CULVERT LOAD RATING & LOAD TESTING

Similar documents
Session 5D: Benefits of Live Load Testing and Finite Element Modeling in Rating Bridges

Retaining Wall Global Stability & AASHTO LRFD Unnecessary, Unreasonable Guideline Changes Result in Huge Wastes of Money at Some Wall Locations

Two-Way Post-Tensioned Design

Rapid Modal Testing System for Live Load Rating of Highway Bridges

Type of Force 1 Axial (tension / compression) Shear. 3 Bending 4 Torsion 5 Images 6 Symbol (+ -)

Snake River Bridge Load Test Addressing Bridge Management Issues WBES 2015 Reno, NV

How to Code Load Rating of a New Bridge with No Load Rating Analysis. How to Code Load Rating of a Bridge Exempt from Load Rating Per ODOT BDM

A transverse strip of the deck is assumed to support the truck axle loads. Shear and fatigue of the reinforcement need not be investigated.

Chapter - 3 Design of Rectangular Beams and One-way Slabs

3.2 DEFINITIONS, cont. Revise or add the following definitions::

SLAB DESIGN EXAMPLE. Deck Design (AASHTO LRFD 9.7.1) TYPICAL SECTION. County: Any Hwy: Any Design: BRG Date: 7/2010

LRFD Bridge Design. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Loading and General Information

ESI Consultants, Ltd. PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Introduction to LRFD, Loads and Loads Distribution

Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load Rating of Highway Bridges Using Load and Resistance Factor Philosophy

Earth Pressure and Retaining Wall Basics for Non-Geotechnical Engineers

FOOTING DESIGN EXAMPLE

Basics of Reinforced Concrete Design

International Nursing and Rehab Center Addition 4815 S. Western Blvd. Chicago, IL

H 300 DESIGN LOADS AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS

2015 ODOT Bridge Design Conference May 12, DeJong Rd Bridge High- Seismic Zone Case Study: Bridge Rehab vs. Replacement.

SECTION 3 DESIGN OF POST TENSIONED COMPONENTS FOR FLEXURE

LOAD TESTING FOR BRIDGE RATING: DEAN S MILL OVER HANNACROIS CREEK

Index Series Prestressed Florida-I Beams (Rev. 07/12)

SPECIFICATIONS, LOADS, AND METHODS OF DESIGN

Table of Contents. July

Structural Analysis. EUROCODE 2 Background and Applications

FOUNDATION DESIGN. Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples

FINAL FAILURE INVESTIGATION WESTCHESTER NORTH LAGOON BRIDGE. Anchorage, Alaska

Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Using the Empirical Method

Final Report Evaluation of I-Pave Low Volume Road Design Software

Chapter 8. Flexural Analysis of T-Beams

SECTION 5 ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS SPANS DEVELOPED BY THE PTI EDC-130 EDUCATION COMMITTEE LEAD AUTHOR: BRYAN ALLRED

Long-term serviceability of the structure Minimal maintenance requirements Economical construction Improved aesthetics and safety considerations

EXAMPLE 1 DESIGN OF CANTILEVERED WALL, GRANULAR SOIL

Structure Design Manual

STRENGTHENING AND LOAD TESTING OF THREE BRIDGES IN BOONE COUNTY, MO

Full Depth Precast Concrete Highway Bridge Decks

5 G R A TINGS ENGINEERING DESIGN MANUAL. MBG Metal Bar Grating METAL BAR GRATING MANUAL MBG METAL BAR GRATING NAAMM

REINFORCED CONCRETE. Reinforced Concrete Design. A Fundamental Approach - Fifth Edition. Walls are generally used to provide lateral support for:

Formwork for Concrete

Value of Instrumentation Systems and Real-Time Monitoring: An Owner s Perspective

SECTION 3 DESIGN OF POST- TENSIONED COMPONENTS FOR FLEXURE

3.1 Historical Considerations

Engineering for Stability in Bridge Construction: A New Manual and Training Course by FHWA/NHI

Jesus M. Rohena, P.E Senior Tunnel Engineer Federal Highway Administration

Instrumentations, Pile Group Load Testing, and Data Analysis Part II: Design & Analysis of Lateral Load Test. Murad Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.

APPENDIX H DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NCHRP PROJECT NEW BRIDGE DESIGNS

Steel Bridge Design Handbook

Chapter 12 LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS NDOT STRUCTURES MANUAL


1997 Uniform Administrative Code Amendment for Earthen Material and Straw Bale Structures Tucson/Pima County, Arizona

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FORMULAS. A handy reference for use in geotechnical analysis and design

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE POLES The Solid Alternative to Wood

This manual was produced using ComponentOne Doc-To-Help.

Session 3: Guardrail Design and Sitespecific. Considerations

Load Design Charts. R-CONTROL SIPs STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANELS. CONTROL, NOT COMPROMISE.

Stone Arch Bridges of Washington County, MD

Stephen Gaj. Martin Kidner State Planning Engineer Wyoming DOT

Bridge Type Selection

FEBRUARY 2014 LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 4-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Roof Decks 172 B, BA, BV Deck N, NA Deck. Form Decks FD,.6 FDV Deck 1.0 FD, 1.0 FDV Deck 1.5 FD Deck 2.0 FD Deck 3.

Design of reinforced concrete columns. Type of columns. Failure of reinforced concrete columns. Short column. Long column

Evaluation of Bridge Performance and Rating through Nondestructive

Construction Specifications for Keyhole Pavement Coring and Reinstatement

General Approach. Structure Components. Is all lumber the same? Lumber Grades. Rafters Girders / Beams Columns. Sketch general structural layout

INTRODUCTION TO BEAMS

FINAL REPORT STRUCTURAL LOAD TESTING AND FLEXURE ANALYSIS OF THE ROUTE 701 BRIDGE IN LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINIA

62 nd Annual Missouri Traffic and Safety Conference. M.A.S.H.: The New Safety Hardware Crash Testing Criteria

Safe & Sound Bridge Terminology

Structural Performance of Highway Bridges under Given Foundation Settlements

Analysis of Stresses and Strains

Weight Measurement Technology

HDPE PRODUCTS QUALITY, PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMY COMBINED

Reinforced Concrete Design Project Five Story Office Building

Chapter 5 Bridge Deck Slabs. Bridge Engineering 1

Tension Development and Lap Splice Lengths of Reinforcing Bars under ACI

RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION GUIDELINE Johnson County, KS

PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS

738-B-297 POLYMERIC CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK OVERLAY. (Adopted )

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITIONAL DATA USING A DYNAMIC LINEAR MODEL APPROACH

Reinforced Concrete Design

IN-SERVICE PERFORMANCE AND BEHAVIOR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE HYBRID COMPOSITE BRIDGE SYSTEM A CASE STUDY

CH. 2 LOADS ON BUILDINGS

Aleš Žnidarič, ZAG Ljubljana

Design Of Reinforced Concrete Structures ii Two-Way Slabs

Butch Wlaschin P.E. Director, Office of Asset Management, Pavements, and Construction FHWA

DESIGN OF SLABS. 3) Based on support or boundary condition: Simply supported, Cantilever slab,

Transcription:

CULVERT LOAD RATING & LOAD TESTING Ping Lu*, Scott Neubauer*, Brent Phares**, Ahmad Abu- Hawash* * The Office of Structures and Bridges Iowa Department of Transportation ** Bridge Engineering Center Iowa State University Ping.lu@dot.iowa.gov 515-239-1290 1

Acknowledgement Appreciate all the coauthors for their contribu2ons to this work Iowa DOT for funding the load tes2ng program through Federal SPR funding 2

What is Load Rating Determina2on of the live load carrying capacity based on current condi2on Using as- built plans Using latest field inspec2on data Results are expressed as Ra2ng Factor (RF) or tonnage for a par2cular vehicle General equa2on for load ra2ng RF= C DL/LL In which, C = Capacity of bridge element DL = Dead load effect LL = Live load effect 3

Why Do We Need Load Rating Ensure public safety and serviceability of structures over 2me Evaluate pos2ng needs Processing overload permits Maintenance priori2za2on Comply with federal regula2ons : required by NBIS (Na2onal Bridge Inspec2on Standards) need to be reported every year 4

Guidelines for Culvert Load Rating AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evalua2on (MBE) Sec2on 6A.5.12, AASHTO MBE, 2nd Edi2on, with 2013 Interim Revisions AASHTO LRFD/Standard Bridge Design Specifica2ons Iowa DOT Bridge Ra2ng Manual Iowa DOT Bridge Design Manual 5

Problems in Rating Older Culverts Rated with LRFR, many exis2ng culverts that were designed to LFD or ASD specifica2ons are seen as deficient; they cannot even support the dead load Most of these in- service culverts have performed sa2sfactorily for decades This is a common problem for older culverts A na2onwide survey was conducted by Iowa DOT in 2013 through AASHTO SCOBS (Sub- Commi_ee of Bridges & Structures) Replies from more than 21 agencies were received; and 10 indicated they have the same problem 6

Reasons Changes in Design Guidelines AASHTO Standard Specifica2ons evolved Ver2cal earth pressure (EV) Horizontal earth pressure (EH) Compare to Standard Specifica2ons, LRFD recommends, in general, higher Live load distribu2on through the earth fill Live load surcharge Dynamic load impact factor Factors contribute the most to the ra2ng problems in Iowa Live load distribu2on and impact EH 7

Dynamic Impact 0.35 0.3 0.25 LRFD Standard Impact 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fill Depth - H (ft) 8

Live Load Distribution Fill depth < 2c Standard LRFD Perpendicular to the span E E Parallel to the span concentrate load L T +LLDF(H) E=96+1.44S E in inch and S in ft 9

Live Load Distribution (Con t) Fill depth >= 2c Standard LRFD Spread w (Perpendicular) 1.75(H) W+LLDF(H) Spread l (Parallel) 1.75(H) L+LLDF(H) 10

Live Load Distribution (Con t) Fill depth >= 2c (P=16k) Wheel Pressure (psf) 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 LRFD Design Truck Standard Design Truck 305.4psi 145.1psi 0 5 6ft 10 15 20 25 Fill Depth - H (ft) 11

Lateral Earth Pressure (EH) Standard Specifications Before 1983 After 1983 LRFD & MBE EH= k a γ s z (30pcf)z EH k a = 1 sin /1+sin 60/30pcf 60/30pcf 12

Earth Pressure used in Iowa Culvert Standards Office loading: EV = 140pcf EH = 36pcf AASHTO loading: EV = 120pcf EH = 60pcf 1987 standards (single and twin boxes): office earth pressure 1994/1995 standards (metric units) Triple boxes were added AASHTO loading was adopted Early 2000 s (US units) Single/twin boxes Office loading (87 standards were used) Triple boxes AASHTO loading (Metric standards were converted to US unit) 2012 LRFD 13

Culvert Load Testing Live load distribu2on through earth fill Lateral Earth Pressure (EH) 14

Live Load Testing Six culverts tested FHWA No. County Earth Fill Sizes Year Built 1 605880 Boone <1ft 2X12X6X70 1989 2 15351 Boone 11 2X12X10X124 1979 3 15190 Boone 2 2X10X8X160 1962 4 15371 Boone 15 2X12X12X142 1979 5 26600 Hamilton 5 2X12X14X135 1968 6 27111 Hardin 3 2X10X10X86 1976 15

Live Load Testing (Con t) Sensor deployment 1-9 are 9 Strain Rosettes 16

Live Load Testing - Results FHWA #15190 (fill depth = 2c) 10 by 8 Twin box built in 1962 carries US 30 over Noah Creek in Boone County ADT = 7900, 9% truck 17

Live Load Testing - Results Strain (με) FHWA #15190 (fill depth = 2c) 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 R4: Max R4: X- axis R4: Y- axis 0.0 0.0-2.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 120.0 Loca/on (0) Stress (psi) 50.0 40.0 30.0 10.0 Max Strain = 13.9µƐ Max Stress = 43.53psi Max Moment = 6.1k-in R4: Max R4: X- axis R4: Y- axis 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0-10.0 Loca/on (0) 18

Results Discussion Load Testing (k-in) Standard (k-in) LRFD (k-in) Max M+ of Slab 6.1 47.5 49.9 Standard LRFD 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Conclusions LRFD/LRFR for concrete box culvert might be overly conserva2ve in es2ma2ng LL and EH effects Current AASTO guideline for concrete box culvert ra2ng is not adequate More research is required 26

Questions? 27

Thank You! 28