applied

sciences
Article
On Flexural Performance of Girder-To-Girder Wet
Joint for Lightweight Steel-UHPC Composite Bridge
Shuwen Deng 1 , Xudong Shao 1, *, Banfu Yan 1, *, Yan Wang 1,2 and Huihui Li 3
1 Key Laboratory for Wind and Bridge Engineering of Hunan Province, Hunan University,
Changsha 410082, China; dengsw@hnu.edu.cn (S.D.); yanwang@hnu.edu.cn (Y.W.)
2 Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanic, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the City College of City University of New York,
New York, NY 10027, USA; hli004@citymail.cuny.edu
* Correspondence: shaoxd@vip.163.com (X.S.); yanbanfu@hnu.edu.cn (B.Y.)




Received: 2 January 2020; Accepted: 13 February 2020; Published: 16 February 2020


Abstract: Joints are always the focus of the precast structure for accelerated bridge construction.
In this paper, a girder-to-girder joint suitable for steel-ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC)
lightweight composite bridge (LWCB) is proposed. Two flexural tests were conducted to verify the
effectiveness of the proposed T-shaped girder-to-girder joint. The test results indicated that: (1) The
T-shaped joint has a better cracking resistance than the traditional I-shaped joint; (2) The weak
interfaces of the T-shaped joint are set in the areas with relatively lower negative bending moment,
and thus the cracking risk could be decreased drastically; (3) The natural curing scheme for the joint
is feasible, and the reinforcement has a very large inhibitory effect on the UHPC material shrinkage;
The joint interface is the weak region of the LWCB, which requires careful consideration in future
designs. Based on the experimental test results, the design and calculation methods for the deflection,
crack width, and ultimate flexural capacity in the negative moment region of LWCB were presented.

Keywords: ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC); steel-UHPC composite bridge; UHPC connections

1. Introduction
An accelerated bridge construction (ABC) concept has been proposed in recent years. ABC is a
bridge design and construction method that takes full advantage of prefabrication bridge elements,
and it has a minimum disturbance to the in-service traffic network of bridge constructions. However,
connections are always the focus of attention for precast systems, and also a potential source of future
maintenance. The common way for the construction of connections is to increase the reinforcement or
to apply the post-tensioning system, while the above schemes extend the on-site construction time,
as well as the cost and maintenance.
In order to solve the above problems, it is necessary to improve the structure and material
mechanical properties. Thus, a type of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) girder-to-girder joint
that makes bridges continuous is proposed in the present study. UHPC is a class of cement-based
material, and previous research has demonstrated that it has the excellent properties of anti-freeze,
anti-corrosion, and crack resistance performance [1–5], and it has been widely used in bridge
construction [6–9]. The use of UHPC material can reduce the bridge weight by about 37–54% [10,11].
A large number of studies and applications have been done on UHPC deck-to-deck joints: Graybeal
performed a structural test on a full-scale pi-girder fabricated with the longitudinal joint. In the
following year, a series of tests on field-cast UHPC connections between high-performance concrete
(HPC) panels were conducted [12]. In 2013, Aaleti et al. published a design guide for precast UHPC
waffle deck panel systems and connections [13]. Perry et al. gave the design and details of narrow joints

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335; doi:10.3390/app10041335 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 2 of 17

(HPC) panels were conducted [12]. In 2013, Aaleti et al. published a design guide for precast UHPC
waffle deck panel systems and connections [13]. Perry et al. gave the design and details of narrow
jointsinused
used in the Mackenzie
the Mackenzie River TwinRiverBridges
Twin Bridges [14]. Graybeal
[14]. Graybeal published published
a report awhich
reportprovided
which provided
detailed
detailed guidance
guidance on the design on the
and design
deploymentand deployment
of field-cast UHPC of field-cast UHPCincluding
connections, connections, including
connections of
connections
adjacent of adjacent
precast precast
deck panel, deck
precast panel,
deck panelprecast deckadjacent
to girder, panel tobox girder,
beams, adjacent
and other boxlongitudinal
beams, and
other longitudinal
elements [15]. In China,elements
Guan[15]. In China,
presented a UHPCGuanlongitudinal
presented ajoint UHPC longitudinal
flexural test, and joint flexural
the result test,
showed
and the cracking
that result showedstrengththatof the
the cracking
proposedstrength
joint could of the
meet proposed
the design jointrequirement
could meet[16]. the Qi design
[17]
requirement the
investigated [16].flexural
Qi [17] behavior
investigated of athe
UHPCflexural
jointbehavior
in sevenofUHPC a UHPC slabsjoint
under in seven
negativeUHPC slabs
bending
under negative
moment, in whichbending moment,
an innovative in which
method an innovative
using steel wire mesh was method usingtosteel
presented enhancewirethemesh was
interface
presented to enhance the interface between
between precast and cast-in-place UHPC at the joints. precast and cast-in-place UHPC at the joints.
As for research of the the seismic
seismic performance
performance of UHPC joints, Tazarv Tazarv andand Saiidi
Saiidi investigated
investigated the
UHPC-filled duct connections for accelerated bridge construction of reinforcement concrete (RC)
columns in high seismic zones [18]. The above above research
research and and applications
applications indicated that UHPC is
prefabricated structures.
feasible in prefabricated structures.
However, reports on the treatment of the the UHPC
UHPC girder-to-girder
girder-to-girder joint that made the bridge
continuous are rarely seen. Thus, in the present study, a type type ofof girder-to-girder
girder-to-girder joint suitable for
steel-UHPCcomposite
steel-UHPC compositebridges
bridges is proposed
is proposed andand
tested.tested. For accelerating
For accelerating bridgebridge construction,
construction, the scheme the
scheme of a fully precast lightweight steel-UHPC composite girder element
of a fully precast lightweight steel-UHPC composite girder element is also presented. The composite is also presented. The
composite
element elementthe
replaced replaced
normalthe normalconcrete
strength strength deckconcrete deck
of the of the steel-concrete
steel-concrete composite composite
girder with girdera
with a thinner,
thinner, tougher,tougher, and ultra-high
and ultra-high performance
performance concreteconcrete
(UHPC)(UHPC)deck. deck.
following section
The following sectionof ofthe
thepaper
paperintroduces
introducesthe thedesign
designconcept
concept ofofthethe joint
joint in in detail.
detail. In In order
order to
to verify
verify thethe design,
design, a bending
a bending testtest
waswas conducted
conducted on aon a large
large scalescale specimen
specimen withwithtwo two
jointsjoints
(i.e., (i.e., the
the first
first generation
generation T-shaped
T-shaped jointjoint
andand thethe traditional
traditional I-shaped
I-shaped joint)
joint) andisispresented
and presentedin inthe
the third section.
section.
Then, in
Then, inthe
thefourth
fourthsection,
section,thethe scheme
scheme is further
is further optimized
optimized (named (named
as theassecond
the second generation
generation T-shaped T-
shaped
joint) and joint) and experimental
experimental verification verification
was carried wasout.carried out.the
Finally, Finally, the calculation
calculation methods ofmethods deflection, of
deflection, crack width, and bearing capacity of the
crack width, and bearing capacity of the proposed design are presented.proposed design are presented.

2. Design Aspects
The fully precast lightweight steel-UHPC composite composite bridge
bridge (LWCB),
(LWCB), as shown in Figure 1a,
consists
consists ofofseveral π-shaped
several steel-UHPC
π-shaped composite
steel-UHPC girder components
composite (Figure 1b).(Figure
girder components Each prefabricated
1b). Each
component
prefabricated is component
composed of one UHPCofpanel
is composed and two
one UHPC I-shaped
panel and twosteel girders,
I-shaped which
steel are connected
girders, which are
by headed studs. In the transverse direction of the LWCB, the prefabricated
connected by headed studs. In the transverse direction of the LWCB, the prefabricated components components are
connected by panel-to-panel
are connected by panel-to-paneljoints, joints,
while inwhile
the longitudinal direction, direction,
in the longitudinal they are assembled
they are together by
assembled
girder-to-girder joints.
together by girder-to-girder joints.

(a) (b)
1. View of
Figure 1. of the
the lightweight
lightweight steel-ultra-high-performance
steel-ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) composite
composite bridge
(LWCB):
(LWCB): (a)
(a) the
the whole
whole bridge;
bridge; (b)
(b)prefabricated
prefabricatedcomponent.
component.

Different
Different from
from the
the traditional
traditional steel-concrete
steel-concrete composite
composite bridge,
bridge, the
the UHPC
UHPC panel
panel is
is fabricated
fabricated to
to
connect the double I-shaped steel girders in the prefabricated factory. As a result, the fully
connect the double I-shaped steel girders in the prefabricated factory. As a result, the fully prefabricated
component cancomponent
prefabricated be transported andtransported
can be lifted integrally. The main
and lifted advantages
integrally. of theadvantages
The main component of arethe
as
Appl. Sci. 2020,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10,
10, 1335
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 17
17

component are as follows: (1) the fully precast scheme can significantly decrease on-site construction
follows: (1) the fully precast scheme can significantly decrease on-site construction time; (2) the shear
time; (2) the shear pockets, as well as the pocket-induced problems, such as construction complexity,
pockets, as well as the pocket-induced problems, such as construction complexity, longer construction
longer construction time, and higher requirement for fine construction, can be eliminated; (3) the
time, and higher requirement for fine construction, can be eliminated; (3) the manufacturing quality of
manufacturing quality of the prefabricated components can be guaranteed.
the prefabricated components can be guaranteed.
Figure 2 shows the typical bending moment envelops of a continuous beam bridge. It is seen
Figure 2 shows the typical bending moment envelops of a continuous beam bridge. It is seen that
that the negative bending moment of the main beam reaches the maximum value at the top of the
the negative bending moment of the main beam reaches the maximum value at the top of the pier,
pier, and gradually decreases from the peak region to the two sides. Owing to the high tensile
and gradually decreases from the peak region to the two sides. Owing to the high tensile strength
strength of UHPC, it may be considered to cast UHPC on-site in the negative bending moment area
of UHPC, it may be considered to cast UHPC on-site in the negative bending moment area near to
near to the support. Note that the interfacial strength between the poured UHPC and the
the support. Note that the interfacial strength between the poured UHPC and the prefabricated part
prefabricated part is weak due to the discontinuity of the steel fiber, the weak interfaces are thus set
is weak due to the discontinuity of the steel fiber, the weak interfaces are thus set in the areas with
in the areas with relatively lower negative bending moment. As shown in the right side of Figure 2,
relatively lower negative bending moment. As shown in the right side of Figure 2, the T-shaped UHPC
the T-shaped UHPC joint in the negative bending moment area is proposed to significantly decrease
joint in the negative bending moment area is proposed to significantly decrease the interfacial cracking
the interfacial cracking risk during the service life. It has a lengthened top that looks like the letter
risk during the service life. It has a lengthened top that looks like the letter “T” from the side view;
“T” from the side view; thus, it was named a “T-shaped joint”. Besides, the prestressed system
thus, it was named a “T-shaped joint”. Besides, the prestressed system commonly used in the negative
commonly used in the negative bending moment area can be avoided, which greatly speeds up the
bending moment area can be avoided, which greatly speeds up the on-site construction time.
on-site construction time.
To validate the effectiveness of the proposed design, a comparative study on the model tests
To validate the effectiveness of the proposed design, a comparative study on the model tests
between the T-shaped joint and the traditional girder-to-girder joint (herein referred to as “I-shaped
between the T-shaped joint and the traditional girder-to-girder joint (herein referred to as “I-shaped
joint”) was conducted as follows.
joint”) was conducted as follows.

σ 0 ≤ [σ ]

T-shaped joint

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Bending
Bending moment
moment envelops
envelops of
of common continuous beam
common continuous beam bridge.
bridge.

3.
3. Comparative
ComparativeModel
ModelTest:
Test:The
TheFirst Generation
First T-Shaped
Generation JointJoint
T-Shaped and the
andTraditional I-shaped
the Traditional Joint
I-shaped
Joint
3.1. Experimental Model
3.1. Experimental
As shown inModel
Figure 3a, the specimen is 6.2 m long and 1.875 m wide, composed of two joints
and three prefabricated
As shown in Figuresteel-UHPC composite
3a, the specimen girder
is 6.2 m longelements, termed
and 1.875 as part
m wide, A, part B,
composed ofand
twopart C.
joints
The
and T-shaped joint is employed
three prefabricated to connect
steel-UHPC two prefabricated
composite components
girder elements, termed as of part
part A,
B and
partpart C, and
B, and partthe
C.
other one is the traditional I-shaped joint (from the side view, the joint is shaped
The T-shaped joint is employed to connect two prefabricated components of part B and part C, and like the letter “I”)
connecting
the other onepartis A and
the part B. I-shaped joint (from the side view, the joint is shaped like the letter
traditional
Part A, partpart
“I”) connecting B, and partpart
A and C areB.the so-called prefabricated components. The pre-cast UHPC panel is
reinforced
Part A, part B, and part C longitudinal
by 16 mm diameter steelprefabricated
are the so-called bars with a central spacingThe
components. of 83.4 mm, UHPC
pre-cast and reduced
panel
to 41.7 mm in the post-cast joint parts. In the transverse direction, the steel bar
is reinforced by 16 mm diameter longitudinal steel bars with a central spacing of 83.4 mm, and is 8 mm in diameter,
with spacing
reduced of 100
to 41.7 mmmm. The
in the reinforcement
post-cast layout
joint parts. In is
thedisplayed
transversein direction,
Figure 3b.theThesteel
steelbar
girders of the
is 8 mm in
specimen were fabricated by Q235 (the steel with yield strength of 235 MPa).
diameter, with spacing of 100 mm. The reinforcement layout is displayed in Figure 3b. The steel
girders of the specimen were fabricated by Q235 (the steel with yield strength of 235 MPa).
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 4 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17

(a)
20+80+60×100+80+20=6200
T-shaped joint I-shaped joint
1875/2

20+22×83.4+20 20+44×41.7+20
Connection reinforcement

(b)
Figure3.3.Illustration
Figure Illustration of comparative
of the the comparative model
model test testmm):
(units: (units: mm): (a)display;
(a) specimen specimen display; (b)
(b) reinforcement
reinforcement layout.
layout.

In referencetotoShao
In reference Shao [19],
[19], underunder
naturalnatural
curingcuring conditions,
conditions, the curingthetime-dependent
curing time-dependent
shrinkage
shrinkage
strain is in strain
the is in theofrange
range of 200–900
200–900 µε [1,20–22],
με [1,20–22], while while
underunder the steam
the steam curing curing conditions,
conditions, the
the temperature-dependent shrinkage strain is generally in the range
temperature-dependent shrinkage strain is generally in the range of 622–900 με, and of 622–900 µε, and the strain will
will
reduce
reduceto to zero
zero after
after curing
curing [1,23,24]. Consequently, the
[1,23,24]. Consequently, the shrinkage-induced
shrinkage-induced cracking
cracking is is easy
easy developed
developed
in
in the
the interface
interface between
between the the prefabricated
prefabricated UHPC and the newly cast UHPC. To To verify
verify the
the effect
effect of
of
shrinkage
shrinkage on on the
the cracking
cracking development,
development, the the shrinkage
shrinkage test
test was
was conducted
conducted on on part A (natural curing)
and
and part
part CC (steam
(steam curing)
curing) with
with the
the same
samereinforcement
reinforcementratioratioandandjoint
jointwidth.
width.
The
The main fabrication process process isisshown
shownininFigure
Figure4:4:(1)(1) fabricating
fabricating thethe I-shaped
I-shaped steel
steel girders;
girders; (2)
(2) deploying
deploying thethe
steelsteel
barsbars in pre-cast
in pre-cast partsparts
(part(part A (PA),
A (PA), part Bpart
(PB),B and
(PB),part
andCpart C (PC));
(PC)); (3) casting
(3) casting UHPC
UHPC for prefabricated
for prefabricated components;
components; (4) steam (4)curing
steam ofcuring
part of partpart
B and B andC; part C; (5) deploying
(5) deploying the steel the steel
bars in
bars in post-cast joint parts (T- and I-shaped joints); (6) casting UHPC for the
post-cast joint parts (T- and I-shaped joints); (6) casting UHPC for the joint parts; (7) natural curingjoint parts; (7) natural
curing
of partofApartandAjoint
and joint
parts;parts;
and and (8) completing
(8) completing thethe experimental
experimental model.It Itisisworth
model. worthnoting
noting that thethe
process
process isisidentical
identicalto tothe
theactual
actualconstruction
constructionsequence.
sequence.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 5 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17

Figure4.4.Specimen
Figure Specimen fabrication
fabrication process. PA: part
process. PA: part A,
A, PB:
PB: part
part B,
B, PC:
PC: part
part C.
C.

The
Thecomposition
compositionofofthe UHPC
the UHPC material
materialwas thethe
was same
sameas that in reference
as that [25] [25]
in reference (Table 1). Two
(Table 1). types
Two
oftypes
steelof
fibers were employed in the UHPC material, one was Φ 0.2 × 13 mm straight
steel fibers were employed in the UHPC material, one was Φ 0.2 × 13 mm straight fibers and fibers and the
other was Φ 0.3 × 25 mm with hook-ends. The content within and beyond the joint
the other was Φ 0.3 × 25 mm with hook-ends. The content within and beyond the joint region were region were slightly
different (as shown(asinshown
slightly different Table 2). The mechanical
in Table properties,
2). The mechanical including
properties, compressive
including strength,
compressive flexural
strength,
strength,
flexural and elasticand
strength, modulus
elastic of UHPC, of
modulus were tested
UHPC, by following
were tested by the standard
following themethods
standardofmethods
MOHURD of
(Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development) [26]. Six specimens are
MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development) [26]. Six specimens are conducted conducted for each test,
and
for the
eachaverage values
test, and are listed
the average in Table
values 2.
are listed in Table 2.

Table1.1. UHPC
Table UHPC Martials
Martials Proportion
Proportion (in
(in reference [25]).
reference [25]).

Material
Material Mass
MassRatio
Ratio
Cement (PO42.5)
Cement (PO42.5) 0.7
0.7
Silica fume
Silica fume 0.2
0.2
Fly ash
Fly ash 0.1
0.1
Quartz sand 1.1
Quartz sand 1.1
Quartz powder 0.1
Quartz powder
Slag powder 0.1
0.2
Slag powder
Superplasticizer 0.2
0.015
Superplasticizer
Water 0.015
0.2
Steel fiber (volume
Water ratio (%)) 2.0/2.5
0.2
Steel fiber (volume ratio (%)) 2.0/2.5
Table 2. Mechanical properties of UHPC.
Table 2. Mechanical properties of UHPC.
Curing Parts of the Fiber Type Compressive Flexural Young’s
Condition
Curing Specimen
Parts of the (d × lf, Vf)
Fiber Type (d × lf, Strength (MPa)
Compressive Strength (MPa)
Flexural Modulus
Young’s (GPA)
Condition
Steam Specimen
Part B and C 0.2 × 13 mm, 1% + Strength
Vf) (MPa)
139.6 Strength (MPa)
23.7 Modulus
42.7(GPA)
Natural Part A 0.3 × 25 mm, 1% 137.1 25.3 42.5
Steam Part B and C 0.2
0.2××1313mm,
mm,1% 1%+ + 139.6 23.7 42.7
Natural Two joint parts 140.7 26.4 43.9
0.3 ×× 25
25 mm,
mm, 1%1.5%
Natural Part A 137.1 25.3 42.5
Two joint 0.2 × 13 mm, 1% +
Natural
For the loading convenience 140.7
test, the specimen26.4 43.9
parts 0.3 × of
25 the
mm,experimental
1.5% was inversely configured to
produce a negative bending moment. The specimen was simply supported on the bottom supports,
as shown in Figure
For the loading5a.convenience
In order to ofensure that the two test,
the experimental jointsthe
were under was
specimen the same load,configured
inversely the specimen
to
was loaded in the form of four-point bending, the hydraulic MTS (Testing systems,
produce a negative bending moment. The specimen was simply supported on the bottom supports, Mechanical testing,
and Sensing
as shown in solutions)
Figure 5a. Inactuator
order towas employed
ensure that thetotwo
apply thewere
joints loading
undertothe
thesame
model.
load,Before loading,
the specimen
was loaded in the form of four-point bending, the hydraulic MTS (Testing systems, Mechanical
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 6 of 17

testing, and Sensing solutions) actuator was employed to apply the loading to the model. Before
aloading,
careful avisual
careful visual inspection
inspection on thepanel
on the UHPC UHPC panel indicated
indicated that therethat there
were no were noshrinkage-induced
visible visible shrinkage-
inducedand
cracks, cracks,
thusand
thethus the natural
natural curing scheme
curing scheme of thewas
of the joint jointconsidered
was considered
to be to be feasible.
feasible. During
During the
the test, the deflection of the mid-span and the crack development of the UHPC panel
test, the deflection of the mid-span and the crack development of the UHPC panel were recorded were recorded
step-by-step. The
step-by-step. The configuration
configurationofofthe
themeasurement
measurement points
points and
and thethe distribution
distribution of dial
of the the dial gauges
gauges and
and indicator
dial dial indicator are shown
are shown in Figure
in Figure 5b. 5b.

(a)

(b)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Loading and measuring device: (a) Loading method; (b) measuring device layout.

3.2. Test Results

3.2. Test Results
3.2.1. Load-Deflection Curve and Crack Development
3.2.1. Load-Deflection Curve and Crack Development
As shown in Figure 6a, the loading process can be divided into three stages:
As shown in Figure 6a, the loading process can be divided into three stages:
i. i. Elastic
Elastic stage.
stage. During
Duringthis this stage,
stage, the
the UHPC
UHPC panelpanel does
does not
not show
show any
any cracks,
cracks, and
and the
the specimen
specimen
exhibits no
exhibits no stiffness
stiffness reduction.
reduction. When
When thethe applied
applied load
load reaches
reaches 605
605 kN,
kN, the
the curve
curve deflects
deflects slightly,
slightly,
indicating that the stiffness of the specimen decreases slightly, and a crack with a width of mm
indicating that the stiffness of the specimen decreases slightly, and a crack with a width of 0.02 0.02
is found
mm at the
is found at joint interface.
the joint interface.
ii.ii. Crack
Crack propagation
propagationstage.stage.After
After 605605
kN,kN,
thethe short
short cracks
cracks develop
develop into long
into long cracks,
cracks, and the and the
width
width gradually increases in the joint interface. Therefore, this stage is defined
gradually increases in the joint interface. Therefore, this stage is defined as the crack propagationas the crack
propagation stage.
stage.
iii. Yield stage. When
iii. Yield When thethe applied
applied load
load reaches
reaches 2190
2190 kN,
kN, the
the load-deflection
load-deflection curve
curve deflects
deflects obviously,
obviously,
indicating that
indicating that the
the stiffness of the specimen decreases significantly. Subsequently, the the structural
structural
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 7 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17

deformation
deformationincreases
increasesrapidly,
rapidly,but
butthe
theload
loadcannot
cannotincrease
increaseanymore.
anymore.Thus,
Thus,this
thisstage
stageisisdefined
defined
asasthe
theyield
yieldstage.
stage.
During
During thethe loading
loading process, the cracks
process, the cracks can
canonly
onlybe befound
foundatatthe
theinterface
interfaceofof
thethe
twotwo joints,
joints, andandno
no visible cracks develop in the rest of the parts. The crack development curve is displayed
visible cracks develop in the rest of the parts. The crack development curve is displayed in Figure 6b, in Figure
6b, where
where thethe
“T”“T”
andand “I” “I” denote
denote T-shaped
T-shaped joint
joint andand I-shaped
I-shaped joint,
joint, respectively,
respectively, andandthe the
“L”“L”andand
“R”
“R” indicate the left and right side, respectively. It is seen that the cracks develop at
indicate the left and right side, respectively. It is seen that the cracks develop at four interfaces with four interfaces
with similar
similar trend,
trend, andcrack
and the the crack onright
on the the right side
side of theofI-shaped
the I-shaped joint grows
joint grows slightly
slightly fasterfaster thanofthat
than that the
of the left
left side. side.

2500
Yield stage 1600
2250 T-L
2000 Crack propagation stage T-R
1400 I-L
1750 I-R
fCW0.2 = 1584 kN

Load (kN)
1500
Load (kN)

1200
1250
1000
1000 fCW0.05-T = 758~941 kN
750 fCW0.05-I = 758~845 kN
800
T-L T-R I-L I-R
500 Elastic stage
250 600

0 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm) Crack Width (mm)

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure6.6.Test
Testresults
resultsof
ofcomparative
comparativemodel
modeltest:
test:(a)(a)load-deflection
load-deflectioncurve
curvein inmid-span;
mid-span;(b)(b)load-crack
load-crack
width
widthcurve
curveof ofjoint
jointinterface.
interface.T:
T:T-shaped
T-shaped joint,
joint, I;I; I-shaped
I-shaped joint,
joint, L:
L: left
left side,
side, R:
R: right
right side.
side.

3.2.2.Nominal
3.2.2. NominalCracking
CrackingStress
Stress
Accordingto
According toRafiee
Rafiee[27],
[27],when
whenthe themaximum
maximumcrack crackwidth
widthof ofUHPC
UHPCdoes doesnotnotexceed
exceed0.05 0.05mm, mm,
the crack has no influence on the durability of UHPC. In addition, the cracks
the crack has no influence on the durability of UHPC. In addition, the cracks are difficult to observe are difficult to observe with
the naked
with eye in
the naked practical
eye engineering
in practical engineering when the maximum
when the maximum crack width
crack is smaller
width thanthan
is smaller 0.050.05mmmm [28].
Thus,
[28]. the allowable
Thus, crackcrack
the allowable widthwidthis defined as 0.05asmm
is defined 0.05for
mmthefor
steel-UHPC composite
the steel-UHPC specimen,
composite and the
specimen,
and the corresponding load can be called the cracking load. Thereby, the nominal cracking stress inis
corresponding load can be called the cracking load. Thereby, the nominal cracking stress in UHPC
attained
UHPC is by using by
attained a representative load, which
using a representative causes
load, which a maximum
causes a maximumcrack width of 0.05
crack width mm ofin UHPC.
0.05 mm
Luo
in UHPC. et al. [29,30] conducted negative bending tests on 40 steel-UHPC composite specimens. It was
foundLuo et al. [29,30] conducted negative bending tests on 40 steel-UHPC composite specimens.the
that when the maximum crack width reaches 0.05 mm in UHPC, the specimens are still at It
early
was phase
found of the
that when crack
the propagation.
maximum crack When
widththereaches
applied0.05 loadmm reaches 76.7–86%
in UHPC, of the ultimate
the specimens load,
are still at
the early
the strainphase
distribution along propagation.
of the crack with the height of the
When thesection
applied stillload
roughly
reachesconforms
76.7–86% to theof plane section
the ultimate
assumption. Consequently, the nominal cracking stress could be calculated
load, the strain distribution along with the height of the section still roughly conforms to the plane based on the linear elastic
assumption
section rather than
assumption. any nonlinearity
Consequently, consideration.
the nominal cracking stress could be calculated based on the
linear elastic assumption rather than any nonlinearityby
The nominal cracking stress can be calculated σ = Md y/αE I, where Md denotes the applied
consideration.
moment without cracking
The nominal considering moment
stress calculated by yσ denotes
can beredistribution, = Mdy/αEthe distance
I, where Md from
denotesthe theneutral
appliedaxis
to the UHPC panel surface, E = E /E , and I denotes the second-moment
moment without considering moment redistribution, y denotes the distance from the neutral axis to
s UHPC area of conversion of
composite section. The applied load and the nominal cracking stress
the UHPC panel surface, E = Es/EUHPC, and I denotes the second-moment area of conversion of of the critical sections (Figure 5b)
are listed in
composite Table The
section. 3. Pcrapplied
is the nominal
load andcracking
the nominal load,cracking
and it isstressdefined as the
of the maximum
critical sections load level
(Figure
when the crack width approaches 0.05 mm. Considering that the crack
5b) are listed in Table 3. Pcr is the nominal cracking load, and it is defined as the maximum load levelwidth in the mid-span and
UHPC matrix was extremely small during the whole process, the
when the crack width approaches 0.05 mm. Considering that the crack width in the mid-span andyield value of 2190 kN was applied
withinmatrix
UHPC the nominal stress calculation.
was extremely small during the whole process, the yield value of 2190 kN was applied
As shown in Table 3, when
within the nominal stress calculation. the crack width reaches 0.05 mm, the nominal stress of the T-shaped
joint interface is in the range of 4.42–5.48 MPa, and the mean value is 4.96 MPa; whereas for the I-shaped
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 Table 3. Durability-based nominal stress of critical sections. 8 of 17

Section Item Pcr/kN Mcr/kN·m σcr/MPa Section No.

joint, the corresponding value
T-shaped joint leftvaries from 3.21
interface 941to 3.57 MPa,
638 and the mean value
5.48 is 3.39
Section A MPa. Thus,
compared to T-shaped
the I-shaped joint, the T-shaped
joint right interface joint
845 exhibits more
564 reliable
4.42crack Section A performance.
resistance
Furthermore, I-shaped
the interfaces of the
joint left T-shaped joint
interface 845 can be564 adjusted 3.57
to be far from theBpeak point of
Section
the negative bending
I-shaped moment
joint rightzone, and the tensile
interface 788 crack526 of the interface
3.21 can Section
be completely
B avoided
in theory. Mid-span of the specimen 2190 1462 12.88 Section C
UHPC matrix (part A) 2190 1462 12.77 Section A
Table 3. Durability-based nominal stress of critical sections.
As shown in Table 3, when the crack widthPcr /kN
reaches 0.05 mm,σthe
Mcr /kN·m
nominal stress of the T-shaped
Section Item cr /MPa Section No.
joint interface is in the range of 4.42–5.48 MPa, and the mean value is 4.96 MPa; whereas for the I-
T-shaped joint left interface 941 638 5.48 Section A
shaped joint, the corresponding value varies from 3.21 to 3.57 MPa, and the mean value is 3.39 MPa.
T-shaped joint right interface 845 564 4.42 Section A
Thus, compared to the
I-shaped I-shaped
joint joint, the 845
left interface T-shaped 564joint exhibits3.57more reliable
Section Bcrack resistance
performance. I-shaped
Furthermore, the interface
joint right interfaces of the
788 T-shaped 526joint can be adjustedSection
3.21 to be far
B from the peak
Mid-span
point of the negative of the specimen
bending moment zone, 2190 1462 crack 12.88
and the tensile Section
of the interface C be completely
can
avoided in theory. UHPC matrix (part A) 2190 1462 12.77 Section A

3.2.3. Shrinkage in UHPC

The shrinkage strain strain of ofthe
theUHPC
UHPCpanel panelwas wasobtained
obtainedbybyembedded
embedded gauges.
gauges. TheThe testtest lasted
lasted for
for 2112 h (88 days, from March to June), the temperature was in the range of 10.5–26.5 ◦ C. Part A
2112 h (88 days, from March to June), the temperature was in the range of 10.5–26.5 °C. Part A adopted
adopted natural and
natural curing, curing,theand
testthe test condition
condition was the wassame
the same
as theas actual
the actual construction
construction site.site. While
While Part
Part C
C adopted steamcuring,
curing,thethecuring
curinglasted
lastedfor
for4848hhwith
withaatemperature
temperature of of 98 ◦ C. After
98 °C.
adopted steam After 48 h, the specimen
was
was exposed
exposedtoto thetheenvironment
environment when the temperature
when the temperature decrease to normal.
decrease The strains
to normal. Thewere recorded
strains were
every
recorded2 h during
every 2the steam the
h during curing
steamperiod andperiod
curing changedandtochanged
every 24toh every
in the 24
first month,
h in then
the first every then
month, 48 h
in the second
every month.
48 h in the second Themonth.
test results are shown
The test results inareFigure
shown7.in Figure 7.
As
As can
canbebeseen
seeninin thethe
figure, for for
figure, the natural curing
the natural part (Figure
curing 7a), the7a),
part (Figure shrinkage increased
the shrinkage rapidly
increased
in the first
rapidly 250first
in the h, then
250 fluctuated until theuntil
h, then fluctuated end the
of the
endtest. The
of the strain
test. Thewas in the
strain wasrange
in theof 87–173
range of 87–
µε,
and the average
173 με, and the value
average was 121 µε.
value wasWhile
121 με.forWhile
the steam
for thecuring
steam part (Figure
curing part 7b), the strain
(Figure 7b), increased
the strain
increased
rapidly rapidly
during theduring
curingthe curing(48
period period (48 h),
h), then then showed
showed a slighta decrease;
slight decrease; the maximum
the maximum valuevalue
was
wasµε.
164 164Also,
με. Also,
2000 h2000(83.3hdays)
(83.3later,
days)the later, the shrinkage
shrinkage strain was strain
in the was in the
range rangeµε.
of 30–76 of The
30–76 με. The
maximum
maximumstrain
shrinkage shrinkage
of thestrain of theUHPC
reinforced reinforced
deck UHPC
was 173deck was 173
µε under με under
natural curing,natural
and was curing,
164 µε and was
under
164 μεcuring.
steam under steam
Comparedcuring. to Compared
past research to past research
[1,20–25], it is[1,20–25],
seen that ittheis seen that the reinforcement
reinforcement has a significanthas
a significant
effect on UHPC effect on UHPC
material material shrinkage.
shrinkage.

150
150

125
125

100
Strain (με)

Strain (με)

100

75
75

50 50

25 25
steam curing
0 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Time (hour) Time (hour)

(a) (b)
Figure 7. Shrinkage
Figure 7. Shrinkage test
test results: (a) shrinkage
results: (a) shrinkage strain
strain of
of natural
natural curing
curing part
part A;
A; (b)
(b) shrinkage
shrinkage strain
strain of
of
steam
steam curing
curing part
part C.
C.
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, x1335
FOR PEER REVIEW 99of
of 17
17

3.3. Discussion
3.3. Discussion
Compared to the conventional I-shaped joint, the proposed T-shaped joint exhibited a slight
Compared
improvement in to the of
terms conventional
crack resistance I-shaped joint, the(i.e.,
performance proposed
the mean T-shaped
value ofjoint exhibited
the two schemes a slight
were
improvement
4.96 MPa and 3.39in terms
MPa,ofrespectively).
crack resistance performance
Moreover, the weak (i.e., interface
the meanofvalue of the twojoint
the T-shaped schemes were
was set to
4.96far
be MPafromandthe3.39peakMPa, respectively).
region Moreover,
of the negative the weak
bending moment,interface
whichof the T-shaped joint
dramatically was the
reduced set
to be far risk.
cracking from the peak region of the negative bending moment, which dramatically reduced the
cracking
Noterisk.
that in general, the crack is developed at the joint interface, and there was no visible crack
Note at
generated that
theinUHPC
general, the crack
matrix and the is developed
joint centerat(corresponding
the joint interface, to theand there
pier top was no visible
position). This
crack generated
phenomenon at the UHPC
demonstrates thatmatrix
the joint and the joint
interface is center
the key(corresponding
issue of the design.to the pier top position).
This The
phenomenon
shrinkagedemonstrates
test indicatedthat thatthe thejoint interfaceshrinkage
maximum is the keystrain
issue of thethe design.
steam curing part and
The shrinkage
the natural curing part test was
indicated
173 μεthat
andthe 164maximum shrinkage
με, respectively. strain of the
In reference steam
to the UHPC curing
axialpart and
tensile
the natural
test curing
in [31], the part was
cracking strains173ofµε andUHPC
plain 164 µε,withrespectively.
different fiber In reference to the UHPC
content (2–3.5%) were axial
in thetensile
range
test192–198
of in [31], με.
the Therefore,
cracking strains of plain
for plain UHPC UHPC with reinforcement,
without different fiber content (2–3.5%) werecracking
shrinkage-induced in the range
was
of 192–198
easily µε. Therefore,
developed for plain UHPC
at the successively poured without
UHPC reinforcement,
interface. In theshrinkage-induced
present test, beforecracking
loading,wasno
easily developed
visible crack was found at theinsuccessively
the UHPC panel poured dueUHPC
to the interface.
introduction In of
the present
steel test, before
bars. Note that in loading,
the first
no visible crack
generation was found
T-shaped in the UHPC
joint design, there was panelnodue to the introduction
reinforcement betweenofthe steel
UHPCbars.transverse
Note that in the
beam
first the
and generation
post-cast T-shaped
T-shaped joint design,
joint (Figurethere was
8a), no reinforcement
which may lead to between shrinkage the UHPC
cracks intransverse
the lower beam
part.
and the post-cast
Besides, the roughT-shaped joint (Figure
surface quality of the UHPC8a), which may lead
transverse beam to is
shrinkage cracks and
uncontrollable, in the lower
it has part.
a great
Besides, the
influence onrough
the jointsurface quality
strength. of the UHPCwe
Consequently, transverse
replacedbeam is uncontrollable,
the UHPC transverse beam and itwith
has aa great
steel
influence onand
diaphragm, the two
jointsteel
strength. Consequently,
stiffeners were added wetoreplaced
each girder the UHPC
(Figuretransverse beam withscheme
8b). The optimized a steel
diaphragm,
was named as and two
the steel stiffeners
second generation were added joint.
T-shaped to each girder (Figure 8b). The optimized scheme was
named Theas second
the second generation
generation T-shaped
T-shaped joint.
joint can further reduce the weight of the prefabricated
The second
composite generation
component. T-shaped
The steel joint can
diaphragm further
can also be reduce
employed the weight
as theof the prefabricated
formwork for castingcomposite
UHPC,
which speeds
component. upsteel
The the diaphragm
on-site construction
can also betime. The following
employed as the formwork sectionforvalidates the effectiveness
casting UHPC, which speeds of
the optimized
up the scheme through
on-site construction a scaled
time. model test,
The following and validates
section the designthe and calculation of
effectiveness method are also
the optimized
presented.
scheme through a scaled model test, and the design and calculation method are also presented.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. The
The design
design schematic
schematic of
of two
two T-shaped
T-shaped joints: (a)
(a) the
the first
first generation
generation T-shaped
T-shaped joint; (b) the
second generation T-shaped joint.

4. Experimental
4. Experimental Test
Test of
of the
the Second
Second Generation
Generation T-Shaped
T-Shaped Joint
Joint

4.1. Experimental Model

4.1. Experimental Model
As shown in Figure 9, the specimen was 6.4 m in length and 0.7 m in width, and was composed of
As shown in Figure 9, the specimen was 6.4 m in length and 0.7 m in width, and was composed
one T-shaped joint part and two steel-UHPC composite girder parts. In the longitudinal direction,
of one T-shaped joint part and two steel-UHPC composite girder parts. In the longitudinal direction,
the panel was reinforced by 16 mm diameter steel bars with a central spacing of 107.3 mm, and reduced
the panel was reinforced by 16 mm diameter steel bars with a central spacing of 107.3 mm, and
to 53.7 mm in the joint parts. In the transverse direction, the steel bar was 12 mm in diameter with a
reduced to 53.7 mm in the joint parts. In the transverse direction, the steel bar was 12 mm in diameter
spacing of 100 mm.
with a spacing of 100 mm.
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, 1335
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10 of 17
17
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

Figure 9. Diagram of the second generation T-shaped joint model test specimen.
Figure 9. Diagram
Diagram of the second generation T-shaped joint model test specimen.
The main fabrication processes was identical to the comparative model test: (1) I-shaped steel
The main fabrication
girder fabrication; processes
(2) installing was identical
the formwork usedtofor
the
the comparative
comparative
pouring model
model
concrete, test:
test: (1)the
deploying I-shaped steel
steel bars of
girder fabrication;
fabrication;
pre-cast (2)
parts; (3) (2) installing
installing
casting the formwork
the formwork
the pre-cast UHPCused used
and forfor pouring concrete,
pouring concrete,
roughening deploying
deploying
the surface; the steel
the steel
(4) curing bars
bars of
the pre-cast
of pre-cast
pre-cast
UHPC parts;
parts;
parts (3)(3)
with casting
casting
steam; (5)the
the pre-castUHPC
pre-cast
deploying UHPC
the and
and
steel roughening
roughening
bars the
the
of post-cast surface; (4)
surface;
T-shaped (4) curing
jointcuring the pre-cast
and treating with
UHPC parts with
natural curing. steam; (5) deploying the steel bars of post-cast T-shaped joint and treating with
natural
Thecuring.
mechanics of the UHPC material are listed in Table 4. The loading and measuring schematic
was the same as theof
The mechanics the UHPC material
comparative are(Figure
model test listed in10).
Table 4. The loading and measuring schematic
Table
was the same asas the
the comparative
comparative model
model test
test (Figure
(Figure 10).
10).
Table 4. Mechanical properties of UHPC (MPa).
4. Mechanical
Table 4.
Table Mechanical properties
properties of
of UHPC
UHPC (MPa).
(MPa).
Compressive Flexural Young’s
PartItem
Part Item Curing
Curing Condition
Condition Compressive Strength
Compressive Flexural Strength
Flexural Young’s Modulus
Young’s
Part Item Curing Condition Strength Strength Modulus
Prefabricated
Prefabricated part
part Steam curing
Steam curing Strength
162.38
162.38 Strength
28.74
28.74 Modulus
49,030
49,030
Post-cast
Prefabricatedpart
Joint part Natural curing
Steam curing 135.01
162.38 32.19
28.74 45,820
49,030
Post-cast Joint part Natural curing 135.01 32.19 45,820
Post-cast Joint part Natural curing 135.01 32.19 45,820

Figure 10. Loading

Figure 10. Loading and
and measuring
measuring device.
device.
Figure 10. Loading and measuring device.
4.2. Test Results
4.2. Test Results
4.2. Test Results
4.2.1. Load-Deflection Curve and Crack Development
4.2.1. Load-Deflection Curve and Crack Development
4.2.1.As
Load-Deflection
shown in Figure Curve andloading
11a, the Crack Development
process can be divided into the same three stages: (1) elastic
As shown in Figure 11a, the loading process can be divided into the same three stages: (1) elastic
stage, (2) crack propagation stage, and (3) yield stage. The elastic stage is defined as an applied load
stage,As(2)
shown
crack in Figure 11a,stage,
propagation the loading
and (3)process can beThe
yield stage. divided into
elastic theissame
stage threeasstages:
defined (1) elastic
an applied load
less than 400 kN; a crack could be found in the joint interface. The crack propagation stage refers to an
stage, (2) crack
less than propagation
400 kN; stage,
a crack could be and
found(3)in
yield
the stage. The elastic
joint interface. Thestage
crackis propagation
defined as anstage
applied load
refers to
applied load less than 950 kN; the small and dense cracks propagated in the specimen, and the main
less than 400load
an applied kN;less
a crack
thancould be found
950 kN; in the
the small andjoint interface.
dense cracks The crack propagation
propagated stage refers
in the specimen, to
and the
crack (the crack which was larger and developed faster than the rest) gradually appeared at the joint
an applied
main crack load less than
(the crack 950was
which kN;larger
the small and densefaster
and developed cracksthan
propagated in the specimen,
the rest) gradually appearedandat the
the
main crack (the crack which was larger and developed faster than the rest) gradually appeared at the
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 11 of 17
joint interface. Furthermore, the stiffness of the specimen decreased slightly. The specimen develops
joint interface. Furthermore, the stiffness of the specimen decreased slightly. The specimen develops
to the yield stage when the applied load exceeds 950 kN; the deflection increased rapidly and the
to the yield
interface. stage whenthe
Furthermore, the appliedofload exceeds
specimen950 kN; the slightly.
deflectionTheincreased rapidly and the
stiffness of the specimen stiffness
decreased the decreased
significantly—simultaneously, the specimen
width develops
of the main to the
crack
stiffness
yield of
stage the
when specimen
the decreased
applied load significantly—simultaneously,
exceeds 950 kN; the deflection the
increased width
rapidly of
andthethemain crack
stiffness of
increased drastically. At 1033.9 kN, the I-shaped steel girder bucked close to the loading point and
increased
the drastically. At 1033.9 kN, the I-shaped steel girder bucked close to the loading point and
the specimen decreased significantly—simultaneously, the width of the main crack increased drastically.
test terminated.
the test terminated.
At 1033.9
The mainthe
kN, I-shaped
crack steel girder
development bucked
is shown in close to the11b.
the Figure loading
When point
the and the
crack test terminated.
(main crack, Interface
The
The main
main crack
crack development
development is
is shown
shown in
in the
the Figure
Figure 11b.
11b. When
When the
the crack
crack (main
(main crack,
crack, Interface
Interface
C-1 and C-2 in Figure 11b) width reached 0.05 mm, the applied load was in the range of 143.5–196.6
C-1
C-1 and C-2 in Figure 11b) width reached 0.05 mm, the applied load was in the range of 143.5–196.6
kN;and C-2for
while in Figure 11b) width reached
the prefabricated parts, the 0.05 mm,was
range the applied load kN.
336.5–424.5 was The
in the rangewere
cracks of 143.5–196.6
found belowkN;
kN;
whilewhile
for for prefabricated
the the prefabricated parts,
parts, the the range
range was was 336.5–424.5
336.5–424.5 kN. kN.
The The cracks
cracks werewere
foundfound below
below the
the loading point, and the crack in the mid-span was extremely small (≤0.05 mm) during the entire
the loading
loading point, and the crack in the mid-span was extremely small (≤0.05
point, and the crack in the mid-span was extremely small (≤0.05 mm) during the entire mm) during the entire
loading process.
loading
loading process.
process.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Test results: (a) load-deflection of mid-span; (b) load-crack width curve of joint interface.
Figure
Figure11.
11.Test
Testresults:
results: (a)
(a)load-deflection
load-deflectionof
ofmid-span;
mid-span;(b)
(b)load-crack
load-crack width
width curve
curve of
of joint
joint interface.
interface.

4.2.2. Nominal
4.2.2. Nominal Cracking
Cracking Stress
Stress
4.2.2. Nominal Cracking Stress
The nominal
The nominal strength
strength calculation
calculation method
method waswas identical
identical to
to the
the comparative
comparative scheme.
scheme. Considering
Considering
The nominal strength calculation method was identical to the comparative scheme. Considering
that the
that the crack
crack width
width inin the
the mid-span
mid-span waswas extremely small, the
extremelysmall,
small, yield
theyield value
yieldvalue (1033.9
value(1033.9 kN)
(1033.9kN) was
kN)was employed.
wasemployed.
employed.
that the crack width in the mid-span was extremely the
The calculation
The calculation results
calculation results are
results are listed
are listed
listed inin Table
in Table 5.
Table 5. The calculation
The calculation sections
calculation sections
sections areare depicted
are depicted in Figure 12.
The 5. The depicted in
in Figure
Figure 12.
12.
Table 5.
Table 5. Durability
Durability nominal
nominal stress
stress of
of critical
critical sections.
sections.
Table 5. Durability nominal stress of critical sections.
SectionItem
Section Item P/kN
PPcr cr/kN M
Mcr/kN·m
/kN·m σσcrcr/MPa
/MPa
Section Item cr/kN Mcr
cr/kN·m σcr/MPa
Section 2 (interface) 196.6 124.3 7.39
Section
Section 22 (interface)
(interface) 196.6
196.6 124.3
124.3 7.39
7.39
Section44(interface)
Section (interface) 143.5
143.5 90.8
90.8 5.40
5.40
Section 4 (interface) 143.5 90.8 5.40
Section11(matrix)
Section (matrix) 424.5
424.5 268.5
268.5 15.96
15.96
Section 1 (matrix) 424.5 268.5 15.96
Section
Section55(matrix)
(matrix) 336.5
336.5 212.8
212.8 12.66
12.66
Section
Section 3 5 (matrix)
(mid-span, pier top) 336.5
1033.9 212.8
653.9 12.66
19.02
Section 3 (mid-span, pier top) 1033.9 653.9 19.02
Section 3 (mid-span, pier top) 1033.9 653.9 19.02

Figure 12. Gauge and calculation sections

Figure 12. sections layout.
layout.
Figure 12. Gauge and calculation sections layout.
 Sci. 2020,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x1335
FOR PEER REVIEW 12of
12 of 17

As shown in Table 5, when the crack width reaches 0.05 mm, the nominal stress of the T-shaped
joint As shownisininTable
interface 5, when
the range the crackMPa,
of 5.40–7.39 widthand reaches 0.05 mm,
the mean valuethe nominal
is 6.4 MPa. stress
Compared of thetoT-shaped
the first
joint interface is in the range of 5.40–7.39 MPa, and the mean
generation T-shaped joint, even though the reinforcement ratio is slightly lower (i.e., the value is 6.4 MPa. Compared to the first
second
generation
scheme T-shaped
is 3.09%, thejoint, even is
original though
3.37%), thethereinforcement
nominal strength ratio is slightly
is higher lower
(the (i.e., the second
original is 4.96schemeMPa).
is 3.09%, the original is 3.37%), the nominal strength is higher
Furthermore, the strength of the joint center is significantly improved (148%). Combined (the original is 4.96 MPa). Furthermore,
with the
the strength of
construction the joint center
advantages, is significantly
the second generation improvedT-shaped (148%). joint Combined
optimizes with the construction
the original scheme
advantages, the second generation T-shaped joint optimizes the original
significantly. However, as per the original design, the joint interface strength is still the key issue of scheme significantly. However,
as per
the the original design, the joint interface strength is still the key issue of the design.
design.
In previous
In previous research,
research, Pan Pan [32]
[32] proposed
proposed five five types
types of UHPC joints
of UHPC joints suitable
suitable for for the
the prefabricated
prefabricated
composite deck system. Axial tensile tests on UHPC panels
composite deck system. Axial tensile tests on UHPC panels and flexural tests on steel-UHPCand flexural tests on steel-UHPC composite
girders were conducted. The reinforcement ratio was in
composite girders were conducted. The reinforcement ratio was in the range of 3.84–10.54%, the range of 3.84–10.54%, and theand shape
the
of the joint included: conventional wet joint, irregular joint shape,
shape of the joint included: conventional wet joint, irregular joint shape, and steel plate-enhanced and steel plate-enhanced joint.
The durability-based
joint. The durability-based tensile strength
tensile varied
strength fromfrom
varied 7.9 to7.915.7 MPaMPa
to 15.7 for for
axial tensile
axial tensiletests, andand
tests, 8.98.9to
14.2 MPa for flexural tests. Chen [33] conducted two flexural tests
to 14.2 MPa for flexural tests. Chen [33] conducted two flexural tests on nine types of UHPC joints on nine types of UHPC joints suitable
for the lightweight
suitable for the lightweightsteel-UHPC composite
steel-UHPC deck system.
composite The reinforcement
deck system. The reinforcement ratio was ratio4.52–7.92%,
was 4.52–
and the joint type included: dense reinforcement enhanced joint,
7.92%, and the joint type included: dense reinforcement enhanced joint, steel plate enhanced steel plate enhanced joint, and weldedjoint,
reinforcement enhanced joint. The test results showed that the
and welded reinforcement enhanced joint. The test results showed that the durability-based tensile durability-based tensile strength was
11.0–26.5 MPa. Additionally, the joint allowable strength was significantly
strength was 11.0–26.5 MPa. Additionally, the joint allowable strength was significantly increased increased with the increasing
of thethe
with reinforcement
increasing ofratio. the reinforcement ratio.
According to
According to the test the test results
results in in the
the above
above literature,
literature, it it can
can be be seen
seen that
that the
the following
following methodsmethods
can increase the joint strength significantly: (1) increasing
can increase the joint strength significantly: (1) increasing the reinforcement ratio at the the reinforcement ratio at the interface;
interface; (2)
(2) changing
changing thethe conventional
conventional joint
joint to to
anan irregular
irregular shape;and
shape; and(3) (3)ororsetting
settingup upaareinforced
reinforcedsteel steel plate
plate atat
the joint bottom. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the UHPC
the joint bottom. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the UHPC layer in the above literature is layer in the above literature is extremely
thin (50 mm).
extremely thin (50On mm).
the one Onhand,
the one thehand,
steel the
fiber distribution
steel is more is
fiber distribution favorable in a thinner
more favorable UHPC
in a thinner
slab. On
UHPC the On
slab. other thehand,
otherthe orthotropic
hand, steel deck
the orthotropic steellocated at the bottom
deck located at the can playcan
bottom the play
role ofthestiffener
role of
stiffener with a thinner UHPC layer. Both of them can produce higher tensile strength. While forjoint
with a thinner UHPC layer. Both of them can produce higher tensile strength. While for the the
proposed
joint proposedin the present study, considering
in the present the complexity
study, considering of construction
the complexity and economic
of construction andperformance,
economic
increasing the increasing
performance, reinforcement the ratio seems to be
reinforcement oneseems
ratio of the tomostbe preferred
one of thesolutions to improve
most preferred the joint
solutions to
interface strength.
improve the joint interface strength.
4.3. Discussion
4.3. Discussion
4.3.1. Specimen Stiffness and Deflection
4.3.1. Specimen Stiffness and Deflection
(1) Section
(1) Section stiffness
stiffness analysis
analysis
Figure 13
Figure 13 displays
displaysthe
thetheoretical
theoreticalcurvatures
curvaturesofofsections
sections I, II, and
I, II, III III
and (sections
(sectionsshown
shown in Figure 12).
in Figure
The theoretical
12). curvatures
The theoretical used used
curvatures the calculation method
the calculation of idealofelasticity.
method It is seen
ideal elasticity. It that the stiffness
is seen that the
at the joint interface was greatly reduced, and for the cracked section (Section
stiffness at the joint interface was greatly reduced, and for the cracked section (Section III,III, ignored theignored
tensile
strength
the of strength
tensile UHPC), the theoretical
of UHPC), thevalue can better
theoretical valuefit can
withbetter
the testfit result.
with the While
test for the other
result. Whilesections,
for the
the theoretical value shows great agreement with the test value.
other sections, the theoretical value shows great agreement with the test value.

700
Moment (×106 kN.m)

600 Sec-3 test result

Sec-3 theoretical result
500
Sec-1 test result
400 Sec-5 test result
Sec-1&5 theoretical result
300
Sec-2 test result
200 Sec-2 theoretical result
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Curvature (/106)
Figure
Figure 13.
13. Moment-curvature
Moment-curvature curves
curves of
of critical
critical sections.
sections.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 13 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17

(2)
(2) Analysis
Analysis of
of specimen overall deflection
specimen overall deflection
In
InFigure
Figure14, 14,the deflections
the of seven
deflections measurement
of seven measurement points (the gauge
points 1–7 in 1–7
(the gauge Figure 12) were12)
in Figure plotted
were
with every 200 kN and compared to the theoretical value calculated by Section
plotted with every 200 kN and compared to the theoretical value calculated by Section III. III. The comparative result
The
showed excellent agreement before 815.2 kN. When the applied load reached
comparative result showed excellent agreement before 815.2 kN. When the applied load reached 1033.9 kN, the theoretical
value
1033.9(1033.9
kN, thekN—theoretical-1) calculated
theoretical value (1033.9 by using Section
kN—theoretical-1) III was by
calculated a greatly underestimated
using Section III was a
experimental result; alternatively, the curve of 1033.9 kN—theoretical-2 calculated
greatly underestimated experimental result; alternatively, the curve of 1033.9 kN—theoretical-2 by Section IV
(Figure 12, by
calculated theSection
sectionIVof(Figure
I-shaped steelsection
12, the girder)of was in good
I-shaped steelagreement
girder) waswith the final
in good deflection.
agreement with
This indicates that when the specimen broke, the steel bars in the UHPC panel
the final deflection. This indicates that when the specimen broke, the steel bars in the UHPC yielded, and the applied
panel
load was and
yielded, completely borne
the applied by was
load the I-shaped
completely steel girder.
borne by the I-shaped steel girder.

70 194.9kN-theoretical
401.3kN-theoretical
60
Deflection (mm)

619.2kN-theoretical
50 815.2kN-theoretical
1033.9kN-theoretical-1
40 1033.9kN-theoretical-2
30 194.9kN-experimental
401.3kN-experimental
20 619.2kN-experimental
10 815.2kN-experimental
1033.9kN-experimental
0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
Distance to mid-span (mm)

Figure 14.
Figure 14. Comparison of analytical value
value and
and test
test results
results of
of specimen
specimen deflection
deflection in
in different
differentload.
load.

Consequently,
Consequently,when whenthe thespecimen
specimenwaswassubjected
subjected to
tothe
thenegative
negativebending
bendingmoment,
moment, thethe cracked
cracked
section
section ignoring
ignoring the
the UHPC
UHPC tensile
tensile strength
strength could
could be
be used
used to
to predict
predict the
the theoretical
theoretical deflection
deflection in
in the
the
serviceability
serviceability limit
limit states.
states. In some sense, the section of I-shaped steel girder girder appeared
appeared to to be
be more
more
reasonable
reasonablefor
forpredicting
predictingthethefinal
finaldeflection
deflectionin
inthe
theultimate
ultimatelimit
limitstate.
state.

4.3.2.
4.3.2. Crack
Crack Width
Width Prediction
Prediction
Furthermore,
Furthermore, there there are
are very
very few
few crack
crack width
width formulas
formulas which
which are
are applicable
applicable toto steel-UHPC
steel-UHPC
composite structures. Li [34] investigated the applicability of calculating
composite structures. Li [34] investigated the applicability of calculating flexural crack widthflexural crack width of
of steel-
steel-UHPC composite
UHPC composite deckdeck structures
structures using
using thethe recommendedformulas
recommended formulasin inAFGC-SETRA
AFGC-SETRA (Association
(Association
Française
Française de Génie Civil- Service d’étude des transports, des routes et de leurs
de Génie Civil- Service d’étude des transports, des routes et de leurs aménagement)
aménagement) [35] [35]
and
and Haibin
Haibin [36];
[36]; itit is
is observed
observed that
that the
the results
results greatly
greatly differed
differed from
from the
the measured
measured values
values due
due to
to the
the
difference of the structural characteristics. Luo et al. [30] tested 40 steel-UHPC
difference of the structural characteristics. Luo et al. [30] tested 40 steel-UHPC composite plates and composite plates
and
eighteight steel-UHPC
steel-UHPC composite
composite beams.
beams. TheThe crackingcharacteristics
cracking characteristicsinin transverse
transverse and
and longitudinal
longitudinal
directions
directions were explored, and a modified formulation based on MOHURD [37] for predicting the
were explored, and a modified formulation based on MOHURD [37] for predicting the
maximum
maximum crack
crackwidth
widthin incomposite (steel++ UHPC)
composite(steel UHPC) lightweight
lightweight deck
deck system
system waswas proposed
proposed as:as:
σs
w
wmax =ααcrψ
= ψ σ slcrl (1)
max cr E s cr (1)
Es
αcr = τl τs βαc (2)
α cr =τ lτ s βα c (2)
deq
lcr = 1.06cs + 0.152 (3)
ρd
te eq
lcr = 1.06cs + 0.152 (3)
ftk ρte
ψ = 1.1 − 0.12 (4)
ρte σs
f
ψ = 1.1
For a detailed discussion of the equations, − 0.12
one can refertk to Luo et al. [30]. While it is worth noting
(4)
that Luo’s formula is applicable to the composite (steel +ρUHPC)
teσ s lightweight deck system, the LWCB
proposed
For ain this paper
detailed is slightly
discussion different:
of the equations, one can refer to Luo et al. [30]. While it is worth noting
that Luo’s formula is applicable to the composite (steel + UHPC) lightweight deck system, the LWCB
proposed in this paper is slightly different:
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335

The αcr is the coefficient regarding loading characteristics; τl is the coefficient related to 14 of 17
long-
term effects of loads or actions, as for the UHPC matrix, Luo et al. [30] omitted it due to the extremely
low shrinkage
The αcr is and creep of UHPC
the coefficient after steam
regarding loading curing, while for τtheisjoint
characteristics; interface inrelated
the coefficient the present study,
to long-term
l
the recommended value τ l = 1.5 was adopted by referring to MOHURD [37]; and σs is the
effects of loads or actions, as for the UHPC matrix, Luo et al. [30] omitted it due to the extremely
reinforcement
low shrinkagestress. Luo et
and creep of al.
UHPC[30] after
statedsteam
that the tensile
curing, strength
while of joint
for the UHPC should in
interface bethe
taken into
present
account when calculating the stress of reinforcing bar due to the bridging
study, the recommended value τl = 1.5 was adopted by referring to MOHURD [37]; and σs is the effect of steel fibers, while
for the interface
reinforcement position
stress. Luoof et successively
al. [30] statedpoured
that the UHPC
tensilejoints in present
strength of UHPC study,
shouldaccording
be taken to into
the
stiffness analysis of the structure above, it can be seen that the cracked section can
account when calculating the stress of reinforcing bar due to the bridging effect of steel fibers, while forbetter predict the
stiffness of the
the interface specimen
position in the serviceability
of successively poured UHPClimit states.
jointsTherefore,
in present it is more
study, reasonable
according to thetostiffness
use the
cracked
analysis section without above,
of the structure taking intoit canaccount
be seenthe thatUHPC tensilesection
the cracked strength
canwhen
bettercalculating
predict thethe crack
stiffness
width.
of the specimen in the serviceability limit states. Therefore, it is more reasonable to use the cracked
Besides,
section thetaking
without crack width of the centroid
into account the UHPC of longitudinal reinforcement
tensile strength (wmax) should
when calculating the crackbe width.
converted
to theBesides,
top surface (wsmaxwidth
the crack ): of the centroid of longitudinal reinforcement (w ) should be converted max
to the top surface (wsmax ): h−x
w =w
ws max = wmax
h−x (5)
smax maxh − x − c (5)
h−x−c
where h is the
the height
heightofofthe beam;xxisisthe
thebeam; thedistance
distancefrom
fromthethe
neutral axial
neutral of the
axial composite
of the beam
composite to the
beam to
top surface of UHPC deck; and c is the distance from the centroid of longitudinal reinforcement
the top surface of UHPC deck; and c is the distance from the centroid of longitudinal reinforcement to the
topthe
to surface of the of
top surface UHPC deck. The
the UHPC deck.test
The value and calculation
test value resultsresults
and calculation are shown in Figure
are shown 15. 15.
in Figure

800
700
600
Load (kN)

500
400
300
Interface C-1
200 Interface C-2
100 Prediction
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Crack width (mm)

Figure 15.
Figure Prediction value
15. Prediction value and
and test
test results
results of
of joint
joint interface
interface crack
crack width.
width.

It is
It is seen
seen that
that the
the prediction
prediction value value agrees
agrees well
well with
with the
the test
test results. While there
results. While there was
was aa small
small
deviation at
deviation at the
the beginning
beginning of of thethe prediction,
prediction, the
the reason
reason was
was that
that the
the formulas
formulas ignored
ignored thethe tensile
tensile
strength of the interface when calculating the reinforcement stress, and only
strength of the interface when calculating the reinforcement stress, and only took into account the took into account the
section of steel bars and girders.
section of steel bars and girders.
From Equations
From Equations (1)–(5),
(1)–(5), itit is
is observed
observed that
that the
thecrack
crackwidth
widthdepends
dependson onthe
thereinforcement
reinforcementstress.
stress.
From the test results in the literature above [21,23], increasing the reinforcement
From the test results in the literature above [21,23], increasing the reinforcement ratio, enhancing the ratio, enhancing
the steel
steel plateplate at the
at the bottom
bottom of of
thethe joint,
joint, oror applyingthe
applying theorthotropic
orthotropicsteel
steelbridge
bridgedeck
deck increased
increased the
the
reinforcement ratio in different forms, thereby reducing the reinforcement stress.
reinforcement ratio in different forms, thereby reducing the reinforcement stress. Thus, the cracking Thus, the cracking
strength of
strength of the
the joints
joints was
was higher
higher thanthan that
that in
in the
the present
present study.
study.
4.3.3. Ultimate Flexural Capacity
4.3.3. Ultimate Flexural Capacity
The analysis of the structural stiffness indicates that the steel rebars yield before the buckling of
The analysis of the structural stiffness indicates that the steel rebars yield before the buckling of
the I-shaped steel web. Thus, the calculation of the ultimate flexural capacity of the structure should
the I-shaped steel web. Thus, the calculation of the ultimate flexural capacity of the structure should
consider the assumption of the yield of the steel rebar. The cracked section (Section III in Figure 9) was
consider the assumption of the yield of the steel rebar. The cracked section (Section III in Figure 9)
employed to calculate the section characteristics. Figure 16 shows the calculation diagram.
was employed to calculate the section characteristics. Figure 16 shows the calculation diagram.
!
yys0 1 1  y ys0 2 y0 y0 2 2 y y0
2
M u ,ULS== fctf ctAAccyyc0c 0 +
Mu,ULS + f yy Arr yyrr00 ++f fyy y A
s 0 Ass1 ys1 + f y bf ys b2 s2
1 y s1 + 3 
s
y
0
yys 2s2t
t +
+ y sy2 cs2c + +
y f y f y 0y AsA s3 ys3
3 ys 3
(6)
(6)
yrr00 3  yr 0r0 yr 0 r0  yr 0 r0
where ffctctdenotes
where denotesthe
thetensile
tensilestrength
strengthofofUHPC;
UHPC;AcAisc the
is the effective
effective tensile
tensile area
area of UHPC
of UHPC deck;
deck; yc0the
yc0 is is
the distance from the centroid of UHPC panel to the neutral axis of cracking section; f
distance from the centroid of UHPC panel to the neutral axis of cracking section; fy yis the yield is the yield
strength of reinforcement; Ar is the area of tensile reinforcement; yr0 is the distance from the centroid of
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, 1335
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15
15 of 17
of 17

strength of reinforcement; Ar is the area of tensile reinforcement; yr0 is the distance from the centroid
reinforcement
of reinforcement to the neutral
to the neutral ys0 isys0the
axis;axis; is distance fromfrom
the distance the centroid of theofI-shaped
the centroid steel girder
the I-shaped to the
steel girder
neutral axis of the cracked section;
to the neutral axis of the cracked section; A s1 is the area of the upper flange of the I-shaped steel
As1 is the area of the upper flange of the I-shaped steel girder;girder; ys1 is
the
ys1 isdistance from the
the distance from centroid of theof
the centroid upper flangeflange
the upper of the of
I-shaped steel girder
the I-shaped to the neutral
steel girder axis ofaxis
to the neutral the
cracked
of the cracked bs2 is the
section;section; bs2thickness of the web;
is the thickness of theys2t is the
web; ys2tdistance betweenbetween
is the distance the centroid of the tension
the centroid of the
part
tensionof the web
part of and the neutral
the web and the axis of theaxis
neutral composite girder; ys2cgirder;
of the composite is the distance
ys2c is thebetween
distance thebetween
centroidthe
of
the compression
centroid part of the web
of the compression partandof the
the neutral
web and axis
theof neutral
the composite
axis of girder; y0 is the girder;
the composite height from
y0 is the
neutral
height fromaxis tothethe bottom
neutral axisofto
the steel
the girder;
bottom As3steel
of the is thegirder;
area ofAthe
s3 is lower
the area flange
of theoflower
the I-shaped
flange ofsteel
the
girder;
I-shaped and ys3 girder;
steel is the distance
and ys3 isfrom the centroid
the distance fromofthethecentroid
lower flange
of the of the I-shaped
lower flange of steel girder tosteel
the I-shaped the
neutral
girder to axis
theofneutral
the cracked
axis ofsection.
the cracked section.
According to Equation (6), the flexural capacity of the specimen is 650 kN·m, which agrees agrees well
well
with
with thethe test
test result
result (654
(654 kN·m).
kN·m).

f ct
εr f y
ε s1
yr yc
y s1
y s2t M

y s2c ys
y s3 y cr

ε s3

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 16. Calculation

Figure 16. Calculation diagram: (a) crack
diagram: (a) crack section;
section; (b)
(b) strain
strain distribution;
distribution; (c)
(c) stress
stress distribution.
distribution.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In this paper, two types of girder-to-girder joints suitable for lightweight steel-UHPC composite
In this paper, two types of girder-to-girder joints suitable for lightweight steel-UHPC composite
bridges were proposed and tested. The following conclusions can be drawn:
bridges were proposed and tested. The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) According to
(1) According to the
the comparative
comparative model
model test,
test, it
it is
is observed
observed that
that the
the T-shaped
T-shaped joint
joint was
was superior
superior toto the
the
traditional I-shaped joint in terms of crack resistance. The weak interfaces of the T-shaped joint
traditional I-shaped joint in terms of crack resistance. The weak interfaces of the T-shaped joint
were set
were set in
in the
the areas
areas with
with relatively
relatively lower
lower negative
negative bending
bending moment,
moment, which
which could
could significantly
significantly
decrease the cracking risk of the joint interface.
decrease the cracking risk of the joint interface.
(2) The maximum
(2) The maximum shrinkage
shrinkage strain
strainof
ofreinforced
reinforcedUHPC UHPCdeck deckwaswas 164 µεμε
164 forfor
curing
curingwith steam,
with 173173
steam, µε
for natural curing, and decreased to zero after steam curing. Hence, steam curing
με for natural curing, and decreased to zero after steam curing. Hence, steam curing can effectively can effectively
minimize the
minimize the shrinkage
shrinkage time
time of
of UHPC
UHPC and and reduce
reduce the
the cracking
cracking risk. Moreover, the
risk. Moreover, the reinforcement
reinforcement
had a very large inhibitory effect on UHPC material
had a very large inhibitory effect on UHPC material shrinkage. shrinkage.
(3) The second
(3) The second generation
generationT-shaped
T-shapedjoint
jointexhibited
exhibitedbetter
betterperformance
performancethan thanthe
theoriginal
originalscheme.
scheme.
(4) Based on
(4) Based on the analysis of the stiffness,
stiffness, except
except forfor the
the joint
joint interface
interface section,
section, the
the other
other sections
sections
remained elastic and showed good
remained elastic and showed good agreement agreement with the theoretical values; as for the
the overall
overall
deflection prediction, the cracked section could work better on serviceability limit states, and the
deflection
section of
section of I-shaped
I-shapedsteel
steelgirder
girderwas
wasmoremoresuitable
suitableforforfinal
finaldeflection.
deflection.
(5) We propose a revised equation for estimating the crack width of the joint interface of steel-UHPC
(5)
composite beam. ItIt is is concluded
concluded that
that the
the analytical
analytical value
value agrees
agrees well
well with
with the
the experimental
experimental result.
result.

6. Patents
6. Patents
The
The design
design schemes
schemes described
described in
in this
this article
article have
have obtained
obtained Chinese
Chinese invention
invention patents:
patents:
(1) Shao,
(1) Shao, Xudong;
Xudong; Deng,
Deng, Shuwen;
Shuwen; Yan, Banfu. The
Yan, Banfu. structure and
The structure and construction
construction method
method ofof negative
negative
moment
moment region
regionof oflightweight
lightweightsteel-UHPC
steel-UHPCcomposite
composite bridge. Patent
bridge. No.:
Patent ZL201610584441.X.
No.: ZL201610584441.X. (In
Chinese)
(In Chinese)
(2) Shao,
(2) Shao, Xudong;
Xudong; Qiu,
Qiu, Minghong;
Minghong; Yan, Banfu. Structure
Yan, Banfu. of negative
Structure of negative moment
moment region
region of
of assembled
assembled
lightweight
lightweight steel-UHPC
steel-UHPC composite
composite girders.
girders. Patent
Patent No.:
No.: ZL201820091604.5.
ZL201820091604.5. (In
(InChinese)
Chinese)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 16 of 17

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.S. and B.Y.; methodology, S.D.; Validation, B.Y. and Y.W.; Formal
analysis, S.D.; Writing—original draft preparation, S.D.; Writing—review and editing, S.D., B.Y. and H.L.;
Supervision, X.S.; Project administration, X.S.; Funding acquisition, X.S. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Key R&D Program (Grant No.: 2018YFC0705400), the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.: 51778223), and the Major Program of Science and Technology of
Hunan Province (Grant No.: 2017SK1010).
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the editor and the anonymous
reviewers who significantly enhanced the contents of the study with their insightful comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Graybeal, B.A. Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance Concrete (No. FHWA-HRT-06-103);
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development: McLean,
VA, USA, 2006.
2. Krelaus, R.; Wisner, G.; Freisinger-Schadow, S.; Schmidt, M.; Böhm, S.; Dilger, K. Resistance of Adhesive
Bonding of Ultra-High Performance Concrete to Hygrothermal, Corrosive, and Freeze-Thaw Cycling
Environments. In Durability of Building and Construction Sealants and Adhesives, 3rd Volume; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
3. Paul, S.C.; Babafemi, A.J. A review of the mechanical and durability properties of strain hardening
cement-based composite (SHCC). J. Sustain. Cem.-Based Mater. 2018, 7, 57–78. [CrossRef]
4. Meng, W.; Khayat, K.H. Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance concrete enhanced with graphite
nanoplatelets and carbon nanofibers. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 107, 113–122. [CrossRef]
5. Meng, W.; Khayat, K.H. Effect of hybrid fibers on fresh properties, mechanical properties, and autogenous
shrinkage of cost-effective UHPC. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2018, 30, 04018030. [CrossRef]
6. Cao, J.; Shao, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, H. Retrofit of an orthotropic steel deck with compact reinforced reactive
powder concrete. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 12, 411–429. [CrossRef]
7. Shao, X.; Yi, D.; Huang, Z.; Zhao, H.; Chen, B.; Liu, M. Basic performance of the composite deck system
composed of orthotropic steel deck and ultrathin RPC layer. J. Bridge Eng. 2011, 18, 417–428. [CrossRef]
8. Ebadollah, H.; Sritharan, S.; Rouse, J.M.; Aaleti, S. Bridge Decks with Precast Uhpc Waffle Panels: A Field
Evaluation and Design Optimization. J. Bridge Eng. 2016, 21, 04015030.
9. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Meng, W.; Bao, Y.; Bu, Y. Transverse fatigue behaviour of steel-UHPC composite deck
with large-size U-ribs. Eng. Struct. 2019, 180, 388–399. [CrossRef]
10. Ghasemi, S.; Zohrevand, P.; Mirmiran, A.; Xiao, Y.; Mackie, K. A Super Lightweight Uhpc–Hss Deck Panel
for Movable Bridges. Eng. Struct. 2016, 113, 186–193. [CrossRef]
11. Deng, S.W.; Shao, X.; Yan, B.F.; Guan, Y.P. Lightweight Steel-Uhpc Composite Bridge with Overall
Prefabrication and Fast Erection in City. China J. Highw. Transp. 2007, 30, 159–166.
12. Benjamin, G.A. Structural Behavior of a 2nd Generation Ultra-High Performance Concrete Pi-Girder; US Department
of Transportation Federal Highway Administration: McLean, VA, USA, 2009.
13. Sriram, A.; Petersen, B.; Sritharan, S. Design Guide for Precast Uhpc Waffle Deck Panel System, Including
Connections; FHWA-HRT-13-032; US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
14. Vic Perry, F.C.; Eng, P.; Dykstra, D.; Murray, P.; Eng, M.; Rajlic, B.; Halifax, N.S. Innovative Field Cast Uhpc
Joints for Precast Bridge Systems–3-Span Live Load Continuous. In Annual Conference of the Transportation
Association of Canada; Transportation Association of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2010.
15. Graybeal, B. Design and Construction of Field-Cast UHPC Connections; United States Federal Highway
Administration: McLean, VA, USA, 2014.
16. Guan, Y.P. Design and Preliminary Experiments of Uhpc Π-Shaped Girder Bridge. Master’s Thesis,
Hunan University, Hunan, China, 2016.
17. Qi, J.; Bao, Y.; Wang, J.; Li, L.; Li, W. Flexural behavior of an innovative dovetail UHPC joint in composite
bridges under negative bending moment. Eng. Struct. 2019, 200, 109716. [CrossRef]
18. Tazarv, M.; Saiidi, M.S. UHPC-filled duct connections for accelerated bridge construction of RC columns in
high seismic zones. Eng. Struct. 2015, 99, 413–422. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1335 17 of 17

19. Shao, X.; Hu, J. The Steel-Uhpc Lightweight Composite Bridge Structures; China Communications Press Co. Ltd.:
Beijing, China, 2015.
20. Soren, E.; Müller, C. Autogenous Shrinkage Strain of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC); Paper Presented
at the Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on UHPC; Kassel University press Gmbh: Kassel,
Germany, 2008.
21. Ichinomiya, T.; Hishiki, Y.; Ohno, T.; Morita, Y.; Takada, K. Experimental study on mechanical properties of
ultra-high-strength concrete with low-autogenous-shrinkage. Spec. Publ. 2005, 228, 1341–1352.
22. Lallemant-Gamboa, I.; Chanut, S.; Lombard, J.P.; Chaignon, J.; Thibaux, T. Formulations, Characterizations
and Applications of Ultra High-Performance Concrete. Spec. Publ. 2005, 228, 1221–1236.
23. Fehling, E.; Leutbecher, T.; Bunje, K. Design relevant properties of hardened Ultra High performance concrete.
In Int. Symp. on Ultra High Performance Concrete; Kassel University press Gmbh: Kassel, Germany, 2004;
Volume 1, pp. 327–338.
24. Schmidt, M.; Fehling, E.; Glotzbach, C.; Fröhlich, S.; Piotrowski, S. Ultra-High Performance Concrete
and Nanotechnology in Construction. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Uhpc and
Nanotechnology for High Performance Construction Materials, Kassel, Germany, 7–9 March 2012.
25. Shao, X.; Pan, R.; Zhan, H.; Fan, W.; Yang, Z.; Lei, W. Experimental Verification of the Feasibility of a
Novel Prestressed Reactive Powder Concrete Box-Girder Bridge Structure. J. Bridge Eng. 2017, 22, 04017015.
[CrossRef]
26. MOHURD. Reactive Powder Concrete; GB/T 31387-2015, Standardization Administration; Ministry of Housing
and Urban-Rural Development of the China: Beijing, China, 2015.
27. Alireza, R. Computer Modeling and Investigation on the Steel Corrosion in Cracked Ultra High Performance Concrete;
Kassel University Press GmbH: Kassel, Germany, 2012; Volume 21.
28. Tohru, M.; Brühwiler, E. Tensile Fatigue Behaviour of Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete
(Uhpfrc). Mater. Struct. 2014, 47, 475–491.
29. Luo, J.; Shao, X.; Cao, J.; Xiong, M.; Fan, W. Transverse Bending Behavior of the Steel-Uhpc Lightweight
Composite Deck: Orthogonal Test and Analysis. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 162, 105708. [CrossRef]
30. Luo, J.; Shao, X.; Fan, W.; Cao, J.; Deng, S. Flexural cracking behavior and crack width predictions of
composite (steel+ UHPC) lightweight deck system. Eng. Struct. 2019, 194, 120–137. [CrossRef]
31. Zhang, Z.; Shao, X.D.; Li, W.G.; Zhu, P.; Chen, H. Axial tensile behaviour test of Ultra High performance
concrete. China J. Highw. Transp. 2015, 28, 50–58.
32. Pan, W.H.; Fan, J.S.; Nie, J.G.; Hu, J.H.; Cui, J.F. Experimental study on tensile behavior of wet joints in a
prefabricated composite deck system composed of orthotropic steel deck and ultrathin reactive-powder
concrete layer. J. Bridge Eng. 2016, 21, 04016064. [CrossRef]
33. Chen, B. Research and Experiment on Bending Behavior of Wet Joints in Lightweight Composite Deck System
Composed of Orthotropic Steel and Uhpc Layer. Ph.D. Thesis, Hunan University, Hunan, China, 2018.
34. Li, W. Experimental Research on Static and Fatigue Flexural Performance of Uhpc Layer in Light-Weighted
Composite Bridge Deck. Master’s Thesis, Hunan University, Hunan, China, 2015.
35. AFGC-SETRA. Ultra High Performance Fibrereinforced Concretes. In Recommendations; AFGC&SETRA
Working Group: Paris, France, 2013; pp. 1–175.
36. Haibin, X.U.; Deng, Z. Cracking Moment and Crack Width of Ultra-High Performance Concrete Beams.
J. Harbin Inst. Technol. 2014, 46, 87–92.
37. MOHURD. Code for Design of Concrete Structures Gb50010-2010; Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
Development of the China: Beijing, China, 2010.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).