Measurement-Based Evaluation of Noncomposite Steel Girder Bridges
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-0-1746-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Measurement-Based Evaluation ofNoncomposite Steel Girder February 2000 Bridges 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. D. V. Jauregui, J. A. Yura, K. H. Frank, S. L. Wood, and J. 0. Jirsa Research Report 17 46-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin Research Project 0-1746 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research Report (9/96-8/99) Research and Technology Implementation Office P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Texas Department of Transportation 16. Abstract The results from an experimental study into the behavior of noncomposite slab-on-steel girder bridges are presented. Two bridge units were tested under increasing static loads beyond first yield of the girders with a flatbed trailer loaded with concrete barriers. The load tests were unique in that dump trucks were applied between trailer load cycles to monitor the effect of overloads on the bridge response. Measured deformations included strain, vertical deflection, and girder-slab slip. Lateral load distribution was evaluated experimentally by expressing the bending moment in each girder section (derived from the measured strains) as a percentage of the total bridge moment. The strain derived bridge moment was lower than the statical bridge moment due in part to bearing restraint and deck stiffuess. Measured distribution factors compared well with finite element analysis but were below empirical factors from AASHTO Standard (1996) and LRFD (1998) Specifications. There was better agreement with the LRFD-based values. The heavy trailer loads bad no significant impact on the load distribution and partial composite action of the girders. More significant changes occurred between different transverse load positions of the dump truck. A proposed experimental bridge rating process was developed that consists of a hierarchy of steps of increasing complexity and effort, some of which do not require load testing. The process terminates once a satisfactory rating is achieved. Procedures for using measured distribution factors and section moduli for the girders to improve the AASHTO Allowable Stress and Load Factor ratings are given. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement bridge rating, unintended partial composite No restrictions. This document is available to the public through action, proof/diagnostic load testing, load the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia distribution, overload effects, bearing 22161. restraint, deck/curb participation 19. Security Classif. (of report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 248 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized MEASUREMENT-BASED EVALUATION OF NONCOMPOSITE STEEL GIRDER BRIDGES by D. V. Jauregui, J. A. Yura, K. H. Frank, S. L Wood, and J. 0. Jirsa Research Report 1746-1 Research Project 0-1746 EFFECTS OF OVERLOADS ON EXISTING STRUCTURES conducted for the Texas Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration by the CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BUREAU OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN February 2000 Research peiformed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We greatly appreciate the financial support from the Texas Department of Transportation that made this project possible. The support of the project director, John Holt (DES), and program coordinator, Ronald Medlock (CST), is also very much appreciated. We thank Project Monitoring Committee members, Keith Ramsey (DES), Curtis Wagner (MCD), Charles Walker (DES) and Don Harley (FHWA). DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, PERMIT, OR BIDDING PURPOSES J. A. Yura, P.E., Texas #29859 K. H. Frank, P.E., Texas #48953 S. L. Wood, P.E., Texas #83804 J. 0. Jirsa, P.E., Texas #31360 Research Supervisors iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAP'fER 1: IN"TRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 BRIDGE RATING USING AASHT0 .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 BRIDGE TESTING TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................... 6 1.3.1 Diagnostic Testing ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.3.2 ProofTesting ...................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 HISTORICAL F ACfORS AFFECTING BRIDGE PERFORMANCE .......................................................... 7 1.4.1 Unintended Composite Action ............................................................................................................ 8 1.4.2 Participation ofNon-Structural Cotnponents .................................................................................... 9 1.4.3 Load Distribution Effects ................................................................................................................... 9 1.4.4 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 10 1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ............................................................................................ 10 1.6 0RGAN1ZATION OF STUDY ............................................................................................................ 11 CHAP'fER 2: UTERATIJRE REV'IEW ............................................................................................................... 13 2.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 NCIIRP STUDIES .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 SURVEY OF STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS .............................................................................. 14 2.3.1 Diagnostic Testing in New York ....................................................................................................... l4 2.3.2 Proof Testing in Florida and Michigan ........................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Diagnostic I Proof Testing in Alabama ............................................................................................ IS 2.3.4 Diagnostic Testing in Delaware ....................................................................................................... 16 2.4 PRIVATE CONSULTANTS ............................................................................................................... 17 2.4.1 Specialized Bridge Evaluation Practice ........................................................................................... l7 2.4.2 General Structural Engineering Consultants ................................................................................... l8 2.5 0THERACTIVITYINEXPERIMENTALBRIDGEEVALUATION ........................................................ 18 CHAP'fER 3: BRIDGE 1ESTING SYS1EM ....................................................................................................... 19 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 19 3.1.1 DataAcquisition............................................................................................................................... l9 3.1.2 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................................ 26 3.2 DATA COLLECTION SOFTWARE ........................................................................................... 28 3.2.1 Overview ofProgram ....................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.2 Channel Description and Scanning Interval .................................................................................... 28 3.2.3 User-Defined Flags and Data Tables .............................................................................................. 30 v CHAPTER 4: BRIDGE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................