Slab Interface Shear - TxDOT vs. AASHTO

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
jdarr02
Slab Interface Shear - TxDOT vs. AASHTO

I quickly scanned through topics and didn't see this question addressed - my apologies if it already has been!

My question is this: the TxDOT Bridge Design Manual says to modify the slab interface shear as shown in the attached screenshot. As far as I can tell, PGSuper doesn't seem to be using this guidance or provide input to change the necessary parameters aside from checking the "top flange is intentionally roughened..." checkbox in the transverse reinforcement tab of the girder details (which I assume control the values of c and mu). When I change the width of the bedding strips that the prestressed concrete deck panels sit on, PGSuper gives different values for the interface shear capacity. Is there a way to override that, and also to make sure that it is using the equations that TxDOT says to replace?

Thanks,
-Joel

AttachmentSize
Image icon Snip from TxDOT Bridge Design Manual94.76 KB
Pickings
Good question. I spoke with

Good question. I spoke with the folks at TxDOT: The stay-in-place (SIP) "Deck Type" option in PGSuper should not be used, even though TxDOT uses SIP deck panels in practice.

TxDOT's PGSuper input templates are set up this way on purpose so that interface shear is computed correctly per the TxDOT BDM. Users should not change the deck type input.

Richard Pickings, P.E.
BridgeSight Inc.

jdarr02
Bridge Description - "General" tab

Thanks for your quick response! Just to make sure I understand, this means that in the "General" tab in "Bridge Description", I should make sure the deck type is "Composite cast-in-place deck" from that pull-down menu whether precast panels are used or not?

Professional Nerd.

Pickings
Yes, treat the deck as if it

Yes, treat the deck as if it were cast in place.

Richard Pickings, P.E.
BridgeSight Inc.

Log in or register to post comments