This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Performance assessment of steelndashconcrete composite bridges withsubsurface deck deterioration
Amir Gheitasi Devin K Harris
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Virginia Charlottesville VA 22904-4742 United States
a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Article history
Received 29 June 2014
Received in revised form 5 December 2014Accepted 15 December 2014
Available online 20 December 2014
Keywords
Reinforced concrete deterioration
Rebar corrosion
Deck delamination
Composite steel girder bridges
Nonlinear1047297nite element analysis (NLFEA)
In-service composite steel girder bridges typically experience a variety of deterioration mechanisms during their
service lives ranging from cracking spalls and delaminations in the reinforced concrete deck to corrosion in the
steel girders To date several inspection techniques and novel technologies have been widely implemented to
identify and measure different sources of defects associated with bridge systems especially within the concrete
deck Despite successful implementation of these evaluation methodologies what transportation agencies still
lack is a fundamental understanding of the system-level behavior and the potential impact of the identi1047297ed
deterioration conditions on the overall performance of these bridges
In this paper the impact of corrosion-induced subsurface deck delamination on the overall behavior and
performance of steelndashconcrete composite bridges is investigated using 1047297nite element simulation and analysis
The accuracy and validity of the modeling approaches were assessed through a comparison to experimental
data available in literature A sensitivity study was performed to investigate the in1047298uence of deck deterioration
on the system-level performance load distribution behavior and failure characteristics of two representative
composite steel girder bridges One of the selected structures is a full-scale laboratory bridge model while the
other one is an actual in-service structure with geometrical characteristics that represents typical features of
steel girder bridges in Virginia
The selected damage scenarios included variations in different geometrical characteristics such as location and
depth of damage as well as degradation in material properties at the corresponding damaged areas In addition
to the bridge system behavior the impact of rebar corrosion and subsurface delamination on the behavior of individual deck systems was investigated while its implication on the current design methodologies for
reinforced concretedecks wasevaluated Results from thisinvestigation demonstrate that the deck deterioration
has minimal impact on the overall system behavior and the path to failure of the selected structures but may
impact the failure characteristics in the form of reductions in the ultimate load-carrying capacity and system
ductility
copy 2014 The Institution of Structural Engineers Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved
1 Introduction
11 State of practice
Bridges represent one of the most critical components within the
US transportation network Generally the occurrenceof bridge failures
is somewhat rare and most often it is related to unforeseen natural and
man-made hazards such as impacts 1047297re or 1047298ooding [1] However it is
the condition states of aging in-service bridges that plague the health
of the national infrastructure in the United States Considering the
various operational conditions in-service bridges are subjected to
temporal damage and deterioration mechanisms once they are put
into service According to the national bridge inventory [2] almost
10 of over 600000 bridges in-service in the United States are
categorized as structurally de1047297cient While it is not feasible to immedi-
ately repair all of the de1047297cient in-service bridges this deteriorating
condition does underscore the importance of quality inspection and
performance assessment mechanisms to prioritize the repair efforts
12 Challenges for composite steel girder bridges
The main types of deterioration that composite steel girder bridges
experience have been well documented in recent years [3] with
challenges observed in both the primary load-bearing girders and the
deck Much of thedegradation manifestsin thesteel girders as corrosion
and section loss which is often caused by exposure to chemical-laden
solutions resulting from leaking expansion joints or roadway spray
Furthermore reinforced concrete decks suffer from a variety of
deteriorating conditions associated with cracking due to the low tensile
resistance of concrete These cracks would provide direct pathway for
chloride and moisture penetration and allow for accelerated exposure
a Refer to Fig 9 for different damage patternsb Refer to Fig 8b for different fracture planesc Refer to Fig 8c for different depths of delaminationd Reduction in rebar yield stresse Reduction in rebar x-section areaf
Reduction in concrete compressive strength
14 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Under the same loading and boundary conditions applied to the
intact bridge system the updated models with integrated damage
were numerically analyzed to evaluate the effect of variations in differ-
ent geometrical and material characteristics associated with subsurface
corrosion-induced delamination on the overall system behavior of the
representative composite steel girder bridge Fig 10 demonstrates the
variations in the system-level response of the damaged bridges based
on the interior girder de1047298ection at mid-span of the structure As
illustrated the assumed damage scenarios have negligible effects on
the nonlinear behavior of the system in which behavior is de1047297ned as
the path of the load-de1047298ection response Moreover the evolution of
material nonlinearities including formation of 1047298exural cracks in the
deck and growth of plasticity in steel girders appears to be unchanged
in presence of damage as the structure was loaded to failure By
Fig 9 Integrated delamination patterns
Fig 10 Effect of damage on system behavior (a) measured behavior (b) damage pattern (c) fracture plane (d) damage depth (e) steel material degradation and (f) concrete material
degradation
15 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
a Refer to Fig 9 for different damage patternsb Refer to Fig 8b for different fracture planesc Refer to Fig 8c for different depths of delaminationd Reduction in rebar yield stresse Reduction in rebar x-section areaf
Reduction in concrete compressive strength
14 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Under the same loading and boundary conditions applied to the
intact bridge system the updated models with integrated damage
were numerically analyzed to evaluate the effect of variations in differ-
ent geometrical and material characteristics associated with subsurface
corrosion-induced delamination on the overall system behavior of the
representative composite steel girder bridge Fig 10 demonstrates the
variations in the system-level response of the damaged bridges based
on the interior girder de1047298ection at mid-span of the structure As
illustrated the assumed damage scenarios have negligible effects on
the nonlinear behavior of the system in which behavior is de1047297ned as
the path of the load-de1047298ection response Moreover the evolution of
material nonlinearities including formation of 1047298exural cracks in the
deck and growth of plasticity in steel girders appears to be unchanged
in presence of damage as the structure was loaded to failure By
Fig 9 Integrated delamination patterns
Fig 10 Effect of damage on system behavior (a) measured behavior (b) damage pattern (c) fracture plane (d) damage depth (e) steel material degradation and (f) concrete material
degradation
15 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
a Refer to Fig 9 for different damage patternsb Refer to Fig 8b for different fracture planesc Refer to Fig 8c for different depths of delaminationd Reduction in rebar yield stresse Reduction in rebar x-section areaf
Reduction in concrete compressive strength
14 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Under the same loading and boundary conditions applied to the
intact bridge system the updated models with integrated damage
were numerically analyzed to evaluate the effect of variations in differ-
ent geometrical and material characteristics associated with subsurface
corrosion-induced delamination on the overall system behavior of the
representative composite steel girder bridge Fig 10 demonstrates the
variations in the system-level response of the damaged bridges based
on the interior girder de1047298ection at mid-span of the structure As
illustrated the assumed damage scenarios have negligible effects on
the nonlinear behavior of the system in which behavior is de1047297ned as
the path of the load-de1047298ection response Moreover the evolution of
material nonlinearities including formation of 1047298exural cracks in the
deck and growth of plasticity in steel girders appears to be unchanged
in presence of damage as the structure was loaded to failure By
Fig 9 Integrated delamination patterns
Fig 10 Effect of damage on system behavior (a) measured behavior (b) damage pattern (c) fracture plane (d) damage depth (e) steel material degradation and (f) concrete material
degradation
15 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
a Refer to Fig 9 for different damage patternsb Refer to Fig 8b for different fracture planesc Refer to Fig 8c for different depths of delaminationd Reduction in rebar yield stresse Reduction in rebar x-section areaf
Reduction in concrete compressive strength
14 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Under the same loading and boundary conditions applied to the
intact bridge system the updated models with integrated damage
were numerically analyzed to evaluate the effect of variations in differ-
ent geometrical and material characteristics associated with subsurface
corrosion-induced delamination on the overall system behavior of the
representative composite steel girder bridge Fig 10 demonstrates the
variations in the system-level response of the damaged bridges based
on the interior girder de1047298ection at mid-span of the structure As
illustrated the assumed damage scenarios have negligible effects on
the nonlinear behavior of the system in which behavior is de1047297ned as
the path of the load-de1047298ection response Moreover the evolution of
material nonlinearities including formation of 1047298exural cracks in the
deck and growth of plasticity in steel girders appears to be unchanged
in presence of damage as the structure was loaded to failure By
Fig 9 Integrated delamination patterns
Fig 10 Effect of damage on system behavior (a) measured behavior (b) damage pattern (c) fracture plane (d) damage depth (e) steel material degradation and (f) concrete material
degradation
15 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
a Refer to Fig 9 for different damage patternsb Refer to Fig 8b for different fracture planesc Refer to Fig 8c for different depths of delaminationd Reduction in rebar yield stresse Reduction in rebar x-section areaf
Reduction in concrete compressive strength
14 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Under the same loading and boundary conditions applied to the
intact bridge system the updated models with integrated damage
were numerically analyzed to evaluate the effect of variations in differ-
ent geometrical and material characteristics associated with subsurface
corrosion-induced delamination on the overall system behavior of the
representative composite steel girder bridge Fig 10 demonstrates the
variations in the system-level response of the damaged bridges based
on the interior girder de1047298ection at mid-span of the structure As
illustrated the assumed damage scenarios have negligible effects on
the nonlinear behavior of the system in which behavior is de1047297ned as
the path of the load-de1047298ection response Moreover the evolution of
material nonlinearities including formation of 1047298exural cracks in the
deck and growth of plasticity in steel girders appears to be unchanged
in presence of damage as the structure was loaded to failure By
Fig 9 Integrated delamination patterns
Fig 10 Effect of damage on system behavior (a) measured behavior (b) damage pattern (c) fracture plane (d) damage depth (e) steel material degradation and (f) concrete material
degradation
15 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
a Refer to Fig 9 for different damage patternsb Refer to Fig 8b for different fracture planesc Refer to Fig 8c for different depths of delaminationd Reduction in rebar yield stresse Reduction in rebar x-section areaf
Reduction in concrete compressive strength
14 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Under the same loading and boundary conditions applied to the
intact bridge system the updated models with integrated damage
were numerically analyzed to evaluate the effect of variations in differ-
ent geometrical and material characteristics associated with subsurface
corrosion-induced delamination on the overall system behavior of the
representative composite steel girder bridge Fig 10 demonstrates the
variations in the system-level response of the damaged bridges based
on the interior girder de1047298ection at mid-span of the structure As
illustrated the assumed damage scenarios have negligible effects on
the nonlinear behavior of the system in which behavior is de1047297ned as
the path of the load-de1047298ection response Moreover the evolution of
material nonlinearities including formation of 1047298exural cracks in the
deck and growth of plasticity in steel girders appears to be unchanged
in presence of damage as the structure was loaded to failure By
Fig 9 Integrated delamination patterns
Fig 10 Effect of damage on system behavior (a) measured behavior (b) damage pattern (c) fracture plane (d) damage depth (e) steel material degradation and (f) concrete material
degradation
15 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
a Refer to Fig 9 for different damage patternsb Refer to Fig 8b for different fracture planesc Refer to Fig 8c for different depths of delaminationd Reduction in rebar yield stresse Reduction in rebar x-section areaf
Reduction in concrete compressive strength
14 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Under the same loading and boundary conditions applied to the
intact bridge system the updated models with integrated damage
were numerically analyzed to evaluate the effect of variations in differ-
ent geometrical and material characteristics associated with subsurface
corrosion-induced delamination on the overall system behavior of the
representative composite steel girder bridge Fig 10 demonstrates the
variations in the system-level response of the damaged bridges based
on the interior girder de1047298ection at mid-span of the structure As
illustrated the assumed damage scenarios have negligible effects on
the nonlinear behavior of the system in which behavior is de1047297ned as
the path of the load-de1047298ection response Moreover the evolution of
material nonlinearities including formation of 1047298exural cracks in the
deck and growth of plasticity in steel girders appears to be unchanged
in presence of damage as the structure was loaded to failure By
Fig 9 Integrated delamination patterns
Fig 10 Effect of damage on system behavior (a) measured behavior (b) damage pattern (c) fracture plane (d) damage depth (e) steel material degradation and (f) concrete material
degradation
15 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
Under the same loading and boundary conditions applied to the
intact bridge system the updated models with integrated damage
were numerically analyzed to evaluate the effect of variations in differ-
ent geometrical and material characteristics associated with subsurface
corrosion-induced delamination on the overall system behavior of the
representative composite steel girder bridge Fig 10 demonstrates the
variations in the system-level response of the damaged bridges based
on the interior girder de1047298ection at mid-span of the structure As
illustrated the assumed damage scenarios have negligible effects on
the nonlinear behavior of the system in which behavior is de1047297ned as
the path of the load-de1047298ection response Moreover the evolution of
material nonlinearities including formation of 1047298exural cracks in the
deck and growth of plasticity in steel girders appears to be unchanged
in presence of damage as the structure was loaded to failure By
Fig 9 Integrated delamination patterns
Fig 10 Effect of damage on system behavior (a) measured behavior (b) damage pattern (c) fracture plane (d) damage depth (e) steel material degradation and (f) concrete material
degradation
15 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
assuming perfect debonding between the delaminated layers of con-
crete interlayer shear stresses cannot be transferred through the frac-
ture plane This would cause a loss in composite action between the
layers of the concrete deck which in turn results in localized failure
mechanism (ie crushing) on the top surface of the deck at the margins
of the delaminated areas This premature failure mechanism adversely
affects the ultimate capacity and overall ductility (ratio of maximum
de1047298ection to the de1047298ection at 1047297rst yield in the girders) of the system
Table 1 summarizes the relative reductioncaused by these simulateddamage mechanisms with respect to the corresponding values of the
intact system The ultimate capacity of the system decreases as the
area of delamination increases over the surface of the slab (cases 1 ndash4)
This increase also signi1047297cantly reduces the overall ductility of the
system For the top layer of reinforcement modeling the fracture plane
in an asymmetric fashion (cases 2 and 5) has less impact on both the
capacity and ductility of the system compared to the symmetric
modeling (case 6) However the system capacity and ductility are less
sensitive to the relative location of the fracture plane when the delami-
nation was modeled as a result of corrosion in the bottom layer of
reinforcements (cases 7ndash9) Uniform corrosion in the steel rebars with
no effect on the material yield stress (case 10) has low and moderate
impacts on the system capacity and ductility respectively Under more
severe corrosive attack (cases 11 and 12) pitting would degrade not
only the material resistance of the rebars but also signi1047297cantly decrease
the capacity and ductility of the system Material degradation in the
cracked concrete cover due to the rust expansion (cases 13ndash15) would
have a major impact on the ultimate capacity and also dramatically
decreases the overall system ductility
Allof thenumerical models including the intact system demonstrated
additional reserve capacity over the AASHTO LRFD element-level
nominal design capacity This would con1047297rm high levels of inherent
redundancy which can be attributed to the complex interaction
between structural members in the simulated bridge superstructure
It would also demonstrate a margin of safety for the serviceability of
the selected structure considering the facts that the service loads are
usually below the design capacity and the integrated damage scenarios
have negligible effect of the behavior of the system within this limit of
the applied loadsComparing the behavior of damaged and intact systems (see Fig 10)
demonstrates the fact thatthe overall performance of the bridge system
is governed by the behavior of the main load-carrying elements
(ie girders) while the concrete deck is primarily responsible for
proportionally distributing the applied loads among girders To further
study this phenomenon the effect of subsurface delamination on the
transverse load distribution mechanism was investigated through
studying the state of stresses in the deck at high levels of the applied
loads Fig 11 illustrates the principal stress vectors at the mid-span of
the structure for the intact system and two damaged scenarios where
delamination was modeled at the top and bottom layers of reinforce-
ments (cases 2 and 7) At each node combination of these vectors in
three principal directions results in an overlapping con1047297
guration (inthe format of asterisks) the size of which represents the intensity of
the corresponding stress state The shaded regions demonstrate this
intensity in the selected cases As illustrated the stress vectors in all
three cases demonstrate high concentrations under the applied loads
(top layer of the deck) and in the vicinity of the girders while they are
signi1047297cantly decreased in the bottom layer of the deck This would
con1047297rm the existence of an arching action that governs the transverse
load distribution mechanism [4950] The minimal effect of theintegrated
damage scenarios on the distribution mechanism would justify the low
impact of deck delamination on the overall performance of the system
This can be attributed to the fact that the fracture planes under the
applied external loads is subjected to compressive stresses which are
able to be transferred among the implemented contact elements
5 Deck behavior and design
Due to the high correlation between the system-level response and
behavior of the girders the direct impact of subsurface delamination
on the deck independent behavior is still under the question The last
part of this study aims to characterize this impact and assess the impli-
cation on the current design methodologies of the reinforced concrete
decks According to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci1047297cations
[32] the concrete decks can be designed using either Empirical or
Traditional (Strip) methods In these methods the external applied
loads are assumed to be transferred among girders via arching action
or 1047298exural behavior of the deck respectively From the design perspec-
tive it is assumed that the slab is vertically supported at the location of
the girders hence the vertical de1047298ections in the girders are neglectedTore1047298ect this assumption in this study the steel girders were extracted
from a series of the developed numerical models Instead the slab was
supported at the location of girders through the length of structure as
depicted in Fig 12
Fig 11 Lateral load distribution mechanism
16 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
nonlinear behavior of the system and evolution of material nonlinear-
ities However the premature crushing failure in concrete cover
would adversely affect the ultimate capacity and overall ductility of
the system
Table 2 summarized the relative reduction of these parameters with
respect to the corresponding values of the intact system As given
detrimental effects of the deck delamination on both system capacity
and system ductility are elevated by increases in the damage area
With the same area of damage scattered patterns would result inmore severe degradation in the overall performance of the system For
the slab models on the other hand only damage scenarios with the
concentrated patterns would in1047298uence the behavior of the deck system
under the assumed loading scenario (see Fig 15f) Results of this
investigation demonstrate that the implemented methodology can be
extrapolated to assess the safety and functionality of other in-service
bridges with different geometrical and damage characteristics [37]
7 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this investigation was to characterize the
impact of subsurface deck delamination on the behavior and overall
performance of steel-concrete composite bridge superstructures
Upon validation of the numerical modeling approach via available ex-
perimental data in the literature the proposed methodology was
implemented to study the behavior of a laboratory bridge model and
an actual in-service structure Based on the results obtained from the
corresponding sensitivity study it can be concluded that
bull Theassumed damagescenarioshad negligible effects on thenonlinear
system behavior and evolution of material nonlinearities in the
selected bridgestructures However loss of composite action between
layers of concrete within the delaminated areas causes signi1047297cant
reduction in the capacity and ductility of the system due to local
premature crushing failures occurred in the reinforced concrete deck
bull The nonlinear behavior of the selected bridges and their correspond-
ing deck systems demonstrated the existence of an additional reserve
capacity over the nominal capacities de1047297ned based on the AASHTO
LRFD design methodology This can be attributed to high levels of inherent redundancy system-level interaction and two-way action
of the slab which are generally neglected in current design practicesbull Given the fact that signi1047297cant resources are being invested each year
to maintain and repair the aging infrastructure within the US the
proposed approach hasthe potential to help thepreservation commu-
nity to reinforce their maintenance decisions In current rehabilitation
practices repair decisions are typically conservative and often based
on experience and engineering judgments however implementing
the proposed numerical modeling approach can help engineers gain
a comprehensive understanding of the impact of detected damage
scenarios on the overall performance of in-service structures This
fundamental understanding would provide decision makers with
the foundation for behavior-driven repair alternatives or even the
con1047297dence for risk-based ldquodo nothingrdquo alternative as opposed to the
more typical deck replacement solution In addition this behavior-
based strategy has great potential to help reduce the costs associated
with deck maintenance decisions
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Michael Brown of the VirginiaCenter for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR) and Prasad
Nallapaneni of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
providing the data and details of the selected in-service structure The
work presented herein re1047298ects the views of the authors and does not
represent the views of the Virginia Department of Transportation
References
[1] Wardhana K Hadipriono F Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States JPerform Constr Facil 200317(3)144ndash50
[2] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National bridge inventory databaseWashington DC Federal Highway Administration 2013
[3] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bridge inspectors reference manual(BIRM) Washington DC Highway Administration 2012
[4] Strategic Highway Research Program S Nondestructive testing to identify concrete
bridge deckdeterioration Transportation ResearchBoardReport S2-R06A-RR-1 2013[5] Lynch JP Loh KJ A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks forstructural health monitoring Shock Vib Dig 200632(8)91ndash128
[6] Pakzad SN Fenves GL Kim S Culler DE Design and implementation of scalablewireless sensor network for structural monitoring J Infrastruct Syst 200814(1)89ndash101
[7] Vaghe1047297 K Oats R Harris D Ahlborn T Brooks C Endsley K et al Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment JBridg Eng 201217(6)886ndash95
[8] Vaghe1047297 K Ahlborn T Harris D Brooks C Combined imaging technologies forconcrete bridge deck condition assessment J Perform Constr Facil 201404014102
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Cement and concrete terminology manualof concrete practice part 1 Committee 116R-00 Farmington Hills MI AmericanConcrete Institute 2003
[10] Beaton JL Stratfull RF Environmental in1047298uence on the corrosion of reinforcing steelin concrete bridge substructures Sacramento CA California Department of Highways 1973
[11] BažantZP Physicalmodelfor steel corrosion in concrete seastructures mdash theory andapplication J Struct Div 1979105(6)1137ndash66
[12] Pantazopoulou S Papoulia K Modeling cover-cracking due to reinforcementcorrosion in RC structures J Eng Mech 2001127(4)342ndash51
[13] Li C Zheng J Lawanwisut W Melchers R Concrete delamination caused by steelreinforcement corrosion J Mater Civ Eng 200719(7)591ndash600
[14] Bažant ZP Wittmann FH Mathematical modeling of creep and shrinkage of concrete New York NY John Wiley amp Sons Inc 1982 p 163 ndash256
[15] Onate E Reliability analysis of concrete structures Numerical and experimentalstudiesSeminar CIAS (Centro Intemazionale di Aggiomamento Sperimentale eScientijico) Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per Ie costruzioni Merano Italy1994 p 125ndash46
[16] Kachanov LM Introduction to continuum damage mechanics The NetherlandsMartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986
[17] Faria R Oliver J A rate dependent plastic-damage constitutive model for large scalecomputation in concrete structures No 17 Centro Internacional de MeacutetodosNumericos en Ingeniero Barcelona Spain 1993
[18] FariaR Oliver J CerveraM A strain-based plasticviscous-damage model for massiveconcrete structures Int J Solids Struct 199835(14)1533ndash58
[19] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Mechanical behavior of concrete under physicalndash
chemical attacks J Eng Mech 1998124(10)1100ndash9[20] Saetta A Scotta R Vitaliani R Coupled environmentalndashmechanical damage model of
RC structures J Eng Mech 1999125(8)930ndash40[21] Berto L Simioni Paola Saetta Anna Numerical modelling of bond behaviour in RC
structures affected by reinforcement corrosion Eng Struct 200830(5)1375ndash85[22] Molina FJ Alonso C Andrade C Cover cracking as a function of rebar corrosion part
2mdashnumerical model Mater Struct 199326(9)532ndash48[23] Zhou K Martin-Peacuterez B Lounis Z Finite element analysis of corrosion-induced
cracking spalling and delamination of RC bridge decks 1st Canadian Conferenceon Effective Design of Structures 2005 July 10ndash13 p 187ndash96 [Hamilton Ont]
[24] Chen D Mahadevan S Chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion and concretecracking simulation Cem Concr Compos 200830(3)227ndash38
[25] Coronelli D Gambarova P Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concretebeams modeling guidelines J Struct Eng 2004130(8)1214ndash24
[26] Kallias AN Ra1047297q MI Finite element investigation of the structural response of corroded RC beams Eng Struct 201032(9)2984ndash94
[27] Barth KE Wu H Ef 1047297cient nonlinear 1047297nite element modeling of slab on steel stringerbridges Finite Elem Anal Des 200642(14ndash15)1304ndash13
[28] Gheitasi A Harris D Overload 1047298exural distribution behavior of composite steel
girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201404014076
Table 2
Impact of delamination on the behavior of the selected in-service structure
Model C apa city (k N) Duct il it y (ΔuΔ y) Relative reduction
Capacity Ductility
Intact 9472 38 ndash ndash
5a 9215 33 27 132
5b 7727 17 184 553
10a 8763 27 75 289
10b 7088 14 252 632
15a 8746 23 77 395
15b 7050 13 256 658
a Concentrated patternb
Scattered pattern
19 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20
8182019 Performance Assessment of SteelndashConcrete Composite Bridges With Subsurface Deck Deterioration
[29] Gheitasi A Harris D Failure characteristics and ultimate load-carrying capacity of redundant composite steel girder bridges case study J Bridg Eng 201405014012
[30] Bakht B Jaeger L Ultimate load test of slab‐on‐girder bridge J Struct Eng 1992118(6)1608ndash24
[31] Bechtel A McConnell J Chajes M Ultimate capacity destructive testing and 1047297nite-element analysis of steel I-girder bridges J Bridg Eng 201116(2)197ndash206
[32] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) AASHTOLRFD bridge design speci1047297cations 6th ed Washington DC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2012
[33] American Association of State Highway Transportation Of 1047297cials (AASHTO) Themanual for bridge evaluation 2nd ed Washington DC American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Of 1047297cials 2011[34] ANSYS Users manual revision 140 Canonsburg PA ANSYS Inc 2011[35] Kathol SA A Luedke J Final report strength capacity of steel girder bridges
Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) RES1(0099) P469 1995[36] Harris DK Gheitasi A Implementation of an energy-based stiffened plate formula-
tion for lateral load distribution characteristics of girder-type bridges Eng Struct201354168ndash79
[37] Gheitasi A Harris DK A performance-based framework for bridge preservationbased on damage-integrated system-level behavior Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) 93nd Annual Meeting 2014 [Washington DC]
[38] Seible F Latham C Krishnan K Structural concrete overlays in bridge deckrehabilitations mdash experimental program San Diego La Jolla CA Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences University of California 1998
[39] Broom1047297eld J Corrosion ofsteel in concrete understanding investigating and repairLondon E amp FN Spon 1997
[40] Alonso C Andrade C Rodriguez J Diez JM Factors controlling cracking of concreteaffected by reinforcement corrosion Mater Struct 199831(7)435ndash41
[41] Roberts MB Atkins C Hogg V Middleton C A proposed empirical corrosion modelfor reinforced concrete Proceedings of the ICE mdash Structures and Buildings Volume140 Issue 1 2000 01
[42] Cairns J PG Du Y Law DW Franzoni C Mechanical properties of corrosion-damaged reinforcement ACI Mater J 2005102(4)256ndash64
[43] Stewart MG Mechanical behaviour of pitting corrosion of 1047298exural and shearreinforcement and its effect on structural reliability of corroding RC beams StructSaf 200931(1)19ndash30
[44] Rodriguez J Ortega L Garcia A Corrosion of reinforcing bars and service life of RC
structures corrosion and bond deterioration Proc Int Conf on Concrete acrossBorders 2 1994 p 315ndash26[45] Harajli MH Hamad BS Rteil AA Effect of con1047297nement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete ACI Struct J 2004101(5)595 ndash603[46] Maaddawy TE Soudki K Topper T Analytical model to predict nonlinear 1047298exural
behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams ACI Struct J 2002102(4)550ndash9[47] Vu KAT Stewart MG Spatial variability of structural deterioration and service life
prediction of reinforced concrete bridges Proc Int Conf on Bridge MaintenanceSafety and Management Barcelona Spain 2002
[48] Torres-Acosta A Martınez-Madrid M Residual life of corroding reinforced concretestructures in marine environment J Mater Civ Eng 200315(4)344ndash53
[49] Fang I Worley J Burns N Klingner R Behavior of isotropic RC bridge decks on steelgirders J Struct Eng 1990116(3)659ndash78
[50] Hewitt BE deV Batchelor B Punching shear strength of restraint slabs J Struct Div1975101(ST9)1837ndash53
20 A Gheitasi DK Harris Structures 2 (2015) 8ndash 20