Professional Documents
Culture Documents
On
24/11/2016
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
I
by
Dr. Edmund C Hambly FEng.
&
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
9
&
0
'
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
3
25
20
T
1'0
0
W
cn
z
15-
CALIFORNIA
OREGON
10OHIO
5-
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970
1980
Bcn
W
0
pr)
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Load
4.1 The Y3 beam design is illustrated in Appendix
A Drawing 2. The beams are designed as simply
supported. The design process is described in the
following section. The final design details selected
are:Length 19.81~1
for 20m span, weight 18 tonnes
14.8m for 15m span, weight 13 tonnes
Prestress for 19.81-11 long beams:- 29 No 15.2mm 0
stabilised low relaxation strand, each of area
139mm2, characteristic strength 232kN, with initial
prestress to 75% of characteristic strength. At the
ends of beams 6 No strand are debonded at 2.5m
from end, and 6 No debonded at 4.5m from end.
= 0.648MNm
End shear
height
0.900m
area
0.373m2
0.3471-11
0.0265m4
Ztop
0.0479m3
Zbtm
0.0763m3
1.065m
0.545m
0.0729m4
Zslab top
o.l 54m3
Zslab btm
0.250m3
Zbeam top
0.205m3
Zbeam btm
0.134m3
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
A
-6.3
Positive
temperature
difference
Restrained
stresses
5.0
-1.1 0
Reverse
temperature
difference
-1.3 0
Axial
release
Moment.
release
-3.0
1.3
4.26 HA load
Pt2:Table B gives the uniformly distributed load for
a loaded length of 20m as 45.1KN/m. In addition
to this there is a knife edge load of 120KN. Where
no HB load is considered, these loads apply to
each of the two lanes.
4.27 HB load
The bridge has been designed for 45 units of HB
load, i.e. a vehicle with four axles of 450KN each.
The shortest wheelbase is critical for simply
supported spans.
4.28 Footpath live load
The nominal load is quoted in Pt2:6.5.1.1
5 KN / m2.
4.29 Shrinkage
Internal stresses are generated by differential
shrinkage. The deck slab shrinks more than the
beams, which causes tension in the slab, and a
sagging curvature of the deck. The differential
shrinkage
strain
has
been conservatively
estimated as 100 x 10-6. A creep reduction factor
of 0.43 is used, as suggested in Pt4:7.4.3.4. The
pattern of residual stresses is calculated in a
similar manner to those for temperature difference,
as again axial force and bending moment are
assumed to relax in beams designed as simply
supported. These stresses only build up slowly
as the concrete shrinks, so the stresses can be
ignored when they have a beneficial effect.
43ue
2.6
Restrained
shrinkage
strain
Residual
stresses
-1.7 0
1.2
+
-2.6
1.2
-0.3
as
-1.7
0.5
Restrained
stresses
Axial
release
-0.9
Moment
release
-0.4
Residual
stresses
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
11
11
13
I
Loads
Prestress
Dead
SDL
HA alone
SLS
Comb.1
Comb.1
Cornb.1
Comb.3
Cornb.1
1 .o
1 .o
1.2
1.2
1.o
1 .o
1.2
1 .o
1 .o
1.2
1 .o
1 .o
1.2
1.15
1.75
1.3
1.5
HA+25HB
HA+45HB
Footpath
Temp. dif.
Shrinkage
I
1.1
1 .o
1.o
1.1
1 .o
1.O
1 .o
(1 .O)
(1 .O)
(1 .O)
(1 .O)
0.8
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
30
42
54
90
78
66
102
114
126
138
144
Grillage model
0.8%
Pt4:6.7.2.4 Shrinkage:
Normal exposure, transfer 3 to 5 days:
& = 300~10-~
= 60 MN/m2
4.8%
Pt4:6.7.2.5 Creep:
0.8%
E, = 200,000 MN/m2
Elastic loss = Esfc = 200 x 15
7.7%
Ecfs
= 5 6 ~ 1 0 x- ~15 x 200,000
=
31 x 1250
Transfer Loss
Loss
9%
170 MN/m2
13.5%
Final Loss =
28%
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Load
Comb.
1
HAalone
25 HB
45 HB
(c) Pt4:6.3.2.4 (b) limits the tensile stress at transfer, due solely to the prestress and dead loads, to
1N/mm2.
Grillage
loading
Node 73
1.04
1.00
1.40
1.29
1.70
Stress limits:
Node 741
1.01
0.97
1.43
1.31
1 0 x FootDath
1 .O x Footpath
- -
- +1.2 x SDL
1 .O x FOOtDath
1.0 x 45 HB-
1 .O x Footpath
+ 1 . 2 x SDL
1 6 x Fnnlnilh
1.3 x 45 HB
1.5 x Footpath
+1.75
SDL
1 .O x Foolpath
- -
+1 2 x SDL
__
1.73
\1Footpath
u l . 2 x SDL
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
f p = PflA
PfelZ = Pf (110.373
+ e10.0763)
(reduced)
Comb. 3
Beam
bottom
PIS
Comb. 1
Beam
bottom
fp
fp = 3.64(1/0.373
fp
0.186m
- 5.6 < 20
S.L.S. S t r e s s e s a n d C r a c k i n g
PIS
DL
Grillage
Comb. 1
(reduced)
Beam bottom
18.6
M=0.65
-8.5
M=l.O4
-7.7
Comb. 3
Beam bottom
Beam top
18.6
-4.4
M=0.65
-8.5
13.5
M=l.31
-9.8
6.4
-4.4
M=0.65
13.5
M=l.43
+7.0
+9.3
Temp
Shrink
Comb. 1
Beam top
Slab top
-0.4
-1.3
0.2
-0.4
1 .o
Total
Class 1
+2.0 > 0
Class 2
-1.4 >-3.2
16.7 < 20
1.o
(-0.2)
17.1
9.3
(-0.2)
10.6 < 20
< 20
< 20
M=l.31
+8.5
Comb. 3
Slab top
+2.1
S.L.S. Transfer
PIS
Beam bottom
Beam top
I
23.5
-5.6
DL
M=0.43
-5.6
9.0
Total
17.9 < 20
3.4 > - 1
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
4.66 Ultimate
section at the
is
DL
Muls = (0.65 x
Moment capacity
= 4.32MN x (0.63
YfL Grillage
Yf3
1.1 5 + 1.78)
x 1.10 = 2.8 MNm
+ 0.21)m = 3.63MNm
e = 0.137m
PIS
DL
B e a m b o t t o m 12.0
-0.5
11.5<20
-0.5
0.7
0.2>-1
Total
Beam top
..
I ?
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Y Beam design
For shear
area
Z = 0.0763 m3
b = 0.216 m
width at neck
h = 0.9 m
Bearing
Reaction
Node 13
0.346
Node 14
0.398
Node 15
0.41 3
ft
Node 16
0.401
d = h-y+e
0.9-0.347+0.137 = 0.690 m
0.24(fcu)0.5= 0.24(50)0.5
1.7 MN/m2
1.5 x Footpath
0 . 6 7 ~ 0 . 2 1 6 ~ 0 .19. ~
72
( + 4 . 8 ~.7)".5
1
= 0.43MN
\r,
\
1.5 x Footpath
+1.75 x SDL
at beam bottom
= 0.87(2.1/.373
V = (.126 x 1.15
+ 8.2) x 0.134
=1.45 MNm
YfL
8.2 MN/m2
+ 2.1x.137/.0763)=
Grillage
Yf3
2.90
= 2.9 MN
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
VI = 0.05 MN/m2
from Pt4:Table 31
Ls = 0.256m
Vc = Vco = 0.43 MN
Effective depth, dt = 1.O m for composite section
Asv = V + 0.4bdt
SV
Vc = 0.61
0.87fyvdt
0.08
+ 322Ae
+ 322Ae
= VI
(VI-0.1 28)/322
(0.64-0.1 28)/322
= 0.001590 m2/m
= 0.000905m2/m
0 . 5 0 ~ 0 . 2 5 6+ 0.7Ae x 460
A,
= 0.128
0.128
= 0.000650 m2/m
Eccentricity of slab
(b) vlLs+0.7Aefy
- 0.43
1.065
- 0.1- 0.545
= 0.420 m
I = 0.0729 m4
= V x 1.05m-'
from Pt4:Table 31
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
1 .O x EOOtDath
200000/34000 = 5.88
I = 0.0097m4
1 .O x Footpath
\
+1.2 x SDL
SLS
Loading
+1.75x SDL
ULS
Loading
~.
(f)~j$JT~~~.I~T-y-(f.J)-yLfJjpI
- -----RIpgEIRg
-J.
-,
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
servicean~initynimiu
SU~UQ
Strain = M/EZ
EA =
DicUiOllT~
5.6 The calculations above have shown that
reinforcement of T12 longitudinal bars at lOOmm
spacing in both the top and bottom of the slab are
adequate to resist the hogging moment and control
cracking over the piers
Hogging moments reduce to zero within 2m to 31-17
to each side of the piers, so it is suggested that
any slab reinforcement provided over the piers
which is additional to the longitudinal slab
reinforcement elsewhere could be curtailed about
3m from the piers.
unuimau~nimiu
5.4 The ultimate moment capacity is calculated as
for a reinforced beam, with effective depth to
centroid of the flange reinforcement = 0.965.
For reinforcement of twenty T12 bars:
As = 20 x 1 13mm2 = 0.00226m2
Lever arm, z = 0.95 x 0.965m = 0.91m
Mu = (0.87fy)ASz
= 400 x 0.00226 x 0.91
= 0.82MNm
0.46 x 1.1
0.51MNm
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
AUDanUment design
7.1 The integral abutment, shown in Appendix A
Drawing 5, is connected to the deck in order to
avoid any movement joints from one end of the
bridge to the other. Run-on slabs are included in
order to prevent traffic loading from compacting
the fill behind the abutment and to keep water off
the backs of the abutment structures. Longitudinal
loading and movement of the deck is resisted by
the passive resistance of the compacted fill behind
abutments. Relative movement between the
structure and highway pavements at each end are
absorbed by local deformation in the pavement,
which may include a plug joint (concrete
pavements need a compression joint beside
run-on slab). In the USA it has been found that
maintenance of pavements at the ends of integral
bridges is much less of a problem than
maintenance of structures where water and
de-icing salts have penetrated movement joints.
7.2 The integral abutment has been designed as a
bank seat to be as small as practicable, in order to
minimise the weight of structure which has to
move with the deck. The base slab has been
placed as high as possible while keeping the
bottom (bearing) face at least l m from the ground
surface (for frost protection). It has been assumed
that the footing will be constructed on stiff ground,
or properly compacted selected granular fill, which
can provide an allowable bearing pressure in
excess of 0.2MN/m2 at top of embankment. Under
HA loading with 45 units of HB on deck and run-on
slab, the total live load plus dead load reaction is
calculated to be about 5MN, and footing
dimensions of 14m length and 2.5m width are
adequate.
= 1.4MN
P = 2 x 0.016
x 12 = 0.77MN
X'
2
Upper bound P = 0.7710.67 = 1.2MN
Lower bound P = 0.7711.5
= 0.5MN
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Beam seadinng
7.5 The abutment shelf is constructed parallel to
the soffits of the beams (which are here tilted to be
parallel to the cross-fall). The beams are seated at
their ends during installation on a permanent
neoprene pad of about 6mm thickness, 500mm
width and 250mm length. The bottom flange
reinforcement in the beams resists splitting of the
beam above the seating and interacts with the
reinforced concrete of the diaphragm beam and
links from the abutment base. The links in the
base and shear key are substantial in order to
transfer longitudinal forces into the base. The
bottom flanges of the beams are covered with a
slip coat where they touch the diaphragm beam in
order to prevent spalling due to relative movement
(as at intermediate supports).
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Pretensioned Beams
Drawing 3
Drawing 4
Pier
Drawing 5
Integral Abutment
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
m
(D
9
C
C
C
v:
C
C
fi
a
a
C
0
w
c
m
cu
%
_-
C
C
C
rT:
i.(.*
X
U)
al
\
1
n
I
al
En
W
I-
.cz
4P
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
srm
3
0
0
0
0
1
!
n
W
U
W
U
n
m
0
0
03
U
W
U
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
In
(0
"d
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
c?
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
r'
r
4:
4:
1
a
0)
-2
C
._
?!
0)
X
2.
w
w
W
4
W
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Whence factor
prestress is
0 =
0 =
2.2
- 0.9
1.3
The beams also creep under the load from the slab
which is applied at 100 days. For loading at 100
days k, = 0.7, so long term creep for this loading
has
0 =
kL kc ke k,
k,
creep strain
= fO
/E28
long term
0 =
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
ke
k,
hence shrinkage = 275 x
= 120
x 0.8 x 0.55 x 1
x 10-6
Hence average
Pe = 0.83 x 3.5 x 0.38 = 1.1OMNm
Hence the restraint moment due to creep of the
composite structure from 100 days to long term,
with 0 = 1.3, is
Mps
(1
- e-O) Pe
= (1
- e-1.3) x 1.1 0
= 0.80MNm
(1
(-0.30) = -0.22MNm
f = 0.35/(0.8 x 0,0019)
230MN/m2
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
spaced au 2M cQndrQs
C1 The demonstration design in this report has
used Y3 beams at a spacing of l m . This results in
the minimum construction depth for the bridge
deck. When the construction depth is not critical,
designers may prefer to use fewer, larger beams
at increased spacing.
C2 Drawing 6 shows details of an alternative
design for the same conditions as the
demonstration design, but using a beam spacing
of 2m. Six Y6 beams are found satisfactory instead
of the twelve Y3 beams. The overall depth has
been increased by about 300mm. The design of
the prestressed beams for bending and shear is
carried out in exactly the same way as for the Y3
beams in the demonstration design.
C3 The main difference resulting from the
increased beam spacing is in the diaphragm
detailing. Drawing 3 shows the faces of the
diaphragm to be at right angles to the beams,
for beams at l m spacing. For the wider spacing,
this would result in unnecessarily thick
diaphragms, and a system of skew diaphragms is
recommended, as shown in Drawing 6.
C4 This report has recommended that beams ends
are square to the beams, even on skew bridges. It
would be unnecessarily heavy to provide a straight
diaphragm with a uniform skew when the beam
ends are square. The zig-zag diaphragm shown in
the drawing is right where it fits the beam sides,
with skew sections in between. Since the
diaphragms do not have a primary structural
purpose, there is no structural penalty in using a
zig-zag diaphragm rather than a straight one. The
zig-zag diaphragm can therefore be seen to have
advantages over the straight skew diaphragm in
both design and construction.
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.
"
'I,
4.
6. Clark L A;
"Concrete b ridge des ig n to BS540 0";
Construction Press, 1983; with Supplement 1985.
7. Hambly E C;
B ridg e deck behavi o ur" ;
E & FN Spon, London, 2nd edition, 1991.
"
'
9.
10.Loveall c L;
J o i nt Iess bridge decks" ;
Civil Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
NY, November 1985.
"
11.
Mattock A H;
"Precast-prestressed concrete bridges 5. Creep and shrinkage
stud ies " ;
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, I l l , May 1961.
12. Wasserman E P;
Jo i nt I ess bridge decks" ;
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, 1987.
"
Licensed copy from CIS: hewson, Hewson Consulting Engineers, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy.