Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 28

An Investigation on Transversely

Prestressed Concrete Bridge Decks

J. Paul Smith

Objective
Study of transverse post-tensioning of
concrete bridge decks as an alternative to
improve durability.

Types of Bridges in Indiana


80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Slab & slab-on-girder

Type of RC bridge

Box-beam

Scope
Develop design specifications applicable to:
Slab bridges
Slab-on-Girder bridges

Problem Statement

q [F/L]

?
Assumption:
Linear behavior

Specimen for Experimental Phase of


Texas Study
3.78 in.

6.28 in.

3.59 in.

3.48 in.
8.52 in.

3.78 in.

9.64 in.

3.48 in.

Girders

8.52 in.

4.82 in.
3.14 in.

Diaphragms

9.64 in.

4.82 in.

9.87 in.

Location of strain
gages

C
L

0.6ksi

1.2ksi

24
18

10

20

19

11

25

12

21

13

27

26

14

22

4.80ft
23

15

1.80ft

16

17
8.70ft

5.5 ft

1.2ksi

11 ft

1 2

where
: measured strain
E c (ksi) 57 f c' (psi)

9
8

exp E c

1.80ft

Modeling Alternatives
(SAP2000)
beam

2D Model

shell

Girders and diaphragms as beams (Type I)

3D Model
(slab as shell)

Flanges as beams
and webs as
shells

Diaphs. as shells (Type II)


Diaphs. as beam (Type III)

Comparison of Analytical (SAP2000)


& Experimental (Texas Study) Results
Top
Stresses

Modeling Type
2D

3D(I)

3D(II)

3D(III)

16

14

14

14

Max

40

38

38

42

mean[(s/exp)-1]x100%
ax Max[(s/exp)-1]x100%

Analysis using ANSYS 5.7

Alternative modeling:
Use brick and shell elements

SAP2000 vs. ANSYS 5.7


(Texas Model)

Variables of Interest

Girders (spacing, stiffness)


Diaphragms (spacing, stiffness, location)
Boundary conditions
Post-tensioning spacing
Slab thickness

Base Case
q/h = 100

q/h = 100

2.5 ft
1.00 ft

24.33 ft

14 in.

8.25 in.

8 in.

8.25 in.

7.75 in.

7.75 in.

27
22in.
in. ft
25.34

27 in.

7 in.

21.5 in.

21.5 in.
10.75 in.

10.75 in.
22 in.
24.33 ft

6 @ 8.83 ft

1.00 ft

Preliminary Evaluation of
Variables (2D Modeling)
Base Case:

Preliminary Evaluation of
Variables (2D Modeling)
Effect of Girder Spacing:
a) Half Spacing

b) Quarter Spacing

Preliminary Evaluation of
Variables (2D Modeling)
Effect of Girder (No diaphragms):
a) Concrete girders

b) Steel girders

Preliminary Evaluation of
Variables (2D Modeling)
Effect of Diaphragms:
Top half:
diaphragms present

Bottom half:
diaphragms no present

Preliminary Evaluation of
Variables (2D Modeling)
Effect of boundary conditions:
Fully restrained except
against displacement in x

Restrained against
displacement in x

Preliminary Evaluation of
Variables (2D Modeling)
Effect of Post-tensioning Spacing:
a) Forces at every other node:
@ 4

b) Forces every four nodes:


@ 8

Preliminary Evaluation of
Variables (2D Modeling)
Effect of Slab Thickness:
8 slab

6 slab

Preliminary Identification of
Relevant Variables (2D Modeling)
Diaphragms (stiffness, location, spacing)
Boundary conditions
Post-tensioning spacing

Effect of Diaphragms
Distribution of transverse stresses is mainly
affected by diaphragm size and location.

Notation
Normalized stress = s/q

C
L

Location 19
Location 18

Stripe 2

Location 7
Location 6
Location 5
Location 4
Location 3
Location 2
Location 1

Stripe 1

Location 14
Location 13

18 @ 25.33 in.

Effect of Diaphragm Size


1.1

1.1

Ad (in2) =65
Ad (in2) =176
Ad (in2) =270

0.8

0.9

Normalized Stress

Normalized Stress

0.9

0.7
0.6

Ad (in2) =65
Ad (in2) =176
Ad (in2) =270

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3
1

10 11 12

Location No.

Stripe 1

13 14

15 16 17 18

19

10 11

12

Location No.

y
Stripe 2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Effect of Diaphragm Location


(Exterior Diaphragms Only)
1

1
Diaphragm Position
Location 1
Location 3
Location 5
Location 7
Location 9
Location 13
Location 17

Normalized Stress

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

0.9
Normalized Stress

0.9

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

0.3

0.3
2

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Location
Location
Location
Location
Location
Location
Location

0.8

0.4

Diaphragm Position

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Location No.

Location No.

y
Stripe 1

1
3
5
7
9
13
17

Stripe 2

Minimum Stress vs.


Diaphragm Position
1

N ormalized Stress

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
1

10

11

Location No. (of diaphragm)

12

13

14

15

16

17

Top Stress
(for Unit stress at middepth of flange)

Effective Width of T Beam vs.


Top Stress
1.00
0.90
0.80

Beff

0.70

Beff x h

0.60
0.50
0.40
0

50

100

150

200
Beff (in.)

250

300

350

400

400

Diaphragm Location vs. Effective Width


420

300

Beff x h

350

500

B eff (in .)

Beff (in.)

150

200

250

340
260
y = 30 x - 23.5
R2 = 0.99

100

180

50

100

0.40
0

8
9 10
Location No.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

N o r m a liz e d S tr e s s

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

20

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
1

10

11

Location No. (of diaphragm)

12

13

14

15

16

17

Conclusions at this Stage


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

Influence of diaphragm position:


Rationalized using T-beam analogy