Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Dynamics of modular expansion joints: The Martinus Nijhoff Bridge

B. Zuada Coelho a,, A.H.J.M. Vervuurt a, W.H.A. Peelen a, J.S. Leendertz b
a b

TNO, Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, PO Box 49, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Utrecht, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Modular expansion joints are structures that are submitted to severe fatigue load conditions. This may lead to unexpected premature damage of the structure which, besides the economic cost of repair, may limit the regular service of the bridge. To better understand the dynamic behaviour of modular expansion joints, different over rolling tests have been performed at the modular expansion joint of the Martinus Nijhoff Bridge in the Netherlands. The tests were part of a research program for developing an early warning monitoring system for expansion joints. Strain measurements were performed during the passage of a vehicle at different speeds, for two different scenarios regarding the xations (sliding springs and sliding bearings) of the cross beams. At the same time, a numerical model was developed and validated by means of the experimental data. This article presents and discusses the measurements and the numerical analysis. The results highlight on the effect of the cross beam xation, and the effect of the vehicle speed on the strain distribution along the centre beam, together with the changes in modal properties of the structure. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 14 February 2012 Revised 28 August 2012 Accepted 13 September 2012 Available online 24 November 2012 Keywords: Over rolling test Monitoring Numerical analysis Dynamic behaviour Damage detection

1. Introduction Expansion joints in large span bridges are designed to accommodate the relative displacement due to temperature effects between bridge decks and abutments, ensuring the serviceability of bridges. Expansion joints are subjected to heavy trafc often leading to fatigue damage and subsequent repair and maintenance efforts for responsible bridge administration. In the Netherlands it is estimated that approximately 20 million are spent yearly in the maintenance of expansion joints [1], while in Europe the maintenance of expansion joints represent between 8% and 20% of the total maintenance costs for bridges [2]. Modular expansion joints are common for long span bridges. Modular expansion joints consist of centre beams welded to cross beams, allowing the total gap to be divided into smaller parts in between the centre beams, making it possible to accommodate signicant bridge movements (above 100 mm [3]). Additionally, modular joints are designed to prevent the penetration of water and chemicals into the underlying structures, therefore reducing the corrosion of the structural elements [48]. Despite the general agreement on the good behaviour of modular joints, some premature failures due to fatigue have been reported in literature [4,5,9].

Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 888664269; fax: +31 888663010.

E-mail addresses: bruno.zuadacoelho@tno.nl (B. Zuada Coelho), adri.vervuurt @tno.nl (A.H.J.M. Vervuurt), willy.peelen@tno.nl (W.H.A. Peelen), han.leen dertz@rws.nl (J.S. Leendertz). 0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.016

The Martinus Nijhoff Bridge, located in the Netherlands, opened to trafc in 1996 and contains three modular expansion joints that were designed for a 20 years life expectation. Due to more and heavier trafc than projected the joints were subjected to heavier trafc than anticipated in the design. Therefore fatigue damage was noticed much earlier than expected. Consequently the joints have been repaired several times. The experience in the Martinus Nijhoff Bridge has shown that the damage of the modular expansion joint was, in most cases, initiated by the lack of support of the cross beam, due to the movement of the sliding bearings. Since joints directly affect the availability of the road network, possible failure of such expansion joints is of major concern for infrastructure managers. Because failure of the joints may lead to an unsafe situation, an early warning monitoring system (EWMS) was developed and implemented on the Martinus Nijhoff Bridge [10,11]. The goal of the system was to foresee possible failure of the joint in an early stage and take preventative measures according to plan, thus causing less hindrance for the trafc. As part of the early warning monitoring system, two over rolling tests were performed, aiming to increase the knowledge of the dynamic behaviour of modular expansion joints. In the second over rolling test the primary goal was to examine the possibility of damage detection on the cross beam xations (sliding spring and sliding bearing) by monitoring the changes in strain magnitude and modal properties of the modular joint. This paper presents the results of this over rolling test. The effect of sliding bearing degradation was assessed together with the effect of speed and vehicle position. At the same time, a numerical model was developed and validated

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

145

by comparison with the experimental data, which allowed the study of gradual degradation of the sliding bearings. 2. Description of the modular joint The modular expansion joint chosen for the implementation of the early warning monitoring system is part of the Martinus Nijhoff Bridge. This bridge is located in the centre of the Netherlands, on the highway A2 that makes the connection between the cities of Utrecht and s Hertogenbosch. The bridge consists of an approach section with ten spans and a main bridge with a span of 256 m and two approach spans of 152 m. The main bridge is a cable stay bridge with a reinforced concrete deck, supported by prestressed concrete cross beams, which are connected to two main girders that are supported by a multiple stay system. The approach bridge has a length of 492 m and consists of a concrete deck supported by longitudinal beams continuous over three spans. The width of the bridge is 34 m. The bridge road has three trafc lanes in each direction. On the western side of the bridge there is a bicycle lane [12]. Fig. 1 shows an overview of the bridge. The bridge comprises three expansion joints, one between the north abutment and the approach section, one between the approach section and the main bridge and one between the main bridge and the south abutment. All three joints are modular joints manufactured by Maurer Shne in Germany. The early warning monitoring system was implemented in the modular joint located on the south side. The modular joint consists of three centre beams supported on cross beams. Each centre beam is welded to a corresponding cross beam, and the cross beams are supported at the joist boxes by sliding bearings and prestressed elements (sliding springs and sliding bearings), to allow the expansion and contraction of the structure.

The gap between the different centre beams are kept constant by means of control springs. A rubber membrane is placed between each pair of centre beams and edge beams to seal the joint system, and avoid the passage of water and other remains. Fig. 2 shows a schematic view of the modular expansion joint.

3. Experimental program over rolling test 3.1. Overview The over rolling test was performed as part of the early warning monitoring system that was applied at the Martinus Nijhoff Bridge for continuously evaluating the performance of the modular joint [11]. The goal of the early warning system is to detect damage in the modular expansion joint by monitoring changes in the dynamic behaviour. As a result, it is expected an extension of the service life of the joint, together with the reduction of trafc hindrance, since maintenance can be planned due to the timely warning. The over rolling test was performed according to the ETAG recommendations [13]. 3.2. Instrumentation The instrumentation consisted of strain gauges placed along the modular expansion joint. An overview of the device position is presented in Fig. 3. Two distinct areas with sensors can be distinguished, on the west and east sides. These areas are related to the early warning monitoring system. The over rolling test was performed on the west side, at which a total of 27 strain gauges were installed, 16 on the cross beams and 11 on the centre beams (Fig. 3). Centre beams L1 and L3 have 2 strain gauges, one between joist 5 and 6 and another between joist 7 and 8. Centre beam L2 contains eight strain gauges: four at each midspan between joist 4 and 8 and adjacent to the supports between joist 5 and 7. The goal was to accurately characterise the strain variation along the length of the centre beam. On ve joists (joist 48), all the cross beams (3 per joist) were instrumented with one strain gauge. All the over rolling test was performed with an sampling frequency of 2000 Hz. 3.3. Tests The main objective of the research is to determine whether it is possible to detect failure of the sliding bearings by monitoring the strain level. This is related to the past experience of the maintenance manager, where it was found that the degradation of the modular joints is related to the lack of support of the cross beams, due to the movement of the sliding bearings. Therefore, two different test scenarios were performed:  test 1, which corresponds to the state of serviceability;  test 2, where one sliding bearing on joist 6 cross beam T2 (see Fig. 3) is manually removed, corresponding to a damaged situation. For each test, the vehicle crossed the joint at different speeds, and at two different positions (Table 1). Test A corresponds to the vehicle passage with the right wheel crossing the centre beam at the midspan (crossing devices 1/3/5 see Fig. 3), whereas test B corresponds to the vehicle passage with the right wheel crossing the centre of joist 6 (crossing devices 24/25/26 see Fig. 3). Test A focused on the behaviour of the centre beams, whereas test B focussed on the cross beam behaviour.

Fig. 1. Martinus Nijhoff Bridge.

Fig. 2. Modular expansion joint.

146

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

Fig. 3. Device position for the over rolling test.

Table 1 Over rolling test denition and vehicle speeds. Test A1 Expected speed (km/h) 5 50 70 90 5 50 70 90 5 50 70 90 5 50 70 90 Measured speed (km/h) 6.7 42.8 70.3 80.7 4.3 51.6 69.8 80.5 4.2 47.4 69.9 78.4 6.3 49.4 71.0 82.1

Table 2 presents the information about the misalignment of the vehicle, regarding the two alignments (A and B see Fig. 3). Since the vehicle crossed the joint at variable speeds, there were inaccuracies relative to the dened alignments for the tests. Video records of the vehicle passage were recorded, which allowed an estimation of the vehicle misalignment [16]. 4. Experimental results 4.1. Static results The static response corresponds to the vehicle passage along the modular joint at very low speed (%5 km/h). Fig. 5 shows the strain time history for test A1, on (a) the centre beam L2, strain gauge 3 and (b) on the box joist 6, cross beam T2, strain gauge 25. The maximum strain is consistently observed at the time the vehicle wheel crosses the monitored strain gauge. The strain level at the centre beam is higher than the strain level at the cross beam. This is related to the fact that the load is directly applied to the centre beam, and redistributed towards several cross beams. The maximum strain level at the centre beam is approximately constant for the three vehicle axles, while on the cross beam the rear axles exhibit higher strain magnitude, which is in agreement with the axle weight of the vehicle (see Table 3). The constant strain level recorded for the centre beam is related to the vehicle conguration. During test A, the right front wheel is aligned with the middle of the centre beam (alignment A), but since the rear axles are dual wheels the point of load application is different for the front and rear axles. When the front wheel is applied at middle span, the load application point for the rear wheels is shifted towards the support (joist 6), causing a reduction of the maximum

A2

B1

B2

The load was applied by means of a three axle vehicle. The relevant vehicle geometry, as well as the axle loads, are presented in Fig. 4 and Table 3. The axle load corresponds to the static weight determined prior to the test execution, while the wheel print was determined by painting the contact area between the wheel and the asphalt. The variation of the wheel print with the speed was not accounted in the analysis, which is a reasonable approximation for the measured vehicle speeds [14], and is supported by previous experimental results [15]. During the vehicle passages there was no trafc on the west side of the bridge.

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

147

Fig. 4. Geometrical vehicle description.

Table 2 Misalignment of the vehicle passage. The values correspond to an estimation of the misalignment of the middle of the front wheel in relation to alignment A or B, based on video records. A positive value corresponds to a vehicle passage on the west side of the alignment, while a negative value to a passage on the east side of the alignment, in correspondence with Fig. 3. The estimations are presented in m. Speed (km/h) Test A1 sta B1 A2 B2

+0.05 50

+0.15

0.15 70

+0.20

+0.05

+0.05

0.15 90

0.15

+0.05

+0.05

0.20

strain in the middle of the centre beam. For the cross beam, this variation of the load application point is of minor importance since the vehicle load is kept the same. Therefore, the same ratio between the strain at the rear and front axle (%1.6) and the axle weight (see Table 3) is found. Fig. 6 shows the strain inuence line along centre beam L2 (see Fig. 3), for tests A1 and B1. For test A1 the vehicle is crossing the modular joint along the middle of centre beam L2 (right wheel on strain gauge 3 and right wheel on strain gauges 8 alignment A), while for test B1 the vehicle is running on top of the box joist 6 (right wheel between strain gauge 4 and 6 and right wheel on strain gauge 10 alignment B). It follows that a distinct behaviour is found. For test A1 the maximum strain is observed under the point of load application causing tension on the bottom ange of the centre beam. For strain gauges 4 and 6 an inversion of the strain diagram occurs, due to the presence of the cross beam that acts like a support. For test B1 the maximum strain level is noticed in between the wheel loads (% strain gauge position 8), caused by the centre beam top ange being in tension. The strain magnitude for devices 0, 2 and 3 is approximately zero, because the vehicle crosses the joint along alignment B and the wheel that is closest to these points is applied directly to the cross beam, which causes no deformation of the centre beam. The effect of damage was simulated by manually removing the sliding bearing of cross beam T2 located on the north side of joist 6 (where strain gauge 25 is installed, see Figs. 2 and 3). Fig. 7 shows the inuence line for centre beam L2, for both tests A and B. It

follows that if the sliding bearing is removed (the removed sliding bearing is located in between strain gauge position 4 and 6), the deformation pattern of the centre beam changes. For test A a strain inversion occurs for strain gauges 4, and 6, together with an increase of strain for strain gauges 3, 7 and 8. This shows that the structural scheme of centre beam L2 has changed. Due to the lack of support, the strain that was negative on the support region (strain gauges 4 and 6) is now positive. This means that if the xation is removed the centre beam has to resist to more load since its span is increased. The variation between 3 and 7 is not linear, which shows that the cross beam still imposes some restriction to the system, acting like a spring. For test B the strain increases at the gauges placed in the region of load application (strain gauges 4 and 6) which coincides with the place where the sliding bearing has been removed. These strain gauges, for test B1, had no signicant strain since the load is directly transmitted to the cross beam. In test B2, the cross beam is no longer effective in transferring the load, therefore the strain increases by factors of 6 and 3 for, respectively, strain gauges 4 and 6. Since the sliding bearing is no longer present, a stress redistribution occurs towards the available supports (strain gauges 2 and 8), where an increase of the strain level is registered. Fig. 8 shows the maximum strain magnitude in the different cross beams. During test B2 the sliding bearing of cross beam T2 (strain gauge 25) is removed, which causes a signicant reduction in the strain level of this gauge. Additionally, an increase of the strain occurs for strain gauges 22 and 28. As the sliding bearing

148

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

(a)

160 140 120

200 150 A1 B1

Maximum MicroStrain []

100 50 0 50 100 150

MicroStrain []

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 0 1 2 3 4 5

10

Time [s]

Strain gauge position []

Fig. 6. Strain inuence line during the passage of the vehicle at %5 km/h at two different alignments (A1 and B1), along centre beam L2. The results concern the vehicle rst axle.

(b)

160 140 120

MicroStrain []

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 0 1 2 3 4 5

(a)
Maximum MicroStrain []

200 150 100 50 0 50 A1 A2

Time [s]
Fig. 5. Strain during the passage of the vehicle at %5 km/h for test A1: (a) on centre beam L2, strain gauge 3 and (b) on box joist 6, cross beam T2, strain gauge 25.

100 150 0 2 3 4 6 7 8 10

Table 3 Vehicle characteristics. Axle Axle load (kN) Wheel print (m) Width (m) Front axle Rear axle 1 Rear axle 2 73 115 109 0.335 0.231 0.223 Length (m) 0.275 0.242 0.246

Strain gauge position []

(b)
Maximum MicroStrain []

200 150 100 50 0 50 B1 B2

in cross beam T2 is removed, the load that was received by this support needs to be transferred, therefore a stress redistribution occurs towards the adjacent cross beams (strain gauges 22 and 28).

4.2. Dynamic results The dynamic tests were performed at three different vehicle speeds. The goal was to evaluate the effect of the speed, as well as changes in dynamic properties due to damage of the modular joint. Fig. 9 shows the time history strain during the passage of the vehicle at 70 km/h along alignment A. The same conclusions as drawn before still apply for the joist (Fig. 9b). Again, a factor of %1.6 is found for the ratio between the rear axle and front axle strain on the joist. For the centre beam (Fig. 9a) it is found that

100 150 0 2 3 4 6 7 8 10

Strain gauge position []

Fig. 7. Strain inuence line of centre beam L2, during the passage of the vehicle at %5 km/h for: (a) test A (b) test B. The results concern the vehicle rst axle.

the strain amplitude is higher for the rst axle than for the rear axles. This is attributed to inaccuracies during the vehicle

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

149

100

Maximum MicroStrain []

80

60

crossed the joint towards joist 6 (west). This causes the point of load application of the rear wheels to be closer to the cross beam, causing a reduction of the strain magnitude. After the vehicle has crossed the joint a free vibration takes place, due to the dynamic effect of the interaction between the vehicle and the modular joint. Fig. 10 presents the inuence line of the dynamic amplication factor (DAF) for all vehicle speeds. This is dened as:

40

DAF 1

edyn esta ; esta

20 B1 B2 0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Strain gauge position []

Fig. 8. Maximum strain during the passage of the vehicle at % 5 km/h for two different tests (B1 and B2), on box joists. The results concern the vehicle rst axle.

(a) 160
140 120

where edyn is the maximum dynamic strain, and esta is the maximum static strain. For test A1 (Fig. 10a), with exception of strain gauges 7 and 8, no noticeable dynamic amplication is found, which is in agreement with previous analytical results, regarding this expansion joint [17]. For strain gauges 7 and 8 a signicant dynamic amplication occurs, especially on strain gauge 8. This is related to the misalignment of the vehicle passage. Since the left wheel is crossing the joint along strain gauge 8, which is located next to a support (joist 7), a slight misalignment of the vehicle causes a signicant increase of the strain on this point (see Table 2). In test B1 (Fig. 10b), the right wheel is crossing the joint on top of joist 6, therefore any misalignment of the vehicle position has substantial effect on the strain gauges adjacent to it (strain gauges

(a)
Dynamic amplification factor []

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 50 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h

MicroStrain []

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Time [s]

(b) 160
140 120

Strain gauge position []

(b)
Dynamic amplification factor []

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 50 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h

MicroStrain []

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Time [s]
Fig. 9. Strain during the passage of the vehicle at %70 km/h for test A1: (a) on centre beam L2, device 3 and (b) on box joist 6, device 25.

Strain gauge position []

Fig. 10. Dynamic amplication inuence line for centre beam L2, during the passage of the vehicle at several speeds for: (a) test A1 and (b) test B1. The results concern the vehicle rst axle.

travelling along the joint (see Table 2). During the test the vehicle did not cross the joint along alignment A, but the right wheel

150

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

3, 4, 6 and 7). The left wheel of the vehicle is crossing at midspan of the centre beam (along strain gauge 10), therefore its effects is of minor importance for the strain gauges located next to it. The gure exhibits signicant DAF and two distinct inuence lines, for test at 50 km/h and tests at 70 and 90 km/h, respectively. This differences are caused by the vehicle misalignment (see Table 2). When comparing the vehicle passages at the different speeds it follows that, the vehicle crossed the joint on the west side of cross beam for the test at 50 km/h, while for the other two speeds the vehicle crossed on the east side of the cross beam. This causes the inversion of the strain distribution along the centre beam, and is responsible for the high values of the DAF. The dynamic tests were also performed for the scenario in which the sliding bearing of cross beam T2 was removed (tests A2 and B2). Fig. 11 shows the variation of the strain with time for a vehicle passage at %70 km/h. From the gure it follows that a signicant free vibration occurs on the centre beam. The amplitude of this free vibration is signicantly higher, than the one recorded for the normal situation (test A1 Fig. 9a). The higher strain is expected to lead to early fatigue problems, since the number of cycles with high amplitude increases. A peak to peak strain level of %300 microstrains is observed, which corresponds to a tension of approximately 63 GPa. Depending on the detailing of the welded joint, this may lead to damage. Nevertheless, it should be

noted that this strain measurements were not located at the welded joint. The wheel peak is no longer clearly identied, since the maximum and minimum peaks are similar in magnitude. This clearly shows a different behaviour of the centre beam, in the case of sliding bearing degradation. Also the period of the free vibration is increased. The strain level at the cross beam (Fig. 11b) is reduced, and, as for the centre beam, a signicant amplitude of the free vibration is recorded. The effect of the vehicle speed on the strain amplitude is presented in Fig. 12 for the scenarios without sliding bearing (test A2 and B2). On test A2 (Fig. 12a) a signicant amplication is noticed for strain gauges 4 and 6. These are located next to the sliding bearing that has been removed. For the other strain gauges no signicant dynamic amplication has been found, for the different vehicle speeds. For the points where the wheel loads are applied (strain gauges 3 and 8) no signicant amplication occurs, since the strain magnitude is governed by the quasi-static component. The maximum dynamic amplication factor registered for strain gauges 3 and 8 is, respectively, %1.2 and %1.4. On test B2 the largest dynamic amplication is observed for strain gauges 3 and 7. A similar behaviour to test A2 is found. The strain gauges that are under the location of wheel passage (in between strain gauges 4 and 6 and strain gauge 10), exhibit a small dynamic amplication (<1.4), due to the quasi-static

(a)

200 150 100

(a)
Dynamic amplification factor []

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 50 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h

MicroStrain []

50 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

10

Time [s]

Strain gauge position []

(b)

200 150 100

(b)
Dynamic amplification factor []

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 50 km/h 70 km/h 90 km/h

MicroStrain []

50 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

10

Time [s]
Fig. 11. Strain during the passage of the vehicle at %70 km/h for test A2: (a) on centre beam L2, strain gauge 3 and (b) on box joist 6, cross beam T2, strain gauge 25.

Strain gauge position []

Fig. 12. Dynamic amplication inuence line for centre beam L2, during the passage of the vehicle at several speeds for: (a) test A2 and (b) test B2. The results concern the vehicle rst axle.

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

151

character of the loading. In both tests it is found that, with the exception of the locations where the load is applied, a signicant dynamic amplication takes place for the spans that are adjacent to the removed sliding bearing. The reason for such amplication is discussed later on. Previously it was found that the misalignment of the vehicle dictates the strain distribution along the centre beam for the different speeds. This does not apply for tests A2 and B2, since the span of the centre beam is larger due to the lack of support, hence the inuence of the vehicle alignment is diminished. The response on box joist 5 (strain gauge 22) is presented in Fig. 13. A clear change in the strain magnitude is found between tests B1 and B2. This is related to the strain redistribution, due to lack of support, as found for the centre beam (Fig. 7). Again, a signicant amount of free vibration takes place in the absence of xation, that is not present for test B1. One of the main observations from the previous analyses concerns the changes in the dynamic properties of the centre beam, when the cross beam is not supported. A signicant free vibration takes place, with a different period and with higher amplitudes. Also a signicant dynamic amplication takes place on the centre beam for the spans next to the removed sliding bearing. This can be better explained by considering the free vibration represented in the frequency domain (Fig. 14). The gure shows a peak in amplitude at a frequency of %55 Hz for test A2 where the sliding bearing has been removed (the peaks occur at the same frequencies for all the vehicle speeds). If the sliding bearing is available (test A1), the main frequency peaks occur at %115 and %130 Hz. Table 4 contains the rst three eigenfrequencies computed for a continuous simple supported beam, following the analytical solution presented in [18]. Comparing the experimental results (Fig. 14) with the analytical solution, a good agreement for test A1 is found. For the case where the sliding bearing is removed the agreement is less (55 Hz experimental and 45.5 Hz analytical), likely because the cross beam is not completely detached from the centre beam (due to welding and sliding spring), therefore acts like a spring. This is in agreement with the strain inuence line (Fig. 7a), as shown before, and the eigenfrequencies are in agreement with results from literature regarding this type of modular expansion joints [17]. Thus, the lack of xation causes a reduction of the rst natural frequency for the centre beam. The frequency of load application, is dened as [8,17,19]:

6
1 MicroStrain amplitude [Hz ]

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 50 100 150

A1 A2

200

Frequency [Hz]
Fig. 14. Strain during the passage of the vehicle at %70 km/h for two different tests (A1 and A2), device 3 in the frequency domain. First axle.

Table 4 Eigenfrequencies (Hz) of a continuous simple supported beam with constant properties along the longitudinal direction. Mode 1 2 3 Normal scenario 116.6 127.8 144.3 Without xation 45.5 125.0 143.7

v
lv lb
60 40

where v is the vehicle speed, and lv and lb the length of, respectively, the wheel print and the top ange, varied between 38 and 69 Hz for vehicle passages at, respectively, 50 and 90 km/h. Therefore, for tests without sliding bearing, the loading frequency is within the same range as the eigenfrequency of the centre beam. For tests A2 the vehicle excites the joint with frequencies of 36, 49 and 55 Hz for the passages at 50, 70 and 90 km/h. Especially the passages at 70 and 90 km/h have input frequencies that are very close to the rst natural frequency of the joint, which causes the resonance of the structure. This is the justication for the higher DAF found in Fig. 12 for these two vehicle passages. Similar results have been experimentally observed by others [6], for this type of expansion joints. 5. Numerical analysis

B1 B2

5.1. Model description The numerical analysis was performed by means of a Finite Element Model (FEM) built in Matlab [20]. The model consists of three dimensional Euler beam elements for the centre and cross beams. The cross beam xations (sliding springs and sliding bearings) are simulated by means of a spring/damper system. The vehicle is modelled through moving loads of constant magnitude, travelling at a constant speed. The timestep used for the analysis is 5 104 s, smaller than the limit of Tmin/10, where Tmin represents the minimum period of interest, which was considered to be 0.005 s [21]. The system of equations is solved implicitly by means of the Newmark method. Table 5 shows the properties of both centre and cross beams. An overview of the mesh used for the analysis is available in Fig. 15. The damping values of the modular joint, as well as the properties of the xations, were derived from laboratory tests on the centre beam [22], being the summarised in Tables 5 and 6.

MicroStrain []

20 0 20 40 60 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Time [s]
Fig. 13. Strain during the passage of the vehicle at %70 km/h for two different tests (B1 and B2), on box joist 5, cross beam T2, device 22.

152 Table 5 Properties of the modular expansion joint. Property Value

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

140 120
Cross-beam 0.80 0.51 0.13 0.040 40.82 7850 52 31.2 732 64 202 1 105 1 105 4.3 102

Experimental Numerical

Centre beam Length (m) Span (m) Height (m) Width (m) Linear mass (kg/m) Density (kg/m3) Area (cm2) Shear area (cm2) Moment of inertia along y-axis (cm4) Moment of inertia along z-axis (cm4) Torsional inertia (cm4) Vertical xation stiffness (kN) Horizontal xation stiffness (kN) Damping of the xation (kNm/s) 18.15 1.785 0.12 0.090 46.60 7850 59.3 35.6 1158 399 67.3

100

MicroStrain []

80 60 40 20 0 20 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Time [s]
Fig. 16. Vertical strain at the middle point of the centre beam (point 1), during the passage of an axle at 70 km/h test A1.

results, which is a good indication of the suitability of the numerical analysis. The comparison for the scenario where the sliding bearing of the cross beam is removed is given in Fig. 17. The removal of the sliding bearing is simulated by setting the properties of the spring/damper system that supports the cross beam to zero. A good agreement is found for the peak value. However, the free vibration is less accurately predicted by the numerical model. This is most likely explained by changes in the properties of the cross beams. From visual inspections it was concluded that the cross beams have been strengthened during the years, therefore no exact quantication of the mass and stiffness can be made, as well as for the damping parameters. This is more important for the case without xation, since a resonance phenomena is present.

5.3. Parametric study effect of cross beam xation degradation

Fig. 15. Finite element mesh of the modular expansion joint.

Table 6 Damping ratio of the modular expansion joint. Frequency (Hz) 0 50 100 118 3000 Damping ratio (%) 0 1 5 40 40

The effect of xation deterioration is evaluated by changing the properties of the spring/damper system that supports the cross beam. Several scenarios were evaluated in order to simulate the gradual degradation, by reducing the stiffness in the three direc-

200 150 Experimental Numerical

MicroStrain []

100 50 0 50 100 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

5.2. Validation with experimental data The validation of the FEM model is made by comparing the numerical with the experimental results. Fig. 16 shows the comparison of the strain for point 1, located at the middle span of the longitudinal beam (Fig. 15), during the passage of one axle (36.5 kN/wheel) at 70 km/h. The distance between the two wheels is 2.10 m, which corresponds to the vehicle used for the tests (see Fig. 4). It is assumed that one wheel is crossing the joint along the alignment that contains point 1 and the other wheel 2.10 m towards the positive side of Y axis (Fig. 15). From Fig. 16 it follows that a close agreement exists between experimental and numerical

Time [s]
Fig. 17. Vertical strain at the middle point of the centre beam (point 1), during the passage of an axle at 70 km/h test A2.

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154

153

tions of the cross beam xation (Table 7). In all the simulations the damping value of the spring/damper system was considered to be zero. From preliminary analyses this showed to have no inuence on the results. Fig. 18 shows the strain for two points (points 1 and 2) due to the passage of an vehicle axle at 70 km/h. It follows that the xation degradation can be retrieved. As the degradation increases, by reducing the stiffness of the xation, the strain level increases, together with the development of a signicant free vibration, due to resonance of the centre beam. The strain increase is more significant for point 2 than for 1. This is in agreement to the experimental results from Section 4.1. Since point 1 is located under point of load application the major part of the strain is due to static defor-

135 k=105 k=104 k=103 k=102 k=0

Maximum MicroStrain []

130

125

120

115

110 0
Table 7 Vertical xation properties for damage detection. Stiffness (kN) 10 104 103 102 0
5

20

40

60

80

100

Speed [km/h]
Fig. 19. Effect of xation damage on the dynamic amplication factor during the passage of the vehicle at several speeds along alignment A, for point 1.

Note Good support No support

(a) 200
150

MicroStrain []

100

k=105 k=104 3 k=10 k=102 k=0

50

mation. Point 2 is not directly submitted to the vehicle loading, therefore the dynamic effects are more important for this point. Fig. 19 presents the maximum strain magnitude in point 1, function of the vehicle speed, for different degradation scenarios. Depending on the xation degradation level, the shape of the strain curve changes. This is related to the changes in the modal properties of the centre beam. As the cross beam xation starts to degrade, the cross beam starts acting like a spring rather than a xed support, causing a variation in the eigenfrequencies of the centre beam. Therefore, for each different vehicle speed the structure behaves differently, depending on the xation stiffness. For vehicle speeds up to 40 km/h no signicant dynamic amplication is found in the numerical analyses. For higher speeds the dynamic amplication becomes more important, especially for small values of xation stiffness. It is found that for stiffness values of 105 and 104 kN/m the results coincide, though the stiffness changes by a factor 10. The same applies for the small stiffness results, 0 and 102 kN/m. These correspond to the scenarios with and without damaged xations.

50 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

6. Conclusions This article presents the results of a detailed study on the dynamic behaviour of a modular expansion joint, during one over rolling test. The test was part of a research program regarding the development of an early warning monitoring system for the Martinus Nijhoff Bridge, aiming to evaluate the effect of degradation on cross beam xations. Moreover a numerical model of the modular joint was develop and validated. The experimental results have shown that both centre and cross beams behave differently, depending on the effectiveness of the support of the cross beam. As the cross beam sliding bearing is removed, the dynamic behaviour of the centre beam changes, which has consequences on the strain inuence lines and eigenfrequencies of the centre beam. If the sliding bearing is effective the cross beam behaves as a support of the centre beam. In the case of removal, the cross beam works as a spring, and causes a drop in eigenfrequencies (116.645.5 Hz for rst eigenfrequency). This shows that is possible to implement systems which detect damage based on variation of the modal properties. It was shown that the vehicle alignment has severe implications on the interpretation of the dynamic tests. The vehicle speed causes no signicant dynamic amplication on the response of

Time [s]

(b)

40 20 0

MicroStrain []

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 k=105 k=104 k=103 k=102 k=0

Time [s]
Fig. 18. Vertical strain during the passage of an axle at 70 km/h test A. Effect of xation degradation. (a) point 1 and (b) point 2.

154

B. Zuada Coelho et al. / Engineering Structures 48 (2013) 144154 [4] Roeder C. Fatigue and dynamic load measurements on modular expansion joints. Construct Build Mater 1998;12(23):14350. [5] Chang L, Lee Y. Evaluation of performance of bridge deck expansion joints. J Perform Construct Facil 2002;16(1):39. [6] Ancich E, Chirgwin G, Brown S. Dynamic anomalies in a modular bridge expansion joint. J Brid Eng 2006;11(5):54154. [7] Ravshanovicha K, Yamaguchi H, Matsumoto Y, Tomida N, Uno S. Mechanism of noise generation from a modular expansion joint under vehicle passage. Eng Struct 2007;29(9):220618. [8] Ghimire J, Matsumoto Y, Yamaguchi H, Karahashi I. Numerical investigation of noise generation and radiation from an existing modular expansion joint between prestressed concrete bridges. J Sound Vibr 2006;328(12):12947. [9] Crocetti R, Edlund B. Fatigue performance of modular bridge expansion joints. J Perform Construct Facil 2003;17(4):16776. [10] Kalkman I, Lentzen S, Courage W, Napoles OM, Galanti F. Performance indicator of a bridge expansion joint. In: Papadrakakis, M., Fragiadakis, M., Plevris, V. (Eds.), Computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, ECCOMAS; 2011. p. 120. [11] Peelen W, Vervuurt A, Zuada Coelho B, Leendertz H. Early warning monitoring system of modular expansion joints based on dynamic behavior. in: MEMSCON towards intelligent civil infrastructure; 2012. p. 111. [12] Leendertz J, Galanti F, Butz C. Dynamic testing and analysis of existing modular expansion joint. In: 35th Annual symposium of IABSE, taller, longer, lighter meeting growing demand with limited resources: IABSE; 2011. p. 18. [13] ETAG no. 032, Guideline for European technical approval of expansion joints for road bridges. Part 8: modular expansion joints, Tech. Rep.; 2010. [14] Gong S. A study of in-plane dynamics of tires. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology; 1993. [15] Vervuurt A, Galanti F, Courage W, van Holsteijn C, van der Meer P. Resultaten overroll test Martinus Nijhoffbrug 12 September 2010 (in Dutch). Tech. Rep., TNO; 2010. [16] Vervuurt A, Zuada Coelho B, Dieteren C, van Holsteijn G, Middeldorp F. Resultaten overroll test Martinus Nijhoffbrug (in Dutch). Tech. Rep., TNO; 2011. [17] Steenbergen M. Dynamic response of expansion joints to trafc loading. Eng Struct 2004;26(12):167790. [18] Timoshenko S. Vibration problems in engineering. 3rd ed. Van Nostrand; 1955. [19] Ancich E, Brown S, Chirgwin G. The role of modular bridge expansion joint vibration in environmental noise emissions and joint fatigue failure. In: Proceedings of acoustics 2004 conference; 2004. p. 13540. [20] The Mathworks. Matlab R2009b; 2009. [21] Bathe KJ, Wilson EL. Stability and accuracy analysis of direct integration methods. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1973;1(3):28391. [22] Lentzen S, Galanti F. Bridge expansion joint Lab test (in Dutch). Tech. Rep., TNO; 2010.

the modular joint for the test with sliding bearing. This is due to the quasi-static character of the response. For the tests in the state of serviceability (A1 and B1) the maximum DAF was %1.4, value that is below 1.7 commonly used by designers of expansion joints [6]. In the case of sliding bearing degradation a signicant increase of the DAF was measured (values up to 6). A resonance phenomena was identied for the scenario without sliding bearing which is associated with high number of stress cycles. These two combined effects have severe implications on the resistance to fatigue, being likely to cause premature fatigue failure. The effect of the vehicle speed is more pronounced for the test without sliding bearing, since the loading frequency matches the eigenfrequency of the centre beam, causing its resonance. From the numerical analysis it was found that there is a cut off speed (40 km/h) up to which no signicant dynamic effects occur due to the moving loads. The numerical results have shown that it is possible, with a simple beam model, to accurately capture the general behaviour of the structure, in particular the maximum strain level on the centre beam. It also allows to evaluate the gradual degradation of the cross beam xations. This is a main asset that can be incorporated into continuous monitoring systems, in order to evaluate the level of degradation of cross beam xations. By combining the strain monitoring (and changes in modal properties) together with numerical simulations it is possible to estimate the degradation state of modular expansion joints, and prevent premature failure by dening appropriate criteria for intervention. References
[1] Pijpers R. Modular expansion joints. The effect of static and fatigue trafc loading according Eurocode 1, (EN 1991-2, trafc loads on bridges), on various types of modular joints. MSc. Thesis, Delft University of Technology; 2005. [2] Lima J, Brito J. Inspection survey of 150 expansion joints in road bridges. Eng Struct 2009;31(5):107784. [3] Dexter RJ, Mutziger M, Osberg C. Performance testing for modular bridge joint systems, Tech. Rep., National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 467; 2002.