complicated. Approximately 23/8 in. (60 mm) of haunch was provided between the precast
panels and top flanges in order to accommodate deflections of girders and cover plates at splices.
Eight 13/16 in. (30 mm) diameter leveling screws per panel were used to adjust for grade.
Transverse joints were then filled with grout. Longitudinal post-tensioning was provided with
four 5/8 in. (15 mm) diameter strands, spaced at 1 ft - 8 in. (520 mm) on center over the
intermediate supports and 3 ft 5 in. (1040 mm) in the end span. The final prestress at the
intermediate supports was 435 psi (3.0 MPa), which secured uncracked and fully composite
section in the negative moment regions.

After longitudinal post-tensioning, the shear studs were welded through the blockouts.
The blockouts and haunches were filled with 5,000 psi (35 MPa) prebagged proprietary non-
shrink grout. Figure A.2.3.8-3 shows the contractor's modified side-forms for haunch.
Figure A.2.3.8-3 Contractor's modified side-forms for the haunch

The cost of placing cast-in-place concrete deck was Canadian $200 per square meter,
including the installation of shear connectors, but excluding the barrier walls, expansion joints,
water proofing, and paving. Full-depth panels were installed for a comparable cost of Canadian
$300 per square meter, which provided significantly faster construction and less inconvenience
to travelers.
The project also included an extensive test program. The test program included: (1)
laboratory tests for shear connectors; (2) load testing of a full size prototype assembly; (3)
punching shear testing of the concrete deck in the trial assembly and also the finished bridge
deck; and (4) measurement of prestress loss in the composite girders.
The testing program resulted in the following conclusions: (1) Shear studs may be welded
in groups to maintain full composite action; (2) different height of shear studs in a group will
improve the performance of the group of studs; (3) interface bond and friction may allow shear
transfer for the serviceability and fatigue limit state; and (4) the transverse joint does not resist
punching shear as well as the center of the panels. However, the panel withstood a load equal to
six times the legal load limit and performed similar to a cast-in-place concrete deck in resisting
punching shear.
A.2.3.9 The Japanese Highway Public Corporation
In Japan, there has been an increasing use of precast panels for bridge deck construction
in order to solve labor shortage problems, obtain higher and consistent quality, and to accomplish
rapid construction.
Shin-kotoni-kouka Bridge was a continuous five-span, non-composite plate girder bridge
(11). The Japanese Highway Public Corporation decided to use precast prestressed concrete
panels rather than reinforced concrete panels for new construction of Sapporo-Nishi bound lanes
of the bridge. The main reasons for this selection included: (1) smaller thickness; (2) improved
crack control; and (3) easier handling. A typical precast panel was 33 ft - 1 in. (10095 mm) long,
4 ft - 11 in. (1490 mm) wide, as shown in Figure A.2.3.9-1. The thickness varied from 7 in. (180
mm) at mid-span between girders to 10 in. (250 mm) at support on the girders. The panels were
transversely prestressed at the precast site and longitudinally post-tensioned at the construction

site. The construction sequence of placing the deck was similar to that of Welland River Bridge
in Ontario, Canada and Bridge 03200 in Connecticut.
Figure A.2.3.9-1 Typical precast prestressed concrete panel of the Shin-kotoni-kouka Bridge
Suehiro Viaduct in Osaka, Japan
The Japan Highway Public Corporation had selected channel-shaped biaxially prestressed
precast panels for a new construction of the Suehiro Viaduct on the Kansai International Airport
Line in Osaka, Japan (12). The cross-section of precast panels is shown in Figure A.2.3.9-2.
The bridge was a three-span continuous non-composite plate girder bridge consisting of two
approximately 38 feet wide separate superstructures for each bound. Each superstructure
consisted of five main girders at 7 ft - 2 in. and three spans of 123, 113, and 112 ft (37400,
34500, and 34150 mm). The construction was completed in October 1993.
Figure A.2.3.9-2 Cross section of the Suehiro Viaduct precast panels

Three series of static tests and two series of dynamic fatigue tests for the precast decks
were performed to prove their adequacy towards adoption in the Suehiro Viaduct. Static tests
typically resulted in punching shear failure after the cracking spread over three panels. Ultimate
strength of three panels with longitudinal post-tensioning was approximately 1.7 times higher
than that of single panels. This proved the efficiency of longitudinal post-tensioning for load
transfer over transverse joints. Overall, the system performed very well under both static and
dynamic fatigue loading.

Precast panels were cast at a precast plant near the construction site. Erection of 72
panels for one of two parallel superstructures required only four days. Case study for CIP
reinforced concrete deck was conducted to compare with the precast deck system. On-site work
day and labor force of this system was approximately one-third of CIP deck. The cost of the
system was much higher than CIP, however, the combined savings of construction time and
labor force reduced this impact when the effect on the whole project was carefully studied.
A.2.4 Bridges Built With Full-Depth Precast Panels Between 1994 And Present Time
Most of the information presented in this section was collected from the responses to the
national survey to collect this information. Some of the information was collected from
conference papers and personal contact with design engineers of state DOTs.
A.2.4.1 Alaska Department of Transportation
Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT) has had long and successful experience
with full depth precast concrete bridge deck panels. It started about 20 years ago with the
construction of Route FAP 65, where about 20 bridges were built using full depth precast panels
on the route. A senior design engineer with ADOT has sent the following comments about the
condition of these bridges:
“There is no significant cracking of the joints in the positive moment regions. Near the
simply supported girder ends, there is some cracking but no leakage. None of the bridges have
overlays at this time -- perhaps in the future we will install a waterproofing membrane and
asphalt overlay. ADOT has found that full depth precast deck panel systems are cost competitive
systems with cast-in-place (CIP) concrete decks, especially in remote areas where CIP concrete
can cost as much as $2,000 (two thousands dollars) per cubic yard. Based on our long and
successful experience with the precast deck systems, ADOT has decided to continue using
precast concrete panels as needed.”
During the past three years, ADOT used precast deck panels in two bridges, the Pedro
Creek Bridge and the Kouwegok Slough Bridge. The following sections will give the details of
these bridges in addition to the system used on Route FAP 65.
Dalton Highway Bridge, Route FAP 65
The structure was a multi span bridge, the longest span was 60 FT (18288 mm) and the
shortest span was 30 ft (9144 mm). The superstructure of the old bridge (pier caps, girders and
deck) was made of timber. Renovation of the bridge included casting concrete pier caps,
installing steel girders and using precast deck panels, as shown in Figure A.2.4.1-1.
The new bridge had a total clear width of 27 ft (8230 mm) and a crown in the middle
with a cross slope of 2 percent both ways. Variable thickness panels were used, where the top
surface of the panels followed the road profile and bottom surface of the panels was made flat, as
shown in Figure A.2.4.1-2. The panels were transversely reinforced only with ½ in. (12.7 mm)
straight strands placed on two layers. In the longitudinal direction, #6 (M19) epoxy coated bars
were used on two layers. The panels were provided with female shear key across their transverse
edges, as shown in Figure A.2.4.1-3 and A.2.4.1-4. A ½ in (12.7 mm) gap was provided
between panels to provide for production tolerance of the panels and polyethylene backer rods
were used to protect grout from leaking during casting.

The precast panels were made composite with the supporting girders. 5x7 in. (127x178 mm)
pockets were created in the panel to accommodate the steel studs, as shown in Figure A.2.4.1-5.
The inside face of the pocket had a female shear key shape to enhance the interlocking effect
between the panel and the grout. Because no post-tensioning or continuous conventional
reinforcement was provided in the longitudinal direction of the deck, expansion joints were
provided over piers. Also, no overlay was provided and the top surface of the panels was heavily
broomed to provide the texture required for the riding surface.
F
igure A.2.4.1-1 Cross section of the old and new bridges

Figure A.2.4.1-2 Elevation view of the precast panel
Figure A.2.4.1-3 Cross section of the precast panel
Figure A.2.4.1-4 Shear key details

Figure A.2.4.1-5 Plan view and section d-d of the precast panel
Pedro Creek Bridge
The bridge had a 73 ft – 10 in. (22500 mm) single span on Pedro Bay Road. Total width
of the bridge was 18 ft – 8 in. (5690 mm) and had one traffic lane. The superstructure consisted
of four steel girders spaced at 4 ft – 11 in. (1500 mm), as shown in Figure A.2.4.1-6. 7½ in.
(190 mm) thick precast panels made composite with the superstructure were used.
Figure A.2.4.1-7 shows the plan view of the precast panel. The panel was conventionally
reinforced with two layers of #5 (M16) bars in the transverse direction and #4 (M13) bars in the
longitudinal direction. Eight leveling screws per each panel were temporary used to support the
panel. Polyethylene rods glued to the steel girder top surface were used as grout barrier as
shown in Figure A.2.4.1-8. Neither longitudinal post-tensioning nor overlay was used on this
bridge and the top surface of the panels was heavily broomed. A cement based non-shrink grout
was used for grouting the transverse panel-to-panel joints and shear blockouts in the panels. The
construction of the bridge was complete in 2001. Recent visual inspection of the deck has
revealed that the transverse joints have satisfactory performance and are in very good condition,
where no cracking or leaking has been observed.

Figure A.2.4.1-6 Cross section of the bridge
Figure A.2.4.1-7 Plan view of the precast panel

Figure A.2.4.1-8 Leveling screw detail
Kouwegok Slough Bridge
The bridge had three spans, 114, 144, and 114 ft (34800, 44000, and 34800 mm). The
superstructure was made of five steel girders spaced at 5 ft – 5 in. (1650 mm) made composite
with concrete deck slab. The bridge had a total width of 24 ft – 7 in. (7500 mm) with a crown in
the middle, as shown in Figure A.2.4.1-9.
Figure A.2.4.1-9 Cross section of the Kouwegok Slough Bridge

A full depth precast panel system, similar to that used in Pedro Creek Bridge, was used
on this bridge. Figure A.2.4.1-10 shows a plan view of the precast panel. The panel had a
variable depth, 9.8 in. (250 mm) at the crown and 6.9 in. (175 mm) at both ends. The panel was
transversely and longitudinally conventionally reinforced with two layers of epoxy coated
reinforcing bars in each direction. Neither longitudinal post-tensioning nor overlay was used. As

a result, an expansion joint was created at every pier. The precast panels were made composite
with the steel girders by using grouted shear pockets that accommodated the shear connectors. A
female-to-female shear key detail is used, as shown in Figure A.2.4.1-11.
Figure A.2.4.1-10 Plane view of the precast panel

A.2.4.2 Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado Department of Transportation used a full depth precast panel system for the
deck replacement and widening project of the Castlewood Canyon Bridge. The bridge had three
spans and each span was made of two separate reinforced concrete arches spaced at 20 ft (6095
mm) in the transverse direction. The arches supported vertical posts with cross piers. The full
depth precast panels extended in the direction of traffic between the cross piers, as shown in
Figure A.2.4.2-1 & A.2.4.2-2.
Figure A.2.4.2-1 The superstructure system of the Castlewood Canyon Bridge

Figure A.2.4.2-2 Cross section of the Castlewood Canyon Bridge
The length of the precast panels ranged from 16 ft – 4 in. (4977 mm) at the peak of the
arch to 38 ft – 4 in. (11683 mm) at the ends of the arch. The width of the panels was 5 ft – 4in.
(1625 mm), as shown in Figure A.2.4.2-3.
Figure A.2.4.2-3 Plan view and elevation of the precast panel

Eight panels were used to form the full width of the bridge. A 3 in. (76 mm) thick asphalt
overlay with a waterproofing membrane was cast on the panels to protect the precast panels and
provide for a smooth riding surface.

The panels were pretensioned in the longitudinal direction with 29- ½ in. (12.7 mm), 270
ksi (1.86 GPa) strands. Seven strands were extended 12 in. (304.8 mm) outside the panel at both
ends and the rest of the strands were cut flush with the panel ends. In addition to the prestressed
strands, the panel was reinforced with #6 (M19) bars at 4 in. (100 mm). These bars extended
about 9 in. (228.6 mm) outside the panel at both ends. Normal strength concrete mix was used
for the panel. Concrete strength at release and 28 days were 4 ksi (27.6 MPa) 4.5 ksi (31.0 MPa)
respectively. The panels were made continuous in the longitudinal direction over the cross piers
by overlapping the #6 bars. 2- #6 (M19) transverse bars were installed in the overlapped core and
confined with #4 (M13) closed stirrups spaced at 12 in. (304.8 mm), as shown in Figure A.2.4.2-
4.
Figure A.2.4.2-5 shows the cross section of an exterior and interior panels. Longitudinal
shear keys were formed along the edges of the panel, as shown in Figure A.2.4.2-4. To connect
the panels in the longitudinal direction, two #8 (M25) bars were installed in the shear key close
to the top surface and confined with #4 (M13) bars spaced at 12 in. (304.8 mm).
Cast-in-place (CIP) concrete was used for the side barrier. The exterior panels were
provided with shear connectors to connect the side barrier with the deck. Also the interface
surface between the panel and the side barrier was roughened to ¼ in. (6 mm) amplitude to
enhance the bond between the CIP concrete barrier and the deck.
Figure A.2.4.2-4 Continuity detail over the cross piers

Figure A.2.4.2-5a Typical cross section of the exterior precast panel
Figure A.2.4.2-5b Typical cross section of the interior the precast panel
A.2.4.3 District of Columbia, DC

Rehabilitation of Bridges over Dead Run and Turkey Run, George Washington Memorial
Parkway, National Park Service
In 1995, the National Park Service Authority decided to replace the deck slab of two
structures on George Washington Memorial Parkway. These are the Dead Run and the Turkey
Run structures, as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-1.

Figure A.2.4.3-1 Location of the Dead Run and Turkey Run Structures
The Dead Run Structure
The Dead Run Structure had two bridges, namely the northbound and southbound
bridges. Both bridges had a slight curve in plan and 3.37% longitudinal slope, as shown in
Figure A.2.4.3-2. The old deck was a 7.9 in. (200 mm) thick cast-in-place concrete deck made
non-composite with the supporting girders. The northbound bridge had a 2.6 in. (65 mm) thick
asphalt overlay with waterproofing membrane, while the southbound bridge had no overlay.
Visual inspection of both bridges showed that the deck slab of the southbound bridge had
significant concrete spalling and corrosion of the deck reinforcement, while the deck slab of the
northbound bridge showed no signs of deterioration. As a result, the National Park Service called
for full replacement of the deck on the southbound bridge and replacement of the asphalt overlay
with a 1.2 in. (30mm) thick latex modified concrete overlay on the northbound bridge.
Figure A.2.4.3-2 Plan and elevation views of Dead Run and Turkey Run Structures

The southbound bridge had three spans, 95, 113 and 95 ft (29.24, 34.5, and 29.24 m)
respectively. The superstructure was made of two exterior steel girders and two interior steel
stringers. The interior steel stringers were supported by cross beams, which in turn were
supported by the exterior steel girders. This arrangement resulted in a deck slab supported on
four girders spaced at 9 ft (2.74 m) and two overhangs, 5 ft – 3 in. (1.6 m) each, as shown in
Figure A.2.4.3-3. The old cast-in-place deck slab had a non-prismatic profile with haunches at
the exterior girders.
Figure A.2.4.3-3 Cross Section of the bridge with the old deck
Full width, 7.9 inch (200 mm) thick, prismatic precast concrete panels were used to
replace the old deck. The precast panels were transversely pretensioned in the precast yard and
longitudinally pot-tensioned after being installed on the bridge. Figure A.2.4.3-4 shows the cross
section of the bridge with the new precast deck. A 1.2 in. (30 mm) latex modified concrete
overlay was used to protect the precast panels and provide the texture required for the riding
surface.
Figure A.2.4.3-4 Cross section of the bridge with the new deck

Each panel was reinforced with 30– ½ in. (12.7 mm) diameter, 270 ksi (1.86 GPa) strands
on two layers, as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-5 and A.2.4.3-6. Conventional reinforcement was
provided in the transverse and longitudinal directions for shrinkage and temperature effects.
Specified concrete strength was 4.0 and 5.5 ksi (28 MPa and 38 MPa) at transfer and prior to
stressing longitudinal post-tensioning, respectively.
Figure A.2.4.3-5 Details of a typical precast panel
Figure A.2.4.3-6 Typical cross section of the precast panels

Four, 3-in. (75 mm) diameter, holes were provided in each panel over each girder line for
placement of the grout pad. In order to protect the panels from moving upward during post-
tensioning, each panel was clipped to the interior stringers using two 8x4x½ in. (203x102x12.7
mm) angles bolted to the bottom surface of the panel and two 1x2 in. (25x50 mm) clip plates
welded to each steel stringer, as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-7. The designer gave the contractor the
option of bolting or welding the angles and the clip plates. The elevation of each panel was
adjusted using three leveling eyebolts, two bolts on the north side exterior girder and one bolt on
the south side exterior girder. Four, 1 in. (26 mm) diameter, coil inserts were provided in the
precast panels for that reason.
Figure A.2.4.3-7 Typical clip detail

In order to simplify the production of the panels, the following issues were considered by
the designer:
1. Although the bridge had a mild curvature in plan, rectangular precast panels 35 ft x 7 ft-7
in. (10670 x 2310 mm) were used. This resulted in a trapezoidal transverse joint between
adjacent panels, where the gap between panels was 2.6 in. (66 mm) and 1.2 in. (30 mm) on
the outside and inside edges of the curvature respectively, as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-8.
2. In order to use the same type of side railing that was used on the old deck, the length of the
panels in the longitudinal direction of the bridge was adjusted to 7 ft-7 in. (2310 mm). This
resulted in one connection per panel at mid length of the panel. Four, 1.5 in. (38 mm)
diameter, holes were provided in the precast panel to connect the railing posts, as shown in
Figure A.2.4.3-9.
3. Because prismatic precast panels were used, a 2.4 to 3.9 in. (60 to 100 mm) and 1.2 in. (30
mm) thick grout pads were used on the exterior girders and interior stringers respectively.
4. Cast-in-place concrete was used to form the curb rather than casting it in the precast yard.
The shear connectors between the precast panel and the cast-in-place concrete curb were
provided by using #5 pins anchored in the panel and extended outside the top surface of the
precast panel.
A female type shear key was created along the transverse edges of each panel, as shown
in Figure A.2.4.3-10. Wood forming was used to support the grout at the transverse panel-to-
panel joints. The design specifications called for the use of a non-shrink grout (with zero volume
change) with a minimum concrete strength of 2,000 psi (14 MPa) at 24 hours.

Figure A.2.4.3-8 Panel-panel joint detail Figure A.2.4.3-9 Railing connection detail
Figure A.2.4.3-10 Shear key detail

Longitudinal post-tensioning was provided by six tendons spread along the full width of
the bridge. Two tendons spaced at 28 in. (710 mm) were provided in the center of each span
between the four supporting girders, as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-5. Each tendon had 4- ½ in.
(12.7 mm), 270 ksi (1.86 GPa) strands. Flat ducts, 1x3 in. (25x75 mm), were provided in the
precast panels to house the tendons. The ducts were grouted after the tendons were post-
tensioned.

Due to the high traffic volume, the contractor was allowed to close the bridge for traffic
only during weekends (from Friday evening to Monday morning). Staged construction scenario
was called for the deck replacement project, where the contractor had to remove the old deck and
construct the new precast deck of one full span in one weekend. Figure A.2.4.3-11 shows the
construction stages. The precast deck installation started on the west side abutment and
proceeded towards the east side abutment.
Figure A.2.4.3-11 Construction stages

As a result of the staged construction scenario, three different types of precast panels
were produced: (1) typical panel as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-5 (34 panels), (2) end block panel
for staged post-tensioning at piers (4 panels), and (3) end deck panels by the abutments (2
panels). Figure A.2.4.3-12 shows the arrangement of various panels.
Figure A.2.4.3-13 and A.2.4.3-14 show the details of the end block panel as provided by
the designer. In order to accommodate the anchorage device, the post-tensioning tendons were
diverted downward and accommodated in a haunch, where the thickness of the precast panel was
raised from 7.9 in. (200 mm) to 19 in. (480 mm) as shown in section A-A in Figure A.2.4.3-14.
Figure A.2.4.3-12 Arrangements of the panels
Figure A.2.4.3-13 Details of the end block panel as provided by the designer

After wining the bid, the contractor consulted with the precast concrete producer and then
called for changing the details of the end block panels. Instead of diverting the post-tensioning
tendons downward and raising the panel thickness, a prismatic panel was used and the post-
tensioning tendons were staggered in plan as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-15. This modification
significantly simplified the production of the panels.
Figure A.2.4.3-14 Details of the staged post-tensioning scenario as provided by the designer
Figure A.2.4.3-15 Details of the end block panel as modified by the contractor

Figure A.2.4.3-16 shows the details of the end deck panels. They were transversely
pretensioned with nine top and nine bottom ½ in. (12.7 mm) strands. The end panels were
prismatic and accommodate the anchorage devices of the post-tensioning tendons.
Figure A.2.4.3-16 Details of the end panels

Temporary steel plates were installed at the gap between the old and new deck, as shown
in Figure A.2.4.3-17. On the bridge, the steel plates were clipped directly against the old and the
new deck. At the abutments and before installing the cast-in-place part of the deck over the
abutment wall, the plates were clipped against the top flange of the steel girders and stringers.
After the cast-in-place part of the deck was cast over the abutment wall, the steel plates were
clipped against the abutment wall.
Figure A.2.4.3-17a Details of the temporary joint between the old and new deck on bridge

Figure A.2.4.3-17b Details of the temporary joint between the old and new deck at abutment
prior to cast-in-place segment of the deck
Figure A.2.4.3-17c Details of the temporary joint between the old and new deck at abutment
prior to overlay
The Turkey Run Structure
The same type of full-depth, non-composite precast panel system, used on the
southbound bridge of the Dead Run structure, was used on the Turkey Run structure. The
following section discusses only the differences where they exist.
The structure had two separate bridges, the northbound and the southbound bridges. Deck
replacement was called for both bridges. Both bridges had four spans, 92’-8”, 108’-4”, 108’-4”
and 92’-8” (28.25, 33.02, 33.02 and 28.25 m) respectively and a total width of 36 ft (10.97 m).
Both bridges had zero skew and were located at the bottom of a vertical curve alignment. The

deck had a crown in the middle with a 2% cross slope on both sides of the crown. Figure
A.2.4.3-18 shows the cross section of the bridges with the old and new deck.
Figure A.2.4.3-18 Cross section of the bridge with the old and new deck
Variable thickness precast panels were used. Haunches were created at the exterior girder
lines, as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-19. This decision was taken by the design engineer to avoid
modifying the existing system of girders and stringers supporting the deck, which would cause
significant delay to the construction schedule. Straight pretensioned strands were used to
simplify the production of the panels. The tensile stresses resulted from the eccentricity of the
prestressing force at the haunches of the panel were resisted by conventional reinforcement.
A phased construction scenario, similar to that used in Dead Run southbound Bridge, was
used in Turkey Run bridges, where construction started at the west side abutment and moved
towards the east side abutment, as shown in Figure A.2.4.3-20.

Figure A.2.4.3-19 Details of a typical precast panel

Figure A.2.4.3-20 Phased construction scenario

A.2.4.4 Illinois Department of Transportation
In 1999, Illinois Department of Transportation used a precast concrete panel deck on
Bridge-4 constructed on Route 75, Sangamon County. The bridge had four spans, 56 ft-5 in, 67
ft, 67 ft and 56 ft–5 in (17221, 20485, 20485 and 17221 mm). The superstructure was made of
six steel girders spaced at 6 ft–4 in. (1956 mm) made composite with concrete deck slab. The
bridge had a total width of 37 ft. (11300 mm) and a super elevation with a cross slope of 1.5
percent.
Longitudinal post-tensioning was provided by twenty-two 1.0 in. (25.4 mm) high strength
threaded bars spread along the full width of the bridge at 18.2 in. (462 mm) in each span between
the six supporting girders, as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-1. The bars were post-tensioned in the
order shown in Figure A.2.4.4-1, i.e. from the north edge to south edge of the bridge cross
section.
Figure A.2.4.4-1 Arrangements of the panels

The bars were coupled using a standard coupler, as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-2a. A cast-
in-place closure pour was provided at each abutments to accommodate the anchorage device, as
shown in Figure A.2.4.4-2b.The ducts were grouted after the tendons were post-tensioned to
protect the bars against corrosion.
Figure A.2.4.4-2a Coupler detail of Post-tensioned tendon

Figure A.2.4.4-2b End anchorage detail of the post-tensioned tendon details
Figure A.2.4.4-3 shows a plan view of the precast concrete panel. The panel had a
constant depth of 7.7 in. (195 mm). The depth of the panel was raised to 9.5 in. (242 mm) at both
ends over a distance of 17.7 in. (450 mm) as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-4. The width of panel was
7 ft–10 in. (2388 mm). The panel was transversely and longitudinally conventionally reinforced
with two layers of epoxy coated reinforcing bars in each direction. The transverse edges of the
panel were provided with a female shear key as shown in Section A-A in Figure A.2.4.4-3. A ½
in (12 mm) gap was left between adjacent panels and a compressible rod was used to block this
gap.
Section A-A
Section B-B
Figure A.2.4.4-3 Detail of a typical precast panel

Figure A.2.4.4-4 Detail of a precast panel and a barrier connection
Twelve 7/8 in. (22 mm) diameter, leveling screws per panel were used to adjust for grade
as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-3. After a panel was leveled, the leveling screws were cut and
recessed inside the panel. High density Styrofoam, glued to the top flange of the steel girders and
the bottom surface of the precast panel, was used as a grout barrier. A cement based non-shrink
grout was used for grouting the transverse panel-to-panel joints as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-5.
Figure A.2.4.4-5 Detail of a leveling screw

The precast panels were made composite with the steel girders by using tapered grouted
shear pockets of 13x7 in. (340x180 mm) as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-6. Each pocket
accommodated three 7/8 in. (22 mm) shear connectors, as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-7. The shear

connectors were welded to the top flange of the steel girders after the panels were installed and
their elevation was adjusted. The shear pockets were provided in the longitudinal direction at a
uniform spacing of 18-7/8 in. (480 mm), as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-3.
Figure A.2.4.4-6 Stud shear blockout details
Figure A.2.4.4-7 Connection detail of a precast panel and a girder

Precast New Jersey barriers were connected to the precast panels using galvanized 1.0 in.
(25 mm) diameter bolts as shown in Figure A.2.4.4-4. A ½ in. (12 mm) mortar bed was provided
between the precast panel and the precast barrier. A 2.3 in. (60 mm) thick, 5,000-psi (35 MPa)
microsilica concrete overlay was used to provide for the riding surface.
A.2.4.5 Kentucky Department of Highways
The U.S. 231 Bridge was built over Ohio River and Indiana 66. The bridge was made of:
(1) two approach structures constructed with CIP panels and (2) the main structure crossing the
Ohio River constructed with full-depth precast deck panels.
The main structure was a cable-stay bridge made of two pylons and three spans, 450, 900
and 450 ft (137000, 274000 and 137000 mm), shown as Spans 8, 9 and 10 in Figure A.2.4.5-1. A
cantilever balancing system was used to construct the cable stayed main span of the bridge. Total
width of the bridge was 75 ft (22917 mm) and had a crown at the center of the roadway with a 2

percent slope both ways. The superstructure was made of six interior longitudinal steel plate
girders spaced at 12 ft-3 in (3748 mm) and two exterior longitudinal steel plate girders. The
longitudinal steel girders were supported by transverse floor beams spaced at 15 ft (4571 mm). A
typical cross section of the bridge is shown in Figure A.2.4.5-2. An overlay of latex modified
concrete of thickness 1½” was used over the precast panels to provide for the riding surface.
Figure A.2.4.5-1 Schematic plan of the main structure
Figure A.2.4.5-2 Typical cross section

Two solid precast panels connected at the crown-point were used across the width of the
bridge. A cast-in-place (CIP) concrete pour, 28 in. (711 mm) wide, was used at the crown to
connect the two panels. Also, two CIP concrete pours were cast along the edges of the bridge
outside the road barrier. The precast panels were 9½ in. (241 mm) thick and conventionally
reinforced with two layers of epoxy coated steel bars in each direction. The transverse
reinforcement of the panel was extended outside the panel into the CIP concrete pours as shown
in Figure A.2.4.5-3. Shear connectors between the deck and the precast deck was provided only
on the exterior steel girders. This arrangement resulted in using solid panels with no shear
pockets, which simplified the fabrication of the panels. The longitudinal edges of the precast
panels were provided with shear keys that provided horizontal mechanical interlocking with the
CIP longitudinal pours, as shown in Figure A.2.4.5-4.

Figure A.2.4.5-3 Connection detail of precast panel with the barrier and the exterior girder
Figure A.2.4.5-4 Plan view showing detail of the shear key system
Figure A.2.4.5-5 shows a plan view of a bridge at pier B. Each panel was supported on
two adjacent transverse floor beams. No longitudinal post-tensioning was used to connect the
panels in the longitudinal direction. The longitudinal reinforcement of a panel was extended
outside and spliced with similar reinforcement of the adjacent panel, as shown in Figure A.2.4.5-
6. A 6-in. (152 mm) gap was maintained between panels over the floor beams and the bottom
layer of the panel reinforcement extending into this gap was bend to form hook. Two transverse
bars were installed inside the hook. To splice the top layer of reinforcement of the panels, the
depth of the panel was lowered to 4 in. (102 mm) and CIP concrete was used to fill this area.

Figure A.2.4.5-5 Plan view of a bridge at pier B
Figure A.2.4.5-6 Transverse connection between adjacent panels

A.2.4.6 Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has decided to use a full depth precast
deck panel system for the new Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge, spanning the Mississippi River
between Southeast Missouri and Southern Illinois. This bridge will replace the current structure
that was built in 1927. It will link Cape Girardeau, Mo., and East Cape Girardeau, Ill., and span
the Mississippi River. The estimated cost of the bridge is $100 million. Eighty percent of the
funding comes from the federal government. Missouri and Illinois each contribute 10 percent.
The Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge is anticipated to open December 2003.
Although MoDOT has provided the research team with details of the precast panel
system, MoDOT has asked the research team to disseminate only the information that is made
available to the public due to security reasons. The following sections give an overall idea of the
bridge and general description of the precast deck panel system.
The main span of the structure over the Missouri river is 4,000-foot (1219 m) long cable-
stay bridge. Total width of the bridge is about 100 ft (30480 mm). The superstructure is made of
three longitudinal girders spaced at about 50 ft (15240 mm) and transverse floor beams spaced at
18 ft (5486 mm). The roadway is crowned at its centerline directly over the center girder. Figure
A.2.4.6-1 shows a general view of the old and new bridges, and Figure A.2.4.6-2 shows a top
view of the precast deck with the superstructure system.
The deck slab is made of two precast panels across the width of the bridge meeting at the
center girder, which has resulted in using flat panels. The length of the panel is made so that each
panel spans between two adjacent floor beams. This arrangement has resulted in a rectangular
panels supported on four side, as shown in Figure A.2.4.6-2.
Figure A.2.4.6-1 General view of the old and new Bill Emerson Memorial Bridges
The precast deck panels are conventionally reinforced with top and bottom meshes of
epoxy coated bars. The thickness of the precast panels is about 10 in. (254 mm). Cast-in-place
concrete is used in constructing the side and median barriers. Shear connectors between the
precast panels and the barriers are provided with precast panels.

Cast-in-place concrete joints are used to connect the panels in the transverse and
longitudinal directions. The connection consists of reinforcing bars extended outside the panel
and overlapped in the gap between panels with similar bars extending from the neighboring
panel. A horizontal shear key detail is provided on all edges of the precast panel that provides
shear interlocking in the horizontal direction. A short cast-in-place concrete cantilever is cast
over the edge girders, as shown in Figure A.2.4.6-2.
a
e
d b
Figure A.2.4.6-2 Top view of the new Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge
(a) Typical Precast Panel, (b) CIP Longitudinal Joint, (c) Transverse CIP Joint, (d) Short CIP
Cantilever, (e) Typical Floor Beam, and (f) Longitudinal Girders
The panels are installed in groups of two lines of panels in the longitudinal direction on
each side of the pylon. After the joints between panels are cast and cured, longitudinal post-
tensioning is applied. Then this part of the deck can support construction loads and is used as a
platform for installing next group of precast panels. High strength post-tensioning bars spaced at
about 12 in. (304.8 mm) across the width of the panel, as shown in Figure A.2.4.6-3. A 3-in. (76
mm) silica fume overlay is cast on the precast panels to provide for the riding surface.
The precast deck is made composite with the superstructure using steel studs welded to
the top flange of the steel girders and cross-floor beams, as shown in Figure A.2.4.6-4. Due to
the unique arrangement of the super structure girders and floor beams, no shear pockets are
created in the precast panels, which has significantly simplified and speeded up the production
process of the panels.

Reinforcing bars
extending outside
the panel
Longitudinal post-
tensioning duct
Horizontal
shear key
Figure A.2.4.6-3 General view of the Precast Panel showing the longitudinal Post-Tensioning
Ducts, the #5 (M16) bars and the shear key
Figure A.2.4.6-4 Steel studs welded to the top flange of the girders and floor beams

A.2.4.7 Montana Department of Transportation
A rehabilitation project was conducted to replace the 33 ft 6 in. (10.2 m) wide concrete
deck of the Lake Koocanusa Bridge, Lincoln County, with a 36 ft 2 in. (11.0 m) precast concrete
deck. The old deck slab was a 6 in. (153 mm) CIP lightweight concrete cast on stay-in-place
metal forms supported non-compositely on steel girders.
The bridge had six continuous spans, 285, 400, 500, 500, 400, and 352 ft (86868, 121920,
152400, 152400, 12190, and 107290 mm). Total width of the bridge was 36 ft – 2 in. (11024
mm). To maintain traffic on the bridge during construction, a staged construction sequence was
planned, which included the removal of half width of the old deck while keeping the other half
open for traffic. The new deck consisted of two prestressed precast panels across the width of
the bridge supported compositely on the steel girders. The south panels are 15 ft 7 in. (4750 mm)
wide and the north panels are 20 ft 7 in. (6275 mm) wide. All panels are 8 ft (2440 mm) long, as
shown in Figure A.2.4.7-1.
The composite action between the precast deck and the superstructure was provided by
using 7/8 in. (22 mm) diameter studs welded on the first interior steel girders and C4x7.25x10 in.
structural steel sections welded on the exterior steel girders. No composite action was provided
at the center steel girder to avoid conflict with the longitudinal connection between panels. To
avoid making any changes of the superstructure supporting girders, the thickness of the panel
was raised from 7 in. (178 mm) to (254 mm) at the exterior girders. The precast panels were
transversely pretensioned with 16-½ in. (12.7 mm), 270 ksi (1.86 GPa), as shown in Figure
A.2.4.7-2.
Figure A.2.4.7-1 Cross section of the new deck slab and composite connection details

Figure A.2.4.7-2 Typical cross section of the precast panel
The precast panels were post-tensioned longitudinally. The post-tensioned tendons were
anchored at 50 ft (15,240 mm) bays. Each bay consisted of six panels, two edge panels that
accommodated the anchorage devices and 4 interior panels, as shown in Figures A.2.4.7-3 and
A.2.4.7-4. The transverse edge of all of the panels was provided with a vertical shear key and #4
(M13) U-bar pins extended outside the panels in a 4 in. (100 mm) gap created at the transverse
joint between adjacent panels as shown in Figure A.2.4.7-2 and A.2.4.7-4.
Figure A.2.4.7-3 Typical 50-ft bay with longitudinal post-tensioning

In order to connect the south and north panels together across the width of the bridge, a
galvanized steel assembly, as shown in Figure A.2.4.7-5, was provided at 5 ft 6 in. (1,676 mm)
spacing. The connection was made over the center steel girder where no composite action was
provided.

The elevation of the precast panels was adjusted using a leveling screw device. The
details of the device are given in Figure A.2.4.7-6.
Figure A.2.4.7-4a Details of edge panels of a typical 50-ft bay
Figure A.2.4.7-4b Details of interior panels of a typical 50-ft bay

Figure A.2.4.7-5 Longitudinal connection between the south and the north panels
Figure A.2.4.7-6 Details of the leveling screw device

A.2.4.8 Nebraska Department of Roads (13)
After the NUDECK system was developed as a stay-in-place precast panel system with a
composite cast-in-place topping (14,15,16,17), Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) decided
to use this system after modifying it to a full depth precast panel system. NDOR chose the
Skyline Drive Bridge over West Dodge Street, located in Douglas County, Omaha, to implement
the system.
The bridge had two spans, 89’-0” and 124’-6” (27150 and 37950 mm) respectively, 25-
degree skew angle, and a 1.4 percent slope in the direction of traffic, as shown in Figure A.2.4.8-
1. The super structure was made of five steel plate girders spaced at 10’-10” (3300 mm)
measured in the normal direction to the girders. The deck had two cantilevers, 4’-1” (1250 mm)
each, as shown in Figure A.2.4.8-2. The bridge had two 12 ft (3600 mm) traffic lanes with 7 ft
(2130 mm) shoulder on each side, and a 9’-10” pedestrian lane on one side.
Figure A.2.4.8-1 Plan and elevation views of the bridge

The deck slab was made of 5.9 in. (150 mm) full depth precast panel with a 2 in. (50 mm)
concrete overlay. The precast panels covered the full width of the bridge and they were
transversely pretensioned and longitudinally post-tensioned. Two types of panels were used, 26
typical panels on the bridge between abutments and two end panels at the abutments where the
anchorage devices for the longitudinal post-tensioning were housed. Figure A.2.4.8-3 shows a
plan view of the panel arrangement.
Figure A.2.4.8-3 Plan view of the panel arrangement

Figure A.2.4.8-4 shows a plan view of a typical panel. The panel length was 7’-0” (2145
mm) and was reinforced over its full width with 8- ½ in. (12.7 mm) strands arranged on two
layers. Over every girder line, a blockout (i.e. a gap with no concrete) was created to give
maximum flexibility for installing and arranging the shear connectors. In order to transfer the
prestressing force from one block of concrete to the adjacent block over the gap, four #7 (#22)
bars arranged on two layers were installed by each group of two strands. The size of these bars
was designed to protect them from buckling under the compression force and to maintain the
prestressing force over the gap. The top bars were made of short pieces 5 ft (1551 mm) long at
interior girder lines and 6’-10” (2100 mm) long at exterior girders, while the bottom bars covered
the full width of the panel. The release and 28-day strength of the concrete mix used were 4,300
and 6,0 00ksi (30 and 42 MPa) respectively.
In the overhang part of the panel, each group of two strands was confined with a 4½ in.
(114 mm) OD, 4 in. (100 mm) ID, 1 in. (25 mm) pitch, 145 ksi (1000 MPa) spiral. The spirals
were used to reduce the required development length of the ½ in. (12.7 mm) strands from about 7
ft (2133 mm) to 2 ft (610 mm). For more information about this technique see (14,15).
The top surface of the panels was roughened to ¼ in. (6 mm) amplitude using a finishing
broom. A v-shape shear key was created at the transverse edges of the panel and a backer rod
was used to close the gap between adjacent panels and protect grout from leaking. Non-shrink
early-strength, 6,000 psi (42 MPa) specified strength grout, was chosen for the project. The
design plans did not specify any treatment of the shear keys prior to grouting. However, the plans
specify that the top surface of the grouted joint should be roughened to ¼ in. (6 mm) amplitude.

Figure A.2.4.8-4 Plan View and details of a Typical Panel
The edges of the panels were skewed to 25 degrees to match the skewed layout of the
bridge. The precast panels were fabricated with a crown to match the road profile. The following
technique was used to crown the panels in the precast yard: (1) the forms and prestressing strands
were set horizontally, (2) the strands were pretensioned and a pocket was created at the crown
point at every strand line (3) concrete was cast and after it reached a strength 4,300 psi (30 MPa),
the strands were cut and the forms were removed, (4) the panel was lifted and set on a saddle that
had the same cross slope of the bridge and temporary shims were used to support the straight
panel, (5) the top strands at the crown points were cut through the pockets and the temporary

shims were removed so that the panel rests on the saddle and took the required cross slope, (6) a
horizontal steel plate was welded at each pocket to lock the joint. Figure A.2.4.8-5 to A.2.4.8-7
show the panels at the precast yard.
Figure A.2.4.8-5 The NUDECK panel being lifted from the Prestressing Bed
Figure A.2.4.8-6 The NUDECK panel during Shipping

Figure A.2.4.8-7 Storage of the NUDECK Panels in the Precast Yard
The post-tensioning reinforcement consisted of tendons located at every girder line. Each
tendon was made of 16- ½ in. (12.7 mm) strands threaded in the gap between the two layers of
pretensioned strands, as shown in Figure A.2.4.8-8.
Figure A.2.4.8-8 Cross section of the panel at a girder line

Figure A.2.4.8-9 shows the details of the anchorage devices at the end panel. The
anchorage device was made of two vertical side plates and four vertical cross plates. The front
cross plate was made curved in order to maximize the space needed to anchor each strand with
an individual chuck. As a result of the anchorage device layout, the end panel was pretensioned
with an eccentric group of four strands. Therefore, after cutting the strands, the panel bent about
an axis normal to its plane resulting in high tensile stresses on one side of the panel.
Conventional reinforcement was used to resist these tensile stresses.

Figure A.2.4.8-9 Details of the end panel with the anchorage device
A.2.4.9 New Hampshire Department of Transportation
New Hampshire Department of Transportation used a full depth conventionally
reinforced concrete deck panel system on a simple span through truss bridge. Figure A.2.4.9-1
shows a plan view and cross section elevation of the panel. The super structure is made of eight
W18x35 structural steel longitudinal members spaced at 2 ft 9 5/8 in. (854 mm), which were
supported by cross-floor beams. The bridge had a total width of 20 ft – 10 in. (6350 mm) and a
crown at the center of the roadway.
The precast panel was 8 ft (2438 mm) long and had a variable depth, 3¾ in. (95 mm) at
both ends and 5¾ in. (146 mm) at the crown. The panel was conventionally reinforced with one
layer of epoxy-coated bars in each direction. The reinforcement was set horizontally parallel to
the bottom surface of the panel and at mid height at both ends, as shown in Figure A.2.4.9-2.

The precast deck was made composite with the superstructure by using grouted shear
pockets, as shown in Figure A.2.4.9-1. Figure A.2.4.9-3 shows the details of the shear pockets.
Three shear pockets were provided over each girder line along the length of the panel and four
7/8 in. (22.2 mm) steel studs were provided in each pocket. The transverse edges of the panel
were provided with a female shear key as shown in Figure A.2.4.9-4. Compressed foam rods
were used to block the gap between adjacent panels and non-shrink grout was used to fill the
shear pockets and the transverse joints. Neither longitudinal post-tensioning nor conventional
reinforcement was provided across the transverse joints between panels.
Figure A.2.4.9-1 Plan view and cross-section elevation of the panel
Figure A.2.4.9-2 Cross-section elevation showing details of reinforcement

Figure A.2.4.9-3 Details of the grouted shear pockets
Figure A.2.4.9-4 General view of the panels showing the transverse shear keys

In order to attach the steel side rail to the precast panels, a 3/8 x 8 in. (10 x 203 mm)
galvanized curb plate was attached vertically to the sides of the panel through four 5/8 in. (16
mm) diameter studs welded to the curb plate. Figure A.2.4.9-5 shows the details of the curb
plate.
During shipping of the first group of panels to the bridge site, the panels experienced
heavy cracking on the top surface, as shown in Figure A.2.4.9-6. After investigating this issue, it
was found that these panels were lifted from two points along the first interior girder lines, which
created negative bending moment at these locations (i.e. tensile stresses at top surface). Because
the panels had only one layer of reinforcement located close to the bottom surface, the effective
depth of the tensile reinforcement was small and the cracks penetrated the top surface of the
panel all the way to the tensile reinforcement, as shown in Figure A.2.4.9-7. These panels were
rejected and the contractor was asked to lift the panels as a simple span member to avoid
applying any negative moments on the panels. No cracks were reported on the successive groups
of panels. Figure A.2.4.9-8 shows the bridge after it was open to traffic. A difference in color
between the precast concrete and the non-shrink grout could be seen because no overlay was
used on top of the precast deck.
Figure A.2.4.9-5 Details of the curb plate

Figure A.2.4.9-6 Top view of the panel showing the top surface cracks
Figure A.2.4.9-7 Side view of the panel showing the top surface crack penetrating the top surface
to the reinforcement level

Figure A.2.4.9-8 General view of the bridge shortly after it was open to traffic
A.2.4.10 New York Department of Transportation
New York department of transportation used full-depth precast panels on a major bridge
over the Westchester expressway (I-287). The bridge was a curved with a skew of about 32
degrees. The bridge had 9 spans with total length of 1280 ft (390 m). The bridge had a total
width of 125 ft - 7 in (38323 mm). The cross section had two crowns and one downward crown
at the centerline of the center stage. The superstructure was made of six longitudinal steel open
box girders spaced at 12 ft-8 in. (3860 mm). The cross section of the bridge is shown in Figure
A.2.4.10-1. In order to maintain traffic on the bridge during construction, the precast deck was
made of three stages across the bridge.

The precast panels were 9 in. (229 mm) thick, and conventionally reinforced with two
layers of reinforcement in each direction. The conventional reinforcement was designed to resist
handling and erection stresses. Each stage of the deck was individually post-tensioned in the

transverse direction. The precast panels were made composite with the superstructure using
clustered groups of 7/8 in. (22.2 mm) steel studs spaced at 30 in. (762 mm). The steel studs were
welded to the top flange of the open steel boxes after a panel was installed. The transverse and
longitudinal edges of the panels were provided with a shear key detail. Cast-in-place concrete
pours, 3 ft- 3 in. (991 mm) wide, were cast between stages 1 and 2 and stages 2 and 3 to connect
various stages. These CIP joints were conventional reinforced by extending the transverse
reinforcement of the panels into these joints. Figure A.2.4.10-2 shows details of the precast panel
system used for each construction stage. Rectangular precast panels installed normal to the
longitudinal girders were used in order to simplify fabrication of the panels. Cast-in-place
concrete was used at the abutments to handle the skew profile of the bridge, as shown in Figure
A.2.4.10-3.
Zigzag patterned longitudinal post-tensioning system was used because the bridge had a
mild curved plan, as shown in Figure A.2.4.10-4. This system enabled the contractor to post-
tension each span individually, while maintaining continuity of the deck over the intermediate
piers to resist the negative moment resulted from the super imposed live and dead loads. The
transverse and longitudinal post-tensioning tendons were made of 4- 6/10 in. (15.2 mm) low
relaxation strands placed in flat ducts. The transverse tendons were installed at mid height of the
panel and the longitudinal tendons were staggered up and down the transverse tendons as shown
in Figure A.2.4.10-5. This arrangement resulted in only axial compression stresses due to the
post-tensioning tendons.
Figure A.2.4.10-2a Details of Stage 1 of the precast panels

Figure A.2.4.10-2b Details of Stage 2 of the precast panels
Figure A.2.4.10-2c Details of Stage 3 of the precast panels

Figure A.2.4.10-2d Sections A-a and B-B of the precast panels
Figure A.2.4.10-3 Cast-in-place approach slab

Figure A.2.4.10-4 Typical arrangement of precast panels
Figure A.2.4.10-5 Arrangement of intersecting transverse and longitudinal post tensioning

The elevation of the precast panels was adjusted by using plastic shim packs as shown in
Figure A.2.4.10-6. Lightweight steel angles attached to the top flange of the steel girders.
Figure A.2.4.10-7 shows the details of the hold-down device used to tie the precast panels
to the steel girders before applying the post-tensioning force. A hard wood block is installed
over a one of the shear pockets and secured by attaching it to a threaded bolt welded to the top
flange of the steel girder. Two hold-down devices were used per panel.
Figure A.2.4.10-8 shows the details of the connection between the CIP barriers and the
precast panel. Steel couplers were imbedded in the precast panel to couple the barrier
reinforcement to the precast panel.

Figure A.2.4.10-6 Details of elevation adjustment and built-up haunch
Figure A.2.4.10-7 Details of the hold-down device
Figure A.2.4.10-8 Details of the connection between the CIP barriers and the precast panel

A.2.4.11 Texas Department of Transportation
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) used full depth precast panels in two
projects. These were: (1) the SPUR 326 Bridge at AT&SF Railway and (2) the Hazard,
Woodhead, Dunlavy and Mandell Street Tied Arch Bridges.
The SPUR 326 Bridge at AT&SF Railway:
The project had two separate structures. Each structure was divided into three units: (a) a
50-ft simple span, (b) a four span 290 ft (88392 mm) continuous unit and (c) a three-span 205 ft
(62484 mm) continuous unit. The original structure included a 33 ft (10058 mm) wide and 6.5 in
(165 mm) thick cast-in-place slab supported on four longitudinal steel girders spaced at 8 ft
(2439 mm).
In 1989, due to signs of early deck deterioration and the necessity to widen the roadway
width, the deck slab was replaced and the roadway width was increased by adding two steel
girders spaced at 7 ft (2133 mm), as shown in Figure A.2.4.11-1 and A.2.4.11-2.
Figure A.2.4.11-1 Plan view of the structure

The 50-ft span of the west structure was the only span that was redecked using precast
concrete panels made composite with the supporting girders. Prismatic 8 in (202 mm) thick

conventionally reinforced precast panels were used. Figure A.2.4.11-3 shows a plan view of the
panel. Three blockout holes were provided per panel per girder to accommodate the shear
connectors. A female type shear keys were created at the transverse edges of the panels, as
shown in Figure A.2.4.11-4. The shear connector blockouts and the transverse joints were filled
with epoxy mortar from the top surface of the panels. The epoxy grout had a minimum sand-
epoxy ratio of three and a minimum compressive strength of 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa) and 7,000 psi
(48.3 MPa) at 24 hours and 7 days, respectively. The bottom face of the shear key was sealed
using ½ in. (12.7 mm) thick by 2 in. (50 mm) wide strips of wood. The strips were set in place
from the bottom of the bridge and tied from the top. The panels were fabricated and cast next to
the bridge span.
Figure A.2.4.11-3 Plan view of the precast panel

To adjust the elevation of the panels on the steel girders, shims and neoprene bearing
pads were placed on top of the steel girders, as shown in Figure A.2.4.11-5. Galvanized angles,
fastened to the precast panels, were used as grout barriers. The gap between the galvanized
angles and the steel beams were sealed using heavy-duty tape. This detail did not perform well
and many points experienced severe leakage during grouting.
Figure A.2.4.11-5 Cross section of the deck at a girder line showing the details of shimming and
grout barriers

US 59: Hazard, Woodhead, Dunlavy and Mandell Street Tied Arch Bridges
Four bridges were replaced as a part of the widening project on US 59 route. A steel tied
arch system with clear span of 224 ft (68275 mm) was used for the replacement project. The arch
system consisted of two arches, set 45 ft (13716 mm) apart, fabricated from steel plates and
braced with rectangular structural tubing. Total width of the bridge was 60 ft (18288 mm).
Full depth precast concrete deck panel system, transversely pretensioned and
longitudinally post-tensioned, was used. The precast panels were suspended from the tie of the
arch using bolts. Figure A.2.4.11-6 shows an elevation profile of the precast panel. The panel
dimensions were 60 ft (18288 mm) wide, and 7 ft (2134 mm) long. Because the roadway had a
crown at its centerline, the precast panels were crowned at the centerline of the roadway by
increasing the thickness of the panel. The variable thickness helps to optimize the self-weight of
the panel and provide for the depth needed for the positive moment section at centerline of the
roadway.
Figure A.2.4.11-7 shows the cross section of the panel. The panel was reinforced with
two layers of pretensioned strands. The bottom layer of strands was split into three groups (one
center group and two edge groups) to avoid interference with the bolts used to the panel with the
ties of the arch. The top layer of strands was provided to resist the negative moment of the
overhangs.
No shear key was provided at the transverse edges of the panels. However, the vertical
surface of the transverse edges was roughened during fabrication of the panels. This was
achieved by painting the side forms with a retarding agent and washing the panels edges with
high-pressure water, which resulted in aggregate exposed uniformly roughened surface. A 3-in.
(76 mm) wide gap was provided between adjacent panels and wood forming from under the deck
was used to bridge the gap during placement of the grout. See section D.6 of this report for more
details.
Figure A.2.4.11-6 Half cross section of the arch tied bridge

Figure A.2.4.11-7 Cross section of the precast deck of the arch tied bridge
A 4-inch (102 mm) thick composite concrete overlay was used over the precast panels to
solve the problem of differential camber in the prestressed panels set side by side. One layer of
conventional reinforcement was provided in the overlay, as shown in Figure D.4.11-8.
Figure A.2.4.11-8 Reinforcement of the cast-in-place topping of the arch tied bridge
A.2.4.12 Utah Department of Transportation
Utah Department of Transportation has recently decided to use a full depth precast
concrete deck panel system for the rehabilitation project of the deck of the C-437 of the County
Road over I-80 to Wanship. The bridge has four continuous spans 42.5, 81.5, 81.5 and 42.5 ft
(12954, 24841, 24841 and 12954 mm). The existing superstructure is made of four steel plate

girders spaced at 9 ft – 10 in. (2997 mm). The total width of the bridge is 35 ft – 7½ in. (10859
mm). The bridge has a crown at the centerline of the road with a 2 percent cross slope both ways.
The bridge has a 45-degree skew angle. Figure A.2.4.12-1 shows a plan view and a cross section
elevation of the bridge.
Two straight precast panels are used across the width of the bridge. The precast panels
have a ¼ in. (6 mm) concrete grinding allowance for correcting uneven roadway surface at
transverse and longitudinal joints between panels and between panels and the end of the bridge
deck. A polymer overlay is provided after grinding is complete. A 3 ft – 4 in. wide gap filled
with cast-in-place concrete is created at the crown to connect the panels.
A typical rectangular 8¼ in. (210 mm) thick panel is used across the bridge except at the
abutments where a skewed panel is used to accommodate the skew angle of the bridge. Figure
A.2.4.12-2 shows a plan view of a typical precast panel. The dimensions of the typical panels
are chosen to minimize the number of the panels shipped and installed on the bridge and to avoid
splicing two adjacent panels over the piers, as shown in Figure A.2.4.12-1. This arrangement has
resulted in using 12 typical panels and four end panels.
Figure A.2.4.12-1 Plan view and cross section elevation of the C-437 structure over I-80 to
Wanship

Figure A.2.4.12-2 Plan view of a typical precast panel
The precast panels are conventionally reinforced with two layers of epoxy coated steel
bars in each direction, as shown in Figure A.2.4.12-3. The longitudinal reinforcement is designed
to resist the negative moment over the piers resulted from the superimposed dead and live loads
applied after the deck is made composite with the superstructure.
Figure A.2.4.12-3 Cross-section elevation of a typical precast panel

The precast deck is made composite with the superstructure by using grouted shear
pockets spaced at 16¼ in. (413 mm) along the length of the panel. Each shear pocket
accommodates three 7/8 in. (22.2 mm) steel studs, which are welded to the top flange of the steel
girders after the panels are installed. Figure A.2.4.12-4 shows the details of the shear pockets.
Twelve vertical adjustment devices are used per each panel. The vertical adjustment
device is made of a coil insert and a 1 in. (25.4 mm) diameter bolt as shown in Figure A.2.4.12-
5. After the level of a panel is adjusted, each bolts is cut in a 2-in. (50 mm) deep recess created
on the top surface of the panel. Then the shear pockets and recess is filled with non-shrink grout.

To connect the panels at the crown, the transverse reinforcement of the panel extended
outside the panel for a distance of 42 in. (1067 mm), as shown in Figure A.2.4.12-6. Also, the
plans of the bridge show that the designer allows the use of threaded coupler as an alternative.
Figure A.2.4.12-6 shows also various details of transverse and longitudinal joints between
panels. It is worthy to note that no shear keys are provided at the transverse or longitudinal edges
of the panel and no roughening requirement is specified for these edges.
Figure A.2.4.12-4 Details of the shear pockets
Figure A.2.4.12-5 Details of the vertical adjustment screw

Figure A.2.4.12-6 Details of the transverse and longitudinal joints between the precast panels

A.2.4.13 Virginia Department of Transportation
Route 7 over Route 50, Fairfax County, Virginia (18) consisted of two structures, Route 7
Eastbound & Route 7 Westbound. These two structures were part of four structures at the Route
7 Route 50 Interchange built by the Virginia Department of Transportation in 1950's (Figure
A.2.4.13-1). The structures were single span, steel plate girder bridges with composite concrete
decks. The eastbound bridge was 138' long and 50’ wide. The westbound bridge was 110' long
and 49’ wide. After about 40 years of service, the concrete decks had deteriorated extensively
and needed frequent repair. Repair and maintenance of the bridge decks was a major problem
due to the congested traffic at the interchange. The interchange is a heavily trafficked area in the
Metropolitan Washington. The Eastbound carried four traffic lanes towards Washington, D.C.
and the Westbound carries three traffic lanes towards Tyson’s Corner, Virginia. Any traffic
disturbance on these bridges would create a chain reaction in the whole interchange causing
significant traffic delays. Therefore, the Virginia Department of Transportation planned to
replace the bridge decks.
Although a nighttime construction of the precast deck alternate would cost about
$250,000 more than using cast-in-place (CIP) concrete deck with full closure of the bridge, it
would save about $2,000,000 for the community in terms of user cost. Construction began in
September of 1999 and was successfully completed in about 1 1/2 months.
The construction requirements mandated that construction operations should be
conducted in such a manner that all lanes on the bridges are open to traffic from 5:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. and during construction (i.e., 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.) the bridges should be partially
open to traffic at all times. Therefore, the existing composite concrete deck was replaced in three
stages. In each stage, a portion of the transverse section was removed and replaced the full length
of the bridge, while two traffic lanes were allowed on the bridge during the replacement, as
shown in Figure A.2.4.13-1.
A total of 18 different panel shapes were designed to fit the three construction stages and
the skewed ends of the deck slab, while conforming to the weight limit for transportability and
constructibility (10 tons). A typical panel was 10 ft (3048 mm) in the longitudinal direction of
the bridge (direction of traffic) and its width varied depending on the stage of construction.
Lightweight concrete was used in fabrication of the panels to compensate for the additional
weight of the overlay. The concrete compressive strength was 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa). Panel
reinforcement was designed based on the AASHTO method of concrete slab design with the
main reinforcement perpendicular to the direction of traffic. Typically, epoxy-coated, #5 (M16)
bars were used in both transverse and longitudinal directions. The reinforcement density in the
transverse direction was approximately #5 (M16) bar at 6 in. (152 mm) at the top and bottom
layers. The reinforcement density in the longitudinal direction was approximately #5 (M16) bar
at 14 in. (356 mm) at the top layer and #5 (M16) bar at 7 in. (178 mm) at the bottom layer.
The panel elevation was adjusted by a leveling bolt system. Each panel had 4 bolts
threaded through cast-in-place sockets. These bolts temporarily bear on the existing girders and
were adjusted by a wrench. After positioning the panel, the haunch between the panel and girder
was built with a high-early-strength concrete. The high-early-strength concrete was a latex-
modified concrete that gains 3,000 psi (20.7 MPa) compressive strength in 3 hours sufficient to
allow traffic on the bridge. The strength in 24 hours is 6,000 psi (41.4 MPa).

Figure A.2.4.13-1 Construction stages
Continuity across the transverse joints was accomplished by providing a post-tensioned,
grouted shear key (Figure A.2.4.13-2). High-early-strength grout was used in the shear key. The

gap at the bottom of the shear key compensated for the dimensional tolerance of the panels. Post-
tensioning provided 200 psi (1.4 MPa) compression at the transverse joint. This amount of
compression was sufficient for simple span bridges because the deck was under compression
from superimposed dead loads and live loads. The post-tensioning strands ran along oblong ducts
placed at mid-depth of the panels. The ducts were spliced at each transverse joint in small
blockouts. Each post-tensioning duct used three 6/10 in. (15.2 mm) diameter, seven-wire, low
relaxation strands with an ultimate tensile strength of 270 ksi (1.86 GPa). After post-tensioning,
the ducts were pressure grouted and the blockouts were filled with high-early-strength concrete.
To improve the shear transfer, welded sliding shear plates were installed across each transverse
joint (Figure A.2.4.13-3).
Figure A.2.4.13-2 Post-Tensioning duct splice blockout

The two longitudinal joints between the three construction stages were oriented over
girders. The negative moment transfer at the longitudinal joints was provided by spliced top
transverse bars embedded in a 3 ft (910 mm) strip of partial depth, high-early-strength, cast-in-
place concrete, as shown in Figure A.2.4.13-4.
Figure A.2.4.13-3 Shear plates

The panels had shear stud blockouts located over the girders. Composite action was
provided by studs welded to the girders in these blockouts. The blockouts had a tapered wall to
prevent uplift of the panel and they were filled with the high early strength concrete. It should be
noted that the shear stud blockouts were filled after post-tensioning, to prevent exerting positive
moments onto superstructure from post-tensioning.
Figure A.2.4.13-4 Longitudinal connection between Stage 3 and Stage 1 & 2

In order to temporarily restrain the panels against movements caused by the daytime
traffic, two bolts were welded to the girder in the blockout in place of the two exterior shear
studs, as shown in Figure A.2.4.13-5. These bolts secured a temporarily hold-down plate in the
blockout and restrained vertical and horizontal panel movements. The blockout was temporarily
filled with sand and topped with asphalt concrete in preparation for daytime traffic. After post-
tensioning, the asphalt concrete, filler sand, and hold-down plate were removed. Subsequently,
the hold-down bolts were cut to the size and the blockout was filled with the high early strength
concrete.
Figure A.2.4.13-5 Shear stud blockout with down hold bolts

The panels were fabricated based on the as-built dimensions and shipped/stored nearby
the job site prior to construction. Every night, after saw cutting and removing the existing slab,
the panels were lowered into position and placed on the existing steel framing. The final
elevation of the top of the deck was achieved by adjusting the leveling bolts. Every night, the
haunch between the beam flange and the panel soffit was built with a flowable, high-early-
strength concrete fed through the blockouts located over the beam.
Composite construction was initiated by welding studs to the beam flange in the same
blockouts prior to building the haunch. The blockouts were temporarily filled with sand and
topped with asphalt in preparation for the daytime traffic. Also, the temporary hold-down bolts
and plates were installed in selected blockouts to prevent panel movements under the daytime
traffic. Every night, the panel shear keys along the transverse side were filled with the high-
early-strength concrete and the welded sliding plates were installed across the shear key. The
high-early-strength concrete was also used every night during the construction of Stage 3 to
embed the spliced negative moment bars across the longitudinal joints.
After all panels were installed, they were post-tensioned in the longitudinal direction to
assure tight transverse joints between the panels. The anchorage assembly blockouts (at the ends
of the bridge) were then filled with the high-early-strength concrete. Subsequently, the shear stud
blockouts were cleaned from sand and asphalt and filled with the high-early-strength concrete to
achieve composite construction. Finally, an overlay was applied on the entire deck to provide a
smooth ride over the panel joints and to waterproof the joints. The overlay consisted of asphalt
concrete with a waterproofing membrane. The membrane was a preformed sheet membrane that
was unrolled on the panels and torch welded at the overlaps prior to placement of the asphalt
concrete. In addition to waterproofing, the membrane has the ability to bridge the panel joints
and prevent reflection of the joints in the asphalt concrete. The panels on the sidewalk were
sealed and covered with a thin layer of polymer with sand broadcast over the polymer for
texture.
A.2.4.14 Wisconsin Department of Transportation (19)
WisDOT chose the US Interstate 39/90, Door Greek Project, as a demonstration bridge of
the use of precast deck panel systems. The original project was a twin bridge carrying two lanes.
Each bridge was an 83 ft (25.30 m) long, 40 ft – 2 in. (12.24 m) wide, single span structure with
a 30 degree skew, supported on five 60 in. (1524 mm) deep steel plate girders spaced at 8 ft- 10
in. (2.69 m) on center. The deck replacement project included widening both bridges to 64 ft – 6
in. (19.66 m) by adding three steel plate girders at 7 ft-6 in. (2.29 m) on center, as shown in
Figure A.2.4.14-1. The proposed precast system consists of full-depth precast concrete deck
panels, which are constructed off-site and brought to the site ready for placement. The panels are
then post-tensioned together in place in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. For the
prototype bridge, stage construction was used, which required that a longitudinal construction
joint be present. Figure A.2.4.14-1 shows a plan view of the proposed deck panel layout, where
skew panels are used.
Because the panels were post-tensioned in place for both the longitudinal and transverse
directions, post-tensioning ducts had to be placed in both directions. As seen in Figure A.2.4.14-
2, the longitudinal post-tensioning duct is located in the center of the slab, while the transverse
post tensioning ducts are placed above and below the longitudinal ducts. The panel thickness for
the Door Creek Bridge is 8¾ in.

Figure A.2.4.14-1 General layout of the precast deck system
Figure A.2.4.14-2 Longitudinal and transverse post-tensioning ducts

The longitudinal joint between stage 1 and 2 consists of a post-tensioned female-female
joint. A system was developed in which the stage 1 panels were fully pretensioned transversely
to resist panel stresses due to handling, transportation, and placement, as well as vehicle induced
bending due to traffic during the stage 2 construction. Only longitudinal post-tensioning was
needed before traffic could be applied on stage 1 panels. Roadway crown or cross slope was
achieved using flat panels and a “kink” at the longitudinal joint. Half of the transverse
pretensioning strands, spaced at 28.5 in. (42 cm), were left protruding from the stage-1 panels.
The transverse post-tensioning ducts in the second stage panels were placed to match the
locations of the top and bottom protruding pre-tensioned strands of the stage 1 panels at the
longitudinal joint. Post-tensioning strand is placed in these stage 2 panel ducts and then coupled
to the protruding strand from the first stage construction. These post-tensioning strands, along
with an equal amount of pre-stressing strand already cast into the panel for handling,
transportation, and placement, resist vehicle induced bending in stage 2 panels. Part of the design
was to prevent any cracking at service load levels. The post-tensioned joint should create a much
more durable bridge deck and is ultimately the reason it was incorporated. All ducts were
grouted with Sika 300PT prepackaged grout. The longitudinal joint for the bridge is not located
over a girder; instead the joint occurs between girders. When traffic is on the stage 1 deck,
during stage 2 construction, the cantilevered portion of the deck to this joint had to resist
moments from a temporary barrier wall.
The moments induced by traffic over the completed joint, however, controlled the design.
If the deck cracks at the joint when under traffic load, it will occur at the bottom of the deck

rather than the top because the joint is placed in the positive moment region. This should reduce
ingress of salt solutions and leakage along the joint, making the deck more durable.
To achieve full composite action between the precast deck panels and girders, whether
steel or concrete, shear connector block-outs are provided within precast deck panels. Headed
shear studs (or stirrups in precast concrete beam girder construction) that are attached to the
girder extend into these block-outs to achieve the desired composite action. The number of studs
or stirrups in each pocket is usually based on the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials3 design requirements. Based on previous projects with decks on steel
girders, the maximum shear stud spacing or distance between shear stud block-outs is 2 ft (610
mm), which conforms to AASHTO, both LRFD3 and the Standard Specifications design limits.
The writers believe this limit is a safe “rule-of-thumb” limit imposed by the AASHTO to assure
complete composite action and avoid fatigue conditions. In most circumstances this spacing is
based on the fatigue capacity of the studs, and not the ultimate capacity. With precast panels it is
beneficial, however, to place the shear connector block outs at the largest spacing possible. This
allows for fewer block outs in the panels, which in turn increases panel strength for shipping and
decreases manufacturing time and cost. An alternate spacing of 4 ft (1,220 mm) is used on the
Door Creek ridge. The original shear connectors on the existing steel girders are removed and the
new studs are placed in the pockets after all of the panels are positioned and post-tensioned
longitudinally. The pockets are subsequently grouted along with the haunches between the
girders and panels. Achieving a shear connection with an existing prestressed concrete girder
would be more difficult, but would likely entail attaching steel plates to the top of the girders, to
which studs would be welded later. Finally, the deck is milled to provide a smooth driving
surface and then receives a two layer epoxy overlay. Epoxy was selected to allow observation of
joint behavior over time. Figures A.2.4.14-3 to A.2.4.14-6 show some of the construction steps.
Figure A.2.4.14-3 Construction Stage #1
Figure A.2.4.14-4 Forming, grouting & longitudinal post-tensioning of Construction Stage #1

Figure A.2.4.14-5 Milling and overlaying of Stage #1
Figure A.2.4.14-6 Longitudinal post-tensioned joint between Stage 1 and 2

A.2.4.15 Ontario Ministry of Transportation, OMOT
OMOT implemented the first field application of fabricated bridge technology for a
bridge replacement project in northern Ontario, Moose Creek Bridge, in late 2003. The structure
is a single span bridge 101 ft – 8 in. (22000 mm), as shown in Figure A.2.4.15-1. Total width of
the bridge is 48 ft (14640 mm) and has a crown at the centerline of the road.
Figure A.2.4.15-1 Elevation view of the Moose Creek Bridge

The superstructure is made of six, 47 in. (1200 mm) deep AASHTO precast, prestressed
concrete beams spaced at 8 ft (2450 mm). In order to minimize shipping and construction cost,
the designer has decided to cast the deck slab monolithically with the precast beam, which
resulted in six T-beams, as shown in Figure A.2.4.15-2. Compressive concrete strength at release
and at 28 days are 4,600 and 7,250 psi (32 and 50 MPa) respectively.

The T-beams are connected in the longitudinal direction by extending the transverse
reinforcement of the deck into a 13.7 in. (350 mm) joint created between the beams. This gap is
filled with cast-in-place concrete. To avoid field forming for the joints, one edge of the T-beam
is provided with a 2.75 in. (70 mm) thick concrete tongue that could support the weight of the
concrete filling the gap. Figure A.2.4.15-3 and A.2.4.15-4 give the details of the T-beam. The T-
beams are hold in place using temporary bracing, which is removed after the longitudinal joints
are cast. The traffic barriers are cast in the field.
Figure A.2.4.15-2 Cross section of the Moose Creek Bridge
Figure A.2.4.15-3a Details of the exterior T-beams

Figure A.2.4.15-3b Details of the interior T-beams
Figure A.2.4.15-4 Details of the shear key and tongue details

A.2.5 Miscellaneous Full-Depth Concrete Precast Deck Systems
A.2.5.1 Full-Depth Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridge Deck System Developed by University
of Nebraska
This system was developed under the NCHRP 12-41, titled “Rapid Replacement of
Bridge Deck,” at the University of Nebraska (20). An overview of the new system is shown in
Figure A.2.5.1-1. This system is made of precast concrete panels made composite with the

supporting girders. The length of the panel is 7’-10” (2390 mm) and it covers the full width of a
bridge. The precast panels are transversely pretensioned and longitudinally post-tensioned. The
panels are clamped to the supporting girders with threaded studs attached to the girder top
surface.
Post-tensioning tendons
Leveling bolt
(to be removed
after grout hardened)
Grouted shear key
Welded threaded stud

with plate washer and nut
Non-shrink grout
Figure A.2.5.1-1 General View of the University of Nebraska Deck System

A typical transverse cross-section of the precast panel has a 41/2 in. (115 mm) thick solid
slab, 11.6 in. (295 mm) wide external stems and 5.9 in. (150 mm) wide internal stems, as shown
in Figure A.2.5.1-2 and A.2.5.1-3. Using multi-stemmed section reduces self-weight of the deck
and the amount of longitudinal post-tensioning required. The AASHTO Specifications (21,22)
require 21/2 in. (63 mm) clear cover at the top of the slab when deicing compounds are used and
1 in. (25.4 mm) clear at the bottom of the slab. The solid slab thickness was determined to
accommodate top strands and welded wire fabric with the required clear cover. Two-way shear
(punching shear) strength was checked to support the decision. The width of external stems was
set to accommodate two bottom strands and provide an adequate blockout for a post-tensioning
anchorage device and threaded studs. The width of the interior stems was set to accommodate
two bottom strands.
A specified strength of concrete for the precast panels of 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa) at transfer
of prestress and a 28-day strength of 7,500 psi (51.71 MPa) have been used in developing the
system. Twenty ½ in. (12.7 mm) diameter, 270 ksi (1.86 GPa) indented strands are used as the
main flexural reinforcement in the transverse direction. Indented strands are used to reduce the
required transfer and development length of the strands in the overhang. Also, confinement
reinforcement bars are added at both edges of the panel for the same reason. Welded wire
reinforcement (WWR) is used for temperature and shrinkage effects.

Overhang Girder Spacing Girder Spacing
Girder Girder
C.L. A C.L.
2390
(7'-10")
B
B
A
C C
Bottom view Top view
Figure A.2.5.1-2 Plan view of the panel

2390 (7'-10")
1/2" φ 270 ksi strands
WWR
115
(4.5")
57 (2.3")
205 98 (3.8")
(8.1”)
50 (2")
150 450 295

(5.9") (17.7") (11.6")
Figure A.2.5.1-3 Section A-A, Typical cross section of the precast panel
The longitudinal cross section consists of 8.1 in. (205 mm) thick solid sections at each
girder location and 4.5 in. (115 mm) thick sections between them, as shown in Figure A.2.5.1-4.
The thick portion at the girder location is used to accommodate post-tensioning steel and to
eliminate eccentricity of post-tensioning forces. Two 1 in. (25 mm) diameter, 150 ksi (1.03 GPa)
post-tensioning galvanized bars are used at each girder location, which provide 200 psi (1.38
MPa) of longitudinal compressive stress in the panels.

Girder Spacing Girder Spacing
2- 25 mm (1") φ
post-tensioning bar
Non-shrink
grout
Figure A.2.5.1-4 Section B-B over a girder line

Blockouts are provided for anchorage and couplers of the post-tensioned bars at both
transverse edges of panels as shown in Figure A.2.5.1-5. The blockouts are used also, to house
the threaded studs that are needed to clamp the panel to the girder prior to applying the post
tensioning force.
2- 25 mm (1") φ
post-tensioning bar
Anchor plate
250
(10")
205
(8.1")
Threaded stud
Grout stopper
Figure A.2.5.1-5 Section C-C

The transverse edges of the panels are formed to create a shear key as shown in Figure
A.2.5.1-3. When the panels are installed next to each other, a clear spacing of 0.4 inch (10 mm)
is provided for production and construction tolerance. A flowable rapid-set, non-shrink grout
(such as Set 45 by Master Builders) is used to fill the transverse joints between panels and packer
rods are used to close this gap to protect the grout from leaking during the grout process.
To provide for the composite action between the precast panels and the girders, welded
headless studs are used as shown in Figure A.2.5.1-6. The studs are clustered in three groups per
panel per girder line. The clustered studs are housed in three pockets created in the precast panel.
The headless studs are used, instead of the headed 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) or 7/8 in. (22.2 mm) headed

studs, in order to facilitate deck removal in the future. In addition to the headless studs, threaded
studs are used to clamp the panels with the girder.
Figure A.2.5.1-6 Horizontal shear connection between the panel and the girder
This system had gone under comprehensive testing investigation through full-scale
testing of a bridge mockup (Yamane et al 1998). Based on the results of this investigation, the
following conclusions were drawn:
1. The proposed system was demonstrated to be cost competitive with other concrete panel
system yet 10 to 30 percent lighter.
2. Panels can be rapidly produced, constructed, and removed.
3. Indented transverse pretensioning strands performed well. Their use is recommended.
4. Grouted post-tensioned transverse joints between precast panels showed excellent
performance under service load and fatigue loading. The performance met all the
requirements for a precast panel bridge deck system.
5. Deflections of precast panels under service load are fairly small at most locations.
6. The AASHTO punching shear requirements appears too conservative. The new precast
panel system carried approximately 190 percent of the required factored load. The panel
failed due to punching shear at an ultimate stage.
7. Headless studs and relatively little longitudinal reinforcement facilitate panel removal.
A.2.5.2 The Effideck System
Effideck is a lightweight composite precast bridge deck system. It consists of a 5-in. (127
mm) precast concrete deck slab supported on closely spaced structural steel tubes. Figure
A.2.5.2-1 gives a plan view of the panel and Figure A.2.5.2-2 gives the cross section of the
panel.

Figure A.2.5.2-1 Plan view and cross section elevation of the Effideck system
Figure A.2.5.2-2 Cross section view of the Effideck system (Section B-B)
The structural steel tubes are arranged in the transverse direction at 2 ft –9 in. (838 mm)
and rest directly on the longitudinal girders (stringers) of the bridge superstructure. They are

provided with headed steel studs in order to act compositely with the concrete slab. Therefore,
the composite precast deck behaves like a multi-stem system supported by the bridge girders, as
shown in Figure A.2.5.2-2. The concrete slab is conventionally reinforced with one layer of
Grade 60, epoxy-coated steel bars and made from 5,000 to 6,000 psi (34.5 to 41.4 KPa)
lightweight concrete.
At the negative moment areas across the panel, which are at the girder lines and at the
overhang part of the deck, the deck is cast full-depth with concrete to provide haunches, as
shown in Figure A.2.5.2-1. These haunches provide the compression block needed to resist the
negative moment, and they work as barriers for the grout in the shear pockets. Figure A.2.5.2-3
gives a bottom view of the precast panel showing the transverse steel tubes and the concrete
haunches at the girder line location.
Figure A.2.5.2-3 Bottom view of the Effideck system

The EFFIDECK system can be made composite with the superstructure girders. The
panel is provided with shear pockets located at the girder lines and spaced at 4 ft (1220 mm) to
accommodate steel studs clustered in groups, as shown in Figure A.2.5.2-4 and A.2.5.2-5. The
panel is installed temporarily on shims and its elevation is adjusted using leveling screws, as
shown in Figure A.2.5.2-6. Then the shear pockets and the space between the panels and the
girders are filled with non-shrink, high early strength grout, which provides permanent support
for the panels.
Figure A.2.5.2-4 Shear pockets accommodating clustered groups of steel studs

Figure A.2.5.2-5 Section C-C of the Effideck system showing girder-to-panel connection
Figure A.2.5.2-6 Adjustment of the panel elevation using leveling screws

In order to connect the panels in the longitudinal direction, each panel is provided with a
female shape shear key along its transverse edges. A 3/4 in. (19 mm) gap is maintained during
installation between adjacent panels and a backer rod is used to block the gap and work as barrier
for the cast-in-place grout, as shown in Figure D.5.2-7.
Figure A.2.5.2-7 Shear key details of the Effideck system

In addition to the shear key, the panels are positively connected using structural steel
channel sections located at intermediate pockets along the transverse edges of the panel, as
shown in Figure A.2.5.2-8 and A.2.5.2-9. The steel channel sections are bolted with the
structural steel tubes of the panel.
Figure A.2.5.2-8 Transverse panel-to-panel connection of the Effideck system

Figure A.2.5.2-9 Transverse panel-to-panel connection using a structural steel channel
The EFFIDECK panel can cover the full width of a bridge, as shown in Figure D.5.2-10.
However, in case of very wide bridges where shipping of long precast panels is not possible,
multiple panels can be used across the width of the bridge and connected with cast-in-place
longitudinal joints as shown in Figure A.2.5.2-11.
Figure A.2.5.2-10 Full-width EFFIDECK panel
Figure A.2.5.2-11 Partial-width EFFIDECK panel

A.3 SHEAR KEY GEOMETRY, JOINT FORMING AND GROUT MATERIAL
A.3.1 Introduction
Typically, the shear key that extends along the transverse edges of a precast panel plays
an important role in the service performance of the finished deck. The shear key has to be
designed to protect adjacent panels form relative vertical movement and transfer the traffic load
from one panel to the next panel without failure at the panel-to-panel joint.
Under traffic load, a panel-to-panel joint experiences two types of straining actions: (1) a
vertical shear force that tries to break the pond between the panel and the grout filling the joint,
and (2) a bending moment that puts the top half of the joint in compression and the bottom half
of the joint in tension.
Accordingly, two modes of failure can be expected at the joint. These are: (1) bond
failure between the grout and the panel, and (2) crushing of the grout close to the top surface of
the panel. Searching the literature has shown that most of the problems at panel-to-panel joints
are attributed to the first failure mode. This is due to the following facts:
1. The grout as a cementitious mix has tendency to shrink, which puts the interface between
the panel and the grout in tension that may exceed the bond strength.
2. If the elevation of the top surface of adjacent panels is not carefully lined up, the impact
effects of the traffic load at the joint is significantly magnified and eventually breaks the
bond between the grout and the panel. This is true especially if no overlay is used and the
top surface of the precast panels is used as the riding surface without filing.
3. Avoiding the second failure mode can be easily achieved by specifying a grout mix with
a compressive strength that matches the panel concrete strength.
A.3.2 Shear Key Shape
Various shear key shapes have been used with full-depth precast concrete panels. The
following section gives a short summary of the most common shapes that have been used.
A.3.2.1 Non-grouted Match-cast Joints
Figure A.3.2.1-1 shows the details of the joint. This detail was used by Indiana
Department of Transportation. Although match casting can be achieved in a controlled
fabrication environment, i.e. in a precast concrete plant, it has been found that it is very difficult
to achieve a perfect match in the field after installing the panels due to construction tolerances
and elevation adjustment of the panels. This detail was used in conjunction with longitudinal
post-tensioning. Also, thin neoprene sheets were installed between adjacent panels to avoid high
stress concentrations. Cracking and spalling of concrete at the panel joints were observed after
five years of service (5), which eventually lead to a leakage problem at the joints.
Figure A.3.2.1-1 Non-grouted Match-cast Joint

A.3.2.2 Grouted Female-to-Female Joints
In this group of joints, grout is used fill the joint between adjacent panels. Inclined
surfaces are provided in the shear key detail to enhance the vertical shear strength capacity of the
joint. Therefore, vertical shear forces applied at the joint are resisted by bearing and by bond
between the grout and the panel. The shear key is recessed at the top to create a relatively wide
gap that allows casting the grout in the joint. Figure A.3.2.2-1 gives some of these details that
have been used in bridges.
(a) Trapezoidal-shape shear key detail used in the Pedro Creek Bridge, Alaska
(b) Semi-circle shear key detail used in the George Washington Memorial Parkway Bridges,
Washington DC
(c) V-Shape shear key detail used in the Skyline Drive Bridge, Omaha, Nebraska
(d) Rectangular shear key detail used in the Delaware River Bridge, New York
Figure A.3.2.2-1 Various grouted female-to-female joint details

With grouted joints, a form has to be provided at the bottom surface of the panels to
protect the grout from leaking during casting. Two methods of forming have been used:
(a) Polyethylene backer rods in the tight space between panels at the bottom of joint (see
Figure A.3.2.2-1 (a) and (b)): This detail has been used for a very long time by many
highway authorities. Although, this detail does not require any construction work to be
done form under a bridge, it has been reported (Nottingham 1996, Gulyas 1996, and Issa
et al 2003) that due to fabrication and construction tolerances the joint may end up
partially full, i.e. the grout does not fill the full height of the joint, as shown in Figure
A.3.2.2-2. Partially-filled grouted joints cause high stress concentrations at the panel
edges, especially if longitudinal post-tensioning is applied, and initiate cracking close to
the bottom surface of the panels.
Figure A.3.2.2-2 Effect of tight and loose tolerances on panel-to-panel joints

(b) Wood forming from under the panel (as shown in Figure A.3.2.2-2): In this detail, a gap
of 1 to 3 in. (25 to 76 mm) is maintained between adjacent panels and wood forms are
installed from under the panel. The forms are hanged from the top surface of the precast
panels using threaded rods and nuts. Using this detail usually results in a full-height
grouted joint with excellent service performance (23,24).
Figure A.3.2.2-2 Wood forming of the panel-to-panel joint used in the Arch Tied Bridges, Texas
A.3.3 Shear Key Texture
The bond between the grout and the shear key surface can be significantly enhanced by
roughening the shear key surface (25). This has been found extremely important in connecting
precast panels when no longitudinal post-tensioning is used and the joint is not pre-compressed.

Roughening can be achieved by sand blasting the shear key surface that is followed by a
thoroughly washing procedure. This operation can be done in the precast plant before shipping
the panels or on the bridge site before installing the panels on the bridge.
Also, roughening can be achieved during fabrication of the panels by painting the side
forms with a retarding agent. After removing the side forms, the shear key is washed with water
under high pressure, so that the aggregate of the concrete will be exposed and a uniformly
roughened surface is created. This concept was used by Texas Department of Transportation in
the precast concrete panels used for the Arch Tied Bridges, as shown Figure A.3.3-1.
Figure A.3.3-1 Exposed aggregate roughened surface used in the Arch Tied Bridges, Texas (see
Section D.4.9 of this report)
A.3.4 Grout Material
Several grout material have been used in filling the shear pockets and the transverse
joints between adjacent panels. Some of these grout material are commercial products and some
are developed by state highway agencies. The common properties that exist among all types of
grout are: (1) relatively high strength (2,000 to 4,000 psi) at young age (1 to 24 hours), (2) very
small shrinkage deformation, (4) superior bonding with hardened concrete surfaces, and (3) low
permeability. Through the literature review that has been conducted in this project, the
researchers have noticed that the majority of state highway agencies specify the properties
required for the grout material rather than specifying a certain type of grout material. Therefore,
the contractor has to take the responsibility of choosing the type of grout material and then seeks
the approval from the highway agency.
The following sections provide a summary of the most common types of grout that have
used with full depth precast panels. Also, the following sections provide information about some
of the recent research that has been done to compare the performance of various types of grout.
A.3.4.1 Commercial Products
Through the literature review conducted in this project, the researcher has found that the
following commercial products have been used with full depth precast concrete deck.

SET 45: Chemical-action repair mortar: It is a one-component concrete repair and anchoring
material, which sets in approximately 15 minutes, for use in ambient temperatures
below 85°F (29°C).
SET 45 Hot Weather (HW): It is a one-component concrete repair and anchoring material,
which sets in approximately 15 minutes, for use in ambient temperatures below
85-100°F (29-38°C).
SET GROUT: General construction, natural aggregate non-shrink grout: It is a Portland
cement-based product, non-catalyzed, multi-purpose construction grout
containing mineral aggregate.
EMACO 2020: Polymer concrete system: It is a methyl methacrylate (MMA), polymer concrete
system designed for the protection and rehabilitation of horizontal, formed
vertical or overhead concrete surfaces. It consists of three parts denominated A,
B, and C, for binder, aggregate and initiator, respectively.
EMACO 2041: Bonding agent for EMACO 2020: It is a one-component, moisture-tolerant
acrylic bonding agent applied to concrete or steel prior to the placement of
EMACO 2020 polymer concrete system.
Recently, these types of grout material have gone under experimental investigation to
measure their performance in full depth concrete deck panels. The findings of the experimental
investigation are given in Section A.3.4.3 of this appendix.
A.3.4.2 Non-commercial Grout Material
The non-commercial grout materials presented in this section were used for regular
construction schedule, where the bridge was closed for extended period of time, and the grout
needs extended period of time of continuous curing (at least 7 days).
Hydraulic Cement Concrete (HCC):
HCC mixes were used on some the bridges built before 1972. The specifications for these
mixes contained a minimum concrete strength of 4,000 psi (27.6 MPa), relatively high slump
(about 6 in., 153 mm), and a maximum aggregate size of ½ in. (12.7 mm).
Latex Modified Concrete (LMC):
LMC mixes are different from HCC mixes in the essence that a latex emulsion is added
to the mix. The latex forms a thin film on the aggregate surface, which enhances the bond
between the past and the aggregate and results in high compressive strength and less permeable
concrete mix.
Many state highway agencies have developed their own LMC mix. The following are the
specifications of the LMC mix that has been developed and used by Virginia Department of
Transportation (26,27).
Portland cement III (minimum) 7 bags, 658 lb/yd3 (388 kg/m3)
Water (maximum) 2.5 gal/bag of cement
W/C 0.35 to 0.40
Styrene butadiene latex emulsion 3.5 gal/bag of cement

Air content 3 to 7%
Slump (measured 4.5 minutes after discharge) 4-6 in. (100-200 mm)
Cement/Sand/Aggregate by weight 1.0/2.5/2.0
Type K-cement Concrete Mix:
A type K-cement concrete mix was used on the Skyline Bridge in Omaha, NE to fill the
longitudinal open channels that house the post-tensioned cables. The concrete mix has a
specified concrete strength of 4,000 psi (27.6 MPa) and only cement Type K is used in the mix.
The concrete mix has no fly ash and the maximum aggregate size is 3/8 in. (9.5 mm).
Type K cement is an expansive cement that contains anhydrous calcium aluminateupon,
which being mixed with water, forms a paste, that during the early hydrating period occurring
after setting, increases in volume significantly more than does portland cement paste.
A.3.4.3 Recent Research related to Grouting Material
Grout Material filling the Transverse Joint
In a recent study conducted by Issa et al (25), the researchers studied the behavior of a
female-to-female joint detail using SET 45, SET 45 HW, SET GROUT, and EMACO 2020. The
joint was tested for direct vertical shear, direct tension, and flexure as shown in Figure A.3.4.3-1.
A total of 36 specimens were tested. The compressive strength of the elements that resented the
precast panels was about 6,250 to 6,500 psi (43 to 45 MPa). Figure A.3.4.3-2 gives the mix
proportions and the strength development of various types of grouting material used in the study.
For all the specimens, the joint surfaces were sandblasted and thoroughly cleaned. Also, no
reinforcement crossing the interface between the joint and the precast panel was present. In
addition to the full scale testing of the joint, the permeability and shrinkage properties of the
grouting material was conducted in accordance with ASTM C 1202-97 and ASTM C157
respectively.
Findings of the experimental program are given in Figures A.3.4.3-3 and A.3.4.3-4 and can be
summarized as follow:
(1) Failure of specimens made with EMACO 2020 occurred away from the joint in the
precast panels, while failure of the specimens made with SET GROUT occurred
simultaneously through the joint and in the precast panels. For specimens made with SET
45 and SET 45 HW, failure occurred through the joint.
(2) The shear, tensile and flexural strength of joints made with EMACO 2020 were the
highest among all types of grouting material.
(3) The shear, tensile and flexural strength of joints made with SET GROUT were higher
than those of SET 45 and SET 45 HW.
(4) Moisture and carbonation at the joint surface adversely affected the bond and strength of
joints made with SET 45.
(5) EMACO 2020 and SET 45 set very fast, which require fast mixing and installation
process.
(6) EMACO 2020 was significantly less permeable and showed much lower shrinkage
deformation compared to other grout material.

Figure A.3.4.3-1 Configuration and test setups of the test specimens (Issa et al 2003)
Figure A.3.4.3-2 Mix proportions and the strength development of various types of grout
material (Issa et al 2003)

Figure A.3.4.3-3 Test results of the shear, tensile and flexure specimen (Issa et al 2003)

Figure A.3.4.3-4 Test results of the permeability and shrinkage (Issa et al 2003)
Grout Material filling the Haunch between Girders and Panels:
Menkulasi and Roberts-Wollman (28) have recently conducted an experimental
investigation using two types of grout material. These are LMC and SET 45 HW, where angular
pea gravel filler was added for both types. The test included only direct shear specimens that
simulated precast concrete panels supported on prestressed concrete girders, as shown in Figure
A.3.4.3-5. Three specimens with different amount of reinforcement crossing the interface were
used, no reinforcement, 1#4 (1#M13) bar and 1#5 (1#16) bar. The height of the haunch used in
all specimens was 1.0 in. (25.4 mm).

Figure A.3.4.3-5 Push-off test specimen (Menkulasi and Roberts-Wollman 2005)
The experimental investigation revealed that specimens made SET 45 HW and LMC had
almost the same shear capacity when no or small amount of shear reinforcement was presented.
However, at high amount of shear reinforcement, the specimens made with SET 45 HW showed
higher strength than those made with LMC. The researchers were in favor of using SET 45 HW
over LMC as the recommended grout material.
The experimental investigation also showed that changing the height of the haunch from
1.0 to 3.0 in. (25.4 to 76 mm) had almost no effect on the shear capacity of the specimens made
with SET 45 HW grout.
A.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Special thanks are due to following individuals for their help in the literature review
process: David Beal of the Transportation Research Board, Michael Sprinkel of Virginia
Transportation Research Council, Mary Lou Ralls and Michael Hyzak of Texas DOT, Bijan
Khaleghi of Washington State DOT, Peter Smith of Fort Miller Co., Inc., Mark Whittemore of
New Hampshire DOT, David Deng of Utah DOT, Steve Goodpaster of Commonwealth of
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Tom Domagalski of Illinois DOT, Elmer Marx of Alaska
DOT, Bryan Hartnagel of Missouri DOT, Majid Madani of California DOT, and Mathew Royce
of New York State DOT. Also, the authors would like to thank the technical reviewers of the
paper for their constructive and helpful comments.
A.5 REFERENCES OF APPENDIX A
1. Anderson, A. R., “Systems Concepts for Precast and Prestressed Concrete Bridge
Construction.” Special Report 132, System Building for Bridges, Highway Research Board,
Washington, DC (1972) pp. 9-21.

2. Biswas, M., “Special Report: Precast Bridge Deck Design Systems.” Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2 (March-April, 1986) pp. 40-94.
3. Salvis, C. "Precast Concrete Deck Modules for Bridge Deck Reconstruction" Transportation
Research record 871, Segmental and System Bridge Construction; Concrete Box Girder and
Steel Design, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1982) pp. 30-33.
4. Culmo, M. P., "Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Using Precast Concrete Slabs." Connecticut
Department of Transportation, 8th Annual International Bridge Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (June, 10-12, 1991).
5. Kropp, P. K.; Milinski, E. L.; Gulzwiller, M. J.; and Lee, R. B., "Use Of Precast Prestressed
Concrete For Bridge Decks." Joint Highway Research Project conducted by Engineering
Experiment Station, Purdue University, in cooperation with the Indiana State Highway
Commission and the Federal Highway Administration, Final Report (July, 1975, revised
December, 1976).
6. Lutz J. G.; Scalia D. J., "Deck Widening and Replacement of Woodrow Wilson Memorial
Bridge." Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3 (May-June, 1984)
pp. 74-93.
7. Issa, M. A.; et al, “State-of-the-art Report: Full Depth Precast and Precast, Prestressed Concrete
Bridge Deck Panels.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1
(January-February, 1995) pp. 59-80.
8. Donnaruma, R. C., "A Review of the Department of System for Precast Deck Replacement for
Composite I-Beam Bridges." Report to the Research Committee, International Bridge, Tunnel &
Turnpike Association, Chicago, Illinois (August, 1974).
9. Donnaruma, R. C., "Performance of Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panels on the New York
Thruway.” Report presented at Session 187, 62nd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research
Board, Washington DC (January, 1983).
10. Farago, B.; Agarwal, A. C.; Brown, J.; and Bassi, K. G., "Precast Concrete Deck Panels for
Girder Bridges." Special Report, Ministry of Transportation Of Ontario (1992).
11. Togashi, M.; Ota, T.; Hiyama, Y.; Furumura, T.; and Konishi, T., "Application of Precast Slab
and Sidewall to Construction of Bridge." Journal of Prestressed Concrete, Japan Prestressed
Concrete Engineering Association, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan.-Feb., 1993) pp. 22-32.
12. Matsui, S.; Soda, N.; Terada, K.; and Manabe, H., "Application of Channel-Shaped PC Precast
Slabs on Steel Bridges." Papers presented at the Fourth International Conference on Short and
Medium Span Bridges held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering (August 8-11, 1994) pp. 699-709.
13. Fallaha, S.; Sun, C.; Lafferty, M. D.; and Tadros, M. K., “ High Performance Precast Concrete
NUDECK Panel System for Nebraska’s Skyline Bridge.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete
14. Tadros, M. K.; and Baishya, M. C., “Rapid Replacement of Bridge Decks.” NCHRP Report
407, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1998).

15. Badie, S. S.; Baishya, M. C; and Tadros, M. K., “NUDECK- An Efficient and Economical
Precast Bridge Deck System.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 43,
No. 5 (September-October, 1998) pp. 56-74.
16. Bassi, K. G.; Badie, S. S.; Baishya, M. C; and Tadros, M. K., “Discussion: NUDECK- An
Efficient and Economical Precast Bridge Deck System.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
(PCI) Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2 (March-April, 1999) pp. 94-95.
17. Badie, S. S.; Baishya, M. C; and Tadros, M. K., “Innovative Bridge Panel System A Success.”
CONCRETE INTERNATIONAL, Vol. 21, No. 6 (June, 1999) pp. 51-54.
18. Babaei, K.; Fouladgar, A.; and Nicholson, R., “Nighttime Bridge Deck Replacement with Full
Depth Precast Concrete Panels at Route 7 over Route 50, Fairfax County, Virginia.”
Transportation Research Board, 80th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, Paper #01-0196
(January 7-11, 2001).
19. Markowski, S. M.; Ehmke, F. G.; Oliva, M. G.; Carter III, J. W.; Bank, L. C.; Russell, J. S.;
Woods, S.; and Becker, R., “Full-Depth, Precast, Prestressed Bridge Deck Panel System for
Bridge Construction in Wisconsin.” Proceeding, The PCI/National Bridge Conference, Palm
Springs, CA (October 16-19, 2005).
20. Yamane, T.; Tadros, M. K.; Badie, S. S., and Baishya, M. C., “Full-Depth Precast Prestressed
Concrete Bridge Deck System.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 43,
No. 3 (May-June, 1998) pp. 50-66.
21. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 17th Edition (2004).
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 3rd Edition (2002) with the 2005 & 2006 Interim
Revisions.
23. Nottingham, D., “Joint Grouting in Alaska Bridges and Dock Decks.” CONCRETE
INTERNATIONAL, Vol. 18, No. 2 (February, 1996) pp. 45-48.
24. Gulyas, R. J., “Precast Bridge Decks: Keyway Grouting Data.” CONCRETE
INTERNATIONAL, Vol. 18, No. 8 (August, 1996).
25. Issa, M. A.; Ribeiro do Valle, C. L.; Abdalla, H. A.; Islam, S.; and Issa M. A., “Performance of
Transverse Joint Grout Materials in Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Systems.”
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4 (September-October,
2003) pp. 92-103.
26. Sprinkel, M. M., “Evaluation of Latex-Modified and Silica Fume Concrete Overlays Placed on
Six Bridges in Virginia.” Final report, Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC),
Report No. 01-R3 (August, 2000).
27. Sprinkel, M. M., “High Performance Concrete Overlays for Bridges.” Joint 2002 Concrete
Bridge Conference and the PCI Annual Convention, Orlando, Florida (2003).
28. Menkulasi, F.; and Roberts-Wollmann, C. L., “Behavior of Horizontal Shear Connectors for
Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Decks on Prestressed I-Girders.” Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 50, No. 3 (May-June, 2005) pp. 60-73.

APPENDIX B
DESIGN CALCULATIONS OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM CD-1
B.1 DESIGN CRITERIA...........................................................................................................B-2

B.2 EVOLUTION OF A FULL-DEPTH PRECAST CONCRETE DECK PANEL
SYSTEM.............................................................................................................................B-2
B.3 DESIGN OF VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE PRECAST DECK PANEL
SYSTEM.............................................................................................................................B-4
B.3.1 Design of the positive moment areas between girderlines...................................B-5
B.3.1.1 Estimate required prestress force ..........................................................B-6
B.3.1.2 Prestress losses......................................................................................B-7
B.3.1.3 Check of concrete stresses at service loads at the positive
moment area..........................................................................................B-9
B.3.1.4 Check of flexural strength...................................................................B-10
B.3.1.5 Check of maximum reinforcement limit.............................................B-12
B.3.2 Design of panel–to–girder connection for full composite action.......................B-13
B.3.3 Design of the negative moment areas over interior girderlines .........................B-15
B.3.4 Design of the overhang (negative moment section at exterior girderline).........B-16
B.3.4.1 Case I: Due to transverse vehicular collision loads using Extreme
Event Limit State II.............................................................................B-16
B.3.4.2 Case 2: Due dead and live loads .........................................................B-19
B.3.4.3 Details of overhang reinforcement .....................................................B-20
B.3.5 Design of longitudinal reinforcement ................................................................B-21
B.3.5.1 Longitudinal reinforcement for simply supported span bridges .........B-21
B.3.5.2 Longitudinal reinforcement for continuous span bridges ...................B-22
B.3.6 Design of the panel-to-panel transverse connection ..........................................B-23
B.3.7 Miscellaneous design issues ..............................................................................B-24
B.3.7.1 Check of concrete stresses at time of transferring the prestressing
force ....................................................................................................B-24
B.3.7.2 Check of concrete stresses during lifting the panel from the
presterssing bed...................................................................................B-25
B.4 REFERENCES OF APPENDIX B ...................................................................................B-26
B.5 FIGURES OF APPENDIX B ............................................................................................B-26
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix B B-1

APPENDIX B
DESIGN CALCULATIONS OF PROPOSED SYSTEM CD-1
(References that are used in this appendix are listed at the end of the appendix)
B.1 DESIGN CRITERIA
The following general criteria have been set in advance to pave the way for the
development of this system. Please, note that these criteria have been set after careful study of
the bridges covered in the literature review and discussing these criteria with a panel of national
experts on this type of construction.
1. Type of superstructure: The slab/I girder bridge type has been used. This decision has been
made based on the fact that approximately 50 to 60 percent of the bridges in USA are made
of this type, according to National Bridge Inventory (1).
2. Construction material: The deck slab is made from conventionally or prestressed reinforced
concrete. The supporting I-girder can be made of concrete or steel.
3. Composite versus non-composite superstructure: It was an evident from the literature review
that the superstructure of the majority of bridges built with this system is made composite
with the deck. Typically, composite systems have many advantages over non-composite
system. These advantages include: (1) shallower depth of the superstructure, (2) longer
spans, (3) smaller deflection and less vibration due to moving traffic and (4) larger clearance.
4. New construction projects versus deck replacement projects: The details of the precast deck
system presented in this chapter have been developed to fit new construction projects as well
as deck replacement projects. This decision has been made because there is almost a 50/50
percent split between new construction and deck replacement project nation wide.
5. Design Specifications: The 3rd Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(2004) with the 2005 & 2006 Interim Revisions (2) are used.
B.2 EVOLUTION OF A FULL-DEPTH PRECAST CONCRETE DECK PANEL
SYSTEM
In order to develop a full depth precast concrete deck panel system, there is a need to
determine the straining action, such as bending, and the amount of reinforcement required to
resist these actions. Therefore, the research team has developed a model bridge and used it
through out the design calculations of the system. The model bridge has the following criteria:
Total width 44 ft (two-lane, undivided two-way bridge)
Superstructure Four steel girders spaced at 12 ft with top flange width of the steel girders
= 12 in. to 14 in.
OR
Four BT-72 or NU1800 prestressed precast concrete girders space at 12 ft.
• Please, note that steel girders and 12-ft girder spacing is chosen to provide
extreme straining actions in the deck, and consequently, the highest amount of
reinforcement

• The 12-ft girder spacing has been chosen because it is the maximum girder
spacing currently used in the states.
Deck slab Structural slab thickness = 8 in.
• Section 9.7.5.2 of the LRFD Specifications (2) states that the depth of a
precast concrete slab excluding any provisions for grinding, grooving, and
sacrificial surface, should not be less than 7.0 in.
• Minimum cover shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 5.12.3 of
LRFD Specifications, which is 2.0 in.
The panel dimensions are considered as follow:
44-ft in length to cover the full width with one panel and 8-ft in width. The 8-
ft dimension has been chosen because it allows shipping of the panels on
trailers without the need of special permit.
Concrete properties:
• Unit weight = 150 pcf
fc'
• Concrete compressive strength at 28-day, = 6.0 ksi
Typically, fc' = 6.0 ksi can be easily achieved with precast concrete elements
because the production is made in controlled environment and express curing
methods.
fci'
• Concrete strength at release, = 5.0 ksi
fci' fc'
Typically, with steam curing, = 0.8 to 0.85 can be achieved in 18 to 24
hours.
Design specifications: AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2):
• Vehicular live loading on the roadway of bridges or incidental structures,
designated HL-93, consist of a combination of the:
1. Design truck or design tandem, and
2. Design lane load with impact effect.
• Each design lane under consideration shall be occupied by either the design
truck or tandem, coincident with the lane load, where applicable. The loads
shall be assumed to occupy 10.0 ft transversely within a design lane.
Future wearing surface:
• 2-in. of concrete wearing surface, 150 pcf.
Although, one of the main goals of this project is to develop deck systems
with no overlays, the design calculations developed in this section have
considered the use of a future overlay for the sake of completeness of the
design calculations. In case of no overlay is used, this load should not be
considered in the design.

The research team is aware that there are other types of overlays that can be
used (such as a thin layer of epoxy overlay, asphalt concrete overlay, and latex
concrete overlay). The 2-in., 150 pcf concrete overlay is considered in this
study because it is the heaviest overlay among all types of overlays that can be
used.
Side barriers: NJ Barriers, 420 plf, the barrier is 16 in. wide at bottom and 42 in. high. The
center of gravity of the barrier is at 5.1 in. from the exterior face.
Reinforcement type: The precast panel is transversely pretensioned and longitudinally
conventionally reinforced.
Pretensioned strands:
½ in. diameter, 270 ksi, Low Relaxation, 7 wire strands
Conventional reinforcement:
Grade 60 ASTM steel
Composite system: The precast panel is made fully composite with supporting girders. Two
cases are considered as follows:
1. Steel girders; where composite action is created by welding 1 ¼” steel
studs on top surface of the girders. The studs are embedded in the panel in
a prefabricated shear pockets.
• Shear studs used in composite steel bridge construction are typically ¾
in. or 7/8 in. in diameter. However, in this report the 1¼ in. diameter
steel stud is used (3). The 1¼-in. stud has about twice the strength and
a higher fatigue capacity than the 7/8-in. studs. The research team has
decided to use 1¼-in. stud in this project for the following reasons: (1)
fewer studs are required along the length of the steel girders, (2) higher
construction speed, (3) and reduced possibility of damage to the studs
and girder top flange during deck removal.
2. Concrete girders; there are two issues involved in the design.
• Shear connectors extending outside the top flange are used.
B.3 DESIGN OF VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE PRECAST DECK PANEL SYSTEM

In order to develop the precast deck panel system, the following elements need to be
designed in the following order:
• Design of the positive moment areas between girderlines (see section B.3.1)
• Design of the panel–to–girder connection for full composite action (see section B.3.2)
• Design of the negative moment areas over interior girderlines (see section B.3.3)
• Design of overhang part of the panel (see section B.3.4)
• Design of the longitudinal reinforcement (see section B.3.5)

• Design of panel–to–panel transverse connection (see section B.3.6)
Final details of the precast deck panel system are given in Figures B-1 to B-7.
B.3.1 Design of the positive moment areas between girderlines
Section 4.6.2.1.1 of the LRFD Specifications (2) states that the deck slab can be analyzed
by subdividing it into strips normal to the supporting girders. This method is called the “Strip
Method”. Also, section 4.6.2.1.1 states that wherever the strip method is used, the extreme
positive moment in any deck panel between girders shall be taken to apply to all positive
moment regions. Similarly, the extreme negative moment over any beam or girder shall be taken
to apply to all negative moment regions.
The deck slab is then analyzed as a continuous beam supported by the supporting girders.
The girders are considered as non-settled supports and their width is taken equal to zero. A 12-in.
wide strip is considered in the following calculations.
Loads applied on the structural model are as follow:
DC: Dead loads due to
Slab self weight = (8 /12) x 0.150 = 0.100 k/ft2 (uniformly distributed load)
Barrier self weight = 0.420 k/ft/side (concentrated load)
DW: Dead load due to
2 in. concrete wearing surface = (2/12) x 0.150 = 0.025 k/ft2
LL: Live load HL-93 due to truck load and lane load with dynamic allowance
Design Limit States and Load Factors (2):

1. Strength I:
Strength I limit state shall be taken to ensure that strength and stability, both local and
global, are provided to resist the specified statically significant load combination relating to the
normal vehicular use of the bridge without wind.
DC: Minimum = 0.90, Maximum = 1.25
DW: Minimum = 0.65, Maximum = 1.50
LL: 1.75
2. Service I:
Service I limit state shall be used for checking deflection and to control crack width in
reinforced concrete structures:
DC: 1.00
DW: 1.00
LL: 1.00

3. Service III:
Service III limit state shall be used for checking tension in prestressed concrete structures
with the objective of crack control:
DC: 1.00
DW: 1.00
LL: 0.80
Figure B-1 shows the service load moment due to DC and DW.
B.3.1.1 Estimate required prestress force
Investigation of the bending moment (Figure B-1) shows that the midspan section of the center
span controls the design, where:
Slab wt. Mslab = 0.520 ft-k/ft
Barrier wt. Mbarrier = 0.300 ft-k/ft
Wearing surface Mws = 0.130 ft-k/ft
Moment due to live load can be determined using the equivalent strip on which the
wheels of the 32-kip axle of the design truck will be distributed. In this case, various
combinations of one, two or three trucks with the proper multi-presence factor should be
considered to get the maximum moment effects. However, Table A4.1-1 of the LRFD
Specifications gives the maximum moment effect based on girder spacing. Please, refer to
sections 3.6.1.3.3, 4.6.2.1.2 and Appendix A4 of the LRFD Specifications.
Live load MLL+IM = 8.01 ft-k/ft
In order to estimate the number of strands, assume that the tensile stresses at the extreme
tension fibers, fb, of the cross section controls the design, where
Ppe ( M slab + M ws + M barrier + 0.8M LL + IM )
fb = −
A Sb
Therefore, at Limit State III:
Mservice III = 1.0 MDC + 1.0 MDW + 0.8 MLL+IM
= 1.0 (0.520 + 0.3) + 1.0 (0.110) + 0.8 (8.01)
= 7.338 ft-k/ft
= 58.704 ft-k/panel
Assume ½” diameter, with fpu = 270 ksi are used to estimate the required number of
strands. Assume the initial prestress just before cutting the strands
= 0.75fpu = 0.75 x 270 = 202.5 ksi
Assume the total prestressed losses (i.e. elastic shortening, creep, shrinkage and prestress
loss) at service = 15%. Therefore, the effective prestress in the strands at service,
fpe = (0.75 x 270 ksi) (1-0.15) = 172.125 ksi

In order to avoid having the panel deflected upward or downward after releasing the
prestress force, two layers of strands will be used with their centroid concentric with the centroid
of the panel cross section. Therefore, the strand eccentricity, ep = zero.
Effective prestress force Ppe= (AP x 172.125) kips
Allowable tensile stress in pretensioned members (LRFD Sec. 5.9.4.2)
= 0.19 f c' = 0.19 6.0 = 0.465 ksi
PPe (0.520 + 0.11 + 0.300 + 0.8 x8.01)(8)(12)

−0.465 = −
8 x12 x8 (8 x12)(82 ) / 6
Ppe = 171.41 kips
n x 0.153 x 172.125 = 171.41
n = 6.51 strands
Use eight ½ in. diameter, 270 ksi strands per panel, placed on two layers, four strands per layer.
For each layer, provide 2-in. clear concrete cover.
Because, this estimate is based on only satisfying the service tensile stresses in concrete, it is
needed to finalize the design of maximum positive moment section by:
1. Determining the prestress losses.
2. Checking the service compressive stresses in concrete.
3. Check the design moment capacity of this section due to Strength I Limit State.
Typically, this procedure is an iterative procedure because any change in the design
parameters (such as the total prestress losses at service, amount of prestressing reinforcing,
and/or adding conventional reinforcement) will affect all other aspects of design.
B.3.1.2 Prestress losses
LRFD Specifications provide two methods for computation of prestress losses, which are
the detailed method and the lump-sum method. The detailed method is used here as it provides
more accurate measure of prestress losses.
Total prestress losses is:
ΔfpT = ΔfpES + ΔfpSR + ΔfpCR + ΔfpR2 (LRFD Eq. 5.9.5.1-1)
Where,
ΔfpES = loss due to elastic shortening
ΔfpSR = loss due to shrinkage
ΔfpCR = loss due to creep
ΔfpR2 = loss due to relaxation of steel after transfer
Elastic shortening:
ΔfpES = (Ep / Eci) fcgp (LRFD, Sec. 5.9.5.2.3a)
Where

Ep = modulus of elasticity of prestressing strands = 28,500 ksi
fci' = concrete strength at release = 5.0 ksi
Eci = modulus of elasticity of slab at release
= 33,000 (150 )
1.5
5.0 = 4,287 ksi
fcgp = sum of concrete stresses at center of gravity of prestressing strands due to
prestressing force at transfer and the self-weight of the member at sections of
maximum moment.
The LRFD Specifications, Art.5.9.5.2.3a, states that fcgp can be calculated on the basis of
prestressing steel stress assumed to be 0.7fpu for low-relaxation strands. However,
common practice assumes the initial losses as a percentage of initial prestressing stress
before release, fpi. In both procedures, assumed initial losses should be checked and if
different from assumed value, a second iteration should be carried out. In this
document, 1% fpi initial loss is used.
Force per strand at transfer = 0.75 x 270 x 0.153 x (1-0.01) = 30.673 kips
Pi
The strand group is concentric with the panel cross section, therefore fcgp =
A
Pi = total prestressing force at release = 8 strands x 30.673 = 245.384 kips
fcgp = 245.384/768 = 0.320 ksi
Therefore, loss due to elastic shortening:
28,500
ΔfpES = (0.320) = 2.127 ksi
4, 287
Percent actual loss due to elastic shortening = (2.12/202.5) x 100 = 1.04%, which is
very close to the assumed value, so second iteration is not necessary.
Shrinkage:
ΔfpSR = (17-0.15H) (LRFD Eq. 5.9.5.4.2-1)
Where H = relative humidity (assume 70%),
Relative humidity varies significantly from one area of the country to another, see
Table 5.4.2.3.3-1 in the LRFD Specifications.
ΔfpSR = 17-0.15(70) = 6.5 ksi
Creep of concrete:
ΔfpCR = 12 fcgp - 7 Δfcdp (LRFD Eq. 5.9.5.4.3-1)
Where Δfcdp = change of stresses at center of gravity of prestressing due to permanent loads,
except dead load acting at time the prestress force is applied calculated at the same
section as fcgp
The strand group is concentric with the panel cross section, therefore Δfcdp = zero

ΔfpCR = 12 x 0.320 = 3.84 ksi
Relaxation of strands:
Initial loss due to relaxation of prestressing steel is accounted for in the slab fabrication
process. Therefore, loss due to relaxation of the prestressing steel prior to transfer is not be
computed, ΔfpR1 = 0. Recognizing this for pretensioned members, the LRFD Specifications (2),
Sec. 5.9.5.1, allows the portion of the relaxation loss that occurs prior to transfer to be neglected
in computing the final loss.
For low-relaxation strands, loss due to relaxation after transfer (LRFD, Sec. 5.9.5.4.4c):
ΔfpR2 = 30 %{20 – 0.4 ΔfpES – 0.2(ΔfpSR + ΔfpCR)}
= 0.3{20 – 0.4(2.127) – 0.2(6.500 + 3.840)}= 5.125 ksi
• Total losses at transfer, Δfi = ΔfpES = 2.127 ksi
Stress in tendons after transfer,
fpT = fpi - Δfi = 202.5 – 2.127 = 200.373 ksi
Force per strand = fpT x area of strand = 200.373 x 0.153 = 30.660 ksi
• Total losses at service loads:
ΔfpT = ΔfpES + ΔfpSR + ΔfpCR + ΔfpR2
= 2.127 + 6.500 + 3.840 + 5.125 = 17.592 ksi
Stress in tendons after all losses, fpe = fpi - ΔfpT = 202.5 – 17.585 = 184.908 ksi
Check prestressing stress limit at service limit state: Table 5.9.3-1 of the LRFD
Specifications states that fpe ≤ 0.8 fpy, therefore:
fpy = 0.9 x fpu = 0.9 x 270 = 243 ksi
fpe = 184.908 ksi ≤ 0.8 fpy = 0.8(243) = 194.4 ksi O.K.
Final prestress losses, % = (ΔfpT / fpi) = (17.592 x 100)/ 202.5 = 8.68 %
B.3.1.3 Check of concrete stresses at service loads at the positive moment area
The total prestressing force after all losses,
Ppe = 202.5 x 0.153 x 8 x (1 – 0.0868) = 226.350 kips
Stress limits for concrete: (LRFD Sec. 5.9.4.2)
• Compression:
Due to permanent and transient loads (i.e. all dead loads and live loads), limit state
Service I = 0.6 fc' = 0.6 x 6.0 = + 3.6 ksi
• Tension:
For components with bonded prestressing tendons, limit state Service III
= -0.19 f c' = −0.19 6.0 = −0.465 ksi

• Concrete stress at the top fiber of the deck:
Under permanent and transient loads, Service I:
Ppe ( M slab + M barrier + M ws + M LL + IM )
ft = + +
A St
226.350 (0.520 + 0.110 + 0.300 + 8.010)(8)(12)
= + = + 1.133 ksi
768 (8 x12)(82 ) / 6 = 1024
Compressive stress limit: + 3.6 ksi O.K.
• Service tensile stress in bottom of deck, Service III:
Ppe ( M slab + M barrier + M ws + 0.8M LL + IM )
ft = + −
A Sb
226.350 (0.520 + 0.110 + 0.300 + 0.8 x8.010)(8)(12)
= − = - 0.393 ksi
768 (8 x12)(82 ) / 6 = 1024
Tensile stress limit: -0.465 ksi O.K.
B.3.1.4 Check of flexural strength
Total moment due to Strength I Limit State (LRFD, Section 3.4.1),
Mstrength I = 1.25 MDC + 1.5 MDW + 1.75 MLL+IM
= 1.25 (0.520 + 0.300) + 1.5 (0.110) + 1.75 (8.010)
= 15.208 ft-k/ft
= 121.66 ft-k/panel
The design procedure given by the LRFD Specifications (Section 5.7.3.1.1) can not be
used with this case because the LRFD procedure deals with the strands as they are lumped at
their gravity, while in this case we have two layers of strands that are far away from each other,
one layer is close to the top fiber and the second layer is close to the bottom layer. Therefore, a
more detailed analysis should be carried out using the strain compatibility approach and the
power stress-strain formula of the prestressing and conventional reinforcement.
Assume that depth of rectangular stress block, a, less than < 2.25 in. and that all layers of
strands are on the tension side of the N.A. and that the stress in the strands is fpy, except the top
layer which is very close to the N.A. assume the stress equal fpe = 184.908 ksi.
From equilibrium of forces, T = C
Where: T = Tension force in strands = Aps x fps
C = Compression force in concrete = 0.85 x fc' x b x a
b = Width of section, b = 8x12 = 96 in.
(4 x 0.153 x 184.908) + (4 x 0.153 x 243) = (0.85 x 6 x 8 x 12 x a)
Depth of rectangular stress block, a = 0.535 in.

Distance from top of section to neutral axis, c = a/β1
β1 = 0.85 – 0.05(f’c – 4) = 0.85 – 0.05(6 – 4) = 0.75
c = 0.535/0.75 = 0.713 in.
Check the assumed stresses in each layer of strands:
• Bottom layer:
Depth of bottom layer = 5.75 in., and decompression stress, fpe = 184.908 ksi
εp = 0.003((5.75-c)/c) + (184.908/28500)
= 0.003 ((5.75-0.713)/0.713) + 0.00649 = 0.0277
Based on the power stress-strain formula developed by Devalapura and Tadros, (4)
⎡ ⎤
⎢ 27, 613 ⎥
f ps = ε p ⎢887 + 1/ 7.36 ⎥ ≤ 270 ksi
⎢
⎢⎣ {
1 + (112.4ε p )
7.36
} ⎥
⎥⎦
⎡ ⎤
⎢ 27, 613 ⎥
f ps = 0.0277 ⎢887 + 1 / 7.36 ⎥ = 270.2 ksi > 270 ksi
⎢
⎣ {
1 + (112.4 x0.0277 )
7.36
} ⎥
⎦
Therefore, fps = 270 ksi
• Top layer:
Depth of bottom layer = 2.25 in., and decompression stress, fpe = 184.908 ksi
εp = 0.003((2.25-c)/c) + (184.908/28500)
= 0.003 ((2.25-0.713)/0.713) + 0.00649 = 0.0130
⎡ ⎤
⎢ 27, 613 ⎥
f ps = 0.0130 ⎢887 + 1/ 7.36 ⎥ = 255.140 ksi < 270 ksi
⎢
⎣ {
1 + (112.4 x0.0130 )
7.36
} ⎥
⎦
Therefore, fps = 255.140 ksi
A second round of calculations is required because the final stresses in the strands do not
match the assumed values. In this round, assume that the final stress at the top layer of strands =
256.038 ksi and at the bottom layer of strands = 270.000 ksi. This iterative process should be
carried out until the assumed values match the calculated values. Results of the final round of
calculations are as follow:
Depth of the neutral axis, c = 0.862 in
Strain in top layer of strands = 0.01132 (tension)

Stress in top layer of strands = 250.49 ksi (tension)
Strain in bottom layer of strands = 0.02350 (tension)
Stress in bottom layer of strands = 266.44 ksi (tension)
The flexural capacity of the section:
φMn = φ (Aps x fps)(dp-a/2)
⎧ 0.646 0.646 ⎫
= 1.0 ⎨(4 x0.153x250.49)(2.25 − ) + (4 x0.153 x266.44)(5.75 − )⎬
⎩ 2 2 ⎭
= 1,180.286 in.-k/panel
= 98.35 ft-k/panel < Mstrength I = 121.66 ft-k/panel NG
Because the flexural capacity is not safe, add 4-#5 bars in each layer of reinforcement with a
2-in. clear concrete cover over the #5 bars. Assume that the decompression stress in the top
and bottom #5 bars = -25 ksi.
Results of the final round of calculations are as follow:
Depth of the neutral axis, c = 1.21 in
Strain in top layer of strands = 0.00906 (tension)
Stress in top layer of strands = 233.64 ksi (tension)
Strain in top layer of #5 bars = 0.0187 (tension)
Stress in top layer of #5 bars = 54.17 ksi (tension)
Strain in bottom layer of strands = 0.0177 (tension)
Stress in bottom layer of strands = 261.16 ksi (tension)
Strain in top layer of #5 bars = 0.01023 (tension)
Stress in top layer of #5 bars = 60.00 ksi (tension)
φMn = φ [ (Aps x fps)(dp-a/2) + (As x fs)(ds-a/2) ]
⎧ 0.908 0.908 ⎫
= 1.0 ⎨(4 x0.153x233.64)(2.25 − ) + (4 x0.153 x261.16)(5.75 − )⎬
⎩ 2 2 ⎭
⎧ 0.908 0.908 ⎫
+1.0 ⎨(4 x0.31x54.17)(2.3125 − ) + (4 x0.31x60)(5.6875 − )⎬
⎩ 2 2 ⎭
= 1617.485 in-k/panel
= 134.79 ft-k/panel < Mstrength I = 121.66 ft-k/panel OK
B.3.1.5 Check of maximum reinforcement limit

c
The maximum amount of reinforcement must be such that ≤ 0.42
de
(AASHTO LRFD Eq. 5.7.3.3.1-1)
However, this equation is developed based on the condition that all the tensile reinforcement is
lumped at one point close to the extreme tensile fiber of the section, which is satisfied in this
case. A better approach to check the maximum reinforcement limit in the present case is to make
sure that the extreme tensile layer of reinforcement (the bottom layer) will yield before the
concrete reaches its maximum compressive failure strain (i.e. 0.003). By checking the stresses
and strains in the bottom layer of reinforcement, it is found that both types of reinforcement have
passed the yield point before concrete reaches its ultimate strain. This gives an indication that the
section will show wide cracks and large amount of deflection before failure occurs (i.e. ductile
failure).
B.3.2 Design of panel–to–girder connection for full composite action
As discussed in the literature review submitted in the interim report of this project, shear
connectors that are fully anchored with the girders are extended into the deck panel to create the
full composite action between the deck panels and the girders. Typically, this is achieved by
creating shear pockets in the panel over every girderline that accommodate the shear connectors.
Also, the shear connectors have to be clustered in groups to match the locations of these shear
pockets. As a rule of thump for precast concrete production, the fewer the number of shear
pockets that a precast panel has, the less expensive the panel will be due to savings on time and
labor that are associated with forming for these pockets.
As discussed in the Interim Report, QPR3 and QPR4 of this project, the research team
has adopted the idea of extending the maximum spacing of clustered group of shear connectors
to 48 in. This spacing is used in the design calculations presented in the section.
In order to determine the size of the shear pockets of the precast panel, either for use with
steel or precast concrete girders, it is required to determine the amount of shear connector
reinforcement. To do that, the research team has used the following resources:
Bridges built with steel girders:
As stated in the design criteria, 1¼ in. diameter studs (3) are used as the shear connectors.
The use of this size of studs for this system is advantageous because one 1¼ in. diameter stud
replaces two 7/8 in. studs, which will minimize the size of the shear pockets.
In a study conducted in NCHRP 12-41 (5), the researchers ran a parametric study for the
horizontal shear requirement for a wide range of simply supported bridges, where the span length
ranged from 40 to 130 ft and the girder spacing ranged from 6 to 12 ft. The researchers found
that using 1¼ in. studs uniformly spaced at 6 in. throughout the span of the bridge would
sufficiently satisfy the horizontal shear requirements.
Therefore, for the precast panel system under development, if the clusters of studs will be
spaced at 48 in., this means that each cluster will have 8-1¼ in. studs. Using two studs per rows,
and the stud rows spaced at 3 in., the dimensions of each shear pockets will be 12 in. (in the
transverse direction) and 15 in. (in the longitudinal direction).
Bridges built with precast concrete girders:

For precast concrete girders, typically, the vertical shear reinforcement is extended
outside the top flange to provide the required horizontal shear reinforcement. The vertical shear
reinforcement usually takes an L-shape or an inverted U-shape to provide anchorage and fully
develop the yield strength of the reinforcement. Although this detail provides an inexpensive
way to provide for the composite action, it does not fit precast deck panels where the shear
connectors have to be extended outside the top flange of the girder only at the locations of the
shear pockets. For this reason, it is recommended to separate the vertical shear reinforcement of
the precast girder and the horizontal shear reinforcement required for full composite action.
To determine the amount of reinforcement required per shear pocket for both types of
shear connectors, the research team studied the design examples provided in the PCI-Bridge
Design Manual (6). Six design examples of slab/I-girder bridge systems are given in this
reference, where the bridge structures range from simply supported spans to three continuous
span structures, with a span length up to 120 ft and girder spacing from 9 to 12 ft. Studying these
examples reveals that the maximum horizontal factored shear force at the interface between the
deck slab and the precast concrete girders is about 3.7 kip/in. of the longitudinal direction of the
girder.
Therefore, the required horizontal nominal shear strength =
Vn = (3.71 kip/in.)(8x12 in.)/(φ = 0.9) = 396 kips/panel
Two types of shear connectors can be used:
(1) Individual inverted #5 U-bars that are embedded in the girder top flange and extended into
the panel shear pockets. The inverted U-bars are clustered at 48 in. This detail has been used
successfully in bridges in Nebraska (7).
Using 6- #5 U-bars per pocket spaced at 7 in., two U-bars per row, the pocket dimension will be
12 in. wide (in the transverse direction) and 24 in. long (in the longitudinal direction).
The nominal shear resistance of the interface plane is:
Vn = c Acv + μ Avf fy (LRFD Eq. 5.8.4.1-1)
Where:
c = cohesion factor = 0.1 ksi for concrete placed against clean, hardened concrete
with surface intentionally roughened (LRFD Art. 5.8.4.2)
μ = friction factor = 1.0 for concrete placed against clean, hardened concrete with
surface intentionally roughened (LRFD Art. 5.8.4.2)
Acv = area of concrete engaged in shear transfer
= (12 in. x 24 in.)(2 pockets) = 576 in2
fy = yield strength of the shear reinforcement
= (6 U-bars x 2 legs x 0.30 in2/leg)(2 pockets) = 7.20 in2/panel
Vn = (0.1 ksi)(576 in2) + 1.0(7.20)(60 ksi)
=489.6 kip/panel > 396 kips/panel OK

(2) Use of clustered 3-1¼ in. diameter double head studs per pocket, spaced at 4 in., one stud per
row. The studs are made from the same material used to fabricate the 1¼ in. studs used with steel
girders, SAE 1018 with ultimate tensile strength 64 ksi. The pocket dimensions are 12 in. wide
(in the transverse direction) and 15 in. long (in the longitudinal direction).
This detail was experimental investigation by the research team, where it shows that this detail
was able to develop the yield strength of the 1¼ in. double-headed studs. However, additional
web reinforcement is required. Please, see Chapter 3 of this report for more information on the
experimental investigation.
Acv = area of concrete engaged in shear transfer
= (12 in. x 16 in.)(2 pockets) = 384 in2
1.252
= (π )(3 studs per pocket)(2 pockets) = 7.38 in2/panel
4
Vn = (0.1 ksi)(384 in2) + 1.0(7.38)(54 ksi)
= 436.9 kip/panel > 396 kips/panel OK
This detail is going under experimental investigation by the research team.
B.3.3 Design of the negative moment areas over interior girderlines
Section 4.6.1.2.6 of the LRFD Specifications states that the critical section for flexural
design at the negative moment area should be at a distance “χ” from the centerline of the support,
where “χ” for slabs supported on steel girders
= Least of 15” and 1/4 (the width of the flange of the steel girder)
while “χ” for slabs supported on steel girders = ¼ the width of the flange of the steel girder
Steel girders are considered here as it provides higher straining actions. Assuming that
the minimum width of steel girder top flange can be as small as 12 in., therefore, χ = 12/4 = 3 in.
Bending moment at 3 in. from the centerline of interior support is as follow:
Live load MLL+IM = 9.400 ft-k/ft (Table A4.1-1, LRFD Specifications)
Mstrength I = 1.25 (DC) + 1.5 (DW) + 1.75 (LL+IM)
= 1.25(1.133) + 1.5(0.305) + 1.75(9.40)
= 18.32 ft-k/ft
= 146.59 ft-k/panel
Try two layers of reinforcement, top layer has 4–½ in. strands and 6#5 bars and the
bottom layer has 4–½ in. strands and 4#5 bars. Provide a 2.0 in. clear concrete cover over
each layer. The decompression stress in the strands, fpe = 184.908 ksi, and in the #5 bars
= -25 ksi. Using the method of Strain Compatibility as shown before yields:

φMn = 1,795.901 in-k/panel = 149.7 ft-k/panel < Mstrength I == 146.59 ft-k/panel OK
Although, the maximum negative moment at the interior supports dies very quickly on
both sides of the girderline, the design engineer has opted to provide the 6 bars on both layers for
the full width of the panel. This will simplify the fabrication process.
B.3.4 Design of the overhang (negative moment section at exterior girderline)
According to Section A13.4.1 of the LRFD Specifications (2), the overhang should be
designed for the following cases separately:
B.3.4.1 Case I: Due to transverse vehicular collision loads using Extreme Event Limit State II
Because the New Jersey Barrier adopted in this document is crash tested and the LRFD
Specifications state that the deck should be stronger than the railing system used, the collision
moment and the horizontal collision force will be determined based on the reinforcement and
geometry of the New Jersey Barrier as follows:
The base of the NJ Barrier is 16 in. wide and reinforced with a two layers of #5 bars @
12 in. One layer is close to the inner face of the barrier and the second layer is close to the
exterior face of the barrier. Using a 2-in. clear concrete cover over each layer and using the strain
compatibility analysis procedure, the nominal flexural capacity of the section,
Mn base = 280.6 in-k/ft
Section 1.3.2.1 of the LRFD Specifications (2) states that the strength reduction factor for
the Extreme Event Limit State, φ = 1.0. Therefore, the flexural capacity of the base section is,
φMn base = 1.0 x 280.6 in-k/ft = 23.38 ft-k/ft
In order to complete the design of the overhang, it is required to determine the collision
force applied at the top level of the barrier, RW, and the distance over which this force is
distributed, LC. Typically, these parameters depend on the barrier dimensions and failure
mechanisms. The research team consulted with the following publication, “FHWA HI-95-017,”
of the National Highway Institute (8) to determine these parameters. This publication uses a NJ
Barrier identical to the NJ Barrier used in this document. From this publication, the values of RW
and LC are as follow:
RW = 147.03 kips, LC = 13.589 ft
To determine the collision force at the base of the barrier, Tbase, assume that Rw is distributed
over a distance of (LC + 2H) at the barrier base, where H is the height of the barrier, H = 42 in.
Tbase = RW / (LC + 2H) = 147.03 / [13.589 + (2x42/12)] = 7.14 k/ft
Therefore, due to the collision force, the following straining actions are transferred to precast
panel at the inner face of the barrier:
Mcollision = 23.38 ft-k/ft and Tbase = 7.14 k/ft (tension force)

Two sections of the overhang need to be checked. The first section is at the inner face of the
barrier (Section 1-1, Figure B-8) and the second section is at the 3 in. from the centerline of the
exterior girder (Section 2-2, Figure B-8).
Check capacity of Section 1-1:
Mcollision = 23.38 ft-k/ft
Tbase = 7.14 k/ft
Mbarrier. wt. = (0.42)(16-5.2)/12 = 0.378 ft-k/ft
Mslab = 0.1 x (16/12)2/2 = 0.09 ft-k/ft
MService I = 23.3+0.378+0.09 = 23.8 k-ft
MExtreme event II = 1.25DC + 1.5DW + 1.0CT
= 1.25(0.378+0.09) + 1.0(23.38)
= 23.965 ft-k/ft
TExtreme event II = 1.0 x 7.14 = 7.14 kips/ft
Because Section (1-1) is 16 in. away from the edge of the panel, it is required to check the
maximum strength that can be provided by the reinforcement based on the available
development length. The reinforcement provided at this section is made of ½ in. strands and #5
Grade 60 bars.
For the ½ in. strands, the development length is,
Ld = (fps – 2fpe/3) db (LRFD, Sec. 5.11.4.2)
= (184.908/3)(0.5) + (259.98-184.908)(0.5)
= 68.4 in. = 5.7 ft
fpe and fps are determined from the calculations of the negative moment section
over interior girderlines.
16 − 2
Available strength = 259.98 ksi ( ) = 53.0 ksi
68.4
It is assumed that the strands are recessed 2 in. from the edge of the panel to
satisfy the corrosion protection requirements.
Based on eth available strength of the strands, it is clear that Section 1-1 can not
be designed as a fully pretensioned section.
For the #5 Grade 60 bars, the development length is,
1.25 Ab f y
Ld = greater f c' (LRFD, Sec. 5.11.2)
0.4db f y

1.25 x 0.31x 60
= 9 in.
6.0
= greater = 15 in.
5
0.4 x x60 = 15 in.
8
Assume that the #5 bars are epoxy coated, therefore, Ld = 1.2 x 15 = 18 in.
16 − 2
Available strength, fs = 60 ksi ( ) = 47.0 ksi
18
It is assumed that a 2 in. clear concrete cover is provided from the edge of the
panel to the #5 bars to satisfy the corrosion protection requirements.
Based on eth available strength of the strands, it is clear that Section 1-1 should be
designed as a partially pretensioned section. However, to simplify the calculations, the research
team decided to design the section as a conventionally reinforced section. Try #5 at 6 in.
TExtreme event II = T – C
= (Asxfs) – (0.85 x f’c x b x a)
7.14 = (2x0.31x47) – (0.85x6.0x12)(a)
a = 0.36 in.
5
d = 8 – 2 – 0.5 x = 5.6875 in.
8
φMn = φ{As x fs (d-a/2) – Tu (d/2 – a/2)}
= 1.0 {2 x 0.31 x 47 (5.6875 - 0.36/2) – 7.14 (5.6875/2 - 0.36/2)}
= 141.5 in-k/ft
= 11.8 ft-k/ft < MExtreme event II = 23.965 ft-k/ft N.G.
Try #6 standard hook @ 5 in.:
12
As = 0.44 x = 1.056in2
5
3
38.0db 38.0 x
Ld = 1.2 x = 1.2 x 4 = 13.96 in. (LRFD, Sec. 5.11.2.4)
f c' 6.0
16 − 2
fs = 60 ksi ( ) = 60.0 ksi
13.96
7.14 = (1.056 x 60.0) – (0.85 x 6.0 x 12)(a)
a = 0.919 in.
6
d = 8 – 2 – 0.5 x = 5.625 in.
8

φMn = φ{As x fs (d-a/2) – Tu (d/2 – a/2)}
= 1.0 {1.056 x 60 (5.625 - 0.919/2) – 7.14 (5.625/2 - 0.919/2)}
= 310.5 in-k/ft
= 25.9 ft-k/ft > MExtreme event II = 23.965 ft-k/ft OK
Check capacity of Section 2-2:
At the inside face of the barrier (Section 1-1), the collision effects are distributed over a
distance Lc for moment Mcollision and (Lc + 2H) for the axial tension force Tbase. Assume that the
effects will spread between sections 1-1 and 2-2 on a 30° angle. Therefore the collision effects at
section 2-2 are:
29
Mcollision 2-2 = (Mcollision 1-1 x Lc) / [Lc + (2 x tan30)]
12
29
= (23.38 x 13.589) / (13.589 + 2 x x tan30)
12
= 19.40 ft-k/ft
Please, note that the distance between Section 1-1 and 2-2 = 29 in.
T collision 2-2 = RW / (LC + 2H + 2 x 29 tan30)
42 29
= 147.03 / [ 13.589 + (2 x ) + (2 x ) tan30 ]
12 12
= 6.29 k/ft
Mslab = (8/12 x 0.150) (3.752/2) = 0.70 ft-k/ft
Mbarrier = 0.42 ((45-5.2)/12) = 1.40 ft-k/ft
Mws = ((2/12) x 0.150) (2.4172/2) = 0.073 ft-k/ft
MExreme event II = 1.25DC + 1.5DW + 1.0CT
= 1.25(0.70 + 1.40) + 1.25(0.073) + 1.0(19.40)
= 22.17 ft-k/ft
T Exreme event II = 1.0(Tcol.) = 1.0(6.26) = 6.29 k/ft
At section 2-2, the strands are still not fully developed. To simplify the calculations, this
section is designed as a conventionally reinforced section. If #6 standard hook @ 5 in. are used,
the flexural design capacity of the section is,
φMn = 25.9 ft-k/ft > MExtreme event II = 22.17 ft-k/ft OK
B.3.4.2 Case 2: Due dead and live loads
Due to combined dead and live load, the flexural capacity of Section 2-2 should be
checked. Load effects at Section 2-2 are as follow:
Mslab = (8/12 x 0.150) (3.752/2) = 0.70 ft-k/ft
Mbarrier = 0.42 ((45-5.2)/12) = 1.40 ft-k/ft

Mws = ((2/12) x 0.150) (2.4172/2) = 0.073 ft-k/ft
Live load effects:
Section 3.6.1.3 of the LRFD Specifications (2) state that where primary strips are
transverse and their span does not exceed 15.0 ft, the transverse strips should be designed for the
wheels of the 32.0 kip axle. Also, the center of the outside 16.0-kip wheel is positioned 1 ft from
the curb face for the design of the deck overhang.
Section 3.6.2.1.3 of the LRFD Specifications (2) state that the live load effects should be
distributed over a distance, L (in.) = 45.0 + 10.0 X, where X (in.) = distance form the wheel load
to the section under consideration = 17 in.
Live load moment, MLL+IM = IM x m (16 X) / L
Where, m = multiple presence factor
= 1.20 (LRFD Specifications, Table 3.6.1.1.2-1)
IM = dynamic load allowance
= 1.33 (LRFD Section 3.6.2.1, Table 3.6.2.1-1)
17
16 x
MLL+IM = 1.33 x 1.2 12 = 7.34 ft-k/ft
⎛ 17 ⎞ 1
⎜ 45 + 10 x ⎟
⎝ 12 ⎠ 12
MStrength I = 1.25DC + 1.5DW + 1.75(LL+IM)
= 1.25(0.70 + 1.40) + 1.5(0.073) + 1.75(7.34)
= 15.58 ft-k/ft
At section 2-2, the strands are still not fully developed. To simplify the calculations, this
section is designed as a conventionally reinforced section. If #6 standard hooks @ 5 in. are used,
the flexural design capacity of the section is,
φMn = 25.9 ft-k/ft > MStrength I = 15.58 ft-k/ft OK
B.3.4.3 Details of overhang reinforcement

Required overhang reinforcement = #6 standard hook, Grade 60 bars @ 5 in.
96 in.
Required area of reinforcement per panel = 0.44 x = 8.5 in2
5 in.
At the top layer of reinforcement in the overhang, 4–½ in. strands and 6#5, Grade 60 bars
are extended from the exterior span. Please, note that the ½ in. strands are not fully developed at
the inner face of the barrier (available strength that can be developed by the strands at this
section = 53.0 ksi).
53
Therefore, additional Grade 60 reinforcement = 8.5 – 4x0.153x - 5x0.31
60

= 6.4 in2 = 15.6 #6 standard hook, Grade 60 bars
Additional 15#6 standard hook, Grade 60 bars should be provided in the top layer of
reinforcement in the overhang. These bars should extend 3 ft from the centerline of the exterior
girderline into the exterior span. Please, note that the additional reinforcement of the overhang is
not shown on the figures attached to this appendix. This is because the design of the overhang
depends on the barrier types and its flexural capacity, which vary from one state to another. The
calculations that are shown in this section are just for the completeness of the subject matter.
B.3.5 Design of longitudinal reinforcement
The longitudinal reinforcement in bridge deck slabs, where the main reinforcement is
provided in the transverse direction, is typically provided for the following reasons:
1. To distribute the concentrated live load in the longitudinal direction.
2. To protect the deck slab from drying shrinkage cracking that may occur due to loss of
hydration water.
3. In case of continuous span bridges, the deck slab houses the negative moment reinforcement
that is needed at the vicinity of the intermediate supports (i.e. piers).
Because, the amount of the longitudinal reinforcement is affected by the structural system
of the superstructure, whether it is a simply supported span or a continuous span, two cases are
discussed in this section:
B.3.5.1 Longitudinal reinforcement for simply supported span bridges
The LRFD Specifications do not provide guidelines for determining the longitudinal
reinforcement for precast panel systems. However, Section 9.7.3.2 of the LRFD Specifications,
gives guidelines for deck slabs, which have four layers of conventional reinforcement in two
directions. In this case, the amount of the longitudinal reinforcement is determined as percentage
of the transverse reinforcement as follow:
⎡ 220 ⎞
Longitudinal reinforcement = (Transverse reinforcement, As) x least ⎢ S ⎟
⎢ ⎟
⎢⎣ 67% ⎟⎠
Where S = the clear spacing between girders measured between the inner faces of two adjacent
girders = 12 ft
⎡ 220 ⎞
⎢ = 63.5% ⎟
Longitudinal reinforcement = (Transverse reinforcement, As) x least 12
⎢ ⎟⎟
⎣⎢67% ⎠
= (Transverse reinforcement, As) (63.5%)
The distribution of longitudinal reinforcement should be provided close to the bottom of
the slab. Because this empirical rule is developed for conventionally reinforced slabs, there is a
need to determine As at the positive moment section as a conventionally reinforced section.

Live load MLL+IM = 8.01 ft-k/ft
MStrength I = 1.25 DC + 1.5 DW + 1.75 (LL+IM)
= 1.25 (0.520 + 0.300) + 1.5 (0.110) + 1.75 (8.01)
= 15.2 ft-k/ft
Required conventional As can be determined as follow:
Try #4 @ 3.87 in.
12
As = 0.20x = 0.62 in2/ft
3.87
0.62 x60
a = = 0.60 in.
0.85 x6 x12
c = 0.60 / 0.75 = 0.81 in.
4
d = 8 – 2 – 0.5x = 5.75 in.
8
5.75 − 0.81
εt = 0.003 x = 0.018 > 0.002, therefore φ = 0.9
0.81
φMn = 0.9 (0.60x60)(5.75 – 0.5 x 0.60)
= 176.7 in-k/ft = 15.2 ft-k/ft = MStrength I OK
2
As longitudinal reinforcement = 63.5% x 0.62 = 0.39 in /ft
Use #6 bars @ 13.3 in.
12
As = 0.44 x = 0.397 in2/ft OK
13.3
Section 5.10.8.2 of the LRFD Specifications states that the spacing between the
longitudinal reinforcement bars < 18 in. and three times the slab thickness (3x8 = 24 in.). These
conditions are satisfied using #6 @ 13.3 in.
The #6 bars are spliced at the panel-to-panel joint using two connection details that have
been presented in Chapter 3 of this report. Figures of the system in this appendix show only one
connection detail.
B.3.5.2 Longitudinal reinforcement for continuous span bridges
Many factors affect the amount of the negative moment reinforcement that is required
over intermediate supports (i.e. piers) of continuous span bridges. These factors include: (1)
number of spans, (2) relative span lengths, (3) relative stiffness of various spans, (4) depth of the
superstructure, (5) concrete strength of the diaphragms provided over piers, and (6) type of
reinforcement used (i.e. mild steel bars versus high strength threaded rods).
These factors have to be addressed in the design of longitudinal girders, which is beyond
the scope of this document. Therefore, the researcher explored resources that contain information

about the average required area of longitudinal reinforcement over piers. These resources include
the PCI-BDM (6), the Nebraska Department of Roads POP Manual (9) and the Washington State
DOT Design Manual. Also, the researcher contacted bridge designers from various DOTs, such
as Tennessee, Nebraska, Florida, and Washington State, to get an average value of the
longitudinal reinforcement used in bridges designed according to the LRFD Specifications. The
researcher has found that for a typical three-span bridge in the range of 100-130 ft per span with
concrete girders spaced at 9 to 12 ft, the average amount of longitudinal reinforcement is about
15 in2 per girderline, using mild steel with 60 ksi yield strength.
B.3.6 Design of the panel-to-panel transverse connection
Among various shapes of the shear keys presented in chapter 2, the researcher decided to
use, female-to-female grouted shear key. Figure B-9 gives the proposed dimensions of the shear
key. A 1-in. wide gap is maintained between adjacent panels.
The modified shear friction theory (7) is used to determine the vertical shear strength of
the shear key joint. The theory depends on depicting possible modes of failure of the joint. These
modes are (see Figure B-9):
(a) Bearing failure at side “bc” of the shear key:
( )
Pu ≤ φ 0.85 f c' (12* Lbc ) kip/ft
Where: φ = strength reduction factor for bearing = 0.7 (Section 5.5.4.2.1, LRFD)
f c' = specified concrete strength of the precast panel or the grout material,
whichever is smaller = 6.0 ksi
Lbc = length of the side “bc” of the shear key = 1.06 in.
Pu ≤ (0.7x0.85x6.0x12x1.06) = 45.4 kips/ft
(b) Shear failure along “be” inside the shear key:
Pu ≤ φ (c * 12 * Lbe + μAv f y ) kip/ft
Where: φ = strength reduction factor for shear = 0.9 (Section 5.5.4.2.1, LRFD)
f c' = specified concrete strength of the grout material = 6.0 ksi
Lbe = length of the distance from “b” to “e” = 5.0 in.
c = cohesion strength of the grout material
μ = friction coefficient of the grout material
For concrete cast monolithically, c = 0.15 ksi and μ = 1.4 (Section 5.8.4.2, LRFD)
Av = longitudinal reinforcement crossing the shear interface per foot
= 0.44x12/13.3 = 0.397 in2/ft
fy = yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement = 60 ksi

Pu ≤ 0.9(0.15x12x5 + 1.4x0.397x60) = 38.1 kips/ft
Therefore, Pu = 38.1 kips/ft
According to Section C3.6.1.2.5 of the LRFD Specifications, which gives guidelines to
determine the tire contact area of the design truck of the HL-93 live load, the width of the contact
area in inches = (P/0.8), where P = design wheel load in kips = 16 kips.
Therefore, the width of the contact area = (16/0.8) = 20 in.
The applied factored wheel load = P (LL load factor) (dynamic allowance IM)
= 16x1.75x1.33 = 37.24 kips/20 in.
= 22.3 kips/ft < 38.1 kips/ft
B.3.7 Miscellaneous design issues
The previous sections presented detailed design calculations of the proposed system
under service conditions, i.e. after the deck panel system is installed, connected with the
supporting girders and opened for traffic. However, during the life span of the precast panels
from the time of fabrication to the time of opening the bridge to traffic, there are some other
stages where the stresses of the deck panel have to be checked. These stages typically resulted
from the fact that the panel is a pretensioned concrete member. For this type of members, the
pretension force is usually released between 18 and 24 hours after casting the concrete. At that
age, the concrete does not have its maximum strength yet and the prestressing force is at its
maximum value. This stage is typically called “At Transfer” or “At Release”. At this stage the
critical section is at the girder lines where there are ungrouted shear pockets that reduce the size
of the concrete cross section that will resist the applied prestressing force.
After the prestressing force is released, the panel will be lifted and moved to a temporary
storage place. The location of the lifting points on the panel have to be pre-determined by the
design engineer in order to make sure that the stresses due to the weight of the panel combined
with the prestressing force exists will not cause any damage to the panel.
The design engineer also has to check the stresses in the panel at time of installing the
panel on the supporting girders. At this stage the concrete has reached its maximum compressive
strength and got rid of all the creep and shrinkage deformation. Also, the prestressing strands
have had almost all the relaxation deformation. The loads that should be used at this stage are the
panel weight, the prestressing force after all losses are counted, and any construction load. The
construction loads can be concentrated load due to a fork lift that will be used to carry the panels
and install them in place or a uniform live load that represents the crew and equipment that are
used during installation of the panels. Typically, the construction loads varies in magnitude and
nature from a project to another depending on the way the precast panels are installed. Therefore,
it is the contractor’s responsibility to provide the design engineer with the construction plan, and
it is the design engineer’s responsibility to check the stresses in the panel due to this plan. The
design engineer has to state clearly on the plans that the construction plan of the panels has to be
checked and approved by him/her prior to construction. Check of stresses in the panel for the
above discussed stages is given in the next sections.

B.3.7.1 Check of concrete stresses at time of transferring the prestressing force
fci' = 5.0 ksi
fpi = strand stress after elastic shortening losses = 200.373 ksi
Pi = 200.373 x 8 x 0.153 = 245.3 kips
Stress limits for concrete: (LRFD, Sec. 5.9.4.1)
• Compression:
0.6 fci' = 0.6 x 5.0 = + 3.0 ksi
• Tension:
In areas with bonded reinforcement sufficient to resist 120% of the tension force in the
cracked concrete computed on the basis of an uncracked section:
0.22 f ci' = 0.22 5.0 = -0.492 ksi
Stresses at top or bottom fibers of the slab:

ft or fb = Pi / A = 245.3 / 768 = + 0.319 ksi
Compressive stress limit for concrete: +3.0 ksi OK
B.3.7.2 Check of concrete stresses during lifting the panel from the presterssing bed
The following assumptions are used to check the stresses during lifting the panel from the
prestressing bed:
1. The time elapsed between releasing the strands and lifting up the panel is very small.
Therefore the concrete strength fci' and strand stress fpi used to check stresses at release
will be used at this stage.
2. The panel will be lifted at every girderline.
Check of stresses at mid span section of the exterior span:
ft = (Pi / A) + (Mslab / St)
= (245.3 / 768) +( 0.520 x 12 / 1024)
= + 0.326 ksi
fb = (Pi / A) - (Mslab / Sb)
= (245.3 / 768) – (0.520 x 12 / 1024)
= + 0.313 ksi
Check of stresses at first interior girderline:
ft = (Pi / A) - (Mslab / St)

= (245.3 / 768) – (1.28 x 12 / 1024)
= + 0.304 ksi
fb = (Pi / A) - (Mslab / Sb)
= (245.3 / 768) + (1.28 x 12 / 1024)
= + 0.334 ksi
B.4 REFERENCES OF APPENDIX B

1. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,
Published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington DC (2000).
Transportation Officials, Washing-ton, D.C., 3rd Edition (2004), with the 2005 & 2006 Interim
Revisions.
3. Badie, S. S.; Tadros, M. K.; Kakish, H. F.; Splittgerber, D. L.; and Baishya, M. C, “Large Studs
for Composite Action in Steel Bridge Girders.” Bridge Journal, American Society of Civil
Engineering (ASCE), Vol. 7, No. 3 (May-June 2002) pp. 195-203.
4. Devalapura, R. K.; and Tadros, M. K., “Stress-Strain Modeling of 270-ksi Low-Relaxation
Prestressing Strands.” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, May/April 1992,
pp. 100-106.
5. Tadros, M. K.; and Baishya, M. C., “Rapid Replacement of Bridge Decks.” NCHRP Report
407, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1998).
6. PCI-Bridge Design Manual (PCI-BDM), Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 2nd
edition, (2003).
7. Tadros, M. K.; Badie, S. S.; and Kamel, M. R., "A New Connection Method for Rapid Removal
of Bridge Decks." Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, Vol. 47, No. 3 (May-
June, 2002) pp. 2-12.
8. National Highway Institute (NHI), FHWA NI-95-017, “Load and Resistance Factor Design for
Highway Bridges.” NHI Course No. 13061 (1995).
9. Nebraska Department of Roads Design Manual and Policies (NDOR POP) (2006).
B.5 FIGURES OF APPENDIX B

Figures B-1 to B-9 provide details of the system.

4'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0"
1.280 k-ft/ft 1.280 k-ft/ft

0.800 k-ft/ft 0.800 k-ft/ft
0.520 k-ft/ft
0.768 k-ft/ft 0.768 k-ft/ft
Bending moment due to panel weight, 0.100 k/ft
1'-4" 0.089 k-ft/ft 0.342 k-ft/ft 0.342 k-ft/ft 0.089 k-ft/ft 1'-4"
0.243 k-ft/ft 0.110 k-ft/ft 0.243 k-ft/ft
Bending moment due to wearing surface, 0.025 k/ft

0.420 k-ft/side
0.420 k-ft/side
1.498 k-ft/ft 1.498 k-ft/ft
0.600 k-ft/ft
5.2" 0.300 k-ft/ft
Bending moment due to barrier weight, 0.420 k/ft/side
Figure B-1. Bending Moment due to Service loads

Detail H
2%
8" + 1/4" **
4'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0"
Two 2-1/2" strands

270 ksi, LL A B C 6x2#5
Short pieces
of 2#4
1"-φ leveling screw #6 @ 13.3 in. Detail D
7'-11"
E E
1'-0"
Two 2-1/2" strands 2#4
270 ksi, LL A B C
9.4" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9.4"
3 #6 10#6 bars @13.3" 10#6 bars @13.3" 10#6 bars @13.3" 3 #6
@13.3" @13.3"
Figure B-2. Cross Section and Plan View of CD-1


1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
2"+1/4*
8"+1/4*
2"
Section A-A
1" φ grouting pipe

1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
4 1/4"+1/4"*
3/4" 7 1/2"
3 3/4"
6 3/4" HSS 4x12x3/8", #6 bar @ 13.33 in.

4" long Section B-B
1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"

7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
3"+1/4"*
5"
1'-4 1/2" 1'-2" 2'-10" 1'-2" 1'-4 1/2"
Section C-C
1/2" strand
#4 bar
Figure B-3. CD-1, Sections A-A, B-B and C-C
#5 bar
#6 bar

1'-0" 3/4"
F F
6" 1" φ grouting pipe
1'-0"
4 1/4"+1/4"*
4" 4"
#6 Section G-G
5"
4"
Ø 1"
3 3/4"
Ø 1 3/4"
Shear key details
4"
Galvanized bulged HSS 4x12x3/8
G G Galvanized bulged HSS 4x12x3/8"
#6 4"
Section F-F
1"
1'-0" 3/4" 3/4" 3/4"
1"
1 1/2"
8" + 1/4" **
3/4"
#6
3 1/2"
3/4"
1 1/2"
7 1/2"
Figure B-4. CD-1, Panel-toPanel Connection Detail, Detail D

1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
2" φ grouting pipe

3"+1/4"*
3"+1/4"*
5"
5"
1"
2 1/2" 9" 2 1/2" 8- 1 1/4" studs
Top surface of the steel girder flange
1'-4 1/2" 1'-2" 2'-10" 1'-2" 1'-4 1/2"
Section C-C
1'-0"
2" φ grouting 1 1/4" studs

pipe
3"+1/4"*
Light weight angles used as grout barrier
and to adjust for the panel elevation
5"
1"
Rectangular bar
3 1/2" 5" 3 1/2"
Section E-E
Figure B-5. CD-1, Sections C-C & E-E for Steel Girders

1'-2" 2'-0" 1'-7" 2'-0" 1'-2"
7" 7" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 5" 5" 9" 5" 5" 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 7" 7"
2" φ grouting pipe

3"+1/4"*
3"+1/4"*
5"
5"
1"
3" 4" 4" 3"
Top surface of the concrete girder flange 3- 1 1/4" double
headed studs
1'-4 1/2" 1'-2" 2'-10" 1'-2" 1'-4 1/2"
1'-0" Section C-C
2" φ grouting 1 1/4" double headed stud

pipe
3" + 1/4" **
5"
4 1/2"
1"
9 1/2"
1" φ backer rod

Section E-E
Figure B-6. CD-1, Sections C-C & E-E for Concrete Girders

Width of the
base of the barrier
#5 closed loop
surface
8"+ 1/4 " **
Figure B-7. CD-1, Detail H for the Panel-to-Barrier Connection


A A 1'-5" 1'-0"
16 kips
0.42 kip/ft 0.42 kip/ft
H = 42"
H = 42"
#5 @ 12"
2" wearing 2" wearing
surface 2 1 2
surface
8"
8"
5.2" 5.2"
2 1 2 #5 @ 12"
3" 29" 16" 3" 29" 16"
4'-0" 4'-0"
Section A-A
Lc+H+2x29"tan30 (for T collision)
Lc+2x29"tan30 (for M collision)
CASE 2 (due to vehicular effects)
Lc+H (for T collision)

Lc (for M collision)
30 deg.
30 deg.
CASE 1 (due to collision effects)
Figure B-8. CD-1, Design parameters of the overhang

P P
a a
b b
c c
#6@13.3"
R
8"
d d
e e
f f
Bearing failure mode Shear failure mode
Figure B-9. Design Parameters of the Shear Key

APPENDIX C
DESIGN, DETAILING, FABRICATION & INSTALLATION GUIDE
The intent of this document is to provide design, detailing, fabrication, and installation
guidelines for full-depth, precast-concrete bridge deck panel systems. This guide does not cover
any proprietary full-depth, precast-concrete bridge deck panel systems. Typically, each deck
construction project has its unique features and restraints that may affect the design, fabrication
and construction process. Therefore, the reader should evaluate the provisions relevance of this
guide in connection with his/her needs. The structure of the guide is as follow:
C.1 DESIGN GUIDE C-1
C.1.1 Slab thickness C-1
C.1.2 Composite action between the precast deck and the superstructure C-1
C.1.3 Staged construction C-2
C.1.4 Panel-to-girder joint detail C-3
C.1.5 Transverse panel-to-panel joint detail C-4
C.1.6 Longitudinal panel-to-panel joint detail C-4
C.1.7 Old-to-new deck joint detail C-5
C.1.8 Longitudinal post-tensioning (PT) C-5
C.1.9 Overhang design C-6
C.2 DETAILING GUIDE C-6
C.2.1 Shear key (at panel-to-panel transverse joints) C-6
C.2.2 Shear pockets at panel-to-girder joints C-8
C.2.4 Haunch C-9
C.2.5 leveling of precast slabs on supporting system C-9
C.3 FABRICATION, STORAGE, HANDLING, TRANSPORTATION &
INSTALLATION GUIDE C-10
C.3.1 Precast panel C-10
C.3.3 Storage and Handling C-10
C.3.4 Transportation C-12
C.3.5 Installation C-13
C.3.6 Grinding of top surface of the panels C-13
C.3.7 Deck removal for deck replacement projects C-14
C.4 REFERENCES OF APPENDIX C C-15
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix C C-i

C.1 DESIGN GUIDE
C.1.1 Slab thickness
1. Section 9.7.5 of AASHTO LRFD Specifications (1) recommends a minimum
thickness of 7 inches (178 mm) excluding any provision for grinding, grooving
and sacrificial surface.
2. In any case, the minimum slab thickness is controlled by the minimum concrete
cover requirements. AASHTO Standard and LRFD Specifications require a 2 in.
(50 mm) minimum concrete cover on top layer of reinforcement and a 1 in. (25
mm) minimum cover on bottom layer of reinforcement. Based on information
established from the literature review, it has been found that to satisfy the
minimum concrete cover limits and to insure adequate reinforcement clearances,
especially if longitudinal post-tensioning is provided, the minimum slab thickness
should be 7½ in (190 mm).
3. Structurally, 7½ in. (190 mm) thick slab can be used satisfactorily for deck slabs
with girder spacing up to 10 to 11 ft (3.05 to 3.35 m). Typically, it is more
economical to use the least possible number of girder lines rather than reducing
the slab thickness based on satisfying the flexural capacity. Also, it has been
found that a girder spacing between 10 and 12 ft (3.05 and 3.66 m) usually
produces the most economical superstructure system of a slab/girder bridge.
C.1.2 Composite action between the precast deck and the superstructure
1. Typically, full depth precast decks use shear connectors on the girders that project
into grouted pockets in the deck sections.
2. Full composite action between the precast deck and the girders of the
superstructure is created after the grout in the shear pocket gains adequate
strength.
3. The designer should consider the performance of the supporting girders prior to
having the full composite action. During this stage the girder alone should support
the following loads: (1) its self weight, (2) the form weight, (3) the precast deck
self weight, and (4) construction load, which may include crew members, and
equipment used in handling and installing the panels. Loads added after the deck
is made composite with the girder are resisted by the composite slab/girder
section.
4. If the bridge is allowed to open to traffic before the composite action is achieved,
the designer should consider two groups of loading: (a) girder and deck weight
plus construction loads, and (b) girder and deck weight plus traffic loads. The
designer might have to enforce a low speed limit on the bridge, under these
conditions, to minimize the impact effects of the moving traffic on the girders.
5. Prestressed concrete girders would be required to be designed for serviceability
and strength. Conventionally reinforced concrete and steel girders would be
required to be designed for strength. For steel members the designer would also
be required to check the top flange against local buckling and may use permanent
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix C C-1

or temporary bracing to support the top flange during this stage if buckling is a
concern.
6. Because the majority of the supporting girders are cambered when they installed
on the bridge, the designer should consider the minimum height of the haunch
between the deck slab and the girder to determine the geometrical properties of
the composite section. This applies both to prestressed and steel girders.
7. To determine the geometrical properties of the composite slab/girder section, the
designer should use effective flange width of the slab as given in Section 4.6.2.6.1
of the LRFD Specifications (1). Also, the designer should consider the difference
in material between the slab and the girder by incorporating the modular ratio in
the calculations.
8. When checking service stresses in the slab, the designer should superimpose the
longitudinal post-tensioning stresses in the slab prior to becoming a composite
section, with dead and live load stresses on the composite section.
9. If the longitudinal post-tensioning reinforcement on the slab is not uniformly
distribute across the slab width (i.e. it is concentrated over or between girder
lines), the designer should conduct rigorous analysis, such as the finite element
analysis, to determine exact distribution of the longitudinal post-tensioning
stresses in the deck slab.
10. If the slab is not made composite with the girder, then all the straining actions
resulted from loads added after installing the precast slab will be distributed
between the slab and the girder based on their relative stiffness. However, it is
conservative to consider all the loads supported only by the girder.
C.1.3 Staged construction
The term “construction period” used in this section refers to all the activities that will be
conducted in one construction period, which may be an “over-night” or a “weekend”
period.
1. If no longitudinal post-tensioning is used in the precast deck, it is recommended
that each segment of the precast deck, constructed during one “construction
period”, is made composite with the superstructure before the bridge is open to
traffic, otherwise the provisions of Section C.1.2.3 must be satisfied. In this
regard, the designer should specify the minimum strength of the grout that should
be attained at time of opening the bridge for traffic. Also, the method of
determining the grout strength should be specified.
2. For deck replacement projects, the designer should specify the start and end
locations on the deck of each “construction period.” Also, he/she should consider
the effect of the overall construction scheme on the superstructure. For example,
if the contractor will not be able to construct one full span during one
“construction period”, the composite girder-deck member will not have uniform
properties along its length due to the difference in thickness and concrete strength
between the existing and new deck. Another example, if the old bridge had been
made continuous over the piers and the contractor could not restore this continuity
by the end of one “construction period,” the designer should check the girder

capacity as a simply supported beam. This check should be done not only for the
spans adjacent to the pier where continuity is lost, but also for all affected spans
of the bridge.
3. If longitudinal post-tensioning is provided with staged construction, the end panel
of every “construction period” should be provided with special devices that allow
anchoring of the longitudinal post-tensioning of the current “construction period”
and splicing it with the longitudinal post-tensioning of the next “construction
period”. It is possible that the stresses in an end panel due to the longitudinal
post-tensioning force will be doubled if two separate anchorages are used for the
current and next “construction period”.
4. It is a common practice that temporarily barriers are installed close to the edge of
a newly installed stage, to open it for traffic while the second stage is under
construction. The designer should consider this load as part of the loads applied to
the precast panel during this stage. The location of the barriers used in the
calculations should be chosen to produce the highest straining actions on the deck.
Also, the weight of the temporarily barriers may cause the precast panels to
deform in a way that alters the panel’s elevation especially at the closure pour
location. It is recommended that the temporary barriers be removed and the
panel’s elevation at the edge is checked before installing the closure pour.
C.1.4 Panel-to-girder joint detail
1. Shear connectors clustered in groups can be used and should be made to match
the shear pocket locations of the precast panels.
2. Experimental investigation (NCHRP 12-65) has shown that the stud cluster
spacing can be extended up to 4 ft (1220 mm), without affecting the full-
composite behavior of the system, if confinement to the stud group and the grout
surrounding them is provided. Confinement helps in distributing the shear force
among the studs in each cluster, and protecting the grout at the base of each stud
against crushing. The 4 ft (1220 mm) spacing helps in reducing the fabrication
and grouting cost of the panels.
3. Confinement can be provided by using hollow structural steel (HSS) tubes or
closed ties set horizontally across the panel thickness. If closed ties are used, the
lowest tie should be placed as close to the top surface of the girder as possible.
4. Equation 5.8.4.1-1 should be used to estimate the ultimate capacity of stud
clusters spaced up to 4 ft (1220 mm) for steel and concrete composite beams.
Limits on the nominal horizontal shear capacity given by Equation 5.8.4.1-2 and
5.8.4.1-3 will not apply if confinement is provided.
5. For steel composite beams:
• Equation 6.10.10.2-1 of the LRFD Specifications, that is currently used to
estimate the fatigue capacity for single studs, does not require modification for
design of stud clusters spaced up to 4 ft (1220 mm).

• Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 for single studs should not be used for stud clusters at
2 to 4 ft (610 to 1220 mm) spacing. This recommendation is expected to result
in about 30 percent increase in the required number of studs.
• The recommendation just given above is based on the results of the of push-
off testing of stud groups at 4 ft (1220 mm) spacing, which gave about 30
percent lower capacity than the current LRFD Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 for
single studs. This conclusion may be unnecessarily conservative as the push-
off testing is not as realistic in modeling beam behavior as actual beam test,
which showed no reduction in capacity due to use of stud clusters. However,
this is a conservative approach and it does not significantly impact the overall
economy of bridges.
C.1.5 Transverse panel-to-panel joint detail
1. A grout-filled joint should be provided between adjacent panels. Direct butting
between adjacent panels must be avoided.
2. Grout should fill the full height of the joint. Wood forming installed under the
panel or galvanized metal plates attached to the panel should be used to achieve
this goal.
3. Shear friction theory as given by the AASHTO LRFD Specifications can be used
to check the shear capacity of the joint.
4. For bridge decks on a horizontal curvature, it is recommended to use trapezoidal
panels to keep the width of the joint constant and to a minimum. For bridges with
large horizontal curvature, rectangular panels may be used to simplify the
production process of the panels. A 1 in. (25 mm) minimum width and 3 in. (76
mm) maximum width of the joint should be used whether trapezoidal or
rectangular shape panels are used.
5. Flowable, self-leveling, freeze thaw durable, non-shrink grout mix should be
used. The grout material, if stored on the construction site, should be kept
protected from the environmental factors such as humidity and rain.
6. If no overlay is used over the precast panels, finishing of the top surface of the
grout filling of the joint should match the finishing of the precast panel.
C.1.6 Longitudinal panel-to-panel joint detail
1. This joint will result only if multiple panels are used across the width of a bridge.
This may occur due to staged construction or to avoid crowning of the panels.
2. If the joint is not directly over a girder flange, positive moment reinforcement
should be adequately coupled. The width of the joint should be adequate to
provide the necessary coupling device.
3. If the joint is over a girder flange, investigation of negative moment capacity
should be made and reinforcement provided accordingly. Top reinforcement
continuity would be needed to, as a minimum, control longitudinal cracking over
the girder line.
4. Precast crowned panels may be used if satisfactorily produced and installed.

C.1.7 Old-to-new deck joint detail
1. Temporary connection between the old and new deck should be developed. The
connection should satisfy the following conditions:
(a) It does not cause high stress concentration in the existing or new deck.
(b) It does not require drilling holes or modifying the standard new precast
panels.
(c) It can be installed and removed with minimum disruption to traffic on the
bridge, or below the bridge in overpass situations.
2. An edge support should be provided for the last precast panel, installed in a
construction period, to protect it from excessive stress.
C.1.8 Longitudinal post-tensioning (PT)
1. PT force should be applied only the precast deck. Therefore, the panel-to-girder
connection should not be constructed until the PT reinforcement is tensioned and
anchored.
2. The minimum average effective stress on concrete due to PT, after considering all
types of losses and longitudinal flexural stresses in continuous span bridges,
should not be less than 0.250 ksi. This recommendation is consistent with Section
9.7.5.3 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (1).
3. It is recommended that PT tendons are uniformly distributed across the slab width
and are not be farther apart, center-to-center, than 4 times the total composite
minimum thickness of the slab. In this case, the average stress due to PT
reinforcement can be determined using flexural elastic stress distribution, i.e.
( P ± MC ). The composite thickness refers to slabs with bonded overlays.
A I
This recommendation is consistent with Section 5.10.3.4 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (LRFD 2004).
However, if the longitudinal post-tensioning reinforcement on the slab is not
uniformly distributed across the slab width (i.e. it is concentrated at or between
girder lines), the designer should conduct rigorous analysis to determine exact
distribution of the longitudinal post-tensioning stresses in the deck slab. Rigorous
analysis includes finite element analysis, plate analysis, or any analysis that can
detect accurately the stress distribution across the deck width.
4. The minimum concrete cover as stated by Section 5.12.3 of the LRFD
Specifications (1) should be maintained on all anchorage and splicing devices of
the PT reinforcement.
5. The maximum jacking stress in PT reinforcement should not exceed 80 percent of
the specified minimum ultimate tensile strength of the post-tensioning steel.
6. When longitudinal post-tensioning is provided with staged construction, the end
panel of every “construction period” should be provided with special devices that
allow anchoring of the longitudinal post-tensioning of the current “construction
period” and splicing it with the longitudinal post-tensioning of the next

“construction period”. It is possible that the stresses in an end panel due to the
longitudinal post-tensioning force will be doubled if two separate anchorages are
used for the current and next “construction period”.
C.1.9 Overhang design
1. The overhanging slab should not be made shouldower than the interior slab.
2. At least two sections inside the overhang should be designed, which are at the
inner face of the side barrier and at critical section over the exterior girder line.
3. The overhang should not be tapered. This is because: (1) to simplify the
fabrication process and (2) satisfy the flexural demand of the overhang at the
interior face of the barrier.
4. The load effects of the overhang can be determined in accordance to Section
A13.4.1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications.
5. Special attention should be given to the design of the slab overhanging with
regard to the development of prestressing and conventional reinforcement.
Effective reinforcement stress should be prorated based on the available
embedment length at the section under consideration.
6. If the prestressing reinforcement cannot develop the required strength within the
slab overhang, mild reinforcement or/and post tensioning can be used.
7. The conventional reinforcement should not be larger than number 6 bar.
8. Special arrangements can be used to reduce the development length of
prestressing and conventional reinforcement, such as using mechanical anchorage
devices and confining the concrete surrounding the reinforcement by high
strength spirals.
C.2 DETAILING GUIDE

C.2.1 Shear key (at panel-to-panel transverse joints)
1. It is recommended to use grouted shear key transverse joints between adjacent
panels. Although, grouted joints require more time and labor to be done in the
field, compared to the match-cast non-grouted joints, they provide higher
construction tolerance and guarantee full contact between adjacent panels. Figure
F-1 show some details that have been successfully used.
2. In order to have a successful shear key detail, the following issues should be
considered:
• The top edge of the shear key should be recessed about ½ to 1 in. (25 mm)
relative to the bottom edge. This will give the contractor flexibility in
filling the joint with grout while minimizing the risk of having poorly
consolidated grout.

• A 1 (25 mm) wide gap should be provided between adjacent panels at the
bottom edge of the shear key. This gap will provide enough tolerance for
fabrication and construction process.
• It is recommended to provide the shear key with sharp edge corners rather
than curved corners in order to optimize the mechanical interlocking effect
of the shear key.
• It is recommended to build the form for the grout filling the gap from the
bottom surface of the panels. The forms can be hung from the top surface
of the panel, or can be attached to the bottom surface of the panels suing
special inserts provided during fabrication of the panels. Wood, metal,
plastic or foam can be used to build the form.
• In case of using longitudinal post-tensioning in the precast deck system,
the shear key may be replaced with straight vertical edge joint. The
vertical edges should be intentionally roughened to optimize the shear
capacity of the interface between the grout and the panel.
• Roughening can be achieved by sand blasting the panel edges, which is
followed by a thorough washing procedure. This operation can be done in
the precast yard after curing of the panels, or on the bridge site before
installing the panels on the bridge.
• Roughening can be also provided during fabrication of the panels by
painting the side forms with a retarding agent. After removing the side
forms, the panel edges are washed with water under high pressure, so that
the aggregate of the concrete will be exposed and a roughened surface is
created.
• In case of using longitudinal post-tensioning in the precast deck system,
blockouts or pockets should be provided at the panel’s edge in order to
provide enough space for splicing the longitudinal post-tensioning ducts
and secure their joints against possible leakage. See also Section C.2.3 of
the guidelines for more information.
1/2" 1 1/2" 1/2"
2" 2" 2"
1 3/4" 2"
1/2"
2"
8" 3 1/2" 8"
2 1/2"
3/4"
1 1/2" 1 1/2"
1"
1"
Figure F-1. Successful Shear Key Details

C.2.2 Shear pockets at panel-to-girder joints
1. The shear pocket can be full or partial height of the panel thickness, as shown in
Figure F-2.
Full-depth Pocket Partial-depth Pocket

Figure F-2. Beveled-Shape Shear Pocket
2. If no overlay is provided on the precast deck system, it is recommended to use
partial-height shear pocket, for the following reasons:
(a) To protect the deck from water leakage at the interface between the sides
of the shear pocket and the grout filling it.
(b) To avoid non-uniformity of color of the top surface of the deck
3. The depth of partial-height pockets should satisfy the following conditions:
(a) The shear connector should be embedded in the shear pockets so that its
highest point is at least 2 in. (50 mm) above the bottom layer of transverse
reinforcement of the panel.
(b) A ½ in. (13 mm) minimum clearance between the highest point of the
shear connector and the pocket
(c) A 2 in. (50 mm) minimum distance between the highest point of the shear
connector and the top surface of the panel
4. Partial-height pockets should be provided with injection ports and vents. A 1½ to
2 in. (38 to 50 mm) diameter injection ports are recommended to provide enough
flexibility during injection. Two or more vents should be provided if the width of
the pocket is greater than 10 in. (254 mm). The vents should be provided on the
opposite side of the injection port to guarantee complete filling of the pocket.
5. If the spacing between pockets is greater than 24 in. (610 mm), an intermediate
injection port should be provided in the panel
1. It is recommended to provide the PT reinforcement as near mid height of the
panel as possible to avoid residual deflection or camber of the slab.

2. The type and size of the PT reinforcement should be chosen so that the minimum
concrete cover requirement on the main (transverse) reinforcement is satisfied.
3. The transverse edges of the precast panel should be provided with blockouts at the
location of PT ducts to allow coupling the PT ducts. A relatively larger blockouts
should be used at joints where the PT reinforcement is spliced.
4. The end panels should be designed to accommodate the anchorage device. Exact
dimensions of the anchorage device should be obtained from the PT
reinforcement supplier.
C.2.4 Haunch
1. A minimum 1-inch thick haunch should be provided between the precast panels
and the steel stringers to allow for any misalignment or irregularity and guarantee
complete filling of the haunch with grout.
2. If it is desired not to totally fill the haunch with grout for the entire width of the
top flange, the grout should extend horizontally at least 2 in. beyond the pocket
width. The grouted area should be provided with adequate ventilation to assure
absence of trapped air.
C.2.5 leveling of precast slabs on supporting system
Elevation of the precast panel can be adjusted using leveling bolts and shim packs. The
shim packs are recommended to be placed next to a stud pocket or any accessible areas to
be easily adjusted during installation. The following equation should be used to
determine the grade of the deck panels after being installed on the bridge:
DG = FG – WS + DCL
where: DG = Deck grade after installing the panels on the bridge
FG = Final grade of deck (known)
WS = Thickness of wearing surface (known)
DCL = Deflection due to composite loads. DCL is determined from the structural
analysis of the composite deck/girder system. Composite loads refer to
any loads added to the deck after the composite action between the deck
and the girders is provided, such as wearing surface, barriers, and utilities
loads.
The following issues should be considered if leveling bolts are used:
• All leveling bolts and their inserts should be corrosion resistant.
• Each bolt should be torque to insure that there is approximately equal bearing on
each leveling bolt providing proper dead load distribution to each girder.
• The leveling bolts can be removed after the grout between the deck and the
girders gain enough strength to support the panel weight and the construction
loads.
• If the designer opted to permanently keep the leveling bolts after the grouting
process is complete, the bolts should be torch cut and recessed at least 2 in. (50

mm) below the top surface of the panel. Concrete blockouts should be provided
during fabrication of the panel for that purpose. After torch cutting the bolts,
these pockets should be filled with non-shrink cementitious grout of a concrete
strength that at least matches that of the precast panel.
• There should be the same number of leveling bolts over each girder. A minimum
of 2 leveling bolts per panel should be provided over each girder line.
Recently, galvanized stay-in-place (SIP) angle grout dams have been used on bridges in
Nebraska and Texas. The SIP angles, similar to those used for SIP forms, are welded to
the top flange or to straps across the top flange to secure it in place. They are installed at
the required pre-calculated haunch height minus a fraction of an inch to allow room for a
closed cell foam grout seal bonded to the top surface of the angle.
C.3 FABRICATION, STORAGE, HANDLING, TRANSPORTATION &

INSTALLATION GUIDE
C.3.1 Precast panel
1. It is recommended to reduce the number of types of panels needed for a project as
much as possible to increase fabrication speed and reduce fabrication cost.
2. Clean steel beds and steel side forms should be used to provide panels with exact
dimensions.
3. Shear and splicing blockouts can be formed of wood, steel or polystyrene foam or
any material that can be cut to the exact dimensions with a maximum tolerance of
± 1/8 in. (3 mm), and do not react with concrete or steel reinforcement. Also, they
have to be well secured to the bed and/or the side forms so that they do not travel
during casting of concrete.
Post-tensioning is to be completed in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of these
specifications. Special effort should be made to provide accurate alignment of post-
tensioning ducts from panel to panel. Grouting should be done using thixotropic grout
material and should be performed in accordance to the following publication:
"Guide Specification for Grouting of Post-Tensioned Structures," Post-Tensioning
Institute, First Edition, February, 2001, Post-Tensioning Institute, Phoenix, AZ.
C.3.3 Storage and Handling
1. If the panels are stored horizontally, they should be supported on temporary
supports located as near as possible to the permanent support locations.
2. During storage, the panels should be protected from environmental effects, such
as rain and snow to protect any exposed steel components from rusting.
3. Handling, storage and shipping of slender precast deck panels required special
care to avoid damage due to these temporary activities.

4. The precast concrete producer should be responsible for design of the lifting
inserts and their location in coordination with the rigging scheme plans of the
erector. The location of lifting inserts and their specifications along with the
rigging scheme should be clearly shown on the shop drawings prepared by the
precast producer. The shop drawings should be reviewed and approved by the
design engineer.
5. During lifting and handling, panels should be subjected to vertical lifting forces
only, through use of spreader beams and strong backs as needed.
6. The precast panel should be designed to resist the following straining actions
during handling:
• Longitudinal and transverse flexural effects due to the weight of the panel, as
shown in Figure F-3(a)
• Axial forces in the plan of the panel due to the slope of the sling, as shown in
Figure F-3(b)
• Concentrated moment at the lifting points due to the eccentricity of the rigging
hooks from the panel centroid, as shown in Figure F-3(b). When the sling
angle is small, the component of force parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
member will generate a significant moment. Therefore, it is recommended to
have the sling angle between 60 to 70 degrees. While this effect can and
should be accounted for, it is not recommended that it would be allowed to
dominate design moments. Rather, consideration should be given to using
spreader beams, two cranes or other mechanisms to increase the sling angle.
(a) Due to panel weight (b) due to lifting slings

Figure F-3. Straining Actions during Handling
7. A 1.33 dynamic load factor should be used in addition to the load factors
associated with the considered Limit State (i.e. Service, Ultimate, etc.) because
handling will induce dynamic loads on the panel.

8. In order to ensure that an embedded insert acts primarily in tension, a swivel plate
as shown in Figure F-4 can be used. Sufficient threads must be engaged to
develop the strength of the bolt. Some manufacturers use a long bolt with a nut
between the bolt head and the swivel plate. After the bolt has "bottomed out", the
nut is turned against the swivel plate. Also, inverted U-shape bars can be used.
The U-bars should be provided with horizontal L-shape ends and tied with the
bottom layer of reinforcement of the panel.
Figure F-4. Swivel Plate

C.3.4 Transportation
1. Transportation restrictions add to the cost of precast deck panels. Size and weight
limitations vary from one state to another. The designer and/or the precast
concrete producer should check these limits with the local authorities in early
stages of design to determine the most economical dimensions of the panel. The
following bullets provide some guidelines of these restrictions:
• The common payload for standard trailers without special permits is 20 tons
(178 kN) with width restricted to 8-ft (2.44 m).
• Maximum width with permit varies among states from 10 to 14 ft (3.05 to
4.27 m).
• Some states allow lengths over 70 ft (21.34 m) with only a simple permit,
while others require for any load over 55 ft (15.24 m) a special permit, front
and rear escorts. Also, travel may be limited to certain times of the day.
• In some states, weights of up to 100 tons (890 kN) are allowed with permit,
while in other states there are very severe restrictions on loads over 25 tons
(222 kN).
2. Panel up to 8 to 10 ft (2.44 to 3.05 m) wide can be shipped horizontally on flatbed
trailers. Wider panels can be shipped vertically on flatbed or low-boy trailers
using supporting frames.
3. If more than one panel shipped horizontally, 4x4 in. (100x100 mm) temporary
support lumber should be provided between individual panels. Also, the
temporary supports have to be vertically lined up.

4. The locations of the temporary supports have to be carefully studied to avoid over
stressing and/or excessive deflection of the panels. The designer should be aware
that long flatbed and lowboy trailers deform during hauling. Support points
between the panel and the flatbed must assure statically determinate section, by
using spreader beams or strong backs.
5. A 1.33 dynamic load factor should be added to the weight of the panel in addition
to the appropriate load factors used with the limit state used in checking the
stresses to count for the vibration effects that the panel may encounter during
shipping.
C.3.5 Installation
1. Backer rods, polystyrene strips, cementitious strips, or light gage angles, can be
used as grout dams.
2. The grout dams have to be well secured to the top surface of the supporting
girders to prevent leakage during grouting.
3. Camber of the supporting girders should be taken into consideration during
installation of the grout dam. At all points of the length of the dam, a tight
contact between the dam and the bottom surface of the precast panel should be
provided to avoid leakage during grouting.
4. If longitudinal post-tensioning is provided in the system, grouting of the panel-to-
panel transverse connections should be completed and the grout should reach the
design strength before longitudinal post-tensioning commences.
5. If longitudinal post-tensioning is used, the construction steps should follow the
following sequence:
• Install the panels on temporarily shims
• Adjust the panel elevation using the leveling bolts
• Carefully, splice the post-tensioning ducts
• Inspect the PT ducts and make sure that they are not blocked
• Fill the panel-to-panel transverse joints with grout and cure it
• Re-inspect the PT ducts and make sure that they are not blocked and free of
water
• Insert the post-tensioning tendons tension it
• Fill the panel-to-girder shear pockets with grout and cure it
• Use cast-in-place concrete at the closure pours and cure it
C.3.6 Grinding of top surface of the panels
1. Equipment utilizing diamond mounted on a self propelled machine designed for
grinding and texturing pavement should be used
2. Equipment that causes ravel, aggregate fracture, spalls or disturbance to the
transverse or longitudinal panel-to-panel joints should not be used

3. The deck top surface should be carefully cleaned from residue and excess water
4. Grinding should be performed in lines normal to the pavement centerline
5. The resultant surface should be in a parallel corduroy type texture consisting of
grooves with depth between 1/16 and 1/8 in. (1.5 and 3 mm).
6. The drainage cross slope should be maintained with no depressions or
misalignment of slope greater than ¼ in. (6 mm) in 10 ft (3.05 m) when tested
with a 10 ft (3.05 m) straight edge
C.3.7 Deck removal for deck replacement projects
1. Equipments capable of removing the existing deck without damaging the
superstructure should be used
2. If old deck is made composite with the superstructure, special care should be
given to avoid damaging the shear connectors as well as the top surface of the
supporting girders.
3. Remove shear connectors to the limit that is necessary to avoid interference
between the shear connectors and deck panels. In some cases, total removal of
the existing shear connector system will be required. The decision of partial or
total removal of the shear connectors should be taken by the designer after careful
investigation of the existing system and its matching degree with the precast panel
system. In some cases, the physical condition of the shear connectors after
removing the old deck system (rusty or damaged connectors) may mandate total
removal.
4. After deck removal is complete, the top surface of the girder should be thoroughly
cleaned from any foreign material such as paint, scale, slag, rust, moisture, grease,
concrete debris, etc.
5. For steel girders, the unwanted shear studs should be removed by torch cutting
them close to their base. Parts of the studs remained after torch cutting should be
removed by grinding.
6. For concrete girders, the shear connectors that are in conflict with the new deck
system should be torch cut as close to the top of the girder as possible. Additional
pot-installed anchors should be placed directly over the centerline of the girder in
accordance with manufacturers recommendations. The top surface of the girder
should be cleaned to remove all remains of the old deck by means of sand or
water-jet blasting and thorough cleaning.
7. The contractor should provide the following information to the designer for
approval:
• Proposed tools and methods for deck removal
• Proposed tools and methods for stud removal, if needed
• Proposed tools and methods for preparation of the top surface of the
supporting girders
• Proposed tools and methods for reattaching the shear connectors

C.4 REFERENCES OF APPENDIX C
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 3rd Edition (2004) with the 2005 & 2006 Interim
Revisions.
2. Badie, S. S., Tadros, M. K. and Girgis, A. F., “Full-Depth, Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panel
Systems,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Project 12-65, Final
Report, July 2006.

APPENDIX D
PROPOSED AASHTO LRFD SPECIFICATIONS REVISIONS
This appendix presents a proposal of revisions to Section 9 of the AASHTO

LRFD Specifications. The objective of the proposed revisions is to promote the use the
full-depth precast deck panel systems on highway bridges by providing the designers
with related requirements and guidance.
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix D D-i

AASHTO LRFD SPECIFICATIONS LANGUAGE AND COMMENTARY
The following definition should be added to Article 9.3 of the current AASHTO LRFD
Specifications(AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd edition (2004) with the
2005 & 2006 Interim Revisions)..
Construction period- Refers to all the activities that will be conducted in one construction
period, which may be an “over-night” or a “weekend” period.
Haunch-The built-up section between the precast deck panels and the supporting girders
The following article shall replace Article 9.7.5 of the current AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd edition (2004) with the
2005 & 2006 Interim Revisions).
9.7.5 Precast Deck Slabs on Girders

9.7.5.1 General
9.7.5.2 Transversely Joined Precast Decks
9.7.5.3 Longitudinally Post-Tensioned Precast Decks
9.7.5.4 Composite Action between the Slab and the Girders
9.7.5.5 Staged Construction
9.7.5.6 Panel-to-Girder Joint
9.7.5.7 Transverse Panel-to-Panel Joint
9.7.5.8 Longitudinal Panel-to-Panel Joint
9.7.5.9 Old-to-New Deck Joint
9.7.5.10 Detailing Requirements
9.7.5.11 Fabrication, Storage, Handling, Transportation and Installation
Requirements
9.7.5.12 Deck Removal for Deck Replacement Projects
The following references should be added to the REFERENCES of Section 9 of the

current AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
3rd edition (2004) with the 2005 & 2006 Interim Revisions).
"Guide Specification for Grouting of Post-Tensioned Structures," February, 2001, Post-

Tensioning Institute, First Edition, Post-Tensioning Institute, Phoenix, AZ.
Badie, S. S., Tadros, M. K. and Girgis, A. F., “Full-Depth, Precast Concrete Bridge
Deck Panel Systems,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP),
Project 12-65, Final Report, November 2006.
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix D D-1

9.7.5 Precast Deck Slabs on Girders
9.7.5.1 General C9.7.5.1
Both reinforced and prestressed

precast concrete slab panels may be
used. The depth of the slab, excluding
any provision for grinding, grooving,
and sacrificial surface, shall not be less
than 7.0 in.
9.7.5.2 Transversely Joined C9.7.5.2

Precast Decks
Flexurally discontinuous decks made

from precast panels and joined together
by shear keys may be used. The design
of the shear key and the grout used in the
key shall be approved by the owner.
The provisions of Article 9.7.4.3.4 may
be applicable for the design of bedding.
The longitudinal reinforcement of
the deck can be made of conventional
reinforcement that is spliced at the
transverse joints or by utilizing
longitudinal post-tensioning.

9.7.5.3 Longitudinally Post- C9.7.5.3
Tensioned Precast Decks
The precast components may be Decks made flexurally continuous by

placed on beams and joined together by longitudinal post-tensioning are the more
longitudinal post-tensioning. The preferred solution because they behave
minimum average effective prestress monolithically and are expected to require
shall not be less than 0.25 ksi. less maintenance on the long-term basis.
The transverse joint between the The post-tensioning ducts should be
components and the block-outs at the located at the center of the slab cross
coupling of post-tensioning ducts shall section. Block-outs should be provided in
be specified to be filled with a nonshrink the joints to permit the splicing of post-
grout having a minimum compressive tensioning ducts.
strength of 5.0 6.0 ksi at 24 hours at time Panels should be placed on the girders
of opening bridge to traffic. without mortar or adhesives to permit
Block-outs shall be provided in their movement relative to the girders
the slab around the shear connectors and during prestressing. Panels can be placed
shall be filled with the same grout upon directly on the girders or located with the
completion of post-tensioning. help of shims of inorganic material or
The panel-to-girder connection shall other leveling devices. If the panels are
not be grouted until post-tensioning of not laid directly on the beams, the space
the deck is completed. therein should be grouted at the same time
When longitudinal post-tensioning is as the shear connector block-outs.
provided with staged construction, the A variety of shear key deformations
end panel of every construction period has been used in the past. Recent
shall be provided with special devices prototype tests indicate that a “V” joint
that allow anchoring of the longitudinal may be the easiest to form and to fill.
post-tensioning of the current Post-tensioning force should be
construction period and splicing it with applied only to the precast deck before it
the longitudinal post-tensioning of the is made composite with the girders.
next “construction period”. Panels shall be placed on the girders
without mortar or adhesives to permit
their movement relative to the girders
during post-tensioning.
It is possible that the stresses in an end
panel due to the longitudinal post-
tensioning force will be doubled if two
separate anchorages are used for two
subsequent construction periods.

9.7.5.4 Considerations before C9.7.5.4
Composite Action between the Slab
and the Girders
The deck shall be fully capable of Construction loads may include

resisting the effects during construction weight of crew members, and equipment
as well as after the bridge is opened to used in handling and installing the panels.
traffic. The construction load shall be clearly
Top flange of simply supported stated on the project plans.
girders shall be checked against
local/torsional buckling due to loads
applied prior to achieving full composite
action. Temporary bracing shall be used
to support the top flange if
local/trosional buckling is a concern.
9.7.5.5 Staged Construction C9.7.5.5
If no longitudinal post-tensioning is
used in the precast deck, all segments of
the precast deck constructed during any
given construction period shall be made
composite with the superstructure before
the end of that period. The effect of the
overall construction scheme on the
superstructure shall be carefully
investigated.
The start and end locations on the
slab of each construction period shall be
specified on the project documents.

9.7.5.6 Panel-to-Girder Joint C9.7.5.6
Spacing between stud clusters can be Experimental investigation (NCHRP

extended up to 4 ft (1220 mm) if 12-65) has shown that spacing between
confinement to the stud clusters and the stud clusters can be extended up to 4 ft
grout surrounding them is provided. (1220 mm), without affecting the full-
composite behavior of the system, if
confinement to the stud group and the
grout surrounding them is provided.
Confinement can be provided by Confinement helps in distributing the
using hollow structural steel (HSS) tubes shear force among the studs in each
or closed ties set horizontally across the cluster, and protecting the grout at the
panel thickness. If closed ties are used, base of each stud against crushing.
the lowest tie should be placed as close
to the top surface of the girder as
possible.
Equation 5.8.4.1-1 shall be used to
estimate the ultimate capacity of stud
clusters spaced up to 4 ft (1220 mm) for
steel and concrete composite beams.
Limits on Vn given by Equation 5.8.4.1-
2 and 5.8.4.1-3 shall not apply if
confinement is provided.
For steel composite beams:
1. Equation 6.10.10.2-1, that is
currently used to estimate the fatigue
capacity for single studs, does not
require modification for design of
stud clusters spaced up to 4 ft (1220
mm).
2. Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 shall not be This recommendation is based on the
used for stud clusters at 2 to 4 ft (610 results of the of push-off testing of stud
to 1220 mm) spacing. This groups at 4 ft (1220 mm) spacing, which
recommendation is expected to result gave about 30 % lower capacity than the
in about 30 percent increase in the current LRFD equation for single studs.
required number of studs. The conclusion may be unnecessarily
conservative as the push-off testing is not
as realistic in modeling beam behavior as
actual beam test, which showed no
reduction in capacity due to use of stud
clusters. However, this is a conservative
approach and it does not significantly
impact the overall economy of bridges.

9.7.5.7 Transverse Panel-to-Panel C9.7.5.7
Joint
A grout-filled shear key joint shall be Previous experience with direct panel-
provided between adjacent panels. to-panel bearing has shown that high
Direct bearing between adjacent panels stress concentration exists at the edges of
shall be avoided. the panel, which leads to concrete spalling
For bridge decks on a horizontal and possible moisture leakage through the
curvature, trapezoidal panels may be joint.
used to keep the width of the joint Figure C9.7.5.7-1 shows a shear key
constant and small. If rectangular panels shape that has been shown to give good
are used to simplify production of the performance:
panels, the narrowest joint width allowed 1/2" 1 1/2" 1/2"
must not be less than 1 in.

Flowable, self-leveling, non-shrink 1 3/4"
grout mix with satisfactorily freeze-and- 1/2"
thaw resistance shall be used. Grout
8" 3 1/2"
must fill the full height of the joint.
Wood, metal, or foam forms installed 3/4"
under the panel shall be used to achieve 1 1/2"
this goal. 1"
The shear key shall be sand blasted
and thoroughly cleaned before the grout
is placed.
2" 2" 2"
If no overlay is used over the precast
panels, finishing of the top surface of the
2"
grout filling of the joint shall match the
finishing of the precast panel. 2"
8"
2 1/2"
1 1/2"
1"
Figure C9.7.5.7-1 -1 Shear Key Details

9.7.5.8 Longitudinal Panel-to- C9.7.5.8
Panel Joint
If the joint is not directly over a This may occur due to staged
girder flange, transverse positive construction or to avoid crowning of the
moment reinforcement of the slab shall panels.
be adequately coupled. The width of the
joint shall be adequate to provide the
necessary coupling device.
It is recommended that the
temporary barriers be removed before
installing closure pours. The weight of
the temporary barriers, if left on during
closure joint construction, may cause the
precast panels to have unacceptable
differential deformation.
9.7.5.9 Old-to-New Deck Joint C9.7.5.9
A temporary edge support shall be

provided for the last precast panel,
installed in a construction period, unless
the panel edge is designed for this
temporary condition.

9.7.5.10 Detailing Requirements C9.7.5.10
If no overlay is provided on the With no overlay provided on the

precast deck system, partial-depth shear precast deck panels, partial-depth shear
pockets shall be used, as shown in pockets protect the deck from water
Figure C9.7.5.10-1. leakage at the interface between the grout
The depth of the pocket shall and the surrounding concrete, and
satisfy the following conditions: minimize non-uniformity of color of the
(a) The top of the shear connector is at top surface of the deck
least 2 in. (50 mm) above the bottom
layer of transverse reinforcement of
the panel.
(b) A ½ in. (13 mm) minimum clearance
between the top of the shear
connector and top of the pocket shall
be provided
(c) A 2 in. (50 mm) minimum distance
between the top of the shear
connector and the top surface of the
panel shall be provided
Full-depth Pocket
Partial-height pockets shall be
provided with injection ports and vents.
1½ to 2 in. diameter injection ports are
recommended to provide enough
flexibility during injection. Two or
more vents shall be provided if the width
of the pocket is greater than 12 in. (300
mm). The vents shall be provided on the
opposite side of the injection port to
guarantee complete filling of the pocket
during grouting.
If the spacing between pockets is Partial-depth Pocket
greater than 24 in. (610 in.), an
intermediate injection port should be Figure C9.7.5.10-1 Full- and partial depth
provided in the panel to guarantee pockets
complete grouting of the bedding layer.
Longitudinal post tensioning
reinforcement, if used, shall be provided
as near mid height of the panel as
possible to avoid residual deflection or
camber of the slab.
A minimum 1-in. thick haunch shall
be provided between the precast panels
and the stringers to allow for any
misalignment or irregularity.

If it is desired not to totally fill the
haunch with grout for the entire width of
the top flange, the grout shall extend
horizontally at least 2 in. beyond the
pocket width. The grouted area must be
provided with adequate ventilation to
assure absence of trapped air.
Leveling bolts or stay-in-place light Galvanized stay-in-place (SIP) light
gage angle grout dams shall be used to gage angle grout dams have been recently
adjust the grade of the precast panels used on bridges in Nebraska and Texas.
during placement. The SIP angles, similar to those used for
All leveling devices, bolts, inserts or SIP forms, are welded to the top flange or
light gage angles shall be corrosion to straps across the top flange to secure
resistant. them in place. They are installed at the
The leveling bolts can be removed required pre-calculated haunch height
after the grout between the deck and the minus a fraction of an inch to allow room
girders gain the design strength. If the for a closed cell foam grout seal bonded
designer opted to permanently keep the to the top surface of the angle. Also,
leveling bolts after the grouting process allowance is made for pre-calculated
is complete, the bolts shall be torch cut deflection due to deck weight.
and recessed at least 2 in. (50 mm)
below the top surface of the panel.
Concrete blockouts shall be provided
during fabrication of the panel for that
purpose. After torch cutting the bolts,
these pockets shall be filled with non-
shrink cementitious grout of a concrete
strength that at least matches that of the
precast panel.

9.7.5.11 Fabrication, Storage, C9.7.5.11
Handling, Transportation and
Installation Requirements
9.7.5.11.1 Fabrication
It is recommended to standardize
dimensions and details of panels needed
for a project as much as possible.
The precast concrete producer shall
be responsible for design of the lifting
inserts and their location in coordination
with the rigging scheme plans of the
erector. The location of lifting inserts
and their specifications along with the
rigging scheme shall be clearly shown
on the shop drawings prepared by the
precast producer. The shop drawings
shall be reviewed and approved by the
design engineer.
9.7.5.11.2 Storage and Handling
If the panels are stored horizontally,

they shall be supported on temporary
supports located as near as possible to
the permanent support locations.
During storage, the panels shall be
protected from environmental effects,
such as rain and snow to protect any
exposed steel components from rusting.
During lifting and handling, panels
shall be subjected to vertical lifting
forces only, through use of spreader
beams and strong backs as needed.
Non-planar slabs may require special
support provisions to prevent unwanted
stress in the slabs during storage and
shipping. Shipping supports may also
need to be specially designed to prevent
unwanted stresses in the slabs as a result
of truck bed twisting during shipping.

9.7.5.11.3 Transportation
Since handling will induce dynamic

loads on the panel, a 1.33 dynamic load
factor shall be used in addition to the
load factors associated with the
considered Limit State (i.e. Service,
Ultimate, etc.).
Transportation of panels, especially
if they are transported in a flat position,
must be done with extreme care. Support
points between the panel and the flatbed
must assure statically determinate
section, by using spreader beams or
strong backs.
9.7.5.11.4 Installation
Post-tensioning is to be completed in
accordance with the provisions of
Section 5 of these specifications. Special
effort shall be made to provide accurate
alignment of post-tensioning ducts from
panel to panel. Grouting of post
tensioning ducts shall be done using
thixotropic grout material and shall be
performed in accordance to the
following publication: "Guide
Specification for Grouting of Post-
Tensioned Structures."
Backer rods, polystyrene strips,
cementitious strips, or light gage angles,
can be used as grout dams.
If longitudinal post-tensioning is
provided in the system, grouting of the
panel-to-panel transverse connections
shall be completed and the grout shall
reach the design strength before
longitudinal post-tensioning commences.
Equipment utilizing diamond
mounted on a self propelled machine
designed for grinding and texturing
pavement shall be used
Care shall be exercised as not to
cause ravel, aggregate fracture, spalling
or disturbance to the transverse or
longitudinal panel-to-panel joints.

Grinding shall be performed in lines
normal to the pavement centerline.
The resultant surface shall be in a
parallel corduroy-type texture consisting
of grooves with depth between 1/16 and
1/8 in.
The drainage cross slope shall be
maintained with no depressions or
misalignment of slope greater than ¼ in.
in 10 ft when tested with a 10-ft long
straight edge.

9.7.5.12 Deck Removal for Deck C9.7.5.12
Replacement Projects
Special care shall be given to avoid

damaging the shear connectors as well as
the top surface of the supporting girders.
The contractor shall provide the
following information to the design
engineer for approval:
• Proposed tools and method used for
deck removal
stud removal, if needed
preparation of the top surface of the
supporting girders
reattaching the shear connectors.
For steel girders, the shear studs
interfering with the new panels shall be
removed by torch cutting as close to the
stud base as possible.
For concrete girders, the shear
connectors that are in conflict with the
new deck system shall be torch cut as
close to the top of the girder as possible.
Additional pot-installed anchors shall be
placed directly over the centerline of the
girder in accordance with manufacturers
recommendations. The top surface of the
girder shall be cleaned to remove all
remains of the old deck by means of
sand or water-jet blasting and thorough
cleaning.

APPENDIX E
SPECIFICATIONS OF SELECTED COMMERCIAL GROUT MATERIAL
1. SET 45 .......................................................................................E-02
2. SET 45 HW................................................................................E-02
3. Construction Grout.....................................................................E-06
4. SS Mortar ...................................................................................E-08
5. Masterflow 928 ..........................................................................E-11
6. 747 Rapid Setting Grout ............................................................E-15
7. SONOGROUT 10K ...................................................................E-18
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix E E-1

APPENDIX F
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
F.1 PANEL-TO-CONCRETE GIRDER CONNECTION

The finite element analysis was used to investigate the behavior of the
slab/concrete girder pullout specimens. A commercial finite element package
“NASTRAN” was used in the analysis. The concrete specimen was modeled using the 8-
node cubic 3-D element. Each node has three displacement degrees of freedom, in the x,
y and z directions. The “x” direction is transverse to the girder longitudinal axis, the “y”
direction is parallel to the girder longitudinal axis, and the “z” direction is parallel to the
girder height. The following mechanical properties were assigned to the concrete
specimen: compressive concrete strength = 8 ksi (55 MPa), unit weight = 150 pcf (23.6
kN/m3), and Poisson ratio = 0.15.
The 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs and web reinforcement bars were also modeled using
the 20-node cubic element. The circular cross sectional area of the stud’s stem and head
and the web reinforcement bars were replaced with the equivalent square cross sectional
area, as shown in Table F-1. This simplification helped to refine the mesh in the vicinity
of the 1¼ in. (31.8 mm) studs. The following mechanical properties were assigned to the
stud: tensile strength = 64 ksi (441 MPa), yield strength = 54 ksi (372 MPa), unit weight
= 490 pcf (76.9 kN/m3), and Poisson ratio = 0.30.
Table F-1. Dimensions of the Equivalent Square Area used for the Finite Element
Analysis
Actual diameter Cross sectional area Equivalent square area
2
(in.) (in ) (in. x in.)
Stud stem 1.25 1.227 1.108 x 1.108
Stud head 2.5 4.909 2.216 x 2.216
#4 bar 0.5 0.200 0.447 x 0.477
The following mechanical properties were assigned to the vertical web
reinforcement: yield strength = 60 ksi (414 MPa), unit weight = 490 pcf (76.9 kN/m3),
and Poisson ratio = 0.3. Figure F-1 shows the details of the finite element model. Each
stud was loaded with a tensile axial force equivalent to the stud yield capacity, 66.4 kips
(295 kN). This load was applied as a surface load uniformly distributed on the stud cross
sectional area, 54 ksi (372 MPa).
Figure F-2 shows the principal stress distribution on the top and side surfaces of
the specimens. Please, note that for Group #2 specimen, the additional web
reinforcement helped in widening the base area of the inverted pyramid, which resulted in
lower stress concentration at the junction between the top flange and the web. This
observation is consistent with the experimental program results, where the size of the side
crack at failure of the Group #1 specimens was wider than that of Group #2 specimens.
In order to study the internal stress concentration around the studs, three sections
were chosen as shown in Figure F-3. Section 1-1 is at the free side of the external stud,
section 2-2 is at the mid distance between two adjacent studs, and section 3-3 is at the
NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Appendix F F-1

centerline of the center stud. The z-direction and principal stress distributions for these
three sections are given in Figures F-4 to F-6. Studying these figures indicates that:
1. The additional web reinforcement helped to distribute the tension force provided by
the studs on a wider and deeper volume resulting in reducing the stress concentration
around the studs. This can be seen from the following observations:
1.a) Stress concentration at the flange-to-web junction in Group #1 specimen is
higher than that of Group #2 specimen
1.b) The concrete stress in the vicinity of the stud’s stem in Group #1 specimen is
higher and extends for deeper distance than that of Group #2 specimen
2. The stress distribution at section 3-3 (in the z-direction or principal stress) shows that
the proposed 18 in. (457 mm) embedment of the additional web reinforcement is
quite enough to develop its yield strength. The high tensile stresses generated in
concrete between adjacent rows of additional web reinforcement do not extend to the
bottom surface of the concrete specimen. This finding is consistent with the
experimental test results where no signs of slippage or vertical side-surface cracking
parallel to the additional web reinforcement were observed.
3. The principal stresses at all sections are higher than the z-direction stresses due to the
specimen test up that puts the top flange of the specimen in tension.
4. The compressive stress at the flange-web junction is about 2.0 ksi (14 MPa), which is
less than the concrete bearing strength, 0.85x 8 ksi = 6.8 ksi (47 MPa). This
observation is consistent with the test result as no concrete crushing in this location
was observed at failure. It is believed that the web reinforcement helped to confine
the concrete and consequently protected it from premature cracking.

(a) Full model (b) Typical cross section of the model
(c) Web reinforcement and stud model (Group 1) (d) Web reinforcement and stud model (Group
2)
(e) 3-D view of web reinforcement model (Group 1) (f) 3-D view of web reinforcement model (Group 2)
Figure F-1. Finite element model of the slab/concrete girder pullout specimen

Z-stress of Group 1 Specimen Z-stress of Group 2 Specimen
Principal stress of Group 1 Specimen Principal stress of Group 2 Specimen

Figure F-2. Stress Distribution in the Studs and the Concrete Specimen

1 2 3 1 2 3
Group #1 Specimen Group #2 Specimen

Figure F-3. Location of Sections 1, 2 and 3
Figure F-4. Z-direction and Principal Stresses at Section 1

Z-Stress of Group 1 Specimen Z-Stress of Group 2 Specimen


F.2 PANEL-TO-STEEL GIRDER CONNECTION
Finite Element Investigation of the Push-off Specimens
The finite element method was used to investigate the behavior of the push-off
specimens. A commercial finite element package “NASTRAN” was used in the analysis.
The push-off concrete specimen and the grout filling the shear pocket were modeled
using a 8-node cube element. Each node has three translational degrees of freedom (x, y
and z direction). The confining tube and the individual closed ties were modeled using
the thin shell element. The circular cross section of the studs was replaced with a square
cross section with equivalent area. The studs were modeled using the 20-node cube
element.
The following mechanical properties were assigned to the concrete mix of the
specimen: compressive strength = 6.2 ksi (42.7 MPa), unit weight = 150 pcf (23.6
kN/m3), and Poisson ratio = 0.15. The following mechanical properties were assigned to
the grout mix: compressive strength = 9.6 ksi (66.2 MPa), unit weight = 145 pcf (22.8
kN/m3), and Poisson ratio = 0.15. The following mechanical properties were assigned to
the stud: tensile strength = 64 ksi (441 MPa), yield strength = 54 ksi (372 MPa), unit
weight = 490 pcf (76.9 kN/m3), and Poisson ratio = 0.30.
Figure F-7 shows the details of the finite element model. In order to check the
validity of Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7) for studs
clustered in groups, each specimens was loaded with a horizontal equal to the ultimate
horizontal shear capacity determined by this equation. The load was loaded as a surface
loaded on a 10x10 in. (254x254 mm) area on the bearing block of the specimen to
simulate the test setup. The resultant of the surface load was at mid height of the 8-in.
(203 mm) thick slab. Figures F-8 to F-11 give the results of the FE analysis of various
specimens, and Table F-2 gives a summary of the maximum stresses in the stud, grout
and the confinement tool, where the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The 4- and 8-stud specimens are not able to deliver the horizontal ultimate shear
capacity as given by Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications
(7). This can be seen from the average axial tensile stress at the stud base, which is
higher than the ultimate tensile strength of the stud material, SAE 1018, 64 ksi (441.3
MPa).
2. The upper limit of Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (7),
Asc Fu , does not recognize the fact that the stud close to failure is subjected to a
combination of axial tensile and normal flexural stresses. This can be seen by
checking the average principal tensile stress at the stud base, which is about 155
percent of the axial tensile stress, as shown in Table F-2. This means that the upper
limit of Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 overestimates the studs shear capacity. This finding
was confirmed by the push-off test, where almost none of the specimens was able to
reach the capacity determined by Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (7).
3. Maximum bearing stress in the grout is located in front of each stud close to the stud
base. It extends vertically for a distance approximately equal to the stud diameter.

The maximum bearing stress is about 30 ksi (206.9 MPa), which is about 310 percent
of the compressive strength of unconfined grout mix, 9.6 ksi (66.2 MPa). However,
if confinement is provided around the shear pocket, the compressive strength of the
grout can be significantly increased, as follow:
Effective lateral confining pressure, fl, =

∑A f s yh
(2)
sbc
⎛ 5 ⎞
⎜ 2 sides x1in. x in. ⎟ ( 36 ksi )
= ⎝
16 ⎠
= 1.875 ksi (for steel tube confinement)
(1in.)(12 in.)
=
( 2 legs x 0.44 in 2
per leg x 3 bars ) ( 60 ksi )
= 6.034 (for closed ties
(1.75 in.)(15 in.)
confinement)
Confined grout strength, f c 0 = f 0 + 4.1kfl (1)
= 9.6 + 4.1x1x1.875 = 17.3 ksi (119.3 MPa) (for steel tube confinement)
= 9.6 + 4.1x1x6.034 = 34.3 ksi (236.8 MPa) (for closed ties confinement)
4. The confinement around the stud group helps to distribute the bearing stresses of the
grout volume on the concrete slab in front of the grout volume. The highest bearing
stress is about 2.30 ksi (15.9 MPa) and the average bearing stress over the slab height
is about 2.0 ksi (13.8 MPa).
5. The confinement provided by the steel tube helps to distribute the bearing stresses on
a wider part of the slab resulting in reducing the compressive in the slab compared to
the case where the closed ties are used.
The truncated shape of the shear pocket and grout volume helps in distributing the
bearing stresses more uniformly across the slab height.

Table F-2. Summary of the Finite Element Analysis Results for the Push-off Specimens
4-stud specimens 8-stud specimens
P-4-ST-U P-4-CT-U P-8-ST-U P-8-CT-U
(Steel (Closed Average (Steel (Closed Average
tube) ties) tube) ties)
Applied horizontal load (kips)* 314.8 629.6
Maximum axial tensile stress at base of the stud 58.4 99.1 78.8 99.9 74.9 87.4
(ksi)
Maximum tensile principal stress at base of the 92.5 157.0 124.8 162.0 117.0 139.5
stud (ksi)
Maximum longitudinal movement of the stud 0.0075 0.0103 0.0089 0.0109 0.00954 0.01022
head (in.)
Maximum axial tensile stress in confinement 21.0 3.7 NA 30.7 5.3 NA
material in the transverse direction of the
specimen (ksi)
Maximum bearing stress in grout in front of the 29.1 31.8 30.5 27.1 31.6 29.4
stud (ksi)
Maximum bearing stress in the concrete in front 2.31 2.31 2.31 2.30 2.30 2.30
of the grout volume (ksi)
* Determined using Equation 6.10.10.4.3-1 of the AASHTO REFD Specifications (7)

Concrete specimen Studs & confining tube Studs & confining ties
(a) Finite element modeling of P-4-ST-U and P-4-CT-U specimens
(b) Finite element modeling of P-8-ST-U and P-8-CT-U specimens
Figure F-7. Finite Element Model of the Push-off Specimens

Axial Tensile Stresses in the Studs Principal Tensile Stresses in the Studs
Longitudinal Compressive Stresses in Concrete Longitudinal Compressive Stresses in Grout
Transverse Axial Tensile Stress in Steel Tube Principal Stresses in Grout in front the Studs
Figure F-8. Stresses in Specimen P-4-ST-U due to LRFD Load (314.8 kips)

Figure F-9. Stresses in Specimen P-4-CT-U due to LRFD Load (314.8 kips)

Figure F-10. Stresses in Specimen P-8-ST-U due to LRFD Load (629.6 kips)

Figure F-11. Stresses in Specimen P-8-CT-U due to LRFD Load (629.6 kips)

Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panel Systems

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panel Systems

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

COPY NO.

FULL-DEPTH, PRECAST-CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK

FULL-DEPTH, PRECAST-CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK

Sameh S. Badie, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Civil and Environmental

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report i

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report ii

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report iii

CHAPTER 2 Background and Literature Review

CHAPTER 3 Research Results

CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report iv

CHAPTER 2 Background and Literature Review

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report v

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report vi

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report vii

CHAPTR 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report viii

Public inconvenience and loss of income during bridge construction and

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Summary 1

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Summary 2

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Summary 3

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 4

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 5

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 6

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 7

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 8

TRANSVERSE PANEL-TO-PANEL CONNECTION

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 9

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 10

As a result, a few highway agencies such as the Alaska Department of Transportation

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 11

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 12

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 13

Hydraulic Cement Concrete (HCC)

Latex Modified Concrete (LMC)

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 14

HISTORY OF THE SHEAR CONNECTOR SPACING LIMITS OF THE AASHTO LRFD

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 15

Recently, on the US Interstate 39/90, Door Greek Project, Wisconsin Department of

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 16

SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 2 17

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 18

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 19

Figure 8. Non-grouted match-cast joint

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 20

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 21

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 22

2" 6" + 1/4" ** #7 splice bar, 2'-2 1/2" long

Figure 16. Panel-to-panel connection using spiral confinement

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 23

Figure 19. Push-off test specimen of Reference (19)

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 1 24

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 3 25

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 3 26

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 3 27

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 3 28

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 3 29

NCHRP 12-65, Final Report, Chapter 3 30