Bridge Testing—A Surprise Every Time

Bakht, Baidar; Jaeger, Leslie G.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1990)116:5(1370)

Cited by 96 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of this research effort has been focused on studying the performance of steel and PC girder bridges to better understand actual load distribution, as well as to evaluate AASHTO code distribution factor (DF) formulas through field testing, experimental testing and numerical modeling. Numerous early examples of such work exist, including field tests conducted by Shepherd and Sidwell (1973); Bakht and Csagoly (1980); Darlow and Bettigole (1989) ;Bakht and Jaeger (1990); and Stallings and Yoo (1993), among others. Even after the revised AASHTO LRFD DF expressions were developed from finite element analysis (Zokaie and Imbsen 1992), much additional experimental and computational work continued.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Tests of Two Prestressed-Concrete Girder Bridges for Live-Load Distribution and Moment Continuity

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two similar bridges constructed with a live load continuous connection were tested for live load distribution and joint continuity. Girder distribution factors (GDFs) were compared to AASHTO equivalent values. For positive moments on all girders as for negative moments on interior girders, results using AASHTO equivalent GDFs were found to be generally conservative.However, for negative moments on exterior girders, test results exceeded AASHTO values, with 2-lane results significantly so. GDF results were verified with a FEA model, which produced similar behavior to the field tests. With respect to joint continuity, it is estimated that a simple span would produce a maximum positive moment about 7% higher than the actual structure, while a completely continuous structure would produce a maximum positive moment about 16% lower than the actual structure. For negative moments, the actual structure experienced about 28% of that of a continuous structure. Shear reactions were also investigated.Recommendations are proposed for evaluating transverse distribution of live load as well as the longitudinal distribution of live load, accounting for the effect of joint continuity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Tests of Two Prestressed-Concrete Girder Bridges for Live-Load Distribution and Moment Continuity

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…are known to alter the boundary conditions of bridges resulting in unexpected performance during extreme events as well as under normal conditions [1][2][3][4][5]. In the past, this effect has been usually quantified by calibrating an analytical model of the bridge by trial and error and coming up with probable scenarios that would have led to the recorded damage pattern.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Structural Details in Altering the Expected Seismic Response of Base-Isolated Bridges

Chaudhary¹,

Abé

Fujino

2002

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[11,12]. For these smaller bridges global response is more sensitive to defects, visual inspection is less frequent and SHM systems can and do [13] make a real contribution.…”

Section: Brief Review Of Bridge Shm Developments In 20 Th Centurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons from monitoring the performance of highway bridges

Brownjohn

Moyo

Omenzetter

et al. 2005

Struct. Control Health Monit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring programs on four very different highway bridges originating from a range of requirements related to calibration of numerical models, assessment of load capacity and long term tracking of performance are summarized in order to draw out lessons relevant to the future development of structural health monitoring 'systems'. These lessons concern validation of structural models, appropriate methods for instrumentation, communication, data management and system identification. The paper presents experience obtained by collaboration in a form intended to educate, by example, bridge operators about potential and limitations of SHM systems.

show abstract

Bridge Testing—A Surprise Every Time

Cited by 96 publications

References 3 publications

Field Tests of Two Prestressed-Concrete Girder Bridges for Live-Load Distribution and Moment Continuity

Field Tests of Two Prestressed-Concrete Girder Bridges for Live-Load Distribution and Moment Continuity

Role of Structural Details in Altering the Expected Seismic Response of Base-Isolated Bridges

Lessons from monitoring the performance of highway bridges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About