Home
Resource
Comparison of load rating methods for complex bridges
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(25.70 MB)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Strafaci, Joseph R.. Comparison of load rating methods for complex bridges. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-k1fb-9p38

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

TitleComparison of load rating methods for complex bridges
NameStrafaci, Joseph R. (author); Nassif, Hani (chair); Yong, Yook-Kong (internal member); WANG, HAO (internal member); Tsakalakos, Thomas (outside member); Rutgers University; School of Graduate Studies
Date Created2020
Other Date2020-05 (degree)
SubjectComplex bridges, Bridges -- Live loads -- Measurement, Civil and Environmental Engineering
Extent1 online resource (xv, 215 pages) : illustrations
DescriptionWith the lack of funding to address all infrastructure needs, highway agencies are faced with prioritizing their greatest infrastructure needs. This especially holds true for complex structures, which as defined by the 2018 AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation include movable, suspension, cable stayed, or other unusual characteristic not found in common structures These bridges usually provide access for a great number of users and come with a high cost of replacement.

The purpose of this project was to perform a comparison of load rating methods for Complex Bridges. Focus was placed on the current Load Factor Resistance Rating and Load Factor Rating methodology. This study utilizes a movable bridge as a form of comparative evaluation. The bridge was selected due to its age, complexity, and condition.

To assist in this comparison, analysis by field testing, and a refined method of analysis was utilized in the form of finite element modeling. Additionally, weigh-in-motion sensors were installed at the selected bridge to understand daily truck traffic, identify maximum loading scenarios, and develop a site-specific live load factor.

Based on the analysis performed, it was concluded that the LRFR method is the preferred method when compared to the LFR Method. Given the current code provisions, when compared against each other, the LRFR not only provides the most ideal rating factor, but also provides a clearer picture of how members are being affect by subject loads.

Additionally, based off the comparison performed and results obtained, this project developed a proposed guide for inclusion into the MBE for the evaluation of complex structures. Additionally, based on the analysis performed guidance regarding repaired members, and prediction models was also proposed.
NotePh.D.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Genretheses, ETD doctoral
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-k1fb-9p38
LanguageEnglish
CollectionSchool of Graduate Studies Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Version 8.4.8
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2023