Live Load Distributions on an Impact-Damaged Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge Repaired Using Prestressed CFRP Sheets

This paper describes detailed flexural behavior, including live load distributions, of a four-span prestressed concrete girder bridge supported by 14?m long C-shape girders (4 @ 14.05 = 56.2?m). The bridge has been damaged by frequent impact from heavy trucks, and repaired using prestressed carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets. A calibrated finite element analysis is conducted to investigate the flexural behavior (i.e., stress redistribution, deflection, live load distribution, and applied load effects) of the bridge in three different phases (i.e., undamaged, damaged, and repaired states) under various loading configurations. Strain localizations are noted at the damaged and repaired locations. Assessment of existing bridge codes such as the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load Resistance Factor Design and Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code is conducted. The bridge codes predict well the nominal live load effect on the exterior girder, but underestimate the effect on the interior girders. A refined analysis may be recommended for this type of bridge.     

Live-Load Distribution Factors for Prestressed Concrete, Spread Box-Girder Bridge

This study presents an evaluation of shear and moment live-load distribution factors for a new, prestressed concrete, spread box-girder bridge. The shear and moment distribution factors were measured under a live-load test using embedded fiber-optic sensors and used to verify a finite element model. The model was then loaded with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation (AASHTO) design truck. The resulting maximum girder distribution factors were compared to those calculated from both the AASHTO standard specifications and the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. The LRFD specifications predictions of girder distribution factors were accurate to conservative when compared to the finite element model for all distribution factors. The standard specifications predictions of girder distribution factors ranged from highly unconservative to highly conservative when compared to the finite element model. For the study bridge, the LRFD specifications would result in a safe design, though exterior girders would be overdesigned. The standard Specifications, however, would result in an unsafe design for interior girders and overdesigned exterior girders.     

Demonstration of Use of High-Performance Lightweight Concrete in Bridge Superstructure in Virginia

The general objective of this research was the construction and evaluation of a bridge using high-performance lightweight concrete (HPLWC). The resulting bridge over the Chickahominy River near Richmond, Va., consists of 15 prestressed American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Type IV girders made of HPLWC with a density of 1,920?kg/m3 and a minimum required 28-day compressive strength of 55?MPa. The bridge also has a lightweight concrete (LWC) deck with a density of 1,850?kg/m3 and a minimum required 28-day compressive strength of 30?MPa. This research study is chiefly concerned with investigating the effects of using lightweight concrete in prestressed girders on transfer length, development length, flexural strength, girder live-load distribution factor, and dynamic load allowance. Transfer length was determined to be 432?mm, or 33?db, for several girders at the time of prestress transfer. The development length was determined to be between 1,830 and 2,440?mm, while the flexural strength ranged from 11 to 30% higher than the AASHTO flexural capacity. The measured distribution factors and dynamic load allowance were smaller than the AASHTO standard and LRFD values.     

Shear Live-Load Distribution Factors for I-Girder Bridges

A full scale, single lane test bridge was used to evaluate a typical slab-on-girder bridge’s response to shear. The results of the shear load test provided the means to evaluate the level of detail for a finite element model that is required to accurately replicate the behavior of bridges subject to shear loads. This finite element modeling scheme was then used to evaluate more than 200 finite element bridge models. The bridge models investigated the effects of girder spacing, span length, overhang distance and skew angle on the shear live-load distribution factor. The finite element shear distribution factors were compared with those calculated according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials load and resistance factor design (AASHTO LRFD) specifications. It was found that the AASHTO LRFD procedure accurately predicted the shear distribution factor for changes in girder spacing and span length. However, the LRFD shear distribution factor for the exterior girder was found to be unconservative for certain overhang distances and overly conservative for the interior girder for higher skew angles. Alternative equations are provided for the single and multilane exterior girder correction factor.     

Single-Span Prestressed Girder Bridge: LRFD Design and Comparison

This report summarizes the comparative design of a single-span AASHTO Type III girder bridge under the AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, 16th Edition, and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. The writers address the differences in design philosophy, calculation procedures, and the resulting design. Foundation design and related geotechnical considerations are not considered. The LRFD design was similar in most respects to the Standard Specification design. The significant differences were: (1) increased shear reinforcement; (2) increased reinforcement in the deck overhang; and (3) increased reinforcement in the wing wall. The comparisons would likely change if the bridge were designed purely according to LRFD Specifications rather than as a comparative design. Design procedures under the LRFD Specification tend to be more calculation-intensive. However, the added complexity of the LRFD Specification is counterbalanced by the consistency of the design philosophy and its ability to consider a variety of bridges.     

Influence of Skew Angle on Reinforced Concrete Slab Bridges

The effect of a skew angle on simple-span reinforced concrete bridges is presented in this paper using the finite-element method. The parameters investigated in this analytical study were the span length, slab width, and skew angle. The finite-element analysis (FEA) results for skewed bridges were compared to the reference straight bridges as well as the American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications and LRFD procedures. A total of 96 case study bridges were analyzed and subjected to AASHTO HS-20 design trucks positioned close to one edge on each bridge to produce maximum bending in the slab. The AASHTO Standard Specifications procedure gave similar results to the FEA maximum longitudinal bending moment for a skew angle less than or equal to 20°. As the skew angle increased, AASHTO Standard Specifications overestimated the maximum moment by 20% for 30°, 50% for 40°, and 100% for 50°. The AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications procedure overestimated the FEA maximum longitudinal bending moment. This overestimate increased with the increase in the skew angle, and decreased when the number of lanes increased; AASHTO LRFD overestimated the longitudinal bending moment by up to 40% for skew angles less than 30° and reaching 50% for 50°. The ratio between the three-dimensional FEA longitudinal moments for skewed and straight bridges was almost one for bridges with skew angle less than 20°. This ratio decreased to 0.75 for bridges with skew angles between 30 and 40°, and further decreased to 0.5 as the skew angle of the bridge increased to 50°. This decrease in the longitudinal moment ratio is offset by an increase of up to 75% in the maximum transverse moment ratio as the skew angle increases from 0 to 50°. The ratio between the FEA maximum live-load deflection for skewed bridges and straight bridges decreases in a pattern consistent with that of the longitudinal moment. This ratio decreased from one for skew angles less than 10° to 0.6 for skew angles between 40 and 50°.     

Effect of Multilanes on Wheel Load Distribution in Steel Girder Bridges

This paper presents the results of a parametric study that investigated the effect of multilanes and continuity on wheel load distribution in steel girder bridges. Typical one- and two-span, two-, three-, and four-lane, straight, composite steel girder bridges were selected for this study. The major bridge parameters chosen for this study were the span length, girder spacing, one- versus two-spans, and the number of lanes. These parameters were varied within practical ranges to study their influence on the wheel load distribution factors. A total of 144 bridges were analyzed using the finite-element method. The computer program, SAP90, was used to model the concrete slab as quadrilateral shell elements and the steel girders as space frame members. Simple supports were used to model the boundary conditions. AASHTO HS20 design trucks were positioned in all lanes of the one- and two-span bridges to produce the maximum bending moments. The calculated finite-element wheel load distribution factors were compared with the AASHTO and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 12-26 formulas. The results of this parametric study agree with the newly developed NCHRP 12-26 formula and both were, in general, less than the empirical AASHTO formula (S∕5.5) for longer span lengths [>15.25 m (50 ft)] and girder spacing >1.8 m (6 ft). This paper demonstrates that the multiple lane reduction factors are built into the newly developed distribution factors for steel girder bridges that were presented in the NCHRP 12-26 final report. It should be noted that AASHTO LRFD contains a similar expression that results in a value that is 50% of the value in the equations developed as a part of NCHRP 12-26. This is due to the fact that AASHTO LRFD consider the entire design truck instead of half-truck (wheel loads) as the case in the NCHRP 12-26 report and the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Therefore, this paper supports the use of the new distribution factors for steel girder bridges developed as a part of NCHRP 12-26 and consequently the distribution factors presented in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.     

New AASHTO Guide Manual for Load and Resistance Factor Rating of Highway Bridges

This paper introduces the American Association of State Highway Officials’ (AASHTO) new Guide Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating of Highway Bridges that was completed in March 2000 under a National Cooperative Highway Research Program research project and adopted as a Guide Manual by the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures at the 2002 AASHTO Bridge Conference. The new Manual is a companion document to the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications in the same manner that the current Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges is to the AASHTO Standard Specifications. The new Manual is consistent with the LRFD Specifications in using a reliability based limit states philosophy and extends the provisions of the LRFD Specifications to the areas of inspection, load rating, posting and permit rules, fatigue evaluation, and load testing of existing bridges. This paper presents an overview of the manual; specifically, the new Load and Resistance Factor rating procedures are explained and the basis for their calibration is discussed.     

The beta-adrenomimetic effect of human and animal blood serum

The conventional analysis and design of highway bridges ignore the contribution of sidewalks and∕or railings in a bridge deck when calculating the flexural strength of superstructures. The presence of sidewalks and railings or parapets acting integrally with the bridge deck have the effect of stiffening the outside girders and attracting more load while reducing the load effects in the interior girders. This paper presents the results of a parametric study showing the influence of typical sidewalks and railings on wheel load distribution as well as on the load-carrying capacity of highway bridges. A typical one-span, two-lane, simply supported, composite steel girder bridge was selected in order to investigate the influence of various parameters such as: span length, girder spacing, sidewalks, and railings. A total of 120 bridges were analyzed using three-dimensional finite-element analysis. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) HS20 design trucks were positioned in both lanes to produce the maximum moments. The finite-element analysis results were also compared with AASHTO wheel load distribution factors. The AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD) wheel load distribution formula correlated conservatively with the finite-element results and all were less than the typical empirical formula (S∕5.5). The presence of sidewalks and railings were shown to increase the load-carrying capacity by as much as 30% if they were included in the strength evaluation of highway bridges.     

Load Distribution for a Highly Skewed Bridge: Testing and Analysis

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications provide formulas for determining live load distribution factors for bridges. For load distribution factors to be accurate, the behavior of the bridge must be understood. While the behavior of right-angle bridges and bridges with limited skews is relatively well understood, that of highly skewed bridges is not. This paper presents a study aimed at developing a better understanding of the transverse load distribution for highly skewed slab-on-steel girder bridges. The study involved both a diagnostic field test of a recently constructed bridge and an extensive numerical analysis. The bridge tested and analyzed is a two-span, continuous, slab-on-steel composite highway bridge with a skew angle of 60°. The bridge behavior is defined based on the field test data. Finite-element analyses of the bridge were conducted to investigate the influence of model mesh, transverse stiffness, diaphragms, and modeling of the supports. The resulting test and analytical results are compared with AASHTO’s Load and Resistance Factor Design formulas for live load distribution to assess the accuracy of the current empirical formulas.