4.3 Article

Performance Evaluation and Life Prediction of Highway Concrete Bridge Superstructure across Design Types

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001051

关键词

-

资金

  1. Joint Transportation Research Program
  2. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Managers of highway bridge infrastructure constantly seek to improve their predictions of the physical performance of their facilities at any future time and also to identify the influential factors of bridge deterioration. In addressing this subject for concrete superstructures in particular, this paper uses empirical data from Indiana spanning 1992-2014. The superstructure design types considered are cast-in-place concrete (slab, stringer, and arch-deck) and prestressed concrete (stringer, T-beam, box-beam multiple, and box-beam single). Exponential and polynomial functional forms are investigated as part of the modeling process. A number of factors are found to have statistically significant influence on the deterioration of the concrete superstructures' physical condition consistently across all design types, and other factors are found to be significant only for some design types. The paper also carries out sensitivity and marginal effects analyses to quantify the strength of effect of the influential factors on superstructure deterioration. Using the developed models, the paper establishes service lives for each concrete superstructure design type and compares the findings with those of past studies. The developed models can help highway agencies to carry out condition-based scheduling of bridge superstructure rehabilitation and reconstruction and to identify the materials and designs that are best suited to specific climates. This is useful for a number of agency processes including work programming and scheduling, and for feedback to bridge designers and maintenance personnel. (C) 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据