Chapter 45

Load Rating of a Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge Through

Ambient Vibration Testing and Finite Element Model Updating

Abdou K. Ndong, Mehrdad S. Dizaji, Mohamad Alipour, Osman E. Ozbulut, and Devin K. Harris

Abstract As the load demands on highway bridges increases, it is essential that the load rating procedures reliably assess
the condition of existing structures. In addition, conventional design office load rating techniques cannot be used for
bridges without structural plans, which indicates the need for a more advanced load rating procedure. This paper presents
a methodology to compute the live load-carrying capacity of reinforced concrete T-beam bridges, which can be applied for
bridges with structural plans or with missing or limited design information. The method involves modal identification of
bridge using ambient vibrations and finite element model updating using vibration characteristics for capacity estimation. A
simply supported T-beam bridge located in Virginia is selected for field-testing to verify the proposed method. The bridge
is composed of five spans of the same length, 12.95 m for each, with a total length of 65.4 m and a width of 8.864 m. A
total of nine accelerometers are installed to bridge to collect acceleration data for 15 min at a sampling rate of 500 Hz. The
modal properties of the bridge are determined using enhanced frequency domain decomposition technique. The initial finite
element model of the bridge is updated such that the modal properties of the bridge match the field measured parameters.
The load effects and capacity of the bridge are determined and used to calculate the load rating factor. The rating factors
obtained from the proposed method and traditional design office load rating procedures are compared. The results indicate
that the proposed method can reveal the reserve capacity of bridges.

Keywords Load rating · Modal analysis · Dynamic testing · Vibrations

45.1 Introduction

Traditionally, vibration testing of full-scale bridges, except notable structures, has seldom conducted by bridge owners due
to the cost and potential traffic closures associated with the testing [1]. More recently, ambient vibration testing, which
allows the characterization of dynamic properties of bridges under normal operating conditions, has gained attention for
the condition assessment of bridges. For bridge structures, passing traffic, wind, wave motions, and walking people are
potential causes for ambient vibrations. Ambient vibration testing does not require the measurement of input data. With
recent developments in sensor technologies and signal processing techniques, both hardware required to obtain vibration
measurements and software designed to provide modal properties of structures without input data have considerably
advanced. Therefore, ambient vibration testing has been considered in various studies for structural identification, condition
assessment and/or damage detection [2–5]. Coupled with finite element modeling, ambient vibration testing can also provide
a more objective load rating procedure for bridges with or without structural plans.
Load rating is an integral part of the process of structural integrity evaluation of existing bridge structures. State
departments of transportation and other owner agencies perform load ratings of all their assets to determine the allowable
load capacity of the structures under different types of truck loads. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) [6] presents an
analytical and an empirical approach for load rating and sets forth a standard procedure for each one. Analytical load rating
includes establishing the capacity of the members as well as the dead and live load force effects through structural analysis,
which can be done either using simplified methods of analysis (such as empirical equations for load distribution factors) or
via refined methods of analysis (such as the finite element method). Once the capacity and dead and live force effects are
established, the load rating factor for each member can then be established using Eq. (45.1) given below. In this general form

A. K. Ndong · M. S. Dizaji · M. Alipour · O. E. Ozbulut () · D. K. Harris

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
e-mail: ozbulut@virginia.edu

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2019 337

S. Pakzad (ed.), Dynamics of Civil Structures, Volume 2, Conference Proceedings of the Society
for Experimental Mechanics Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74421-6_45
338 A. K. Ndong et al.

Fig. 45.1 Schematic of load rating using finite element model updating based on an ambient vibration test

of the load rating equation, C, DL and LL represent the member capacity, dead load effect and live load effect, respectively
and A1 and A2 are factors for dead and live loads.

C − A1 DL
RF = (45.1)
A2 (LL + I M)

Finite element analysis can be used to provide a refined method of analysis of load effects especially in cases where
simplified analysis is inapplicable, insufficient or results in unsatisfactory ratings. Experimental field testing is another
approach that provides the most realistic picture of the structural behavior of the system. This method is especially effective in
cases of bridges with complicated load distribution behavior, deteriorated or damaged structures, and bridges with unknown
structural plans. MBE identify field testing as an option for cases where the lack of as-built information makes it difficult
to establish the make-up of the members or their behavior. Despite the degree of accuracy it provides, the application of the
field testing of load rating has been considerably limited by cost, time, test truck requirement, traffic interruption, and safety.
Statistics on the methods used for load rating of highway bridges in the US show an estimated 0.6% of the bridges load-rated
using field testing [7].
Building upon the principles outlined in the MBE, the analytical and experimental approaches can be combined to create
an effective and realistic rating method that aims to leverage the strengths of each one of these approaches while reducing
the operational difficulties of load testing. This method relies on the application of finite element model updating based on a
simple ambient vibration test. An ambient vibration test is conducted on the bridge and the vibration data is used to update
a FE model whose field-calibrated parameters will then be used for load rating as schematically shown in Fig. 45.1. This
type of test minimizes traffic disruption by eliminating the need for test trucks or other intentional excitement but provides
experimental data that help identify structural unknowns such as damage or unknown material or section properties. This
paper investigates the use of this proposed approach on a concrete highway Tee-Beam bridge.

45.2 Bridge Description and Instrumentation

The selected bridge for the field testing is a concrete T-beam bridge, named as Flat Creek and built in 1957. It is a five-
span simply-supported bridge located in Rockingham County, Virginia, USA. Each span of the bridge has a total length of
12.954 m and a total width of 8.865 m, and consists of four longitudinal T-beams. Each T-beam has vertical rectangular stem
with a width of 0.825 m and a thickness of 0.356 m, and a wide top flange of 0.191 m thick. The wide top flange is the
transversely reinforced deck slab and the riding surface for the traffic. The bridge shown is skewed at an angle of 0 degrees
to the main road. The ambient vibration testing of one of the spans are conducted in this study.
The dynamic bridge assessment procedure involves the attachment of nine accelerometers underneath of the span of the
bridge at 19 measurement points in two set-ups as shown in Fig. 45.2. The connection of the accelerometers to the girders of
the deck was performed by means of metallic plates bonded to the surface of the concrete. Note that two common sensors
45 Load Rating of a Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge Through Ambient Vibration Testing and Finite Element Model Updating 339

Fig. 45.2 Sensor instrumentation plan for one of the bridge span with two setups (all dimensions are in meters)

a 0.08 b -50
SVD Line No.1
0.06 SVD Line No.2
-60 SVD Line No.3
0.04 Peaks
Acceleration (g)

Magnitude (dB)

-70
0.02

0 -80
-0.02
-90
-0.04

-0.06 -100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, [s] Frequencies (Hz)

Fig. 45.3 Acceleration response measured by Sensor 7: (a) Ambient excitation, (b) Singular values for EFDD method

are used as reference in each set-up. The uniaxial accelerometers with a measuring range of ±5 g are used. The response
of the bridge to ambient excitations is measured. Ambient vibrations are generated by the passing traffic, wind and walking
people and recorded for a total of 15 min. All data is collected with a sampling frequency of 500 Hz.

45.3 Modal Identification

A typical measured acceleration time history recorded by sensor 7 during ambient excitation is shown in Fig. 45.3a. For
parameter estimation using the ambient data, the Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition (EFDD) method [8], which
usually provides improved estimates of modal parameters is used. In this method, the SDOF power density functions are
transferred back into the time domain, and the natural frequencies are obtained by calculating number of zero-crossings as
a function of time and the damping ratio is estimated from the logarithmic envelope of the corresponding SDOF correlation
function using the logarithmic decrement method.
The dynamic properties, such as the natural frequencies, damping ratio and mode shapes are obtained. Figure 45.3b shows
the curves of the average normalized singular values of the spectral density matrices of all experimental setups. The marked
340 A. K. Ndong et al.

Table 45.1 Natural frequencies Mode Modal frequency (Hz) Damping ratio (%)
and damping ratios obtained from
ambient excitations using EFDD 1 10.743 2.522
2 13.773 1.35
3 18.541 2.856
4 26.168 2.512
5 31.83 2.826

Table 45.2 MAC values MAC

Frequencies 10.743 13.773 18.541 26.168 31.83
10.743 1 0.116 0.027 0.026 0.701
13.773 0.116 1 0.022 0.043 0.093
18.541 0.027 0.022 1 0.016 0.011
26.168 0.026 0.043 0.016 1 0.013
31.83 0.701 0.093 0.011 0.013 1

2 2 2

1 1 1

0 0 0

-1 -1 -1

-2 -2 -2
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
X (m) X (m) X (m)

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Fig. 45.4 2D representations of mode shapes for longitudinal direction

peaks correspond to the global modes of the bridges which represents the deflection or mode shape of the main girders of the
deck. Table 45.1 shows the natural frequencies and damping ratios obtained from ambient vibrations excitation using EFDD.
The Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC) vector of the identified modes are provided in Table 45.2. Note that the MAC value
calculated for the same modes will have a value of one, while it will be close to zero if the modes are different. Figures 45.4
and 45.5 illustrate 2D and 3D representations of first three modes. The mode shapes in Figs. 45.4 and 45.5 are depicted for
the longitudinal direction of the bridge using the sensor data along the sides. The mode shape vector for the left and right
sides are represented by the red dashed lines and the blue solid lines, respectively. For the first mode, the natural frequency
is 10.73 Hz with a damping ratio of 2.522%. It can be seen from Fig. 45.4 that the mode shape vectors on the two sides are
symmetric and coincide with each other for Mode I. For this mode, the deformation of the bridge reaches its maximum at
the center and minimum at the ends. This is the typical bending mode of a simply supported beam. The second mode has
a natural frequency of 13.73 Hz with a damping ratio of 1.35%. From Fig. 45.4, it can be concluded that this mode is a
torsional mode, where two sides have mode shape vectors in the form of an arc and in opposite directions. The third mode
has a frequency of 18.541 and a damping ratio of 2.856% and is a bending mode with the two ends that arc upward but
having their maximum at the quarter position of the opposite edges.

45.4 Model Updating and Rating Factors

The concept of structural identification can be defined as the process of creating/updating structural model based on
experimental observations/data. It aims to bridge the gap between model approximation and the real system behavior through
improved simulations. One of the subcomponent of structural identification is Finite Element Model Updating which as
45 Load Rating of a Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge Through Ambient Vibration Testing and Finite Element Model Updating 341

1 1 1

0.5
0.5
0.5 0
Z

Z
0
-0.5

0 -1 -0.5
20 20 20
15 15 15
10 10 10 10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
Y (m) X (m) Y (m) X (m) Y (m) X (m)
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Fig. 45.5 3D representations of mode shapes

Fig. 45.6 (a) A global view of the numerical model of the bridge (b–d) natural frequencies and mode shapes obtained from initial FE model.

noted demands the establishing of an initial model that can be updated based on measured data. Updated model reflects the
measured data better than the initial model. In this research, initial model is developed in ABAQUS, a robust commercially
available finite element software package. ABAQUS allows for the development of an interface with MATLAB, which
facilitated the iterative parameter optimization algorithm. The bridge is modeled with solid elements. For modelling of the
bridge, particular attention is given to the supports to allow for realistic reproduction of the supports restraint conditions. In
the models, a series of linear and rotational springs are used to create the necessary restraint [9, 10]. A global view of the
model of the bridge and the first three natural frequencies and mode shapes obtained from the initial model are shown in Fig.
45.6.
The optimization algorithm developed in this investigation incorporated the features of a genetic algorithm and a gradient-
based scheme to iterate on the unknown parameters. The Young’s Modulus (Es ) is selected as an unknown parameter in the
optimization scheme along with restraint stiffness at the support locations, which were determined to exhibit some rigid body
342 A. K. Ndong et al.

Fig. 45.7 The brief process of finite element model updating of the bridge

Table 45.3 Initial and updated Ec (ksi) As (in2 ) Kx (lb/in)

values of unknown parameters
Initial range [2000, 5000] [0.5, 2] [100, 100,000]
Updated value 4100 1.0 554

movement in preliminary testing. The brief process of model updating is shown in Fig. 45.7. The model updating procedure
minimizes the difference between the natural frequencies obtained in FE model and those obtained from experimental testing.
Leveraging the measured data, the initial FE model is updated using the optimization algorithm to converge on predictions
of the beam’s Young’s Modulus (Es ), the area of the steel reinforcement (As ) and support stiffness parameters (Kx ). Table
45.3 provides the initial ranges selected for each variable and their updated values.
The estimated Young’s Modulus result is then used for estimating the ultimate compressive strength of the bridge’s
concrete:

 2  
Ec 4100000
fc = = = 4.57 ksi, (45.2)
33ρ 1.5 33 × 1451.5

Then, the 28-day compressive strength of the concrete is obtained by knowing the age of bridge which is 40 years:

4 + 0.85t 4 + 0.85 × 60 × 365

fc = fc = 4.57 = 3.88 ksi (45.3)
t 60 × 365

Yield strengths of unknown reinforcing steel used in the bridge is estimated by considering the date of bridge construction
and the type and shape of reinforcing steel. Table 45.4 provides a list of the type of reinforcing steel and bridge construction’s
date with corresponding yield strength of reinforcing steel. Based on the age of the bridge, the yield strengths of reinforcing
steel is also estimated to be 40 ksi from the table. An elastic modulus of Es = 29,000 ksi is used for reinforcing steel material.
Based on the determined values for material properties and reinforcing steel, the bending capacity is computed as follows:

As fy 1.0 × 12 × 40  a
fc = 3.88 ksi, fy = 40 ksi, a = = = 1.56 in, C = ϕAs fy d − = 1328 f t.kip/f t (45.4)
βfc b 0.85 × 2.5 × 91 2

The model of the bridge subjected to dead loads including structural components is analyzed to determine bending
moment DL. For design load rating factor calculation, LRFD design live load of HS-20 according to AASHTO Manual
45 Load Rating of a Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Bridge Through Ambient Vibration Testing and Finite Element Model Updating 343

Table 45.4 Yield strengths of unknown reinforcing steel provided by AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation [6]
Type of reinforcing steel Yield strength fy (ksi)
Unknown steel constructed prior to 1954 33
Structural grade 36
Billet or intermediate grade, grade 40, or unknown steel constructed during or after 1954 40
Rail or hard grade, grade 50 50
Grade 60 60

for Bridge Evaluation [6] is then applied to the model of bridge to compute bending moment LL. Note that a dynamic impact
factor of 33% is considered. By considering the obtained value for the capacity, C, and load effects, the load rating factor is
calculated using Eq. (45.1) as:

1328 − 1.25 × 312.5

RF = = 2.47 (45.5)
1.75 × 215

Note that following an analytical load rating procedure that is described in MBE and relies on estimating the actual load
capacity by adopting usually conservative assumptions and approximate formulas for load distribution, the load rating factor
of the bridge is found to be 1.02. This indicates that the load rating based on vibration testing and FE model updating can
reveal the reserve capacity of the bridge, which can avoid posting of structure.

45.5 Conclusions

This paper describes a load rating procedure for reinforced concrete T-beam bridges and an experimental program that
illustrates the application of the proposed procedure into an in-service bridge structure. The method first requires the
identification of modal parameters of a given structure using an ambient vibration testing. The obtained results are used
to calibrate an initial 3D finite element model and then used for load rating. A hybrid optimization procedure which employs
a genetic algorithm and a gradient-based optimization scheme is used in the calibration of FE model. It is shown that ambient
vibration testing combined with FE model updating provides a relatively cost-effective and non-intrusive method for bridge
load rating. The results also reveal that conventional design office rating procedures can be overly conservative.

Acknowledgements This material is based upon the work supported by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The authors would like to
thank Dr. Bernard L. Kassner of Virginia Transportation Research Council for his helps in conducting the vibration testing of the bridge.

References

1. Brownjohn, J.M., Moyo, P., Omenzetter, P., Lu, Y.: Assessment of highway bridge upgrading by dynamic testing and finite-element model
updating. J. Bridg. Eng. 8(3), 162–172 (2003)
2. Wang, L., Chan, T.H.: Review of vibration-based damage detection and condition assessment of bridge structures using structural health
monitoring. In: QUT Conference Proceedings (2009)
3. Lee, J.J., Yun, C.B.: Damage diagnosis of steel girder bridges using ambient vibration data. Eng. Struct. 28(6), 912–925 (2006)
4. Gheitasi, A., Ozbulut, O.E., Usmani, S., Alipour, M., Harris, D.K.: Experimental and analytical vibration serviceability assessment of an
in-service pedestrian bridge. Case Stud. Nondestruct. Test. Eval. 6, 79–88 (2016)
5. Gul, M., Catbas, F.N.: Damage assessment with ambient vibration data using a novel time series analysis methodology. J. Struct. Eng. 137(12),
1518–1526 (2010)
6. AASHTO: The Manual for Bridge Evaluation. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC (2011)
7. Alipour, M., Harris, D.K., Ozbulut, O.E.: Vibration testing for bridge load rating. In: Dynamics of Civil Structures, vol. 2, pp. 175–184.
Springer International Publishing, New York (2016)
8. Brincker, R., Ventura, C., Andersen, P.: Damping estimation by frequency domain decomposition. In: 19th International Modal Analysis
Conference (2001)
9. Shafiei Dizaji, M., Alipour, M., Harris, D.: Leveraging vision for structural identification – a digital image correlation based approach. In:
International Digital Image Correlation Society Conference (iDICs), SEM Fall Conference, Philadelphia, PA, USA (8–11 Nov 2016)
10. Shafiei Dizaji, M., Harris, D., Alipour, M., Ozbulut, O.: En“vision”ing a novel approach for structural health monitoring – a model for full-field
structural identification using 3D–digital image correlation. In: The 8th International Conference on Structural Health Monitoring of Intelligent
Infrastructure, Bridbane, Australia (5–8 Dec 2017)