The School of Civil Engineering Thesis Guidebook Spring 2007

This version of the Form 9 should only be submitted with the paper thesis deposit. There should be a cotton copy and a copy on normal paper.

The degree stated here should match the degree stated on your Plan of Study.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis Acceptance
This is to certify that the thesis prepared By Ima Good Student Entitled

This version of the Form 9 should only be used with the electronic submission of your thesis for PhD candidates.

Insitu Electrical Sensing and Material Health Monitoring in Concrete Structures

Complies with University regulations and meets the standards of the Graduate School for originality and quality For the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The degree stated here should match the degree stated on your Plan of Study.

Final examining committee members

Mark D. Bowman

Co- Chair , Chair

Garrett Jeong

Judy Liu

Co-Chair

Charles D. Sutton

Alten F. Grandt Jr.

Approved by Major Professor(s):

Approved by Head of Graduate Program:

Darcy Bullock

Date of Graduate Program Head's Approval: January 26, 2007

2 Inches

All capital letters

INVESTIGATION OF SUPERLOAD EFFECTS ON STEEL AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GIRDER BRIDGES

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University

Use correct term, Masters will use Thesis

Name as it appears on transcript

by Ima Good Student

1.5 inches

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

1 inch

Correct degree title

Month of graduation. Only May, August, or December.

December 2006 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana 1.25 inches

ii

Do not put in a header.

1 inch Roman numeral pagination

Non-English text and fonts may be used, however, they must be readable in PDF.

To my parents.

1.5 inches

1 inch

1.25 inches

iii

2 Inches
Spacing on ALL pages must be consistent!

Three single spaces

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). Continual support of the INDOT is greatly appreciated. The experimental part of this study could not be possible without the help of the LaPorte and Gary Districts. Wayne Skinner, Rich Fieberg, Joe Wojdyla and Mike Flanigan were very helpful during the instrumentation of the I-65 Bridges in North Indiana.

I would like to thank my advisors Dr. Mark D. Bowman and Dr. Judy Liu for their guidance and positive attitude throughout my study. Working with them was a great pleasure and contributed me a lot. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Charles D. Sutton, Dr. Alten F. Grandt, and Dr. Garett Jeong.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends Yeliz, Cihan, Nick, Rita, Dave, Wonseok, Scott, Gerardo and Ed from civil engineering for their friendship and help.

1.5 inches

1 inch

1.25 inches

iv 2 inches Titles using 2 or more lines should be single spaced

Anything previous to TOC is not listed

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 lines single spaced Page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF SYMBOLS ..................................................................................................... xxiii ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. xxvii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 No fewer than 7 dots in leader line 1.1. Previous Studies on Superloads ..............................................................................2 1.2. Research Objectives................................................................................................4 1.2.1. A Simple Structural Analysis Method for Prediction of Bridge Response ........................................................................................................5 1.2.2. Damage Prediction and Damage Model ........................................................6 1.3. Research Methodology ...........................................................................................7 1.4. Outline of the Study ................................................................................................9 1.5 References.............................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 2 A SIMPLE METHOD TO PREDICT THE 3-D LIVE LOAD RESPONSE OF SLAB-ON-GIRDER BRIDGES......................................13 2.1. Background ...........................................................................................................13 2.2. Description of the Investigated Bridges................................................................14 2.2.1. US-52 Bridge ...............................................................................................15 2.2.2. I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road.......................................................................16 2.3. Finite Element analysis .........................................................................................17 2.3.1. Finite Element Analysis of the US-52 Bridge .............................................20 2.3.2. Finite Element Analysis of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road .....................21 2.4. Instrumentation .....................................................................................................23 2.4.1. Instrumentation and Load Test of the US-52 Bridge...................................23 2.4.2. Instrumentation and Load Test of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road ..........24 2.5. Comparison of Load Test and Analysis Results ...................................................27 2.5.1. Comparison of Load Test and Analysis Results for the US-52 Bridge .......27 2.5.2. Comparison of Load Test and Analysis Results for the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road...................................................................................................29

v 2 inches

LIST OF TABLES 3 single spaces Table 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 Page Measured and calculated deflections of the Beam 3 due to the test truck .............64 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 3 for LC #3A loading ................................64 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 4 for LC #3A loading ................................64 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 2 .............................................................................64 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 3 .............................................................................64 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 4 .............................................................................64 Longitudinal flange stresses at the abutment (Section A) for Load Case 1...............................................................................................................65 Longitudinal flange stresses at the abutment (Section A) for Load Case 2...............................................................................................................65 Vertical stresses in the stiffener plate for Load Case 1..........................................65 Vertical stresses in the stiffener plate for Load Case 2..........................................65 Vertical stresses in the bottom web gap for Load Case 1 ......................................65 Gross vehicle weights of the superload trucks used in the analysis ......................66 GDFs for the US-52 Bridge due to trucks positioned in the right lane..................66 Strength II Limit State positive moment check for the US-52 Bridge .................66 Strength II Limit State shear check for the US-52 Bridge.....................................67 Strength II Limit State negative moment check for the US-52 Bridge..............................................................................................................67 Service II Limit State composite flange stress check for the US-52 Bridge..............................................................................................................67 Service II Limit State noncomposite flange stress check for the US-52 Bridge ............................................................................................68

vi

2 inches

Repeated on next page Figure 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14

LIST OF FIGURES 3 single spaces Page A typical superload truck (Diamond Heavy Haul, 2006) ......................................10 Axle configurations of the superload groups (Wood, 2004)..................................11 Axle configurations of the design trucks (Wood, 2004)........................................12 Cross-sections of the US-52 and I-65 Bridges.......................................................72 General view of the first and second steel spans of the US-52 Bridge..............................................................................................................72 Diaphragms of the US-52 Bridge ..........................................................................73 Fixed support over the second pier of the US-52 Bridge.......................................74 Rocker bearings at the beginning of the first steel span of the US-52 Bridge .............................................................................................74 I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road.................................................................................75 Framing plan of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road (Wood, 2004).........................75 Cross-frame of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road (Wood, 2004) ..........................76 Plate girders, cross-frames and integral end abutment of the I-65 Bridge..............................................................................................................76 Cross-section of the FEM of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road ............................77 FEM of the US-52 Bridge (end of the 5th span).....................................................77 Load patches for the Maximum Superload Truck on the US-52 Bridge............................................................................................................78 Beams and diaphragms of the US-52 Bridge.........................................................78 Symmetric FEM of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road...........................................79

2 inches

vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A A1 A2 AI CI C D D E Emeas. Ecalc. FG G GDF H I Ir INA INAP J IM K

area of solid section load factor for dead load load factor for live load area of parapet capacity of member material crack growth constant dead load deflection elastic modulus experimental elastic modulus calculated elastic modulus geometry correction factor shear modulii Girder distribution factor weld leg height moment of inertia polar moment of inertia moment of inertia of the parapet with respect to the neutral axis of the entire bridge cross-section moment of inertia of the parapet with respect to its own neutral axis torsional constant impact factor stress intensity factor

2 inches

viii

Single spaced

ABSTRACT

Three single spaces

Student, Ima Good Ph.D., Purdue University, December 2006. Investigation of Superload Effects on Steel and Prestressed Concrete Slab-on-Girder Bridges. Major Professors: Mark D. Bowman and Judy Liu.

Three single spaces

Date of Aug., May or Dec. only A permit truck which exceeds the predefined limit of 108 kips is defined as a superload in Indiana. These trucks can cause adverse long term effects on the performance of a bridge in addition to the possibility of causing immediate damage. Bridges with steel and prestressed concrete (PC) girders, selected from an extensive database, were analyzed and instrumented. Detailed finite element models were developed using the structural analysis programs SAP2000 and ANSYS. Furthermore, a prestressed concrete bridge and a steel bridge were instrumented using more than 50 sensors each. Strains and deflections were measured during a live load test, and each bridge was monitored for more than six months. Capacities of the investigated bridges were calculated and compared with the demands generated by the superload trucks. A simple and accurate structural analysis technique, called the spring analogy method, was developed to provide an effective evaluation tool to fill the gap between beam line analysis and complicated three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).

Analysis of the steel and PC bridges showed that typical superload trucks up to a gross vehicle weight of 500 kips are not expected to cause any damage or impair long term performance of the investigated bridges. Serviceability limit states of the PC bridges controlled the rating, and the bridges had adequate strength to accommodate all superloads included in the database. However, strength limit states controlled the rating of steel bridges. Long term monitoring of a continuous and a simple span bridge indicated that strains comparable to those of a 366-kip superload truck can be generated by regular truck traffic. The field measurements also showed that the in-service behavior

ix was different than the design assumptions. Fixity due to integral abutments, effectiveness of the continuity joint in the continuous PC bridge and contribution of the secondary members lead to a significant difference between the expected and the anticipated behavior. Furthermore, the AASHTO (2004) girder distribution factor equation was found to be conservative for the investigated bridges. Use of a more accurate method such as FEA or the spring analogy method is recommended for the evaluation of bridges traversed by superloads.

No more than 350 words in abstract. Spacing is same as in text. If abstract extends to second page, text starts at 1 inch.

1 2 inches All titles should be single spaced if more than one line Arabic Page Numbers

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 single spaces

Growth of industry in last decade has lead to a higher demand for energy. Furthermore, massive construction projects for power plants and factories started taking place across the country. Accordingly, large non-divisible loads such as transformers, pressure vessels or heavy machinery must be transported through the highway network. Transportation of these heavy loads on the major highways raised some concerns about the response of aging infrastructure.

According to the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), a permit truck is called a superload truck if its weight exceeds the pre-defined limit of 108 kips. Superload trucks typically carry heavy, non-divisible components for industrial facilities. The trailers of these trucks usually have special configurations in order to spread out the heavy load to multiple axles and to provide a load distribution comparable to that for a regular truck (Figure 1.1). Bridges on the route traversed by a superload truck are analyzed before the decision on permit. Analysis and rating of bridges for these special trucks require extraordinary effort; the passage of a superload may be demanding with respect to both the capacity of a bridge and the long term performance.

The motivation of this study is to investigate the influence of increased superload traffic on bridge structures. Approximately 1,500,000 overload trucks traveled on the highway network of the United States in the federal fiscal year 1989 according to permit applications; statistics indicate an increase in both the number and weight of overload vehicles (Fu and Hag-Elsafi, 2000). Analysis of the recent (between 1989 and 2000) bridge failures in the United States reveals that 8.8% of 503 reported failure cases were due to overload and 8.6% were due to deterioration (Wardhana and Hadipriono, 2003).

2 Throughout the nation, a significant number of bridges may be damaged, possibly to failure, due to the short term effects of superloads such as overloading and/or due to long term effects of superloads such as accelerated deterioration. Therefore, the impact of superload vehicles on bridge structures requires further research. It should also be noted that about 130,000 of the approximately 600,000 bridges forming the U.S. bridge network are rated as structurally deficient (Ghosn and Moses, 2000). The increasing number of superloads may endanger the safety of highway network and increase the number of deficient bridges; their short and long term effects must be evaluated and mitigated.

The main objectives of this study are to investigate the effects of superloads on bridge structures and to develop a strategy for simplifying the evaluation of these effects. The scope of this study is limited to slab-on-girder bridges, typical on the interstate highway network. Girders of slab-on-girder bridges are made mostly of steel or prestressed concrete. This study focuses on the girders and the secondary members of representative highway bridges. Evaluation of the substructure was beyond the scope of this study, although it might be critical for some bridges.

1.1. Previous Studies on Superloads

Effects of superloads have been investigated by researchers, but most of these studies had a limited scope. Observations of the researchers only during and after the superload passages were reported. Long term effects of superloads were not evaluated. Notable studies on superloads are summarized below.

Duncan (1977) analyzed bridges in South Africa for superload effects and emphasized the importance of accurate techniques to assess the effects of superloads on bridges in order to utilize lower margins of strength for controlled superload passages.

Figure 1.1 A typical superload truck (Diamond Heavy Haul, 2006)

Color pictures are acceptable

Group A
GVW: 201 kips Total Length: 80'-2" 4 tires per axle 27K 27K 27K 20K 20K 20K 20K 20K 19.4K 19.4K 19.4K 20K

Group B
GVW: 247.5 kips Total Length: 125'-8" 4 tires per axle 19.4K 19.4K 19.4K 24K 22K 18K 34K 25K 19.4K 19.4K 19.4K 19.6K 19.6K 19.6K 26K 26K 15K 20K 30K 14K

Group C
20K 20K 20K GVW: 366 kips Total Length: 152'-8" 4 tires per axle GVW: 348 kips Total Length: 149'-9" 4 tires per axle 16K 21K 21K 8K 19K 19K 19K

20.3K 20.3K 20.3K

20.3K 20.3K 20.3K

Group D
GVW: 500 kips Total Length: 95' 8 tires per axle 20K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K 32K

Maximum Truck
GVW: 824 kips Total Length: 127'-7" 8 tires per axle 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 42.1K 21.8K 21.8K 22.6K

14K

0 10 20 30 40 ft

Figure 1.2 Axle configurations of the superload groups (Wood, 2004)

16.6K 16.6K 16.6K 16.6K 16.6K 16.6K

18.7K 18.7K 18.7K

32K

GVW: 72 Kip Total Length: 28'-0" 2-tires per axle.

14' 14'

Toll Road Loading No. 1

18K 18K 18K GVW: 90 Kip Total Length: 28'-0" 4-tires per axle. 18K 18K
10' 4'

8K

10'

4'

Figure 1.3 Axle configurations of the design trucks (Wood, 2004)

32K

HS20

6 Table 2.1 Measured and calculated deflections of the Beam 3 due to the test truck Loading LC #2A LC #3A Deflection (in) FEA Measurement -0.243 -0.224 -0.244 -0.213 Error (%) 8.5 14.6

Table 2.2 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 3 for LC #3A loading Long. Flange Stress (ksi) FEA Measurement -0.19 -0.33 2.20 N/A Error (%) 42.4 N/A

Top Flange Bottom Flange

Table 2.3 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 4 for LC #3A loading Long. Flange Stress (ksi) FEA Measurement -0.21 -0.15 2.59 2.63 Error (%) 40.0 1.5

Top Flange Bottom Flange

Table 2.4 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 2 Loading LC #2A LC #3A Long. Flange Stress (ksi) FEA Measurement -0.40 0.08 1.60 1.09 Error (%) 600.0 46.8

Top Flange Bottom Flange

Table 2.5 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 3 Loading LC #3A LC #3A Long. Flange Stress (ksi) FEA Measurement -1.80 -1.29 3.50 2.87 Error (%) 39.5 22.0

Top Flange Bottom Flange

Table 2.6 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 4 Loading LC #2A LC #3A Long. Flange Stress (ksi) FEA Measurement -1.50 -0.85 3.05 2.37 Error (%) 76.5 28.7

Top Flange Bottom Flange

No page number and not counted

Margins are consistent with title page!

LIST OF REFERENCES

7 If the rest of your document is justified, the List of References should be justified as well. Be consistent! 2 inches

LIST OF REFERENCES 3 single spaces

Akinci, N. O., Liu, J., and Bowman, M. D. (2005). Effects of Parapets on Live-Load Response of Steel Bridges Subjected to Superloads. Proceedings of the 84th Annual TRB Meeting, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 215. (1997). Considerations for Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading (ACI 215R-74). Detroit, MI. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. (2005). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05). Detroit, MI. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2003). Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of Highway Bridges. 1st Ed., Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2004). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 3rd Ed., Washington, D.C. Abtahi, A., Albrecht, P., and Irwin, G. R. (1976). Fatigue of Periodically Overloaded Stiffener Detail. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 102, No. ST11, pp. 2103-2119. Albrecht, P., and Friedland, I. M. (1979). Fatigue-Limit Effect on Variable-Amplitude Fatigue of Stiffeners. Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 105, No. ST12, December, pp. 2657-2675. Bannantine, J. A., Comer, J. J., and Handrock, J. L. (1990). Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Keep entries together, do not split them, just begin on the next page.

No page number and not counted

Margins are consistent with title page!

APPENDICES

1 inch Appendix A

Three single spaces

Some as-built drawings of the investigated steel bridges are presented in this section.

Figure A.1 Framing plan of the first steel span of the US-52 Bridge

No page number and not counted.

The VITA is only required for PhD candidates

VITA

Margins are consistent with title page!

10 2 inches

Three single spaces

VITA

Ima Good Student was born in Istanbul, Turkey, on October 3, 1977. He is the oldest son of a civil engineer father and an elementary school teacher mother. In 2000, he recieved his B.S. degree from Bogazici University (formerly Robert College). He also recieved a masters degree in civil engineering from the same university. He joined the Ph.D. program of Purdue University in August 2002.