gaya pengikat pada jembatan steel box girder atau boks girder baja

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 3

gaya pengikat pada jembatan steel box girder atau boks girder baja

© All Rights Reserved

- Design of RCC slabs
- Some Comments on Modelling Deep Excavation Problems With Plaxis
- Spreader Calculation (ISMC-200)
- Steel Structure
- light st3
- Industrial Buildings in Steel
- Design of Connections_R1
- jeas_1112_807
- Ce1302 Design of Rc Elements
- International Codes V8i
- PR AQ 08 Aqueduct Pier
- InletFEGuide
- Effects of Climate and Climate Variations on Strength
- Curved Beams
- Bending Beam With Single Reinforcement
- Influence of the Link Overstrength Factor on the Seismic Behaviour Of
- E3-BENDING TEST.doc
- Pilar Jem Bat and 25
- Steel Plate 2
- En 1994-1-1 Notation

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Kyungsik Kim1 and Chai H. Yoo, F.ASCE2

Abstract: Trapezoidal steel box girders 共also known as tub girders兲 may be at their critical stage during construction because the

noncomposite steel section must support both the wet concrete and the entire construction load. A lateral bracing system is usually

installed at the top flange level to form a quasi-closed box, thereby increasing the torsional stiffness during construction. Typical lateral

bracing includes a single-diagonal type 共SD type兲 and a crossed-diagonal type 共XD type兲. The brace forces in box girders with XD type

lateral bracing systems can now be estimated with good accuracy. In some horizontally curved box girders with SD-type systems,

substantial axial forces, possibly up to 35% of the total force, are developed in struts due to induced torsion and distortion, which are

neglected in previous studies. In this study, analytical equations were formulated to compute the brace forces developed in bracing

members by taking into account bending and torsional actions of tub girders with SD-type lateral bracing systems. Brace forces in both

diagonals and struts can be estimated by these new equations more accurately than with the previous procedures. Member forces due to

bending and torsion computed using the new equations were compared with those evaluated by three-dimensional finite element analyses,

and excellent correlation was found.

DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2006兲132:8共1212兲

CE Database subject headings: Box girders; Steel; Bracing; Stiffness.

Introduction zontal top truss, is usually installed at the top flange level to form

a quasi-closed section, thereby increasing the torsional stiffness

Steel box girder systems have long been preferred superstructure during transport, erection, and construction. Single-diagonal

types for both horizontally curved and straight bridges because of 共SD-type兲 or crossed-diagonal 共XD-type兲 bracing systems are

their structural and aesthetic advantages. A closed box girder in a typically used for a lateral bracing system and are shown in

completed bridge has a superb torsional stiffness that may be 100 Fig. 2. SD-type lateral bracing systems show a noteworthy char-

to more than 1,000 times that of a comparable I-girder 共Heins and acteristic behavior that is not exhibited in XD-type lateral bracing

Hall 1981兲. This large torsional stiffness makes box girders par- systems: Top flanges of box girders with SD types are subjected

ticularly well suited for horizontally curved box girder bridges, in to lateral bending, similar to that of continuous beams with inter-

which the bridge geometry may induce large torsional moments mittent supports, due to the interaction between top flanges and

in the girders. A typical box girder bridge system consists of one lateral bracing members. Since there are diagonals at both ends of

or more steel tub girders that act compositely with a cast-in-place a strut in an XD-type bracing, the strut forces do not cause lateral

concrete roadway deck. A schematic of a typical twin-girder bending in the flanges. Although rudimentary research results

bridge cross-section is shown in Fig. 1. have been reported 共Heins and Hall 1981; AASHTO 1993兲, Fan

Although the composite box section has a superb torsional and Helwig 共1999, 2002兲 are believed to be the first to make a

rigidity, the noncomposite steel section is critical when subjected significant contribution to our understanding of the mechanisms

to large torsional loading during the early stages of bridge con- involved in lateral bracing systems and internal cross frames.

struction prior to hardening of the concrete deck. The noncom- They successfully presented analytical methods that can be used

posite dead load stress may account for up to 60–70% of the total to estimate the brace forces in both SD-type and XD-type lateral

stress for a typical box girder bridge 共Topkaya and Williamson bracing systems of box girders subjected to vertical loads and/or

2003兲. A lateral bracing system, sometimes referred to as a hori- applied torque. According to the equations given by Fan and

Helwig 共1999兲, strut forces are assumed to be induced only by the

1

Research Engineer, GS Engineering & Construction, Seoul, Korea; bending of the box girder and its lateral force components due

formerly, Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Auburn Univ., to the inclined webs, regardless of whether it is an SD-type or

Auburn, AL 36849-5337. XD-type lateral bracing system. It is reasonable to assume that

2

Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL strut forces are induced only by the bending of the box girder and

36849-5337 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: chyoo@eng.auburn.edu its lateral force components in all XD-type lateral bracing sys-

Note. Associate Editor: Donald W. White. Discussion open until tems, but in the case of an SD-type lateral bracing system, a

January 1, 2007. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual considerable portion of the strut force developed is induced by the

papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must

torsional moment. In addition to the torsional effect, brace forces

be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper

was submitted for review and possible publication on February 24, 2004; in an SD-type system subjected to vertical bending can be more

approved on October 5, 2005. This paper is part of the Journal of Struc- exactly evaluated by considering a logical redistribution of lateral

tural Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 8, August 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN force components 共the bending effect兲. A detailed analysis of this

0733-9445/2006/8-1212–1222/$25.00. redistribution of lateral forces will be given later. In this study,

Fig. 1. Superstructure of tub girder bridge

mulated analytically. Brace forces in an SD-type system com-

puted using the new analytical equations were compared with

those obtained from three-dimensional finite element analyses Fig. 3. Forces affecting bracing members: 共a兲 longitudinal

共FEA兲, and an excellent correlation was found. components; 共b兲 lateral components

Background

Dtor,XD = ± = ± T 共2兲

formed using the equivalent plate method 共EPM兲 in which the 2 sin ␣ 4A0 sin ␣

lateral bracing system is transformed into a fictitious plate with a where Dtor,SD, Dtor,XD = diagonal forces due to applied torque in

uniform thickness. Kollbrunner and Basler 共1969兲 developed the SD type and XD type, respectively.

equations for the equivalent thickness of several types of bracing It should be noted, however, that both torsion and vertical

systems by evaluating the strain energy stored in the system. bending induce forces in the lateral bracing members. Diagonals

Dabrowski 共1968兲 presented similar equations to determine the in the lateral bracing system are subjected to the same total lon-

fictitious plate thickness based on the consistent deformation gitudinal deformation as the top flanges, as shown in Fig. 3共a兲. In

theory. The quasi-closed box theory, or EPM, allows the torsional addition, the lateral force component resulting from the inclined

properties of the tub girder to be approximated. The value of the webs also affects the brace forces in the lateral bracing system.

equivalent plate thickness is dependent on the bracing configura- The magnitude of the lateral force component can be evaluated

tion and cross-sectional areas of bracing members. The resulting from the equivalent moment induced by the applied load on the

shear flow in a closed section, q, is equal to T / 共2A0兲 where T and top flange, as shown in Fig. 3共b兲. Fan and Helwig 共1999兲 devel-

A0 are the torsional moment and the enclosed area of the box, oped equations to predict brace forces in both SD- and XD-type

respectively. The shear flow acting on the fictitious plate is then systems and proposed the following expressions for design

transformed to the axial forces acting on the diagonal members in purposes

the lateral bracing system as

Dtor,SD = ± = ± T 共1兲

sin ␣ 2A0 sin ␣

where D , S = respective total forces in the strut and diagonal;

Dbend,Sbend = respective forces in the strut and diagonal due to

bending of a box girder; Dlat,Slat = respective forces in the strut and

diagonal due to lateral force components; and Dtor = diagonal

force from the torsional moment, determined using the EPM

关Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲兴. In addition, Fan and Helwig 共1999兲 recom-

mended designing the strut to carry the entire lateral load compo-

nent, i.e., Slat = swlat and Dlat = 0, where s = spacing between struts;

and wlat = lateral force component. This is essentially tantamount

to stating that the entire lateral force is carried by the struts alone,

and the torsional moment induces no forces in the struts at all. It

has been observed that there can be up to a 30% discrepancy

between the values predicted by Eq. 共4兲 and those from the FEA

in some box girder bridges 共Kim 2004兲. This lack of agreement

motivated the authors to undertake this research project.

Consider the three types of top flange lateral bracing systems

shown in Fig. 4. The box girder used in the example has a length

of 160 ft 共48.8 m兲 and is made up of 16 panels. Internal cross

frames are installed under every other strut location. Two differ-

Fig. 2. Lateral bracing system: 共a兲 SD type; 共b兲 XD type ent arrangements 共A and B兲 are considered in the SD-type lateral

out and the resulting data were incorporated into predictor equa-

tions for the determination of brace forces under a general

loading.

Inc. 2003兲, was used in the numerical analyses. The cross sections

of the box girders were built up with three-dimensional shell

elements 共S4R of ABAQUS兲. The S4R elements are four-node

doubly curved general-purpose shell elements characterized by

reduced integration with hourglass control. The solid diaphragms,

also modeled with S4R elements, were placed at both supports for

simply supported girders and also at the interior piers for three-

span continuous curved girders. The diagonals of the lateral brac-

ing system and the internal cross frames were modeled with

three-dimensional two-node truss elements 共T3D2 of ABAQUS兲.

A minimum of eight SR4 elements were used for each top flange

and ten SR4 elements were used to model the bottom flanges and

webs. Experience has shown that such grid refinement yields rea-

sonable accuracy for finite element numerical analyses of typical

tub girders. Both K- and X-shaped internal cross frames were

examined. Internal cross frames were placed at every other strut

location. In the case of K frames, the struts of the lateral bracing

system also acted as top transverse members of the internal K

Fig. 4. Top lateral bracing systems: 共a兲 SD-type A; 共b兲 SD-type B; frame. However, the strut force was computed from the lateral

共c兲 XD type; 共d兲 cross-sectional properties; 共e兲 applied torque; bracing system at this stage of evaluation as the additional force

and 共f兲 applied vertical load 共1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft= 0.305 m; component induced as part of the internal cross frame would be

1 k / ft= 14.6 kN/ m兲 added at a later stage. Space beam elements 共B31 of ABAQUS兲

were used for the struts simply to avoid instability, as an unstable

situation occurs at the K joint where two legs meet if four truss

bracing system. Fig. 4 shows lateral bracing systems 关SD types A elements are used to model a K frame. The rotational degree of

in Fig. 4共a兲 and B in Fig. 4共b兲, along with an XD type in freedom 共DOF兲 of the box was suppressed at the supports by

Fig. 4共c兲兴, in addition to the box girder dimensions, and bracing constraining vertical DOF of the nodes for the bottom corners of

members shown in Fig. 4共d兲. Applied torque and vertical loads the box cross section near the bearing device. Of these vertically

are illustrated in Figs. 4共e and f兲, respectively. constrained nodes, at least one horizontal DOF was also con-

Under torsional loading, the forces developed in the diagonals strained in order to prevent rigid body motion. As there is a solid

of all three types were in good agreement with the results from diaphragm installed at every support, this boundary condition is

Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲, as expected. For strut forces, however, a discern- believed to be equivalent to suppressing the rotational DOF of the

able difference was detected. Contrary to the suggestion by Fan box within the extent of ignoring the elastic deformation of the

and Helwig 共1999兲 in Eq. 共4兲, strut forces are developed under solid diaphragm itself. Linear elastic FEAs were carried out on

torsional loads in SD-type bracing, as shown in Fig. 5. Strut noncomposite steel structures using the mill specified modulus of

forces are induced in an SD-type bracing due to interactions be- elasticity and Poisson’s ratio for the construction steel of

tween the top flanges and bracing members. A detailed investiga- 29,000 ksi 共200 GPa兲 and 0.3, respectively.

tion of a box girder braced by an SD-type system has been carried

Fig. 5. Strut forces due to torsion 共1 kip= 4.45 kN兲 Helwig 2002兲

Fig. 9. Lateral force resultants from diagonal forces

attributable to the fact that there is no adjacent diagonal, as shown

Fig. 7. Axial deformation components: 共a兲 diagonals; 共b兲 struts in Fig. 9. For simplicity, consider top flanges and struts as a

separate two-dimensional structure in the horizontal plane, as

illustrated in Fig. 10共a兲. The two top parallel flanges may be

Bracing Member Forces due to Torsional Loads considered as beams connected to each other by the struts along

the span and the solid diaphragms at both ends. The net lateral

Fan and Helwig 共2002兲 studied the distortion of trapezoidal box loads induced from the diagonals acting on this simplified struc-

girders and separated the pure torsional components and distor- ture may be divided into two sets of force components, as shown

tional components from the applied torque as shown in Fig. 6. in Figs. 10共b and c兲. The forces shown in Fig. 10共b兲 are carried

The same model box girders as those in Fig. 4 were analyzed. The entirely by the two top flanges, while the forces shown in

diagonal member forces in lateral bracing systems are affected by Fig. 10共c兲 are carried by the two top flanges and the struts. The

longitudinal deformations of the top flanges and their lateral dis- net forces applied in the adjacent repeating panels and the corre-

placements as shown in Fig. 7共a兲. For the strut member, however, sponding deformation configurations are illustrated in Fig. 10共d兲.

lateral displacement components of the top flanges are a major Although DH is a function of torsional moment that varies along

parameter in the development of member forces as shown in

Fig. 7共b兲. Longitudinal deformations of the top flanges of a box

girder due to torsion alone are relatively small compared to those

due to vertical bending. Fig. 8 shows the relative lateral displace-

ments between two top flanges, defined as vA − vB as shown in

Fig. 7共b兲. The lateral force components, DH, shown in Fig. 9, the

vector sums of the two adjacent diagonal forces at each diagonal-

strut junction, are expressed as

DH = 共D− + D+兲sin ␣ 共5兲

− +

where D ,D = torsion-induced axial forces in two consecutive di-

agonals. It should be noted that D− and D+ are functions of the

torsional moment along the box girder and in opposite signs in

two adjacent bays in the case of an SD-type bracing system. It is

seen from Fig. 8 that the maximum differential lateral displace-

Fig. 10. Lateral forces from diagonals: 共a兲 lateral forces; 共b兲 lateral

Fig. 8. Differential lateral displacements of top flanges due to torsion force affecting lateral bending; 共c兲 lateral force affecting struts; and

and distortion 共1 in. = 25.4 mm兲 共d兲 deformation of two repeating adjacent panels

the net forces applied in the adjacent repeating panels and corre-

sponding deformation configurations are illustrated in Fig. 11共d兲.

Although KH is a function of bending and/or torsional moment

that varies along the girder length, bracing member forces can

also be approximated from the lateral forces that are assumed to

be the same in magnitude within two adjacent panels. Since the

lateral stiffness of the web is negligible 共Kim 2004兲, individual

top flanges should be in equilibrium in the horizontal plane by

three brace force components only. Thus, summing the three

brace force resultants acting on one flange in Fig. 11共e兲 yields

where Sdist, Ddist = forces in struts and diagonals due to distortion.

Forces in diagonal members can be determined by their elonga-

tions and force-deformation relationships represented by Hooke’s

law. The elongation of the diagonal member, ␦D, shown in Fig. 7,

is given by

where v1 = relative displacement of the top flange in the lateral

direction as shown in Fig. 11共d兲; and v2 = axial elongation of the

strut; u = relative displacement of panel point in the longitudinal

direction. It is noted that the relative displacement, u, in the lon-

gitudinal direction of each panel point is not significant due to

torsion, thus neglected. Each top flange is assumed to bend in a

manner similar to a continuous beam between panel points, as

shown in Fig. 11共d兲. The interface forces between the top flange

Fig. 11. Lateral forces from cross-frames: 共a兲 lateral forces; 共b兲 and bracing assemblies are shown in Fig. 11共e兲. The relative

lateral force affecting lateral bending; 共c兲 lateral force affecting lateral deflection between two consecutive panel points, v1, is

bracing members; 共d兲 deformation of two repeating adjacent panels; computed to be

and 共e兲 interface forces

the girder length, strut forces are approximated from lateral forces

v1 =

共2s兲3 KH

192EI f 2

冉+ Sdist 冊 共10兲

that are assumed to be the same in magnitude in two adjacent

panels, a reasonable approximation as any difference will be where E = modulus of elasticity. Similarly, elongations of the strut,

small. The force developed in the strut member can be expressed v2, and the diagonal, ␦D, are given by

共Kim 2004兲 by examining the equilibrium of forces illustrated in

Fig. 10共d兲. bSdist

v2 = 共11兲

EAS

共2s兲3

192I f

冉 冊

Stor = DH 共6兲 LDDdist

b 共2s兲3 ␦D = 共12兲

+ EAD

2AS 192I f

where Stor = strut force due to pure torsional component; where AS,AD = cross-sectional area of the strut and diagonal,

I f = second moment of inertia of one top flange about z axis; respectively; and LD = length of the diagonal. Substituting

AS = cross-sectional area of a strut; and s = spacing between struts. Eqs. 共10兲–共12兲 into Eq. 共9兲 and solving Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲 simulta-

Axial forces are also developed in struts due to distortional neously for Ddist yields

components, as illustrated in Fig. 8. Diagonal members of internal

cross-frames resist distortional deformations of the box cross sec- ADASs3 sin ␣

tion and consequently the resulting member forces are transferred Ddist = ± KH

48ASLDI f + 2ASADs3 sin2 ␣ + 48ADbI f sin2 ␣

to lateral bracing, as illustrated in Fig. 11共a兲. The magnitude of

the horizontal force components, KH, can be evaluated approxi- 共13兲

mately by multiplying horizontal forces from distortional compo- where the positive sign denotes SD-type A and the negative sign

nents, denoted as qH,dist in Fig. 6, by the internal cross-frame SD-type B. Equation 共13兲 was derived to compute the lateral di-

spacing, 2s, which yields 共Fan and Helwig 2002兲 agonal member force in a simple-span box girder, but it can also

KH = 2sqH,dist = 冉

s M a

− ew

2h R b

冊 共7兲

be extended to continuous girders. However, care must be exer-

cised near interior supports where solid diaphragms are installed

and it is recommended that forces in the lateral diagonal due to

Duplicating the procedure used in the development of forces in distortion be neglected at the panels immediately adjacent to in-

struts due to pure torsional components illustrated in Fig. 10共a兲, terior solid diaphragms.

3. The webs have negligible lateral resistance against lateral

bending of the top flanges. This assumption was verified by

analyzing a number of examples of hypothetical box girders,

where the web contribution to resisting top flange lateral

bending was less than 3% 共Kim 2004兲.

The first assumption has an important implication for the behavior

of box girders with SD-type lateral bracing systems. If internal

cross frames are installed at every strut location, the lateral brac-

ing system and internal cross-frames interact substantially differ-

ently from those described in this study, and it is expected that

this complex behavior will be the subject of further study. Fan

and Helwig 共1999兲 successfully derived equations to predict the

brace forces induced by longitudinal stresses on the top flanges as

shown in Fig. 3共a兲. Although Fan and Helwig 共1999兲 recom-

mended that, for simplicity, the strut be assumed to carry the

entire lateral force components, a logical redistribution of lateral

force components to both struts and diagonals leads to a more

accurate estimation of the brace forces.

Consider an SD-type lateral bracing system subjected to lateral

force components, as shown in Fig. 3共b兲. The interactive forces

between the top flanges and lateral bracing members are shown in

Fig. 12. Interactive forces QA and QB can be determined from

simple equilibrium considerations

QA + QB = 2swlat 共14兲

Fig. 12. Interface forces due to lateral force components 共wlat兲

Bracing Member Forces due to Vertical Bending

QB = Slat 共16兲

Equations for forces in SD-type lateral bracing members due to

vertical bending in a tub girder may be derived based on the where s = spacing between struts; and Dlat,Slat = forces in the diag-

following assumptions: onal and strut due to lateral force components, respectively. Sub-

1. Internal cross frames are assumed to be installed at every stituting Eqs. 共15兲 and 共16兲 into Eq. 共14兲 and rearranging yields

other strut location.

2. Longitudinal and lateral force components acting on top Slat = swlat − Dlat sin ␣ 共17兲

flange and bracing system of a box girder subjected to verti-

cal bending are considered separately as shown in Figs. 3共a The induced lateral force component due to inclined webs causes

and b兲. the top flange to bend in a manner similar to that seen in a con-

tinuous beam between panel points. As shown in Fig. 13, the

relative lateral deflection between two adjacent panel points, v1, is

determined by superimposing the deflections due to the distrib-

uted lateral force components, wlat, and the concentrated load, QA

wlat共2s兲4 QA共2s兲3

v1 = − 共18兲

384EI f 192EI f

The elongations of the strut, v2, and the diagonal, ␦D, are

Slatb

v2 = 共19兲

EAS

DlatLD

␦D = 共20兲

EAD

Substituting Eqs. 共18兲–共20兲 into Eq. 共9兲 and solving for Dlat yields

the following expression for the diagonal member force induced

by lateral loading

Fig. 13. Lateral displacements of top flanges due to lateral force 24ADbsI f sin ␣

components 共wlat兲 Dlat = wlat 共21兲

24ASLDI f + AD共ASs3 + 24bI f 兲sin2 ␣

Table 1. Diagonal Forces Three-Span Continuous Horizontally Curved Girder 共kips兲

Proposed equations

Panel Difference

number Dbend Dlat Dtor Ddist Sum FEA 共%兲

1 −1.78 0.83 −33.82 −0.32 −35.09 −33.36 5.2

2 −4.90 0.83 30.91 −0.88 25.97 24.93 4.2

3 −7.29 0.83 −25.66 −1.31 −33.42 −31.93 4.7

4 −8.96 0.83 18.68 −1.60 8.96 8.29 8.1

5 −9.90 0.83 −10.60 −1.77 −21.44 −19.62 9.3

6 −10.13 0.83 2.01 −1.81 −9.09 −10.11 −10.1

7 −9.63 0.83 6.45 −1.72 −4.07 −2.17 87.3

8 −8.40 0.83 −14.18 −1.51 −23.26 −24.37 −4.6

9 −6.46 0.83 20.58 −1.16 13.80 15.47 −10.8

10 −3.79 0.83 −25.01 −0.68 −28.64 −29.78 −3.8

11 −0.40 0.83 26.86 −0.07 27.22 28.69 −5.1

12 3.51 1.07 −25.54 0.57 −20.39 −22.38 −8.9

13 8.08 1.07 20.41 1.31 30.86 33.20 −7.0

14 13.33 1.07 −10.87 2.16 5.69 3.77 50.9

15 16.97 1.32 −3.68 2.57 17.17 18.26 −6.0

16 22.79 1.32 23.87 47.98 45.25 6.0

Diaphragm

17 22.70 1.32 5.97 29.99 28.69 4.5

18 16.69 1.32 14.02 2.52 34.55 34.15 1.2

19 12.80 1.07 −28.19 2.07 −12.25 −13.94 −12.1

20 7.33 1.07 37.15 1.19 46.74 47.59 −1.8

21 2.55 1.07 −41.50 0.41 −37.47 −37.99 −1.4

22 −1.64 0.83 41.88 −0.29 40.78 40.74 0.10

23 −5.26 0.83 −38.87 −0.94 −44.24 −43.87 0.8

24 −8.15 0.83 33.10 −1.46 24.32 24.57 −1.0

25 −10.32 0.83 −25.18 −1.85 −36.52 −36.11 1.1

26 −11.77 0.83 15.72 −2.11 2.67 3.15 −15.0

27 −12.49 0.83 −5.34 −2.24 −19.24 −18.77 2.5

Symm.

Note: 1 kip= 4.45 kN.

Ddist = ± KH

48ASLDI f + 2ASADs3 sin2 ␣ + 48ADbI f sin2 ␣

Forces in diagonals, D, and struts, S, in the SD-type lateral

bracing system due to vertical bending and torsional loading are 共27兲

summarized as follows:

where subscripts bend, lat, tor, and dist denote the brace forces

induced by vertical bending, lateral load, pure torsion, and distor-

tion, respectively. They are

f xTops cos ␣

Dbend = 共24兲

LD b s3

+ sin2 ␣ +

AD AS 24I f

where f xTop = longitudinal stress in the middle of the top flange

24ADbsI f sin ␣

Dlat = wlat 共25兲

24ASLDI f + AD共ASs3 + 24bI f 兲sin2 ␣

Dtor = ± T 共26兲 torsion 共1 kip= 4.45 kN兲

2A0 sin ␣

Fig. 15. Comparison of strut forces in straight girder due to torsion

共1 kip= 4.45 kN兲

Fig. 17. Three-span continuous horizontally curved tub girder

共2s兲3 共1 ft= 0.305 m; 1 in. = 25.4 mm兲

192I f

冉 冊

Stor = DH 共30兲

b 共2s兲3

+ tems as shown in Figs. 4共a and b兲. The box girder properties and

2AS 192I f

vertical and torsional loading are given in Fig. 4. Fig. 14 com-

and pares forces in the diagonals determined by Eq. 共22兲 with results

from the FEA. The strut forces computed from Eq. 共23兲 are com-

Sdist = − Ddist sin ␣ 共31兲

pared with those obtained from the finite element analysis in

Equations 共24兲, 共26兲, and 共28兲 were adopted from Fan and Helwig Fig. 15. Excellent agreement is evident between proposed equa-

共1999兲. It should be noted that all force components are functions tions and FEA for strut forces. As indicated in Eq. 共4兲, Fan and

of bending and/or torsional moments. Although Dlat and Ddist are Helwig 共1999兲 assumed torsional loads not cause any strut forces.

fairly small except near interior supports, it is the authors’ opinion Axial forces in the SD-type lateral bracing members of the

that force components that approach 20% of the other major straight box girders shown in Fig. 4 subjected to vertical bending

forces must not be ignored. A detailed quantitative comparison of are comparatively shown in Fig. 16. Note that the forces deter-

each contribution is given in Table 1. mined from Eqs. 共22兲 and 共23兲 are only 6% greater than those

In the case of nonprismatic flanges, the flange second moment obtained from FEA, while the values computed from Fan and

of inertia with respect to a vertical axis passing the centroid of the Helwig 共1999兲 estimate brace forces 14% greater than those from

flange may be determined by taking a weighted average moment FEA at the mid-span. This improvement is believed to be due to a

of inertia reflecting the transition length ratio within the panel. logical redistribution of the lateral force components due to ver-

tical bending to both the struts and diagonals.

The lateral bracing forces computed from Eqs. 共22兲 and 共23兲 were

compared with the results from FEAs of a simply supported

straight box girder with two different types of lateral bracing sys-

Fig. 16. Forces in bracing members in straight girder due to vertical Fig. 18. Bending and torsional moment diagrams of three-span

bending 共1 kip= 4.45 kN兲 continuous horizontally curved girder 共1 k ft= 1.356 kN m兲

Table 2. Strut Forces Three-Span Continuous Horizontally Curved Girder 共kips兲

Proposed equations

Strut Difference

number Sbend Slat Stor Sdist Sum FEA 共%兲

1 2.36 3.54 0.93 0.35 7.17 7.72 −7.1

2 4.31 3.54 −1.68 0.63 6.80 6.81 −0.1

3 5.74 3.54 2.22 0.85 12.35 12.06 2.4

4 6.67 3.54 −2.58 0.98 8.61 9.01 −4.5

5 7.08 3.54 2.74 1.04 14.40 14.02 2.7

6 6.98 3.54 −2.70 1.03 8.85 9.42 −6.0

7 6.37 3.54 2.47 0.94 13.32 12.96 2.7

8 5.25 3.54 −2.04 0.77 7.52 7.89 −4.6

9 3.62 3.54 1.41 0.53 9.11 8.87 2.6

10 1.48 3.54 −0.59 0.22 4.65 4.46 4.3

11 −1.10 3.45 −0.42 −0.14 1.79 2.01 −11.1

12 −4.10 3.37 1.56 −0.55 0.29 −0.56 −48.3

13 −7.57 3.37 −2.90 −1.01 −8.11 −7.47 8.6

14 −10.71 3.28 4.43 −1.37 −4.38 −5.78 −24.3

15 −14.06 3.19 −5.74 −0.75 −17.35 −16.06 8.1

Diaphragm

16 −13.93 3.19 −5.69 −0.73 −17.15 −15.85 8.2

17 −10.43 3.28 4.03 −1.34 −4.45 −5.55 −19.8

18 −7.12 3.37 −2.73 −0.95 −7.42 −6.80 9.2

19 −3.49 3.37 1.32 −0.47 0.73 −0.39 88.6

20 −0.32 3.45 −0.12 −0.03 2.98 3.19 −6.5

21 2.44 3.54 −0.96 0.36 5.38 5.36 0.3

22 4.74 3.54 1.84 0.70 10.82 10.54 2.6

23 6.53 3.54 −2.53 0.96 8.50 9.05 −6.1

24 7.81 3.54 3.02 1.15 15.51 15.10 2.7

25 8.58 3.54 −3.31 1.26 10.07 10.88 −7.5

26共Symm.兲 8.83 3.54 3.41 1.30 17.08 16.62 2.8

共Note: 1 kip= 4.45 kN兲.

The validity of the proposed formulation was also checked for vertical load of 3.3 k / ft 共48.18 kN/ m兲. Tables 1 and 2 compara-

the case of a three-span curved girder. Pertinent information on tively show forces in diagonals and struts in the lateral bracing

the dimensions and loading are given in Fig. 17. The box girder system of the three-span continuous model. As can be seen from

consists of three different types of cross sections, with different Table 1, the diagonal forces computed from Eq. 共22兲 are in fairly

plate thicknesses but the same heights and widths. X-shaped in- good agreement with those from the FEA. The greatest discrep-

ternal cross frames were installed at every other strut location. ancy occurs in the diagonals subjected to the lowest forces. As it

The lateral bracing system has a total of 54 panels 共16+ 22+ 16兲. is likely that the same member will be used for all the diagonals

Fig. 18 shows bending and torsional moment diagrams for the in a bracing system, this discrepancy in the diagonals subjected to

three-span continuous horizontally curved girder subjected to a the lowest forces appears to be nonconsequential. Strut forces

Fig. 19. Diagonal forces in lateral bracing system of three-span Fig. 20. Strut forces in lateral bracing system of three-span

continuous horizontally curved girder 共1 kip= 4.45 kN兲 continuous horizontally curved girder 共1 kip= 4.45 kN兲

determined from Eq. 共23兲, shown in Table 2, compare very well implied in this paper are those of the authors. They are not nec-

with those from the FEA. Again, the greatest discrepancy occurs essarily those of the funding agencies.

in the struts subjected to the lowest forces, and thus once more

appears to be nonconsequential. The forces in the diagonals and

struts of the lateral bracing system of the model given in Fig. 17 Notation

computed analytically from Eqs. 共22兲 and 共23兲, along with the

The following symbols are used in this paper:

values obtained using the equations presented by Fan and Helwig

共1999兲, are comparatively shown in Figs. 19 and 20 and com- A0 ⫽ enclosed area of the box cross section;

pared with those from the FEA. As the diagonal forces due to AD ⫽ cross-sectional area of diagonal in lateral

lateral load components and distortion that were neglected in Fan bracing;

and Helwig 共1999兲 are relatively small, significant differences AS ⫽ cross-sectional area of strut in lateral bracing;

between the two analytically determined values were not antici- a ⫽ web spacing of trapezoidal box girder at bottom

pated and Fig. 19 confirms this. In the case of strut forces, how- flange;

ever, significant discrepancies are evident in Fig. 20 between the b ⫽ web spacing of trapezoidal box girder at top

two analytically determined values. Fan and Helwig 共1999兲 un- flange;

derestimate the maximum strut forces by 38% at the interior pier D ⫽ total diagonal force in lateral bracing;

and 22% at the maximum positive bending moment location. Un- D− , D+ ⫽ Dtor in two repeating adjacent panels of lateral

like the case of the diagonals, this discrepancy deserves judicious bracing;

attention as the strut forces predicted by Fan and Helwig 共1999兲 Dbend ⫽ diagonal force due to vertical bending;

are on the unconservative side. The reason for this lack of agree- Ddist ⫽ diagonal force due to distortion;

ment may be attributable to the fact that Fan and Helwig 共1999兲 DH ⫽ horizontal force component transferred from Dtor;

neglected to account for the force components due to torsion Dlat ⫽ diagonal force due to lateral force component;

and/or distortion in the determination of strut forces. Dtor ⫽ diagonal force due to torsion;

E ⫽ modulus of elasticity;

e ⫽ eccentricity of vertical load relative to box girder

centroid;

Concluding Remarks f xTop ⫽ longitudinal stress in the middle of top flange;

h ⫽ box girder depth;

New equations to estimate the forces in diagonals and struts in a I f ⫽ second moment of inertia of top flange with

lateral bracing system of tub girders have been suggested in re- respect to the vertical centroidal axis;

cent years. It has been observed, however, that there are signifi- KH ⫽ horizontal force component transferred from

cant discrepancies between the member forces computed from internal cross-frames;

these equations and those obtained from FEA in box girders with M ⫽ bending moment;

an SD-type lateral bracing system. Forces in both the struts and LD ⫽ length of diagonal in lateral bracing;

diagonals in SD-type bracing are affected by the longitudinal de- LS ⫽ length of strut in lateral bracing;

formations and lateral displacements of the top flanges. Longitu- QA, QB ⫽ interactive forces between the top flange and

dinal deformations are primarily due to vertical bending, while bracing members;

lateral displacements are caused by vertical bending, lateral force q ⫽ shear flow in a closed section;

components due to inclined webs, torsion, and distortion. The R ⫽ radius of curvature of the girder;

strut forces in an XD-type bracing induced by torsion are very S ⫽ total strut member force;

small compared with those developed in an SD-type bracing be- Sbend ⫽ strut force due to vertical bending;

cause of the self-equilibrating nature of the crossed diagonals Sdist ⫽ strut force due to distortion;

within a panel. Although the major portion of the strut forces is Slat ⫽ strut force due to lateral force components;

caused by vertical bending and lateral force components, torsion Stor ⫽ strut force due to pure torsion;

and distortion may contribute up to 35% of the strut force in a s ⫽ spacing between struts;

typical horizontally curved continuous tub girder. Note that the T ⫽ torsional moment;

lateral bracing system in composite tub girders is only required to u ⫽ displacement in longitudinal direction;

accommodate the load during the construction. Once the concrete v ⫽ displacement in lateral direction;

roadway deck is completely hardened, the composite concrete v1 ⫽ relative displacement of top flange in lateral

deck takes over the structural function provided by the lateral direction;

bracing system. Although the bracing system is of a temporary v2 ⫽ axial elongation of strut;

nature, there has been a reported case of failure of the lateral w ⫽ uniformly distributed vertical load;

bracing during construction 共Chen 2002兲. These temporary, yet wlat ⫽ lateral force component;

important, primary load carrying bracing members can now be ␣ ⫽ horizontal angle between diagonal and top

designed based on more accurate predictions. flange;

␦D ⫽ axial elongation of lateral diagonal; and

⫽ vertical angle of inclination web of trapezoidal

box girder.

Acknowledgments

The work presented in this paper was supported in part by the References

Huff Eminent Scholar fund and Alabama Department of Trans-

portation Project No. 930-563. These financial supports are grate- ABAQUS, Inc. 共2003兲. ABAQUS analysis user’s manual: Version 6.4,

fully acknowledged. The opinions and conclusions expressed or Pawtucket, R.I.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials flange bracing.” J. Struct. Eng., 125共8兲, 829–837.

共AASHTO兲. 共1993兲. Guide specifications for horizontally curved Heins, C. P., and Hall, D. H. 共1981兲. Designer’s guide to steel box girder

highway bridges, Washington, D.C. bridges, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem, Pa.

Chen, B. S. 共2002兲. “Top-lateral bracing systems for trapezoidal steel

Kim, K. 共2004兲. “Research on horizontally curved steel box girders.”

box-girder bridges.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Texas at Austin.

Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn Univ., Alabama.

Dabrowski, R. 共1968兲. Curved thin-walled girders: Theory and analysis,

Kollbrunner, C. F., and Basler, K. 共1969兲. Torsion in structures: An en-

Cement and Concrete Association, London, 共translated from the Ger-

man original兲. gineering approach, Springer, New York.

Fan, Z., and Helwig, T. A. 共2002兲. “Distortional loads and brace forces in Topkaya, C., and Williamson, E. B. 共2003兲. “Development of computa-

steel box girders.” J. Struct. Eng., 128共6兲, 710–718. tional software for analysis of curved girders under construction

Fan, Z., and Helwig, T. A. 共1999兲. “Behavior of steel box girders with top loads.” Comput. Struct., 81, 2087–2098.

- Design of RCC slabsЗагружено:prashmce
- Some Comments on Modelling Deep Excavation Problems With PlaxisЗагружено:abfso5010
- Spreader Calculation (ISMC-200)Загружено:mechmohan26
- Steel StructureЗагружено:ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ
- light st3Загружено:scrib
- Industrial Buildings in SteelЗагружено:Adrian Mathe
- Design of Connections_R1Загружено:Marshelius Theo Inginieur
- jeas_1112_807Загружено:rpkodam
- Ce1302 Design of Rc ElementsЗагружено:js kalyana rama
- International Codes V8iЗагружено:rslisbon
- PR AQ 08 Aqueduct PierЗагружено:nasarita
- InletFEGuideЗагружено:Ramesha Aswathanarayanappa
- Effects of Climate and Climate Variations on StrengthЗагружено:chechumenendez
- Curved BeamsЗагружено:ibrahimugrl
- Bending Beam With Single ReinforcementЗагружено:Anonymous nQ9Rqm
- Influence of the Link Overstrength Factor on the Seismic Behaviour OfЗагружено:okt_lya
- E3-BENDING TEST.docЗагружено:Lakshwanath Jaganath
- Pilar Jem Bat and 25Загружено:Adi Deck
- Steel Plate 2Загружено:Rollen de Leon
- En 1994-1-1 NotationЗагружено:Paul Devine
- Beam With 4 Point LoadingЗагружено:dgmprabhakar
- Arch Bridge Ultra High ProЗагружено:Dhananjay Kumar
- Night School 15 Session 2Загружено:LCS
- SI-10-2015Загружено:Andres Casado
- Chapter-4 Deflection and StiffnessЗагружено:Dhineshkumar Murugan
- A Simple Compliance Modeling Method for Flexure HingesЗагружено:Brian Freeman
- Strength and Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams in Torsion and Bending.pdfЗагружено:R T.I
- x23design.pdfЗагружено:steverich2k6
- ASCEЗагружено:abdul khader
- jurnalЗагружено:baharudin

- volume03.pdfЗагружено:mt
- UT Bridge Update List.pdfЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- Live-Load Test and Finite-Element Model Analysis of a Steel Girder BridgeЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- MDOT_2009__InterimBridgeAnalysisGuide_Part1_274530_7.pdfЗагружено:J Guerhard Guerhard
- Behaviour of Steel and (or) Composite Girders With Corrugated Steel WebsЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- A Study on Application of Mixed Girder in Steel Box Girder Bridge.pdfЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- A Shear Lag Analysis for Composite Box Girders With Deformable Connectors - V. KřístekЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- 48_Konstruksi Beton PratekanЗагружено:Fahmi Fadhilah
- Analisa Sifat Kekerasan Baja St-42 Dengan PengaruhЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- Development of Cylindrical Shear Connector Inserted in Perforated Steel Plate and Apply to the Hybrid StructureЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- information and pool_etabs_manuals_english_E-TN-CBD-AISC-ASD89-012 (1).pdfЗагружено:Jose Luis Soto Petralanda
- Design Guidelines For Steel Trapezoidal Box Girder Systems 0_4307_1.pdfЗагружено:gundulp
- Final Report Analysis of Curved Weathering Steel Box GirderЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- Design Optimization of Composite Steel Box Girder in FlexureЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- Effect of Stiffeners on Shear Lag in Steel Box GirdersЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- Steel Box Girder Load Rating for ODOTЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- Box GirderЗагружено:John Wong
- Phd Steel Box ThesisЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- Behavior of Steel Box Girders With Top Flange BracingЗагружено:erky arkvathonejh
- Design Recommendations for Steel Deck Floor SlabsЗагружено:wayzane

- H.K. Moffatt- G.K. Batchelor and the Homogenization of TurbulenceЗагружено:Vortices3443
- API 570 DEC 2009 Closed-1Загружено:aasatti
- T820456_ENЗагружено:Anonymous Wu6FDjb
- Fundamentals Concept of ThermodynamicsЗагружено:naza83
- Syllabus-Concrete & Structural AnalysisЗагружено:Vivek Thakur Sujanian
- How to Calculate a Single CycleЗагружено:Halil İbrahim Küplü
- CHEMU2JAN2003Загружено:api-3726022
- Dam Stability AnalysisЗагружено:Sunita Chaurasia
- Chapter IЗагружено:Joseph D. Uy
- Secondary BondsЗагружено:shanecarl
- Thermal Energy (Physics Factsheet)Загружено:Utsav Dhakal
- MAHESH RES Fully UpadatedЗагружено:Ganesh M Surange
- Acoustics.docЗагружено:adarshareddy
- Verifying Coriolis Flowmeter Calibration DataЗагружено:Lucho Herrera
- HGU ManualЗагружено:Garvit Chopra
- NPSHЗагружено:dino
- Gradually Varied FlowЗагружено:montyaziz
- Up-Date TI 2017 Site AdaroЗагружено:Cavandra
- 06_NGubeljakЗагружено:vahid_shoeibi
- Gas Pipeline Hydraulic CourseЗагружено:karisnda
- What is the Momentum of a 23 Kg Cannon Shell Going 530 mЗагружено:Jillianne Enero
- The SyphonЗагружено:jagatish
- Taleem-e-pakistan.com-Physics MCQs for Class 12 With Answers Test 1Загружено:Muhammad Shahnawaz Munami
- Welding LecturesЗагружено:Şafakk Canıberkk
- MVPD Presentation - 28-1-2017Загружено:Guru Mishra
- Design, Construction and Testing of a Zeolite-water Solar Adsorption RefrigeratorЗагружено:techfi
- RechenbergЗагружено:Palosca
- Concentrator Lab (1)Загружено:Liven WenChuan Liu
- chapter 21 flashcardsЗагружено:api-252459984
- chapt9oldЗагружено:Halimah