HVSIA Annual Meeting, San Jose, Costa Rica August 21-23, 2013

1. Accelerated Load Testing of Seismic Expansion Joints for the New San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge David Jones, John Harvey and Rongzong Wu HVSIA Annual Meeting, San Jose, Costa Rica August 21-23, 2013

2. Bridge Schematic

3. Introduction Study objective and workplan Test section construction Instrumentation Results Conclusions and implementation Summary

4. Introduction • Background • Existing bridge built in 1936 • Damaged in 1989 earthquake • Retrofit too expensive • New bridge designed • Bridge design • Three different structures • New joint design to link structures • Design for seismic activity • Individual lane maintenance

5. Bay Bridge Design

6. Bay Bridge Design

7. Introduction Study objective and workplan Test section construction Instrumentation Results Conclusions and implementation Summary

8. Study Objective and Workplan • Objectives • Identify any fatal flaws related to vehicle trafficking • Determine how the joint will fail under vehicle trafficking • Seismic testing NOT part of workplan • Workplan • Construction of test structure • Phased approach to testing (7 phases)

9. Workplan

10. Workplan

11. Introduction Study objective and workplan Test section construction Instrumentation Results Conclusions and implementation Summary

12. Test Section Construction • Concrete structure to same dimensions • Prototype deck joint

13. Test Section Construction

14. Test Section Construction

15. Test Section Construction

16. Test Section Construction

17. Introduction Study objective and workplan Test section construction Instrumentation Results Conclusions and implementation Summary

18. Instrumentation • Comprehensively instrumented • Temperatures • Vertical deflection • Longitudinal strain • Bolt rotation • Profile

19. Instrumentation

20. Introduction Study objective and workplan Test section construction Instrumentation Results Conclusions and implementation Summary

21. Results • Phase 1.1: Fatal flaw assessment • No apparent damage • Vertical settlement was 0.2 mm • No permanent deformation • Deflection of 0.9 mm on deck • Vertical deflection of 0.1 mm on bolts • Longitudinal strain of 60 µ-strain on deck

22. Results: Phase 1

23. Results: Phase 1

24. Results • Phase 1.2: Load response • Linear relationship • Maximum deflection of 2.3 mm • Maximum strain of 135 µ-strain

25. Results: Phase 1.2

26. Results • Phase 1.2: Load response • Linear relationship • Maximum deflection of 2.3 mm • Maximum strain of 135 µ-strain • Phase 1.3: Effect of wander • No effect

27. Results • Phase 2.1: Testing on edge of steel plate • No difference in trends compared to center • Higher deflections and strains • Some damage to Trelleborg unit

28. Results • Phase 3.1: Impact loading on edge • No effect at 60kN • Phase 3.2: Impact loading on edge • No significant effect at 80kN and 100kN

29. Results: Phase 3.2

30. Results • Phase 3.1: Impact loading on edge • No effect at 60kN • Phase 3.2: Impact loading on edge • No significant effect by impact load • Phase 3.3: Heavy loading • No structural damage • Some damage to Trelleborg unit

31. Results: Phase 3.3

32. Results: Phase 3.3

33. Introduction Study objective and workplan Test section construction Instrumentation Results Conclusions and implementation Summary

34. Conclusions and Implementation • Summary • No fatal flaws in design • No structural damage • Some wear to Trelleborg • Implementation • Considered appropriate for use • Other findings • Role of APT in testing bridge components

35. Thank-you djjones@ucdavis.edu www.ucprc.ucdavis.edu