PROOF COVER SHEET

Journal acronym: TCIE

Author(s): Sudathip Tangwongchai
Article title: Suitable effective strip width of continuous bridge deck slabs system over exible steel I-girders
Article no: 839603
Enclosures: 1) Query sheet
2) Article proofs
Dear Author,
1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to check these and approve
or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor & Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected
errors, even if introduced during the production process. Once your corrections have been added to the article, it will be
considered ready for publication.
Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not make insignicant changes, improve prose
style, add new material, or delete existing material at this stage. Making a large number of small, non-essential
corrections can lead to errors being introduced. We therefore reserve the right not to make such corrections.
For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please see
http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp

2. Please review the table of contributors below and conrm that the rst and last names are structured correctly
and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This check is to ensure that your name will
appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.
Sequence
1
2
3

Prex

Given name(s)

Surname

Sudathip
Chartree
Somchai

Tangwongchai
Lertsima
Chucheepsakul

Sufx

Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs.

AUTHOR QUERIES
General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permission from the appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material in your article. (Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/permission.asp.) Please check that any required acknowledgements have been included to
reect this.
AQ1

Please provide an institutional e-mail address for corresponding author.

AQ2

The reference citation SAP2000 (2002) has been changed to Wilson et al. (2000) to match the
author name and date in the reference list. Please check and conrm.

AQ3

The reference AASHTO (2004) is cited in the text but is not listed in the references list. Please
either delete in-text citation or provide full reference details following journal style
[http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/style/reference/tf_ChicagoAD.pdf].

AQ4

Please provide the name of the city of publication for reference American Concrete Institute [ACI]
(2008).

AQ5

The reference Barker and Puckett (1997) is listed in the references list but is not cited in the text.
Please either cite the reference or remove it from the references list.

AQ6

The authors name in the following reference Fang et al. (1990) has been modied to match the
CrossRef system. Kindly check and approve the edit.

AQ7

Please provide remaining authors name instead of et al. for reference Wilson et al. (2000).

AQ8

The reference WSD (2002) is cited in the table but is not listed in the references list. Please either
delete in-table citation or provide full reference details following journal style
[http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/style/reference/tf_ChicagoAD.pdf].

TCIE 839603
7 September 2013

CE: VK QA: SN
Coll: QC:

Initial

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2013.839603

Suitable effective strip width of continuous bridge deck slabs system over exible steel
I-girders
Sudathip Tangwongchai*, Chartree Lertsima and Somchai Chucheepsakul
Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand

10

15

(Received 28 September 2010; accepted 30 August 2012)

Applying existing design standard provisions or analytical solutions is typically acceptable for the evaluation of slab
negative moments subjected to moving trafc loads. As a breakthrough in computer technology, the nite element-based
approach has become a notably versatile tool used for bridge deck analysis. In this study, a reliable nite element
modeling technique is employed to discretize the models of a continuous bridge deck slab over steel I-girder system.
The continuity between the girders and bridge slab has been carefully treated to ensure the overall structural action of
the bridge deck. The key parameters affecting the deck slab moment such as slab system rigidity, girder spacing, patterns
of moving loads and number of loaded trafc lanes are carefully considered in this study. The effective strip width
concept has been used so as to take into account the evaluation of the slab negative moment. Based on the present
numerical results, a set of reliable empirical formulas is proposed to determine the effective strip widths used for the
direct assessment of the negative moment in a bridge deck slab. The application of these formulas is then compared with
other provisions. Based on the suggested formulas, the slab reinforcement can be moderated for a common range of
bridge deck proportions.
Keywords: effective strip width; slab-over-girder bridge; nite element model; negative slab moment

20

25

30

35

40

AQ1

1. Introduction to the bridge deck analysis

Determination of the transverse bending moment in a
composite bridge deck has been a major concern of
design engineers for many years. In general, it is difcult
to predict realistic behavior of a deck slab system using
hand calculations. The concrete deck on steel girders
with shear stud connection providing composite actions
is the most popular type of bridge in service nowadays.
In bridge deck analysis, a major change in the positive
and negative transverse moments in the slab takes place
along the span due to moving trucks. A more realistic
estimation of the slab deck moment can be obtained
when the longitudinal and transverse effects of the truck
location are considered at the same time. To take into
account bridge deck analysis, current American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO) design methods (Standard 2002; LRFD
2007) have been widely used by engineers for their ease
of use. AASHTO slab moment formulas seem to inadequately reect the actual moments due to the ignorance
of moving truck loads, girder deection, and other
signicant characteristics of the composite deck system.
In particular, more exible girders will result in larger
differential deections among the girders leading to a
smaller negative bending moment in the deck and a
*Corresponding author. Email: mysudathip@hotmail.com
2013 The Chinese Institute of Engineers

considerable reduction in the top reinforcing steel in

bridge decks. A number of load patterns may increase
the bending moment in a deck slab, and therefore, a
rened analysis may be required for this purpose.
Before the invention of digital computers, various
methods based on stiffness approach and specic assumptions such as the grillage analogy and orthotropic plate
had been developed leading these classical approaches to
be excessively simplied. In recent times, it has been
well recognized that three-dimensional (3D) nite
element analysis (FEA) can closely approximate exural
responses in the deck slab of such congurations. Using
FEA, the limitation in analysis calculation has been
overcome. As a result, all parameters that inuence the
structural behavior of composite deck systems can be
incorporated in the analysis model at the same time.
In the literature, although the negative slab moment
has been studied by several researchers (Bakht and
Jaeger 1985; Fang et al. 1990; Cao 1996), some discrepancies can be recognized among the different
approaches. In general, the effective strip width concept
(Standard 2002; LRFD 2007) has been widely used to
take into account the evaluation of such negative slab
moments. The present study performs several case
studies on bridge geometries so as to investigate the

45

50

55

60

65

TCIE 839603
7 September 2013

2
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

CE: VK QA: SN
Coll: QC:

Initial

S. Tangwongchai et al.

parameters inuencing the maximum negative moments

in the deck slab by means of the effective strip width
concept. Extensive parametric studies on bridge geometries and the locations along the bridge span where the
negative slab moment is of interest are conducted based
on the rened 3D FEA. The effect of elastic supports as
well as a number of lane loads, which have never been
mentioned together in the literature, is also taken into
consideration in this study. A general design guideline of
the deck slab moment is then proposed based on the
effective strip width concept. In relation to the deck slab
design viewpoint, the reinforcement requirement
evaluated from the present study is also investigated by
comparing with AASHTO design codes.
2. Effective strip width approach
A slab on girders is a hybrid structure made up of
concrete slab and steel girders so that this unit responds
as a composite body. Figure 1(b) shows the primary
deection of the bridge deck induced by truck wheel
loads as the slab is supported by rigid girders. The effect
of secondary deection of the bridge deck due to truck
wheel loads is demonstrated in Figure 1(c). Therefore,
the overall deection in Figure 1(a) can be accomplished
by separated analyses of primary deection in Figure 1(b)
and secondary deection in Figure 1(c). As a rule,
primary deection appears to induce a signicant inuence on the live load negative moment in deck slab (MLL)
at the location where the girders are rigidly restrained
while the secondary deection tends to produce the
contrary effect. As a result, great reduction in the negative moment but increase in the positive moment in the
slab can be clearly observed in the vicinity of midspan
where the secondary deection is predominant.
The effective strip width (BE) concept has been studied for a long time to use as a simplied method for the
evaluation of MLL. The early well-known study on this
topic was conducted by Westergaard (1930). To be able
to determine MLL, a so-called effective strip width
approach has been proposed by several researchers and
design provisions (AASHTO 2002, 2007; Tangwongchai
2003) and adopted as a useful formula to compute the

maximum MLL per unit width of slab. The effective strip

width BE was developed by assuming that the moment
was distributed uniformly over a certain width of a
simple span slab in the direction perpendicular to the
span of the slabs S as dened below:
BE

PS
4MLL

50

A modication of Westergaards original proposal

was performed so that BE for a two-edge simply
supported slab can be determined as 1.90S + 6.56c, where
S is the center-to-center spacing of the girders in meters
and c is the diameter of the equivalent area of a wheel
load in meters as demonstrated in Figure 2. It should be
noted that BE was adopted to determine the maximum
moment per unit width in a simply supported slab in the
last edition of AASHTO Standard Specications (2002).
According to AASHTO Specications (2002) on
continuous slabs over three or more supported girders, a
continuity factor of 0.8 shall be applied to the simple
span live load moment for both positive and negative
moments. In AASHTO LRFD Specications (2007), BE
used to compute MLL as recommended in Table 4.6.2.1.31 is equal to 1220 + 0.25S mm (48 + 3S in.) for cast-inplace decks where S is the center-to-center spacing of
the girders in mm.
Instead using either Specications (2002, 2007) or
Westergaard (1930), the approximate elastic method of
analysis simulates the behavior of the bridge deck with
transverse strips of deck provided to compute the
moment, MLL. The strip width for negative bending BE
is recommended in this study. The strips based on FEA
modeling are run from edge-to-edge of the bridge deck
and are modeled as continuous beams supported at the
centerlines of the girders. When using the recommended
strips, the slab moments MLL can be computed with an
equivalent one-way bending strip BE.
3. FEA modeling of bridge deck
In this study, a rened FEA modeling technique is
employed to predict an MLL closer to the reality.

rint
p
r
e
fo
no r onlin
o
M lou
co
Figure 1. Typical deformations of bridge deck under truck loading: (a) total deection; (b) primary deection; (c) secondary
deection.

55

60

65

70

75

80

TCIE 839603
7 September 2013

CE: VK QA: SN
Coll: QC:

Initial

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers

P
c
intB
r
p
for line
o
n
Mo lour on
co
S/2

S/2

Figure 2. BE and innitesimal region (c) of a design load P.

Figure 3. Typical bridge deck congurations.

5
AQ2

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The analytical models are developed using a well-known

computer program SAP2000 (Wilson et al. 2000).
Several concerns of the bridge deck congurations, i.e.
the diaphragm connection with girders, loading patterns
which produce the most adverse effects due to combined
global and local loading, the eccentricity between the
deck slab and the centroid of girder, the eccentricity
between the centroid of girder and the bearing supports,
the effect of longitudinal compressive force in the slab
on its exural behavior through effect of Poissons ratio,
and the shear connection between the slab and girder are
explicitly considered in the present study.
To simulate an FEA model of a bridge deck more
accurately, many databases of bridges (Lee and Yau
2002; CAN/CSA-S6-06 2006; Tangwongchai and
Chucheepsakul 2006) are reviewed to select the appropriate geometric parameters on the basis of applicable
ranges for bridge design practice. Based mostly on
construction frequencies, all possible combinations of
parameters that characterize the geometry of a composite
steel-concrete bridge are considered in FEA modeling so
as to reveal those inuences on BE under various loading
patterns of design trucks at the different span locations
(y). In particular, the following parameters are considered
as follows: S = 1.50 m (5 ft), 1.80 m (6 ft), 2.30 m
(7.50 ft), 3 m (10 ft); y/L = 0 (at support), 0.25 (at quarter
span), 0.50 (at midspan); L/H = 18 where L and H stand
for span length and height of I-girders, respectively; four
exible stiffnesses Dy/Dx (Cao 1996) = 74.71, 65.29,
55.15, 44.09. It should be noted that Dy and Dx are
based on an orthotropic plate theory to account for the
different bending stiffnesses of a deck in the longitudinal
(Dy parallel to the trafc) and transverse directions (Dx).
For the nite element modeling, the authors use xed
values of slab thickness (t), L, and H constantly 0.20 m
(8 in.), 15.24 m (50 ft), and 0.86 m (33.93 in.), respectively, while the others are varied to obtain all values of
the parameters. The considered bridge deck congurations are demonstrated in Figure 3.
In this study, the bridge deck composite-action
behavior is also taken into consideration in the FEA
model. The interaction between the deck slab discretized
by shell elements and the girder discretized by beam

elements is simulated into the Eccentric Shell-Beam

Model (ESBM). Figure 4(a) and (b) show the physical
congurations and ESBM in FEA for a Slab-on-girder
bridge used in this study, where e2 is a distance between
the neutral axis of the composite section (T-shape in
Figure 4(a)) and the midplane of the slab, and e1 is
distance between the neutral axis of the T-section and
that of the girder.
To take into account the eccentricity between the
deck slab and the centroid of girder (e1 + e2), the shell
elements are connected to beam elements by a so-called
rigid link element to resist shear and bending. The rigid
link element is short in length, and it connects the
midplane of the slab with the centroid of girder-frame.
The supports of girders are simulated by using dimensionless beam elements to account for the eccentricity
between the centroid of girders and the bearing supports.
In practice, ESBM (see Figure 4(b)) has been selected
herein since it is usually reliable while retaining simplicity for the surface structure in transverse analysis as well

Figure 4. Physical conguration and FEA modeling of a slabon-girder bridge: (a) 3-D physical T-section; (b) 3-D physical
T-section.

50

55

60

65

TCIE 839603
7 September 2013

10

CE: VK QA: SN
Coll: QC:

Initial

S. Tangwongchai et al.

as in longitudinal direction (Chan and Chan 1999; Bapat

2009). Throughout this study, pinned-roller restraints are
used for the sake of simply supported and continuous
supported conditions for 1-span truck loading and 2-span
truck loading, respectively. Based on the customary
design practice of bridge decks, Poissons ratios of a
concrete slab and steel girders are designated as 0.20
and 0.30, respectively. The concrete slab has a 28-day
compressive strength fc of 35.58 MPa (5.16 ksi) resulting
in the concrete elastic modulus Ec of 28,270 MPa
(4100 ksi) according to recommendation of ACI 318-08

(2008). For steel girders, the magnitude of steel elastic

modulus Eg is selected as 199,950 MPa (29,000 ksi). The
integer number of the Modula ratio n (Eg/Ec) of 7 is
used.
4. Loading conditions
The bridge deck is loaded in different vehicle patterns
which may occur during a real trafc situation, single
trucks and groups of trucks are placed at specic locations along the longitudinal span of the bridge and the


Figure 5. Possible patterns of trucks in transverse direction for MLL
evaluation: (a) NL = 1; (b) NL = 2; (c) NL = 3.

15

20

TCIE 839603
7 September 2013

CE: VK QA: SN
Coll: QC:

Initial

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers

rint
p
r
e
fo
no r onlin
o
M lou
co

Figure 6. Longitudinal locations of centers of governing gravity axes: (a) under Y2 at rigid zones (V = 4.27 m); (b) under Yc at
exible zones (V = 4.279.14 m).

10

15

20

25
AQ3

30

trucks are then placed at different transverse locations

for trial and error. It is considered that a design truck
(HS-20 design truck) can be placed anywhere within a
clear width w of a roadway for extreme effect due to
different number of trafc lanes NL. It is assumed that
the wheels of a single axle are spaced at 1.83 m (6 ft),
and the minimum distance between the wheels of two
side-by-side truck is 1.22 m (4 ft). Figure 5 demonstrates
the schematic of possible patterns of truck moving laterally on a typical bridge roadway width for the evaluation

of MLL
.
In the loading analysis, the bridge is divided into
four sections for the purpose of result processing and
comparison. The maximum moment M usually occurs at
either the middle or rear wheel location. Near the abutment, as shown in Figure 6(a), the critical negative
moments usually occur under the rear wheel (Y2). At the
midspan as shown in Figure 6(b), the maximum moment
M usually occurs under the middle wheel (Yc) and when
the spacing between the middle and rear axles (V) is
equal to 9.14 m (30 ft). The variations of V are varied
between 4.27 m (14 ft) and 9.14 m (30 ft) to produce
extreme force effects (AASHTO 2004).
A wheel load is modeled as a patch load distributed
over a nite area in FEA models. The tire contact area
for an HS20-44 truck is assumed as a rectangle, with a
length of 0.51 m (20 in.) and a width of 0.25 m (10 in.)
(AASHTO 2007). To attain a more accurate estimation
of critical moments M, the tire print loads are enlarged
by spreading outwards through the midplane of the slab

Figure 7. Dispersion of truck wheel loads on deck slab.

at critical sections. The contact area of a wheel load is

enlarged by projecting on the midplane of the slab with
a distribution angle of 45 (AASHTO 2007) as illustrated in the Figure 7.

35

5. Numerical results
The characteristic results of the present parameters inuencing MLL in deck slab are scrutinized. Figure 8 shows
the typical effect of S on the proportion expressed by the
ratio between MLL and an HS20-44 truck wheel load P
of 72.5 kN (16 kips) (MLL/P) for three different locations
along bridge span (y/L = 0, 0.25 and 0.50). In this study,
impact factor IM of 1.33 and multiple presence factors m
of 1.20, 1.00, and 0.85 for 1-lane, 2-lane, and 3-lane
loadings, respectively, are presented to MLL/P in
accordance with recommendation of AASHTO LRFD

40

45

TCIE 839603
7 September 2013

CE: VK QA: SN
Coll: QC:

Initial

S. Tangwongchai et al.

(a)

33
30

S
S
S
S

27

100 mMLL-/P

24
21

= 1.5 m
= 1.8 m
= 2.3 m
=3 m

18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00

.25

.50

Locations Along Bridge Span, y/L

(b)

33
30

S
S
S
S

27

100MLL-/P

24
21
18
15
12
9

= 1.5 m
= 1.8 m
= 2.3 m

=3

t
prin
r
o
f
line
no
Mo lour on
co

6
3
0
0.00

.25

.50

NL appears to be identical when NL is equal to two and

three as illustrated in Figure 8(b) and (c).
Based on the present numerical results, BE can be
calculated according to Equation (1) for each S, y/L, and
NL. Table 1 shows the comparison between BE calculated
from the present FEA with respect to spacing S and location designated y/L and those obtained from AASHTO
Specications (Standard 2002; LRFD 2007).
With respect to the present FEA results, it can be seen
that y/L is inuential on BE to the greatest extent in
accordance with the assumptions used by Cao and Shing
(1999). The maximum NL of three gives the maximum
MLL by implying the minimum value of BE. In addition,
it is apparent that BE is usually maximum at the midspan
section (y/L = 0.50), where the structural exibility of
bridge deck is largest. On the other hand, the minimum
BE can be observed, where the bridge deck is rigidly
restrained at the support (y/L = 0). However, some
inconsistencies can be observed between BE at the quarter
span and midspan. In some circumstances, BE at the
quarter span is larger than the midspan. This is because
of the accompanying effects of girder spacing S and
number of lane loaded NL. Those parameters also produce
a signicant inuence on BE. Therefore, the present BE
includes not only the effect of structural exibility of
bridge deck (y/L and S) but also loading characteristics
(NL).

15

20

25

30

35

Locations Along Bridge Span, y/L

(c)

6. Proposed effective strip widths BE

33
30

S
S
S
S

27

100MLL-/P

24
21

= 1.5 m
= 1.8 m
= 2.3 m
=3 m

18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0.00

.25

.50

Locations Along Bridge Span, y/L

Figure 8. Variation of MLL/P with respect to location

designated y/L: (a) one lane loaded (NL = 1); (b) two lane
loaded (NL = 2); (c) three lane loaded (NL = 3).

Instead of using Table 1, the following empirical formulas have been proposed to directly compute BE in the
evaluation of MLL. In addition, it is apparent that BE is
usually maximum at the midspan section when the structural exibility of bridge deck is largest. On the other
hand, the minimum BE can be observed when the bridge
deck is rigidly restrained at the support. Based on regression analyses, the general relationship of BE is then
developed. The formulations of BE are proposed in terms
of S and y/L as follows:
For support region:
BE 0:12S 2  0:87S 2:24

10

45

2
50

For other regions:

BE 0:01S 2  0:19S 1:55

(2007). In particular, MLL/P starts decreasing with the

increase of y/L. That is to say the magnitude of MLL/P
appears to be larger near the support (y/L = 0) and smaller in the region of midspan (y/L = 0.50). Likewise, S has
considerable inuence on MLL/P: as S becomes larger,
MLL/P increases in general especially at the support
region (y/L = 0). Moreover, NL seems to produce inuence on MLL/P to a certain extent. However, the effect of

40

It is noted that this formula is applicable for

1.5 m 6 S 6 3 m, S/L 6 0.02, S/t 6 18.
7. Required reinforcement area in bridge deck slab
In general, several provisions have recommended the
minimum amount of reinforcement area (Asmin) or

55

TCIE 839603
7 September 2013

CE: VK QA: SN
Coll: QC:

Initial

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers

Table 1. Obtaining widths BE in meter using FEA, AASHTO LRFD, and standards method.
FEA (including m factors (LRFD 2007)

AASHTO

Ratios between distance along girder y and girder span L, y/L

Support, 0

Quarter span, 0.25

Middle span, 0.50

Number of loaded trafc lanes, NL

Girder spacing S, m (ft)
1.5 (5)
1.8 (6)
2.3 (7.5)
3 (10)

10

15

20

25

LRFD (2007)

1.26
1.07
1.03
0.93

1.23
1.03
0.91
0.73

1.22
1.00
0.90
0.68

1.93
1.55
1.59
1.65

1.63
1.39
1.40
1.20

1.35
1.27
1.16
1.04

1.78
1.67
1.59
1.79

1.30
1.38
1.41
1.33

1.28
1.21
1.22
1.15

0.78
0.69
0.67
0.72

percentage of reinforcement area in gross concrete

section for each top layer provided in the deck slab in
each direction. For instance, Asmin of 0.380 mm2/mm
(about 0.20% reinforcement steel) has been provided
according to AASHTO (2007) by means of the empirical
design method while Asmin of 0.30% has been suggested
by BD 81/02 (2002) and CHBDC (2006). To deal with
MLL, the required reinforcement areas in transverse
direction of deck slab (AsT) calculated by different
approaches are shown in Figure 9. It is apparent that AsT
computed by the present proposed formula of BE gives
moderate results of AsT compared with those obtained
from AASHTO Specications. When compared with
CHBDC (2006) and BD 81/02 (2002), which have the
basic concept of arching action (compression membrane
action), the present study tends to give underestimated
results of BE to a certain extent.
According to the present study, it has been suggested
that current AASHTO design procedures should be
noticeably conservative as they usually give considerably
larger MLL than the present FEA. The potential

WSD (2002) AQ8

0.66
0.70
0.73
0.77

advantage of the present FEA is that the amounts of slab

reinforcements can be lower compared with the
AASHTO counterpart. It should be noted that AASHTO
or empirical method is based mainly on the consideration
of punching shear failure. However, exure is the
primary failure mode when a deck is subjected to
moving loads (Cao 1996). In the utilization of this
design concept, it is important to note that the design of
a bridge deck is expected to be more economical than
traditional designs.

30

35

8. Concluding remarks
The present study performs a parametric study on bridge
geometries and patterns of truck loading base on a
so-called ESBM technique. Among the parameters that
have inuence on the negative slab moment MLL, the
present analysis reveals that the location designated by
the ratio between distance along the bridge span away
from the support y and bridge span L (y/L) can produce
a signicant effect on MLL. Moreover, girder spacing S
is also inuential on MLL to a great extent. Based on the
present numerical results, empirical formulas have been
proposed to determine the effective strip width BE.
Compared with other existing methods in evaluation of
MLL, the proposed BE formulas appear to provide
moderate results for required reinforcement areas in
bridge deck slabs. The present study has also implied
that bridge slab reinforcement may be minimized when
a bridge with small girder spacing has been selected.
This should result in more realistic and economical
designs of bridge deck slabs for the common ranges of
deck slab proportions under various numbers of truck
loadings.

40

45

50

55

Acknowledgements

Figure 9. Percentages of reinforcement area AsT/Asmin due to

different methods vs. S.

The present research was partially supported by the Thailand

Research Fund through the Royal Golden Jubilee PhD Program
[grant no. PHD/0167/2546]. The rst author also owes very
great supports to her co-advisor (P. Benson Shing).

60

TCIE 839603
7 September 2013

S. Tangwongchai et al.

Nomenclature

10
15
20
25

30
35
40
45
50

55

60

AQ4

65

CE: VK QA: SN
Coll: QC:

Initial

Asmin Minimum amount of reinforcement area in transverse

direction of deck slab
AsT
Required amount of reinforcement area in transverse
direction of deck slab
BE
Effective strip width
c
Diameter of the equivalent area of a wheel load
Dx
Flexible stiffness of a deck in transverse direction
Dy
Flexible stiffness of a deck in longitudinal direction
Ec
Modulus of elasticity of the concrete deck
Eg
Modulus of elasticity of the girder
e1
Distance between neutral axis of composite section
(T-shape) and that of the girder
e2
Distance between neutral axis of T-section and
mid-plane of the slab
L
Span length of I-girder
MLL Live load moment in deck slab

Critical negative moment in deck slab due to live load
MLL
NL
Number of trafc lanes
P
Design wheel load
S
Center-to-center spacing of I-girders
t
Slab thickness
V
Spacing between the middle and rear axles
y
Parameter of longitudinal loading locations
Y1
Longitudinal location of front wheel
Y2
Longitudinal location of rear wheel
Yc
Longitudinal location of middle wheel

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO). 2002. Standard Specication for the Design
of Highway Bridges. 17th ed Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Ofcials (AASHTO). 2007. LRFD Bridge Designs Specications. 4th ed Washington, DC: American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Ofcials.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). 2008. Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
(ACI 318-08). MI: American Concrete Institute.

Bakht, B., and L. G. Jaeger. 1985. Bridge Analysis Simplied.

New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bapat, A. V. 2009. Inuence of Bridge Parameters on Finite
70
Element Modeling of Slab on Girder Bridges. Master thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
USA.
Barker, R. M., and J. A. Puckett. 1997. Design of Highway AQ5
Bridges: Based on AASHTO LRFD, Bridge Design Speci75
cations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Canadian Standards Association. 2006. CAN/CSA-S6-06. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). 10th ed.
Ontario: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.
Cao, L. C. 1996. Analysis and Design of Slab-on-girder High80
way Bridge Decks. PhD thesis, University of Colorado,
Boulder, USA.
Cao, L. C., and P. B. Shing. 1999. Simplied Analysis
Method for Slab-on-girder Highway Bridge Decks. Journal of Bridge Engineering 125 (1): 4959.
85
Chan, T. H. T., and J. H. F. Chan. 1999. The Use of Eccentric Beam Elements in the Analysis of Slab-on-girder
Bridges. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 8 (1):
85102.
Fang, I.-K., J. Worley, N. H. Burns, and R. E. Klingner. 1990. AQ6
90
Behavior of Isotropic R/C Bridge Decks on Steel Girders.
Journal of Structural Engineering 116 (3): 659678.
Lee, J. S., and N. J. Yau. 2002. A Constraint-based System
for Arranging Bridge Spans. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 25 (6): 693706.
95
National Roads Authority. 2002. BD 81/02. Use of Compressive Membrane Action in Bridge Decks. Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges. London: UK Highways Agency.
Tangwongchai, S. 2003. Effect of Beam Flexibility to Bending
Moment in Slab of Slab Beam Bridge. Master thesis,
100
Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tangwongchai, S., and S. Chucheepsakul. 2006. Appropriate
3-D Finite Element Modeling of RC Slabs over Girders.
In The East Asia Pacic Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction (EASEC-10), Bangkok, Thailand,
105
August 24.
Westergaard, H. M. 1930. Computations of Stresses in Bridge
Slabs due to Wheel Loads. Public Roads 11 (1): 123.
Wilson, E. L., et al. 2000. SAP2000 Program Users Manual. AQ7
Berkeley, CA: Computers & Structures.

110