Chapter Skim View of:

Currently Skimming:

Pages 325-368

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 325... ... 326 Chapter 10 Flange/Deck Connection: Numerical Studies to Determine Forces to be Applied in Large-Scale Tests 10.1. Investigation of Maximum Forces in the Longitudinal Joints 10.1.1. Read the entire page →
From page 326... ... 327 8 84 176 Figure 10.1.1: Cross section of optimized DBT girder 10.1.2. Description of Bridge Parameters Table 10.1.2 summarizes the seven bridge models with different girder geometry and bridge skew developed for the parametric study. Read the entire page →
From page 327... ... 328 All seven bridges were simply supported. The use of diaphragms between adjacent girders, as shown in Figure 10.1.2, would decrease the load transferred across the longitudinal joint. Read the entire page →
From page 328... ... 329 All of the bridge models in Table 10.1.2 had the same bridge width of 40 ft; a modified version of bridge model B was later added to investigate the effect of bridge width. Figure 10.1.4-(a) Read the entire page →
From page 329... ... 330 (a) Bridge E (b) Read the entire page →
From page 330... ... 331 Figure 10.1.6: Dimensions and wheel weights of the HL-93 live load 10.1.4. Development of Finite Element Models Three-dimensional (3D) Read the entire page →
From page 331... ... 332 (a) Intermediate steel diaphragm (b) Read the entire page →
From page 332... ... 333 Different material properties were assigned to different bridge components. The Young's modulus for the stem of the girder including the bottom bulb and sub-flange was 4,769 ksi (based on 7 ksi compressive strength) Read the entire page →
From page 333... ... 334 The combination of design truck load and lane load was chosen to produce the maximum forces in the joint, the extreme condition of the design truck load with 14 ft between the middle wheel and rear wheel was applied in the study. Figure 10.1.9 shows the loading positions for the study of bending moment in Joint 1. Read the entire page →
From page 334... ... 335 Case (a) Read the entire page →
From page 335... ... 336 Case (a) Read the entire page →
From page 336... ... 337 Table 10.1.4: Forces in Joint 1 due to loads applied in accordance with Figure 10.1.10 Load Positions Forces in Joint 1 Corresponding Moment (kip-ft/ft) Maximum Shear (kip/ft) Read the entire page →
From page 337... ... 338 Case (a) Read the entire page →
From page 338... ... 339 Table 10.1.5: Forces in Joint 1 due to loads applied in accordance with Figure 10.1.11 Load Positions Forces in Joint 1 Maximum Moment (kip-ft/ft) Corresponding Shear (kip/ft) Read the entire page →
From page 339... ... 340 Case (a) Read the entire page →
From page 340... ... 341 the joint. In Figure 10.1.13-a, the tandem was located to produce maximum moment in the longitudinal direction of the bridge, while in the transverse direction, the center of left wheels of the tandem was located directly on top of Joint 1. Read the entire page →
From page 341... ... 342 (a) : Maximum Moment (b) Read the entire page →
From page 342... ... 343 10.1.5.2. Effect of Bridge Width Figure 10.1.14 shows the effect of the bridge width on the maximum negative moment in Joint 2 of bridge model B Read the entire page →
From page 343... ... 344 As shown in Table 10.1.7, it appeared that the maximum negative moment increased with the increase in distance between the two loadings in the transverse direction such that a larger negative moment would be expected to be produced in a wider bridge. In order to study the impact of bridge width on the negative moment, a "modified bridge B" (adding one more girder) Read the entire page →
From page 344... ... 345 Table 10.1.8: Negative moment in Joints 2 and 3 due to loads applied in accordance with Figure 10.1.16 Modified Bridge B Maximum Negative Moment (kip-ft/ft) Joint 2 -0.67 Joint 3 -0.87 The maximum negative moment in modified bridge model B, given in Table 10.1.8, was less than that of bridge model B, given in Table 10.1.7. Read the entire page →
From page 345... ... 346 loading combinations both for the long-span bridge (bridge model A) and the short-span bridge (bridge model B) Read the entire page →
From page 346... ... 347 (a) Moment (b) Read the entire page →
From page 347... ... 348 (a) Positive Moment (b) Read the entire page →
From page 348... ... 349 It can be seen that the girder span had some effect on the maximum positive moment in the joint. The longer span produced larger positive moments. Read the entire page →
From page 349... ... 350 (a) Positive Moment (b) Read the entire page →
From page 350... ... 351 The girder depth had an influence on the maximum forces in both joints. The influence was found to be larger on the moment than on the shear. Read the entire page →
From page 351... ... 352 (a) Positive Moment (b) Read the entire page →
From page 352... ... 353 10.1.5.7. Effect of Bridge Skew The effect of bridge skew on the maximum forces in the joints was studied using bridge models D through G (Figure 10.1.22) Read the entire page →
From page 353... ... 354 (a) Positive Moment (b) Read the entire page →
From page 354... ... 355 10.1.5.8. Single-lane Loading versus Multi-lane Loading Figure 10.1.23 compares the effect of the number of loaded lanes on the maximum forces in the joints among the bridge models. Read the entire page →
From page 355... ... 356 Table 10.1.10 to Table 10.1.14 summarize the maximum forces in the joints of the seven bridge models under different loading locations. Table 10.1.10 to Table 10.1.13 include the maximum positive moment (M) Read the entire page →
From page 356... ... 357 Table 10.1.12: Maximum positive moment (+Moment) and shear in Joint 1 under multi-lane loading Bridge Models Maximum +Moment Maximum Shear M (kip-ft/ft) Read the entire page →
From page 357... ... 358 Table 10.1.14: Maximum negative moment in Joints 1 and 2 under multi-lane loading Bridge Models Joint 1 (kip-ft /ft) Joint 2 (kip-ft/ft) Read the entire page →
From page 358... ... 359 (a) Loading for the Maximum Positive Moment (b) Read the entire page →
From page 359... ... 360 (a) Moment (b) Read the entire page →
From page 360... ... 361 longitudinal joint under live load HL-93 were expected to be 4.55 kip-ft/ft, -1.40 kip-ft/ft and 5.34 kip/ft respectively. The corresponding moment (CM) Read the entire page →
From page 361... ... 362 10.2. Maximum Forces in the Transverse Joints The decked bulb-T girder family was chosen for the study of the live load forces in the transverse joint. Read the entire page →
From page 362... ... 363 Table 10.2.1: Negative moment over piers in bridge models Bridge Model Bridge System Span (ft) Moment (kip-ft) Read the entire page →
From page 363... ... 364 Table 10.2.2: Moment over piers in bridge models with DBT65 Bridge System DBT 65 Span (ft) Moment (kip-ft) Read the entire page →
From page 365... ... 366 The maximum moment in the transverse joint over the interior piers with girder section BT72 due to the HL93 service live load was determined as: negative design load: M=-(0.9) Read the entire page →
From page 366... ... 367 The parameters were determined as follows for the DBT65: S = 8 ft W = 40 ft NL= 3 L = 84 ft to 176 ft µ = 0.18 I = 835069 in.4 J = 190789 in.4 16.5 190789 835069) Read the entire page →
From page 367... ... 368 load, respectively. The negative design stress (-1.06 ksi) Read the entire page →
From page 368... ... 369 8. The maximum forces in the joints decreased after the joint cracking. Read the entire page →

From page 325...

... 326 Chapter 10 Flange/Deck Connection: Numerical Studies to Determine Forces to be Applied in Large-Scale Tests 10.1. Investigation of Maximum Forces in the Longitudinal Joints 10.1.1.