Investigation of Large Web Fractures of Welded Steel Plate Girder Bridge

Zhou, Yang; Biegalski, Amy Eitel

doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000111

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is assumed that the worst temperature these two bridges will experience during their service life will be between −25°C and −50°C. According to previous studies, the fracture toughness of the web of the steel girder at the intermediate loading rate for this temperature will be estimated to be 71

MPa \sqrt{m}

(2,245

MPa \sqrt{mm}

), which is within the variation range of the fracture toughness of A36 steel (250 MPa) . Comparing the calculated SIF with the critical one, cracks under same conditions as Girders A and B with the initial length of 200 mm will not propagate spontaneously.…”

Section: Calculation Of the Maximum Stable Length Of A Crackmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Cracks may form in the steel girders of bridges as a result of stress concentration in the vicinity of a large initial defect in the material or weld. Cracks will be categorized as distortion‐induced cracks, cracks as a result of large initial defects, cracks related to connection restrained, or cracks in welded flange and web connection plates (such as plates for connecting cross bracing to the web) . It is important to detect cracks before they become unstable and propagate spontaneously.…”

Section: Calculation Of the Maximum Stable Length Of A Crackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cracks will be categorized as distortion-induced cracks, cracks as a result of large initial defects, cracks related to connection restrained, or cracks in welded flange and web connection plates (such as plates for connecting cross bracing to the web). [4][5][6][7] It is important to detect cracks before they become unstable and propagate spontaneously. This will reduce the rehabilitation costs and enhance safety.…”

Section: Calculation Of the Maximum Stable Length Of A Crackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Fatigue cracks may occur as a result of environmental stresses and cyclic truck traffic over a steel girder bridge, and it can be categorized Notation: a, half of the length of the crack (mm); d, depth of the girder (mm); E, elasticity modulus of steel (MPa); ε, strain; K I , fracture toughness MPa ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi mm p ð Þ ; K IC , critical fracture toughness MPa ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi mm p ð Þ ; w, distributed load (N/mm); l, length of the span (mm); M, bending moment (N · mm); S, dection modulus (mm 3 ); σ a , stress at other end of the crack (MPa); σ ave , average stress along the length of the crack (MPa); σ f , far − field stress (MPa) as distortion-induced cracks, cracks as a result of large initial defects, cracks related to connection restrained, or cracks in welded flange and web gusset plates. [4][5][6][7] Although the cracks may propagate and in some instances, it may result in brittle fracture from crack instability, 4 in most of the cases, ductility and redundancy of the bridges have prevented the catastrophic failure. 3 Detection of cracks in steel girders is important for public safety, to detect cracks when they can be repaired with minimum loss of service and to prevent the unpredictable loss of service and associated expenses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Placement of distributed crack sensor on I‐shaped steel girders of medium‐span bridges, using available field data

Raeisi

Mufti

Algohi

et al. 2019

Struct Control Health Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary It is critical to detect cracks in steel girders of bridges before they have the potential to compromise the integrity of the structure. Both distributed binary sensors and distributed fiber optic sensors are capable of detecting cracks that are wider than 0.2 mm in steel girders. The objective of this paper is to report the optimum placement of these sensors on the girder to detect smallest possible length of the crack. In this work, the optimized placement of crack sensors was studied using FEM of two typical medium‐span simply supported steel girder bridges (Girder A, 30‐m–long span, and Girder B, 22‐m–long span). Using loads estimated from field monitoring data and FEM, a map of crack opening along the length of the crack was calculated for stable crack lengths. Using these maps and given the detectable crack opening of 0.2 mm, the optimum place to position a distributed crack sensor to detect the smallest crack length was determined. For Girder A, the sensor should be placed at 150 to 250 mm above flange at midspan and at one third from the support, and for the rest of the length of the girder, it should be placed at 200–300 mm above the bottom flange. For Girder B, the optimum placement for installation of binary sensor is estimated to be at 150 to 220 mm above the tension flange. The proposed method of calculation of placement can be used for installation of distributed sensors on other types of bridges.

show abstract

MPa \sqrt{m}

(2,245

MPa \sqrt{mm}

Section: Calculation Of the Maximum Stable Length Of A Crackmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Calculation Of the Maximum Stable Length Of A Crackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Calculation Of the Maximum Stable Length Of A Crackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Placement of distributed crack sensor on I‐shaped steel girders of medium‐span bridges, using available field data

Raeisi

Mufti

Algohi

et al. 2019

Struct Control Health Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Type 2 cracks have also been found to propagate deep into the web of steel girder bridges, as was observed in a Maryland highway bridge investigated by Zhou and Biegalski (2010) . This skewed continuous steel girder bridge had web fractures initiating near the tension fl ange and extending the entire depth of the web.…”

Section: Typical Fatigue Crack Locations and Typesmentioning

confidence: 58%