IBSBI 2011, October 13-15, 2011, Athens, Greece

DESIGN OF LONG-SPAN BRIDGES WITH

CONVENTIONAL REINFORCED CONCRETE DECKS
Ioannis A. Tegos
1
and Stergios A. Mitoulis
2

1,2
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Greece
e-mail: itegos@civil.auth.gr, mitoulis@civil.auth.gr


ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the applicability of conventionally
reinforced concrete decks in long-span bridges, i.e. in bridge decks without
prestressing tendons. A bridge actually built almost a decade ago by the Egnatia
Highway SA, which lies along the Northern Part of Greece, was used as the
benchmark bridge for the investigation. The analysis and design of the real
bridge was performed according to the codes existing during the bridge final
design. he bridge was re-designed according to Eurocodes utilizing a
conventionally reinforced concrete deck by adopting Eurocodes class D. The
study verified that the concrete sections with only ordinary strength steel can be
utilized in bridges with span lengths up to 46 m.

KEY WORDS: Bridge; Exposure Class D; Eurocode; Ordinary Strength Steel;
RC deck.

1 INTRODUCTION
Integral abutment and integral pier bridges are jointless bridge structures, whose
deck is rigidly connected to both the abutments and the piers. They improve
aesthetics and earthquake resistance towards the traditional systems with
expansion joints, which permit thermal expansion and contraction, creep, and
shrinkage. The increased cost of maintenance or replacement [1] of these faulty
expansion joints, along with the initial cost of their design, manufacture, and
installation, led to the advancement of the case for integral abutment bridges,
which are compatible with conventionally reinforced concrete decks.
The final design of bridges takes into account the influence of the bridge
classification, as defined by the exposure classes A, , C and D of Eurocode 2
Part 2 [2]. Bridge design and is strongly related to the classification used during
analysis as it reflects on the bridge structural cost and the long-term condition,
namely the durability, of the bridge.
The use of ordinary steel for reinforcement for the design of long span bridges,
without prestressing tendons, which leads to the compulsory adoption of an
exposure class A or B, was also studied, in terms of constructability and cost-
effectiveness. An investigation was conducted in order to identify the
2 Proceedings IBSBI 2011

applicability of conventionally reinforced concrete decks in long-span bridges,
i.e. in long bridge deck spans without using prestressing tendons. The selection
of the bridge exposure class is strongly affected by the serviceability needs of
the deck that is related to the allowance for deck cracking or not. It is noted that
the erection of bridges with conventionally reinforced decks, i.e. without
prestressing, longer than 20m is a relatively demanding construction. This is
due to the fact that the ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement at splices results
high and additionally the depth of the deck cross section, which is needed in
order to control the decks deflection, is typically large.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BENCHMARK BRIDGE GENERAL
The investigation utilised an as-built bridge as benchmark. The bridge of
Kleidi-Kouloura belongs to Egnatia Motorway that runs across Northern
Greece. It is a cast-in-situ structure with a total of three spans and a total length
equal to 135.8 m. Figure 1 illustrates the longitudinal section of the bridge and
the cross sections of the box-girder deck, the pier and its foundation. The deck
of the bridge has a constant height of 2.18 m, while prestressing consists of
tendons 20x19T15 (20 tendons of 19 wires with diameter 15mm each) with a
parabolic geometry. The bridge has a seat-type abutment on which the deck is
supported through two sliding bearings, while is rigidly connected to the piers.
The clearance between the deck slab and the backwall is bridged by an
expansion joint with a movement capacity of 100 mm. The bridge has an agle
of skew equal to 63.4
o
, as shown in Figure 2.

2.18
6.00
0
.6
0
13.50
A1 P1 P2 A2
KOULOURA KLEIDI
45.10
135.80
45.60 45.10
9.50 9.50
2.0m
Deck at the midspan
Pier
Foundation
3.00
7.50
2.00
1.00 22.50
2.00

Figure 1. Geometric layout of Kleidi-Kouloura Bridge.

Figure 2. Plan view of Kleidi-Kouloura Bridge.

I.A. Tegos and S.A. Mitoulis 3
3 DECK DESIGN WITH ORDINARY STRENGTH STEEL
The last decade an intense effort and research was conducted to utilize ordinary
strength steel in bridge decks. This is due to the need for rigid deck to abutment
and deck to pier connections that allow the dissipation of part of the induced
seismic energy through hysteretic behavior of the abutments and the piers.
Design of conventionally reinforced bridge decks also eliminates the
disturbance caused by the prestressing tendons during construction. In this
framework an investigation was conducted to identify the constructability of
long spans, up to 46.0 m, by utilising only ordinary strength steel, i.e. without
prestressing tendons. In order to achieve such a design alternative, the cross
section of the bridge deck was selected to be a void-slab, as shown in Fig. 5.

0.45
6.80 5.75
14.45
1.75
2.60 2.40
9.70
0.35
1.25
0.30
1.25
0.30
1.25
0.30
1.25
0.30
1.25
0.30
1.25
0.35
2.40
1.80
2.40

Figure 3. Cross section of the void-slab deck at the mid-span.

The use of conventional strength steel reinforcement for the erection of long
span bridge spans is restrained due to the reasons underlined in the introduction.
However, the preliminary design of the reinforced concrete deck that was
attempted in this study was based on the codes prescriptions [2][3]. The
selection of the void-slab bridge gave an acceptable longitudinal reinforcement
ratio at splices, as shown in Figure 6 and 7. The scaling and the layout of the
reinforcement with bars of 14.0m long, as shown in figures 8 and 9, and the use
of bundled bars was found to facilitate the cast of concrete. The shear action
was receiver by appropriate ratio of shear reinforcement. The control of the
deflection was achieved by the resulting hyperstatic bridge system.
4 THE BRIDGE DECK
The bridge deck is connected rigidly to the piers. The cross section of the deck
is solid over the piers, which means that is has no voids. Solid deck sections
extend to a distance equal to 2d=21.75 =3.50 m at both sides of the piers,
where d is the depth of the decks cross section. The cross section of the deck is
also solid over the abutments and extends to a distance equal to 1.5d=2.65 m
from the support. The reason why the deck cross section was designed to be
solid over the supports (i.e. abutments and piers) is that the punching shear
4 Proceedings IBSBI 2011

loading of the deck, due to the concentrated loads, was found to be more critical
than the corresponding shear loading. This is due to the fact that the piers
diameter that is 2.0 m, is smaller than 3.5 times the depth of the decks cross
section, which is equal to 3.5d = 3.5d = 6.15 m. Additionally, the typical
favorable influence of prestressing is not developed, due to the fact that only
ordinary strength reinforcement bars were used for the deck.
5 MODELING
Modeling of the deck of the bridge was attempted by shell elements of SAP
2000 [4].

piers fixed at foundation
solid deck section
void-slab
deck section
solid deck section
piers
cantilever slabs
1

Figure 4. The model of the bridge with the shell elements.

6 BENDING DEFLECTION AT MID-SPAN
The calculation of the decks vertical deflection was performed assuming that
the bridge deck is cracked, i.e. the effective stiffness of the deck was calculated.
It was found that the high ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement is favorable for
the stiffness of the long span of the deck. The stiffness of the deck is equal to
K
II,eff
= 0.69E
cm
J
c
. The deflection of the deck was then calculated equal to 170
mm namely equal to L/264=45.6m/264, which is acceptable.
7 DESIGN OF THE BRIDGE DECK
The deck belongs to class D according to Eurocode 2 Part 2 [2] in both the
longitudinal and the transverse direction. Table 1 shows the bending moments
and the total reinforcement requirement of the deck against the ultimate limit
state loading.

Table 1. The bending moments and the longitudinal reinforcement at the mid-
span and at the support.
Bending Moment (MNm) Longitudinal reinforcement area (cm
2
)
Central span 61.88 882.34
Support -65.50 970.26
I.A. Tegos and S.A. Mitoulis 5
8 REINFORCEMENT SCALING AND LAYOUT
The reinforcement of the bridge deck was designed in a manner to avoid
longitudinal reinforcement splicing at deck flanges that are in tension, i.e.
splicing of the reinforcement bars is avoided were the bending moments are
positive at the spans and negative at the supports. Single or bundled bars
appropriately scaled were utilised under the following concept:
(a) The reinforcement laps were set in a manner that the maximum length of the
reinforcement bars, that is 14.0m, is a multiple of the required lap lengths of the
20mm bars. This was achieved by determining the maximum allowed ratio of
the longitudinal reinforcements, which is the upper bound set by the code [5]
and is related to the reinforcement to concrete bond conditions, the diameter of
the bar and the grain size, which is the nominal maximum aggregate size. Then
the n parameter was defined, which was the integer part of the maximum bar
length (14.0m) divided by the required lap length. Then, n groups of bars were
utilised, which were set in the transverse direction of the deck cross section
according to Figures 5 to 8. For example the in case of 20 reinforcement bars
and for a maximum grain size 16 mm, groups of 20 bars, from which 19 are
effective as shown in Figure 5, can be utilised, according to Figures 5 and 6, for
the bottom flange of the deck, where the bond conditions are good. For a slight
over-reinforcing of the deck, i.e. the use of a longitudinal reinforcement ratio
only 5.3% greater than the one allowed by Eurocode 2 Part 1 [5], it was found
that reinforcement splices can be avoided.

8.1 Single bar reinforcement
Single bars can be used for the reinforcement of the top flange of the deck, i.e.
at decks supports, where the bonding conditions are unfavorable and hence the
reinforcement lap lengths are large. The groups of bars consist of 14
reinforcement bars, from which 13 are effective, Figures 5 to 8. This led to a
7.7% overdesign. It is noted though that this over-reinforcing is much smaller
than the one that would be needed in case the codes splices were applied.

8.2 Bundled bars
(b) The use of bundled bars according to Eurocode 2 [5] and EKOS 2000
section 17.12 [6] is deemed to be a design alternative in case of more
demanding deck reinforcements. The spacing between the bar bundles and the
lap lengths are determined by the equivalent diameter
n
of the bundled bars.
Figures 9 to 12 illustrate the reinforcement scaling and layout in case bundled
bars 220 are used for the reinforcement of the deck at the mid-span and at the
supports.



6 Proceedings IBSBI 2011

1 to 20
e
e-Obar >
Ograin + 5mm
20mm
x
2x
3x
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
laps lp=700mm
mid-span
L=14 m
1
transverse axis at the

Figure 5. Reinforcement scaling with single bars 20 of the deck at the mid-span (the scale is
distorted) (where x is the reinforcement lap and e is the spacing of the bars).

O10/150 O10/150
O20/43
18O20 16O20
14O20
O14/150
O10/150

Figure 6. Cross section of the deck with the single-bar reinforcement layout at the mid-span .

transverse axis at the
1 to 14 L=14 m
b
e
e
x
2x
3x
x
2x
3x
11
2
4
3
9
10
5
6
7
8
1 L=14 m
14
13
12

Figure 7. Reinforcement scaling with single bars 20 of the deck at the support (the scale is
distorted), (where x is the reinforcement lap and e is the spacing of the bars).

O20/43 O20/43 16O20 16O20 O20/43 6O20
O14/150
O14/150
O14/150
O10/150
O10/150
O10/150 O10/150

Figure 8. Cross section of the deck with the single-bar reinforcement layout at the support.
I.A. Tegos and S.A. Mitoulis 7
transverse axis at the
2
3
4
L=14 m 1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
L=14 m to 1 14
x
2x
3x
mid-span
e
e
e-2O>
grain
20 2 mm laps lb=x=1.0m
x
2x
3x

Figure 9. Reinforcement scaling with bundled bars 220 of the deck at the mid-span (the scale is
distorted) (where x is the reinforcement lap and e is the spacing of the bundled bars).

O10/150
20O20
2O20/75
6O20 2O20/75 2O20/75 6O20
O10/150 O10/150
6O20
O14/150

Figure 10. Cross section of the deck with the bundled bar reinforcement layout at the mid-span.

transverse axis at the
to 1 10 L=14 m
x
2x
3x
e
e
laps lb=1.40m
1 L=14 m
2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
10

Figure 11. Reinforcement scaling with bundled bars 220 of the deck at the support.

O10/150
O14/150
2O20/75
8O20
2O20/75
18O20
2O20/75
6O20
O14/150

Figure 12. Cross section of the deck with the bundled bar reinforcement layout at the support.
8 Proceedings IBSBI 2011

9 CONCLUSIONS
The applicability of conventionally reinforced concrete decks in long-span
bridges, i.e. in bridge decks without using prestressing tendons, was studied
utilising a benchmark bridge actually built along the Egnatia Highway. The
study came up to the following conclusions:
The deck of the bridge can be reinforced with bundled bars. It was found that
14x220 and 10x220 were found to be adequate for the decks mid-span
and supports correspondingly. The checks showed that concrete with a
maximum grain size 31 mm can be used. The over-reinforcing steel is up to
8 % at the mid-span and 11 % at the support.
An alternative reinforcement layout is the use of bar groups of 20 bars and
14 bars for the decks mid-span and support respectively. In that case
concrete with a maximum grain size 16 mm can be used, while the over-
reinforcing steel is up to 5 % and 8 % for the decks mid-span and supports
correspondingly.
As far as its concerns the deflection of the deck it was found that the decks
deformation is acceptable, despite the fact that no prestressing was utilised
and due to the use of high longitudinal reinforcement ratios.
The use of more steel bars aiming at avoiding reinforcement splices, was up
to 11%. The last overuse of steel was found to be less than the corresponding
overuse that would be needed in the conventional design case with
reinforcement splices.
This paper shed light on the reinforced bridge and showed that the use of
only ordinary strength steel can be a design alternative for long span bridges.

REFERENCES
[1] Mitoulis SA, Tegos IA, Stylianidis K-C., Cost-effectiveness related to the earthquake
resisting system of multi-span bridges, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, Isuue 9, pp. 2658-
2671, 2010.
[2] EN 1992-2 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-Part 2: Bridges, 2004.
[3] DIN-Fachbericht 102, Betonbrcken, DIN Deutsches Institut fuer Normung e.V, 2003.
[4] Computers and Structures INC. SAP 2000. Nonlinear Ver. 11.0.4. Users Reference Manual,
Berkeley, California; 2002.
[5] EN 1992-1 Eurocode 2 - Part 1: Design of concrete building and civil engineering structures,
2004.
[6] Ministry of Environment, Land Planning and Public Works of Greece. Greek code for the
design of reinforced concrete structures, (EKOS-2000), Athens, (In Greek), 2000.