PROJECT SUMMARY
Texas Department of Transportation
0-6722: Spread Prestressed Concrete Slab Beam Bridges
Background construction (Figure 1). This method was
successfully implemented for a US 69 on-system
The Texas Department of Transportation uses
bridge and the Riverside test bridge. Camber of
precast prestressed concrete slab beam bridges for
the slab beams tends to increase due to higher
shorter-span bridges of approximately 30–50 ft in
prestressing forces. Thus, the bedding strip
length. Conventional slab beam bridges have slab
installation can require increased depths (up to
beams placed immediately adjacent to one another
4 in. total) at the beam ends.
with a cast-in-place (CIP) topping slab. While these
Observations: Limited deck cracking was
bridges are used extensively, they are more
observed and likely occurred during curing. Care
expensive than traditional prestressed I-beam
should be taken during deck curing to avoid
structures on a per-square-foot basis. This project
unexpected cracking. For the Riverside bridge, a
investigated the use of slab beams that are spread
deck surface crack was observed along the length
apart with precast concrete panel (PCP) stay-in-place
of the bridge at the transverse center line
forms between beams and a CIP concrete deck.
(centered on a PCP). The crack occurred within
Design guidelines have been developed for this
the first week after deck placement, and the
alternate spread slab beam bridge system.
width did not increase after the crack appeared.
What the Researchers Did Minor deck cracks were also observed at the
US 69 bridge.
Preliminary designs were developed to assess the Performance: For both bridges, the desired
potential of a spread slab beam bridge system. A full- performance was achieved for in-service loading.
scale spread slab beam bridge was constructed at the During field testing, the beam live load
Texas A&M University Riverside Campus and tested deflections were within the design limits. No
to assess constructability, in-service performance, major cracking or reduction in the overall
and behavior. Field testing was conducted for the stiffness of the bridge superstructure was
Riverside bridge and a US 69 on-system bridge to observed. No cracks or unexpected behavior was
evaluate load distribution behavior and to provide observed for either bridge during dynamic tests
data to guide analytical modeling of this bridge (up to 40 mph).
system. Analytical models were developed to
investigate an array of possible bridge geometries.
Based on these models, recommendations were
developed for shear and moment load distribution Research Performed by:
factor (LDF) relationships for the design of spread Texas A&M Transportation Institute
slab beam bridges.
Research Supervisor:
What They Found Mary Beth Hueste, TTI
Researchers:
Researchers found the following:
John Mander, TTI
Constructability: Spread slab beam bridge Tevfik Terzioglu, TTI
systems that use PCPs with a CIP concrete deck, Dongqi Jiang, TTI
similar to I-girder bridges, provide another Joel Petersen-Gauthier, TTI
relatively simple method for short-span bridge Project Completed:
8-31-2014
Dynamic impact: The maximum dynamic impact What This Means
factor for the Riverside bridge was 37 percent
LDF relationships for shear and moment were
with a dump truck traveling at 40 mph. This
developed to facilitate implementation of the spread
increased to 43 percent for the US 69 bridge, also
slab beam system. The American Association of State
with a dump truck traveling at 40 mph.
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Transverse and interface shear: The current
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) LDF
transverse and interface shear reinforcement
equations for spread box beams were reviewed for
provided in the standard slab beam sections
applicability to spread slab beams. The AASHTO LDFs
should be maintained as a minimum for spread
range from being unconservative to very
slab beam designs. Shear requirements should be
conservative. For example, the AASHTO expressions
carefully reviewed during design to ensure that
slightly underestimate shear for interior spread slab
the standard transverse and interface shear
beams. Unique LDF expressions were developed for
reinforcement is adequate. The height of the
spread slab beam bridges to provide an appropriate
interface shear reinforcement (H-bars) above the
level of conservatism. The proposed moment LDF for
top of the slab beam should be increased to
interior slab beams (multiple lanes loaded) is
provide the required development length.
identical to the AASHTO LRFD spread box beam
equation.
Figure 1. Transverse Section of the Riverside Bridge.
For More Information Research and Technology Implementation Office
Project Manager: Texas Department of Transportation
Wade Odell, TxDOT, (512) 416-4730 125 E. 11th Street
Research Supervisor: Austin, TX 78701-2483
Mary Beth Hueste, TTI, (979) 845-1940
www.txdot.gov
Technical reports when published are available at
Keyword: Research
http://library.ctr.utexas.edu.
This research was performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report
reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented here. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
view or policies of FHWA or TxDOT. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation, nor is it intended for construction, bidding, or permit
purposes. Trade names were used solely for information and not for product endorsement.
