Multi-beam bridges made from precast concrete box girders are one of the most common bridge types used in the United States. One problem that affects these bridges is the development of longitudinal or reflective cracks on the road surface because of failure of the shear keys. Some states have attempted to correct this problem by redesigning the shear key or adding post-tensioning, but the problem persists in many new bridges. The purpose of this study is to investigate why these shear key failures are occurring. This project studies two types of box girder designs, the common Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) box girder bridges and the Texas Department of Tranportation (TxDOT) box girder bridge. In the past, reflective cracking has occurred in bridges of both types. The analysis procedure involves finite element analyses of bridge models with realistic support and loading conditions, and comparing the PCI and TxDOT bridges. The results indicate that both PCI and TxDOT box girder have sufficient strength to resist cracking from vehicular loads, but uneven temperature changes and shrinkage strains cause high tensile stresses in the shear key regions and lead to reflective cracking. The analyses showed the highest stresses were often times near the supports, rather than at midspan. Past studies have proposed using larger composite deck slabs, transverse posttensioning, or full-depth shear keys to prevent shear key failure. Composite slabs were the most effective way to reduce high stresses in shear keys, and were effective for all loading cases considered. Post-tensioning and full-depth keys also showed a reduction in shear key stresses, but were less effective.

This research study is aimed at assisting the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in making a transition from the use of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for the design of prestressed concrete bridges. It was identified that Type C and AASHTO Type IV are among the most common girder types used by TxDOT for prestressed concrete bridges. This study is specific to these two types of bridges. Guidelines are provided to tailor TxDOT's design practices to meet the requirements of the LRFD Specifications. Detailed design examples for an AASHTO Type IV girder using both the AASHTO Standard Specifications and AASHTO LRFD Specifications are developed and compared. These examples will serve as a reference for TxDOT bridge design engineers. A parametric study for AASHTO Type IV and Type C girders is conducted using span length, girder spacing, and strand diameter as the major parameters that are varied. Based on the results obtained from the parametric study, two critical areas are identified where significant changes in design results are observed when comparing Standard and LRFD designs. The critical areas are the transverse shear requirements and interface shear requirements, and these are further investigated. The interface shear reinforcement requirements are observed to increase significantly when the LRFD Specifications are used for design. New provisions for interface shear design that have been proposed to be included in the LRFD Specifications in 2007 were evaluated. It was observed that the proposed interface shear provisions will significantly reduce the difference between the interface shear reinforcement requirements for corresponding Standard and LRFD designs.The transverse shear reinforcement requirements are found to be varying marginally in some cases and significantly in most of the cases when comparing LRFD designs to Standard designs. The variation in the transverse shear reinforcement requirement is attributed to differences in the shear models used in the two specifications. The LRFD Specifications use a variable truss analogy based on the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT). The Standard Specifications use a constant 45-degree truss analogy method for its shear design provisions. The two methodologies are compared and major differences are noted.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2010. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 169-172). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.Eng.)--Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2001. / Bibliography: leaves 135-140.

Thesis (M.S.)--West Virginia University, 2004. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains xii, 168 p. : ill. (some col.). Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 165-168).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Lehigh University, 2003. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 210-215).

Thesis (M. Phil.)--University o9f Hong Kong, 1989.

As part of the ongoing research on shear at the Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory (FSEL) located at The University of Texas at Austin, the anchorage controlled shear capacity of prestressed concrete bridge girders was in this research studied in two distinct ways, experimentally and analytically. The results of this research are an important step towards improving understanding of strand anchorage related issues. For the experimental program, two full-scale Tx46 prestressed concrete bridge girders were fabricated at FSEL. The Tx46 girders were topped with a concrete, composite deck. Both ends of the two girders were instrumented and tested. For the analytical program, a new Anchorage Evaluation Database (AEDB) was developed, by filtering and expanding the University of Texas Prestressed Concrete Shear Database (UTPCSDB), and then evaluated. The AEDB contained 72 shear tests, of which 25 were anchorage failures and 47 were shear failures. The results and analysis from the experimental and analytical programs generated the following three main conclusions: (1) A reasonable percentage of debonding in Tx Girders does not have a marked impact on girder shear capacity calculated using the 2010 AASHTO LRFD General Procedure. (2) The AASHTO anchorage equation is conservative but not accurate. In other words, this equation cannot be used to accurately differentiate between a shear failure and an anchorage failure. In regards to conservativeness, anchorage failures in AASHTO-type girders may lead to unconservative results with respect to the 2010 AASHTO LRFD General Procedure. (3) The 2010 AASHTO anchorage resistance model and its corresponding equation do not apply to Tx Girders. Because of the Tx Girders' wider bottom flange, cracks do not propagate across the strands as they do in AASHTO-type girders. This fact yields overly conservative results for Tx Girders with respect to AASHTO Equation 5.8.3.5-1. In summary, this research uncovered the short-sided nature of the AASHTO anchorage design method. Given its short-comings, there is an obvious need for a validated, comprehensive, and rational approach to anchorage design that considers strength and serviceability. To appropriately develop this method, additional full-scale experimental testing is needed to expand the AEDB, as currently there are not enough tests to distinguish major, general trends and variables. Any future additional research would be expected to further validate and expand the significant findings that this research has produced and so take the next step toward safer, more-efficient bridge designs. / text

published_or_final_version / Mechanical Engineering / Master / Master of Philosophy

No description available.