## 4 Results and Discussion  
### Summary of the Load Demand and Capacity  
Based on the approximate methods of analyses specified in the AASHTO bridge design specification [14], the width of the equivalent interior strip (W) can be calculated based on the spacing of the supporting components (S) as shown in the following Equation (1). For deck strip specimens in phases 1 and 2, the spacings are 1.22 and 1.52 m, respectively, which lead to the equivalent width of W equal to 1331 and 1496 mm. It is assumed that the deck strip with equivalent width will sustain full wheel load under \"Strength I\" and \"Service I\" limit states. Therefore, with the wheel load of 71.2 kN, the service load demand is 92.6 after considering the dynamic impact factor of 0.3 and the ultimate load demand is 162.0 kN with same impact factor and the load factor equals 1.75. By dividing the service and ultimate load by the effective width (W), the capacity demand of the unit width of the deck slab can be calculated. Table 5 summarizes the experiment results of deck strips available in the literature as well as those presented in this paper. The deflections under service and ultimate load levels are identified. Experimental ultimate load capacities of each deck strip were compared to the target load demand to calculate the capacity versus demand ratio. The unified capacity versus demand ratio based on the self-weight is also listed as the last column for an intuitive indicator of the effectiveness of the design.  
\[\text{W}=660+0.55\text{S} \tag{1}\]  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Elastic Analyses**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Plastic Analyses**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Deck**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Neutral** \\ **Axis** \\ **of Inertia** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Second** \\ **Moment** \\ **of Inertia** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Cracking** \\ **Moment** \\ **Moment** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Crushing** \\ **Moment** \\ **(Rebar)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Yielding** \\ **Moment** \\ **(Rebar +** \\ **UHPC)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Plastic Moment** \\ **(Rebar +** \\ **UHPC)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **(kN-m2)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **(kN-m)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **(kN-m)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **(kN-m)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **(kN-m)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **(kN-m)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **(kN-m)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline Type A & 51.5 & 2159 & 34.2 & 37.2 & 85.5 & 8.1 & 22.5 \\ Type B & 51.7 & 2251 & 9.7 & 38.9 & 76.7 & 4.3 & 18.3 \\ Type C & 36.3 & 2639 & 16.1 & 37.8 & 154.6 & 4.3 & 15.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Summary of sectional analyses.  
The load versus deflection curves for various prestressed deck strips tested in this research is shown in Figure 7. Figure 7 provides a clear comparison between test and literature results. While the deck strip features a UHPC layer and high strength steel rebar (1T1S-Steel) reaches the highest ultimate load, the deck with prestressing strands and composite sUHPC deck can reach a similar level of capacity to demand ratio, which is denoted by the size of the marker in the Figure 7. The deck strips with polymer rebars also exhibit excellent efficiency. However, generally speaking, they have more significant deflection at ultimate load under the reported configuration. The experiment observations and results of prestressed HSC/HSFRC deck and sUHPC deck will be discussed in the following sections.