DOCSLIB.ORG

Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89C) April 24, 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89C) April 24, 2012 Bridge Inspection Report Sheet 1 of 17 Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89c) April 24, 2012 CAPITOLA CROSSING DECK TRUSS (MP15.89c) BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT DRAFT Prepared for J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc. By Modjeski and Masters, Inc. 4510 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite E Charleston, WV 25302 June, 2012 Bridge Inspection Report Sheet 2 of 17 Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89c) April 24, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 2.0 DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 4 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURE ................................................................................... 7 4.0 PREVIOUS CONSULTANT WORK ........................................................................ 7 5.0 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ................................................................................... 7 5.1 Stringers ............................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Floorbeams .......................................................................................................... 8 5.3 Stringer Cross Frames & Stringer Bracing........................................................ 8 5.4 Top Chord............................................................................................................. 9 5.5 Bottom Chord ....................................................................................................... 9 5.6 Verticals ................................................................................................................ 9 5.7 Diagonals.............................................................................................................. 9 5.8 Top and Bottom Lateral Bracing ...................................................................... 10 5.9 Bearings ............................................................................................................. 10 5.10 Piers .................................................................................................................. 10 6.0 PIN CONDITION ................................................................................................... 11 7.0 CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................. 12 Bridge Inspection Report Sheet 3 of 17 Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89c) April 24, 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Capitola Crossing Deck Truss carries a single track over Soquel Creek in the town of Capitola, California. The bridge is positioned at milepost 15.89 with the main span (15.89c) as the subject of this report on the 31-mile Santa Cruz Branch Line (Branch Line) located along the Monterey Bay between the town of Davenport and Pajaro Junction, California. This report contains documentation of the Bridge Inspection performed on the Capitola Crossing Deck Truss by J.L. Patterson and Associates, Inc. (JLP) and Modjeski and Masters Inc. (MMI). This task was performed under Contract No. RT14019-01 for the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC). The intent of this report is to document factual findings of the bridge inspection and no conclusions or recommendations are included here-in. The degree of corrosion is separated into four categories when listed on the figures detailing where the corrosion exists and are defined as follows: 1. Minor corrosion indicates paint failure with surface corrosion and no section loss of the member or any rivets, nuts and bolts that may be present. 2. Moderate corrosion indicates a slight buildup of corrosion with little to no section loss of the members and up to 25% section loss of any rivets, nuts and bolts present. 3. Significant corrosion indicates a large buildup of corrosion with minor section loss of members and up to 50% section loss and flowering of any rivets, nuts and bolts present. 4. Severe corrosion indicates large buildup of corrosion with moderate section loss of members and more than 50% section loss and flowering of any rivets, nuts and bolts present. Other descriptive terms used throughout the report include the following. Concrete is defined as unsound or delaminated when it is hollow sounding when struck with a hammer, and is generally characterized by cracking or voids in the underlying concrete down to the level of the reinforcing steel. Bridge Inspection Report Sheet 4 of 17 Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89c) April 24, 2012 2.0 DESCRIPTION The Capitola Crossing consists of a single span open deck, pin connected deck truss that carries a single track over Soquel Creek in the town of Capitola, California flanked by timber trestles on both sides of the main span acting as the immediate approaches to the structure designated segment numbers 15.89b and 15.89d. Beyond the timber trestles, a pre-stressed concrete box stinger span and pre-stressed concrete trough span with respective segment numbers 15.89a and 15.89e exist before the rail transitions back to ground level. For span 15.89c the rail is supported on stringers with floorbeams as the load transfer mechanism to the upper chord. The stringers, floorbeams, top chord, vertical members, and bracing are all fabricated as various built-up sections and are fastened with rivets. Both the top and bottom chord have pin connections at joint locations with the bottom chord members consisting of eye-bar type members. The superstructure supports additional components, including wooden walkways and wooden railings. Two concrete piers with cut stone pier caps support the structure and have unknown foundation support types. Photograph 1 – General view of north approach looking south. Bridge Inspection Report Sheet 5 of 17 Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89c) April 24, 2012 Photograph 2 – General view of south approach looking north. Photograph 3 – General elevation view looking upstream at Span 15.89c. Bridge Inspection Report Sheet 6 of 17 Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89c) April 24, 2012 Bridge Inspection Report Sheet 7 of 17 Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89c) April 24, 2012 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURE The team of JLP and MMI performed an inspection on the Capitola Crossing Deck Truss during the period of April 23 through April 24, 2012. The inspection performed for the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) consisted of a condition inspection to support the previous condition assessment and a load capacity rating of the structure. The dates that each of the team members were in attendance on the bridge are as follows: Dan L. Davis (Team Leader) JLP April 23-24, 2012 R. Shawn Brannon, P.E. (Team Leader) MMI April 23-24, 2012 Bradly C. Croop, P.E. MMI April 23-24, 2012 Joseph B. Neeley, E.I.T. MMI April 23-24, 2012 The concrete substructure and lower portions of the truss were inspected by technical access climbing (rappelling). The upper portions of the truss, truss floor system, and rail ties were inspected using a highrail UBIU inspection vehicle (See Photograph 4) while the walkway and walkway railings were inspected from track level. The truss pins were ultrasonically inspected on April 23 and 24, 2012. The results of the ultrasonic pin testing are contained within a separate report. 4.0 PREVIOUS CONSULTANT WORK HNTB had previously performed an inspection and load rating on the Capitola Crossing Deck Truss in April of 2006. 5.0 STRUCTURAL CONDITION 5.1 Stringers The stringers are built-up members and generally had areas of minor section loss due to pitting of the steel on the flanges and webs (See Photograph 5). At connection points with floorbeams the bottom and top flanges and webs exhibited minor to moderate section loss. The flanges at cross frame connection points typically exhibited minor to moderate section loss. Noted deficiencies other than those discussed above are listed in Table 1. Bridge Inspection Report Sheet 8 of 17 Capitola Crossing Deck Truss (MP15.89c) April 24, 2012 Table 1 – Stringer Deficiencies PANEL STRINGER LOCATION NOTE 2 DS - Top flange has 1/8” SL full length 3 US - Bottom flange has 1/8” SL full length 3 DS MIDSPAN Bottom flange has 25% SL full length 3 DS - Bottom flange has 1/8” SL full length 4 US AT FB3 Top flange has 50% SL full length 4 DS AT FB3 Top flange has 50% SL full length SL – Section Loss US – Upstream DS – Downstream FB – Floorbeam 5.2 Floorbeams The floorbeams are built-up members and generally had areas of minor section loss due to pitting of the steel on the flanges and webs. At connection points between the floorbeam and stringers the bottom and top flanges exhibited minor to significant section loss. The exposed ends of the floorbeams generally had minor to moderate section loss due to pitting (See Photograph 6). Noted deficiencies other than those discussed above are listed in Table 2. Table 2 – Floorbeam Deficiencies FLOORBEAM SIDE NOTE 1 - 25% SL on bottom flange under both stringers 1 - 50% SL to top flange at DS stringer connection 2 - 25% SL to top flange at US stringer connection 2 - 25% SL to bottom flange at DS stringer connection 2 - 75% SL to top flange at DS stringer connection 3 - 75% SL to bottom flange at US stringer connection 3 - 90% SL to bottom flange at DS stringer connection 3 - 1/8” SL to bottom flange in general 3 NORTH Bottom flange has 1/2” recess due to corrosion 4 - 1/4” SL to bottom flange at US stringer connection 4 - 1/8” SL to bottom flange at DS stringer connection 4 - 1/8” SL to US end
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]