Abstract
AbstractThis paper presents a comparison of three methods used to load rate the Powder Mill Bridge based on the load and resistance factor rating (LRFR) approach. This is a typical three-span continuous bridge with steel girders in composite action with the RC bridge deck. The three methods are as follows: (1) employing the conventional design office load rating technique using a simplified line girder analysis, (2) using strain measurements from a diagnostic load test to adjust the design office rating to account for in-situ bridge behavior, and (3) using a finite-element (FE) model of the bridge, which accounts for three-dimensional (3D) structural system behavior. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are related to speed, ease of use, reviewability, cost, accuracy, and type of use intended. Similarities and differences in utilizing these three methods are discussed. The advanced load rating methods are shown to produce higher ratings in comparison with the conventional approach.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
