Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Author "Morris, Krista M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Wakota Bridge Thermal Monitoring Program Part I: Analysis and Monitoring Plan
    (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2013-05) Scheevel, Christopher J.; Morris, Krista M.; Schultz, Arturo E.
    In this work, a common refined design method is evaluated with respect to a recently constructed bridge. Two finite element models of the Wakota Bridge in South St. Paul, Minnesota, were produced, one using a design level program (SAP2000) and the other using a research level program (ABAQUS). These models were verified with respect to each other using linearly elastic materials and were found to behave similarly. After this verification, an arbitrary temperature load was applied to each model and the refined design method was evaluated for accuracy of reduced section properties with respect to the more descriptive progressive cracking solution simulated by ABAQUS. The refined design method was employed using two, four, and six stiffness segments at which stiffness is evaluated along the height of the pier walls. It was seen that accuracy increased as the number of stiffness segments increased and that four segments seemed to balance accuracy and time-commitment by the engineer adequately. A staged construction model of the Wakota Bridge was also built, using the design level program, which incorporates all time-dependent effects of the construction sequence as well as locked-in forces. A pile analysis was performed and appropriate rotational springs were found for Foundations 2 and 3. A simplified method for the determination of the rotational springs is discussed, and a range of effective lengths was found for use with this procedure. The staged construction model is used for field data correlation in Part two of this report. The staged construction model was also used to evaluate the different design options as described in the AASHTO LRFD. The two options given for accounting for reduced section properties were evaluated and compared. The refined analysis option and gross section option were compared for the Wakota Bridge and are shown to correlate to within about 10%. The two temperature application methods (Procedure A and B in the AASHTO LRFD) were also compared. As expected, Procedure B produced much larger design moments than that of Procedure A.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Wakota Bridge Thermal Monitoring Program Part II: Data Analysis and Model Comparison
    (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2013-05) Morris, Krista M.; Schultz, Arturo E.
    In this work, a common refined design method is evaluated with respect to a recently constructed bridge. Two finite element models of the Wakota Bridge in South St. Paul, Minnesota were produced using a design level program (SAP2000). These models were analyzed and their results compared to the data collected from the bridge. The second half of this study concerned the comparison of the collected field data with the values produced by evaluating the design-level finite element models previously created in Phase I of the project, and calibrating these models to provide an accurate prediction of the future behavior of the bridge. This was done by calculating changes in axial force and moment from strain data collected from the Wakota Bridge and changing various parameters within the design level model (DLM) in order to calibrate the models to the field data. The model using the refined design method was shown to correlate to the superstructure field data to within 2 percent, while between 13 percent and 35 percent correlation was seen between the model deploying the gross section method and the field data. The pier behavior predicted by the two models showed much less correlation to the field data. After calibration, it was possible to predict the general trend of the pier behavior, but the values of changes in moment did not correspond to the field data. This was especially true in Pier 4. Further consideration of the model parameters is necessary to fully calibrate the models. The two temperature application methods (Procedure A and B in the AASHTO LRFD) were also compared. The internal concrete temperature ranges measured in the field were much closer to the range specified in Procedure A.