Title:
Load Testing of a Deteriorated Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge Without Plans
Author(s):
Sebastián Castellanos-Toro, Diana Millán, Albert R. Ortiz, Johannio Marulanda, Peter Thomson, Eva O.L. Lantsoght
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
352
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
16-35
Keywords:
dynamic characterization, load distribution factors, load testing, prestressed concrete girder bridge, strain measurement, visual inspection
DOI:
10.14359/51734854
Date:
5/31/2022
Abstract:
In this study, a prestressed concrete girder bridge without plans and with severe levels of deterioration, located in Cali, Colombia, was load-tested to quantify, experimentally, its live-load behavior. The bridge consists of seven prestressed I-girders covered with a reinforced concrete deck, and four diaphragm beams. A geometric survey was performed to obtain the dimensions for a shell-based linear finite-element model (FEM) representing the bridge superstructure. In this survey, it was observed that the diaphragm beams in the span are geometrically inadequate to contribute to the structural system. Based on the experimental modal properties and the design regulations enforced at the time of bridge design and construction, a first update was made. Modifying the effective stiffness of selected elements to model girder deterioration, a second update was performed based on strain-gauge data from three load tests and visual inspection (VI) of the elements. The three models (basic, modal updated, and load-test/VI updated) were compared with the load distribution factor (DF) obtained from the load test and AASHTO distribution factor estimations. Visual inspection, dynamic characterization, and load testing response of this structure indicated severe deterioration of the girders and the absence of the effect of the diaphragms in the overall structural behavior. The results show that the AASHTO recommendations overestimate the LDF in comparison with the FEM without girder deterioration. When girder deterioration is included in the model, the LDFs change drastically, showing that AASHTO estimations are not in line with the experimental results. As such, for cases of bridges with severe levels of deterioration, it is recommended to use field data to estimate the distribution factors.
Related References:
1. A. Bagheri, M. Alipour, O. E. Ozbulut, D. K. Harris, “A nondestructive method for load rating of bridges without structural properties and plans,” Eng. Struct. 171, 545–556 (2018).
2. C. V. Aguilar, D. V. Jauregui, B. D. Weldon, C. M. Newtson, “Rating of Prestressed Concrete Adjacent Beam Bridges without Plans,” Spec. Publ. 323, 5.1-5.20 (2018).
3. F. Biondini and D. M. Frangopol, “Life-Cycle Performance of Deteriorating Structural Systems under Uncertainty: Review,” J. Struct. Eng. 142(9), F4016001 (2016).
4. E. O. L. Lantsoght, C. van der Veen, A. de Boer, D. A. Hordijk, “State-of-the-art on load testing of concrete bridges,” Eng. Struct. 150, 231–241 (2017).
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 3rd Edition, Washington, D.C. (2018).
6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, Washington, D.C. (2020).
7. E. O. L. Lantsoght, C. van der Veen, A. de Boer, J. C. Walraven, “Using Eurocodes and Aashto for Assessing Shear in Slab Bridges,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Bridge Engineering. 169 (4), 285–297 (2016).
8. American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI 342R-16 Report on Flexural Live Load Distribution Methods for Evaluating Existing Bridges, ACI (2016).
9. E. Ohanian, D. White, and E. S. Bell, “Benefit Analysis of In-Place Load Testing for Bridges,” Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting (2017).
10. V. Torres, N. Zolghadri, M. Maguire, P. Barr, M. Halling, “Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Live-Load Distribution Factors for Double Tee Bridges,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 33(1), 04018107, American Society of Civil Engineers (2019).
11. C. Dong, S. Bas, M. Debees, N. Alver, F. N. Catbas, “Bridge Load Testing for Identifying Live Load Distribution, Load Rating, Serviceability and Dynamic Response,” Front. Built Environ., Frontiers (2020).
12. S. Alampalli, D. M. Frangopol, J. Grimson, D. Kosnik, M. Halling, E. O. L. Lantsoght, J. S. Weidner, D. Y. Yang, Y. E. Zhou, “Primer on Bridge Load Testing,” Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2019).
13. A. Halicka, D. A. Hordijk, and E. O. L. Lantsoght, “Rating of Concrete Road Bridges with Static Proof Load Tests,” Spec. Publ. 323, 3.1-3.16 (2018).
14. Ministerio de Transporte: Instituto Nacional de Vías, Código Colombiano de Diseño Sísmico de Puentes, AIS, Bogotá, Colombia (1995).
15. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Standard specifications for highway bridges, 15th Edition, Washington, D.C. (1992).
16. Asociación Colombiana de Ingeniería sísmica - AIS, Norma Colombiana de Diseño de Puentes CCP 14, AIS, Bogotá, Colombia (2014).
17. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th Edition, Washington, D.C. (2012).
18. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, Washington, D.C. (2014).
19. M. Arockiasamy and A. Amer, “Load Distribution on Highway Bridges Based on Field Test Data: Phase Two,” WPI 0510668, Florida Atlantic University, Bocca Raton, FL, p. 213 (1998).
20. M. Araujo, “Slab-on-girder prestressed concrete bridges: linear and nonlinear finite element analysis and experimental load tests,” LSU Doctoral Dissertations, Louisiana State University (2009).
21. A. E. Naaman, Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design: Fundamentals, 2nd Edition, Techno Pr 3000, Ann Arbor, Mich (2004).
22. D. J. Ewins, Modal Testing: Theory, Practice and Application, 2nd Edition, Research Studies Press ltd. (2000).
23. G. H. James III, T. G. Carne, and J. P. Lauffer, “The natural excitation technique (NExT) for modal parameter extraction from operating wind turbines,” NASA STIRecon Tech. Rep. N 93 (1993).
24. P. Van Overschee and B. De Moor, Subspace Identification for Linear Systems, Springer US, Boston, MA (1996).
25. S. Castellanos-Toro, M. Marmolejo, J. Marulanda, A. Cruz, P. Thomson, “Frequencies and damping ratios of bridges through Operational Modal Analysis using smartphones,” Constr. Build. Mater. 188, 490–504 (2018).
26. E. A. Andrade Borges, E. O. L. Lantsoght, S. Castellanos-Toro, J. Marulanda, “Modeling and analysis of a prestressed girder bridge prior to diagnostic load testing,” ACI Av. En Cienc. E Ing. unpublished article (2021).
27. K. Hoffmann, An Introduction to Measurement Using Strain Gages, Hottinger Baldwin (1989).
28. CSI, “SAP2000 Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design,” Version 18, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California.
29. M. Pastor, M. Binda, T. Harčarik, “Modal Assurance Criterion,” Procedia Engineering, 48, 543–548 (2012).
30. M. G. Barker, “Quantifying Field-Test Behavior for Rating Steel Girder Bridges,” Journal of Bridge Engineering. 6 (4), 254–261 (2001).
31. E. O. L. Lantsoght, G. Zarate, F. Zhang, M.-K. Park, Y. Yang, H. Sliedrecht, “Shear Experiments of Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders,” ACI Structural Journal. 118 (3), 117–130 (2021).