Editor’s Note

The cornerstones of this journal are its Associate Editors and our reviewers. It is their work that provides this publication with its final content. The Journal of Bridge Engineering is always eager to hear from anyone in the bridge engineering community, in academia or a practicing engineer, interested in serving as an Associate Editor. Please send your resume, curriculum vitae, qualifications, and areas of bridge engineering expertise to me via ASCE. All applications will be considered. A significant expectation of applicants invited to become Associate Editors will be that they are willing to make the commitment to review and process papers assigned to them in a timely manner. The timely review process of papers is of great significance to authors who submit their papers to us for review and consideration for publication.

The other cornerstone of the Journal of Bridge Engineering is its reviewers. It is their review of the papers that determines the quality of the published product. We would like to hear from anyone in the bridge engineering community, both in academia and practicing engineers, who is interested and feels that they are qualified to be a reviewer. Reviewers are generally asked to review only one paper a year, unless they indicate that they can and are willing to review papers more frequently. As a reviewer of papers in a peer reviewed journal, you would be expected to provide a review in accordance with the guidelines established by ASCE and the profession, normally within 30 days of receipt of the paper. Please send your resume, curriculum vitae, qualifications, and areas of bridge engineering expertise to me via ASCE. All applications will be considered.

One of the purposes of this journal is to provide its readers with quality papers on current bridge engineering topics and issues. One of the best ways to ensure that we are meeting this need is your input and feedback. Do you feel that there is a need for a special edition or papers on certain topics? Let me know through ASCE so we can look into these items.

The January 2007 issue of the Journal of Bridge Engineering begins with 7 papers on various types of concrete bridges. The first two are on the subject of concrete arches. In “Test and Analysis for Ultimate Load-Carrying Capacity of Existing Reinforced Concrete Arch Ribs,” Zhang, Li, Xu, and Yu report the results of experimental investigations and the nonlinear finite element analysis of two arch ribs. Using two arch ribs from a bridge removed from service, the authors performed full-scale static load tests in order to determine in detail load-displacement and load-strain relationships, the residual load carrying capacity, and the failure form. It should be noted that material aging and structural damage was considered in the finite-element modeling. Experimental and theoretical results were compared.

In “Analytical Load Rating of an Open-Spandrel Arch Bridge: Case Study,” the second concrete arch paper, Garrett investigates the factors influencing the live-load capacity of an open spandrel arch bridge. Live and dead loads, geometric nonlinear effects, temperature effects, and material behavior were considered.

“Plastic Rotation of an RCC T-Beam Bridge Girder under the Combined Influence of Flexure and Torsion,” by Kayal, presents the analytical methods used to determine the plastic rotational capacity of reinforced cement–concrete T-beam bridge girders under the combined influence of flexure and torsion. The analytical methods were based on skew-bending theory and space truss theory, and the methods were experimentally validated using 1:6 microconcrete models.

The next two papers are companion papers by Trejo and Reinschmidt. In “Justifying Materials Selection for Reinforced Concrete Structures. I: Sensitivity Analysis” and “Justifying Materials Selection for Reinforced Concrete Structures. II: Economic Analysis” the authors consider the implications of high performance construction materials that offer the benefit of superior long-term performance. Practical implementation has been limited due to the lack of information on the life-cycle costs and benefits of alternative approaches in the early phases of projects. In the first paper, the authors identify the most significant parameters for evaluating the time-to-corrosion of reinforced concrete structures, while in the second, a methodology that considers the additional cost of a conventional reinforced concrete structure, yet remains economical, is presented.

The final two concrete-related papers are in the area of testing. In the first, “Monitoring Temperatures on a Real Box-Girder Bridge and Energy Budget Analysis for Basic Information on Bridge Cooling and Surface Freezing,” Suzuki, Ohba, Uchikawa, Hoshikawa, and Kimura present the results of their work instrumenting a prestressed concrete box-girder bridge to enable monitoring of its surface and body temperature. Potisuk and Higgins in “Field Testing and Analysis of CRC Deck Girder Bridges” present the findings of field tests and analysis of two 1950s era conventionally reinforced concrete deck girder bridges that are in-service and exhibiting diagonal cracks. The impact factors based on the field tests were determined. In addition, a three dimensional finite-element analysis was used to model the bridges and determine the distribution factors for shear. The predicted values were compared with the field test data as well as the values computed using the AASHTO LRFD and Standard Specifications.

Integral abutment bridges are becoming more widely used in the United States; however, design methods and construction details vary from state-to-state. In “Integral Abutment Bridge Behavior: Parametric Analysis of a Massachusetts Bridge,” Civjan, Bonczar, Breña, DeJong, and Crovo investigate the significance of the different methods used to accommodate deformations in the piles using finite-element analysis. Their work determined that bridge expansion is primarily influenced by backfill conditions while bridge contraction is influenced by pile-restraint conditions.

The ninth paper, “Block FEM for Time-Dependent Shear-Lag Behavior in Two I-Girder Composite Bridges” is by Okui and Nagai. The paper presents a time-dependent, finite-element analysis of a 2-I composite girder bridge supporting a concrete slab. The analysis performed by the authors is different from other work in that the shear-lag effect of the concrete slab on the time-dependent behavior of the bridge is considered. Inclusion of this influence indicates that the shear-lag effect is significant at the edge of the cracking regions and at the ends of the bridge.

“Impact Factors for Curved Continuous Composite Multiple-Box Girder Bridges,” by Samaan, Kennedy, and Sennah presents the results of a parametric study on the impact factors of 180 curved continuous composite multiple-box girder bridges. Using finite-element analysis and considering the effects of bridge configurations, loading positions, and vehicle speed on the impact factors, the authors provide expressions for the impact factors for tangential flexural stress, deflection, shear forces, and reactions for AASHTO truck loadings.

Laminated elastomeric bearings are commonly used in the support of bridge structures. In “Evaluation of Laminated Circular Elastomeric Bearings,” Najm, Patel, and Nassif report the results of their evaluation of laminated circular elastomeric bearings when compared with square and rectangular ones. The experimental investigation studied the behavior of the bearings in compression, compression and rotation, and compression and shear.

Bennett, Swanson, and Linzell in “Fatigue Resistance of HPS-485W (70W) Continuous Plate With Punched Holes” report the results of tests conducted on 29 specimens of HPS-485W (70W) steel in order to investigate its fatigue resistance. Specimen thickness, hole diameter, and the methods used to make the holes were varied in order to examine their effects on fatigue resistance.

The final two papers in this issue are historical pieces. The first one is by F. Griggs, who has written several historical papers that were published in previous issues of the Journal of Bridge Engineering. “Evolution of the Continuous Truss Bridge” traces the international evolution of the mathematical theory and construction processes that affected the design, construction, and use of continuous truss bridges in the United States.

In “Development of the Lenticular Truss Bridge in America,” David Guise looks at the history and development of this unique bridge type prior to the 1880s as well as the dominant use of this type of structure in the New England area of the United States by the Berlin Bridge Company of East Berlin, Connecticut.

The technical note, “Probabilistic Characterization of Live Load Using Visual Counts and In-Service Strain Monitoring,” by Guzda, Bhattacharya, and Mertz, investigates the suggestion that the AASHTO LRFD design code for maximum live loads is overly conservative. The authors developed a methodology using real-time visual data collection from traffic cameras coupled with structural strain responses of girder bridges in order to investigate this issue.

There is one discussion in this issue of the Journal. Gamble, in his discussion of “Transverse Cracking of Concrete Bridge Decks: State-of-the-Art,” comments on effects of the presence or absence of shear connectors and composite behavior between the deck and girders.