Instrumentation of bridge number MEG-124-6.78

Title from cover.; "October 1999."; Executive summary laid in.; "OHIO/HWY-01/99"--Technical rept. documentation page.; Includes bibliographical references (p. 31).; Draft final report.; Sponsored by the Ohio Department of Transportation under contract no.; Harvested from the web on 3/2/06MEG 1244.78 was a single span bridge, composite, and adjacent prestressed box girder bridge. It had a 45" right forward skew. After being in service about 1 year, the three edge beams on the inside of the curve showed extensive cracking. Diagonal and vertical cracks were visible on the fascia beam. Subsequent inspection revealed several construction errors, including loose bearing pads and a large bump in the approach slab. In an attempt to determine the cause of cracking, the bridge was subjected to both static and dynamic truck load testing using single axle dump trucks. Each truck weighed between 27 kips and 32 kips. The bridge showed the expected load distributions between the beams under 10 different static load combinations. Uniform loads were equally shared between the girders. Loads which were more toward one edge were distributed more to that edge of the bridge, but the distribution was still reasonable. It did not appear that one or two beams were carrying the entire load. Therefore, the cause of failure was not overload in the edge beams due to improper load distribution. The results of these, and other, tests show that beam falure did not occur due to normal traffic effects on the bridge. To find the cause of falure, additional work is required.MEG 1244.78 was a single span bridge, composite, and adjacent prestressed box girder bridge. It had a 45" right forward skew. After being in service about 1 year, the three edge beams on the inside of the curve showed extensive cracking. Diagonal and vertical cracks were visible on the fascia beam. Subsequent inspection revealed several construction errors, including loose bearing pads and a large bump in the approach slab. In an attempt to determine the cause of cracking, the bridge was subjected to both static and dynamic truck load testing using single axle dump trucks. Each truck weighed between 27 kips and 32 kips. The bridge showed the expected load distributions between the beams under 10 different static load combinations. Uniform loads were equally shared between the girders. Loads which were more toward one edge were distributed more to that edge of the bridge, but the distribution was still reasonable. It did not appear that one or two beams were carrying the entire load. Therefore, the cause of failure was not overload in the edge beams due to improper load distribution. The results of these, and other, tests show that beam falure did not occur due to normal traffic effects on the bridge. To find the cause of falure, additional work is required