DOCSLIB.ORG

Estimating Fatigue Life of Patroon Island Bridge Using Strain Measurements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Estimating Fatigue Life of Patroon Island Bridge Using Strain Measurements REPORT FHWA/NY/SR-04/142 Estimating Fatigue Life of Patroon Island Bridge Using Strain Measurements RYAN LUND SREENIVAS ALAMPALLI SPECIAL REPORT 142 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUREAU NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION George E. Pataki, Governor/Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner ESTIMATING FATIGUE LIFE OF PATROON ISLAND BRIDGE USING STRAIN MEASUREMENTS Ryan Lund, Civil Engineer I, Transportation Research & Development Bureau Sreenivas Alampalli, Director, Bridge Program and Evaluation Services Bureau Special Report 142 November 2004 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUREAU New York State Department of Transportation, 50 Wolf Road, New York 12232 ABSTRACT The design fatigue life of a bridge component is based on the stress spectrum the component experiences and the fatigue durability. Changes in traffic patterns, volume, and any degradation of structural components can influence the fatigue life of the bridge. A fatigue life evaluation, reflecting the actual conditions, has value to bridge owners. This report presents a study where the remaining fatigue life of the Patroon Island Bridge, which carries Interstate 90 over the Hudson River, was estimated as part of a structural integrity evaluation and a larger evaluation of the entire interchange. The Patroon Island Bridge consists of ten spans. Seven spans are considered the main spans and consist of steel trusses and concrete decks. The other three spans are considered approach spans and consist of plate girders. The overall bridge length is 1,795 feet. Procedures outlined in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Fatigue Evaluation of Existing Steel Bridges and strain data from critical structural members were used to estimate the remaining fatigue life of selected bridge components. The results indicate that most of the identified critical details have an infinite remaining safe fatigue life and others have a substantial fatigue life, however the remaining fatigue life has not been determined for damaged and cracked members. iii CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................1 A. Background ............................................................1 B. Current Status of the Bridge................................................4 C. Study Objectives ........................................................6 II. INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION ..............................7 A. Gage Locations .........................................................7 B. Instrumentation ........................................................11 C. Data Collection and Analysis..............................................12 III. EFFECTIVE STRESSES FOR CRITICAL DETAILS ............................19 IV. FATIGUE LIFE EVALUATION .............................................25 A. Detail Classification .....................................................25 B. Infinite Fatigue Life Check................................................26 C. Finite Remaining Fatigue Life .............................................28 V. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................31 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................33 REFERENCES ..............................................................35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Histograms ...................................................37 v I. INTRODUCTION The remaining fatigue life of bridges can play a major role in making cost-effective decisions regarding rehabilitation versus replacement of existing bridges, especially for those bridges that are part of a busy interchange. The design fatigue life of a bridge is generally based on the truck traffic data, prevalent specifications, and the fatigue durability of the components in the bridge. The actual truck traffic volume that a bridge experiences, and is expected to experience for the design life of the bridge, will influence the fatigue life of the bridge components. An evaluation based on actual conditions can benefit bridge owners. The remaining safe fatigue life of the Patroon Island Bridge in New York State was evaluated as part of a structural integrity evaluation of a major interchange (1). Procedures outlined in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Fatigue Evaluation of Existing Steel Bridges and strain data from critical structural members were used to estimate the remaining fatigue life of selected bridge components (2, 5). A rain-flow algorithm (3,4) and Miner's Rule (2) were used as part of the analysis. The analysis showed that most of the members analyzed have an infinite fatigue life, however the remaining fatigue life has not been determined for damaged and cracked members. In this report the remaining safe life of structural details is determined as opposed to the remaining mean life. There is a 97.7% and 99.9% probability that the actual fatigue life will exceed the remaining safe life for redundant and non redundant details, respectively (2). A. BACKGROUND The Patroon Island Bridge, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, is part of a major interchange in Albany, New York. The bridge carries Interstate 90, in the east-west direction, over the Hudson River. The bridge consists of ten spans. Seven spans are considered the main spans and consist of steel trusses and concrete decks. The other three spans are considered approach spans and consist of plate girders. The overall bridge length is 1,795 feet and has been in service since 1968, however some structural repairs were made in 1992. The average daily traffic (ADT) count was 70,787 in 1998 with a 4.5% estimated traffic growth during the life of the bridge. Girders span from the west abutment, continuously over pier 1 to pier 2, in the mainline and ramp spans. The floor beams rest on sole plates, which are welded to the top flange of the girder, so the girder and slab are non-composite. The mainline and ramp spans have two girders in each direction. In 1992, the east and west bound main line spans were tied together with diaphragms and floor beam splices. Span 3 consists of rolled and built-up members in each of the four, constant depth trusses. The floor beams are spaced at 11' 7" and rest on top of the girders. The trusses consist of welded plates or rolled I sections and there are no stringers in span 3. Spans 7, 8, and 9 consist of rolled and built-up members in each of the four, constant depth trusses. The trusses are welded into box shapes. The tension members have welded intermediate stay plates and the compression members have welded perforated plates. Figure 1. Patroon Island Bridge. Figure 2. Location of the Patroon Island Bridge. 2 Spans 4, 5, and 6 consist of built up truss members. The compression members consist of two main plates and perforated cover plates. The tension truss members consist of main plates with intermediate stay plates and diaphragms. During construction in 1968, the intermediate stay plates and diaphragms were connected to the inside of the truss plates with fillet welds. In 1992, some of the intermediate stay plates and diaphragms were removed and new plates were reconnected with bolts to increase the fatigue strength. Figure 3 shows a bolted intermediate stay plate. The cantilever and interior floor beam webs in spans 4, 5 and 6 are connected to the truss node gusset plates using steel angles, but the top flanges are made continuous with a top strap plate that is not connected to the truss (See Figures 4, 5 and 6). Many cracks have been observed in the upper portion of the floor beam web, near the top strap plate. This is a critical connection, but the fatigue life for this detail could not be determined because cracks exist. Figure 3. Bolted intermediate stay plate. Figure 4. Floor beam to truss connection. 3 Span 10 originally had independent spans to facilitate the east and west bound lanes. In 1992 the east and west bound spans were tied together with diaphragms, floor beam splices and a closure pour. Span 10 has bolted sole plates on the top flange to act as a spacer for the floor beams. The stringer webs are bolted to the web of the floor beams to allow shear transfer, but limit moment transfer. There are several flange plate transitions that are connected using groove welds. B. CURRENT STATUS OF THE BRIDGE Several structural components experienced fatigue cracks. The bridge and two ramp structures have a documented history of cracks in connection welds and floor beams. These include the webs of floor beams (Figures 4-6), sole plates between the floor beams and girders (Figure 9), truss to bearing welds (Figures 7-8), and transverse web stiffeners (Figure 9). Many of the recent problems have been related to the floor beam webs in spans 4, 5 and 6 (Figures 4-6). The cause of this cracking was attributed to the deformation of the truss in the longitudinal direction with respect to the slab and local stress concentrations in the upper portion of the web, near the truss. The floor beam web is attached to the truss using an angle. A top strap plate creates continuity between the top flanges of the floor beam on each side of the truss, but is not attached to the truss. The truss is exerting an out of plane load on the web of the floor beam. The floor beams are constrained by the stringers which are connected to the slab. The slab is very stiff along the length of the bridge, when compared to the top truss chords in the bridge, but the web of the floor beam must transmit the shear between the truss and the slab. In addition to the out of plane shear stresses in the floor beam web, there are also stresses
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Submitted by the City of Rensselaer
    Downtown Revitalization Initiative “Resurgent Rensselaer” – Submitted by the City of Rensselaer BASIC INFORMATION Regional Economic Development Council (REDC) Region: Capital District Municipality Name: City of Rensselaer Downtown Name: Rensselaer Transit Village County: Rensselaer Vision for Downtown. Provide a brief statement of the municipality’s vision for downtown revitalization. The City of Rensselaer is in the process of reinventing itself as an active waterfront transit village where residents can “Live, Work and Play.” In order to accomplish this mission, the city plans to completely redevelop its waterfront, redefine Broadway as its Main Street, and improve connectivity from new residential, retail, commercial and recreational uses to the Albany/Rensselaer Train Station. Justification. Provide an overview of the downtown, highlighting the area’s defining characteristics and the reasons for its selection. Explain why the downtown is ready for Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) investment, and how that investment would serve as a catalyst to bring about revitalization. The City of Rensselaer is the prime example of a community which is in the midst of rebirth as a modern-day transit village. The city boasts a wonderful location with easy access to regional rail transportation, waterfront recreation, new mixed-use housing developments and a traditional Main Street thoroughfare along Broadway. Moreover, Broadway directly connects the waterfront to a number of historic resources within the city, offering an opportunity to rebrand the city as a modern transit village and historic maritime port of call along the Hudson. A historic impediment to redevelopment along Broadway and the waterfront has been the existence of perceived and potential brownfield sites, as highlighted in the City’s New York State Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program Nomination Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Cdtc New Visions 2050 Infrastructure White Paper
    CDTC NEW VISIONS 2050 INFRASTRUCTURE WHITE PAPER Preserving, Managing, and Renewing the Capital District’s Infrastructure January 25, 2020 Capital District Transportation Committee One Park Place Albany NY 12205 518-458-2161 www.cdtcmpo.org CDTC New Visions 2050 Infrastructure White Paper Table of Contents 1 Infrastructure Planning & Investment Principal ................................................................................... 4 2 Developing the 2050 New Visions Long Range Plan ............................................................................. 5 3 Capital District Transportation System ................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Aging Infrastructure and the Importance of Renewal .................................................................. 7 3.2 Capital District Infrastructure Condition ....................................................................................... 9 3.3 Pavement Condition ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Bridge Condition ......................................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 21 4 Additional Infrastructure Needs ......................................................................................................... 22 4.1 Transit Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • City of Rensselaer Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Update FINAL DRAFT July 2011
    City of Rensselaer Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Update FINAL DRAFT July 2011 Prepared By: Bergmann Associates Prepared For: City of Rensselaer This Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan was prepared for the City of Rensselaer and the New York State Department of State with funds provided under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund. City of Rensselaer Local Waterfront Revitalization Program City of Rensselaer Local Waterfront Revitalization Program TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1 Waterfront Planning in Rensselaer ....................................................................................................... 2 Organization of the LWRP .................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION AREA BOUNDARY ............................................................. 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Regional Context.................................................................................................................................. 5 Landside Boundaries ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Albany County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2018
    Albany County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2018 Albany County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Prepared for: Albany County Prepared by: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. 10 Airline Drive, Suite 200 Albany, New York 12205 © 2018 BARTON & LOGUIDICE, D.P.C. I ALBANY COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................1 1.2 Plan Purpose ...........................................................................................................2 1.3 Planning Participants ..............................................................................................3 1.4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process........................................................................6 2.0 Albany County Profile .....................................................................................................7 2.1 Geographic Location ...............................................................................................7 2.2 Climate ...................................................................................................................8 2.3 Historical Overview .............................................................................................. 11 2.4 Demographics ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River
    386 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 2, Chapter 12 26 SEP 2021 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 2—Chapter 12 73°30'W NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml Albany Troy 74°30'W 74°W 42°30'N 12348 12347 Hudson R E Saugerties V M A S S A C H U S E T T S I C O N N E C T I C U T R 42°N N Kingston O S D U H Poughkeepsie Newburgh 41°30'N West Point NE 12343 W ORK T NE Y ORK Y W J E R S E W Ossining NE Y CONNECTICU 12346 U N D S O 41°N N D L A I S N G 12345 Yonkers L O 12341 12335 26 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 2, Chapter 12 ¢ 387 Hudson River (11) Structures across Hudson River to Troy, NY Clearance (feet) Name•Description•Type Location Horizontal Vertical* Information George Washington Bridge (fixed) 40°51'06"N., 73°57'11"W. 3060 193 (east end) 205 (center) 206 (west end) Tappan Zee Bridge (fixed) 41°04’16”N., 73°53’42”W 1140 (center span) 139 (center span) 467 (east and 123 (east and west west spans) spans) Overhead power cables 41°15'47"N., 73°58'16"W. 160 Bear Mountain Bridge (fixed) 41°19'12"N., 73°59'00"W. 1584 155 Newburgh-Beacon Bridges (fixed) 41°31'10"N., 73°59'57"W. 960 147 (middle 760 feet) Channel spans have a private sound 172 (center) signal on the north bridge and a racon on the south bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Rensselaer County Waterfront Trail
    RENSSELAER COUNTY TRAIL FROM THE LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE TO THE TROY-MENANDS BRIDGE OCTOBER 2004 SUBMITTED TO: HUDSON RIVER GREENWAY SUBMITTED BY: SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY AND THE HUDSON GROUP, LLC ALBANY, NY Rensselaer County Trail from the Livingston Avenue Bridge to the Troy-Menands Bridge Table of Contents BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................1 STUDY PURPOSE ...............................................................................................................................3 ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES – A ‘VIRTUAL TOUR’ ......................................................................4 Northern Trail Access Point Images (Mile 0.5):..........................................................................5 EPA Clean-Up Site Images (Mile 1.3):.........................................................................................7 Sewage Treatment Plan Images...................................................................................................8 Natural Area Images....................................................................................................................10 Southern Trail Access Point Images ..........................................................................................12 THE TRAIL........................................................................................................................................13 A. MISSION STATEMENT...................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Department of Transportation Request for Proposals Nys Rt
    NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NYS RT. 378 TROY-MENANDS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGE STUDY NYSDOT REGION 1 (CAPITAL DISTRICT) Contract #C037899 Initial Information for Submittal A. Please note the following dates and deadlines: • August 14, 2020: RFP Release Date • August 28, 2020: Deadline for questions about the RFP at 12:00 PM (EST) • September 4, 2020: Release of questions/answers • September 11, 2020: Deadline for the submission of proposals at 12:00 PM (EST) • September 2020: Evaluations • October 2020: Technical Interviews • October 2020: Approximate Recommendation & Designation • October/November 2020: Contract Finalizing • Early February 2021: Contract Award B. Complete proposals are to be submitted to the Designated Contact stipulated in RFP Section 1.4. RFP RESPONSE FORM #C037899 NYS RT. 378 TROY-MENANDS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGE (PEL) STUDY SERVICES FOR NYSDOT REGION 1 (CAPITAL DISTRICT) Please review this RFP, complete the following information, and e-mail to the NYSDOT address shown below, by the earliest practical date. This RFP Response form must be submitted along with the two required Procurement Lobbying Law forms (see RFP Section 5.2.2(e)) before questions or other communications with the Department regarding this solicitation can be initiated. ______________ WE DO INTEND TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL ______________ WE DO NOT INTEND TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: ______________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Tuesday June 4, 1996
    6±4±96 Tuesday Vol. 61 No. 108 June 4, 1996 Pages 27995±28466 Briefings on How To Use the Federal Register For information on briefings in Chicago, IL, and Washington, DC, see announcement on the inside cover of this issue. federal register 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES PUBLIC Subscriptions: Paper or fiche 202±512±1800 FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday, Assistance with public subscriptions 512±1806 (not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), by General online information 202±512±1530 the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Single copies/back copies: Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the Paper or fiche 512±1800 regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register Assistance with public single copies 512±1803 (1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC FEDERAL AGENCIES 20402. Subscriptions: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 523±5243 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523±5243 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and For other telephone numbers, see the Reader Aids section Executive Orders and Federal agency documents having general applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published at the end of this issue. by act of Congress and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP earlier filing is requested by the issuing agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Open for Public Comment
    November 2015 Capital District Transportation Committee Regional Freight and Goods Movement Study: Final Report CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1 Stakeholder Involvement .......................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Modern Freight and Goods Movement .................................................................. 1 Land Use and Freight Typologies ............................................................................................. 2 Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 2 Freight Priority Network.......................................................................................................... 2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................... 3 Highway Conditions ............................................................................................................... 5 Freight Rail Conditions ........................................................................................................... 6 Water Cargo Conditions ......................................................................................................... 6 Air Cargo Conditions .............................................................................................................. 7 Pipeline Conditions
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Crossing Study
    HHuuddssoonn RRiivveerr CCrroossssiinngg SSttuuddyy Final Report February 13, 2008 Prepared for: Capital District New York State Transportation Committee Department of Transportation Acknowledgements Study Advisory Committee Capital District NYS Department of Regional Planning Rocco Ferraro Bonnie Devine State Commission Capital District NYS Senate Task Force Transportation Kristina Younger Jim Cartin on High Speed Rail Authority Jill Ross City of Albany Deirdre Rudolph NYS Thruway Authority Phil Serafino Frank City of Rensselaer Marybeth Pettit Port of Albany Commisso Linda Von der City of Troy Judy Breselor Rensselaer County Heide County of Albany Michael Franchini Town of East Greenbush James Moore Hudson Valley Town of North Mary Mangione Mark Evers Greenway Greenbush Stakeholders A Regional Initiative Hudson Valley Community Andreas Kriefall Stephen Cowan Supporting Empowerment College Marc Boungard I Love NY Marketing Dept. Adirondack Trailways Anne Noonan New York Planning Federation David Kay Albany Convention and NYS Bike Coalition Joshua Poppel Michelle Vennard Visitors Bureau NYS Department of Jeff Sama American Automobile Environmental Conservation Michelle Vanepps Association NYS Office of General Services Bruce Trobridge Amtrak Thomas Connolly NYS Parks and Historic Kurt Kress Center for Economic Growth David Rooney Preservation Center for Independence Tim Maxwell Peter Pan Bus Lines Chamber of Commerce Scenic Hudson Ned Sullivan Lyn Taylor (Albany) Schodack Island State Park Rob Taylor Chamber of Commerce Town of Bethlehem
    [Show full text]
  • Expressway System Options (3.2 MB Pdf)
    Working Group B Draft Report Expressway System Options August 2005 SUMMARY The Capital District Transportation Committee is in the midst of an update to its official New Visions regional transportation plan. The update will extend the horizon to 2030 and address emerging issues. In January 2004, CDTC established five “working groups” to help the staff analyze in parallel the subjects requiring further study (as identified by the Quality Region Task Force) and to guide the documentation of the analysis. Working Group B was charged with investigating and documenting “Expressway System Issues The “expressway system” is and Options”. Working Group B was made up of defined as the entire interstate representatives from CDTC staff, NYSDOT Region 1, system, Alternate Route 7, NY NYSDOT Main Office, CDTA, the New York State 85 from I-90 to the NYS Thruway Authority (NYSTA), and one Quality Region Thruway, the I-90 Phase I Task Force member. This report summarizes the research, Connector and the South Mall analysis and findings by Working Group B. Expressway/Dunn Memorial Bridge. Working group members representing the New York State Department of Transportation and the New York State Thruway Authority were asked for detailed data regarding current infrastructure needs and attendant costs. NYSDOT, NYSTA and CDTA also provided a detailed inventory of the current ITS infrastructure and planned additions to that infrastructure. For the purpose of the Working Group B effort, the “expressway system” is defined as “Expressway” System in the Capital District the entire interstate system, Alternate Route 7, NY 85 from I-90 to the NYS Thruway, the I-90 Phase I Connector and the South Mall Expressway/Dunn Memorial Bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Group B Report Revised Draft
    Working Group B Report Revised Draft Expressway System Options April 2007 SUMMARY The Capital District Transportation Committee is in the midst of an update to its official New Visions regional transportation plan. The update will extend the horizon to 2030 and address emerging issues. In January 2004, CDTC established five “working groups” to help the staff analyze in parallel the subjects requiring further study (as identified by the Quality Region Task Force) and to guide the documentation of the analysis. Working Group B was charged with investigating and documenting “Expressway System Issues The “expressway system” is and Options”. Working Group B was made up of defined as the entire interstate representatives from CDTC staff, NYSDOT Region 1, system, Alternate Route 7, NY NYSDOT Main Office, CDTA, the New York State 85 from I-90 to the NYS Thruway Authority (NYSTA), and one Quality Region Thruway, the I-90 Phase I Task Force member. This report summarizes the research, Connector and the South Mall analysis and findings by Working Group B. Expressway/Dunn Memorial Bridge. The 2004 report has been modified slightly to acknowledge that the New Visions 2030 Finance Plan overall budget is consistent with the Working Group B bridge needs estimates, pavement and bridge maintenance estimates, and most of the section-specific reconstruction estimates. The cost estimates for the Thruway bridges have been more clearly defined as part of the Finance Task Force work. Consequently, the Finance Task Force numbers will be used in the New Visions 2030 Plan. Working group members representing the “Expressway” System in the Capital District New York State Department of Transportation and the New York State Thruway Authority were asked for detailed data regarding current infrastructure needs and attendant costs.
    [Show full text]