Methodology for Evaluating Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slabs in Temporary Traffic Bridge Systems over Uncured Cement Concrete Pavements Using Small-Scale Experimental Slabs
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Research Methodology
3. Design and Numerical Analysis of Full-Scale Slab
3.1. Design
3.2. Numerical Analysis
4. Design and Fabrication of Small-Scale Slab
4.1. Design Using Numerical Analysis
4.2. Concrete Mix Design and Slab Fabrication
5. Behavior Analysis of Small-Scale Slab
5.1. Numerical Analysis
5.2. Selection of Measurement Sensors
5.3. Strain Analysis
5.4. Deflection Analysis
6. Confirmation of Relationship Between Full-Scale and Small-Scale Slabs
7. Summary and Conclusions
- When conducting experiments to predict the behavior of a full-scale reinforced concrete slab using a small-scale reinforced concrete slab, the size of the small-scale slab can be determined by simply applying a dimensional reduction ratio, but since it is impossible to reduce the steel bars equally, various reinforcement designs were performed using steel bars of small sizes that can actually be obtained, and then it was confirmed through numerical analyses that a reinforcement design that exhibits behavior almost similar to that of a full-scale slab can be applied to fabricate a small-scale slab.
- In small-scale reinforced concrete slabs, the size of coarse aggregates must also be reduced, so test specimens for concrete compressive strength using the concrete mix designs for full-scale and small-scale slabs must be manufactured separately, and compressive strength tests must be performed to confirm that the compressive strengths are almost identical before fabricating small-scale slabs.
- When conducting experiments using small-scale reinforced concrete slabs, it was verified that a strain gauge of a size generally used in concrete member experiments should be used. If the concrete strain gauge with a reduced length is used, errors may occur because it could measure local strain in the aggregate or cement paste.
- When measuring the deflection of small-scale reinforced concrete slabs, even small displacements of the supporting structure can affect the measured values because the slab deflection is extremely small. Therefore, it was confirmed that in order to accurately measure the pure deflection of the slab, the measurement values must be corrected by measuring not only the deflection of the slab but also the displacement of the supporting structure.
- Comparing the measured behavior of the small-scale slab with the numerical analysis results, it was confirmed that the same behavior was observed. Therefore, the experimental results and numerical analysis results of the small-scale slab were consistent, and the numerical analysis results of the small-scale slab and the full-scale slab were identical, proving that the experimental results of the full-scale slab can be inferred through experiments using the small-scale slab.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Park, S.W.; Hwang, K.Y. Condition Assessment of Pavement Performance in Seoul Metropolitan City. Seoul Stud. 2006, 7, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, Y.S.; Lee, S.Y.; Shin, K.Y. The Study and Analysis of Road Pavement Management in Seoul. Seoul Stud. 2012, 13, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, Y.S.; Kwon, W.T.; Lee, S.Y. A Study on the Improvement of Pavement for Bus Rapid Transit System in Seoul. Int. J. Highw. Eng. 2014, 16, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Oh, H.J.; Lee, J.W.; Ma, K.H. Maintenance Methods Depending on Pavement Deterioration Types; 2020-MR-04; Seoul Institute: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2020.
- Oh, J.H.; Song, T.S.; An, B.Y. A Study on the Estimation of Proper Construction Cost for Road Pavement Maintenance Work. Korean J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 21, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seoul Metropolitan Government. Road Pavement Condition Survey and Analysis in Seoul Metropolitan City in 2023; Seoul Metropolitan Government: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2023.
- Kim, S.-M.; Choi, B.H.; Han, S.H. Optimum Slab-Lifting Positions for Precast Concrete Pavement Construction. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2007, 9, 27–37. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.-M.; Park, H.B.; Yang, S.C.; Han, S.H. Development of Construction Method and Design Guide for Newly Constructed Precast Concrete Pavements. Int. J. Highw. Eng. 2008, 10, 193–203. [Google Scholar]
- Na, O.P.; Seo, T.S.; Kim, J.Y.; Jung, Y.S.; Choi, J.S.; Choi, H.J. Performance test of High-durable Precast Concrete Pavement System. J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig. 2016, 16, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Kim, S.-M.; Choi, B.H. Behavior of Precast Prestressed Concrete Pavements under Post-Tensioning. Int. J. Highw. Eng. 2007, 9, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
- Tayabji, S.; Ye, D.; Buch, N. Precast Concrete Pavements Technology Overview and Technical Considerations. PCI J. 2013, 58, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Guo, J.; Chan, T.M.; Wang, Y. Precast Concrete Pavement Applications, Design and Joint Load Transfer Characteristics. Structures 2024, 69, 107176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Tayabji, S.; Ye, D.; Buch, N. Precast Concrete Pavement Technology; SHRP 2 Report S2-R05-RR-1; Nonprofit: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Tayabji, S.; Buch, N.; Ye, D. Performance of Precast Concrete Pavements. In Proceedings of the Transportation and Development Institute Congress 2011, Chicago, IL, USA, 13–16 March 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Tayabji, S. Precast Concrete Pavement Technology Implementation; U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
- Sanjuán, M.Á.; Morales, Á.; Zaragoza, A. Effect of Precast Concrete Pavement Albedo on the Climate Change Mitigation in Spain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rudnicki, T.; Stalowski, P. Fast-Setting Concrete for Repairing Cement Concrete Pavement. Materials 2023, 16, 5909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Li, M.; Li, V.C. High-Early-Strength Engineered Cementitious Composites for Fast, Durable Concrete Repair-Material Properties. ACI Mater. J. 2011, 108, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Dave, E.V.; Sias, J.E.; Azam, S.E.; McKinnon, S.; Page, K. Development of Cost-Effective Rapid-Setting Concrete for Improved Bridge Joint Performance; Vermont Agency of Transportation: Montpelier, VT, USA, 2024.
- Akerele, D.D.; Aguayo, F. Effectiveness of Rapid-Set CSA Concrete Mixes for Sustainable Pavement Repair. CIB Conf. 2025, 1, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Akerele, D.D.; Aguayo, F. A Comparative Evaluation of Polymer-Modified Rapid-Set Calcium Sulfoaluminate Concrete: Bridging the Gap Between Laboratory Shrinkage and the Field Strain Performance. Buildings 2025, 15, 2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ghafoori, N.; Najimi, M.; Maler, M. High-Early-Strength High-Performance Concrete for Rapid Pavement Repair; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction University of Nevada Las Vegas: Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, Y.; Gao, Y.; Sun, R.; Won, M.C.; Ge, Z. Experimental Study and Field Application of Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cement for Rapid Repair of Concrete Pavements. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2017, 11, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Kosar, K.; de Salles, L.S.; Sharifi, N.P.; Vandenbossche, J.; Khazanovich, L. Onsite Strength Determination for Early-Opening Decision Making of High Early Strength Concrete Pavement. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. (Engl. Ed.) 2023, 10, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ghafoori, N.; Maler, M.O.; Najimi, M.; Hasnat, A.; Gbadamosi, A. Role of Cement Type on Properties of High Early-Strength Concrete. J. Compos. Sci. 2024, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Kim, S.J.; Baek, S.H.; Lee, K.I.; Lee, G.; Kim, S.-M. Concept of Temporary Traffic Overbridge System for Concrete Pavement Construction. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Road Engineers, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, 23–26 September 2025. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K.I.; Baek, S.H.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, G.; Jeong, B.S.; Kim, S.-M. Finite Element Analysis of Temporary Structural System for Immediate Traffic Opening during Concrete Pavement Curing. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Road Engineers, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, 23–26 September 2025. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K.I.; Baek, S.H.; Kim, S.J.; Kim, S.-M. Numerical Analysis of Temporary Traffic Plates According to Lateral Support Conditions. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of Korean Society of Road Engineers, Busan, Republic of Korea, 30 October–1 November 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.J.; Baek, S.H.; Lee, K.I.; Lee, G.; Kim, S.-M. Finite Element Analysis to Verify Scale Model Experimental Plan for Temporary Traffic Overbridge Used during Concrete Pavement Curing Period. In Proceedings of the KSCE 2025 Convention, Cheongju, Republic of Korea, 12–14 November 2025. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Y.-J.; Chung, H.-S.; Lee, D.-H.; Jo, B.-W. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Precast Concrete Lining (PCL) Using the 1/5 Scale Down Model Test. J. Korean Tunn. Undergr. Space Assoc. 2004, 6, 61–70. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, X.; Sun, B.; Tan, C.S.; Li, Z.; Qi, L. Numerical Analysis and Experimental Study of the Mechanical Response of Pavement Slab Supported on an Inhomogeneous Settlement. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Phutthananon, C.; Kongkitkul, W.; Cheamsuphakit, A.; Seedown, W.; Silakub, H.; Yamashina, M.; Shinohara, J.; Kinoshita, N. Research on the applicability of high-precision underground exploration technology to public roads in Bangkok: Part 2—Risk assessment of cavities beneath concrete pavement. In Proceedings of the 30th National Convention on Civil Engineering, Hua Hin, Thailand, 28–30 May 2025. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.-M.; Hugo, F.; Roesset, J.M. Small-Scale Accelerated Pavement Testing. J. Transp. Eng. 1998, 124, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Hering, M.; Kühn, T.; Curbach, M. Small-Scale Plate Tests with Fine Concrete in Experiment and First Simplified Simulation. Struct. Concr. 2020, 22, 637–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Hussein, M.N.; Alkadhimi, A.; Najim, W.A.; Almousawi, H.A. Shaking Table Experiment on Seismic Performance of a Scaled-Down Arch Dam with Initial Crack. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2021, 16, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Kim, S.-M.; Cho, Y.K.; Park, B.K. Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Bracket Design for Supporting Middle Slab in Double-Deck Tunnel. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 23, 3682–3693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Žarnić, R.; Gostič, S.; Crewe, A.J.; Taylor, C.A. Shaking Table Tests of 1:4 Reduced-Scale Models of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2001, 30, 819–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Beyer, K.; Tondelli, M.; Petry, S.; Peloso, S. Dynamic Testing of a Four-Storey Building with Reinforced Concrete and Unreinforced Masonry Walls: Prediction, Test Results and Data Set. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 3015–3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Woodson, S.C.; Baylot, J.T. Structural Collapse: Quarter-Scale Model Experiments; US Army Corps of Engineers: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 1999.
- El Naggar, A.; Soliman, A.; Youssef, M.A.; El Naggar, H. Novel Methodological Approach to Developing Scaled-Down Concrete Material for Structural Applications: Experimental Validation Using Froude Scaling. Buildings 2025, 15, 3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Woodson, S.C.; Baylot, J.T. Quarter Scale Building/Column Experiments. In Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wang, W.; Zhang, D.; Lu, F.; Wang, S.C.; Tang, F. Experimental Study on Scaling the Explosion Resistance of a One-Way Square Reinforced Concrete Slab under a Close-in Blast Loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2012, 49, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Hu, C.; Ma, J.; Zhao, J.; Leng, Z.; Jelagin, D. Experimental Study of Dowel Bar Alternatives Based on Similarity Model Test. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 2017, 3981908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rielley, K.T. A Laboratory Study of the Fatigue of Bonded PCC Overlays; U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 1986.
- Prakash, M.; Satyanarayanan, K.S.; Parthasarathi, N. Progressive Collapse of Asymmetrical Reinforced Concrete Frames under Corner Column Removal: Experimental Investigation. Results Eng. 2025, 26, 104811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Hoult, R.; Correia, A.A.; Bertholet, A.; Candeias, P.; Cumunel, G.; Doneux, C.; Han, Y.; Isaković, T.; Janevski, A.; Lo Feudo, S.; et al. Shake-Table Tests on Two 40-ton Reinforced Concrete U-Shaped Walls with Uniaxial and Bidirectional-Torsional Response. Earthq. Spectra 2025, 41, 4195–4226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Johnson, N.; Saiidi, M.; Sanders, D. Aspects of Testing a Large-Scale Two-Span Bridge Model on Multiple Shake Tables. In Proceedings of the Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures VI, Bologna, Italy, 11–13 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Knappett, J.; Reid, C.; Kinmond, S.; O’Reilly, K. Small-Scale Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structural Elements for use in a Geotechnical Centrifuge. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 1263–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- KDS 14 20 50; Detailed Design Standard for Reinforcement of Concrete Structures. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2022.
- KDS 14 20 01; General Requirements for Concrete Structure Design (Strength Design Method). Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2022.
- KDS 14 20 10; Principles of Analysis and Design for Concrete Structures. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2021.
- Hyundai. SUPER Aero City; Hyundai: Jeollabuk-do, Republic of Korea, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Guidelines for Cement Concrete Pavement Construction; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2024.
- Dassault Systemes. Abaqus CAE User’s Guide 2024; Dassault Systemes: Waltham, MA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- EN 1992-1-1; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
- Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Concrete Structural Design Code; Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2012.
- Ahmed, L. Dynamic Measurements for Determining Poisson’s Ratio of Young Concrete. Nord. Concr. Res. 2018, 58, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Pal, P. Dynamic Poisson’s Ratio and Modulus of Elasticity of Pozzolana Portland Cement Concrete. Int. J. Eng. Technol. Innov. 2019, 9, 131–144. [Google Scholar]
- EXCS 44 50 15; Cement Concrete Pavement Construction. Korea Expressway Corporation: Gimcheon, Republic of Korea, 2024.
- KS F 2405; Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Concrete. Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2022.
- Hoffmann, K. An Introduction to Measurements Using Strain Gages; Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik: Darmstadt, Germany, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Iskhakov, I.; Frolov, I.; Ribakov, Y. Experimental Verification of Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Compressed Concrete Considering Post-Peak Stage. Materials 2022, 15, 6064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- TML. Pam E-2020D Transducers; TML: Tokyo, Japan, 2021. [Google Scholar]






















| Category | Steel Bar Diameter (mm) | Steel Bar Length (mm) | Steel Bar Spacing (mm) | Number of Steel Bars | Concrete Cover (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longitudinal steel bar | 16 | 1350 | 330 | 11 | 75 |
| Transverse steel bar | 16 | 3330 | 225 | 7 | 75 |
| Reinforcement design drawing | ![]() | ||||
| Aggregate Gradation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coarse Aggregate | Fine Aggregate | ||||
| Aggregate Size (mm) | Passing Percentage (%) | Fraction by Size Range (%) | Aggregate Size (mm) | Passing Percentage (%) | Fraction by Size Range (%) |
| 25 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| 20 | 95.0 | 5.0 | 5 | 97.5 | 2.5 |
| 10 | 37.5 | 57.5 | 2.5 | 90.0 | 7.5 |
| 5 | 5.0 | 32.5 | 1.2 | 70.0 | 20.0 |
| 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 45.0 | 25.0 |
| 2.5> | 0.0 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 22.5 | 22.5 |
| 0.1 | 8.5 | 14.0 | |||
| 0.1> | 0.0 | 8.5 | |||
| Concrete mix design | |||||
| Volume (m3) | Water (kg) | Cement (kg) | Coarse aggregate (kg) | Fine aggregate (kg) | |
| 1.566 | 258 | 646 | 1074 | 1140 | |
| Category | Steel Bar Diameter (mm) | Steel Bar Length (mm) | Steel Bar Spacing (mm) | Number of Steel Bars | Concrete Cover (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longitudinal steel bar | 8 | 220 | 150 | 4 | 15 |
| Transverse steel bar | 8 | 550 | 110 | 3 | 15 |
| Reinforcement design drawing | ![]() | ||||
| Load Application Location | Maximum Principal Tensile Stress (MPa) | Difference (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full-Scale Slab | Small-Scale Slab | ||
| Edge | 1.874 | 1.870 | 0.2 |
| Center | 1.568 | 1.548 | 1.3 |
| Aggregate Gradation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coarse Aggregate | Fine Aggregate | ||||
| Aggregate Size (mm) | Passing Percentage (%) | Fraction by Size Range (%) | Aggregate Size (mm) | Passing Percentage (%) | Fraction by Size Range (%) |
| 20 | 100 | 0 | 10 | 100 | 0 |
| 13 | 95 | 5 | 5 | 97.5 | 2.5 |
| 10 | 55 | 40 | 2.5 | 90 | 7.5 |
| 5 | 7.5 | 47.5 | 1.2 | 70 | 20 |
| 2.5 | 2.5 | 5 | 0.6 | 45 | 25 |
| 2.5> | 0 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 22.5 | 22.5 |
| 0.1 | 8.5 | 14 | |||
| 0.1> | 0 | 8.5 | |||
| Concrete mix design | |||||
| Volume (m3) | Water (kg) | Cement (kg) | Coarse aggregate (kg) | Fine aggregate (kg) | |
| 0.00725 | 1.20 | 2.99 | 4.86 | 5.38 | |
| Elastic Modulus of Concrete (GPa) | Strain (με) | Deflection (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| 25.0 | 31.348 | 0.0349 |
| 27.0 | 30.389 | 0.0324 |
| 27.5 | 30.254 | 0.0318 |
| 28.0 | 30.138 | 0.0312 |
| Slab | Gauge Length (mm) | Measured Strain (με) | Gauge Length (mm) | Slab | Measured Strain (με) | Standard Deviation (με) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 10 | 30 | 10 | A | 30 | 3.9 |
| 30 | 27 | B | 38 | |||
| 60 | 31 | C | 34 | |||
| B | 10 | 38 | 30 | A | 27 | 3.2 |
| 30 | 33 | B | 33 | |||
| 60 | 30 | C | 31 | |||
| C | 10 | 34 | 60 | A | 31 | 0.3 |
| 30 | 31 | B | 30 | |||
| 60 | 31 | C | 31 |
| Specimen | Test Number | Strain at Each Gauge Location (με) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S-1 | S-2 | S-3 | S-4 | S-5 | S-6 | S-7 | ||
| Slab A | 1 | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 |
| 2 | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| 3 | 9 | 25 | 10 | 28 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| Average | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| Slab B | 1 | 10 | 26 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 |
| 2 | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 26 | 10 | |
| 3 | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| Average | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| Slab C | 1 | 10 | 25 | 10 | 28 | 10 | 25 | 10 |
| 2 | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| 3 | 10 | 25 | 10 | 28 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| Average | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| Average strain | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 | |
| Specimen | Test Number | Deflection at Each Displacement Transducer Location (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-1 | D-2 | D-3 | ||
| Slab A | 1 | 0.071 | 0.083 | 0.072 |
| 2 | 0.073 | 0.085 | 0.072 | |
| 3 | 0.072 | 0.081 | 0.070 | |
| Average | 0.072 | 0.083 | 0.071 | |
| Slab B | 1 | 0.070 | 0.081 | 0.071 |
| 2 | 0.069 | 0.081 | 0.069 | |
| 3 | 0.070 | 0.083 | 0.071 | |
| Average | 0.070 | 0.082 | 0.070 | |
| Slab C | 1 | 0.069 | 0.081 | 0.068 |
| 2 | 0.068 | 0.080 | 0.066 | |
| 3 | 0.066 | 0.079 | 0.066 | |
| Average | 0.068 | 0.080 | 0.067 | |
| Average Deflection | 0.070 | 0.082 | 0.069 | |
| Specimen | Test Number | Deflection at Each Displacement Transducer Location (mm) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correction Value | Uncorrected | Corrected | ||||||
| D-1 | D-2 | D-3 | D-1 | D-2 | D-3 | |||
| Slab A | 1 | 0.050 | 0.069 | 0.081 | 0.072 | 0.019 | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| 2 | 0.051 | 0.066 | 0.080 | 0.073 | 0.015 | 0.029 | 0.021 | |
| 3 | 0.050 | 0.072 | 0.084 | 0.070 | 0.022 | 0.034 | 0.021 | |
| Average | 0.050 | 0.069 | 0.082 | 0.072 | 0.019 | 0.032 | 0.021 | |
| Slab B | 1 | 0.049 | 0.072 | 0.080 | 0.071 | 0.023 | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| 2 | 0.049 | 0.072 | 0.078 | 0.068 | 0.023 | 0.029 | 0.019 | |
| 3 | 0.052 | 0.072 | 0.081 | 0.069 | 0.021 | 0.029 | 0.017 | |
| Average | 0.050 | 0.072 | 0.080 | 0.069 | 0.022 | 0.029 | 0.019 | |
| Slab C | 1 | 0.047 | 0.071 | 0.083 | 0.071 | 0.023 | 0.035 | 0.023 |
| 2 | 0.048 | 0.073 | 0.082 | 0.073 | 0.026 | 0.035 | 0.026 | |
| 3 | 0.047 | 0.072 | 0.082 | 0.074 | 0.026 | 0.036 | 0.027 | |
| Average | 0.047 | 0.072 | 0.082 | 0.073 | 0.025 | 0.035 | 0.025 | |
| Average Deflection | 0.049 | 0.071 | 0.081 | 0.071 | 0.022 | 0.032 | 0.022 | |
| Case | Strain at Each Gauge Location (με) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S-1 | S-2 | S-3 | S-4 | S-5 | S-6 | S-7 | |
| Small-scale slab (Experiment) | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 |
| Small-scale slab (Numerical analysis) | 10 | 25 | 10 | 29 | 10 | 25 | 10 |
| Full-scale slab (Numerical analysis) | 10 | 26 | 10 | 28 | 10 | 26 | 10 |
| Difference (%) | 0 | 3.8 | 0 | 3.6 | 0 | 3.8 | 0 |
| Case | Deflection at Each Gauge Location (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-1 | D-2 | D-3 | ||
| Small-scale slab (Experiment) | 0.022 | 0.032 | 0.022 | |
| Small-scale slab (Numerical analysis) | 0.022 | 0.032 | 0.022 | |
| Full-scale slab (Numerical analysis) | Unscaled | 0.132 | 0.191 | 0.132 |
| Scaled down | 0.022 | 0.032 | 0.022 | |
| Difference (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 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.
Share and Cite
Baek, S.H.; Lee, K.I.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, G.; Kim, S.-M. Methodology for Evaluating Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slabs in Temporary Traffic Bridge Systems over Uncured Cement Concrete Pavements Using Small-Scale Experimental Slabs. Materials 2026, 19, 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma19071302
Baek SH, Lee KI, Kim SJ, Lee G, Kim S-M. Methodology for Evaluating Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slabs in Temporary Traffic Bridge Systems over Uncured Cement Concrete Pavements Using Small-Scale Experimental Slabs. Materials. 2026; 19(7):1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma19071302
Chicago/Turabian StyleBaek, Soon Ho, Kang In Lee, Sang Jin Kim, Geon Lee, and Seong-Min Kim. 2026. "Methodology for Evaluating Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slabs in Temporary Traffic Bridge Systems over Uncured Cement Concrete Pavements Using Small-Scale Experimental Slabs" Materials 19, no. 7: 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma19071302
APA StyleBaek, S. H., Lee, K. I., Kim, S. J., Lee, G., & Kim, S.-M. (2026). Methodology for Evaluating Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slabs in Temporary Traffic Bridge Systems over Uncured Cement Concrete Pavements Using Small-Scale Experimental Slabs. Materials, 19(7), 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma19071302


