Vnh f'c

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 ACI3187 AASHTO LRFD5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Avhfy bvsf' c AASHTO STD8 Mattock9 Loov and Patnaik6

Fig. 8. Comparison of interface shear capacity predicted by various methods.59

though it is recognized that some of the loads are introduced to the first component of the member only, before composite action takes effect. For example, for composite bridge girders with no shoring, the girder weight and the deck weight are introduced before the deck concrete has gained sufficient strength to act compositely with the girder. For the composite haunch being considered in this paper, the load combination for calculating the shear flow is a function of the construction sequence and use of temporary supports. While it may be justifiable to use only the loads after composite action is effected, it is more conservative and simpler to use the full dead- and live-load combination. The overestimated loads adopted in this fashion assure designers that design for interface shear is not less conservative than design for flexural strength. It should be recognized that shear failures are generally nonductile failures. Interface (Horizontal) Shear Resistance Table 1 summarizes the common formulas for nominal interface shear strength between the concrete bridge girder and the cast-in-place deck slab. Table 1 shows only the case of an intentionally roughened interface with
SeptemberOctober 2007

minimum horizontal shear reinforcement provided. All methods are fundamentally based on variations of the shear friction theory with empirical coefficients. Except for Loov and Patnaiks method,6 the interface shear capacity is not calculated as a function of the concrete compressive strength fc' . Figure 8 shows a comparison of the interface shear strength predicted by various methods. The interface shear prediction methods were compared with test results from the literature (Fig. 9).926 Due to the significant scatter in the test results, it appears that a simple lower-bound prediction method would be most appropriate in design. The AASHTO LRFD5 method seems to fit this criterion better than the other prediction methods presented. Forthcoming text will discuss this further, based on the testing in this research.

pressive strength of the precast concrete girders is 10 ksi (70 MPa). The girders are designed to act compositely with an 8-in.-thick (200 mm), 4 ksi (30 MPa), cast-in-place concrete slab. The Example: Proposed Bridge Construction Sequence In the initial phase of the construction sequence, each of the haunch blocks is installed on the corresponding pier. Temporary shimming near the ends is also provided. The pier segments are then installed over the haunch blocks, and concrete is pumped into the pocket to complete the connection between the girder and the haunch block. Span segments are installed next. The span segments in the end spans are installed first, followed by the installation of the span segments in the interior span. The joints between the segments are filled with concrete, and when the concrete gains adequate strength, posttensioning is applied and the temporary towers are removed. After post-tensioning, the deck slab concrete is formed and placed. Three 3.75-in.-diameter (95 mm) ducts are used for post-tensioning. Each duct contains fifteen 0.6-in.-diameter (15 mm) strands (Fig. 10). The span segments are pretensioned with forty85

INteRface SheaR CaLcULatiON fOR PROpOsed BRidge

The bridge shown in Fig. 2 was used in the analysis. Figure 10 shows the cross-sectional reinforcement details for an interior girder line. The com-