Application of Precast Decks and Other Elements To Bridge Structures

2006-37
Final Report
Application of Precast Decks and

Other Elements to Bridge Structures
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No.
MN/RC-2006-37
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Application of Precast Decks and other Elements to Bridge September 2006
Structures 6.
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Charles M. Bell II
Catherine E. French
Carol K. Shield
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
University of Minnesota
Department of Civil Engineering 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.
500 Pillsbury Drive, S.E. (c) 81655 (wo) 146
Minneapolis, MN 55455
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Research Services Section Final Report
395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
15. Supplementary Notes
http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/200637.pdf
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
A number of countries have incorporated precast components in bridge superstructures and substructures. Precast
components include deck, abutment, and wall elements. Benefits of using precast elements in bridge construction
include the high level of quality control that can be achieved in plant cast production compared to field cast
operations and speed of construction afforded by the assembly of precast elements at the site rather than the time
consuming on site forming and casting required in cast-in-place construction. Key components in the application
of precast concrete to bridge structures are the connection elements. Connection details include the use of post-
tensioning systems, and various connection details such as weld plates, studs in grout pockets, and shear keys. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) constructed a bridge incorporating precast elements to enable
rapid construction. The objective of this study was to develop an instrumentation plan to enable investigation of
the performance of this bridge. Researchers developed an instrumentation plan based on information provided by
the Mn/DOT bridge office regarding the specific bridge details and behaviors to be investigated. The
instrumentation plan included the types and locations of the instruments.
17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement

Rapid construction Slab span No restrictions. Document available from:
Pourte Dalle Precast deck National Technical Information Services,
Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 271
Application of Precast Decks and Other Elements to Bridge
Structures
Final Report
Prepared by:
Charles Bell III
Carol K. Shield
Catherine French
Department of Civil Engineering

University of Minnesota
September 2006
Published by:
Minnesota Department of Transportation

Research Services Section
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899
This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily
represent the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or the Center
for Transportation Studies. This report does not contain a standard or specified technique.
The authors and the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or Center for Transportation
Studies do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
solely because they are considered essential to this report
Acknowledgements
The work chronicled within this thesis was largely a team effort. A special thank you is
also extended to Matthew Smith for his assistance throughout the project, specifically with the
installation of instrumentation and set up of the data acquisition system. The following people
are also greatly appreciated for the assistance they provided during the installation of
instrumentation: Paul Bergson, Scott Nesvold, Justin Ocel, and Brian Runzel.
I would also like to thank the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and
Lunda Construction for their contributions during this project. Mn/DOT provided all of the
funding for this project. In addition, several Mn/DOT engineers and site inspectors provided
assistance during the installation of instrumentation and preparation of the final report. The
construction crew from Lunda Construction, the general contractor for the construction of
Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004, was very accommodating and cooperative during the entire
installation of instrumentation process. Their patience and hospitality was crucial for the success
of this project and therefore was greatly appreciated.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction` 1
1.1 Background of Prefabricated Bridge Construction................................................................. 1
1.2 Advantages of Prefabricated Bridge Construction ................................................................. 1
1.3 Scanning Tour....................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Implementation of Technology.............................................................................................. 2
1.5 Purpose of this Study ............................................................................................................ 3
1.6 Organization ......................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2: Literature Review 4

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Precast Panel Systems with Transverse Joints 4
2.1.2 Prefabricated Bridge Systems with Longitudinal Joints 4
2.2 Prefabricated Concrete Bridge Superstructure Connection Systems....................................... 5
2.2.1 Post-tensioning Systems 5
2.2.2 Shear Key Systems 5
2.2.3 Cast-in-place (CIP) Concrete Topping 6
2.3 Continuity for Live Loads over Interior Piers ........................................................................ 6
2.4 Case Studies Performed on Full-Span Form Panel Bridge Systems........................................ 8
2.4.1 Hays, Jr. et al. Study 8
2.4.2 Buckner and Turner Study 11
2.4.3 Peterman and Ramirez Study 14
2.5 Additional Full-Span Prefabricated Bridge Systems ............................................................ 16
2.5.1 The Inverted Tee (IT) Shallow Bridge System for Rural Areas 16
2.5.2 Precast Pretensioned Trapezoidal Box Beam for Short Span Bridges 17
2.6 Summary of Literature Review............................................................................................ 18
Chapter 3: Development and Implementation of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab

System 19
3.1 Design of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System...................................................... 19
3.1.1 Design of the Precast Section 19
3.1.2 Transverse Reinforcement over the Longitudinal Joints 21
3.1.3 Detailing for Continuous Behavior over the Piers 21
3.2 Design of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004................................................................................. 22
3.2.1 Materials 23
3.2.2 Design Calculations 23
3.2.3 Details of the Precast Section used for Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 24
3.2.4 Details of the Bridge Deck 25
3.2.5 Details of the Precast Substructure 25
Chapter 4: Instrumentation of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 26

4.1 Objectives of Instrumentation.............................................................................................. 26
4.2 Longitudinal Reflective Cracking of the CIP Concrete Deck above the Precast Longitudinal
Joints............................................................................................................................. 26
4.2.1 Instrumentation for Longitudinal Reflective Cracking above the Precast
Longitudinal Joints 27
4.3 Longitudinal Reflective Cracking of the CIP Concrete Deck above the Precast Section
Web Corners ................................................................................................................. 28
4.3.1 Instrumentation for Longitudinal Reflective Cracking above the Precast Section
Web Corners 28
4.4 Continuous Behavior for Live Load over the Piers .............................................................. 28
4.4.1 Instrumentation for Continuous Behavior for Live Load over the Piers 29
4.5 Effectiveness of the Transverse Hooks ................................................................................ 30
4.5.1 Instrumentation to Determine Effectiveness of Transverse Hooks 31
4.6 Installation of Instrumentation............................................................................................. 31
Chapter 5: Data Acquisition System 32

5.1 Design of the Data Acquisition System ............................................................................... 32
5.2 Conduit System................................................................................................................... 32
5.3 Long-term Data Collection.................................................................................................. 33
Chapter 6: Summary and Future Work 35

6.1 Summary............................................................................................................................. 35
6.2 Benefits of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System .................................................... 35
6.3 Preliminary Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 36
6.4 Future Work........................................................................................................................ 36
References 37
Tables 39
Figures 63
Appendix A: Bridge Plans

Appendix B: Design Calculations
Appendix C: Instrumentation and Data Acquisition System Components
Appendix D: Installation Log
Appendix E: Datalogger Programs
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Cross sections of different precast sections (Kamel and Tadros, 1996)....................... 40
Table 2.2 Dimensions of form panels and CIP concrete for the bridges visited in Florida
during the study performed by Hays, Jr. et al. (1980)..................................................... 40
Table 2.3 Reinforcement details and dimensions of the laboratory specimen used in the study
performed by Buckner and Turner (1981)...................................................................... 41
Table 3.1 Compressive concrete strength of concrete used for precast sections in the
superstructure of Stage 1 of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 ............................................... 41
Table 3.2 Compressive concrete strength of CIP concrete used in Stage 1 of the superstructure
for Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 ..................................................................................... 41
Table 4.1 Coordinates of the VW embedment strain gages installed directly above the precast
longitudinal joints.......................................................................................................... 42
Table 4.2 Coordinates of the VW embedment strain gages installed directly above the precast
section web corners ....................................................................................................... 43
Table 4.3 Coordinates of the VW spot-weldable strain gages installed on longitudinal
reinforcement ................................................................................................................ 44
Table 4.4 Coordinates of the VW spot-weldable strain gages installed on the transverse hooks
of the precast sections.................................................................................................... 45
Table 5.1 Channel assignments for Multiplexer #1.................................................................... 46
Table 5.7 Locations of the cables in the conduit relative to the precast longitudinal joints ......... 49
Table 5.8 Instrumentation connected to Cable 6-1..................................................................... 50
Table 5.9 Instrumentation connected to Cable 6-2..................................................................... 51
Table 5.10 Instrumentation connected to Cable 6-3 ................................................................... 52
Table 6.1 Superstructure cost comparison of bridges built with the Mn/DOT Inverted-T
Precast Slab System to traditional slab-span bridges ...................................................... 62
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Partial-depth concrete decks prefabricated on steel or concrete beams ...................... 64
Figure 1.2 Cross section of Poutre Dalle System ...................................................................... 64
Figure 1.3 Photograph of precast section used in Poutre Dalle System ..................................... 65
Figure 2.1 Full-Depth Precast Prestressed Bridge Deck System ............................................... 65
Figure 2.2 Cross section of a partial-depth precast concrete panel system ................................. 66
Figure 2.3 Cross section of a box girder bridge system with transverse post-tensioning ............ 66
Figure 2.4 Elevation view of longitudinal post-tensioning in a Full-Depth Precast Prestressed
Bridge Deck System ..................................................................................................... 67
Figure 2.5 Typical geometry of a shear key used in a box girder system ................................... 67
Figure 2.6 Typical geometry of a shear key used in a Full-Depth Precast Prestressed Panel
System ......................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 2.7 Interior joint detail of a precast concrete bridge girder made continuous using the
Conventional Reinforcement Method ........................................................................... 68
Figure 2.8 Elevation view of a bridge made continuous over the pier through the use of
longitudinal post-tensioning ......................................................................................... 69
Figure 2.9 Elevation view of the lab specimen used in the study performed by Hays, Jr. et al. .. 69
Figure 2.10 Cross-sectional view of the standard span of the lab specimen used in the study
performed by Hays, Jr. et al. .......................................................................................... 70
Figure 2.11 Cross-sectional view of the alternative span of the lab specimen used in the study
performed by Hays, Jr. et al. ......................................................................................... 70
Figure 2.12 Cross section of the panel detail recommended by Hays, Jr. et al. .......................... 71
Figure 2.13 Cross section of the flat panel laboratory specimen used in study performed by
Buckner and Turner ...................................................................................................... 71
Figure 2.14 Cross section of the beveled-edge laboratory specimen used in study performed by
Figure 2.15 Cross-sectional view of the loading apparatus used in the study performed by
Figure 2.16 Cross section of the laboratory specimen used in study performed by Peterman
and Ramirez ................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 2.17 Cross section and reinforcement details for a tee beam used in the IT System ........ 73
Figure 2.18 Cross section of the IT System .............................................................................. 74
Figure 2.19 Cross section of the closed trapezoidal box beam .................................................. 74
Figure 2.20 Cross section of the open trapezoidal box beam ..................................................... 75
Figure 3.1 Cross-sectional view of interior inverted-T precast section concept .......................... 75
Figure 3.2 Cross-sectional view of exterior inverted-T precast section concept ......................... 76
Figure 3.3 Photograph of the transverse hooks of the precast sections ....................................... 76
Figure 3.4 Cross-sectional view of the precast longitudinal joint detail...................................... 77
Figure 3.5 Photograph of formwork with indented inner surface ............................................... 77
Figure 3.6 Cross-sectional view of an interior inverted-T precast section detailing transverse
reinforcement within the precast sections ...................................................................... 78
Figure 3.7 Plan view of precast section layout showing blocked-out portions of the precast
section flanges............................................................................................................... 78
Figure 3.8 Photograph of the reinforcement cage installed above the precast longitudinal
joint............................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 3.9 Elevation view of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 ........................................................ 79
Figure 3.10 Plan view of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 with construction stages and
construction joint highlighted ........................................................................................ 80
Figure 3.11 Cross-sectional view and reinforcement details for an interior inverted-T precast
section used in Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004................................................................... 81
Figure 3.12 Connection detail at abutment, bridge deck, and approach panel............................. 82
Figure 3.13 Connection detail at pier cap .................................................................................. 82
Figure 4.1 Plan view of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 with instrumented portion highlighted...... 83
Figure 4.2 Cross-sectional view of precast longitudinal joint ..................................................... 83
Figure 4.4 Photograph of Geokon® Model VCE-4200 VW Embedment Strain Gage................ 84
Figure 4.5 Plan view of instrumentation detail for VW embedment strain gages located
directly above precast longitudinal joints ....................................................................... 85
Figure 4.6 Photograph of VW embedment strain gage tied to uncoated rebar ............................ 85
Figure 4.7 Photograph of VW embedment strain gages installed above precast longitudinal
joints ............................................................................................................................. 86
directly above the precast section web corners............................................................... 87
Figure 4.9 Cross-sectional view of instrumentation detail for VW embedment strain gages at
each instrumented joint.................................................................................................. 88
Figure 4.10 Photograph of VW embedment strain gages installed above precast section web
corners and above precast longitudinal joint .................................................................. 88
Figure 4.11 Photograph of Geokon® Model VK-4150 VW Spot-weldable Strain Gage ............ 89
Figure 4.12 Elevation view of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 showing locations of
instrumentation along the length of the bridge for continuous behavior over the piers.... 89
Figure 4.13 Plan view of Stage 1 of the bridge construction of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
showing locations of instrumentation for continuous behavior over the piers ................. 90
Figure 4.14 Cross-sectional view of instrumentation detail for locations with 3 VW spot-
weldable strain gages (“♦” in Figure 4.13) ..................................................................... 90
weldable strain gages (“●” in Figure 4.13)..................................................................... 91
Figure 4.16 Photograph of VW spot-weldable strain gage welded to longitudinal
reinforcement ............................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4.17 Photograph of VW spot-weldable strain gage with waterproofing and steel cover .. 92
Figure 4.18 Photograph of 3 VW spot-weldable stain gages installed on the longitudinal
reinforcement at east end of east span............................................................................ 92
Figure 4.19 Photograph of 2 VW spot-weldable strain gages on longitudinal reinforcement
located at the centerline of the pier cap .......................................................................... 93
Figure 4.20 Photograph of transverse hooks of adjacent precast sections................................... 93
Figure 4.21 Plan view of instrumentation detail for VW spot-weldable strain gages on
transverse hooks............................................................................................................ 94
Figure 4.22 Photograph of VW spot-weldable strain gages on transverse hooks ........................ 94
Figure 4.23 Labeling scheme used for gages installed in Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 ............... 95
Figure 5.1 Schematic of the data acquisition system used to monitor instrumentation installed
in Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004....................................................................................... 96
Figure 5.2 Plan view of the conduit system ............................................................................... 97
Figure 5.3 Plan view of cables within conduit system................................................................ 97
Figure 5.4 Photograph of embedded wiring junction box located above precast longitudinal
joint .............................................................................................................................. 98
Figure 5.5 Photograph of multiplexer boxes located on the east face of the east pier cap ........... 98
Figure 5.6 Locations of the multiplexers within the boxes on the east face of the east pier cap . 99
Figure 5.7 Photograph of temporary data acquisition system cabinet ......................................... 99
Figure 5.8 Photograph of permanent data acquisition system cabinet ...................................... 100
Executive Summary
Prefabricated bridge construction presents many advantages over conventional construction
methods. In prefabricated construction, elements are cast off-site and then brought to the site
ready to be erected in-place. This eliminates major-time consuming tasks from the project
timeline, such as erection and removal of formwork, placement of steel reinforcement and
concrete, and curing of the concrete. The result is shorter construction time and a reduction in
traffic disruption.
Many existing prefabricated bridge systems used in the United States have durability
issues, such as longitudinal reflective cracking, which result in significant maintenance or
replacement costs. This takes away from the advantages that would otherwise be associated with
these types of systems. This has led to numerous research programs for the development of
more durable prefabricated bridge systems.
In April of 2004, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) initiated a scanning tour
to explore the state-of-the-art technologies for rapid construction already being implemented in
other industrial countries. During this scanning tour, a team of eleven members visited Japan,
the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and France to identify international uses of prefabricated
bridge elements.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) developed a prefabricated
superstructure system based on the Poutre Dalle system that was observed in France during the
scanning tour. The Poutre Dalle system consisted of inverted-T precast members placed adjacent
to one another and then topped with cast-in-place (CIP) concrete. The shape of these sections
eliminates the need for formwork for the CIP concrete and provides a working surface for the
placement of steel reinforcement and pouring of the CIP concrete.
The precast members of the Poutre Dalle system have transverse hooks that extend out of
the vertical sides of the webs. Once in place, the hooks from adjacent sections extend over the
longitudinal joints that exist between the adjacent precast sections and overlap with the hooks
from the adjacent sections. Thus once the CIP concrete has cured these hooks tie the adjacent
sections together.
The system that Mn/DOT developed, the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System,
utilized two main design features of the Poutre Dalle system. These two features include the
inverted-T precast section shape and the transverse hooks that extend from the vertical sides of
the web of the precast sections. Mn/DOT used these features as the basis of their design;
however modifications were made to increase the durability, performance, and constructibility of
the design.
The largest concern affecting the durability of the system was the potential development
of longitudinal reflective cracking above the longitudinal joints between adjacent precast
sections. Thus, in addition to the transverse hooks crossing the precast longitudinal joint, a
reinforcement cage was added to the CIP concrete directly above the joint. This increased the
amount of reinforcement above this joint and therefore increased the load sharing capabilities of
the CIP concrete at this location. The intent was to reduce the stresses in the CIP concrete and
thus reduce the potential for the development of reflective cracking at these locations. The
corners of the flanges and webs of the precast sections were also chamfered to reduce the stress
concentrations at those locations and again reduce the potential for the development of reflective
cracking.
Another issue of concern was the continuity of the superstructure system. The system
was designed to be continuous for live load over the interior piers after the CIP concrete had
cured, thus modifications were made to ensure that the system would provide adequate
continuity. Continuity was achieved through the use of conventional deck reinforcement and
concrete between adjacent precast sections above the piers. Additional reinforcement over the
piers was added directly above the flanges of the precast sections to provide a positive moment
connection in case a positive restraint moment was to develop above the piers over time.
The design of the Mn/DOT inverted-T Precast Slab System was tailored to the needs of
two projects with different span arrangements with the idea that the precast section would be
developed for short span ranges of 20 ft. minimum and 65 ft. maximum. One of the bridges
(Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004) was located in Center City, Minnesota about 40 miles northeast of
Minneapolis. Instrumentation was installed in this bridge to monitor the behavior of the bridge
over time. The main goal of the instrumentation plan was to investigate for the development of
longitudinal reflective cracking of the CIP concrete above the precast longitudinal joints and
above the precast section web corners. Several vibrating wire (VW) embedment strain gages
oriented in the transverse direction were installed above the precast longitudinal joints and
precast section web corners at three different locations within the bridge deck. These gages were
used to monitor the development and propagation of cracks as would be evident by reading large
local increases in strain. If a crack were to develop these gages could then be used to monitor the
behavior of the crack over time.
The instrumentation plan also included several vibrating wire (VW) spot-weldable strain
gages on the longitudinal reinforcement at different locations within the bridge deck to
investigate the continuous behavior of the bridge over the interior piers for live load. At most of
these locations, either two or three of these gages were installed so that the curvature of the
bridge deck at that location could be determined. The majority of the information provided from
these gages was to be obtained during a truck load test to be performed sometime during the two-
year monitoring period of this bridge.
The results of this investigation will be used to verify some of the design assumptions
and to determine if further modifications need to be made to the design of the Mn/DOT Inverted-
T Precast Slab System to improve the performance of the system for future projects.
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background of Prefabricated Bridge Construction
Prefabricated bridge construction typically consists of fabricating bridge elements off-site
and delivering them to the project location ready to be erected. This can include entire
superstructure or substructure systems, or elements of each system. There are many
prefabricated superstructure systems that consist of both prefabricated and cast-in-place (CIP)
elements. Prefabricated bridge construction has been developed because it presents many
advantages over conventional bridge construction including speed of erection and improved
quality control due to plant fabrication. However, many current systems have durability issues,
such as the development of cracking, which reduce the benefits of this type of system. Thus,
new systems are constantly being developed to produce systems with improved durability.
1.2 Advantages of Prefabricated Bridge Construction

Prefabricated bridge construction presents many advantages over conventional bridge
construction. First, major time-consuming tasks such as the erection and removal of formwork,
placement of steel reinforcement and concrete, and concrete curing need not be accomplished in
the work zone. The elements can be prefabricated off-site or adjacent to the site, concurrently
with the on-site construction, then brought to the site and quickly erected into place. This can
significantly compress the construction project timeline and reduce traffic disruption (Ralls et al.,
2002). This is especially important in colder climate states, like Minnesota, which must
concentrate a large number of projects into the few months available for construction (Hagen et
al., 2005).
At construction sites, workers are often exposed to dangerous situations such as working
close to traffic, near power lines, or over water. Fabricating the elements off-site, in a safe
environment reduces the amount of time workers are exposed to these potentially dangerous
situations (Ralls et al., 2002).
The erection and removal of formwork for placement of steel reinforcement and concrete
in conventional bridge construction requires significant access to the underside of the bridge for
workers and equipment. This can have a negative impact on the environment adjacent to the
bridge. The use of prefabricated elements gives contractors more options and can often reduce
the impact bridge construction has on its surroundings (Ralls et al., 2002).
The use of prefabricated elements also increases the overall quality of the product. By
fabricating the elements off-site, work can be done ahead of time, using as much time as
necessary, and often in a much more controlled environment. Plant operations are often
standardized therefore ensuring quality control (Ralls et al., 2002). This results in a more
durable product resulting in lower life cycle costs. Also, many times the same elements can be
used for different projects and this repeatability often results in large economic benefits as well
(Ralls et al., 2002).
1.3 Scanning Tour

The highway bridges of the United States are being subjected to an ever increasing
volume of traffic. Many new bridges need to be built and many existing bridges are in need of
replacement. Thus, new systems need to be developed that realize the many advantages
1
associated with prefabricated construction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) initiated a
scanning tour in April of 2004 to explore the state-of-the-art technologies for rapid construction
already being implemented in other industrial countries (FHWA, 2004).
A team of eleven members (three representatives from FHWA, four representatives from
state departments of transportation, one representative from county engineers, one university
representative, and two representatives from industry) visited Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium,
Germany, and France with the overall objectives to identify international uses of prefabricated
bridge elements and systems and to identify decision processes, design methodologies,
construction techniques, costs, and maintenance and inspection issues associated with use of the
technology (FHWA, 2004). The team was interested in all aspects of design, construction, and
maintenance of bridge systems composed of multiple elements that are fabricated and assembled
off-site (FHWA, 2004).
Of the many systemes observed, two of the systems had a similar methodology of
handling the joint between the precast components by utilizing a joint with a liberal amount of
reinforcement tied from the precast element into the joint area. Those superstructure systems
also eliminated the need to place and remove formwork, thus accelerating construction and
improving work-zone safety. The first system, which consisted of partial-depth concrete decks
prefabricated on steel or concrete beams, was found in Germany and is shown in Figure 1.1.
This system involved casting small concrete decks on steel or concrete beams prior to erection of
the beams. After the beams are erected, the edges of each deck unit abut the adjacent member
and there is no need to place additional formwork for the CIP concrete. This process speeds
construction and reduces the potential danger of equipment falling onto the roadway below
because a safe working surface is available immediately after beam erection (FHWA, 2004).
The second superstructure system, the Poutre Dalle system, was observed in France and
is shown conceptually in Figure 1.2. In this system, inverted-T precast sections are placed
adjacent to each other and then made composite with CIP concrete placed between the webs of
the tees and over the tops of the stems to form a solid member. This system also eliminates the
need to place and remove formwork and also provides a safe working surface (FHWA, 2004).
1.4 Implementation of Technology

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) developed an Inverted-T
Precast Slab system based on the French Poutre Dalle system that was observed during the
scanning tour. Two main features of the Poutre Dalle system were incorporated into the design
of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab system; the section shape and the use of transverse
reinforcement protruding out of the vertical sides of the precast section web. Both of these
features can be seen in Figure 1.3 which shows a typical precast section used in the Poutre Dalle
system in France. It was felt that both of these features could be utilized to produce a durable
bridge superstructure system that was easy to construct.
The Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab system was developed by Mn/DOT engineers with
input from fabricators, contractors, and faculty from the University of Minnesota. Conversations
were held with local precasters to ensure constructibility by local fabricators and contractors with
the idea that the inverted-T precast section would be developed for various short spans, ranging
from 20 ft. to a maximum of 65 ft. After the design of the system was developed, this system
was implemented in two bridge projects. Project No.1 was a bridge built over Center Lake
Channel in Center City, Minnesota (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004), located about 40 miles
2
northeast of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Project No. 2 was a deck replacement for a bridge over the
Tamarac River in Beltrami County in Waskish Township in northern Minnesota (Mn/DOT
Bridge 04002).
1.5 Purpose of this Study

The objective of this study was to monitor the bridge built for Project No. 1 in Center
City, MN (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004) for a period of two years to evaluate the durability and
performance of the new system. The bridge was instrumented to monitor for the potential
development of longitudinal reflective cracking in the CIP concrete portion of the bridge and to
investigate the continuous behavior of the bridge deck for live load. This report describes the
design of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab system and the test bridge, as well as the
instrumentation and data collection system used to monitor the bridge.
1.6 Organization
Chapter Two of this report is a summary of the literature on existing prefabricated bridge
superstructure systems, primarily focused on problems associated with these existing systems.
Chapter Three summarizes the design of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab system and the
implementation of this system in the test bridge (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004) used for this study.
Chapters Four and Five present the instrumentation and the data collection system used in the
test bridge, respectively. Chapter Six presents a summary and plans for future work.
3
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Prefabricated concrete bridge superstructure systems have many variations. These
systems are typically made of precast concrete elements oriented in either the longitudinal or
transverse direction. Elements that are oriented in the transverse direction are typically decks
supported by steel or prestressed concrete girders and either span from one girder to the next or
the entire width of the bridge. Elements oriented in the longitudinal direction typically cross the
entire span from pier cap to pier cap or abutment.
The remainder of Section 2.1 presents some typical prefabricated bridge superstructure
systems found in the United States. Section 2.2 presents details on connection systems used to
create continuity among the different elements of the bridge deck, including the advantages and
disadvantages associated with each type of system. Section 2.3 explains the methods used for
achieving continuous behavior over the piers and problems associated with achieving continuity.
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 present summaries of studies performed on prefabricated bridge systems
similar to the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System.
2.1.1 Precast Panel Systems with Transverse Joints

There are two systems commonly found in the U.S. that consist of precast panels oriented
in the transverse direction The first system consists of full-depth non-prestressed concrete panels
supported by either steel or prestressed concrete girders. Because of the many advantages
associated with prestressed concrete, a Full-Depth Precast Prestressed Panel System has recently
been developed (Yamane et al., 1998). Figure 2.1 shows a schematic of the Full-Depth Precast
Prestressed Panel System. This system does not require any additional wearing course, however
in many instances a non-structural bituminous pavement is used to provide a smooth driving
surface (Hieber et al., 2004).
The other system commonly found in the U.S. that utilizes precast panels oriented in the
transverse direction is known as a partial-depth precast panel system. This system consists of
relatively thin prestressed panels that span between either steel or prestressed concrete girders
and are topped with a CIP concrete topping. These panels are typically only 2.5 to 4 in. thick
and span up to 6 ft. between adjacent girders. The tops of these precast panels are roughened to
help achieve composite action with the CIP concrete topping. Figure 2.2 shows a cross-sectional
view of a typical partial-depth precast panel system. This figure shows this type of system
supported on both a steel girder and a prestressed concrete girder.
2.1.2 Prefabricated Bridge Systems with Longitudinal Joints

Prefabricated concrete bridge superstructure systems that consist of full-span precast
elements exist in numerous different variations. Some of the precast elements commonly used in
these systems include precast panels, box girders, T-beams, and inverted T-beams. Table 2.1
lists details of several examples of precast sections typically used in prefabricated concrete
bridge superstructure systems built within the U.S. and other countries. These elements are
constructed using prestressed concrete because it allows them to have longer spans along with
shallower cross-sectional depths. The prestressing also provides better crack control within each
element (Yamane et al., 1998). The precast elements of these full-span systems are usually
4
topped with a CIP concrete topping or a non-structural bituminous pavement to produce a
smooth driving surface.
2.2 Prefabricated Concrete Bridge Superstructure Connection Systems

In prefabricated concrete bridge superstructures the precast sections are connected to one
another in order to produce continuity within the bridge deck system and provide load sharing in
each direction. The connection is typically achieved with either a longitudinal or transverse
post-tensioning system, a shear key system, a CIP concrete topping, or some combination of
these components. This section briefly explains each type of connection system along with
associated advantages and disadvantages.
2.2.1 Post-tensioning Systems

Post-tensioning is typically added to systems to connect adjacent precast sections to
achieve continuity within the deck system. Systems that utilize post-tensioning typically have
post-tensioning tendons oriented perpendicular to the prestressing strands that exist within the
precast elements. Figure 2.3 shows the cross section of a box-girder bridge system that utilizes
transverse post-tensioning. In this system, the transverse post-tensioning allows for adequate
load transfer from one element to the other in the transverse direction (El-Remaily et al., 1996).
Figure 2.4 shows the elevation view of a Full-Depth Precast Prestressed Bridge Deck System.
The longitudinal post-tensioning in this system allows for adequate load sharing from one
element to the other in the longitudinal direction (Yamane et al., 1998). Often times cracking is
a concern in full-depth panel systems, however, the two-way stressing created by the
combination of prestressing and post-tensioning in this system ensures continued compression of
the deck cross section during its service life providing good crack control and producing a very
durable deck system (Fallaha et al., 2004).
The use of post-tensioning, however, has disadvantages. First, the large amount of post-
tensioning required in these systems is typically very costly and additional time is required to
install post-tensioning in the field which greatly diminishes the economic benefits otherwise
associated with prefabricated construction (Badie et al., 1999). The use of post-tensioning also
often requires the mobilization of a specialty contractor and increased construction monitoring to
assure post-tensioning operations are performed in accordance with their special requirements
which further increase the initial construction costs.
2.2.2 Shear Key Systems

Shear key systems serve two important functions. These systems effectively connect
adjacent precast sections, providing adequate load transfer, while also serving to waterproof the
joint. A shear key system consists of small voids between adjacent precast sections, extending
along the entire length of each section. Once the precast sections are in place, the void is filled
with rapid-set non-shrink grout (Yamane et al., 1998). Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show examples of
different geometries used for typical shear keys found in box girder and full-depth precast panel
systems, respectively.
The problem with shear key systems is that the failure of shear keys sometime during
their service life is a fairly common phenomenon, especially for shear keys located in joints that
are adjacent to the normal-driving-lane wheel tracks (Huckelbridge, Jr. et al., 1995). The failure
of these shear keys has an effect on both the strength and serviceability of the bridge. It
compromises the lateral load distribution of the bridge, which results in individual girders being
5
exposed to greater live loads than those for which they were designed (Huckelbridge, Jr. et al.,
1995). Failure of the shear keys also results in excessive relative displacements between
adjacent girders which typically leads to failure of the deck waterproofing system, resulting in
the infiltration of water and waterborne contaminants through the inter-girder joints
(Huckelbridge, Jr. et al., 1995). This exposure to deicing chemicals results in corrosion of the
conventional reinforcement and, more importantly, of the prestressing strands adjacent to the
joint. This can eventually compromise the structural integrity of the entire bridge deck system
(Huckelbridge, Jr. et al., 1995).
2.2.3 Cast-in-place (CIP) Concrete Topping

CIP concrete can be placed on top of precast sections to produce a smooth riding surface.
However, the use of a CIP concrete topping also serves other functions. First, the CIP concrete
topping serves to connect adjacent girders creating continuity within the deck system and
providing a means for transverse load sharing. In addition, this topping can be used compositely
with the precast sections to improve the structural performance of the system (Hays, Jr. et al.,
1980). However, in order to achieve composite action, the CIP concrete must be effectively tied
to the precast sections. An effective connection is typically achieved through shear
reinforcement protruding from the precast sections and/or roughened contact surfaces on the
precast sections (Hays, Jr. et al., 1980).
General drawbacks to the use of a CIP concrete topping include a relatively low speed of
construction, the need for strict field quality control, and the possibility of cracking due to the
differential shrinkage between the CIP concrete topping and the precast sections (Fallaha et al.,
1996). In addition, longitudinal reflective cracking often develops in the CIP concrete topping
above the joints formed between adjacent sections (Badie et al., 1999). These cracks develop
because sections that are not rigidly connected in an effective manner (i.e., no post-tensioning,
ineffective shear keys or shear key failure) relegate load sharing in the transverse direction to
occur through the CIP concrete. This can produce tensile stresses in the CIP concrete above the
joints which can then lead to the development of longitudinal reflective cracking (Badie et al.,
1999).
The development of reflective cracking is a major concern because once this cracking
develops water and deicing chemicals are able to penetrate through the cracks which can then
lead to concrete staining and spalling along with reinforcement corrosion (Badie et al., 1999).
This can lead to the need for repair or even replacement which would create more traffic delays
and increased costs, taking away from the advantages associated with using prefabricated
construction.
2.3 Continuity for Live Loads over Interior Piers

Many prefabricated bridge superstructures are designed to behave continuously for live
loads because continuity allows the bridge deck to consist of longer spans or fewer lines of
girders, either of which result in lower overall costs compared to a simple-span design
(McDonagh and Hinkley, 2003). Use of continuity in precast superstructure systems also
reduces the number of longitudinal joints where durability is a concern. However, if a bridge is
designed to behave continuously but the design does not provide adequate means to achieve the
desired continuity, the bridge could fail at much smaller loads than it was designed to handle.
In practice, there are two different methods that are commonly used to create continuity
in concrete bridge decks. The most common method involves the use of CIP concrete
6
diaphragms and conventional reinforcement in the CIP concrete deck. The girder ends are
embedded in the diaphragms, therefore under loading, the diaphragms provide compressive
resistance and the conventional reinforcement in the deck provides tensile resistance, thus
combining to create negative moment resistance at this location (Saleh et al., 1995). Figure 2.7
shows a detail of an interior joint in a precast concrete girder bridge made continuous through the
use of conventional deck reinforcement. The girders act as a simple-span under their own
weight, the deck weight, and the construction loads, but behave continuously after the CIP
concrete cures, under the effects of a relatively small superimposed dead load and live load
(Saleh et al., 1995).
The other method commonly used in practice to create continuity consists of full-length
post-tensioning. In this system, post-tensioning tendons are stressed after the CIP concrete deck
and diaphragms have cured. Figure 2.8 shows an elevation view of a typical bridge deck with
longitudinal post-tensioning. The post-tensioning provides resistance to the superimposed dead
load and the live load (Saleh et al., 1995). This method for achieving continuity provides greater
resistance to stresses and allows longer spans for a given girder size than the conventional deck
reinforcement continuity method (Saleh et al., 1995). However, as explained in Section 2.2.1
there are some drawbacks to the use of post-tensioning systems within the bridge deck.
Regardless of the method used to achieve continuity, the amount of continuity within the
system is affected by long-term effects such as creep and shrinkage. The concrete of the girder
creeps as a result of the prestressing force which over time could cause the girder to camber
further upwards (McDonagh and Hinkley, 2003). If there is no positive moment reinforcement
over the piers, this movement can cause a gap to open at the bottom of the girder ends. Then, as
loads are imposed, the girders act as simple spans until the load is large enough to close the gaps
(McDonagh and Hinkley, 2003). However, if there is a positive moment connection between the
girders at the piers, the upward creep will cause positive restraint moments to develop in the
girders. These positive restraint moments combined with the superimposed moments of the
continuous span result in a lower negative moment over the piers and a higher positive moment
at the midspans (McDonagh and Hinkley, 2003). Therefore regardless of the positive moment
connection at the pier, girder creep effectively reduces the amount of continuity within the
system resulting in higher positive moments in the girders at the midspans (McDonagh and
Hinkley, 2003).
Differential shrinkage between the CIP concrete deck and the girder concrete has the
opposite effect on the amount of continuity within the system. By the time the deck concrete is
poured, the girders have already had time to undergo some shrinkage. Therefore the shrinkage
of the deck concrete exceeds the remaining shrinkage of the girder concrete resulting in a
downward deflection of the composite bridge deck system (McDonagh and Hinkley, 2003). This
results in the development of a negative restraint moment above the piers. Depending on the
positive moment connection, this will either help to close the gaps at the girder ends or offset the
positive restraint moments caused by the previously discussed creep effects, therefore effectively
increasing the amount of continuity within the system (McDonagh and Hinkley, 2003).
The age of the girder at the time continuity is established has a large influence on the
effect that creep and shrinkage have on the effective continuity within the system. The amount
of creep and shrinkage remaining to develop within the girder decreases as the girder gets older.
The less amount of creep remaining results in smaller gaps at the girder ends or smaller positive
restraint moments, depending on the positive moment connection at the piers (McDonagh and
Hinkley, 2003). The less shrinkage left to develop within the girder results in a larger shrinkage
7
differential between the CIP concrete deck and girder concrete which works to counter-act the
effect of girder creep and shrinkage, further reducing the gaps at the girder ends or positive
restraint moments. Therefore, as the girder gets older prior to the time continuity is established,
it leads to smaller gaps at the girder ends or smaller positive restraint moments, which ultimately
increases the amount of effective continuity within the deck system (McDonagh and Hinkley,
2003).
2.4 Case Studies Performed on Full-Span Form Panel Bridge Systems

The Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System closely resembles a system commonly
referred to as the Full-Span Form Panel Bridge System. This system consists of precast
prestressed concrete form panels oriented in the longitudinal direction that cross the entire span
between supporting piers, covered with a CIP concrete topping. The panels in this system are
typically flat but sometimes have beveled edges adjacent to the longitudinal joints. Three studies
performed on this system over the years are summarized in this section. These summaries
include the objectives of the studies, testing procedures, and results and conclusions made as a
result of the studies.
2.4.1 Hays, Jr. et al. Study

Hays, Jr. et al. (1980) performed a study on Full-Span Form Panel Bridge systems during
the late 1970s to develop details that would reduce the development of reflective cracking that
were almost always observed within the CIP concrete topping above the longitudinal joints of
existing full-span form panel bridges at the time. They hoped to accomplish this through a
research program that consisted of four phases: a field survey on the condition of existing
bridges, analytical modeling, laboratory testing, and field testing on an existing bridge.
Field Survey
The field investigation included visits to a total of nine bridges that had been constructed
using the Full-Span Form Panel System. The dimensions of the panels and CIP concrete for
each bridge are provided in Table 2.2. Although there were variations in intensity and
frequency, each of these bridges exhibited extensive reflective cracking in the CIP concrete
topping above the longitudinal joints. Negative moment cracking was also observed above some
of the piers. The longitudinal reflective cracking was observed above every longitudinal joint
and extended for virtually the full length of the bridge. One bridge, the Sampson River Bridge,
was visited prior to being opened to traffic and it already exhibited several major longitudinal
cracks. Therefore it appeared that shrinkage had an influence on the development of the
longitudinal cracking in those bridges. Note Table 2.2 includes a “comment” column that notes
variations in these general observations.
In addition to the nine full-span form panel bridges visited, other bridges constructed
using more conventional techniques such as a flat slab bridge with a CIP concrete deck slab or
girders with either a CIP concrete deck or composite deck panels oriented in the transverse
direction were visited. All of these bridges also exhibited cracking. The cracking in these
bridges appeared to be less extensive and their pattern appeared to be much more random,
whereas in the case of the full-span form panel bridges the excessive cracking always occurred
directly above the longitudinal joints formed by the adjacent panels.
8
Finite Element Analyses
Two types of analytical modeling were performed. Linear elastic finite element models
were used to approximate stress and displacement distributions from working loads and concrete
shrinkage strains. In addition, nonlinear discrete element models were used to investigate
structural behavior over a range of load levels up to ultimate strength.
Two plane stress finite element models were used to analyze stress distributions due to
shrinkage throughout typical transverse bridge deck cross sections. The first model consisted of
one form panel and the corresponding CIP concrete topping and the second model consisted of
five form panels and the corresponding CIP concrete topping. A shrinkage strain was induced by
specifying a coefficient of thermal expansion of 0.00001 in./in./°F for the finite elements of the
CIP concrete topping along with a uniform decrease in temperature of 40°F. Both models were
given constant values of 4000 ksi for the elastic modulus and 0.15 for the Poisson’s Ratio and it
was assumed that a “no-slip” condition existed between the CIP concrete topping and the form
panel.
The finite element solutions obtained using these two models revealed that the top fiber
stress increased towards the center of each form panel, however the maximum tensile stress
occurred at the top fiber directly above the longitudinal joints where there was an abrupt increase
in tension. This maximum top fiber stress exceeded the modulus of rupture. Because these
models supported the observations of cracking, even within bridges that had not yet been open to
traffic, it became evident that shrinkage must be considered as a major source of the stresses
which cause longitudinal cracking over the longitudinal joints.
Three finite element models of the three full-span form panel laboratory specimen were
used to analyze the effects of concentrated working loads. The longitudinal joint between form
panels was represented in the finite element model by a decreased thickness of the specimen over
an exaggerated width at the location of the longitudinal joint. The thickness of the specimen in
the finite element model at this location was equal to the thickness of the CIP concrete topping.
The joint width was exaggerated to approximately the size of the bridge deck thickness because
preliminary finite element solutions suggested that this would provide the most accurate results
from the finite element method.
Laboratory Testing combined with Finite Element Analyses

As mentioned previously, three separate specimens were constructed and tested for the
laboratory phase of this project. Each specimen had two spans with two precast prestressed
panels in each span for a total of four panels per specimen. An elevation view of the laboratory
specimen is shown in Figure 2.9. The two cross sections considered in the test are shown in
Figures 2.10 and 2.11. Specimen #1 used the standard cross section of constant thickness precast
panels for both spans. Specimens #2 and #3 used the standard cross section for one span and the
alternative cross section for the other span. A minimum 2.25” CIP concrete topping was added
on top of the precast sections to provide a constant total thickness for the two spans of each
specimen. A cold joint was constructed over the longitudinal joint of Specimen #3 to represent a
worst-case condition. It was felt that this would provide a potential cracking plane. The joint
was artificially roughened to increase the shear friction force transmitted through the joint.
Once the concrete of the CIP concrete deck was poured, an attempt was made to measure
creep and shrinkage deflections during the curing time. However, no appreciable deflections
occurred due to the short spans and relatively stable curing conditions. Also, there were no signs
9
of shrinkage cracking in any of the specimens. The deflection of each specimen was measured
from the top of the CIP concrete topping on three lines along the length of the specimens.
Loading was applied nominally symmetric about the center support, 6 ft. from the
support centerline. Hydraulic jacks were used to apply concentrated forces over the center of
one of the precast panels in each span. The jacks were connected in parallel to provide an equal
load in each span.
For the first two load increments near the design load either no cracking or minor hairline
cracking was observed over the supports due to negative moment. Prior to failure, extensive
negative moment cracking was observed over the full width of the specimen. Positive moment
cracks were observed under the loaded panel and in some cases under the unloaded panel. Even
after extensive cracking, the specimen had continued load capacity and exhibited good ductility.
Failure occurred via a punching shear failure. No longitudinal cracking was observed except in
Specimen #3, which was built with a cold joint over the longitudinal joint between form panels.
No problems were found with the bond between the CIP concrete topping and the precast panels.
The data from the laboratory tests were used to obtain the chord displacement for each
specimen. These chord displacements were compared to finite element solutions obtained using
plate bending models of the three full-span form panel laboratory specimens and one plate
bending model that did not include a longitudinal joint. This comparison showed that there was
good correlation between the experimental data and the finite element solutions for the models of
the three full-span form panel laboratory specimens. The comparison of the experimental data
with the finite element solution for the model that did not include a longitudinal joint showed
that the presence of a longitudinal joint greatly decreases the overall stiffness of the section due
to the loss of two-way action. Since there was good correlation, the finite element models of the
lab specimens were used to explore moment distributions. The results of these analyses showed
that the presence of the longitudinal joint increased the positive and negative moment in each
panel, again due to the loss of two-way action, and greatly affected the magnitude and
distribution of the transverse moment. The transverse moment went from positive on the panel
being loaded to negative on the unloaded panel. In addition, the presence of the longitudinal
joint largely increased the torsional moment within the unloaded panel in both the positive and
negative moment regions of the laboratory specimen.
The load-displacement response obtained from the experimental results was compared to
the finite element solution obtained by performing a non-linear elastic analysis with a model that
utilized discrete elements. This comparison showed that the non-linear analysis predicted much
less ductile behavior and generally predicted failure at a smaller loading. However, the predicted
failure loads from the analysis were still much higher than the design loads. The researchers
concluded from these analyses that in spite of the large torsional moments, the laboratory
specimens were able to transfer a sufficient amount of load across the longitudinal joint to
develop more than the limit design strength based on the entire width of the specimen cross
section at both the positive and negative moment sections. They felt that the major source of
conservatism in the limit design values was in the approximate equation for the ultimate positive
moment of the prestressed section.
Field Testing
One of the bridges visited during the field survey, the Lloyd Creek Bridge, was used for
the field testing portion of this project. This bridge contained eight spans and each span had a
length of 23 ft. The precast panels had a thickness of 7 in. with a CIP concrete topping thickness
10
of 5.5 in. The loading was applied by jacking against the bottom of a large tank trailer that had
its wheels positioned over the piers. The load was applied at the midspan of Span 8 at three
different transverse locations of one of the interior panels. These locations included the center of
the panel and 1 ft. from each edge. The load was applied in 8 kip increments until a maximum
load of 32 kips was applied which was approximately 1.5 times the design wheel load.
The load-deflection results showed that the load was indeed transferred across the
longitudinal joints. Differential deflections across a longitudinal joint were in no case more than
6% of the total joint deflection under the applied load. These deflections were compared to the
finite element solution obtained using a plate bending finite element model of spans 7 and 8 of
the bridge. It was found these deflections showed good correlation to the finite element solution.
Therefore this model was used to estimate moment distributions across the bridge. The
maximum longitudinal moments from the finite element solutions compared well with
computations based on the effective width formula from AASHTO (2004). Examination of the
transverse moment distribution using the finite element solutions revealed that the stresses at the
joint were high and indicated tension on the interface between the panels and the CIP concrete
topping. Therefore the researchers concluded that steel reinforcement was needed in both the top
and bottom of the CIP concrete topping.
Conclusions
After finishing the field survey, analytical modeling, and laboratory and field tests, the
researchers observed that loss of bond between the CIP concrete topping and the precast panels
did not occur. They attributed this to the roughness of the surface, however, they recommended
that a minimum amount of shear reinforcement be used between the precast and CIP concrete to
provide a factor of safety.
The researchers concluded, based on field observations and finite element testing, that
stresses sufficiently high to cause shrinkage cracking in the CIP concrete can be expected. Based
on laboratory and field tests, the researchers recommended a minimum amount of transverse
steel reinforcement of #4 bars at 12 in. spacing and a minimum CIP concrete topping thickness
of 4.5 in. They felt that this detail would provide adequate load transfer between adjacent panels
and help to alleviate some of the shrinkage cracking. In addition, they felt that the panels with
the alternative section design would give improved performance with regards to longitudinal
cracking and load transfer. The recommended detail for this alternative section is shown in
Figure 2.12.
The researchers also felt that an improved detail over the piers and end abutments with
more positive transfer of shear from the panels to the supports would decrease deformations and
cracking in these areas and increase the stiffness of the bridge. This could be accomplished by
providing some direct bearing of the panels on the CIP concrete over the piers. They also
recommended that positive moment reinforcement over the piers be provided.
2.4.2 Buckner and Turner Study

Buckner and Turner (1981) performed a study shortly after the study performed by Hays,
Jr. et al. (1980) to investigate the effect of repetitive loading on the serviceability and strength of
Full-Span Form Panel Bridge Systems. This study consisted of an experimental program in
which six single-span simply-supported bridge decks were loaded repetitively with 2,000,000
cycles of design load followed by a test to failure. The performance was evaluated primarily
based on flexural rigidity, differential deflection between panels, and the strength and ductility of
11
the composite system. Also considered in evaluating the specimens were visible cracks in the
concrete, prestressing strand slip, and strains in the transverse steel. The objectives of this study
were to develop recommendations for minimum CIP concrete topping thickness, a minimum
quantity of transverse reinforcement, and a preferred type of joint (flat or beveled) between
panels.
The laboratory specimens used in this experimental program had a total thickness of 13
in., overall width of 125 in., and a span length of 20 ft. Each specimen was constructed of three
precast panels, with each having a width of 3 ft.-5.5 in. The thicknesses of the precast panels and
CIP concrete topping were varied among different laboratory specimen while maintaining a
constant overall thickness of 13 in. Three sets of specimens were cast with panel thicknesses of
5.5, 8, and 10 in. for each set. One specimen of each set with a particular panel thickness was
constructed using flat precast panels and the other specimen was constructed using panels with
beveled edges as shown in Figures 2.13 and 2.14, respectively. The panel thickness of 5.5 in.
was chosen as the lower bound for an unshored panel form on a 20 ft. simple span, and 10 in.
was chosen as the upper bound because it would minimize the CIP concrete topping thickness to
3 in. which was adequate to provide a minimum concrete cover of 2 in. It was felt that the
satisfactory behavior of the lower and upper bound thicknesses would indicate satisfactory
behavior for similarly designed specimens of intermediate thickness. The 8 in. panel thickness
was chosen for the third set of specimens to study the effect of reflective cracking in the CIP
concrete topping on the behavior of composite decks. This was done by inducing a longitudinal
crack above one of the longitudinal joints and monitoring the behavior of the crack under
loading.
One of the longitudinal joints between panels in each specimen had a ½ in. gap that was
filled with fiberboard to minimize shear transfer by friction and to allow more freedom for
transverse shrinkage. The other longitudinal joint in each specimen had no gap between adjacent
panels, which was the usual construction practice. The transverse reinforcement for the
specimens varied for each half of the specimen. The transverse reinforcement used in each
specimen is summarized in Table 2.3.
The test specimens were designed assuming complete composite action between the
precast panels and the CIP concrete topping. The design was based on normal weight concrete
having specified compressive strengths of 5000 psi for the precast concrete and 4200 psi for the
CIP concrete.
During construction of the test specimen, four of the specimens were cured under plastic
for seven days and then exposed to air. None of these specimens developed visible shrinkage
cracks on the top surface. The other two specimens, the specimens with 8 in. thick precast
panels, were cured under plastic for only 48 hours and then exposed to air. This shorter curing
time was intended to simulate the relatively poor curing conditions likely to occur in field
bridges. As mentioned previously, a longitudinal crack was induced above the longitudinal joint
that had a ½-in. fiberboard in both of the specimens with 8 in. thick precast panels to measure the
behavior of the crack under loading. Six locations along the crack at approximately 3 ft.
intervals were selected to monitor for crack width growth. The crack width was measured using
a direct-reading measuring microscope graduated to 0.01 mm.
A single concentrated load was applied at the midspan because the primary consideration
in the study was the shear transfer across the joint between panels. The load was spread into two
“wheel” loads and applied to the slab through 1 in. thick neoprene bearing pads which were sized
and positioned to simulate tire prints. By applying the load through the spreader beam,
12
approximately 1/3 of a wheel load was transferred across each longitudinal joint into the middle
panel. According to the researchers, in a full-width bridge, the maximum shear transfer would
occur with a wheel adjacent to a longitudinal joint, with the resultant load approximately 1 ft.
from the joint. Thus, the use of a spreader beam to apply loads adjacent to the longitudinal joints
yielded a reasonable approximation of the maximum shear transfer which would occur in a
bridge. A cross-sectional view of the loading apparatus used in this study is provided in Figure
2.15.
The vertical deflections were measured using linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTs) installed at transverse sections 2 ft. from the span centerline. Strain gages were
mounted on two transverse reinforcing bars in the CIP concrete topping of each laboratory
specimen. The instrumented bars were located in the proximity directly above the location of the
LVDTs. Strand slip was measured using a caliper with a dial gage.
Testing started after the concrete of the CIP concrete topping had reached an age of 32
days. After 2,000,000 cycles of repetitive loading was complete the specimen was brought to
failure. The load was applied in 10 kip increments and then reduced to 5 kip increments as the
load neared ultimate. During this loading, the midspan deflection was measured using a dumpy
level. Elevations were measured at midspan and at the supports so that rigid body movement
caused by compression of the supports could be eliminated.
All six specimens exhibited satisfactory structural performance. Overall, there was no
evidence of fatigue in either the CIP concrete or reinforcement, or deterioration of composite
action, shear transfer strength or bond during the cyclic loading. The computed flexural
rigidities of the composite specimens were from 2.06 to 3.80 times larger than for the CIP
concrete topping and precast panels acting non-compositely. The deflection was essentially the
same after 2,000,000 cycles of loading as it was at the beginning for each specimen. The
researchers felt that this was an indication that there was no significant loss of composite action.
Differential deflection was used as a measure of shear transfer across the longitudinal joint.
Initially there was very little differential deflection observed between adjacent panels for all
specimens and there were no significant increases after loading therefore indicating no
deterioration of shear transfer.
Failure occurred in most specimens in the form of concrete crushing at midspan. These
specimens showed adequate ductility and failed at loads that exceeded the ultimate design load.
One of the specimens with a 3 in. CIP concrete topping failed due to sudden shear transfer
failure. Inspection revealed that a vertical crack had formed over the longitudinal joint.
However, the failure load for this specimen was 5.25 times the design load, thus an uncracked 3
in. CIP concrete topping would have adequate shear transfer strength.
Cracking, after the 2,000,000 cycles of the design load, other than the induced cracking,
was only observed in the two specimens that were covered with plastic for only 48 hours. This
transverse cracking located near the midspan was believed to be caused by shrinkage of the CIP
concrete attributed to the relatively poor curing conditions of the two specimens. These cracks
caused an increase in the measured service load deflection of approximately 25% compared to
the uncracked specimens, but did not appear to affect the behavior near ultimate. The induced
cracks in these specimens were measured periodically during the curing period and during the
loading cycles. The crack widths increased about 0.002 in. during the curing period however
there were no significant increases in crack widths observed during the loading cycles. These
specimens failed at loads that were higher than the ultimate design load, thus indicating that
13
when reinforced transversely with No. 4 bars at 12-in. spacing, there was adequate shear transfer
strength even across a preexisting crack.
There was no strand slip observed in any specimen at any stage of the loading indicating
that bond and development of the prestressing strands within the specimens was not a problem.
The strain gages on the transverse reinforcement, however, did not provide a reliable basis for
evaluating the performance of the transverse reinforcement. Several of the gages were damaged
during the curing period and the readings obtained varied erratically. The strain gages did,
however, provide some qualitative information. The measured strains in the transverse
reinforcement were relatively small during application of the live loads therefore indicating the
stress range due to live load was likely to be so small that fatigue of this reinforcement should
not be a problem.
As a result of this experimental program, the researchers were able to conclude that the
composite section formed by the CIP concrete topping and precast panel could withstand
2,000,000 cycles of design load without any significant loss in serviceability or strength.
Adequate composite action was obtained by roughening the interface surface of the precast
panels. The researchers also concluded that adequate serviceability and strength could be
obtained using flat precast panels rather than the more expensive beveled-edge panels. There
was no indication that the relative thickness of the CIP concrete topping to the total thickness of
the composite section had any effect on the fatigue strength of the section. The researchers’ final
recommendation was a minimum CIP concrete thickness of 5 in. with reinforcement of #4 bars
spaced at 12 in. to provide adequate shear transfer strength.
2.4.3 Peterman and Ramirez Study

Peterman and Ramirez (1998) performed a study on Full-Span Form Panel Bridge
Systems in the mid 90’s to further investigate the strength and behavior of bridges built with this
type of system. With the advent of high-performance concrete, better construction practices, and
increased quality control, this type of construction had become attractive therefore requiring
testing to investigate the behavior of these systems under these conditions.
This study involved a laboratory experiment during which two full-scale specimens were
fabricated and subjected to 5,000,000 cycles of service loading and then tested to failure. The
objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of repeated loading on the continuity at the
interior piers and to evaluate the ultimate strength of multi-span bridges constructed using this
system.
Each laboratory specimen consisted of two spans with two precast prestressed panels in
each span. These panels were 21 ft. long, 4 ft. wide, and 6 in. thick and were topped with a 6 in.
thick CIP concrete topping, as shown in Figure 2.16. The panels were supported at the center
pier by a pin connection and at the ends by rollers. A raked finish was applied to the top surface
of the precast form panels to attain composite action, as recommended by Buckner and Turner
(1981). The differences between the two laboratory specimens were variations in prestressing
steel and reinforcement in the CIP concrete topping. Specimen #1 used eight ½-in. uncoated
low-relaxation strands which provided an average value of prestressing that would be expected
in a precast form panel, while Specimen #2 contained only four such strands which represented a
minimum expected amount of prestressing. In the CIP concrete topping, Specimen #1 had
sixteen No. 4 bars over the pier while Specimen #2 had six No. 6 bars over the pier. The
transverse reinforcement in the CIP concrete topping consisted of No. 4 bars spaced at 12 in. as
recommended by Buckner and Turner (1981).
14
The instrumentation of these laboratory specimens consisted of load cells, electrical
resistance strain gages, LVDTs, and dial gages. Load cells were placed underneath spreader
beams at the discontinuous ends of the laboratory specimens. This enabled the researchers to
determine the internal moments for this statically indeterminant structure. These cells were
monitored throughout the curing period of the CIP concrete topping to monitor the combined
effects of creep and shrinkage. They were also monitored throughout the cyclic loading period
and during loading to failure. Electrical resistance strain gages were used to measure strains in
the concrete and steel of both laboratory specimens. These gages were installed on both the
prestressing steel and the mild longitudinal reinforcement of the CIP concrete topping at the
center pier. Surface strain gages were installed at the midspan on the top and bottom of the
precast panels prior to casting of the CIP concrete topping and also on the CIP concrete topping
prior to cyclic loading. LVDTs were used to measure midspan deflections both during the cyclic
loading and during loading to failure. Prestressing strand slip was also measured throughout
cyclic loading and loading to failure by attaching dial gages to the strands that extended out of
the panels at the discontinuous ends.
Specimen #1 was allowed to cure for 50 days and Specimen #2 was allowed to cure for
44 days. During this time the load cells at the unrestrained ends of both laboratory specimens
revealed that the end reactions decreased over time in both specimens. This indicated that
negative restraint moments had developed over the center piers.
After this cure time, each specimen was subjected to 5,000,000 cycles of service loading
by two hydraulic actuators. This was done to evaluate the effects of repeated loading on the
degree of continuity at interior piers. The actuators were centered over the precast panel joints at
a distance of 8 ft.-3 in. from the center of the middle pier because this location produced the
maximum negative moment over the middle pier. The load levels for cyclic loading of each
bridge were chosen so that the maximum stress in the longitudinal steel over the pier ranged
from 26 to 44 ksi. The upper limit of 44 ksi was equal to 120% of the maximum allowable
design reinforcement stress range, according to AASHTO Specifications (2004). Thus, it was
felt that this stress range was believed to represent a worst case scenario of repeated loadings in
excess of the design service load.
After Specimen #1 was subjected to 2,000,000 cycles of loading, the loading was halted
and the surface of the specimen near the middle pier was subjected to 48 days of southern
exposure cycling. This weekly cycling consisted of 4 days of exposure to a 15% sodium
chloride solution followed by a 3-day drying period. After the exposure cycling was concluded,
the specimen was subjected to the remaining 3,000,000 cycles of loading. The stiffness of the
specimen increased after the exposure cycling by approximately 67%. This increase in stiffness
was attributed to the change in restraint moment at the pier. As a result of the exposure cycling,
the restraint moment at the pier changed from -55 k-ft to +20 k-ft. The researchers believed that
the re-wetting of the surface reduced the shrinkage of the CIP concrete topping therefore
allowing the creep within the precast panels to develop a positive restraint moment. The positive
restraint moment then closed any negative bending cracks that had developed over the middle
pier providing a much stiffer section.
Specimen #2 was subjected to 5,000,000 cycles of loading continuously without any
southern exposure cycling. The stiffness of the section remained unchanged throughout the
loading cycle and deterioration of continuity between spans did not occur.
Each specimen was brought to failure using the same two actuators that were used in the
cyclic loading. Flexural failure occurred in each specimen due to concrete crushing in the
15
positive moment region. These failures occurred close to the predicted capacities for each
specimen using strain compatibility, however, these capacities were much higher than the
AASHTO design nominal moment capacities. Strand slip was observed in these panels, but not
until very high loading was reached. However, the strand slip did not prevent the section from
reaching the design capacity.
The results of this study showed that the continuity between adjacent spans was not
affected by 5,000,000 cycles of repeated service loading in which the calculated reinforcement
stress range at the pier exceeded the AASHTO allowable design stress range by 20%. The
experimentally determined positive and negative moments in both laboratory specimens at
failure exceeded the AASHTO design nominal moment capacities for the composite sections by
factors of 1.7 and 1.6 for Specimens #1 and #2, respectively. This was primarily due to strain
hardening of the mild steel reinforcement. In addition, the researchers concluded that full
composite action was attained by applying a raked finish to the surface of the precast panels and
the ultimate load carrying capacity of the test bridges was not affected by time-dependent effects.
2.5 Additional Full-Span Prefabricated Bridge Systems

In this section, two recently developed prefabricated bridge systems which share
similarities to the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System are presented. The presentation of
these systems includes the objectives for developing the new system, details of the new system,
details on testing that may have been performed, and any results or conclusions made as a result
of the studies.
2.5.1 The Inverted Tee (IT) Shallow Bridge System for Rural Areas
Kamel and Tadros (1996) performed a study during the mid 90’s to develop a new full-
span precast concrete composite bridge superstructure system. The objective of this study was to
develop a superstructure system that is simple to construct and takes advantage of the benefits
associated with prefabricated construction while maintaining a low span-to-depth ratio. Of all
the bridges built between 1950 and 1990, 95% of them had span lengths of less than 100 ft.
Many of these bridges were built over railroads or waterways where clearance was limited. This
new system was called the Inverted Tee (IT) System and it consisted of precast, prestressed
inverted tee beams with a 6 in. CIP concrete topping. A cross section of the inverted tee beam
used in the IT System is shown in Figure 2.17. This new section shape enabled the use of only
one set of forms for a variety of beam depths. Also, the beams were reinforced with straight
prestressing strands and welded wire fabric. Therefore these beams were simple to construct and
relatively light to handle. The system had a span-to-depth ratio of 35 making it shallower than
other available precast concrete products.
The IT System was developed after an extensive literature review and a national survey
of fabricators and bridge designers. Initially five different shapes were considered in this survey,
but the results of the survey revealed that the new IT system would be a good precast concrete
system for bridges with shallow superstructure depth requirements and with spans less than 100
ft.
A full scale test was performed on the new system to validate the design of the new
system, investigate the applicability of the AASHTO Specifications (2004) for its design, and
determine if the AASHTO allowable concrete compressive stresses at prestress transfer and at
service due to full loading could be exceeded. For the test, two 60 ft. long IT beams with a
height of 15.75 in. were fabricated with 22 prestressing strands in the bottom flange. This was
16
the maximum number of strands that would geometrically fit in the bottom flange at a spacing of
2 in. The strands were not debonded or draped in order to investigate the impact of high
compressive stresses at transfer of prestress. Two prestressing strands were added to the top of
the web to keep the tensile stresses in the concrete below the AASHTO limits. Once the beams
were fabricated they were positioned side by side and polystyrene foam blocks were used to fill
the voids between the two beams. A CIP concrete deck was then cast on top to complete the
specimen. Figure 2.18 shows a cross-sectional view of the IT System.
Once fabrication of the specimen was complete, it was tested as a 60 ft. long simple span
beam subjected to two concentrated loads that were located 18.5 ft. from each end of the
specimen. The testing revealed that the ultimate strength of the IT System exceeded the
AASHTO Specifications (2004) for design. However, the compressive stresses in the bottom
fibers of the test beams a transfer length away from the ends of the member were equal to 0.81f’ci
at prestress transfer which exceeded the limit of 0.6f’ci in the AASHTO Specifications (2004).
The compressive stress at service in the top fibers of the test specimen was calculated by
standard elastic analysis to be about 33 % higher than the 0.6f’ci AASHTO allowance. However,
there was no negative impact detected during testing as a result of exceeding the allowable
AASHTO concrete compressive stress either at transfer or due to service loading. Therefore the
researchers felt that these limits were too conservative and increasing this allowable limit from
0.6f’ci to 0.8f’ci would not result in negative impact and would allow producers to reduce the
amount of draped or debonded strands at the ends, or relieve compressive strength requirements.
The result of this study was a new inverted tee prestressed concrete beam system that has
many advantages over other systems. This system is lightweight, simple to construct, and is cost
competitive with other systems because it requires no temporary field forming, spans farther and
is constructed quicker than other systems. It also has a high span-to-depth ratio making it ideal
for projects where clearance is an important design factor.
2.5.2 Precast Pretensioned Trapezoidal Box Beam for Short Span Bridges
Badie et al. (1999) also performed a study in the mid 90’s to develop a new precast
prestressed trapezoidal box beam system. The new beam was developed in two different shapes:
a closed totally precast concrete shape and an open-top shape requiring a CIP concrete topping.
Figures 2.19 and 2.20 provide a cross-sectional view of closed- and open-top shapes,
respectively. Box girders can span long distances and maintain a high span-to-depth ratio,
eliminate the need for formwork, and produce an aesthetically pleasing superstructure.
However, there were some problems associated with existing box girder systems, including
longitudinal reflective cracking. Due to the large torsional stiffness of the box girders, the
amount of transverse post-tensioning that would be required in this system to mitigate the
reflective cracking would have significantly increased the cost of the structure. The objective of
this study was to produce a new box girder that would perform better than existing box girders
without the requirement of transverse post-tensioning, as well as provide additional economic
benefits.
The new system was developed by first conducting a survey that was sent to bridge
owners, general contractors, precast concrete fabricators, and consultants across the U.S. The
results of the survey indicated that using a box beam with sloped sides was preferred because
they are easy to construct and possess aesthetic appeal. A parametric study conducted on bridge
girders showed that concentrating the area of the cross section in the two flanges as far apart as
possible, along with having a thin web, together produced the most efficient cross section. The
17
sides of the flanges were shaped to create a continuous shear key that would be filled with non-
shrink grout. The shape of this shear key is shown in “detail B” of Figure 2.19. Additional
transverse connections were provided within blockouts of the precast concrete at an interval of
approximately 23 in. These transverse connections were made of large voids that included
transverse reinforcing dowels, and once they were filled with non-shrink grout would serve to
form an additional connection between adjacent precast sections.
There were no laboratory or field tests conducted on this system. However, it was
believed that these new beams would provide additional benefits over existing box girders. First,
the large width of these new beams lowered the total number of pieces needed to complete the
deck which resulted in higher construction speed and lower erection costs. Also, the design of
the cross section had relatively flexible flanges and used shear keys and transverse connections
to make them continuous, therefore potentially eliminating the development of longitudinal
reflective cracking above the joints without the use of transverse post-tensioning. This helped to
minimize maintenance costs and increase the expected life of the bridge.
2.6 Summary of Literature Review

Review of the literature on prefabricated bridge superstructure systems revealed
significant information about these systems. Examination of the different types of connection
systems used in prefabricated bridge superstructure systems suggested the use of a CIP concrete
topping to be the most advantageous, especially in a cold climate state such as Minnesota.
However, it also revealed some problems that exist with the use of a CIP concrete topping
specifically the development of longitudinal reflective cracking above the longitudinal joints
between adjacent precast sections. In addition, the complexity of continuous behavior revealed
the importance of proper design practices and reinforcement detailing to achieve continuity.
Some conclusions made as a result of the studies performed on Full-span Form Panel
Bridges were considered during the design process of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab
System and the development of the instrumentation plan for this research project. Some of these
conclusions include being able to achieve composite action through the use of raked or
roughened surfaces, and the use of transverse reinforcement over the longitudinal joints as well
as thinner precast section flanges near the longitudinal joints to reduce the probability for the
development of longitudinal reflective cracking in the CIP concrete topping. Some aspects of
the designs for the other two recently developed prefabricated bridge superstructure systems
were also considered during the design process as well as the development of the instrumentation
plan.
18
Chapter 3
Development and Implementation of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T
Precast Slab System
3.1 Design Objectives of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System
The objective of the design of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System was to
develop a durable bridge superstructure alternative to the traditional CIP slab-span bridge system
that takes advantage of the benefits associated with prefabricated construction. The CIP slab-
span bridge system is a superstructure of relatively short span ranges commonly used in
Minnesota over streams. The construction of this system requires the use of shoring to pour the
bridge deck which increases construction times and often has a negative impact on the
environment adjacent to the bridge. The design of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System
possesses the advantages of a shallow depth slab-span, but eliminates the need for shoring by
utilizing the inverted-T precast sections as stay-in-place forms that become integral with the CIP
slab. The use of the new system reduces construction time at the site and ultimately reduces the
impact on the traveling public.
The system concept was developed in a collaborative process between Mn/DOT
engineers, the University of Minnesota, and local fabricators for spans ranging between 20 and
65 feet. The fabricator input was sought to ensure constructability and economy of the precast
sections. Ultimately, Bridge No. 13004 was designed by Mn/DOT engineers using the
AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, Third
Edition (2004). The remainder of this chapter will discuss the features of the bridge system
common to all Mn/DOT inverted-T precast slab bridges and then discuss the design details for
Bridge No. 13004.
3.2 Common Features of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Bridge System

This section discusses design considerations and details that are general to any bridge
designed with the Mn/DOT inverted-T precast section. The common features and design
assumptions of the precast section are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Section 3.2.2 discuses the
general system to tie the precast sections together. Section 3.2.3 discusses the system for making
the spans continuous over the piers for live load.
3.2.1 Design of the Precast Section

A cross-sectional view of an interior section of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab
System concept is shown in Figure 3.1. This shape was based on the precast section used in the
French Poutre Dalle system (Figure 1.1). The precast sections of the new system were designed
to have a standard width of 6 ft. which was the maximum width that local fabricators could
readily accommodate. This maximum width was chosen to minimize the number of sections
required to span the width of the bridge. It was believed that this would result in economic
benefits by reducing the amount of time required to fabricate the sections as well as the time
required to place the sections during bridge construction. Using wider precast sections also
results in fewer longitudinal joints between precast sections in the finished structure which
require special reinforcement and time to construct. The exterior inverted-T precast section
concept used in this system had a web, a flange on only one side, and reinforcement to
19
accommodate a barrier, as shown in Figure 3.2. These sections did not have a standard width.
The variable width of these sections allows a bridge to have any desired width.
The inverted-T precast sections were designed with transverse hooks protruding out of
the vertical sides of the web, as shown in Figure 3.1. These hooks were #6 bars spaced at 12 in.
along the length of each precast section. The 12-inch spacing was chosen conservatively to
ensure that an adequate amount of steel traversed the longitudinal joint. For this system, 90º
hooks were used rather than 180º hooks which were used in the Poutre Dalle system because it
was felt that this would simplify formwork during the precasting process as well as the
placement of reinforcement in the field. Figure 3.3 shows a photograph of these transverse
hooks.
Because this system is similar to slab-span bridges, the web height of the inverted-T
section for each bridge project was to be determined using AASHTO LRFD Table 2.5.2.6.3-1
(2004), which specifies for slab-span bridges with continuous spans:
Total Structure Depth = [S+10]/30, (1)
where S is the clear length (feet) of the longest span.
The minimum thickness of the CIP concrete above the precast section webs was set at 6
in. to provide 3 in. of cover above the longitudinal deck reinforcement, therefore the height of
the precast section web would be 6 in. less than the value obtained from Eqn. (1). The
longitudinal reinforcement at the top of the webs consisted of seven #8 bars spaced at 7 in. This
reinforcement was used to provide resistance for tensile stresses that could develop during
handling and transportation of the panels prior to placement.
The required prestressing force was a function of the span length and the dead load. The
precast sections were designed to be simply supported under dead loads and continuous over the
piers for live loads. The maximum span length of the precast sections was to be 65 ft.
The flanges were designed with a 1:24 slope to increase the constructibility of the
section. It was felt that eliminating the flat surface on top of the flanges would simplify removal
of the formwork, as well as simplify the casting of both the precast and CIP concrete by
facilitating the flow of concrete. The thickness of the flanges along the exterior of each section
was 5.25 in. because this was the minimum flange thickness that provided enough clearance
within the flange for the #4 bar with a 180º hook around the longitudinal reinforcement and 1.5
in. of concrete cover along the bottom surface of the section. There was no concrete cover
requirement at the top surface of the flanges because the flanges were covered with CIP concrete
in the field, however a minimal amount of concrete was needed between the steel and the top
surface of concrete in order for the steel to bond with the precast concrete. Minimizing the
thickness of the flanges increased the thickness of the CIP concrete at these locations and
lowered the depth of the transverse hooks that traversed the longitudinal joints, both of which
increased the ability of the section to distribute loads in the transverse direction.
The web and flange corners of the precast inverted-T sections had a ¾-inch chamfer, as
shown in Figure 3.1. Chamfering the corners reduced the stress concentrations at these locations
to lessen the probability for the development of longitudinal reflective cracking. Caulk was used
to seal the joint as well as to increase the surface area of the discontinuity and reduce the stress
concentration directly above the longitudinal joints, as shown in Figure 3.4.
The contact surfaces of the precast sections (those surfaces in direct contact with the CIP
concrete) were intentionally roughened to enhance the bond between the precast sections and the
CIP concrete. The surfaces were roughened to have a minimum amplitude of ¼-inch.
Formwork was fabricated with a form liner to create roughened surfaces, as shown in Figure 3.5.
20
This formwork was used to create roughened surfaces on the tops of the flanges and the vertical
sides of the web. A rake was used to roughen the top of the web. The intent of these roughened
surfaces was to help achieve composite action between the precast and CIP concrete and
therefore help prevent the development of reflective cracking in the CIP concrete.
Transverse reinforcement was included within the precast sections to satisfy three
different reinforcement requirements: horizontal shear reinforcement, anchorage zone
reinforcement, and confinement reinforcement. The transverse reinforcement that was included
to satisfy these requirements is highlighted in Figure 3.6. Horizontal shear reinforcement was
required to ensure that composite action was achieved. The size and spacing of the horizontal
shear reinforcement required for each bridge was to be a function of the surface area and
roughness of the concrete interface (AASHTO LRFD 5.8.4). This reinforcement was required
along the entire length of each precast section. The amount of reinforcement included for
anchorage zone reinforcement and confinement reinforcement was standardized to provide a
standard reinforcement detail that could be used for precast sections with a prestressing force of
up to 1,000,000 lbs., which was the maximum prestressing force proposed by local fabricators.
This reinforcement was only included within 18 in. of the end of each precast section. The
standard anchorage zone reinforcement consisted of three #5 ties (Figure 3.6) at 2-in. spacing at
the end of each section followed by two #5 ties at 6-in. spacing (AASHTO LRFD 5.10.10.1).
The standard confinement reinforcement consisted of three #4 ties (Figure 3.6) at 2-in. spacing at
the end of each section followed by two #4 ties at 6-in. spacing (AASHTO LRFD 5.10.10.2).
During the casting process for the inverted-T sections, styrofoam blocks were used to
block out the final 10 in. of each flange at both ends of the member. After the precast sections
were set in place, these block-outs formed large voids above the pier caps, as shown in Figure
3.7. These block-outs were filled with CIP concrete which served, along with reinforcement, to
tie the precast sections to the pier caps.
3.2.2 Transverse Reinforcement over the Longitudinal Joints

Once the precast sections were in place, a reinforcement cage was placed over the
longitudinal joint. The reinforcement detail over the joint, including the transverse hooks, is
shown in Figure 3.4. The use of 90º hooks with this system enabled the reinforcement cage to be
prefabricated and dropped into place above the longitudinal joints rather than tying each bar in-
place individually. Figure 3.8 shows a photograph of the reinforcement cage after it was set in
position above the longitudinal joints.
The transverse hooks and reinforcement cage were included in the system to provide a
means for transverse load distribution. Once the sections and reinforcement were in place and
the CIP concrete had cured, the transverse hooks and the reinforcement cage would serve to
effectively connect adjacent sections. Thus, it was felt that this large amount of reinforcement
placed in each longitudinal joint would reduce the tensile stresses that would otherwise develop
within the CIP concrete topping as a result of transverse load sharing. This would therefore
arrest the development of reflective cracking above the longitudinal joints.
3.2.3 Detailing for Continuous Behavior over the Piers

The Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System was designed to behave continuously for
live load by adding negative moment reinforcement at the top of the CIP concrete above the pier
caps. This method for achieving continuity was much more practical than the use of longitudinal
post-tensioning. Longitudinal deck reinforcement was included within the CIP concrete topping
21
to provide tensile resistance. This longitudinal reinforcement was designed similar to the
reinforcement in the top of traditional CIP slab-span bridges.
The CIP concrete that filled the large voids created by the block-outs of the precast
sections at the piers (Figure 3.3), along with the concrete between the ends of the precast sections
acted similar to a concrete diaphragm, and also provided potential compressive resistance for
negative continuity moments. It was felt that the combination of this compressive resistance
with the tensile resistance of the longitudinal deck reinforcement would provide adequate
negative moment resistance to achieve continuous behavior for live load over the piers.
As explained in Section 2.3, long-term behaviors such as creep and shrinkage can lead to
the development of positive restraint moments at the pier caps. A positive moment connection
must be provided to prevent the development of a gap between the CIP concrete and the precast
sections above the pier caps. This positive moment connection was provided by adding
additional reinforcement consisting of four #8 bars over the piers at a lower depth in the cross
section. These #8 bars extended 10 ft. in each direction on each side of the pier. This
reinforcement is shown in Figure 3.4. The reinforcement cages that were placed above the joints
were not continuous over the piers.
3.3 Design of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004

The bridge instrumented for this study was Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004, located in Center
City, Minnesota. This bridge was oriented in the east-west direction on U.S. Trunk Highway 8
near the junction of Chisago County Road 9. The bridge spanned the newly created Center Lake
Channel that connected North Center Lake and South Center Lake. The channel was built to
enable boat travel between the two lakes. Originally a box culvert existed at this location that
was not designed for boat travel. An elevation view of this bridge is shown in Figure 3.9.
Complete bridge plans for this bridge are provided in Appendix A of this report.
The superstructure of the bridge was constructed using the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast
Slab System. The thickness of the CIP concrete above the web of the precast sections was 6 in.
to provide adequate concrete cover of 3 in. above the longitudinal deck steel. This produced a
deck with a constant cross section thickness of 18 in. The abutments, wingwalls, and pier caps
were constructed of precast concrete and were supported by CIP concrete piles (The abutments
of Stage 2 were CIP rather than precast because the large weight of the precast abutments
presented problems during construction). The substructure had a crown towards the center to
allow for proper drainage of the bridge deck and to allow the deck to have a constant deck
thickness. The wingwalls extended back from the abutments at a 90º angle. The bridge had
three spans measuring 22 ft., 27 ft., and 22 ft. There was no skew between the roadway and the
channel.
The general contractor for construction of the bridge was Lunda Construction. The
inverted-T precast sections were fabricated by County Materials Corporation at their fabricating
plant in Roberts, Wisconsin. The bridge was constructed in two stages to allow continuous flow
of traffic. In Stage 1, the abutments and pier caps were precast in two separate pieces and
connected using construction joints. Reinforcement dowels were placed within the construction
joints and the joints were filled with grout to tie the sections together. In Stage 2, the abutments
and piercaps were cast-in-place. The CIP concrete deck was also cast in two stages therefore
there was a longitudinal construction joint located along the entire length of the CIP portion of
the bridge deck adjacent to the centerline of U.S. Trunk Highway 8. The construction stages and
construction joint within the CIP concrete deck are shown in Figure 3.10. The superstructure
22
was constructed integrally with the pier caps and abutments therefore there were no expansion
joints installed in the bridge. There were however expansion joints installed between the
approach panels and the roadway paving to allow for movement of the approach panels to
accommodate the bridge expansion and contraction.
The bridge was designed to accommodate one lane in each direction, a full-width
shoulder on each side, and a left-turn lane located in the center of the bridge for eastbound
traffic. A bike path was located along the north side of the bridge, bordered on the north by an
ornamental metal railing and on the south by a guardrail which served to separate the bike trail
from the highway traffic. There was also a guardrail on the south side of the bridge.
Instrumentation was installed at several locations within the CIP portion of the deck to
monitor for the development of reflective cracking and to investigate continuous behavior over
the interior piers. A conduit system was constructed within the CIP portion of the deck to house
the wiring for this instrumentation. The conduit traveled from the CIP concrete down through
the flanges of three of the precast sections to boxes that were mounted on the pier cap. The
conduit proceeded along the underside of the bridge and then underground towards a cabinet that
housed the data collection system. A complete description of the conduit system is located in
Chapter 5 of this report.
3.3.1 Materials
The inverted-T precast sections were constructed using concrete with a specified
minimum compressive strength of 6500 psi. The other precast elements as well as the CIP
portions of the bridge were constructed using concrete with a specified minimum compressive
strength of 4000 psi. The results of the compressive strength tests for both the precast and CIP
concrete are provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, respectively.
The prestressing strands used in the precast sections were ½-inch diameter 7-wire low-
relaxation strands conforming to ASTM A416 with a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 270
ksi. The mild reinforcement located in all elements of the structure was epoxy-coated rebar with
a minimum tensile yield strength of 60 ksi.
The backfill material used during the construction of this bridge was a granular backfill
that met Mn/DOT standard specification 3149.2D (2000). At the time of construction, this
specification called for pit-run or crusher-run mineral to pass a 75 mm (3 inch) sieve, graded
from coarse to fine such that the ratio of the portion passing the 75 µm (#200) sieve divided by
the portion passing the 25 mm (1 inch) sieve may not exceed 20 percent by mass.
3.3.2 Design Calculations

Mn/DOT Bridge 13004 was designed according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, Third Edition (2004) and interim specifications current at the time of design (Fall
2004). An HL93 Live Load was considered for design along with an additional uniform load of
20 psf for allowance of future wearing course modifications as well as 450 plf for traffic barriers
and 200 plf for a pedestrian barrier, both distributed equally to all of the precast sections. The
design speed for the bridge was 45 mph. Calculations performed by engineers at the Mn/DOT
Bridge Office for an interior composite section are provided in Appendix B of this report.
The precast sections acted simply-supported for their self weight but once the concrete
had cured the composite section behaved continuous over the pier. Therefore the continuous
composite section was designed to support the live load and superimposed dead loads. Live
loads were considered to be distributed to the superstructure based on the equivalent beam
23
widths for slab-span type bridges (AASHTO LRFD 4.6.2.3). This distribution factor was used
because once constructed the bridge most closely resembled a slab-span bridge making this live
load distribution factor most appropriate.
The restraint moment was estimated using the Portland Cement Associated (PCA)
Method (Freyermuth, 1969). In this method, a formula was used to calculate the moment caused
by differential shrinkage in a composite concrete section. The restraint moments were then
calculated using a formula that combined the shrinkage moment, the moment caused by the
prestressing force about the centroid of the composite section, and the midspan moment caused
by dead load to obtain the restraint moment at the piers. The restraint moments estimated using
this method were combined with the dead and live load moments to check the capacity of the
composite section.
The maximum total factored negative moment demand over the pier, including the
estimated restraint moment and live load was conservatively calculated to be -97 ft-kips per foot
of width. The longitudinal reinforcement over the piers consisted of #8 bars at 12-inch spacing
and #7 bars at 4-inch spacing between the #8 bars. This detail is shown in Figure 3.3. The
factored nominal negative moment capacity of this reinforcement along with the concrete above
the piers was calculated to be 117 ft-kips per foot of width. Conservatism was used with these
calculations because it is difficult to accurately predict restraint moments for this new system.
The transverse deck reinforcement consisted of #5 bars spaced at 12 in. to satisfy shrinkage and
temperature requirements (AASHTO LRFD 5.10.8.2).
3.3.3 Details of the Precast Section used for Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
The height of the web for the precast sections of Bridge 13004 was 12 in. This height
was used to produce a deck cross section that had a constant thickness of 18 in. This bridge had
initially been designed as a slab-span bridge with an 18 in. deck and by using the same thickness
no changes had to be made to the grade of the roadway. Figure 3.11 shows the cross section of
the interior precast sections for this bridge, including complete details of the reinforcement.
The prestressing pattern within the precast sections consisted of two layers of prestressing
strands with 8 strands in each layer. The two layers had a center-to-center vertical spacing of 2
in. and each strand had a horizontal spacing of 6 in. Each of these strands were stressed to 202.5
ksi (0.75fpu) to produce a total prestressing force per section of 496 kips. The longitudinal
reinforcement within the flange tips was originally planned to consist of mild steel. However,
this was changed to prestressing strands tensioned to a nominal stress of 5000 psi. The
fabricators suggested this be done because it significantly simplified the placement of this
reinforcement. The transverse reinforcement within the flanges consisted of #4 bars with a 180º
hook around the longitudinal reinforcement within the flange, as shown in Figure 3.1. This
reinforcement was used to increase the durability of the flanges during transport.
The maximum total factored positive moment demand at midspan of the center span,
including the estimated restraint moment and live load, was calculated to be 393.1 ft-kips for an
interior composite section. The positive design moment capacity was calculated to be 713.7 ft-
kips for an interior composite section. The excess ultimate capacity was a result of satisfying
serviceability requirements.
The maximum factored vertical shear demand at the critical section was calculated to be
90 kips. This was less than half of the design concrete shear capacity for the composite section
therefore there was no requirement for stirrups due to vertical shear demand. The maximum
factored horizontal shear demand at the interface of the precast and CIP concrete was estimated
24
to be 0.104 ksi near the ends of the precast sections. This slightly exceeded the 0.100 ksi
maximum design horizontal shear capacity of the concrete with a roughened surface, therefore
transverse reinforcement was needed near the ends of the section for horizontal shear (AASHTO
LRFD 5.8.4.1). The rest of the section required only the minimum amount of reinforcement at
24-in. spacing (AASTHTO LRFD 5.8.4.1). However, due to the unique design of this system
and the importance of composite action, these sections were conservatively designed with #5 ties
at 12 in. along the entire length. The relatively short length of the precast sections in this bridge
allowed this conservative amount of reinforcement to be used without large economical impact.
3.3.4 Details of the Bridge Deck

The entire deck of the bridge was 72 ft. 2 in. long and 76 ft. 5 in. wide. The roadway was
62 ft. 3 in. wide and the bike trail was 10 ft. wide. Holes were prefabricated into the flanges of
three of the interior-end span sections to provide a means for the conduit to travel from the CIP
portion of the deck to the underside of the bridge.
The approach panels extended out 20 ft. from the bridge and ran the whole width of the
roadway. The thickness of the approach panels was 12 in. The approach panels were reinforced
with a top and bottom mat of steel consisting of #4, #5, and #6 bars. The far end of the approach
panel rested on a concrete sill and had an expansion joint between the panel and the roadway.
3.3.5 Details of the Precast Substructure

The substructure was designed to be constructed entirely out of precast concrete.
However, due to problems handling the abutment sections (mostly due to weight) during Stage 1
of bridge construction, the abutments of Stage 2 were constructed using CIP concrete. In Stage
1, reinforcing dowels were used to tie adjacent precast elements together. This was done by
inserting reinforcing dowels from one of the elements into prefabricated holes in another element
and then filling the holes with grout. The precast sections of the superstructure were placed on
elastomeric bearing pads located on top of the pier caps and/or abutments. The superstructure of
the bridge was tied to the wingwalls, abutments, and pier caps by reinforcing dowels that
extended out of the precast elements and into CIP portions of the bridge deck or approach panels.
Figures 3.12 and 3.13 show the connection detail of the abutment to the CIP concrete of the
bridge deck and approach panels and the connection detail of the pier caps to the CIP concrete of
the bridge deck, respectively. The reinforcing dowels were only located within the center 50%
of the bridge width to allow the outer portions of the bridge to expand and contract laterally
under thermal loading.
In Stage 1, the abutments, wingwalls and pier caps were constructed of precast concrete.
The abutments were 76 ft. 5 in. long, 7 ft. tall and 3 ft. thick. The wingwalls extended back
approximately 10 ft. 6 in. from the face of the abutments. The reinforcement of the abutments
and wingwalls consisted entirely of #5 and #6 bars. The pier caps were 76 ft. 5 in. long, 3 ft. 6
in. tall and 3 ft. 6 in. thick. The reinforcement for the pier caps consisted of #5, #7 and #9 bars.
The precast substructure was supported by CIP concrete piles. The piles consisted of
steel pipes driven into the ground, closed-ended, to the depth required to reach bearing capacity.
The piles used to support the abutments were 55 ft. long and had a 12 in. nominal diameter. The
piles used to support the pier caps were 80 ft. long and had a 16 in. nominal diameter. Once the
piles were driven to the proper depth, they were filled with high slump concrete and
reinforcement was added to the top portion of the pile. This reinforcement was used in
conjunction with grout to tie the CIP concrete piles to the precast substructure.
25
Chapter 4
Instrumentation of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
4.1 Objectives of Instrumentation
The instrumentation plan for Mn/DOT Bridge No.13004 was developed with the
objective of evaluating the performance of the newly developed Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast
Slab System. The behaviors to be investigated were established after an extensive literature
review on other precast deck systems along with several meetings with Mn/DOT engineers.
Behaviors of interest included potential development of longitudinal reflective cracking in the
CIP concrete, continuity for live loading over the piers, and effectiveness of the transverse hooks
in transverse load sharing.
All instrumentation for Mn/DOT Bridge 13004 was installed during Stage 1 of bridge
construction, which consisted of the north half of the bridge. This Stage was selected for
instrumentation for two reasons. First, after completion of Stage 1, all traffic was rerouted to
that portion of the bridge while construction began on Stage 2. This subjected the north half of
the bridge to potentially larger traffic volume at an early age, promoting the potential
development of reflective cracking. Second, this section of the bridge was closest to the cabinet
used to house the dataloggers which was stationed adjacent to the available power source.
Because of symmetry, only the east half of Stage 1 was instrumented. Figure 4.1 shows a plan
view of the bridge with the instrumented portion of the bridge highlighted.
The remainder of this chapter explains the behaviors that were investigated, the
instrumentation that was used to investigate each behavior, and the locations of the installed
instrumentation.
4.2 Longitudinal Reflective Cracking of the CIP Concrete Deck above the
Precast Longitudinal Joints
The development of longitudinal reflective cracking in the CIP concrete deck was a
major concern due to the implications that such cracking would have on the durability of the
system, as explained in Section 2.2.3. The main area of concern for the development of cracking
was the area directly above the longitudinal joints between adjacent precast sections because it
was thought that this presented the most probable area for the development of cracking. Figure
4.2 shows a cross-sectional view of the deck system with the longitudinal joints highlighted. The
vertical sides of the flanges on adjacent precast sections were not connected therefore the load
sharing in the transverse direction across these joints had to occur within the CIP concrete. This
had the potential to create tensile stresses in the CIP concrete in the transverse direction which
could lead to the development of cracking. In addition, loading, such as wheel loads, could
cause adjacent flanges to slightly separate from one another. The contact surfaces of the precast
sections were roughened to create a bond with the CIP concrete and help to achieve composite
action, however the bonding of the CIP concrete to the top of the flanges could also potentially
increase the tensile stresses in the CIP concrete resulting from slight separation of the adjacent
flanges due to transverse load sharing and consequently create a driving force for the
development of reflective cracking.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, transverse hooks protruded out of the webs of the precast
sections in addition to reinforcement cages placed between the webs to arrest the development of
longitudinal reflective cracks. Figure 3.4 shows these transverse hooks along with the additional
26
reinforcement cages located above the longitudinal joints between the precast webs. The top
corners of adjacent flanges were chamfered to reduce local stress concentrations at these
locations. A single bead of caulk was applied to the top of the longitudinal joints to weather-
proof the joint and to reduce stress concentrations at this location by blunting and increasing the
area of the discontinuity.
4.2.1 Instrumentation for Longitudinal Reflective Cracking above the Precast Longitudinal
Joints
Slight separation between adjacent flanges, which would act as a driving force for the
development of reflective cracking, would most likely occur at the location of maximum
downward deflection. Thus, it was felt that reflective cracking would most likely develop above
the longitudinal joints of the longest span. Therefore instrumentation was installed above the
longitudinal joints at the midspan of the center span at three different locations in the transverse
direction. These transverse locations were chosen to be as close as possible to the nominal wheel
load locations as shown in Figure 4.3.
The center span had a total of 12 longitudinal joints formed by adjacent precast sections;
therefore, it would be difficult to evaluate the overall performance of these joints by
instrumenting a single joint however it was not feasible to instrument every single joint. As a
compromise, three joints were instrumented, to obtain a sufficient amount of information that
would allow for proper evaluation of the overall performance of the longitudinal joints.
The instrumentation at each location consisted of five vibrating wire (VW) embedment
strain gages oriented in the transverse direction. The VW embedment strain gages used for this
instrumentation were Geokon® Model VCE-4200 VW Strain Gages as shown in Figure 4.4.
Details and specifications for this strain gage are provided in Appendix C.
Once installed, each gage overlapped the adjacent gage by approximately 2 in. as shown
in the instrumentation detail given in Figure 4.5. The gage length for the gages used was 6 in.
Therefore each gage had approximately 2 in. where it was not overlapped by any of the adjacent
gages, and 2 in. at each end that was overlapped by the adjacent gages. The gages were
overlapped to ensure that the crack would not propagate around them which would allow the
crack to avoid being detected. If a crack were to develop and open, it would cause any strain
gage that spanned the crack to have a larger relative strain reading than adjacent strain gages.
Therefore in addition to ensuring that the crack was detected, overlapping the gages would allow
for determination of the crack location to within 2 in.
The five VW embedment strain gages at each transverse location were installed by tying
each gage between two pieces of uncoated rebar using coated tie wire as shown in Figure 4.6.
Once all the gages were tied to the rebar, this assembly was placed on top of the bottom
longitudinal reinforcement steel of the reinforcement cage, positioning the gages approximately
3 in. above the top of the flanges, as shown in Figure 4.7. Once the assembly was tied in place,
the final position of each gage was secured by using a zip tie to secure the gage to the coated tie
wire. This prevented the gage from sliding in the transverse direction and changing position
during pouring of the CIP concrete deck. The lead wire for each gage was temporarily placed in
a plastic bag to protect it from the elements.
27
4.3 Longitudinal Reflective Cracking of the CIP Concrete Deck above the
Precast Section Web Corners
A secondary area of concern for the development of longitudinal reflective cracking of
the CIP concrete deck was directly above the web corners of the precast sections. Figure 4.2
shows a cross-sectional view of the deck system with the precast web corners highlighted. This
area was a concern because the corner of the web of the precast section might produce high
stress concentrations in the relatively thin CIP concrete. These corners were chamfered to
reduce stress concentrations at this location. The contact surfaces of the precast sections were
also roughened to achieve better bond with the CIP concrete to lessen the effect of the
discontinuity between the precast concrete and the CIP concrete at this location.
4.3.1 Instrumentation for Longitudinal Reflective Cracking above the Precast Section Web
Corners
The instrumentation above the web corners at each location consisted of ten Geokon®
Model VCE-4200 VW Strain Gages oriented in the transverse direction. Details and
specifications for this strain gage are provided in Appendix C. Again, these gages were placed
such that each gage overlapped the adjacent gage. The gage length for the gages used was 6 in.
and the overlap used for these gages was about 1.5 in. therefore each gage had approximately 3
in. where it was not overlapped by any adjacent gages. Figure 4.8 shows the plan view of the
instrumentation detail for the instruments located above the web corners. This detail existed at
the same locations as the instrumentation above the joints but at a higher depth in the cross
section. Figure 4.9 shows a cross-sectional view that includes all the VW embedment gages
located at each instrumented transverse location. This detail was used because it would provide
more information in the case that cracking would develop. More specifically it would reveal if
the cracking had propagated to a higher depth in the cross section and would give an
approximation of the path by which the cracking had propagated.
The ten VW embedment strain gages located above the web corners were installed by
tying each gage to two pieces of coated rebar using coated tie wire. In this case, epoxy-coated
rebar was used due to the close proximity of these gages to the exterior surface of the CIP
concrete deck. Once all the gages were tied to the rebar, the assembly was slid into position
underneath the longitudinal deck steel and tied in place as shown in Figure 4.10. Again, the final
position of each gage was secured by using a zip tie to secure the gage to the coated tie wire.
4.4 Continuous Behavior for Live Load over the Piers

The Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System was designed to behave continuously over
the piers for live load because continuous behavior presents many advantages, as explained in
Section 2.3. Md/DOT practice for typical preacast concrete beam bridges is to design the spans
as simply supported for both dead and live load; however the design of the Bridge 13004 spans
included reinforcement in the CIP deck for the purpose of producing continuous behavior for
live loads.
It was difficult to accurately calculate or predict the restraint moment that would develop
at the piers because the methods used to predict restraint moments are based on typical bridge
deck systems which have much thicker cross sections than this system. Thus, a large amount of
reinforcement was chosen conservatively. The reinforcement in the negative regions of the CIP
concrete deck consisted of #8 bars spaced at 12 in. with #7 bars spaced at 4 in. between the #8
bars. As mentioned in Chapter 3, additional reinforcement was added over the piers at a lower
28
depth in the cross section to provide a positive moment connection in case a positive restraint
moment were to develop due to long-term behaviors such as creep and shrinkage. This
additional reinforcement consisted of four # 8 bars above the joint as shown in Figure 3.4. Since
it was difficult to calculate the size of the potential positive restraint moment, it was uncertain
how effective this additional reinforcement would be. However, if this reinforcement was not
added and large positive restraint moments had developed this could cause a gap to open
between the precast sections and the girder ends.
Once the precast sections were placed on top of the pier caps and/or abutments, the
blocked-out portions of the flanges (Figure 3.3) created large voids above the pier caps which
were filled with the CIP concrete of the deck. Once the CIP concrete cured, the concrete that
filled these voids along with the space between the ends of the precast sections acted as a
concrete diaphragm and provided some compressive negative moment resistance. However, due
to the irregular geometry of the CIP concrete and precast sections, it was difficult to analytically
determine how effective this negative moment resistance would be in helping to achieve
continuous behavior for live load.
4.4.1 Instrumentation for Continuous Behavior for Live Load over the Piers
The bridge superstructure for the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System was designed
to behave continuously for live loads only. To determine the effective continuity of the bridge
superstructure a live load (known test load) must be applied to the bridge. This will be done by
moving a loaded sand truck to several different positions along the length of the bridge. While
the sand truck is at each position, the curvature at several different locations along the length of
the bridge will be determined using the installed instrumentation. The effective continuity of the
bridge can be determined by comparing the curvatures obtained using instrumentation to the
curvatures calculated using the known live load and assuming fully continuous behavior. The
truck test had not yet been executed at the time of this report.
The instrumentation used for monitoring the continuity were Geokon® Model VK-4150
Vibrating Wire Strain Gages as shown in Figure 4.11. Details and specifications for this strain
gage are provided in Appendix C. These gages were welded to the longitudinal steel
reinforcement at different depths of the bridge cross section. Each gage provided a strain reading
for that depth of the cross section which could be used to determine the curvature of the bridge at
that location.
Due to symmetry, it was only necessary to determine the continuous behavior over one of
the piers, thus six locations along only half the length of the bridge were instrumented. These
locations of instrumentation are shown in Figure 4.12. At each of these locations,
instrumentation was installed at several locations in the transverse direction. This was done
partly to provide redundancy but also to provide information on transverse load distribution.
Figure 4.13 is a plan view of Stage 1 of the bridge deck, showing the locations of all the
instrumentation installed on the longitudinal steel reinforcement. In the transverse direction,
instrumentation was installed at the midspan of the center span adjacent to both Joint 1 and Joint
2 and near the pier on the center span side, adjacent to Joints 1, 2, and 3. Gages were also
installed on the longitudinal deck steel at several locations above Webs 1 and 2 of the precast
sections on the center pier side of the east pier. These gages were used to determine if the strains
in the deck steel over the pier differed between the areas above the flanges and the areas above
the webs. This would provide insight on the effect that the precast section shape has on the
continuous behavior of the bridge.
29
The ♦’s in Figure 4.13 represent locations of instrumentation where three strain gages
were installed. At these locations, two strain gages were installed on the longitudinal steel of the
reinforcement cage above the longitudinal joint and one strain gage was installed on the
longitudinal deck steel that was closest to the other two gages, as shown in Figure 4.14. The ●’s
in Figure 4.13 represent locations of instrumentation where two strain gages were installed. The
instrumentation detail was different at these locations because the reinforcement cages were not
continuous over the pier. At these locations, one strain gage was installed on one of the #8 bars
above the pier and one strain gage was installed on the longitudinal deck steel directly above the
other strain gage, as shown in Figure 4.15. The ▲’s in Figure 4.13 represent locations of
instrumentation where only one strain gage was installed. At these locations the strain gage was
installed on the longitudinal deck steel.
The VW spot-weldable strain gages were installed by first grinding the epoxy coating off
of the longitudinal reinforcing steel at the location where the gage was to be installed. The steel
was then ground flat at this location to provide a smooth surface for spot-welding the strain gage.
Figure 4.16 shows a picture of a VW spot-weldable strain gage welded to longitudinal
reinforcement. After the strain gage was welded to the steel, cyano-acrylate adhesive was
applied to the mounting tabs to seal any gaps between the steel and the mounting tabs. The tabs
were then completely covered with a water-proofing compound to protect against future
corrosion. To provide mechanical protection, the entire gage was then covered with a steel cover
that was secured in place using three zip ties as shown in Figure 4.17. The edges of the cover
were covered with mastic tape to prevent concrete from getting inside the cover. After all of the
gages were installed, the steel reinforcement that had gages attached were rotated so that the
gages were located on the bottom of the steel. This was done to reduce the chances of damaging
the gages during pouring of the CIP concrete deck. Figure 4.18 shows a photograph of three VW
spot-weldable strain gages on the longitudinal steel near midspan and Figure 4.19 shows a
photograph of two VW spot-weldable strain gages installed on the longitudinal steel above the
pier.
4.5 Effectiveness of the Transverse Hooks

The transverse hooks extending out of the webs of the precast sections were intended to
help with transverse load sharing and to reduce the probability for the development and
propagation of longitudinal reflective cracking in the CIP concrete above the longitudinal joint.
These hooks were spaced at 12 in. on center in each member. The locations of the hooks within
each section were staggered slightly so that the hooks from adjacent sections would not line up
directly, which would otherwise prevent proper placement of adjacent precast sections. Figure
4.20 shows a photograph of the hooks from adjacent sections lined up once the sections were in
place.
The spacing of 12 in. was chosen arbitrarily because it was difficult to accurately predict
the effectiveness of these hooks. Therefore to determine if this spacing was adequate to provide
effective transverse load sharing, it was necessary to monitor the behavior of these hooks under
applied loading. Also, if a longitudinal reflective crack were to develop in the CIP concrete it
would be important to determine whether or not the steel of the transverse hooks had yielded
across the crack.
30
4.5.1 Instrumentation to Determine Effectiveness of Transverse Hooks
The same three joints that were instrumented for longitudinal reflective cracking were
also instrumented to investigate the effectiveness of the transverse hooks (Figure 4.3). At each
location, two transverse hooks were instrumented above each joint directly adjacent to the VW
embedment strain gages that were used to detect the development of longitudinal reflective
cracking. These locations were chosen to facilitate the detection and location of reflective
cracking. Also, the transverse hooks at midspan would likely experience the largest strains
therefore instrumenting these hooks would likely provide the most information on their
effectiveness.
Each pair of hooks that was instrumented consisted of hooks protruding from adjacent
precast sections located directly adjacent to one another in the longitudinal direction. Each pair
was instrumented with a total of seven Geokon® Model VK-4150 Vibrating Wire Strain Gages.
Four gages were placed on one hook while three gages were placed on the adjacent hook. The
gages were placed so that the gage on one hook slightly overlapped the adjacent gages on the
other hook. Together, the seven gages spanned most of the distance between the webs of the
adjacent precast sections. This was done to ensure that the gages would cross a crack if one were
to develop. Figure 4.21 shows a plan view of the instrumentation detail for the transverse hooks.
These gages were installed in the same manner as the gages used for monitoring
continuous behavior over the piers as explained in Section 4.3.2. Figure 4.22 shows a
photograph of these strain gages installed on the transverse hooks.
4.6 Installation of Instrumentation

The coordinates of all the gages installed in the bridge are provided in Tables 4.1 through
4.4. These coordinates are in inches and were measured from the northeast corner of the
roadway (inside the north guardrail, see Figure 4.1), using a positive coordinate system with x-
being positive in the west direction along the length of the bridge, y- positive in the south
direction, and z- positive in upwards direction starting from the bottom surface of the bridge
superstructure. The x-direction coordinates given for the VW embedment gages is for the center
of that group of gages. The gages overlap the adjacent gages, but they are not all in the same
line. They have a spacing of approximately 1.5 in. between overlapping gages (see Figure 4.7).
The gages were labeled according to the type of gage and the approximate location of the gage
within the bridge. This labeling scheme is explained in Figure 4.23.
The installation of instrumentation took place in September of 2005. The process started
on September 2 and lasted until September 28 at which point all instrumentation was connected
to the data acquisition system, which is described in Chapter 5. Data was recorded intermittently
throughout the installation process using a Geokon® GK-403 read-out box. A complete log of
the installation process is provided in Appendix D of this report.
31
Chapter 5
Data Acquisition System
5.1 Design of the Data Acquisition System
A data acquisition (DAQ) system was created to facilitate long-term recording of strain
and temperature readings from the VW strain gages installed within the CIP concrete portion of
the bridge deck. This system consisted of two dataloggers, two VW interfaces, six multiplexers,
two storage modules, and two batteries. A schematic of this system is provided in Figure 5.1.
All of the components used in this system were supplied by Campbell Scientific, Inc. A general
description along with some of the specifications for each component are provided in Appendix
C.
The multiplexers installed in this system were AM16/32 Relay Multiplexers and were
numbered 1 through 6 (from south to north). Each strain gage was connected to one of the six
multiplexers used in this system. The multiplexers each had the capacity to monitor 16
differential sensors that require excitation, i.e., 16 VW strain gages, along with the differential
thermistor of each gage. Thus, the use of six multiplexers enabled monitoring of 96 instruments
with this DAQ system. A total of 98 instruments were installed in the bridge, however two of
these instruments are not being measured. These extra gages were installed in case some of the
gages were damaged during casting of the CIP concrete deck. The initial channel assignment for
each strain gage is provided in Tables 5.1 though 5.6.
The signal cable from each multiplexer was connected to one of the two AVW4 VW
Interfaces used in this system. The VW Interfaces are needed to convert the differential strain
and temperature measurements obtained from the VW strain gage to single-ended measurements
that can be read by a datalogger. Up to four multiplexers can be connected to each VW
Interface. These VW interfaces were numbered 1 and 2. Multiplexers 1 through 3 were
connected to VW interface 1 and Multiplexers 4 through 6 were connected to VW interface 2.
Each VW interface was connected to one CR-10X datalogger. These dataloggers were
programmed using the PC400 Software to measure the strain gages connected to the
multiplexers. The initial programs that were downloaded into the dataloggers are provided in
Appendix E of this report. The data received from the strain gages was stored in the SM16M
Storage Module that was connected to each datalogger.
Each datalogger was powered by a PS100 12V Rechargeable Battery. These batteries
were originally only intended to provide the dataloggers with DC power and provide a reserve
power source in the case of a power outage. However, AC power was not immediately provided
at the site, therefore for a period of time these batteries were the only source of power. During
this time, both dataloggers were connected to one of the batteries while the other battery was
charged. After a period of approximately two weeks the fully charged battery was brought to the
bridge and swapped with the other battery. This process was to continue until the site was
supplied with AC power at which point each battery would again be connected to one datalogger
and would continually supply the datalogger with DC power, however, as of June 2006 the site
had not been supplied with AC power.
5.2 Conduit System

The cables used in the DAQ system were housed within a galvanized steel conduit
system that was installed by the contractor. A plan view of the conduit is provided in Figure 5.2.
32
Complete plans for this conduit system are shown on page 26 of the Bridge Plans provided in
Appendix A. This conduit system was completely sealed prior to pouring the CIP concrete to
prevent corrosive or mechanical damage to the cables or system components.
The individual wires for each of the instruments were typically spliced to a larger cable
that traveled through the conduit to the multiplexers. This was less expensive and more practical
than running each individual wire through the conduit. 17-pair and 6-pair shielded cables were
used as necessary to accommodate the total number of instruments at each instrumented location.
The cables above Joint #1 were labeled 6-#, the cables above Joint #2 were labeled 5-#, and the
cables above Joint #3 were labeled 4-#. Tables 5.8 through 5.22 identify the instruments
connected to each cable. Figure 5.3 shows a plan view of the cables within the bridge deck.
Table 5.7 summarizes the location of each cable relative to the longitudinal joints and the
multiplexer box to which each cable traveled. The spliced portions of the cables were housed
within relatively large steel boxes, as shown in Figure 5.4.
The conduit traveled from the instrumented locations adjacent to the precast member
joints to the eastern side of the east pier cap at which point the conduit then traveled down
through the precast sections to steel boxes mounted on the eastern face of the pier cap, as shown
in Figure 5.5. The portion of the conduit located within the CIP concrete had an inside diameter
of 1.5 inches.
Each of the large boxes mounted on the eastern pier cap was used to house two
multiplexers. These boxes were 10 in. wide, 12 in. tall, and 5 in. deep which provided adequate
room for two multiplexers located side by side. The boxes were numbered 1 through 3 from
south to north (from left to right in Figure 5.5). The locations of the multiplexers within these
boxes are shown in Figure 5.6. The multiplexers were mounted on plywood that was secured in
place against the back of the boxes using Liquid Nail® all-purpose adhesive.
A 3-inch inside diameter conduit traveled from the multiplexer boxes along the underside
of the bridge to the abutment. From there the conduit originally traveled through the abutment
underground to a cabinet that was intended to house the remainder of the DAQ system, however,
this portion of the conduit was damaged during construction, preventing its use. A temporary
cabinet was set up next to the abutment, as shown in Figure 5.7, to house the DAQ system until
new conduit was installed. A new conduit was planned to travel north around the front of the
abutment and underground to the cabinet that was to be used to permanently house the remainder
of the DAQ system, however, as of June 2006 this new portion of the conduit had not yet been
installed. The proposed new conduit is included in the plan view of the conduit provided in
Figure 5.2. A photograph of the permanent DAQ cabinet is shown in Figure 5.8.
5.3 Long-term Data Collection

The dataloggers were programmed to take strain and temperature readings from all 96
VW strain gages starting at midnight of each day and again every two hours. This provided
information on the influence of temperature and solar radiation, which vary throughout the day,
on the behavior of the bridge. The recorded data was stored in the SM16M Storage Modules that
were attached to each datalogger. For this application, it was not necessary to connect the two
dataloggers to each other because there was no need for communication between them.
However it was important that the clocks within each datalogger were synchronized so that both
dataloggers took measurements at the same time.
The bridge was located within relatively close proximity to the U of MN campus
therefore the data was downloaded about once a month. This was done by driving to the site and
33
swapping the two storage modules that were connected to the dataloggers with two empty
storage modules. The storage modules containing the data were then brought to the U of MN
where the data was downloaded onto a computer. During the period of time when the site was
without power, the data was downloaded every time the batteries were swapped, which was
approximately every two weeks.
34
Chapter 6
Summary and Future Work
6.1 Summary
The use of prefabricated bridge superstructure systems has many advantages over
conventional bridge construction. These systems generally reduce the duration of construction
time, which minimizes traffic disruption and increases work-zone safety. This has inspired
numerous research programs to develop new superstructure systems or improve existing systems
to enable them to achieve the benefits associated with prefabricated construction.
One system that has recently been developed is the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab
System. This system was inspired by the French Poutre Dalle System that was observed during a
scanning tour of prefabricated technologies in foreign countries. Several features of the design
for this system were incorporated into the design of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab
System. In addition, consultation from faculty at the University of Minnesota, as well as input
from fabricators and contractors, led to several modifications to the design that would enhance
the durability, performance, and constructibility of this new system.
A major concern affecting the durability of precast bridge superstructure systems was the
development longitudinal reflective cracking of the CIP concrete deck. The Mn/DOT Inverted-T
Precast Slab System was designed to be less susceptible to the development of reflective
cracking, however, additional modifications were made to further reduce the potential for the
development of these cracks. The corners of the precast sections were chamfered to reduce
stress concentrations within the CIP concrete. In addition, the thickness of the flanges was
reduced to increase the thickness of the CIP concrete above the longitudinal joint. This increased
the sections ability to share loads in the transverse direction. It was hoped that these
modifications would further reduce the potential for the development of longitudinal reflective
and therefore increase the durability of this system.
The Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System was initially implemented in two bridge
projects. The first project was a bridge constructed in Center City, Minnesota (Mn/DOT Bridge
No. 13004), which was about 40 miles northeast of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The second project
was a deck replacement for a bridge located in Beltrami County near Waskish Township in
northern Minnesota (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 04002). Instrumentation was installed in the bridge
located in Center City (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004) to monitor several behaviors that would
allow the durability of the system to be evaluated. These behaviors included the development of
longitudinal reflective cracking of the CIP concrete and continuous behavior over the piers for
live load.
6.2 Benefits of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System

The precast sections of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System eliminated the need
for formwork to cast the CIP concrete deck and provided a working surface for placement of the
deck reinforcement and CIP concrete. During the deck replacement of the Waskish Bridge
(Mn/DOT Bridge No. 04002), this improved constructibility reduced the impact of the bridge
construction on the environment below the bridge. This improved constructibility also resulted
in a reduction in overall construction time. The second stage of the Center City Bridge
(Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004) was completed in 18 working days (23 total days). The first stage
took longer because of delays caused by the installation of instrumentation in this portion of the
35
bridge. If the second stage of the bridge had been constructed using a traditional CIP slab-span
type bridge system, it would have taken 20 working days (28 total days). Thus, if there were not
delays caused by the installation of instrumentation, the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab
System would have shortened the construction time by 4 working days and 10 total days. This
shorter construction time reduced traffic disruption and improved work-zone safety by
shortening the amount of time that construction workers were exposed to this dangerous
environment.
It was hoped that the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System would provide a faster
bridge construction process for a small premium over conventional bridge superstructure
systems. The estimated costs for the two bridges built using the new superstructure system were
compared to those of a traditional slab-span bridge to determine if the economic impact of this
new system. This comparison is provided in Table 6.1. This table shows that the costs of the
Waskish Bridge (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 04002) and Center City Bridge (Mn/DOT Bridge No.
13004) compared well with the cost of a traditional CIP slab-span bridge. There was an
expectation that the “rapid construction” associated with this system, as well as the start-up costs
for the precaster , would cause this system to be more expensive than a traditional slab-span
bridge; however, the start-up costs should not recur as additional bridges of this type are built
and future comparisons between costs should be made.
6.3 Preliminary Conclusions

The Center City Bridge (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004) was built during September of
2005. As of June 2006, analysis of the collected data and visual inspection of the bridge deck
had indicated that no cracking had developed within the CIP concrete topping. No significant
information about the continuous behavior of the bridge had been obtained during this period. It
was expected that the majority of the information about the continuous behavior of the bridge
would be obtained after the truck load test was performed.
6.4 Future Work

The instrumentation in Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 was to be monitored for a period of
two years. A truck load test was planned to be performed on the bridge during this time period
to obtain more information on the continuous behavior of the bridge. In addition to the field
testing, a laboratory test and finite element analysis were to be conducted. The objective of the
laboratory test was to investigate the effect of several design modifications on the behavior of the
bridge. The modifications were made to further increase the durability and constructibility of the
system. In addition, the test provided a means to investigate behaviors that could not be
investigated with the instrumented bridge in the field such as composite action and loss of
prestressing force. The laboratory experiment was to include a full-scale specimen with two
spans and two precast sections in each span. Reinforcement details and other aspects of the
design were to be varied within each precast section and each span to allow for a more thorough
investigation of variations of several parameters including precast section flange thickness,
roughened surfaces, continuity steel, horizontal shear reinforcement, and anchorage zone and
confinement reinforcement. It was hoped that after complete analysis of the field data, along
with completion of the laboratory tests and finite element analysis, final design recommendations
could be made for the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System to be implemented in future
projects to enhance the performance, constructibility, and durability of this bridge superstructure
system.
36
References
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications, Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: 2004.
Badie, Sameh S., Mounir R. Kamel, and Maher K. Tadros. "Precast Pretensioned Trapezoidal
Box Beam for Short Span Bridges." PCI Journal, vol. 44, no.1 (January-February 1999):
48-59.
Buckner, C. Dale, and H. T. Turner. Performance Tests of Full Span Panel Form Bridges (Final
Report 80-1c). (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, Research and
Development Section Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 1981).
El-Remaily, Ahmed, et al. "Transverse Design of Adjacent Precast Prestressed Concrete Box
Girder Bridges." PCI Journal, vol. 41, no.4 (July-August 1996): 96-113.
Fallaha, Sam, et al. "High Performance Precast Concrete NUDECK Panel System for Nebraska's
Skyline Bridge." PCI Journal, vol. 49, no. 5, (September-October 2004): 40-50.
Freyermuth, C. "Design of Continuous Highway Bridges with Precast, Prestressed Concrete

Girders." PCI Journal, vol. 14, no. 2 (March-April 1969): 14-39.
Hagen, Kevin, et al. "Development and Construction of a Precast Inverted T System for
Expediting Minnesota Slab Span Bridge Projects." 2005 Concrete Bridge Conference.
Hagen, Kevin. “Development of Mn/DOT Precast Slab System”. Presentation ed. Mn/DOT &
FHWA Precast Slab System Workshop, September 8, 2005.
Hays, C. O. Jr., R. L. Cox, Jr., and G. O. Obranic, Jr. Full Span Form Panels for Short Span
Highway Bridges (Final Report U17F). (Gainesville, FL: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Florida, 1980)
Hieber, David G., et al. State-of-the-Art Report on Precast Concrete Systems for Rapid
Construction of Bridges (Draft Interim Report). (Seattle, WA: Department of Civil
Engineering and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, August 2004.)
Huckelbridge, Arthur A. Jr., Hassan El-Esnawi, and Fred Moses. "Shear Key Performance in
Multibeam Box Girder Bridges." Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, vol.
9, no. 4 (April 1995): 271-85.
Kamel, Mounir R., and Maher K. Tadros. "The Inverted Tee Shallow Bridge System for Rural
Areas." PCI Journal, vol. 41, no. 5 (September-October 1996): 28-43.
37
McDonagh, Michael D., and Kevin B. Hinkley. "Resolving Restraint Moments: Designing for
Continuity in Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges." PCI Journal, vol. 48, no. 4
(April 2003): 104-19.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Construction, 2000

Edition.
Peterman, Robert J., and Julio A. Ramirez. "Behavior and Strength of Bridges with Full-Span
Prestressed Concrete Form Panels." PCI Journal, vol. 43, no. 2 (March- April 1998): 80-
91.
Peterman, Robert J., and Julio A. Ramirez. "Restraint Moments in Bridges with Full-Span
Prestressed Concrete Form Panels." PCI Journal, vol. 43, no.1 (January-February 1998):
54-73.
"Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in Japan and Europe- Summary Report." FHWA
International Technology Exchange Programs. May 2004.
Ralls, Mary Lou, Ronald D. Medlock and Sharon Slagle. "Prefabricated Bridge National
Implementation Initiative." 2002 Concrete Bridge Conference.
Saleh, Mohsen A., Amin Einea, and Maher K. Tadros. "Creating Continuity in Precast Girder
Bridges." Concrete International, vol. 17, no. 8 (August 1995): 27-32.
Tadros, M.K. and Baishya, M.C., “Rapid Replacement for Bridge Decks,” NCHRP Report 407,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington D.C., 1998.
Yamane, Takashi, et al. "Full Depth Precast, Prestressed Concrete Bridge Deck System." PCI
Journal, vol. 43, no. 3 (May-June 1998): 50-66.
38
Tables
39
Table 2.1 Cross sections of different precast sections (Kamel and Tadros, 1996)
Typical Section Width (in.) Depth (in.) Span range (ft.)
Solid Slab 36 to 96 10 to 18 up to 30
Voided Slab 36 to 48 15 to 23 20 to 60
Multi-stem 48 16 to 23 20 to 60
Double Stem 60 to 96 16 to 23 20 to 60
Single Stem 48 to 72 24 to 48 35 to 80
Box Girder 36 to 48 27 to 42 60 to 100
Deck Bulb Tee 48 to 84 29 to 41 60 to 110
I-Girder 18 to 26 36 to 45 40 to 80
Table 2.2 Dimensions of form panels and CIP concrete for the bridges visited in
Florida during the study performed by Hays, Jr. et al. (1980) (variables t1, t2,
and t3 are shown in Figures 2.10 and 2.11)
Thickness Panel
Span (in.) Width
Bridge (ft.) t1 t2 t3 (in.) Year/Comments
Lloyd Creek Bridge 23 7 -- 5.5 48 1977/ Neg. Mom Cracks
SR 59, Jefferson County Less extensive
Hurricane Creek Bridge 30 6 5 5 79 1977
SR2A, Holmes County
Sanders Creek Bridge 30 10 -- 4 48 1977/ Long. Cracks
SR 20, Okalossa County Less extensive
Fort Gasden Creek 26 4 5 4 80 1977
SR 65, Liberty County
Black Creek Bridge 26 4 5 4 80 1976
SR 65, Liberty County
Sampson River Bridge 32 7 5 4.5 80 1979/ Neg. Mom. Cracks
SR 18, Bradford County less extensive
Harney Canal Bridge - 27 5 5 5 80 1977/ Exstensive random
C136 surface cracking
US 301, Hillsborough
County Widest longitudinal cracks
Cypress Creek Bridge 28 5 5 5 60 1978/ Extensive random
cracking
Kings Point Boulevard No longitudinal cracking
Hillsborough County Very light traffic
Shingle Creek Bridge 27 6 5 4.5 51 1978/ Less long. cracking when
joint
SR 528A, Orange County near center of traffic lane
40
Table 2.3 Reinforcement details and dimensions of the laboratory specimen used in the
study performed by Buckner and Turner (1981) (“S” = flat panel, “B” =
beveled panel) (variables td and tp are shown in Figures 2.13 and 2.14)
Transverse Reinforcement No. of

td tp Strands
Specimen Mark
(in.) (in.) Per
Left Half Right Half Panel
S - 5.5 – 10 7.5 5.5 #4 @ 15" o.c. #4 @ 12" o.c. 10
B - 5.5 -10 7.5 5.5 #4 @ 15" o.c. #4 @ 12" o.c. 10
S-8–8 5 8 #3 @ 12" o.c. #4 @ 12" o.c. 8
B-8–8 5 8 #3 @ 12" o.c. #4 @ 12" o.c. 8
S -10 – 8 3 10 #3 @ 15" o.c. #4 @ 12" o.c. 8
B -10 -8 3 10 #3 @ 15" o.c. #4 @ 12" o.c. 8
Table 3.1 Compressive concrete strength of concrete used for precast sections in the
superstructure of Stage 1 of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
Release 28 Day
Date Poured Strength (psi) Strength (psi)
8/18/2005 7650 9880
6780
8/19/2005 6760 9870
6380
8/22/2005 7340 9850
6990
8/24/2005 6760 9840
8080
8/25/2005 6680 9850
7040
8/29/2005 6900 9850
7370
Table 3.2 Compressive concrete strength of CIP concrete used in Stage 1 of the
superstructure for Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
7 Day 10 Day 28 Day

Date Poured Strength (psi) Strength (psi) Strength (psi)
9/19/2005 3875 3613 3979
41
Table 4.1 Coordinates of the VW embedment strain gages installed directly above the
precast longitudinal joints (see Figure 4.1 for coordinate system, “Z” is depth
within cross section from bottom of bridge)
Instrument No. X (in.) Y (in.) Z (in.)

CJ1-51-1 438.0 280.5 8.5
CJ1-51-2 438.0 276.5 8.5
Joint
#1 CJ1-51-3 438.0 272.5 8.5
CJ1-51-4 438.0 268.5 8.5
CJ1-51-5 438.0 264.5 8.5
CJ2-51-1 438.0 208.5 8.5
CJ2-51-2 438.0 204.5 8.5
Joint
#2 CJ2-51-3 438.0 200.5 8.5
CJ2-51-4 438.0 196.5 8.5
CJ2-51-5 438.0 192.5 8.5
CJ3-51-1 438.0 136.5 8.5
CJ3-51-2 438.0 132.5 8.5
Joint
#3 CJ3-51-3 438.0 128.5 8.5
CJ3-51-4 438.0 124.5 8.5
CJ3-53-5 438.0 120.5 8.5
42
Table 4.2 Coordinates of the VW embedment strain gages installed directly above the
precast section web corners (see Figure 4.1 for coordinate system, “Z” is
depth within cross section from bottom of bridge)

CJ1-53-1 438.0 293.0 13.5
CJ1-53-2 438.0 288.5 13.5
CJ1-53-3 438.0 284.0 13.5
CJ1-53-4 438.0 279.5 13.5
Joint CJ1-53-5 438.0 275.0 13.5
#1 CJ1-53-6 438.0 270.5 13.5
CJ1-53-7 438.0 266.0 13.5
CJ1-53-8 438.0 261.5 13.5
CJ1-53-9 438.0 257.0 13.5
CJ1-53-10 438.0 252.5 13.5
CJ2-53-1 438.0 221.0 13.5
CJ2-53-2 438.0 216.5 13.5
CJ2-53-3 438.0 212.0 13.5
CJ2-53-4 438.0 207.5 13.5
Joint CJ2-53-5 438.0 203.0 13.5
#2 CJ2-53-6 438.0 198.5 13.5
CJ2-53-7 438.0 194.0 13.5
CJ2-53-8 438.0 189.5 13.5
CJ2-53-9 438.0 185.0 13.5
CJ2-53-10 438.0 180.5 13.5
CJ3-53-1 438.0 149.0 13.5
CJ3-53-2 438.0 144.5 13.5
CJ3-53-3 438.0 140.0 13.5
CJ3-53-4 438.0 135.5 13.5
Joint CJ3-53-5 438.0 131.0 13.5
#3 CJ3-53-6 438.0 126.5 13.5
CJ3-53-7 438.0 122.0 13.5
CJ3-53-8 438.0 117.5 13.5
CJ3-53-9 438.0 113.0 13.5
CJ3-53-10 438.0 108.5 13.5
43
Table 4.3 Coordinates of the VW spot-weldable strain gages installed on longitudinal
reinforcement (see Figure 4.1 for coordinate system, “Z” is depth within
cross section from bottom of bridge)

SJ1-51-1 429.0 264.0 9.0
SJ1-52-1 429.0 264.0 12.5
SJ1-53-1 427.5 276.5 15.5
SJ1-53-2 427.5 263.5 15.5
SJ1-41-1 290.0 268.5 9.0
SJ1-43-1 290.0 280.0 15.5
SJ1-43-2 290.0 268.5 15.5
SJ1-C1-1 271.0 268.5 9.0
SJ1-C3-1 271.0 268.5 15.5
Joint
#1 SJ1-C3-2 271.0 296.0 15.5
SJ1-31-1 252.0 268.5 9.0
SJ1-33-1 251.0 280.0 15.5
SJ1-33-2 250.0 269.5 15.5
SJ1-21-1 128.5 264.0 9.0
SJ1-22-1 128.5 264.0 12.5
SJ1-23-1 130.0 261.5 15.5
SJ1-11-1 22.0 264.0 9.0
SJ1-12-1 22.0 264.0 12.5
SJ1-13-1 21.0 261.5 15.5
SJ2-51-1 427.5 192.0 9.0
SJ2-52-1 427.5 192.0 12.5
Joint
#2 SJ2-53-1 426.5 193.5 15.5
SJ2-41-1 289.5 198.0 9.0
SJ2-43-1 291.5 197.0 15.5
Joint SJ3-41-1 287.0 124.5 9.0
#3 SJ3-43-1 286.0 124.0 15.5
SW1-43-1 292.5 249.5 15.5
Web #1 SW1-43-2 292.5 236.0 15.5
SW1-43-3 292.5 225.0 15.5
SW2-43-1 291.0 177.5 15.5
Web #2 SW2-43-2 291.0 165.5 15.5
SW2-43-3 291.0 154.5 15.5
44
Table 4.4 Coordinates of the VW spot-weldable strain gages installed on the transverse
hooks of the precast sections (see Figure 4.1 for coordinate system, “Z” is
depth within cross section from bottom of bridge)

SJ1-5T-1 434.0 278.5 7.0
SJ1-5T-2 432.5 276.5 7.0
SJ1-5T-3 434.0 274.5 7.0
Joint
#1 SJ1-5T-4 432.5 272.5 7.0
SJ1-5T-5 434.0 270.5 7.0
SJ1-5T-6 432.5 268.5 7.0
SJ1-5T-7 434.0 266.5 7.0
SJ2-5T-1 434.0 206.5 7.0
SJ2-5T-2 432.5 204.5 7.0
SJ2-5T-3 434.0 202.5 7.0
Joint
#2 SJ2-5T-4 432.5 200.5 7.0
SJ2-5T-5 434.0 198.5 7.0
SJ2-5T-6 432.5 196.5 7.0
SJ2-5T-7 434.0 194.5 7.0
SJ3-5T-1 434.0 134.5 7.0
SJ3-5T-2 432.5 132.5 7.0
SJ3-5T-3 434.0 130.5 7.0
Joint
#3 SJ3-5T-4 432.5 128.5 7.0
SJ3-5T-5 434.0 126.5 7.0
SJ3-5T-6 432.5 124.5 7.0
SJ3-5T-7 434.0 122.5 7.0
45
Table 5.1 Channel assignments for Multiplexer #1
Multiplexer #1
Ch. Gage #
1.1- CJ1-53-5
1.2- CJ1-53-6
1.3- CJ1-53-7
1.4- CJ1-53-8
1.5- CJ1-53-9
1.6- CJ1-53-10
1.7- SJ1-51-1
1.8- SJ1-52-1
1.9- SJ1-53-2
1.10- SJ1-53-1
1.11- SJ1-21-1
1.12- SJ1-22-1
1.13- SJ1-23-1
1.14- SJ1-11-1
1.15- SJ1-12-1
1.16- SJ1-13-1
Multiplexer #2
Ch. Gage #
2.1- SJ1-5T-1
2.2- SJ1-5T-2
2.3- SJ1-5T-3
2.4- SJ1-5T-4
2.5- SJ1-5T-5
2.6- SJ1-5T-6
2.7- SJ1-5T-7
2.8- CJ1-51-1
2.9- CJ1-51-2
2.10- CJ1-51-3
2.11- CJ1-51-4
2.12- CJ1-51-5
2.13- CJ1-53-1
2.14- CJ1-53-2
2.15- CJ1-53-3
2.16- CJ1-53-4
46
Multiplexer #3
Ch. Gage #
3.1- CJ2-53-5
3.2- CJ2-53-6
3.3- CJ2-53-7
3.4- CJ2-53-8
3.5- CJ2-53-9
3.6- CJ2-53-10
3.7- SJ2-51-1
3.8- SJ2-52-1
3.9- SJ2-53-1
3.10- SJ1-41-1
3.11- SJ1-43-2
3.12- SJ1-43-1
3.13- SJ1-C1-1
3.14- SJ1-31-1
3.15- SJ1-33-2
3.16- SJ1-33-1
Multiplexer #4
Ch. Gage #
4.1- SJ2-5T-1
4.2- SJ2-5T-2
4.3- SJ2-5T-3
4.4- SJ2-5T-4
4.5- SJ2-5T-5
4.6- SJ2-5T-6
4.7- SJ2-5T-7
4.8- CJ2-51-1
4.9- CJ2-51-2
4.10- CJ2-51-3
4.11- CJ2-51-4
4.12- CJ2-51-5
4.13- CJ2-53-1
4.14- CJ2-53-2
4.15- CJ2-53-3
4.16- CJ2-53-4
47
Multiplexer #5
Ch. Gage #
5.1- CJ3-53-5
5.2- CJ3-53-6
5.3- CJ3-53-7
5.4- CJ3-53-8
5.5- CJ3-53-9
5.6- CJ3-53-10
5.7- SJ3-41-1
5.8- SJ3-43-1
5.9- SW2-43-1
5.10- SW2-43-2
5.11- SW2-43-3
5.12- SJ2-41-1
5.13- SJ2-43-1
5.14- SW1-43-1
5.15- SW1-43-2
5.16- SW1-43-3
Multiplexer #6
Ch. Gage #
6.1- SJ3-5T-1
6.2- SJ3-5T-2
6.3- SJ3-5T-3
6.4- SJ3-5T-4
6.5- SJ3-5T-5
6.6- SJ3-5T-6
6.7- SJ3-5T-7
6.8- CJ3-51-1
6.9- CJ3-51-2
6.10- CJ3-51-3
6.11- CJ3-51-4
6.12- CJ3-51-5
6.13- CJ3-53-1
6.14- CJ3-53-2
6.15- CJ3-53-3
6.16- CJ3-53-4
48
Table 5.7 Locations of the cables in the conduit relative to the precast longitudinal
joints (see Figure 5.3 for plan view of cables)
Joint # Span Cable # Multiplexer Box #

Cable 6-1
Cable 6-2
Joint #1 Center Span
Cable 6-3
Box #1
Cable 6-4
Cable 6-5
Joint #1 East Span
Cable 6-6
Cable 5-1
Cable 5-2
Box #2
Joint #2 Center Span Cable 5-3
Cable 5-4
Cable 5-5
Cable 4-1
Cable 4-2 Box #3
Joint #3 Center Span
Cable 4-3
Cable 4-4
49
Table 5.8 Instrumentation connected to Cable 6-1
Cable 6-1
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-white
SJ1-5T-1
green-green
white-blue
red-red
black-orange
SJ1-5T-2
green-red
white-brown
red-green
black-yellow
SJ1-5T-3
green-green
white-brown
red-red
black-black
SJ1-5T-7
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-yellow
SJ1-5T-5
green-blue
white-black
red-black
black-green
SJ1-5T-6
green-red
white-white
red-black
black-orange
SJ1-5T-4
green-blue
white-red
red-red
black-green
CJ1-51-1
green-brown
white-black
50
Cable 6-2
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-blue
CJ1-51-3
green-red
white-orange
red-red
black-brown
CJ1-51-4
green-green
white-yellow
red-green
black-brown
CJ1-51-5
green-red
white-black
red-black
black-yellow
CJ1-53-1
green-red
white-yellow
red-blue
black-black
CJ1-53-2
green-black
white-green
red-red
black-white
CJ1-53-3
green-black
white-green
red-red
black-white
CJ1-53-4
green-black
white-orange
red-blue
black-red
CJ1-53-5
green-red
white-green
51
Cable 6-3
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-white
CJ1-53-6
green-green
white-blue
red-red
black-orange
CJ1-53-7
green-red
white-brown
red-green
black-yellow
CJ1-53-8
green-green
white-brown
red-red
black-black
CJ1-53-9
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-yellow
CJ1-53-10
green-blue
white-black
red-black
black-green
SJ1-53-1
green-red
white-white
red-black
black-orange
CJ1-51-2
green-blue
white-red
52
Cable 6-4
Instrument-Cable
red-black
black-green
SJ1-51-1
green-green
white-white
red-red
black-black
SJ1-52-1
green-green
white-white
red-red
black-black
SJ1-53-2
green-green
white-white
Cable 6-5
Instrument-Cable
red-black
black-green
SJ1-11-1
green-brown
white-black
red-black
black-blue
SJ1-12-1
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-black
SJ1-13-1
green-black
white-white
53
Cable 6-6
Instrument-Cable
red-black
black-green
SJ1-21-1
green-brown
white-black
red-black
black-blue
SJ1-22-1
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-black
SJ1-23-1
green-black
white-white
54
Cable 5-1
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-white
SJ2-5T-1
green-green
white-blue
red-red
black-orange
SJ2-5T-2
green-red
white-brown
red-green
black-yellow
SJ2-5T-3
green-green
white-brown
red-red
black-black
SJ2-5T-7
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-yellow
SJ2-5T-5
green-blue
white-black
red-black
black-green
SJ2-5T-6
green-red
white-white
red-black
black-orange
SJ2-5T-4
green-blue
white-red
red-red
black-green
CJ2-51-1
green-brown
white-black
55
Cable 5-2
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-blue
CJ2-51-3
green-red
white-orange
red-red
black-brown
CJ2-51-4
green-green
white-yellow
red-green
black-brown
CJ2-51-5
green-red
white-black
red-black
black-yellow
CJ2-53-1
green-red
white-yellow
red-blue
black-black
CJ2-53-2
green-black
white-green
red-red
black-white
CJ2-53-3
green-black
white-orange
red-blue
black-red
CJ2-53-4
green-red
white-green
red-brown
black-black
CJ2-53-5
green-black
white-white
56
Cable 5-3
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-white
CJ2-53-6
green-green
white-blue
red-red
black-orange
CJ2-53-7
green-red
white-brown
red-green
black-yellow
CJ2-53-8
green-green
white-brown
red-red
black-black
CJ2-53-9
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-yellow
CJ2-53-10
green-blue
white-black
red-black
black-green
CJ2-51-2
green-red
white-white
Cable 5-4
Instrument-Cable
red-black
black-green
SJ2-51-1
green-brown
white-black
red-black
black-blue
SJ2-52-1
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-black
SJ2-53-1
green-black
white-white
57
Cable 5-5
Instrument-Cable
red-black
black-green
SJ2-41-1
green-brown
white-black
red-black
black-blue
SJ2-43-1
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-black
SW1-43-1
green-black
white-white
red-red
black-yellow
SW1-43-2
green-black
white-orange
red-red
black-brown
SW1-43-3
green-green
white-red
58
Cable 4-1
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-white
SJ3-5T-1
green-green
white-blue
red-red
black-orange
SJ3-5T-2
green-red
white-brown
red-green
black-yellow
SJ3-5T-3
green-green
white-brown
red-red
black-black
SJ3-5T-7
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-yellow
SJ3-5T-5
green-blue
white-black
red-black
black-green
SJ3-5T-6
green-red
white-white
red-black
black-orange
SJ3-5T-4
green-blue
white-red
red-red
black-green
CJ3-51-1
green-brown
white-black
59
Cable 4-2
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-blue
CJ3-51-3
green-red
white-orange
red-red
black-brown
CJ3-51-4
green-green
white-yellow
red-green
black-brown
CJ3-51-5
green-red
white-black
red-black
black-yellow
CJ3-53-1
green-red
white-yellow
red-blue
black-black
CJ3-53-2
green-black
white-green
red-red
black-white
CJ3-53-3
green-black
white-orange
red-blue
black-red
CJ3-53-4
green-red
white-green
red-brown
black-black
CJ3-53-5
green-black
white-white
60
Cable 4-3
Instrument-Cable
red-green
black-white
CJ3-53-6
green-green
white-blue
red-red
black-orange
CJ3-53-7
green-red
white-brown
red-green
black-yellow
CJ3-53-8
green-green
white-brown
red-red
black-black
CJ3-53-9
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-yellow
CJ3-53-10
green-blue
white-black
red-black
black-green
CJ3-51-2
green-red
white-white
Cable 4-4
Instrument-Cable
red-black
black-green
SW2-43-1
green-brown
white-black
red-black
black-blue
SW2-43-2
green-black
white-yellow
red-red
black-black
SW2-43-3
green-black
white-white
61
Table 6.1 Superstructure cost comparison of bridges built with the Mn/DOT Inverted-
T Precast Slab System to traditional slab-span bridges
Waskish Bridge (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 04002) $64/S.F.
Center City Bridge (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004) $64/S.F.
Traditional Slab-span Bridge $60-$65/S.F.
62
Figures
63
Precast Concrete
Panel Cast-in-place
Concrete Deck
Steel Girder
Figure 1.1 Partial-depth concrete decks prefabricated on steel or concrete beams (FHWA,
2004)
Figure 1.2 Cross section of Poutre Dalle System (Hagen, 2005)
64
Figure 1.3 Photograph of precast section used in Poutre Dalle System (Hagen, 2005)
Figure 2.1 Full-Depth Precast Prestressed Bridge Deck System (Yamane et al., 1998)
65
Figure 2.2 Cross section of a partial-depth precast concrete panel system (Tadros and
Baishya, 1998)
Figure 2.3 Cross section of a box girder bridge system with transverse post-tensioning (El-
Remaily et al., 1996)
66
(Girder not shown, see Figure 2.1)
Figure 2.4 Elevation view of longitudinal post-tensioning in a Full-Depth Precast

Prestressed Bridge Deck System (dimensions are in mm) (Yamane et al., 1998)
Grouted Shear
Key
Figure 2.5 Typical geometry of a shear key used in a box girder system (Huckelbridge, Jr.
et al., 1995)
67
Figure 2.6 Typical geometry of a shear key used in a Full-Depth Precast Prestressed Panel
System (dimensions are in mm) (Yamane et al., 1998)
Deck Pier Centerline

Reinforcement Cast-in-place
Concrete Deck
Diaphragm
Reinforcement
Cast-in-place
I-Girders Diaphragm
Pier Cap
Figure 2.7 Interior joint detail of a precast concrete bridge girder made continuous using
the Conventional Reinforcement Method (Saleh et al., 1995)
68
Longitudinal Post-
tensioning Tendons Cast-in-place Concrete
Topping
End Block Cast-in-place End Block

Joint
Figure 2.8 Elevation view of a bridge made continuous over the pier through the use of
longitudinal post-tensioning (Saleh et al., 1995)
Figure 2.9 Elevation view of the lab specimen used in the study performed by Hays, Jr. et
al. (1980)
69
Figure 2.10 Cross-sectional view of the standard span of the lab specimen used in the study
performed by Hays, Jr. et al. (1980)
Figure 2.11 Cross-sectional view of the alternative span of the lab specimen used in the
study performed by Hays, Jr. et al. (1980)
70
#4 Stirrups @ 12”
(not connected to
precast sections)
Figure 2.12 Cross section of the panel detail recommended by Hays, Jr. et al. (1980)
Figure 2.13 Cross section of the flat panel laboratory specimen used in study performed by
Buckner and Turner (1981) (see Table 2.3 for notation)
71
Figure 2.14 Cross section of the beveled-edge laboratory specimen used in study performed
by Buckner and Turner (1981) (see Table 2.3 for notation)
Figure 2.15 Cross-sectional view of the loading apparatus used in the study performed by
Buckner and Turner (1981)
72
(Panels are 4 ft. wide and 21 ft. long)
Figure 2.16 Cross section of the laboratory specimen used in study performed by Peterman
and Ramirez (1998a, 1998b)
Figure 2.17 Cross section and reinforcement details for a tee beam used in the IT System
(Kamel and Tadros, 1996)
73
Figure 2.18 Cross section of the IT System (dimensions are in mm) (Kamel and Tadros,
1996)
Figure 2.19 Cross section of the closed trapezoidal box beam (dimensions are in mm)
(Badie et al., 1999)
74
Figure 2.20 Cross section of the open trapezoidal box beam (dimensions are in mm) (Badie
et al., 1999)
Chamfered Roughened
Corners Surfaces
Chamfered Transverse
Corner Hook
Prestressing
Pattern
Figure 3.1 Cross-sectional view of interior inverted-T precast section concept
75
Transverse Reinforcement
for CIP Concrete Rail
Prestressing
Pattern
Figure 3.2 Cross-sectional view of exterior inverted-T precast section concept
Figure 3.3 Photograph of the transverse hooks of the precast sections
76
Longitudinal Deck Steel
Reinforcement
Cage
Additional
Reinforcement of (4) Caulk over Longitudinal Joint
#8 bars over the Piers
Figure 3.4 Cross-sectional view of the precast longitudinal joint detail
Figure 3.5 Photograph of formwork with indented inner surface
77
Horizontal Shear
Reinforcement
Anchorage Zone Confinement

Reinforcement Reinforcement
Figure 3.6 Cross-sectional view of an interior inverted-T precast section detailing

transverse reinforcement within the precast sections
Flanges of Large Voids created by the Blocked-

Precast Sections out Portions of the Precast Sections
Pier cap
Figure 3.7 Plan view of precast section layout showing blocked-out portions of the precast
section flanges
78
Figure 3.8 Photograph of the reinforcement cage installed above the precast longitudinal
joint
Figure 3.9 Elevation view of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 (Hagen, 2005)
79
Bike Path
J- Rail
Stage 1
Stage Construction Joint in

Cast-in-place Concrete Deck
N
Pier Caps
Stage 2
Long.
Joints
Figure 3.10 Plan view of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 with construction stages and
construction joint highlighted
80
Figure 3.11 Cross-sectional view and reinforcement details for an interior inverted-T
precast section used in Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 (the dimensions of the reinforcement are
taken from the outside of the bar)
81
Approach Panel
(Cast with Cast-in-
place Concrete Deck)
Precast Section
Polystyrene
Elastomeric
Bearing Pad Reinforcing
Dowels
Abutment
Figure 3.12 Connection detail at abutment, bridge deck, and approach panel
Precast
Sections
Polystyrene
Blocked-out Portion
Elastomeric of Precast Sections
Bearing Pad (see Figure 3.7)
Reinforcing
Dowel
Pier Cap
Figure 3.13 Connection detail at pier cap
82
Origin of
J- Rail Coordinate
Bike Path
System
+X Dir.
All instrumentation located +Y Dir.
within this portion of the bridge
Stage 1
Stage Const.
Joint in Slab
Pier Caps
Stage 2
Long.
Joints
Figure 4.1 Plan view of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 with instrumented portion highlighted
Web Corner of
Precast Section
Flange Corners of
Precast Sections
Corners Longitudinal Joint
Figure 4.2 Cross-sectional view of precast longitudinal joint
83
Bike Path J- Rail
Full-width
Shoulder
Joint 3
Locations of
instrumentation in
Joint 2
N the longitudinal Westbound
joints Lane
Joint 1
Figure 4.3 Plan view of Stage 1 of the bridge construction for Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
highlighting the instrumented joints
Figure 4.4 Photograph of Geokon® Model VCE-4200 VW Embedment Strain Gage
84
Web of Precast Section
Reinforcement
Cage Uncoated
Rebar
Longitudinal
Transverse Joint
Hooks Ties
directly above precast longitudinal joints
Figure 4.6 Photograph of VW embedment strain gage tied to uncoated rebar
85
Longitudinal
Joint
Figure 4.7 Photograph of VW embedment strain gages installed above precast longitudinal
joints
86
Ties
Web of
Precast Section Epoxy-coated Rebar tied
to Longitudinal
Deck Steel (not shown)
Flange of
Precast Section
Longitudinal
Joint
Flange of
Precast Section
Transverse
Deck Steel
Web of
Precast Section
directly above the precast section web corners
87
Row of 10 VW embedment strain gages
above precast web corners
Row of 5 VW embedment strain gages

directly above the longitudinal joint
Figure 4.9 Cross-sectional view of instrumentation detail for VW embedment strain gages
at each instrumented joint
Precast Section
Web Corners
Figure 4.10 Photograph of VW embedment strain gages installed above precast section web
corners and above precast longitudinal joint
88
Figure 4.11 Photograph of Geokon® Model VK-4150 VW Spot-weldable Strain Gage
Center of
Midspan of the interior support West side of
middle span exterior support
Midspan of the
eastern end span
East side of
West side of interior support
interior support
Figure 4.12 Elevation view of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 showing locations of
instrumentation along the length of the bridge for continuous behavior over the piers
89
Represents 2 VW spot-weldable
strain gages through depth
Represents 3 VW Represents 1
spot-weldable VW spot-
strain gages Joint 3 weldable strain
through depth gage on
Web 2
longitudinal deck
Joint 2 reinforcement
Web 1
Joint 1
N
Figure 4.13 Plan view of Stage 1 of the bridge construction of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
showing locations of instrumentation for continuous behavior over the piers
VW spot-weldable
strain gages
Longitudinal
Deck Steel Transverse
Deck Steel
Reinforcement
Cage
weldable strain gages (“♦” in Figure 4.13)
90
VW spot-weldable
strain gages
Additional reinforcement
added over the piers
weldable strain gages (“●” in Figure 4.13)
Figure 4.16 Photograph of VW spot-weldable strain gage welded to longitudinal

reinforcement
91
Figure 4.17 Photograph of VW spot-weldable strain gage with waterproofing and steel
cover
Figure 4.18 Photograph of 3 VW spot-weldable stain gages installed on the longitudinal

reinforcement at east end of east span
92
2 VW Spot-
weldable Strain
gages
Figure 4.19 Photograph of 2 VW spot-weldable strain gages on longitudinal reinforcement

located at the centerline of the pier cap
Figure 4.20 Photograph of transverse hooks of adjacent precast sections
93
VW Spot-
weldable Strain
Flange of Gages
Precast Section
Longitudinal
Joint
Flange of Transverse
Precast Section Hooks
Figure 4.21 Plan view of instrumentation detail for VW spot-weldable strain gages on
transverse hooks
Figure 4.22 Photograph of VW spot-weldable strain gages on transverse hooks
94
Location of Gage (Longitudinal): (See Figure 4.12)
• 1 = Adjacent to E Abutment
• 2 = Midspan of E Span
• 3 = Eastern Side of E Pier Cap
• C = Center of E Pier Cap
• 4 = Western Side of E Pier Cap
• 5 = Midspan of Center Span
Type of VW Strain Gage: Location of Gage (Transverse):

• C = VW Embedment Indicates the number of the gage at
Strain Gage (Concrete) that location (longitudinal) of the
bridge and height (within depth of
• S = VW Spot-weldable
cross section). Numbering
Strain Gage (Steel
increases from south to north.
Reinforcement)
CJ1-51-1
Location of Gage (Within Depth
Proximity of Gage: of the Cross Section):
• J# = Gage is installed above “C” Gages-
Longitudinal Joint (See Figure 4.12) • 1 = Directly Above Long.
o 1 = Long. Joint #1 Joint
o 2 = Long. Joint #2 • 2 = Above Precast Section
o 3 = Long. Joint #3 Web Corners
• W# = Gage is installed above Web of “S” Gages-
a Precast Section (See Figure 4.12) • T = Transverse Hook
o 1 = Web #1 • 1 = Bottom Long. R/F of
o 2 = Web #2 R/F Cage
• 2 = Top Long. R/F of R/F
Cage
• 3 = Long. Deck R/F
Figure 4.23 Labeling scheme used for gages installed in Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
95
Figure 5.1 Schematic of the data acquisition system used to monitor instrumentation
installed in Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
96
Permanent Data
N Acquisition Cabinet
Pier Cap
Proposed New
Conduit
Abutment
Original Conduit
Deck Temporary Data

Const. Joint Below Deck Acquisition Cabinet
Figure 5.2 Plan view of the conduit system
Cables 4-1
through 4-4 Joint #3
Cable 5-5
Cables 5-1 (Below Deck)
through 5-4 N Joint #2
Pier Cap
Cables 6-1
through 6-4 Cable 6-6 Joint #1
Cable 6-5
Figure 5.3 Plan view of cables within conduit system
97
Figure 5.4 Photograph of embedded wiring junction box located above precast longitudinal
joint
Figure 5.5 Photograph of multiplexer boxes located on the east face of the east pier cap
(north is to the right)
98
North
Box #1 Box #2 Box #3
Mult. Mult. Mult. Mult. Mult. Mult.

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
Figure 5.6 Locations of the multiplexers within the boxes on the east face of the east pier
cap
Figure 5.7 Photograph of temporary data acquisition system cabinet
99
Figure 5.8 Photograph of permanent data acquisition system cabinet
100
Appendix A
Bridge Plans
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A - 10
A - 11
A - 12
A - 13
A - 14
A - 15
A - 16
A - 17
A - 18
A - 19
A - 20
A - 21
A - 22
A - 23
A - 24
A - 25
A - 26
A - 27
A - 28
A - 29
A - 30
A - 31
Appendix B
Design Calculations
B.1 Design of Interior Composite Section
The inverted-T sections of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System were designed to
behave as a simple span under self weight and the weight of the CIP concrete deck. After the
CIP concrete of the deck had cured, the deck then behaved continuously for live loads over the
interior piers.
The design of the inverted-T precast sections for Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 was
performed using a MathCAD® Worksheet. This program allows the user to make iterative
calculations rather easily. If one variable is changed, the program changes all of the calculations
within the worksheet. This worksheet was originally written to be used for the design of I-
girders, but it was modified to be applicable to the design of inverted-T sections. The remainder
of Section B.1 presents the calculations for the design of an interior inverted-T precast section of
the center span of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004.
B.1.1 Program Defaults and Inputs (B-2 through B-5)

The first page of the calculations provided program defaults that allowed a user to select
a beam size and strand size then provided them with the dimensions for the selected beam and
strand. The rest of this section allowed the user to input material properties, additional geometry
requirements (i.e., span length, etc.), loads, load factors, and the strand pattern design, all of
which would be used later in the calculations.
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B.1.2 Calculation of Section Properties (B-6 through B-9)
This section of the calculations used the program defaults and user inputs from the first
section to calculate the properties of the composite section. The properties that were calculated
in this section included the area, moment of interia, and section moduli.
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B.1.3 Calculations of Moments and Shear Forces (B-10 through B-20)
This section of the calculations used the section properties and user inputs to calculate the
maximum moments and shear forces of which the composite section would be subjected.
Moments and shear forces were calculated due to the self weight of the precast section, weight of
the CIP concrete deck, weight of the barrier, and weight of the future wearing surface. In
addition, the live load distribution factors were calculated and used to determine the maximum
live load moments and shear forces. However, since the composite section was designed to
behave continuously for live load, the live load moments and shears were also calculated based
on continuous behavior using the BTBEAM program and then input into this worksheet. These
live load moments and shears were used for the remainder of the calculations. The restraint
moments were calculated by hand using the PCA Method and input into the worksheet at the end
of this section.
B - 10
B - 11
B - 12
B - 13
B - 14
B - 15
B - 16
B - 17
B - 18
B - 19
B - 20
B.1.4 Strength and Service Limit Checks (B-22 through B-39)
This section of the calculations used the moments that had been calculated previously to
calculate the stresses in the top and bottom of the precast section due to the self weight of the
precast section, weight of the deck, weight of the barriers, weight of the future wearing surface,
live loads, and restraint moments. In addition, prestress losses due to shrinkage, creep, and steel
relaxation were calculated and then used to calculate the stresses in the top and bottom of the
precast section due to the prestressing force. The calculated stresses were used to check the
service limit states; maximum tensile stresses in the bottom of the precast section, and maximum
compressive stresses in the top of the precast section. The stresses due to restraint moments
were not considered during the service compression checks because it was felt that there was
enough reserve capacity to say that each check was okay by inspection.
The remainder of this section used the user inputs and section properties to calculate the
design flexural capacity of the composite section. This capacity was compared to the maximum
factored moment that would be applied to the section to ensure that the section had adequate
flexural strength. An additional check was performed to ensure that there was enough steel
reinforcement within the section to guard against abrupt flexural failure immediately after
cracking.
B - 21
B - 22
B - 23
B - 24
B - 25
B - 26
B - 27
B - 28
B - 29
B - 30
B - 31
B - 32
B - 33
B - 34
B - 35
B - 36
B - 37
B - 38
B - 39
B.1.5 Size and Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement (B-41 through B-65)
This section of the calculations was used to determine the size and spacing of
reinforcement to satisfy reinforcement requirements for anchorage zone, confinement, vertical
shear, and horizontal (i.e., interface) shear. The requirements for anchorage zone were based on
the dimensions of the section and the prestressing force, and the requirements for confinement
reinforcement were based only on the dimensions of the section. The shear forces that had been
calculated previously were used to calculate the maximum vertical shear force that would be
exerted on the composite section. Two iterations were needed to accurately predict the vertical
shear strength provided by the concrete. Once the design shear strength of the concrete was
calculated, it was compared to the vertical shear demand to determine the amount and spacing of
vertical shear reinforcement required. The remainder of this section was used to calculate the
amount and spacing of horizontal shear reinforcement required.
Following the calculations for transverse reinforcement requirements is a section that was
used to calculate the camber and deflections of the composite section. This section is followed
by a final design summary for an interior inverted-T precast section of the center span of
Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004.
B - 40
B - 41
B - 42
B - 43
B - 44
B - 45
B - 46
B - 47
B - 48
B - 49
B - 50
B - 51
B - 52
B - 53
B - 54
B - 55
B - 56
B - 57
B - 58
B - 59
B - 60
B - 61
B - 62
B - 63
B - 64
B - 65
B.2 Design of Reinforcement within Negative Moment Region
B - 66
B - 67
B - 68
B - 69
B - 70
B - 71
B - 72
B - 73
B - 74
B - 75
B - 76
B - 77
B - 78
B - 79
Appendix C
Instrumentation and Data Acquisition System Components

C.1 Instrumentation
The instrumentation of this bridge consisted of embedment strain gages and spot-
weldable strain gages. Both of these strain gages use the vibrating wire principle to obtain strain
measurements within the structure. A length of steel wire is tensioned between two end blocks
within the gage which expand and contract with the element (e.g., concrete, steel) altering the
tension in the steel wire. This change in tension is measured as a change in the resonant
frequency of vibration of the wire. Electromagnetic coils that are located close to the wire
provide the excitation and readout of the gage frequency. Portable read-outs or dataloggers used
in conjunction with these gages, provide the necessary voltage pulses to pluck the wire and
convert the measured frequencies so as to display or record the reading directly in microstrain
units.
C.1.1 Geokon® Model VCE-4200 Vibrating Wire Embedment Strain Gage

The Geokon® Model VCE-4200 Vibrating Wire (VW) Strain Gage is designed for long-
term strain measurements in mass concrete, for use in structures such as foundations, piles,
bridges, dams, containment vessels, tunnel liners, etc. This gage has an active gage length of 6
in. and a sensitivity of 1.0 microstrain. The temperature range for this gage is -20° C to 80° C.
Figure C.1 shows a diagram of the Model VCE-4200 Vibrating Wire Embedment Strain Gage
and its components. A photograph of this strain gage tied to reinforcement is provided in Figure
C.2.
C.1.2 Geokon® Model VW-4150 Vibrating Wire Spot-weldable Strain Gage

The VK-4150 VW Spot-weldable Strain Gage is designed for measuring strains on
structural steel members such as bridges, piles, tunnel linings, buildings, etc. This gage consists
of a VW gage element and integral coil assembly and has an active gage length of 2 in. and a
sensitivity of 1.0 microstrain. The temperature range for this gage is -20° C to 80° C. Figure C.3
shows a diagram of the Model VK-4150 Vibrating Wire Spot-weldable Strain Gage and its
components. A photograph of this strain gage installed on steel reinforcement is provided in
Figure C.4.
C.2 Data Acquisition System Components
C.2.1 CR-10X Measurement and Control Module

The datalogger generally serves as the central processing unit of the data acquisition
system. Programs are downloaded into the CR-10X which enable it to read numerous different
electrical instruments. These programs control the type of measurements to be taken (i.e.,
temperature, vibrating wire strain), the frequency at which measurements are taken, and the
location where the collected data is to be stored (i.e., storage modules). Once a program is
downloaded into the datalogger it will continue to run that program until the datalogger is shut
off or a new program is downloaded in which case the previous program is erased. When the
datalogger is powered on it will run the latest program that was downloaded. All communication
with the datalogger, including the downloading of programs, was done using a computer via an
SC929 to RS-232 interface cable.
C-1
The CR-10X datalogger has 12 single-ended or 6 differential channels used to obtain
readings. It also has 8 ports that are used to control the operation of up to 8 AM 16/32 relay
multiplexers. The CR-10X requires 12 V of DC power provided by a PS100 12 V rechargeable
battery. The CR-10X supplies power to each of the peripherals connected to it. A photograph of
a CR-10X Measurement and Control Module is provided in Figure C.5.
C.2.2 AM 16/32 Relay Multiplexer

The main function of a multiplexer is to increase the capacity of instruments that can be
read by each datalogger allowing the system to monitor an increased number of instruments.
The capacity of the AM 16/32 relay multiplexer depends primarily on the type of instrument to
be read. For the purpose of this project, each multiplexer had the capacity for 16 differential
sensors that require excitation, i.e., 16 VW strain gages, along with the differential thermistor of
each gage. Therefore using three multiplexers for each datalogger increased the capacity of each
datalogger to 48 VW strain gages and the capacity of the entire system to 96 VW strain gages.
The program that was downloaded to the datalogger controlled the data collection from
the multiplexer. The data was read from each channel of the multiplexer sequentially then the
process was repeated for the next multiplexer. The AM 16/32 multiplexer required 12 V of DC
power that was supplied by the datalogger. A photograph of an AM 16/32 relay multiplexer is
provided in Figure C.6.
C.2.3 AVW4 Vibrating Wire Interface

A VW interface is located between the multiplexers and the dataloggers in systems that
include VW sensors. These interfaces convert the strain and temperature measurements obtained
from the VW strain gage to single-ended measurements which can be read by a datalogger. The
AVW4 interface had the capacity to read four VW gages or four multiplexers with VW gages
attached to them.
The AVW4 VW interface required 5 V of power that was supplied by the datalogger. A
photograph of an AVW4 Vibrating Wire Interface is provided in Figure C.7.
C.2.4 SM16M Storage Module

All of the data that the dataloggers collect was sent to the SM16M Storage Modules.
Each module could hold up to 8 million low-resolution data values. The use of these modules
allowed for more data storage and easier data retrieval than if the data was stored in the
dataloggers. The storage module would stop storing data in the case that the storage module had
become full and would not over-write old data. A photograph of an SM16M Storage Module is
provided in Figure C.8.
These storage modules required 5 V of DC power that was supplied through the SC12
cable that connected the storage module to the datalogger. All communication with the storage
modules from a computer, including data retrieval, was done using an SC532A to RS-232
interface cable along with LoggerNet software which was downloaded from the Campbell
Scientific, Inc. website (www.campbellscientific.com).
C-2
C.2.5 PS100 12V DC Power Supply with Charging Regulator and Battery
The PS100 12 V DC Power Supply was used to supply 12 V of DC power to the
dataloggers. These batteries included a charging regulator. Long-term charging power was
supplied by a CSI Model 9591 AC transformer plugged into the permanent AC power source. A
photograph of a PS100 12 V Power Supply is provided in Figure C.9.
C.2.6 PC400 Software

The PC400 datalogger support software program was used to write programs and to
communicate with the dataloggers. One of the main features of this software was the EZSetup
Wizard which was used to setup the dataloggers. In addition, this software simplified the writing
and editing of programs with Short Cut, Edlog, and CRBasic programming tools. The programs
for this project were written using the Edlog tool. When using this tool, the user types in a
command and then fills in the variables (i.e, execution interval, delay, etc.). The programs that
were downloaded into the dataloggers at the beginning of the field testing to collect data are
provided in Appendix E of this report.
The minimum computer requirements for this software were a 300 MHz Pentium II
processor with 64 Mbytes of RAM and a screen resolution of 800x600. The recommended
operating systems were Windows® 98, NT, 2000, or XP.
C-3
Figure C.1 Diagram of VCE-4200 VW Embedment Strain Gage
Figure C.2 Photograph of VCE-4200 VW Embedment Strain Gage tied to uncoated rebar
C-4
Figure C.3 Diagram of VK-4150 VW Spot-weldable Strain Gage
Figure C.4 Photograph of VK-4150 VW Spot-weldable Strain Gage
C-5
Figure C.5 CR-10X Measurement and Control Module
Figure C.6 AM 16/32 Relay Multiplexer
C-6
Figure C.7 AVW4 Vibrating Wire Interface
Figure C.8 SM16M Storage Module
C-7
Figure C.9 PS100 12 V DC Power Supply with Charging Regulator and Battery
C-8
Appendix D
Installation Log
D.1 Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 in Center City, MN
September 2, 2005- Friday

Charles Bell II, Catherine French, Carol Shield, Matthew Smith
All 21 precast sections of Stage 1 of the bridge construction were erected in-place during
the morning. The age of the precast sections ranged from 4 to 15 days when they were delivered
to the site. In the afternoon, once the precast sections were in place, 21 VW spot-weldable strain
gages were installed on the transverse hooks of the precast sections. Initially, difficulties were
encountered with properly welding the gages to the transverse hooks. It was determined that
these difficulties could be avoided by grinding a smooth flat surface for the welding pads of the
gages and grinding a groove for the coil between the flat surfaces for the welding pads.
September 6, 2005- Tuesday

Charles Bell II, Scott Nesvold, Justin Ocel, Carol Shield
The iron workers were at the site to tie and place the reinforcement cages above the
longitudinal joints between adjacent precast sections as well as place the No. 8 bars above the
piers. In addition, the construction workers set up formwork for the CIP concrete railing. VW
spot-weldable strain gages were installed on the reinforcement cage after they were tied together
but prior to setting the cages in place above the longitudinal joints. After all of the gages were
installed on a reinforcement cage, the cage was dropped in place above the joint. The No. 8 bars
were set in place over the piers after the reinforcement cages were placed in the joints on both
the center and east spans. At this point gages were installed on the No. 8 bars. A total of ten
VW spot-weldable strain gages were installed on the longitudinal steel of the reinforcement cage
and the No. 8 bars above the piers on this day. Three gages could not be installed because one of
the reinforcement cages on the east span was not set in place above the joints and therefore the
No. 8 bars within this joint were not yet in place.
D-1
September 12, 2005- Monday
Charles Bell II, Paul Bergson, Justin Ocel, Carol Shield, Matthew Smith
The remaining 3 VW spot-weldable strain gages that could not be installed on Tuesday,
September 6, 2005 were installed on the No. 8 bar over the pier. In addition, five VW
embedment strain gages were installed directly above Joint #1 (Figure D.1). The portion of the
conduit that would be in the CIP concrete topping was erected in-place. Cables were run through
the conduit to the multiplexer boxes below the bridge deck. Four VW spot-weldable strain gages
were soldered to the cables within the conduit. Readings were taken and recorded for the gages
that were soldered to the cables on this day using a Geokon® GK-403 read-out box to ensure
they were working properly. The date of installation for each gage and the initial reading
obtained for each gage once the gage was soldered to a cable are provided in Tables D.1 through
D.3. The construction workers set up formwork for the construction joint along the center of the
bridge. Work was cut short due to inclement weather.

Charles Bell II, Paul Bergson, Cathy French, Carol Shield
Five VW embedment strain gages were installed in both Joints #2 and #3 (Figure D.1)
directly above the longitudinal joints. All of the gages that had been installed at the midspan of
the center span and the end and midspan of the east span were soldered to the cables that had
previously been run through the conduit. Readings were taken and recorded for the gages
soldered to the cables on this day using a Geokon® GK-403 read-out box to ensure they were
working properly. The construction workers set up the formwork for the deck at the ends of the
bridge.
September 15, 2006- Thursday

Charles Bell, Scott Nesvold, Brian Runzel, Carol Shield
Ten VW embedment strain gages were tied to the bottom of the longitudinal steel above
Joints #1, #2, and #3 (Figure D.1). Eighteen VW spot-weldable strain gages were installed on
the longitudinal deck steel at the midspan of both the center and eastern spans and adjacent to the
pier cap. A number of the longitudinal reinforcing bars had to be untied in order to rotate the
bars after the gages had been installed so that the gages were then located on the underside of the
bar. This was done to protect the gages during casting of the CIP concrete deck. Many of these
gages were soldered to the cables that had previously been run through the conduit. Readings
were taken and recorded for all gages soldered to the cables to date using a Geokon® GK-403
read-out box to ensure they were working properly. The construction workers finished setting up
formwork for the deck and worked on the formwork for the east approach panel. The iron
workers finished placing and tying the deck steel, including the bars that had to be untied, and
started to place and tie reinforcement for the east approach panel.
D-2
September 16, 2005- Friday
Charles Bell II, Carol Shield, Matthew Smith
One additional VW spot-weldable strain gage was installed on the longitudinal deck
steel. The remaining gages at the instrumented locations above Joints #1, #2, and #3 (Figure
D.1) were soldered to the cables that had previously been run through the conduit. In addition a
number of the gages that were installed near the pier caps had to be soldered to supplementary
cables to reach the multiplexer boxes. The wiring from the remaining gages was run down to the
multiplexer boxes. Readings were taken and recorded for all gages using a Geokon® GK-403
read-out box to ensure they were working properly. The boxes of the conduit that would be
covered with CIP concrete were closed and sealed using duct seal and mastic tape. The iron
workers finished placing and tying the reinforcement for the east approach panel.

Charles Bell II, Matthew Smith
Readings were taken and recorded for all gages using a Geokon® GK-403 read-out box
to ensure they were working properly. The portions of the reinforcement that had been ground
during installation were painted with epoxy. The areas around the installed gages were painted
pink to bring them to the attention of the concrete workers during the concrete casting process.
The concrete workers poured and finished the concrete deck. Special attention was paid to the
areas surrounding instrumentation to make sure that vibration did not occur too close to the
gages. Readings were taken and recorded for all gages using a Geokon® GK-403 read-out box
after the concrete pour to ensure they were still working properly. All of the gages survived the
concrete pour. The age of the precast sections ranged from 32 to 21 days at the time the CIP
concrete of the deck was poured.
September 21, 2005- Wednesday

Readings were taken and recorded using a Geokon® GK-403 read-out box between the
times of 1:30 and 2:30 pm.
September 23-26, 2005

Readings were taken and recorded using a Geokon® GK-403 read-out box between the
times of 7:30 and 8:30 am.

D-3
After readings were taken and recorded using a Geokon® GK-403 read-out box, cables
were run through the conduit from the multiplexer boxes to the cabinet that was used to
temporarily house the dataloggers near the abutment. The multiplexers were mounted on
plywood within the multiplexer boxes. The cables that were attached to the instruments were
stripped and then partially connected to the multiplexers.

The remaining cables were connected to the multiplexers. The temporary cabinet was set
up and the multiplexer cables were connected to the dataloggers housed in the temporary cabinet.
Programs were downloaded to the dataloggers, but the dataloggers were not working properly.
Work was halted due to darkness.
September 28, 2005- Wednesday

Modifications were made to the programs and connections to get the dataloggers working
properly. The readings obtained from the gages matched the readings taken through the
installation process using the Geokon® GK-403 read-out box. However, eight of the gages did
not record temperature readings.
November 18, 2005- Friday

An effort was made to obtain temperature readings from the eight gages that were not
providing temperature readings. Five of the gages were fixed by adjusting the connection at the
multiplexers to ensure that there was not an electrical shortage. Three of the gages still did not
give temperature readings. The following gages were still not giving temperature readings: SJ1-
11-1, SJ2-5T-6, and SJ3-5T-1.
D-4
Table D.1 Installation date and initial readings for all gages installed between
September 2 and September 12, 2005
Date of Initial Strain Temp.

Gage # Date Installed Reading Reading (με) Reading (ºC)
SJ1-5T-1 9/2/2005 9/12/2005 3180 19.9
SJ1-5T-2 9/2/2005 9/12/2005 2810 20.3
SJ1-5T-3 9/2/2005 9/12/2005 2678 20.0
SJ1-5T-4 9/2/2005 9/12/2005 2863 21.4
SJ1-5T-5 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2420 20.4
SJ1-5T-6 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2609 21.1
SJ1-5T-7 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2408 20.7
SJ2-5T-1 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 4060 22.7
SJ2-5T-2 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 3201 22.7
SJ2-5T-3 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 3194 23.0
SJ2-5T-4 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 1453 23.7
SJ2-5T-5 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2757 23.2
SJ2-5T-6 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2012 25.5
SJ2-5T-7 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 3320 23.8
SJ3-5T-1 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 1243 23.6
SJ3-5T-2 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 3300 24.5
SJ3-5T-3 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2992 24.3
SJ3-5T-4 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 3335 24.9
SJ3-5T-5 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2793 24.6
SJ3-5T-6 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2998 25.7
SJ3-5T-7 9/2/2005 9/13/2005 2372 25.4
SJ1-51-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 1956 24.9
SJ1-52-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 3226 25.9
SJ2-51-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 1739 31.4
SJ2-52-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 2201 29.3
SJ2-41-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 2683 25.4
SJ3-41-1 9/6/2005 9/16/2005 2486 26.0
SJ1-21-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 2492 27.3
SJ1-22-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 3308 27.5
SJ1-11-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 2907 25.6
SJ1-12-1 9/6/2005 9/13/2005 2624 26.8
SJ1-41-1 9/12/2005 9/13/2005 2795 24.9
SJ1-C1-1 9/12/2005 9/13/2005 2491 25.3
SJ1-31-1 9/12/2005 9/13/2005 3294 24.6
CJ1-51-1 9/12/2005 9/13/2005 2652 21.0
CJ1-51-2 9/12/2005 9/13/2005 2776 22.1
CJ1-51-3 9/12/2005 9/13/2005 2881 21.3
CJ1-51-4 9/12/2005 9/13/2005 2889 23.4
CJ1-51-5 9/12/2005 9/13/2005 2818 22.7
D-5
Table D.2 Installation date and initial readings for the VW embedment strain gages
installed between September 13 and September 15, 2005

CJ2-51-1 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2908 22.7
CJ2-51-2 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2848 24.7
CJ2-51-3 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2913 25.0
CJ2-51-4 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2921 27.1
CJ2-51-5 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2855 25.5
CJ3-51-1 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2915 24.6
CJ3-51-2 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2828 25.7
CJ3-51-3 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2771 25.9
CJ3-51-4 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2895 26.0
CJ3-51-5 9/13/2005 9/13/2005 2858 25.6
CJ1-53-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2897 22.7
CJ1-53-2 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2878 23.6
CJ1-53-3 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2804 23.1
CJ1-53-4 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2797 23.8
CJ1-53-5 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2661 23.2
CJ1-53-6 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2938 23.8
CJ1-53-7 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2787 23.8
CJ1-53-8 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2822 23.7
CJ1-53-9 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2965 24.2
CJ1-53-10 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2914 24.9
CJ2-53-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2959 27.0
CJ2-53-2 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2896 26.2
CJ2-53-3 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2843 25.3
CJ2-53-4 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2895 26.5
CJ2-53-5 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2842 25.9
CJ2-53-6 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2860 26.4
CJ2-53-7 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2942 26.7
CJ2-53-8 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2768 26.1
CJ2-53-9 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2022 26.8
CJ2-53-10 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2865 26.6
CJ3-53-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2804 26.2
CJ3-53-2 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2843 26.6
CJ3-53-3 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2878 25.5
CJ3-53-4 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2877 25.2
CJ3-53-5 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2814 25.6
CJ3-53-6 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2890 25.8
CJ3-53-7 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2917 25.6
CJ3-53-8 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2805 25.5
CJ3-53-9 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2875 26.3
CJ3-53-10 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2834 23.4
D-6
Table D.3 Installation date and initial readings for the VW spot-weldable strain gages
installed between September 15 and September 16, 2005

SJ1-53-2 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2827 25.8
SJ1-53-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2726 26.2
SJ1-43-2 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 1995 24.9
SJ1-43-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2801 27.8
SJ1-33-2 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2120 25.6
SJ1-33-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2988 27.5
SJ1-23-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2731 26.0
SJ1-13-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2287 26.6
SJ2-53-1 9/15/2005 9/15/2005 2616 27.6
SJ2-43-1 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2697 28.6
SJ3-43-1 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 1965 26.4
SW1-43-1 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 3090 29.2
SW1-43-2 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 3083 28.8
SW1-43-3 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2766 27.7
SW2-43-1 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2902 27.0
SW2-43-2 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 3057 27.5
SW2-43-3 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 3144 26.6
SJ1-C3-1 9/15/2005 9/16/2005 2691 25.7
SJ1-C3-2 9/16/2005 9/16/2005 2541 28.3
Bike Trail
Full-width
Joint #3 Shoulder
Longitudinal Joint #2 Westbound

Joints Lane
Joint #1
Figure D.1 Plan View of Stage 1 of the Bridge Construction of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004
highlighting the Instrumented Joints
D-7
Appendix E
Datalogger Programs
E.1 Datalogger Programs
A program was downloaded into each CR-10X datalogger to administer the collection of
data. These programs controlled when data was collected, what type of reading was recorded
(i.e, temperature reading, strain reading, etc.), and where this data was stored. The programs that
were initially downloaded into the dataloggers instructed the dataloggers to take strain and
temperature readings from each strain gage every two hours and to store those readings in the
SM16M storage modules.
The programs of the two dataloggers differed slightly because of the number and order of
VW embedment and VW spot-weldable strain gages that were connected to each datalogger.
For instance, the program for Datalogger #1 starts with a loop that reads the gages connected to
Multiplexer #1, which were six VW embedment strain gages followed by ten VW spot-weldable
strain gages. In order to do this an inner loop must run six times to take readings from the six
VW embedment strain gages and after that is complete a second inner loop runs ten times to take
readings from the ten VW spot-weldable strain gages. At this point the program is done taking
readings from Multiplexer #1 and it is the end of that loop. Then a second loop starts that takes
readings from Multiplexer #2, but this multiplexer has a different number of each gage
connected to it and they are in a different order, therefore the inner loops must be modified to
read the correct sequence of gages. The program for Datalogger #1 is annotated below to
explain the loops in more detail.
E.1.1 Datalogger #1 The first command tells the program

how often to take readings. The
;{CR10X} maximum execution interval is 7200
; seconds.
*Table 1 Program
01: 7200.0 Execution Interval (seconds)
This starts the loop for Multiplexer #1.
;Multiplexer 1 “Set Port 1 High” tells the datalogger
to open Port 1 which is the where the
1: Do (P86) reset wire from Multiplexer #1
1: 41 Set Port 1 High connects to Datalogger #1.
;Embedment
This starts the inner loop for VW
2: Beginning of Loop (P87) embedment strain gages. The loop
1: 0000 Delay count is set at 6 because there are 6 VW
2: 6 Loop Count embedment strain gages connected to
Channels 1 through 6 of Multiplexer #1.
3: Do (P86) Port 2 is where the clock wire from

1: 72 Pulse Port 2 Multiplexer #1 is connected to Datalogger #1.
The pulse repeatedly changes the channel on
the multiplexer so as to read each gage.
E-1
; 20ms Pause
4: Excitation with Delay (P22)

1: 1 Ex Channel This command creates a 20 ms
2: 10 Delay W/Ex (0.01 sec units) pause. This ensures sufficient
3: 10 Delay After Ex (0.01 sec units) settling time for relay contacts.
4: 0000 mV Excitation
This command tells the datalogger to

5: Excite-Delay (SE) (P4) obtain a voltage reading for
1: 1 Reps temperature from the first gage. It
2: 15 2500 mV Fast Range stores that reading at the input
3: 1 SE Channel location given in “Loc”. The
4: 1 Excite all reps w/Exchan 1 multiplier puts the voltage reading in
5: 1 Delay (0.01 sec units) the correct units to be converted to a
6: 2500 mV Excitation temperature reading. SE Channel 1 is
7: 1 -- Loc [ TM1CE_1 ] the channel that the temperature
8: .001 Multiplier wires from Multiplexer #1 are
9: 0.0 Offset connected to Datalogger #1.
6: Polynomial (P55)
1: 1 Reps This command uses a polynomial to
2: 1 -- X Loc [ TM1CE_1 ] convert the voltage reading obtained
3: 1 -- F(X) Loc [ TM1CE_1 ] above to a temperature reading and
4: -104.78 C0 then stores it back in the input
5: 378.11 C1 location in “Loc”. C0-C5 are the
6: -611.59 C2 constants used in the polynomial.
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5
7: Vibrating Wire (SE) (P28) This command tells the data logger to
1: 1 Reps obtain a reading from the VW
2: 5 SE Channel embedment strain gage. The
3: 1 Excite all reps w/Exchan 1 multiplier is a gage factor that is used
4: 4 Starting Freq. (100 Hz units) to convert this reading to a strain
5: 12 End Freq. (100 Hz units) reading in microstrain units. SE
6: 250 No. of Cycles Channel 5 is where the gage wires
7: 50 Rep Delay (0.01 sec units) from Multiplexer #1 are connected to
8: 49 -- Loc [ M1CE_1 ] Datalogger #1.
9: 3304 Multiplier
E-2
10: 0.0 Offset
This ends the inner loop for the VW embedment
strain gages connected to Multiplexer #1. After
8: End (P95) Datalogger #1 has performed this loop 6 times it
moves on to the next inner loop.
;Spot Weldable
9: Beginning of Loop (P87) This starts the inner loop for VW

1: 0000 Delay spot-weldable strain gages. The loop
2: 10 Loop Count count is set at 10 because there are 10
VW spot-weldable strain gages
connected to Channels 7 through 16
10: Do (P86) of Multiplexer #1.
1: 72 Pulse Port 2
;20ms Pause
11: Excitation with Delay (P22) This starts the inner loop for
1: 1 Ex Channel VW spot-weldable strain gages.
2: 10 Delay W/Ex (0.01 sec units) The loop count is set at 10
3: 10 Delay After Ex (0.01 sec units) because there are 10 VW spot-
4: 0000 mV Excitation weldable strain gages connected
to Channels 7 through 16 of
Multiplexer #1. The rest of this
12: Excite-Delay (SE) (P4) loop follows the same pattern as
1: 1 Reps the first inner loop.
2: 15 2500 mV Fast Range
3: 1 SE Channel
4: 1 Excite all reps w/Exchan 1
5: 1 Delay (0.01 sec units)
7: 7 -- Loc [ TM1SW_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset
13: Polynomial (P55)

1: 1 Reps
2: 7 -- X Loc [ TM1SW_1 ]
3: 7 -- F(X) Loc [ TM1SW_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5
E-3
14: Vibrating Wire (SE) (P28)
1: 1 Reps
2: 5 SE Channel
4: 14 Starting Freq. (100 Hz units)
5: 35 End Freq. (100 Hz units)
6: 250 No. of Cycles
7: 50 Rep Delay (0.01 sec units)
8: 55 -- Loc [ M1SW_1 ]
The multiplier was changed
9: 391 Multiplier
because the gage factor for VW
10: 0.0 Offset
spot-weldable strain gages is
different from the embedment
gages.
15: End (P95)
16: Do (P86) This ends the loop

1: 51 Set Port 1 Low for Multiplexer #1.
;Multiplexer 2
This starts the loop for
17: Do (P86) Multiplexer #2.
1: 43 Set Port 3 High
;Spot Weldable
This starts the inner loop to
18: Beginning of Loop (P87) read the VW spot-weldable
1: 0000 Delay strain gages connected to
2: 7 Loop Count channels 1 through 7 of
Multiplexer #2. The rest of
the program follows the same
19: Do (P86) pattern as the first loop, until
1: 74 Pulse Port 4 the end of the program.
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel
2: 10 Delay W/Ex (0.01 sec units)
3: 10 Delay After Ex (0.01 sec units)
21: Excite-Delay (SE) (P4)
E-4
1: 1 Reps
3: 2 SE Channel
7: 17 -- Loc [ TM2SW_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset

1: 1 Reps
2: 17 -- X Loc [ TM2SW_1 ]
3: 17 -- F(X) Loc [ TM2SW_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 6 SE Channel
8: 65 -- Loc [ M2SW_1 ]
9: 391 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
24: End (P95)
;Embedment
25: Beginning of Loop (P87)

1: 0000 Delay
2: 9 Loop Count
26: Do (P86)
E-5
1: 74 Pulse Port 4
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel

1: 1 Reps
3: 2 SE Channel
7: 24 -- Loc [ TM2CE_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset

1: 1 Reps
2: 24 -- X Loc [ TM2CE_1 ]
3: 24 -- F(X) Loc [ TM2CE_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 6 SE Channel
8: 72 -- Loc [ M2CE_1 ]
9: 3304 Multiplier
E-6
10: 0.0 Offset
31: End (P95)
32: Do (P86)
1: 53 Set Port 3 Low
;Multiplexer 3
33: Do (P86)
;Embedment

1: 0000 Delay
2: 6 Loop Count
35: Do (P86)
1: 76 Pulse Port 6
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel

1: 1 Reps
3: 3 SE Channel
7: 33 -- Loc [ TM3CE_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset
E-7
1: 1 Reps
2: 33 -- X Loc [ TM3CE_1 ]
3: 33 -- F(X) Loc [ TM3CE_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 7 SE Channel
8: 81 -- Loc [ M3CE_1 ]
9: 3304 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
40: End (P95)
;Spot Weldable

1: 0000 Delay
2: 10 Loop Count
42: Do (P86)
1: 76 Pulse Port 6
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel
E-8
1: 1 Reps
3: 3 SE Channel
7: 39 -- Loc [ TM3SW_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset

1: 1 Reps
2: 39 -- X Loc [ TM3SW_1 ]
3: 39 -- F(X) Loc [ TM3SW_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 7 SE Channel
8: 87 -- Loc [ M3SW_1 ]
9: 391 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
47: End (P95)
48: Do (P86)
This command tells the

49: Batt Voltage (P10) program to take a battery
1: 97 Loc [ Battery ] voltage reading.
E-9
50: Do (P86) This command tells
1: 10 Set Output Flag High (Flag 0) the datalogger to
prepare to send the
data to be stored.
51: Real Time (P77)^10788
1: 110 Day,Hour/Minute (midnight = 0000) This command prepares the
reading to be stored in its final
form with day and time
52: Resolution (P78) information.
1: 1 High Resolution
53: Sample (P70)^1767

1: 97 Reps
2: 1 Loc [ TM1CE_1 ]
54: Serial Out (P96) This command tells the

1: 71 Storage Module datalogger to send the
readings to the storage
module.
*Table 2 Program
*Table 3 Subroutines
End Program
-Input Locations-
1 TM1CE_1 5 2 2
2 TM1CE_2 9 1 0
3 TM1CE_3 9 1 0
4 TM1CE_4 9 1 0
5 TM1CE_5 9 1 0
6 TM1CE_6 9 1 0
7 TM1SW_1 9 2 2
8 TM1SW_2 9 1 0
9 TM1SW_3 9 1 0
E - 10
10 TM1SW_4 9 1 0
11 TM1SW_5 9 1 0
12 TM1SW_6 9 1 0
13 TM1SW_7 9 1 0
14 TM1SW_8 9 1 0
15 TM1SW_9 9 1 0
16 TM1SW_10 9 1 0
17 TM2SW_1 9 2 2
18 TM2SW_2 9 1 0
19 TM2SW_3 9 1 0
20 TM2SW_4 9 1 0
21 TM2SW_5 9 1 0
22 TM2SW_6 9 1 0
23 TM2SW_7 9 1 0
24 TM2CE_1 9 2 2
25 TM2CE_2 9 1 0
26 TM2CE_3 9 1 0
27 TM2CE_4 9 1 0
28 TM2CE_5 9 1 0
29 TM2CE_6 9 1 0
30 TM2CE_7 9 1 0
31 TM2CE_8 9 1 0
32 TM2CE_9 9 1 0
33 TM3CE_1 9 2 2
34 TM3CE_2 9 1 0
35 TM3CE_3 9 1 0
36 TM3CE_4 9 1 0
37 TM3CE_5 9 1 0
38 TM3CE_6 9 1 0
39 TM3SW_1 9 2 2
40 TM3SW_2 9 1 0
41 TM3SW_3 9 1 0
42 TM3SW_4 9 1 0
43 TM3SW_5 9 1 0
44 TM3SW_6 9 1 0
45 TM3SW_7 9 1 0
46 TM3SW_8 9 1 0
47 TM3SW_9 9 1 0
48 TM3CE_10 9 1 0
49 M1CE_1 9 1 1
50 M1CE_2 9 1 0
51 M1CE_3 9 1 0
52 M1CE_4 9 1 0
53 M1CE_5 9 1 0
54 M1CE_6 9 1 0
55 M1SW_1 9 1 1
E - 11
56 M1SW_2 9 1 0
57 M1SW_3 9 1 0
58 M1SW_4 9 1 0
59 M1SW_5 9 1 0
60 M1SW_6 9 1 0
61 M1SW_7 9 1 0
62 M1SW_8 9 1 0
63 M1SW_9 9 1 0
64 M1SW_10 9 1 0
65 M2SW_1 9 1 1
66 M2SW_2 9 1 0
67 M2SW_3 9 1 0
68 M2SW_4 9 1 0
69 M2SW_5 9 1 0
70 M2SW_6 9 1 0
71 M2SW_7 9 1 0
72 M2CE_1 9 1 1
73 M2CE_2 9 1 0
74 M2CE_3 9 1 0
75 M2CE_4 9 1 0
76 M2CE_5 9 1 0
77 M2CE_6 9 1 0
78 M2CE_7 9 1 0
79 M2CE_8 9 1 0
80 M2CE_9 9 1 0
81 M3CE_1 9 1 1
82 M3CE_2 9 1 0
83 M3CE_3 9 1 0
84 M3CE_4 9 1 0
85 M3CE_5 9 1 0
86 M3CE_6 9 1 0
87 M3SW_1 9 1 1
88 M3SW_2 9 1 0
89 M3SW_3 9 1 0
90 M3SW_4 9 1 0
91 M3SW_5 9 1 0
92 M3SW_6 9 1 0
93 M3SW_7 9 1 0
94 M3SW_8 9 1 0
95 M3SW_9 9 1 0
96 M3SW_10 17 1 0
97 Battery 1 0 1
-Program Security-
0000
0000
0000
E - 12
-Mode 4-
-Final Storage Area 2-
0
-CR10X ID-
0
-CR10X Power Up-
3
-CR10X Compile Setting-
3
-CR10X RS-232 Setting-
-1
-DLD File Labels-
0
-Final Storage Labels-
0,Day_RTM,10788
0,Hour_Minute_RTM
1,TM1CE_1~1,1767
1,TM1CE_2~2
1,TM1CE_3~3
1,TM1CE_4~4
1,TM1CE_5~5
1,TM1CE_6~6
1,TM1SW_1~7
1,TM1SW_2~8
1,TM1SW_3~9
1,TM1SW_4~10
1,TM1SW_5~11
1,TM1SW_6~12
1,TM1SW_7~13
1,TM1SW_8~14
1,TM1SW_9~15
1,TM1SW_10~16
1,TM2SW_1~17
1,TM2SW_2~18
1,TM2SW_3~19
1,TM2SW_4~20
1,TM2SW_5~21
1,TM2SW_6~22
1,TM2SW_7~23
1,TM2CE_1~24
1,TM2CE_2~25
1,TM2CE_3~26
1,TM2CE_4~27
1,TM2CE_5~28
1,TM2CE_6~29
1,TM2CE_7~30
E - 13
1,TM2CE_8~31
1,TM2CE_9~32
1,TM3CE_1~33
1,TM3CE_2~34
1,TM3CE_3~35
1,TM3CE_4~36
1,TM3CE_5~37
1,TM3CE_6~38
1,TM3SW_1~39
1,TM3SW_2~40
1,TM3SW_3~41
1,TM3SW_4~42
1,TM3SW_5~43
1,TM3SW_6~44
1,TM3SW_7~45
1,TM3SW_8~46
1,TM3SW_9~47
1,TM3CE_10~48
1,M1CE_1~49
1,M1CE_2~50
1,M1CE_3~51
1,M1CE_4~52
1,M1CE_5~53
1,M1CE_6~54
1,M1SW_1~55
1,M1SW_2~56
1,M1SW_3~57
1,M1SW_4~58
1,M1SW_5~59
1,M1SW_6~60
1,M1SW_7~61
1,M1SW_8~62
1,M1SW_9~63
1,M1SW_10~64
1,M2SW_1~65
1,M2SW_2~66
1,M2SW_3~67
1,M2SW_4~68
1,M2SW_5~69
1,M2SW_6~70
1,M2SW_7~71
1,M2CE_1~72
1,M2CE_2~73
1,M2CE_3~74
1,M2CE_4~75
1,M2CE_5~76
E - 14
1,M2CE_6~77
1,M2CE_7~78
1,M2CE_8~79
1,M2CE_9~80
1,M3CE_1~81
1,M3CE_2~82
1,M3CE_3~83
1,M3CE_4~84
1,M3CE_5~85
1,M3CE_6~86
1,M3SW_1~87
1,M3SW_2~88
1,M3SW_3~89
1,M3SW_4~90
1,M3SW_5~91
1,M3SW_6~92
1,M3SW_7~93
1,M3SW_8~94
1,M3SW_9~95
1,M3SW_10~96
1,Battery~97
E.1.2 Datalogger #2
;{CR10X}
;
*Table 1 Program
01: 7200 Execution Interval (seconds)
;Multiplexer 4
1: Do (P86)
;Spot Weldable

1: 0000 Delay
2: 7 Loop Count
3: Do (P86)
1: 72 Pulse Port 2
E - 15
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel

1: 1 Reps
3: 1 SE Channel
7: 1 -- Loc [ TM4SW_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset
6: Polynomial (P55)
1: 1 Reps
2: 1 -- X Loc [ TM4SW_1 ]
3: 1 -- F(X) Loc [ TM4SW_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 5 SE Channel
8: 49 -- Loc [ M4SW_1 ]
9: 391 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
E - 16
8: End (P95)
;Embedment

1: 0000 Delay
2: 9 Loop Count
10: Do (P86)
1: 72 Pulse Port 2
; 20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel

1: 1 Reps
3: 1 SE Channel
7: 8 -- Loc [ TM4CE_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset

1: 1 Reps
2: 8 -- X Loc [ TM4CE_1 ]
3: 8 -- F(X) Loc [ TM4CE_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5
E - 17
1: 1 Reps
2: 5 SE Channel
8: 56 -- Loc [ M4CE_1 ]
9: 3304 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
15: End (P95)
16: Do (P86)
;Multiplexer 5
17: Do (P86)
;Embedment

1: 0000 Delay
2: 6 Loop Count
19: Do (P86)
1: 74 Pulse Port 4
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel

1: 1 Reps
E - 18
3: 2 SE Channel
7: 17 -- Loc [ TM5CE_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset

1: 1 Reps
2: 17 -- X Loc [ TM5CE_1 ]
3: 17 -- F(X) Loc [ TM5CE_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 6 SE Channel
8: 65 -- Loc [ M5CE_1 ]
9: 3304 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
24: End (P95)
;Spot Weldable

1: 0000 Delay
2: 10 Loop Count
26: Do (P86)
1: 74 Pulse Port 4
E - 19
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel

1: 1 Reps
3: 2 SE Channel
7: 23 -- Loc [ TM5SW_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset

1: 1 Reps
2: 23 -- X Loc [ TM5SW_1 ]
3: 23 -- F(X) Loc [ TM5SW_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 6 SE Channel
8: 71 -- Loc [ M5SW_1 ]
9: 391 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
E - 20
31: End (P95)
32: Do (P86)
;Multiplexer 6
33: Do (P86)
;Spot Weldable

1: 0000 Delay
2: 7 Loop Count
35: Do (P86)
1: 76 Pulse Port 6
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel

1: 1 Reps
3: 3 SE Channel
7: 33 -- Loc [ TM6SW_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset

1: 1 Reps
2: 33 -- X Loc [ TM6SW_1 ]
3: 33 -- F(X) Loc [ TM6SW_1 ]
E - 21
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 7 SE Channel
8: 81 -- Loc [ M6SW_1 ]
9: 391 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
40: End (P95)
;Embedment

1: 0000 Delay
2: 9 Loop Count
42: Do (P86)
1: 76 Pulse Port 6
;20ms Pause

1: 1 Ex Channel

1: 1 Reps
3: 3 SE Channel
E - 22
7: 40 -- Loc [ TM6CE_1 ]
8: .001 Multiplier
9: 0.0 Offset

1: 1 Reps
2: 40 -- X Loc [ TM6CE_1 ]
3: 40 -- F(X) Loc [ TM6CE_1 ]
4: -104.78 C0
5: 378.11 C1
6: -611.59 C2
7: 544.27 C3
8: -240.91 C4
9: 43.089 C5

1: 1 Reps
2: 7 SE Channel
8: 88 -- Loc [ M6CE_1 ]
9: 3304 Multiplier
10: 0.0 Offset
47: End (P95)
48: Do (P86)
49: Batt Voltage (P10)

1: 97 Loc [ Battery ]
50: Do (P86)
1: 10 Set Output Flag High (Flag 0)
E - 23
51: Real Time (P77)^10788
1: 110 Day,Hour/Minute (midnight = 0000)
52: Resolution (P78)

1: 1 High Resolution
53: Sample (P70)^1767

1: 97 Reps
2: 1 Loc [ TM4SW_1 ]
54: Serial Out (P96)

1: 71 Storage Module
*Table 2 Program
*Table 3 Subroutines
End Program
-Input Locations-
1 TM4SW_1 1 2 2
2 TM4SW_2 1 1 0
3 TM4SW_3 1 1 0
4 TM4SW_4 1 1 0
5 TM4SW_5 1 1 0
6 TM4SW_6 1 1 0
7 TM4SW_7 1 1 0
8 TM4CE_1 1 2 2
9 TM4CE_2 1 1 0
10 TM4CE_3 1 1 0
11 TM4CE_4 1 1 0
12 TM4CE_5 1 1 0
13 TM4CE_6 1 1 0
14 TM4CE_7 1 1 0
E - 24
15 TM4CE_8 1 1 0
16 TM4CE_9 1 1 0
17 TM5CE_1 1 2 2
18 TM5CE_2 1 1 0
19 TM5CE_3 1 1 0
20 TM5CE_4 1 1 0
21 TM5CE_5 1 1 0
22 TM5CE_6 1 1 0
23 TM5SW_1 1 2 2
24 TM5SW_2 1 1 0
25 TM5SW_3 1 1 0
26 TM5SW_4 1 1 0
27 TM5SW_5 1 1 0
28 TM5SW_6 1 1 0
29 TM5SW_7 1 1 0
30 TM5SW_8 1 1 0
31 TM5SW_9 1 1 0
32 TM5SW_10 0 0 0
33 TM6SW_1 1 2 2
34 TM6SW_2 1 1 0
35 TM6SW_3 1 1 0
36 TM6SW_4 1 1 0
37 TM6SW_5 1 1 0
38 TM6SW_6 1 1 0
39 TH6SW_7 1 0 0
40 TM6CE_1 1 2 2
41 TM6CE_2 1 1 0
42 TM6CE_3 1 1 0
43 TM6CE_4 1 1 0
44 TM6CE_5 1 1 0
45 TM6CE_6 1 1 0
46 TM6CE_7 1 1 0
47 TM6CE_8 1 1 0
48 TM6CE_9 1 1 0
49 M4SW_1 1 1 1
50 M4SW_2 1 1 0
51 M4SW_3 1 1 0
52 M4SW_4 1 1 0
53 M4SW_5 1 1 0
54 M4SW_6 1 1 0
55 M4SW_7 0 0 0
56 M4CE_1 1 1 1
57 M4CE_2 1 1 0
58 M4CE_3 1 1 0
59 M4CE_4 1 1 0
60 M4CE_5 1 1 0
E - 25
61 M4CE_6 1 1 0
62 M4CE_7 1 1 0
63 M4CE_8 1 1 0
64 M4CE_9 1 1 0
65 M5CE_1 1 1 1
66 M5CE_2 1 1 0
67 M5CE_3 1 1 0
68 M5CE_4 1 1 0
69 M5CE_5 1 1 0
70 M5CE_6 1 1 0
71 M5SW_1 1 1 1
72 M5SW_2 1 1 0
73 M5SW_3 1 1 0
74 M5SW_4 1 1 0
75 M5SW_5 1 1 0
76 M5SW_6 1 1 0
77 M5SW_7 1 1 0
78 M5SW_8 1 1 0
79 M5SW_9 1 1 0
80 M5SW_10 0 0 0
81 M6SW_1 1 1 1
82 M6SW_2 1 1 0
83 M6SW_3 1 1 0
84 M6SW_4 1 1 0
85 M6SW_5 1 1 0
86 M6SW_6 1 1 0
87 M6SW_7 0 0 0
88 M6CE_1 1 0 1
89 M6CE_2 1 1 0
90 M6CE_3 1 1 0
91 M6CE_4 1 1 0
92 M6CE_5 1 1 0
93 M6CE_6 1 1 0
94 M6CE_7 1 1 0
95 M6CE_8 1 1 0
96 M6CE_9 1 1 0
97 Battery 1 0 1
-Program Security-
0000
0000
0000
-Mode 4-
-Final Storage Area 2-
0
-CR10X ID-
0
E - 26
-CR10X Power Up-
3
-CR10X Compile Setting-
3
-CR10X RS-232 Setting-
-1
-DLD File Labels-
0
-Final Storage Labels-
0,Day_RTM,10788
0,Hour_Minute_RTM
1,TM4SW_1~1,1767
1,TM4SW_2~2
1,TM4SW_3~3
1,TM4SW_4~4
1,TM4SW_5~5
1,TM4SW_6~6
1,TM4SW_7~7
1,TM4CE_1~8
1,TM4CE_2~9
1,TM4CE_3~10
1,TM4CE_4~11
1,TM4CE_5~12
1,TM4CE_6~13
1,TM4CE_7~14
1,TM4CE_8~15
1,TM4CE_9~16
1,TM5CE_1~17
1,TM5CE_2~18
1,TM5CE_3~19
1,TM5CE_4~20
1,TM5CE_5~21
1,TM5CE_6~22
1,TM5SW_1~23
1,TM5SW_2~24
1,TM5SW_3~25
1,TM5SW_4~26
1,TM5SW_5~27
1,TM5SW_6~28
1,TM5SW_7~29
1,TM5SW_8~30
1,TM5SW_9~31
1,TM5SW_10~32
1,TM6SW_1~33
1,TM6SW_2~34
1,TM6SW_3~35
E - 27
1,TM6SW_4~36
1,TM6SW_5~37
1,TM6SW_6~38
1,TH6SW_7~39
1,TM6CE_1~40
1,TM6CE_2~41
1,TM6CE_3~42
1,TM6CE_4~43
1,TM6CE_5~44
1,TM6CE_6~45
1,TM6CE_7~46
1,TM6CE_8~47
1,TM6CE_9~48
1,M4SW_1~49
1,M4SW_2~50
1,M4SW_3~51
1,M4SW_4~52
1,M4SW_5~53
1,M4SW_6~54
1,M4SW_7~55
1,M4CE_1~56
1,M4CE_2~57
1,M4CE_3~58
1,M4CE_4~59
1,M4CE_5~60
1,M4CE_6~61
1,M4CE_7~62
1,M4CE_8~63
1,M4CE_9~64
1,M5CE_1~65
1,M5CE_2~66
1,M5CE_3~67
1,M5CE_4~68
1,M5CE_5~69
1,M5CE_6~70
1,M5SW_1~71
1,M5SW_2~72
1,M5SW_3~73
1,M5SW_4~74
1,M5SW_5~75
1,M5SW_6~76
1,M5SW_7~77
1,M5SW_8~78
1,M5SW_9~79
1,M5SW_10~80
1,M6SW_1~81
E - 28
1,M6SW_2~82
1,M6SW_3~83
1,M6SW_4~84
1,M6SW_5~85
1,M6SW_6~86
1,M6SW_7~87
1,M6CE_1~88
1,M6CE_2~89
1,M6CE_3~90
1,M6CE_4~91
1,M6CE_5~92
1,M6CE_6~93
1,M6CE_7~94
1,M6CE_8~95
1,M6CE_9~96
1,Battery~97
E - 29

Application of Precast Decks and Other Elements To Bridge Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Precast Decks and Other Elements To Bridge Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Precast Decks and Other Elements To Bridge Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2006-37

Application of Precast Decks and

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement

Charles Bell III

Department of Civil Engineering

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Chapter 2: Literature Review 4

Chapter 3: Development and Implementation of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab

Chapter 4: Instrumentation of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004 26

Chapter 5: Data Acquisition System 32

Chapter 6: Summary and Future Work 35

Appendix A: Bridge Plans

1.2 Advantages of Prefabricated Bridge Construction

1.3 Scanning Tour

1.4 Implementation of Technology

1.5 Purpose of this Study

2.1.1 Precast Panel Systems with Transverse Joints

2.1.2 Prefabricated Bridge Systems with Longitudinal Joints

2.2 Prefabricated Concrete Bridge Superstructure Connection Systems

2.2.1 Post-tensioning Systems

2.2.2 Shear Key Systems

2.2.3 Cast-in-place (CIP) Concrete Topping

2.3 Continuity for Live Loads over Interior Piers

2.4 Case Studies Performed on Full-Span Form Panel Bridge Systems

2.4.1 Hays, Jr. et al. Study

Laboratory Testing combined with Finite Element Analyses

2.4.2 Buckner and Turner Study

2.4.3 Peterman and Ramirez Study

2.5 Additional Full-Span Prefabricated Bridge Systems

2.6 Summary of Literature Review

3.2 Common Features of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Bridge System

3.2.1 Design of the Precast Section

3.2.2 Transverse Reinforcement over the Longitudinal Joints

3.2.3 Detailing for Continuous Behavior over the Piers

3.3 Design of Mn/DOT Bridge No. 13004

3.3.2 Design Calculations

3.3.4 Details of the Bridge Deck

3.3.5 Details of the Precast Substructure

4.4 Continuous Behavior for Live Load over the Piers

4.5 Effectiveness of the Transverse Hooks

4.6 Installation of Instrumentation

5.2 Conduit System

5.3 Long-term Data Collection

6.2 Benefits of the Mn/DOT Inverted-T Precast Slab System

6.3 Preliminary Conclusions

6.4 Future Work

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO LRFD

Freyermuth, C. "Design of Continuous Highway Bridges with Precast, Prestressed Concrete

Minnesota Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Construction, 2000

Typical Section Width (in.) Depth (in.) Span range (ft.)

Box Girder 36 to 48 27 to 42 60 to 100

Deck Bulb Tee 48 to 84 29 to 41 60 to 110

Transverse Reinforcement No. of

7 Day 10 Day 28 Day

Instrument No. X (in.) Y (in.) Z (in.)

Instrument No. X (in.) Y (in.) Z (in.)

Instrument No. X (in.) Y (in.) Z (in.)

Instrument No. X (in.) Y (in.) Z (in.)