Case Study:

Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An

Overview of State Practices
FHWA-HIF-20-062

Source: MDTA
Eliminating a bridge joint prior to installation of link slab, Winch Rd over I-95, MD

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Office of Bridges and Structures
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
November 2020
 Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest
of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained
in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names
appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Non-Binding Contents
Except for the statutes and regulations cited, the contents of this document do not have the force and effect of
law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide information
and clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Agency policies. This document is
not legally binding in its own right and will not be relied upon by the Department as a separate basis for
affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high quality information to serve Government,
industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to
ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically
reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-HIF-20-062 No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – November 2020
An Overview of State Practices
6. Performing Organization Code:
None
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Eric Thorkildsen, Greenman Pedersen, Inc.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Greenman Pedersen Inc., 325, West Main Street, Babylon, None
NY 11702 11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-13-A-00005
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period
Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave Case Study, 2020
SE, Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
FHWA
15. Supplementary Notes
Laura Lawndy (COR), Raj Ailaney (Technical Lead)
16. Abstract
This case study presents an overview of the usage of link slabs to eliminate bridge joints. Representative
state agency practices are reviewed. State procedures selected for review have either large numbers of
installed link slabs, available design details, or innovative installation techniques. General background for
link slab usage is presented followed by design approach, including design for prevention of concrete
cracking. A tabular comparison of design and construction details is presented. Example details and an
example rotation calculation for a link slab are provided. Results confirm that link slabs are an alternative
to replacement or repair of bridge joints, but they need to be properly designed to accommodate
redistribution of bridge loads and movements. This case study is not a design guidance document but rather
a summation and comparison of how State DOTs are approaching the use of link slabs to eliminate bridge
joints.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Link slabs, bridge joints, bridge preservation No restrictions. This document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161.
http://www.ntis.gov
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 23 Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.

 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Design Approach: General..................................................................................................................... 2
Design Approach: Impact on Existing Bearings.................................................................................... 4
Virginia Department of Transportation Approach ............................................................................ 4
Massachusetts Department of Transportation Approach .................................................................. 4
New York State Department of Transportation Approach ............................................................... 4
Maryland Transportation Authority Approach ................................................................................. 5
Design Approach: Effect on Concrete Cracking ................................................................................... 5
VDOT Approach ............................................................................................................................... 5
MassDOT Approach ......................................................................................................................... 5
NYSDOT Approach .......................................................................................................................... 6
MDTA Approach .............................................................................................................................. 6
State Departments of Transportation Experience .................................................................................. 6
VDOT Experience............................................................................................................................. 6
MassDOT Experience ....................................................................................................................... 8
NYSDOT Experience ....................................................................................................................... 9
MDTA Experience .......................................................................................................................... 10
Link Slab Design and Construction: A Comparison of State DOTs ................................................... 11
Example Calculations using NYSDOT Approach............................................................................... 11
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 14

i
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Photo. Ends of a Steel Girder Deteriorated Due to a Failed Joint. ....................................................... 1
Figure 2. Photo. Substructure Deterioration due to a Failed Joint. ...................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Schematic. Full-Depth Link Slab Elevation (N.T.S). ........................................................................... 2
Figure 4. Schematic. Partial-Depth Link Slab Elevation (N.T.S.). ...................................................................... 3
Figure 5. Schematic. Deck Joint (N.T.S.). ........................................................................................................... 3
Figure 6. Schematic. Partial-Depth Link Slab (N.T.S.). ...................................................................................... 3
Figure 7. Photo. Link Slab, Rte. 51 over Erie Canal, CSX, Rte. 5 Ilion, NY. ..................................................... 4
Figure 8. Photo. I-64 Dunlap Creek Link Slab, Alleghany County, VA. ............................................................ 5
Figure 9. Schematic. Example Details for the Full-Depth Link Slab................................................................... 7
Figure 10. Photo. VDOT Deck Slab Extension Installation at Abutment............................................................ 7
Figure 11. Photo. Construction of Transverse Link Slab and Longitudinal Closure Pour Between Precast Deck
Segments. ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 12. Photo. Concrete Deck and Joint Removed Prior to Link Slab Installation. ........................................ 9
Figure 13. Photo. Forming of Link Slab. ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 14. Schematic. Proposed ECC Link Slab. .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 15. Photo. Rebar Installation. ................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 16. Schematic. NYSDOT Partial-Depth Link Slab. ............................................................................... 12

ii
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

List of Tables
Table 1. Link Slab Design Procedures and Construction Details for Several Agencies .................................... 11

iii
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Introduction
The following case study investigates the use of link slabs to eliminate bridge joints. Four State departments
of transportation (State DOTs) that have either large numbers of link slabs installed, have design details and
sample calculations, and recent research or innovative installation techniques are featured. General
background in the use of link slabs is presented followed by design approach including how to design for
concrete cracking. Overall experience is summarized including a tabular comparison of design and
construction between the State DOTs. Example details and an example calculation of a link slab are provided.
This case study is not a design guidance document but rather a review of how some State DOTs are
approaching the use of link slabs to eliminate bridge joints.

Background
Bridge owners have historically struggled to maintain watertight bridge joints. Leakage of joints leads to
premature deterioration and failure of the beam ends, bearings, and underlying substructure elements, as
shown by the examples in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The removal of all joints on a bridge conflicts with a basic
premise in bridge design because joints allow bridge expansion and contraction due to temperature changes,
rotation of beam ends, and other loading. When bridges cannot expand and contract, for example if the joint
gets filled with debris or the bearings rust and freeze up, the load redistributes to other bridge elements that
were not designed for such loads. A global analysis of the entire structure that accounts for substructure
flexibility and bearing types is needed to account for these load redistributions.

To address leaking joints on existing bridges, the installation of link slabs—i.e., slabs constructed between
two non-continuous superstructure units, allowing the bridge joint to be eliminated—has been explored by
some State DOTs. This case study presents examples involving the replacement of joints between simply
supported spans, i.e., where there is a complete separation of superstructure units over the pier. Although joint
elimination strategies at bridge abutments, such as deck extensions, have also been employed, this case study
primarily investigates the use of link slabs to eliminate bridge joints over piers. Also, while link slabs have
been used in new bridge designs to accelerate bridge construction, this study primarily addresses the retrofit of
existing bridge joints.

Source: GPI
Figure 1. Photo. Ends of a Steel Girder Deteriorated Due to a Failed Joint.

1
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Source: GPI
Figure 2. Photo. Substructure Deterioration due to a Failed Joint.

Design Approach: General

A link slab is designed to support traffic wheel loads and the bending moment due to girder rotations. The
slab is not intended to transmit live load effects from one span to another (i.e., girder continuity). This
discontinuity is achieved by debonding the link slab from the ends of the girders.

There are two types of link slabs: a full-depth link slab as shown in Figure 3 and a partial-depth link slab
shown in Figure 4.

Source: GPI
Figure 3. Schematic. Full-Depth Link Slab Elevation (N.T.S).

2
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Source: GPI
Figure 4. Schematic. Partial-Depth Link Slab Elevation (N.T.S.).

Figures 5 and 6 provide a typical example that illustrates the difference in bridge mechanics before and after
installation of a link slab. The initial condition shown in Figure 5 has a joint at the ends of two simply
supported spans at a bridge pier with one bearing “fixed” allowing rotation and no translation and the other
bearing “expansion” allowing both translation and rotation. After installation of the link slab (Figure 6), the
bearings no longer rotate; instead, they only translate, and the rotation is accommodated by the link slab,
which is designed to resist the bending forces.(1) The bond breaker is used to prevent any continuity between
spans and provide a longer slab length to reduce the applied flexure force. Reinforcement in the link slab is
typically spliced to existing deck reinforcement. Bridge mechanics will differ if both the bearings are “fixed”
or “expansion”, which is why a full analysis of forces should be conducted.

Source: GPI Source: GPI

Figure 5. Schematic. Deck Joint (N.T.S.). Figure 6. Schematic. Partial-Depth Link Slab
(N.T.S.).

3
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Design Approach: Impact on Existing Bearings

The span arrangement of the bridge typically accommodates overall bridge expansion and contraction. A
global analysis of the bridge to determine structural flexibility and horizontal loads can reveal bearings that
need to be modified or replaced.
Virginia Department of Transportation Approach
The Virginia department of transportation (VDOT) requires that existing bearings be evaluated according to
the new forces due to installation of the link slab. This may result in converting fixed bearings to expansion,
increasing the capacity of expansion bearings, and replacing fixed bearings.(3)
Massachusetts Department of Transportation Approach
The Massachusetts department of transportation (MassDOT) where feasible replaces existing steel bearings
with elastomeric bearings that allow for rotation and translation in all directions. In some situations, the
bearings are retained if they are either a fixed-fixed or expansion-expansion configuration. While most State
DOTs prefer to replace bearings at a fixed-fixed configuration when installing link slabs, MassDOT does
allow fixed bearings to remain if the span lengths are less than 100 ft.(5) This saves the cost of bearing
replacement, which typically involves superstructure jacking, bearing removal, new bearing installation and
costs associated with impact on traffic.
New York State Department of Transportation Approach
The New York State department of transportation (NYSDOT) does not use link slabs with a fixed-fixed
bearing configuration. Further, its guidance states that steel rocker and sliding bearings are not suitable for
link slabs due to the repetitive horizontal movements induced by girder live load deflections.(2) An example of
a NYSDOT link slab is shown in Figure 7.

Source: NYSDOT
Figure 7. Photo. Link Slab, Rte. 51 over Erie Canal, CSX, Rte. 5 Ilion, NY.

4
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Maryland Transportation Authority Approach

In a recent project, the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) used link slabs under fixed-fixed and
expansion-expansion conditions. The existing fixed bearings were modified by adding slotted holes in the sole
plate to relieve thermal stresses.(9)

Design Approach: Effect on Concrete Cracking

The approach to designing link slabs accounts for the redistribution of forces due to the elimination of a joint
that had previously allowed for both translation and rotation. In an effort to minimize concrete cracking due to
slab rotation some State DOTs are using concrete that can accommodate higher tensile stresses such as ultra-
high performance concrete (UHPC) or other concrete materials that are fiber reinforced. Summarized below
are brief examples of guidance provided by State DOTs to help design engineers minimize concrete cracking
in link slabs. Table 1 in this document lists the specific type of concrete used.
VDOT Approach
According to its “Guidelines for Bridge Deck Joint Elimination,” VDOT’s current practice does not require
link slabs to satisfy its concrete cracking width requirements at the serviceability limit states.(3) However, a
research study began in the summer of 2020 for refining the design of partial-depth link slabs and for
developing customized non-proprietary, fiber-reinforced concrete mixes to meet the strain requirements and
strength-development expectations. An example of a VDOT link slab is shown in Figure 8.

Source: VDOT
Figure 8. Photo. I-64 Dunlap Creek Link Slab, Alleghany County, VA.

MassDOT Approach
To control cracking of the link slab concrete, MassDOT uses the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design Specifications, 8th Edition, Equation 5.6.7,
which is based on a physical cracking model. A conservative Class 2 gamma factor of 0.75 is used, which
represents an allowable crack width of 0.13 inch.(5)

5
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

NYSDOT Approach
To control cracking of the link slab concrete, NYSDOT uses the strain compatibility design method.
NYSDOT designs for a maximum concrete strain of 0.0035 in tension, and a maximum stress of 14 kips per
square inch (ksi) in compression. The ability of UHPC to develop ultimate tensile strains up to 0.007 by
development of micro cracks allows the link slab to accommodate girder end rotations. A maximum design
strain of 0.0035 at the extreme tensile fiber is chosen to control the crack width. The crack spacing associated
with a strain of 0.0035 is approximately 3/16 inch, resulting in extremely fine cracks that are invisible to the
naked eye. Limiting the tensile strain typically increases the service life of the link slab by preventing the
penetration of moisture and chlorides.(2)
MDTA Approach
MDTA uses the NYSDOT approach to concrete cracking design. In addition to UHPC, MDTA also considers
Engineered Cementitious Concrete (ECC) and limits the ultimate tensile strain of that material to 0.002.(9)

State Departments of Transportation Experience

State DOTs have implemented link slabs as part of rehabilitation projects or in new construction. The link
slab experience of these agencies is summarized below.
VDOT Experience
VDOT has installed link slabs throughout the State, and Chapter 32 of VDOT’s Manual of the Structure and
Bridge Division contains instructions to designers on joint elimination and the use of link slabs. The use of
link slabs to eliminate joints is ranked third and fourth in a hierarchy of options as follows: (1) structural
continuity of deck and superstructure, (2) continuous deck for live load, (3) full-depth link slab, and (4)
partial-depth link slab. VDOT does have a current research project underway with hopes of link slabs
becoming the best option for joint elimination. According to Jeff Milton, VDOT State Bridge Preservation
Engineer, “Leaking bridge deck expansion joints are the greatest contributor to bridge superstructure and
substructure deterioration in Virginia. Link slabs and deck extensions have proven to be a cost-effective
preservation technique available for addressing leaking joints.” VDOT has developed agency-defined
elements to track structural condition over time by bridge inspectors. Sample VDOT details for a full depth
link slab are shown in Figure 9.

6
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Source: VDOT
Figure 9. Schematic. Example Details for the Full-Depth Link Slab.

Deck Extensions - Link slabs do not fit the character of an abutment as there are not two portions of
superstructure being joined. However, details that are similar to a link slab have been used to eliminate joints
at abutments. VDOT refers to these as “Deck Extensions.” VDOT’s current hierarchy of options for
eliminating bridge deck expansion joints at abutments is (1) use a semi-integral abutment, (2) use a deck
extension, and (3) use the Virginia Abutment (an abutment with an integral trough). These deck extensions
are typically 4 feet long and require no analysis unless the skew is greater than 30 degrees. The slab extension
simply moves the joint to the back face of the backwall instead of the front face.(3) An example of a VDOT
deck slab extension installment at an abutment is shown in Figure 10.

Source: VDOT
Figure 10. Photo. VDOT Deck Slab Extension Installation at Abutment.

7
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

MassDOT Experience
MassDOT has installed link slabs throughout the State over the past 20 years. The projects include individual
joint replacements as well as joining new prefabricated superstructure elements to facilitate accelerated bridge
construction (ABC). In new construction, MassDOT has implemented link slabs in situations where
unbalanced, continuous bridge spans would result in the uplift of end spans due to longer adjacent spans. In
these situations, MassDOT has designed simple spans (thus preventing uplift in the short end spans) and used
link slabs to eliminate the joint between the spans. The service life of link slabs has not been fully evaluated
yet since the current installations are a maximum of 20 years old. However, based on positive performance to
date, it may be reasonable to assume that the link slab service life would be equal to the surrounding concrete
deck.

MassDOT uses different types of concrete based on traffic control, construction schedule and other needs for
each individual project. When possible, standard concrete mix is used due to lower material costs and allowed
to cure under standard procedures. In tighter traffic control situations where long duration lane closures would
be especially undesirable, high early strength concretes have been used, with curing times ranging from a few
hours to a few days depending on the situation. UHPC and mobile mix concrete have been implemented as
well, with some projects using traditional design-bid-build procurement and some projects constructed under
design-build procurement.

As shown in Figure 11, a prefabricated bridge element used in accelerated construction utilizes longitudinal
joints between superstructure units and transverse joints over the pier that form the link slab. The joints can be
poured separately or at the same time. In this case they were poured separately to let the span deflect and
avoid cracking of a slab over a pier. This is like a traditional concrete pour that places the positive moment
regions first and then negative regions second. Both joints could have been poured together as long as the
concrete remains plastic and did not set up too quickly. Note the longitudinal closure pour encompasses the
steel girder studs.

Source: GPI
Figure 11. Photo. Construction of Transverse Link Slab and Longitudinal Closure Pour Between
Precast Deck Segments.

8
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

NYSDOT Experience
NYSDOT has installed dozens of full-depth and partial-depth link slabs throughout the State and has tried a
few different construction materials. Its current material of choice for link slabs is UHPC due to its high
ultimate tensile strength, high compressive strength, strong bonding to adjacent deck concrete, and
exceptional durability.(1) According to Jim Scarlata at the NYSDOT Structures Policy and Innovation Bureau,
“NYSDOT has found UHPC to be an excellent material for link slabs due to its capability to accommodate
high tensile strains, exceptional bond to existing concrete and rebar, and extremely low permeability.”
NYSDOT link slab examples are shown in Figures 12 and 13.

Source: NYSDOT
Figure 12. Photo. Concrete Deck and Joint Removed Prior to Link Slab Installation.

Source: NYSDOT
Figure 13. Photo. Forming of Link Slab.

9
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

MDTA Experience
Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) has recently completed its first pilot project involving the
installation of link slabs, with a second project in construction as of the summer of 2020. The pilot project
utilized both partial-depth UHPC and partial-depth ECC link slabs, while the project currently in construction
utilizes full-depth UHPC link slabs. Between the two projects, link slabs are utilized on piers under fixed-
fixed and expansion-expansion conditions, joining spans up to 76 feet in length, and with up to 43 degrees of
skew. MDTA is in the infancy of link slab design and evaluation, and has no standardized details or
maintenance records. An MDTA example of a proposed ECC link slab is shown in Figure 14, and a rebar
installation example is shown in Figure 15.

Source: MDTA
Figure 14. Schematic. Proposed ECC Link Slab.

Source: MDTA
Figure 15. Photo. Rebar Installation.

10
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Link Slab Design and Construction: A Comparison of State DOTs

A comparison of the link slab design procedures and construction details being used by the four different State
DOTs is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Link Slab Design Procedures and Construction Details for Several Agencies

NYSDOT:
High NYSDOT:
VDOT(3) MassDOT(5) MDTA(9)
Performance(2, UHPC(2, 8)
8)

Number of 227 bridges and 30+ bridges and

Over 10 Over 50 1
Installed Slabs 518 link slabs 50+ link slabs
Varies and is 2-3 ft - varies and
5% to 7% of span
Length of Link determined by is determined by
4 ft min. length on either 3 – 4 ft
Slab specific analysis of specific analysis of
side of the joint
the structure the structure

>4 ksi, Low High early Internally Cured

Other Concrete UHPC UHPC and ECC
Shrinkage Class A4 strength Concrete

Remove studs, Remove studs, Remove studs Remove studs, Remove studs
Bond Breaker
½ inch expanded ¼ inch thick Synthetic Sheet Synthetic Sheet Synthetic Sheet
and Flexibility
polystyrene neoprene Gasket Gasket Gasket
Drill and grout
Reinforcement
longitudinal bars
in and Around Splice to existing Splice to existing Splice to existing Splice to existing
into existing
the Slab
deck
Yes. Particularly
Also used on
No with ABC No Yes No
New Bridges
technique
Partial-Depth
Yes No No Yes Yes
Link Slab
No restriction. No restriction.
Skews Limits,
Not above 30 Max bridge at 60 Not above 30 Not above 30 Max bridge at
deg
deg 43 deg
Design Guidance provided Hand calcs, Excel Excel
Automated file Automated file
Procedure in VDOT manual spreadsheets Spreadsheets

Example Calculations using NYSDOT Approach

In this illustrative example of a partial-depth link slab, calculations from NYSDOT(2) are rewritten by authors
of this case study and represent its specific approach to link slab design. It should not be applied to all link
slab installations.

A NYSDOT link slab is designed by limiting to acceptable levels the (1) tensile strain in the concrete, the (2)
compressive stress in the concrete, and the (3) tensile stress of the rebar. UHPC is used in this example for its
excellent tensile and compressive strengths. Due to the steel fibers present in UHPC conventional reinforcing
bars would not be needed within the link slab for strength. However, to improve the overall toughness of the

11
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

system one layer of longitudinal reinforcement is provided in the center of the link slab. The size, spacing, and
type should match that of the adjacent concrete deck.

Source: NYSDOT
Figure 16. Schematic. NYSDOT Partial-Depth Link Slab.

In this example, the acceptable material limits are:

• Tensile strain in concrete limited to 0.0035.
• Compressive stress in concrete limited to 14 ksi.
• Tensile stress in rebar limited to 60 ksi.
Design considerations are:
• Length of unbonded portion of the link slab is 16 inch. This is the portion that will be subject to
rotation of the girders.
• Span length to the left of the link slab is 80 ft.
• Span length to the right of the link slab is 80 ft.
• Unfactored live load girder end rotation is 0.29 deg.
• Link slab thickness is 4 inch.
• Link slab rebar will be #5 at 6 inch spacing placed at mid height of slab is 2 inch.
• Design for a one-foot section so #5 rebar (0.31 in2) at 6 inch is 0.62 in2 per linear foot.

12
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

Calculation of link slab rotation:

• The link slab will rotate over its length by the ratio of the unfactored live load deflection at midspan
of the adjacent spans. The angle of rotation can be calculated by the following approximation of
girder end rotation:
o Girder end rotation = 1.75 * LL rotation = 1.75 * 0.29 = 0.51 deg.
• Knowing the geometric properties of the link slab, the amount of slab rotation, and the limiting strains
a strain compatibility analysis can be performed to determine the depth to the neutral axis c. This is an
iterative procedure that can be accomplished with computer analysis.
o Depth to the neutral axis c = 1.07 inch from the bottom of the link slab.
Using the strain diagram below, a linear ratio can be determined knowing the depth to the neutral axis, the
slab depth and the rotation angle of the slab, which allows for the calculation of the tensile strain in the #5
rebar. The following calculations can then compare stress and strain to allowable limits.

Source: NYSDOT
Figure 17. Example Rotation Calculations. Strain Diagram (left). Equations (right).

A comparison of the predicted stress and strain conditions to allowable conditions shows:

• Tensile strain in concrete limited to 0.0035 > 0.003245, therefore acceptable.

• Compressive stress in concrete limited to 14 ksi > 9.47 ksi, therefore acceptable.
• Tensile stress in rebar limit to 60 ksi > 29.89 ksi, therefore acceptable.
For this example, the design is complete.

Conclusion
Link slabs are an alternative to replacement or repair of bridge joints, but they should be properly designed to
accommodate redistribution of bridge loads and movements. A global analysis of the entire structure that
includes flexibility of substructure units and types of bearings to allow for longitudinal movement is
appropriate. Link slabs have also been successfully used in new bridge construction such as for MassDOT and
can be considered as an accelerated bridge construction technique. The approach used by NYSDOT

13
 Case Study: Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices

incorporating UHPC for partial-depth link slabs has been adopted by MDTA in its current research project
and is also being investigated by VDOT through new research. Installed link slabs should be monitored for
performance, perhaps as an Agency-added element to the bridge element inspection method.

Resources
Scarlata, J. (2017). “UHPC Link Slab Design.” Presented at the NYSDOT 2017 Ultra High Performance
Concrete (UHPC) Workshop, Albany, NY, found at
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/repository/events-
news/NYSDOT_2017_UHPC_Workshop_Scarlata.pdf
New York State Department of Transportation. Link Slab Design, Albany, NY, found at:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-
center/designbuildproject39/repository/Link%20Slab%20Design%20EX.pdf
Virginia Department of Transportation. (2018). Manual of the Structure and Bridge Division, Part 2,
Chapter 32, File No. 32.09-1, Richmond, VA, found at
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/bridge/Manuals/Part2/Chapter32.pdf
Li, V., Lepech, M., Li, M. (2005). Field Demonstration of Durable Link Slabs for Jointless Bridge Decks
Based on Strain-Hardening Cementitious Concrete, Research Report RC-1471, The Advanced Civil
Engineering Materials Research Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, found at
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research_Report_RC1471_200102_7.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2020). LRFD Bridge Design Manual – 2020 Edition, Part I
– Design Guidelines, Chapter 3: LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines, Section 3.5.2.8, Boston, MA found at
https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-3-lrfd-bridge-design-guidelines/download
Civjan, S. and Quinn, B. (2016). Better Bridge Joint Technology, Report No. UMTC-16.01, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, found at
https://www.umasstransportationcenter.org/umtc/Publications1.asp
Virginia Department of Transportation. (2016). VDOT Supplement to the AASHTO Manual for Bridge
Element Inspection, Richmond, VA, found at
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/bridge/VDOT_Suppl_to_the_AASHTO_Manual_for_Brid
ge_Element_Insp_2016.pdf
New York State Department of Transportation. (2019). Link Slab Details, Albany, NY, found at
https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-
center/designbuildproject47/repository/X73163_Link%20Slab%20Details%20-%2020190115.pdf
Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Transportation Authority. (2020) MDTA Link Slab
Study. The BEST Center, University of Maryland, Chung C. Fu, Ph.D, P.E. Director.
Azizinamini, A., PhD. (2018). ABC-UTC Guide for “Superstructure to Pier Connection in SDCL Steel
Bridge Systems. Florida International University.
Bridge Engineering Center, Iowa State University (2018), “Material Design and Structural Configuration
of Link Slabs for ABC Applications” Completed. https://abc-utc.fiu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/52/2019/01/ISU-Link-Slab-Final-Report.pdf
Virginia Department of Transportation, Target Date for Research Completion “Concrete Mix Designs for
Partial-Depth Link Slabs and Deck Extension” http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/ProjDetails.aspx?ID=709

14
For additional information, please contact:
Raj Ailaney, PE
Senior Bridge Engineer
FHWA Office of Bridges and Structures
Phone: (202)-366-6749
Email: raj.ailaney@dot.gov
Publication No. FHWA-HIF-20-062

15