Show simple item record

contributor authorMasoud Sanayei
contributor authorAlexandra J. Reiff
contributor authorBrian R. Brenner
contributor authorGregory R. Imbaro
date accessioned2017-12-30T12:58:37Z
date available2017-12-30T12:58:37Z
date issued2016
identifier other%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000752.pdf
identifier urihttp://138.201.223.254:8080/yetl1/handle/yetl/4244103
description abstractThis paper presents a comparison of three methods used to load rate the Powder Mill Bridge based on the load and resistance factor rating (LRFR) approach. This is a typical three-span continuous bridge with steel girders in composite action with the RC bridge deck. The three methods are as follows: (1) employing the conventional design office load rating technique using a simplified line girder analysis, (2) using strain measurements from a diagnostic load test to adjust the design office rating to account for in-situ bridge behavior, and (3) using a finite-element (FE) model of the bridge, which accounts for three-dimensional (3D) structural system behavior. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are related to speed, ease of use, reviewability, cost, accuracy, and type of use intended. Similarities and differences in utilizing these three methods are discussed. The advanced load rating methods are shown to produce higher ratings in comparison with the conventional approach.
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleLoad Rating of a Fully Instrumented Bridge: Comparison of LRFR Approaches
typeJournal Paper
journal volume30
journal issue2
journal titleJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000752
page04015019
treeJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities:;2016:;Volume ( 030 ):;issue: 002
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record