reot 2002-08 Live Load Stresses in Steel Curved Girder BridgesTechnical Report Documentation Page T Repo No z MNIRC ~ 2002-08 T Resipients Accession No Tile and Subie LIVE LOAD STRESSES IN STEEL CURVED GIRDER. BRIDGES 5 Rep Dae September 2001 e T Rahorey Jerome F. Hajjar, Joel D. Ray, Tina A. Wyffels, and Magnus L.R. Carlsson Performing Organization Report No, 5 erfoming Organon Name and ABSrosS Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota Institute of Technology 122 Civil Engineering Building, 500 Pillsbury Drive S.E. ‘Minneapolis, MN 55455-0116 To Prejea Test Wark Un No Ti: Convat(C) or rant No C) 74708 wo) 24 T: Sponsoring Organization Nave and AGES Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 TE. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report TH. Sponsoring Agency Code St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 TE Soppemeniany Nowe Ts: Aa Lane 200 wordy ‘Their initial curvature make steel-cured girder bridges more susceptible to lateral-orsional bucking during, construction, Critical in assessing the strength and fatigue life of the bridge components, predicting stresses in the ‘main girders and the crossframes proves more complex than in straight bridges. In this project, researchers investigated the correlation between measured and computed results in a two-span, four- girder, continuous composite stee! curved girder bridge with skew supports. A previous phase involved computing. the stresses through a linear elastic grillage finite element computer project and comparing the results with a typical third-party curved girder analysis program. The project's second phase further investigated the correlation between measured and computed stresses by running ‘two additional live load tests on the bridge. ‘This report summarizes research to investigate the behavior of the curved girder bridge system through all phases of construction, as well as to a series of live load field tests. In addition, researchers investigated the effects of change in temperature on the bridge behavior and tracked any changes in behavior of the bridge system over time and under service load conditions. 17 Dasumnent AralsDesrpins TE Avalabiiy Suton Bridges Crossframe Curved Steel I-Girder No restrictions. Document available from: Diaphragm Torsion Lateral-Torsional Bucking | National Technical Information Services, Warping Composite Deck Structural Stability Springfield, Virginia 22161 Field Measurement Construction Sequence Vibrating Wire Strain Gage TS, Sasa Cas (sro) Unelassified 20, Secures (is pags) TI No.of Pages Pree Unclassified 399)LIVE LOAD STRESSES IN STEEL CURVED GIRDER BRIDGES Final Report for Mn/DOT Project 74708 Presented to the Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared by Jerome F. Hajjar Joel D. Ray Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering University of Minnesota University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Tina A. Wyffels Magnus L. R. Carlsson BKBM Engineers Ellerbe Becket 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard 800 LaSalle Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429 ‘Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 September 2001 Published by Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Research Administration Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily the Minnesota Department of Transportation or the Center for Transportation Studies. The authors, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Center for ‘Transportation Studies do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this reportACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The authors would like to thank the Offices of Bridges and Structures, Materials, and Research and Strategic Services at the Minnesota Department of Transportation for support of this research on steel curved girder bridges. ‘The authors would also like to thank Prof. T. V. Galambos, P. M. Bergson, M. Graeser, and J. Ocel of the University of Minnesota; Prof. R. T. Leon of the Georgia Institute of Technology; Dr. W.-H. Huang of Stanley D. Lindsey Associates, Atlanta, Georgia; B. Pulver of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Northbrook, Illinois; and S. Ellis and B. Rudie of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Without their extensive cooperation, this research would not have been possible. J. Pirkl, M. Pribula, and R. Lane of the Minnesota Department of Transportation were instrumental in allowing the field tests to be conducted. The authors would also like to thank Prof. P. Birkemoe and Dr. M. ‘Simpson of the University of Toronto for sharing their research related to this bridge This project was conducted with funding provided by the Minnesota Department of ‘Transportation and the Center for Transportation Studies under Mn/DOT Agreement Nos. 72443 and 74708, ‘The authors gratefully acknowledge this support. The findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily the Minnesota Department of Transportation or the Center for Transportation Studies.Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction, ‘Temperature Effects. Correlation of Measured and Computed Results.......-...++0+0 21:29 3.1 Correlation of Measured and Computed Stresses Due to Dead Load... 29 3.2 Correlation of Measured and Computed Stresses Due to Live Load. 31 3.2.1 Gage-by-Gage Discussion of Gages Showing Erratic, Behavior... — : 3.2.2 Correlation of 1997 and 2000 Live Load Measurements to Computed Results. sos . - Investigation of Linear Behavior of Bridge System........... Discussion of Measured versus Computed Results ... Conclusions Bridge Dimensions, Gage Locations, and Displacement Measurement Locations ‘Truck Weights, Dimensions, and Placement Bar Charts for 1997 Change in Stress Analysis vs. 2000 Change in Stress Analysis Plots of Measured vs. Computed Stress for Dead Load, N = 6‘Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Bar Charts of 1997 Analysis vs. 1997 and 2000 Measured Stress Plots of Measured vs. Computed Stress for Live Load (Total Stress and Change in Stress, for Nine Trucks and Three Trucks, 1997 and 2000 Analysis, N= 6) Plots of Linearity of Stress for Loads Centered on Crossframes 5 and 7, V=6 Evaluation of Correlation of Each Gage for Change in Stress and Total StressTable 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 List of Tables Zero Readings Taken at the Fabrication Shop and Job Site. Dates and the Corresponding Average Temperature on which Field Measurements were Collected, Ordered from Hottest to Coldest 15 ‘Thermal Stresses 16 Comparison of Measured and Computed Deflections for the 1997 Nine Truck Loading (Fully Composite Analysis, N =6), Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 1997 Measured Stre: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress. Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress. Correlation of 1997 Computed and 1997 Measured Results: Gage Correlation Rating, Fully Composite Analysis with N'=6...... 1 Correlation of 1997 Computed and 2000 Measured Results: Gage Correlation Rating, Fully Composite Analysis with N'= 6..........00000++ 292 Correlation of 2000 Computed and 2000 Measured Results: Gage Correlation Rating, Fully Composite Analysis with N= 6. 93 Correlation of 1997 Computed and 2000 Measured Change in Stress Results: Gage Correlation Rating, Fully Composite Analysis with N= 6.........0. cece ‘Comparison of Stresses from Analysis with Reduction of all of the Crossframe ‘Members by 65%... ‘Comparison of Stresses from Analysis with Reduction of the Bottom 95 Crossframe Members by 65% ...... ‘Comparison of Stresses from Analysis with Reduction of the Top Crossframe Members by 65% ..... 97List of Figures Figure 1.1 Stress Comparison at Three Gage Lines for Step 4-2 (N= 6)... seed Figure 2.1 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 1A-6A . 7 Figure 2.2 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 7A-12A, 18 Figure 2.3 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 13A-18A 19 Figure 2.4 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 19A-24A . 20 Figure 2.5 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 1B-6B . . 22 Figure 2.6 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 7B-12B . . 222 Figure 2.7. Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 13BA-18B 23 Figure 2.8 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 19B-24B . . vee ceeeseeneenne Figure 2.9 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 1C-4C ....... 00060 cessssseseeon 25 Figure 2.10 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages SC-8C.... Figure 2.11 Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 9C-12C Figure 2.12 General Bridge Behavior with Decrease in Temperature............ Figure 3.1 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 [after (Simpson, 2000)] . Figure 3.2. Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 [after (Simpson, 2000)].............37 Figure 3.3 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 [after (Simpson, 2000)] .. . --38 Figure 3.4 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a [after (Simpson, 2000)]............39 Figure 3.5 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a [after (Simpson, 2000)]............40 Figure 3.6 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a [after (Simpson, 2000)] . 241EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Because steel curved girder bridges are potentially susceptible to lateral-torsional buckling, during construction due to the initial curvature of the bridge, prediction of stresses in the main girders and the crossframes is more complex than in straight bridges and is critical for assessing the strength and fatigue life of the bridge components. This research has investigated the correlation between measured and computed results in a two span, four-girder, continuous composite steel curved girder bridge having skew supports. This is the second phase of research on this bridge, the first phase culminating in 1996. In the previous research, the stresses computed by a linear elastic grillage finite element computer program, written at the University of Minnesota for this project, were first compared with a typical third-party curved girder analysis program. The two programs yielded similar results. The grillage analysis results also compared favorably to more detailed finite element results conducted at the University of Toronto (Simpson, 2000). Measured results during all phases of construction of the bridge and due to live loading on the bridge were then compared to computed results from the University of Minnesota program. Correlation was often good between the measured and computed results (Galambos et al., 1996). However, it was noted that computed results from the grillage finite element analysis were less accurate in the girder flange tips and sometimes unconservative in the crossframe members when compared to the field measurements, ‘The second phase of the project further investigated the correlation between measured and computed stresses through running two additional live load tests on the bridge. The role of temperature effects on the member stresses was also investigated. In addition, field tests were done to determine if service loading on the bridge may change the overall behavior of the system over time, for example due to loss of composite action in the negative moment region, which did not have shear stud connectors in this bridge. The primary goals of this research are thus to: + Investigate the behavior of the curved girder bridge system through all phases of construction as well as to a series of live load field tests. * Investigate the effects of change in temperature on the bridge behavior.‘© Determine if the bridge system has undergone a change in behavior over time under service load conditions. Correlation criteria were established for all comparisons to quantify the correlation between measured and computed results based on percent errors, Correlation was then classified as, strong, moderate, or weak per strain gage. ‘Two live load tests were performed on the bridge as part of this research, one in 1997 and one in 2000, included loading with up to nine 50 kip trucks. The field tests provided good insight into the general behavior of this bridge system, both under isolated loading conditions and over the three years separating the two tests. With respect to total stress, correlation for the gages was generally strong in the midspan region of the bridge for both sets of live load tests, moderate to strong in the gages located near the middle pier of the bridge, and weak to moderate in the crossframes. When the correlations were moderate in the midspan and middle pier gage lines, it was usually due to very low stress magnitudes, resulting in the potential for higher percent errors between measured and computed data. In addition, stresses were usually overpredicted in the midspan and middle pier regions, but sometimes remained underpredicted in the crossframes. A parametric study was conducted to investigate whether composite action likely exists in the negative moment region at service loads, even though the bridge has no shear connectors in that, region. Analyses with and without composite action in the negative moment region were thus conducted for all live load cases as well as for construction stages after hardening of the concrete EVE. were investigated for the analysis, including N=8, representing nominal concrete strength, and deck. In addition, two values of the modular ratio of the steel and concrete materials, , representing the actual strength of the deck concrete, ‘The different modular ratios did not make a substantial difference, although errors tended to be lower with N=6. However, accounting for composite action in the negative moment region substantially improved the correlation between measured and computed results over the middle pier. Friction and adhesion are not considered reliable mechanisms of composite force transfer in a negative moment region absent of shear connectors, as in this bridge. However, as composite action clearly affected the bridge behavior over the middle pier, some accounting of composite action in the negativemoment region during the analysis of curved girder bridges may help to insure more accurate assessment of stresses, particularly live load stresses used to assess fatigue-prone details. While the correlation was generally good overall, it was determined that the specific measured results that had weaker correlation for total stress (dead plus live load) usually also had the high percent errors at the end of the construction (dead load) phase. It was thus believed that the largest contributing factor to the majority of the weaker correlations was the alignment of the steel superstructure, and subsequent distortion of the steel members both due to construction and during subsequent live loading. Uneven load distribution, distortion of the girders due to formwork, and the possibility that the crossframes were modeled as too stiff also complicated the analysis and may have led to the instances of weaker correlation, particularly in the crossframe members. ‘Temperature effects were seen to be less influential in inducing errors in correlation between measured and computed results than the initial errors introduced in the construction stages. For example, the change in stress induced by normal daily variations in temperature were seen to be less than one-third of the difference between the computed stress and the measured stress in the crossframes. While thermal effects were not negligible, they were thus not thought to be the major contributing factor to the discrepancies observed between measured and computed stresses. ‘The effects of time and service loads on the behavior of the bridge system seemed to be nes gible, as may be expected. It did not appear that there was any significant change in composite action in the midspan or middle pier regions of the bridge, nor did the measured total stresses appear to have changed beyond reasonable amounts due to indeterminate behavior and imperfectly reproduced live load tests.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION During construction, thin-walled curved I-shape members of a curved steel girder bridge system are potentially subject to instability problems that are not present once the bridge is completely erected and the conerete deck is hardened. In order to design the bridge efficiently for both strength and fatigue, it is necessary to have an accurate assessment of the stresses, particularly in the steel girders and crossframes, during construction and due to live loading on the bridge. In 1994, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) funded a research project at the University of Minnesota on the behavior of curved steel I-girder bridge systems with composite decks. The project involved instrumentation and monitoring the strains and stresses in the steel superstructure of a two-span, four-girder, continuous composite steel curved I-girder bridge having skew supports (Mn/DOT Bridge No. 27998) during its entire construction process. The field measurements were then compared with results obtained and from an analysis program (termed the “UMN program”) developed at the University of Minnesota specifically for the project. The UMN program was initially compared with the third-party finite element program used by Mn/DOT to analyze curved steel I-girder bridges, to insure that the two programs produced similar results. The field measurements were then compared to the UMN program. ‘The UMN program uses the Grillage Method of finite element analysis, based on a planar grid model that is permitted to deflect in the third dimension, to analyze this structure. One assumption associated with this method is that a two-dimensional model can reasonably approximate a three-dimensional system. The curved girder element developed for the UMN program accounts for the warping effects of the open sections and for the composite behavior of the bridge. The UMN program has the capability of modeling the detailed loading and construction sequences of the bridge. The basic assumptions of the Grillage Method used in theUMN program and the third party analysis program are reported in Galambos et al. (1996) and Huang (1996). Zureick et al. (1993) provide an excellent synopsis of past research on curved steel I-girder bridges leading to current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)design provisions, including extensive work done in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980°s Recent additional research on the subject of curved steel girder bridge systems has been conducted in several general areas: planning for further research (Grubb et al., 1993; Duwadi et al., 1994; Hall, 1996), modeling strength and serviceability limit states of curved girders (Huang et al., 1995; Davidson et al., 1996; Yoo et al., 1996; Zureick and Nagib, 1997; Lee and Yoo, 1999; Simpson, 2000; Thevendran et al., 2000; Zureick et al., 2000), modeling crossframe spacing and strength (Schelling et al., 1989; Davidson et al., 1996; South and Hahim, 2000), and developing and drafting new design specifications (Yoo et al., 1995; Hall, 1997). Much of this recent research was conducted as part of an ongoing Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project on assessing the behavior of steel curved girder bridge systems. The research herein presents some of the first comprehensive correlations between computed results and measurements taken in the field for a curved steel I-girder bridge system, TI the first phase of the project included all correlation during construction and investigation of the research was conducted in two phases. The bridge opened to traffic in September 1995, and behavior of the bridge under controlled live load. The al truck live loading study, conducted on October 7, 1995, involved placing two dump trucks filled with sand, weighing approximately 50 kips each, in various positions on the bridge. However, these two trucks induced only about 1 to 2 ksi in the girders and crossframes at the points of measurement. Because of this low level of stress, it was not possible to make a definitive correlation between the analysis and the field ‘measurements for the live loading (Galambos et al., 1996). Thus, in the second phase of the research in 1997 and 2000, two additional tests were initiated using increased live loading with up to nine $0 kip trucks so that more substantial and reliable strain readings could be attained. This report outlines the results this project, which includes correlating computational results withthe measured results from construction dead load as well as from both sets of increased live loading applied to the bridge and the effects of temperature on the behavior of the bridge system. Figures A.1 through A.3 show the plan and section views for Mn/DOT Bridge No. 27998, as well as the girder and deck dimensions, and a typical set of crossframes. Figures A.4 and A.S show views of the north and south abutment end diaphragms. Sixty Geokon VK-4100 vibrating wire strain gages were attached to the steel superstructure of the bridge. The primary advantage of this type of gage is that it holds its zero value for a period of years. In addition, the rate of thermal expansion and contraction of the gage is approximately that of the steel to which attached. Consequently, changes in strain due to change in temperature are a result of indeterminate action of the bridge. Figures A.6 and A.7 show the positions and nomenclature of these gages, as well as the locations of the deflection measurements that were taken at points during the project. Figure A.9 shows the modeling of the grid system used in the UMN program, ‘Twenty-four gages were placed along a section at the midspan of Span | (the south span) to determine the stresses occurring in the positive moment region of the span, These gages were labeled Gage Line A and were numbered 1A, 2A, ... 24A starting with the outside facia girder and progressing to the inside facia girder. All gages were oriented along the longitudinal axis of the girder. Six gages were attached to each of the four girders to determine the stresses in the top and bottom flange regions. Four of the gages, one for each flange tip, were attached approximately 1.25 inches from the flange edge. The other two gages were attached approximately 1.5 inches away from the flange on the web, one near the top flange and the other near the bottom flange. Twenty-four gages were also placed in the negative moment region, the section over the middle pier. These gages were labeled Gage Line B and were numbered 1B through 24B in the same manner as Gage Line A. The final twelve gages were placed across a set of three crossframes located near Gage Line A. The crossframes are made up of a WT section bottom chord, a double angle top chord, and double angle X-brace diagonals. The crossframe members are welded to gusset plates, which are bolted to the transverse stiffeners in the I-girders. A gage was attached to each section, oriented along the longitudinal axis of the member, to determine the axial stress present in each of the members. These gages were labeled Gage LineCand were numbered 1C through 12C. The gage numbering started with the top horizontal member connected to the outside facia girder and the next inside girder and proceeded down and towards the inside facia girder. Galambos et al. (1996) provides additional information regarding the data acquisition system and the gage attachment procedure, Zeto readings for the curved girders were taken after the strain gages were attached at the fabrication shop. After the girders were delivered to the job site, another set of readings was taken. The largest percent error between the two reads was 5.32% (Galambos et al., 1996), and the readings taken at the fabrication shop were used as the zero readings for all the dead load ‘measurements made on this project. Table 1.1 lists the strain readings taken at both sites Readings were taken during all phases of construction of the bridge. Eight dead load ‘measurements were identified as the key points during construction of the bridge system and used in phase two for quantitative correlation per gage. These eight dead load stages are: © Stage 1 - Step 1-1, Span 1 (south span) girders in place * Stage 2 - Step 1-2, During the erection of the second girder from the outer facia girder in Span 2 (north span) * Stage 3 - Step 1-3, Alll girders in place and the crossframe bolts tightened * Stage 4 - Step 2-2, Formwork in place * Stage 5 - Step 2-3a, Deck reinforcement in place * Stage 6 - Step 3-3a, Concrete deck pour completed (concrete wet) Stage 7 - Step 4-1, Parapet completed (with N = 6 or N = 8) * Stage 8 - Step 4-2, Two inch concrete overlay poured (with N= 6 or N = 8) ‘After the deck was hardened and the bridge was opened for service in 1995, a live load test with two 50 kip trucks was performed, The two trucks did not induce high strains in the members and the conclusion at that time was that higher load tests were appropriate to induce larger strains.On August 7, 1997, as part of phase two of this report, the first of two truck live loadings with increased load was applied to Mn/DOT Bridge No. 27998. As many as nine dump trucks weighing approximately 50 kips each were used (see Figures B.1 to B.9 for the dimensions and weights of each truck in 1997). A similar loading was performed on June 26, 2000, to investigate the consistency of the results (see Figures B.21 to B.29 for the dimensions and weights of each truck in 2000), and whether the stiffness of the bridge is changing appreciably over time due, for example, to a gradual partial loss of composite action from repeated service- level live loading. Eleven different truck configurations were used (Figures B.10 to B.20 show the truck locations for each case in 1997; B.30 to B.40 show the truck locations for each case in 2000). ‘The first six cases for each year (Figures B.10 to B.15 and B.30 to B.35) consisted of placing nine trucks in three rows of three at progressive locations along the length of the bridge. Case 7 involved eight trucks, four on each span (Figure B.16 and B.36). The trucks were placed in two rows of two, approximately centered along the length of each span each year. The final four truck cases, Cases 8 through 11, used only three trucks (Figures B.17 to B.20 and B.37 to B.40). The trucks were placed in one row of three transversely across the bridge in four different locations. In the summer of 2000, the cases and loadings were duplicated with as much accuracy as was possible based on truck locations on the bridge and gross weights and dimensions of the vehicles. Both the analyses and data collected from 1997 and 2000 are compared in this report. For each of the live loading cases, the change in strain in each gage was determined, measured relative to the strains due only to dead load (self weight) on the bridge, taken at the beginning of each of the field tests. These strains were converted to stresses assuming linear elastic response (Galambos et al., 1996) and added to the dead load stresses, which were determined after the 1995. The stresses due only to the dead load (self weight) only construc n was complete: were recorded in Galambos et al. (1996) and are shown in Figure 1.1 In addition to these two field studies, a reevaluation of the correlation between the measured and computed results was undertaken for the entire construction history of the bridge. Specifically, a series of analyses was conducted in which fully composite action was assumed in both the negative and positive moment regions of the bridge, versus assuming composite action only inthe positive moment region and assuming bare steel behavior in the negative moment region (termed “partially non-composite analysis” in this work). Even though this bridge has no shear connectors over the interior support, at these relatively low levels of live load, friction and adhesion may induce composite action in the negative moment region. For composite analysis, the stiffness of the reinforcing bar was included for the elements in the negative moment region. It will be seen that whether or not one includes composite action substantially changes the analysis results over the center pier in this bridge, especially near the top (tension) flange. In addition, for all analyses conducted after the concrete slab hardened, two different values of the modular ratio, N = E/E., were used: 6 and 8. While N = 8 is customarily used for analysis of composite steel bridge systems, cylinder strengths for the concrete slab ranged from 5.6 to 6.2 ksi (Galambos et al.,1996). For a concrete strength of 6.2 ksi and for a steel modulus of 29,000 ksi, the approximate modular ratio, N equals 6.46. In addition, the strength (and thus the stiffness) of the deck concrete has almost certainly increased in the years since the deck was poured. Thus, NV = 6 was felt to be an appropriate lower bound value of N to investigate, and these are the results used for primary correlation with the measured data (Boyer and Hajjar, 1997). Percent errors between all measured and computed results were calculated for every reading for the full construction history of the bridge. These results are presented in this report. Quantitative criteria were then established which identify whether the correlation of each of the sixty gages ‘was strong, moderate, or weak throughout the construction history of the bridge. In order to best, compare the two live load tests done in phase two of the project, the same correlation criteria ‘were applied to the data collected in 2000 as was applied to the data collected in 1997. As will be discussed throughout this report, in 1997 it was noted that correlation was stronger between the measured data and analyses assuming fully composite action along the length of the bridge with N’ = 6 rather than between analyses using N = 8 or assuming partially non-composite action. In 2000, it was also noted that the correlations for 47 of the 48 active and reliable gages remained the same as the correlations found in 1997. Analysis using N = 8 or assuming partially non-composite action was thus not performed for the truck loadings from 2000.Chapter 2 contains a discussion of temperature effects and their contributions to the complexity of the analysis of curved steel girder bridge systems. Chapter 3 discusses the effectiveness of the grillage method of analysis by correlating measured results from both the 1997 truck loadings and the 2000 truck loadings with computed results based on the 1997 truck loadings. Chapter 4 investigates whether the linear behavior of the system with respect to two, three, and nine truck loadings was approximately linear. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the results of this study. Chapter 6 presents final conclusions on this research. Appendix A shows the views of the bridge, crossframes, gage locations, and displacement reading locations. Appendix B shows truck dimensions and case-by-case truck locations for both the 1997 live load test and the 2000 live load test. Appendix C discusses the composite analysis based on 1997 truck loadings versus the same analysis performed on the 2000 truck loadings, both with N= 6, This establishes that all comparisons of both 1997 and 2000 measured data may be made to analysis using 1997 truck load with little loss of insight into the behavior. Appendix D shows plots of measured versus computed stress for N= 6 for all dead load cases. Appendix E contains a comparison between change in stress from the analysis for N= 6 due to 1997 truck loading, 1997 data collected due to live loading, and 2000 data collected due to live loading. Appendix F displays plots of total stress and change in stress from analysis due to 1997 truck loading versus data collected in 1997 and 2000 for N= 6. Appendix F also contains plots displaying N = 6 composite analysis due to 2000 live loading versus the measured data from 1997 and 2000. Appendix G contains plots investigating the linearity of the measured and computed results from 1997 for N= 6. Appendix H provides a case-by-case discussion of change in stress observed in the gages, a gage-by-gage assessment of the correlation of total stress, and a discussion of the damaged or erratic gages.Table 1.1 Zero Readings Taken at the Fabrication Shop and Job Sites Tniil Strain Reading Taken at ‘Sivan Readinge Taken at | Zoro Strain Parcent Bierencs Fabrication Shop (Construction ite “ierence: Fabrication Shop ‘on 07/3/1995 (microstran) (icrostrain) (mlerostran) 21738. 2281.1 579) 28% 19915 20100 185) os 1987.5 0462 113) O58) 0279 36.) Bard 2389.7 103 1938.7 59211 175) 2185.5 2408.3 W728 2ire2 231.2 2281.2 2355.8 22008 2230.9 1857.5 21925 1892.1 20265 2105.4 2165.0 1587.5 2476.4 18028 12885 1898.1 Buses 1691.7 “e703 2502.9 1440.3 2788 2376.0 {108 288.4 19108 28 17853 lia8 pigs liaB 2327.7 lise 2605.2 i 22289 lize 6018 lie5 25605 ho 16580 l2oB 20506 21923 25990 2262.9Data Shown: computed stress/measured stress (ks!) ~9.00/-7.1T Peeog/aaer ~*240/— -0.90/-008T5.38/ 891 78798 |-s:30/-<.8e . s.00/4.nq [igs jee o.10/1.3 SPSS v.10 /7.04 [abe Gage line A: gages 1A ~ 240 soe/testTi49/0.40 8.000.881 ay ae yt) n12.06/-14i [87880 —11-70/-ra2 [Sdae/ oss -1288/-74 Gage line B: gages 1B - 24B Leading: “ ae ‘Steel Formwork + Rebor+Concrale® 084/-1.78 1e0/ees Sevtoe Poropel +Overlay Structure: S78 /2.40 6.19/4.00 Composite (N=6) -3.80/-6.70 =8.48/-0.16 =2.13/-781 Gage line C: gages 1¢ - 12 ~418/711.73 NORTH ABUT. Figure 1,1; Stress Comparison at Three Gage Lines for Step 4-2 (N=6)CHAPTER 2 TEMPERATURE EFFECTS The initial phase of this research documented that the UMN program predicts the behavior of the curved girder bridge reasonably well with some exceptions, especially noticeable in the crossframes (Galambos et al., 1996). These differences are believed to originate primarily from the alignment of the steel superstructure and the subsequent distortion of the steel members. While these are certainly contributing factors, temperature effects may result in changes in strain in any indeterminate bridge structure. The effects of temperature on the behavior of this bridge are discussed in this chapter. 2.1 TEMPERATURE EFFECTS In order to investigate the overall behavior of this curved girder bridge due to temperature, a series of field measurements were collected with the bridge open to traffic, but with litle traffic on the bridge during the readings (Carlsson and Hajjar, 2000). The initial readings were ‘measured approximately one year after the bridge was opened for traffic, with seven series of readings occurring over the subsequent four-year period, including three readings taken over the course of a cold day. Table 2.1 identifies the dates and the corresponding average temperatures on which field measurements were collected, ordered from hottest to coldest. According to the manufacturer, the Geokon VK-4100 vibrating wire strain gages have a coefficient of thermal expansion similar to the steel in the bridge of 6.3x10°/°F (11.3x10°/°C). Therefore any measured change in strain in the bridge due to indeterminate response to temperature may be accurately recorded. This fact was verified by attaching a strain gage to an unloaded steel specimen of similar material to the bridge, and subjecting it to temperature changes. Small differences were noticed (approximately 10 microstrain over a temperature shift ufrom 32°F to 73°F (0°C to 23°C). However, this was determined to have negligible influence on the field measurements and therefore was neglected (Carlsson and Hajar, 2000). The thermal coefficient of expansion of the concrete is approximately 5.5x10“/°F (10x104/°C), which results in a somewhat more rapid expansion of the steel structure as the temperature rises than in the surrounding concrete. Thus, any change in temperature will yield thermal stresses in the bridge due to the restraint of the concrete, the bridge boundary conditions, and the overall indeterminate action of the bridge. ‘The results from the temperature readings are shown in Figures 2.1 through 2.11. The change in strain is measured relative to the strain in each gage at 68°F (using the 8/7/97 readings), since this temperature is the approximate average temperature at which the bridge was built (particularly when the deck was poured), and is used to estimate the state at which the bridge was least affected by temperature. As noted in Appendix H, between 1997 and 2000, readings of gages 12A, 16A, possibly 18, 1B, 12B, and 24B became inconsistent with the readings taken in 1997. Data from the readings of these gages are included in the figures, but are ignored in all conclusions in this report regarding the behavior of the bridge. In Rudie (1997), it was shown that temperature influences the overall behavior of the bridge. As indicated in these plots, the gages in general show consistent trends of accumulating either tensile or compressive strain with a decrease in temperature due primarily to indeterminate action in the bridge. The magnitude of the change is typically on the order of 50 to 200 microstrain. However, while several of the gages do show a clear trend, others show results that indicate a negligible change in strain, or that exhibit more complex behavior by going first into tension and then into compression, or vice versa. In addition, itis difficult to characterize a clear trend of the bridge system as a whole. Figure 2.12 identifies for the gages along gage lines A and C the trends in this behavior, i.e., whether the gage generally picked up tension (T) or compression (C) as the temperature decreased. The general pattern of change in strain may indicate relative movement or rotation of the girders. For example, as indicated in Figures 2.9 to 2.11, the bottom crossframe members induced in general larger compressive strain than the top 2members, which indicates possible relative rotation of the girders. The middle crossframe illustrates a good example of this. The inner crossframe has similar results, however, gage 12C did not register between 10°F and 68°F and has therefore been extrapolated based on the general trend of the other two crossframes. The results in the outer crossframe are more erratic (Figure 2.9), which complicates the analysis. Nevertheless, the fact that all of the members in this, crossframe induce compressive strain indicates potential relative lateral motion of Girders 1 and 2. However, a consistent pattern of behavior, incorporating clear evidence of torsion or bending in the girders, warping restraint in the flange tips, etc., cannot be synthesized from these results, Table 2.2 illustrates the maximum estimated stress due to change in temperature in each gage. The accumulating strain build-up in the bridge due to the large temperature shift results ina maximum compressive stress of approximately 9 ksi in the bottom flange in Girder 3 at Gage Line A as well in the bottom member in the middle crossframe at Gage Line C (i.e, gage 8C). Even though these stress magnitudes may seem high, it is important to recognize that this is over relatively large temperature shifts [e.g., 75°F (40°C)]. For more reasonable day-to-day temperature shifts, these thermal stresses are much less, The concrete deck was poured between 4:45 am to :15 am at approximately 68°F (20°C). The largest measured temperature change during the following days was less than 18°F (10°C). Thus, the largest maximum thermal stress during pouring of the concrete (which is the largest contributor to the dead load stresses) may have only reached approximately 2 to 3 ksi in magnitude in the girders and crossframes. These thermal stresses may have potentially been locked into the structure as the concrete hardened and restrained the bridge. Thus, the temperature does influence the overall behavior of the bridge. However, temperature variations most likely do not yield thermal stresses large enough to be the primary contributing factor to the high measured stresses in the girders and the crossframes that are discussed in the following chapters. Some factors that may have contributed to the erratic behavior in the temperature readings other than the indeterminate action on the bridge could have been the curing and creep of the concrete. Since the temperature readings were ordered from hottest to coldest and not chronologically, these contributing factors are diminished, although not eliminated. B‘These results indicate that some of the stresses reported throughout this project due to change in load may incorporate some small effects from indeterminate behavior due to change in temperature as well. A more in-depth discussion of the behavior of the bridge system as a whole is discussed in the next chapters.Table 2.1: Dates and the Corresponding Average Temperatures on which Field ‘Measurements were Collected, Ordered from Hottest to Coldest Date Average Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit) 4789 718 8/7/87 68 SAGIT 52.3 11/4186 44.6 13/98 5.18 1/13/98 72.02, A388 6.88 1s(ee pote ‘Table 2.2: Thermal Stresses om tr 06)a Change in Strain (microstrain) 300 $$ Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 1A-6A OT 8 a -200 10 20 30. 40 50 6 ‘Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.1: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 1A-6Asr Change in Strain (microstrain) Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 7A-12A 00 7A = 8A 9A, 104 114 912A 10 20 30 40 50 60 ‘Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.2: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 7A-12AChange in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 13A-18A 200 -20 “10 ° 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ‘Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.3: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 13A-18A 138] 148 #158 164 174 218A07 Change in Strain (microstrain) 100 3 “160 Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 194-244, \ “10 ° 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 ‘Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.4: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 19A-24AChange in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 1B-6B — a | | wo | _ — Z 20 : a ess Ee Ee es Sas er a _l —— 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ‘Temperature (degrees F) -20 “10 Figure 2.5: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 1B-6Bw Change in Strain (microstrain) Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 7B-12B 500 — — — 40 |} — | I 300 — | ee 200 [-—— 8B te 98 = 108 100 : = e118, [pee t28 ° -100 | -200 a SS -20 “10 ° 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ‘Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.6: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 7B-12Bez Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 13B-18B "r a oo mm “o~N _ ZL o [| _™| -20 “10 ° 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 ‘Temperature (degrees F) / E i s ’ é Figure 2.7: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 13B-18Bve Change in Strain (microstrain) 100 50 Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 19B-24B 50 100 | “150 -200 — -250 -10 ‘Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.8: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 19B-24Bst Change in Strai (microstrain) 100 “120 Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 1C-4C \ j—e-20 5 —te-3C ne “10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ‘Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.9: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 1C-4C 809% Change in Strain (microstrain) Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 5C-8C 50 8 8 “150 -200 ° 10 20 30 40 50 60 ‘Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.10: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages SC-8C 50 e680 —*-70 80ir ‘Change in Strain (microstrain) Change in Strain vs. Temperature Compared to 8/7/97 of Gages 9C-12C \ a0 #100 4100 116 120 4-120 Extrap 10 | | | -200 - “10 ° 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 £0 Temperature (degrees F) Figure 2.11: Change in Strain vs. Temperature of Gages 9C-12C82 Note: T and C denote tensile and compressive stress, respectively c oT TOT c c € c c c c ec oc c oT T Figure 212: General Bridge Behavior with Decrease in TemperatureCHAPTER 3 CORRELATION OF MEASURED AND COMPUTED RESULTS This chapter reports the correlation of measured and computed results, both during construction and due to live loading on the bridge. Correlation due to dead load is discussed first, followed by correlation due to live load. In addition to the analyses of the curved girder bridge with the UM program, a three-dimensional finite element model (termed the “FE program” herein) of this bridge was developed and analyzed at the University of Toronto (Simpson, 2000). Four-node shell elements were utilized to model the girders, whereas the crossframe members were modeled using three-dimensional truss elements. The predicted stresses of the FE model during two construction stages are included here for comparison. Figures 3.1 through 3.6 shows a comparison between stresses for self weight of the bare steel structure (no formwork or deck) and at the completion of the placement of the wet concrete obtained from the field measurements, FE program, and the UMN program, The predicted behavior of the bridge during each individual construction stage, as well as under live loading, compared very well between the two models, which further confirms the validity of the UM program for this curved girder bridge, 3.1 CORRELATION OF MEASURED AND COMPUTED STRESSES DUE TO DEAD LOAD To understand and accurately analyze the behavior predicted by each gage, an evaluation of the measured stresses for the entire construction history of the bridge was made based on analyses 29using composite action (after hardening of the deck) throughout the entire bridge, and also on analyses assuming only the bare steel bridge system acts over the center support (with composite action occurring everywhere else). Graphs of how each gage compared to the different analyses during construction can be seen in Figures D.1 to D.11 (for V = 6). In the figures, the measured results are shown with dashed lines, arid the analysis results are shown with solid lines (throughout this report the legend “-c” refers to results assuming fully composite action over the center pier; the legend “-nc” refers to results assuming that only the bare steel structure acts over the center pier, with composite action retained in the positive moment region). The stages of construction that are plotted on the horizontal axis were itemized as stages 1 through 8 in Chapter 1 It may be seen in the gage-by-gage evaluation in Appendix H that how each gage compared with the dead load analysis often greatly affects how the gage compared with the total stresses including live load. This effect carried through to the comparison of the 2000 measured live load data with 1997 and 2000 analysis. Even though predicting the behavior of the bare steel bridge does not involve inaccuracies based upon modeling of the composite behavior, larger percent errors often occurred in these earlier stages of construction. The stresses were generally low due to self-weight, and fit-up stresses or local anomalies in loading often dominated the behavior of certain gages. Any differences between measured and computed results for the bridge self weight sometimes then carried over to the comparisons of total stress in the gages once live loading was applied. This trend is common among many of the gages, and it warrants careful consideration of the correlation to dead load stresses during construction, versus due to live load stresses on the composite bridge. General conclusions about the correlation of the measured and computed results for dead load will be made in Chapter 5, 303.2 CORRELATION OF MEASURED AND COMPUTED STRESSES DUE TO LIVE LOAD As part of phase two of this research two sets of live load readings were taken three years apart, in 1997 and 2000, in part to permit evaluation of whether changes were occurring in the bridge over time that affect live load response. Over the course of this study, nine gages of the original sixty either stopped providing data, or began giving readings that are of questionable reliability. These gages are summarized in the next section. 3.2.1 GAGE BY GAGE DISCUSSION OF GAGES SHOWING ERRATIC BEHAVIOR Gage 11B was damaged while being lifted during construction. Gage 1A was damaged when cantilever supports for the formwork was placed. Both were replaced during construction [see Galambos et al. (1996) for details of this replacement]. Three gages: 4A, ISA and 12C no longer provide data. Gage 12C was a dead gage during the 1997 live load tests, but 4A and 15A failed at some point between 1997 and 2000. Six gages: 12A, 16A, 18A, 1B, 12B, and 24B began giving erratic readings at various times between 1997 and 2000. There is no consistent trend in the changes in readings of these gages. ‘Three gages are in the positive moment region, and three in the negative moment region. Four of the gages were in tension in 1997, and two of those showed a significant increase in tension over, the course of three years, while two showed a significant increase in compression. Of the two gages that were in compression in 1997, one picked up tension and the other compression. All of the gages that began giving erratic readings between 1997 and 2000 are located near the flange tips, but all are on different girders (except for gages 16A and 18A). The only top flange gage is IB, which is located in the negative moment region. Over the course of three years, 31multiple readings were taken with self weight on the bridge (see Chapter 2). The stress generally accumulated over the three years, but was not linear with time or temperature. The total stress accumulation did not occur between any two of the measurement dates, but rather was measured between multiple dates over the course of the study. There are no definable trends established by this data, except that all the gages are located near flange tips. Appendix H describes the specific shifts in strain seen for each of these six gages. ‘One possible explanation is that individual tack welds on each gage have failed over the course of time, and each gage had in effect re-zeroed itself after each weld failure. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that truck live loading in 2000 induced similar changes in the stresses as the 1997 live load test for the gages in question, However, it was not possible to verify this, hypothesis definitively. Whether the readings taken in 1997 and 2000 agree or are similar does not alter the fact that any data collected from these gages is suspect, and this should be accounted for in the conclusions drawn from the data from these six gages. 3.2.2 CORRELATION OF 1997 AND 2000 LIVE LOAD MESUREMENTS TO. COMPUTED RESULTS Figures E.1 to E.30 compare the measured change in stress due to truck loading in both 1997 and 2000 to analysis results using the truck loading from 1997. In general, the measured change in stress magnitudes from 1997 and 2000 were qualitatively similar and agreed in sign. Individual cases vary with respect to their degree of similarity, but on the whole, the tendency was toward similarity rather than disparity between the two live load tests. Because the 2000 truck weights and locations could not be exactly reproduced from 1997, some discrepancy is understandable. Even though the total truck weight used in 2000 was heavier than that used in 1997, not all stresses measured in 2000 were larger in magnitude than those measured in 1997 were. A detailed assessment of each case is given in Appendix H. Figures F.1 to F.88 (plotted for N = 6) include the graphs for the total stress and the change in stress (from the unloaded bridge) for each gage as either nine trucks or three trucks moved across 2the length of the bridge for both the 1997 and 2000 truck loadings compared to 1997 analysis results, including both composite and partially non-composite analysis. Figures F.89 to F.132 compare the same measured results to the 2000 analysis results assuming composite action and N = 6 throughout the length of the bridge. Appendix C discusses the appropriateness of comparing the 2000 measured data to analysis assuming loading based on the 1997 trucks. In Appendix F are eight sets of the plots, as follows: + Nine trucks, composite and partially non-composite analysis with NV = 6, total stress versus 1997 analysis (Figures F.1 to F.22) * Nine trucks, composite and partially non-composite analysis with NV = 6, change in stress versus 1997 analysis (Figures F.23 to F.44) * Three trucks, composite and partially non-composite analysis with N = 6, total stress versus 1997 analysis (Figures F.45 to F.66) © Three trucks, composite and partially non-composite analysis with N = 6, change in stress versus 1997 analysis (Figures F.67 to F.88) Nine trucks, composite analysis with N= F.89 to F.99) total stress versus 2000 analysis (Figures © Nine trucks, composite analysis with NV = 6, change in stress versus 2000 analysis (Figures F.100 to F.110) © Three trucks, composite analysis with N = 6, total stress versus 2000 analysis (Figures F.l1] to F121) © Three trucks, composite analysis with N = 6, change in stress versus 2000 analysis (Figures F.122 to F.132) Zero readings were taken at the beginning and the end of the nights of the tests in both 1997 and 2000 while there were no trucks loading the bridge. For the readings taken in each year the differences were less than 2 percent. As a result the first reading was used as the zero reading for the night 33To obtain the total stress, the stress obtained from each truck loading case was added to the stress obtained from Step 4-2 (see Section 3.1). Assuming that temperature changes over the course of the test date are low, by using the stress obtained in Step 4-2 and adding the change in stress measured during the live load cases, tliermal effects are minimized when comparing data collected at different dates. General conclusions about the correlation of the measured and computed results for live loading are made in Chapters 4 and 5. Deflections were recorded in 1997 during the six nine truck cases using a surveying level at the locations shown in Figure A.9. Table 3.1 shows the measured deflections versus deflections calculated by linear analysis. Calculated deflections generally underpredicted the magnitudes of displacements, but most calculated displacements were on the same order of magnitude as measured displacements. All deflections recorded were within the design limitations for the bridge.‘Table 3.1: Comparison of Measured and Computed Deflections for the 1997 Nine Truck Loading (Fully Composite Analysis, N= 6) Dioectone (ices) on Span 1 [Sout] for Nine Tucks, N= 6, Fuly Compasta Analysis, N= 6, WessurediComputed Iceaaing Case 4 ‘Casez Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 ‘Cases IMNOoT Beam 17 UMN Gidera_| 0.760.600 | 0720-0470 | Oausl.0122 | O.012/0 069 | O68. 136 | O-isa.127 IMNDoT Beam 2/ UMN Girder 3_| -0.948r0.607 | -0'9087-0.579 | -0.46870.107 | ~0.012/0082 | 0-176/0.208 | ~0-348/0.201 IMNOoT Beam 3/ UMN Girder | -1.134r0.062 | -1.1467-0.826 | -0.6307-0.949 | ~0.03000.125 | ~049610.389 | 0522/0.388 IMNDoT Beam 47 UNN Girder 1-[ -1:320/-1.030-| -1 30870 995_| -0.7327-0.425 | -0.024”0.128 | 0.52810.462 | 061210.480 Detlecions (niches) of Span 2 (Noth) for Nine tucks, N= 6, Fully Composite Analysis, N= 6, Measured/Computed IMNDST Beam UMN Groor 4 | 0:372I0250 | 0.348070 | 0-324-0.050 | -0.31210.570 | -OBA0i-i.110 | <1 152-1200 IMNOoT Beam 27 UMN Grdor | 0-49210.362 | 0.456.384 | 0-300-0.058 | -0:30000.863 | -0.972/-1.180_[ <1 140-110. IMNDoT Beam 37 UMN Groor2 | 0-7oB10.508_| 0.582.524 | 0.468.163 | -0.012r0-542 | -1.020-1.290_[ <1176V-1.800. IMNOoT Beam 4/ UMN Grder | 0-71610.632 | o.6ta0.cs0_| ~0-366/0.262 | -0.270r0.520 | -107a 13141490" 359€ Total Stress (ksi) 2 4 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 3 4 6 9 10 2 ls 16 18 21 22 24 [Measured BUM Ore Strain Gage Number Line A Figure 3.1: Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 [after (Simpson, 2000)]ue Total Stress (ksi) Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 13 “4 17 19 20 23. Strain Gage Number - Line B Figure 3.2: Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 [after (Simpson, 2000)} [Measured] mUM OFETotal Stress (ks!) a 3 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 Measured BUM Ore | | | Ea ‘Strain Gage Number - Line C Figure 3.3: Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 1-3 [after (Simpson, 2000)]10 Total Stress (ks!) “10 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a i : | : Strain Gage Number - Line A Figure 3.4: Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a [after (Simpson, 2000)] [Measured BUM Oreor Total Stress (ksi) 16 10 6 “10 15 Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a 5 7 8 " 13 14 7 19 20 ‘Strain Gage Number - Line B Figure 3.5: Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a [after (Simpson, 2000)]1 Total Stress (ksi) Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a 18 5 10 Strain Gage Number - Line C Figure 3.6: Comparison of Total Stresses at Step 3-3a [after (Simpson, 2000)]CHAPTER 4 INVESTIGATION OF LINEAR BEHAVIOR OF BRIDGE SYSTEM To provide an initial evaluation of the correlation between measured and computed results, a series of plots were created which show the stresses in the gages when two, three, and nine trucks were placed approximately symmetrically (ie., centered) about either Crossframe 5 or Crossframe 7 (Figures G.1 to G.22 for N = 6 and composite analysis). A more complete set of results, including results from partially non-composite analyses, may be found in Boyer and Hajar (1997). Each of these plots (termed “linear plots”) shows the change in stress (from an unloaded bridge) for both the analysis and measured results as the number of trucks is increased. The cases used were 1995 Case 2 [two trucks, outlined in Galambos et al. (1996)], 1997 Case 8 (three trucks, Figure B.17), and 1997 Case 1 (nine trucks, Figure B.10) for Crossframe 5, and 1995 Case 3 (Galambos et al., 1996), 1997 Case 9 (Figure B.18), and 1997 Case 2 (Figure B.11) for Crossframe 7. There is very little difference in the trends between the different sets of results (i.e., composite versus partially non-composite NV = 6, and Crossframe 5 versus Crossframe 7) for the stresses in the midspan region (including for the crossframes). However, all plots of Gage Line B clearly portray the improvement in correlation of the analyses in which fully composite action was assumed over the negative moment region, versus assuming partially non-composite analyses (this will be explored further in Chapter 5). Alll of the analyses produce approximately linear increases in the gages, which reestablishes credibility in the UMN analysis program, The measured stresses are not always linear, however. 4BGages 4A, 16A, 20A, 214, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, SB, 6B, 10B, 11B, 12B, 13B, 15B, 16B, 17B, 18B, 21B, 22B, 23B, 24B, and 10C exhibit nearly linear behavior. Gages 3A, 6A, 9A, 15A, 18A, 22A, 244, 7B, 8B, 14B, 19B, 20B, 2C, 3C, 4C, SC, 6C, 7C, 8C, and 11C, have either a positive or a negative nonlinear change in stress between the two truck and three truck loadings. However, the magnitude of this nonliriear change is generally not large. The remainder of the gages exhibit neither linear behavior, nor a major jump in stress, but rather they exhibit what may be characterized as a continuously nonlinear response to the increase in truck loading. However, the deviation from linear behavior is in all cases generally moderate rather than extreme. Given that the different cases of truck loadings are distributed differently across the deck surface, these deviations from linearity appear to be reasonable. These results indicate that the bridge is behaving in a generally predictable fashion, but certainly that some effects of indeterminacy and local loading conditions in the structure are exhibited in the results. The results of this analysis are similar for the 2000 data. The linearity of the system did not change appreciably between 1997 and 2000.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF MEASURED VERSUS COMPUTED RESULTS The percent error in the correlations between the 1997 measured and computed results using the 1997 analysis are tabulated in Table 5.1 for the primary stages of dead loading and for all cases of loading during the 1997 live load tests. Table 5.2 contains the same information for the ‘measured data collected in 2000 versus the analysis based on the 1997 truck loadings. Table 5.3 lists the percent errors between the measured data collected in 2000 and the analysis based on the truck loadings from 2000. In the tables, the percent error is computed as {[measured stress - computed stress] / [measured stress]} -- typically, if the analysis underpredicts the stress magnitude, the result may be considered unconservative; the corresponding percent error is shown as positive. In Table 5.4, each gage is assigned an overall rating regarding the correlation, of 1997 data to 1997 analysis for total stress. In Table 5.5, each gage is rated regarding the correlation of 2000 data to 1997 analysis for total stress. Table 5.6 has the ratings for 2000 data versus 2000 analysis for total stress. Finally, in Table 5.7, each gage is rated regarding the correlation of 1997 change in stress analysis compared to 2000 measured change in stress. Because the ratings of the gages did not change between Tables 5.4 and 5.5, 1997 analysis results were used for all the data analysis in this report unless otherwise specified. Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 show four percent errors for each gage, including Step 3-3a (the bare steel structure, including wet weight of the concrete deck), Step 4-2 (the self weight of the completed composite bridge), the average percent error for the nine truck cases (Cases 1-6), and the average percent error for the three truck cases (Cases 8-11). The averages were taken holding the sign on the percent errors, so that positive and negative errors offset each other. The percent errors for the nine and three truck cases are for the stresses due to the total load, not just the 45change in stresses from the trucks. Case 7 was not included because the percent error from the eight truck loading (four trucks on each span) related closely with the three truck loadings (see Table 5.1). Similar behavior was noted in 2000. Also, Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 were constructed based upon percent errors computed by comparing field results to analyses in which NV was taken as 6, and fully composite action was assumed across the entire length of the bridge. Table 5.1 and plots of the data (Boyer and Hajjar, 1997) consistently show a small improvement in correlation when one uses IV = 6 as compared to N'= 8. For simplicity, the 1995 truck loading, the results with partially non-composite action, and the results with N= 8 were not included in the determination of strong, moderate, or weak correlation, Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 also display how often the analysis is conservative for each gage, whether the stress magnitude for the gage is ever above 5 ksi, and if the measured stresses in the gage increase linearly with an increase in the number of trucks (as discussed in Chapter 4). Finally, the overall assessment of the correlation is included for each gage. The overall correlation rating was determined as follows: * Strong = All of the percent errors for the four cases shown must be below 30% * Moderate = All gages that do not fit within the criteria for a strong or weak correlation * Weak = The measured stresses must be above 5 ksi, and 3 to 4 of the percent errors must be greater than 30% for the four cases shown. ‘These criteria help eliminate percent error skews from early dead load stages or skews due to the overall stress in the gage being very low (i., below 5 ksi), which in turn can cause huge percent errors which are not necessarily representative of the overall correlation of the gage. This is discussed further in the conclusions below. It was determined that the criteria established for the comparison of the 1997 analysis versus the 1997 data was sufficient to compare the 1997 analysis to the 2000 data (as discussed further in Appendix C). 46Note that the change in stress due to any temperature variation between the date on which the readings for Step 4-2 were taken (in 1995), versus the date on which the readings for the truck live loading in 1997 and 2000 were taken, were not considered. One could have added the change in stress due to live loading to the stresses due to self-weight of the bridge as measured on August 7, 1997. However, as seen in Chapter 2, the change in stress due to temperature is generally seen to be less than 2 ksi in most gages, and also the analyses do not account for change in temperature. In addition, since Step 4-2 represents a major step in the construction of the bridge, it was felt to be the appropriate basis for calculating the total stress due to self-weight plus truck loading. A summary of the correlation of the gages with respect to total stress follows: © The percent errors for both the 1997 and 2000 data generally reduce greatly as the magnitude of the strain in the gage increases. Thus, the percent errors due to initial dead loading are often excessive, although the overall correlation of the gage is acceptable once loading is applied. Consequently, to assess the correlation of the total stress due to self weight plus truck loading, this correlation may best be compared to the correlation for the gage due to self weight alone (Steps 3-3a and 4-2). Generally, if the gage correlated well at the end of the dead load analysis, the total stresses also correlate well. In contrast, if the correlation of the total stresses is moderate to Weak, itis often largely because initial fit-up stresses, immediately established a difference in stress between measured and computed results that is on the order of several ksi. These cases are marked with Comments | and 2 in Footnote f in Tables 5. , 5.5, and 5.6. In addition, some gages see less than 5 ksi for their entire loading history. For these gages, a small difference in stress (which may be caused by local irregularities in the loading, small fit-up stresses, etc.) cause a large percent error. These cases are highlighted in the tables both in Column 7 (‘Measured Stress Magnitude”) and in the correlation classification. ‘© Asawhole, the 24 gages attached to the girders near midspan correlate very well with the composite analyses based on 1997 truck loading as well as with the analyses based on the 472000 loading. All of the gages received ratings of strong or moderate, except gage 11A, which was the only gage with a weak correlation for both 1997 and 2000, However, the weak correlation of this gage, as seen for example in Figures D.2, F.3 and F.25, is not excessive, and it is largely due to errors introduced in the middle stages of dead loading. In addition, the ‘gages that received a moderate rating that had stress magnitudes greater than 5 ksi were all very close to fitting into the strong gage criteria. They generally missed being rated strong because one of the dead load errors was greater than 30%. Of the gages that had stresses greater than 5 ksi, the gages attached to the web tended to correlate better, probably due to being less influenced by warping behavior. The 24 gages attached to the girders near the middle pier did not have as strong a correlation with the analysis as did the midspan gages. There were nine gages in this region of the bridge that received weak ratings, compared to only one in the midspan. However, thirteen gages had strong correlation in 1997 and 2000, and all weak correlations were readily explainable: the differences in the magnitudes of the measured and computed stresses largely occurred in the early or middle stages of dead loading, due perhaps to fit-up stresses. This is readily evident if one compares the plots in Appendix D (due just to dead load) with those in Appendix F (total stress and change in stress). Also, the analysis results are generally conservative. All of these nine gages except one (gage 22B) were on girders two and three, the center two girders. The two outer girders generally correlated well. In addition, of the gages that had stresses greater than 5 ksi, the gages attached to the web tended to correlate better, probably due to being less influenced by warping behavior. Gage 19B is the only gage which changed its rating from 1997 to 2000. The rating changed from strong to moderate. It should be noted that the gage was close to the 30% cutoff for strong correlation in 1997, and. the fact that it is the only gage to have changed ratings indicates the bridge system has not, changed its behavior significantly over time. ‘The crossframes generally were much less predictable, with half of the gages having weak correlation, and the other half having moderate correlation. In addition, the moderate correlation was always due to the stresses in the crossframes being very small. Also, the analysis results are often not conservatively predicated, Table 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 show that the 48behavior of the gages generally follows that of the calculated results. However, the measured stresses in the crossframes were not readily predictable, and further research would be required to determine how best to increase the accuracy of the analysis predictions. ‘+ Asseen in the figures of Appendix F, the gages near the interior pier showed a marked change in correlation depending on whether the behavior in this region of the bridge was assumed to be fully composite, or whether only the bare steel bridge was modeled in the negative moment region. The differences based upon the modeling of composite action are most noticeable in the gages that are nearest to the concrete deck (i.e., the top flange) in the negative moment region (ie., gages 1B, 2B, SB, 7B, 8B, 11B, 13B, 14B, 17B, 19B, 20B, 23B), as may be expected. The correlation of each group of three gages near the bottom flange of each girder over the interior pier changed little on the whole. The correlation of the gages in the positive moment region (both on the girders and the cross frames) changed little as well. The improvement in correlation when assuming fully composite action is generally both consistent and dramatic. Similar behavior was noted for data collected in 2000 with respect to analysis using 1997 truck data. In Table 5.7, each gage is assigned an overall rating regarding the correlation of the 2000 measured change in stress to the analysis based on 1997 truck loadings. In the table, the percent error is computed as it was for the total stress correlations. If the analysis is unconservative, the percent error is positive. Table 5.7 shows ten different percent errors for each gage, cases 1-6 (the nine truck cases) and ceases 8-11 (the three truck cases). Case 7 was not included because the stresses induced were similar in magnitude to the three truck cases, and in an effort to compliment the correlations set forth in the total stress rating table as closely as possible. Table 5.7 also displays how often the correlation is conservative for each gage, how often the stress magnitude is above 0.5 ksi, and the final correlation for each gage. The rating for each gage for change in stress was determined as follows: 49Strong = Eight to ten of the ten percent errors must be below 100% Moderate = All gages that do not fit within the criteria for a strong or weak criteria Weak = Seven to ten of the gages have change in stress magnitudes above 0.5 ksi, and three to ten of the ten percent errors must be greater than 100% These criteria helped eliminate skews due to very low stress magnitudes. The limiting factor of 0.5 ksi was chosen because it was approximately a factor of ten greater than the tolerance of the Geokon VK-4100 Vibrating Wire Strain Gages. Change in stress due to temperature was neglected for the change in stress correlations because the analysis does not take temperature into account. In addition to the change in stress plots of Appendix F, Appendix E contains bar charts, that show gage by gage comparisons of the 1997 analysis versus the 1997 and 2000 change in stress measured data for each case represented in Table 5.7. A summary of the correlation of the gages with respect to change in stress follow: The percent errors are generally larger when the stress magnitudes are small, so the percent errors for the three truck cases tend to be larger than those for the nine truck cases. In general, the 24 gages attached at midspan and the 24 gages attached at the middle pier had similar change in stress correlations. In all but one gage (gage 16B) of the 25 gages that received a “moderate” correlation, the number of cases above 0.5 ksi measured change in stress was six or fewer. The one gage that had high measured stress only had six cases where the error was less than 100%. Generally, the gages that were rated “moderate” had low measured stresses along with high percent errors. The crossframes were the least predictable with respect to change in stress, as they were with the total stress correlations. The only strong rating was in a top chord member, and almost 40% of the ratings in the crossframes were weak, compared to 10.5% along the midspan, and 14.3% along the middle pier. 50Overall, the correlation between measured and computed stresses was satisfactory in the girders, whereas the result in the crossframes were more erratic. One theory for this phenomenon is that the bridge is modeled too stiff, thus yielding lower stresses in the crossframe members. To confirm this theory, a parametric study was conducted in which the area of the crossframe members was varied to explore trends in the bridge behavior (Carlsson and Hajjar, 2000). In general, decreasing the area of the crossframes reduced the stiffness of the bridge, resulting in more rotation of the girders, which consequently increased the stresses in the crossframes without causing any significant changes in the correlation of the girders. Alternately, increasing the area of the crossframes increased the stiffness of the bridge, resulting in less rotation of the girders, which decreased the stresses in the crossframes without causing any significant changes in the correlation of the girders. Table 5.8 compares the measured total stress from Step 3-3a (stage 6) with the analysis based on 1997 truck loading, and with the same analysis but with the crossframe cross sectional areas reduced by 65%. In Table 5.8, TL, TC, and TR refer to the top left, top center, and top right when looking north along the bridge (B similarly refers to the bottom flange gages). All stresses are in ksi. For the case when all crossframe member areas were reduced by 65%, the top and bottom crossframe members were pr ted well, although the diagonal members exhibited more stress than desired. As seen in Table 5.9, reducing only the bottom crossframe member by the same amount (65%) also increased the stresses in all of the members. However, the increase was larger in the bottom member than at the top, and vice versa for decreasing only the top member (Table 5.10). The diagonal members correlated better for these two cases than the first case (i.e., reduction of all of the crossframe members) since the stresses did not increase as much. In all of these cases it was found that changing the stiffness of the crossframe members did not results in any significant differential stress in the girders. However, it has not yet been determined definitively what might be causing the increase in the stiffness of the model. One possibility may be the assumption of modeling the crossframes as X-brace diagonals with pinned-end slconnections. Bending in the crossframes may also cause some of this stress differential as well. However, no conclusive reason has been isolated. Chapter 2 indicated that temperature changes may induce changes in stresses over large temperature shifts, thus potentially explaining some of the high measured stresses. However, during a normal day-to-day temperature shift, the thermal stress changes are much less. From the data reported in Chapter 2, the maximum expected built-in thermal stress in the girders is, approximated 2 ksi, and in the crossframes 1.5 to 2.5 ksi in magnitude depending on the crossframe. The maximum measured stress in the crossframes at the end of stage 3-3a was approximately 11.33 ksi, with a deviation between the measured and computed stress of 7.09 ksi. Consequently, built-in thermal stresses in the bridge are important, but most likely not the sole contributing factor to the poor correlation in the crossframes. While these results largely reaffirm the conclusions regarding correlation made in Galambos et al, (1996), the plotted results and correlation rating add clarity to the comparison. Also, the new analyses conducted with (versus without) composite action in the negative moment region shed light on how best to analyze steel girder bridges, pending further research. Finally, the fact that the ratings of the gages remained basically unchanged from tests and analyses performed in 1997 to tests and analyses performed in 2000 gives a good indication that the behavior of the system has not significantly changed over time. 2‘Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 6 moo See eo ew Swi fe lak om Sx de ae tag Grek Me Supt fe oe Sie a OR OW ae Se oe Sipe om ime ae ee a re a Sipe me Om ee Som an me Sk ak ak Step tt whes oe ze ee = & Re a Sanaa ae aaa as ais Se fo aoe ok cea ieee tore ame ‘em tae ‘matimumeror 360% 96m eam mtx Tore wy aso Sam TH. ‘osm do am am ame x Maton oek tame ts fos inex hex te Gaos ate Seow Stoo ore Sao wm nm Zo cue ee Sues en mee ae eam Same Srorgeener tock Mak tea bem atta Wee Seok ON Dae Soe so'cerener re See Gene Seom tam oem EX mm SHORTT me Toa Sve Case + 22m Ha ee se Ton Sree Gve¢ & tm oe ime ee eae z Tota Sees Gaea 8 wm ee eee eae x aman one aa aka SO a a Sengeere eee mem koe ae ame = i a a a a a a a m ota Sess case 8 wee Hae toa ae te Tol Srees ose 8 mn & mh an im me RR Se am al Ses Gve 1 me eae eee Save eh om me ® om mR RR = 3Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Ero with W mo ang n Sak swt a a a a oe fei Sai Me tom fox Tee mare tee = i tne sos te We kee ae toe om ad Swen fx Se am dk Sk Be tae me ke Supaie fee Se ame etl See a Spe Sx im etm Sx See ew i coe Ste Soper as ge dee Soe ate toe cx tee Soe we oem ik Soe owe soe Soe aa ea STS ao Ta ae sae cuimmsre tux ie too am an tae oom coe tre Aidecere fom Soe ewe Gk oo ae aes ame aie deo oes a See ‘soe ame See oe oe ee cue? a cues 28 kK OHS OR oR ae cues a a ae chee a a a ee ee RTE aa oon ak ns — aaa — a — a so aa — a ergeerst ome Soom mk Sok Some eGR Soma soceerer ase Moos ase time Sem ere ee aoe tao ark Tet sees Cone oe ge ame see sek ok ee mm eae Se RG ow a Se tee Se he te oe Bie Siete nos oer = a eed a of we OR me Tota sess se? BHR Ram ate Oak Tet sens Cae Re KK ae aoe came ‘aul svessenees je Ge OR Gk Ek je Rk Sk oR Sk ak Taatsness Ge fost eee tae ‘weorapeerror 7% Gk 10S STR GOON SON GROTH TH STI. aise 2 oS mM Ro OW i 2 oR RR ow im 34Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 6 a eine Por se eBfeaane ¢ SSR S 3 Celene woe eee a cee ee ee ee eS Ss ee eee ee Se Seer eesiens es = Sis ence cee eee S3 en een Eee Be ae eee eee =e eS ESS ESE et mE mee Ree ee a eee eee Bee oe eal a occ eee ole ee ie rSen Soe ee eee oes ei RESEEREESR ESE S&S maximum ror 900% 175% «SIN SER TERNS. «BOON Soe ek Te STH. =i REESE RE ES = AAA eee eee ‘Total Stress Case 4 ee en en er fect SS on a oc ois ‘td. dev. error 8% EN % Cn = oN ‘Total Stress Case 10, “ex 51x Som tok “uk aoe SSO ON, Scomrc pec aoe a coche SBF: S 38Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error wth N= 6 ton ae SX ane tanaka a ea a a a a a te ie Sem Sm ae tn See oe amin Sip 28 Se Ge Sits com Be me Oem om Sew Supe tm Ge am alae Sk ae Sak tk ow Sept Be me Se Soe ae toe eka ato Supe Sete eer es Soe mS ar erneerer Sie We Sum ae 0 STI wos oe tare cases won re mae gam tOe OR eT eon ee one a a a a a a Sam Sones iar oom Ste dex ume loom es RON me x om ‘maximum eror 140% 700% GN THR «SOOM UN 150% 700K Ba. ox Ie cones Jour 200% Tk late IK ak OBO eGR to Sen form__tom__ teers toe tore tape fereeerer ik rx Se Realm Naar Tota Sven cose 1 eee son ‘Total Sires Case 4 ee ee ee ee ae Tol Sree ase § Sto Se om te ane sa wwe ON mk mh es NR = Toto Sven case 8 ee ae ee ee ee 0s “Total Siress Case 11 Bie team nee tae tm 3 Bir smomumerer 39519 cWte awit an oe 56Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Eror with N= 6 22. ee ES a Cart ee eer Su See ero ee me eee Be ERRESEEELT ESE BE Peace oneal e or = oe ee nee ee me Se SSS Se Bee See Be eee eee ee ee maiz eSerrires: score eee ee | om nm nna mm a om me ea Seance owe cece cee eat 2 RRS SRR EE oS =z RSS SSeS eS sta deveror 85% SEN SEN THON SEN STN T8ON TBS “ome FI TOK AA eA eee eae Re =e occ ee =a SS SSeS eS =e er ss ‘Total Stress Case 3 cox 15 eK BRON BH oe Ok HR IK BS SRP SS ee Bees ESS FBS See ee eee BES! BS RERERRR EE iS SSSSeSSSe=s a a SEs SEEREERE EE SE ak eS —— i - i ee ee ee re SEE TGS Seas rss 7Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with me ee ue 1 suns I ase am tae my im Sepia Se Sa See as Host 1 Sepia a wes “a Si Spaz ee tom me oe arn Sepae we ae km te tm tm aon Spas oS Se Gk OR ae Gy ie Spat ae See See tem comm a 2 saimmert ot a ie Wk Tae OR Toe Sez be Ge Sk mR Sm Sm Me Sk Ex See Se Som fo Sn Ei Mm Sm Gm Skee GOR Ses Som lips em Se Ste Se Summ Stree ae alex Some mosmumecor ex ae sik ie te aa em aut Norse Te scaeeawr Toe ome tae eee mee ae tam a ae om case? ee ar mae Bom ee Tm “rengearor 2am tou Sx Gm ok Sen Sue ok Sk ek come SESS nox “ioe x ee tau tmae tea eae Tota Sve ase se ete aoe eam ee ‘al Ses Cas x in oe ie Eo oR Soak ax aman ae are aa I Sa ae ae ea caer eee = OS OR Ow Gn “eal ne Canet ee ee Jeslgves cass Sean eee mummers 28 ex aka RR ee ise S wo ok me Rom wm RR Roam 58Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress 30 ae 0 swe ‘= ae oom ae a er Sopa 4 eee cm oe tee ‘oe Swpsae 4 mow am eo am Sopat a = Soe ee oe Supe = i axon See ame ‘Smears we son ax meee aes am bosoms ame Hone sade So woe tm item Gms eee coe ee Stak rm Eres a Se eR lee SSS ek km eas a we ge ive oe aoe Steen reo a. dev. error 10% a a a case? 7 ORK aT te eR sm 98 som cues % oH ame teat sax S06 eee eres See ae mee tie Soe Soe SARS oe ao a a as a Sacer 1 16% Bh THe TI a aN Tot Svee ace 3 ce ee ed od Taaiguews case feet Soe eee a Smee ak Se — ee Sok Toa ‘meat x See oka ee aoe um te meee are Teta sess Cte? a ee ee ee Teta reas Cases 3 3 RK RR a eee ate se Tetisnese ces S Sk om St om Ge Se ak om ak & Tut ses Gas 10 we Se Ske ae me See ae im Tet Svs ase 1 See See Sete a Ska 2 oY RF SY Tom F RF = 59Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress ee ERs ee SS: } RERESR RRS RES B S an eee eee S2 ZEEE RSPR EE Be Seceo Ease ence nese 55 Hee Sea ee ees ee oe oe eee ee nee So REEERERE EEE SE ene og See = mee enna mene as fe Se eon ce eee r = EEEEREEERS ER BE ft eee nce ol eee ee mre SEBS SSSHE SSS Hr Ez SRSA GR RS =e SSR SSeS ieee ee EEG RSE R EEE S Se CeCe ce ae ce oe Conroe ee BES! BR ERE RRE EEE E ark ff FERRER ES cee ce teteint m m m m m om i RE BER es es mim: SE EREE EE ES&S Cnn eon econ eon iow i$ SR SSR SSE ESTable 5.1: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 6 Composite Analysis, Part. Non-Composito Analysis 1c et Step 14 10% 643% 138% 16H THK OHIH 138% 110%, Stop 4.2 M% «37% 13H Hd OH TZ TAH Ha Step 13 64% © —-2319%_—«110%—« 101% BAZ TOK 10% Step 22 60% 121% 102% 69% 121% 102% Step 238 62% — 8100% 161% «SA BKB 100% 181% SAN Stop 338 63% 175%" 380% «STH IK: -ATEN «EON TH Step 4-1 60% 190% 274% STH GOK «188% 27TH SO Step 42 62% 879% _-1008% 65% 62% BI _—-1035% _ 64% Tainimum error 60% ——2513% 008% sex 60% —-za19% 103% 54% ‘maximum error 104% 610% © 380% 116% 104% © 6100% © 380% 116% ‘avoragecror 72% — 95T% 30% = 83% T2K ETH 36% BS Std. dev. error 17% 247% 433% «27% ATH SATIS MAI ITH 183% 92% 4K OHNO OHS 210% “93% 20% 74% «H8BK 2H -2BK_ TOK 350% 104% «51% 88% «287K 100% SA 159% 42% 121% «120% «= 18K BH TTIK TTB, 3% GT «= 29% 58% 205% 109% «TER SO 306% 86% 730% 72% 312% 126% 188% __ 75% Tainimum error 189% Aloe 14 Some _T18% 100% 18% 29% ‘maximum orror 398% 88% 286% © 120% IP 126% «188% «145% 2m0% 16% «112% «79% = 228% «OTH 77% 105% 9% 101% = 22% BI: 08% 72% case? 20% 43% «5K KH BAEK OH cases 186% 205% 37% 66-66% 205% © 8K Cases 39% 278% SKM ETH 2TH STH 73 Caso 10 200% 90% 135% © 267% 200% 105% 124% 299% Case 14 256% 97% 133% 200% 200% 114% 121% 167% ‘ainimum error t88% 278% 37% 267% 196% 279% 38% 233% maximum error 343% 87% 135% © T77%”—««287% M14 «AAMT average orror 256% 74% 90% 81% 216% «88% EH. SMd.dev.error 65% 196% 1% T7BK_— «SI 205% a4 ET. Total Stress Case 76% 901% 6B 65% THOM 8H TH Total Stross Case 2 78% = -1888% 85% GH 75 -T5HO 85H Total Stress Case 3 72% 485% «BOK GOK «TOK «4B 80H BN Total Stress Case 4 00% 648% 116% BB TSH -tZBH TH Total Stress Case 5 49% 584% 170% GSK IKE 20GK A Total Stress Case 6 47% 506% 176% 64k SI 18K 217% _—_— am ‘minimum error 47% 188% 176% 64% sim —~1e00% 217% 63% ‘maximum error 78% — 1485% © -85% 69% © 75% 485% E68 averagecrror 64% 127% «112% «6% GAT AZT «BB Std. dev. error 19% —1181% 80% 2% HOHE 6H ‘Total Stross Caso 7 04% -1050% 87% GH BH HOBIE TK Total Stress Case 6 00% —9380% BI 6TH UNH HHO Total Stress Case 9 70% 210% ©=— 77% 66GB «T2178 SH Total Stross Case 10 56% «577% 142% «BSH BTH SOMATA Total Stress Caso 14 55% 595% 134% 65% 57% 602% 150% 64H minimum error 85% 817% tar 68% 87h 684% 6TH 63 maximum error 70% 3989% 77% 66% © 60%_—«3395% © 7% «6%. averagecrror 62% 144% 409% 65% 6% MMB AIT BH, Std. dev. orror 8% © 1331% 34% «1300K =A 1M 61Table 5.1: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Porcent Error with N Composite Analysis, Part. Non-Composite Analysis se | 68 OO ‘step 14 7% 186% -1588% 100% 71% 186% —-1580% 100% ‘stop 12 25% © -14500% 457% —«OTH_—«-25% © —-14500% 457% OTH ‘step 13 Box 135% 32% GOO: TEH KOH ‘stop 22 7% 73% «30% OTH: TH ATI BOK TH Step 238 65% “182% 14% TOK: 5182470 Stop 3-30 rn re, a Stop 4-1 67% = 60% ATH «5KCTH: SIKH ISK BN Step 42 7% 27% 39% T_T __30% OK 7O% Trinimum error 25% ——Tas00% —Tse0% sox 25% —1as00% -Te88% 56% maximum error 72% 186% 457% 100% © 72% «186% 457% 100% ‘average orror 63% © -1870% 123% BI GI -ABTO% —ANM% BIH Std-dev.eror 16% © S105% G1% «18% 16% BHM. GTI 18% cases 157% 110% 33% B18 1B HHH. Case2 175% AN 8% 38GB ATH 18% 23% «127% «21% BK THK 4B 20K HOH Cases 16% — 14% 196% «176% ~—«100% 29% «180% 185% Case 5 41% “50% 620% 9% 28K 11% AO 18% Cases 445% 52% 472% 15% 310% O18 ‘minimum error 187% Azra 820% 9% ou “148% 440% —t9% maximum error 445% 14% 196% © 176% «310% 29% 160% 168% average error 254% “80% © 154% © 40% SZ 82% 105% NM std-dev. error 130% 45% «318% = «G7% ==. 7TH 228% BON. case7 84% 53% 20K 178K BABU BH OTH 150% 190% 9% 50% 3TH 200% 12% 8% 200% 207% 21% «64% © T8OK —-TAK 2H SON 273% "48% 300% © «227% © 207K — AH. 5RK 4B 507% 51% 267% 218% 220% 6a 221% ATH, ‘minimum error 159% 207% 9% som 191% 214% 12% 30%, maximum error 307% © 81% 300% ©—227% «221% «68% 252% 245% ‘average error 245% © 76% «145% «140% 187% «TIKI AON std. dev. error 64% 145% 161% 96% = AON 6O% 3H 17% ‘Total Stress Caso 4 83% 52K 4K GOK TO STH 11% BIN Total Stress Case 2 85% = “ATH «TOBIN: 52K 16H BAN Total Stress Case 3 81% = “35% OT «7H 70H AOR 28% BK Total Stress Case 4 72% 28% ATH 72H BAK 38H TON Total Stress Case 5 53% 24% 40% 70% 6-H DH T4N Total Stross Caso! 61% 25% 40% 75% 65% 33% 41% mini im 3m 40% sm maximum error 85% © -24% «= 48% «TEI IK 42% ‘average error 74% 35% «© «34% 72K THAI 28% stddev.ortor 11% = 12% 18K‘ 13H Total Stress Case 7 78% 32% 25% BB THK OH EN Total Stross Case 8 1% 47% 25% «70% «=O HON ‘Total Stross Case 9 70% “30% «SI T1% 7TH: 42H 20K BK ‘otal Stross Case 10 ee% 35K KTH BOM 4TH BK 73% ‘otal Stross Caso 11 68% 35% 42% 74% GOK __—UH_—SBK_—_ 73% ‘minimum enter — 68% arm 25% 70x 9% 62% oo% maximum error 79% 35% 42% «= 74K TT HOB 73K ‘average error 73% 30% «35% 72% «TOO MSH TOM Std. dev.orror 6% 6% 2Table 5.1: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= Composite Analysis, Part. Non-Composite Analysis sc we GeO. Step 14 49% 77% 162% «100% © 40 «TT «162% 100% Step 12 184% 35% 159% «DHMH -3BK 139% 82% Stop 13 95% 35% 286% 113K OE SENT Stop 22 7% 23% 8B 97% 23% 88% Stop 238 0% 8% TOK. 9% 8% 70%. Stop 338 2% 1H THI HTH TIT Stop 41, 11% RH 1% 1% 2am Step 42 63% 66% 43% 118% 6a 87% SOK 110% Tinimum enor 11% 56% 296% aah 17% 7% 296% 8% maximum error 184% 77% = 462% «31% «BATT METH 11% avoragecror 76% = 7% 83% «11% TT BSH HOH Std. dev. error 54% 41% «136% 18% 5a AH: HIBK 18% 140% 106% 80% 100% 147% 111% Case2 164% 70% 43% 115% 121% = “70% Case 3 259% 13% 16% 182% 74% “12% Cases 107% — 08% 620% 87% 32% 500% Case 5 197% 19% TORO 148% BAKO ATH Gases 200% 7% 56% 36% 156% 10% 64% 18% iaimumorror —To7% —tos% 80% 0% am tame 411% TIT ‘maximum orror 258% 7% «629% «36% «18% © ADK «OO «18% 179% 45% GMT BT THK 8TH. 48% TINH: IB 7O% case7 257% 769% 83% «28% «ATI 90% 050% 96% cases 180% 20% 58% 199% 47% Caso 733% 19% 400% 110% 1% Case 10 130% 850% 121% 30% 925% Case 44 187% -3400% 125% 38% __3600% ‘alain error 139% “400% “sax 193% —-3600% maximum error 733% 19% 400% 30% 1% ‘average orror 302% 065% 183% 59% 143% Std-dov. error 288% 607% 145% 112% t692% Total Stress Caso 1 31% 10% 49% 97% 1056 ‘Total Stross Case 2 25% 25% 45% 87% 10% Total Stress Case 3 a% 30%, 51% 68% 32%, Total Stress Case 4 ee% 49% 68% 70% 44% Total Stress Case 5 33% 53% 120% «77% 77% SO 21% Total Stress Caso 6 25% 52% 121% 70% 81% 412%, ‘inianurs oFror 253% 19% 120% 45% 97% 10% 129% ‘maximum error 86% 50% 121% 7% 88% O21 ‘average error 56% 40% 12% BI BOK BK 2A Std. dev. error 27% who THO ‘Total Stross Case 7 70% 101% 25% 127% T2119 18% 124% ‘Total Stross Case 6 57% 78% 33% 63% om 27% Total Stross Case 9 51% 57% 30%, 58% 74% 3%, Total Stross Case 10 78% 78% 48% 73% 88% 45% ‘Total Stross Caso 11 76% 78% __ 40% 74% 3a 44% minimum ortor 51% 78% 33% 2% 27% maximum error 76% © “87% 48% 14% 74% 48% ‘average error 65% 72% 42% 6% 85% OTH Std. dev. oror 13% 10% 7% m8 8‘Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 8 compost Anse 9 No Composte Anaya swt zis 2s oh ite stu seam tats Supia ee a nd Sepia a me IN am Se Sk RO aia “Se Sup22 ix am Se em Ram Sn Sup 28 me ie Se oem ek oe See Supase a a a a a Supa a ee a Supe Se ee Soe Se Sane fame “aise Sts aoe iam Me clement oe See eo Mises os feck sam farm cure sare fam feos cage tame eae ‘ox Hon Soe Som wm San Sen ao Son Som Ste Sus Son Sen “emt ee Soe Son_ on Soom ae orate Soo onmum enor oom Hioom laa goku suk ue tate tere cen sore scaoc anor Sere ae fam Sore wm Sk Gore ame OR tsa ore eo im ax we ak gk Sik oe x tea ae a iis Tia tts sos — oso too TN clon ON Soom teow Bex come ars ark as Nae Oo UH, ors Maes Som Stk wrk etek ok ore ae Toa Suess Cove + eNom tes ‘ol sree ase a a a a a a Toa Sree ase 8 & eo te ae am om me om a ae Sal gvess a6 pe ee aR ae a a a ak os oa Tota Sve case? ee ee ee eS Toa sve case 8 eset ama ime Tel Sree Gane 9 ee Te ae tae ae ae ee ae Sm Tel Sree Cate 10 ne mh & le RR Wg Rie R Toso Sres ase 1 & mae im im mamimerer Oe 2M oe aww REO sengeerr 2% mee ak mR a ama Sine ie ek em Rk mR eR OR RFTable 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with ~ ow Bee ae sep 4 ee Shimek Hawa Son ree Sip 12 Hox Tao te tm Nee ton Gon Fee are Sip 13 ee ae Biooom te wae om Ge ek ame Sip 22 toe Se Se x ee Son aoe ee Step 238 ben om x Bex toe Soe Stowe aoe ake Stops ae a a a Sipe fae we aon membre taee te mw aie ane Sip 2 Bre somes Se toee oe TERT ER TO aa — Tea ‘rergeeror Sex ex SOR WER aR con? wa Zita Son Won Sage am tate Boe Smet ato ae Sent am Sx Be imum ae te Hook ae oom ame Gans te Se ee Soe Sim tem ee a om Ee rmecmum aor 206% Som 2 too ae Wik Hook ize ek Tom ore ‘peeps erer 00% a con? a TS ‘case 10 258% 450% SOR. 7a aOR ZIT SOR TSH SSTR HOO maximum eet 258% 48% PRM THORISSTHZITR “SER OSTR ASTROS, ‘rergeerer for SX ize tex nat ee ta SNe eater ota Seas Case + ooh 12 RRS WON 198 Rte tae “otal Shoes Caen ae Som ex Ex re a a ‘oul srees ee Se ne te ae oe re SaaS a Sa as ae a dawere We oe Be im tom tee ie ot Sess casa 2k OSH KHOR Tota Sree Case a ee ee ee ee ed So Seas Gxee 1 Se ee eam aoe i a ee a a aTable 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N=8 Compose Anayes Part Non Compost Anta sup tt Ge Gk ay tease team Ok aah tam tata Sip 12 a ee a Sip 13 gx fam wm oO ee tek om Gem mee Soe ta Sip 22 Zon “ix 2x Se ee ots bron aoe ae eta, Stop 2a Sox “ize fiom aoe ae ame Stow “ze ame Boe tee Soo, Stpae aim “Wee ex bm tes “aoe Stn “Mok tte ae tak “tom Supt a a Sep ee Suse eee eee oe See ae monimumeror 310s ax oT arm Hom ame Sow ame TR TMI cases Siem SSH a a a a ae Se tox me tm zm toe tome Toe tee, Sas Texoma Sei oon oe aoe “heragrecor sie rm he en Sam am eam Se Moder sror Wr te Sok wero ae Ro con? 7% 108% RKO NOR RK 2TH aR sam Gas ae ae te ome ‘cr xm “tome Madevsrr ts iok We BN oO ek eae ‘Total Stese Case 2 “ex Tee Cisse 8s Se toe Tie Toe toon ae Total Secs Care 3 Sok Re a hom SE Bk mR Sra Te eT ra ask ast oo Total Sees Cate? ee HOUR SOR amet co, ‘ota sues Cae ste Kee ame eux we ae tome ‘Foal steas Gaze 1 wees a moinumenor x SOR ame a a ec 66Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error wth ax an OAR aan atk atk Ae ate p14 ioe doe feos Fooh taeda fete Heke OO, Sept ‘oes Soe roam “Won atk akon almoon Se Zam Sup 22 oe me es Soe tse ame oe ntes sore aom Supade Se Ge Moon case ok taex Sex oko oe ota Sepa ie 3% Sw Som Som ow te Sk Siw Stew Sm ow Super We os See oe eto Sok oe Se Sepez weiner toe Seto Saito Tainan area asin Tae cok wo eos 19 ast —nTa Too ae OR wx 000 eee aTI zie 1000s re 75% ‘Nengewror tow ‘iow Tm tm aa mon ae ae ame on com? se25% SE00% 11% SHR Im tat AtOOK tra ate tee ‘oe emma ton ene ge tage caer tm gos ae Ste ‘ame Woo Tok ome emake Toe Woe tom m Seats ties tam Goer eka Niae_ eo ‘Tota Suess Case + ee en ee ee ee eT ‘Taal Sen Cave 3 oe ee oem am ee eam a Tol Sense ¢ Sue ete toe ee xe x loon “ime ae Taal Srees sn 8 Se tae See ae Geek toe Sex tome me are maimmenr Me i ee RSet ota Sess casa? BK ERIK ta ‘Tata Sires Case Soe “ee oe tow tw awe toom ae owe Tol Sess cate 10 Sele ame awk se ame koto ae “tage x ae mninan ere 28 ex aes asa aa a ar re a ee sengeerer 308 ie am tam make ae 2 aw. sSceor oe ee me mee orTable 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress omponte Ania Par Noncomposte as we ew Sw sip 41 @ sk sie ts athe mk St Stok aT ate Sup 12 re a ee a ee Sept Be Se ex Gee mm ae eae Geo Sam Sep22 ae Soe ome Simm cigs aoe eae toe tome ta Supase tm ame ame tame “aoe ee Se ix Sarm Coe Sup 330 mo R mm Se Ge i RoR Gk oak oe Spat mm ie eR Se eke scatter Se Stark Ge ask aka a Set im ee me ae Se Gh em lee ta erst US tm lam Bm Sox “oe Sion “tees “Mon Tom tos Suummavsr ae oo toe ‘= aoe a ee ‘Reagierer ame aos tax ii ee Geo Ga axe cues ‘oo ama ss ek 4K SIS toe Sk oH one Se aoe mex em ere ‘ox Soon fon cata Sn athe Se aim are ‘etn ae Sant ae ioe zoos “are eto Sans ies om ites = on oe iam ‘otal Sess Cae 1 2k eK KR ae amtoe a ae ‘al ess ene? Bom RoR oak Ro ae oo OS “al Sees Gant Sete os ame me San x ie ime Smee “al Seas Coes mm ae Sk ae le Se ae hm ae mee a i em am wae me ane Siw Re te ee me Se “al Seas Soe 10 ome ae te ae im Roe Ee Simmer an ie ae ae an moe ame Temes ae Hea is i OR OR GR OR am 68Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Porcont Error wth N=8 Compost Amie Pa. Nan Composite Ansa eam i tes atte ate tee in se tae ae en Me Ga os See i Swe ‘een a an erm “toe aos ae a sr Stpase fm tee et oe Gore Stk atte ee toe are Sepsae fox Se oe tee ete aoe Se Sk ak kame Sepet Se Se om Sk ik Gm Gk Gk im Sk Rca supe a a a fmergeerer Jom tte ox ome tome toes stay Soe ona cues ee See Sex Bee Si Gm Soe am tare Jom Seka “aoe at Saas aa a ee ia scaecare “tere tae a ion tem we toe oe iene cues ‘0 soa sak ame sss more ae {etal essa a ee ee ee ee mm Se OR Sk ok ae Gk Se OR Te Sk Se oat Srene Gan wee ei cmnee on Se a ee a atk a aie Ska 2 2 RF RM Rom R RF mR RM Teta Sve ose? a a Teta Sens cae eK KK Re Hae 1 Seas Ge Se ae ae me Se ee Sea tt eae Gea 10 Se Soe ee ae ete Somme Simao ae aS oS ok kone aa Co)Table 5.1: Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= wee SE pe tage es ee a seco ee ee Sapte sieae “tomm iime Sloe yim Siena ase iim Stone S13 ‘oe soe aoe ame “n “ee “om Sow em aoe oe Saat gt rm aoe time wet Se Bee Soe Sopate Sea as SoG Gk as m Sipe = om 2 mom Some Be Re ous ae supe Se Se i se ee mumomerer ers am me oloe eek mek ears zoe So Slow aoe mE ‘ecgeeror aot joom ttm foom aus ‘gon tome opm cin foo taste Ses cox aoe a er See cee Soe Ee tor ae Soe SENS She eam wee geogecko Sidocc me “te oi ie a a Erato “Soe uss ime gor oe ie ee am ie Sum cima tee tame terme oom ae “ol eas Ge? oe om Ge me Se Sk Ge ome ka Sra ovese Goes SoS om Gk ome Se gk Gk om Sk Gk ae Tai suews case See eee ee mummers De See eae me ae aie Im eae Tenens am Ses kee ee eae i Re Tota ess Can? We KHOR RAN Tota Sve ase 8 Sk RT aoe oe atk toe Tt Sree ase 8 Seo Sem etm am Se Sete Se Se st Shene ee Se Se eee Seem sateen eR ON Rim wm m RR ik 70Table 5. : Percent Error tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress, Percent Eror with N= 8 ae) mo ne ane ae sept ae Sim mm Sx om Bm Ee Supt seus eee te hes simoe crm “tee eee tie Sept mee me ne Sete a Sup 22 os Se Ste tn Seto Sep 28 a te « & Ss Se i gm ae Spas ane fm te ae ek ae Im Sepa im tee mone an mo ae aie ae Supe aoe Sm me eae eT aE a a a smasnum enor 37%, em zm see Sem ase So Gas es “ee Sm am Se te om SST ok Bee sisos me 7% 250% RK RH OK tOH ‘ergeeror sore om ae im inn Gm aka Ie oe Tell Sess Cast Ce me mom imme “al eae Geet So im me Re im Sk om ‘ol Sens ase 6 cee Se ioe Se Be im Se ie SANS Soe = an os a ‘otal Sess Cae? Sm Ok KRUSH tTH ‘otal Sires Case 9 am eR kIT. 0% Tl Sree ace 10 Sm te ete om See eet ae ca SaaS a a eee nTable 5.1: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 8 Composite Analysie art. Non-Composite Analysis. tc 2c eta ‘step 14 104% 643% 136% 11656 104% GK «136% «118% ‘Stop 12 84% 572% 132% 114% OHH 72H TINK 14% St9p 13 64% © -2318% «110% 101% BH 29TH «TOK 101% Stop 22 59% 121% 102% 69% 121% 102% Stop 23a 62% 100% 161% 54% BK 100% «161% SH Stop 338 68% 175% 380% «STH BIH ATEN 3EOK TH Stop 41, 60% © —1195% «275% «STH «GOK «195% © 277K «OH Stop 42 62% 84% 1013% 65% 62% __— STH _—_-1038% __ 4% Trinimum aor 60% ——2513% —-10ta% — seh 60% 231% 103% 50% ‘maximum error 104% 610% © 380% 116% 104% © G100% 380% 7% 958% 30% = 8% TH 5M «26% AT 25TH 435% THAT BATH MN case1 182% 90% «12K TH_ BKK 102% «a Case2 220% 102% © 19% © 78K «180% © 109% «2H 71 Case 360% 113% 51% © BOK -BUBK «117% «BK BOK. Case 150% 90% 121% «120% «124K BOK 114% 115% Cases 385% 61% 232% 6%. «SOK «OH «195K Cases 412% 80% 230% 79% 392% 114% 107% _79%, Tninimum error 189% 1% 12% 3% Taam 1TH 14% 09% ‘maximum error 412% © 80% 230% 120% © 332% «MATH 115% average error 287% © 23% «= 112% «BH ITH AI OHHH Std. dev. error 119% 91% 103% 20% = 80% 107% = «BIH —«19% case7 24% 48% 49% HE 88H EH 184% 218% OK THOM -2IBH TH BH, 250% 200% 4% 70% 287% 300% © 5% 75% 245% 87% «137% — 200% 200% — 100% 126% 200% 200% 97% 134% 139% 222% 108% 129% “133% ‘nininum error 184% 300% 36% 200% team 200% 37% 200% ‘maximum error 350% © 97% 137% 79% «29% «— «108% 126% «78% ‘average error 261% 83% 80% = 47% «220% © TT «BSN -48 Sid.dev. error 69% 206% 53% 141% SEZ AB 138% Total Stress Caso 1 7% -1010% 60% 65H «73% -101BH 70% A Total Stress Case 2 78% -1617% 87% GBH T5H_ HOEK Oo ‘Total Stross Case 2 73% 497% 81% 7% IK 15S 82m BN Total Stross Caso 4 80% —GSI% —-1I7H GB GI SBM. 127% BT Total Stress Caso 5 49% 585% 100% 85% «SH SUK 20% BAN ‘Total Stross Case 6 47% 597% 176% 64% 50% TI 212% _—_— 63% ‘minimum error 47% —teiTH 176% 4% 80% —eza%e 212% 9% maximum error 78% 497% 87% 70% 75% © 1808% 66% 68% average error 64% © 117% © 113% © 6TH 6AN 12% «AZT EH Std.dev.error 14% 178% 49% HHA BOK Total Stross Case 7 60% © -1881% © 88% 6H I:« TOO 75% IM Total Stress Cas 68% 347% 8K BK GT SMATK a5 AN Total Stress Caso 9 70% — 1220% ©«— 78% «THU TAT «78% SH Total Stress Case 10 55% 579% 14% GSK STH SEH: -15HH «BSH Total Stross Case 14 55% 500% 135% 65% _—57%_— 604% 64% ‘minimum erfor 88% 879% arn 66% 57 5% maximum error 70% 3437% 78% 67% «69% «MATH “TO BB. ‘averagecrror 62% — 1459% 400% 65% —«GZ%_ —1486% 17% BEM Std. dev. error 8% = 1352% 4% 1% CHELAN. n‘Table 5.1: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N Composite Analysis. Part. Non-Composite Analysis sce BC Stop 1-4 71% 186% 15865 100% 71% 186% -1586% 100% Stop 4.2 25% -14500% 457% OTH «25% -14500% 457% © OTH ‘Step 13 60% 135% 52% OHH 135K 2H UH ‘step 22 71% 173% «30% OTH 71% 173% OH OTH ‘step 238 85% 182% «14% TOK S182 4H 7OH ‘step 238, 88% STR OBO B 8TH OHH ‘step 44 07% — 60% = 16% «GOK 82K TSB ‘Stop 42 72% 2% 39% 72% 72% 31% __— 30% 71% Tninimum error 28% ——Taso0% —1s80% sev 28% —Tas00% 1588% 50% maximum error 72% 188% 457% 100% ©—«-72% «188% «487% — 100% average orror 63% © -1870% 425% 81% GI 1BTO%G AIM NN Sid.dev.error 16% 105% 61% 18% 16% BION GIT «19% cases 157% 128% 95% HK TT 1TH 3TH tO Case 2 177% “420% 495 44K DH 17H OR a Cases 237% 138% 10% BK TOBK ISTH 18K STH Cases 167% 21% 198% 176% 100% «2TH «185% Case § 420% 88% © 535% 3H BUSH 22% ATOR 10% Cases 465% 61% 484% 25% 580% 12% 340% __13% Tainimum ertor 157% 135% 86% 100% -1eTh 470% 12% ‘maximum error 465% 21% © 180% 176% © «330% «21% 166% «165% averagecrror 271% — 89% © 159% 55% 190% «72% «AM 38% Std. dev.error 198% 46% © 324% BA 8TH 78% 240% BB. case7 80% = 88% 2TH CTO THM 80% «OK cases 150% 200% 12% 55% 28-2 tae 1% Case 9 240% 221% © 19%_=— BK 183K 25TH «Ow SH Case 10 2e0% 43% 807% 218% 213% BO 259% 296%, Case tt 314% 49% 270% 200% __ 236% 65% 227% 218%, ‘minimum error 169% 221% 12% 86% 120% 251% 1a 4% ‘maximum error 314% 49% 307% © 18% © «236% «GS «259% «238% averagecrror 250% 85% 145% © 135% «189% «IK 123% 13TH. Std. dev. orror 67% © 181% 168% © BO «46% ETH 40% 104% ‘otal Stross Case 1 83% 55% 12% = 8TH OHO I ‘Total Stross Caso 2 85% 50% «17% BHT: BAK 18H EH ‘Total Stress Caso 3 8% «TKK TATU 28% ON ‘Total Stross Caso 4 72% 28% HTS 72S MBH 79% Total Stress Case 5 62% «24% 4% THK OH BAI 75K ‘Total Stross Case 6 61% 25% 40% 75% et 32% 42% 740 ~~ mininumerror 61% 85% 12% 0% ea 0% 10% 62 ‘maximum error 85% «© -24% = 40% 75% 78H. average error 74% = 37% = «BTCA 70% Std. dev. error 11% 13% «= 18% THOM Total Stress Case 7 73% 38% HB T3H_ ANH OOH Total Stress Case 8 77% 50% 28% HHH SIH 8H Total Stress Case 9 79% 41% 80% THOTT: ka 2a CU Total Stress Case 10 8% 90% 42% THK GOH 41H 38H 73K Total Stross Caso 11 7% 35% 42% 74% 60% 40% 88H 73% ‘alnimum error 6 “0% a Ti 69% 5% 29% maximum error 798% © 35% 42% THT O87, averageorror 73% © 40% «= “TSK TABOO 1% Std. dev. error 6% = 7% COCOA B‘Table 5.1: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis vs 1997 Measured Stress Percent Error with N Composite Analysis. Part. Non-Composite Analysis sc ew a0 ‘step 1-4 48% 7% 162% 100% AO 77HH «16H 100% Step 4.2 184% 38% 150% BH OMS TODD Step 1.3, 95% 85% 280% 113% SHH 5H 2H ‘Stop 2:2 o7m% 23% 885 97% 23% 88% ‘Step 238 80% 8K 70% 0% 70% ‘step 238 22% 1s TN SHH aH TIM 8H ‘Step 44 10% «Sh a2 1% 1% 20%, Stop 42 62% 58% 42% 18% 637% 30% HH iminium error 10% 50% 296% aru 11% a7 296% ‘maximum error 184% 77% = 462% «138% BATT 8H 18N% 7% Th SITIO BH HHT 55% 41% 138% 1B AABN 18% case 152% 116% 47% tose 153% 116% Case 2 177% 80% 48% 128% 126% 7436 Case 3 28% 18% «3% 200% 75% “13% Cases 107% 73% 643% S7% aT BAI Cases 210% 16% «BGK TBI OHO 87H Gases 2a% 4% ei 73% 16% 23% 71% Om Tainimum error 107% Tek 87% 8% 7% tea 116% eT maximum error 288% 4% 643% «73% «200% © 2% SHIM OM. average crror 192% © 51% 62% 70% «=A TEN 2-83 Sid.dev.error 62% 4% ETHAN ATH case7 257% — 800% 929% 24% «DTI «IDK 06M 32H cases 219% 163% 35% 119% 200% 51% Case 839% 88% 38% are 14% A Case 10 145% 42% 900% 124% 28% 950% Caso tt 153% 50% 300%, 131% 35% __-3800% Trini error —Tas% “163% 300% 113% "202% —3800% maximum error 833% 50% 16% “rh 38% averagecrror 336% © 34% -1108% 209% 63% © -1200% std. dev. error 333% 101% 165% 172% 118% 478T% Total Stross Case 4 25% 79% 17% 45% 90% om ‘Total Stross Caso 2 18% 65% 20% 30% 80% 15%, Total Stross Case 3 37% 50% 38%, 4% 80% DK Total Stross ©: 65% Sem 48% 65% «© 70% 44% Total Stross Cas 84% TOK «58% «19% 78TH BOK zN ‘Total Stross Cas eet 77% 5% 120% BI 1% A122 rainimum error 18% 79% 7 Ti9% 39% 3% 121% ‘maximum error 88% “50% 53% «120% 8% 0% 122% average error 53% © 86% 39% © 120% 59% 33% 121% Std. dev. oor 30% 11% 18% th. 18. 1% 1% Total Stress Caso 7 69% HOM 23% 27H TH FONT 125% ‘Total Stross Caso 4% TO a 61% 94% 26% ‘Total Stress Case 9 40% 50% 38%, 6% 75K 33% ‘otal Stross Case 10 75% © 79% 48% 73% 8% 48% ‘otal Stross Caso 11 78% 79% 47% 74% 38% 44% ‘minimum ortor — 48% 79% 31% 36% 90 28% — maximum error 76% “59% 49% 74% 75% 45% ‘average crror 63% = “74% 41% 66% 86% aH, Std.dev.eror 14% 10% a % 8% ™‘Table 5.2: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress Potoont rrr with N= 6 a wa Row sup 14 se Ee tame ek zloe ame Sap 12 = ax am x ae laos sm Sep 13 im a Se Gk a Oe ae Spe ate Se Se te te ae ot Sp 2 om Se fe gm Ge im Sk Ea Sepa me ‘x Sx Se x am te oo Spat met on a fn me om a Sap 62 wns vs Sei in ee ao aR ao Ss ak a ak a a ‘mamma 08 wx ae Se tan ee ee sa'oeerer ties ek aoe tek aoe Homme Te = cases ese oe a aoe 1m aoe eRe soe ttm Smee ‘eae rot foe Soe oe Me Sakae am res ‘oe Sisk Sie foe am ee tae Soe a cues ex foo lax ae “ie Bre iam an on “in “Neageerer Ti ame te Sim tim Se or ee fam eam scaeeener Zee fore Hoek me mek am tae terme coe s0% TR te S408 ate aK teH mts cases tee soot em aoe tom oe ose 206 foes zon oe a x x im om Sete 1% oem tas aR te ime ze a Suet imei tee See ta sem ian ie SR Seo aa oe a ‘mamom arora ROS te ee 1 mm om ‘rengecror To ore tome te te oe ‘one = te Tet sees Cone oa * ae 1% ra Tat vest cae 3 om ro im oe oe i ‘oe Tota hese Gant im ie am imo ie i Toul ese se $ i is See im e Ey STE = i 7 See scatterer ee = se ik a oe * 1% sme hte oH 7m eR mm Ar i im im ome ey ae ee a we tee nz om om = Sac a RR a oR OR = 15‘Table 5.2: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress eee eaters ae ee ee on see Se See eee maximum error 646% «186% KAKO wom Gok TNs aeRO as ‘case2 soo% too Ok BUEH OR SN 6K. eH eee cece eee Gases. ‘aan Tears ee ae ge gts awoke sae a ee ee ont Beereeenaenrs fe CECE cE eo ece cee ee = BEES RREEER ER E Bede rrr wos ek OKT RTI TOOK. taipeeees wBaemtrenereanre|ecn SEs EERE ERE REE REE S =e fee =<: tsieseaes sn = oie ee EEG iets Bere st = moment MARAA AR ARAS Ss “Total Stross Case 11 ox 10st ties soem so =anaski i ff reisi = 16Table 5.2: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 6 Part. Non-Composite Analysis 198 17h A128 HA TSA TGAITA— 108 Stop 1-1 86% 0% 280% 120% 119% 129% 88% ON —-2OOH 122% T19% 120% Stop 1-2 95% 475% GO% IAT 108% 47% 9547S GO 19TH 108% 47% Stop 1-3 220% 241% 297% 20% 105% 220% 24154 267% SING 0% 195% Stop 22 240% “126% 240% 2a “401% 240% 126% DHOHH 52ND 40TH Step 2-30 B1O% 122% 290% 25% 14% -G0IR 910% 122% 206% 25% 14 “503% Step $38 (2% “149% “434% 26H 2% “TOO% BTM SHE 4TH DHE tH “100% Step 41 91% 01% -Gi6% 18% “2 89H OOM “102% -seI% 17% Bm 98% Step 42 4856 56% 324% _ 16% _B_-110% _ 50% 57% 35% _ 19% 7 __118% Tainimumerror “211% ates —a1a% tom “12H —-BoaT BINNS BET ata 19% 12% SO maximumerror 310% 475% 207% 137% 119% 125% 310% 475% 297% 197% 119% 129% 20% 20% 51% 35% 170% 7% 40% —T7% SDH 95% ITI 20% NK 49m 48% 226% 182% DISH TER 49% ABH IE caset 186% 269% 19% 161% 21% 207% 260% 6% 180% 27% Case2 “131% “180% 26% “107% 4% 40% 202% 19% 125% “10% Case 3% 16% “17% 4a 3% 25% Cases 2as% 186% 192% 163% 16% 159% 21% Cases 1397% 450% 1121% 435% 30% 208% 26% ase 6 654% 255% 552% 24556 46% 257% 360 Tainimum error “T3a7% 265% Tirz% 292% ‘ox 160% 27% maximum error 658% 459% 562% 435% 48% 200% 36% 7% 123% 55% 20% Gm Om 218% S6I% 277% 17% 196% 26% case7 am 40% 8% ATT Date AINA 0% 60% 35% cases 45% 29% 5% 20% 20m 50% 20% “im 31% 35% Case 9 ss% 47% 42% 40% 12H 0% asm Oe Case 10 140% 128% 52% 120% 27% Tam 120% 55% 125% 42% Case 14 132% 120%, om 121538 150% 116%, 60% 129% _ 51% a aa oe ae aa SIO “ie aie a 143% 120% 60% 129% 38% 198% 120% 60% 125% Im 8% OTK 4% 67% 12% GI BI 37% 6% 16% 89% 70% 24% 72m 20TH 28% 75% 0% Total Stress Case 1 62% 60% 11% 69% 80% TI 10% 3% 60% Total Stress Case 2 o% 64% 20% 2% ST BO 88% 15% Ome 82 ‘Total Stress Case 3 45% “59% 23% 8% 60% «48% 55H 19% 7% 75% Total Stress Case 4 “3% “50% Wh 10% 110% 45% 52 13% oe 125% Total Siress Caso 5 “44% 50% 18% 1% “150% om SR. 10% 10% “162% Total Stress Case 6 43% 40% 41% _ 4% 457% ase 51% 2% 10% 160% ‘minimum ever 62% 60% Tie 1m tse 88m ‘o% ae 68% maximumerror 43% 49% 2 11% STH AS SIM 10% 10% 52% ‘average-orror 49% “56% 16% Th 10% «52% 50 13% 6% 110% sid. devertor 8% 8% 4% 5% MSO oom a8 ‘otal Stress Case 7 2% 5% We SBI 5-57 10% 4% 0% Total Stress Case 8 49% 59% 13% 6% 10% 5% Total Siress Case 9 41m 47% 20% o% 1% 8% Total Stress Case 10 40% 45% ioe 1% 10% 10% ‘otal Suess Case 11 ore 45% is 11% 10% 11% ‘minimumerror 48% 5% Tae 6% 0% 5 ‘maximum error 40% 45% 20% 11% 1% 1% 7% ‘average error 42% 47% 15% 9% 12% eta Std.doverror 4% 4% 4% 3% 20% wo 3% nTable 5.2: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 6 ‘Composite Analysis, Part. Non-Composite Analysis 30k 0A IA 22K BA HAGA DRI 2k 3K HA step 141 135% 254% THI T1BK 45TH TO 195% 5K 1TH TH ATH 70% step 12 Mom 5mm same DTNB. 110% SED 5OH ZT aT SON Step 13 “OR 1% OE 10RD “BG 2a WORT SOM TOGO “aE -Z2EN Step 22 Gee 12m -tdnuse oI 16% GO GOR aR HaLaR SIN tooo Step 230 Sok Ge “iio ape Se tad Soe Gk tt Gabe a 14a Step 330 ee ee Step 41 20% 20% “SiS oe OM Tse AT ao SSH Step 42 Sox Wes sem re tek gem Som ITI aI TRU AAOT IaR EIN ATE NERO Ba TOON Tae aaa ORC aa 700% maximumertor 135% 352% “Te9% 695% 45TH 50% 195% BEAN THIN 6S" ATH SO fsvoragecrror Sis 10% 37K -1190% OK ISTH GI TEESE MOE OO STH Std-dov evror Mh 163% SOD STIG Pie TW A 16I% SOD STM Tah 28K cases 1900% 72254 10% SH HOH Om 400% 779K tT ge TH Case2 wwio% 7H 21% “Bom oIN 12m 1965 TORIES cases isi ase ow ote Tre, de 250% 70 SO Case term Bie gam dow tom Geek ase Troe Ser GORD. 27M Cases Mom 67% “Yee ake ole doe term tee SOR dt Se Case sare 122% woh DEM 26TH SKID _ 0%, Tnimumanor tad iets az Tare aaa ae 125% 77 Sere Bees sar ah maximumeror 183% 730% 65% bom «219% 362% 1965% 700% Tie om 2m ‘seragecror 729% 240% 111% TB 22k Om 770% 2a Sm “som toe Sddevieroe Be 44m S5Im OAS TSH BUEN STH ioe 255% 11% case 281% 109% 5% 200K TO TIT TIT 125% gH sRIE oI 10m cases 255% -to% 8% 400-80 -BEIH SI ak tas BIS 1S oe 52ST. MOM OO: aT. case 10 111% 00% 25% Ga SIH TT too IM BOTH OK Gace lou 104% 61% 0% _fos%e_Ho7% 104% tow 5K GR to _167% Tinimumaror “255% 130% — 8a ADDN 49% 0% BHT “ists 2% 4a aT 0m maximumeroe 11% 100% Gi 32TH 19% BNI THI Woe aim DBT 200% ‘sveragecrot 6% 20% 36m 0K TQ ITH 2 sma aT 2K d.dev.eroe 171% 116% 255 30m BA TAD HS ZIG TT aHaNe GT 135H ‘otal Stross Case 1 ee ee ee ee ‘otal Stross Case 2 2m ER BIN Om TIO ZT CA ‘otal Stress Case 3 ee ee ee ee ee ‘otal Stress Case 4 Soe TF AUTH iame BR OMB TIT HM 20m ‘otal Stoss Case 5 See 2 Gee ASI gm Zoe SE ON SSH HSE I -OTH Total Stress Case S 5% 2 sane aaa iame Base 56820 THO IK OH maimumeror 9% 8% ae tae aa ae 10% 47a maximumenor 35% 20% -t% 80% 12% ask Aaa ‘erageoror 30% 15% ITH 105% 18% we We Bodevence 7% Me BEM TH om ae aoe “otal stoss Case 7 2M BOAT 9-H BOTH SH Ra ast ‘Total Stross Case 6 a ‘otal Stross Case 9 Soe oom “ide OR SH ARCH “He “igh ‘otal Stress Case 10 See 2120 eo tie 2 Soe ON SHAT HOt ‘otal Sess Case 4 Soe 21% woe team _“ioe_ 21m _ Som 20m ake 12M 2d Tinie BBR — Tae BOR Teta aT aT maximumeror 36% 21% % CNR AIM “OMSK BOR Td 28% AI a. ‘nerageoror 30% 10% 21% CMI HM 47H am TBR Pad HB 20m, sadeveror 4% 3% 2h ASN 18Table 5.2: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stres Percent Error with N= 6 ‘Composte Analysis Part. Non-Composite Analysis 6 ewe SB MB SB Step 14 cok SIS Ste STH Odom STH STB TGS otm ao Step 12 2h BR Toe GIO OO TON TH Stop 13 gee Som tae Gage ark KTS TAK BAGH 200K Siep22 20m G& om oem oom “aex BR OM GOR HOM oom 2B Step 238 toe ok aim fave igen tae ok ae box Sze “tao Step 33s Tee 2a me ak 7m oe Bom aoe ae tate Step 41 oe om ee fe Sk ake m tem tem Som siep4a ste eo Te oe ase eae Tinimamarer is th Te Bux —auex asx an Tox aaa ate 00 rmaximumeror Om Sin SIN Tatts G2aOK Boom OSI YO Tate az0 Boom, ‘engeeret su 2 asa TON eM Om SSI TOOK ee case 26k 70% 10% EOI HEH TOL eH MH Case? ax om We lak Fim 7 Be Bom igox eam Oe Cases om ow om en bom Bou arm ize “toon “oon ae Case 4 fe 20m 170% 22% “tae ame Tom oe aon “aos oe Cases sos 2a ee ee ee eee Gane Tae hoo. osx gre 2om ae Jags inee Ima, Tanimamarar tae a “Bien sean ea ores aa aaron 80% aT ‘averageertor 73% 146% as tem “So aor Som are size sae 0% stdidov enor 48% 73% nom Meme Baw SNe aN Gem Ge ZONED case? 60% ANE ISR -B0 ATH GOR GTI 400% OBR SAH OI 5% case 80% 47 TI OK ISR 227% TOON I BAK 11D SON Case zor “igom “som 18% Sook 256% “iat tax “izes “ogtoN 102% Case 10 Gass cosa% 160% 224% “aoe ook 250008 ere “owe Tare Os, Ta ea HERO Baik —aaa7es ses —aosee tebe ore oe oa ‘average error 305% 1617% sox satan SIN ose 70% 95% sam 2B SE Stow oror T1645 A847 Wes tooson Go Sasa T4T6O% Sam Tom aaa 7% ‘ota sess case 1 0% MFR AR ADR ZUR tO TH IH OHHH ‘otal Sveas Care? fon uk GR TR Gtk 2am oe Dak om ow, ‘otal Sveas Case) ase BRK HOH tem Gok Boe eet ‘Total Suess Cased ee ee ee a ee ee ‘otal Suess Gases Gee ioe ee me ton ee Se ae ae toe am Sam ‘otal Seas Gare 21% O% aoe sae tom tom aome_ 20 Tet ae aon, ‘nininamerar —aik ok a0 aa ta aay ee ae 0a maimumercr 18% 1% tk Te Beak Twe tie am oe averageeror 17% 12% 9% OHH oN SIRT 42% tat Mtadevenor 2% 2% Gk tae Steak TO ‘otal svess Cas07 AT OA OR NA T4 5G BT tO ata ‘otal Suess case @ 1% 19% AK ROR OK ROK aK Km, ‘otal sveas cares a a ee a a TS ‘Total Suess Case 10 aoe GeO am HRK SI OR 7m Hom 2am 2am ‘hininamierior 20% 13% x 20% tate —ae “10x TR toe 4g" 20% mamomeror 17% 16% 4K ORI UR eek ek averageeror 10% BK a AMT TB 2H SSH ON Sadeveror 2 I de GK aw OTOH 9‘Table 5.2: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 6 ‘Compost Anaisis Part Non-Compete Analysis 8 8 NB 2B 7B Be Se ssn argh 12 a a 1% “om 0am “2k 2a {7% 4 “20am “aK am 17% a ee ee a 0% 250% TK Th He BI FOR 25H TEM TOM OTH tox sox Gk oak “Hoe ow Som Geox “tate Ge Ex oe. Sm tex tom ase Smee Se teow Tanimamerar See Bese BIN aN IK HIN Sea SEN aI aon AT maxmumerot 0% 1% 9% Tak 10 70% OTe Te 12m OOK ON average eror 102% 508% 30% 43% 20M ABN Oo 513% BOE ts Sddov.eror 19% 79% Sue Ate SETH TOE GTO" OS BOA BaTH case 7% 160% 0% ADO 552% -6DOH AIR 85H TOOK TH Cases proeard eee ae Cae 4 ‘arom “ow Sox te oerk asm Fan ae om ao Cases Sia Bom cases 2% 7% Tminnamarer eas 200% rmaximumerot 2705 “317 storage error 73% 162% is dev. error 62% 27% eek Bae BOOK SEN a ZR lo ‘oo 6 asso orm ease 77s “t6om, “a2 aon see 96% aa Oo Tea a fon “tre “an Sie aon 77 someon Gm Si tisk “Gon Gen am Gem am Dex bee ria tome Tae Tie doom aI cate? S80 272 SO ATH GOK IK ITSO 850K ATR 28D OTH case 504% STOR SBN ATH OOH aT JOH BH tO 75H 27m 79% cases sm bem SOK Hae “OR 00% “ies bom ars TON Case 10 am doe “Soe ook ry GIN zm tame aoe Tie eae eo Gasett sex 4som__ tom _aex_ Susu came boom 107eR ates 1080% 140% Tinimumarer sex —a7ex ae 90% 496% aT 10a Baa ae 7a aT Te maxmumerot a2 20% Agu GoM lode GBM 2B TOO ae SOHO TOK steragecrror 306% 446% “90% 2% 4G 27% Mtg THOT tee eae std-doveror 45% So ete 2OeN OER IONOR TOI |B BT TOWN TaD Total stress Case 1 20% 4TH TH HH 7H HON SIR OH ate ‘otal Stoss Case? aoe ok Gh GON Te TON WOR SR 2k SR Gre 2a ‘otal teas Gace 4 coe aoe Sk Gre tee tek Rom GR ORR awa Total stress Case § em ex Gk ix tex ae time Sem SK SIR mH ‘otal Suess Cac! oar ee oom _toe_0sk_ tise ote ae aoe orm minwumerer 36% 4% ak 71% Te Tak Tie ate SM aT ar aT mamumeror 96% 46% 8% 20% 19% asm 90K BOK ANDER BI BO ‘wengeeror 37% 47% 6% OK 18% SEM OK SOR TN HER TOR Bt adeneror Om Yeu Sema ae ‘ota sess case7 20% 40h R-AK IT SIH TSH OTH OK AOR TOK SI ‘otal teas Gace 9 Gm Won ook ae tm Ge ue Boe Som am OK ‘otal Sess Case 10 ee ee ee a ‘Total Suess Caco 11 ‘oxox tuto ten am__7un_‘oom__ ae aom_ tome mininumerer 37% 4% ox —-ea% tax 45% 0k tam 3% 40% a6 maimumeror 25% 48% 1% 49% 19% 7K SK WOK a OKO, sierageerror 36% 49% Ok SSK a SEM SIM BINGO OE sdoveror “Te 0H Ok oe Ok TON Tek TZ 80‘Table 5.2: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress Percent Error with N=: Composte Analysis Part Non-Composte Analysis sa ee 7B eae MBB TB B18 Step 11 eee Stop 12 zoos “ase “117% atom 277m loo 25 ABI “TIT GIN 2771 100% Step 13 26% “Ge 20 IGOR ae GA GERSON ON TOO soe ‘step22 on Fm om tte Sox fon 7m Soe “How ex Step 238 on ona Om Son Son “toe 2 oom en Stop 332 am Zoe ge Ow So ST BHARTI ae St aoe 22m ak tem 2 ame are GOK GIT Be sap a2 ‘eu Sim tox aoe fone asst oe Tee Tanimamer 0% ase ATR Tee —BTTIG—Aooe SOR OHNE ATT loon aT ase Imaximumerer 2592% 22% 90%, BIOm 20m Haaem 250K 29% DOK BIO as average error 202% 165% 11% Osh 496% «46% 200 sO TIN TOM 490% TH sdidovoror 30% 266% wo STEN Tz Aa OBI 2OK GON STEN TON TH. case 22% 100% STH NK GOH UN 2% THB aI za TOO SH case? ee N8M Atm 27K NOR “TeBK BOR BOTH “Bm T2OR THER SON Gases oem In “a Sham 21m ae Bae SG0N ow BO Bea aH cased ‘sox i5sk ow Ten tex aie eek Gzmm 25m Ou ao clue cases “ox “om Sr tame Gx ou ask Gum Ome sum eX 2aH cues. ‘oe tao _aie_“io% 19% 34 900 51% tows 7TOR_SOT_245% RUMEN AER TAR STH TaN a ate aS a STR aa Took aa maunumertor 30% 2a au 27m tam ae GOT Ao TER BOTH SOM. ‘average ror “62% 145% 46% 40% ZIM BON SHEE TTR BER 3H BIN ATH ddeveror 22% 21% Ok GSR Te TON SEI ON EK aa TA, cose 86% 08K 99K HIB TEN GOK TOON OH BK BIOL ot cone TOT 2% “SO 20% 950% -T0BN 65H aa 29% -taoH 27H 46% Care ‘Book 406% Si Tow Baw “iawn M60 to0o AS HEN 22H STH. are 10 ork aise 2a tare “teem aa Stoo om. ‘10% -r7e% case tt Sux toe gw tava “tae om_ S754 720%, eos iso: Tama eTT TST BBE TGS BEEN SSSI TON area 76 rmavimomerror 255% 438% com 10 iae «GON GSM 106% core, sa average eror 605% 340% 20% 50% 229% -SI% -2500% B40 ar som Aiddevencr Ye Gt Tee Foe Gow Nem SESE a5Km MON TTR Tae Tota stress case 1 20% 90K oe 2TH ote 0% KAA 5H SH Tota Sess Case 2 Som 3m oe Zi am com oe ue Som aoe Tota Sues Case 3 x Sk ome ae 7 me oe ex om eee Tota sess Case 4 Sm aoe ion Gow Oo oe ak 2 BR TR Total srees Case 5 fox ae Te Amt See tt ame 12k tem oma Tota suess Case 6 ‘oe ame oe eae see too eae oem minnamerer as a6 ox aT —aIn TIS 90M 12k eae aT maimumeror 35% 3% 10h Bik oe See Ta TI 2 AO ‘ivengeeror 37% Ju Stee TI TTT TRH aS Addevercr “We Te Te Om tm ee ae ‘ota stees caro7 7h 0K OH TOK ATT ISK BOSSI Tota svess cases Sh 99K 12K aI ITH 0% 0% 18% sam 2% ‘otal Suess Cave 9 ox rm tam Bem Te Foe ow Jo toe aa son “otal Sess Caso 10 See re 19m am tee Gre oe Sam IT Bee ae Total svese case 1 ‘enon taxa tees 70m 65% tom 2 aon ‘ininamerer a9 sek ak 29% T7704 TON 9 a0 Tay maximumeror 38% 36 14-20% TR SE ae SSM EN 2TH ox ‘sverageeror 39% 37% TIN eh Oe SOM SSE EMIT ON 08 ddovenor 0% 1M TOMO WE BHT he aL‘Table 5.2: Percent Error Tables for 1997 Analysis versus 2000 Measured Stress Percent Error with N= 6 Compose Anata Part Nom Compost Analyte 10 200 Se eek eB NB a8 238 stp sm So ta ase Bom am oem fare ee OK Stop 12 saGom GoI% 8% GON tthe aso% este “tem gow Te ‘Sep 13 re sox Im ee a ar ‘tep22 an a am “65% vas T5em Som HT Step 238 Sx am ie Za a See Ge gk amma Os Sipe aoe ee Gr Gem Gan ete Sipe ie im Bie ee Be Se be ome a ae Sip 42 aoe ee eS “ox tae son ea naman ener esos aT aI Tea ek aT ae a imasimumenor 37% 681% 20%. 2ase% Sane Be OoIx Bam ase STI srerageeror 256% Som TR Toe aN aie toe Te oe ae oe sagovenor oie 261% Si Toe 2H Gene 2m em Toa wom cases Ce a a ee ee ed ace won oor Sok hee Sek zm oom see Som 2am Oe Sees ‘sox tre yok fam mm aS too -6Q0K GOK TOK atm aT ceed Sst See Ge aoe zie Se “tare are “Soe ge too Caee See ‘em ain Sm eae “enmm Sere ee tema OK Sass oie ter ame aio asm eso ae erm RUT ETT EES IE BOR TNO TOGO ON ISS a imasimomenoe 133% Si tee aa PIN MIN “OUT Tayo STH average ror “202% 10% “SEN “ah IN TOR eB TOON ORT -iTH Maser Se 4 te oom ase tae Mow Me Tee Ta Wom, cue? SMR SOK STH 2h ASH HOH SHI ZO HOST a case sorte 200% 120% 10h 125TH THR AE GIO BO ATION 0% ese 9 Sore bua don Sok aso oe ree Tam oe ae aor. ese 10 Sex json Sm ame “tom amet Goma Bom Ztoom Sow Case won 2igm_ uae Ge__ ‘seo amare tumors 1280m SO Tiniman enor 2a ASK TaN THN ana 80OR Aaa ara Sex 50m “aan go asom aT 700m PHO -TREON SON, ‘erageeror 370% 297 ox 20% WOR 20m Se GOI TK OK ow Aianenor Sow “Woe mae Soe Ste cae fame TSIM Wem NN oN. ‘out swess case 1 a SHAT ame ‘otal Stee Guoe2 an Rm Smee Sm mm oe ge Total Seas Case 3 Qos ok ae mB ee Ze Ne Total Seas Case ¢ ao ete Sm tae age aie ta ae Ta Total Seas ase § Smee kek Tem Bom tae oe Ta Total Seas Case 6 Sie ee amigo oes ee mininanenar aie 3k Ek ak ee STR oR oR ae TT maimumenor 20% 6k Ge 2m SIMTK WOR HORT ‘nersgecror 0% Sk 7% ae Tek Yom GON NTR a Addeene te ie me ome ee we Oe Total sess cose7 Se hh OEHHA a ‘Total Sess case 8 te ORO Ot zeke Total Sess Cos me te Sm tae eee Bae ome ke Total Seas Gee 10 Sie See Soe eek See IT tehoN mm ott Seas Case 11 Sie etek ameter soto eee Tan eToT aI Ika S20 maimumerse 30% «13% TSM Sw Zee TON He See tee tae ee See ese mm me om me 82