Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Glenn F. Myers
Principal
Technical Professional
Transportation
Management
Atkins North America
Ali M. Ghalib
Senior Engineer
Transportation Design
and Planning Southern
States
Atkins North America
Introduction
for Bridge Temporary Works.3 Analysis for
constructability must consider component
dead loads, construction dead loads,
construction live loads, and wind loads.
The component and construction loads are
fairly easy to predict for the constructability
analysis, and assumptions are typically
noted in the contract plans. These loads
can be easily assessed and modified by
the contractor based on preferred means
and methods. Wind loads, however, are
environmentally based and must be carefully
considered for the different exposure
conditions that occur during construction.
The I-4/LRSEI (Figure 1) is in Tampa, Florida,
a hurricane wind zone area. This multilevel interchange is characterized by ramp
Structures
58
p = 0.00256 * Kz * Kzt * Kd * V 2 * I * G * Cp
(1)
where: p = Wind flow surface pressure (psf)
Kz = Velocity pressure exposure
coefficient (non dimensional)
Kzt = Topographic factor
(non dimensional)
Kd = Wind directionality factor
(non dimensional)
I = Importance factor
(non dimensional)
G = Gust effect factor
(non dimensional)
Cp = Drag coefficient
(non dimensional)
Figure 1. Interstate 4/Lee Roy Selmon Expressway Interchange
59
Topographic factor
The topographic factor accounts for wind
speed-up at embankments (escarpments).
This factor was analyzed as inconsequential
to the development of wind pressures for
the constructed bridge and will not be
considered in the constructability analysis.
Importance factor
AASHTO does not currently apply an
importance factor to wind, although they
do establish essential and critical structures
for probability-based seismic design and
vessel impact design. This factor will not be
considered in the constructability analysis.
Drag coefficient
The drag coefficient, Cp, is a function
of many variables, the most important
of which are the yaw angle of attack
(horizontal angle of wind) and aspect ratio
(ratio of height to width of structure). For
box or I-girder superstructures and solid
piers with wind acting at zero yaw angle,
Cp may vary between 1.2 and 2.0. A factor
of 1.50 for Cp is usually assumed for design
purposes for a fully constructed bridge.
For unusual exposure shapes, the drag
coefficient should be determined from
wind tunnel tests or by other analytical
means. Assuming the importance factor
and exposure coefficients are 1.0, a gust
factor of 1.3, a drag coefficient of 1.5,
and a wind velocity of 100 mph design
(fastest mile) wind velocity, the formula
above yields the 50 psf transverse wind load
currently prescribed in the various AASHTO
documents. Use of the velocity pressure
exposure coefficient of 1.5, previously
adopted for the taller structures within this
project, resulted in the recommendation to
use 75 psf for the design of the completed
bridge structures.
Much research has been performed over
the last 60 years in the field of aeroelastic
instability of long spans and their
supporting towers and cables, while the
performance of traditional shorter-span
Structures
60
Computational fluid
dynamic modeling
The use of CFD modeling software was
investigated to develop more reliable
information related to the drag, lift,
and torsional coefficients to be used in
the design. Of the many CFD software
packages available, Bentleys RM software
was chosen due to the simplicity of its
analysis on a two-dimensional crosssection.
CFD modeling was performed on the typical
steel skeletal frame cross-section shown in
Figure 4, and consisted of two steel box
girders, each 7 feet,11 inches deep,
11feet, 9 inches top of web spacing per
box, 24 feet, 0 inches center to center box
girder spacing, and an 8% superelevation.
Figure 7. Drag coefficients from the CFD analysis for open cross-section
Figure 8. Lift coefficients from the CFD analysis for open cross-section
Structure modeling
Analysis of the structural steel box girder
system was performed to determine the
impact of this higher lateral wind force.
A 3D finite element analysis (FEA) model
was prepared to simulate the two sample
bridge units, units 10-4 and 9-5. Unit 10-4
is modeled as a four equal continuous span,
curved, double steel box girder bridge unit.
The typical span length measured along
bridge centerline is 256 feet with a 665-foot
radius of curvature. Each span is divided into
16 equal bay units with inverted-K cross
frame assemblies and single diagonal lateral
bracing. Unit 9-5 is a four continuous span
curved bridge unit with a 149-foot, 199-foot,
220-foot, and 165-foot span configuration
with a radius of curvature transitioning from
a 1,700 feet to 818.5 feet at approximately
the third point of span 2. The interior and
exterior spans are divided into 20 and 16
bays, respectively, with a similar cross frame
and lateral bracing system as that of Unit
10-4. The box girder components comprising
the bottom flange, web plate, interior, and
end plate diaphragms are simulated using
quadrilateral four-noded shell elements. The
box girder two top flanges are modeled using
prismatic 3D frame elements of equivalent
Structures
Figure 10. Lift coefficients from the CFD analysis for enclosed cross-section
62
PSCREED
LFORM
SIP
SIP
F1
CL BRIDGE
WTBOX
WFALSE
TOH
WIND
WF
SIP
HAUNCH
F3
FORM
F
Wdrag
BRACE STRUT
M
Wuplift
PHI
F3
GRID MODEL
UPLIFT WIND
Figure 11. Distribution of non-composite and construction loads on the box girder
Applied loads
Several types of loads must be considered
for the analysis of the partially constructed
steel frame; these types include steel dead
load, construction dead and live load, noncomposite dead load, and wind load. These
loads are described below.
63
WHO
TS
SIP
DFORM
F2
WC / 2
HGIRDER
Wind load
The design wind pressure of a closed deck
bridge system for the bridge units is 75 psf.
An open deck bridge system wind pressure
of 125 psf (2.5/1.5 x 75 psf) was selected
throughout this study. Two wind load
conditions were examined:
Wind load acting on the outer web of
the outer girder and acting in a radial
direction toward the center of curvature
Wind load acting on the inner web
of the inner girder and acting in a
radial direction away from the center
of curvature
Load conditions
Five primary load conditions in accordance
with the AASHTO Guide Specifications for
Horizontally Curved Steel Girder Highway
Bridges were considered:
LC1: 1.4 Non-composite dead load + 1.4
construction live and dead load for the full
bridge unit (steel component stress check)
LC2: 1.4 steel dead load + 1.4 wind load
for the full bridge unit (steel component
stress check)
LC3: 0.9 steel dead load + 1.4 wind load
for the full bridge unit (reactions)
LC4: 1.4 steel dead load + 1.4 wind load
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0
20
40
80
100
120
140
120
140
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
GIRDER NODE
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00
GIRDER NODE
Structures
60
Figure 12. Unit 10-4 full bridge bottom and top flange edge bending stress distribution
64
Summary of results
20.00
10.00
0.00
0
20
40
80
100
120
140
120
140
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
GIRDER NODE
40.00
60
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00
GIRDER NODE
Figure 13. Unit 10-4 Bottom and top flange edge bending stress distribution. Comparison between full bridge vs. staged construction load cases
65
300.00
100.00
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-100.00
-200.00
-300.00
-400.00
GIRDER NODE
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-100.00
-200.00
-300.00
-400.00
GIRDER NODE
Structures
66
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
-20.00
-40.00
-60.00
-80.00
-100.00
Reactions
Girder reactions at the piers under load cases
LC3 and LC5 indicate that uplift is a concern
for the structural steel skeleton structure and
should be indicated as such in the plans.
These uplift forces will be extremely difficult
Conclusion
Appropriate drag coefficients are available
for completed bridges; however, drag
coefficients for partially constructed
superstructures are not readily available.
The results of the analysis provided herein
indicate the following:
References
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO Guide Specifications for Horizontally Curved Steel Girder
Highway Bridges, 2003.
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2007 Edition.
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO Guide Design Specifications for Bridge Temporary Works,
1995 with interims through 2008.
4. American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05, 2006.
5. American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-88, 1990.
6. Florida Department of Transportation Structures Design Guidelines, Florida Department of Transportation, January 2008.
7. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Task Committee on Wind Forces, Wind Forces on Structures, ASCE Transactions, 1962.
67