Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Metal Forging Tools and Moulds: Advanced Repairs and Optimisation Using Directed Energy Deposition Hybrid Manufacturing
Previous Article in Journal
The Validity and Absolute Reliability of Lower Extremity Angle Values on Full-Leg Standing Radiographs Using the TraumaMeter Software
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/app14020566
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experiment on Flexural Fatigue Performance of Precast Bridge Deck Joints with Loop Connections

by
Ke Hu
1,
Chaoyu Zhu
2,3,*,
Xuefei Shi
2 and
Yuzhuo Zhong
2
1
Anhui Transportation Holding Group Co., Ltd., Hefei 230088, China
2
Department of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
3
Shanghai Bridging Engineering Consulting Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200433, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(2), 566; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14020566
Submission received: 22 November 2023 / Revised: 6 January 2024 / Accepted: 8 January 2024 / Published: 9 January 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the background of bridge industrialized construction, as a convenient construction form of a joint, a joint with loop connections has been applied in the connection of the precast bridge deck. As a relatively new type of connection structure, the fatigue performance and degradation law of a loop connection joint are still not clear. In this paper, different flexural fatigue specimens are designed based on the application situation of the loop connection joint. After 0 to 2 million fatigue-loading cycles, the fatigue-loading process is suspended and the static flexural performance of the specimen is tested. The load-deflection curves of specimens under static loading remain roughly linear, and the slope changes little. After 200 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles, the failure mode of each specimen is still presented as typical pure flexural failure. In addition, the strain of steel and concrete changes little, as well, and the stiffness degradation of each specimen is not obvious. It is indicated from this experiment that the fatigue-loading cycles has little effect on the mechanical properties of the concrete and loop bars, and the joint with loop connections has good fatigue performance.

1. Introduction

With the promotion of Industry 4.0 and Made in China 2025, the industrial construction of bridges has been developed rapidly [1,2,3]. Prefabricated assembly technology has been widely used in bridge engineering [4,5]. The connection quality between precast segments determines the strength and stability of the whole structure [6,7,8]. Therefore, the reliable connection between precast structures is the key to ensure the construction quality of prefabricated structures.
In recent years, several research studies have been conducted on the structural form and mechanical properties of bridge deck joints [9,10,11]. Wet joints are the main structural form to realize the reliable connection between precast bridge decks. However, since the bridge deck directly bears the vehicle load, the joint structure becomes the weakest part of the bridge deck [12]. Under the cyclic action of vehicle load, the stress state of the wet joint of a bridge deck is always in alternating states [13]. And, a problem will occur due to different types of effects on the wet joint [14]. In response to this problem, Pornpen et al. [15] have carried out research on the optimum shape of a concrete joint under flexural conditions. Based on the optimal shape and dimensions of the joint obtained using finite element analysis, 14 specimens were tested under flexural and shear conditions. It can be concluded form the test results that shear keys can prevent structural cracking and the joint depth can increase the stiffness of the joint. Furthermore, Shi et al. [16] investigated the loop joint and proposed a modified strut-and-tie model based on the finite element simulation. In this model, the effective strength and the width of the concrete compressive strut were considered to fit the special-force mechanism of the loop joint. Feng et al. [17] studied the influence of joint shape, reinforcement ratio, and some other parameters on the wet joint using simulation. They concluded that the performance of a joint can affect the flexural stiffness of the beam structure, and with the increase of the reinforcement ratio of the beam, the wet joint can perform as well as the integrate beam. The research mentioned above involves the shape of the joint, force transmission mechanism, and reinforcement structure of the joint. It ensures the reasonable utilization of the mechanical properties of wet joints. In addition, some research has also been carried out on the innovative application of joint connection materials. Dadmand et al. [18] applied two kinds of hybrid fibers into the ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Parameters were studied, and the performance of concrete with the hybrid macro–micro steel and macro-steel-polypropylene fibers were also compared. Tarabin et al. [19] reviewed the existing studies about the bonding behavior between fiber-reinforced concrete and engineering cementitious composites with reinforcing steel bars. It can be concluded from the review that the bonding strength can be improved with several factors, such as compressive strength of engineering cementitious composites, the cover thickness, etc.
The joint with loop connections is generally the longitudinal loop bar overlapped in the joint segment, and the transverse steel bars are arranged in the overlapping area [20]. Then, the concrete at the joints is poured and the joint with loop connections is formed. Considering that the joint with loop connections is a relatively new structural form, the degradation characteristics of this kind of joint under a fatigue load are not clear.
The main purpose of this study is to clarify the applicability of loop connection in different types of prefabricated structural joints. At the same time, the degradation of flexural fatigue performance of deck joints with loop connections is investigated as well. In this research, according to the application situation of loop connection joints, one piece of flexural static specimen was for contrast and three pieces of flexural fatigue specimen were designed and fabricated. The flexural fatigue specimens are subjected to 2 million fatigue-loading cycles. By suspending the fatigue-loading process, the specimens are subjected to static loading to the peak value of fatigue load, and the variation of strain amplitude, and the load–deflection curves are studied. After 2 million fatigue-loading cycles, the failure modes of each specimen are compared. Finally, the stiffness degradation of each specimen is also compared to study the influence of fatigue-loading cycles on the joints with loop connections.

2. Typical Application of Loop Connection Joint

In highway bridge engineering, the loop connection can be applied in the longitudinal joints and transverse joints of prefabricated structures. According to the different size of the joint, the application of the loop connection joint can be divided into the following typical cases.
  • Transverse joint of precast bridge deck.
At present, the representative application situation of transverse joints in bridge structures mainly include steel–concrete composite girder bridges and pile–plate soilless subgrade structures [21,22]. In these structures, the loop connection joints are mainly applied to the connection of adjacent precast bridge decks, as shown in Figure 1a,b.
The thickness of the deck in these kinds of bridge structures are generally in the range of 220 mm to 260 mm. The width of deck joints is commonly about 200 mm to 250 mm. With the improvement of industrial construction technology, the width of the joint can generally be optimized to 300 mm. In these kinds of deck joint, the diameter of longitudinal loop bars can be 18 mm to 25 mm.
2.
Longitudinal joint of T-shape girder bridge.
For the small- and medium-span assembled bridges with multi-girders, the girders in the same span need to be connected by certain longitudinal joints [23]. In the precast T-beam bridge structure, the application of longitudinal joints with a loop connection is more typical, as presented in Figure 1c.
In the commonly adopted standard diagram of a T-shape girder bridge, the width of the longitudinal joint is generally between 300 mm and 800 mm, of which the joint with a width of 500 mm is a typical representative. The thickness of such longitudinal joints usually depends on the thickness of flange plate of the T-shape girder, which is usually 160 mm. The diameter of the loop bar in this type of joint is generally 16 mm.
3.
Longitudinal joint of small box girder bridge.
Another typical application of a longitudinal joint in a multi-girder assembled bridge is in small box girder bridges [24], as shown in Figure 1d.
In the recommended standard diagram of the small box girder bridge, the width of the longitudinal joint is usually less than 1000 mm, and the commonly adopted width is from 500 mm to 800 mm. Due to the large width of this type of joint, the loop bars in the joint are generally arranged in the form of a double loop overlap. The thickness of the longitudinal joint in the small box girder bridge is about 180 mm, and the diameter of the loop bar in this type of joint is generally 16 mm as well.

3. Experimental Design

3.1. Specimen Design

According to the common application situation as mentioned above, a series of specimens have been designed, as presented in Figure 2. The specimens can be divided into two categories according to the different arrangement of loop bars in the joint: (a) specimens with a single overlap and (b) specimens with double overlaps. The grade of concrete in the precast segments and joint segment is C50. The HRB400 steel bars are adopted. Except for the longitudinal loop bars, the diameter of the other steel bars is 16 mm.
Each specimen contains three parts: two precast segments and one joint segment. The longitudinal loop bars and transverse bars in the two precast segments of each specimen are arranged according to different design schemes of different specimens. The concrete in the precast segments is poured, and the longitudinal loop bars in the joint segment is reserved. After 7 days of standard curing of the precast concrete, the steel bars in the joint segment are bound. The concrete in the joint segment is poured, and the same standard curing is maintained for 7 days as well.
The design parameters of specimens are listed in Table 1. Among them, the specimen B3-A is a contrast specimen, which is only subjected to flexural static loading. The specimens SF1 to SF3 are all flexural fatigue specimens. The total lengths of the specimen SF1 to SF3 are 2050 mm, 2300 mm, and 2500 mm, respectively. In addition, the size of specimen B3-A is exactly the same as that of specimen SF1.

3.2. Test Setup

3.2.1. Loading Setup

The flexural fatigue specimens SF1 to SF3 are tested with an electro-hydraulic pulsating fatigue testing machine (PMW800-500). The maximum test force of the testing machine is 500 kN, and the maximum pulsation value is 800 mL/time.
In the flexural fatigue test, the four-point flexural loading method is applied. The distance from each support to the end of the specimen is 150 mm. And the loading points are arranged at a distance of 550 mm from the support. The vertical load is transmitted to the steel blocks at the position of the loading points through the distribution beam, and a pure flexural segment is formed in the middle of the specimen. The arrangement of the test device is shown in Figure 3.
Similarly, the static test of the specimen B3-A is also carried out using the four-point flexural loading method. In the static loading test, the distance between the support and the loading point is the same as that of the flexural fatigue test.
According to the relevant regulations of the Chinese standard JTG 3362-2018 [25] ‘Specifications for Design of Highway Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Bridges and Culverts‘, the peak value of fatigue load for the flexural fatigue test is determined. According to the relevant calculation, when the live load level is in the Highway Grade I, the flexural moment of the mid-span section caused by the live load in unit length is about 30 kN·m. In order to make the applied fatigue load reach the loading effect of the maximum flexural moment, the peak fatigue load of specimen SF1 is about 40 kN, and that of specimens SF2 and SF3 is about 30 kN. The valley value of fatigue load is taken as 40% of the peak value, which is 16 kN and 12 kN, respectively.
Before the fatigue test, the specimens are preloaded. In a preloading process, the specimen should be first loaded to 5 kN, and then unloaded to 0 kN. This preload process should be repeated three times.
After 0 × 104 (i.e., before the fatigue loading), 5 × 104, 10 × 104, 30 × 104, 50 × 104, 100 × 104, and 200 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles, the fatigue test should be suspended, and the specimens will be subjected to static loading. During the static loading process, the specimens are loaded to the upper limit of fatigue by stages, and various parameters of the specimens are observed. Actual loading path for flexural fatigue test is demonstrated as Figure 4.

3.2.2. Arrangement of Measurement System

In order to obtain the strain distribution of the steel bar and concrete under the fatigue load, strain gauges are arranged on the surface of the steel bar and concrete.
The strain measuring points of the steel bar can be mainly divided into three categories as follows:
  • Strain measuring points of the longitudinal loop bar in the joint segment: The measuring points are arranged near the junction of the straight-line section and the curve section of the loop bar. The distance between the measuring point and the end of the loop bar is about 85 mm. Due to the form of double overlaps adopted by the specimen SF3, measuring points are also arranged at the symmetrical center of the longitudinal loop bars in the joint segment.
  • Strain measuring points of longitudinal loop bar on both sides of the interface: the measuring points are arranged at the position of 50 mm on both sides of the interface between joint segment and precast segment.
  • Strain measuring points of transverse steel bar: The measuring points are arranged at the appropriate position of the transverse steel bar. The spacing between measuring points of the specimen SF1 is 300 mm and that of the specimens SF2 and SF3 is 200 mm.
The strain measuring points of concrete are mainly arranged on the upper surface, lower surface, and side of the specimen:
  • Concrete measuring points on the upper surface: Four concrete strain measuring points are arranged along the center line of the specimen. The spacing between the measuring points of specimen SF1 is 150 mm, and that of specimens SF2 and SF3 is 100 mm.
  • Concrete measuring points on the lower surface: Four concrete strain measuring points are also arranged along the center line of the specimen. In addition, four concrete strain measuring points are arranged at the interface between the joint section and the prefabricated sections on both sides. The total number of concrete strain measuring points on the lower surface is 12. The spacing between the measuring points of specimen SF1 is also 150 mm, and that of specimens SF2 and SF3 is 100 mm as well.
  • Concrete measuring points on the side of the specimen: Along the center line of the specimen and the action line of fatigue load, three measuring points are arranged at different heights on the side of the specimen. A total of six measuring points are arranged in each specimen.
In addition, the displacement meter is also arranged to measure the displacement change of the pure flexural segment under the fatigue load. A total of six measuring points are arranged on both sides of each specimen. For one side of the specimens, one measuring point is located at the center line of the specimen, and the other two measuring points are located at the position of the loading action line.
Taking the specimen SF1 as an example, the arrangement of the measuring points is presented in Figure 5.

4. Experiment Results and Analysis

During the process of the flexural fatigue test, the static loading is carried out with a pause of the fatigue-loading cycle. According to the preliminary analysis of the static test data, it can be learnt that the mechanical properties of the specimens are roughly similar after different durations of fatigue loading (0 × 104 times, 5 × 104 times, 10 × 104 times, 30 × 104 times, 50 × 104 times, 100 × 104 times, 150 × 104 times). Therefore, only the test results of fatigue specimens after 200 × 104 loading cycles are mainly illustrated in this paper.

4.1. Crack Propagation and Failure Mode

The crack distribution and failure mode of the contrast specimen B3-A after the static loading is shown in Figure 6a. The crack distribution and failure mode of the fatigue specimens after the 200 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles are presented in Figure 6b–d.
For the specimen SF1, when the specimen is destroyed the crack is distributed on both sides of one of the interfaces between the joint segment and the precast segment. The crack at the position of the interface surface runs through the cross section of the specimen, and the crack height is more than 1/2 of the height of the cross section. In the joint section, there are two cracks in the lower edge of the concrete, but the cracks do not run through the whole section.
By comparing the specimens B3-A and SF1, it can be learnt that the failure modes of the two specimens are basically similar with different loading methods. The failure modes of the two specimens are as follows: vertical cracks along the interface between the joint segment and precast segment appear in the tension zone, and the concrete compression failure appear in the compression zone.
For the specimen SF2, the cracks are mainly distributed in the joint segment and the interface, and the cracks run through the whole section. Due to the low thickness of the specimen SF2, the height of the cracks can quickly exceed 1/2 of the specimen height at a low load level.
For the specimen SF3, the cracks on the bottom of the specimen are mainly concentrated in the double-overlapping zone. There are no obvious cracks in the other zone of the joint segment. And, for the precast segment in the pure flexural section, the crack length at the lower edge of the specimen is short, and there is no obvious penetrating crack.
By comparing the three fatigue specimens, it can be seen that the smaller the width of joint is, the less the concrete crack appears in the joint. During the fatigue-loading process, the concrete first cracks at the interface of joint segment and precast segment, and the position on both sides of the center line with a distance of 50 mm. With the increase of the static load level, the height of cracks at these positions increases continuously. However, it no longer propagates when the cracks reach a certain height. The cracks begin to develop along the longitudinal direction of the specimen, and the crack morphology is presented as Y-shaped or T-shaped. In addition, it can also be learnt from the specimens SF2 and SF3 that the joint with loop connections usually crack at the overlapping positions. It is similar to the test results of the related flexural specimens [26,27,28].

4.2. Variation of Load–Deflection

The moment–deflection curves of specimens SF1 to SF3 under static loading after 200 × 104 fatigue cycles were drawn, respectively, as shown in Figure 7a. For the specimen B3-A, which are the same size as specimen SF1, the moment–deflection curves of the specimen B3-A under the static loading is also compared with that of the specimen SF1, which is also presented in Figure 7a. Each curve conforms to the characteristics of a typical pure flexural concrete beam.
By comparing the test results of the specimens SF1 and B3-A, it can be learnt that the load–deflection curves are basically consistent in the elastic stage. When the loading value is close to the proportional limit, the specimen SF1 can still maintain a certain elastic performance. It indicates that the fatigue load has a certain beneficial effect on the performance of the specimen SF1 in the elastic stage. However, there are some differences in the behavior of specimens SF1 and B3-A in the yielding stage. After 200 × 104 fatigue cycles, the ultimate strength of the specimen SF1 is improved to a certain extent, but the ultimate elongation is reduced. This phenomenon is similar to the age-hardening behavior of steel bars after cold stretching.
According to the proposed loading process, each specimen was subjected to static loading after a certain number of fatigue cycles. The load–deflection curves of each specimen during static loading are shown in Figure 7b–d. The following results can be analyzed from the experimental data:
  • After the specimen SF1 is subjected to 50 × 104 fatigue cycles, the slope of the load–deflection curve of this specimen under the static load increased slightly. However, with the increase of the number of fatigue cycles, the slope of the load–deflection curve under the static load tends to be stable, and there is no significant increase again.
  • For the specimen SF2, the slope of the load–deflection curve of this specimen under the static load decreases slightly and tends to be stable after 100 × 104 fatigue cycles. In general, the load–deflection curves of static loading after different durations of fatigue cycles are still basically linear. It indicates that the specimen SF2 is generally in an elastic state.
  • While the slope of the load–deflection curve of the specimen SF3 under the static load does not change significantly, similarly, the specimen SF3 is still in an elastic state.

4.3. Varation of Strain Amplitude

Due to the large amount of strain test data during the test, the analysis results selected are only displayed at some typical measuring points, as shown in Table 2. During the fatigue test, due to the failure of some measuring points in the compression side of the precast segment at 0 × 104 or 200 × 104 times, the test results of these measuring points cannot be well compared. Therefore, these test results are no longer analyzed here.
The strain results of the fatigue specimens SF1 to SF3 under static loading after 0 × 104 and 200 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles are compared in Figure 8. It can be learnt from the results that, except for the measuring point C9 of the specimen SF2, the difference between the results of each strain measuring point after 0 × 104 and 200 × 104 fatigue cycles is small. It can be considered that there is no obvious degradation of concrete and steel bars at the location of these measuring points.
In addition, the load–strain curve of each specimen is basically in a linear change state, which indicates that the loop connection of each specimen is still in an elastic state after 200 × 104 fatigue cycles.
While for the measuring point C9 of the specimen SF2, the slope of the load–strain curve is significantly reduced, but it still maintains a linear change state. It can be considered that there are concrete cracks at the measuring point C9, but the crack did not expand further.

4.4. Stiffness Degradation

The stiffness test results of each specimen after different fatigue cycles are compared with that before fatigue loading (i.e., 0 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles), and the stiffness degradation coefficient curve of each specimen is drawn as shown in Figure 9.
It can be learnt from the stiffness degradation coefficient curve that the stiffness of the specimens SF2 and SF3 decreased to varying degrees after 200 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles. But, in general, it can be considered that the degree of stiffness degradation of the two specimens is relatively small. That is to say, the fatigue load has little effect on the flexural fatigue performance of the longitudinal joint of the T-shape girder bridge and the small girder bridge.
While for the specimen SF1, the stiffness degradation coefficient curve increases sightly after different durations of fatigue-loading cycles, there is still a downward trend. It can be considered that the fatigue-loading cycles even have some beneficial effect on the transverse joint of concrete–steel-composite bridge deck and pile–plate soilless subgrade structures. However, stiffness degradation caused by fatigue damage will still occur after long-term fatigue load.
In general, the stiffness of each specimen does not change much under the action of fatigue load. The flexural fatigue performance of joints with different loop connections is good.

5. Discussion

In order to clarify the applicability of loop connection in different types of prefabricated structural joints, the specimens representing different types of deck joints were designed. At the same time, the degradation of flexural fatigue performance of deck joints with loop connections is investigated with pure flexural static loading after 200 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles.
In the static loading process, after different durations of fatigue-loading cycles, the load–deflection curve basically increases linearly, indicating that different types of loop connection joints are still in the elastic stage. After different durations of fatigue-loading cycles, the slope of the load–deflection curve did not change much; the stiffness of the loop connection joint also changes little. The stiffness of each loop connection joint does not change much under the action of fatigue load. The joint with loop connections has good fatigue performance.
In addition, the strain changes of concrete and steel bars are almost negligible by comparing the static loading results before fatigue loading and after 200 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles. It also indicated that the fatigue-loading cycles has little effect on the mechanical properties of the deck joint with loop connection.
The failure modes of each loop connection joint were still similar to the typical failure characteristics of pure flexural specimens loaded only with static loading. In the pure flexural section, the crack height increases with the increase of fatigue-load times, and expands horizontally after reaching a certain height, forming T-type or Y-type cracks.

6. Conclusions

The flexural fatigue performance of different precast bridge deck joints with different loop connections were analyzed. Some conclusions can be drawn as follows:
  • The failure mode of the loop connection joint under flexural fatigue loading is similar to that under flexural static loading.
  • In the static loading process after different durations of fatigue-loading cycles, no obvious stiffness degradation occurred in different specimens. Specimens with different types of loop connection joints can meet the requirement of 200 × 104 fatigue-loading cycles.
  • The fatigue load has no obvious effect on the joint with loop connections; all kinds of loop connection joints can still maintain their mechanical property requirements under corresponding application conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.H. and Y.Z.; methodology, X.S.; software, C.Z.; validation, C.Z., X.S. and Y.Z.; formal analysis, K.H; investigation, C.Z.; resources, K.H.; data curation, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z.; writing—review and editing, C.Z.; visualization, K.H.; supervision, X.S.; project administration, X.S.; funding acquisition, K.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Science and Technology Project of Experimental Research and Application on the Shear and Fatigue Performance of Reinforced Concrete Joint with Loop Connections (Grant No. JKKJ-2020-42).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data are available within the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are extended to the anonymous reviewers whose suggestions improved this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Ke Hu was employed by Anhui Transportation Holding Group Co., Ltd., Chaoyu Zhu was employed by Shanghai Bridging Engineering Consulting Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tegos, N.; Papadopoulos, I.; Aretoulis, G. Definition of Compliance Criterion weights for Bridge Construction Method Selection and Their Application in Real Projects. Buildings 2023, 13, 2891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bogoviz, A.V.; Osipov, V.S.; Chistyakova, M.K.; Borisov, M.Y. Comparative Analysis of Formation of Industry 4.0 in Developed and Developing Countries. In Industry 4.0: Industrial Revolution of the 21st Century; Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Popkova, E., Ragulina, Y., Bogoviz, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 169, pp. 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Julien, E.; Blanchet, P.; Gosselin, L. Case-Study: Fully Prefabricated Wood Wall Connection to Improve Building Envelope and On-Site Efficiency. Buildings 2022, 12, 2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Boafo, F.E.; Kim, J.-H.; Kim, J.-T. Performance of Modular Prefabricated Architecture: Case Study-Based Review and Future Pathways. Sustainability 2016, 8, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tian, Z.J.; Liu, Y.J.; Jiang, L.; Zhu, W.Q.; Ma, Y.P. A review on application of composite truss bridges composed of hollow structural section members. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. Engl. Ed. 2019, 6, 94–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Deng, E.F.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, C.X.; Tang, Y.; Wang, W.; Du, Z.J.; Gao, J.P. Experimental study on flexural behavior of UHPC wet joint in prefabricated multi-girder bridge. Eng. Struct. 2023, 275 Pt B, 115314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Elnaggar, M.A.; Omar, M.S.; Yassin, A.M. Rehabilitation of defective connections between two precast concrete segments (experimental and analytical study). Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 368, 130498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Koushfar, K.; Rahman, A.B.A.; Hosseini, S.J.A.; Kim, S.-H.; Soufia, L.; Ahmad, Y.; Kang, S.-M.; Zhou, Y.; Lee, J.-M.; Hwang, H.-J. Behavior of grouted splice sleeve connection using FRP sheet. Eng. Struct. 2023, 296, 116898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kagioglou, P.; Katakalos, K.; Mitoulis, S.A. Resilient connection for accelerated bridge constructions. Structures 2021, 33, 3025–3039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zheng, H.; Chen, D.; Ou, M.; Liang, X.; Luo, Y. Flexural Behavior of Precast UHPC Segmental Beams with Unbonded Tendons and Epoxy Resin Joints. Buildings 2023, 13, 1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shah, Y.I.; Hu, Z.; Yin, B.S.; Li, X. Flexural Performance Analysis of UHPC Wet Joint of Prefabricated Bridge Deck. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2021, 46, 11253–11266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, Z.; Ye, X.W. Incorporating site-specific weigh-in-motion data into fatigue life assessment of expansion joints under dynamic vehicle load. Eng. Struct. 2022, 255, 113941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Abokifa, M.; Moustafa, M.A.; Itani, A.M. Comparative structural behavior of bridge deck panels with polymer concrete and UHPC transverse field joints. Eng. Struct. 2021, 247, 113195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, Z.; Tian, C.K.; Deng, E.F.; Peng, X.; Hu, H.Y.; Li, F.R. Fatigue performance and optimal design of corrugated steel–concrete composite bridge deck. Structures 2023, 48, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Limpaninlachat, P.; Kunawisarut, A.; Bui, L.V.H.; Jirawattanasomkul, T.; Jongvivatsakul, P.; Likitlersuang, S. Flexural and shear behavior of ultra-high performance concrete segmental joints. Structures 2023, 56, 104913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shi, X.F.; Zhong, Y.Z.; Ma, H.Y.; Hu, K.; Xie, P.F.; Zeng, C. Numerical analysis on tensile capacity of loop connections. Eng. Struct. 2021, 246, 113022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Feng, Z.; Li, C.X.; Ke, L.; Yoo, D.Y. Experimental and numerical investigations on flexural performance of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) beams with wet joints. Structures 2022, 45, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dadmand, B.; Pourbaba, M.; Sadaghian, H.; Mirmiran, A. Effectiveness of steel fibers in UHPFRC construction. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2020, 10, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tarabin, M.; Maalej, M.; Altoubat, S.; Junaid, M.T. Review of the bond behavior between reinforcing steel and Engineered cementitious Composites. Structures 2023, 55, 2143–2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brunesi, E.; Nascimbene, R. Experimental and numerical investigation of the seismic response of precast wall connections. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 5511–5550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Martínez-Muñoz, D.; Martí, J.V.; Yepes, V. Steel-Concrete Composite Bridges: Design, Life Cycle Assessment, Maintenance, and Decision-Making. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 8823370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, D.B.; Zhang, Y.; Kim, C.W.; Meng, Y.; Garg, A.; Garg, A.; Fang, K. Effectiveness of CFG pile-slab structure on soft soil for supporting high-speed railway embankment. Soils Found. 2018, 58, 1458–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sasaki, K.K.; Paret, T.; Araiza, J.C.; Hals, P. Failure of concrete T-beam and box-girder highway bridges subjected to cyclic loading from traffic. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1838–1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jongvivatsakul, P.; Bui, L.V.; Koyekaewphring, T.; Kunawisarut, A.; Hemstapat, N.; Stitmannaithum, B. Using steel fiber-reinforced concrete precast panels for strengthening in shear of beams: An experimental and analytical investigation. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 4098505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. JTG 3462-2018; Specification for Design of Highway Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Bridges and Culverts. Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT): Beijing, China, 2018.
  26. Okazaki, Y.; Okazaki, S.; Asamoto, S.; Chun, P.J. Applicability of machine learning to a crack model in concrete bridges. Comput. -Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 35, 775–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Seara-Paz, S.; González-Fonteboa, B.; Martínez-Abella, F.; Eiras-López, J. Flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams made with recycled concrete coarse aggregate. Eng. Struct. 2018, 156, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yuan, X.; Zhu, C.Y.; Zheng, W.; Hu, J.B.; Tang, B.J. Flexure Performance of Externally Bonded CFRP Plates Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Members. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 2020, 2604024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 00566 g001
Figure 1. Typical application situation of a loop connection joint: (a) transverse joint of concrete–steel composite bridge deck; (b) transverse joint of pile–plate soilless subgrade structures; (c) longitudinal joint of T-shape girder bridge; and (d) longitudinal joint of small girder bridge.
Figure 1. Typical application situation of a loop connection joint: (a) transverse joint of concrete–steel composite bridge deck; (b) transverse joint of pile–plate soilless subgrade structures; (c) longitudinal joint of T-shape girder bridge; and (d) longitudinal joint of small girder bridge.
Applsci 14 00566 g001
Applsci 14 00566 g002
Figure 2. Design schemes of specimens (Unit: mm): (a) specimen SF1 and B3-A; (b) specimen SF2; and (c) specimen SF3.
Figure 2. Design schemes of specimens (Unit: mm): (a) specimen SF1 and B3-A; (b) specimen SF2; and (c) specimen SF3.
Applsci 14 00566 g002
Applsci 14 00566 g003
Figure 3. Load setup for flexural fatigue tests: (a) front view and (b) lateral view.
Figure 3. Load setup for flexural fatigue tests: (a) front view and (b) lateral view.
Applsci 14 00566 g003
Applsci 14 00566 g004
Figure 4. Loading path for flexural fatigue test (specimen SF1 for instance).
Figure 4. Loading path for flexural fatigue test (specimen SF1 for instance).
Applsci 14 00566 g004
Applsci 14 00566 g005
Figure 5. Arrangement of measurement system: (a) strain measuring point of concrete; (b) laser displacement sensor; and (c) strain measuring points of steel bar.
Figure 5. Arrangement of measurement system: (a) strain measuring point of concrete; (b) laser displacement sensor; and (c) strain measuring points of steel bar.
Applsci 14 00566 g005
Applsci 14 00566 g006aApplsci 14 00566 g006b
Figure 6. Crack propagation law and failure mode of specimens: (a) specimen B3-A; (b) specimen SF1; (c) specimen SF2; and (d) specimen SF3 (Unit: mm).
Figure 6. Crack propagation law and failure mode of specimens: (a) specimen B3-A; (b) specimen SF1; (c) specimen SF2; and (d) specimen SF3 (Unit: mm).
Applsci 14 00566 g006aApplsci 14 00566 g006b
Applsci 14 00566 g007
Figure 7. Load–deflection curves under different fatigue cycles: (a) specimen B3-A; (b) specimen SF1; (c) specimen SF2; and (d) specimen SF3.
Figure 7. Load–deflection curves under different fatigue cycles: (a) specimen B3-A; (b) specimen SF1; (c) specimen SF2; and (d) specimen SF3.
Applsci 14 00566 g007
Applsci 14 00566 g008
Figure 8. Variation law of strain amplitude: (a) specimen SF1; (b) specimen SF2; and (c) specimen SF3.
Figure 8. Variation law of strain amplitude: (a) specimen SF1; (b) specimen SF2; and (c) specimen SF3.
Applsci 14 00566 g008
Applsci 14 00566 g009
Figure 9. Stiffness degradation coefficient of flexural fatigue specimens.
Figure 9. Stiffness degradation coefficient of flexural fatigue specimens.
Applsci 14 00566 g009
Table 1. Design parameters of specimens (Unit: mm).
Table 1. Design parameters of specimens (Unit: mm).
No.DimensionJoint SizeLayout of Loop Connections
ThicknessWidthTransverse SpacingBar DiameterOverlapping LengthOverlapping Form
B3-A2050 × 720 × 2202202507520180Single
SF12050 × 720 × 2202202507520180Single
SF22300 × 520 × 1601605005016200Single
SF32500 × 520 × 1801807005016200Double
Table 2. Location of typical strain measuring points.
Table 2. Location of typical strain measuring points.
Strain TypePositionSF1SF2SF3
Strain of concreteCompression sideC2C1C2
Tension sideC5C9C5, C9
Strain of longitudinal loop barCompression side of the precast segment---
Tension side of the precast segmentR-5-6R-5-6R-2-6, R-4-6
Compression side of the joint segmentR-5-3R-3-1R-1-1
Tension side of the joint segmentR-5-4, R-4-2R-4-2, R-5-4R-4-4
Strain of double loop barCompression side//R-5-5
Tension side//R-5-4
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hu, K.; Zhu, C.; Shi, X.; Zhong, Y. Experiment on Flexural Fatigue Performance of Precast Bridge Deck Joints with Loop Connections. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14020566

AMA Style

Hu K, Zhu C, Shi X, Zhong Y. Experiment on Flexural Fatigue Performance of Precast Bridge Deck Joints with Loop Connections. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(2):566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14020566

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hu, Ke, Chaoyu Zhu, Xuefei Shi, and Yuzhuo Zhong. 2024. "Experiment on Flexural Fatigue Performance of Precast Bridge Deck Joints with Loop Connections" Applied Sciences 14, no. 2: 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14020566

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop