Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHulsey, J. Leroy
dc.contributor.authorXiao, Feng
dc.contributor.authorDolan, J. Daniel
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-11T00:22:25Z
dc.date.available2019-06-11T00:22:25Z
dc.date.issued2015-01
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11122/10375
dc.description.abstractThis study is phase 2 of a two phase research project. In Phase 1 a structural health monitoring system (SHMS) was installed on the Chulitna River Bridge. This bridge is 790 feet long, 42 foot 2 inches wide and has 5 spans. As part of that effort, three loaded dump trucks were used to conduct seventeen static and dynamic loadings on the structure. In addition to studying the bridge using SHMS, two ambient free vibration tests were conducted a year apart by. In 1993, the deck on this 1970 five span bridge was widened from 34-feet to a 42 foot 2 inch concrete deck. Increased load was accounted for by strengthening two variable depth exterior girders and converting interior stringers to interior truss girders. Construction documents for the upgrade called for stage construction. At the time of this study, the bridge had five bearings that were not in contact with the superstructure. Feasibility of using Structural Health Monitoring Systems (SHMS) for Alaska Highway Bridges was examined. Also, SHMS data for the load tests of Phase 1 were used to calibrate a three-dimensional model (FEM) to predict response and conduct a 2014 Operating Load Rating.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsLIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii DISCLAIMER .............................................................................................................................. ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 3 1.1 History .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Bridge Details ................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Phase 1 Research Study.................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Phase 2 Research Study.................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2.0 LOAD RATING.................................................................................................... 7 2.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Operating Load Rating ................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Investigation with updated calibrated finite element model, FEM (as-is condition) ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.2 Model 1 – Four members (A, B, C, and D) removed ............................................. 11 2.2.3 Model 2 – Five members (A, B, C, D, and E) removed ......................................... 11 2.2.4 Other alternative operating load ratings. ................................................................. 12 CHAPTER 3.0 CALIBRATED FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ................................................... 32 CHAPTER 4.0 PROPOSED ALASKA BRIDGE MONITORING SYSTEM ............................ 34 4.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 34 4.2 Selecting SHMS for Alaska ........................................................................................... 35 4.3 New Bridges (Proposed Monitoring Systems) ............................................................... 36 4.4 Existing Bridges (Proposed Monitoring Systems) ......................................................... 36 4.5 All Bridges (Proposed Monitoring Systems) ................................................................. 36 CHAPTER 5.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 39 5.1 Phase 1 (Previous Study)................................................................................................ 39 5.1.1 Gravity load testing ................................................................................................. 39 5.1.2 Ambient testing (2012 tests were Phase 1; 2013 tests were Phase 2) ..................... 40 5.2 Phase 2 (Current Study) ................................................................................................. 40 5.2.1 Outcome 1 – Finite element model ......................................................................... 41 5.2.2 Outcome 2 – Structural evaluation and load rating ................................................ 41 5.2.3 Outcome 3 – LRFR HL-93 live load stresses for the critical members .................. 41 APPENDIX A – SIMPLE ACCURACY TEST............................................................................ 44 APPENDIX B – LONGITUDINAL BEHAVIOR TEST ............................................................. 47 APPENDIX C – MODEL IMPROVEMENTS (LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION) .................... 50 APPENDIX D – TRANSVERSE BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO MODEL MODIFICATIONS.......... 52 APPENDIX E – MODEL IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSVERSE DIRECTION)......................... 57 APPENDIX F – CORRELATION BETWEEN CALIBRATED MODEL AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA............................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX G – CALIBRATED FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ................................................. 63 APPENDIX H – SENSOR LAYOUT .......................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX I – LOAD TESTING................................................................................................ 69 APPENDIX J – A FUTURISTIC APPROACH TO CALIBRATING A FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ........................................................................................................................................ 83en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectInstrumentation (Esxj)en_US
dc.subjectSensors (Dmgu)en_US
dc.subjectTesting (G)en_US
dc.subjectFinite Element Method (Gej)en_US
dc.subjectLoad factor (Rkmyim)en_US
dc.subjectStructural health monitoring (Grs)en_US
dc.titlePhase II: Chulitna River Bridge Structurally Health Monitoringen_US
dc.typeTechnical Reporten_US
refterms.dateFOA2020-03-06T02:24:52Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
2014-04_Phase II_Chulitna River ...
Size:
5.120Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record