2017 Virginia Concrete Conference Inverted T-Beam Update - Next Phase

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "2017 Virginia Concrete Conference Inverted T-Beam Update - Next Phase"

Lillian Fox
5 years ago
Views:

1 2017 Virginia Concrete Conference Inverted T-Beam Update - Next Phase March 3, 2017 Chris Lowe, P.E. Design Engineering Program Manager VDOT Central Office Structure & Bridge Division

2 Outline Past Research 2015 Presentation by Professor Carin L. Roberts-Wollmann, PhD, P.E. Background Fabrication & Construction Production Erection Post Construction Future Research Concrete Mixes to control shrinkage Longer beams to increase spans 2

3 Background What is it? VDOT Std. Voided Slab French Poutre-Dalle Minnesota Inverted T-Beam Virginia Inverted T-Beam

4 Background Virginia Inverted T-Beam Cast-in-Place Deck Prestressed Inverted T-Beam 4

5 Background VDOT Standard Voided Slab Shear Key w/ Non-Shrink, High Strength Grout

6 Background Shear Key failures cause leaks!

7 Shear Key failures cause leaks! Background

8 Shear Key failures cause leaks! Background

9 Shear Key failures cause leaks! Background

10 Background History of the Inverted T-Beam FHWA scanning tour Minnesota DOT (MNDOT) VDOT Benefits Accelerate construction Improved performance of connection between adjacent beams. Poutre-Dalle System (Ralls et al., 2005) 10

11 Background MNDOT Inverted T-Beam, Final Report (French, 2012)

12 Background History of the Inverted T-Beam (MNDOT) Developed a similar system with minor changes Implemented on 12 bridges between 2005 and 2011 w/ numerous modifications to improve performance Experienced reflective cracks and shrinkage cracks Inverted T-Beam (Hagen et al., 2005) 12

13 Crack Map for Bridge No , Inspection No. 3 (Dimaculangan and Lesch, 2010) 13

14 Background History of the Inverted T-Beam (VDOT) Lessons learned from MNDOT Applied for FHWA Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment (IBRD) funds Invited precast industry for input Research (VTRC) Design (VDOT) Implementation 14

15 Background 15

16 Background Route 360 Project 6 lanes divided over the Chickahominy River (no additional capacity) 4 bridges structurally deficient 2 are identical in size and type Maintain existing profile grade line Maintain low chord for hydraulics 16

17 Fabrication & Construction Test Slab/beam acting monolithically 17

18 Fabrication & Construction Test Slab/beam acting monolithically 18

19 Fabrication & Construction Test Slab/beam acting monolithically 19

20 Fabrication & Construction Flexure cracks Test beam flexure crack in CIP deck 20

21 Fabrication & Construction Test beam flexure crack in CIP deck 21

22 Fabrication & Construction Test beam flexure crack in CIP deck 22

23 Fabrication & Construction Inverted T-Beam formwork 23

24 Fabrication & Construction Live Load Test 24

25 Fabrication & Construction LIDAR Scan 25

26 Welded Flange Connection Fabrication & Construction C C 26

27 Fabrication & Construction Post Construction Voided Slabs Longitudinal cracking evident in B601 & B606 Inverted T-beams No visible cracks detected upon recent visual inspection 27

28 Post Construction Deck crack on B606 28

29 Post Construction Deck crack on B606 29

30 Post Construction Deck cracks on B601 30

31 Post Construction Deck cracks on B601 31

32 Future Research Concrete Deck Mix Design Reduce Shrinkage Strains Control (regular A4) Fly Ash Slag Shrinkage Reducing Admixture Lightweight Coarse Aggregate Lightweight Fine Aggregate w/ Normal weight Coarse Aggregate

33 Future Research Concrete Deck Mix Design Goals Control Deck Cracking Reduce/eliminate shrinkage cracks Reduce restrained shrinkage with a high creep mix Cost effective

34 Future Research Concrete Beam Design Extend Span Length w/ existing 18 section Use lightweight beam and deck Focus on ease of fabrication/construction Eliminating horizontal shear reinforcing Lightweight beams (smaller cranes) Custom bridge widths Currently, 6n+2 (14, 20, 26, 30...)

35 Future Research Ability to Customize Beam Widths 35

36 Developing Standards Concrete Beam Design Goals Determine max. Span length using same 18 deep beam Deflection limited conditions Customize bridge widths Extend details to bridges with low skew angles (less than 30 deg) Finalize LL distribution factors 36

37 Future Research Concrete Beam Design Goals Eliminate the welded flange connection Eliminate horizontal shear reinforcing by optimizing interface shear surface roughening Optimize lightweight concrete mix to minimize cracking (deck and beam) Extend details to bridges with high skew angles (greater than 30 deg.) 37

38 Acknowledgements FHWA/VTRC Report by; Fatmir Menkulasi, Ph.D., P.E. Carin L. Roberts-Wollmann, Ph.D., P.E. Thomas Cousins, Ph.D., P.E. Research Project Manager Michael Brown, Ph.D., P.E. VDOT Central Office Andrew Zickler, P.E. VDOT Construction Manager Doug Kisamore Corman Construction Chris Rutkai, P.E. Assistant Professor, Wayne State University Professor, Virginia Tech Professor, Clemson University Former Associate Director, VTRC Complex Bridge Program Manager Construction Manager/LAP Construction Project Manager 38

39 Questions? 39

Route 360 Inverted T-beams. Carin Roberts-Wollmann Virginia Tech Tommy Cousins Clemson University Fatmir Menkulasi Louisiana Tech

Route 360 Inverted T-beams. Carin Roberts-Wollmann Virginia Tech Tommy Cousins Clemson University Fatmir Menkulasi Louisiana Tech Route 360 Inverted T-beams Carin Roberts-Wollmann Virginia Tech Tommy Cousins Clemson University Fatmir Menkulasi Louisiana Tech Background Outline Scope and Objectives Development and Testing Topping