Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using the Empirical Method

BridgeSight Solutions for the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

BridgeSight Software
2688 Venado Way Rescue, CA 95672 Phone: 530-672-1569 E-mail: rdp@BridgeSight.com Internet: www.BridgeSight.com

TM

Creators of effective and reliable solutions for the worlds bridge engineers

Title

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

Publication No.

BSS09011999-1

Abstract This design example illustrates the Empirical Design Method for composite concrete bridge decks specified in Article 9.7.2 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification.

Notes

Author

Staff - BridgeSight Software

Sponsor

BridgeSight Software 2688 Venado Way Rescue, CA 95672

Specification

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 2nd Edition 1998 9/1/99 Date of Latest Revision 9/1/99 Version 1.0

Original Publication Date Notice of Copyright

Copyright 1999 BridgeSight Software, All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded, or otherwise), without prior written permission from BridgeSight Software. i

Disclaimer
This BridgeSight Solution is provided complements of BridgeSight Software. BridgeSight Software asserts a copyright in this work. BridgeSight Software retains the exclusive ownership of this copy of the BridgeSight Solution. This document is provided AS IS without any warranty, express or implied by anyone using, distributing, copying or otherwise possessing this document. The entire risk as to the use, results and performance of this document is assumed by you. BridgeSight Software does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use of, merchantability or fitness for a particular use of the product. Should this document prove defective, you assume the entire cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction. Further, BridgeSight Software does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use of, or the results of the use of this document in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, currentness, or otherwise and has no obligation to correct errors, make changes, support or distribute updates; and you rely on this document solely at your own risk. BridgeSight Software will not be liable for any damages, service, repair, correction, loss of profit, lost savings, or any other incidental, consequential, or special damages of any nature whatsoever resulting from the use or inability to use this product including any claims, suits or causes of action involving claims of infringement of copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or unfair competition. The Licensee indemnifies and holds harmless BridgeSight Software, its officials, employees, and contributors for any injury to the person or property of third parties arising out of the use of or any defect in this document. BridgeSight Software retains all rights not expressly granted. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver of BridgeSight Softwares rights under United States copyright laws or any other Federal or State law.

ii

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

BridgeSight Software 1999

Introduction
One of the first components of a bridge that you will design is the deck. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification suggests three different methods for the analysis of bridge decks for slab-on-beam systems. This installment of the BridgeSight Solutions series will give a brief overview of the different analysis methods and will focus on the Empirical Method of design. The Empirical Method is by far the easiest method provided the bridge configuration, materials, and construction techniques satisfy some minimum criteria. This design example is part of the BridgeSight Solutions series. The BridgeSight Solutions series is comprised of design aids and design examples to assist practicing engineers and engineering students learn and implement the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. Visit the BridgeSight Solutions section of our web site at www.BridgeSite.com for more information.

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

BridgeSight Software 1999 Code Reference

Analysis Methods for Decks

The LRFD Specification suggests three methods of analysis for slab-on-beam bridge decks; approximate elastic methods, specified in Article 4.6.2.1, refined methods, specified in Article 4.6.3.2, or an empirical design method for concrete slabs specified in Article 9.5 The approximate elastic method of analysis simulates the behavior of the bridge deck with transverse strips of deck. The strips are run from edge-to-edge of the bridge deck and are modeled as continuous beams supported at the centerlines of the girders. The refined method of analysis consist of modeling the bridge deck and girder system with finite elements. This is a time consuming process and difficult to validate. Such a method should only be used for special structures. The empirical method is a no analysis method in which a prescribed amount of reinforcement is to be provided in the slab. This BridgeSight Solution will focus on the Empirical Method. 9.6.1

Empirical Design Method

This example will illustrate the empirical design method. The empirical design applies only to the main part of the slab and is not to applied to overhangs. Design of the overhang is beyond the scope of this BridgeSight Solution. For continuous bridge decks, the contribution of the longitudinal bars may be utilized for resisting negative moments at interior supports. 9.5.1, 9.7.2

Given
The cross section and span configuration show below Alignment of bridge is N 90 E Bearing of piers is N 27 E (27 skew angle) Slab concrete has a 28-day strength of 28MPa. The slab is cast-in-place and water cured. Assume a 15mm sacrificial wearing surface. Full depth diaphragms are used at lines of supports Slab and girders are made composite Traffic barriers are composite and structurally continuous with the overhang
910mm 240mm

1175mm

Pier 1 - 5 spaces @ 2 000mm = 10 000mm Pier 2 - 5 spaces @ 2 500mm = 12 500mm

1175mm

Typical Section (All Dimensions Normal To Alignment)

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method

BridgeSight Software 1999 Code Reference

28 000 mm

Span Configuration

Determine Effective Length

Because of the flared girder lines and the skewed piers, we need to use a coordinate geometry (COGO) model to quickly find the effective length.
L1

9.7.2.3

L1/3
C
2 6 12 10 L2/3 8 4
2C

Girder A

11

C9

1 5 7

Girder B

L2
Centerline of Bridge
Pie r1 Pie r2

Framing Plan/COGO Model

(Girders C-F Omitted for Clairity)

The Framing Plan/COGO Model is shown above. The coordinates of the various points shown in the model are: Point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X (mm) 0 28000 3142 31928 0 28000 2075 30595 30462 29127 22333 21088 Y (mm) 6000 7500 6168 7710 4000 5000 4074 5093 7631 5040 7196 4753

Some important distances are: Item L1 Distance (mm) 28827 3

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method Item L2 2C Seffective between points 9 and 10 Seffective between points 11 and 12 Effective Length Distance (mm) 28537 2938 2742 2915 2915

BridgeSight Software 1999 Code Reference

Design Depth of Slab

Design depth is the gross depth of the slab, less any depth that is expected to be lost as a result of grinding, grooving, or wear. Design Depth = 240mm - 15mm = 225mm

Effective Length to Design Depth Ratio

The effective length to design depth ratio is 2915mm/225mm = 13

Core Depth
Core slab depth is shown in the figure below. It can be computed as Core Depth = Gross Slab Depth - Top Cover - Bottom Cover

Core Depth

Reinforcement

Slab Depth

Top Cover = 65mm (Deck surfaces subject to tire stud or chain wear) Bottom Cover = 25mm (Bottom of cast-in-place slabs, Up to No. 36 bar) Core Depth = 240mm - 65mm - 25mm = 150mm

Table 5.12.3-1

Check Design Conditions

The design conditions listed below must be satisfied to use the empirical design method. If these conditions are met and the reinforcement provisions are satisfied, for other than the deck overhang, the deck may be assumed to satisfy service, fatigue and fracture, and strength limit states requirements. Criteria Cross-frames or diaphragms are used throughout the cross-section at lines of support; For cross-section involving torsionally stiff units, such as individual separated box beams; The supporting components are mode of steel and/or concrete; Satisfied (Yes/No) Yes N/A Yes Precast Concrete IBeams Yes Check your standard 4 9.5.1 9.7.2.4

The deck is fully cast-in-place and water cured;

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using The Empirical Method Criteria

BridgeSight Software 1999 Satisfied (Yes/No) specifications! Code Reference

The deck is of uniform depth, except for haunches at girder flanges and other local thickening; The ratio of effective length to design depth does not exceed 18.0 and is not less than 6.0; Core depth of the slab is not less than 100 mm; The effective length, as specified in Article 9.7.2.3, does not exceed 4100mm; The minimum depth of slab is not less than 175mm, excluding a sacrificial wearing surface where applicable; There is an overhang beyond the centerline of the outside girder at least 5.0 times the depth of the slab; this condition is satisfied if the overhang is at least 3.0 times the depth of the slab and a structurally continuous concrete barrier is made composite with the overhang; The specified 28-day strength of the deck concrete is not less than 28MPa The deck is made composite with the supporting structural components

Yes Yes 6 13 18 Yes 150mm > 100mm Yes 2915mm < 4100mm Yes 175mm < 225mm Yes 1175mm/225mm = 5.22 5.22 > 3.0 Yes Yes

Select Reinforcement
The slab configuration satisfies the necessary design conditions. The slab must be reinforced with four layers of isotropic reinforcement. Reinforcement shall be located as close to the outside surfaces as permitted by cover requirements. Reinforcement shall be provided in each face of the slab with the outermost layers placed in the direction of the effective length. The minimum amount of reinforcement shall be 0.570mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0.380mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. Spacing of steel shall not exceed 450mm. Reinforcing steel shall be Grade 420 or better. Because the skew angle for this structure exceeds 25, the specified reinforcement in both direction shall be doubled in the end zones of the deck. Each end zone shall be taken as a longitudinal distance equal to the effective length of the slab specified in Article 9.7.2.3. 9.7.2.5

Bottom Layer Reinforcement

Use two layers of No. 16 bars. The cross-sectional area of a No. 16 bar is 199mm2. The maximum allowable spacing of No. 16 bars is

199mm2 = 350mm 2 0.570 mm mm .

Use No. 16 bars at 175mm in the end zones and No. 16 bars at 350mm elsewhere.

Top Layer Reinforcement

Use two layers of No. 13 bars. The cross-sectional area of a No. 13 bar is 129mm2. The maximum allowable spacing of No. 13 bars is

129mm2 = 340mm 2 0.380 mm mm .

Use No. 13 bars at 170mm in the end zones and No. 13 bars at 340mm elsewhere

Appendix
Conversion Factors
Multiply in ft in2 ft2 in3 ft3 in4 ft4 lbf kip ton lbf/in lbf/ft kip/in kip/ft lbf lbm slug ft/sec2 psi ksi psf ksf F By 25.40 0.3048 645.2 0.0929 16387 0.0283 416231 0.00863 4.448 4.448 8.896 0.175 0.015 175.2 14.6 0.453 0.453 14.594 0.3048 6894.757 6.895 47.88 0.04788 (t-32)/1.8 To Produce mm m mm2 m2 mm3 m3 mm4 m4 N kN kN N/mm N/mm kN/m kN/m kg kg kg m/sec2 Pa MPa Pa MPa C

Reinforcing Bar Properties

Bar Size Nominal Nominal Nominal Bar Size Nominal Nominal Nominal Mass Diameter Area Weight Diameter Area No. kg/m mm mm2 No lb/ft in in2 10 0.560 9.5 71 3 0.376 0.375 0.11 13 0.994 12.7 129 4 0.668 0.500 0.20 16 1.552 15.9 199 5 1.043 0.625 0.31 19 2.235 19.1 284 6 1.502 0.750 0.44 22 3.042 22.2 387 7 2.044 0.875 0.60 25 3.973 25.4 510 8 2.670 1.000 0.79 29 5.060 28.7 645 9 3.400 1.128 1.00 32 6.404 32.3 819 10 4.303 1.270 1.27 36 7.907 35.8 1006 11 5.313 1.410 1.56 43 11.380 43.0 1452 14 7.650 1.693 2.25 57 20.240 57.3 2581 18 13.600 2.254 4.00

A-1