Skip to main content

Table 1 Bridge decks included in the study.

From: Field-Observed Cracking of Paired Lightweight and Normalweight Concrete Bridge Decks

Region

Pair/ID

Type of deck

Year built

ADT

Superstructure

Coastal

1N

NWC

1998

4,300

Reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete girders

1L

LWC

2000

9,400

Reinforced concrete deck, prestressed concrete panels on prestressed concrete girders

2N

NWC

1995

1,300

Reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete girders

2L

LWC

1995

1,300

Reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete girders

3N

NWC

1994

6,200

Reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete girders

3L

LWC

1994

6,200

Reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete girders

5N

NWC

1990

16,000

Reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete girders

5L

LWC

1990

16,000

Reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete girders

Piedmont

6N

NWC

1998

68,000

Reinforced concrete deck on steel plate girders (main spans)

6L

LWC

1999

64,000

Reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams

7N

NWC

1989

8,500

Reinforced concrete deck (stay-in-place metal forms at approach spans) on plate girders and continuous plate girders (main spans)

7L

LWC

1992

8,000

Reinforced concrete deck on continuous steel I-beams (approach spans)

Mountains

8N

NWC

2000

14,000

Reinforced concrete deck (stay-in-place metal forms) on prestressed concrete girders

8L

LWC

1999

14,000

Reinforced concrete deck (stay-in-place metal forms) on steel I-beams (widened)

9N

NWC

2000

14,000

Reinforced concrete deck (stay-in-place metal forms) on prestressed concrete girders

9L

LWC

1996

16,000

Reinforced concrete deck (stay-in-place metal forms) on steel I-beams (widened)

  1. Unfortunately after performing field work on bridge decks 4N and 4L, it was determined that 4L was incorrectly identified in NCDOT records as a lightweight concrete bridge deck. In following with the intent of this study (to compare lightweight concrete bridge decks and normalweight concrete bridge decks of similar age, exposure, and traffic loading), results from bridge decks 4N and 4L were not included in analysis.