COMPOSITE STEEL-FREE DECK BRIDGES: STATE-OF-THE-ART

AND PROPOSED NUMERICAL MODELLING

Adel H. Salem1 , Mohamed A. El-Aghoury2 , Ezzeldin Y. Sayed-Ahmed 3 , Tarek S. Moustafa 4

ABSTRACT

Steel-Free Deck Composite Bridges system has been investigated during the past two
decades. The concept is totally new and innovative. The new structural system enables the
construction of a concrete deck that is totally devoid of all internal steel reinforcement.
Traditionally, reinforced concrete bridge decks are designed to sustain loads in flexure. The
new innovative bridges with steel-free decks develop internal compressive forces “internal
arching” which leads to failure by punching shear at substantially higher loads than the
flexural design load. Five composite bridges have been recently constructed in Canada
adopting this new concept. The deck slab is built using fibre reinforced concrete to control
cracking due to shrinkage, creep and temperature variation effects. The deck is attached to the
steel girders through flexible shear connectors. The steel girders are transversely tied together
by steel straps and cross frames. In this paper, the bridges built to-date with this new
technology are presented. A 3-D finite element model is adopted to study the behaviour of
each structural component of the bridge. The model accounts for both material and geometric
non-linearities. The model is verified against experimental results performed earlier by
others. The model and its verified results are discussed in this paper.

Key Words: Composite Bridge, Finite Element, Fibre Reinforced Concrete, Steel-free Deck.

1
Professor Emeritus, Structural Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
2
Professor, Structural Engineering Depart., Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
3
Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University,Cairo, Egypt
4
MSc. Student, Structural Engineering Dept, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
 INTRODUCTION

Until early eighties, most of the highway composite bridges were designed according to the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
specification. At this time, the AASHTO specification considers the deck slab of the bridge to
behave in pure flexure (Batchelor, 1978) where the term deck slab describes the concrete slab
of a composite girder.

The Canadian Ministry of Transportation in Ontario sponsored extensive research towards

the behaviour of composite bridges. The research was conducted with the help of both
laboratory models and field-testing of bridges deck slabs. Internal arching action was found
to be more significant than flexure behaviour of the concrete slab deck. The research
confirmed that the amount of steel reinforcement in deck slabs could be reduced considerably
by taking into account this internal arching action.

The earlier edition of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC, 1979) permitted
the design of deck slabs by an empirical method that is based on the behaviour of deck slabs
in pure flexure. According to this specification, reinforcement is required in two meshes with
each mesh consisting of orthogonal bars to resist flexure. The current edition of OHBDC
(1992) considers the arching action of the deck slabs. It requires the slab to have a minimum
thickness of 225 mm and a minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.3% in each direction in each
mesh. The minimum thickness of 225 mm relates to the extra concrete cover required to
protect the steel reinforcement from corrosion, which leads to concrete spalling exposing the
steel reinforcement and resulting-in more corrosion of the steel.

After a careful survey of a series of load tests, Agarwal (1990) concluded that the crack
patterns on the soffits of deck slabs are independent of their method of design. For example,
the crack patterns in a ten-year old, 190 mm thick, deck slab designed for bending are shown
in Figure 1a. The slab is supported on steel plate girders spaced at 2.4 m. On the other hand,
the crack patterns in another ten-year old, 190 mm thick, slab designed for arching are shown
in Figure 1b. The slab is supported on prestressed girders spaced at 2.7 m. It is evident from
Figure 1 that the crack patterns in the two slabs were virtually identical. This confirms the
economy achieved by the empirical design method of OHBDC (1992) considering the
arching action of deck slabs. Thus, the current AASHTO (1994) specification also permits an
empirical design method for deck slabs, which takes account of the arching action, and is
similar to the empirical method of OHBDC (1992).

a). Slab designed for flexure b). Slab designed for arching
Figure 1. Crack patterns on the soffits of 10 years old 190 mm thick deck slabs

In an effort to eliminate the source of corrosion, i.e. steel reinforcement bars, from the
concrete deck slab, a steel-free deck slab was developed. This new system exploits the
internal arching action in the deck slab to such an extent that the slab does not require any
tensile reinforcement (e.g. Mufti et al., 1993 and Bakht and Mufti, 1996).

It was found that the arching action could be fully harnessed if the slab is confined adequately
in both the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge (Bakht et al., 1998 and Bakht
and Lam, 2000). In the transverse direction, restraining the relative lateral movements of
adjacent girders can produce the required confinement for the deck slab. Figure 2
schematically shows this arching action concept and the transverse confinement, which is
provided by welding steel straps to the top flanges of the steel girders. On the other hand,
connecting the slab to the girders by means of suitable shear connectors provides the required
confinement in the longitudinal direction.

R/C slab designed

Shear for arching
Studs

Strap
Composite
Beams

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the composite steel- free deck slab bridge system

GENERATIONS OF DECK SLABS OF COMPOSITE BRIDGES

The riding surface in a

composite girder bridge is
usually the reinforced
concrete slab. The First
Generation of deck slabs
(Figure 3) was customarily
designed as flexural members
(e.g. OHBDC 1979 and
1983). For this generation, if
the girder spacing is 2.0 m, a
concrete deck slab designed
for flexure usually contains
about 30 kg of steel
reinforcement per m2 of the
slab area. Figure 3. First Generation deck slab

Research conducted about two decades ago identified the beneficial arching action in deck
slabs of composite girder bridges. By taking advantage of this arching action, the amount of
reinforcing steel can considerably be reduced in the deck slabs. This step uncovers the
Second Generation of deck slabs (Figure 4). The OHBDC (1992) specifies an empirical
design method for this generation of deck slabs. This method, which implicitly takes account
of arching action in deck slabs, requires a minimum thickness of the slabs equal to 1/15 of the
girder spacing with a minimum
thickness of 225 mm. The deck
slab should contain two
orthotropic meshes of steel
reinforcement with a minimum
reinforcement ratio in each
direction in each mesh of 0.3%.
Currently, hundreds of Second
Generation deck slabs exist in
composite bridges all over the
world. For this generation, a
girder spacing of up to 3.4 m
yields a steel amount equals 20 Figure 4. Second Generation deck slab
kg per m2 of the slab area.

It is estimated that the empirical design method of the Second Generation of deck slabs,
which considers the arching action, has resulted-in an annual saving in the cost of
reinforcement placed in bridges of Ontario alone of about one million Canadian dollars. This
technique was also adopted in other specifications (e.g. AASHTO, 1994).

Research conducted over eight years in the Technical University of Nova Scotia, Canada, and
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (e.g. Newhook et al. 1995) has led to a complete
utilization of the arching action in deck slabs. It has been found that by harnessing the
arching action suitably, the tensile reinforcement can be eliminated altogether from the deck
slabs. The steel –free deck slabs can be regarded as the Third Generation of deck slabs (Mufti
et al. 1993 and Bakht and Mufti, 1996).

With the help of tests on large, and full- scale laboratory models, it was found that the
arching action in the deck slab depends upon confinement in the longitudinal direction, i.e. in
the direction of girders axes (Bakht et al. 1998), as well as in the transverse direction (Bakht
and Ali, 1998 and Bakht and Lam, 2000). As mentioned earlier, in the longitudinal direction
connecting the slab to the girders by means of suitable mechanical shear connecting devices
provides the required confinement. On the other hand, restraining the deck slab supports
(flanges of the steel beams) Steel- free
from lateral movement Cruciform
deck
normal to the beam axis Strap
provides the transverse Shear studs
confinement (Figure 2). A
third generation deck slab
employing an alternative
scheme for transverse
confinement, which
comprises a cruciform strap Composite
with the cross bars laying
grider
loosely between the shear
connectors, is shown in
Figure 5. Figure 5. Third Generation deck slab

The latest edition of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC, 1996) contains a
new section dealing with fibre reinforced structures: within this section the Third Generation
deck slabs are recognized for the first time. The CHBDC technical Committee 6 (1996) and
the CHBDC (1996) requires:

1. The deck slab thickness should not be less than 1/15 of the girder spacing with a
minimum thickness of 175 mm.
2. The maximum spacing between girders composite with deck slabs is 3.7 m.
3. The top flanges of all the adjacent girders are transversely connected by an external
confining system, comprising straps, with a minimum axial stiffness (MN/m) in the
transverse direction of (135 x strap spacing) for outer panels and (100 x strap spacing)
for inner panels.
4. The maximum spacing between the straps is 1/2 the girder spacing.
5. The strap connection to the girder must withstand the ultimate strength of the strap
according to its yield stress and cross sectional area.
6. Composite diaphragms having adequate flexural rigidity in plane of the slab should
support the transverse edges of the slab. The minimum flexural rigidity of this edge
beam is 3.5 Lu4 (MN.m2 ), where Lu is the unsupported length of the edge beam.
7. The deck slab may have negative tensile reinforcement to resist moments resulting
from loads on deck slab overhangs and load on railing and barrier walls.

For bridge decks with overhangs or barrier walls, to satisfy the seventh requirement, a mesh
of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymers (GFRP) is usually provided as negative reinforcement.
GFRP is commonly used due to its lower cost, easier handling and to hold the main concept
of the steel-free deck slab.

From their experimental investigation and based on the above requirements of the CHBDC
(1996), Bakht et al. (1998) specified a minimum cross sectional area (A in mm) for each strap
as:
F ⋅ S 2 ⋅ Sl ⋅ 109
A = s (1)
E⋅t

Where Fs is a factor equals 5.0 for internal panels and 6.0 for external panels, S is the spacing
between the girders in m, Sl is the spacing between the straps ni m, E is the modulus of
elasticity in MPa and t is the thickness of the deck slab in mm.

COMPOSITE BRIDGES WITH STEEL-FREE DECK SYSTEM CONSTRUCTED TO

DATE

The third generation deck slabs is considered as an innovative bridge system. It enables the
concrete bridge deck to be constructed totally devoid of all the internal steel reinforcement
bars. The design of these structures was based on empirical models, which emanate from
eight years of experimental investigations and tests (Newhook et al 1995, Bakht and Ali
1997, Mufti et al 1999, and Bakht and Lam 2000).

Five bridges have been constructed in Canada adopting this new concept (Bakht et al. 1998
and Bakht and Mufti, 1998). The deck slab is built using fibre reinforced concrete to control
cracking due to shrinkage, creep and temperature variation effects. The deck is attached to the
steel girders through flexible shear connectors. The steel girders are transversely tied together
by steel straps and cross frames. In the following section, the bridges built to date with this
new technology are outlined.
Salmon River Bridge

The first steel-free deck-slab was cast on the

Salmon River Bridge, part of the Trans
Canada 104 Highway near Kemptown in
Nova Scotia – Canada (Newhook and Mufti,
1996). Construction of the bridge, which
consists of two, 31.2 m spans, includes a steel-
free deck over one simple span and a
conventional steel reinforced deck over the
other. Figures 6 and 7 show a schematic
layout of the bridge, the steel girders, details

Figure 6. The Salmon River Bridge: Schematic layout (above) and steel girders (below)
showing shear studs and strap connection details

Figure 7. Cross section of the steel- free deck part of the Salmon River Bridge
of shear studs typically used with steel-free deck composite bridges and half cross section of
the steel-free deck part. Internal arching in the slabs helps in transferring the loads to the
girders. The load is transferred from the deck to the supporting girders in the same way that
an arch transfers loads to supporting columns. Steel straps are welded to the top flanges of the
girders thereby resisting any lateral movement and tie the girders together producing the
required lateral confinement (Figure 7). With no steel inside the concrete, thinner deck could
be designed. The Salmon River steel-free bridge deck has withstood a number of Canadian
winters, and it appears to be defying the conventional approach of building steel-reinforced
bridge decks. Newhook and Mufti (1996) and Newhook et al. (1996a,b) gave more details
about the bridge design and construction. Field assessment of the bridge has been performed
and outlined by Mufti et al. (1996).

Chatham Bridge

In cooperation with ISIS (Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structure) Canada, the Ontario
Ministry of Transportation has rehabilitated the Chatham Bridge crossing Highway 401 to
include the world’s second steel-free concrete deck slab (Figures 8 and 9). The roadway has

Figure 8. Half cross section of the Chatham Bridge.

two lanes of traffic. The bridge has four spans of 13, 20, 20 and 13 m. It is composed of five
girders spaced at 2.134 m. The two outer spans of the bridge have 175 mm thick steel-free
deck slabs while the two inner spans
have 225 mm thick steel-free deck GFRP Grid
slabs. The slabs are transversely
confined with steel straps welded to
the top flanges of the steel girders. A
grid of Glass Fibre Reinforced
Polymer reinforces the 0.82 m
cantilever portions of the deck slab.
With no steel inside the bridge deck to
corrode, the concrete is immune to the Shear studs
damaging effects of chlorides. This in
turn means that bridge decks can be
virtually maintenance free. Mufti et al. Figure 9. Formwork for the Chatham Bridge
(1997) and Ali et al. provided details
about the design, construction and field assessment of the Chatham Bridge.
Crowchild Trail Bridge

Many bridges require upgrading because they were not built to handle the weight of today’s
increased traffic loads. Calgary’s Crowchild Bridge is one such case. The project involved
replacing the existing concrete superstructure with a new composite steel girder bridge
(Tadros et al., 1998). The new 90-m long, 11-m wide bridge carries two lanes of traffic over
its three continuous spans. For the bridge to carry the higher vehicle weight within the
existing limited space, five steel plate girder spaced 2.0 m apart were used (Figures 10 and
11). Initially 225 mm deck slab was designed to Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code
(OHBC). As an alternative, a 185 mm thick steel-free deck slab is used as shown in Figure
10. The deck slab itself is free of reinforcing; five steel girders with welded external steel

Figure 10. Half cross section of the Crowchild Bridge.

straps and cross frames support it. Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) C-bars were used
to provide the continuity and to minimize the transverse cracks of the steel-free deck over the
intermediate bridge piers. Based on the
results of a full-scale model test at the
University of Manitoba, glass FRP C-
bars were also used to reinforce the Strap
cantilever slabs of the bridge. To
reduce surface cracks, the bridge deck
concrete contains short random
polypropylene fibres. The bridge is
also outfitted with remote monitoring
technology: 81 strain gauges, 19
embedded gauges, five thermisters,
three smart glass rebars and two fibre
Figure 11. Straps welded with the shear
optic gauges. Ashrami et al. (1998)
discussed in details the field connectors: Crowchild Bridge.
assessment of the Crowchild Bridge.
Waterloo Creek Bridge

Based on the Mufti et al. (1999) investigation, the Waterloo Creek Bridge was constructed.
The bridge is part of a series of bridges being constructed by the British Columbia Ministry
of Transportation and Highways as part of the new Vancouver Island highway, in the
northern part of the island. The bridge consists of two separate single-span decks, one for the
northbound lanes and one for the southbound lanes, with common abutments. The
northbound structure has a steel-free deck, while the south has a conventional, reinforced
concrete deck. Each deck is about 25 m long and 12 m wide. Figure 12 shows the 190 mm
thick steel-free deck slab, which rests on 5 precast concrete girders spaced at 2.8 m.
Transverse confinement of the steel-free deck was provided by means of studded straps
spaced at 1.25 m. Fifty-three sensors were installed at various locations of the northbound
structure and eleven sensors were installed in the southbound structure.

Figure 12. Half cross section of the Waterloo Creek Bridge

Lindquist Creek Bridge

Forestry bridges in Canada are usually single-lane, single-span structure with two steel plate
girder and a deck of precast reinforced concrete panels, which are made composite with the
girder by means of clusters of studs (Figure 13). The deck panels are provided with circular

Figure 13. Cross section of the Lindquist Creek Bridge.

holes to accommodate the clusters of studs. The holes containing the studs are filed with a
quick setting grout. The bridge can be opened to traffic within 24 hours after the erection of
the steel works. The concept of arching action in deck slabs has led to an alternative to the
reinforced concrete precast panels for such forestry bridges. The alternative, entirely devoid
of tensile reinforcement, is illustrated in Figures 13 and 14 (Sargant et al., 1999). Panels with
a 150 mm crown thickness were
used for the Lindquist Bridge on
a gravel forestry road in British
Columbia. The spacing between
the two steel girders is 3.5 m.
The transverse confinement to
the panels is provided by 25x50
mm studded steel straps at a
spacing of 1.0 m. At their ends,
the straps are embedded in the
precast panels. Figure 14 shows
the construction of this small
bridge.
Figure 14. Construction of the Lindquist Creek
In Table 1, a brief comparison
between the previously Bridge using precast panels.
mentioned five bridges is outlined.

Table 1. Steel- free deck composite bridges constructed to-date (Mufti and Bakht, 1999).

Girders, Slab
Bridge Features
Spacing Thickness
Salmon River Steel plate 200 mm First steel-free deck slab in new construction.
Transverse Confinement: welded steel straps.
2.7m 6% more expensive than conventional slab.
Chatham Steel plate 175 mm First steel-free deck slab used in
rehabilitation.
2.1 m Transverse confinement: welded steel straps.
GFRP for transverse negative bending.
Significantly more expensive than
conventional slab.
Crowchild Steel plate 185 mm First steel-free deck slab on continuous span.
Trail Transverse confinement: studded straps.
2.0 m (GFRP) for transverse negative moments.
Waterloo Precast 190 mm First steel-free deck slab on precast concrete
Creek concrete (Crown) girders.
Transverse confinement: studded straps
2.8 m Nearly the same coast as conventional slab.
Lindquist Steel plate 150 mm First steel-free deck precast panel
Transverse confinement: studded straps
3.5 m embedded in the precast panel
Record girder spacing to minimum thickness
ratio, of 23.3.
30% cheaper than conventional panel.
 NUMERICAL MODELLING OF COMPOSITE STEEL-FREE DECK BRIDGE
SYSTEMS

In order to investigate the behaviour of the new composite bridge system, an expensive, time
consuming and elaborate experimental analyses are required. On the contrary, if a suitable
and trustable finite element model is developed, a wider parametric investigation may be
performed. In the same time, a cut-down on the cost and the time will be achieved using this
numerical model. A finite element model is developed and proposed here for the analysis of
the steel free-deck bridge systems. The model results are verified against results from the
experimental investigation performed earlier by Mufti et al (1993).

Experimental Investigation Used for Finite Element Model Verification

Mufti et al. (1993) tested to failure four half-scale composite bridge superstructures (Figures
15 to 17). The bridge decks composed of cast-in-place steel-free fibre concrete, supported on
steel girders. The dimensions of the 100 mm thick concrete deck are 3.66 m x 2.13 m for the
first three test series and 3.66 x 3.19 m for the fourth series. A hydraulic jack bearing on a
rectangular 127 mm x 254mm steel plate and rubber bearing pad applied a concentrated load
at the centre of the deck slab according to the configurations shown in Figures 15 to 17.
These loading configurations represent a half scale model of the truck tire footprint.

1
Hydraulic jack Hydraulic jack

Steel plate Steel plate

Neoprene pad
Neoprene pad

100 mm

C 200x17
W 460x82
C 200x17 W 460x82

915 mm 915 mm 915 mm 915 mm

530 mm 1067 mm 530 mm

2127 mm 3660 mm

Sec 1-1
1

Figure 15. Schematic presentation of Mufti et al. (1993) test series 1,2 and 3.
In the first test series three intermediate diaphragms connected the steel girders with no
diaphragms existing near the supports (Figure 15). The model failed under a concentrated
load of 173 kN: the mode of failure was not that of pure flexure, nor did it conform to the
punching shear type of failure.

In the second series, Mufti et al. (1993) used diaphragms at the supports. The model failed at
222 kN in practically the same mode as that as the first model. Mufti et al. (1993) provided
no steel straps between the steel girders in series 1 and 2. Thus, there is a lack of transverse
confinement for the deck slab in those two series.

For the third series, diaphragms were made even more substantial. Eight steel straps, spaced
at 457 mm centre to centre, were also welded to the underside of the top flanges of the steel
girder. This diaphragm and straps configuration is very close to the ideal lateral restraint,
which would permit the development of the maximum compressive stress during the
development of the
internal arching Transverse free edge C.L.
mechanism. The first
test on the third series Girder support Steel girder
530
resulted-in a failure by
punching shear at a load
of 4l8 KN. The angle of
the shear cone was Location 3 Location 1 Location 2 1067
close to the typical C.L.
value of 30o . Two other 257
tests were conducted on
457 127 914
the third series to
replicate punching
failure at different load Strap: 64x10 mm
positions (Figure 16). Steel-free deck slab @ 457 mm 530
As the load position
approached the edge of
the deck slab, the mode 1830 1830
of failure changed to a
hybrid mode of flexural
and punching failure Figure 16. Loading configuration of series 3.
due to the lack of 1 Hydraulic jack
confinement in the Steel plate
longitudinal direction. Neoprene pad

Mufti et al used the 100 mm

fourth test series 64x10 mm
(Figure 17) to strap
investigate the ability of C 200x17
the steel-free deck slab W 460x82
to sustain a pair of 530 mm 1067 mm 1067 mm 530 mm
concentrated loads,
which straddle the 3194 mm
girder and cause tensile 1
stress in the concrete
Location 3 Location 1 Location 2
above it. The cross-
457
sectional area of the
straps, the strap spacing
and the loading plate
dimensions were
W 460x82 C 200x17
identical to the previous
three models. The series
resulted in simultaneous 915 mm 915 mm 915 mm
915 mm
punching shear failure
under the two loads, 3660 mm
with each loading pad
carrying 4l8 kN. Thus, Sec 1-1
punching failure of Figure 17. Schematic presentation of test series 4
multi-girder steel-free deck bridges subjected to multi-point loads is possible as long as
adequate lateral confinement is provided. Subsequent tests performed on this series with the
load closer to the transverse free edge yielded a reduced ultimate load due to the lack of
longitudinal confinement (Mufti at al. 1993).

The Proposed Finite Element Model

The proposed finite element model employs four types of elements. The first type is 4-node
shell elements with 6 degrees of freedom per node. The second element type is 2-node beam
elements with 6 degrees of freedom per node. The third element type is 2-node truss elements
with 3 degrees of freedom per node. The fourth element type is 8-node continuum solid
elements with 3 degrees of freedom per node. Shell elements were used to model the steel
girders while continuum solid elements model the steel-free concrete deck. The beam
elements and the truss elements are used to model the cross frames/diaphragms and the straps
respectively. Multi-
Applied Load
point constraint 4352 solid elements
equations are for the concrete deck
introduced to
account for the 18 truss elements
for the steel straps
missing degrees of
freedom (rotation)
between shell/beam
elements and
solid/truss elements.
The model
considers both the
material and
geometric non-
linearties of the 40 beam elements for
concrete deck, the the steel diaphragms
steel girders, the
straps and the cross 2304 shell elements
frames/diaphragms. for the steel beams
A typical model Diaphagms
used to analyse
series 4 of Mufti et Finite element model with
al (1993) tests is the concrete deck removed
shown in Figure 18.
The concrete deck
was modelled using
an initial elastic
modulus of 43 GPa
and Poisson’s ratio
of 0.2. The
nonlinear behaviour
of the concrete is Steel
considered based on bems
an assumed relation Straps
for the axial stress-
Figure 18. Proposed finite element model of Series 4 tests
strain of concrete in
performed by Mufti et al (1993)
compression. An elastic-perfectly plastic model was used for the material behaviour of the
steel girders, the straps and the diaphragms. All of them have an initial elastic modulus of 200
GPa, Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 and yield strength of 300 MPa. The thickness of the concrete deck
is identical to that used by Mufti et al (1993) and equals to 100 mm. The strap cross sectional
area is 640 mm2 and the spacing between them is 457 mm. The finite element package
COSMOS/M is used for pre-processing of the model, equation solution of the finite element
technique and post-processing of the model results.

Verification of the Proposed Finite Element Model

The developed finite element model is verified against results experimentally obtained from
test series 3 and 4 (Mufti et al., 1993).

In order to investigate the behaviour of the model throughout the loading history, the load
displacement curves shown in Figures 19 to 21 are introduced and compared to those
obtained from the experimental tests executed by Mufti et al (1993). Series 4 with Load
Location 1 and Series 3 with Load Locations 1 and 3 are shown as typical examples of the
verification analyses in Figures 19 to 21 (refer to Figures 15 to 17 for Loading locations of
each series). The figures show a good correlation between the finite element model results
and the test data.

450.0

400.0
Finite element
350.0 model results
Applied Load in kN

300.0

250.0
Experimental results of
200.0 Series 3 - load location
1 (Mufti et al ., 1993)
150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Displacement under the load in mm

Figure 19. Verification of the finite element model results for Series 3 at Load Location 1
 450.0

400.0

350.0
Finite element
Applied Load in kN

300.0
model results
250.0

200.0
Experimental results of
150.0 Series 4 - load location 1
100.0 (Mufti et al ., 1993)

50.0

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Displacement under the load in mm
Figure 20. Verification of the finite element model results for Series 4 at Load Location 1

250.0

Experimental results of
200.0 Series 3 - load location 3
(Mufti et al ., 1993)
Applied Load in kN

150.0

100.0
Finite element
model results
50.0

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Displacement under the load in mm

Figure 21. Verification of the finite element model results for Series 3 at Load Location 3
In Table 2, a comparison is also made between the results obtained from the proposed finite
element model and the experimental analyses of Series 3 and 4 with loading location 1 and
Series 3 only with loading location 3 (refer to Figures 15 to 17 for Loading locations 1 and
3). It is evident from Table 2 that the numerical analysis can predict both the failure load and
the displacement of the new system with acceptable accuracy.

Table 2. Numerical model results versus experimental result (Mufti et al 1993).

Load Deformation
Displacement
Series Failure FE to FE to
under the load
Load (KN) Test Results Test Results
at Failure (mm)
Series no. 3 Finite element 406 5.75
97.1 % 96.6 %
Location 1 Test Results 418 5.9
Series no. 4 Finite element 406 6.45
97.1 % 94.8 %
Location 1 Test Results 418 6.8
Series no. 3 Finite element 199 4.55
97.5 % 96.4 %
Location 3 Test Results 204 4.72

SUMMARY

Research on the steel-free deck slabs composite with steel girders proved that the internal
arching action in the deck slab could be harnessed if adequate transverse and longitudinal
confinements are provided to these slabs. Transverse confinement is achieved by connecting
the girders upper flanges by steel straps while longitudinal confinement can be achieved by
using adequate shear studs and cross frames and/or diaphragms. Thus, a new innovative
bridge system is born: steel-free deck composite bridges. The bridges constructed during the
last decade employing this innovative deck were outlined in this paper. Furthermore, a
numerical model based on the finite element technique has been introduced. The model is
verified against the experimental investigations performed by others on the new system. The
model will be used in the future to perform a wide parametric study on steel-free deck
composite bridges to verify the currently used empirical design equations and to study the
general behaviour and failure criteria of the new system of bridges.

REFERENCES

Ali, A., Bakht, B., and Schaefer, J. 1997. Design ad Construction of a Steel-free Deck Slab In
Ontario. Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

Ashrami, S., Cheng, J.J.R., and Alexander, S.D.B. 1998. Field Measurements and
Assessment of the Crowchild Bridge. ISIS Alberta Workshop: Design and Rehabilitation
of Structures Using Fibre Reinforced Polymers, Edmonton Alberta, Canada.

AASHTO, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 1994, LRFD
Bridge Design Specification, Washington, D.C., USA, 1994.
Agrawal, A.C. 1990. Load Testing of New Concrete Bridge Deck Slabs. Developments in
Short and Medium Span Bridge Engineering, CSCE, Montreal, Canada, 1990.

Bakht, B. and Ali, A. 1997. Testing in Isolation of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-
free Deck Slabs. Canadian Journal Of Civil Engineering. Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 789-796.

Bakht, B., and Lam, C. 2000. Behaviour of Transverse Confining System for Steel-free Deck
Slabs. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 139-147.

Bakht, B., and Mufti, A.A. 1996. FRC deck Slabs without Tensile Reinforcement. Concrete
International. Vol 18, No. 2, pp. 514-530.

Bakht B., Mufti, A.A., 1998. Five Steel-Free Bridge Deck Slabs in Canada. Structural
Engineering International, IABSE, Vol. 8, No 3, pp. 196-200.

Bakht, B., Mufti, A.A., Jaeger, L. G. 1998 Design Provision for Steel-Free Deck Slabs.
Proceeding, Fifth International Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges, Calgary,
Canada, October, 1998. CD proceedings.

Batchelor, H. and Csagoly, P. F. 1978. Investigation of the Ultimate Strength of Deck Slabs
of Composite Steel/Concrete Bridges. TRR Record NO. 644. Transportation Research
Board. pp. 162-170.

CHBDC 1996. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Canadian Standard Association,
Raxdale, Ontario, Canada.

CHBDC Technical Committee 6, 1996. Design Provision for Fibre Reinforced Structures in
the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Second International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Montreal, Canada. pp. 767-
776.

Mufti, A.A., and Bakht, B. 1999. Innovative Deck Slabs for Highway and Forestry Bridges.
IABSE Symposium in Rio de Janeiro, Paper 1026.

Mufti A.A., Jaeger, L.G., and Bakht, B. 1997. Field Performance of Steel-free Deck Slab of
Girder Bridges. Proceedings, US-Canada-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering,
Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 236-246.

Mufti A.A., Jaeger, L.G., Bakht, B. and Wegner, L.D. 1993. Experimental Investigation of
FRC Slabs without Internal Steel Reinforcement. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 20, No. 3. pp.398-406.

Mufti, A.A., Newhook, J.P., Jalali, S.J. 1999. Investigation of the Flange Splitting Stresses in
Composite Bridge Beams. Proceedings, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual
Conference, General Conference, Structural Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 41-50.
Mufti, A.A., Newhook, J.P., Mahoney, M.A. 1999. Salmon River Bridge field Assessment.
Proceedings, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference, General
Conference, Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 pp. 51-61.
 Newhook, J.P., Mufti, A.A., and Wegner, L.D. 1995. Fibre Reinforced Concrete Deck Slabs
Without Steel Reinforcement: Half Scale Testing and Mathematical Formulation.
Research Report No. 1-1995. Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of
Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Newhook, J.P. and Mufti, A.A. 1996. A Reinforcing Steel-free Deck Slab for the Salmon
River Bridge. Concrete International. ACI, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 30-34.

Newhook, J.P., Mufti, A.A., and Jaeger, L.G. 1996a. Steel-free Concrete Deck- the Salmon
River Project – Design and Construction. Proceedings, 1st Structural Speciality
Conference, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. pp.
203-214.

Newhook, J.P., Mufti, A.A., and Jaeger, L.G. 1996b. Steel-free Concrete Deck- the Salmon
River Project – Experimental Verification. Proceedings, 1st Structural speciality
Conference, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. pp.
123-133.

Sargant, D.D., Mufti, A.A., and Bakht, B. 1999. Design, Construction and Field Testing of
Steel-free Arch Panel Bridge Deck for Forestry Bridges. Proceedings, Canadian Society
for Civil Engineering Annual Conference, General Conference, Structural Engineering,
Vol. 1 pp. 95-104.

OHBDC Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code 1979, 1983 and 1992. Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario, Downsview, Ontario, Canada.

Tadros, G., Tromposch, E., and Mufti, A.A. 1998. Superstructure Replacement of the
Crowchild Trail Bridge. Proceedings, Development in Short and Medium Span Bridge
Engineering, Advanced Materials in Bridges, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. CD-Proceedings.

View publication stats