Jurnal Load Testing

REPORT FHWA/NY/SR-06/143
COURT STREET BRIDGE MONITORING AND

LOAD TESTING
OSMAN HAG-ELSAFI
JONATHAN KUNIN
SREENIVAS ALAMPALLI
SPECIAL REPORT 143

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUREAU
New York State Department of Transportation
George E. Pataki, Governor/Thomas J. Madison, Jr., Commissioner
Court Street Bridge Monitoring and Load Testing
Osman Hag-Elsafi, Engineering Research Specialist I

Jonathan Kunin, Civil Engineer I
Sreenivas Alampalli, Civil Engineer V
Conducted in Cooperation With

The U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Special Report 143

February 2006
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUREAU

New York State Department of Transportation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY12232
ABSTRACT
This report discusses instrumentation, deck pour monitoring, and load testing of Court Street Bridge,
which carries Route 96 over Route 17 and the Susquehanna River into the Village of Owego, Tioga
County, New York. The bridge is a six-span continuous steel structure, about 338-m long and
14.45-m wide. It consists of stringers, floor beams, two trusses (upstream and downstream), and a
light weight concrete deck. The deck was built composite with the stringers as well as the top
chords of the two trusses. The top chords being composite with the deck introduces secondary
moments in the structure and adds to the complexity of the analysis. The motive for the project was
to monitor stresses during the first three deck casting pours and determine service load axial forces
and secondary moments in the bridge members. Five downstream truss members were instrumented
with vibrating wire gages to record strains in those members during the deck pours, to determine
deck load axial forces and moments. The instrumented members included a top and a bottom chord,
two diagonals, and a vertical. To investigate service live load axial forces and moments, additional
strain data was also collected during a load test, using trucks of known weights and configurations.
The load test was conducted immediately after construction was completed and before the bridge
was opened to traffic. Finite element (FE) analysis was performed to determine the forces and
moments in the truss members due to the load test trucks. The FE analysis and test results were then
proportioned to estimate actual service load forces and moments in the bridge members.
Comparing the members’s actual service load axial forces and moments with those used in the
design, it was concluded that axial forces were overestimated in the design by about 20 percent for
service dead load and by about 25 percent for service live load. Similar comparison for moments,
indicated that service dead load moments were within 20 percent of those used in the design and
service live load moments were underestimated by about 55 percent. The above differences for
service dead load can be attributed to the manner in which the monitoring data was corrected for
temperature effects and the possibility of construction loads being on the structure during the deck
pour monitoring. For service live load, these differences can be explained by possible discrepancies
in estimating service live load from the test results and the fact that the analysis for service live load
in the design was performed ignoring the contribution of the composite concrete deck. Adequacy
of the structural design under actual axial forces and moments was confirmed by checking the
AASHTO interaction equations for steel members under combined axial and bending loading
conditions.
iii
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. REPORT ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. BRIDGE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. BRIDGE DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III. INSTRUMENTATION AND LOAD TEST PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. INSTRUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. LOAD TEST PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
IV. MONITORING RESULTS AND DEAD LOAD ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A. MONITORING RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. DEAD LOAD ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
V. LOAD TEST RESULTS AND LIVE LOAD ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A. LOAD TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B. LIVE LOAD ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
APPENDIX A - VIBRATING WIRE GAGES INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
APPENDIX B - INFLUENCE LINE PLOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
APPENDIX C - TEMPERATURE MONITORING AND CORRECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
APPENDIX D -STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF FINITE ELEMENT AND TEST DATA SETS . . . . . . . . . 63
v
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Instrumentation, strain monitoring, and load testing of the Court Street Bridge in Tioga County, New
York, are discussed in this report. The bridge replaces BIN 1060150, and carries Route 96 (Court
Street) over Route 17 and the Susquehanna River into the Village of Owego (Figure 1). It has six
spans (52, 65, 65, 65, 65, 52, and 39 m) for a total length of 338 m. It is about 14.45-m wide,
including a 12.40 m center to center spacing between two supporting trusses and two 1.02-m
cantilever overhangs. It has three lanes of traffic, a northbound, a southbound, and a turning lane,
and is expected to carry an AADT of approximately 6000 vehicles. The bridge is a continuous steel
structure, consisting of stringers, floor beams, two trusses (upstream and downstream), and a light
weight concrete deck. Some of the top and bottom chord members of the upstream and downstream
trusses were made of High Performance Steel (HPS). The concrete deck was built composite with
the stringers as well as the top chords of the trusses. The fact that the deck is composite with the top
chords of the trusses generally introduces secondary moments in the truss members and complicates
structural behavior. Moments in the truss members are also influenced by the behavior of the bolted
connections -- acting as pinned, semirigid, or rigid.
The project was initiated to investigate axial forces and moments in the main truss members due to
service deck dead load and service live load. Five of the downstream truss members were
instrumented with vibrating wire gages to record strains in those members during the first three deck
pours, and to collect additional data during a load test conducted after the bridge construction was
completed. The instrumented members were located near the Pier 1 side of Span 2 on the
downstream truss (Spans 1 and 2, respectively, are shown in Figures 2 and 3, and Pier 1 is shown
in both figures).
For the instrumented members, the report presents relationships between the design service loads
axial forces and moments (based on FE analysis results), and the actual axial forces and moments
(based on monitoring and load test results).
B. REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report has four more chapters. In the next chapter, the bridge structure and the analysis
performed for the bridge design are described. Chapter III discusses the instrumentation plan, deck
load monitoring, and the service load test plans. Collected deck pour monitoring and load testing
data are analyzed and compared with the finite element analysis results in Chapters IV and V,
respectively. Plots for predicting actual service load axial forces and moments, due to dead load
and live load, in the instrumented members are also derived in the two chapters. A summary of the
results and concluding remarks are included in the last chapter of the report.
Figure 1. Court Street bridge.
Figure 2. Span 1 downstream view.
Figure 3. Span 2 downstream view.
2
II. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE
A. BRIDGE ANALYSIS
A brief outline of the bridge analysis and design is included in this chapter. The bridge structure was
analyzed using the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Bridge Load Rating
System (BLRS) computer software for truss analysis and rating, and STAAD III, a general structural
analysis finite element software package. The STAAD III results were investigated assuming truss
and frame analysis options, for both two- and three-dimensional models (Figures 4 and 5). Axial
live load forces in the bridge members were determined, mainly, based on the BLRS program, using
a truss model and an adjusted AASHTO HS-20 load, to reflect an HS-25 line load. A two
dimensional STAAD III frame model, assuming end fixity of the truss members, was loaded with
combination lane loadings to produce maximum axial forces in chord members at midspan and at
the piers (Figure 4). The maximum stresses resulting from the BLRS and STAAD III analysis (2-
dimensional model) were compared and the higher of the two stresses was used in the final design.
Figure 4. Two-dimensional bridge model.
Figure 5. Three-dimensional bridge model.
3
Secondary moments due to live load were calculated by applying an equivalent truck load along the
two dimensional truss model top chord as a moving load in two scenarios. The truck axle weights
were proportioned to resemble that of an HS-25 (W/4, W, W) and a 3.25-m axle spacing was
selected, so that the axles would always coincide with the top chord nodal points. The axle weight
W was calculated from the following equation:
W = (HS-25 Axle Weight) x (Live Load Distribution Factor) x (Impact) x (Lane Load Modifier) ...... (1)
where HS-25 axle load = 178 kN, Live Load Distribution Factor = 1.68 trucks for downstream truss,
impact = 1.15 (assumed average value for the bridge), and Lane Load Modifier = 1.27 (ratio of HS-
25 lane load to truck load simple span moment for 65-m span, which was used to make the truck
load approximate a lane load application). Substituting these values in the above equation, W can
be obtained as 437 kN.
In the first scenario, the moving load was applied on a two-dimensional STAAD III model at 3.25-m
increments, to coincide with top chord nodal points. Maximum positive and negative moments and
maximum compression and tension axial forces in the members were recorded. In the second
scenario, the moving load was applied on the two-dimensional STAAD III model at 0.825-m
increments (3.25/4) to produce direct live load stringer moments in the top chord as well as
secondary moments from truss node fixity. Only maximum moments were recorded from this
analysis. Results from the above analyses were entered into a spreadsheet to determine design live
load secondary moments (4). The axial forces and secondary moments based on the above analysis
for the instrumented members are summarized in Table 1. The members referenced in this table are
defined in Span 2 framing plan in Figure 6. A transverse section through the bridge showing the
cross frames detail at Pier 1 and the composite concrete deck (with the stringers and the top chords)
is shown in Figure 7.
B. BRIDGE DESIGN
The bridge was designed based on the New York State Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges, with all provisions in effect as of April 2001 (1), the AASHTO
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th edition 1995 (2), including 1997 and 1998 Interim
Specifications, and the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Strength Design of Truss Bridges (Load
Factor Design) 1985 (3), including 1986 Interims. The bridge superstructure steel conforms to
ASTM A709M Grade 345W (non-HPS) or ASTM A709M Grade 485W (HPS). An elastic modulus
of 2 x105 MPa was specified for the design of both steel type members. The instrumented
members’ shapes, web and flange dimensions, steel grades, and yield stresses (Fy) are shown in
Table 2. The members’ properties [moment of inertia (I), section modulus (S), radius of gyration
(r), and length (L) over radius of gyration ratio (L/r)] are given in Tables 3. For design purposes,
compressive strength and elastic modulus of concrete for the substructure and deck slab at 28 days
were specified at 21 and1.64x104 MPa, respectively.
4
Figure 6. Span 2 framing plan.
Figure 7. Cross frame detail at Pier 1.
5
Service Load Axial Forces
and Moments
Member Live Load
Gage Dead Load
Mounted Plus Impact
Number
on
Axial Secondary Axial Secondary
Force Moment Force Moment
(kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
1, 2 U16-L16 -400 5 -343 1
3, 4 L16-U17 -1318 28 -2291 38
5, 6, 7, 8 L16-L18 -2652 114 -5120 241
9, 10 U17-L18 1246 24 1931 22
11, 12 U16-U17 3281 224 6423 267
Table 1. Service load axial forces and moments.
6
Member Thickness
Gage (mm) Steel Fy
Mounted Section
Number Grade (MPa)
on Web Flange
1 U16-L16
10 14 345W 345
2 U16-L16
3 L16-U17
345W 345
14 30
4 L16-U17
5 L16-L18
6 L16-L18
485W 485
7 L16-L18 28 18
8 L16-L18
9 U17-L18
345W 345
10 28
10 U17-L18
11 U16-U17
38 20 485W 485
12 U16-U17
Table 2. Members shapes and steel grades.
7
Gross Sz.10-3 Sy.10-3
Length Izz .10-3 Iyy .10-3 rz.10-1 ry.10-3
Member Area L/r
(m)
(m2)
(m4) (m4) (m )
3
(m )
3
(m) (m)
U16-L16 4.00 0.0126 0.05 0.62 0.34 2.44 2.21 0.60 66.25
L16-U17 5.15 0.031 0.32 1.64 1.60 6.49 2.32 1.02 50.02
L16-L18 6.52 0.0470 1.61 2.22 7.16 8.79 2.26 1.92 33.82
U17-L18 4.88 0.0255 0.24 1.41 1.18 5.60 2.35 0.96 51.09
U16-U17 3.25 0.0588 2.16 2.80 8.10 12.6 2.26 1.86 17.46
Table 3. Instrumented members’ properties.
8
III. INSTRUMENTATION AND LOAD TEST PLANS
The bridge instrumentation and load test plans were designed to provide data for investigation of
axial forces and secondary moments in the downstream truss members. The gages were mounted
in pairs near members ends to collect strain and temperature data during the first three deck pours
and for a post construction load test. Vibrating wire gages (Model 4000 Vibrating Wire Strain
Gages, manufactured by Geokon of Lebanon, New Hampshire) were selected for this project for
their long term durability and not requiring correction for drift. The gages were read using a Geokon
Model GK-403 Readout Box, also manufactured by Geokon, which reads one gage at a time, giving
the gage’s strain in :, and temperature in °C . The vibrating wire gages have a Gage Correction
Factor of 0.945. Additional information on those gages and the data acquisition system are included
in the Geokon’s company brochure in Appendix A.
A. INSTRUMENTATION
The five members selected for instrumentation were located near the Pier 1 end of Span 2 (Figures
2, 3, and 8) of the downstream truss. All gages were arc-welded to the members, except for the top
chord (U16-U17) where they were mounted using a quick set epoxy resin. The gage locations along
the members are shown in Table 4, where the starting ends are defined based on the local member
axes coordinate systems in Figure 9. In the transverse directions, all the gages were mounted 13 mm
from a member’s nearest edge, except for Gage 11 which was mounted 35 mm below the edge next
to the concrete deck. All the gages remained operational throughout the project, except for the two
gages mounted on the top chord (Gages 11 and 12) which debonded before the live load tests were
performed.
Figure 8. Instrumented downstream truss members.
9
Distance From
Gage Member Starting
Number Mounted on Member’s End
(m)
1 U16-L16 1.41
2 U16-L16 1.41
3 L16-U17 1.58
4 L16-U17 1.58
5 L16-L18 5.30
6 L16-L18 5.30
7 L16-L18 1.64
8 L16-L18 1.64
9 U17-L18 1.46
10 U17-L18 1.46
11 U16-U17 1.35
12 U16-U17 1.35
Table 4. Gage locations on members.
Figure 9. Member local axis orientation.
B. LOAD TEST PLANS
The test plans included loading the bridge with four trucks (Trucks I, II, III, and IV) of known
weights and configurations to maximize forces and moments at the gage locations near Pier 1. All
the trucks had 3-axles, except for Truck I which had 4 axles (Figure 10). Axle weights and
configurations for the four trucks are given in Table 5. To simplify the analysis, each truck in this
table was reduced to a two-axle configuration, by representing the rear axle left and right tire
weights by single loads. Four loading formations (Load Cases A, B, C, and D) were selected to
10
place the trucks on the bridge deck at the positions shown in Figure 11. These positions were
determined, as practically as possible, to maximize the instrumented member forces and moments
(See influence lines in Appendix B). Transversely, the trucks were positioned as close as possible
to the downstream curb, to maximize the load on the downstream truss. Photos taken during the
testing for Load Cases C and D are shown in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. As seen in Figure 11,
Load Cases A and B were similar to Load Cases D and C, respectively. However, the truck
locations along the bridge were different for the respective cases. Figure 14 shows Trucks I and II
positions in Load Cases B and C formations.
Figure 10. Three and four axle load test trucks.
Front Axle Weights Back Axle Weights Truck

(kN) (kN) Gross
Truck
Left Side Right Side Left Side Right Side Weight
Tires Tires Tires Tires (kN)
I 42.3 35.5 97.9 100.1 275.8
II 42.3 48.9 93.2 89.2 273.6
III 42.3 44.5 104.5 91.2 282.5
IV 44.5 42.3 124.5 109.0 320.3
Table 5. Test trucks weight data.
11
Figure 11. Load test truck locations on the bridge.
12
Figure 12. Trucks for Load Case C formation.
Figure 13. Trucks for Load Case D formation.
Figure 14. Trucks I and II for Load Cases B and C formations.
13
IV. MONITORING RESULTS AND DEAD LOAD ANALYSIS
A. MONITORING RESULTS
Strain data was collected for deck Pours 1, 2, and 3 in Figure 15 during October and November
2002. There was a pause in construction activities during the winter season, before the rest of the
deck was cast. The average temperature changes during Pours 1, 2, and 3, were 8.7, 12.4, and 2.3 °C,
respectively. The strain and temperature data collected during the three deck pours is included in
Table 18 of Appendix C. The strain data in the table was corrected for temperature effects and a
summary of the corrected strains and stresses for the three pours is given in Table 6.
Figure 15. Deck pour sequence.
Time histories of the stresses calculated for each paired gages on a member during the three pours
are presented in Figure 16. The horizontal axes in these plots are indicative of selected areas of the
deck being poured and the corresponding pour numbers. The plots in the figure show the general
quantitative changes in a gage’s stress as the deck is poured in the direction (beginning-to-end)
depicted by the arrows in Figure 15. The stress histories in the figure were calculated using corrected
strain data similar to that shown in the last column in Table 6.
15
Pours 1+2+3 Pours 1+2+3
Temperature Temperature-Corrected Total
Gage Member
Corrected Strain Strain w/ Gage Factor Stress
(:,) (:,) (MPa)
1 U16-L16 -167.5 -158.3 -31.7
2 U16-L16 -191.4 -180.8 -36.2
3 L16-U17 -233.1 -220.3 -44.1
4 L16-U17 -213.4 -201.6 -40.3
5 L16-L18 -284.6 -268.9 -53.8
6 L16-L18 -265.6 -251.0 -50.2
7 L16-L18 -200.3 -189.3 -37.9
8 L16-L18 -338.6 -320.0 -64.0
9 U17-L18 175.5 165.9 33.2
10 U17-L18 269.5 254.7 50.9
11 U16-U17 224.8 212.4 42.5
12 U16-U17 117.6 111.1 22.2
Table 6. Summary.
Table 6. Deck pours strains and stresses.
The time history plots in the figure are generally consistent with the influence line plots in Appendix
B, regarding the effect of a poured deck area on a member’s axial force. The plots also show the
bending experienced by the members during the three deck pours, which is indicated by the
separation between the two time history lines for any paired gages mounted on a member. Based on
these plots, it can be concluded that members U16-U17 (top chord) and L16-L18 (bottom chord) are
the two most stressed members, as expected, and member strains are mostly influenced by deck pours
on Span 2, positive moment region of the span and negative regions at Piers 1 and 2. From the strain
data in the figure, the highest tensile and compressive forces, and end moment in the members can
be calculated as follows. The highest tensile force resulted in the top chord = (average strain for
Gages 11 and 12) x steel elastic modulus x top chord area = 162 (:,) 2 x 1011 (Pa) x 58.8 x10-3 (m2)
= 1903 kN. The highest compressive force was obtained in the bottom chord = (average strain for
Gages 5 and 6) x steel elastic modulus x bottom chord area = 260 (:,) 2 x 1011 (Pa) x 47.0 x10-3 (m2)
= 2444 kN. Both highest compressive and tensile forces were calculated based the end of Pour 3
strains. The highest bending moment resulted in the top chord when the deck area directly above Pier
1 was poured = (½ strain difference for Gages 11 and 12) x steel elastic modulus x bottom chord
section modulus = ½ x 101 (:,) 2 x 1011 (Pa) x 12.6 x10-3 (m3) = 128 kN-m. This is a predictable
consequence of the deck being cast to act composite with the top chord members.
16
Gages 1 & 2
Pour 1 Pour 2 Pour 3
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Stress (MPa)
10
Gage 1
0
Gage 2
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
Span 3, +ve
Span 2, +ve
Pier 2, -ve
Pier 1, -ve
Span 1
End Pour 3
Member U16-L16
Gages 3 & 4
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Stress (MPa)
10
Gage 3
0
Gage 4
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
Span 3, +ve
Span 2, +ve
Pier 2, -ve
Pier 1, -ve
Span 1
End Pour 3
Member L16-U17
Gages 5 & 6
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Stress (MPa)
10
Gage 5
0
Gage 6
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
Span 3, +ve
Span 2, +ve
Pier 2, -ve
Pier 1, -ve
Span 1
End Pour 3
Member L16-L18
Figure 16. Deck pour stresses for paired gages.
17
Gages 7 & 8
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Stress (MPa)
10
Gage 7
0
Gage 8
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
Span 3, +ve
Span 2, +ve
Pier 2, -ve
Pier 1, -ve
Span 1
End Pour 3
Member L16-L18
Gages 9 & 10
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Stress (MPa)
10
Gage 9
0
Gage 10
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
Span 3, +ve
Span 2, +ve
Pier 2, -ve
Pier 1, -ve
Span 1
End Pour 3
Member U17-L18
Gages 11 & 12
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Stress (MPa)
10
Gage 11
0
Gage 12
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
Span 3, +ve
Span 2, +ve
Pier 2, -ve
Pier 1, -ve
Span 1
End Pour 3
Member U16-U17
Figure 16. Deck pour stresses for paired gages (Continued).
18
To determine axial forces and moments in the truss members due to service deck load, the total
stresses in Table 6 were split into their axial and bending stress components. A stress measured at a
gage location, generally, represents the net contribution of the individual stresses due to axial forces,
bending about the y and z axes, and torsion (bending about the x axis). From a three-dimensional FE
deck load analysis results, stresses due to bending about the y-axis and torsion on the truss members
were found to be relatively small in comparison to those due to axial forces and bending about the z-
axis. As such, the axial stress on the member could be obtained as the average of the stresses
calculated based on the two paired-gages readings multiplied by the member’s cross sectional area,
and the bending stress due to secondary moments (Mz , bending about the z axis) as half the difference
between the two calculated axial stresses times the member’s section modulus.
Axial forces and secondary moments for the FE analysis and monitoring results are included in Table
7, and presented in Figures 17 and 18. The graphical presentation in these figures establishes a
relationship between the test (actual) and FE analysis results for axial forces (Figure 17) and moments
(Figure 18). The fact that these relationships are linear illustrates consistency of the test data.
Based on the results from a two-dimensional FE analysis, created for the bridge design, the concrete
deck load effects were determined to be about 65 percent of the total service dead load effects. The
FE analysis dead load secondary moments in Table 7 were obtained by proportioning those shown on
the bridge plans by the 65 percent factor, and adjusting for the light weight concrete deck. Incremental
FE analysis results (Table 8A to 8C) of the structure considering the actual deck pouring sequence
confirmed validity of the above approach to estimate concrete deck axial forces and moments. This
is demonstrated by the excellent comparison between the FE and proposed approach results in Table
8D. The incremental FE analysis was performed ignoring the composite action provided by the cured
concrete during the deck pours. Besides axial forces (Fx) and bending moments about the z-axis (Mz),
Table 8 shows additional results from the FE analysis, including shear forces (Fy and Fz), out of plane
bending moments (My), and torsional forces (Mx). The unpredictable out of plane bending results in
Table 8C clearly show the importance of three dimensional FE analysis in investigating the structural
behavior of a bridge of this type.
Axial Secondary
Member Force Moment
Gage
Mounted (kN) (kN-m)
Number
on
FE Test FE Test
1, 2 U16-L16 -175 -428 1 6
3, 4 L16-U17 -1068 -1291 21 12
5, 6 L16-L18 -2581 -2444 137 115
7, 8 L16-L18 -2581 -2394 137 115
9, 10 U17-L18 1074 1072 12 50
11, 12 U16-U17 3258 1903 150 128
Table 7. Deck load axial forces and secondary moments.
19
Axial Force
5000
4000
3000
2000
y = 1.2389x + 393.92
FE Analysis (kN)
1000
0
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Test (kN)
Figure 17. Axial force (FA): Deck service load (FE Analysis) versus load test.
Secondary Moment
175
150
125
y = 1.227x - 11.709
100
FE Analysis
75
50
25
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
-25
Test
Figure 18. Bending moment (Mz): Service deck load (FE Analysis) versus load test.
20
Member Element Node Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
No. No. (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m)
1017 20.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.8
U16-L16 261
17 -20.8 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 -0.5 1.0
1017 35.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 -0.7 3.2
L16-U17 241
18 -35.8 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -1.4 -3.2
1017 1227.9 2.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 31.8
L16-L18 221
1019 -1227.9 -2.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 -18.7
18 -43.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.6 1.9
U17-L18 242
1019 43.6 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.3 -1.7
17 -1169.7 7.3 -2.1 0.6 9.3 51.6
U16-U17 201
18 1169.7 -7.3 2.1 -0.6 -2.4 -27.8
Table 8A. Pour 1 results.
Mx
Member Element Node Fx Fy Fz
(kN-
My Mz
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN-m)
No. No. m)
1017 17.1 -0.5 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.9
U16-L16 261
17 -17.1 0.5 -0.1 0.0 -0.4 -1.1
1017 472.4 -1.4 0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.5
L16-U17 241
18 -472.4 1.4 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 -6.7
1017 728.1 6.9 0.3 -0.8 -3.2 42.1
L16-L18 221
1019 -728.1 -6.9 -0.3 0.8 1.5 2.7
18 -495.2 -2.0 -0.6 0.0 0.4 -3.8
U17-L18 242
1019 495.2 2.0 0.6 0.0 2.6 -5.7
17 -971.6 8.6 2.7 -0.6 -11.0 42.7
U16-U17 201
18 971.6 -8.6 -2.7 0.6 2.3 -14.7
Table 8B. Pour 2 results.
Mx
Member Element Node Fx Fy Fz
(kN-
My Mz
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN-m)
No. No. m)
1017 173.6 0.0 7.6 0.0 -5.8 0.0
U16-L16 261
17 -173.6 0.0 -7.6 0.0 -24.4 0.0
1017 502.3 -0.7 5.7 0.0 -3.0 1.9
L16-U17 241
18 -502.3 0.7 -5.7 0.0 -26.5 -5.3
1017 553.6 10.3 2.1 -4.1 -15.0 51.5
L16-L18 221
1019 -553.6 - -2.1 4.1 1.5 15.6
18 -427.7 -2.1 -3.0 0.0 8.9 -4.8
U17-L18 242
1019 427.7 2.1 3.0 0.0 5.7 -5.4
17 -833.4 -2.7 -6.0 4.5 8.0 34.2
U16-U17 201
18 833.4 2.7 6.0 -4.5 11.6 -42.9
Table 8C. Pour 3 results.
Table 8. Finite element analysis results for the first three deck pours.
21
FE Results Proposed
Pours 1+2+3 Approach
Member Element Node
No. No. Fx Mz Fx Mz
(kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
1017 211.5 -0.2
U16-L16 261 -175 1
17 -211.5 -0.1
1017 1010.5 4.5
L16-U17 241 -1068 21
18 -11010 -15.2
1017 2509.6 125.3
L16-L18 221 -2581 137
1019 -2509.0 -0.4
18 -966.5 -6.7
U17-L18 242 1074 12
1019 966.5 -12.8
17 -2974.7 128.4
U16-U17 201 3258 128
18 2974.7 -85.4
Table 8D. Summary and comparison with proposed approach in Table 7.
Table 8. Finite element analysis results for the first three deck pours (Continued).
B. DEAD LOAD ANALYSIS
The goal in this section is to determine axial forces and secondary moments in the instrumented
members under total service dead load, using the service deck load analysis results. This was
achieved by applying the 65 percent factor to the FE and monitoring results in Table 7 to generate a
similar set of data for predicting total service dead load axial forces and moments. This new data set
is shown in Table 9, and graphically displayed in Figures 19 and 20. Analyses of the data sets used
to generate these figures in Appendix D show statistical significance of the relationships between FE
and test results established in the figures. It is important to note that this approach for predicting total
dead load effects is based on the assumptions that 1) structural characteristics of the bridge were not
affected by the concrete curing process, and the subsequent loss of moisture and the possibility of the
poured concrete acting compositely with the steel, 2) temperature changes between concrete pours
were uniform [this was used in the calculation of the Thermal Gage Factors (TGFs) in Appendix C],
and 3) the deck load was applied incrementally, in a manner resembling actual pours sequence, in the
FE solution for forces and moments due to deck pours.
22
Axial Secondary
Member Force Moment
Gage
Mounted (kN) (kN-m)
Number
on
FE Test FE Test
1, 2 U16-L16 -267 -658 1 9
3, 4 L16-U17 -1672 -1987 33 19
5, 6 L16-L18 -3962 -3759 - -
7, 8 L16-L18 -3962 -3683 212 177
9, 10 U17-L18 1642 1650 19 76
11, 12 U16-U17 5022 2927 231 196
Table 9. Total dead load axial forces and secondary moments.
Axial Force
Full Dead Load
6000
5000
4000
y = 1.2389x + 604.5
3000
2000
FE Analysis (kN)
1000
0
-6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
Test (kN)
Figure 19. Axial force (FA): Service total dead load (FE Analysis) versus load test.
23
Secondary Moment
Full Dead Load
250
225
200
y = 1.227x - 18.013
175
FE Analysis (kN-m)
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
-25
Test (kN-m)
Figure 20. Bending moment (Mz): Service dead load (FE Analysis) versus load test.
24
V. LOAD TEST RESULTS AND LIVE LOAD ANALYSIS
A. LOAD TEST RESULTS
Besides deck monitoring strain data, additional strains were collected during the four load test cases.
Because the tests were conducted in a relatively short period of time, changes in temperature were
minimal and did not warrant correcting the data for temperature effects. Recorded strain data at the
various gages was used to calculate the stresses in Table 10 for Load Cases A to D.
Gage Stress
(MPa)
Gage Member
Number Mounted on Load Case
A B C D
1 U16-L16 -6.44 -2.55 -14.59 -9.83
2 U16-L16 -7.33 -4.48 -15.99 -9.54
3 L16-U17 -5.36 -2.23 -17.64 -19.87
4 L16-U17 -12.41 -11.80 -16.06 -17.54
5 L16-L18 -16.81 -15.96 -6.76 -11.02
6 L16-L18 -15.67 -15.60 -3.69 -6.02
7 L16-L18 -15.64 -15.90 -2.88 -6.27
8 L16-L18 -17.98 -16.03 -10.15 -17.43
9 U17-L18 9.10 7.82 3.36 9.34
10 U17-L18 5.91 4.00 8.55 14.36
Table 10. Gage stresses for the load test cases.
The three dimensional STAAD III model was loaded in a manner replicating the actual truck loads
on the bridge during the load test, to obtain FE results for axial forces and moments. Utilizing these
results together with the properties in Tables 2, 3, and 4, member stresses at gage locations can be
determined as shown in Table 11. The next paragraph explains how the test results in the table were
calculated.
25
As mentioned in the previous chapter, a measured stress at a gage location is the net contribution of
the individual stress components at that location. The stress components for the test results in Table
11 were determined by solving the two stress equations for each paired gages on a member for the z-
axis bending stress, and then using a pseudo analytical approach to determine the axial and y-axis
bending stresses, as illustrated below.
Gages 7 and 8 stresses will be used for this illustration. From Figure 21, The following stress
equations can be written at the two gage locations on Member L16-L18:
FA + Fy+ Fz = Gage 7 Stress ..............................................................................................(5)
FA + Fy - Fz = Gage 8 Stress ..............................................................................................(6)
where FA , Fy, and Fz , respectively, are the stresses due to axial forces, bending about the y axis, and
bending about the z axis. Solving the above equations for Fz:
Fz = (Gage 7 Stress - Gage 8 Stress)/2..............................................................................(7)
Adding Eqs. 5 and 6, and solving for FA:
FA = (Gage 7 Stress + Gage 8 Stress)/[2(1+R)] ................................................................(8)
where R = Fy /FA. This ratio is determined from the finite element results in Table 11. Once Fz and
FA are determined from Eqs. 7 and 8, respectively, Fy can be obtained from either Eq. 5 or 6.
The load test and FE stress results for the four load cases are compared in Table 12 and Figure 22.
From these results it can be concluded that the FE and test stress results compare very well, and that
the FE stresses are generally higher than the test stresses for all gages, except for those mounted on
Member U16-L16 (Gages 1 and 2).
Figure 21. Member L16-L18 stresses.
26
Load Case Stresses
(MPa)
Load
Case Member z-Axis y-Axis
Axial Bending Bending
(FA) (Fz) (Fy)
FE Test FE Test FE Test
U16-L16 -5.43 -6.02 -0.31 -0.44 -0.78 -0.86
L16 - U17 -9.97 -8.70 -1.49 -1.60 -0.46 -1.19

A L16 - L18 -21.6 -15.58 -4.36 -1.17 -1.71 -1.23
U17 - L18 11.76 8.49 0.53 3.52 1.61 0.39
L16 - L18 -21.60 -16.11 -1.29 -0.57 -0.18 -0.13
U16-L16 -1.36 -3.31 -0.25 -0.96 -0.08 -0.19
L16 - U17 -7.32 -6.98 -1.21 -4.79 -0.04 -0.04

B
L16 - L18 -22.71 -15.82 -3.80 -0.07 -0.22 -0.16
U17 - L18 8.60 6.12 0.67 1.91 0.30 0.21
L16 - L18 -22.71 -15.44 -1.53 -0.18 -0.50 -0.34
U16 - L16 -8.31 -11.88 -0.83 -0.70 -2.39 -3.46
L16 - U17 -20.29 -15.68 -0.34 -0.79 -1.52 -1.18
L16 - L18 -7.17 -4.65 -2.96 -3.64 -2.88 -1.87

C
U17 - L18 16.12 9.67 2.13 2.59 6.19 3.71
L16 - L18 -7.17 -5.57 -1.21 -1.53 -0.44 -0.34
U16 -L16 -4.70 -7.90 -1.00 -0.15 -1.00 -1.73
L16 - U17 -25.40 -17.92 -0.55 -1.77 -1.10 -0.76

D
L16 - L18 -12.76 -7.69 -4.33 -5.58 -6.91 -4.17
U17 - L18 24.00 16.00 2.10 2.51 6.30 4.20
L16 - L18 -12.76 -10.21 -0.64 -2.50 -2.11 -1.68
Table 11 . Stress components based on load tests and FE analysis.
27
Gage Stress
(MPa)
Gage Member Result
Number Mounted on Type Load Case
A B C D
Test -6.44 -2.55 -14.59 -9.83
1 U16-L16
FE -5.81 -1.18 -11.53 -6.75
Test -7.33 -4.48 -15.99 -9.54

2 U16-L16
FE -6.51 -1.70 -9.87 -4.72
Test -5.36 -2.23 -17.64 -19.87

3 L16-U17
FE -8.95 -6.15 -21.47 -25.99
Test -12.41 -11.80 -16.06 -17.54

4 L16-U17
FE -11.91 -8.57 -22.15 -27.09
Test -16.81 -15.96 -6.76 -11.02

5 L16-L18
FE -20.54 -21.69 -7.94 -11.29
Test -15.67 -15.60 -3.69 -6.02

6 L16-L18
FE -23.12 -24.74 -5.52 -10.02
Test -15.64 -15.90 -2.88 -6.27

7 L16-L18
FE -19.00 -19.14 -7.10 -15.34
Test -17.98 -16.03 -10.15 -17.43

8 L16-L18
FE -27.71 -26.73 -13.01 -24.01
Test 9.10 7.82 3.36 9.34

9 U17-L18
FE 10.67 9.02 7.80 15.49
Test 5.91 4.00 8.55 14.36

10 U17-L18
FE 9.62 7.68 12.05 19.87
Table 12. Test versus FE stresses for the four load cases.
28
Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Gage 3 - Test Gage 1 - Test
Gage 3 - FE Gage 1 - FE
CASE A
CASE A
CASE B
CASE B
Gages 3 and 4
Gages 1 and 2
Load Case
Load Case
Member L16-U17
Member U16-L16
CASE C
CASE C
CASE D
CASE D
Figure 22. Comparison of test and FE stresses for the four load cases.
29
30
Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
CASE A
CASE A
CASE B
CASE B
Gages 7 and 8
Gages 5 and 6
Load Case
Load Case
Member L16-L18
Member L16-L18
CASE C
CASE C
CASE D
CASE D
Figure 22. Comparison of test and FE stresses for the four load cases (Continued).
Gages 9 and 10
30
25
20
Gage 10 - FE
Stress (MPa)
15
Gage 9 - FE
Gage 10 - Test
Gage 10 - FE
10
Gage 9 - FE
Gage 10 - Test
Gage 10 - FE
Gage 9 - Test
Gage 9 - Test
Gage 9 - FE
Gage 10 - Test
Gage 9 - FE
Gage 9 - Test
Gage 10 - FE
Gage 10 - Test
Gage 9 - Test
5
0
CASE A CASE B CASE C CASE D
Load Case
Member U17-L18
Figure 22. Comparison of test and FE stresses for the four load cases (Continued).
B. LIVE LOAD ANALYSIS
The objective in this section is to determine actual axial forces and secondary moments in the
instrumented members under service live load. This would require comparing/proportioning the load
test effects (moment and shear) to those due to the service live load used in the members’ design. For
that, a one dimensional model of the downstream truss was loaded with the service load combinations
producing maximum moment and shear at the gage locations (Figure 23) and also with the equivalent
axle loads on the truss during the four load test cases (Figure 24). The moment and shear results from
this analysis, at Pier 1 end of Span 2, are summarized in Table 13. The table shows load tests
moments and shear forces expressed as percentages of the maximum moments and shear forces due
to the governing service load combinations. For each load case, an average percentage of its moment
and shear is assumed to give the percentage the load case represents of the design service live load
moment and shear. From Table 13, those were obtained as 34, 29, 43, and 54 percent for Load Cases
A, B, C, and D, respectively.
Using the stress data in Table 11, the properties in Table 3, and applying the appropriate percentages
from Table 13, the relationship between the design service load and test loads axial forces and
moments can be established as shown in Table 14, and Figures 25, 26, and 27. From these figures,
actual service load axial force/moment can be determined on the horizontal axis for any member’s
axial force/moment design service load force/moment on the vertical axis. Note that the linear
relationships between the test and FE results in the figures prove consistency of the load test data.
Data points that lie off the best fit lines in the figures correspond to load cases producing more
eccentric loading (Load Cases B and C). From Figure 25 it can be concluded that actual service load
axial forces are about 20 percent lower than those used for the members design. In Table 14, the
31
three-dimensional FE analysis was able to detect a behavior that could not have been detected by two-
dimensional analysis: presence of significant out of plane bending (bending about the y axis) under
some loading scenarios. This emphasizes the importance of three-dimensional analysis in
investigating structural behavior of a bridge of this type.
Analyses of the data sets used to generate Figures 25, 26, and 27 in Appendix D show statistical
significance of the relationships between FE and test results established in these figures.
Design Service Load

Test
(From FE Analysis)
Test to Maximum
Moment and Moment and Design Service Load
Shear Shear
at Gages at Gages (%)
Load Locations Load Locations
Case on Span 2 Combination on Span 2
Moment Shear Moment Shear
Moment Shear Average
(kN-m) (kN) (kN-m) (kN)
A 4393 306 134* - - 38.5 28.8 33.7
B 3200 317 139 11396 942 28.1 29.8 28.9
C 3150 633 156 6748 840 27.6 59.5 43.6
D 4476 743 161 10131 1063 39.3 69.9 54.6
Maximum FE Analysis 11396 1063

*
Load Combination 134 produces negative bending in Span 2.
Table 13. Moment and shear results for service load combinations and load cases.
32
Load Combination 134
Figure 23. Governing service live load combinations for maximum moment and shear.
33
Load Case A (69, 175, 80, 164, 77, 174, 77, and 210 kN)
Load Case B (126, 292, 131, and 334 kN)
Load Case C (126, 292, 131, and 334 kN)
Load Case D (69, 175, 80, 164, 77, 174, 77, and 210 kN)
Figure 24. Axle loads on the downstream truss during the load tests (ordered right to left).
34
Axial z-Axis y-Axis
Member Force Bending Bending
Load Gage Fx Mz My
Mounted
Case Number (kN) (kN-m) (kN-m)
on
FE Test FE Test FE Test
1, 2 U16-L16 -201.4 -223.3 -0.3 -0.4 -5.6 -6.2
3, 4 L16-U17 -897.3 -783.0 -7.0 -7.5 -8.8 -22.7
A 5, 6 L16-L18 -2985.9 -2227.0 -27.1 -12.0 -4.7 -3.3
7, 8 L16-L18 -2985.9 -2153.7 -91.8 -24.6 -44.2 -31.8
9, 10 U17-L18 882.0 636.8 1.8 12.2 26.5 6.4
1, 2 U16-L16 -59.1 -143.9 -0.3 -1.1 -0.7 -1.6
3, 4 L16-U17 -772.4 -736.5 -6.7 -26.4 -0.9 -0.9
B 5, 6 L16-L18 -3680.6 -2502.3 -37.7 -4.4 -15.3 -10.3
7, 8 L16-L18 -3680.6 -2563.9 -93.8 -1.7 -6.6 -4.9
9, 10 U17-L18 756.2 538.1 2.7 7.8 5.8 4.1
1, 2 U16-L16 -262.0 -374.5 -0.7 -0.6 -14.6 -21.1
3, 4 L16-U17 -1552.2 -1199.5 -1.4 -3.2 -24.7 -19.2
C 5, 6 L16-L18 -842.5 -654.5 -21.6 -27.4 -9.6 -7.5
7, 8 L16-L18 -842.5 -546.4 -52.9 -65.1 -63.3 -41.1
9, 10 U17-L18 1027.7 616.5 6.3 7.6 86.6 51.9
1, 2 U16-L16 -118.5 -199.2 -0.7 -0.1 -4.9 -8.5
3, 4 L16-U17 -1554.5 -1096.7 -1.8 -5.7 -14.3 -9.9
D 5, 6 L16-L18 -1199.5 -959.7 -9.1 -35.8 -37.1 -29.5
7, 8 L16-L18 -1199.5 -722.9 -62.0 -79.9 -121.5 -73.3
9, 10 U17-L18 1224.0 816.0 5.0 5.9 70.5 47.0
Table 14. Axial forces and moments: Service live load (FE) versus load test.
35
Axial Force FA
4000
3000
2000
ALL = 1.4393x + 94.822 Case A

Case B
FE Analysis (kN)
1000
Case C
Case D
0 Linear (Case A)
-3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 Linear (Case B)
Linear (Case C)
-1000
Linear (Case D)
Linear (ALL)
-2000
-3000
-4000
Test (kN)
Figure 25. Axial force (FA): Service live load (FE Analysis) versus load test.
Moment My
100
50
ALL = 1.5577x + 4.8394

Case A
Case B
FE Analysis (kN-m)
0 Case C
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Case D
Linear (Case A)
Linear (Case B)
-50 Linear (Case C)
Linear (Case D)
Linear (ALL)
-100
-150
Test (kN-m)
Figure 26. Bending moment (My): Service live load (FE Analysis) versus load test.
36
Moment MZ
20
10
0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Case A
-10
Case B
FE Analysis (kN-m)
ALL = 0.6817x - 2.9186 Case C

-20 Case D
Linear (Case A)
-30 Linear (Case B)
Linear (Case C)
Linear (Case D)
-40
Linear (ALL)
-50
-60
-70
Test (kN-m)
Figure 27. Bending moment (Mz): Service live load (FE Analysis) versus load test.
37
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SUMMARY
The results presented in the last two chapters are summarized in Table 15. The actual axial force and
secondary moment results in the table were obtained using the linear relationships established in
Figures 19 and 20 for service dead load, and Figures 25 and 27 for service live load. Table 15 also
shows a comparison between the FE analysis and the actual axial force and moment results. Because
of the differences between the two result sets noted in the table, it is important to evaluate the design
interaction equations for combined stresses using actual axial forces and moments. This evaluation is
presented in Table 16. For comparison, the evaluation performed for the design of the members is also
included in Table 17. The evaluations in these tables were performed using some of the data included
in the tables and the member properties in Tables 2, 3, and 4 (2). By comparing the results in Tables
16 and 17, it can be concluded that the actual axial forces and moments satisfied the interaction
equations, which confirms adequacy of the structural design. For the vertical member (U16-L16), the
interaction equation is marginally exceeded, which could be attributed to an overestimation of the
members’ axial forces during the deck pour monitoring.
Service Load Axial Forces and Secondary Moments

Dead Load Live Load Plus Impact
Member Secondary Secondary
Axial Force Axial Force
Moment (kN)
Moment
(kN)
(kN-m) (kN-m)
Actua Actua Actua
FE %* FE Actual %* FE %* FE %*
l l l
U16-L16 -343 -764 120 1 15 140 -400 -344 14 5 12 140
L16-U17 -2291 -2337 2 38 45 18 -1318 -982 25 28 45 60
L16-L18 -5120 -4621 10 241 211 12 -2652 -1908 28 114 172 50
U17-L18 1931 1071 44 22 32 45 1246 800 35 24 40 66
U16-U17 6423 4696 27 267 232 13 3281 2214 32 224 332 48
Average 25 23 30 56
Excluding U16-L16
*
||Actual| - |FE||/ |FE| x 100%.
Table 15. Axial forces and moments: Design service load vs actual.
39
Interaction Equations
Ultimate Buckling Checks
Axial Force Stresses
Member and Moment (MPa) Compression Tension
Plus Bending Plus Bending
Mu Equation
Pu (kN-
Equation Equation Equation
Fcr Fe
10-55* 10-56* Yield**
LFD-
(kN) m) 1.8***
U16-L16 -1738 48 308 799 1.019 0.742 - -
L16-U17 -5169 164 324 1402 0.952 0.775 - -
L16-L18 -10149 668 464 3067 0.842 0.755 - -
U17-L18 3131 135 323 1344 - - 0.7146 0.613
U16-U17 10913 1306 478 11501 - - 0.832 0.751

a
AASHTO Standard Specifications. ** Checking maximum stress for yielding.
***
AASHTO Load Factor Design Specifications.
Table 16. Checking interaction equations for actual axial forces and moments.
Interaction Equations
Ultimate Buckling Checks
Member Axial Force Stresses
and Moment (MPa) Compression Tension
Plus Bending Plus Bending
Mu Equation
Pu (kN-
Equation Equation Equation
Fcr Fe
10-55* 10-56* Yield**
LFD-
(kN) m) 1.8***
U16-L16 -1332 15 308 799 0.547 0.443 - -
L16-U17 -5957 121 324 1402 0.962 0.810 - -
L16-L18 -12677 594 464 3067 0.967 0.876 - -
U17-L18 5313 88 323 1344 - - 0.894 0.828
U16-U17 9757 971 478 11501 - - 0.687 0.626

a **
AASHTO Standard Specifications. Checking maximum stress for yielding.
***
AASHTO Load Factor Design Specifications.
Table 17. Checking interaction equations for design service loads.
40
B. CONCLUSIONS
Instrumentation, deck pour monitoring, and load testing of Court Street Bridge in Tioga County, New
York were discussed in this report. The bridge is a six-span continuous steel structure about 338-m
long and 14.45-m wide. The superstructure is supported by two trusses (an upstream and a
downstream), and has a light weight concrete deck that was built composite with the stringers and the
top chords of the two trusses. The objective of the project was to determine service load axial forces
and secondary moments in the bridge truss members. Vibrating wire gages were mounted on five
members of the downstream truss, to record strains in those members during the first three deck pours
and to collect additional strain data during a load test conducted after the bridge was completed.
The report concluded that the members’s actual service dead load axial forces and moments were
overestimated by about 20 percent, and service live load axial forces were overestimated by about 30
percent in the design. Regarding moments, the report concluded that service dead load moments were
within 25 percent of those used in the design and service live load moments were underestimated by
about 55 percent. The differences between actual and theoretical axial forces and moments for service
dead load were attributed to the manner in which the monitoring data was corrected for temperature
effects and the possibility of construction loads being present on the deck during the monitoring. The
differences between actual and theoretical service live load axial forces and moments could be
explained by the possibility of a discrepancy in estimating actual service live load and the fact that the
analysis for service live load in the design was performed assuming a non-composite concrete deck.
Adequacy of the structural design was confirmed by checking the AASHTO interaction equations for
members under combined stresses using actual axial forces and moments in the bridge members.
The report introduced new approaches to use limited monitoring and test data to investigate actual
stresses at service load levels: 1) It utilized the deck pour monitoring and FE analysis results to estimate
axial forces and moments under service total dead load, and 2) it used the load test and FE analysis
results to estimate axial forces and moments under service live load. The report also introduced a
pseudo analytical approach to determine stresses on two normal planes of a member with
instrumentation mounted on only one of the member’s planes. Based on the three-dimensional FE
investigation performed in the report, it is recommended that three-dimensional FE models be used for
analysis of structures similar to Court Street Bridge, because of the ability of such models to predict
out of plane bending which may result under some loading scenarios. Analyses of dead load and live
load data sets, treating the test and FE results as variables, confirmed with very high certainty statistical
significance of the relationships established in the report between these two variables.
41
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Instrumentation and data collection was conducted by George Schongar and Harry Greenberg of the
Transportation Research and Development Bureau (TR&DB). George Christian and Arthur Yannotti
of the Structures Division reviewed this report. The STAAD III models used in the analysis were
developed by Santiago Lopez and Mary Anne Mariotti of the Structures Division. Dan Ryan, the
project EIC, and Brian Kelly, Regional Bridge Management Engineer of Region 6, are acknowledged
for their cooperation with the needed tasks for the bridge instrumentation and load testing. The
assistance of Mark Norfolk and Hector Hoyos of Region 6 with the data collection and load testing is
particularly acknowledged. The statistical analysis in Appendix D of the report was performed by Dr.
Deniz Sandhu of TR&DB.
43
REFERENCES
1. “New York State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,”
and provisions in effect as of April 2001, New York State Department of Transportation.
2. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,” 1996 (16th edition), including 1997 and 1998
Interim Specifications, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.
3. “Guide Specifications for Strength Design of Truss Bridges (Load Factor Design),” 1985 (1st
edition) including 1986 Interims, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C.
4. Project Design file, 2001, unpublished, Structures Division, New York State Department of
Transportation.
45
APPENDIX A
VIBRATING WIRE GAGES INFORMATION
47
Figure 28. Model 400 Vibrating Wire Strain Gage Manufacturer’s Literature.
49
Figure 28. Continued.
50
APPENDIX B
INFLUENCE LINE PLOTS
51
L16 - L18
800
600
400
Axial Force (kN)

200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-200
-400
Load Location (m)
L16 - U17
600
500
400
Axial Force (kN)
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load Location (m)
U17 - L18
600
500
400
Axial Force (kN)
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load Location (m)
Figure 29. Influence line plots for instrumented members.
53
L16 - U16
600
500
400
Axial Force (kN)

300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load Location (m)
U16 - U17
800
700
600
500
Axial Force (kN)
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load Location (m)
54
APPENDIX C
TEMPERATURE MONITORING AND CORRECTION

TEMPERATURE MONITORING
The strain data collected during the first three deck pours (Pours 1, 2, and 3 in Figure 15) is corrected
for temperature in this Appendix. The average temperature changes during Pours 1, 2, and 3, were 8.7,
12.4, and 2.3 °C, respectively. In general, a gage’s reading may require adjustment (correction) to
eliminate the effect of temperature, depending on whether the member on which the gage is mounted
is restrained or not. When the member is not restrained (free to expand and contract) correction would
not be required as the gage’s coefficient of expansion is similar to that of steel. However, when the
member is restrained this correction would be required to separate a temperature induced strain from
a load induced strain. The strain data collected and temperature corrected
Separation of a temperature induced strain from a load induced strain can be achieved by recording a
gage’s strain and temperature readings at frequent intervals over a period of time, when the structure
is clear of live loads. The data thus collected can be plotted to determine the gage’s strain rate of
change with temperature (line slope), which can be applied as a correction factor. It is important to
note that this factor is not a constant, and changes with changes in construction activities, such as deck
pouring stages.
The plots in Figure 30 were generated using strain and temperature data collected during an eight-hour
period after the bridge construction was completed. The fact that different slopes resulted in these
plots for a uniform temperature rise in the structure (Figure 31), indicates that the instrumented
members were not free to expand and signals the need for temperature correction. Additionally, the
presence of both positive and negative slopes implies that some of the members expanded while others
contracted, in response to the uniform temperature rise. This also implies that the members were
restrained and supports the need for temperature correction.
The above approach was first attempted to correct for temperature effects and was found to exaggerate
deck load axial forces and moments. Ideally, the plots in Figure 30 would have been generated using
data collected between deck pours to reflect structural behavior at the time when the data was
monitored. However, since this was not feasible, a second approach which utilizes correction factors
based on strain and temperature data recorded between deck pours was attempted. More realistic
results were obtained using this approach which is discussed in the next section.
57
Gages 1 to 4
3500
Gage 1 = 0.6274x + 2404.5
Gage 2 = 1.614x + 1988.9
3000
Gage 3= 4.5431x + 2092
Gage 4 = 0.4608x + 2179.8
2500
Gage 1
Gage Reading (µε)
Gage 2
2000 Gage 3
Gage 4
Linear (Gage 1)
1500 Linear (Gage 2)
Linear (Gage 3)
Linear (Gage 4)
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Temperature (C)
Gages 5 to 8
3500
Gage 5 = -5.7528x + 1837.2
Gage 6 = -2.2798x + 2078.4
3000
Gage 7 = -2.6903x + 2670.5
Gage 8 = 0.0423x + 2292.2
2500
Gage 5
Gage Reading (µε)
Gage 6
2000 Gage 7
Gage 8
Linear (Gage 5)
Linear (Gage 7)
Linear (Gage 8)
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Temperature (C)
Figure 30. Gage reading (:,) versus temperature (C°).
58
Gages 9 to 12
3500
Gage 9 = 4.424x + 2211
Gage 10 = -1.563x + 2692.2
3000
Gage 11 = 1.6733x + 2866
Gage 12 = -1.2941x + 2843.6
2500
Gage Reading (µε) Gage 9
Gage 10
2000 Gage 11
Gage 12
Linear (Gage 9)
Linear (Gage 11)
Linear (Gage 12)
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Temp C
35
30
25
20 U16-L16
Temp ( C )
U17-L16
L16-L18
U17-L18
15 U16-U17
10
0
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Time of Day
Figure 31. Members temperatures during monitoring.
CORRECTING FOR TEMPERATURE EFFECTS
The raw (uncorrected) and corrected strains recorded during the first three deck pours are presented
in Table 18. Corrected strains were obtained by adjusting a gage’s reading, based on an average
temperature rate-change derived from strain and temperature data for consecutive pours, and applying
the manufacturer-specified gage factor. For Pour 3, the last pour, the strain and temperature data
collected during the temperature monitoring in Figure 30 was also used to provide end data for
consecutive analysis. The average rate-changes for the gages were calculated assuming that there was
59
no change in the structure (in both loading and behavior) between the end and beginning of any two
consecutive pours. The data for Pours 1, 2, and 3 are given in Tables 18A, 18B, and 18C, respectively.
In these tables, Begi and Endi, and Beg Ti and End Ti represent, respectively, the initial and final gage
and temperature readings for any gage i. The Thermal Gage Factor (TGF) is calculated as the
difference between initial and final gage readings divided by the difference between the corresponding
temperatures. For example, the TGF for the Pour 1 data is:
Beg 2 − End1
TGF = ........................................................................................................... (2)
BegT2 − EndT 1
The Temperature Correction Factor (COR) in the table represents the increase in strain that can be
attributed to temperature during a pour. For example, the COR for the Pour 1 data is:
COR = (End T1-Beg T1) x TGF .................................................................................................... (3)
The ‘Strain’ column in the table includes temperature corrected strains during a pour obtained by
applying the Temperature Correction Factor to the recorded strain rise/drop during a pour. For
example, the Strain for the Pour 1 data is:
Strain = (End1-Beg1) - COR ........................................................................................................ (4)
The above strain is finally adjusted by applying the manufacturer-specified Gage Factor (GF) (Column
‘w/GF’ in Table 18), 0.945 for the type of vibrating wire gages used in this project. The initial gage
and temperature readings (Begt and Beg Tt) from the data collected after the bridge deck pours were
completed (Figure 30) were used in the analysis of Pour 3 data in Table 18C. A summary of total
strains and stresses for all the gages is given in Table 6. By observing that the table entries under each
of the initial and final gage temperature columns during a pour did not vary significantly, it can be
concluded that the instrumented members underwent uniform heating. The calculated Thermal
Gradient Factors (TGFs) in the table being largely unequal is also an evident of the need for
temperature correction.
60
Strain Strain
Gage Member Beg1 End1 Beg T1 End T1 Beg2 End2 Beg T2 End T2 TGF
(:,/
COR (:,)
(:,) (:,) (°C) (°C) (:,) (:,) (°C) (°C) (:,) w/ GF
°C) (:,)
1 U16-L16 2581.4 2604.3 3.4 10.4 2533.7 2545.6 4.4 17.0 11.8 82.4 -59.5 -56.2
2 U16-L16 2178.4 2204.2 2.9 11.3 2132.7 2128.9 4.6 17.8 10.7 89.6 -63.8 -60.3
3 L16-U17 2439.7 2478.5 2.7 10.8 2400.1 2347.5 4.0 17.2 11.5 93.4 -54.6 -51.6
4 L16-U17 2407.1 2472 2.6 13.0 2367.8 2300.1 4.3 17.1 12.0 124.6 -59.7 -56.4
5 L16-L18 2085.4 1944.9 2.9 11.7 1924.6 1792.6 3.5 17.0 2.5 21.8 -162.3 -153.4
6 L16-L18 2314.4 2178.4 3.1 11.7 2152.3 2068.9 3.4 16.7 3.1 27.0 -163.0 -154.1
7 L16-L18 2871.7 2767.6 2.9 11.7 2728.5 2671.3 3.5 17.25 4.8 42.0 -146.1 -138.0
8 L16-L18 2729.4 2620.6 3.0 10.0 2556.2 2460.5 3.1 16.4 9.3 65.3 -174.1 -164.6
9 U17-L18 2067.9 2100.2 2.8 9.4 2096.8 2207.8 5.6 16.9 0.9 5.9 26.4 24.9
10 U17-L18 2371.9 2367.5 2.8 12.2 2387.2 2511 5.3 16.8 -2.9 -26.8 22.4 21.2
11 U16-U17 2306.7 2446.8 3.4 14.8 2446.8 2798.8 4.9 15.6 0.0 0.0 140.1 132.4
12 U16-U17 2063.5 2185.3 3.1 13.2 2156.6 2283 5.9 15.9 3.9 39.7 82.1 77.6
Table 18A. Pour 1 data.
Strain
Strain
Beg1 End1 Beg T1 End T1 Beg2 End2 Beg T2 End T2 TGF COR (:,) w/
Gage Member (:,/
(:,) (:,) (°C) (°C) (:,) (:,) (°C) (°C) (:,) GF
°C)
(:,)
1 U16-L16 2533.7 2545.6 4.4 17.0 2545.7 2424.1 5.3 7.3 0.0 -0.1 12.0 11.3
2 U16-L16 2132.7 2128.9 4.6 17.8 2127.7 2007.3 5.4 7.4 0.1 1.3 -5.1 -4.8
3 L16-U17 2400.1 2347.5 4.0 17.2 2337.2 2215.7 5.3 7.5 0.9 11.4 -64.0 -60.5
4 L16-U17 2367.8 2300.1 4.3 17.1 2298.5 2211.5 5.4 7.5 0.1 1.8 -69.5 -65.6
5 L16-L18 1924.6 1792.6 3.5 17.0 1870.5 1779.8 5.6 7.6 -6.8 -92.3 -39.7 -37.6
6 L16-L18 2152.3 2068.9 3.4 16.7 2110.8 2041.2 5.7 7.6 -3.8 -50.7 -32.7 -30.9
7 L16-L18 2728.5 2671.3 3.5 17.25 2701.6 2662.4 5.6 7.6 -2.6 -35.8 -21.4 -20.3
8 L16-L18 2556.2 2460.5 3.1 16.4 2486.2 2373.4 5.6 7.5 -2.4 -31.6 -64.1 -60.5
9 U17-L18 2096.8 2207.8 5.6 16.9 2178.2 2254.5 5.7 7.9 2.6 29.9 81.1 76.7
10 U17-L18 2387.2 2511.0 5.3 16.8 2514.0 2640.3 5.3 7.6 -0.3 -3.0 126.8 119.8
11 U16-U17 2666.2 2798.8 4.9 15.6 2748.4 2800.5 5.5 9.8 5.0 53.4 79.2 74.8
12 U16-U17 2156.6 2283.0 5.9 15.9 2250.4 2326.7 5.5 8.2 3.1 31.3 95.1 89.8
Table 18B. Pour 2 data.
Strain Strain
Beg1 End1 Beg T1 End T1 Beg2 End2 Beg T2 End T2 TGF COR (:,)
Gage Member (:,/ w/ GF
(:,) (:,) (°C) (°C) (:,) (:,) (°C) (°C) (:,)
°C) (:,)
1 U16-L16 2545.7 2424.1 5.3 7.3 2415.5 - 18.2 - -0.8 -1.6 -120.0 -133.4
2 U16-L16 2127.7 2007.3 5.4 7.4 2018.6 - 18.5 - 1.0 2.0 -122.4 -115.7
3 L16-U17 2337.2 2215.7 5.3 7.5 2182.1 - 18.1 - -3.2 -7.0 -114.5 -108.2
4 L16-U17 2298.5 2211.5 5.4 7.5 2197.6 - 18.2 - -1.3 -2.7 -84.3 -79.6
5 L16-L18 1870.5 1779.8 5.6 7.6 1737.7 - 17.9 - -4.1 -8.2 -82.5 -78.0
6 L16-L18 2110.8 2041.2 5.7 7.6 2042.4 - 18.4 - 0.1 0.2 -69.8 -66.0
7 L16-L18 2701.6 2662.4 5.6 7.6 2629.3 - 18.0 - -3.2 -6.4 -32.8 -31.0
8 L16-L18 2486.2 2373.4 5.6 7.5 2303.0 - 18.3 - -6.5 -12.4 -100.4 -94.9
9 U17-L18 2178.2 2254.5 5.7 7.9 2294.5 - 18.5 - 3.8 8.3 68.0 64.3
10 U17-L18 2514 2640.3 5.3 7.6 2667.8 - 18.1 - 2.6 6.0 120.3 113.7
11 U16-U17 2748.4 2800.5 5.5 9.8 2897.0 - 18.7 - 10.8 46.6 5.5 5.2
12 U16-U17 2250.4 2326.7 5.5 8.2 2824.8 - 18.1 - 50.3 135.8 -59.5 -56.3
Table 18C. Pour 3 data.
Table 18. Strain data collected during the first three deck pours corrected for temperature
effects and gage factor.
61
APPENDIX D
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
OF FINITE ELEMENT ANDTEST DATA SETS
63
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED
Statistical analysis was performed on the data sets used to generate Figures 19, 20, 25, 26, and
27. The analysis consisted of linear regression analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and
setting of 99% confidence intervals on the coefficient estimates. For the regression analysis, a
linear model of the form Y = a + b*X, with FE as the dependent variable and test the
independent variable, was assumed. The analysis was performed using STATGRAPHICS Plus,
statistical analysis software, by Manugistics of Maryland, US. The comments on the analysis
results are those provided by the StatAdvisor tool of the software.
FIGURE 19 DATA SET
Standard T
Parameter Estimate Error Statistic P-Value
Intercept 604.494 281.939 2.14406 0.0986
Slope 1.23883 0.104872 11.8128 0.0003
Table 19. Linear regression analysis.
Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F-Ratio P-Value

Model 5.87877E7 1 5.87877E7 139.54 0.0003
Residual 1.68515E6 4 421287.0
Results
Correlation Coefficient = 0.985968
R-squared = 97.2134 percent
Standard Error of Est. = 649.067
Table 20. Analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The output in Tables 19 and 20 shows the results of fitting a linear model to describe the
relationship between FE and Test. The equation of the fitted model is
FE = 604.494 + 1.23883*Test………………………………………………...………… (D1)
Since the P-value in the ANOVA table (Table 20) is less than 0.01, there is a statistically
significant relationship between FE and Test at the 99% confidence level.
In Table 20 results, The R-Squared statistic indicates that the model as fitted explains 97.2134%
of the variability in FE. The correlation coefficient equals 0.985968, indicating a relatively
strong relationship between the variables. The standard error of the estimate shows the standard
deviation of the residuals to be 649.067. This value can be used to construct prediction limits for
new observations by selecting the Forecasts option from the text menu of the software.
99.0% confidence intervals for coefficient estimates

Standard
Parameter Estimate Error Lower Limit Upper Limit
CONSTANT 604.494 281.939 -693.581 1902.57
Test 1.23883 0.104872 0.755992 1.72167
Table 21. Confidence intervals for coefficients estimates.
65
Table 21 shows 99.0% confidence intervals for the coefficients in the model. Confidence
intervals show how precisely the coefficients can be estimated given the amount of available data
and the noise which is present. A confidence interval on the estimated intercept is shown in
Figure 32.
(X 1000)
6
4
FE Analysis (kN)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-4 -2 0 2 4
(X 1000)
Test (kN)
Figure 32. Confidence interval on the intercept.
FIGURE 20 DATA SET
Standard T
Intercept -18.4529 26.5193 -0.695827 0.5366
Slope 1.23326 0.215152 5.73203 0.0105

Model 46323.2 1 46323.2 32.86 0.0105
Residual 4229.64 3 1409.88
Results
FE = -18.4529 + 1.23326*Test
66
In Table 23 results, the R-Squared statistic indicates that the model as fitted explains 91.6332%

Standard
CONSTANT -18.4529 26.5193 -173.35 136.444
Test 1.23326 0.215152 -0.0234267 2.48994
Figure 33.
250
200
FE Analysis (kN-m)
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Test (kN-m)
FIGURE 25 DATA SET

Standard T
Intercept 94.8194 35.1012 2.70131 0.0146
Slope 1.43933 0.0284745 50.5479 0.0000

Model 4.12452E7 1 4.12452E7 2555.09 0.0000
Residual 290562.0 18 16142.4
Results
67
FE = 94.8194 + 1.43933*Test………………………………………………...………… (D2)

Standard
CONSTANT 94.8194 35.1012 -6.21762 195.856
Test 1.43933 0.0284745 1.35737 1.52129
Figure 34.
(X 1000)
4
3
FE Analysis (kN)
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
(X 1000)
Test (kN)
68
FIGURE 26 DATA SET
Standard T
Intercept 4.83904 1.90734 2.53706 0.0207
Slope 1.55801 0.068201 22.8443 0.0000

Model 33932.3 1 33932.3 521.86 0.0000
Residual 1170.38 18 65.0214

Table 29 Analysis of variance (ANOVA).
FE = 4.83904 + 1.55801*Test………………………………………………...………… (D3)

Standard
CONSTANT 4.83904 1.90734 -0.651139 10.3292
Test 1.55801 0.068201 1.3617 1.75432
Table 30. Confidence intervals for coefficient estimates.
Figure 35.
69
150
FE Analysis (kN-m)
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-80 -40 0 40 80
Test (kN-m)
FIGURE 27 DATA SET

Standard T
Intercept -2.92583 2.96547 -0.986633 0.3385
Slope 0.681216 0.106646 6.38761 0.0000

Model 5021.47 1 5021.47 40.80 0.0000
Residual 1969.13 16 123.071
Results
FE = -2.92583 + 0.681216*Test………………………………………………..……….. (D4)
of the variability in FE. The correlation coefficient equals 0.847536, indicating a moderately
70
Standard
CONSTANT -2.92583 2.96547 -11.5873 5.73568
Test 0.681216 0.106646 0.369724 0.992707
Table 33 shows 99.0% confidence intervals for the coefficients in the model. Confidence ntervals show
how precisely the coefficients can be estimated given the amount of available data and the noise which is
present. A confidence interval on the estimated intercept is shown in Figure 36.
20
FE Analysis (kN-m)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Test (kN-m)
71

Jurnal Load Testing

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jurnal Load Testing

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REPORT FHWA/NY/SR-06/143

COURT STREET BRIDGE MONITORING AND

SPECIAL REPORT 143

Osman Hag-Elsafi, Engineering Research Specialist I

Conducted in Cooperation With

Special Report 143

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUREAU

A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

III. INSTRUMENTATION AND LOAD TEST PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

IV. MONITORING RESULTS AND DEAD LOAD ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

V. LOAD TEST RESULTS AND LIVE LOAD ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A. LOAD TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

APPENDIX A - VIBRATING WIRE GAGES INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

APPENDIX B - INFLUENCE LINE PLOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

APPENDIX C - TEMPERATURE MONITORING AND CORRECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

APPENDIX D -STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF FINITE ELEMENT AND TEST DATA SETS . . . . . . . . . 63

A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Figure 2. Span 1 downstream view.

Figure 3. Span 2 downstream view.

Figure 4. Two-dimensional bridge model.

Figure 5. Three-dimensional bridge model.

Figure 7. Cross frame detail at Pier 1.

1, 2 U16-L16 -400 5 -343 1

3, 4 L16-U17 -1318 28 -2291 38

5, 6, 7, 8 L16-L18 -2652 114 -5120 241

9, 10 U17-L18 1246 24 1931 22

11, 12 U16-U17 3281 224 6423 267

Table 1. Service load axial forces and moments.

Table 2. Members shapes and steel grades.

Table 3. Instrumented members’ properties.

Figure 8. Instrumented downstream truss members.

Table 4. Gage locations on members.

Figure 9. Member local axis orientation.

B. LOAD TEST PLANS

Figure 10. Three and four axle load test trucks.

Front Axle Weights Back Axle Weights Truck

I 42.3 35.5 97.9 100.1 275.8

II 42.3 48.9 93.2 89.2 273.6

III 42.3 44.5 104.5 91.2 282.5

IV 44.5 42.3 124.5 109.0 320.3

Table 5. Test trucks weight data.

Figure 13. Trucks for Load Case D formation.

Figure 14. Trucks I and II for Load Cases B and C formations.

Figure 15. Deck pour sequence.

Table 6. Deck pours strains and stresses.

Figure 16. Deck pour stresses for paired gages.

Figure 16. Deck pour stresses for paired gages (Continued).

3, 4 L16-U17 -1068 -1291 21 12

5, 6 L16-L18 -2581 -2444 137 115

7, 8 L16-L18 -2581 -2394 137 115

9, 10 U17-L18 1074 1072 12 50

11, 12 U16-U17 3258 1903 150 128

Table 7. Deck load axial forces and secondary moments.

Table 8A. Pour 1 results.

Table 8B. Pour 2 results.

Table 8C. Pour 3 results.

Table 8D. Summary and comparison with proposed approach in Table 7.

B. DEAD LOAD ANALYSIS

3, 4 L16-U17 -1672 -1987 33 19

5, 6 L16-L18 -3962 -3759 - -

7, 8 L16-L18 -3962 -3683 212 177

9, 10 U17-L18 1642 1650 19 76