Design and Fabrication Standards to Eliminate Fracture Critical Concerns in Two Girder Bridge Systems

Print
General Information
Study Number: TPF-5(238)
Lead Organization: Indiana Department of Transportation
Contract Start Date: Aug 11, 2011
Solicitation Number: 1257
Partners: Army Corps of Engineers, FHWA, IADOT, ID, MN, NC, OR, VA, WI
Status: Closed
Est. Completion Date: Jul 31, 2014
Contract/Other Number:
Last Updated: Apr 17, 2019
Contract End Date:
Financial Summary
Contract Amount: $860,000.00
Total Commitments Received: $860,000.00
100% SP&R Approval: Approved
Contact Information
Lead Study Contact(s): Tommy Nantung
tnantung@indot.in.gov
Phone: 765-463-1521 ext 248
FHWA Technical Liaison(s): Justin Ocel
justin.ocel@dot.gov
Phone: 202-493-3080
Organization Year Commitments Technical Contact Name Funding Contact Name Contact Number Email Address
Army Corps of Engineers 2011 $20,000.00 Phillip Sauser Christopher Westbrook 202-761-7584 Christopher.H.Westbrook@usace.army.mil
Army Corps of Engineers 2012 $20,000.00 Phillip Sauser Christopher Westbrook 202-761-7584 Christopher.H.Westbrook@usace.army.mil
Army Corps of Engineers 2013 $20,000.00 Phillip Sauser Christopher Westbrook 202-761-7584 Christopher.H.Westbrook@usace.army.mil
Federal Highway Administration 2010 $400,000.00 Justin Ocel Justin Ocel 202-493-3080 justin.ocel@dot.gov
Idaho Department of Transportation 2010 $20,000.00 Matt Farrar Ned Parrish 208-334-8296 ned.parrish@itd.idaho.gov
Idaho Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Matt Farrar Ned Parrish 208-334-8296 ned.parrish@itd.idaho.gov
Idaho Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Matt Farrar Ned Parrish 208-334-8296 ned.parrish@itd.idaho.gov
Iowa Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Michael Nop Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Michael Nop Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Michael Nop Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Todd Niemann Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Todd Niemann Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Todd Niemann Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2010 $20,000.00 Greg Perfetti Neil Mastin 919 707 6661 jmastin@ncdot.gov
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Greg Perfetti Neil Mastin 919 707 6661 jmastin@ncdot.gov
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Greg Perfetti Neil Mastin 919 707 6661 jmastin@ncdot.gov
Oregon Department of Transportation 2011 $10,000.00 Hormoz Seradj Michael Bufalino 503-986-2845 Michael.Bufalino@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2012 $10,000.00 Hormoz Seradj Michael Bufalino 503-986-2845 Michael.Bufalino@odot.state.or.us
Virginia Department of Transportation 2010 $20,000.00 JP Gomez Bill Kelsh 434-293-1934 Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 JP Gomez Bill Kelsh 434-293-1934 Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 JP Gomez Bill Kelsh 434-293-1934 Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 JP Gomez Bill Kelsh 434-293-1934 Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Alex Pence Lynn Hanus 608-267-2294 lynnm.hanus@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Alex Pence Lynn Hanus 608-267-2294 lynnm.hanus@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Alex Pence Lynn Hanus 608-267-2294 lynnm.hanus@dot.wi.gov

Study Description

The two girder bridge system was developed in the two decade period starting in the 1950s. Designers recognized the inherent structural efficiency of these systems and a number of bridges were built. Unfortunately, knowledge of the fatigue and fracture limit states was not sufficiently advanced to avoid problems in service. A number of these early bridges suffered from fatigue and fracture problems in service. Following the Silver Bridge collapse, the concept of a ;fracture critical bridge was introduced that required extra quality assurance and inspection measures for bridge types with low structural redundancy. This had the beneficial effect of reducing weld defects and improving quality in the fabrication shop. However, the fracture control plan also saddled fracture critical; bridges with a lifetime requirement for more rigorous in-service inspection. The purpose is to discover relatively small fatigue cracks before they grow large enough to present a fracture risk. Experience has shown that fatigue is only one of many causes of fracture, and there are few reported cases where fracture critical inspection has helped prevent brittle fracture. Despite the fact that fracture critical inspection provides limited benefits, it is still mandated in the U.S. for steel bridges deemed to have low load path redundancy. This is a major cost burden for bridge owners, consequently few fracture critical" bridges are being built today in the US. This contrasts with practice around the world where there are no special inspection requirements for;fracture critical; concerns.

For major steel bridge structures, it may be reasonable to expect 20% to 30% initial cost savings for a two girder system compared to multi-girder alternate designs. Surveys of world practice indicate that two-girder systems are routinely built and are performing well in service without any special fracture critical; concerns. There are many other situations where structural efficiency may be improved through use of cross girders or other elements that are currently avoided because they are classified as;fracture critical;. There is a clear economic benefit associated with elimination of fracture critical in-service inspection requirements. However, it is recognized that this will represent a major change in practice and it can only be considered if there is an assurance that bridge safety is not compromised.

Objectives

The FHWA currently has the authority to allow owners to forego fracture critical inspection for low redundancy bridge structures on a case by case basis, but this has rarely been done since no guidance is available for ensuring bridge safety. This project will establish guidance that provides a high level of bridge safety that can then form the basis for in-service inspection decisions.

When considering the estimated projects costs, it must be recognized that the results of this research will be trans formative for the steel bridge industry. For the first time, material selection, design, and inspection will be rationally integrated to eliminate fracture concerns. This can result in significant cost savings for medium and long span bridges and facilitate introduction of modular concepts for short span bridges.

Scope of Work

This project will involve the following tasks that establish the protocols for design and construction of non-fracture critical structures:

Experimental study of fracture in I-girders to determine supplemental toughness requirements

Full scale fracture tests

Fracture Mechanics Tests

Establish damage tolerant design concepts to utilize toughness and set in-service inspection requirements.

Detailed, 3D Finite element modeling of a two girder bridge system to set detailing requirements for redundancy. Ideally this will include analysis of a two girder concept for an actual bridge project.

Develop a guide specification for design and fabrication of non-fracture critical low redundancy structures.

Comments

Estimated cost: $500,000 - $750,000

Requested funding is $20,000 per year, for 3 years. One-time contributions will also be accepted.

Documents Attached
Title File/Link Type Privacy Download
TPF-5(238) FINAL REPORT - PART 1 Material Toughness Characterization TPF-5(238) FINAL REPORT - PART 1 Material Toughness Characterization.pdf Final Report Public
TPF-5(238) FINAL REPORT - PART 2 Experimental TPF-5(238) Final Report Part 2 - Experimental.pdf Final Report Public
Acceptance Memo 12271001.pdf Memorandum Public
TPF-5(238) Closeout Letter TPF-5(238) Closeout Letter Signed.pdf Memorandum Public
TPF-5(238) Closeout Funding Spreadsheet TPF-5(238) Closeout Funding Spreadsheet.pdf Other Public
July-September 2011 TPF 5-238 Sept 2001 QPR - 2.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: October - December 2011 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Oct to Dec 2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: January - March 2012 TPF 5(238) Progress Report January to March 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: March - June 2012 TPF-5(238) QPR - March to June 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2012 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Jul to Sep 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: October - December 2012 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Oct to Dec 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: January - March 2013 TPF 5(238) Progress Report January to March 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: April - June 2013 TPF 5(238) Progress Report April to June 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2013 TPF 5(238) Progress Report June to September 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: October - December 2013 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Oct to Dec 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: January - March 2014 TPF 5(238) Progress Report January to March 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: April - June 2014 TPF 5(238) Progress Report April to June 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2014 TPF 5(238) Progress Report July to September 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Oct - December 2014 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Oct to December 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: January - March 2015 TPF 5(238) Progress Report January to March 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: April - June 2015 TPF 5(238) Progress Report April to June 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2015 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Jul to Sept 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Oct - December 2015 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Oct - December 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Jan - Mar 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Jan - Mar 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: April - June 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Apr - Jun 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Jul - Sep 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Oct - December 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Oct - Dec 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Jan - Mar 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Jan - Mar 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public

Design and Fabrication Standards to Eliminate Fracture Critical Concerns in Two Girder Bridge Systems

General Information
Study Number: TPF-5(238)
Lead Organization: Indiana Department of Transportation
Contract Start Date: Aug 11, 2011
Solicitation Number: 1257
Partners: Army Corps of Engineers, FHWA, IADOT, ID, MN, NC, OR, VA, WI
Status: Closed
Est. Completion Date: Jul 31, 2014
Contract/Other Number:
Last Updated: Apr 17, 2019
Contract End Date:
Financial Summary
Contract Amount: $860,000.00
Total Commitments Received: $860,000.00
100% SP&R Approval:
Contact Information
Lead Study Contact(s): Tommy Nantung
tnantung@indot.in.gov
Phone: 765-463-1521 ext 248
FHWA Technical Liaison(s): Justin Ocel
justin.ocel@dot.gov
Phone: 202-493-3080
Commitments by Organizations
Organization Year Commitments Technical Contact Name Funding Contact Name Contact Number Email Address
Army Corps of Engineers 2011 $20,000.00 Phillip Sauser Christopher Westbrook 202-761-7584 Christopher.H.Westbrook@usace.army.mil
Army Corps of Engineers 2012 $20,000.00 Phillip Sauser Christopher Westbrook 202-761-7584 Christopher.H.Westbrook@usace.army.mil
Army Corps of Engineers 2013 $20,000.00 Phillip Sauser Christopher Westbrook 202-761-7584 Christopher.H.Westbrook@usace.army.mil
Federal Highway Administration 2010 $400,000.00 Justin Ocel Justin Ocel 202-493-3080 justin.ocel@dot.gov
Idaho Department of Transportation 2010 $20,000.00 Matt Farrar Ned Parrish 208-334-8296 ned.parrish@itd.idaho.gov
Idaho Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Matt Farrar Ned Parrish 208-334-8296 ned.parrish@itd.idaho.gov
Idaho Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Matt Farrar Ned Parrish 208-334-8296 ned.parrish@itd.idaho.gov
Iowa Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Michael Nop Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Michael Nop Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Michael Nop Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Todd Niemann Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Todd Niemann Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Todd Niemann Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2010 $20,000.00 Greg Perfetti Neil Mastin 919 707 6661 jmastin@ncdot.gov
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Greg Perfetti Neil Mastin 919 707 6661 jmastin@ncdot.gov
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Greg Perfetti Neil Mastin 919 707 6661 jmastin@ncdot.gov
Oregon Department of Transportation 2011 $10,000.00 Hormoz Seradj Michael Bufalino 503-986-2845 Michael.Bufalino@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2012 $10,000.00 Hormoz Seradj Michael Bufalino 503-986-2845 Michael.Bufalino@odot.state.or.us
Virginia Department of Transportation 2010 $20,000.00 JP Gomez Bill Kelsh 434-293-1934 Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 JP Gomez Bill Kelsh 434-293-1934 Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 JP Gomez Bill Kelsh 434-293-1934 Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 JP Gomez Bill Kelsh 434-293-1934 Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Alex Pence Lynn Hanus 608-267-2294 lynnm.hanus@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Alex Pence Lynn Hanus 608-267-2294 lynnm.hanus@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Alex Pence Lynn Hanus 608-267-2294 lynnm.hanus@dot.wi.gov

Study Description

Study Description

The two girder bridge system was developed in the two decade period starting in the 1950s. Designers recognized the inherent structural efficiency of these systems and a number of bridges were built. Unfortunately, knowledge of the fatigue and fracture limit states was not sufficiently advanced to avoid problems in service. A number of these early bridges suffered from fatigue and fracture problems in service. Following the Silver Bridge collapse, the concept of a ;fracture critical bridge was introduced that required extra quality assurance and inspection measures for bridge types with low structural redundancy. This had the beneficial effect of reducing weld defects and improving quality in the fabrication shop. However, the fracture control plan also saddled fracture critical; bridges with a lifetime requirement for more rigorous in-service inspection. The purpose is to discover relatively small fatigue cracks before they grow large enough to present a fracture risk. Experience has shown that fatigue is only one of many causes of fracture, and there are few reported cases where fracture critical inspection has helped prevent brittle fracture. Despite the fact that fracture critical inspection provides limited benefits, it is still mandated in the U.S. for steel bridges deemed to have low load path redundancy. This is a major cost burden for bridge owners, consequently few fracture critical" bridges are being built today in the US. This contrasts with practice around the world where there are no special inspection requirements for;fracture critical; concerns.

For major steel bridge structures, it may be reasonable to expect 20% to 30% initial cost savings for a two girder system compared to multi-girder alternate designs. Surveys of world practice indicate that two-girder systems are routinely built and are performing well in service without any special fracture critical; concerns. There are many other situations where structural efficiency may be improved through use of cross girders or other elements that are currently avoided because they are classified as;fracture critical;. There is a clear economic benefit associated with elimination of fracture critical in-service inspection requirements. However, it is recognized that this will represent a major change in practice and it can only be considered if there is an assurance that bridge safety is not compromised.

Objectives

The FHWA currently has the authority to allow owners to forego fracture critical inspection for low redundancy bridge structures on a case by case basis, but this has rarely been done since no guidance is available for ensuring bridge safety. This project will establish guidance that provides a high level of bridge safety that can then form the basis for in-service inspection decisions.

When considering the estimated projects costs, it must be recognized that the results of this research will be trans formative for the steel bridge industry. For the first time, material selection, design, and inspection will be rationally integrated to eliminate fracture concerns. This can result in significant cost savings for medium and long span bridges and facilitate introduction of modular concepts for short span bridges.

Scope of Work

This project will involve the following tasks that establish the protocols for design and construction of non-fracture critical structures:

Experimental study of fracture in I-girders to determine supplemental toughness requirements

Full scale fracture tests

Fracture Mechanics Tests

Establish damage tolerant design concepts to utilize toughness and set in-service inspection requirements.

Detailed, 3D Finite element modeling of a two girder bridge system to set detailing requirements for redundancy. Ideally this will include analysis of a two girder concept for an actual bridge project.

Develop a guide specification for design and fabrication of non-fracture critical low redundancy structures.

Comments

Estimated cost: $500,000 - $750,000

Requested funding is $20,000 per year, for 3 years. One-time contributions will also be accepted.

Title File/Link Type Private
TPF-5(238) FINAL REPORT - PART 1 Material Toughness Characterization TPF-5(238) FINAL REPORT - PART 1 Material Toughness Characterization.pdf Final Report Public
TPF-5(238) FINAL REPORT - PART 2 Experimental TPF-5(238) Final Report Part 2 - Experimental.pdf Final Report Public
Acceptance Memo 12271001.pdf Memorandum Public
TPF-5(238) Closeout Letter TPF-5(238) Closeout Letter Signed.pdf Memorandum Public
TPF-5(238) Closeout Funding Spreadsheet TPF-5(238) Closeout Funding Spreadsheet.pdf Other Public
July-September 2011 TPF 5-238 Sept 2001 QPR - 2.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: October - December 2011 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Oct to Dec 2011.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: January - March 2012 TPF 5(238) Progress Report January to March 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: March - June 2012 TPF-5(238) QPR - March to June 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2012 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Jul to Sep 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: October - December 2012 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Oct to Dec 2012.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: January - March 2013 TPF 5(238) Progress Report January to March 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: April - June 2013 TPF 5(238) Progress Report April to June 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2013 TPF 5(238) Progress Report June to September 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: October - December 2013 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Oct to Dec 2013.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: January - March 2014 TPF 5(238) Progress Report January to March 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: April - June 2014 TPF 5(238) Progress Report April to June 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2014 TPF 5(238) Progress Report July to September 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Oct - December 2014 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Oct to December 2014.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: January - March 2015 TPF 5(238) Progress Report January to March 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: April - June 2015 TPF 5(238) Progress Report April to June 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2015 TPF 5(238) Progress Report Jul to Sept 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Oct - December 2015 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Oct - December 2015.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Jan - Mar 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Jan - Mar 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: April - June 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Apr - Jun 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: July - September 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Jul - Sep 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Oct - December 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Oct - Dec 2016.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public
Quarterly Progress Report: Jan - Mar 2016 TPF-5(238) Quarterly Report Jan - Mar 2017.pdf Quarterly Progress Report Public

Currently, Transportation Pooled Fund is not supported on mobile devices, please access this Web portal using a desktop or laptop computer.