A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Load Rating of a Fully Instrumented Bridge: Comparison of LRFR Approaches
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.
Load Rating of a Fully Instrumented Bridge: Comparison of LRFR Approaches
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.
Load Rating of a Fully Instrumented Bridge: Comparison of LRFR Approaches
Sanayei, Masoud (author) / Brenner, Brian R / Reiff, Alexandra J / Imbaro, Gregory R
2016
Article (Journal)
English
Load Rating of a Fully Instrumented Bridge: Comparison of LRFR Approaches
| British Library Online Contents | 2016
Effects of State Legal Loads on Bridge Rating Results Using the LRFR Procedure
| Online Contents | 2008
Review of Bridge Design and Evaluation: LRFD and LRFR by Gongkang Fu
| Online Contents | 2014