Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

BEHAVIOR OF ULTRA-HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PRECAST BRIDGE DECK ELEMENTS

Benjamin A. Graybeal, Ph.D., P.E., FHWA, McLean, VA

ABSTRACT

The Federal Highway Administration’s ongoing research program into the

use of Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) in highway bridges has
recently begun focusing on deck-level connections between modular precast
components. In conjunction with the New York State DOT, researchers at the
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center are investigating whether the
exceptional durability, high strengths, and superior bonding characteristics of
UHPC led themselves to the development of a new generation of connection
details applicable to modular bridge components. A physical testing program
has been initiated in which subassemblages of full-scale precast bridge deck
panels are connected via UHPC closure pours then cycled under repeated
truck wheel loadings. The test program has six specimens, with variables
including joint orientation, slab thickness, reinforcement configuration, and
reinforcement type. None of the specimens include any pre- or post-
tensioning. Test results to date, along with two NYSDOT bridges constructed
in 2009, demonstrate the potential viability of using UHPC as a closure pour
material.

Keywords: Ultra-High Performance Concrete, UHPC, precast concrete bridge deck

element, modular component, accelerated construction, closure pour, connection detail, high-
cycle fatigue testing

1
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Highway Administration’s ongoing research program into the use of Ultra-High
Performance Concrete (UHPC) in highway bridges(1-8) has recently begun focusing on deck-
level connections between modular precast components. In conjunction with the New York
State DOT (NYSDOT), researchers at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
(TFHRC) are investigating whether the exceptional durability, high strengths, and superior
bonding characteristics of UHPC led themselves to the development of a new generation of
connection details applicable to modular bridge components.

The U.S. highway transportation system is facing many challenges, not the least of which is
increasing traffic volumes and aggressive climates stressing infrastructure that is nearing the
end of its design life. One means of addressing some of these issues is through the
reconstruction of bridges using modular components. The potential for increased safety and
quality that comes from the use of prefabricated components is enticing; however, there is
also the recognition that the use of these components frequently necessitates the use of field-
cast connection details. Conventional construction practices for such connection details can
result in reduced long-term connection performance as compared to the joined components.
The implementation of UHPC as a closure pour material between precast components may
facilitate: 1) simplification of the connection details, 2) overall enhancement of connection
durability, and 3) a redesign of modular components whose details may be driven by
connection-related considerations.

ULTRA HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE

The term UHPC refers to a class of advanced cementitious materials. When implemented in
precast construction, these concretes tend to exhibit properties including compressive
strength above 150 MPa (21.7 ksi), sustained tensile strength through internal fiber
reinforcement, and exceptional durability as compared to conventional concretes(1). The
specific UHPC investigated in this study is a product of a major worldwide construction
materials manufacturer and supplier. It is currently the only product of this type that is widely
available in the U.S. in the quantities necessary for large scale infrastructure applications.
European and Asian markets currently have multiple suppliers, and a similar situation will
likely occur in the U.S. as the market for this type of advanced cementitious product
develops.

The composition of this UHPC includes four granular constituents. Fine sand, generally
between 150 and 600 µm (0.006 and 0.024 inch), is the largest granular material. The next
largest particle is cement with an average diameter of approximately 15 µm (0.0006 inch). Of
similar size is the crushed quartz with an average diameter of 10 µm (0.0004 inch). The
smallest particle, the silica fume, has a diameter small enough to fill the interstitial voids
between the cement and the crushed quartz particles. Dimensionally, the largest constituent
in the mix is the steel fiber reinforcement. In this study, the fibers in the mix had a diameter
of 0.2 mm (0.008 inch), a length of 12.7 mm (0.5 inch), and a minimum tensile strength of

2
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

2,000 MPa (290 ksi). The fibers were included in the mix at two percent by volume. The
typical mix composition of the UHPC used in this study, including the polycarboxylate-based
superplasticizer, is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Typical UHPC composition.
Material Amount (kg/m3 (lb/yd3)) Percent by Weight
Portland Cement 712 (1,200) 28.5
Fine Sand 1,020 (1,720) 40.8
Silica Fume 231 (390) 9.3
Ground Quartz 211 (355) 8.4
Superplasticizer 30 (51) 1.2
Steel Fibers 156 (263) 6.2
Water 130 (218) 5.2

Prior research at FHWA investigated basic material properties of the UHPC engaged in the
present study.(1) The properties of UHPC can vary depending on the curing methods applied
to the concrete during the first weeks after casting. In particular, UHPC used in precast
concrete elements is frequently steam treated resulting in significantly increased mechanical
and durability properties. For the field-cast closure pour application discussed herein, it is
likely that the UHPC would not receive any special curing treatments beyond normal
conventional concrete curing practices. A brief summary of the relevant material properties
for UHPC cured in this manner is presented in Table 2.

UHPC CLOSURE POUR CONNECTION

The vast majority of bridge decks are cast-in-place using conventional concrete construction
practices. The widespread prevalence of precast concrete girder construction technology
would seem to lend itself to prefabrication of bridge decks; however, a set of hurdles has
slowed the implementation of this technology. Of particular relevance here, the connection
technology currently available for modular bridge deck components is perceived to exhibit
shortcomings that degrade long-term performance and/or increase initial project costs.

Many bridge owners in the U.S. have begun deploying precast bridge deck technology in
order to gain experience with the potential benefits of this technology. Not unlike other
owners, NYSDOT has experience with many varied technologies of this type and has a
strong interest in facilitating further development in order to remove hurdles to future
implementation. In particular NYSDOT is interested in full-depth precast deck panels and
deck-bulb-Tee prestressed girders for use in constructing/reconstructing bridges. In both
bridge types, the precast concrete elements must be connected together at the deck level via a
permanent, durable connection. This connection is heavily stressed both structurally and
environmentally, meaning that the long-term performance of the bridge is dependent on
acceptable performance of the connection.

3
Menu

Graybeal
Table 2. Typical field-cast UHPC material properties.

Material Characteristic Average Result

Density 2,480 kg/m3 (155 lb/ft3)
Compressive Strength (ASTM C39; 28-day strength) 126 MPa (18.3 ksi)
Modulus of Elasticity (ASTM C469; 28-day modulus) 42.7 GPa (6200 ksi)
Split Cylinder Cracking Strength (ASTM C496) 9.0 MPa (1.3 ksi)
Prism Flexure Cracking Strength (ASTM C1018; 305-mm (12-in.) span; corrected) 9.0 MPa (1.3 ksi)
Mortar Briquette Cracking Strength (AASHTO T132) 6.2 MPa (0.9 ksi)
Direct Tension Cracking Strength (Axial tensile load) 5.5–6.9 MPa (0.8–1.0 ksi)
Prism Flexural Tensile Toughness (ASTM C1018; 305-mm (12-in.) span) I30 = 48
Long-Term Creep Coefficient (ASTM C512; 77 MPa (11.2 ksi) sustained load) 0.78
Long-Term Shrinkage (ASTM C157; initial reading after set) 555 microstrain
4

Total Shrinkage (Embedded vibrating wire gage) 790 microstrain

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (AASHTO TP60–00) 14.7 x10 mm/mm/ºC (8.2 x10–6 in./in./ºF)
–6

Chloride Ion Penetrability (ASTM C1202; 28-day test) 360 coulombs

Chloride Ion Permeability (AASHTO T259; 12.7-mm (0.5-in.) depth) < 0.06 kg/m3 (< 0.10 lb/yd3)
Scaling Resistance (ASTM C672) No Scaling
Abrasion Resistance (ASTM C944 2x weight; ground surface) 0.73 grams lost (0.026 oz. lost)
Freeze-Thaw Resistance (ASTM C666A; 600 cycles) RDM = 112%
Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASTM C1260; tested for 28 days) Innocuous

CBC 2010
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

UHPC presents new opportunities for the design of modular component connections due to
its exceptional durability, bonding performance, and strength. The properties of UHPC may
make it possible to create small-width, full-depth closure pour connections between modular
components. These connections may be significantly reduced in size as compared to
conventional concrete construction practice, and could likely include greatly simplified
reinforcement designs. Initial field deployments of this concept were completed in Ontario,
Canada.(10)

Partners at NYSDOT developed a series of connections details for consideration and testing.
These connections all include 152 mm (6 in.) wide female-female shear keys into which
discrete reinforcement projects. The field-cast UHPC which fills the joint both develops the
reinforcement within the joint and creates a cementitious bond between the precast and field-
cast concretes. No prestressing or post-tensioning is included in the connections.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

A physical testing program has been initiated to assess the performance of UHPC closure
pour connections. The testing focuses on the structural performance of each connection
when subjected to cyclic and monotonic truck wheel loading. The testing is being completed
on subassemblages of full-scale component connections in the Structural Testing Laboratory
at TFHRC.

The connection details developed by NYSDOT were used to develop the test specimens.
Details of the six test specimens are provided in Table 3. Four of the specimens simulate
transverse connections between full-depth deck panels, while two of the specimens simulate
longitudinal connections between the top flanges of deck-bulb-Tee girders. The six
specimens were fabricated at the Fort Miller Company, Inc. in Schuylerville, New York.

Each specimen consists of two conventional concrete precast panels connected together by a
UHPC closure pour. Figure 1 provides an oblique view of the top and side of specimen
G1-G2. The concrete panels were cast first with the joint reinforcement extending through
the shear key faces. The panels used a 35 MPa (5 ksi) design strength conventional concrete
mix with approximately 45 MPa (6.5 ksi) 28-day compressive strength results. The UHPC
was mixed by the precaster, cast into the joint between the two respective panels, and
allowed to cure in the ambient environment. The 28-day compressive strength of the field-
cured UHPC was 167 MPa (24.2 ksi).

There are two phases to the planned structural testing of each specimen. First, each specimen
is cyclically loaded to simulate the fatigue performance of the joint under repeated truck
wheel loading. Figure 2 shows the two test setups, one for each thickness of specimen. A
250 x 500-mm (10 x 20 inch) elastomeric pad backed by a 25-mm (1-inch) thick steel plate is
used to apply a vertical load to the top surface of the panel immediately adjacent to the joint.
The supports simulate the adjacent lines of girders which support a deck element in a bridge.
The setup on the left in the figure simulates the wheel loading of a precast deck panel with

5
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

transverse joints. The setup on the right in the figure simulates the wheel loading of the top
flange of a deck-bulb-Tee girder.

Table 3. Test specimens.

Name Orientation Depth Reinforcement
Alternating 13M (#4) hairpin epoxy-coated bars
E1-E2 Transverse 200 mm
with 100 mm lap length and 55 mm spacing
Alternating 16M (#5) galvanized straight bars
G1-G2 Transverse 200 mm with 150 mm lap length and 450 mm (top) and
180 mm (bottom) spacings
Alternating 16M (#5) black straight bars with
B1-B2 Transverse 200 mm 150 mm lap length and 450 mm (top) and
180 mm (bottom) spacings
Alternating 16M (#5) headed black
H1-H2 Transverse 200 mm reinforcement with 90 mm lap length and
450 mm (top) and 180 mm (bottom) spacings
Alternating 16M (#5) black straight bars with
6B1-6B2 Longitudinal 150 mm 150 mm lap length and 450 mm (top) and
180 mm (bottom) spacings
Alternating 16M (#5) headed black
6H1-6H2 Longitudinal 150 mm reinforcement with 90 mm lap length and
450 mm (top) and 180 mm (bottom) spacings
1 in. = 25.4 mm

Figure 1. Photo of specimen G1-G2 in load frame during cyclic testing.

6
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

2.15 m
2.15 m 1.83 m

Support

LOAD
LOAD

2.13 m

Support Support
N
Support

200 mm
150 mm

Figure 2. Test setup for cyclic loading including 200 mm (left) and 150 mm (right)
specimens.

Cyclic loads are applied to each panel over a load range which generates a conservative
estimation of the strain that a deck would undergo during service. An applied tensile strain
of 100 microstrain is conservatively estimated as an upper limit for the strain that a service
truck would impart onto a conventional concrete bridge deck. At this strain level, a
conventional concrete deck would likely be approaching its tensile strength. Given the test
setup implemented in this program, a peak applied load of 71 kN (16 kips) on the 200-mm
(8-in.) thick deck generates this strain level under the load point.

Each specimen is monitored for damage during the cyclic testing. This monitoring includes
visual assessment focusing on concrete cracking, electronic monitoring focusing on the
flexural stiffness and strain distribution of the specimen, and leakage monitoring to assess
interface debonding. If the specimen has not shown any degradation after at least 2 million
cycles of loading, the upper limit on the load range is increased by a factor of 1.33. Cycling
over this higher load range is then applied for at least 5 million additional cycles.

After the completion of the cyclic testing, the second phase of the testing of each specimen is
initiated. Each specimen will be tested to failure though the application of a monotonically

7
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

increasing load. The same loading and support locations shown in Figure 2 are used for this
static testing. Each specimen is loaded to failure which is defined as increasing displacement
occurring at decreasing applied loads.

TEST RESULTS

As of October 2009, the first phase of the structural testing has been completed on panels
E1-E2, G1-G2, and B1-B2. The cyclic testing on the remaining three panels is anticipated to
be completed by January 2010. The second phase of the structural testing will be completed
thereafter, with final reporting anticipated in June 2010.

The performance of the specimens tested to date has met all benchmarks. Specifically, no
deterioration in joint or overall specimen performance was observed during the cyclic
loading to 71 kN (16 kips). Further cyclic loading to 95 kN (21.3 kips) resulted in tensile
flexural cracking of each specimen. This cracking ran perpendicular to the joint across both
precast panels and through the joint. There was no indication during the cyclic loading at
either load level that the cementitious bond between the UHPC and the conventional concrete
had failed anywhere along the joint. As such, the different reinforcement configurations in
the joint were not significantly engaged and the potentially different structural performances
thereof were not observed.

Figure 3 shows the strain and displacement results observed for specimen B1-B2 over the
nearly 7.4 million cycles of structural loading that were completed. The lower portion of the
figure shows the slope of the load strain response as captured during testing. These tensile
and compressive strain results were captured along the centerline of the span via gages
bonded to the surface of the specimen. The tensile strain results are not plotted after the
increase in peak load level at 2.1 million cycles due to the cracking of the underlying
concrete. The results demonstrate that the strain per applied load remains relatively constant
during each phase of the cyclic loading. As such, it is clear that the load distribution across
the joint through the cementitious bonds between the UHPC and conventional concrete is
remaining intact. Similar behavior can be inferred from the upper plot in the figure as
degradation of the joint would result in an increased hydraulic jack stroke range.

The tensile cracking response is also instructive. Figure 4 provides an illustration of the
cracking response observed on the underside of specimen B1-B2 at the conclusion of the
cyclic testing. This two-part figure shows both a strip along the midspan of the specimen
from edge to edge, as well as a close-up view of the joint at midspan. All discrete cracks
observed on the underside of the specimen are marked. The cracks in the precast panels,
marked in red, were identified using the naked eye. Their width was measured to be
approximately 75 μm (0.003 in.). The cracks in the UHPC closure pour, marked in cyan,
were identified through the use of a volatile alcohol spray. These cracks were not optically
identifiable with a hand-held crack microscope, thus indicating that their width was smaller
than 13 μm (0.0005 in.). This type of cracking behavior wherein an individual discrete crack
in the precast panel is replaced by multiple tight-width cracks in the UHPC has been

8
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

observed in all three specimens tested to date. There has been no indication that any
cracking or debonding has occurred at any of the joint interfaces in the three specimens
tested to date.

Applied Load Range

9 to 71 kN 9 to 95 kN
(2 to 16 kips) (2 to 21.3 kips)
Strain per Applied Load (⎝ ν/kN) m Stroke Range (mm) m

Strain per Applied Load (⎝ ν/kip) m Stroke Range (in.) m

4.0 0.16
3.5 0.14
3.0 0.12
2.5 0.10
2.0 0.08
3 13.3
Top North
2 Bottom North 8.9
Top Centerline
1 Bottom Centerline 4.4
Top South
0 Bottom South 0.0
-1 -4.4
-2 -8.9

-3 -13.3

-4 -17.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Millions of Cycles of Structural Loading
Figure 3. Cyclic test results for specimen B1-B2.

DEPLOYMENT EFFORTS

During the summer of 2009, NYSDOT completed two bridge projects using the UHPC
closure pour concept. The first project was the Route 31 Bridge in Lyons, New York. In this
bridge superstructure replacement, newly fabricated 1.04-m (41-in.) -deep prestressed
concrete deck-bulb-Tee girders were installed in the bridge over the Canandaigua Outlet. In
the bridge, the joint detail included epoxy-coated bars projecting from the precast girder
decks into the closure pour joints. After adjusting the girder cambers and forming the joint,
the UHPC joint fill was mixed and cast. After casting, the exposed surfaces were covered to
prevent dehydration and the joint fill was then allowed to cure under the natural

9
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

environmental conditions. After curing, the bridge deck surface was ground and a
waterproof membrane and asphalt overlay were installed. A photograph of the UHPC joint
casting is provided in Figure 5.

The second project was the replacement of the Route 23 Bridge in Oneonta, New York. This
steel stringer integral abutment bridge spans the Otego Creek. The bridge deck construction
included the use of precast deck panels and UHPC joint fill. The joint detail, which included
galvanized bars, had geometry similar to that described as specimen E1-E2 in the structural
testing program. After setting the precast panels on the girders and forming the joints, the
UHPC joint fill was mixed and cast. After casting, exposed surfaces were covered to prevent
dehydration and the joint fill was then allowed to cure under the natural environmental
conditions. After curing, a 40 mm (1.6 in.) minimum thickness concrete overlay was
installed so as to provide a smooth riding surface. Figure 6 shows the elevation view of this
bridge.

The 505 m2 (5436 ft2) deck for the Route 23 Bridge cost NYSDOT $657/m2 ($61/ft2). Of
this total, $490/m2 ($45.50/ft2) pertained to the precast panels and thin overlay, while the
remaining $167/m2 ($15.50/ft2) pertained to the UHPC joints. For reference, the construction
of the UHPC joints was bid on a per linear foot basis with the accepted bid costing NYSDOT
$500/m ($153/ft). It is anticipated that the cost of future applications of UHPC joint fill will
be reduced as contractors become familiar with the material and processes involved.

SUMMARY

The construction and reconstruction of highway bridges using modular components is an

enticing concept whose implementation had been slowed by cost, durability, and
constructability concerns. Much of the hesitancy can be linked to the design of the
connections between components. Advanced cementitious composite materials such as
UHPC present new opportunities to reconsider the use of modular components. UHPC when
used as a closure pour joint fill can allow for simplified reinforcement configurations, smaller
joints, better joint interface bonding, and better long-term durability.

NYSDOT is currently considering using UHPC as a closure pour material between

prefabricated bridge deck components. NYSDOT is working jointly with FHWA to
experimentally investigate the performance of UHPC bridge deck joints. A test program is
ongoing at TFHRC wherein six deck panel subassemblages are being tested for fatigue
resistance and ultimate capacity. These test specimens are being loaded by simulated truck
loadings and are being monitored for joint degradation.

Results of three cyclic tests completed to date indicate that the UHPC joint fill can meet
anticipated performance targets. No joint interface debonding was observed, and load
distribution capability was maintained through the conclusion of cyclic testing. Also, the
cracking behavior of the specimens demonstrates that individual structural tensile cracks in
conventional concrete are interrupted and replaced by multiple tight-width cracks in UHPC.

10
Menu

Graybeal
11

2010 CBC
Figure 4. Cracking observed on underside of B1-B2.
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

Figure 5. Field-casting UHPC on the State Route 31 Bridge over the Canandiagua
Outlet in Lyons, New York. Photo courtesy of New York State DOT.

Figure 6. State Route 23 over Otego Creek near Oneonta, New York.

12
Menu

Graybeal CBC 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The research project discussed herein is a joint effort supported by the Federal Highway
Administration, the New York State Department of Transportation, and the Iowa Department
of Transportation through the FHWA Transportation Pooled Fund Program. The
investigatorial team appreciates the opportunity to work with these agencies in addressing
critical needs in the highway infrastructure field.

REFERENCES

1. Graybeal, B., “Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance Concrete,”

Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-103, August 2006, 186
pp.
2. Graybeal, B., “Structural Behavior of Ultra-High Performance Concrete Prestressed I-
Girders,” Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-115, August
2006, 104 pp.
3. Graybeal, B., “Compressive Behavior of an Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 104, No. 2, March-April 2007, pp. 146-152.
4. Garcia, H., “Analysis of an Ultra-High Performance Concrete Two-Way Ribbed Bridge
Deck Slab”, National Technical Information Service Report No. PB2007-112112,
Washington D.C., 2007, 55 pp.
5. Graybeal, B., and M. Davis, “Cylinder or Cube: Strength Testing of 80 to 200 MPa
(11.6 to 29 ksi) Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Materials
Journal, V. 105, No. 6, November-December 2008, pp. 603-609.
6. Graybeal, B., “Flexural Performance of an Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete I-Girder,”
ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, V. 13, No. 6, November 2008, pp. 602-610.
7. Graybeal, B., “Structural Behavior of a Prototype Ultra-High Performance Concrete Pi-
Girder,” Federal Highway Administration, National Technical Information Service
Report No. PB2009-115495, Washington D.C., 2009, 145 pp.
8. Graybeal, B., “Structural Behavior of a 2nd Generation Ultra-High Performance
Concrete Pi-Girder,” Federal Highway Administration, National Technical Information
Service Report No. PB2009-115496, Washington D.C., 2009, 113 pp.
9. Association Française de Génie Civil, Interim Recommendations for Ultra High
Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concretes, 2002.
10. Perry, V., P. Scalzo, and G. Weiss, “Innovative Field Cast UHPC Joints for Precast
Deck Panel Bridge Superstructures- CN Overhead Bridge at Rainy Lake, Ontario,”
Proceedings, Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual General Meeting and
Conference, June 2007, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada, 8 pp.

13