AASHTO AS 13 -0024 - Transportation.orgsp.bridges.transportation.org/Documents/2013 TEchnical...UHPC...
Transcript of AASHTO AS 13 -0024 - Transportation.orgsp.bridges.transportation.org/Documents/2013 TEchnical...UHPC...
Presented to AASHTO T-8, June 17, 2013
AASHTO AS 13-0024 Support for the HSCOBS Technical Committee on Moveable Bridges (T-8) in a Technical Advisory Role for Specification Updates – Span Lock Design Study
By James M. Phillips III, PE URS
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Purpose of Study Work Plan Project Status Report
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Advance the industry's knowledge of span lock behavior
Provide information and recommendations to T-8 Improve the general practice of span lock design Improve the provisions of the AASHTO LRFD
Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications with regard to design of span locks
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Determine appropriate impact (dynamic load allowance) factors for use in design and evaluation of span locks
Quantify the effects of operating clearances and wear on span lock loading and dynamics
Quantify the effects of bascule span deflection and end rotation on span locks
WORK PLAN
Research Span Lock Materials
FEA Analysis Field Testing Verification and Evaluation Report
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Screening Evaluation Completed initial screening of FDOT double-leaf
bascule bridges Identified viable candidates for field testing
Hillsborough Avenue Bridge, Tampa, FL, FDOT D7 Sunrise Boulevard Bridge, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, FDOT D4 US41 / Hatchett Creek, Venice, FL, FDOT D1
Hillsborough Avenue Bridge, Tampa, FL (FDOT District 7)
Hillsborough Avenue Bridge, Tampa, FL (FDOT District 7)
ANALYSIS – Hillsborough Ave Bridge
Global Model of Bascule Girders, Floor Beams and Span Lock Assembly
ANALYSIS – Hillsborough Ave Bridge
Expanded View of Span Lock
ANALYSIS – Hillsborough Ave Bridge
Plain Bending Stress
ANALYSIS – Hillsborough Ave Bridge
Plain Bending Stress in Lock Bar
ANALYSIS – Hillsborough Ave Bridge
Contact Stress in Guide and Receiver Shoes
FIELD INSTRUMENTATION
Met with FDOT Materials Laboratory Staff Developed Instrumentation Fixture Sketch Met with FDOT Staff at Hillsborough Avenue
Bridge to plan instrumentation and traffic control
Instrumentation Fixture Sketch
Next Steps
FDOT is constructing instrumentation fixture Instrumentation and testing of Hillsborough Ave
preliminarily scheduled for July, 2013
Florida Department of Transportation
presents
Bascule Bridge Lightweight Solid Deck
Retrofit Research Project
Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Research Topics Meeting
FIU Engineering Center - Miami, Florida
May 30, 2013
Screening Report Overview
Purpose: Identify Potential Alternative Lightweight Solid Deck Systems to Replace Steel Open Grid Deck on Typical Florida Bascule Bridges
Value Engineering (VE) Comparison Four (4) Primary Deck Systems Evaluated
SPS Deck Aluminum Orthotropic Deck (5-inch Deep) FRP Composite Deck (Incl. Numerous Types) UHPC Waffle Slab Deck Others Dismissed Due to Excessive Weight
Screening Report Overview
Screening Report Overview
Approx. 40 Different Evaluation Criteria Incl. Weight Cost Functionality and Safety Maintenance Service-Life and Durability Constructability Other Risks
Scoring 1-9 Importance Factor Multiplier Steel Open Grid Baseline (Score 5 Ea. Criteria)
Screening Report Overview
Screening Report Overview Deck System Overall Score
Steel Open Grid 500
SPS 492
Aluminum Orthotropic 557
FRP Composite 496
UHPC Waffle Slab 502
All evaluated Lightweight Solid Deck Alternatives are viable candidates to replace Steel Open Grid Deck on typical Florida Bascule Bridges. However, Aluminum Orthotropic Deck scored well above Steel Open Grid Deck and other Lightweight Solid Deck Alternatives and thus considered superior.
Aluminum Orthotropic Deck
Advantages: Functionality and Safety Weight Neutral Solution (21 psf) Durability and Service Life Robust Design (Meets all AASHTO Limit States) High Stiffness (L/3000) Corrosion Resistance Improved Strength and Fatigue Resistance with
Friction Stir Welding
Configuration Adaptable to Different Bascule Leaf Configurations Minimal Bridge Modifications Accommodate Maintenance of Traffic
Aluminum Orthotropic Deck
Advantages (Cont’d): Available AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications Material Familiarity and Predictability Previous Testing and Research Derivative of SAPA R-Section (Reynolds Alumadeck) FHWA/VDOT/Virginia Tech Testing Program Little Buffalo Creek Bridge (15+ Years Service)
Material Availability/Product Support Aluminum Industry (SAPA)
Aluminum Orthotropic Deck
Disadvantages: High Initial Cost (~$150/sf) New (Derivative) Product Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 12.8x10-6/F (Alum.) vs. 6.5x10-6/F (Steel) Requires Slip Connections Requires Expansion Joints
Wearing Surface (Periodic Replacement) Galvanic Corrosion (Mitigation) Blind-Type Fasteners Patented Product
Research and Testing
Previous Testing (8-inch Deep SAPA R-Section) Differences with 5-inch Deep Deck (Geometry,
Details, Application) Test Panels to be Supplied by Others Testing Performed by FIU Testing Oversight, Evaluation and/or Review by:
FDOT Structures Research Center FDOT District 4 FDOT Central Office URS Others
Research and Testing
Purpose: Demonstrate Panel Performance and Behavior at
AASHTO LRFD Limit States (Strength I, Strength II, Service I (Deflection) and Fatigue (Infinite Life)
Verify Panel Wheel Load Distribution Demonstrate Ability of Panel-Stringer Connections to
Accommodate Thermal/Flexural Movements Demonstrate Ability of Fastener Locking Devices to
Resist Loosening Evaluate Wearing Surface Performance Demonstrate Construction Means and Methods Demonstrate In-service Performance Demonstrate Panel Ultimate Strength