DOCSLIB.ORG

Truss Bridge Using a Fiber Reinforced Plastic Deck

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Truss Bridge Using a Fiber Reinforced Plastic Deck Technical Preservation ServIces PreservatIon Tech Notes METALS NUMBERS Rehabilitating a Historic Truss Bridge Using a Fiber Reinforced Plastic Deck WILSON'S BRIDGE Chad Randl Chester County, Technical Preservation Services Pennsylvania National Park Service Introduction Iron truss bridges were an essential ele­ the National Register of Historic ment of America's Steam Age. In the Places. decades fo llowing the Civil War, the The bridge features a single-span combination of strength, durability and Pratt pony truss, approximately sixty affordability made iron bridges a feet long and sixteen feet wide (see fig­ favored means of traversing a ravine or ure J) . When first constructed in the river. They were a symbol of industrial late 19th century, the bridge included an power, a testimony to engineering effi­ oak plank deck supported by timber ciency, and a source of local pride. stringers running parallel to the road­ Over the years, however, the increasing way. Stringers, in turn, rested upon load capacity and widths required by four iron floor beams that hung from succeeding generations of vehicles, as the superstructure by large U-shaped well as inadequate maintenance and bolts. Fieldstone abutments supported wholesale replacement programs, have the bridge with wingwalls extending reduced their number dramatically. As down to the ground line. a result of this decline, an increased The bridge had undergone numer­ emphasis is now being placed on iden­ ous repair campaigns over the past tifying and implementing methods to hundred years, some of which included preserve as many of the remaining iron substituting new materials and compo­ truss bridges as possible. One such nents. Between 1930 and 1940, the effort involves Wilson's Bridge, a timber stringers were replaced with wrought iron bridge constructed in steel I-beam stringers. The deck had 1886 to cross Valley Creek in been replaced on four occasions, most Tredyffrin Township, Pennsylvania. recently (in the mid-1960s) with a nail­ Also known as County Bridge laminated wood deck and asphalt wear­ #166, this span now lies within the ing surface. boundary of Valley Forge National At the time of its rehabilitation in Historical Park. It was fabricated by 1998, Wilson's Bridge carried a dead the Phoenix Iron Company and con­ end road linking several residences and structed by John Denithorne & Sons, a park maintenance facility with the both of nearby Phoenixville, rest of the national park and county Pennsylvania. Because of its location, road system. The dirt road had a low Substitute materials may be used connection to local industrial history, average daily traffic level of approxi­ to replace deteriorated or missing and the scarcity of wrought iron mately thirty-five vehicles; it was more elements of a historic bridge bridges still in use, Wilson's Bridge is commonly used by hikers and horse­ recognized as a valuable park and com­ back riders travelling along the park's provided the character of the munity resource, eligible for listing in trail system. A four-person bridge historic resource is preserved. Deck and Wearing Roadway Surface Masonry Profile /Wingwall --------------- Floorbeams \ Masonry Abutment Creekbed~ Stringers Figure 1. Drawing of Wilson's Bridge showing major structural and site components. Drawing: Chester County Engineering Department. crew within the Chester County extensive cracking and was losing would need to undergo significant Engineering Department was responsi­ adhesion with the deck below (see fig­ repair work, ways of increasing the ble for maintaining Wilson's Bridge, ure 2). The thirty-five year old nail­ allowable loads on the bridge would along with the county's other one hun­ laminated deck, made up of individual also be explored. In addition to these dred spans, one third of which were timber boards placed on edge and immediate concerns, the bridge was considered historic. Recognizing that spiked together to form a 4-1/2" thi ck due for cyclical maintenance work the deterioration of Wilson's bridge continuous surface, was uniformly soft including repainting the truss and had reached a point where the structure and unable to support the wearing sur­ repairing and repointing the stone abut­ would soon be unable to support a face above. The steel stringers were ments and wingwalls (see figure 4). minimum required load capacity, the also in poor condition (see figure 3). Any repair program also had to pro­ bridge team sought a means of retain­ Though the full extent of their deterio­ tect the creek flowing beneath Wilson's ing the bridge in place, while upgrad­ ration was not clear until the deck was Bridge. Pennsylvania's Department of ing its structural capacity. Appropri­ removed, preliminary examination Environmental Protection identified ately rehabilitated, the span could then indicated that the I-beam stringers were Valley Creek as an "Exceptional Value continue to function both as a vehicular severely corroded, particularly over the Stream," a designation that meant all bridge and as a link to equestrian and abutments where they had suffered work on the bridge had to be carefully hiking trails, with little effect on its approximately fifty percent section designed to exclude the chance of historic appearance. loss. water contamination or disturbing the At this time, the wrought iron truss creek bed and banks. Problem had a posted weight load limit of seven tons. This restricted the size and type Solution By the late 1990s, there were numer­ of vehicles (including emergency vehi­ Due to the bridge's historic signifi­ ous indications that Wilson's Bridge cles) able to reach the residences and cance and the several hundred thou­ required immediate intervention. The maintenance facility on the opposite sand dollar cost of a new span, the current asphalt wearing surface showed side of Valley Creek. Since the bridge Figure 2. Before rehabilitation, Wilson's Bridge had an asphalt wearing Figure 3. A view of the underside of Wilson's Bridge before rehabilita­ surface that was delaminating from the deck below. Extensive cracks tion. The timber nail laminated deck sat on steel "I-beam" stringers and numerous potholes were also present. which, in turn, were supported by wrought iron floor beams. Failure of the wearing surface had allowed water to penetrate the laminated deck planks causing further deterioration to both the deck and the stringers below. 2 only option seriously considered was to from bridge applications, the ecological rehabilitate the existing bridge. A plan importance of Valley Creek led the coun­ was developed to repair the superstruc­ ty to look for a different solution. ture and abutments following standard A nail-laminated bridge deck was practices, along with the replacement another treatment option. This type is of the deteriorated 1960s deck and usually assembled and attached to the wearing surface. Several conventional structure piece by piece. Such a process choices were identified for the replace­ would have required closing the dead end ment deck: a glue-laminated timber road for approximately six weeks - one deck, a nail-laminated timber deck week to remove the old deck, one week similar to the existing surface, or a to install new steel stringers, and four steel and concrete deck. Each was weeks to build the new deck in place. ruled out in tum before a new material Because the bridge was the only means that met all of the bridge rehabilitation for residents to reach the main roads, requirements was identified, evaluated, either a temporary span would have to be and selected for the job. constructed or the residents and the park With a typical lifespan of over thir­ maintenance facility would have to be ty years, glue laminated timber decks relocated for the duration of the project, are reasonably cost effective and would both at a prohibitive expense for this pro­ be in keeping with the historic charac­ ject. This deck system also offered no ter of Wilson's Bridge. Chester improvements in load capacity. Though County engineers had used "glulam" comparable in cost to a glulam deck, nail decks on three other recent bridge laminated decks have a significantly rehabilitation projects. The decks are shorter expected life span, and corre­ usually pressure-treated with chemical spondingly higher costs. This alternative wood preservatives. In the previous was therefore not attractive. county bridge projects, some of the Typical steel and concrete deck sys­ preservative leached out of the decks tems were also considered. As with the and into waterways below. In all three timber-laminated decks, this system Figure 4. The Wilson Bridge wingwalls had projects, remediation was then under­ would have required replacing the steel loose and crumbling mortar joints. Much of taken. While at this time there is not a stringers with heavier new stringers due the wall surface required removal of this dete­ consensus as to the environmental to the increased weight of the deck. riorated material and significant repointing. impact of such leached preservatives Their weight, combined with that of a Existing Bridge Rehabilitated Bridge Bituminous Oak Plank Wearing Surface Wearing Surface New Timber Curb~ I 13" ,/' U-bolt \ Replaced Hanger U-bolt Steel Stringers Floor Beam FRP Deck Figure 5. A section drawing of the Wilson's Bridge. The left side shows the construction of the span before rehabilitation, while the right side shows removal of the stringers and the installation of an FRP deck with a plank wearing surface. Both systems were approximately thirteen inches thick. Drawing: Chester County Engineering Department. 3 new concrete deck, would have decreased the load capacity of the bridge to as little as three or four tons. Such a change would then require relo­ cation of the park facility and make the passage of emergency vehicles and delivery of heating fuel to the resi­ dences virtually impossible. Because the load capacity would be reduced rather than increased, this alternative was also ruled out.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2005 • Modern Steel Construction November 2005 • Modern Steel Construction • 36 Diation of the Existing Steel Stringers Was Minimal
    NATIONAL STEEL BRIDGE ALLIANCE PRIZE BRIDGE COMPETITION NATIONAL AWARD RECONSTRUCTED Red Cliff Arch Rehabilitation Project Red Cliff, CO Gregg Gargan ocated near Red Cliff, CO, southwest of Vail railroad. Any falling material would have been haz- existing connections. A bare concrete deck was used on U.S. Highway 24, the Red Cliff Arch Bridge ardous not only to the public, but also to the envi- to minimize the dead loads. Because of the widening, Lwas originally completed in 1941. Sixty-three ronment. A hard platform scaffolding system was the overhang became larger. To minimize the effects years later, the bridge was in dire need of help. Due required and provided several safety and schedule of the large overhang, a mandatory construction to age, as well as loads and traffic that were not envi- benefits. joint was placed beyond the exterior stringer. The sioned in the 1940s, the bridge needed an extensive Since Highway 24 is the main access to this core of the deck was placed first and allowed to gain rehabilitation. popular ski destination, closure of the highway was strength. The curb and remaining deck was then The newly rehabilitated Red Cliff Arch Bridge a concern. In order to achieve a superior concrete placed with their loads distributed to the newly com- was dedicated in November 2004. Preserving the product for the deck, a complete closure for the posite bridge core. To increase strength of the reha- structure’s historical integrity, while updating it to bridge was deemed necessary. To minimize the bilitated bridge, shear studs were added to stringers current safety standards and strength requirements, impact on the town, the contract required the bridge to create a composite deck.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Trail Bridge Design
    U.S. Department of Transportation United States Department of Agriculture Federal Highway Administration Sustainable Trail Bridge Design Forest National Technology & 2023–2805P–NTDP March 2020 Service Development Program 2300–Recreation Sustainable Trail Bridge Design Notice Ordering Information This document was produced in cooperation with You can order a copy of this document using the the Recreational Trails Program of the U.S. Depart- order form on FHWA’s Recreational Trails Program ment of Transportation’s Federal Highway Adminis- website <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rec- tration in the interest of information exchange. The reational_trails/publications/trailpub.cfm> U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of Fill out the order form and submit it electronically. information contained in this document. Or you may email your request to: [email protected] The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names Or you may mail your request to: appear in this report only because they are consid- Szanca Solutions/FHWA PDC ered essential to the objective of this document. 700 North 3rd Avenue The contents of this report reflect the views of the Altoona, PA 16601 authors, who are responsible for the facts and Fax: 814–239–2156 accuracy of the data presented herein. The con- tents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Produced by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report USDA Forest Service does not constitute a standard, specification, or National Technology and Development Program regulation. 5785 Hwy. 10 West Missoula, MT 59808–9361 Phone: 406–329–3978 Fax: 406–329–3719 Email: [email protected] U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • G 13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis.Pdf
    G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis 2nd Edition American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials National Steel Bridge Alliance AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. ii G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis PREFACE This document is a standard developed by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration. The primary goal of the Collaboration is to achieve steel bridge design and construction of the highest quality and value through standardization of the design, fabrication, and erection processes. Each standard represents the consensus of a diverse group of professionals. It is intended that Owners adopt and implement Collaboration standards in their entirety to facilitate the achievement of standardization. It is understood, however, that local statutes or preferences may prevent full adoption of the document. In such cases Owners should adopt these documents with the exceptions they feel are necessary. Cover graphics courtesy of HDR Engineering. DISCLAIMER The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with recognized engineering principles and is for general information only. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by a licensed professional engineer, designer, or architect. The publication of the material contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty of the part of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Difference Between Deck Type and Through Type Bridge and Their Components
    Difference between Deck Type and Through Type Bridge and their Components Naveen Choudhary 1 DEFERENCE BETWEEN DECK TYPE AND THROUGH TYPE RAILWAY BRIDGES • Deck-type bridges refer to those in which the road deck is carried on the top flange or on top of the supporting girders. • Through type bridge - The carriageway rests at the bottom level of the main load carrying members. In the through type plate girder bridge, the roadway or railway is placed at the level of bottom flanges. Mr. Naveen Choudhary, GEC Ajmer 2 DEFERENCE BETWEEN DECK TYPE AND THROUGH TYPE RAILWAY BRIDGES Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 3 DEFERENCE BETWEEN DECK TYPE AND THROUGH TYPE RAILWAY BRIDGES Through type deck bridge Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 4 DEFERENCE BETWEEN DECK TYPE AND THROUGH TYPE RAILWAY BRIDGES Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 5 DEFERENCE BETWEEN DECK TYPE AND THROUGH TYPE RAILWAY BRIDGES Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 6 Through Type Bridge Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 7 Through Type Bridge Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 8 Through Type Bridge Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 9 Deck Type Bridge Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 10 Deck Type Bridge Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 11 Deck Type Bridge Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 12 Cross-Section deck type bridge Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 13 Normal span ranges of bridge system Mr. Naveen Choudhary,GEC Ajmer 14 Normal span ranges of bridge system TYPE Maximum Span 500 m Steel arch bridge 240 m Steel bow-string girder bridge 1200 m Steel cable suspension bridge 30 m Steel plate girder 10 m Steel rolled beam bridge 180 m Steel truss bridge Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridge Deck Design Publication No
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Steel Bridge Design Handbook Bridge Deck Design Publication No. FHWA-IF-12-052 - Vol. 17 Archived November 2012 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 use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the publicArchived 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. Steel Bridge Design Handbook: Bridge Deck Design Publication No. FHWA-IF-12-052 – Vol. 17 November 2012 Archived Archived Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-IF-12-052 – Vol. 17 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Steel Bridge Design Handbook: Bridge Deck Design November 2012 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Brandon Chavel, Ph.D, PE 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. HDR Engineering, Inc. 11 Stanwix Street 11. Contract or Grant No. Suite 800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Bridge Technology Technical Report Federal Highway Administration March 2011 – November 2012 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Deck Design for Steel Bridges
    Deck Design for Steel Bridges Four (4) Continuing Education Hours Course #CV1218 Approved Continuing Education for Licensed Professional Engineers EZ-pdh.com Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC 301 Mission Dr. Unit 571 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170 800-433-1487 [email protected] Deck Design for Steel Bridges Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC Course Description: The Deck Design for Steel Bridges course satisfies four (4) hours of professional development. The course is designed as a distance learning course that offers insight for engineers in decking options and design considerations for steel bridges. Objectives: The primary objective of this course is to enable the student to understand design options & methods for various steel bridge deck types such as concrete deck slabs, metal grid decks, orthotropic steel decks, wood decks, and several others. Grading: Students must achieve a minimum score of 70% on the online quiz to pass this course. The quiz may be taken as many times as necessary to successful pass and complete the course. A copy of the quiz questions are attached to last pages of this document. ii Deck Design for Steel Bridges Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC Table of Contents Deck Design for Steel Bridges 1. Introduction ...................................................... 1 2. Concrete Deck Slabs ........................................... 2 3. Metal Grid Decks ............................................. 19 4. Orthotropic Steel Decks ................................... 26 5. Wood Decks ..................................................... 31 6. Other Deck Systems ......................................... 34 Quiz Questions ...................................... 38 iii Deck Design for Steel Bridges Ezekiel Enterprises, LLC 1.0 INTRODUCTION This course provides practical information regarding the decking options and design considerations for steel bridges, presenting deck types such as concrete deck slabs, metal grid decks, orthotropic steel decks, wood decks, and several others.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridge Design Manual (BDM), 2006
    Bridge Design Manual June 2006 WWW.SCDOT.ORG Welcome To The SCDOT Bridge Design Manual Chapter 1 – Bridge Design Section Organization Chapter 2 – Bridge Replacement Project Development Chapter 3 – Procedures for Plan Preparation Chapter 4 – Coordination of Bridge Replacement Projects Chapter 5 – Administrative Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 – Plan Preparation Chapter 7 – Quantity Estimates Chapter 8 – Construction Cost Estimates Chapter 9 – Bid Documents Chapter 10 – [Reserved] Chapter 11 – General Requirements Chapter 12 – Structural Systems and Dimensions Chapter 13 – Loads and Load Factors Chapter 14 – Structural Analysis and Evaluation Chapter 15 – Structural Concrete Chapter 16 – Structural Steel Structures Chapter 17 – Bridge Decks Chapter 18 – Bridge Deck Drainage Chapter 19 – Foundations Chapter 20 – Substructures Chapter 21 – Joints and Bearings Chapter 22 – Highway Bridges Over Railroads Chapter 23 – Bridge Widening and Rehabilitation Chapter 24 – Construction Operations Chapter 25 – Computer Programs Chapter 1 BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION ORGANIZATION SCDOT BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL April 2006 SCDOT Bridge Design Manual BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION ORGANIZATION Table of Contents Section Page 1.1 BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION...................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 State Bridge Design Engineer..................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Seismic Design and Bridge Design Support Team..................................1-2 1.1.3 Bridge Design Teams...............................................................................1-3
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guide for Steel Railway Bridges (P318)
    SCI PUBLICATION P318 Design Guide for Steel Railway Bridges D C ILES MSc ACGI DIC CEng MICE Published by: The Steel Construction Institute Silwood Park Ascot Berkshire SL5 7QN Tel: 01344 623345 Fax: 01344 622944 © 2004 The Steel Construction Institute Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may not be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction only in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the UK Copyright Licensing Agency, or in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate Reproduction Rights Organisation outside the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publishers, The Steel Construction Institute, at the address given on the title page. Although care has been taken to ensure, to the best of our knowledge, that all data and information contained herein are accurate to the extent that they relate to either matters of fact or accepted practice or matters of opinion at the time of publication, The Steel Construction Institute, the authors and the reviewers assume no responsibility for any errors in or misinterpretations of such data and/or information or any loss or damage arising from or related to their use. Publications supplied to the Members of the Institute at a discount are not for resale by them. Publication Number: SCI P318 ISBN 1 85942 150 4 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
    [Show full text]
  • Structures Design Bulletin Template
    Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT 605 Suwannee Street AI\\AI\\TH PRASAD, P.E. GOVERNOR SECRETARY Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 STRUCTURES DESIGN BULLETIN CII-07 ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 11-07 DATE: June 30, 2011 TO: District Directors of Production, District Design Engineers, District Structures Design Engineers FROM: Robert V. Robertson, P. E., State Structures Design Engin er 7 David O'Hagan, P.E., State Roadway Design Engin COPLES: Brian Blanchard, Torn Andres, Charles Boyd, Jeffrey Oer (FHW A), Derek Soden (FHWA) SUBJECT: Incorporation of Prefabricated Steel Truss Pedestrian Bridges in FOOT Bid Documents REQUIREMENTS Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 1. Insert sub-article heading 8.7.1 below the first paragraph in Article 8.7 as follows: 8.7.1 Design Criteria 2. Insert sub-article 8.7.2 below Figure 8.1 as follows: 8.7.2 Prefabricated Steel Truss Pedestrian Bridges on FOOT Projects In many situations it makes good engineering and economic sense to utilize prefabricated steel truss bridges for pedestrian crossings. These bridges can be stand-alone structures or a hybrid structure with adjoining spans of other types (FIB, deck slab, steel I-girder, etc.). The provisions of this article apply only to the spans on a bridge that are comprised of prefabricated steel trusses. The term steel truss bridge as applied in this article refers only to stand-alone steel truss structures or to the steel truss spans of a hybrid bridge structure. www. dot.state.f1.us Structures Design Bulletin C11-07 Roadway Design Bulletin 11-07 Incorporation of Prefabricated Steel Truss Pedestrian Bridges in FDOT Bid Documents Page 2 of 9 The Department may elect to use prefabricated truss bridges on FDOT projects if the following conditions are met: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisdot Structure Inspection Manual
    Structure Inspection Manual Part 2 – Bridges Chapter 3– Deck Table of Contents 2.3 Decks and Slabs ................................................................................................................ 2 2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2 2.3.2 Reinforced Concrete Elements ................................................................................... 3 2.3.2.1 Reinforced Concrete Deck (Element 12) Reinforced Concrete Slab (Element 38) ............................................................. 3 2.3.2.2 Reinforced Concrete Top Flange (Element 16) .................................................. 8 2.3.3 Prestressed Concrete Elements ............................................................................... 14 2.3.3.1 Prestressed Concrete Deck (Element 13) Prestressed Concrete Slab (Element 39) ......................................................... 15 2.3.3.2 Prestressed Concrete Top Flange (Element 15) ............................................... 19 2.3.4 Steel Elements ......................................................................................................... 24 2.3.4.1 Steel Deck – Open Grid (Element 28) .............................................................. 25 2.3.4.2 Steel Deck with Concrete Filled Grid (Element 29) ........................................... 28 2.3.4.3 Steel Deck Corrugated/Orthotropic/Etc. (Element 30) ...................................... 31 2.3.5 Timber Elements
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Design and Construction of HPC Deck Girder Bridge in Stanly County, North Carolina
    Final Report North Carolina Department of Transportation Research Project No. 2006-16 (IBRC 2004) Evaluation of Design and Construction of HPC Deck Girder Bridge in Stanly County, North Carolina By Janos Gergely, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Investigator Garrett L. Overcash, E.I. Graduate Research Assistant Jacob B. Mock, E.I. Graduate Research Assistant Chris M. Clark, E.I. Graduate Research Assistant Kevin G. Bailey, MSCE, P.E. Consulting Engineer at RWA Department of Civil Engineering University of North Carolina at Charlotte 9201 University City Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28223 January 4, 2007 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/NC/2006-18 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Evaluation of Design and Construction of HPC Deck Girder Bridge in January 4, 2007 Stanly County, North Carolina 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Janos Gergely, Garrett L. Overcash, Jacob B. Mock, Chris M. Clark, Kevin G. Bailey 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) University of North Carolina at Charlotte Civil Engineering Department 9201 University City Blvd Charlotte, NC 28223 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered North Carolina Department of Transportation Final Report Research and Analysis Group 6/06/05-6/30/06 1 South Wilmington Street 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 2006-16 Supplementary Notes: 16. Abstract A current initiative by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction (IBRC) Program, focuses on new materials and technologies in bridge design and construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Fatigue Evaluation of the Deck Truss of Bridge 9340 Technical Report Documentation Page
    .... .... .... .... Fatigue Evaluation of the Deck Truss of Bridge 9340 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC - 2001-10 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date FATIGUE EVALUATION OF THE DECK TRUSS OF March 2001 BRIDGE 9340 6. 7. Author(s) 8. PerfOlming Organization Report No. Heather M. O'Connell, Robert J. Dexter, P.E. and Paul M. Bergson, P.E. 9. Perfonning Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Department ofCivil Engineering University ofMinnesota 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 500 Pillsbury Drive SE c) 74708 wo) 124 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0116 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Department ofTransportation Final Report 2000-2001 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 14. Sponsoring Agency Code St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) This research project resulted in a new, accurate way to assess fatigue cracking on Bridge 9340 on 1-35, which crosses the Mississippi River near downtown Minneapolis. The research involved installation on both the main trusses and the floor truss to measure the live-load stress ranges. Researchers monitored the strain gages while trucks with known axle weights crossed the bridge under normal traffic. Researchers then developed two-and three-dimensional finite-element models ofthe bridge, and used the models to calculate the stress ranges throughout the deck truss. The bridge's deck truss has not experienced fatigue cracking, but it has many poor fatigue details on the main truss and floor truss system.
    [Show full text]