Jointless Bridge Deck with Link Slabs
Design for Durability
Evren Ulku, Upul Attanayake, and Haluk Aktan
Link slabs are used over the piers developing jointless decks while adja-
cent bridge spans remain simply supported. The Michigan Department
of Transportation incorporates link slabs during deck replacements and
deep resurfacing. Field performance assessment documented full-depth
cracking of most of the link slabs. These cracks allow surface water infil-
tration, which leads to accelerated deterioration. This study was con-
ducted to address link slab design and performance issues. The literature
is inconsistent with the influence of design parameters on link slab per-
formance. The objective was to document the link slab behavior of its
design parameters, to propose a method to calculate the link slab moment
and axial force, and to propose recommendations for updating current
design details and construction procedures. Single-girder, two-span, finite
element assemblage models under various types and levels of loads in
conjunction with the link slab design parameters were used to evaluate
the moments and axial forces developed in the link slab. Analysis showed
that support conditions underneath the link slab greatly influence the
link slab moment and axial force. Use of moment interaction diagram is
recommended for the design. A detailed analysis and design example is
presented incorporating live load, temperature gradient load, and the
support configurations.
The conventional practice in bridge construction is to build bridges
with simply supported spans. Expansion joints between simple spans
serve two purposes: (a) to accommodate bridge movements because
of volume change loads and (b) to protect bridge components exposed
to surface water laced with deicing salt. Because of commonly
observed joint performance issues, designers are unremittingly look-
ing for alternatives to expansion joints. As a result, jointless bridge
superstructures or deck systems are developed.
The joints can be eliminated both at the abutments and at the
piers. There are three generalized details to eliminate joints at the
abutments: (a) an integral abutment bridge provides shear and
moment continuity from superstructure to abutments using flexible
foundations; (b) a semi-integral abutment bridge has rigid, non-
integral foundations in which back wall slides over the abutment
and shear continuity; and (c) a sliding deck or deck extension has
isolated deck slides over the back wall. These configurations allow
joints to be placed away from the abutment. The movement of the
E. Ulku, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Wayne State Univer-
sity, 5050 Anthony Wayne Drive, #1305, Detroit, MI 48202. U. Attanayake and
H. Aktan, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Western Michigan
University, Parkview Campus G242, 1903 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo,
MI 49008. Corresponding author: U. Attanayake, upul.attanayake@wmich.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2131, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2009, pp. 68–78.
DOI: 10.3141/2131-07
68
superstructure is transferred to the approach slab end that sits on a
sleeper slab (1, 2).
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) uses three
design details to eliminate joints over the piers (3). In the first detail,
the superstructure is continuous for both dead and live loads. MDOT
implements this detail with steel girders. In the second detail, the
superstructure is continuous for live load only. MDOT uses this
detail with prestressed concrete girders. The third detail uses a con-
tinuous deck over the piers (i.e., the link slab) while underlying gird-
ers (prestressed concrete or steel) remain simply supported. Link
slabs are primarily used with repair activities and are the prime focus
of this study.
Link slabs are designed based on a procedure proposed by Caner
and Zia (4). Design rationale allows the development of fine cracks
within the link slab. Although water leakage may be possible through
these cracks, link slabs are still preferable to having deck joints. How-
ever, recent field inspections of eight bridge decks revealed full-depth
link slab cracking at the link slab centerline of significant width. This
study describes the influence of link slab design parameters on link
slab behavior and presents recommendations for link slab analysis,
design, and construction procedures.
CURRENT RETROFIT DETAILS
AND PERFORMANCE
Link slab is modeled as a one-dimensional beam according to the
design procedure (4). The link slab flexural stiffness is assumed to
be very low with respect to girder stiffness; thus, it will not provide
continuity between the girders. Consequently, each span behaves as
simply supported, and the end-rotations of two adjacent girders
under live load generate the design moment at the connecting sec-
tion of the deck: the link slab. The link slab is analyzed as a beam
subjected to the adjacent girder end rotations. The effect of girder
end rotation on the link slab because of dead load of the deck is elim-
inated through the deck pour sequence in which the link region is
placed last. The link slab length, which is defined as the debonded
zone, is specified to be 5% of each adjacent span plus the gap between
the adjacent beam ends (4). The debonded length is provided to reduce
the flexural stiffness of the link slab to minimize stress development
at the connecting region (5).
The first link slab implemented in North Carolina was designed
using the procedure by Caner and Zia (4). In that implementation, deck
with stay-in-place forms was detached by placing a roofing paper over
the girder ends to develop debonded region. The link slab was designed
with two layers of continuous reinforcements (6).
MDOT design also follows the procedure developed by Caner and
Zia (4). Link slab moment is calculated from girder end rotations
and compared with the cracking moment to establish the steel area.
If link slab moment is greater than the cracking moment, required
Ulku, Attanayake, and Aktan
reinforcement is computed using allowable stresses for steel (0.4 fy)
and concrete (0.4 f c′) as per the AASHTO standard specifications (7)
section 8.15.2. As a final step, crack width is calculated using the
Gergely-Lutz equation in the AASHTO standard specifications (7 ),
section 8.16.8.4, and checked with the allowable values. A relief cut
is provided at the middle of the link slab and sealed when the crack
width is calculated to be greater than the limits recommended in the
AASHTO standard specifications section 8.16.8.4 (3). Current MDOT
link slab detail shown in Figure 1a demonstrates the debonded region
where slab ties are removed and two layers of roofing paper are
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 1 Bridges: (a) longitudinal section through the link-slab implemented in Michigan and (b) full-depth
link-slab cracking.
69
placed over the beam. Bottom reinforcement is discontinued over
the pier centerline.
The link slab performance was documented by inspecting eight
bridges. A predominant distress observed in all bridges was full-depth
link slab cracking at the link slab centerline irrespective of girder type
and span length and regardless of the saw cut. Full-depth cracking was
documented by inspecting both top and bottom surfaces of the link
slabs. When stay-in-place forms averted the inspection of deck under-
side, inspection of overhang helped, identifying the full-depth cracks
(Figure 1b).
70
FINITE ELEMENT INVESTIGATION
OF LINK SLAB BEHAVIOR
Link Slab Design Parameters
The observed full-depth link slab cracking over the piers required
investigating the parameters that control the link slab stresses. In the
literature, the discussions related to the effects of support conditions
on the link slab behavior were not conclusive. Link slab studies by
Gastal and Zia (8) included a finite element (FE) analysis that was
validated by several simply supported beam tests. Investigation of
the influence of roller (R) and hinge (H) support conditions on link
slab stresses revealed that the link was in tension and provided some
degree of live load continuity under double-hinged condition at the
center support (RHHR). For the double-roller condition at the cen-
ter support (HRRH), analyses showed that the deck link was under
compression and the beams acted as simply supported. Richardson
(9) and El-Safty (5) indicated the influence of support conditions on
deck stresses and potential deck cracking. However, Zia et al. (10)
and Caner and Zia (4) concluded that link slab behavior is indepen-
dent of beam-end support conditions underneath the link slab and the
conclusions were validated by test data and numerical simulations.
Okeil and El-Safty (11) later contradicted this finding, indicating
that under live load, the link slab would be in tension regardless of
the support conditions. Okeil and El-Safty (11) stated that the tension
force developed in the link slab for HRRH case would be smaller
than that of RHHR case because of unrestrained horizontal move-
ments at the interior supports. The discrepancies with earlier conclu-
sions by Zia et al. (10) were rationalized by stating that the slightest
inward movement of the supports would relieve the tensile force in
the link slab. Test results presented by Zia et al. (10) did not provide
data on support movements.
Various link slab design parameters are identified in this study to
clarify the interaction of design parameters in three-dimensional
85.0
42.0
834.0
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 2 Type III girder and deck model: (a) side and (b) front views (not drawn to
scale; all units in inches).
Transportation Research Record 2131
models using FE analysis. The design parameters of the link slab used
in this analysis are support conditions, debonded length, girder height,
and adjacent span length ratios.
FE Analysis
Two-span single girder assemblage models are developed for eval-
uating the effects of link slab design parameters in conjunction with
live and thermal loads. The elastomeric bearing effects are incorpo-
rated into the models using vertical and horizontal springs. The effects
of varying debonded lengths on link slab stresses are investigated by
using debonded lengths of 0, 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5% of the span length.
The girder height effect is examined with two different standard
I-girder sections (AASHTO Types III and VI). Parametric analyses
include the effect of adjacent span ratios.
The primary set of models is based on a prototype bridge. The bridge
has Type III girders with a 9-in. concrete deck. The total length of the
link slab between spans two and three is 85 in. The deck overhang is
30 in. (Figure 2). Material properties of the girder and deck concrete
were kept constant with a compressive strength ( f ′c) of 5,000 psi,
modulus of elasticity of 4,031 ksi, and Poisson’s ratio of 0.2.
Live and temperature gradient loads were applied independently
to all models. Dead load was excluded considering deck pour
sequence. HL-93 (12) loading with an impact factor of 1.33 was
placed on both spans to create maximum girder end rotation. Lane
load of 0.64 kips/ft was used in conjunction with the axle loads. Neg-
ative and positive temperature gradient loads were applied to the
composite girder-deck cross section. Temperature gradient loads were
calculated on the basis of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Speci-
fications (LRFD) (2) for Zone 3. Negative temperature values were
obtained by scaling the positive temperature gradient by −0.30. A uni-
form thermal expansion coefficient of 6.0 × 10−6/°F was used for deck
and girder concrete.
42.0
Type III PCI Girder
834.0
Ulku, Attanayake, and Aktan 71

The models have three basic support configurations (HRRR,
RHHR, and RRHR or similarly RHRR). Including all boundary
conditions and loading, nine analysis cases were developed for each
design parameter. Models with HRRH boundary conditions previ-
ously investigated by other researchers were not evaluated because
using a link slab with such supports would restrain the superstructure
movement. In that case, contraction and expansion under uniform
thermal loads generates excessive link slab axial forces irrespective
of the bridge span length.
Effects of Support Conditions
A series of vertical and horizontal springs attached to the girder end
footprint simulated the elastomeric bearing effects. For assessing the
bearing effects on link slab force resultants, lower and upper bound
shear modulus (G) values of 0.170 ksi and 0.230 ksi for 50-durometer
hardness elastomers given in the MDOT Bridge Design Manual (13)
were used. The shape factor (Si) and effective compressive modulus
(Ec) were calculated according to the AASHTO LRFD specifications
(12) for 1 in. × 9 in. × 22 in. plain bearings with 1.75-in. diameter
holes. Upper and lower horizontal and vertical stiffness values were
calculated and incorporated into the models.
In addition to 9 cases with ideal roller and hinged supports, 18
analysis cases with lower and upper bound bearing stiffness values
were developed. Moments and axial forces obtained at the link slab
cross section directly over the pier are presented in Table 1.
The analysis results show that the link slab implemented with
RHHR support configuration is subjected to axial forces and flexure.
Link slab moment of approximately 50 ft-kips for HRRR and RRHR
configurations reduces substantially to 19 ft-kips under RHHR sup-
port configurations, but the axial forces increase. Axial forces were
generated in link slabs with HRRR and RHRR support configurations
only when the bearing effects were incorporated. Minor changes to
the link slab axial force were observed with the position of hinge (H)
support with HRRR and RHRR support configurations. However, the
analysis with refined support models using vertical and horizontal
springs did not produce appreciable changes to link slab moment and
axial force. Negative gradient load is additive to live load–generating
tensile stresses at the link slab top fiber for all support configura-
tions. Positive temperature gradient loading tends to decrease the
live load effects.
Effects of Link Slab Debonded Length
Four different debonded lengths were considered (i.e., 0, 2.5, 5.0,
and 7.5% of the span length). According to analysis results and as
expected, link slab moments decrease with increasing debonded
length. With the increased debonded length, the flexural stiffness of
the link slab decreases and consequently moments were lower. The
net axial load acting on the link slab was not affected by debond-
ing because the axial stiffness remains constant, regardless of the
debonded length. The link slab moment decreases with increasing
debonded length but remains flat between 5 to 7.5%.
Effects of Girder Height
AASHTO Type III girders in the base model were replaced with Type
VI girders. Effective deck width was kept constant at 76 in. Distribu-
tion factors and, thus, axle loads were modified for Type VI girder.
Temperature gradient load values were equal because both girder
types were higher than 12 in.
However, live load acting on the system was greater than that of
Type III girders because distribution factors, link slab moment, and
axial force decrease considerably. This is because girder end rota-
tions were lower. Hence, link slab moments and axial loads were
expected to increase with increasing span-to-depth ratio of the girder.
No significant change was observed in the moments because of pos-
itive and negative temperature gradient. Under temperature gradi-
ent, an increase in axial forces was noted when girder depth was
increased.
Adjacent Span Ratio
The adjacent span was increased from 69.5 ft to 91 ft. Live load
(HL-93) acting on longer span was modified because the distribu-
tion factors changed with respect to the span. Total link slab length

TABLE 1 Moments and Axial Forces Developed in Link Slab for Various Support Conditions
Under Live and Temperature Gradient Load

Momenta (ft-kips) Axial Forcea (kips)

Bearing Stiffness Bearing Stiffness

Ideal Lower Upper Ideal Lower Upper

Case Support Support Bound Bound Support Bound Bound

Live HRRR −51 −50 −50 0 1 2

RHHR −19 −19 −19 159 160 159
RRHR −51 −50 −49 0 6 8
Positive temperature HRRR 61 61 61 0 −4 −5
gradient RHHR 44 44 44 −84 −84 −85
RRHR 61 60 60 0 −5 −6
Negative temperature HRRR −18 −18 −18 0 1 1
gradient RHHR −13 −13 −13 25 25 26
RRHR −18 −18 −18 0 1 2

a
Sign convention: positive axial force—tension; negative moment—link-slab top fiber stress tension.
72
was also increased to 98 in. from 85 in. Under live load, moments
and axial forces increased with increased span ratios. For the case
of temperature gradient loading, moment and axial force changes
were insignificant.
Bridge Deck Casting Sequence and Drying
and Hydration Thermal Loads
To eliminate the negative moment effects that may stem from the
self-weight of the deck, link slab concrete was placed last. Because of
the restraints developed at the deck and link slab connecting region,
there was a potential for cracking under hydration thermal loads and
drying shrinkage. Considering a thermal expansion coefficient of
6 × 10−6/°F and a uniform strain distribution through a cast-in-place
concrete deck, Aktan et al. (14) showed that temperature differen-
tials of approximately 20 to 22°F was adequate for initiating crack-
ing of a standard 9-in. deck. Once the deck is cracked under hydration
thermal loads, crack widths will further widen under drying shrink-
age. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the total strain that is
developed in the link slab equals the summation of thermal strain and
drying shrinkage strain. Assuming the link slab as fully restrained at
both ends in the axial direction, crack width can be estimated by mul-
tiplying the link slab length with the total shrinkage strains. As rec-
ommended by Aktan et al. (14), CEB-FIP Model Code (15), and
ACI Committee 209 (16) prediction models were used to determine
the upper and lower bound values of shrinkage strains. Shrinkage
calculations assumed a 28-day concrete strength of 5,000 psi with
Type 1 cement and wet curing periods of 7 days. Ambient relative
humidity of 60% were assumed. Combining CEB-FIP Model Code
(15) and ACI Committee 209 (16) estimations, lower and upper bound
total shrinkage values of 152 and 368 microstrain were calculated.
Creep and reinforcement effects were not taken into account because
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50
0
500
1000
Singly reinforced Doubly reinforced
FIGURE 3 Axial load versus moment interaction diagram for singly and doubly reinforced sections.
Transportation Research Record 2131
both effects would reduce crack width. On the basis of lower and upper
bound total shrinkage estimates, the crack width of a 60 in. long link
slab ranged from 0.009 to 0.022 in. Use of shrinkage compensating
mix or high ductile material is recommended for the link slab.
Axial Force and Moment Interaction Relation
for Link Slab Design
In the current MDOT link slab details, bottom layer reinforcements
are discontinued over the pier. Section properties and reinforcement
orientation of S07-8 of 25042 bridge link slab (Figure 1a) show the
top reinforcement layer consisting of six #7 and six #4 bars within
an effective flange width of 76 in. The bottom rebar layer consists
of six #6 and six #5 bars. The top cover is 2.3 in. and reduced to
1.9 in. at the bottom layer.
Current link slab design is based on service loads and crack width
criteria. AASHTO LRFD (12) Service I limit state requires combin-
ing the effects of live and thermal loads. According to the service
limit state for crack control (Service I), live load factors for live and
temperature gradient loads are 1.0 and 0.5, respectively. The load
factor for temperature gradient can be taken as 1.0 when the live load
is not considered. Load combinations are derived for the critical
support configurations as follows:
• Service I-P: 1.0 × (positive temperature gradient) and
• Service I-N: 1.0 × (live) + 0.5 × (negative temperature gradient).
The link slab is subjected to a combination of moments and axial
forces. Axial force versus moment interaction diagram (Figure 3) is
developed for link slab design. Service I-P combination is used when
the link slab is subjected to a positive temperature gradient load. HRRR
support configuration develops the highest moment under positive
Axial Load (kips)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Moment (ft-kips)
Service I-P - HRRR Service I-N - RHHR
Ulku, Attanayake, and Aktan 73

temperature gradient (Service I-P), and the results are depicted in
Figure 3. Service I-N is critical when the link slab with RHHR sup-
port configuration is subjected to the combined effect of live and
negative temperature gradient loads. Service I-N combined results
for RHHR support configuration is also presented in Figure 3. Results
show that link slab designed with current provisions will crack
under positive gradient loading when bottom reinforcement layer is
discontinuous.
LINK SLAB DESIGN EXAMPLE
The example follows the rationale developed by Caner and Zia (4)
to calculate link slab design moments. Girder end rotations under live
and temperature gradient loads were computed considering simply
supported spans.
Girder end rotation under live load was calculated following
AASHTO LRFD (12) procedures:
• Establish composite girder deck cross section with an effective
flange width (Section 4.6.2.6),
• Apply HL-93 loading [HS-20 truck with impact (Section 3.6.2.1)
+ 0.64 kips/ft lane loading (Section 3.6.1.2.4)] and compute the
maximum girder end rotations, and
• Apply the distribution factor following Section 4.6.2.2.2.
Step 2. Temperature Gradient Moment
Girder end rotations were calculated on the basis of a temperature pro-
file (Figure 4a) and strain and curvature compatibility between sec-
tions along cross section height for developing the relations between
internal forces shown in Figure 4b (17 ): b1 = 76 in., b2 = 16 in.,
h1 = 4 in., h2 = 5 in., h3 = 7 in., and h4 = 38 in.
Positive temperature gradient (PTG) was calculated following
AASHTO LRFD Section 3.12.3 (12), and the temperature values of
T1 = 41°F, T2 = 11°F, T3 = 6.42°F, and T4 = 0.0°F were established.
hi is the height of section i, and Ti is the temperature differential
along the cross section height (Figure 4). For Section 4 in Figure 4,
A4 = 447.5 in.2, I4 = 61,890 in.4, dt4 = 23.09 in., and St4 = 2,680 in.3
where dt4 is the distance from centroid of Section 4 to top fiber of
Section 4 and St4 is the top section modulus for section 4 (I4 / dt4).
Internal forces and moments that develop at the boundaries of
each layer were determined by satisfying strain and curvature com-
patibility between the sections: F1 = −48.15 kips, F2 = 32.90 kips,
and F3 = 51.53 kips and M1 = 16.28 ft-kips, M2 = 22.54 ft-kips, and
M3 = −0.30 ft-kips. Fi and Mi are the internal force and moment
resultants between sections (i) and (i + 1) shown in Figure 4.
Curvature is established when Fi and Mi values are found:
dθPTG 1 1 1 1 1
= = = = =
dx R1 R2 R3 R4 R

dθPTG 1
End rotations caused by temperature gradient were calculated = = 3.857 × 10 −6
on the basis of the procedure described by Saadeghvaziri and Hadidi dx R
(17 ) by ensuring strain and curvature compatibility of the cross
section. End rotation can be obtained by integrating curvature along the
Variables used in the calculations are as follows: girder length:

θPTG ( x ) =
x L
• 28-day compressive strength of girder and deck concrete ( f c′ ) = −
5,000 psi, R 2R
• Concrete modulus of elasticity (Ec) = 4,031 ksi,
θPTG ( L ) =
L L L
• Yield strength of steel ( fy) = 60 ksi, − =
R 2R 2R
• Thermal expansion coefficient of concrete (α) = 6 × 10−6/°F,
• Length of the girder (L) = 834 in.,
θPTG ( L ) =
L 834
• Link slab length (LLS) = 69.5 × 12 × 0.05 × 2 + 1 in. gap = = × 3.857 × 10 −6 = 1.608 × 10 −3 rad
2R 2
84.4 in.,
• Link slab gross moment of inertia (ILS) = 4,617 in.4 (for 76 in. × Moment caused by positive temperature gradient (MPTG):
9 in. section),
• Type-III girder moment of inertia (Igirder) = 125,390 in.4, and 2 Ec I LSθPTG 2 × 4, 031 × 4, 617 × 1.608 × 10 −3
• Composite section moment of inertia (Icomposite) = 392,892 in.4. M PTG = = = 59.1 ft-kips
LLS 84.4 × 12

or
Step 1. Live Load Moment
59.1 ft-kips
HL-93 (12) loading was applied on the 69.5 ft span. The impact fac- M PTG = = 9.4 ft-kips ft
link slab width
tor was 1.33. The distribution factor was 0.571 (two or more lanes
loaded). The maximum girder end rotation because of live load (θLL) Moment caused by negative temperature gradient (MNTG) will be
equals 0.00189 rad. The moment induced by girder end rotation −0.3 times the positive gradient loading.
because of live load (MLL) follows:
M NTG = −0.3 × M PTG
2 Ec I LSθLL 2 × 4, 031 × 4, 617 × 0.00189
M LL = = = −69.5 ft-kips M NTG = 59.1 × −0.3 = −17.7 ft-kips
LLS 84.4 × 12
or
or
−17.7 ft-kips
M NTG = = −2.8 ft-kips ft
M LL = –69.5 ft-kips link slab width = –11.0 ft-kips ft link slab width
74 Transportation Research Record 2131

b1

T1
1 h1
T2
2 b2 h2
T3
3 h3
T4

dt4
4
h4
c.g. 4

T4
(a)

M1 M1 T1
1
T2
F1 F1

F1 F1 T2
M2-M1 2 M2-M1

F2 F2 T3
F2 F2 T3
M3-M2 3 M3-M2

F3 F3 T4
F3 F3
T4
4
M3 M3

T4

(b)

FIGURE 4 (a) Temperature profile along cross section and (b) internal force and moment distribution
along the depth.

Step 3. Load Combinations for Moments moment because of negative temperature gradiient ( M NTG )

The combined effect of live and temperature gradient loads was = −17.7 ft-kips or − 2.8 ft-kips ft
considered: Service I-P load combination: MSI-P = 59.1 ft-kips or 9.3 ft-kips ft

• Service I-P: 1.0 × (positive temperature gradient) and Service I-N load combiination: MSI-N = −69.5 × 1.0 + −17.7 × 0.5
• Service I-N: 1.0 × (live load) + 0.5 × (negative temperature = −78.4 ft-kips or −12.4 ft-kips ft
gradient).

From Step 1, Step 4. Cracking Moment

(LRFD Section 5.4.2.6 and 5.7.3.6.2)
moment because of live load ( M LL )
= −69.5 ft-kips or −11.0 ft-kips ft
(
fr = 537 psi 0.24 fc′ ksi )
fr I g
From Step 2, M cr = = 7.2 ft-kips ft < MSI-P = 9.3 ft-kips ft as well as
y
moment because of positive temperature gradiient ( M PTG ) MSI-N = 12.4 ft-kips ft

= 59.1 ft-kips or 9.3 ft-kips ft Link slab cracks and relief cut are needed.
Ulku, Attanayake, and Aktan 75

Step 5. Positive Moment Reinforcement Step 6. Negative Moment Reinforcement

(i.e., bottom reinforcement layer) (i.e., top reinforcement layer)

The amount of steel reinforcement is calculated considering 40% of The procedure given in Step 5 (AASHTO LRFD Section 5.7.3.4)
the yield strength (3, 4, 6). was followed.
Steel area of 1.03 in.2/ft is required for MSI-N = −12.4 ft-kips/ft.
MSI-P Reinforcement is located at a distance (d) = 6.7 in. from the link slab
Asteel = with j ≈ 0.9 bottom fiber.
0.4 f y jd
Use #7 bars @ 6 in.
Elastic analysis yields a steel area of 0.77 in.2/ft for MSI-P = 9.3 ft-
= Asteel = 1.20 in.2 > 1.03 in.2
kips/ft located at a distance (d) = 6.7 in. from top fiber of the link
slab. fsteel = 21.2 ksi < fsa = 32.6 ksi

Use #6 bars @ 6 in. Z = 85 k in. < 130 k in.

= Asteel = 0.88 in.2 > 0.77 in.2

Step 7. Axial Force
Stress in the reinforcement can be found by rearranging the equation
given by Caner and Zia (4): Step 7.1. Axial Force Caused by Live Load (NLL)

Axial load in the link slab with RHHR support configuration was cal-
MSI-P
fsteel = culated using the maximum negative moment at the interior support
⎛ k⎞ of a two-span continuous system. HL-93 (12) loading was applied at
× d × ⎜1 −
3 ⎟⎠
Asteel
⎝ both spans to create maximum negative moment of −764 ft-kips at
the interior support.
where
Link slab axial force caused by live load (NLL):
k = − nρ + ( nρ) + 2 ( nρ) ,
2

M continuity −764 × 12
ρ = reinforcement ratio [Asteel /(b × d)], N LL = = = 185 kips = 29..2 kips ft tension
n = modular ratio between link slab concrete and reinforcement h (54 − 9 2)
(Esteel/Econcrete = 8), and or
9.3 × 12
fsteel = = 21.3 ksi
⎛ 0.339 ⎞ N LL = 185 kips link slab width = 29.2 kips ft tension
0.88 × 6.7 × ⎜ 1 −
⎝ 3 ⎟⎠
where h is the distance from girder bottom fiber to the link slab
Use the crack control criteria given in AASHTO LRFD Sec- centroid. Steel area provided in the link slab equals 0.88 in.2 +
tion 5.7.3.4 to limit the crack width parameter (Z) to be less than 1.20 in.2 equals 2.08 in.2/ft.
130 kips/in. for severe exposure:
Assuming steel carries the total axial load,

fsa =
Z
≤ 0.6 f y , fsteel =
( 29.2 kips ft ) = 14.0 ksi < fsa = 32.6 ksi
( dc A ) 13
( 2.08 in. ft )
2

130
fsa = = 32.6 ksi ≤ 0.6 × 60 = 36 ksi, Step 7.2. Axial Force Caused by Positive
( 2.3 × ( 2.3 × 2 × 6 ) ) 13
Temperature Gradient (NPTG)

or Continuity moment because of temperature gradient is calculated

using the following equation (17):
Z = ( 2.3 × ( 2.3 × 2 × 6 ) )
13
× 21.3 = 85 k in.
(F d − M3 ) ( 3Ecomposite I composite )
M continuity = 2 tg

where 2 Egirder I girder

fsa = allowable stress in the reinforcement under service loads =

(32.89 × 24.73 + 0.3 × 12) (3 × 4,0031 × 392, 892)
(ksi), ( 2 × 4, 031 × 125, 390 ) × 12
dc = concrete cover measured from extreme tension fiber to = 320 ft-kiips
centroid of nearest reinforcement level (in.),
A = effective area per bar (in.2), dtg is defined in Figure 5.
Z = crack width parameter (kips/in.) = 130 for severe exposure M continuity 320 × 12
N PTG = = = 78 kips = 12.33 kips ft compression
conditions,
fsteel = 21.3 ksi < fsa = 32.6 ksi, and
h (54 − 9 2)
Z = 85 k/in. < 130 k/in. fsteel = 5.9 ksi < fsa = 32.6 ksi
76 Transportation Research Record 2131

FIGURE 5 Girder and composite section.

Step 7.3. Axial Force because of
Negative Temperature Gradient (NNTG)
N NTG = −0.3 N PTG = 78 × 0.3 = 23.4 kips = 3.7 kips ft tension
fsteel = 1.8 ksi < fallowable = 32.6 ksi
Step 8. Load Combinations for Axial Load
Service I-P. 1.0 × (positive temperature gradient)
Compression forces that are helpful to the capacity are expected to
develop for HRRR and RRHR boundary conditions. Designing the
system under bending only is a conservative approach:
N SI- P = 0 for HRRR or RRHR
Service I-N. 1.0 × (live load) + 0.5 × (negative
temperature gradient)
Designing the system for bending plus tension is a conservative
approach:
N SI- N = 29.2 + 3.7 2 = 31.1 kips ft for RHHR
Step 9. Moment and Axial Force Interaction
Moment (from Step 3) Axial Force (from
Load Combination ft-kips/ft Step 8) kips/ft
Service I-P 9.3 0 dient loading. The following conclusions were developed based on
Service I-N −12.4 31.1
Critical moment force couples are compared with the nominal
capacity of singly and doubly reinforced link slab section with unit
width (Figure 6).
FE analysis results of the link slab in the previously mentioned
example are compared with the analytical results (Table 2). For
HRRR and RRHR boundary conditions, the behavior resembles
that of simply supported girders. In three dimensions, under live
load, link slab flexural stresses are nonuniform across the effec-
tive flange width. When nominal stresses are obtained considering
the effective flange width, resulting nominal link slab moments are
lower than those calculated using analytical procedures with two-
dimensional models. Temperature gradient loading generates rota-
tions and deformations, and a moment developed in the link slab
is the result of pure rotation transferred through the effective flange
width. As stated by Gastal and Zia (8), the system behavior resem-
bles that of a continuous system under RHHR support conditions,
yet the moments drop sharply at the link slab because of change in
stiffness. The design example presented here considers only the
design moments caused by end rotations of simply supported sys-
tems and ignores the link slab stiffness. However, the FE models
are capable of representing stiffness contributions of all the compo-
nents including the link slab. In the case of RHHR support config-
uration, both axial force and moment should be considered for the
design procedure. The example detailed here yields conservative
results for all the support configurations.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
FE analyses were performed using a single girder model evaluating
the impact of various load types and magnitudes on the link slab design
parameters. Analysis results are summarized in Table 3.
The literature does not provide clear guidance on the effect of
different support configurations on the link slab moment and axial
force generated under various types and levels of loads. Current
design is simply based on the girder end rotation under live loads
and does not include the effects of the girder end supports under the
link slab. Further, current design does not consider temperature gra-
the three-dimensional FE analysis performed using single girder
models.
1. Moments developed at the link slab decrease with increas-
ing debonded length. Designating 5% of the span length as the
debonded length is recommended, considering both overall sys-
tem behavior and thermal hydration and drying shrinkage stresses
(Figure 7).
Ulku, Attanayake, and Aktan 77

-700

-600

-500

Axial Load (kips/ft)

-400

9.3, 0
-300
-12.4, 31.1

-200

-100

-75 -25 25 75
0
Moment (ft-kips/ft)

100

200

Doubly reinforced Service I-P-HRRR Service I-N-RHHR Singly reinforced

FIGURE 6 Axial load versus moment interaction diagram for a unit width of link slab.

TABLE 2 Nominal Axial Forces and Moments Calculated from 2. Full-depth cracking potential increases under combined effects
Finite Element Model (FEM) and Analytical Methods of live and negative temperature gradient. Under full thermal cycle
with positive and negative gradients, there is a potential for full-depth
Momenta (ft-kips) Axial Forcea (kips)
cracking. Use of continuous top and bottom reinforcements are rec-
Case Support Analytical FEM Analytical FEM ommended. Providing a saw cut directly over the pier centerline is
advised for crack management (Figure 7).
L1 HRRR −69.5 −51 0 0 3. Link slab is subjected to combined flexural and axial loads
L2 RHHR −69.5 −19 185 159
under specific support configurations. In these cases, an axial load
L3 RRHR −69.5 −51 0 0
versus moment interaction diagram should be used for link slab
TP1 HRRR 59.1 61 0 0
TP2 RHHR 59.1 44 −78 −84 design.
TP3 RRHR 59.1 61 0 0 4. Current link slab design based on the moment demand because
TN1 HRRR −17.7 −18 0 0 of live load should be modified following AASHTO-LRFD (12)
TN2 RHHR −17.7 −13 23.4 25 Service I limit state, which requires combined effect of live and
TN3 RRHR −17.7 −18 0 0 thermal load.
a 5. Link slab analysis and design procedures explained here result
Sign convention: positive axial force—tension; negative moment—link top
fiber stress tension. in a conservative design and are recommended for implementation.

TABLE 3 Analysis Results Summary—Single Girder Model of Link Slab Bridge

Support Conditions

Design Parameters Effect On RHHR RHRR/RRHR HRRR

Live load Top layer T T T

Bottom layer T C C
Negative temperature gradient Top layer T T T
Bottom layer C C C
Debonded length ↑ Live–neg. gradient M↓ M↓ M↓
Girder size ↑ Live load M↓ F↓ M↓ F∼ M↓ F∼
Neg. gradient M∼ F↑ M∼ F∼ M∼ F∼
Adjacent span ratio ↑ Live load M↑ F↑ M↑ F∼ M↑ F∼
Neg. gradient M∼ F∼ M∼ F∼ M∼ F∼

NOTE: T: tension, C: compression, M: moment, F: axial force, ∼: minimal effect, ↑: increase, ↓: decrease.
78
FIGURE 7 Proposed link slab details.
REFERENCES
1. Maruri, R., and S. Petro. Integral Abutment and Jointless Bridges (IAJB)
2004 Service Summary. Proc., IAJB 2005. Baltimore, Md., 2005.
2. Husain, I., and D. Bagnarol. Design and Performance of Jointless
Bridges in Ontario: New Technical and Material Concepts. In Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1696, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000,
pp. 109–121.
3. Gilani, A., and D. Jansson. Link-Slabs for Simply Supported Bridges:
Incorporating Engineered Cementitious Composites. Draft Report
No. MDOT SPR-54181. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lans-
ing, 2004.
4. Caner, A., and P. Zia. Behavior and Design of Link Slab for Jointless
Bridge Decks. PCI Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1998, pp. 68–80.
5. El-Safty, A. K. Analysis of Jointless Bridge Decks with Partially
Debonded Simple Span Beams. PhD dissertation. North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, 1994.
6. Wing, K. M., and M. J. Kowalsky. Behavior, Analysis, and Design of an
Instrumented Link Slab Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 10,
No. 3, 2005, pp. 331–344.
7. AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th ed. Wash-
ington, D.C., 2002.
8. Gastal, F., and P. Zia. Analysis of Bridge Beams with Jointless Decks.
Proceedings of International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering (IABSE) Symposium. Lisbon, Portugal, 1989, pp. 555–560.
Transportation Research Record 2131
9. Richardson, D. R. Simplified Design Procedures for the Removal of
Expansion Joints from Bridges Using Partial Debonded Continuous
Decks. MS thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1989.
10. Zia, P., A. Caner, and A. El-Safty. Jointless Bridge Decks. Publication
FHWA/NC/95-006. Center for Transportation Engineering Studies, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1995.
11. Okeil, A. M., and A. El-Safty. Partial Continuity in Bridge Girders
with Jointless Decks. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2005, pp. 229–238.
12. AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd ed., including
2005 and 2006 interim revisions. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2004.
13. Bridge Design Manual. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing,
2005.
14. Aktan, H. M., G. Fu, W. Dekelbab, and U. Attanayake. Investigate
Causes and Develop Methods to Minimize Early-Age Deck Cracking on
Michigan Bridge Decks. MDOT RC-1437. Report to the Michigan
Department of Transportation, Detroit, 2003.
15. Comite Euro-International du Beton. CEB-FIP Model Code. Thomas
Telford Ltd., London, 1993.
16. ACI Committee 209. Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature
Effects in Concrete Structures. Report No. ACI 209R-92. American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich., 1992.
17. Saadeghvaziri, M. A., and R. Hadidi. Cause and Control of Transverse
Cracking in Concrete Bridge Decks. Final Report. FHWA-NJ-2002-019.
New Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton, 2002.
The Concrete Bridges Committee sponsored publication of this paper.