development of deflection monitoring system … · development of deflection monitoring system for...

105
i DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE Nathan D. Powelson Ian N. Robertson and Gaur P. Johnson Research Report UHM/CEE/10-05 December 2010 Prepared in cooperation with the: State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Upload: tranduong

Post on 03-May-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

i

DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING

SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE

Nathan D. Powelson

Ian N. Robertson

and

Gaur P. Johnson

Research Report UHM/CEE/10-05

December 2010

Prepared in cooperation with the:

State of Hawaii

Department of Transportation Highways Division

and

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Page 2: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

ii

Page 3: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

iii

ABSTRACT

The Kealakaha Stream Bridge is the first base isolated structure in the state of Hawaii.

As such, it represents an ideal opportunity to monitor the performance of a major bridge structure

equipped with base isolation in a region that experiences numerous earthquakes. Although the

bridge is not located in the most seismic portion of the island, it will experience significant ground

motion during major events elsewhere on the island.

An extensive seismic monitoring system is planned for the bridge structures. This system

will include accelerometers, displacement transducers and rotation sensors. The rotation sensors

provide an opportunity to monitor the deflected shape of the bridge superstructure during ambient

traffic conditions, and to record any change in deflected shape before and after future seismic

events. This report investigates the use of rotation sensors for deflection monitoring of a long-

span bridge structure.

Page 4: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is based on a Master’s Thesis prepared by Nathan Powelson under the

direction of Ian Robertson and Gaur Johnson. The authors wish to thank Drs. Ronald Riggs and

David Ma for their review of this report.

This project was funded by the Federal Highway Administration and Hawaii Department

of Transportation Research Branch. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The contents of this

report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data

presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State

of Hawaii, Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does

not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.

Page 5: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... v 

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. vii 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... ix 

Chapter 1:  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 

1.1  Background .......................................................................................................... 1 

1.2  Project Scope ....................................................................................................... 2 

1.3  Kealakaha Bridge Description .............................................................................. 2 

Chapter 2:  LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 7 

2.1  Seismic Instrumentation ....................................................................................... 7 

2.2  Deflection ............................................................................................................. 7 

2.2.1  Curvature Measurements to Calculate Deflection ........................................... 7 

2.2.2  Rotation Measurements to Calculate Deflection .............................................. 8 

2.2.3  Using Base Shapes to Calculate Deflection .................................................... 8 

2.3  Base Isolation ....................................................................................................... 9 

2.4  Inclinometer ........................................................................................................ 11 

Chapter 3:  SAP2000 FRAME ELEMENT MODEL: STRAIGHT BASE LINE ................ 13 

3.1  Development of SAP2000 straight base line model........................................... 13 

3.2  Frame Elements ................................................................................................. 14 

3.3  Analysis .............................................................................................................. 18 

Chapter 4:  SAP2000 AREA ELEMENT MODEL: STRAIGHT BASE LINE ................... 21 

4.1  Development of SAP2000 straight base line area model .................................. 21 

4.2  Area Elements .................................................................................................... 22 

4.3  Analysis .............................................................................................................. 24 

Chapter 5:  SAP2000 AREA ELEMENT MODEL: HORIZONTALLY & VERTICALLY

CURVED BASELINE 25 

5.1  Development of SAP2000 area model ............................................................... 25 

Page 6: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

vi

5.2  Vertical and Horizontal Geometry ...................................................................... 25 

5.3  Comparison with Area Element Model: Straight Base Line (SBL) ..................... 27 

Chapter 6:  Using Rotation to Calculate Displacement (R2D) ........................................ 29 

6.1  Theory ................................................................................................................ 29 

6.2  Implementation ................................................................................................... 31 

6.2.1  Assumptions ................................................................................................... 31 

6.2.2  Model Descretization ...................................................................................... 31 

6.2.3  Model Analysis ............................................................................................... 32 

6.2.4  Final Model Selection ..................................................................................... 37 

Chapter 7:  BASE SHAPES ............................................................................................ 39 

7.1  Theory ................................................................................................................ 39 

7.2  Implementation ................................................................................................... 39 

Chapter 8:  R2D ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 49 

8.1  Preliminary Locations ......................................................................................... 49 

8.2  Number of Inclinometers .................................................................................... 51 

8.3  Error Analysis ..................................................................................................... 54 

Chapter 9:  BASE SHAPES ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 57 

9.1  Location of Inclinometers ................................................................................... 57 

9.2  Other Deflected Combinations ........................................................................... 60 

9.3  Error Analysis ..................................................................................................... 64 

Chapter 10:  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 69 

APPENDIX A: R2D GRAPHS ........................................................................................... 71 

APPENDIX B: BASE SHAPE GRAPHS ........................................................................... 79 

Load Combinations A-I .................................................................................................. 79 

Other Load Combinations ............................................................................................. 86 

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 95 

Page 7: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1-1 Location of Kealakaha Bridge ........................................................................ 1 

Figure 1.3-1 Normal Deck Section at Drop-In Girder (Looking Down station) (Not to

Scale) [KSF, 2006] ........................................................................................................................... 4 

Figure 1.3-2 Normal Deck Section at Pier (Looking Down station) (Not to Scale) [KSF,

2006] ................................................................................................................................................ 5 

Figure 1.3-3 Plan and Section along Base Line ................................................................. 6 

Figure 2.2-1: North Mentue Bridge, Position of Inclinometers along Bridge [Burdet, 2000]

......................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Figure 2.3-1 Typical Friction Bearing Section [Earthquake Protection Systems, 2003] ..... 9 

Figure 2.3-2 Modeling the Friction Pendulum Bearings .................................................... 10 

Figure 2.4-1 LSPO ±1º ...................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 3.1-1 SAP Area Model SBL ................................................................................... 14 

Figure 3.2-1 Girder Section used to calculated properties ............................................... 15 

Figure 3.2-2 Box Girder Section used to calculate section properties .............................. 15 

Figure 3.2-3 Division of elements for SAP2000 ................................................................ 16 

Figure 4.1-1 SAP Area model straight base line ............................................................... 22 

Figure 5.1-1 SAP Area model straight base line ............................................................... 26 

Figure 5.2-1 Profile grade line at centerline of road .......................................................... 26 

Figure 5.2-2 Segment Layout of Kealakaha Bridge .......................................................... 27 

Figure 6.1-1 Varying Moment of Inertia along the Length of the Bridge ........................... 30 

Figure 6.2-1 Location of Inclinometers and Formation of R2D Models 1 – 3 ................... 32 

Figure 6.2-2 Plan view of the placement of 9 point load cases ........................................ 33 

Figure 6.2-3 HS-20 Truck ................................................................................................. 33 

Figure 6.2-4 R2D Model 1 with SAP output ...................................................................... 35 

Figure 6.2-5 R2D Model 2 with SAP output ...................................................................... 35 

Figure 6.2-6 R2D Model 3 with SAP output ...................................................................... 36 

Figure 6.2-7 Load Case C with All models ....................................................................... 36 

Figure 6.2-8 Portions of R2D Models used in final deflection curve ................................. 37 

Figure 6.2-9 Load Case C with final Delta ........................................................................ 38 

Figure 7.2-1 Applied Temperature Gradient along Bridge ................................................ 40 

Figure 7.2-2 Location of potential base shapes ................................................................ 41 

Figure 7.2-3 HS-20 Truck ................................................................................................. 42 

Figure 7.2-4 Base Shape Deflection with SAP output, Load case A ................................ 46 

Figure 7.2-5 Base Shape Deflection with SAP output, Load case H ................................ 47 

Page 8: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

viii

Figure 8.1-1 Deflection for Load Case H for 6 Possible Inclinometer Locations .............. 50 

Figure 8.1-2 Deflections for Load Case A for 6 Possible Inclinometer Locations ............ 51 

Figure 8.2-1 Location of Potential Inclinometer Locations ................................................ 52 

Figure 8.3-1 Error vs. SAP2000 Deflection ....................................................................... 56 

Figure 8.3-2 Error vs SAP2000 Deflection ........................................................................ 56 

Figure 9.1-1 Location of Potential Inclinometer Patterns .................................................. 57 

Figure 9.1-2 Load Combination F ..................................................................................... 59 

Figure 9.1-3 Load Combination I ...................................................................................... 59 

Figure 9.2-1 Load Combination 30 ................................................................................... 62 

Figure 9.2-2 Load Combination 38 ................................................................................... 62 

Figure 9.2-3 Load Combination 44 ................................................................................... 63 

Figure 9.2-4 Load Combination 21 ................................................................................... 63 

Figure 9.3-1 Error from inclinometer 2 .............................................................................. 65 

Figure 9.3-2 Error from inclinometer 2 .............................................................................. 66 

Figure 9.3-3 Error envelope for 72 ft spacing, Load Case B ............................................ 66 

Figure 9.3-4 Error envelope for 90 ft spacing, Load case B ............................................. 67 

Page 9: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Material Properties of Structural Elements ....................................................... 16 

Table 3-2 Section Properties ............................................................................................ 17 

Table 3-3 Beam Locations and Weights ........................................................................... 17 

Table 3-4 Comparing Section Properties .......................................................................... 19 

Table 3-5 Deflections at each span .................................................................................. 19 

Table 4-1 Section Properties Calculated in Bridge Modeler ............................................. 23 

Table 4-2 Dead Load Comparisons .................................................................................. 24 

Table 4-3 Deflections at middle of each span ................................................................... 24 

Table 5-1 Vertical Geometry ............................................................................................. 27 

Table 5-2 Horizontal Geometry ......................................................................................... 27 

Table 5-3 Dead Load Comparisons .................................................................................. 28 

Table 5-4 Deflections at middle of each span ................................................................... 28 

Table 7-1 Potential base shape combinations .................................................................. 41 

Table 7-2 Comparison of Different Load Combinations .................................................... 45 

Table 8-1 Results .............................................................................................................. 49 

Table 8-2 Deflection at Middle of Center Span ................................................................. 53 

Table 8-3 Minimum and Maximum Error on Mauka Girder for 18 inclinometers .............. 54 

Table 8-4 Maximum and Maximum Error on Mauka Girder for 14 inclinometers ............. 55 

Table 9-1 Displacements at Middle of Span 2 .................................................................. 58 

Table 9-2 Displacements at the middle of span 2 ............................................................. 61 

Table 9-3 Minimum and Maximum Error on Mauka Girder............................................... 64 

Page 10: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

x

Page 11: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

1

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background The Kealakaha Stream Bridge is located on the Hawaii Belt Road on the island of Hawaii

(Figure 1-1). The bridge consists of 3 spans composed of cast in place 5 cell box girders over the

piers and precast drop-in girders. The 3 spans are 180 ft., 360 ft., and 180 ft. The Kealakaha

Stream Bridge was designed having an 1800 ft radius and located on a vertical curve. Base

isolation was utilized to compensate for the high seismic zone in which the bridge is located.

Two friction pendulum bearings were incorporated at each pier and each abutment.

Figure 1.1-1 Location of Kealakaha Bridge

The existing Kealakaha Stream Bridge is seismically deficient and was scheduled to be

replaced back in 2003. The new bridge was originally designed as a 3 span bridge; 180.5 ft,

Page 12: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

2

360.9 ft, and 180.5 ft. It incorporated a single cell box girder of varying depth and a horizontal

curve with a radius of 1800 ft. The contractor proposed a value engineering change to

incorporate base isolation and a combined precast cast in place superstructure [Fujiwara, 2010].

1.2 Project Scope The Kealakaha Stream Bridge is located in an ideal location for seismic study, due to the

seismic activity of Hawaii Island. This is an ideal opportunity for the first seismic instrumentation

in Hawai’i to be installed on the first base isolated bridge in Hawaii. Future earthquakes will be

monitored to study the response of the bridge and compared with the analytical model, developed

in SAP 2000. The goal of this thesis is to create an instrumentation plan that will make this

possible, along with monitoring the deflection of the bridge from both temperature and traffic

effects.

Accelerometers will be utilized to monitor the acceleration to help recreate the

earthquake experienced by the bridge in SAP 2000. The original instrumentation plan

incorporated accelerometers and fiber optic strain gages. The use of fiber optic strain gages to

monitor dynamic deflection proved problematic and was discarded in favor of using a taught line

system with linear variable differential transformers (LVDT’s) [Johnson, 2007]. The taught line

system works well for static and traffic deflections but does not give accurate readings for seismic

deflections. In addition, the new value engineered design created clearance and other installation

issues for the LVDT system. Inclinometers will be used to capture the deflection just prior and

immediately after a seismic event. They may be able to capture the deflections during the

shaking itself. The inclinometer system will also be able to capture the deflections of the

superstructure due to traffic and temperature effects.

1.3 Kealakaha Bridge Description The Kealakaha Stream Bridge is a 720 foot long concrete bridge that utilizes both cast in

place and precast concrete sections. The bridge is located on a horizontal curve with a radius of

curvature of 1800 feet; the travel way has a superelevation of 6.2%. The bridge is located at the

end of a vertical curve that transitions into a constant 3.46% grade [Fujiwara, 2010].

Two sections are used in this bridge, a cast in place box girder with varying depth from 9

ft 9 in. to 18 ft 0 in (Figure 1.3-2), and a girder section which incorporated using 6 W95PTG

“super girders” and a 9 inch concrete deck (Figure 1.3-1). The W95PTG girder was developed by

the Washington State Department of Transportation in 1996 and is capable of spanning 200 ft

[Fujiwara 2010]. Abutment 1 is the abutment that is closest to Hilo, Station 206+57, and

abutment 2 is closest to Kona, Station 213+77.

Page 13: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

3

Due to the curves on the road, the largest precast girder section that could be transported

was 50 ft. The girders are numbered 1 – 6 such that the Mauka girder is 6 and the Makai girder

is 1 (Figure 1.3-3). To connect the precast girders together cast in place beams, beam “B”, were

utilized. They span the width of the girders. Beam “A” was the cast in place pour that connected

all 6 precast girders together at Abutments 1 and 2. Beam “C” was used to connect the precast

girders in span’s 1 and 3 to the cast in place box girder and Beam “D” was used to connect the

girder section to the box girder in the middle span. These beams gave significant increase in

stiffness to the girder section and are spaced every 52.5 ft.

Page 14: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

4

Figure 1.3-1 Normal Deck Section at Drop-In Girder (Looking Down station) (Not to Scale) [KSF, 2006]

Page 15: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

5

Figure 1.3-2 Normal Deck Section at Pier (Looking Down station) (Not to Scale) [KSF, 2006]

Page 16: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

6

Figure 1.3-3 Plan and Section along Base Line

Page 17: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

7

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Seismic Instrumentation Todd Stephens created a seismic instrumentation plan for the Kealakaha Stream Bridge

back before the geometry of the bridge changed drastically. The bridge went from a single cell

box girder to a multi cell box girder combined with drop in girders and a base isolation system.

His study used information from the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, CSMIP to

determine the instrumentation of the Kealakaha Stream Bridge. The original plan called for 41

seismic accelerometers, 4 relative displacement units and fiber optic strain gages for deflection

measurement. This will record the full motion of the structure, including free field motion, pile cap

translation and rotation, deck and abutment accelerations and joint movements; to be analyzed in

the future [Stephens, 1996].

2.2 Deflection In some cases it is very difficult to use conventional methods to obtain bridge deflection

measurements, be it using LVDT’s, photoelectric, or other means. Photoelectric measurements

are very expensive and are easily affected by natural conditions, rain and fog. Methods which

have no need for any static reference required on site is especially helpful for bridges that are

built over water, deep valleys and other locations to be measured easily [Xingmin, 2005].

2.2.1 Curvature Measurements to Calculate Deflection

Applying beam theory, one can determine the deflection of a beam given the curvature—

double integrating the M/EI diagram along the length of the beam. Others have applied this by

measuring the curvature, via multiple strain measurements, through the depth of a beam, at

various locations along its length [Johnson 2006, Aki & Robertson 2005, Fung & Robertson 2003,

Vurpillot 1998, Xingming 2005]. This method relies on accurately assuming the form of a function

which represents the curvature along the length of the beam. This function is then fit to the

measured data to minimize the difference between measured and predicted curvature. This

method was successfully used to determining the deflection of a static beam with known loading

conditions which were consistent with the exact solution.

This was tested on a beam in the laboratory and on a highway bridge. The laboratory

test was on a 6 meter long timber beam with 112X156 mm^2 cross section on 3 supports. The

Lutrive bridges in Switzerland were tested with success, the Lutrive bridges are twin bridges,

each one supporting lanes of the Swiss National Highway RN9. These bridges were cast in place

box girders, with a varying height from 2.5 to 8.5 meters, constructed using the cantilever method

[Vurpillot 1998]. Fung [2003] had relative success, going from strain measurements to calculate

deflection. Three different types of beams were tested with this method; a single span steel tube,

a three span steel tube, and a prestressed T beam. There were discrepancies with the

Page 18: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

8

prestressed T-beam as the curvature to deflection algorithm was sensitive to concrete cracking.

Aki [2005] discovered that this method of was unsuccessful in monitoring torsion. Johnson [2006]

identified some weaknesses of the formulation: including susceptibility to signal noise and non-

conforming loading conditions.

2.2.2 Rotation Measurements to Calculate Deflection

Another method that others have used to determine deflection of long span bridges

directly measures the beam rotation with inclinometers [Xingmin 2005]. An advantage to using

inclinometers is that it is possible to measure both static and dynamic deflections and [Xingmin,

2005].

There have been multiple tests, both in the lab and in the field using inclinometers to

measure deflection. Two lab tests that have been performed, using a steel beam 6 meters long

with a constant cross section, one is simply supported and the other involves 3 supports. This

method has also been tested on the Taolaizhaou Songhua River Bridge, a multiple span bridge

[Xingmin, 2005]. These tests demonstrate that inclinometers are an economical choice for

monitoring bridge deflection. Again this research applies beam theory as the basis for calculating

deflection from rotation.

2.2.3 Using Base Shapes to Calculate Deflection

Oliver Burdet and Jean-Luc Zanella of Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, in

Switzerland, have developed a method of determining the deflection of a bridge using

inclinometers. They noticed that reconstructing the deflected shape of a bridge from its rotation is

rather difficult in practice. It is sensitive to measurement errors, and becomes very complex

mathematically when the moment of inertia, of the bridge cross-section, is not constant. Because

of these errors a different approach was developed. The deflected shapes are constructed by a

linear combination of a series of pre-calculated shapes known as base shapes. The idea is that

structures deflect following smooth curves obtained from actual deflection calculations under

canonical load cases. Each deflected shape respects the bridge properties and can account for

discontinuities, sudden changes in moment of inertia, much better than polynomials [Burdet,

2000].

Burdet and Zanella tested this method of deriving the deflection from the inclinometer

measurements and used it to accurately model the deflection on the Mentue Bridges, Figure 2-1,

on the A1 motorway from Lausanne to Bern [Burdet, 2000]. This bridge has a single box girder

cross section with varying depth, therefore having significant varying moment of inertia. This is

similar to the original Kealakaha design. However, the Kealakaha Bridge final design and

construction is even more complex with varying depth multi cell box girders over the pier support

transitioning to multiple I beam configuration with a constant cross-section at midspan and

Page 19: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

9

abutment spans. Application of this rotation-based deflection system to this more complex bridge

geometry will demonstrate a better approach is applicable to complex bridge types.

Figure 2.2-1: North Mentue Bridge, Position of Inclinometers along Bridge [Burdet,

2000]

2.3 Base Isolation The base isolation bearings used in the Kealakaha Stream Bridge are manufactured by

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. KSF Inc., the Kealakaha Stream Bridge designer, used the

single pendulum friction pendulum system, Figure 2-2 [Earthquake Protection Systems, 2003].

Using base isolation allows the period of the structure to be increased thus decreasing the

earthquake induced horizontal loads transferred from the superstructure to the substructure

[Chopra, 2007]. The friction pendulum bearings were installed in an inverted fashion as shown in

figure 2.3-1 to reduce the potential for dirt and debris accumulating on the sliding surface.

Figure 2.3-1 Typical Friction Bearing Section [Earthquake Protection Systems,

2003]

The following diagram shows how to model friction pendulum bearings. The equations

displayed were used to determine the properties of friction pendulum bearings.

Page 20: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

10

Figure 2.3-2 Modeling the Friction Pendulum Bearings

Page 21: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

11

2.4 Inclinometer The inclinometers that are to be used in this project are LSOC ±1º, manufactured by

Shelborne Sensors (Figure 2.5-1). This model is a gravity referenced servo sensor. These

inclinometers have suggested applications of bore-hole mapping, dam and rock shifts, seismic

and civil engineering studies, and other applications where precise measurements are required.

According to the manufacturer this sensor has a sensitivity of 0.1 arc second resolution,

28*10-6 degrees. This sensor was tested in the Structures Lab at the University of Hawaii and the

best resolution that was obtained was 500*10-6 degrees, nearly 20 times less accurate than

designed by the manufacturer. This resolution was dominated by the base level electrical noise

of the sensor. In other words, the 0.1 arc second resolution is probably only obtained with

averaging over time—not desirable in a seismic measurement application. It is therefore

important to evaluate the effect of reading accuracy on the deflected shape predicted by the

inclinometer – based rotation deflection system.

Figure 2.4-1 LSPO ±1º

Page 22: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

12

Page 23: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

13

Chapter 3: SAP2000 FRAME ELEMENT MODEL: STRAIGHT BASE LINE

3.1 Development of SAP2000 straight base line model SAP2000 was used to create a simple frame model that did not include the horizontal or

vertical curvature of the bridge. This model was the first iteration of the finite element method. It

is the simplest model using only SAP2000 frame elements and was compared with the results

from the designers, KSF Inc.

This model is a very basic representation of the bridge; it includes the section properties

and mass properties of the bridge. It was analyzed as a 2 - D model and was used to look at the

vertical deflection and dead load of the bridge. This model could not used to determine the

transverse deformations of the bridge.

This model included:

1. Fixed supports between the superstructure and substructure

a. Base Isolation was ignored.

2. Pier Geometry

a. Fixed supports at the base of the pier

3. Girder section

a. Using hand calculated section properties

b. A deck thickness of 9” was used

4. Box section

a. 5 different sections to account for the change in height of the cast in

place box girder.

b. Depth changes from 9’-4” to 18’

c. Bottom slab varies from 8” to 12”

5. Did not include any pre-stressing or post-tensioning

Page 24: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

14

Figure 3.1-1 SAP Area Model SBL

3.2 Frame Elements The frame elements that were used in this model were calculated based on the section

properties that were in the plans (KSF). The girder section (Figure 3.2-1) was calculated

assuming a constant width throughout the bridge and the box girder section (Figure 3.2-2) was

divided into 5 different sections. The box girder was input as 8 separate non-prismatic element

sections, each of which spans 18.125 feet, and as a single section for the box over the pier

(Figure 3.2-3).

Page 25: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

15

Figure 3.2-1 Girder Section used to calculated properties

Figure 3.2-2 Box Girder Section used to calculate section properties

These properties were input in SAP2000 as non-prismatic frame sections. They are:

Page 26: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

16

Figure 3.2-3 Division of elements for SAP2000

These section properties are transformed for the differences in the Young’s modulus

throughout the bridge. The following table shows the different compressive strengths and

Young’s modulus for each member. Young’s Modulus was calculated using equation 3-2; this

formula is from ACI equation 8.5.1.

57000

3-1

Compressive Strength

F’c (28 days) (ksi)

Young’s Modulus

E (ksi)

CIP Deck 6 4415

Precast Deck Planks 6 4415

Precast Girders 8 5098

Box Girder 6 4415

Table 3-1 Material Properties of Structural Elements

Page 27: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

17

Area

(in^2)(10^6)Ixx

(in^4)(10^6)Iyy

(in^4)(10^6)

Girder Section 0.0138 19.000 374.000

Box 1 0.0162 30.900 434.000

Box 2 0.0171 37.700 966.000

Box 3 0.0194 61.700 523.000

Box 4 0.0216 93.600 1330.000

Box 5 0.0254 173.000 1660.000

Box over Pier 0.114 466.000 248. 000

Pier 0.0223 16.058 357.200

Table 3-2 Section Properties

The way the cross sections were modeled, beams “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” were not

included. Beam “A” is located over each abutment; it is the end block of the bridge. Beam “B” is

located where the precast girders were cast together, every 52.5 feet. Beam “C” is located the

abutment spans, between the box girder and precast girder sections. Beam “D” is located in the

middle span between the box girder and precast girder sections. To account for the extra weight

these beams added, point loads were added (Table 3-3). The additional stiffness’s were not

accounted for in this model.

Span 1 Span 2 Span 3

Dist. from Abut. 1 (ft)

BEAM DL

(Kip)

Dist. From

Pier 1 (ft) BEAM

DL (Kip)

Dist. From

Pier 2 (ft) BEAM

DL (Kip)

0 A 401 255 D 287 615 C 270

52.5 B 140 307.5 B 140 667.5 B 140

105 C 270 360 B 140 720 A 401

412.5 B 140

465 D 287

Table 3-3 Beam Locations and Weights

Page 28: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

18

3.3 Analysis There are some differences in the analysis of the 2-D model and KSF’s 2d model. Since

KSF is a designer, they have different tolerances than researchers. An instance of this is the

assumptions that were made when calculating the different section properties of the bridge. The

box girder was divided up into multiple segments but the section properties were linearly

interpolated between each segment instead of parabolically as per the moment of inertia

equation. A comparison of the section properties for the girder section and the box girder section,

where the height was 9’ – 9”, are shown in Table 3-3.

Area

(in^2)(10^6)Ixx

(in^4)(10^6)Iyy

(in^4)(10^6)

Girder Section

(Hand Calc) 0.0138 19 374

Girder Section

(KSF) 0.0145 8.668 437.861

% Diff 5.07 54.38 17.08

Box Section 9’

(Hand Calc) 0.0162 30.9 434

Box Section 9’

(KSF) 0.0236 51.217 815.194

% Diff 45.68 65.75 87.83

Box Section 18’

(Hand Calc) 0.0254 173 1660

Box Section 18’

(KSF) 0.0327 240.185 1185.331

% Diff 28.74 38.84 28.59

Pier (Hand Calc) 0.0223 16.058 357.200

Pier (KSF) 0.0432 29,860 265.628

% Diff 93.72 85.95 25.64

Page 29: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

19

Table 3-4 Comparing Section Properties

The deflected shape of the bridge from the self-weight gives significant deflections (Table

3-4). These deflections are before the addition of the base isolation and without the prestressing

and post tensioning, so the deflections are very conservative and should be larger than the other

models.

Δ(90 ft) inches

Δ(360 ft) inches

Δ(630 ft) inches

SAP 2000 2-d

Frame Model -0.053 -8.006 0.0613

Table 3-5 Deflections at each span

Page 30: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

20

Page 31: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

21

Chapter 4: SAP2000 AREA ELEMENT MODEL: STRAIGHT BASE LINE

4.1 Development of SAP2000 straight base line area model SAP2000’s bridge modeler was used to create an area model that did not include the

horizontal or vertical curvature of the bridge. This model was used to determine an algorithm for

determining deflection based on measured rotations and for placing inclinometers in the best

locations. The straight base line area model was compared to the first model with respect to

dead load and mode shapes.

The model includes the section properties and material properties of the bridge. It was

analyzed as a 3d model and was used to look at the vertical deflection and mode shapes of the

bridge.

This model includes:

1. Base Isolation

a. Input as friction isolators

2. Pier Geometry

a. Fixed supports at the base of the pier

3. Abutment Geometry

a. Modeled the abutment as a bent to best capture the deflection and mode

shapes.

b. Fixed supports at bottom of abutment

4. Girder section

a. Used the bridge modeler tool in SAP2000

b. A deck thickness of 9” was used

5. Box section

a. Used the bridge modeler tool in SAP2000

b. Depth varies from 9’-4” to 18’

c. Bottom slab thickness varies from 8” to 12”

6. Included transverse beams, “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”

7. Includes pre-stressing and post-tensioning

a. Included as steel tendons with axial force applied to them

Page 32: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

22

Figure 4.1-1 SAP Area model straight base line

4.2 Area Elements The area elements were input in this model by using the bridge modeler. The bridge

modeler is an add-on in the SAP2000 program that allows the properties of the bridge to be input

into a variety of tables which are linked to the bridge model. This is a linked model that can be

easily updated and configured.

The bridge modeler gives options to either update the bridge as an area model or as a

spine model. A spine model is similar to the previous frame model and modeled the bridge using

frames instead of area sections. The area model was chosen to represent the bridge as it has

nodes on the outside fascia of the bridge, allowing the deflections of the Mountainside and

Oceanside girders to be compared readily. Another reason that the spine model was not used

was that when the diaphragms where included in the spine model it did not incorporate the dead

load. This was later modified by emailing SAP2000 which released an updated version,

SAP2000 V14.2.1.

The geometry of the precast girder section and the box girder were input into the bridge

modeler that calculated the section properties. The section properties from SAP2000’s bridge

Page 33: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

23

modeler were compared with the hand calculations and the max error was 7%, table 4.2-1. This

was an acceptable value and verified that the bridge modeler was calculating the section

properties correctly.

Section Prop

Girder Box

SAP Hand Calc % Error SAP Hand Calc % Error

Area (in^2) 0.0162 .0153 6.0 0.0168 0.0161 4.1

Ixx (in^4) 23.9000 19.000 6.3 31.300 30.900 1.3

Iyy (in^4) 485.000 374.000 6.0 468.000 434.000 7.3

Table 4-1 Section Properties Calculated in Bridge Modeler

The varying depth of the box girder and the varying thickness of the bottom slab were

accounted for by using parametric variations.

The Area model uses 4 node thin shell elements to model the slab, box girders, and

diaphragms. The precast girders are modeled as frame elements. The abutments and piers are

modeled as bents, using frame elements. The abutments were modeled as bents to give a more

accurate representation of the modal shapes. The diaphragms, beams A, B, C, and D are

modeled using frame elements.

SAP2000 has the ability to model friction pendulum bearings (FPB). The friction

pendulum bearings were modeled using a special link element, a friction isolator. There are two

different types of friction pendulum bearings that were used in the design of the Kealakaha

stream bridge, one design for the abutments and one for the piers. The abutment FPB has a

radius of 88 inches, a displacement capacity of +/- 12.5 inches with coefficients of friction 0.4 and

0.5 for static and dynamic friction respectively. The pier FPB has a radius of 88 inches, a

displacement capacity of 10.5 inches, with coefficients of friction 0.4 and 0.5 for static and

dynamic friction respectively [KSF, 2006]. The FPB at the pier is free to translate in both the

transverse and longitudinal directions. The FPB at the abutment is free to translate in the

longitudinal direction but is fixed in the transverse direction by a shear key. This element was

applied at girders 2 and 5, at the same location as they are located on the plans.

Page 34: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

24

4.3 Analysis This model is the model that will be used to determine the rotation to deflection and the

base shape algorithms. Comparing the dead load to the previous model shows a slight increase.

The distribution is much different at the abutments, with 45% difference at abutment 1 and 42%

difference at abutment 2. The

Dead Load

(kip)

DL @

Abut 1

DL@

Abut 2

DL @

Pier 1

DL @

Pier 2

SBL Area

Model 18000 680 700 8325 8300

SBL Frame

Model 17200 1236 1215 7289 7491

% Diff 4.65 44.98 41.67 14.2 10.80

Table 4-2 Dead Load Comparisons

Δ(90 ft) inches

Δ(360 ft) inches

Δ(630 ft) inches

SAP 2000 Thin

Shell Element :

SBL

0.00 -4.83 0.05

SAP 2000 2-d

Frame Model -0.053 -8.006 0.0613

Table 4-3 Deflections at middle of each span

Page 35: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

25

Chapter 5: SAP2000 AREA ELEMENT MODEL: HORIZONTALLY & VERTICALLY CURVED BASELINE

5.1 Development of SAP2000 area model SAP2000 was used to create an area model that included the horizontal or vertical

geometry of the bridge. This model used the same methodology as the straight base line area

model and also used the same section properties. The difference is that this model incorporated

the vertical and horizontal geometry.

This model included:

1. Base Isolation

a. Input as a friction isolator

2. Pier Geometry

a. Fixed supports at the base of the pier

3. Abutment Geometry

a. Modeled the abutment as a bent to best capture the deflection and mode

shapes

4. Girder section

a. Used the bridge modeler tool in SAP2000

b. A deck thickness of 9” was used

5. Box section

a. Used the bridge modeler tool in SAP2000

b. Depth varies from 9’-4” to 18’

c. Bottom slab varies from 8” to 12”

6. Included Diaphragms

7. Includes pre-stressing and post-tensioning

5.2 Vertical and Horizontal Geometry The vertical and horizontal geometry was taken from the contract plans (KSF). The first

365 feet of the bridge is located on a vertical curve and the rest of the bridge has a constant slope

of 3.46% downward toward abutment two. The vertical geometry of the centerline of the road is

defined in Figure 5.2-1. The vertical curve was modified to input into SAP2000, it was split into

multiple straight segments. This is shown in Table 5.2-1, where the grade for each segment was

calculated.

The bridge is built on a curve with a radius of 1800 feet. The precast girders and box

girders were built as straight segments at different angles and the deck was cast such that it has

the radius on the edges. This was modeled in SAP by just using straight sections for the precast

Page 36: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

26

girders and box girders but changing the orientation of the direction of each segment, as shown in

Figure 5.1-1. The geometry of the horizontal curve is located in Table 5.2-2.

Figure 5.2-1 SAP Area model straight base line

Figure 5.2-2 Profile grade line at centerline of road

Page 37: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

27

Station 1 Elevation Station 2 Elevation Grade (%)

206 + 57 927.44 207 + 92 925.73 -1.63

207 + 92 925.73 209 + 12 922.16 -2.38

209 + 12 922.16 210 + 17 918.90 -3.11

210 + 17 918.90 211+97 912.67 -3.46

Table 5-1 Vertical Geometry

Figure 5.2-3 Segment Layout of Kealakaha Bridge

Point Station deg. Min sec. Azimuth

Honokaa

Abut 206 + 57 104 24 46.3 104.4129

Wash-Box 207 + 62 102 45 27.6 102.7577

Box-Wash 209 + 12 97 55 9.7 97.9194

Wash-Box 211 + 22 91 17 54.8 91.2986

Box-Wash 212 + 72 86 27 36.6 86.4602

Hilo Abut 213 + 77 84 48 17.9 84.8050

Table 5-2 Horizontal Geometry

5.3 Comparison with Area Element Model: Straight Base Line (SBL)

This model was created to see the impacts that the horizontal and vertical geometry have

when compared with the SAP2000 SBL Area model that was used to determine the placement of

the accelerometers and inclinometers. The dead load increased from the straight base line

model, see table 5.3-1. The largest inconsistency between the dead load comparisons was at

Abutment 1 with a 26.6% error. This can be attributed to the geometry differences as abutment 1

Page 38: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

28

and pier 1 have much larger portions of the dead load than in the straight base line model. A

possible causes of the increase in loading are the geometry changes from the

Dead Load

(kip)

DL @

Abut 1

DL@

Abut 2

DL @

Pier 1

DL @

Pier 2

Area Model 19450 927 770 9525 8224

SBL Area

Model 18000 680 700 8325 8300

% Error 7.4 26.6 9.1 12.6 0.9

Table 5-3 Dead Load Comparisons

The self weight deflections increased in this model from the SAP2000 SBL Area model.

This is due to the increase in weight of the structure and from change in the geometry of the

bridge.

Δ(90 ft) inches

Δ(360 ft) inches

Δ(630 ft) inches

SAP 2000 Area

Element : 3-D

0.69 -6.28 1.10

SAP 2000 Area

Element : SBL

0.00 -4.83 0.05

Table 5-4 Deflections at middle of each span

Page 39: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

29

Chapter 6: Using Rotation to Calculate Displacement (R2D)

6.1 Theory This is the methodology that was used for determining the rotation to deflection

calculations and algorithm. Reviewing beam theory the equation of curvature is:

6-1

Where:

Ψ(x) is the curvature;

M(x) is a function of the moment over the length of the beam;

E is the young’s modulus of the material;

I(x) is a function of the moment of inertia over the length of the beam;

If the moment, M(x) is taken to be:

3 2

6-2

This gives a description of a quadratic bending moment, which is a good representation

of point loads and uniform distributed loads along the span. Given that the Kealakaha Bridge is a

combination of a varying height box girder and precast drop in girders the moment of inertia

varies quite drastically, shown in Figure 1.1-1. The moment of inertia is very difficult to model;

there is a significant increase in the stiffness at 75 feet on either side of both piers. This is where

the section changes between the varying height box girder and the precast drop in girders.

6-3

Assuming small deformations and integrating the curvature gives us the rotation:

3 2

6-4

Page 40: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

30

Figure 6.1-1 Varying Moment of Inertia along the Length of the Bridge

Next, the deflection is determined by integrating the rotation (also the second integral of

the curvature equation):

3 2 x

6-5

Instead of doing a direct integration of the rotation the deflection was determined by using

numerical integration, trapezoidal rule.

12

6-6

Where:

δ = deflection

dx is the step size of the integration;

0.0E+00

2.0E+07

4.0E+07

6.0E+07

8.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.2E+08

1.4E+08

1.6E+08

1.8E+08

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Ixx (in^4)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Moment of Inertia along Bridge

Moment of Inertia (Ixx)

Page 41: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

31

θ(i) is the rotation at the previous point;

θ(i+1) is the rotation at the point of interest;

The direct integration method is a more accurate method but using the numerical

integration helped reduce the calculation time. The numerical integration method is also a

simpler algorithm to set up for forward matching progress.

6.2 Implementation

6.2.1 Assumptions

To simplify the rotation to deflection equations a few assumptions were made. The

moment of inertia and modulus of elasticity were both taken to be constant instead of varying

along the length of the bridge. This assumption simplified equations 6-4 and 6-5. The deflection

at abutment 1 was taken to be 0; this is where the rotation to deflection algorithm starts and will

be carried through the length of the bridge.

Taking the moment of inertia and modulus of elasticity to be constant reduces the rotation

equation (6-4) to:

6-7

The deflection can then be written as:

4 3 2

6-8

6.2.2 Model Descretization

The R2D method was applied to the Kealakaha bridge model by discretizing the

superstructure into convenient beam segments. These segments are defined such that the four

unknowns in equation (6-7) can be determined from acquired data. In other words, the method

requires four rotations as input to determine the rotation function. The rotation measurements at

the ends of each beam segment provide continuity between adjacent beam segments. In the first

trial, it was assumed that 18 rotation sensors were required to adequately capture the displaced

shape of the super structure. They were assigned to the locations indicated in figure ().

The rotation sensors which are available to calculate the deflection of girder 6 include:

the four sensors at the piers and all the odd numbers sensors along the length of the girder itself.

Starting from sensor location 1, three adjacent beam segments are assigned. The first segment

uses sensors 1, 5, 7 and 2; this segment is called R2D Model 1 Segment 1. The second

Page 42: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

32

segment uses sensors 2, 9, 11, and 13; this segment is called R2D Model 1 Segment 2. The

third segment uses sensors 13, 3, 15, and 17; this segment is called R2D Model 1 Segment 3.

Model 1 does not span the whole bridge; it ends at inclinometer 17 or at beam “B” in span

3. To incorporate the whole bridge other models will be needed. Two other models will be used,

Model 2 and Model 3, placed so that each model starts at the next inclinometer along the bridge.

R2D Model 2 Segment 1 uses sensors 5, 7, 2, and 9, R2D Model 2 Segment 2 uses sensors 9,

11, 13, 3, R2D Model 2 Segment 3 uses sensors 3, 15, 17, and 4 R2D Model 3 Segment 1 uses

sensors 7, 2, 9, and 11 and R2D Model 3 Segment 2 uses sensors 11, 13, 3, and 15 (Figure 6.2-

3).

Figure 6.2-1 Location of Inclinometers and Formation of R2D Models 1 – 3

6.2.3 Model Analysis

To test the rotation to deflection theory, the SAP2000 straight base line area model was

used with a variety of loading conditions, A-I, (Figure 6.2-2). This model was used as the

measured values as there aren’t any measurements from the field as of this time. The load

placements are in the middle of each span, at 90 ft, 360 ft, and 630 ft respectively. The model

was loaded with a standard HS-20 truck Figure 6.2-3. The total weight of the HS-20 was applied

as two point loads, 36 Kip each, acting on the two nearest girders (Figure 6.2-3). The loads were

applied to girders 5 and 6 (below the Hilo bound lanes), middle two girders (3 and 4—below the

centerline) and girders 1 and 2 (below the Honokaa bound lanes).

Model 1 Segment 1 Model 1 Segment 2 Model 1 Segment 3

Model 2 Segment 1 Model 2 Segment 2 Model 2 Segment 3

Model 3 Segment 1 Model 3 Segment 2

Page 43: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

33

Figure 6.2-2 Plan view of the placement of 9 point load cases

Figure 6.2-3 HS-20 Truck

For the 3 R2D models, for them to be accurately used together a common initial value is

necessary. The first support that is in all 3 models was Pier 1. To use this location as a

boundary condition is not an ideal location as there is some movement at girders 1 and 6 for

loading cases that are not in the center of the bridge. The boundary condition was decided to be

0 inch deflection at the abutment; this is true for all loading conditions. The difficulty with this

location is R2D models 2 and 3 do not include this point.

R2D model 1 was chosen to be the boundary condition for R2D models 2 and 3, δ (R2D

Model 1 @ inclinometer 5) = δ (R2D Model 2 @ inclinometer 5 and δ (R2D Model 1 @

Page 44: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

34

inclinometer 7) = δ (R2D Model 3 @ inclinometer 7). This incorporates setting the deflection at

abutment 1 to 0 inches and forces continuity at inclinometer 5 for R2D Model 2 and inclinometer 7

for R2D Model 3 (Figure 6.2-6). The deflections from the R2D models are based off of R2D

Model 1 but quickly diverge as they have different constant values; A, B, C, and D.

The 3 R2D Models have been plotted against the deflections that were determined in

SAP2000 for load case A. R2D Model 1 is a good representation of Span 1, (Figure 6.2-3). R2D

Model 2 doesn’t have as good as a representation of the first span and it does not return to 0

inches of deflection at abutment 2, it is the only model that has a complete deflection for the last

span (Figure 6.2-5). The R2D Model 3 follows the predicted deflection from SAP2000 through

the second span.

6.2-6 shows all 3 R2D models and the calculated deflection from SAP2000 on the same

graph. This illustrates the lack of continuity between the 3 different models and shows how each

model best represents a single span.

Page 45: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

35

Figure 6.2-4 R2D Model 1 with SAP output

Figure 6.2-5 R2D Model 2 with SAP output

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.00 90.00 180.00 270.00 360.00 450.00 540.00 630.00 720.00

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case C

SAP

Model 1

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.00 90.00 180.00 270.00 360.00 450.00 540.00 630.00 720.00

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case C

SAP

Model 2

Page 46: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

36

Figure 6.2-6 R2D Model 3 with SAP output

Figure 6.2-7 Load Case C with All models

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.00 90.00 180.00 270.00 360.00 450.00 540.00 630.00 720.00

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case C

SAP

Model 3

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.00 90.00 180.00 270.00 360.00 450.00 540.00 630.00 720.00

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case C

SAP

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Page 47: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

37

6.2.4 Final Model Selection

To reduce the 3 R3D Models into a single deflection there needed to be some

manipulation. As shown in figure 6.2-6 the only place where the R2D Models are continuous is in

the first span, from setting the initial value of R2D Models 2 and 3 equal to R2D Model 1. Another

inconsistency is that R2D Model 2 does not return to 0.

This was remedied by determining the difference at abutment 2 of R2D Model 2 and

rotating the whole deflection curve about its initial point. The model was chosen to be rotated

instead of translated to keep continuity with R2D Model 1 in span 1. R2D Model 3 needed to be

updated for continuity with the other 2 models.

Since each model represents a single span; R2D Model 1 – span 1, R2D Model 2 – span

3 and R2D Model 3 – span 2, Each model will only be used for its span that it represents the most

accurately, R2D Model 1 will be used for span 1, 0 ft to 180 ft. R2D Model 3 for 180 ft to 540 ft

and R2D Model 2 for 540 ft. to 720 ft (Figure 6.2-7). Model 3 was transposed to match R2D

Model 1 at pier 1 and then rotated about pier 1 to match R2D Model 2 at pier 2.

Delta 1 is from R2D Model 1 in span 1, Delta 2 is from R2D Model 3 in span 2, and Delta

3 is the portion of R2D Model 2 in span 3. The Deflection

Figure 6.2-8 Portions of R2D Models used in final deflection curve

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Page 48: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

38

Figure 6.2-9 Load Case C with final Delta

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case C

SAP

Delta

Page 49: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

39

Chapter 7: BASE SHAPES

7.1 Theory Using base shapes to calculate the deflection along the bridge is superposition. The

measured rotations from the inclinometers will be related to the pre-calculated rotations at each

point along the bridge by the following equation:

7-1

Where:

θm is a matrix containing the measured rotations of the bridge

θpre is a matrix containing the pre-calculated rotations resulting from the base shapes

α is a matrix of participation factors

Using this equation it is possible to determine the factors, α, that are required to scale the

pre-calculated base shapes rotations to recreate the function of rotations along the length of the

bridge from the measured rotations.

7-2

 

It is important to note that, θpre, must be a square matrix in order for the inverse function

to work. Using the factors that modify the pre-calculate rotations to the actual measured

rotations; the same can be done for the pre-calculated deflections.

7-3

 

7.2 Implementation The base shape methodology of determining deflection is a very efficient method. It

takes into account the stiffness and material changes throughout the bridge. This method does

not take much computing time as it only involves matrix inversion and multiplication. The time

consuming portion is to ensure that the pre-calculated shapes are determined for the loads

located in the ideal positions and that the finite element model is correct.

Page 50: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

40

The base shape theory of determining deflection is a fairly simple approach. The first

step is to determine the location of loads used to generate the base shapes. This was done by

setting the locations at every 60 feet along the bridge; these are locations 21-38 as labeled in

Figure 7.2-1. The temperature effects were also included as a potential loading condition. The

temperature loading was a linear varying 1 degree change in temperature on the top slab of the

bridge.

The temperature loading was applied in SAP2000 through the bridge modeler as a

temperature gradient. The gradient was applied over the top 9” of the deck as a linear varying

temperature of 1º C decreasing to 0º C at the bottom of the deck (Figure7.2-1).

Figure 7.2-1 Applied Temperature Gradient along Bridge

Locations 21-29 are located on the two Oceanside girders and locations 30-38 are

located on the two mountainside girders. At each of these locations the same loading conditions

were enforced as for the rotation to deflection methodology, placing a HS-20 truck, Figure 7.2-2,

at each location.

Initially only the first 9 load cases, A-I were considered. SAP2000 and the SBL area

model were used to determine the measured rotations due to each load case. This provided a

good number of comparisons when determining which base shapes were to be used. There were

12 combinations of the base shapes that were tested to see which would give an acceptable

deflection when compared with SAP2000. These combinations are shown in Table 7.2-1. The

combinations are split up into pairs with a +T and –T. The +T means that the temperature load

case was taken into account and –T means that the temperature load case was not taken into

account.

Page 51: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

41

The temperature was negated out by assigning a value of 1 in the θpre matrix. This was

done to see if the temperature deflection condition was having a positive or negative impact on

the load cases.

Splitting the base shapes into combinations of 9 worked the best. When too many load

combinations are combined into the θpre then they start working against each other and magnify

the error in the deflected shape.

Figure 7.2-2 Location of potential base shapes

Combo Load Location

1 +T 21 22 28 29 30 31 37 38

2 -T 21 22 28 29 30 31 37 38

3 +T 21 23 27 29 30 32 36 38

4 -T 21 23 27 29 30 32 36 38

5 +T 21 24 26 29 30 33 35 38

6 -T 21 24 26 29 30 33 35 38

7 +T 22 23 27 28 31 32 36 37

8 -T 22 23 27 28 31 32 36 37

9 +T 22 24 26 28 31 33 35 37

10 -T 22 24 26 28 31 33 35 37

11 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

12 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Table 7-1 Potential base shape combinations

Page 52: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

42

Figure 7.2-3 HS-20 Truck

To determine the best combination to use for the base shapes, the deflections of all 12

load cases were analyzed. Table 7.2-2 shows the results of each load combination at the middle

of each span, 90 ft, 360 ft, and 530 ft respectively. The table shows the difference between

SAP2000’s deflection and each combination. The SAP2000’s calculated rotations act as the

measured rotations as though they are from the inclinometers. These rotations are used in

determining the participation factor, α. Table 7-2 shows the error between the measured;

SAP2000, deflection and the deflection calculated using the base shape method.

%

| |100% 7-4

 

Page 53: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

43

Combo 1

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 48.7 83.4 91.6 26.0 16.9 12.5 101.5 22.0 107.1

360 ft 0.0 212.3 1174.6 10.8 8.8 4.4 406.2 53.2 401.1

630 ft 37.8 82.8 91.3 26.2 16.6 10.5 101.8 17.4 108.0

Combo 2

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 76.3 108.3 103.3 19.4 7.5 29.1 99.5 120.2 97.7

360 ft 246.5 78.3 84.5 4.6 0.9 4.6 89.5 102.4 88.4

630 ft 91.3 102.0 100.9 2.8 19.2 77.5 99.9 105.9 99.3

Combo 3

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 167.2 57.6 84.7 95.0 52.8 21.2 102.9 79.3 122.2

360 ft 61.3 185.3 338.1 23.7 16.9 14.3 189.6 97.7 289.2

630 ft 173.1 56.7 84.1 77.5 46.9 17.9 103.5 78.1 125.6

Combo 4

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 140.7 90.5 96.0 127.1 228.1 2456.2 100.6 76.2 103.1

360 ft 67.7 154.4 128.0 25.9 30.5 36.5 115.8 97.5 118.4

630 ft 146.6 88.7 95.3 97.5 146.8 343.3 100.8 75.4 104.0

Combo 5

Page 54: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

44

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 11.8 49.7 164.3 7.8 12.1 0.7 63.1 24.8 48.9

360 ft 5.8 2.5 0.1 4.7 3.9 18.1 8.7 85.6 5.0

630 ft 10.5 44.4 138.7 5.1 10.7 2.9 58.7 26.2 46.0

Combo 6

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 2.1 3.4 12.1 2.5 22.7 91.5 37.1 421.7 208.6

360 ft 1.5 3.1 6.3 3.0 7.1 12.8 12.4 148.6 17.0

630 ft 2.4 2.7 10.9 0.4 20.1 72.6 33.2 802.3 135.6

Combo 7

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 3.8 15.0 44.5 9.8 10.1 22.1 74.9 120.0 3.5

360 ft 7.1 68.8 151.6 3.1 14.6 13.3 17523.8 203.7 2050.5

630 ft 0.4 4.1 9.1 7.9 10.9 22.8 3.1 96.7 116.2

Combo 8

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 0.9 7.0 15.7 11.6 7.7 19.8 66.9 82.4 9.6

360 ft 44.2 682.8 214.3 97.3 70.1 83.7 161.1 96.8 199.7

630 ft 2.9 1.2 4.6 6.3 13.0 24.7 40.7 131.4 78.8

Combo 9

A B C D E F G H I

Page 55: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

45

% % % % % % % % %

90 ft 0.4 1.7 2.1 7.9 11.0 22.1 43.8 88.4 56.0

360 ft 5.4 1.3 1.0 8.6 0.9 10.2 10.1 80.9 3.7

630 ft 0.0 1.6 2.5 7.1 9.7 21.1 39.8 81.8 47.7

Combo 10

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 0.0 0.8 0.2 10.1 9.9 21.7 47.2 89.5 54.2

360 ft 1.9 3.4 7.3 20.9 13.6 16.1 0.8 79.3 5.8

630 ft 0.5 0.4 0.1 10.0 8.4 20.5 44.3 83.1 45.8

Combo 11

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 0.0 2.2 4.4 4.2 24.8 57.4 190.5 2924.7 837.8

360 ft 0.0 7.1 8.3 2.2 4.8 9.7 10.5 191.7 11.2

630 ft 0.0 7.5 14.4 3.1 23.0 53.4 497.6 1011.8 5586.5

Combo 12

A

%

B

%

C

%

D

%

E

%

F

%

G

%

H

%

I

%

90 ft 3.2 2.7 0.0 37.8 21.8 1.4 83.0 8.4 55.6

360 ft 14.3 4.0 0.0 35.6 22.9 0.1 53.6 83.8 30.1

630 ft 3.1 2.0 0.0 33.1 18.4 1.4 77.8 8.0 48.7

Table 7-2 Comparison of Different Load Combinations

The results in Table 7.2-2 show that selection of the base shapes has a big influence on

the error between SAP2000’s calculated deflections and the base shape calculated deflections.

Combination 2 has the worst error with a max error of 17500% at the middle of span 2. The best

Page 56: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

46

combinations were combinations 9 and 10, with average errors of 21.0% and 22.1%. These two

combinations are very similar, with the difference being whether or not the temperature was

included. Since these two combinations are very similar, other loading conditions will be looked

at. The new loading conditions will be

Figure 7.2-3 shows the deflection along the mountainside (Mauka) girder determined by

using the base shapes approach with combination 10 as the pre-calculated deflected shapes.

Load combination A is the condition where there is one HS-20 Truck located in the middle of the

bridge on the Oceanside (Makai) girders.

Figure 7.2-4 shows the resulting deflection from the base shapes compared to the

deflection output from SAP2000. As shown on the chart the base shape deflection is very close

to SAP2000’s predicted deflection. The differences at the middle of span1, span 2 and span 3

are: 0.009 inches, 0.010 inches, and -0.002 inches respectively.

Figure 7.2-4 Base Shape Deflection with SAP output, Load case A

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination A

SAP 

Base Shapes

Page 57: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

47

Figure 7.2-5 Base Shape Deflection with SAP output, Load case H

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination H 

Base Shapes

SAP 

Page 58: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

48

Page 59: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

49

Chapter 8: R2D ANALYSIS

8.1 Preliminary Locations Initially placing the inclinometers at each beam along the bridge was the layout. Looking

at the preliminary layout (figure 6.2-1), it was observed that placing the inclinometers at each

beam was not a very good option. The problem occurred in the middle span, placing the

inclinometers at the end of the box girder did not give the best results for the middle span of the

bridge. The box girder was too stiff, decreasing the rotation measured, thus causing inaccurate

deflection calculations when using the rotation to deflection algorithm described above.

Five different locations were explored, points 1 – 5. Point 1 was located 8.67 feet from

beam D in the middle span and points 2-5 were located 8.67 feet from the previous point. The

five new locations were located in the middle span at equal spacing, 8.67 feet, between beam D

and the first beam B. Table 8-1 shows the results of each location minus the values from

SAP2000. The results are in inches.

A B C D E F G H I 

%

Error

%

Error

%

Error

%

Error

%

Error

%

Error

%

Error

%

Error

%

Error

Point 1 7.45 0.02 4.62 2.80 4.93 23.15 5.61 354.68 5.35 

Point 2 0.25 1.72 0.46 0.79 6.45 23.50 1.29 532.79 3.43 

Point 3 9.77 2.09 4.72 3.65 3.18 18.75 9.54 677.81 0.59 

Point 4 14.39 1.88 6.37 3.97 2.40 17.19 12.16 754.75 1.35 

Point 5 16.76 1.08 6.91 3.69 2.24 15.76 12.86 779.31 0.15 

Beam D 21.75 2.71 13.44 1.94 6.27 25.17 19.80 55.45 12.56

Table 8-1 Results

From Table 8.1 the best result is from Point 2. It is not the best for all cases but for most

cases. It is best for load cases A, C, D, and F. The main inconsistency in choosing to move the

inclinometer from beam “D” to point 2 is load case H (Figure 8.1-1). This load case has an

extreme deflection discrepancy when only the deflections at midspan are looked. The deflected

shapes along the whole center span are similar, the difference being that the deflected shape

when an inclinometer is located at beam “D”, the deflection curves converge at the middle of the

Page 60: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

50

bridge. This gives the best results for the middle span; point 2 is a good medium between the

stiffness of the cast in place box girder and the precast girders.

Figure 8.1-1 Deflection for Load Case H for 6 Possible Inclinometer Locations

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case H

SAP

Delta (D)

Delta (Pt 1)

Delta (Pt 2)

Delta (Pt 3)

Delta (Pt 4)

Delta (Pt 5)

Page 61: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

51

Figure 8.1-2 Deflections for Load Case A for 6 Possible Inclinometer Locations

8.2 Number of Inclinometers There were 18 inclinometers in the preliminary placement. Due to limited number of

inputs in the data acquisition station, and the amount of accelerometers that are being used in the

bridge, the option of decreasing the number of inclinometers from 18 to 14 is explored. It is more

economical than purchasing additional data acquisition stations and will allow the later installation

of extra accelerometers in the free field stations. More inclinometers can be added at a future

time.

The initial location of the inclinometers was roughly based on 60 foot spacing, where

there are 2 sets of inclinometers in the first and third spans, 3 inclinometers in the second span,

and one inclinometer at each support. To decrease the number of inclinometers, it was

determined to remove 1 set on inclinometers from the first and third span. Two different options

were evaluated, a 72 foot and a 90 foot spacing. These options are shown in Figure 8.2-1.

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case A

SAP

Delta (D)

Delta (Pt 1)

Delta (Pt 2)

Delta (Pt 3)

Delta (Pt 4)

Delta (Pt 5)

Page 62: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

52

Figure 8.2-1 Location of Potential Inclinometer Locations

To compare the three inclinometer location patterns; 60, 72 and 90 foot spacing the R2D

method was employed. Each inclinometer schematic was evaluated for load combinations A – I.

Page 63: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

53

Load

Combo

Deflection at Middle of Center Span (360 ft)

SAP 2000

Defl. (in)

60 Foot Spacing 72 Foot Spacing 90 Foot Spacing

Defl. (in) % Error Defl. (in.) % Error Defl. (in.) % Error

A -0.162 -0.157 2.98 -0.103 36.597 -0.141 12.594

B -0.310 -0.314 1.44 -0.310 0.261 -0.314 1.377

C -0.470 -0.476 1.22 -0.524 11.602 -0.491 4.440

D 0.169 0.163 3.48 0.122 27.531 0.141 16.671

E 0.162 0.168 3.79 0.123 23.875 0.156 3.749

F 0.155 0.188 21.13 0.102 34.447 0.195 25.623

G -0.301 -0.313 3.98 -0.402 33.405 -0.350 16.338

H -0.007 0.030 556.78 -0.001 83.131 0.053 906.849

I -0.148 -0.146 1.12 -0.187 26.638 -0.159 7.698

Table 8-2 Deflection at Middle of Center Span

Table 8.2 shows the of SAP2000 displacements compared with the R2D displacements

for the 60 foot, the 72 foot and the 90 foot inclinometer spacing. The table shows the deflection,

at the Mauka girder, calculated at each load combination, A – I, using SAP2000 and the R2D

method. The 60 foot spacing of the inclinometers has the best correlation with SAP2000 with the

exception of load combination H. The average error was 4.89%, when load combination H was

not included and 66.21% when it was included. The 90 foot spacing has the second best error

when load combination H is not included with an error of 11.06% and an error of 110.6% when

combination H is included. The 72 foot inclinometer spacing has significant error for all the load

cases other than H but produces the best results for load combination H. The error was 24.29%

when load combination H was not included and 30.83% when it was included.

Disregarding load combination H the optimal spacing is to set the inclinometers at 60 feet

based on error alone. Considering that freeing up 4 inputs in the data acquisition system by

changing the spacing to 90 feet only gives us a 6.17% increase it is a good tradeoff. If the

deflections are not working out, it is easy to convert the 90 foot spacing to 60 foot spacing at a

later time. The inclinometers in the middle span are in the same place for the 60 and 90 foot

spacing, only requiring the addition of 2 inclinometers in spans 1 and 3 and moving the existing

inclinometers by 30 feet.

Page 64: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

54

8.3 Error Analysis The preceding comparisons between SAP2000 and R2D deflections have assumed that

the inclinometer measurements are exact. However, the inclinometers can only measure the

rotations of the bridge to a certain precision. The manufacturer claimed that the sensitivity was ±

0.1 arc seconds, which is 28*10^-6 degrees. Laboratory tests at UH determined the sensitivity of

the inclinometer to be 500*10^-6 degrees.

To be conservative the error used to determine the sensitivity of the inclinometers was

0.0005 degrees, 8.727 E-06 radians. To see how an error in one inclinometer propagates

throughout the deflection equation each inclinometer, individually, was given either a

measurement of 0 or 8.727E-06 radians. This shows the amount of deflection of the bridge

calculated by the R2D method when there wasn’t any external loading applied. The other case

was to set all of the inclinometers to 8.727E-06 radians, a worst case scenario assuming that all

inclinometers were all affected by the max error. Table 8-4 shows the maximum positive and

negative errors that were obtained. Positive and negative errors are the amount of deflection

above and below the un-displaced shape.

Sensor Max Pos. Error (in.)

Max Neg. Error (in.)

1 0 ‐0.002

2 0.0000 ‐0.008

3 0.0054 ‐0.001

4 0.0019 0

5 0 ‐0.007

7 0.0009 ‐0.009

9 0.0004 ‐0.007

11 0.0014 ‐0.004

13 0.004837 ‐0.003

15 0.006786 ‐0.002

17 0.00663 ‐3.7E‐06

ALL 0 ‐0.0190

Table 8-3 Minimum and Maximum Error on Mauka Girder for 18 inclinometers

Page 65: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

55

Sensor 72 Foot Spacing 90 Foot Spacing

Max (in) Min (in) Max (in) Min (in)

1 0 ‐0.003 0.0000 ‐0.0035

2 0.0007 ‐0.009 0.0017 ‐0.0076

3 0.0047 ‐0.003 0.0042 ‐0.0037

4 0.0026 0 0.0030 0.0000

5 0 ‐0.012 0.0000 ‐0.0124

7 0.0005 ‐0.008 0.0003 ‐0.0081

9 0.0018 ‐0.003 0.0012 ‐0.0045

11 0.0047 ‐0.003 0.0051 ‐0.0027

13 0.009181 0.000 0.0091 ‐0.0001

All 0 ‐0.0190 0.0000 ‐0.0190

Table 8-4 Maximum and Maximum Error on Mauka Girder for 14 inclinometers

As shown in Tables 8-3, 8-4, 8-5; the error is minimal compared to the order of the

deflections. The maximum error is -0.019 inches, resulting from all inclinometers having error

acting in the same direction. The average area is around 0.01 inches, from subtracting the

minimum error from the max error. This is acceptable when comparing this area with the

deflected shapes, load combinations A – I, from SAP2000. Figures 8.3-1 compares the errors

from 60, 72, and 90 ft inclinometer spacing, the effect is minimal. Figure 8.3-2 shows the error

envelope for the 90 ft inclinometer spacing for load case G.

Page 66: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

56

Figure 8.3-1 Error vs. SAP2000 Deflection

Figure 8.3-2 Error vs SAP2000 Deflection

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Error All Sensors

SAP (Load Case A)

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Error Envelope Load Case G

No Error

Error Added (All Sensors)

Error Subtracted (All Sensors)

Page 67: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

57

Chapter 9: BASE SHAPES ANALYSIS

9.1 Location of Inclinometers As mentioned in Chapter 8, the number of inclinometers was originally 18 but due to the

number of accelerometers on the bridge and free-field stations, decreasing the inclinometers to

14 was the ideal scenario. Decreasing the inclinometers to 14 posed a problem with the location

of the inclinometers. Two different inclinometer location patterns were tested, Figure 9.1-1.

Figure 9.1-1 Location of Potential Inclinometer Patterns

These two patterns both were based on a 72 ft spacing pattern and a 90 foot pattern.

The spacing distance was measured from Abutment 1 and 2 to place a pair of inclinometers in

spans 1 and 3. To place the inclinometers in span 3, the spacing distance was measured from

either side of the mid-span. These patterns were determined to have a good representation of

Page 68: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

58

the bridge, as span 2 was the most critical span having 3 pairs of inclinometers while spans 1 and

3 only had 1 pair of inclinometers. The inclinometers were located on the girder section of the

span, since there would be more rotation at these points and less influence from sensitivity of the

inclinometers.

Load

Combination

Deflection at Midspan (360 ft)

SAP defl.

(in.)

72 foot Spacing 90 Foot Spacing

Defl. (in.) % Error Defl. (in.) % Error

A ‐0.162 ‐0.165 1.89 ‐0.170 5.42

B ‐0.310 ‐0.299 3.30 ‐0.287 7.34

C ‐0.470 ‐0.438 6.82 ‐0.406 13.57

D 0.169 0.140 17.29 0.149 11.57

E 0.162 0.143 11.94 0.159 1.71

F 0.155 0.134 13.83 0.182 17.19

G ‐0.301 ‐0.299 0.76 ‐0.258 14.42

H ‐0.007 ‐0.032 382.09 0.011 265.04

I ‐0.148 ‐0.157 6.21 ‐0.170 15.43

Table 9-1 Displacements at Middle of Span 2

Table 9-1 compares SAP2000’s deflections with the deflections calculated using base

shape method from the 72 and 90 foot inclinometer spacing. The table shows the deflections,

along the Mauka girder, calculated for each load combination A – I. Using the base shape

method for determining the deflection, the 72 foot inclinometer spacing has a better result for

cases A, B, C, F, G, and I. As with comparing the different inclinometer spacing for the R2D

method load combination H has the most error. 383.09% and 265.04% for the base shape

method with 72 and 90 foot spacing respectively. The error for load combination H is an

anomaly, since the error is greater than 10 times the next largest error value. The average error

for the 72 and 90 foot spacing of inclinometers are; 7.76% and 10.83%.

The differences in deflection for the middle of spans 1 and 3 are shown in appendix B.

Page 69: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

59

Figure 9.1-2 Load Combination F

Figure 9.1-3 Load Combination I

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination F (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination I (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 70: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

60

The calculated deflections of the middle of span 2 are similar to the deflections from

SAP2000. The deviation of the deflected shapes occurs in spans 1 and 3; this is to be expected

as there are less inclinometers in those spans.

9.2 Other Deflected Combinations The base shapes method of determining deflections from rotations was determined

based on load cases A – I. . To determine how well the base shapes method works, it will be

compared against another set of load combinations. The new set of load combinations was

derived from the initial inclinometer locations that were explored back in Chapter 7. From Figure

7.2-1 there are 18 different locations of potential locations for the base shapes, 8 of those

locations were used and 2 of the 18 positions coincided with load cases A and C. There are 8

extra load combinations that will be tested in conjunction with 6 other load combinations.

The 8 extra loading combinations are number 21, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 36, and 38. The 6

new load combinations, 39 – 44 are located between beam “B” and the mid-span of the bridge, a

distance of 52.5 feet. Load combinations 39 – 44 were added to see how sensitive the base

shapes method is to loading near the midspan of the bridge.

Table 9-2 shows the displacements of SAP2000 vs. the 72 ft. inclinometer spacing and

SAP2000 vs. 90 ft. inclinometer spacing. This shows the deflection, at the mountainside girder,

calculated at each load combination, for the rest of the load positions, using SAP2000 and the

base shape method. The maximum difference in deflection is at load combination 21, -0.028

inches for 72 ft spacing and -0.054 inches for the 90 foot spacing. The error in load combination

44 is only 4.95% and 11.55% for the 72 and 90 foot inclinometer spacing while the error in load

combination 21 is 40.16% and 28.20% for 72 and 90 foot inclinometer spacing.

There are 5 critical load combinations for the 90 foot spacing and only two for the 72 foot

spacing, where critical means having an error of greater than 10%. The load cases that cause

the most error for the 72 foot spacing are 21 and 29, having errors of 40.16% and 37.32%. The

load cases most affecting the 90 foot spacing are 21, 29, 30, 38, and 44; having errors of 28.2%,

27.19%, 44.96%, 31.79%, and 11.55%.

Load cases 21 and 29 are symmetrical, both with the truck loading 60 feet from the

nearest abutment on the mauka girder. Load cases 30 and 39 are the same loading cases as 21

and 29 but on the makai girder. These load combinations are symmetrical which explains why

the percent error is close as well,

Page 71: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

61

Δ @ 360 ft

SAP 2000 72 ft spacing Error SAP 2000 90 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) % (in) (in) %

21 0.071 0.042 40.16 0.071 0.051 28.20

23 ‐0.094 ‐0.100 6.44 ‐0.094 ‐0.098 3.63

27 ‐0.093 ‐0.099 6.24 ‐0.093 ‐0.096 3.47

29 0.070 0.044 37.32 0.070 0.051 27.19

30 0.066 0.071 6.48 0.066 0.096 44.96

32 ‐0.106 ‐0.104 2.56 ‐0.106 ‐0.100 5.88

36 ‐0.105 ‐0.101 3.72 ‐0.105 ‐0.097 7.07

38 0.066 0.061 6.77 0.066 0.086 31.79

39 ‐0.162 ‐0.163 0.64 ‐0.162 ‐0.163 0.88

40 ‐0.164 ‐0.164 0.19 ‐0.164 ‐0.168 2.33

41 ‐0.163 ‐0.166 1.99 ‐0.163 ‐0.171 4.87

42 ‐0.345 ‐0.346 0.34 ‐0.345 ‐0.336 2.43

43 ‐0.406 ‐0.397 2.25 ‐0.406 ‐0.375 7.63

44 ‐0.451 ‐0.429 4.95 ‐0.451 ‐0.399 11.55

Table 9-2 Displacements at the middle of span 2

The differences in deflection for the middle of spans 1 and 3 are shown in appendix B.

For load combination 44 and 72 foot inclinometer spacing the difference between SAP2000 and

the base shape deflections are 0.002 inches and -0.001 inches for spans 1 and 3. For load

combination 44 with 90 foot inclinometer spacing the difference was the same, 0.008 inches and -

0.007 inches. The 4 worst loading conditions are shown below, load combinations 30, 38, 44,

and 21. The Load combinations 30, 38 and 44 all are conditions where the truck is loaded on the

mountainside girder. As shown in Figures 9.2-1, 9.2-1, and 9.2-4 most of the error occurred in

the first and third span. This is expected as there were less inclinometers located in these spans

but they were not too far off. The largest error was around 0.1 inches and it occurred in both

spans 1 and 3 but from different loading conditions.

Page 72: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

62

Figure 9.2-1 Load Combination 30

Figure 9.2-2 Load Combination 38

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 30 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 38 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 73: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

63

Figure 9.2-3 Load Combination 44

Figure 9.2-4 Load Combination 21

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 44 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 21 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 74: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

64

9.3 Error Analysis The base shape method of calculating deflection relies heavily on the accuracy of the

inclinometers. This is a concern when looking at the error of the inclinometers that are to be used

on the Kealakaha stream bridge. As mentioned before in the literature review, the advertised

precision of the inclinometers is 0.1 arc seconds, 28*10^-6 degrees. After testing these

inclinometers in the lab, the actual resolution was determined to be 500*10^-6 degrees.

To test the sensitivity of the base shape method for calculating the deflection, θm was

modified by adding the error to the measured rotations. The error is 500*10^-6 degrees. The

base shape deflection methodology was then run with the 500*10^-6 degree error added on to

each sensor individually and then on to all the sensors. Setting each sensor equal to the results

from the deflected shapes was compared with the deflected shapes with the error.

The maximum and minimum errors are provided in Table 9-3. The errors were

determined by subtracting the deflections that were calculated with error from the deflections that

were calculated assuming perfect conditions. The percent error was determined comparing the

original deflections and the error deflections calculated using the base shapes method.

Sensor 72 Foot Spacing 90 Foot Spacing

Max (in) Min (in) Max (in) Min (in)

1 0.0057 ‐0.0005 0.0037 ‐0.0011

2 0.0106 ‐0.0016 0.0086 ‐0.0032

3 0.0015 ‐0.0105 0.0031 ‐0.0086

4 0.0004 ‐0.0059 0.0009 ‐0.0040

5 0.0029 ‐0.0015 0.0115 0.0000

7 0.0042 ‐0.0013 0.0047 ‐0.0017

9 0.0040 ‐0.0040 0.0049 ‐0.0049

11 0.0013 ‐0.0042 0.0018 ‐0.0044

13 0.0022 ‐0.0029 0.0000 ‐0.0114

All 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Table 9-3 Minimum and Maximum Error on Mauka Girder

Page 75: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

65

The sensor that is most affected by the error was sensor 2, for the 72 foot spacing,

located at Pier 1, maximum positive error of 0.0106 inches and a maximum negative error of -

0.0016 inches. Although this sensor was has the largest difference in deflection it did not have

the largest percent error, only 4.76%. The error was the same for all of the loading conditions.

This was due to the matrix multiplication that is used to determine deflected shapes (Figure 9.3-

1).

Figure 9.3-1 Error from inclinometer 2

Figure 9.3-2 shows the error from inclinometer 2 for both 72 and 90 foot inclinometer

spacing. This inclinometer is located at Pier 1 and had the highest error. Figures 9.3-3 and 9.3-4

show the error envelope from adding and subtracting the error to load case B for 72 and 90 foot

inclinometer spacing. The error is minimal compared to the deflected shapes.

‐0.15

‐0.10

‐0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0 180 360 540 720Delta (in)

Distance Along Bridge (ft)

Error 2A (in.)

B (in.)

C (in.)

D (in.)

E (in.)

F (in.)

G (in.)

H (in.)

I (in.)

25 (in.)

34 (in.)

39 (in.)

40 (in.)

41 (in.)

42 (in.)

43 (in.)

44 (in.)

24 (in.)

33 (in.)

Page 76: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

66

Figure 9.3-2 Error from inclinometer 2

Figure 9.3-3 Error envelope for 72 ft spacing, Load Case B

‐0.015

‐0.010

‐0.005

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in)

Distance Along Bridge (ft)

Error 2

Error (Sensor 2)(90 ft)

Error (Sensor 2)(72 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case B (72 ft)

No Error

Error Added (Inclinometer 2)

Error Subtracted (Inclinometer 2)

Page 77: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

67

Figure 9.3-4 Error envelope for 90 ft spacing, Load case B

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case B (90 ft)

No Error 

Error Added (Inclinometer 2)

Error Subtracted (Inclinometer 2)

Page 78: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

68

Page 79: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

69

Chapter 10: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of this study a method of using inclinometers to calculate deflection

has been determined. The advantages of using inclinometers to measure deflection; it is possible

to measure static and dynamic deflections, ease of installation, and are unobtrusive.

Two different methods of determining deflection from rotation were discussed in this

study, rotation to deflection (R2D) method and base shape method. These methods each have

their advantages and disadvantages. They were tested against results from a finite element

model of the Kealakaha Stream Bridge, around 20 miles north of Hilo. The Kealakaha Stream

Bridge is a 720 foot, 3 span; bridge constructed of precast girders and cast in place box girders

over the Piers.

The R2D method is based on beam theory, where the rotation is integrated to obtain the

deflection. This method has been around for a long time and has been tested on multiple

bridges. It is a forward marching equation, where it starts at one end of the bridge and calculates

the deflection as progresses along the bridge. The mathematics can get very difficult with this

method when the cross section is not constant.

The base shape method of determining deflection is efficient. This method involves using

a combination of predetermined, base, deflections to obtain the displaced shape. The base

shape method accounts for discontinuities, such as changes in the moment of inertia, without all

the complex mathematics. An accurate finite element model is needed for this method, it is

necessary to perform a load test of the bridge to test the model.

The R2D method and base shape method were tested against 9 loading conditions, A-I.

These load combinations are a combination of HS-20 truck loadings in the center of spans 1, 2,

and 3.

Looking at the three different location schematics for the rotation to deflection method,

there was a clear trend of which spacing was more accurate. Suggested inclinometer

installations in the order of preference;

1) 60 foot spacing with 18 inclinometers

2) 90 foot spacing with 14 inclinometers

3) 72 foot spacing with 14 inclinometers, as an advantage for load cases F (abutment

span deflections and H

Page 80: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

70

Considering the base shape methodology of determining the deflection one inclinometer

spacing was more accurate. The 72 foot spacing is more accurate for load cases A – I.

The suggested strategy for calculation is to use the base shape method for real time

“look” at the data. Use the R2D method for detailed analysis.

Advantages of R2D method over Base Shape are that R2D is not dependent on the

accuracy of the SAP2000 model. Load testing needed to calibrate the SAP2000 model to

minimize error in the Base shapes formulation.

Page 81: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

71

APPENDIX A: R2D GRAPHS

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case A

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case B

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

Page 82: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

72

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case C

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case D

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

Page 83: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

73

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case E

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case F

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

Page 84: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

74

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case G

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case H

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

Page 85: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

75

Δ @ 90 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 60 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.085 0.083 3.08

B 0.082 0.080 1.94

C 0.078 0.077 1.82

D -0.090 -0.092 2.58

E -0.107 -0.104 2.95

F -0.136 -0.130 4.88

G -0.011 -0.015 35.01

H -0.051 -0.047 9.35

I -0.026 -0.024 6.16

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Case I

SAP

Delta (60 ft)

Delta (72 ft)

Delta (90 ft)

Page 86: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

76

Δ @ 90 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 72 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.085 0.081 4.57

B 0.082 0.077 6.30

C 0.078 0.072 7.38

D -0.090 -0.094 4.97

E -0.107 -0.093 13.15

F -0.136 -0.106 22.53

G -0.011 -0.022 88.37

H -0.051 -0.024 52.35

I -0.026 -0.017 34.94

Δ @ 90 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 90 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.085 0.076 10.87

B 0.082 0.069 15.38

C 0.078 0.062 20.48

D -0.090 -0.087 3.12

E -0.107 -0.078 27.30

F -0.136 -0.056 58.75

G -0.011 -0.025 114.77

H -0.051 0.020 138.17

I -0.026 -0.009 63.29

Page 87: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

77

Δ @ 630 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 60 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.083 0.078 5.81

B 0.080 0.083 3.82

C 0.077 0.087 13.58

D -0.089 -0.090 1.21

E -0.107 -0.104 2.47

F -0.135 -0.132 1.96

G -0.013 -0.003 72.76

H -0.052 -0.053 2.90

I -0.027 -0.021 21.30

Δ @ 630 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 72 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.083 0.088 6.05

B 0.080 0.068 14.96

C 0.077 0.048 37.61

D -0.089 -0.098 10.00

E -0.107 -0.098 8.42

F -0.135 -0.110 18.32

G -0.013 -0.051 295.81

H -0.052 -0.022 57.75

I -0.027 -0.029 9.75

Page 88: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

78

Δ @ 630 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 90 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.083 0.077 6.91

B 0.080 0.063 20.88

C 0.077 0.048 37.25

D -0.089 -0.088 1.41

E -0.107 -0.079 25.87

F -0.135 -0.057 57.99

G -0.013 -0.040 213.35

H -0.052 0.021 141.35

I -0.027 -0.016 38.72

Page 89: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

79

APPENDIX B: BASE SHAPE GRAPHS

Load Combinations A-I

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination A (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 90: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

80

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination B (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination C (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 91: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

81

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination D (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination E (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 92: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

82

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination F (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination G (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 93: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

83

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination H (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination I (Mountainside Girder)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 94: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

84

Δ @ 90 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 72 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.085 0.085 0.02

B 0.082 0.081 0.77

C 0.078 0.078 0.16

D -0.090 -0.100 11.19

E -0.107 -0.098 9.01

F -0.136 -0.112 17.80

G -0.011 -0.022 89.54

H -0.051 -0.027 47.22

I -0.0255 -0.0165 35.15

Δ @ 630 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 72 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.083 0.084 0.48

B 0.080 0.080 0.38

C 0.077 0.076 0.09

D -0.089 -0.099 11.07

E -0.107 -0.098 7.75

F -0.135 -0.112 17.04

G -0.013 -0.023 79.45

H -0.052 -0.028 45.37

I 0.083 0.084 0.48

Page 95: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

85

Δ @ 90 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 90 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.085 0.086 0.61

B 0.082 0.082 0.28

C 0.078 0.078 0.01

D -0.090 -0.108 20.13

E -0.107 -0.093 13.40

F -0.136 -0.059 56.50

G -0.011 -0.030 162.68

H -0.051 0.027 151.69

I -0.026 0.086 435.73

Δ @ 630 ft

Load

Combination SAP 2000 90 ft spacing Error

(in) (in) %

A 0.083 0.083 0.24

B 0.080 0.080 0.80

C 0.077 0.077 0.26

D -0.089 -0.106 18.32

E -0.107 -0.093 12.42

F -0.135 -0.064 52.71

G -0.013 -0.029 128.53

H -0.052 0.020 139.61

I 0.083 0.083 0.24

Page 96: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

86

Other Load Combinations

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 21 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 23 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 97: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

87

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 27 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 29 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 98: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

88

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 30 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 32 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 99: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

89

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 36 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 38 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 100: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

90

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 39 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 40 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 101: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

91

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 41 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 42 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 102: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

92

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 43 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720

Deflection (in.)

Distance Along Bridge (ft.)

Load Combination 44 (Mountain Side)

SAP 

Base Shapes (72 ft)

Base Shapes (90 ft)

Page 103: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

93

Δ @ 90 ft

SAP 2000 72 ft

spacing Error SAP 2000

90 ft

spacing Error

(in) (in) % (in) (in) %

21 -0.067 -0.085 26.46 -0.067 -0.101 50.82

23 0.066 0.067 2.30 0.066 0.066 0.99

27 0.018 0.017 6.75 0.018 0.017 8.22

29 -0.008 -0.014 67.66 -0.008 -0.016 95.94

30 -0.112 -0.035 68.96 -0.112 0.000 100.22

32 0.053 0.052 2.15 0.053 0.051 2.92

36 0.018 0.019 3.82 0.018 0.021 12.56

38 -0.008 -0.007 17.16 -0.008 0.000 105.68

39 0.099 0.098 0.64 0.099 0.098 0.43

40 0.097 0.097 0.13 0.097 0.098 0.70

41 0.092 0.092 0.28 0.092 0.093 0.65

42 0.088 0.088 0.43 0.088 0.086 1.84

43 0.087 0.086 1.64 0.087 0.081 7.16

44 0.084 0.082 2.76 0.084 0.076 9.36

Page 104: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

94

Δ @ 630 ft

SAP 2000 72 ft

spacing Error SAP 2000

72 ft

spacing Error

(in) (in) % (in) (in) %

21 -0.008 -0.014 70.14 -0.008 -0.016 92.79

23 0.018 0.016 8.96 0.018 0.017 7.53

27 0.065 0.066 1.41 0.065 0.065 0.82

29 -0.068 -0.085 25.71 -0.068 -0.099 45.39

30 -0.008 -0.005 33.92 -0.008 0.005 159.90

32 0.018 0.020 8.54 0.018 0.021 16.55

36 0.052 0.051 3.35 0.052 0.050 4.66

38 -0.112 -0.041 63.66 -0.112 -0.013 88.21

39 0.054 0.054 0.35 0.054 0.054 0.20

40 0.065 0.065 0.35 0.065 0.065 0.23

41 0.075 0.075 0.42 0.075 0.074 0.16

42 0.052 0.051 1.62 0.052 0.054 4.41

43 0.061 0.061 0.58 0.061 0.067 10.46

44 0.069 0.071 2.01 0.069 0.077 10.74

Page 105: DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM … · DEVELOPMENT OF DEFLECTION MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE KEALAKAHA STREAM BRIDGE ... in SAP 2000. The goal of this ... earthquake experienced

95

REFERENCES

[Aki & Robertson 2005] Aki, Kainoa D. & Robertson, Ian N. “Deflection Monitoring

Systems in Static and Dynamic Conditions,” Research Report UHM/CEE/05-02, University of

Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, 2005.

[Burdet & Zanella, 2000] Burdet, Oliver & Zanella, Jean-Luc. “Automatic Monitoring of

Bridges using Electronic Inclinometers,” 16th Congress of IABSE, Lucerne, 2000.

[Chopra, 2007] Chopra, Anil K. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to

Earthquake Engineering. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007.

[CSI 2010] Computers and Structures, Inc, SAP2000 V14.2, Berkeley CA, 2010

[Earthquake Protection Systems, 2003] Earthquake Protection Systems, “Technical

Characteristics of Friction Pendulum TM Bearings,” Earthquake Protection Systems, Vallejo,

California, 2003.

[Fujiwara, 2010] Fujiwara, David, Hamada, Harold, Iwamoto, Gary, and Robertson, Ian

N., “Project Kealakaha Stream Bridge Replacement,” ASPIRE magazine, Summer 2010, p 22-

24.

[Fung, 2003] Fung, Stephanie S.Y. & Robertson, Ian N., “Seismic Monitoring of Dynamic

Bridge Deformations Using Strain Measurements.” Research Report UHM/CEE/03-02, University

of Hawaii, Honolulu HI, 2003

[Johnson, 2007] Johnson, Gaur P. & Robertson, Ian N. “Structural Health Monitoring

Systems for Civil and Architectural Structures: LVDT-Taught-Wire Baselines, Crack Monitoring

Devices, & Strain Based Deflection Monitoring Algorithms.” Research Report UHM/CEE/07-02,

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, 2007.

[Stephens, 1996] Stephens, Todd W. & Robertson, Ian N. “Kealakaha Stream Bridge

Replacement Seismic Instrumentation Plan”, Research Report UHM/CEE/ 96-04, University of

Hawaii, Honolulu HI, 1996.

[Vurpillot, 1998] Vurpillot, S., Krueger, G., Benouaich, D., Clement, D., and Inaudi, D.,

“Vertical Deflection of a Pre-Stressed Concrete Bridge Obtained Using Deformation Sensors and

Inclinometer Measurements”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 95, No. 5, September-October 1998.

[Xingmin, 2005] Xingmin, Hou & Xueshan, Yang. “Using Inclinometers to Measure Bridge

Deflection,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 10. No. 5, September/October 2005. p 564-569.