Connection of Simple-Span Precast Concrete Girders for Continuity (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2004 www.TRB.org NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 519 Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration SUBJECT AREAS Bridges, Other Structures, and Hydraulics and Hydrology Connection of Simple- Span Precast Concrete Girders for Continuity RICHARD A. MILLER University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH REID CASTRODALE Ralph Whitehead Associates Charlotte, NC AMIR MIRMIRAN North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC AND MAKARAND HASTAK Purdue University West Lafayette, IN

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 519 Project 12-53 FY ’99 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 0-309-08793-7 Library of Congress Control Number 2004105765 © 2004 Transportation Research Board Price $27.00 NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 519 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, NCHRP DAVID B. BEAL, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Managing Editor ANDREA BRIERE, Associate Editor NCHRP PROJECT C12-53 PANEL Field of Design—Area of Bridges RAYMOND T. SHAEFER, Dupont, WA (Chair) YASSIN I. ASKAR, South Carolina DOT RICHARD D. ELLIOTT, Kansas DOT STEVEN L. ERNST, FHWA MARK HOLLORAN, Tennessee DOT ALAN B. MATEJOWSKY, HDR Engineering, Pflugerville, TX DAVID H. SANDERS, University of Nevada–Reno BRIAN G. THOMPSON, Pennsylvania DOT JOEY HARTMANN, FHWA Liaison Representative STEPHEN F. MAHER, TRB Liaison Representative AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was performed under NCHRP Project 12-53 by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Univer- sity of Cincinnati. Dr. Richard Miller was the principal investiga- tor. Co-investigators were Dr. Reid Castrodale of Ralph Whitehead Associates, Dr. Amir Mirmiran of North Carolina State University, and Dr. Makarand Hastak of Purdue University. The research team included University of Cincinnati faculty member Michael Base- heart; technicians Robert Muench, Art Case, and Dave Kruezeman; and graduate research assistants Amy Dimmerling, Michael Slack, Angela Mueller, Ronak Shah, Siddharth Kulkarni, R. Ramachan- dran, and A. Deshini. The research team is indebted to Prestressed Services of Mel- bourne, KY, for allowing the use of its facilities for the experimen- tal work. The research team would like to thank Don Bosse, Joe Roche, Chris Fuchs, Gene Johnson, and all the workers at PSM for their help and cooperation. Finally, the research team would like to thank NCHRP Program Officer David Beal and the members of the NCHRP 12-53 Panel: Raymond Shaefer (Chair), Yassin Askar, Richard Elliott, Steven Ernst, Mark Holloran, Alan Matejowsky, David Sanders, Brian Thompson, and Joey Hartmann.

This report contains the findings of research to develop recommended details and specifications for the design of continuity connections for precast concrete girders. Examples illustrating the design of four precast girder types made continuous for live load were also developed. The material in this report will be of immediate interest to bridge designers. Many states make precast/prestressed girder bridges continuous using a cast-in- place connection between girders over the piers. Compared with simple-span bridges, continuous bridges require less expansion joint maintenance, have improved seismic performance, and have reduced bending moments. Although bridges constructed in this fashion have been in service for many years in a number of states, there had been lim- ited verification of the ability of the connection to provide predicted continuity. As a result, some states design the girders as simple spans for both dead load and live load, neglecting any moment resistance of the connection. The objective of this project was to recommend details and specifications for the design of durable and constructible connections that achieve structural continuity between simple-span precast/prestressed concrete girders. The report’s recommenda- tions are based on experimental verification of the effectiveness of the continuity connection, considering significant variables such as concrete placement sequence, reinforcement details, concrete properties, diaphragm cracking, and beam depth. Specifications and connection details to achieve the full benefits of continuity are rec- ommended based on physical testing and analysis. The research was performed by the University of Cincinnati, with the assistance of Ralph Whitehead Associates, Amir Mirmiran, and Makarand Hastak. The report fully documents the research leading to the recommended details and specifications. Detailed design examples are included as appendixes. FOREWORD By David B. Beal Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

S-1 SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Research Approach Problem Statement and Research Objectives, 1 Objective of the Study, 3 Research Approach, 3 4 CHAPTER 2 Findings Summary of the Surveys, 4 Literature Review, 5 Girder Cracking in Alabama, 7 Initial Analytical Studies, 8 Experimental Studies, 10 Full-Size Specimens, 20 Negative Moment Capacity, 39 Finite Element Modeling, 39 46 CHAPTER 3 Interpretation, Appraisal, and Application Capacity of Connection Details, 46 Bridge Behavior, 47 Effect of Different Configurations on the Connection, 49 Discussion on Implications of Seismic Events on Continuity Connections, 49 51 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research Conclusions, 51 Comparisons with Previous Research, 52 Proposed Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 53 Suggested Future Research, 54 55 REFERENCES A-1 APPENDIX A RESTRAINT Program B-1 APPENDIX B Details of the Experimental Program C-1 APPENDIX C Proposed Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications D-1 APPENDIX D Design Examples E-1 APPENDIX E Summary Data CONTENTS