Title:
Experiments on Punching Shear Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Bridge Decks
Author(s):
Sana Amir, Cor van der Veen, Joost C. Walraven, and Ane de Boer
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
113
Issue:
3
Appears on pages(s):
627-636
Keywords:
compressive membrane action; deck slab; prestressing; punching shear
DOI:
10.14359/51688757
Date:
5/1/2016
Abstract:
In the Netherlands, most of the bridges were built more than 50 years ago and it is essential for bridge authorities to find out if these bridges are still safe for modern traffic loads for which they were not designed initially. Experiments on a 1:2 scale were carried out in the laboratory of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) to investigate the bearing capacity of bridge decks with varying levels of transverse prestressing subjected to concentrated wheel loads. All the tests showed failure in punching shear. It was found that, as a result of compressive membrane action (CMA) by virtue of lateral restraint effects, in combination with the transverse prestressing, the punching shear resistance of the decks was much larger than predicted by most international codes that do not consider the effect of CMA. It appears to be worthwhile to regard CMA when assessing the bearing resistance of existing bridges to avoid unnecessary strengthening measures.
Related References:
1. CEN, “Eurocode 2—Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (NEN-EN 1992-1-1),” Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2005, 229 pp.
2. Batchelor, B. de V, “Membrane Enhancement in Top Slabs of Concrete Bridges,” Concrete Bridge Engineering, Performance and Advances, 1990, pp. 189-213.
3. Amir, S., “Compressive Membrane Action in Prestressed Concrete Deck Slabs,” PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, June 2014, 282 pp.
4. fib, “Model Code 2010—Final Draft Volume I and II,” fib Bulletin 65 and 66, 2012.
5. CEN, “Eurocode 1—Actions on Structures – Part 2: Traffic Loads on Bridges (NEN-EN 1991-2),” Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2003, 168 pp.
6. Poston, R. W.; Phipps, A. R.; Almustafa, R. A.; Breen, J. E.; and Carrasquillo, R. L., “Effects of Transverse Prestressing in Bridge Decks,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 4, 1988, pp. 743-764. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:4(743)
7. Moll, E. L., “Investigation of Transverse Stressing in Bridge Decks,” master’s thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 1984.
8. He, W., “Punching Behaviour of Composite Bridge Decks with Transverse Prestressing,” PhD thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada, 1992, 228 pp.
9. Semelawy, M., “Effects of Axial Prestress on the Punching Behaviour of Plain and Fibre Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” master’s thesis, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, 2007, 180 pp.
10. Savides, P., “Punching Strength of Transversely Prestressed Deck Slabs of Composite I-Beam Bridges,” master’s thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada, 1989, 217 pp.
11. Marshe, S., and Green, M. F., “Punching Behavior of Composite Bridge Decks Transversely Prestressed with Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer Tendons,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 26, No. 5, 1999, pp. 618-630. doi: 10.1139/l99-027
12. Hassan, A.; Kawakami, M.; Niitani, K.; and Mise, A., “Cracking and Ultimate Strength of Externally Prestressed Steel-Free Concrete Deck Slabs,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 23, No. 3, 2001, pp. 511-516.
13. Hwang, H.; Yoon, H.; Joh, C.; and Kim, B. S., “Punching and Fatigue Behavior of Long-Span Prestressed Concrete Deck Slabs,” Engineering Structures, V. 32, No. 9, 2010, pp. 2861-2872. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.05.005
14. Walraven, J. C., Background Report 25.5-02-37-prENV 1992-1-1:2002, Section 6.4, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, 2002.
15. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
16. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83) and Commentary (ACI 318R-83),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1983.
17. AASHTO, “Standard Specification for Highway Bridges,” 14th edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, 1987.
18. OHBDC, “Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code,” second edition, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (OMTC), Highway Engineering Division, ON, Canada, 1983.
19. Zheng, Y.; Robinson, D.; Taylor, S.; and Cleland, D., “Investigation of the Ultimate Strength of Deck Slabs in Steel-Concrete Bridges,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2010, pp. 82-91.
20. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, “The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members—Slabs,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 100, No. 8, 1974, pp. 1543-1591.
21. Hon, A.; Taplin, G.; and Al-Mahaidi, R. S., “Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks under Compressive Membrane Action,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005, pp. 393-401.