Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12
Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct Crack control of a steel and concrete
Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct Crack control of a steel and concrete

Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct Crack control of a steel and concrete

Crack control of a steel and concrete composite plate girder with prefabricated slabs under hogging moments

Hyung-Keun Ryu a,,1 , Sung-Pil Chang a,2 , Young-Jin Kim b , Byung-Suk Kim b

a School of Civil, Urban & Geosystem, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea b Structural System Research Group, Korea Institute of Construction Technology, Republic of Korea

Received 3 June 2004; received in revised form 25 May 2005; accepted 26 May 2005 Available online 15 July 2005

Abstract

In this research, an experimental test on a full-scale model of a steel and concrete composite plate girder with prefabricated slabs under hogging moments was cautiously conducted and observed in order to study crack control. Details of prefabricated slab transverse joints were determined from previous research. The test specimen was an overhanging simple support beam, in total 28 m long. Through the four-point flexural test, the behaviour of the composite girder under hogging moments was observed. From the test results, crack development, crack widths and strain of the composite section before and after cracking were observed. Initial cracking load and crack spacing were viewed and the relations between crack spacing and transverse reinforcement spacing were studied. Moreover, the composite section behaviour of the precast deck with loop joints was confirmed. Test results were analyzed by design equations in each code for crack control. The flexural stiffness of the composite section after cracking is compared with that of the proposals in EUROCODE 4-2 and discussed. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Steel and concrete composite plate girder; Prefabricated slab; Loop joint; Hogging moment; Crack control; Crack width; Crack spacing; Flexural stiffness of composite section; Eurocode 4-2

1. Introduction

Steel and concrete composite bridges are very attractive solutions for short and medium span bridges. However, for steel and concrete composite continuous bridges, when a concrete slab is in tension and a lower flange of a steel girder is in compression under hogging moments, there are shortcomings in view of durability and strength. Especially, concrete cracking affects the durability and service life

Corresponding address: Civil, Urban and Geo-system Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1 Shinlim Dong, Kwanak Gu, 71100 Seoul, Republic of Korea. Tel.: +82 288 073 55; fax: +82 288 703 49. E-mail addresses: ryu99@snu.ac.kr (H.-K. Ryu), changsp@plaza.snu.ac.kr (S.-P. Chang), yjkim@kict.re.kr (Y.-J. Kim), bskim@kict.re.kr (B.-S. Kim). 1 Also at: Korean Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Seoul National University, San 56-1 Shinlim-Dong, Kwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-742, Republic of Korea. 2 Also at: Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1 Shinlim-Dong, Kwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-742, Republic of Korea.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.05.015

of bridges. Therefore, crack control is an important issue in steel and composite continuous bridges. There are two approaches for dealing with concrete cracking in composite bridges: one is to prevent cracking using prestressing methods and the other is to allow the formation of cracks but limit their widths to acceptable values. Prestressing methods, however, are inconvenient and doubtful due to prestress losses by the long-term behaviour of concrete. Therefore, it is considered that the control of crack width without prestressing is the more economical and interesting solution. Randl and Johnson [1] found that the first transverse cracks that occur in lightly reinforced concrete slabs forming tension flanges of composite beams were significantly wider than is predicted by existing methods. They showed that a reinforcement ratio of 0.9% is sufficient to ensure that bars do not yield when the first crack forms, and it was suggested that 0.9% is sufficient to control initial cracking in composite main girders only when small-diameter bars are used. In the study of Navarro and Lebet [2], the mechanical behaviour

1614

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

of steel–concrete composite bridges under non-monotonic service loading was presented. In their study, it could be observed that the reinforcement ratio and longitudinal bar diameter do not significantly influence the crack widths. Since the crack spacing is equal to the transverse reinforcement spacing, crack widths are not influenced by a decrease of the transmission length induced by reducing the longitudinal reinforcement bar diameter. Therefore, reducing the longitudinal reinforcement bar diameter is not an effective method for diminishing crack widths. Ramm and Elz [3] mentioned that local weakening of the tensile capacity of a concrete slab can lead to an early occurrence of cracks and can cause decreased need of minimum reinforcement. In the case of composite beams, such local weakening can be caused by shear connectors or transverse reinforcement. This can lead not only to an earlier development of cracks, but also can influence the crack spacing. Thus, the development of cracking in slabs as part of composite beams is decisively influenced by the transverse reinforcement. A precast concrete deck could be very attractive because the system can ensure the quality of concrete decks, improve working environments for the workers, and reduce man hours outdoors and traffic disruption. A shorter construction time could be an important factor in choosing precast deck bridges. A precast deck bridge has two types of connection:

shear connection between steel girder and precast deck, and transverse joint between precast panels. Shim and Chang [4] suggested a design basis for longitudinal prestress of continuous composite bridges with full-depth precast decks having female-to-female joints through experimental and analytical studies. Recently, Ryu et al. [5] carried out experimental works on the mechanical behaviour of precast concrete elements with loop joints. From the observation of crack distribution, crack widths, ductility and ultimate strength considering variable diameters of reinforcements and joint widths of cast-in-place parts, they suggested details of precast elements with loop joints. However, in order to apply precast decks to continuous composite bridges, the tensile behaviour of precast decks or transverse joints between slabs in hogging moment regions should be confirmed in view of serviceability and durability. Particularly, stiffness of the composite section during cracking should be evaluated precisely, because it is very important to estimate crack widths, deflection and stress ranges applied to structural members under service loads. In this paper, an experimental test on a full-scale model of a steel and concrete composite plate girder with prefabricated slabs under hogging moments was cautiously conducted and observed in order to study crack control. Details of prefabricated slab transverse joints were determined from previous research [5]. The test specimen was an overhanging simple support beam, in total 28 m long. Through the four- point flexural test, the behaviour of the composite girder under hogging moments was observed. The test results

showed crack development, crack widths and strain of the composite section before and after cracking. Initial cracking load and crack spacing were observed and the relations between crack spacing and transverse reinforcement spacing were studied. Moreover, the composite section behaviour of the precast deck with loop joints was confirmed. Test results were analyzed by design equations in each code for crack control. The flexural stiffness of the composite section after cracking is compared with that of the proposals in EUROCODE 4-2 and discussed.

2. Static test

2.1. Test specimen

The testing was carried out with the four-point flexural bending test. The span of the overhanging cantilever part is 11 m on either side. The length of mid-span simply

supported is 6 m. Fig. 1 illustrates the composite plate girder section and elevation. This specimen is an effective one- girder full-scale model of a bridge designed by current Korean highway standard specifications. The bridge is

a first rate three span continuous composite plate girder

and four lane highway bridge (Fig. 2) having a width of 12.145 m. In the test specimen, the precast deck panel was 260 mm thick and had three shear pockets for stud shear connectors (Fig. 1(b)). Details of transverse loop joints in precast decks were determined from previous research [5]. The longitudinal reinforcement ratio was 2.0%, which is a limitation for bridge slabs under hogging moments in Korean Highway Standard Specification [6]. 22 mm stud shear connectors were welded at 680 mm spacing for a full shear connection. Vertical stiffeners were welded in supports, loading points and among those to prevent shear buckling failure and crippling of the web before flexural failure (Fig. 1(c)). Also, to prevent lateral torsional buckling of the overhanging beam, lateral bracings were installed at each end of the overhanging beam to allow vertical deflection but lateral displacement and rotation.

2.2. Fabrication procedure

First, the prefabricated slabs were placed on a steel plate girder. Then, shear pockets were filled with mortar for achieving composite action. Transverse reinforcements were arranged in loop joints and then filled with

expansive concrete to connect precast decks longitudinally.

A composite plate girder was completed as shown in Fig. 3.

2.3. Loading and measurements

The test specimen was an overhanging simply supported beam using roller supports (Fig. 4). A concentrated load was applied at each edge of the beam (Fig. 1(c)). A closed-loop

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

1615

et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 1615 (a) Composite girder section. (b) Precast panel.

(a) Composite girder section.

27 (2005) 1613–1624 1615 (a) Composite girder section. (b) Precast panel. (c) Elevation. Fig. 1. Test

(b) Precast panel.

27 (2005) 1613–1624 1615 (a) Composite girder section. (b) Precast panel. (c) Elevation. Fig. 1. Test

(c) Elevation.

Fig. 1. Test specimen.

1616

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 Fig. 2. Model bridge section. Fig. 3.

Fig. 2. Model bridge section.

27 (2005) 1613–1624 Fig. 2. Model bridge section. Fig. 3. Completed composite plate girder. Fig. 4.

Fig. 3. Completed composite plate girder.

bridge section. Fig. 3. Completed composite plate girder. Fig. 4. Support condition. electro-hydraulic testing system

Fig. 4. Support condition.

electro-hydraulic testing system was used as shown in Fig. 3. Static tests to investigate elastic and inelastic behaviour of the specimen were carried out. Displacements of the composite plate girder were mea- sured at both ends and each mid-part of the overhang- ing girder with an LVDT (Linear Variable Differential Transformer). An LVDT was also installed to measure the relative displacements (slips) between the steel girder and the concrete slab as presented in (Fig. 5(a)). Several strain gauges were installed on the composite sections to observe

composite section behaviour. After cracking, crack widths were measured with Omega gauges.

2.4. Material properties

The material properties of the steel sections and of concrete and mortar are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. As mentioned in previous research [4], the compressive strength of the filling material should be higher than that of the precast concrete to obtain the same elastic modulus

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

1617

et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 1617 (a) Deflection and slip. (b) Sectional strain.

(a) Deflection and slip.

27 (2005) 1613–1624 1617 (a) Deflection and slip. (b) Sectional strain. Fig. 5. Instrumentation. and to

(b) Sectional strain.

Fig. 5. Instrumentation.

and to ensure the quality of the mortar in actual construction sites. It is very important to control the quality of the filling material as specified in a design guideline of a precast deck bridge. In this experiment, the compressive strength of the mortar was higher than the required strength.

Table 1 Material properties of steel

 

Yield strength

Tensile strength (in spec.) (MPa)

(MPa)

Flange & web

320

500–650

Stiffeners, diaphragm

240

410–520

Reinforcements 400

520

Table 2 Compressive strength of concrete and mortar (MPa)

 

Strength (MPa)

Note

Precast concrete a Transverse joint b Shear connection b

36

28 days

57

Loading time

43

Loading time

a Average value of all the precast concrete panels.

b Average value of material test specimens.

In the Table 2, the strength of the prefabricated slab specimen was 28 days’ strength. However, the real strength

of precast elements was expected to be higher than 28 days’ strength, because the loading time was over 28 days. For shear connection, shear pockets were filled with non- shrink mortar and transverse slab joints were filled with expansive concrete expecting chemical prestressing to be locally introduced at joints.

3. Test results and analysis

3.1. Elastic behaviour

it

connections were installed to achieve full shear connections. The ultimate strength of a stud shear connector was determined from Eq. (1) developed by Kim et al. [7].

(1)

α = 1 0.0086(b h 20)

P d : ultimate strength of shear connection, A sh : stud area of shear connection (mm 2 ), b h : thickness of bedding layer. To achieve full shear connection, the degree of shear connection, η, which is defined as the strength of the shear connection in a shear span, as a proportion of the strength required for full shear connections, should be higher than unity.

P d = α(0.36A sh + 18.71)

shear

In

the

test

specimen,

was

intended

that

1618

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 Fig. 6. Load–slip curve. Fig. 8. Load–displacement

Fig. 6. Load–slip curve.

Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 Fig. 6. Load–slip curve. Fig. 8. Load–displacement curve in the elastic range.

Fig. 8. Load–displacement curve in the elastic range.

Fig. 8. Load–displacement curve in the elastic range. Fig. 7. 3-D finite element model. η =

Fig. 7. 3-D finite element model.

η

= P sh

P cp

1.

(2)

P sh can be calculated using Eq. (1) over the shear spans, and P cp is the horizontal force of the concrete slabs or steel girders at the full sectional plastic moment. In the test specimen, the degree of shear connection was estimated to be higher than unity according to Eq. (2), and then in the test, maximum slips were measured at 0.06 mm until 80% of maximum load (Fig. 6). It is considered that the experimental slips monitored during the tests were scattered due to the very low values measured. From this result, it is considered that the shear connection would not reach the ultimate load state [7], thus the test specimen could be assumed as the full composite section until the ultimate state. To be compared with the test results, elastic analyses were carried out with a 3-D finite element model (Fig. 7) by the commercial finite element code, ABAQUS v6.3. The concrete slab and the steel girder were modeled with 8-node shell elements. The slab and the plate girder were connected by beam elements to describe the shear connection. The number of finite element in which the test specimen was divided was 3024 in total. From the analysis, the flexural stiffness of the composite section could be evaluated, and variation of the flexural stiffness with increasing load in the test could be compared with results of the finite element analysis. During the static test in the elastic range of loading, the flexural stiffness of the composite girder showed linear elastic behaviour. Deflection of the end of the girder from

the analysis was compared with the test results (Fig. 8). It is worth noting that, in the elastic range, the stiffness of the slab in hogging moment regions can be included in the flexural stiffness of the composite section. In the serviceability limit state, an uncracked section could be assumed for the flexural stiffness of composite sections.

3.2. Cracking

Crack distribution on the deck of the uniform negative moment regions was observed as presented in Fig. 9. In the test specimen, in total 14 precast panels were used; panels 7 and 8 are prefabricated slabs in a middle position of the composite girder under uniform hogging bending as shown in Fig. 9. The initial cracks were detected by the naked eye at the edge of transverse joints (Fig. 10). It is consid- ered that the cracks occurred because the age of concrete material in precast panels and joints of cast-in-place parts were different. Due to the different casting ages, construc- tion joint surfaces were made and the surfaces have weak points of cracking. Thus, before casting in the transverse joints, the surfaces should be cleaned, and it is necessary to consider effective methods for increasing bonding between precast panels and joints; for example, surfaces can be made rough using a water jet to increase bonding. The cracking load of the test specimen was observed as 340 kN, which is lower than the design value of 405 kN. The value was ob- tained from the following equation given in EUROCODE 4-2 [8].

N s = N s,cr = A ct f ctm

1

1

+ h c

2z 0

(1 + ρ s n 0 )

(3)

where ρ s = A s /A ct A ct is the area of the tensile zone immediately prior to cracking of the cross section (for simplicity the area of the concrete section within the effective width should be used), A s is the area of reinforcement steel within the effective width, f ctm is the mean tensile strength of concrete, h c is the depth of the concrete slab,

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

1619

et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 1619 Fig. 9. Crack distribution under uniform hogging

Fig. 9. Crack distribution under uniform hogging moments (units: kN).

z 0 is the vertical distance between the centroids of the uncracked unreinforced concrete flange and the uncracked unreinforced composite section. As in Eq. (3), the shrinkage effect was not considered. Therefore, it is considered that the cracking load can be eval- uated by reducing the tensile strength of concrete consider- ing the shrinkage effects, particularly in cast-in-place (CIP) parts (transverse joints). In the case of continuous composite bridges with CIP slabs, it is considered that initial shrinkage effects can be more important for estimating the cracking load, crack width and flexural stiffness. It is noted that the spacing of the initial transverse crack was significantly wide because the crack occurred mainly in the transverse joints and edges of shear pockets. After the initial cracking, cracks developed on deck surfaces which are shown in Fig. 9. As in previous research [2,3], it could be observed that the crack spacing was very similar to the transverse reinforcement spacing. Local weakening of the tensile capacity of the concrete slab which was caused by shear

connectors or transverse reinforcements can lead to the occurrence of cracks and can influence the crack spacing. Thus, it can be said that the development of cracking in slabs as part of composite girders is decisively influenced by transverse reinforcements. In the crack development of the slabs, the crack spacing was observed, and then minimum, maximum and average crack spacings were recorded as shown in Table 3. From Table 3, it is seen that the average crack spacing was similar to the average spacing of the transverse reinforcements.

3.3. Flexural stiffness during cracking

Fig. 11 shows load–displacement curve of each ends of the overhanging beam of the present test. Before cracking, the stiffness of the composite section was similar to that of the uncracked composite section. However, after cracking, the cracks were propagated and distributed, and the stiffness of the composite section became similar to that of the cracked composite section in Fig. 11 with increasing load.

1620

Table 3 Cracking load (kN) and crack spacing (mm)

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

Cracking load

Cracking load

Ratio

Minimum crack

Maximum crack

Average crack

Average tr-re-bar

(cal.)

(test)

(test/cal.)

spacing

spacing

spacing

spacing a

405

340

0.84

77

280

165

173

a tr-re-bar means transverse reinforcement.

165 173 a tr-re-bar means transverse reinforcement. Fig. 10. Initial cracking at the joints. Fig. 11.

Fig. 10. Initial cracking at the joints.

reinforcement. Fig. 10. Initial cracking at the joints. Fig. 11. Load–displacement curve. Fig. 12. The stiffness

Fig. 11. Load–displacement curve.

cracking at the joints. Fig. 11. Load–displacement curve. Fig. 12. The stiffness of a composite plate

Fig. 12. The stiffness of a composite plate girder.

The load–deflection curve named ‘uncracked’ was evaluated from the 3-D elastic finite element analysis (Fig. 7). As shown in Fig. 11, the stiffness of the composite section

after cracking became similar to that of the cracked section gradually, but the stiffness did not directly become equal

to that of the cracked section as soon as a crack occurred.

Thus, the tension stiffening effect between cracks should be considered to evaluate the more exact flexural stiffness of the composite section under hogging moments. At 1200 kN, the deflection of the test specimen was larger than the calculated deflection of the cracked section. It is considered that local buckling or yielding due to residual stress reduces the stiffness of the composite section as well as cracking.

In the crack formation of composite beams, there are three stages before yielding of the composite section. First,

a stage before cracking an uncracked section, second,

after cracking and development of cracks, and last, a crack stabilizing stage which continues before yielding. To

divide the first and second stages, the initial cracking load should be considered, which can be evaluated from Eq. (3). Also, the moment at the beginning of the stabilized crack formation should be evaluated to define the level of crack stabilizing. The bending moment, M cr,ts , at the beginning of the stabilized crack formation can be calculated using the following equation,

M cr,ts = [N s,cr N s,ts ]

I 2

A s z 2

(4)

where N s,ts is the additional normal force of the concrete section due to tension stiffening. I 2 is the second moment of area of the composite section neglecting concrete. z 2 is the distance between the centroidal axis of the cracked composite section with the second moment of area I 2 and the center of area of the reinforcement. The normal force of the concrete slab is determined in the stages of cracking mentioned above. During cracking

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

1621

and before stabilizing, the axial force is maintained to be constant even with increasing external moments. But after stabilizing moments, the axial force increased with increasing external moments linearly. After initial cracking, the internal normal force of the concrete section can be defined by the following equation.

(5)

N s = N s0 + N s,ts .

The additional normal force N s,ts of the concrete section due to tension stiffening for bridges without prestressing by tendons is given by

N s,ts = 0.4 f ctm A s

ρ s α st

(6)

α st = AI 2 /A a I a , where A is the area of the composite section neglecting concrete in tension, and A a and I a are the corresponding properties of the structural steel section. Therefore, the effective stiffness of the composite section after cracking can be defined in all load levels, continuously. The effective stiffness E a I 2,ts depends on the bending moment M acting on the composite section. The bending moment M, calculated with the uncracked stiffness, may be used. The stiffness E a I 2,ts may be calculated from

E a I 2,ts =

E a I a

1

N s a

M

(7)

where E a I a is the stiffness of the structural steel section, M is the bending moment for the relevant load combination and N s is the tension force in the slab. a is the distance between the neutral axes of the structural steel section and the uncracked concrete section. From the above equations, the flexural stiffness of the composite section for the test specimen could be estimated as shown in Fig. 12. Initial cracking and stabilizing moments were evaluated and the effective stiffness was calculated with external moments. After the initial cracking moment, the stiffness which gradually decreased due to cracking can be observed as in this figure. From the curve in Fig. 12, the moment–curvature relationship of the composite plate girder can be calculated. Then this result could be compared with the test results for the moment–curvature of the test specimen. From the experimental results, moment–curvature relationships of the composite sections were evaluated as shown in Fig. 13. In the figures, sections A–E refer to those shown in Fig. 5(b). Among the curves, the curve for section A in Fig. 13(a) is overestimated by the EC4-2 curve at a high moment level compared with the other curves. It is considered that because the section A is the nearest to the supports, the stiffness was reduced by yielding and local buckling as well as cracking with increasing external moments. Except for section A, the curves of the composite sections in the test specimen were very consistent with the EC4-2 curve. It is also confirmed that the precast decks with loop joints are continuous because the curve for section E in Fig. 13(e) also showed good consistency of the effective

stiffness in the EC4-2. In section E, there are transverse joints of the slabs. Under uniform hogging moments, the moment–curvature curve of all composite sections was very consistent with the moment curvature curve defined in Eurocode 4-2. From these results, it is concluded that the moment–curvature curve relation or effective flexural stiffness of the composite girder section considering tension stiffening effects in Eurocode 4-2 can be also applied to composite plate girders with loop joint prefabricated slabs.

3.4. Crack widths

Fig. 15 shows the relation between external moments and reinforcement strain. LP1 and LP2 were attached in lon- gitudinal top reinforcement in joint parts (Fig. 14). Also, RE1–RE3 were installed in top reinforcement as shown in Fig. 14. In Fig. 15, it can be seen that strain of the reinforce- ment in loop joints measured by LP1 and LP2 is less than that of the reinforcement in decks (RE1–RE3) because, in the joints, reinforcements are overlapped to connect longitu- dinally. In all reinforcements, the strain did not yield. Moment–crack width curves are presented in Fig. 16. It is considered that the curve could show the limitation of service load for crack control in composite girders with loop joint prefabricated slabs. According to the Korean Highway Standard Specifica- tion [6] for the design of plate girder bridges such as Fig. 2, the design moment for the test specimen is 6050 kN m, which includes dynamic effects by truck loads. In this mo- ment, the measured maximum crack width was shown as 0.14 mm in CR3 (Fig. 16). This value does not violate the limitation of crack width for serviceability of the general condition. Also, to estimate the maximum crack width of the slab, test results were compared with values of design equations for crack control in each code. Steel strain and crack width curves could be obtained from the measurements as in Fig. 14. There are variable design equations for crack width in each code. In this research, experimental results were compared with design values in equations such as the Gergely–Lutz equation, the equation in CEB-FIP 78 [9] and in Eurocode 2(90) [10]. The Gergely–Lutz equation is recommended in ACI-318-99 [11] and in AASHTO-LRFD specifications (1998) [12].

(8)

where β c is the ratio of the distances to the neutral axis from the extreme tension fiber and from the centroid of the reinforcement. f s is the stress calculated in the reinforcement at service loads. d c is the thickness of the concrete cover measured from the extreme tension fiber to the center of the bar or wire located closest to it. A is the effective tension area of concrete surrounding the flexural tension reinforcement and having the same centroid as that reinforcement, divided by the number of bars or wires.

w max = 1.08β c f s d c A × 10 5

3

1622

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 (a) Section A. (c) Section C. (b)

(a) Section A.

Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 (a) Section A. (c) Section C. (b) Section B. (d) Section

(c) Section C.

27 (2005) 1613–1624 (a) Section A. (c) Section C. (b) Section B. (d) Section D. (e)

(b) Section B.

1613–1624 (a) Section A. (c) Section C. (b) Section B. (d) Section D. (e) Section E.

(d) Section D.

(a) Section A. (c) Section C. (b) Section B. (d) Section D. (e) Section E. Fig.

(e) Section E.

Fig. 13. Moment–curvature curve.

As shown in Fig. 17, the crack width curve of the test results is similar to that of CEB-FIP 78 and EC 2. However, the crack width of the test result is somewhat larger than that of Gergely–Lutz equation. It is considered that crack widths of the composite girder with prefabricated slabs were more enlarged in weak surfaces of construction joints. Moreover, crack spacing is decisively influenced by transverse reinforcement spacing. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the existence of construction joints and the influence of transverse reinforcement spacing on the crack spacing in the calculation of crack widths. Also, it is considered that a safety factor or an enlargement factor for

estimation of maximum crack width of a plate girder bridge with prefabricated slabs with loop joints is needed.

4. Conclusions

From the experimental study, it is concluded that:

1. Initial crack spacing of the slab in the composite girder with prefabricated slabs can be wider than those of general RC beam structures.

2. Initial cracking can occur earlier than calculation because there are construction joint surfaces between a precast

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

1623

et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624 1623 Fig. 14. Position of omega gauges and

Fig. 14. Position of omega gauges and strain gauges.

1623 Fig. 14. Position of omega gauges and strain gauges. Fig. 15. Moment–steel strain curve. Fig.

Fig. 15. Moment–steel strain curve.

and strain gauges. Fig. 15. Moment–steel strain curve. Fig. 16. Moment–crack width curve. panel and a

Fig. 16. Moment–crack width curve.

panel and a transverse joint that is a cast-in-place part in slabs; thus the construction joint surfaces should be cautiously maintained and cleaned before casting. 3. It is considered that crack spacing is mainly dependent on the transverse reinforcement spacing. 4. The moment–curvature relationship or the flexural stiffness defined in Eurocode 4-2 can be applied well to

stiffness defined in Eurocode 4-2 can be applied well to Fig. 17. Steel stress versus crack

Fig. 17. Steel stress versus crack width.

the composite plate girder with loop joint prefabricated slabs. 5. It is considered that crack widths of the composite girder with prefabricated slabs were more enlarged in weak surfaces of construction joints. Moreover, the crack spacing is decisively influenced by transverse reinforcement spacing. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the existence of construction joints and the influence of transverse reinforcement spacing on the crack spacing in the calculation of crack width.

Acknowledgement

This study is a part of projects “Bridge 200”. The authors would like to thank the Korea Institute of Construction Technology.

References

[1] Randl E, Johnson RP. Widths of initial cracks in concrete tension flanges of composite beams. In: IABSE proceedings P-54/82. 1982. p. 69–80.

1624

H.-K. Ryu et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1613–1624

[2] Navarro MG, Lebet JP. Concrete cracking in composite bridges: tests, models and design proposals. Structural Engineering International

2001;184–90.

[3] Ramm W, Elz S. Behaviour and cracking of slabs as part of composite beams in regions with negative bending moments. In: Composite construction in steel and concrete III, proceedings of an engineering foundation conference, ASCE. 1996. p. 871–886. [4] Shim CS, Chang SP. Cracking of continuous composite beams with precast decks. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2003;59:

201–14.

[5] Ryu HK, Chang SP, Kim YJ, Joo BC. Experimental works on precast concrete beams with loop joints, In: EASEC-9 (The ninth East Asia- Pasific conference on structural engineering and construction). 2003. Paper No. 075.

[6] Korea Highway Standard Specification. Korea Ministry of Construc- tion and Transportation, 2000. [7] Kim JH, Shim CS, Matsui S, Chang SP. The effect of bedding layer on the strength of shear connection in full depth precast deck. Third Quarter Engineering Journal, AISC 2002;39(3). [8] EUROCODE 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures, part 2. Composite bridges. DD ENV 1994-2. BSI. [9] Ghali A, Favre R. Concrete structures (stresses and deformation). Chapman and Hall; 1994. [10] EUROCODE 2. Design of concrete structures. DD ENV 1992-1-1.

BSI. [11] Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary and notes. ACI 318-99. 1999.

[12]

AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.SI units, 2nd ed.1998.