Thesis Guidebook 2007

8/6/2019 Thesis Guidebook 2007

1/25

The School of Civil Engineering

Thesis Guidebook

Spring 2007


2/25

This version of the Form 9 shouldonly be submitted with the paper

thesis deposit. There should be a

cotton copy and a copy on normalpaper.

The degree stated here should match the

degree stated on your Plan of Study.


3/25

PURDUE UNIVERSITYGRADUATE SCHOOL

Thesis Acceptance

This is to certify that the thesis prepared

By

Entitled

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

and quality

For the degree of

Final examining committee members

, Chair

Approved by Major Professor(s):

Approved by Head of Graduate Program:

Date of Graduate Program Head's Approval:

Ima Good Student

Insitu Electrical Sensing and Material Health Monitoring in Concrete Structures

Doctor of Philosophy

Mark D. Bowman Co- Chair Garrett Jeong

Judy Liu Co-Chair

Charles D. Sutton

Alten F. Grandt Jr.

January 26, 2007

Darcy Bullock

This version of the Form 9should only be used with the

electronic submission of yourthesis for PhD candidates.

The degree stated here should match the degree

stated on your Plan of Study.


4/25

INVESTIGATION OF SUPERLOAD EFFECTS ON STEEL

AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GIRDER BRIDGES

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Purdue University

by

Ima Good Student

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2006

Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana

2

Inches

1.5 inches1 inch

1.25

inches

All capitalletters

Use correct

term, Masters

will use Thesis

Name as it appears

on transcri t

Correct degree title

Month of graduation. Only

May, August, or December.


5/25

ii

To my parents.

1 inch

1.25

inches

1.5 inches1 inch

Non-English text

and fonts may be

used, however,

they must be

readable in PDF.

Roman

numeral

pagination

Do not put in a

header.


6/25

iii

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.

2

Inches

1.25

inches

1 inch1.5 inches

Three single

spaces

Spacing on

ALL pagesmust be

consistent!


7/25

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF SYMBOLS..................................................................................................... xxiii

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. xxvii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1

1.1. Previous Studies on Superloads..............................................................................21.2. Research Objectives................................................................................................4

1.2.1. A Simple Structural Analysis Method for Prediction of Bridge

Response ........................................................................................................51.2.2. Damage Prediction and Damage Model ........................................................6

1.3. Research Methodology ...........................................................................................7

1.4. Outline of the Study................................................................................................91.5 References.............................................................................................................10

CHAPTER 2 A SIMPLE METHOD TO PREDICT THE 3-D LIVE LOADRESPONSE OF SLAB-ON-GIRDER BRIDGES......................................13

2.1. Background...........................................................................................................13

2.2. Description of the Investigated Bridges................................................................142.2.1. US-52 Bridge ...............................................................................................15

2.2.2. I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road.......................................................................16

2.3. Finite Element analysis.........................................................................................172.3.1. 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...................................232.4.2. 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 .......272.5.2. Comparison of Load Test and Analysis Results for the I-65 Bridge over

Ridge Road...................................................................................................29

Anything

previous to TOC

is not listed

Titles using 2 or

more lines should

be single spaced

2

inches

3 lines single spaced

No

fewer

than 7dots in

leader

line


8/25

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Measured and calculated deflections of the Beam 3 due to the test truck.............64

2.2 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 3 for LC #3A loading ................................64

2.3 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 4 for LC #3A loading ................................642.4 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 2 .............................................................................64

2.5 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 3 .............................................................................64

2.6 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 4 .............................................................................64

2.7 Longitudinal flange stresses at the abutment (Section A) for Load

Case 1...............................................................................................................65

2.8 Longitudinal flange stresses at the abutment (Section A) for Load

Case 2...............................................................................................................65

2.9 Vertical stresses in the stiffener plate for Load Case 1..........................................65

2.10 Vertical stresses in the stiffener plate for Load Case 2..........................................65

2.11 Vertical stresses in the bottom web gap for Load Case 1 ......................................65

2.13 Gross vehicle weights of the superload trucks used in the analysis ......................66

2.14 GDFs for the US-52 Bridge due to trucks positioned in the right lane..................66

2.15 Strength II Limit State positive moment check for the US-52 Bridge .................66

2.16 Strength II Limit State shear check for the US-52 Bridge.....................................67

2.17 Strength II Limit State negative moment check for the US-52

Bridge..............................................................................................................67

2.18 Service II Limit State composite flange stress check for the US-52

Bridge..............................................................................................................67

2.19 Service II Limit State noncomposite flange stress check for

the US-52 Bridge ............................................................................................68

3 single spaces

2

inches


9/25

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 A typical superload truck (Diamond Heavy Haul, 2006) ......................................10

1.2 Axle configurations of the superload groups (Wood, 2004)..................................11

1.3 Axle configurations of the design trucks (Wood, 2004)........................................122.1 Cross-sections of the US-52 and I-65 Bridges.......................................................72

2.2 General view of the first and second steel spans of the US-52

Bridge..............................................................................................................72

2.3 Diaphragms of the US-52 Bridge ..........................................................................73

2.4 Fixed support over the second pier of the US-52 Bridge.......................................74

2.5 Rocker bearings at the beginning of the first steel span of

the US-52 Bridge .............................................................................................74

2.6 I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road.................................................................................75

2.7 Framing plan of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road (Wood, 2004).........................75

2.8 Cross-frame of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road (Wood, 2004) ..........................76

2.9 Plate girders, cross-frames and integral end abutment of the I-65Bridge..............................................................................................................76

2.10 Cross-section of the FEM of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road ............................77

2.11 FEM of the US-52 Bridge (end of the 5th span).....................................................77

2.12 Load patches for the Maximum Superload Truck on the US-52

Bridge............................................................................................................78

2.13 Beams and diaphragms of the US-52 Bridge.........................................................78

2.14 Symmetric FEM of the I-65 Bridge over Ridge Road...........................................79

2

inches

3 single spaces

Repeated

on next


10/25

vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A area of solid section

A1 load factor for dead load

A2 load factor for live load

A I area of parapet

CI capacity of member

Cmaterial crack growth constant

D dead load

D deflection

E elastic modulus

Emeas. experimental elastic modulus

Ecalc. calculated elastic modulus

FG geometry correction factor

G shear modulii

GDF Girder distribution factor

H weld leg height

I moment of inertia

Ir polar moment of inertia

INA moment of inertia of the parapet with respect to the neutral axis of the entire

bridge cross-section

INAP moment of inertia of the parapet with respect to its own neutral axis

J torsional constant

IM impact factor

K stress intensity factor

2

inches


11/25

viii

ABSTRACT

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.

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

Single

spaced

Three single

s aces

Three single

spaces

Date of Aug., May or Dec. only

2

inches


12/25

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 wordsin abstract. Spacing is

same as in text. If

abstract extends to second

page, text starts at 1 inch.


13/25

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

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 aboutthe 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).

Arabic Page

Numbers

All titles should

be single spacedif more than one

line

3 single spaces

2

inches


14/25

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.


15/25

3

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

Color

pictures are

acceptable


16/25

4

GVW: 348 kips

Total Length: 149'-9"4 tires per axle

14K

18.7K

18.7K

18.7K

20.3K

20.3K

20.3K

20.3K

20.3K

20.3K

16.6K

16.6K

16.6K

16.6K

16.6K

16.6K

19K

19K

19K

Group A

Group B

Group C

GVW: 366 kipsTotal Length: 152'-8"

4 tires per axle

Group D

GVW: 500 kipsTotal Length: 95'8 tires per axle

20K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

32K

GVW: 201 kipsTotal Length: 80'-2"

4 tires per axle

20K

20K

20K

20K

20K

27K

27K

27K

20K

GVW: 247.5 kipsTotal Length: 125'-8"4 tires per axle

14K

19.4K

19.4K

19.4K

19.4K

19.4K

19.4K

19.6K

19.4K

19.4K

19.6K

19.4K

19.6K

16K

24K

30K

20K

20K

20K

20K

15K

26K

26K

25K

34K

22K

18K

8K

21K

21K

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

42.1K

42.1K

42.1K

42.1K

42.1K

42.1KGVW: 824 kips

Total Length: 127'-7"

8 tires per axle

Maximum Truck

22.6K

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

10 20 30 40 ft0


17/25

5

HS20

GVW: 72 Kip


2-tires per axle.

14' 14'

8K

32K

32K

Toll Road Loading No. 1

GVW: 90 Kip


4-tires per axle.

18K

18K

18K

18K

18K

10' 4' 10' 4'

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


18/25

6

Table 2.1 Measured and calculated deflections of the Beam 3 due to the test truck

Deflection (in)

Loading FEA Measurement Error (%)

LC #2A -0.243 -0.224 8.5

LC #3A -0.244 -0.213 14.6

Table 2.2 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 3 for LC #3A loading

Long. Flange Stress (ksi)

FEA Measurement Error (%)

Top Flange -0.19 -0.33 42.4

Bottom Flange 2.20 N/A N/A

Table 2.3 Longitudinal flange stresses of Beam 4 for LC #3A loading


FEA Measurement Error (%)

Top Flange -0.21 -0.15 40.0

Bottom Flange 2.59 2.63 1.5

Table 2.4 Flange stresses of Diaphragm 2



Top Flange LC #2A -0.40 0.08 600.0

Bottom Flange LC #3A 1.60 1.09 46.8




Top Flange LC #3A -1.80 -1.29 39.5





Top Flange LC #2A -1.50 -0.85 76.5



19/25

LIST OF REFERENCES

No page number and not

counted

Margins are consistent

with title page!


20/25

7

LIST OF REFERENCES

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.

2 inches

3 single spaces

If the rest of your

document is

justified, the List ofReferences should be

justified as well. Be

consistent!

Keep entries

together, do not splitthem, just begin on

the next page.


21/25

APPENDICES


counted

Margins are

consistent with title

page!


22/25

8

Appendix A

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

section.

Three single spaces

1 inch


23/25

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


24/25

VITA


counted.

The VITA is only required

for PhD candidates

Margins are

consistent with

title page!


25/25

10

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.

Three single spaces

2

inches

Thesis Guidebook 2007

Documents

Transcript of Thesis Guidebook 2007