Instrumentation and Modeling of Concrete Bridge Decks Sponsored by:

Matthew D'Ambrosia, Chang Joon Lee, David Lange, Zachary Grasley

OBJECTIVES FINITE ELEMENT MODELING MATERIALS

Bridge Total Length (ft) # of Spans Span Length Beam Type Beam Spacing

Shrinkage and creep modeled using RILEM

I-72/Duncan Rd. 222 4 41/68 33" steel WF beam 6'-6"

Measure strain and temperature of six newly Building the model consisted of three stages I-70/Big Creek 272 4 67/68 42" concrete bulb tee 7'-9"

constructed concrete bridge decks Draft Recommendation B3 fit with laboratory

test data and incorporated into structural model
0

Assess overall deck behavior during daily

esh(t, to) - B3
-100
Shell Element IBL44R1

Shrinkage Strain (x10

-6
)
-200 IDL44R1

cycles and long term changes of temperature

IDL41R1
-300

-400

and internal humidity 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00

-500

-600
Node
Concrete girder
30

A1
MPC Pier
-700
0 100 200 300 400

Determine stress development in concrete Age

Temperature(
25

C)
o
deck due to drying shrinkage and temperature 20 A7
Shell Element
Roller support  dx dz free, dy fixed, θx θz free, θy fixed

changes using field data and FEM Pin support  dx dy dz fixed, θx θy θz free Cement (Type I)
Bridge Name SG
3.15
Duncan Rd
515
Big Creek
545
MPC  Different nodal point for temperature, Geometric accuracy

Concrete Mixture Proportions

15
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
Fly Ash 2.65 140
Time(day) Silica Fume 2.20 25
Coarse Aggregate 2.67 1863 1820

Assess the potential for early age and long Fine Aggregate
w/c ratio
AEA (Grace Daravair 1400)
2.60

oz/cwt
1108
0.44
0.72
1240
0.44
1.01
term cracking. Evaluate material and structural Type A WR (Grace Daracem 65)
Type F HRWR (Grace Daracem 19)
oz/cwt
oz/cwt
1.51
6.19
interaction and implications for design
RESULTS
INSTRUMENTATION Thermal Analysis  Deck-girder interaction  Structural system/boundary conditions DISCUSSION AND
Example:
I-70/Big Creek Bridge, Clark Co., IL
CONCLUSIONS
(typical for other bridges)
Structural finite element model was validated
 High performance concrete bridge deck successfully with field strain measurements
 Skewed alignment using field temperature measurements and
 Continuous supports material model as input
 275’ long, 4 spans, longest span 67 feet
 Concrete girders
 16 strain gages, 26 thermocouples, 6 RH sensors
B A
Comparison of two bridge structures with
Datalogger C
similar concrete materials showed that structural
300 600
restraint produces higher stress in the bridge
200 400 with concrete beams. Stresses were generated
100

in areas of higher restraint such as over the pier

Field Data Bottom Surface
200
( )

Stress(psi)
Microsstrain 

and over the girders

-100

-200 -200

Deformation Map (1000x) Duncan Rd Bridge, 56 Days Deformation Map (1000x) Big Creek Bridge, 56 Days
-300
Analysis -400
-400 Top Surface
-600

Majority of stress development over time is

-500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age (day)
Age (day)
(a) DUNCAN, location A (a) DUNCAN – STEEL GIRDER, Location A
600

due to drying shrinkage - Temperature changes

300 Bottom Surface

200 400
thermocouples

deform the whole bridge system, including the

Field Data
Mid-top
100
200
( )

Stress(psi)
Microsstrain 

Typical Sensor Locations girders and do not induce very

DAYS much stress
Mid-mid
0
6.5" -100
BIG CREEK / 56
Mid-bot
3.8" Top Surface
-200 Analysis
-200 700
1.0" #4 reinforcing bars -300
-400
strain gages
600
-400

MAX. STRESS (PSI)


-600
-500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 10 20 30 40
Age (day)
(b) BIG CREEK, Location A
50 60 70 80 Age (day)
(b) BIG CREEK – CONCRETE GIRDER, Location A Role of shrinkage
500
on bridge deck stress
BOTTOM SURFACE400

300
Cellular antenna - 200
transmits data through
100 TOP SURFACE
analog cellular phone
modem connection 0

-100
20 40 60 80 100

Solar panel - charges % OF MEASURED SHRINKAGE PLUS CREEP

12 V lead-acid battery

Strain gage and thermocouple

Datalogger
positions– reads 28 30 35 70 84 Days 21 28 42 56 Days
sensors and stores data
until transmission
Model strain validated with actual field strain measurements Model stress predictions show higher stress in concrete beam bridge