International Bridge Study (IBS) Introduction and Overview

Jeffrey Weidner, Franklin Moon and A. Emin AktanIntelligent Infrastructure Systems, LLC and Drexel University

U.S. Bridge Performance Research

Create a comprehensive database of quantitative data related to bridge performance

Underpin the next generation of bridge decision-making tools

Improve bridge preservation and renewal practices

Long-term Bridge Performance ProgramInternational Bridge

Study (CAIT)New Technologies

New Facilities/Research Capabilities

Synergistic Research (NCHRP, NSF, NIST, etc.)

Opportunity Projects

Test-bed for International Collaboration between the US, EU, and Asia• US (CAIT, IIS, Drexel, WMU, Inspecttech, Pennoni, GT, Olson Eng), EU (UK, Austria,

Switzerland) and Asia (Japan, Korea, China) teams will…• Demonstrate their respective best practices related to

• Bridge inspection• Structural identification by various experimental techniques. • Prognosis and load rating

• Establish global and local baseline properties

• Anticipated Outcomes• Development of International Guidelines for the Application of Technology to bridges

• Submitted to FHWA and AASHTO for approval to serve as the basis for standards• NIST and ASCE will also be invited to participate

• A facility for round-robin studies by technology providers and researchers

International Bridge Study (NJDOT)

International Bridge Study (NJDOT)In addition to providing quantitative data associated with critical performances, the International Bridge Study will….• Demonstrate and document the best-practices in bridge technology integration• Serve as classrooms and field laboratories for educating tomorrow’s

•Bridge inspectors, Consultants, Technology providers, DOT, FHWA workforce• Serve as validation test-beds for the assessment of new and developing

technologies• Serve as field calibration hubs (quality control, quality assurance) for bridge

inspection and technology providers• Move technology application from diagnosis, to diagnosis and prognosis to address

bridge-specific concerns.

Guidelines: Volume IThis document will be aimed towards owners and will aide them in identifying appropriate applications of technology, selecting appropriate contractors, and overseeing the effort

Some guiding questions…

• How can mechanistic and quantitative assessment methods offered by technology be effectively merged with the current qualitative and heuristic-based practice?

• What is the role of experimental and simulation technologies related to answering the questions of an owner – e.g. how do I keep this bridge in service for 50 years?

• How can we promote moving beyond “technology-push” and “advertisement technology” applications to real value-added applications?

• In what situations are the various technologies cost effective? How can one quantify their cost effectiveness?

Qualitative, Heuristic-based Performance Evaluation

Quantitative Conceptualization of Geometry and Materials

Simulation, NDE, Short-Term Structural Testing, and Model Calibration

Prognosis, Risk Assessment, and Selection/ Implementation of Corrective Actions

Operational, Security and Structural Health Monitoring within Asset Management

In-depth Visual Inspection aided by handheld devices to ensure comprehensive photographic and descriptive documentation.

Surveying and GPS to capture a sparse but accurate number of dimensions to reconstruct or validate plans/drawings

Development of FE Models and Simulations to identify critical sections, members, connections, and associated failure modes

Establish Critical Demand and Capacity Envelopes and obtain reliable load capacity rating and reliability

Operational Enhancements including variable lanes and speed limits, warning systems for wind/ice, open-road tolling, etc.

Practical Local NDE as needed to enhance and validate visual inspection

Non-Contact Geometry Capture (photogrammetry, laser scanning) to obtain a higher resolution and more precise geometric representation of complex regions

NDE of critical sections, members, connections with clearly identified uncertainties

Identification of Critical Hazards that may mobilize the inherent vulnerabilities of the structure.

Automated Operational Monitoring and Law Enforcement including speed and lane change monitoring, weigh-in-motion, license plate ID, auto flagging/enforcement, etc.

Controlled Load Testing at either Diagnostic- or Proof-Level loads to establish force-resisting mechanisms and load paths

Scenario Analysis and Risk Assessment to identify and rank the most critical risks

Security Monitoring including comprehensive surveillance, video analytics, weigh-in-motion, explosive sniffing sensors, etc.Knowledge Engineering

informed by interviews with experienced engineers to capture related heuristics

Material Sampling and Testing to fully characterize in-situ materials related to their mechanical properties (strength, stiffness), chemical composition, microstructure, etc.

Short-Term Monitoring of live load and temperature induced responses to characterize loading environment

Estimate the Cost of a Failure to Perform including potential loss of human life, direct costs, user costs, economic impact, etc.

Structural Health Monitoring to track critical responses, real-time image/video, automated comparison with simulation models, real-time rating, automated reporting, etc.

Forced-Vibration Testing and modal analysis to capture global dynamic properties and modal flexibility

Identification of Appropriate Actions that may consist of risk mitigation through retrofit or hazard minimization (e.g. posting), monitoring, or “do nothing”.

Development of an Information Warehouse complete with a chronology from historic records, narratives, legacy data and information for archival

Development of 3D CAD to fully conceptualize the structural form and to serve as the interface with the information warehouse and basis for an FE model

Ambient Vibration Testing to capture operating global modal parameters

Calibration of FE Models by reconciling measured and simulated responses through modification of uncertain aspects

Implementation of Corrective Action monitored to validate design, staging and to provide baseline response for future performance assessment

Special and Custom Inspections based on SHM – Lifecycle Costing, Asset Management

Convincing Owners to Give a “Second Chance”

Benefit to Owner

Steward

Experience Generated

Reality???

Perception“Bubble” fueled by excitement and over-selling (snake oil)

“Backlash” fueled by lack of tangible

benefitsConception of

Paradigm (technology

transfer)

Overly optimistic Overly pessimistic

Guidelines: Volume II and Volume IIIThese documents will be far more technical in nature as they address technology vendors and structural engineers who lead technology efforts

Some guiding questions…

• What is an appropriate framework to identify and leverage technologies in an integrated and effective manner?

• What emerging technologies exist that are mature enough to enter the market and offer benefits over both current practice and conventional technologies?

• What are the best practices associated with the individual assessment approaches examined?

• How consistent are the experimental results across different groups that employ different techniques? Should various testing approaches be employed in parallel? What is the trade-off between competing approaches (ambient vs. forced dynamic testing)?

Hei

ght

Abo

ve

Tow

er B

ase

(ft)

Frequency

Ac

cel

Frequency

Hei

ght

Abo

ve

Tow

er B

ase

(ft)

Ac

cel

Frequency

Hei

ght

Abo

ve

Tow

er B

ase

(ft)

Ac

cel

Structural IdentificationActionable Information

IBS Test Structure SelectionPrinciple Criteria:“Necessity is the mother of invention” - Plato• The test bridge should display performance issues for which the path forward is

unclear – if there aren’t any questions, there are no need for answers…

Secondary Criteria:

The test bridge should…• Belong to a common family so results may be extrapolated to other bridge

• Provide for easy access for various technology applications

• Pose challenges related to assessment and load rating

• Have complete documentation

US 202/NJ 23 Bridge, Wayne, NJ20 miles

vv

Northern NJ

GWB

Wayne

US 202/NJ 23 Bridge, Wayne, NJ

Quantitative Overview

Year Built 1983-1984

Span # Span 1 Span 2 Span 3 Span 4 Overall

Direction NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB -

Length 105' 130' 130' 130' 70' 70' 130' 114' 429'

Width 61.75' 61.75' 61.75' 61.75' 61.75' 61.75' 61.75' 61.75' 123.5'

Skew Angle 0° 0° 0°/66° 0°/66° 66° 66° 66°/80° 66° -

Clearance 22+' 22+' 22+' 22+' 22' 22' 22+' 22+' -

Lanes 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 7

Deck Condition Rating 7 – Good (2008)

Superstructure Condition Rating 5 – Fair (2008)

Substructure Condition Rating 7 – Good (2008)

23%

48%

29%

Span Length (ft)

121 ≤ L ≤ 150

ADTT

10000 ≤ A

61 ≤ L ≤ 9091 ≤ L ≤ 120

A ≤ 10001001 ≤ A ≤ 50005001 ≤ A ≤ 10000

Age (yrs)

7 ≤ R

Superstructure Condition Rating

36 ≤ Y ≤ 40

R ≤ 45 ≤ R ≤ 6

14%

69%

8%

9% 20 ≤ Y ≤ 2526 ≤ Y ≤ 3031 ≤ Y ≤ 35

8%

10%

31%

51%

75%

25%

Placing the Structure in Context

Maximum Span Length (ft)Total

L < 60 61 < L < 150 151 < L

Age (yr)

0 < Y < 20 31 97 14 142

21 < Y < 40 60 680 49 789

41 < Y < 60 309 775 19 1103

61 < Y < 80 324 87 0 411

81 < Y 269 23 0 292

Total 993 1662 82 2737

Multi-girder/ stringer

Total Bridge Population (New Jersey)

Steel

Structural form

Material/ Structural

form

Sub-population: 2737 (43%)

23%

48%

29%

Span Length (ft)

121 ≤ L ≤ 150

ADTT

10000 ≤ A

61 ≤ L ≤ 9091 ≤ L ≤ 120

A ≤ 10001001 ≤ A ≤ 50005001 ≤ A ≤ 10000

Age (yrs)

7 ≤ R

Superstructure Condition Rating

36 ≤ Y ≤ 40

R ≤ 45 ≤ R ≤ 6

14%

69%

8%

9% 20 ≤ Y ≤ 2526 ≤ Y ≤ 3031 ≤ Y ≤ 35

8%

10%

31%

51%

75%

25%

23%

48%

29%

Span Length (ft)

121 ≤ L ≤ 150

ADTT

10000 ≤ A

61 ≤ L ≤ 9091 ≤ L ≤ 120

A ≤ 10001001 ≤ A ≤ 50005001 ≤ A ≤ 10000

Age (yrs)

7 ≤ R

Superstructure Condition Rating

36 ≤ Y ≤ 40

R ≤ 45 ≤ R ≤ 6

14%

69%

8%

9% 20 ≤ Y ≤ 2526 ≤ Y ≤ 3031 ≤ Y ≤ 35

8%

10%

31%

51%

75%

25%

23%

48%

29%

Span Length (ft)

121 ≤ L ≤ 150

ADTT

10000 ≤ A

61 ≤ L ≤ 9091 ≤ L ≤ 120

A ≤ 10001001 ≤ A ≤ 50005001 ≤ A ≤ 10000

Age (yrs)

7 ≤ R

Superstructure Condition Rating

36 ≤ Y ≤ 40

R ≤ 45 ≤ R ≤ 6

14%

69%

8%

9% 20 ≤ Y ≤ 2526 ≤ Y ≤ 3031 ≤ Y ≤ 35

8%

10%

31%

51%

75%

25%

US 202/NJ 23 Bridge, Wayne, NJ

US-202/NJ-23 Bridge – Condition Overview

International Research CollaboratorsJapan• University of Tokyo• Central Nippon Expressway Co. (NEXCO-W)• Keisoku Research ConsultantEuropean Union• Sheffield University (United Kingdom)• Vienna Consulting Engineers (Austria)• École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Switzerland)South Korea• KAIST• Seoul National University• INHA University• Pyunghwa Engineering Consultants• Korea Expressway Corporation• SEJONG UniversityChina• Southeast University

Domestic Research Collaborators• Rutgers University, Center for Advanced

Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT)• Intelligent Infrastructure Solutions, LLC• Parsons Brinckerhoff• Utah State University • Drexel University• Princeton University• Georgia Tech• Western Michigan University• Inspecttech• Pennoni Associates• Olsen Engineering• Smart Structures• University of New Hampshire

International Bridge Study (IBS) Introduction and Overview

PRESENTED BY:

Franklin Moon and A. Emin AktanIntelligent Infrastructure Systems, LLC

Typical Performance Issues

Bearing “walking”, cracked pintel,

Fatigue cracking

Cracked RC pier cap