I-345 Bridge Repair: 459 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE

2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 459
I-345 Bridge Repair

Y. Zhao1, L. M. Wolf2, A. S. Barrett3, H. J. Kim4, and K. H. Frank5
1
Yuan Zhao, Ph.D., P.E., Bridge Design Engineer, Texas Department of
Transportation, Bridge Division; (512) 416-2632; yzhao@dot.state.tx.us
2
Lloyd M. Wolf, P.E., Bridge Design Group Leader, Texas Department of
Transportation, Bridge Division; (512) 416-2279; lwolf@dot.state.tx.us
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by George Mason University on 08/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3
Amy S. Barrett, EIT, P.E. Structural Consultants, Inc.; (512) 250-5200;
abarrett@pestructural.com
4
Hyeong J. Kim, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Texas at Austin, Ferguson
Structural Engineering Laboratory; (512) 471-3062; hyeong@mail.utexas.edu
5
Karl H. Frank, Ph.D., P.E., Chief Engineer, Hirschfeld Industries; (325) 486-4783;
karl.frank@hirschfeld.com
ABSTRACT
Starting early 1990s, fatigue cracks were found to have developed at many floorbeam
to girder connections of the I-345 Bridges. The bridges were designed with a special
framing and support system, which caused cracks to develop at various welded
details. Part of the bridges was previously repaired, but cracks continued to grow, and
in some cases occurred again at the repaired details. A new retrofit plan was therefore
developed recently by the Texas Department of Transportation, Bridge Division,
through a combined research effort with the University of Texas at Austin, Ferguson
Structural Engineering Laboratory. This paper discusses the authors’ experience
obtained through the repair of the I-345 Bridges, including lessons learned from the
previous repairs, development of the new repair strategy, findings obtained from the
field test and finite element analysis, and recommendations for future work. The
repair construction is current underway and scheduled to be completed by June 2010.
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1 Unit F2N at I-30 Interchange Figure 2 Unit F16S above city streets
Constructed in the early 1970s as an important part of the Dallas downtown freeway
system, Interstate 345 is a completely elevated highway that extends I-45 to US 75 on
the east side of downtown Dallas. It includes four main structures: the 1.4 mi.
southbound and northbound mainlane bridges, and the 0.45 mi. southbound and
northbound connector bridges. All four bridges consist mainly of steel two-girder
multi-span units with a 10 ½ in. noncomposite concrete deck (Figures 1 & 2). Due to
the intricate city streets crossing underneath the bridges, the substructures were
Structures Congress 2010

designed with individual columns positioned wherever possible, supporting the

girders directly from underneath without bent caps. This caused unsymmetric support
condition for many floorbeams, as the case shown in Figure 2, where columns were
provided at only one of the two girder connections. Floorbeams were framed into the
girders by field welding: the web was installed in between a pair of connection
stiffeners first with erection bolts and then with fillet welds along the stiffener edges,
the top flange was spliced straddling above the girder with double-bevel full-
penetration welds, and the bottom flange was attached to the girder web with single-
bevel full-penetration welds and a backing strip. Large girder spacing (64’-9”
maximum) and long floorbeam overhang (17’-6” maximum) had to be designed at

units with extremely wide roadway. The deck slab was cast on top of the floorbeams
instead of the girders, and was post-tensioned in both longitudinal and transverse
directions.
FATIGUE CRACK DEVELOPMENT

Before 1985, AASHTO did not allow welding diaphragm or crossframe connection
plates to the girder tension flange due to the concern of brittle fracture occurrence in
main structural load-carrying members. In many cases, designers also chose not to
weld the connection plates to the compression flange. This was later proved to be not
a problem to mild steels used in typical bridge construction in the United States, as
long as the stress range experienced by the detail is below the allowable. However,
unexpected out-of-plane distortion-induced fatigue crack development has since been
identified in many welded steel bridges built between the 1950s and 1980s as a result
of this practice. Often, the connection plate was welded only to the girder web but not
to the flange. A very short segment of the girder web adjacent to the flange was thus
left unstiffened laterally and subjected to high-magnitude cyclic stresses under traffic
loading, leading to what would later be called “small web gap cracks.”
Beginning 1992 when the first fracture-critical inspection was launched, the I-345
Bridges were found to have developed out-of-plane fatigue cracks at the welded
attachment of many floorbeam to girder connections as shown in Figure 3. The
Figure 3 As-built floorbeam-girder connection and crack development

Figure 4 Previously repaired floorbeam-girder connection and crack development
connection stiffeners used in these bridges were terminated 2 in. short of the girder
top flange, causing a typical web gap region for the development of Type 1, 2, and 5
cracks. At the connections directly over column supports, bearing stiffeners were
designed 9 in. on both sides of the floorbeam at interior bearings, and 8 in. on only
one side of the floorbeam at end bearings. The floorbeam flanges are typically 12 in.
wide and the bearing stiffeners are minimum 1 in. thick. This formed a second web
gap region of about 1 ½ - 2 ½ in. between the floorbeam bottom flange and girder
bearing stiffener, leading to the development of Type 3 cracks. At two connections,
Type 4 diagonal cracks were found at the bottom end of the connection stiffener to
girder web welds. These cracks were believed to be upward extension of Type 3
cracks, but were named differently due to the significant crack length and shape
developed at the detail. Type 6 cracks were found at the lower stiffener to floorbeam
bottom flange welds, and in many cases with a crack length of the entire plate width.
Since the connection stiffeners were interrupted by the floorbeam bottom flange, the
lower stiffener was provided under the floorbeam to continue stiffen the girder web.
The fillet welds that connect the lower stiffener to the floorbeam bottom flange were
field installed after the floorbeam had been erected in place, and were used as a detail
to allow construction tolerance to accommodate the varying floorbeam height and
slope relative to the girders. Field observation indicated that the cause of Type 6
cracks is twofold: the lateral movement of the floorbeam bottom flange, and the
defect in the weldment. At intermediate floorbeams off the column support, cracks
may have also developed due to the unequal vertical deflection of the girders.
An emergency repair was carried out in 2000 at nineteen floorbeam to girder
connections after the inspections discovered significant out-of-plane displacement
and crack propagation at a few critical units. All defective material was removed and
filled with new repair welds, and a 1 in. diameter stop hole was placed at the end if
the cracks were in the web. Because the cracks occurred in the bridges were mostly at
girder top flange web gaps, a pair of retrofit stiffeners were installed outside of the
existing floorbeam connection stiffeners and extended to the girder top flange. In
2004, another round of the repair was carried out at 1,077 floorbeam to girder
connections using the same repair mechanism, with additional application of the
ultrasonic impact treatment (UIT) at the repair welds that connected the retrofit

stiffener to the girder flange and floorbeam connection stiffener. This is about half of
the total 2,237 connections of the four bridges. Only 87 connections had actually
developed fatigue cracks, the rest of the repair candidates were chosen strategically at
locations with framing and support conditions that were determined most favorable to
crack development such as over the unsymmetric columns.
While the retrofit stiffeners prohibited crack development at the girder top flange web
gaps, it did not address the problem associated with the bearing stiffener web gaps.
This is because the Type 3 cracks occurred to this point were much less in number
than the top flange web gap cracks, and were attributed partly to the irregular weld
profile at the end of floorbeam flange to girder web welds due to the use of backing
strips. In addition, there are about another thousand floorbeam to girder connections
that were left not repaired in 2004. Due to the large out-of-plane bending moment
experienced by the bridges, cracks continued to develop and grow shortly after the
repair had been completed, at either an original as-built connection shown in Figure
3, or a previously repaired connection shown in Figure 4.
(a) Type 1 Crack (b) Type 3 Crack
(c) Type 6 Crack (d) Type 9 Crack
Figure 5 Inspection photos for selected crack details of the I-345 Bridges
According to the 2008 inspection report, Type 3 cracks have now developed at 37
floorbeam to girder connections, mostly over the columns, and in some cases at
previously repaired details. The floorbeam bottom flange was typically framed into
the lower half of the girder web below the neutral axis. This, however, is not the case
at a hunched girder section as shown in Figure 1, where the detail was located above
the neutral axis and subjected to tensile stresses incurred by the girder negative

flexural moment. The occurrence of the Type 10 cracks during this time period
reassured the severity of web gap fatigue problem developed at the bearing stiffeners.
This type of crack has been found at five connections so far, all at unsymmetric
column locations.
Cracks were also found to have developed at some additional welded details close to
the retrofit stiffeners. Type 7 cracks were found at the repair welds attaching the
retrofit stiffener to the girder top flange. This is a single-bevel full-penetration weld
placed in overhead position with the traffic directed to the opposite side of the bridge
roadway during the repair. In addition, the presence of girder bearing stiffener and
floorbeam web stiffener at the support locations caused very difficult access to the
repair detail. Of the 30 locations that developed Type 7 cracks, 27 are over column
support. Type 8 cracks were found at the floorbeam connection stiffener to floorbeam
web welds, at only one location in an end floorbeam. Type 9 cracks were found to
start from the top of the vertical repair welds and then propagate either diagonally
into the retrofit stiffener plate or downward along the welds. This type of crack was
found at only five locations. In total, the occurrence of Type 7, 8 and 9 cracks is 3%
of the repaired connections, and mostly over an interior or end support.
Another finding of the recent bridge inspections is the development of fatigue cracks
at floorbeam web gaps, as shown by the Type 11 and 12 cracks in both Figures 3 and
4. Almost all these cracks developed at the end floorbeams where significant bottom
flange vibration was noticed in the field as a result of truck impact at the expansion
joint.
Figure 5 shows the inspection photos of a few selected crack details mentioned above.
FIELD TEST AND FINITE ELEMENT STUDY

To better understand the bridge behavior and to help develop the next repair plan, the
University of Texas at Austin was consulted to conduct a series of field tests and
finite element (FE) analyses through the contract of TxDOT Research Project 5-4124.
Two units of the mainlane bridges were chosen for the test: the northbound unit F14N
as shown in Figure 6, and the southbound unit F17S as shown in Figure 7. Unit F14N
has a standard framing configuration with a 5° horizontal curve. Girder spacing (46
ft) and floorbeam overhang length (17 ft 6 in.) are constant throughout the unit, and
columns are provided underneath both girders at the supported floorbeams. Unit
F17S, on the contrary, consists of a totally irregular framing system. Due to the ramp
entrance on the north end of the unit, the inside girder flares out with the horizontal
curve decreasing from 7.5° to 2.2°. As a result, girder spacing also varies from 42ft to
60 ft, so the overhang length can be kept constant at 16 ft 6in. To avoid conflict with
the existing and future lower roadway, all the interior columns were located in a
staggered pattern between the two girders, which caused unsymmetric support for the
corresponding floorbeams.
Only one floorbeam, FB2, of Unit F14N was chosen for the instrumentation. The
connections at this floorbeam were not previously repaired, so the stress variation at
the girder top flange web gap can be measured [Figure 8(a)]. Strain gages were also
mounted on the girder web at the end of floorbeam bottom flange [Figure 8(b)]. This
measurement will be used to compare with those obtained at the connections over
column supports. The third group of strain gages was installed at floorbeam top and
bottom flanges, as shown in Figure 8(c), to study the degree of deck compositeness
and the floorbeam behavior under traffic loading. In addition, string potentiometers
were mounted on both ends of the floorbeam bottom flange close to the girders, to
measure the deflection of floorbeams.

Figure 6 Framing plan of Unit F14N

Figure 7 Framing plan of Unit F17S
(a) Top web gap gages (b) Bottom flange gages
(c) Floorbeam gages (d) Retrofit stiffener gages
Figure 8 Strain gage locations

Two floorbeams, FB16 and FB18, of Unit F17S were instrumented. Both floorbeams
have columns at only one of the supporting girders, leaving the other end of the
floorbeam somewhat “cantilevered”. Girder 2 is also hunched at the connection of
FB16, which adds another unsymmetry to the transverse cross section geometry. All
four connections of the two floorbeams had been repaired before with the installation
of retrofit stiffeners. As a result, retrofit stiffener gages, instead of web gap gages,
were mounted at these connections, on the girder interior side at the toe of the repair
welds [Figure 8(d)]. These gages were used to study the cause of Type 7 cracks that
occurred in some of the retrofit stiffener to top flange repair welds. The bottom flange
gages, floorbeam gages, and string potentiometers were also installed as in FB2 of
Unit F14N, except that the floorbeam gages at the column locations fell within the
bearing stiffener web gaps and were expected to pick up higher stresses.
Two dump trucks of approximately 40 kips each were used for the controlled live
load tests. A total of six runs were conducted for each unit: one truck on the far right
lane, one truck on the far left lane, two trucks side by side on the two right lanes, two
trucks side by side on the two left lanes, and then a repeat of both the first and second
runs. For each run, the test truck(s) maintained a speed of about 5 mph and stopped
for 10 seconds every time the first drive axle was above a test floorbeam. All other
traffic was kept off the bridge during each test run. After the controlled live load tests
were completed, the data acquisition system was reconfigured and left in place for
another week for rainflow counting, so that fatigue lives of the instrumented details
can be determined based on in-situ stresses.
The controlled live load test results indicated that the floorbeams act compositely
when the test truck is close by. The measured deflection of FB2 in Unit F14N is very
small even under the two-truck loading condition (0.08 in. maximum), due to the fact
that it is the first interior floorbeam from one end of the unit. The maximum
deflection at the cantilevered end of the floorbeams in Unit F17S is 0.15 in. and 0.3
in., respectively, for FB16 and FB18. Overall, the floorbeam flange stresses are very
low at all three test floorbeams. Though out-of-plane bending and twisting at
unsymmetric column locations were believed to occur based on data analysis, the
induced stresses are mostly insignificant and should not cause crack to occur at any
floorbeam flanges. At FB2 of Unit F14N, the maximum web gap stress range is about
8 ksi, slightly lower than the constant amplitude fatigue threshold (CAFT) of
AASHTO Detail Category C. The maximum stress range of the bottom flange gages
is almost 4 ksi, higher than the CAFT of Detail Category E’. For the details
instrumented in Unit F17S, the maximum stress range of the retrofit stiffener gages is
a little above 3 ksi. This is lower than ½ CAFT of Detail Category C’. The maximum
stress range of the bottom flange gages is about 5 ksi, almost twice the CAFT of
Detail Category E’.
The maximum stress ranges obtained from the rainflow counting program were found
to be much higher than those obtained from the controlled live load tests, though a
consistent stress pattern was noticed at all tested details. This is believed due to the
fact that the controlled live load tests were performed at a low speed, so the impact
effect is not included. Figures 9-11 summarize the stress range measurements of the
three test floorbeams under all loading circumstances.
Fatigue life calculation was then performed based on rainflow data using the effective
stress range results. Excluding the first bin of 0-1 ksi stress ranges, the calculated
fatigue lives are 947 yr., 73 yr., and 2 yr., for the floorbeam, bottom flange, and web
gap gage details, respectively, at FB2 of Unit F14N. At FB16 of Unit F17S, the
calculated fatigue lives are 2,926 yr., 29 yr., and 284 yr., for the floorbeam, bottom
flange, and retrofit stiffener gage details, respectively. The corresponding details were

estimated with 1,875 yr., 9 yr., and 579 yr. of fatigue life at FB18 of the same unit.
The test results thus concluded that the floorbeam flange and the retrofit stiffener to
Figure 9 Fatigue stress ranges summary for the details instrumented at FB2, Unit F14N
Figure 10 Fatigue stress ranges summary for the details instrumented at FB16, Unit F17S

Figure 11 Fatigue stress ranges summary for the details instrumented at FB18, Unit F17S
top flange welds should have no problem in regard to future fatigue crack
development. The girder web at floorbeam bottom flange connections could have a
fatigue life close to the targeted 75 years if the connection is off the support. This
however is reduced to only 29 or 9 years if at an unsymmetric column where bearing
stiffeners exist. The estimated life at the web gap detail is the shortest, only 2 years,
which matches the fact that this type of crack is the first found in the bridges, and is
still today the most predominant crack occurrence even after half of all the details
were repaired. The field test results suggested that the details most susceptible to
fatigue cracking are the web gaps at top flange and bearing stiffener, and the
condition worsens when an unsymmetric column is present.
Figure 12 FE submodel mesh and stress contour of FB2, Unit F14N

After the field tests were completed, FE analyses were performed using the general
finite element program ABAQUS to simulate the test procedure and to compare the
results obtained from the field instrumentation. Both two tested units were modeled.
A coarse to sub-modeling approach was used in order to properly determine the
fatigue stress variation at the local web gap region. Figure 12 shows the refined mesh
and in-plane stress contour at the submodel level of a FB2 connection in Unit F14N.
The stress gradient within the top flange web gap shows a typical stress distribution
pattern at this detail due to out-of-plane distortion. In general, the analytical solutions
were found to be in reasonable agreement with the field measurements. The
submodels were then revised to incorporate the repair methods proposed by TxDOT
Bridge Division. This will be discussed in the next section.
REPAIR DETAIL DEVELOPMENT

Although the field test indicated that the retrofit stiffeners should be of little concern
to fatigue cracking, 30 connections have already developed cracks at the top flange
repair welds (Type 7 cracks). Since the measured stress ranges were very low, the
cracks were believed to occur mainly due to the movement of traffic above the
bridge, either during the time when the repair weld was being placed, or after the fact
when the metal and weld were cooling down. Therefore, it is determined that any
field welding operation in the next repair will be only allowed with complete traffic
closure.
Figure 13 Top flange web gap repair
Since the retrofit stiffener solution did not turn out to be completely effective, plus
field welding takes long time to preheat and cool down, a stiffening angle repair was
proposed as shown in Figure 13. This repair, if successfully carried out, can be used
at both the as-built details to stop the growth of Type 1, 2, and 5 top flange web gap
cracks, and also the previously repaired details to prevent Type 7, 8, and 9 cracks.
The angles are designed to be connected to the girder flange with welded threaded
studs and to the floorbeam web with high strength bolts. DTI washers are to be used
to ensure minimum pretension in the fasteners. Since the field test showed very low
live load stress at the retrofit stiffener repair weld and this is believed to be what will
be experienced by the stiffening angle, as long as the stress caused by out-of-plane
distortion is less than the stress introduced in the studs by pretention, the performance
of the repair will be satisfactory. Field verification of the existing geometry is

important. As shown in Figure 13, Section A-A, at locations where a girder top flange
slope angle is involved, the fitting between the repair angle and the existing bridge
members could be a problem. In this situation, the stiffening angle will need to be
heat-treated and bent appropriately to ensure a tight fit with both the girder flange and
floorbeam web.
This repair was incorporated into the FE submodel of a FB2 connection in Unit
F14N. The analysis shows that the repair is effective in decreasing the stresses in the
top flange web gap, but will cause stress increase at coped floorbeam web area. Since
the maximum stress range reported at the new hot spot is much lower than the CAFT
of the corresponding detail category, the repair strategy is believed to be effective.

The stiffening angle repair, however, can not fit into the connections over the interior
supports, as the detail is enclosed by the girder bearing stiffener and floorbeam web
stiffener, so no access is allowed for bolt hole drilling and stud welding. Since most
of the critical connections over the interior columns had been repaired with retrofit
stiffeners, crack gouging and rewelding will be performed if Type 7 or 9 cracks
occurred. This is because the field test indicated that the retrofit stiffeners should
work, plus traffic will not be allowed on the bridge during the welding repair. So
hopefully these previously executed repair welds can be corrected after rewelding and
behave the way they suppose to. For connections over the columns that were not
previously repaired, crack rewelding or hole drilling will have to be performed if
Type 1, 2, or 5 cracks occurred. These connections are typically over symmetric
column supports and should experience less stress ranges than at the unsymmetric
columns. In addition to crack rewelding, a corbel plate repair scheme shown in Figure
14 was also developed for the connections over interior columns, to help reduce the
out-of-plane bending moment with a support from underneath the floorbeam, and
subsequently reduce the stress, if any, at the weld toe of the existing retrofit stiffeners,
or the stress at the top flange web gaps if no retrofit stiffener was previously installed.
Figure 14 Bearing stiffener web gap repair

While the corbel plate repair is hoped to help reduce stresses at the details close to the
girder top flange, it was designed with an initial intent to repair the bearing stiffener
web gap cracks (Types 3 and 10). As shown in Figure 14, a 1 in. corbel plate is to be
bolted on the outside of each bearing stiffener. A 1 in. angle bracket will then be
welded to the corbel plate and the floorbeam bottom flange. The repair is aimed at
distributing part of the horizontal floorbeam bottom flange force to the angle
brackets, then to the corbel plates, and finally to the bearing stiffeners. The other way
to look at this repair strategy is to treat the angle bracket as a stiffening component,
except that it is not placed right in front of the web gap between the bearing stiffener
and floorbeam bottom flange, due to the presence of the lower stiffener. The
unbalanced force from the opposite side of the girder web could subject the bearing
stiffeners to a beam-column loading condition, so the longer the corbel plate, the less
concentrated the lateral force will be on the bearing stiffener. This, in addition to the
capacity of the entire retrofit connection, was checked with the most critical truck
load conditions on the floorbeams. By positioning the angle brackets under the first
floorbeam web stiffeners, it is also expected that part of the floorbeam live load
reaction will be transferred to the bearing stiffeners, so the driving force for the top
flange web gap cracks or the other cracks associated with the retrofit stiffeners can be
reduced.
This repair was incorporated into the FE submodel of FB16 to Girder 2 connection in
Unit F17S. The stresses at the bearing stiffener web gap area were found to have
decreased effectively with the installation of the corbel plates and angle brackets. The
stresses at the coped floorbeam web, however, were found to rise slightly above the
CAFT. While the analysis suggested that the corbel plate repair would not help
reduce the stresses at the details close to the girder top flange due to the fact that these
stresses are caused by girder rotation over the column, it is also possible that the
stresses increased at some of these details because the same boundary condition of the
original submodel was imposed to the repair submodel as a simple and conservative
analysis approach. Since the reported stresses at these details prior to the repair were
much less than CAFT and the stress magnitude was not high in general after the
repair, plus the bearing stiffener web gap stresses were found effectively decreased,
the repair strategy is still considered effective and satisfactory.
FUTURE WORK
Due to the complexity of the fatigue problem experienced by the I-345 Bridges, a
long-term strategic plan needs to be laid out for future maintenance and retrofit.
Currently the bridges are inspected on a 12-month frequency. The repair contract that
includes the above mentioned stiffening angle and corbel plate schemes has been let
in July 2009 and is currently under construction. It is expected that this contract will
address all the cracks observed so far, so the inspection frequency can be set back to
24-month. Additional field test may also be needed to evaluate the performance of the
repair. Experience from the previous inspections, repairs, and research studies
suggests that, in the future, global repair methods need to be investigated and
incorporated with the local repairs. One solution is to make the girders and
floorbeams composite with the concrete deck. TxDOT Research Project 0-4124 has
provided several options to strengthen the existing noncomposite bridges with post-
installed shear connectors. Another option is to add columns at the cantilevered end
of the floorbeams to correct the unsymmetric support condition, and to reduce the
overall girder deflections as well. Continued future repair effort and close
coordination between designers, inspectors, researchers, and repair contractors will be
the key to the successful extension of the bridges’ life.

I-345 Bridge Repair: 459 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I-345 Bridge Repair: 459 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 459

I-345 Bridge Repair

Structures Congress 2010

designed with individual columns positioned wherever possible, supporting the

maximum) and long floorbeam overhang (17’-6” maximum) had to be designed at

FATIGUE CRACK DEVELOPMENT

Figure 3 As-built floorbeam-girder connection and crack development

Structures Congress 2010

Figure 4 Previously repaired floorbeam-girder connection and crack development

Structures Congress 2010

(a) Type 1 Crack (b) Type 3 Crack

(c) Type 6 Crack (d) Type 9 Crack

Structures Congress 2010

FIELD TEST AND FINITE ELEMENT STUDY

Structures Congress 2010

Figure 6 Framing plan of Unit F14N

Figure 7 Framing plan of Unit F17S

(a) Top web gap gages (b) Bottom flange gages

(c) Floorbeam gages (d) Retrofit stiffener gages

Figure 8 Strain gage locations

Structures Congress 2010

Structures Congress 2010

Structures Congress 2010

Figure 12 FE submodel mesh and stress contour of FB2, Unit F14N

Structures Congress 2010

REPAIR DETAIL DEVELOPMENT

Figure 13 Top flange web gap repair

Structures Congress 2010

of the corresponding detail category, the repair strategy is believed to be effective.

Figure 14 Bearing stiffener web gap repair

Structures Congress 2010

Structures Congress 2010

You might also like