Upload
veasna-seng-terrence
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
1/25
The School of Civil Engineering
Thesis Guidebook
Spring 2007
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
2/25
This version of the Form 9 shouldonly be submitted with the paper
thesis deposit. There should be a
cotton copy and a copy on normalpaper.
The degree stated here should match the
degree stated on your Plan of Study.
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
3/25
PURDUE UNIVERSITYGRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis Acceptance
This is to certify that the thesis prepared
By
Entitled
Complies with University regulations and meets the standards of the Graduate School for originality
and quality
For the degree of
Final examining committee members
, Chair
Approved by Major Professor(s):
Approved by Head of Graduate Program:
Date of Graduate Program Head's Approval:
Ima Good Student
Insitu Electrical Sensing and Material Health Monitoring in Concrete Structures
Doctor of Philosophy
Mark D. Bowman Co- Chair Garrett Jeong
Judy Liu Co-Chair
Charles D. Sutton
Alten F. Grandt Jr.
January 26, 2007
Darcy Bullock
This version of the Form 9should only be used with the
electronic submission of yourthesis for PhD candidates.
The degree stated here should match the degree
stated on your Plan of Study.
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
4/25
INVESTIGATION OF SUPERLOAD EFFECTS ON STEEL
AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GIRDER BRIDGES
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Purdue University
by
Ima Good Student
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
December 2006
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
2
Inches
1.5 inches1 inch
1.25
inches
All capitalletters
Use correct
term, Masters
will use Thesis
Name as it appears
on transcri t
Correct degree title
Month of graduation. Only
May, August, or December.
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
5/25
ii
To my parents.
1 inch
1.25
inches
1.5 inches1 inch
Non-English text
and fonts may be
used, however,
they must be
readable in PDF.
Roman
numeral
pagination
Do not put in a
header.
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
6/25
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Indiana Department of Transportation
(INDOT). Continual support of the INDOT is greatly appreciated. The experimental part
of this study could not be possible without the help of the LaPorte and Gary Districts.
Wayne Skinner, Rich Fieberg, Joe Wojdyla and Mike Flanigan were very helpful during
the instrumentation of the I-65 Bridges in North Indiana.
I would like to thank my advisors Dr. Mark D. Bowman and Dr. Judy Liu for
their guidance and positive attitude throughout my study. Working with them was a great
pleasure and contributed me a lot. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr.
Charles D. Sutton, Dr. Alten F. Grandt, and Dr. Garett Jeong.
Finally, I would like to thank my friends Yeliz, Cihan, Nick, Rita, Dave,
Wonseok, Scott, Gerardo and Ed from civil engineering for their friendship and help.
2
Inches
1.25
inches
1 inch1.5 inches
Three single
spaces
Spacing on
ALL pagesmust be
consistent!
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
7/25
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS..................................................................................................... xxiii
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. xxvii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
1.1. Previous Studies on Superloads..............................................................................21.2. Research Objectives................................................................................................4
1.2.1. A Simple Structural Analysis Method for Prediction of Bridge
Response ........................................................................................................51.2.2. Damage Prediction and Damage Model ........................................................6
1.3. Research Methodology ...........................................................................................7
1.4. Outline of the Study................................................................................................91.5 References.............................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2 A SIMPLE METHOD TO PREDICT THE 3-D LIVE LOADRESPONSE OF SLAB-ON-GIRDER BRIDGES......................................13
2.1. Background...........................................................................................................13
2.2. Description of the Investigated Bridges................................................................142.2.1. US-52 Bridge ...............................................................................................15
2.2.2. I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road.......................................................................16
2.3. Finite Element analysis.........................................................................................172.3.1. Finite Element Analysis of the US-52 Bridge .............................................20
2.3.2. Finite Element Analysis of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road.....................21
2.4. Instrumentation .....................................................................................................23
2.4.1. Instrumentation and Load Test of the US-52 Bridge...................................232.4.2. Instrumentation and Load Test of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road ..........24
2.5. Comparison of Load Test and Analysis Results ...................................................27
2.5.1. Comparison of Load Test and Analysis Results for the US-52 Bridge .......272.5.2. Comparison of Load Test and Analysis Results for the I-65 Bridge over
Ridge Road...................................................................................................29
Anything
previous to TOC
is not listed
Titles using 2 or
more lines should
be single spaced
2
inches
3 lines single spaced
No
fewer
than 7dots in
leader
line
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
8/25
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Measured and calculated deflections of the Beam 3 due to the test truck.............64
2.2 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 3 for LC #3A loading ................................64
2.3 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 4 for LC #3A loading ................................642.4 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 2 .............................................................................64
2.5 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 3 .............................................................................64
2.6 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 4 .............................................................................64
2.7 Longitudinal flange stresses at the abutment (Section A) for Load
Case 1...............................................................................................................65
2.8 Longitudinal flange stresses at the abutment (Section A) for Load
Case 2...............................................................................................................65
2.9 Vertical stresses in the stiffener plate for Load Case 1..........................................65
2.10 Vertical stresses in the stiffener plate for Load Case 2..........................................65
2.11 Vertical stresses in the bottom web gap for Load Case 1 ......................................65
2.13 Gross vehicle weights of the superload trucks used in the analysis ......................66
2.14 GDFs for the US-52 Bridge due to trucks positioned in the right lane..................66
2.15 Strength II Limit State positive moment check for the US-52 Bridge .................66
2.16 Strength II Limit State shear check for the US-52 Bridge.....................................67
2.17 Strength II Limit State negative moment check for the US-52
Bridge..............................................................................................................67
2.18 Service II Limit State composite flange stress check for the US-52
Bridge..............................................................................................................67
2.19 Service II Limit State noncomposite flange stress check for
the US-52 Bridge ............................................................................................68
3 single spaces
2
inches
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
9/25
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 A typical superload truck (Diamond Heavy Haul, 2006) ......................................10
1.2 Axle configurations of the superload groups (Wood, 2004)..................................11
1.3 Axle configurations of the design trucks (Wood, 2004)........................................122.1 Cross-sections of the US-52 and I-65 Bridges.......................................................72
2.2 General view of the first and second steel spans of the US-52
Bridge..............................................................................................................72
2.3 Diaphragms of the US-52 Bridge ..........................................................................73
2.4 Fixed support over the second pier of the US-52 Bridge.......................................74
2.5 Rocker bearings at the beginning of the first steel span of
the US-52 Bridge .............................................................................................74
2.6 I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road.................................................................................75
2.7 Framing plan of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road (Wood, 2004).........................75
2.8 Cross-frame of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road (Wood, 2004) ..........................76
2.9 Plate girders, cross-frames and integral end abutment of the I-65Bridge..............................................................................................................76
2.10 Cross-section of the FEM of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road ............................77
2.11 FEM of the US-52 Bridge (end of the 5th span).....................................................77
2.12 Load patches for the Maximum Superload Truck on the US-52
Bridge............................................................................................................78
2.13 Beams and diaphragms of the US-52 Bridge.........................................................78
2.14 Symmetric FEM of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road...........................................79
2
inches
3 single spaces
Repeated
on next
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
10/25
vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A area of solid section
A1 load factor for dead load
A2 load factor for live load
A I area of parapet
CI capacity of member
Cmaterial crack growth constant
D dead load
D deflection
E elastic modulus
Emeas. experimental elastic modulus
Ecalc. calculated elastic modulus
FG geometry correction factor
G shear modulii
GDF Girder distribution factor
H weld leg height
I moment of inertia
Ir polar moment of inertia
INA moment of inertia of the parapet with respect to the neutral axis of the entire
bridge cross-section
INAP moment of inertia of the parapet with respect to its own neutral axis
J torsional constant
IM impact factor
K stress intensity factor
2
inches
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
11/25
viii
ABSTRACT
Student, Ima Good Ph.D., Purdue University, December 2006. Investigation of Superload
Effects on Steel and Prestressed Concrete Slab-on-Girder Bridges.
Major Professors: Mark D. Bowman and Judy Liu.
A permit truck which exceeds the predefined limit of 108 kips is defined as a
superload in Indiana. These trucks can cause adverse long term effects on the
performance of a bridge in addition to the possibility of causing immediate damage.Bridges with steel and prestressed concrete (PC) girders, selected from an extensive
database, were analyzed and instrumented. Detailed finite element models were
developed using the structural analysis programs SAP2000 and ANSYS. Furthermore, a
prestressed concrete bridge and a steel bridge were instrumented using more than 50
sensors each. Strains and deflections were measured during a live load test, and each
bridge was monitored for more than six months. Capacities of the investigated bridges
were calculated and compared with the demands generated by the superload trucks. A
simple and accurate structural analysis technique, called the spring analogy method, was
developed to provide an effective evaluation tool to fill the gap between beam line
analysis and complicated three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).
Analysis of the steel and PC bridges showed that typical superload trucks up to a
gross vehicle weight of 500 kips are not expected to cause any damage or impair long
term performance of the investigated bridges. Serviceability limit states of the PC bridges
controlled the rating, and the bridges had adequate strength to accommodate all
superloads included in the database. However, strength limit states controlled the rating
of steel bridges. Long term monitoring of a continuous and a simple span bridge
indicated that strains comparable to those of a 366-kip superload truck can be generated
by regular truck traffic. The field measurements also showed that the in-service behavior
Single
spaced
Three single
s aces
Three single
spaces
Date of Aug., May or Dec. only
2
inches
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
12/25
ix
was different than the design assumptions. Fixity due to integral abutments, effectiveness
of the continuity joint in the continuous PC bridge and contribution of the secondary
members lead to a significant difference between the expected and the anticipated
behavior. Furthermore, the AASHTO (2004) girder distribution factor equation was
found to be conservative for the investigated bridges. Use of a more accurate method
such as FEA or the spring analogy method is recommended for the evaluation of bridges
traversed by superloads.
No more than 350 wordsin abstract. Spacing is
same as in text. If
abstract extends to second
page, text starts at 1 inch.
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
13/25
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Growth of industry in last decade has lead to a higher demand for energy.
Furthermore, massive construction projects for power plants and factories started taking
place across the country. Accordingly, large non-divisible loads such as transformers,
pressure vessels or heavy machinery must be transported through the highway network.
Transportation of these heavy loads on the major highways raised some concerns aboutthe response of aging infrastructure.
According to the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), a permit truck
is called a superload truck if its weight exceeds the pre-defined limit of 108 kips.
Superload trucks typically carry heavy, non-divisible components for industrial facilities.
The trailers of these trucks usually have special configurations in order to spread out the
heavy load to multiple axles and to provide a load distribution comparable to that for a
regular truck (Figure 1.1). Bridges on the route traversed by a superload truck are
analyzed before the decision on permit. Analysis and rating of bridges for these special
trucks require extraordinary effort; the passage of a superload may be demanding with
respect to both the capacity of a bridge and the long term performance.
The motivation of this study is to investigate the influence of increased superload
traffic on bridge structures. Approximately 1,500,000 overload trucks traveled on the
highway network of the United States in the federal fiscal year 1989 according to permit
applications; statistics indicate an increase in both the number and weight of overload
vehicles (Fu and Hag-Elsafi, 2000). Analysis of the recent (between 1989 and 2000)
bridge failures in the United States reveals that 8.8% of 503 reported failure cases were
due to overload and 8.6% were due to deterioration (Wardhana and Hadipriono, 2003).
Arabic Page
Numbers
All titles should
be single spacedif more than one
line
3 single spaces
2
inches
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
14/25
2
Throughout the nation, a significant number of bridges may be damaged, possibly to
failure, due to the short term effects of superloads such as overloading and/or due to long
term effects of superloads such as accelerated deterioration. Therefore, the impact of
superload vehicles on bridge structures requires further research. It should also be noted
that about 130,000 of the approximately 600,000 bridges forming the U.S. bridge
network are rated as structurally deficient (Ghosn and Moses, 2000). The increasing
number of superloads may endanger the safety of highway network and increase the
number of deficient bridges; their short and long term effects must be evaluated and
mitigated.
The main objectives of this study are to investigate the effects of superloads on
bridge structures and to develop a strategy for simplifying the evaluation of these effects.
The scope of this study is limited to slab-on-girder bridges, typical on the interstate
highway network. Girders of slab-on-girder bridges are made mostly of steel or
prestressed concrete. This study focuses on the girders and the secondary members of
representative highway bridges. Evaluation of the substructure was beyond the scope of
this study, although it might be critical for some bridges.
1.1. Previous Studies on Superloads
Effects of superloads have been investigated by researchers, but most of these
studies had a limited scope. Observations of the researchers only during and after the
superload passages were reported. Long term effects of superloads were not evaluated.
Notable studies on superloads are summarized below.
Duncan (1977) analyzed bridges in South Africa for superload effects and emphasized
the importance of accurate techniques to assess the effects of superloads on bridges in
order to utilize lower margins of strength for controlled superload passages.
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
15/25
3
Figure 1.1 A typical superload truck (Diamond Heavy Haul, 2006)
Color
pictures are
acceptable
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
16/25
4
GVW: 348 kips
Total Length: 149'-9"4 tires per axle
14K
18.7K
18.7K
18.7K
20.3K
20.3K
20.3K
20.3K
20.3K
20.3K
16.6K
16.6K
16.6K
16.6K
16.6K
16.6K
19K
19K
19K
Group A
Group B
Group C
GVW: 366 kipsTotal Length: 152'-8"
4 tires per axle
Group D
GVW: 500 kipsTotal Length: 95'8 tires per axle
20K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
32K
GVW: 201 kipsTotal Length: 80'-2"
4 tires per axle
20K
20K
20K
20K
20K
27K
27K
27K
20K
GVW: 247.5 kipsTotal Length: 125'-8"4 tires per axle
14K
19.4K
19.4K
19.4K
19.4K
19.4K
19.4K
19.6K
19.4K
19.4K
19.6K
19.4K
19.6K
16K
24K
30K
20K
20K
20K
20K
15K
26K
26K
25K
34K
22K
18K
8K
21K
21K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
21.8K
21.8K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1K
42.1KGVW: 824 kips
Total Length: 127'-7"
8 tires per axle
Maximum Truck
22.6K
Figure 1.2 Axle configurations of the superload groups (Wood, 2004)
10 20 30 40 ft0
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
17/25
5
HS20
GVW: 72 Kip
Total Length: 28'-0"
2-tires per axle.
14' 14'
8K
32K
32K
Toll Road Loading No. 1
GVW: 90 Kip
Total Length: 28'-0"
4-tires per axle.
18K
18K
18K
18K
18K
10' 4' 10' 4'
Figure 1.3 Axle configurations of the design trucks (Wood, 2004)
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
18/25
6
Table 2.1 Measured and calculated deflections of the Beam 3 due to the test truck
Deflection (in)
Loading FEA Measurement Error (%)
LC #2A -0.243 -0.224 8.5
LC #3A -0.244 -0.213 14.6
Table 2.2 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 3 for LC #3A loading
Long. Flange Stress (ksi)
FEA Measurement Error (%)
Top Flange -0.19 -0.33 42.4
Bottom Flange 2.20 N/A N/A
Table 2.3 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 4 for LC #3A loading
Long. Flange Stress (ksi)
FEA Measurement Error (%)
Top Flange -0.21 -0.15 40.0
Bottom Flange 2.59 2.63 1.5
Table 2.4 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 2
Long. Flange Stress (ksi)
Loading FEA Measurement Error (%)
Top Flange LC #2A -0.40 0.08 600.0
Bottom Flange LC #3A 1.60 1.09 46.8
Table 2.5 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 3
Long. Flange Stress (ksi)
Loading FEA Measurement Error (%)
Top Flange LC #3A -1.80 -1.29 39.5
Bottom Flange LC #3A 3.50 2.87 22.0
Table 2.6 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 4
Long. Flange Stress (ksi)
Loading FEA Measurement Error (%)
Top Flange LC #2A -1.50 -0.85 76.5
Bottom Flange LC #3A 3.05 2.37 28.7
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
19/25
LIST OF REFERENCES
No page number and not
counted
Margins are consistent
with title page!
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
20/25
7
LIST OF REFERENCES
Akinci, N. O., Liu, J., and Bowman, M. D. (2005). Effects of Parapets on Live-Load
Response of Steel Bridges Subjected to Superloads. Proceedings of the 84th
Annual TRB Meeting, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 215. (1997). Considerations for Design of
Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading (ACI 215R-74). Detroit, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. (2005).Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05).
Detroit, MI.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2003).
Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR)
of Highway Bridges. 1st Ed., Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2004).
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 3rd
Ed., Washington, D.C.
Abtahi, A., Albrecht, P., and Irwin, G. R. (1976). Fatigue of Periodically Overloaded
Stiffener Detail.ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 102, No. ST11,
pp. 2103-2119.
Albrecht, P., and Friedland, I. M. (1979). Fatigue-Limit Effect on Variable-Amplitude
Fatigue of Stiffeners. Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 105, No. ST12,
December, pp. 2657-2675.
Bannantine, J. A., Comer, J. J., and Handrock, J. L. (1990). Fundamentals of Metal
Fatigue Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2 inches
3 single spaces
If the rest of your
document is
justified, the List ofReferences should be
justified as well. Be
consistent!
Keep entries
together, do not splitthem, just begin on
the next page.
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
21/25
APPENDICES
No page number and not
counted
Margins are
consistent with title
page!
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
22/25
8
Appendix A
Some as-built drawings of the investigated steel bridges are presented in this
section.
Three single spaces
1 inch
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
23/25
Figure A.1 Framing plan of the first steel span of the US-52 Bridge
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
24/25
VITA
No page number and not
counted.
The VITA is only required
for PhD candidates
Margins are
consistent with
title page!
8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007
25/25
10
VITA
Ima Good Student was born in Istanbul, Turkey, on October 3, 1977. He is the
oldest son of a civil engineer father and an elementary school teacher mother. In 2000, he
recieved his B.S. degree from Bogazici University (formerly Robert College). He also
recieved a masters degree in civil engineering from the same university. He joined the
Ph.D. program of Purdue University in August 2002.
Three single spaces
2
inches