PROJECT REPORT

NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF A BOX GIRDER BRIDGE

Submitted To

The 2010 Summer NSF REU Program in Engineering Tomorrow

Part of NSF Type 1 STEP Grant

Sponsored By The National Science Foundation

Grant ID No.: DUE-0756921

College of Engineering and Applied Science University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio

Prepared By: Robert Golsby, Chemical Engineering, University of Cincinnati Eliseo Iglesias, Mechanical Engineering, Trinity University Kenechukwu Okoye, Biomedical Engineering, University of Cincinnati

Report Reviewed By:

_______(signature)______ Richard A. Miller, PhD, PE, FPCI Professor Department of Civil Engineering University of Cincinnati

June 21-August 13, 2010

Abstract The scope of this project involved the examination, testing, and analysis of an adjacent box girder bridge. The purpose of this project was initially to find a relationship between visual damage of pre-stressed concrete box girders within the bridge and the actual performance of the bridge. This relationship is important because any kind of correlation would serve for the benefit of officials in charge of rating the quality of these types of bridges. Due to time constraints, only baseline tests were completed. The REU students in these baseline tests took data and video of the experiment, which involved placing trucks on the test bridge (which was a bridge in Fayette County). From these tests, the students (using models created in Visual Analysis) were able to approximate the concrete strength and moment of inertia of the adjacent box girders. Also it was found that the bridge is at least partially continuous; further testing is needed to confirm. These baseline tests allowed for the examination of the bridge under loads; this sets up as a control for future destructive tests.

Acknowledgements Research Contributors

Research Experience for Undergraduates Site in Structural Engineering: Development of Enhanced Materials and Structural Assemblages Used in Seismic Performance Evaluation Studies No. DUE-0756921 NSF REU Grant University of Cincinnati Staff Dr. Carlo Montemagno-Project Director Dr. Anant R. Kukreti- Project Coordinator Dr. Richard Miller-Faculty Mentor Ms. Marlo Thigpen-Grant Coordinator Phil Grosvenor- IT Coordinator Ms. Mary Ann Schaefer- Senior Business Administrator Dawit Alemayehu - Graduate Assistant Tyler Stillings- Graduate Assistant Sanooj Edalath Graduate Assistant Helper Elie Hantouche- Graduate Assistant Helper Dr. Eric Steinburg- Associate Professor of Civil Engineering David R. Breheim, Research Associate Dr. Sam Khoury Research Engineer Ohio University Graduate Students o Jon Huffman, Clint Setty, Kyle Grupenhoff, Brendan Kelly and Santiago Camino ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation) Steven G. Luebbe. P.E., P.S., Fayette County Engineer

REU Seminar Presentors

Andrea Burrows Dr. Ron Millard Kim Simmons Dr. Raj Manglik Amber Erickson Ted Baldwin Jim Casper Dr. Makram Sidan Dr. Dorothy Air Geoffery Pinski Dr. Tim Keener

Table of Contents
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................3 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................6 GOAL AND PROJECT OBJETIVES ...............................................................................................................7 RESEARCH TASKS ...........................................................................................................................................8 3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.2. 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.4. 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.3.3. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 6. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 7. 8. 9. Literature Review.......................................................................................................................................8 Types of Loads on Bridges ....................................................................................................................8 Truck Loading .......................................................................................................................................8 Precast Concrete ....................................................................................................................................8 Adjacent Box Girder Bridges ...............................................................................................................9 Deformation and Deterioration ............................................................................................................9 Rudimentary Analysis of Bridge ...............................................................................................................9 Bridge Information ................................................................................................................................9 Determination of Calculated and Derived Values ............................................................................. 11 Assumed and Approximated Values .................................................................................................. 11 AASHTO Specifications ...................................................................................................................... 12 Simulation of loading ............................................................................................................................... 13 Purpose of Simulating ......................................................................................................................... 13 Simulation Setup .................................................................................................................................. 14 Simulation Results ............................................................................................................................... 15 Strain Gauges ........................................................................................................................................... 17 String Potentiometer ................................................................................................................................ 17 Initial Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 18 Placement of Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 19 Collection of Data ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Finding the AASHTO specified Moment Distribution Factor ............................................................. 12 Tuning the Data to Find Experimental Physical Characteristics. ....................................................... 22 Tests for Continuity ................................................................................................................................. 23

MEASURING INSTRUMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 17

BENCHMARK TEST ....................................................................................................................................... 18

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 22

CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION ............................................................................................................ 26 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 26 FUTURE WORK ............................................................................................................................................... 27

APPENDIX I: NOMENCLATURE AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................... 32 4

Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 APPENDIX II: RESEARCH TIMELINE ............................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX II: RESEARCH TIMELINE ............................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX III: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................................... 34

Table of Figures Figure 1: Arial View of the Bridge Figure 2: Cross-Sectional View of the Adjacent Box Girders with the lateral tie Figure 3: Cross-Section of a Box Girder Figure 4: Fayette County Bridge (Test Bridge) Figure 5: Sketch of Bridge Supports Figure 6: Simulation of Bridge Behavior under load Figure 7: Visual Analysis Model Figure 8: Moment, Shear, and Displacement reactions from simulation Figure 9: Instrumentation Position Figure 10: Truck Position 1 Figure 11: Truck Position 2 Figure 12: Bridge Deflection Test 3 Load Figure 13: Bridge Deflections Test 4 Load Figure 14: Dynamic Test Figure 15: Test 4 Load Tuned Continuous Model (top) vs. Tuned Discontinuous Model (Bottom) Figure 16: Test 3 Load Tuned Continuous Model vs. Tuned Discontinuous Model (Bottom)

Tables Table 1: Bridge Facts and Figures Table 2: Property Values of the Girders Table 3: Simulation Results Table 4: Strain Gauge Properties Table 5: Wire Potentiometer Sensitivities Table 6: Truck Dimensions and Weights Table 7: Moment of Inertia Table 8: Concrete Strength Table 9: Comparison of the Tuned Continuous and Discontinuous Models

1.

INTRODUCTION When bridges are designed, engineers must follow a set of constraints set by the

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). These guidelines are set primarily for safety reasons. They involve strict criteria for the strength of materials, dimensions, and construction methods. Along with these design specifications, the AASHTO provides engineers with formulas and equations of how to estimate and predict the behavior of the bridge under its own weight, and under external loading conditions. Unfortunately, despite regular visual inspection by government officials, in 2007 the I-35 Minnesota Bridge did just that, resulting in several casualties. In the disaster, nine people lost their lives and sixty were injured. Twenty people turned up missing after the collapse. Two years earlier, an adjacent box girder bridge suddenly collapsed in Lakeview, Pennsylvania. In this case, no vehicles or people were on the bridge during the collapse. In both cases, there were substantial financial losses, and people were inconvenienced while the bridges were being rebuilt. While it is safe and often correct to assume that deterioration of certain features of bridges cause these collapses, certain aspects of bridge behavior as a result of these deteriorations still remains a mystery. In Ohio, a large percentage of bridges are built in the same fashion as the Lakeview bridge. This presents a possible concern that necessitates thourough inspection procedure for these types of bridges. As noted in the Minnesota I-35 bridge collapse, visual inspection is not sophisticated enough to predict the behavior of bridges. In order to get a better understanding of box girder bridge behavior, researchers often conduct destructive and non-destructive testing of the bridges and observe the reactions of the members that comprise the bridge and its supports. Through the use of special instruments, the researchers can measure and record these reactions.

From these observations, the researchers continue to try to draw conclusions about bridge behavior. 2. GOAL AND PROJECT OBJETIVES The main goal of this project is to collect data in a benchmark test on the behavior of an adjacent box girder bridge through the use of live (external) loads, measuring instruments and recording software. The objectives for this project are as follows: Learning Material Strength theory with Dr. Miller Gather Research and Understanding of the Project Assist in the Benchmark (baseline) tests Create Models of the Bridge in Visual Analysis and run simulations Compare Benchmark Test Results with Simulation Results Tune the Model (find the true E & I of the bridge) Compare the Continuous Tuned model to Discontinuous model Tabulate and Analyze Results

3. 3.1.

RESEARCH TASKS Literature Review

3.1.1. Types of Loads on Bridges There are three types of loads that can be placed on a bridge: Dead loads, live loads and environmental loads Bridges are designed so that they can withstand the most unfavorable combinations of loads that are likely to occur (Kassimali). Live Loads due to vehicular traffic on highway bridges are specified by the AASHTO specification. 3.1.2. Truck Loading As the heaviest loading on highway bridges is usually caused by trucks, the AASHTO Specifications defines two systems of standard trucks, H trucks and HS trucks, to represent the vehicular loads for design purposes. AASHTO specifies that a lane loading, consisting of a uniformly distributed load combined with at least two single concentrated loads, be considered. The type of loading, either truck loading or lane loading, that causes the maximum stress in a member should be used for the design of that member (Kassimali). 3.1.3. Precast Concrete Precast concrete consists of concrete (a mixture of cement, water, aggregates and admixtures) that is cast into a specific shape at a location other than its in-service position. The concrete is placed into a form, typically wood or steel, and cured before being stripped from the form, usually the following day. These components are then transported to the construction site for erection into place. Precast concrete can be plant-cast or site-cast. Precast concrete components are reinforced with reinforcing strands with high tensile strength. The strands are pre-tensioned in the form before the concrete is poured. Once the concrete has cured to a specific strength, the strands are cut. As the strands, having bonded to the concrete attempt to regain their

original un-tensioned length, they apply a compressive force. This pre-compression increases load-carrying capacity to the beam and helps control cracking to specified limits allowed by building codes (Precast/Pre-stressed Concrete Institute). 3.1.4. Adjacent Box Girder Bridges Pre-stressed box beams are cast in pre-stressing plants. The beams are placed side by side and held together by lateral tension rods. Grout and shear keys are then used to connect the beams together (see Fig. 2) . 3.1.5. Deformation and Deterioration Due to corrosion caused by water and heavy salt treatment during the winter time corrosion can occur to the beams as well as the internal steel. Because of this the steel strands begin to deteriorate and the bridge loses tensile support. As the deterioration level of these strands increases pre-stress force decreases. This decreases the maximum load capacity and could lead to total collapse of a beam or the bridge.

3.2.

Preliminary Analysis of Bridge

3.2.1. Bridge Information The bridge that was tested was an adjacent box girder bridge with pre-stressed concrete girders. The structure is located in Washington Court House in Fayette County in central Ohio. The official number of the bridge is 36-17-6.80. The dimensions and material properties of the bridge are as follows:

Table 2: Bridge Facts and Figures

Property Type: Location: Time Built: Spans/Length: Number of Beams/Width: Depth: Skew: Materials used:

Value Adjacent Box Girder Washington Court House, Fayette County, Ohio Approximately late 1960s 3 spans, 48 feet each, 144 ft total 9 adjacent beams, each 3 feet wide, 27 feet total width 21 inches 15 degrees left forward Prestressed Concrete

Figure 1: Plan view of Bridge

Figure 2: Cross-Sectional View of the Adjacent Box Girders with the lateral tie

10

3.2.2. Determination of Calculated and Derived Values For the purpose of the preliminary analysis, the basic geometry of the cross-section was taken into account when finding the moment of inertia (I) for the members. The formula for determining this value is as follows: (1) Also, the cross-sectional area of the girders itself was determined by basic geometry, using the area formula for a rectangle. 3.2.3. Assumed and Approximated Values Some of the information of the bridge was either not readily available or subject to unknown changes since the bridge's construction, or had to be determined experimentally. Such values included the strength of the concrete, the modulus of elasticity of the concrete, the prestressing tension in the steel strands, the diameter of the pre-stressing strands, and the level of continuity of the bridge. The assumed values are as follows:
Table 2: Property Values of the Girders

Property Distribution Factor Concrete strength Moment of Inertia Cross Sectional Area Strand Diameter Continuity

Initial value .11 (unitless) 7 ksi 23500 in4 488 in2 3/8 inch Full continuity

Figure 3: Cross-Section of a Box Girder

Figure 4: Fayette County Bridge (Test Bridge)

11

3.2.4. AASHTO Specifications: Finding the AASHTO specified Moment Distribution Factor According to the following AASTHO specifications, bridges of this type must be design with the appropriate distribution factor parameter. Based on the number of girders and several other physical aspects of the design, AASTHOs equations give a distribution factor for design only. The actual distribution factor of the bridge will be different since this is a design constraint (these are usually over estimated). A comparison of between these two values would shed light on how damaged the bridge is and how it performs according to its initial design.

()

(2)

Eq. 2 is the formula given by AASTHO for the Distribution factor of a bridge made of girders that are Precast solid, voided, or Cellular Concrete Box, with Shear Keys and with or without Transverse Post-Tensioning. All the mentioned physical characteristics coincide with the Fayette County Bridge. The following are formulas that facilitate the D.F. calculation (a sample of this calculation can be found in Appendix III).

(3)

where

( )
12

(4)

Eq. 5 is a D.F. reduction factor for skewed bridges (the Fayette County Bridge is this type).

(5) where When calculated with the appropriate values, the Distribution factor for design of this type of bridge is 0.2413. This means that the interior girders of this bridge are designed to distribute roughly 24% of any load to each girder. 3.3. Simulation of loading

3.3.1. Purpose of Simulating Before conducting the on-site Benchmark tests, several simulations were run in order to have an approximate estimate of how the bridge should behave under the given loads. These simulations are designed to give internal moments, shear forces, and displacements at any point along the modeled bridge. Once a model is designed and analyzed and the Benchmark test is completed, a comparison between predicted and observed values can be done. Also, in the model, several assumptions must be made regarding the physical characteristics of the bridge itself (most of these are largely unknown). If the differences between these two values are too dissimilar, a separate tuning procedure can be done in order to find the true characteristics of the bridge. Using several iterations of a certain physical aspect of the bridge, the correct one can be found that results in a displacement similar (within an acceptable error) to the displacement observed in the Benchmark Test. Visual Analysis V. 4 and V.7 were used in this analysis. This software allowed for the creation of a two-dimensional model of the Fayette County Bridge. The following section

13

contains details on how the bridge was translated into a two-dimensional model, and how the truck loadings were modeled. 3.3.2. Simulation Setup In this setup, several steps had to be taken in order to adequately model the bridge in Fayette County in Visual Analysis. First, since the model must be reduced to only one beam (2D Model), the width of the bridge is disregarded. Also a distribution factor must be applied to any real load on the bridge. For the purposes of this simulation a distribution factor of 11% was applied. The assumption was made that since the bridge contains nine girders, ideally the weight should be distributed evenly throughout the bridge (connecting grout in the shear keys and lateral tie, as specified in the bridge plans, should facilitate this distribution, see Fig. 2). The model contained the correct length and was separated into three spans (48 feet each). The model bridge also has at one end, a pinned joint, and two roller joints (one at 48 feet and the second at 96 feet from the leftmost end) that separate it into 3 spans (see Fig.5). The model was also treated as continuous. As mentioned before, several physical characteristics of the bridge required estimation for the purposes of this simulation. All of these estimated values were subject to tuning later in the project. The Benchmark Test involved six different loadings (trucks were used for this), and each load comprised of different configuration to the truck locations on the bridge. In the Visual Analysis model, each tire of the truck was treated as a point load, so if there were 4 trucks on a particular loading configuration, there would be 24 point loads on the modeled beam (each truck has 3 axles). These point loads would be located on the model based on their distance from the abutment (the distance from the side guard rail edges of the bridge were disregarded for the purposes of creating a 2D model). Figure 6 shows an example of this model and its point loads.

14

The six different loadings were simulated, and the following section displays the results from this analysis.

144 ft

Figure 5: Sketch of Bridge Supports

3.3.3. Simulation Results As stated before, Visual Analysis shows the internal forces and moments throughout the modeled bridge as well as displacements at every point of the bridge. The max value (in magnitude) is 0.399 inches at 22 feet (this occurred in Run 3). This simulation does not take into account the dead load the bridge experiences from its own weight. In light of this and the other assumptions necessary in order to simulate the behavior of the bridge, the observed displacements will not be exact.

15

Figure 6: Simulation of Bridge Behavior under load

Figure 7: Visual Analysis Model

Figure 8: Moment, Shear, and Displacement reactions from simulation

Table 3: Simulation Results 7 KSI Strength Concrete Simulation Max Negative Max Positive

I = 25300 in^4 A = 488 in^2 Run 1 2 3 4 5 6

Deflection (in) 0.125 0.389 0.399 0.171 0.389 0.171

Location (ft) 22.08 22.08 22.08 22.08 22.08 22.08

Deflection (in) 0.04 0.142 0.144 0.03 0.14 0.031

Location (ft) 67.2 67.2 67.2 115.2 67.2 115.2

16

4. 4.1.

MEASURING INSTRUMENTS Strain Gauges Strain gauges were used to measure and record the strain while the concrete girders

underwent in response to the external load of the ODOT trucks. The gauges that were used were resistance gauges and measured two inches in length. They were manufactured in Japan, and were affixed to the bridge using an epoxy solution.
Table 4:Strain Gauge Properties

Property Type: Gauge Length: Gauge Resistance: Temp Compensation For: Transverse Sensitivity: Quantity: Gauge Factor: Test Condition: Batch No.: Lead Wires

Value WFLM-60-11-2LT 60mm 120 0.5 1110-6/oC -5.% 10 1.96 1% 23C 50%RH IE28K : 7/O.127 3W 2m

4.2.

String Potentiometer String potentiometers (also known as "wire pots") are generally used to measure linear

displacement. For this project, they were put to use in measuring and recording the deflections of the individual girders during the tests.

17

Table 5: Wire Potentiometer Sensitivities

Beam 1S 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9N 1S 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9N

Wire Pot A1 (W) A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 B1(E) B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Not Applied B8 Not Applied

Model PA-15 PA-20 PA-15 PA-15 PA-15 PA-10A PT-10A PT-10A PT-10A PT-108 PT101-0010-111-1110 PT101-0015-111-1110 PT101-0010-111-1110 PT101-0010-111-1110 PT101-0015-111-1110 PT101-0010-111-1110

Seal (Series) 3708148 32010211 37080147 37080149 37080150 9007-5885 9007-5883 9007-5886 9007-5884 9007-5887 B0952696 H1003996 J0962400 J0962401 H1003994 K0866500

Sensitivity (mV/V/inch) 64.70 46.65 64.64 64.69 64.63 97 96.6 96.8 96.6 97.8 91.39 61.227 92.61 91.96 62.647 91.83

Figure 9: Instrumentation Position

5. 5.1.

BENCHMARK TEST Initial Preparation The initial preparation of the benchmark test consisted of the following: marking all of

the key locations on the bridge (locations of instruments, span endpoints, origin location datum

18

(the southwest corner of the bridge where the bridge begins on the west abutment and on the white traffic line), etc.), removing the top layer of asphalt at the location of the strain gauges, setting up the frame for the wire pots below the bridge, gluing all of the strain gauges in place, testing all of the instruments, and opening the recording software. Much of the aforementioned preparation was carried out on July 14, 2010. The rest was completed on July 15, 2010. 5.2. Placement of Instruments The location of the instruments was predetermined during the preliminary analysis (where the location of maximum moment and displacement was found, using Visual Analyis). Strain gauges were placed on top of the bridge along the midspan (22 ft from the leftmost edge of the bridge) of the bridge; one located on the center of each beam, with the exception of the northernmost beam. An additional line of gauges was set out an additional 14 feet 6 inches east of the first set of strain gauges, which is location of the anticipated inflection point (see Figure 9). On this line, all of the beams had strain gauges affixed to them. Underneath the bridge on the same lines as on the top, strain gauges were glued to the underside of the bridge, with a gauge on each beam. Finally, supported by a wooden frame beneath the bridge, wire pots were arranged along the aforementioned lines, with a wire pot on each beam on the midspan (22 ft from the leftmost edge of the bridge) line and one on each beam on the inflection line, with the exception of the northernmost beam and the third northernmost beam.

19

5.3.

Collection of Data The collection of data involved applying external or "live" loads in the form of trucks

provided by the Ohio Department of Transportation. TCS for the MegaDec data acquisition system was used to record the reading of the array of instruments over time in regular intervals. For this test, the rate of collection was 1200 scans per second. The test involved six static tests (see Figures 11 and 12), where the four trucks were placed in different locations to investigate the different reactions. Following the static tests came two dynamic tests, each involving one of the trucks traveling across the bridge, from west to east, first at 10 miles per hour, and again at 35 miles per hour. Testing began after all of the preparation on July 15, 2010.
Table 6: Truck Dimensions and Weights

License Plate: Number: Front Axle Weight (lbs) Middle Axle Weight (lbs) Rear Axle Weight (lbs) Distance - front axle to middle axle: Distance - font axle to rear axle: Front axle width*: Middle and Rear axle width**:

OF 1050 41 L R 7500 6900 9450 8850 13-0 17-8 6-10 6-0 10700 10750

OF 5591 47 L R 7250 7250 9150 8950 130 178 6-10 6-0 9600 9850

OG 2791 8 L R 7350 7700 9800 10050 13-0 17-8 6-10 6-0 11150 11200

OD 6634 31 L R 5400 6650 9800 10000 12-6 1610 6-7 6-1 11500 11300

*(middle of tire to middle of tire) ** (space between tire pair to space between tire pair)

20

Figure 10: Truck Position 1

Figure 11:Truck Position 2

5.4.

Results The following are figures displaying the displacements found in Test 3 and Test 4

(involving Truck positions 3 and 4). However, only the wire potentiometers in Row A (located at 22 ft) functioned properly.

Bridge Deflection - Test 3 Load

0 -0.05 -0.1 Deflection (in) -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.3 -0.35 -0.4 Beam 8 Beam 7 Beam 6 Beam 5 Beam 4 Beam 3 Beam 2 Beam 1 Beam 9 Row A

Beam

Figure 12: Bridge Deflection Test 3 Load

21

Bridge Deflections - Test 4 Load

0

-0.05

Deflections (in)

-0.1 Row A

-0.15

Beam 1

-0.2

Beam 2

Beam 3 Beam 4 Beam 5 Beam 6 Beam 7 Beam 8

Beam 9

-0.25

Beam

Figure 13: Bridge Deflections Test 4 Load

6. 6.1.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Tuning the Data to Find Experimental Physical Characteristics. The results from the Benchmark test showed that the displacements are slightly different

from the predicted values found using Visual Analysis. This could be due to some of the assumptions made for the physical characteristics being slightly inaccurate. For this reason through the iteration of the moment of inertia, and the concrete strength and matching the displacements produced in their simulations to those found in the Benchmark Test. Below are the Tables that contain these displacements.

22

Table 7: Moment of Inertia

Iterations for I Test 3 Test 4 I (in^4) Displacements (in) 24800 -0.285 -0.17 24900 -0.284 -0.169 25000 -0.283 -0.169 25100 -0.282 -0.168 25150 -0.281 -0.168 25200 -0.281 -0.167 25300 -0.28 -0.167

Table 8: Concrete Strength

Strength (PSI) 6800 6900 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500

Test 3 Test 4 Displacement (in) -0.284 -0.282 -0.28 -0.278 -0.276 -0.274 -0.272 -0.27 -0.169 -0.168 -0.167 -0.167 -0.165 -0.163 -0.162 -0.161

6.2.

Tests for Continuity Below, Fig.15 shows of the dynamic test done in the Benchmark Test. The graph displays

how strain in the first span changes as the truck moves along the bridge. One can infer that the bridge is continuous due to the positive strain seen. Since the gauge is at the top of the beam of the first span, when the truck is on the third span, the strain should read as negative (if it is continuous) and positive when on the second span.

23

In Figures 16 and 17, a comparison is done between a continuous tuned model of the bridge versus a discontinuous tuned model. The discontinuous model has a displacement that is much larger than the one observed in the Benchmark Test. Also the observed displacement is within 5% of what the tuned model displays.
4.00E+01 2.00E+01 0.00E+00 -2.00E+01 1 549 1097 1645 2193 2741 3289 3837 4385 4933 5481 6029 6577 7125 7673 8221 8769 9317 9865 10413 10961 11509 12057 12605 13153 13701 ms
Figure 14: Dynamic Test

micro Strain

-4.00E+01 -6.00E+01 -8.00E+01 -1.00E+02 -1.20E+02 -1.40E+02

24

Figure 15: Test 4 Load Tuned Continuous Model (top) vs. Tuned Discontinuous Model (Bottom)

Figure 16: Test 3 Load Tuned Continuous Model vs. Tuned Discontinuous Model (Bottom)

25

Table 9: Comparison of the Tuned Continuous and Discontinuous Models

Test 3 Test 4 Model Displacements (in) Continuous -0.28 -0.168 Observed -0.282 -0.167 Discontinuous -0.405 -0.356 % Difference 0.711744 0.597015

7.

CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION From the analysis of the wire-potentiometer data and the dynamic data (Fig. 14) from the

strain gauges most of the basic physical characteristics of the Fayette County Bridge. The Moment of inertia can be approximated to be roughly 25300 in^4 and the Concrete Strength, ~7000PSI. However, the only way to confirm these two values is to first, take a look at the cross section (when Dr. Miller and OU conduct the destructive test) to confirm the design from plans, and second, take core sample and test for strength. The bridge also seems to be at least partially continuous. The dynamic tests suggest this and the continuous tuned models show the same displacement as the observed displacement from the Benchmark Test. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS First, it is highly recommended that the cross sectional area and the concrete strength be tested and recorded. More testing is needed in order to confirm continuity by 1) observe behavior during the destructive test 2) synchronize a timer along with the data acquisition to pinpoint exactly when and where the truck is when positive displacement occurs on the first span (when the truck

26

passes the third span) and 3) place truck on the third span and check for any kind of reaction in the first span where the instruments are installed. Instruments on the third and possibly second (middle span) should be considered. Although on the middle span this would be difficult since it crosses the water and no kind of support would be available for wire-potentiometers and strain gauge attaching, placing strain gauges on the tops of the beams (after grinding off the asphalt) of the middle span would help in observing behavior throughout the whole bridge and not just one span. The strain gauge data did not allow for the examination of the distribution of the load throughout the girders simply because of the nature of the test. In all tests a combination of four trucks was used, making difficult to relate one truck to a specific displacement in a beam. To explore this phenomenon, it is recommended that only truck be used. The location should be varied so that the effect on displacement/strain in one beam can be observed. 9. FUTURE WORK The bridge will be subject to further tests. The date and time of these tests is to be determined. The aforementioned instruments will be used to collect data of the responses to live loads, as in the benchmark test, but after the girders have sustained intentional damage. After these series of tests, special equipment will be used to apply increasing loads until the bridge fails. This will tell the researchers the ultimate load capacity of the bridge after damage. After all of the tests, including the ones covered in this report, researchers shall have a better idea of the distribution of forces among the adjacent members, establish a connection between apparent damage and the effect on the ultimate load capacity, and use the findings to improve bridge design and inspection methods.

27

Bibliography AASHTO. (2008).The Manual for Bridge Evaluation. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1st Edition. AASHTO. (2007).LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 4th Edition AASHTO. (2002).Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges.Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 17th Edition ACI Committee 345. (2006). Guide for Maintenance of Concrete Bridge Members. ACI 345.1R06. Bentz, E. 2000. Response-2000 Reinforced Concrete Sectional Analysis using the Modified Compression Field Theory. Version 1.0.5. ACI Committee 222 (2001),Protection of Metals in Concrete Against Corrosion, ACI Publication No. 222R-01, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan ACI Committee. (2005), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute. ACI 318-05, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.

American Association of State Highway Officials. (1965).Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Washington DC, 6th Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.(2010).Section 4: Structural Analysis and Evaluation.AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, pp.29-39. ASTM International.(2004).C39/C39 Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM International.(2004). C856,Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM International.(2004). Microscopical Determination of Parameters of Air-Void System in Hardened Concrete, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM International.(2004). Acid-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM International.(2004). A370-97a Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM International.(2004). Aa16/A416M-99 Standard Specification for Steel Strand. ASTM No. A416, Uncoated Seven-Wire for Prestressed Concrete, West Conshohocken, PA
28

Billington, D. P. (2004). Historical Perspective on Prestressed Concrete. PCI Journal 49, No.1,pp.14-30. Glass, G.K. and Buenfeld, N.R.(1997), The Presentation of the Chloride Threshold Level for Corrosion of Steer in Concrete, Corrosion Science, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp 1001-1013. Gulistani, Aziz A. March.(2010). Forensic Investigation of Prestressed Concrete Box Beams from LIC-310 Bridge. A thesis presented to the faculty of the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science. Harries, K. A. (2009). Structural Testing of Prestressed Concrete Girders from the Lake View Drive Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering 14, No. 2, pp.78-92. Harries, K. A., R. Gostautas, C. J. Earls, and C. Stull.(2006). Full-Scale Testing Program on Decommissioned Girders from the Lake View Drive Bridge. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Rep. No. CE/ST 33. Hartle, R.(2006), Field Inspection and Forensic Investigation of the SR 1014 Lake View Drive Bridge over Interstate 70 Final Report, Michael Baker, Jr. Report, pp. 52. Kassimali, Aslam.(2005). Structural Analysis. Cengage Learning, 4th Edition, pp. 17-24, 330374. Kosmarka, S., H., Panarese, W., C.(1990), Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, !3thEdition, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, III,pp.205. Labia, Y., M. S. Saiidi, and B. Douglas. (1997). Full-Scale Testing and Analysis of 20-Year-Old Pretensioned Concrete Box Girders. ACI Structural Journal 94, No.5, pp. 471-82. Macioce, T., Rogers H., Anderson, R., and Puzey, D., C.(2007), Prestressed Concrete Box Beam Bridges- Two DOTS Experience, 2007 PCI-FHWA National Bridge Conference Session, pp. 83. MDOT. September (2005). Box-Beam Concerns Found under the Bridge. Construction and Technology Research Record, No.102, pp. 1-4. Menn, C., and P. Gauvreau. (1990).Prestressed Concrete Bridges. Basel Switzerland; Boston: Birkhuser Verlag. Miller, R., and K. Parekh. (1994). Destructive Load Testing of a Damaged and Deteriorated Prestressed Concrete Box Beam. MS Thesis.,University of Cincinnati.

29

Miller, R., and K. Parekh. (1994). Destructive Testing of Deteriorated Prestressed Box Bridge Beam. Transportation Research Record (1460), pp. 37-44. Naito, C., R. Sause, I. Hodgson, S. Pessiki, and C. Desai. (2006). Forensic Evaluation of Prestressed Box Beams from the Lake View Drive Bridge over I-70. Lehigh Univ., Lehigh, Pa., ATLSS Report No. 06-13. Naito, C., R. Sause, and B. Thompson. (2008). Investigation of Damaged 12-Year Old Prestressed Concrete Box Beams. Journal of Bridge Engineering 13, No. 2, pp.139-48. Nasser, G. D. (2008). The Legacy of the Walnut Lane Memorial Bridge. STRUCTURE Magazine 2008, (10), pp.27-31. ODOT. (2007). Bridge Design Manual.Ohio Department of Transportation. January 2009 Edition PennDOT Bridge Quality Assurance Division,(2006), Superstructure, BMS Item E18, Condition Rating Guidelines for Prestressed Concrete for Prestressed Concrete Adjacent Box Beams, Strike-offLetter 431-06-02. PennDOT Bridge Quality Assurance Division.(2007), PennDOT Bureau of Design Bridge Management System 2 Coding Manual, Publication 100A. Pennsylvania Department of transportation.(2002), Bridge Safety Inspection Manual, PennDOT Publication 238, 2th Edition PCI.(2004).PCI Design Handbook. Background, PCI MNL- 120-04, 6th Edition. PCI.(2004).PCI Design Handbook. Features and General Principles, PCI MNL- 120-04, 6th Edition. PCI.(1989).Architectural Precast Concrete. Manual Contents and Concepts, PCI MNL-122-89, 2nd Edition. PCI.(2004).PCI Design Handbook. Common Products, PCI MNL-120-04,6th Edition. PCI.(2004). An Industry On The Rise, Visions Taking Shape: Celebrating 50 Years of the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Industry; Chero Publishing Co. PCI.(2006).Architectural Precast Concrete. Applications of Architectural Precast Concrete, PCI MNL-122-06, 3rd Edition. PCI.(2006).Architectural Precast Concrete. Advantages of Architectural Precast Concrete, Architectural Precast Concrete, 3rd Edition.

30

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. (2004). PCI Design Handbook, Precast and Prestressed Concrete, Chicago: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 6th Edition. Shenoy, C. V., and G. C. Frantz. (1991). Structural Tests of 27-Year-Old Prestressed Concrete Bridge Beams. PCI Journal 36, No.5, pp. 80-90. Whiting, D., and B. G. Stejskal. (2004). Field Studies of Corrosion in Prestressed Concrete Bridges. Philip D. Cady International Symposium on Concrete Bridges in Aggressive Environments, pp. 73-93.

31

APPENDIX I: NOMENCLATURE AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS Glossary Moment of Inertia - A property, based on its geometry (most generally based on the object's centroid or cross sectional area) of an object's (or member) resistance to bending. Usually expressed in units of length, i.e. in^4 Concrete Strength This is the compressive strength of concrete, determined experimentally, and given in units of PSI. This value can be calculated from the Modulus of Elasticity Modulus of Elasticity - A measure of an object's tendency to be deformed elastically under an applied force. Distribution Factor - A design parameter given by AASTHO (can be approximated by dividing the number of lanes by the number of beams) that specifies the amount of load each beam experiences when the bridge is loaded. Continuity or Discontinuity - If the bridge is separated into several spans, the beams in each span could be connected to each other making the entire structure continuous. If they are not, then the structure would be considered discontinuous. These two characteristics change the response of the bridge from a load. Tuning - Through several iterations of a simulation, the characteristics of the bridge are changed until the response matches up with the response seen at the Fayette County Bridge. This approximates or "tunes" the characteristic in question. Cross-Sectional Area - This is the area of the inside cross section of a beam. Skew The amount of angle given to a bridge with respect to whatever it is over passing. For example if a bridge were placed perpendicular to a river, then there is no skew. However, if the bridge is placed 15 off the perpendicular then is it considered a 15 degree skew. Nomenclature E I J b d L Nb A* z = = = = = = = = = = Youngs modulus of elasticity Moment of Inertia Polar Moment of Inertia width of the beam (in) depth of beam (in) span of the beam (ft) number of beams or girders skew angle (degrees) Area of the body (from parallel axis theorem) Distance from the centroid of the body to the axis (from parallel axis theorem)
32

APPENDIX II: RESEARCH TIMELINE Informational Session 06/21-22/2010 Information was provided an introduction to the research. This information told of previous tests that were done from other research projects and why. Literature and Lectures 06/24-28/2010 Lectures were given by Dr. Richard Miller and Mr. Dawit on the basics of the physics and mechanics of bridge structures. Some homework and reading material was provided. Procurement of Materials and Resources 06/30/2010 to 0713/2010 Materials needed for the experiment were gathered while researching was being done. These materials consisted of available trucks, wire pots, gauges, etc. Research Application to Bridge 07/02-07/2010 The information learned from the literature and lectures was then applied to the project bridge in preparation for visual analysis simulations. This consisted of how the internal forces act in the bridge such as moment and shear. Also, known characteristics and properties of the bridge were obtained and documented. Simulations 07/07-09/2010 Using known information and some assumptions simulations were done for maximizing deflections on the bridge using Visual Analysis. This was done by finding the precise position to place the trucks. Simulations were done for continuous and discontinuous cases to model possible deflections and to obtain deflection results for comparison. Benchmark Test 07/14-15/2010 This part of the project consisted of benchmark test set-up followed by the benchmark test. This was a two day event at the bridge located in Washington Court House. Data was collected to be analyzed at a future time (*see Benchmark Test). Post-Benchmark Test Analysis 07/16-26/2010 Data was obtained and analyzed. After results for the actually benchmark test were found theses results where then compared to the simulations to determine the continuity of the bridge. Other useful Information which could possibly help with future tests were then documented by UC and OU students and faculty. All possible errors experimental, electronic and environmental were documented so that they could be fixed or prevented in future tests.

33

Conclusion 08/02-06/2010 All Information for this project was then put together in a note book, report, poster and power point for documentation and presentation needed in the future.

APPENDIX III: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS AASTHOs Distribution Factor b=36 in L=48 ft ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) d=21 in =9 beams

34