|
To obtain a better knowledge of existing structures behaviour monitoring can be used. The use of monitoring in bridge structures by the use of instruments to assess the integrity of structures is not new and there are reports from structures tested as early as in the 19th century according to ISIS Canada1 However, the term SHM (Structural Health Monitoring) is relatively new to civil engineering and the driving force to implement SHM comes from recognising the limitations of conventional visual inspections and evaluations using conservative codes of practice. The possibilities to monitor existing structures with help of the rapidly evolving Information Technology are to day carried out. The objective of SHM is to monitor the in-situ behaviour of a structure accurately and efficiently, to assess its performance under various service conditions, to detect damage or deterioration, and to determine the health or condition of the structure1. In Sweden strengthening and periodic monitoring of a large freivorbau bridge (pre-stresed concrete box girder bridge) has been carried out, the Gr&diaero;ndals Bridge. The bridge is located in Stockholm and is approximately 400 m in length with a free span of 120 m. It was opened to tram traffic in year 2000. Just after opening cracks were noticed in the webs, these cracks have then increased, the size of the largest cracks exceeded 0.5 mm, and at the end of year 2001 the bridge was temporarily strengthened. This was carried out with externally placed prestressed steel stays. The reason for cracking is quite clear but the responsibility is still debated. Nevertheless, it was evidently that the bridge needed to be strengthened. The strengthening methods used were CFRP plates in the Service Limit State (SLS) and prestressed dywidag stays in the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). The strengthening was carried out during year 2002. At the same time monitoring of the bridge commenced, using LVDT crack gauges as well as optical fibre sensors. This monitoring was carried out during the summer period. In addition to this a winter monitoring was carried out in the beginning of 2005. This paper presents the background to strengthening and a comparison between summer and winter monitoring where the strengthening behaviour between the two seasons is enlightened. The result from the monitoring is very interesting; it would have been preferable to strengthen the bridge during the winter.
|
