Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2Department
(Received: 2 January 2009; Received revised form: 16 November 2009; Accepted: 17 November 2009)
Abstract: The streamline flat steel box girder is broadly used in long span cablesupported bridges all over the world. As one of the most important part of the bridges,
its stress level and distribution under various dynamic loads are especially concerned.
However, it is difficult to obtain the accurate stress of the steel box girder by common
finite element (FE) calculation. The Runyang Suspension Bridge (RSB) is taken as an
example. To increase the accuracy of results, a 3-dimensional FE full model for the
RSB is created by ANSYS and a spatial submodel of the steel box girder is particularly
built with greater detail. Submodeling method is then employed as a connection
technique to link different scale models. After the global analysis and connecting
process, the local stress of the steel box girder under various vehicle loads is obtained
by submodel analysis. The composite action between the full model and the submodel
is analyzed, and the reasonable mesh size for the submodel is specially investigated.
The numerical results are proved to be accurate by the field test results. This study
demonstrates the reliability and efficiency of the submodeling method; and can
provide references for accurately analyzing and designing the steel box girders of other
long span bridges.
Key words: suspension bridge, multi-scale, finite element (FE) modeling, steel box girder, submodeling method.
1. INTRODUCTION
Finite element method (FEM) has been extensively
used in modern structural engineering arena. An
accurate and reliable FE model plays a critical role in
the studies on structural health monitoring and condition
assessment, wind-resistance and earthquake-resistance
analysis, vibration control, etc. Therefore, many
research studies have been focused on the FE model
updating technique based on experimental data in order
to achieve a FE benchmark model which is suitable for
different analysis objectives (Mottershead et al. 1993;
Ou 2003; Zhang and Sun 2002; Jaishi and Ren 2005;
Wang et al. 2005).
727
Accurate Stress Analysis on Steel Box Girder of Long Span Suspension Bridges Based on Multi-Scale Submodeling Method
728
470
20.5
9016.1
20.5
470
218.905
218.905
Zhenjiang
Yangzhou
69.300
450
8.00
5.30
53.70 (mean)
3.0
3.0
55.13 (mean)
477+52
1490
477+52
450
34300/2 = 17150
32900/2 = 16450
300
25600 = 15000
2%
2%
1700 1200
680
1.5%
3000
1.5%
450
4500
27300/2 = 13650
378
20=
14900 = 12600
27300/2 = 13650
0
600 20
94
1765 906
32900/2 = 16450
1200 1700
4500
height of 218.905 m, the two towers employ the multistory structure with two columns and three crossbeams.
In the tower column, the single-box single-room crosssection is used. The main cable is made up of 184 prefab
parallel subsection cables and each subsection cable
contains 127 high-strength steel wires.
The welded streamline flat steel box girder is
employed as the main girder of the RSB. The length of
the main girder is 1485.16 m which is divided into four
segments, including the end-span segment, mid-span
segment, near-mid-span segment and standard segment.
The standard segment includes 84 parts, with the length
of 1352.40 m for the entire segment and 16.1 m for each
part. The width of the main girder, including wind mouth
and road for examining and repair, is 38.7 m and the
729
Accurate Stress Analysis on Steel Box Girder of Long Span Suspension Bridges Based on Multi-Scale Submodeling Method
y
x
z
Elevation
AA
4.9
365
4
218.905 m .9
365
710
1269
969
720
Main span
3300
Side span
215.600 m
435
3740
6000
Plan
Main span
Side span
+
3710
7420
9500
730
y
z
731
Accurate Stress Analysis on Steel Box Girder of Long Span Suspension Bridges Based on Multi-Scale Submodeling Method
Perform global
analysis
Create submodel
Finish
732
Front wheel
1914
Rear wheel
1847
Weight (kN)
Front axle
60
Whole weight
300
Table 2. Vehicle load cases in the field test of Runyang Suspension Bridge
Load case
2
3
*The
numbers in the brackets represent the corresponding number of the suspenders. The central buckle is No. 46 and the maximum number is 91.
400
400
150
400
400
Downstream
Upstream
Main cable
Center line of the
main cable
UL21
UL23
UL22
DL6
Strain gauge
Center line of
the bridge
Strain rosette
UL9
UL7
UL5
UL3
UL1
UL20
UL10
UL8
UL6
UL4
UL2
UL12
UL19
UL18
UL17
UL15
UL14
UL13
UL16
UL11
M-1
M-2
DL5
DL4
DL3
DL2
DL1
733
Accurate Stress Analysis on Steel Box Girder of Long Span Suspension Bridges Based on Multi-Scale Submodeling Method
the end of the section are shown in the x-axis. The y-axis
represents the longitudinal bending stress of the girder
distributed along the transverse direction. As shown in
Figure 10, in each part of the L/4 section of the steel box
girder, the analytical stress values from Submodel 1 is
different to those from Submodel 2, but the difference
between Submodels 2 and 3 is much smaller. For the
bottom plate under load case 2, the largest difference is
2.65%. For the top U girder and the top plate under
load case 3, the largest differences are 3.70% and
2.94%, respectively. Therefore, the mesh size of
Stress (Mpa)
5
15000
10
15000
15
20
Measurement
Submodel 1
Submodel 2
Submodel 3
25
30
35
14000
Stress (Mpa)
14
14000
Measurement
Submodel 1
Submodel 2
Submodel 3
16
18
20
22
24
26
(b) The stress of the top "U" girder under load case 3
Distance to the section center (mm)
6
12000
12000
Measurement
Submodel 1
Submodel 2
Submodel 3
10
12
14
Figure 10. The stress comparison of L/4 section of the steel box girder using different-scale submodels
734
the top U girder and the bottom plate of the steel box
girder, respectively. In Figures 11 to 13, the x-axis and
y-axis have the same meaning in Figure 10.
5.2.1. Transverse stress analysis on the
top plate
Figure 11 shows the transverse distribution of bending
stress of the top plate of L/4 section of the steel box
girder under the load case 2 and 3, respectively.
As can be seen from Figure 11, the numerical results
from submodel analysis agree with the experimental
results well, and the absolute stress values on the end
and middle of the measured section are larger than
Measurement
Calculation
5
4
3
15000
15000
15000
15
Measurement
15000
Calculation
20
25
30
(b) Load case 3
Figure 11. Transverse distribution of bending stress of the top plate of L/4 section
Measurement
Calculation
4
3
2
14000
14000
14000
19
Measurement
14000
Calculation
22
25
(b) Load case 3
Figure 12. Transverse distribution of bending stress of the top U girder of L/4 section
735
Accurate Stress Analysis on Steel Box Girder of Long Span Suspension Bridges Based on Multi-Scale Submodeling Method
12000
11
Measurement
Calculation
12
12000
Measurement
Calculation
39
41
Figure 13. Transvrse stress distribution of the bottom plate of L/4 section
736
Zhenjiang
Stress value (Mpa)
0
5
D = 4.75 mm
D = 8.75 mm
10
Yangzhou
16100
15
20
25
30
Figure 14. Longitudinal distribution of bending stress of the top plate under load case 3
Zhenjiang
Yangzhou
0
5
16100
10
D = 4.75 mm
D = 8.75 mm
16100
15
20
25
30
Figure 15. Longitudinal distribution of bending stress of the top U girder under load case 3
737
Accurate Stress Analysis on Steel Box Girder of Long Span Suspension Bridges Based on Multi-Scale Submodeling Method
Zhenjiang
Stress value (Mpa)
25
30
D = 4.85 mm
D = 8.65 mm
Yangzhou
16100
35
40
45
50
Figure 16. Longitudinal distribution of bending stress of the bottom plate under load case 3
the bridge with the rear axle loads on the Zhenjiang side
and the front axle loads on the Yangzhou side, while the
longitudinal distribution of bending stress of the bottom
plate is relatively smooth because the bottom plate is flat
and it does not directly bear the vehicle loads. According
to the longitudinal distribution of bending stress above,
the influence lengths of the front axle loads and the rear
axle loads are about 2 m and 4 m, respectively. (3) Both
on the top plate and on the bottom plate, the longitudinal
distributions of bending stress of different distances
are very similar, while the longitudinal distribution
trends of top U girder have some dissimilarities when
the distances change. In addition, the longitudinal
distribution of bending stress of the bottom plate is
relatively smooth, as proved before.
5.4. Summary of the Stress Distribution on the
L/4 Section
As can be seen from the transverse distribution of
bending stress of the steel box girder in Figrues 11 to 13,
most of the numerical results agree with the
experimental ones. Under two unfavorable load cases of
two and three, the stress level is relatively low and much
less than the ultimate strength of the structural material.
Because the stress level of the transverse clapboard
under the above mentioned two load cases is relatively
low (only 1/10 ~ 1/15 that of the bottom plate), it is not
specifically analyzed.
Since the steel box girder is a welded structure, one of
its major failure modes is structural fatigue caused mainly
by tremendous tension-compression cycling. Although
the stress level of the bottom plate is larger than that
of the other parts, stress alternating exists in the top plate
and the top U girder of the L/4 section of the steel box
girder, as can be seen from Figures 11 and 12. Compared
with that of the top plate, the stress alternating of the top
U girder is more phenomenal, and the minimum of its
amplitude is already 20.1 MPa (corresponding to the
measured point UL17). The cause of that is the combined
738
REFERENCES
Bogdanovich, A.E. and Kizhakkethara, I. (1999). Three-dimensional
finite element analysis of double-lap composite adhesive bonded
joint using submodeling approach, Composites: Part B, Vol. 30,
No. 6, pp. 537551.
Chan, T.H.T., Guo, L. and Li, Z.X. (2003). Finite element
modeling for fatigue stress analysis of large suspension
bridges, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 261, No. 3,
pp. 443 464.
Che, Y. and Song, Y.P. (2003). Three-dimensional nonlinear
analysis of orifice of high arch dam, Journal of Dalian University
of Technology, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 218222. (in Chinese)
Cormier, N.G., Smallwood, B.S., Sinclair, G.B. and Meda G. (1999).
Aggressive submodelling of stress concentrations, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 46, No. 6,
pp. 889909.
De Langhe, K., Vandepitte, D. and Sas, P. (1997). A combined
dynamic-static finite element model for the calculation of
dynamic stresses at critical locations, Computer and Structures,
Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 241254.
Ernst, J.H. (1965). Der E-modul von seilen unter bercksichtigung
des durchhanges, Der Bauingenieur, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 5255.
(in Germany)
Hsu, Y.T. and Fu, C.C. (2002). Application of EBEF method for the
distortional analysis of steel box girder bridge superstructures
during construction, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 5,
No. 4, pp. 211221.
Jaishi, B. and Ren, W.X. (2005). Structural finite element model
updating using ambient vibration test results, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 617628.
Li, A.Q. (2005). Report on Field Test of Runyang Yangtse River
Bridge, Technical Report, College of Civil Engineering, Southest
University, Nanjing, China. (in Chinese)
Li, A.Q. and Wang, H. (2006). Report on Finite Element Analysis
of Runyang Yangtse River Bridge, Technical Report, College
of Civil Engineering, Southest University, Nanjing, China.
(in Chinese)
Li, A.Q. and Wang, H. (2007). Stress analysis on steel box girders
of super-long-span suspension bridges with submodel method,
Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 8084.
Mottershead, J.E. and Friswell, M.I. (1993). Model updating in
structural dynamics: A survey, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 167, No. 2, pp. 347375.
Ou, J.P. (2003). Some recent advances of intelligent health
monitoring systems for civil infrastructures in Mainland China,
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Structural
Health Monitoring and Intelligent Infrastructure, Tokyo, Japan,
pp. 131144.
Rabinovich, V.L. and Sarin, V.K. (1996). Modelling of interfacial
fracture, Materials Science and Engineering: A, Vol. 209, No. 1,
pp. 8290.
739
Accurate Stress Analysis on Steel Box Girder of Long Span Suspension Bridges Based on Multi-Scale Submodeling Method
740
Copyright of Advances in Structural Engineering is the property of Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.