Update on Fracture Critical Bridge

Member Design, Fabrication, and

Inspection Issues
Myint Lwin
FHWA Office of Bridge Technology

Ed Wasserman
Tennessee Department of Transportation

George Christian
New York Department of Transportation

Bill Wright
FHWA Office of Research

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 1

Meeting
 Outline
• Recap of past events - Myint
• Current status of…
– Design initiatives – Ed
– Fabrication initiatives – Bill
– Inspection initiatives – George
• Questions

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 2

Meeting
 Fracture Critical Issues
Background
• NBIS requires hands-on inspection of
fracture critical bridge members at
intervals NTE 24 months.
• With improved system analysis techniques,
bridges traditionally considered fracture
critical can be shown to have alternate load
paths
– No collapse in the event of fracture of a
member
May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 3
Meeting
 Background (continued)
• Advances in fatigue detailing, fabrication,
use of fracture control plans, and improved
material properties have combined to
improve fracture resistance.
• Revisit current design, fabrication, and in-
service inspection rules and requirements
in consideration of these factors.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 4

Meeting
 Fracture Critical Workshops
• Objective:
Work towards developing a modern and cost-
effective fracture control plan for new steel
bridges and an inspection plan for existing steel
bridges through integration of technologies.

• Met twice: November 2004 & June 2005

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 5

Meeting
 Workshops (continued)
Materials and
Design Fabrication Inspection
• Dennis Mertz (Lead) • Bill Wright (Lead) • Robert Connor (Lead)
• Ed Wasserman • Bob Cisneros • Stanley Woods
• Michel Ghosn • Karl Frank • William Nickas
• Ray McCabe • John Fisher • Ralph Anderson
• John Kulicki • Krishna Verma • Robert Dexter
• Ben Tang • Alex Wilson • Tom Everett
• Vasant Mistry • Stan Rolfe • Shay Burrows
• Tom Strock • Bill McEleney • George Christian

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 6

Meeting
 Design Group Action Plan
• Use only fatigue detail categories with resistances greater C
(in
other words, A through Cdetails)

• Design for infinite life only

• For low ADTT (100 trucks per day) –

– may go below C
– may design for finite life

• For non-redundant members –

– apply the FCM Fracture-Control Plan

• Schedule – AASHTO 2006/2007

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 7

Meeting
 Status of Design Initiatives
Agenda item under development for consideration at T-14 2006
summer meeting by Wasserman, Connor & Mertz (2007 ballot
item?, 2008 interim change?):
• Dividing the fatigue-and-fracture limit state load
combination into two separate load combinations for infinite
and finite life design
• Revising the detail category table and figures to be more in
agreement with AISC
• In general, design for infinite life using detail categories with
fatigue resistances greater than C
• For low volume bridges (?), fatigue resistances lower than C
and/or finite life acceptable
• For non-redundant members, apply the FCM FCP
May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 8
Meeting
 Material and Fabrication Action Plan
• Develop a modern fracture control plan that fully integrates
design, fabrication, and inspection requirements.

• Needs to again become an AASHTO document

• Integrated with AWS on fabrication issues
• Integrated with AASHTO Bridge Specifications for Design
• Integrated with Federal bridge inspection policy

• Needs to consider:
• Modern fatigue design practice
• Avoidance of high constraint details
• Modern, high toughness materials

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 9

Meeting
 Fracture Control Plan Philosophy
• AASHTO 1978 (Now AWS D1.5)
• Controls welding & fabrication defects
• Material toughness to prevent brittle fracture initiation from
small fatigue cracks
• Emphasis on fatigue design
• No reserve capacity to resist “pop-in” fracture from unforeseen
events.

• New FCP
• Retain a high emphasis on fabrication quality
• Supplemental high toughness requirements to provide some fracture
arrest capability (Reserve capacity)
• Strict detailing rules for fatigue and constraint

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 10

Meeting
 Stricter Controls on Design Detailing

1. Fatigue Detailing
• Category C’ or higher?
• Prevent distortion-induced fatigue issues
2. Avoid “high-constraint” details
– Intersecting longitudinal and transverse
attachments
– Intersections of thick, primary plates
3. Possible controls on plate proportions and geometries
when internal redundancy is needed
– Limits on thickness matching

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 11

Meeting
 Maintain FCM Controls for Quality
Fabrication

• Designers clearly designate FCM

• Welding procedures to assure low H2 practice
• High In-shop inspection requirements (UT
preferred over RT)
• Possible changes to PQR process and weld
metal testing requirements.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 12

Meeting
 Improved Supplemental Toughness
Specifications for Special Applications

• When an Engineering Assessment Shows

the Need to Enhance Internal
Redundancy

• When Extended In-service Inspection

Requirements are Part of the
Engineering Assessment

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 13

Meeting
 Action Plan
• FHWA contract with Dr. Connor, Purdue
University
• Continued work at FHWA
• Plan to establish a govt. / industry working
group on material toughness requirements
• Progress update at the next T-14 meeting
(July 2006)

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 14

Meeting
 Goal of new Fracture Control
Plan

• Provide a consistently high standard for

fracture critical fabrication
• Provide a higher reserve capacity to resist
fractures from unforeseen conditions
• Eliminate concerns for special in-service
fracture critical inspection

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 15

Meeting
 Inspection Group Action Plan
• Revisit definitions of “fracture critical,”
redundancy and inspection types.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 16

Meeting
 Definitions (continued)
• Initial Inspection
– The first inspection of a bridge as it becomes a part of the bridge file to
provide all SI&A data and other relevant data and to determine baseline
structural conditions.
– To be completed with 90 days
• Routine Inspection
– Regularly scheduled inspection to ensure that the structure continues to
satisfy present service requirements. This does not need to be hands-on.
– Not to exceed 24 months
• Hands-on Inspection
– Inspection within arms length of the component. Inspection uses visual
techniques that may be supplemented by nondestructive testing.
– Frequencies in flowchart are maximums

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 17

Meeting
 Definitions
Fracture Critical Member
NBIS definition:
A steel member in tension, or with a tension
element, whose failure would probably cause a
portion of or the entire bridge to collapse.

AASHTO Condition Evaluation Manual:

Fracture critical members or member components
are steel tension members or steel components
of members whose failure would be expected to
result in collapse of the bridge.
May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 18
Meeting
 Definitions (continued)
• Redundancy:
– AASHTO Standard Specs 17th Ed., Section 10.3.1 ties load-path
redundancy to fracture critical behavior.
– FHWA has used this in manuals, courses, etc.
– AASHTO LRFD not as clearly stated as standard specs
• Section 1.3.4 mentions multiple load path structures
• Multiple load path structures are defined in 1.2 as structures capable
of supporting specified loads following loss of a main load-carrying
component or connection.
• If a structure cannot support the specified loads following loss of a
main load carrying member, the consequence is “collapse” as defined
in the LRFD specs. Per 1.3.4, these members would be termed
fatigue critical, and if in tension, fracture critical.
• Collapse in LRFD = major change in geometry of bridge rendering it
unfit for use.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 19

Meeting
 Definitions (continued)
• Fracture non-critical , or, fracture critical –
low risk, or, fracture susceptible – low risk
(under consideration):
– A new classification for fracture critical bridges that
have undergone an assessment as part of the decision
process for establishing inspection intervals, and
received other than a low score.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 20

Meeting
 Inspection Group Action Plan
• Revisit definitions of “fracture critical,”
redundancy and inspection types.
• Define a framework for a decision process,
identify decision criteria, define relevant
terms.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 21

Meeting
 Fracture Critical Inspection Interval
Decision Process
Perform initial
hands-on Yes
Is Bridge New?
inspection w/i 3
mos.

No

Follow inspection plan

Is member load Yes for redundant bridges
path redundant? (Routine inspection
NTE 24 mo.)

No/
uncertain

Yes Want to perform a

Perform analysis
system analysis?

Proposed decision tree No

looks like this. Perform

assessment
Yes Want to perform an
assessment?
No Perform hands-
on inspection
NTE 24 mo.

Determine
assessment
score Fracture Critical

Fracture non-Critical

If score is very If score is high If score is If score is low

high (excellent) (good) medium (fair) (poor)

Conduct hands- Conduct hands-

Perform routine
on inspection if on inspection if
inspection NTE
none w/I past 24 none w/I past 24 Perform hands-
24 mo.
mo. mo. on inspection
NTE 24 mos.

Supplement w/ Perform hands- Perform hands-

in-depth on inspection on inspection
inspection at NTE 72 mos. and NTE 48 mos. and
owner’s routine NTE 24 routine NTE 24
discretion mos. mos.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee score

Adjust assessment
and inspection
22
Meeting plan as necessary
based on most recent
inspection findings
 Fracture Critical Inspection Interval
Decision Process
Perform initial
hands-on Yes
Is Bridge New?
inspection w/i 3
mos.

No

Follow inspection plan

Is member load Yes for redundant bridges
path redundant? (Routine inspection
NTE 24 mo.)

No/
uncertain

Yes Want to perform a

Perform analysis
system analysis?

No

Yes No Perform hands-

Perform Want to perform an
on inspection
assessment assessment?
NTE 24 mo.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 23

Meeting
 Determ ine
assessm ent
score Fracture Critical

Fracture non-Critical

If score is very If score is high If score is If score is low

high (excellent) (good) m edium (fair) (poor)

Conduct hands- Conduct hands-

Perform routine
on inspection if on inspection if
inspection NTE
none w/I past 24 none w/I past 24 Perform hands-
24 m o.
m o. m o. on inspection
NTE 24 m os.

Supplem ent w/ Perform hands- Perform hands-

in-depth on inspection on inspection
inspection at NTE 72 m os. and NTE 48 m os. and
owner’s routine NTE 24 routine NTE 24
discretion m os. m os.

Adjust assessm ent

score and inspection
plan as necessary
May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 24
based on m ost recent
Meeting
inspection findings
 Inspection Group Action Plan
• Define assessment criteria and develop a
scoring system to be used as part of the
decision process.
• Structure condition and
• Fatigue resistant details
performance history; when would
• Vulnerability to distortion cracking
adjustment of frequency be
• Fracture controls - fabrication
appropriate?
• System redundancy – how long can
• Load rating
other redundancy support the loads?
• Material properties (toughness)
• Stress cycles (fatigue life)
• Frequency and degree of
• ADTT
overloads and enforcement level
• Structure age
•Impact (collision) vulnerability

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 25

Meeting
 Prepared a Statement of Work
Significant Project Tasks

• Perform a literature search of existing

methodologies for assessing fatigue prone
and fracture critical bridges (e.g., TX, OR,
and NY).

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 26

Meeting
 Statement of Work
Significant Project Tasks (continued)
• Develop a rational engineering-based methodology for
classifying bridges according to the results of a
screening process.
– Define the specific criteria
– Define the relative importance of criteria
– Identify a system for assigning bridges into various
inspection frequency categories
– Develop criteria for the baseline inspection
performed to qualify a bridge for consideration
under this process

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 27

Meeting
 Statement of Work
Significant Project Tasks (continued)

• Establish a trial format for the methodology and

conduct the trial with several state transportation
departments.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 28

Meeting
 Inspection Action Plan (continued)
The Final Steps
• Conduct trial applications of the process
(included in SOW)

• Incorporate process into AASHTO Condition

Evaluation manual, and FHWA manuals and
training courses as necessary.

• Revise NBIS regulation, if necessary.

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 29

Meeting
 Questions?

May 2006 AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee 30

Meeting