Fatigue Assessment for the Failed Bridge Deck Closure Pour at Mile Marker 43 on I-81

Simple item page
dc.contributorVirginia Tech Transportation Instituteen
dc.contributor.authorRivera, Eliasen
dc.contributor.authorAbbas, Ebrahim K.en
dc.contributor.authorWright, William J.en
dc.contributor.authorWeyers, Richard E.en
dc.contributor.authorRoberts-Wollmann, Carin L.en
dc.date.accessed2015-06-30en
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-31T20:05:09Zen
dc.date.available2015-07-31T20:05:09Zen
dc.date.issued2014-04en
dc.description.abstractFatigue of reinforcing steel in concrete bridge decks has not been identified as a common failure mode. Generally, the stress range occurring in reinforcing steel is below the fatigue threshold and infinite fatigue life can be expected. Closure pour joints, however, may be vulnerable to fatigue if some specific design details are present. This research shows that fatigue was a likely contributor to the I-81 closure pour failure. It is much less likely that corrosion directly caused a strength failure but it is very likely that corrosion accelerated the onset of fatigue. The joints in the I-81 deck had vertical joint faces that did not provide any means for shear transfer across the joint. The joints were located under a wheel load path and were located away from beams or other means of deck support. This created atypical conditions where shear forces across the joint due to wheel loads were carried only by the reinforcing steel. The stress range in the reinforcing steel is greatly magnified under this scenario thereby making fatigue a possibility. New closure pour joints can easily be designed to prevent fatigue by providing structural support for both sides of the joint. Existing joints, however, need to be evaluated to determine if fatigue vulnerability exists. Lacking knowledge of the joint internal details, a simple differential deflection test can be performed to detect fatigue vulnerability. If the two sides of the joint are deflecting vertically relative to each other under wheel loads, than fatigue can be considered a possibility. No deflection indicates that fatigue is unlikely.en
dc.description.sponsorshipVirginia. Department of Transportationen
dc.description.sponsorshipUnited States. Federal Highway Administrationen
dc.format.extent40 pagesen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.citationRivera, E., Abbas, E. K., Wright, W. J., Weyers, R. E., & Roberts-Wollman, C. L. (2014). Fatigue assessment for the failed bridge deck closure pour at mile marker 43 on i-81. (0092-12-11). Richmond, VA: Virginia. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/51000/51900/51990/14-r12.pdf.en
dc.identifier.govdocFHWA/VCTIR 14-R12en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/55066en
dc.identifier.urlhttp://ntl.bts.gov/lib/51000/51900/51990/14-r12.pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia. Department of Transportationen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectBridge decksen
dc.subjectFatigue (mechanics)en
dc.subjectBridge management systemsen
dc.subjectPavement maintenanceen
dc.subjectReinforced concrete bridgesen
dc.titleFatigue Assessment for the Failed Bridge Deck Closure Pour at Mile Marker 43 on I-81en
dc.typeGovernment documenten
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
14-r12.pdf
Size:
3.71 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Government Documents (VTTI)