You are on page 1of 50

CECW-ED Department of the Army EM 1110-2-2105

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Engineer Washington, DC 20314-1000 31 March 1993
Manual
1110-2-2105
Engineering and Design

DESIGN OF HYDRAULIC STEEL
STRUCTURES

Distribution Restriction Statement
Approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EM 1110-2-2105
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Change 1
CECW-ED Washington, DC 20314-1000

Manual
No. 1110-2-2105 31 May 1994

Engineering and Design
DESIGN OF HYDRAULIC STEEL
STRUCTURES

1. This Change 1 to EM-1110-2-2105, 31 March 1993, updates Appendix H.

2. Substitute the attached pages as shown below:

Remove page Insert page

ii ii

A-1 and A-2 A-1 and A-2

H-1 H-1

3. File this change sheet in front of the publication for reference purposes.

FOR THE COMMANDER:

WILLIAM D. BROWN
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Chief of Staff

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EM 1110-2-2105
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CECW-ED Washington, DC 20314-1000

Manual
No. 1110-2-2105 31 March 1993

Engineering and Design
DESIGN OF HYDRAULIC STEEL
STRUCTURES

1. Purpose. This manual prescribes guidance for designing hydraulic steel structures (HSS) by load
and resistance factor design (LRFD) and guidance for fracture control. Allowable stress design (ASD)
guidance is provided as an alternative design procedure or for those structure types where LRFD
criteria have yet to be developed.

2. Applicability. This manual applies to HQUSACE/OCE elements, major subordinate commands,
districts, laboratories, and field operating activities having responsibility for design of civil works
projects.

FOR THE COMMANDER:

WILLIAM D. BROWN
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Chief of Staff

___________________________________________________________________________________
This manual supersedes EM 1110-1-2101, 1 November 1963, and ETL 1110-8-4(FR), 28 June 1991.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EM 1110-2-2105
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CECW-ED Washington, DC 20314-1000

Manual
No. 1110-2-2105 31 March 1993

Engineering and Design
DESIGN OF HYDRAULIC STEEL
STRUCTURES

Table of Contents

Subject Paragraph Page Subject Paragraph Page

Chapter 1 Commentary on Paragraph 3-4,
Introduction Reliability Factors for HSS . . . . . . . . 3-8 3-2
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1-1 Commentary on Paragraph 3-6, Fatigue
Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 1-1 and Fracture Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 3-3
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 1-1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 1-1 Chapter 4
Commentary on Paragraph 1-4, Allowable Stress Design
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 1-1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4-1
Design Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 4-1
Chapter 2 Load and Stress Requirements . . . . . . . 4-3 4-1
General Considerations HSS Types: Modifications for
Limit States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2-1 Allowable Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4-1
Corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2-1 Serviceability Requirements . . . . . . . . 4-5 4-1
Dynamic Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2-1 Fatigue and Fracture Control . . . . . . . . 4-6 4-1
Inspection and Maintenance . . . . . . . . 2-4 2-1 Commentary on Paragraph 4-3, Load and
Deviations from Prescribed Stress Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 4-2
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 2-1 Commentary on Paragraph 4-4, HSS Types:
Commentary on Paragraph 2-2, Modifications for Allowable
Corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2-1 Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 4-2
Commentary on Paragraph 2-3, Dynamic
Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 2-2 Chapter 5
Connections and Details
Chapter 3 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5-1
Load and Resistance Factor Design Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 5-1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3-1 Bolted Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5-1
Design Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3-1 Welded Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5-1
Strength Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3-1 Commentary on Paragraph 5-1,
Reliability Factors for HSS . . . . . . . . . 3-4 3-1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 5-1
Serviceability Requirements . . . . . . . . 3-5 3-1 Commentary on Paragraph 5-2,
Fatigue and Fracture Control . . . . . . . . 3-6 3-2 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 5-2
Commentary on Paragraph 3-2, Design
Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 3-2

i

EM 1110-2-2105
Change 1

31 May 94

Subject Paragraph Page Appendix E
Bulkheads and Stoplogs
Commentary on Paragraph 5-3, Bolted
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 5-2 Appendix F
Commentary on Paragraph 5-4, Welded Vertical Lift Gates (Lock and Crest)
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8 5-2
Appendix G
Appendix A Hydroelectric and Pumping Plants
References
* Appendix H
Appendix B Flood Closure Structures
Load and Resistance Factor Design
Criteria for Miter Gates Appendix I
Miscellaneous Hydraulic Steel Structures
Appendix C
Tainter Gates

Appendix D
Tainter Valves

ii

. . . . ... ... B-9 iii . Nomenclature and assumed load reactions . . B-12 end connections ... ... ... ... . . . .. Example miter leaf torsion loads . .... B-19 example miter gate . . .. . . . . B-14 B-4. . .. . B-11 B-2. . .. . B-5 B-8. ... Vertical cross section for B-10. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. Sample intercostal section . ... .. B-14 area for intercostal design . Point load impact for miter B-6.. .. .. . ... . ... Nomenclature for skin plate gate girders . .. .. . . . . .... B-8 B-5. . . Sample girder cross section . B-3 design . Girder hydrostatic loading and B-3. B-6 B-9. . Example miter gate loading . .. . . . ... . . . EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 List of Figures Figure Page Figure Page B-1.. . . . . . ... . .. . .. . Assumptions for intercostal B-7.... . . . . .

Instability. an a. Types of steels. tainter valves. impact. multiple load factors can be used to deflection of members shall be checked regardless of the reflect the degree of uncertainty for different loads (dead. In ries. Previously. simplicity of detail. and open-web steel joist construction shall This manual applies to HQUSACE/OCE elements. and stress. Design policy. fication writing committees. Designs for alumi- criteria have yet to be developed. etc.e. Due to these advantages of LRFD.). For design of a structure. corrosion. local buckling. service bridges and highway structures. and to achieve economy. LRFD and This manual prescribes guidance for (a) designing hydrau. wave action. tainter elastic analysis is performed for the structure of interest gates. fracture. References Historically. tances of structural members are random quantities. vertical lift and the computed stress is compared with an allowable gates. For this reason. order to obtain structures with a more uniform reliability HSS may be subject to submergence. design (ASD) guidance is provided as an alternative design procedure or for those structure types where LRFD d. railroad bridges and other railroad structures. divided by a single factor of safety (FS). stress. operating activities having responsibility for design of civil works projects. differing variability of different load effects (live load. bending capacity. one does not have economy. major conform to the respective industry standards and are not subordinate commands. shear 1-4. Allowable stress tures on large construction projects is allowed. shear capacity. and masonry structures.). For HSS where LRFD has been developed. In the ASD method. Chapter 4 includes ASD criteria 1-1. Typical HSS are lock gates. Structures other than HSS. However. Background capacity. districts. and outlet works gates. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Chapter 1 and should be used for those structure types for which Introduction LRFD guidance is provided (see Appendixes B through I). buckling and miscellaneous structures such as lock wall accesso. components of hydroelectric and pumping plants. The Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach (an LSD approach) rec- b. Structural grade steels used for ognizes that the loads applied to a structure and resis- design of HSS are as referred to in CW-05502 and Amer. Purpose which are required for those HSS where LRFD has not yet been developed. laboratories. num. 1-5. LRFD is now the preferred method of design 1-1 . bulkheads and stoplogs. or force and may result from their use. LRFD method has two main advantages over the ASD High-strength structural steels may be considered where method.. use of lic steel structures (HSS) by load and resistance factor LRFD and ASD methods for the design of separate struc- design (LRFD) and (b) fracture control. cavitation. local flood protection gates. and approach such as LRFD has been adopted by most speci- severe climatic conditions. however. Second. 1989). more uniform reliability is attained c. ASD methods shall not be combined. Types of HSS. of all HSS. ASD criteria were specified for design cal structure results. in a limit state analysis. First. ASD may be used as an alternative design method only with prior approval of CECW-ED. type of steel used to fabricate the structure. (bending capacity. LRFD is the preferred method of design. or greater safety of design to assume linearity between load and force. building construction. however. while application of multiple resistance factors these design limit states will generally be more critical for reflects differing uncertainties in a particular resistance structures fabricated from high-strength steel. cold-formed 1-2. Commentary on Paragraph 1-4. a limit states design (LSD) hydraulic hammer. and field included in this manual. Background 1-3. The ican Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (1986. live). Applicability steel construction. in accordance with in the design process and in many cases a more economi- EM 1110-1-2101. the method does not recognize References are listed in Appendix A. etc. the ASD method has yielded safe and reli- able structures. etc. timber. dead load) and resistances (i. The allowable stress is the yield stress. stress.

CW-16643. For the LRFD method such loads are accounted be addressed using fatigue and fracture mechanics for by assigning a higher load factor. 2-5. and EM 1110-2-3400 provide prior to completing feasibility phase work. (5) Where dissimilar metals are used select the proper material as recommended by Kumar and Odeh (1989). Commentary on Paragraph 2-2. or any other deposits General Considerations off the steel. Inspection and Maintenance preventing corrosion. but the loading function is not defined. Possible failure modes are: general 2-3. a. welded connections are more resistant to corrosion than bolted connections. ASD two failure modes (general yielding and buckling) are requires an effective increase in the design factor of addressed by LRFD and ASD principles while the third safety. cathodic protection (impressed current or galvanic (2) Make provisions for sand to escape where member systems) may be used to supplement the paint system. Items to consider when designing the HSS include: (1) Paint systems specified in CW-09940 and (1) Detail the members as much as possible so there is EM 1110-2-3400 provide a high degree of protection. 2-2. very severe environments may HSS include submerged components which require warrant an additional thickness added to critical structural dewatering for inspection. subcritical crack growth leading to loss HSS are often subjected to unpredictable dynamic loading of cross section or unstable crack growth. Dynamic Loading yielding or excessive plastic deformation. For underwater HSS requiring a higher degree of protec- tion. Deviations from Prescribed Design (3) Intermittent welds are more susceptible to corro. particularly at submerged locations. 2-1 . a. Corrosion proper arrangement of seal details minimizes vibration. access for a sandblasting hose (2-ft minimum bend). and unstable due to hydraulic flow. The designer principles. Where structures are difficult members. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Chapter 2 (4) Grind slag. and paint both surfaces. however. the load and resistance factors or allowable stresses speci- fied herein shall be submitted to CECW-ED for approval CW-09940. All possible modes of failure should be considered when designing HSS. (3) Try to avoid lap joints but where used. Limit States avoid large cathode-to-anode area ratios. this is not always possible since (1) In certain cases. The structural engineer shall con- sider corrosion effects throughout the design process. Where special conditions exist. should provide proper detailing and structural layout to minimize dynamic loading and cavitation. Where dynamic loading is known crack extension leading to failure of a member. weld splatter. Corrosion b. seal weld galvanic systems require less maintenance. It may be supplemented with cathodic protection in severe environments or when other HSS are often difficult to inspect and maintain due to design considerations so dictate. Painting is the primary method of 2-4. Introduction. However. The first to exist. guidance for preventing corrosion. Design considerations poor access. 2-6. This increase is to account for unknown dynamic failure mode (fatigue) and the fourth (brittle fracture) can effects. Introduction. buckling or general instability. the joint. connections form open-ended chambers. (2) In general. Inspec- for reducing corrosion problems include: tions should be performed in close contact with the inspected part. use isolators. Requirements. proposed modifications to sion than are continous welds. 2-1. For example. Impressed current systems for lock gates are often dam- aged and become inoperative if not carefully maintained. to inspect and maintain. guidance is provided in para- graph 3-4 for LRFD and paragraph 4-4 for ASD.

details. if the areas on metal surfaces which are in contact with water. it is not feasible to define the b. Cavitation damage is a result of 2-2 . Unpredictable vibrations may be caused by (5) Galvanic corrosion is generally a result of current imperfections in the operating machinery and guide slots. tageous when considering concentration cell corrosion. If the distance between the cathode and anode (4) Pitting corrosion is a form of extremely localized is large. the total area of both metals exposed. Specifying a uniform increase in design cell corrosion. If the anode (car- sion. Extra large drain holes located in gate can significantly affect its vibration due to flow areas where the sand may be trapped may be appropriate. the relative areas of each tension. generated when two dissimilar metals are in contact and hydraulic flow. dictable in the sense that the dynamic forcing function is unknown. thickness is one means to protect a structure from this type of corrosion damage. Pitting corrosion is highly unpredictable since Loading there is no means to identify where defects may occur. Cavitation is also a concern where dynamic high oxygen content are cathodic relative to those areas hydraulic loading occurs. Either localized corro. or it becomes damaged. Dynamic loading that may occur in HSS is unpre- the possibility of pitting corrosion. gates. and load fluctuation due to passing ice. The supporting designers should detail the structure to allow sufficient members and arrangement of the bottom seal on a tainter room for the hose. cathode-to-anode ratio is large. Using be developed. Conversely. and miter welded connections in lieu of bolted connections is advan. lap joints. resistance in the circuit will be sufficient to elim- attack which results in small-diameter holes (in relation to inate the galvanic corrosion problem. conditions. At present. the total structural (3) Where dissimilar metals are used (generally car- cost is increased and the increase in member resistance to bon steel and stainless steel). pitting corro. vertical lift control gates. If the two metals are in water. particularly for impressed current systems. the forcing function is known. grow above the surface. Dynamic coating. Commentary on Paragraph 2-3. compression. it is best to paint both surfaces. significantly increase even if the carbon steel has metal exposed. it is imperative that a long-term maintenance plan sharp corners. the current is distributed over a large area and the (3) Concentration cell corrosion occurs at small local effect at each point will be slight. spot welds. Using valves. Keeping the structure well painted and steel coating has defects or damage. centrated and severe corrosion can occur. their depth) to appear in the metal. the current becomes con- Concentration cells can result from any number of differ. a dynamic analysis can be used for design. seal-welding lap joints. butt welds instead of bolts. For example. Regular inspection and maintenance practices can reduce a. but the two most common are steel is painted and there is a small defect in the coating metal ion cells and oxygen cells. tainter gates. supporting members of seals should blast cleaned to a grade approaching white metal grade maintain adequate stiffness to limit flexing which results for surface preparation prior to painting. metal exposed are very important because the total The primary concern with corrosion damage in HSS is the amount of current that flows in the cell is dependent on occurrence of concentration cell corrosion. Some of the structure types that have experi- enced vibration due to dynamic loading include tainter (2) Most HSS consist of welded construction. using continuous welds. If the carbon ences in the environment. generating a weak area in the Therefore. in leakage and flow-induced vibration. load due to the many factors that affect such loadings and therefore special attention must be given to structure (1) Kumar and Odeh (1989) recommend HSS be dry. the current will not clean from mud deposits prevents this type of corrosion.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 both systems require regular maintenance. If the stainless steel member. Therefore. However. and fasteners. or galvanic corrosion. and grinding weld splatter. Requirements. or any (2) General corrosion occurs uniformly over a large other deposits off the steel help to prevent concentration metallic surface. Localized areas where protection is included as part of the corrosion protection small volumes of stagnant solution may exist include system. Areas on a surface in contact with an electrolyte having a b. bon steel) is large with respect to the cathode (stainless steel). and bending effects is not uniform. then the relative areas have a sion cell causes large tubercles of corrosion products to large cathode-to-anode area and rapid corrosion can occur. This may be initiated by a material defect in the steel or a chip in the protective 2-7. slag. If cathodic where less oxygen is present.

proper structure details and 2-3 . EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 unpredictable dynamic fluid action which causes extreme good construction practices prevent cavitation from local negative pressures resulting in pitting and erosion of occurring. the surface. As for vibration.

85: basic safety check in LRFD may be expressed mathemati- cally as a.1 of AISC (1986). its maintainability. Load factors and serviceability shall be chosen with due regard to the load combinations for specific structure types are listed in intended function of the structure. Serviceability Requirements α = reliability factor (see paragraph 3-4) Serviceability is a state of acceptable performance in which the function of an HSS. Plastic analysis is permitted only with the contained in AISC (1986). For those HSS where inspection and maintenance are difficult because the HSS is normally submerged and γiQni ≤ αφRn (2-1) removal of the HSS causes disruption of a larger project. Similar load combinations pertaining to specific HSS are specified in Appendixes B through I. Examples of this type of HSS include tainter valves and where leaves of vertical lift gates which are normally submerged. the consequence of attaining the expected life of the project (typically 50 years for the limit state. the limit states of plastic moment and buck. nations. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Chapter 3 determining the required strength for buildings are given Load and Resistance Factor Design in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1990) and AISC (1986). Structures shall have design strengths at all sections at 3-1. The shall be 0. The overall structure and the Rn = nominal resistance individual members. navigation and local flood protection projects and 100 years for other projects). resistance factors of AISC (1986) are LRFD is a method of proportioning structures such that multiplied by a reliability factor α. γi = load factors that account for variability in loads to which they are assigned b. normally be checked using unfactored loads. and is subject to restrictions of to the engineer manuals referenced in Appendixes B paragraph A5. ance and examples for different types of HSS. ling). and operability are preserved under service or operat- the resistance for the particular limit state and. 3-4. etc. except as specified herein. Appendixes B through I provide specific guid. and connectors shall be checked for serviceability. The follow- ing limit states shall be considered in design for serviceability: 3-3. Serviceability may the appropriate appendix. Limiting values of structural The expression γiQni is the required strength and the behavior (maximum deflections. Strength Requirements a. through I. and approval of CECW-ED. The reliability factor no applicable limit state is exceeded when the structure is α shall be 0. Formulas giving the load combinations for 3-1 . For those HSS in brackish water or seawater.) to ensure product αφRn is the design strength. Qni = nominal (code-specified) load effects 3-5. vibrations. or performance of the HSS. Deformation in the structural members and sup- Strength limit states are related to safety and load-carrying ports due to service loads shall not impair the operability capacity (i. Serviceability should be maintained for in a relative sense.9 except for the following structures where α subjected to all appropriate design load combinations. The required This chapter is intended to give a brief synopsis of LRFD strength of structural components shall be determined by methodology and to provide general guidance on LRFD structural analysis using appropriate factored load combi- for HSS.. Design Basis For LRFD of HSS. HSS Elastic analysis is permitted unconditionally by this designed by the LRFD method shall conform to guidance manual. durabil- φ = resistance factor that reflects the uncertainty in ity.e. Each relevant limit state shall be considered. General least equal to the required strengths calculated for all combinations of factored loads and forces. Reliability Factors for HSS 3-2. connections. ing conditions.

and design life of the structure ial CVN values shall be performed in accordance with the in severe environments (50 to 100 years). cause vibrations and operating procedures may cause dixes B through I). possibility of corrosion (water may be fresh.1. This is to reflect a higher level Deviation from this conservative assumption requires the of uncertainty (compared to building design) due to more approval of CECW-ED. shall be checked for fatigue. For fracture-critical safety than that used for building design to account for members (FCM) and/or components. Commentary on Paragraph 3-4." Fracture critical members shall be identified by the vibrations or repeated stress reversals (hydraulic flow may designer (minimum requirements are given in Appen. ment (may require dewatering or submerged work by and specify the related minimum Charpy V-notch (CVN) divers). vibration function of the characteristics (predictability and may result in unknown load magnitudes and number of variability) of the load to which it is assigned and the cycles. Tests to determine mater. Galambos et al. and McCormac number and frequency of load cycles is a function of the (1990) and the commentary of AISC (1986). fabricators. the designer shall the unpredictable nature of various items. His- torically. fracture toughness. The et al. or movable according to AASHTO (1978).1. For certain HSS. fluctuations such as those due to operating cycles and The magnitude of a particular load factor is primarily a fluctuations of hydraulic head.e. and the factor of safety. welded members which include any computed stress variation. welding inspectors. economic considerations and their associated connections subjected to tensile stres. Design Basis required to maintain the structure. The variables enforce controls on fabrication and inspection procedures which require additional consideration for HSS include: to minimize initial defects and residual stresses. FCMs shall be defined as "members polluted. Load factors and load combinations for structural steel 3-6. A well possible. American Welding Society (AWS) (1990) and AASHTO (1978) for guidance on developing adequate quality con- c. relative importance (HSS may be critical shall be as given in Table 3. Fatigue requirements. reliability factors are applied to the resistance way and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1978). Minimum allowable CVN values stress reversals). in the project operation). a quantitative fatigue analysis is not conservatism with which the load is specified. the choice of details shall be specified load usually results in a relatively low load such to minimize susceptible fatigue damage (i. However.. Designers are referred to supports shall not impair the operability of the HSS. Transient loads are less known and. Welding processes induce significant residual stresses. (1982). hence. details factor. or saline). HSS have been designed using a higher factor of b. Vibrations of the seals. whether it is Reliability factors are applied to AISC (1986) resistance tension or compression. usually have a higher load factor. Reliability and welded members may include high tensile residual Factors for HSS stress in the welded region. for HSS where vibration may produce known load with little variability or a conservatively significant cycles of stress. Closure provisions shall be made as 3-7. maintenance and repair or replace- the appropriate temperature zone (see Table 3. For factors specified by AISC (1986) to effectively increase construction of FCMs. factors for HSS design. Determination of the the load and resistance factors are governed by items dis- total number of loading cycles shall consider known load cussed in paragraph 3-8 (commentary of paragraph 3-4). nondestructive examination personnel shall be certified 3-2 . aggressive environments in which HSS are placed. Fracture control requirements. brackish. Fatigue and Fracture Control design are based upon limit states of steel structures. impair serviceability or operability of the structure during its design life. Fatigue design shall be in factors and load combinations for buildings and other accordance with the provisions of Appendix K in AISC structures may be found in ASCE (1990). 3-8. (loss of benefits due to shutdown of a larger project if ses whose failure would cause the structure to be inopera. therefore. HSS purpose and its environment. they possible). equipment. Dead loads and static hydraulic loads are in this with high fatigue resistance should be used where category. designate facility of inspection. Note 1). Description of the methodology used in developing load a. Therefore.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 b. For HSS. sons. (1982). Structural components shall be designed to tolerate trol and fabrication procedures that will minimize initial corrosion or shall be protected against corrosion that may defects. For these rea- requirements of the American Association of State High. replacement becomes necessary). Ellingwood (1986) or AISC (1989) except as specified herein. Commentary on Paragraph 3-2. possibility of severe ble.

toughness requirements for the various categories of ever. Fracture behavior is occurred in HSS originate from poor weld details or poor governed mainly by nominal stress level. fabrication. with its emphasis on monolithic structural members.e. Fatigue and welded members are near the yield stress in most cases. and geometry of the existing crack or flaw. whether a stress variation is tensile or compressive. 1989) do not require any fatigue the development of Table 3-1. tough. How. The toughness is controlled by imposing minimum CVN requirements per (1) Fatigue is the process of formation and growth of Table 3-1 and the geometry of initial flaws is controlled a crack due to repeated fluctuating loads. it is com- as structure designs. however. ness. The designer by imposing strict fabrication and inspection requirements. and the number and frequency imposing material toughness requirements and limiting of load cycles to control fatigue and (b) geometry. Fracture control requirements. the most critical ness. Table 3-1. imperfect seals. For control of fatigue and fracture. and impact of passing ice or elastic-plastic behavior (i. component thickness. Various HSS have failed due to fatigue and (1) Fracture is the sudden growth of a crack which brittle fracture. and stress levels to control fracture. For these situations. The ation must be given to the following parameters: fracture control requirements specified herein are based on (a) stress range. Welded construction. For (a) Load rate. material tough- fabrication. Tensile residual stresses for than impact load rate) and those obtained for impact 3-3 . and construction become mon in Europe. the magnitude of load and the num. design options include selection of (1978). Fracture Control The consideration of residual tensile stress is a conserva- tive assumption for fatigue design. A more complete discussion is provided in paragraph 3-6a does require a fatigue check for welded AASHTO (1978) and Barsom and Rolfe (1987). fatigue life. and type of detail. The basic require- due to hydraulic flow. The following variation from zero to compression. geometry of initial flaws for FCMs. Unless predictions for determine the minimum CVN requirements to assure load magnitude and frequency may be made using proba. Commentary on Paragraph 3-6. detailing. consider. CVN tests were carried out under service load rates to ber of load cycles are unknown. many welding specialists. increases the need to add fracture b. the possibility of fatigue damage can be controlled by considering the design options given in (3) Material toughness is affected by load rate. which could obtained for specimens subject to a given load rate (less cause fatigue cracking. structural components. (2) Table 3-1 values are the same as those required (2) Significant vibration may occur in certain HSS by AASHTO (1978) for steel bridges. criteria to strength and buckling criteria when designing a structure. The assumption is currently favored by more complex. yield the previous paragraph. service loading at the minimum operating temperature. prevent brittle fracture) under debris which may occur during a single operating cycle. movable supports ment used in the development of Table 3-1 was to ensure and operating machinery. a quantitative fatigue analysis is not (AASHTO 1978). form a complete fracture control plan. Many of the cracking problems that have may cause failure of a component. strength. possible. since crack propaga. This is due to the possible presence of large residual tensile stresses caused by welding processes. and all but load rate are check for members with a calculated repetitive stress explicitly accounted for in Table 3-1. to assure that FCMs and their components are in larger members to control the stress range and choice of compliance with the requirements specified in details with low stress concentrations which have a high paragraph 3-6. the probability of brittle fracture increases. cannot control the number and frequency of load cycles Project specifications should require qualification of fabri- since this is a function of the operational requirements of cators and welding inspectors according to AASHTO the HSS. However. Fracture toughness criteria are supplemented with welding and inspection requirements to a. elastic-plastic behavior for various service temperatures bilistic methods. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 3-9. Fatigue requirements. members. a ered in the determination of required test temperatures. A calculated stress variation from zero to -10 ksi would consistent temperature shift exists between CVN values actually be a variation from 25 ksi to 15 ksi. However. if a residual tensile stress of 25 ksi exists. discussion is included to provide a brief explanation of tion will not occur in the absence of tensile stress. Each of these effects was considered in (3) AISC (1986. The effect of load rate was consid- example. service temperature. It is not currently a Fatigue damage and brittle fractures in HSS are rare but uniform practice in the United States.

5 < t ≤ 4. lower CVN impact test temperatures are impact load rates is maximum and as load rate increases.5 < t ≤ 4.0 35 at 0 35 at 0 35 at -30 Fastened _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: 1. Zone 2 minimum service temperature is from -1oF to -30oF. toughness requirements since most steels exhibit a 3-4 .0 45 at 0 45 at 0 Not allowed Mechanically 36 t ≤ 1.0 30 at 20 30 at 20 30 at -30 Mechanically 100 t ≤ 4. CVN requirements and lower test temperatures. ductile behavior steels.5 < t ≤ 4.) (ft-lb at oF) (ft-lb at oF) (ft-lb at oF) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Welded 36 t ≤ 1.5 in.0 < t ≤ 4.5 25 at 70 25 at 40 25 at 10 1. specified to reflect the decrease in temperature shift. Zone 1 minimum service temperature is 0oF and above.0 25 at 70 25 at 40 25 at -10 Welded 50 t ≤ 1. The ture which is a constant magnitude greater (temperature higher CVN requirements for increased yield strengths are shift) than the service temperature.5 < t ≤ 2. specimens. The is assured if CVN impact values are at least 25 ft-lb for reduced test temperatures are based primarily on the fact tests conducted at 70oF higher than the minimum service that the temperature shift between toughness under service temperature.5 35 at 0 35 at 0 35 at -30 2.0 25 at 70 25 at 40 25 at -10 Mechanically 70 t ≤ 1. The temperature shift comparing static and strength. the temperature shift decreases.5 < t ≤ 4. Adoption of bridge crite- ria for HSS is generally conservative since loading rates (c) Service temperature. Charpy impact tests are required on each end of each piece tested for Zone 3.0 35 at 20 35 at 20 35 at -30 Welded 100 t ≤ 2. and Zone 3 mini- mum service temperature is from -31o to -60oF. the CVN requirement is also increased. 2.5 25 at 70 25 at 40 25 at 10 Fastened 1.5 < t ≤ 4. The CVN value for a specimen tested under a (b) Yield strength.5 30 at 20 30 at 20 30 at -10 Fastened 1. For example (see due to the fact that the design stress is generally higher Table 3-1). for welded 36-ksi components of thickness which will result in more elastic stored energy.5 < t ≤ 4. load and impact load decreases with increasing yield vice load rate.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Table 3-1 Fracture Toughness Requirements for Fracture Critical Members ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Welded or Mechanically Grade Thickness Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Fastened σys (ksi) (in. In order less than 1.0 25 at 70 25 at 40 25 at -10 Mechanically 50 t ≤ 1. The temperature shift is dependent on ser. The more stringent requirements service load rate at service temperature is equivalent to for steels of higher yield strengths are identified by higher the CVN impact value for a specimen tested at a tempera.5 25 at 70 25 at 40 25 at 10 1.5 30 at 20 30 at 20 30 at -10 1.5 30 at 20 30 at 20 30 at -30 2. thus.5 < t ≤ 2. which are subject to bridge service load to attain the same degree of safety as in the lower yield rates and minimum service temperature.5 25 at 70 25 at 40 25 at 10 Fastened 1.0 25 at 70 25 at 40 25 at -10 2. The expected service tem- on bridges are likely higher than those which occur on perature for a structure is a critical factor in determining most HSS.0 30 at 70 30 at 40 30 at -10 Welded 70 t ≤ 1.

3-5 . This area may be of special tensile loading. As temperature decreases. unmelted parent material adjacent to the weld. the constraint ahead of the effects of high stress and low toughness. This lower toughness and are subject to greater heat input results in a triaxial stress state which reduces the apparent during welding. for lower minimum service certain thicknesses and service temperatures. stress concentrations often ductility of the steel by decreasing the shear stresses. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 transition from ductile to brittle behavior at a certain (e) Detail. CVN specimens must be tested at lower input due to welding can reduce toughness properties in temperatures to ensure that the steel has adequate the heat affected zone (HAZ). In order to assure ductile behavior. through-thickness stresses at a crack tip importance in thick members since these usually have are large due to the through-thickness constraint. the CVN requirements of Table 3-1 are increased for increasing thickness. Welded details require more conserva- temperature. toughness and tive CVN values than mechanically fastened details for ductility decrease. overlap the HAZ of welds. Therefore. The HAZ is the area of toughness. Unfortunately. The heat temperatures. For thick plates under properties are affected. notch is increased resulting in reduced toughness. which is sufficiently heated by the welding that its metallurgical (d) Component thickness. thus combining the adverse Because yielding is restricted.

allowable stresses may be increased 1/3 above the values otherwise HSS designed by the ASD method shall conform to speci. Fatigue and Fracture Control Wave loads Operational basis earthquake (OBE) Guidance in paragraph 3-6 is applicable. HSS Types: Modifications for Allowable Stresses. HSS which are normally hydraulically 4-3. and to the engineer manuals referenced in Appen. bearing shall be 0. etc. shear. with the normal allowable stresses. the allowable stress shall be 1. ice) Water hammer Wind loads Ice loads (transient) 4-6. For Type C HSS. Loads are divided into Group I and times that allowed by AISC (1989). teristics of more than one type. where a. the allowable stress stress. net section tension. Stresses. (2) When the loading includes Group II loads acting 4-1. Design Basis allowable stresses given in AISC (1989) for HSS design (see commentary for paragraph 4-4 (paragraph 4-8)). f( Qi) ≤ Fallow (3-1) 4-4. If a structure has charac- puted stress is compared to an allowable stress as repre. except as specified less than that required for Group I loads when designed herein. b. Load and Stress Requirements loaded and are not subjected to unknown dynamic load- ing. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Chapter 4 (1) Ice loads may be considered as Group I (static Allowable Stress Design load) or Group II (impact. debris. 4-1 . Type A. Examples of each HSS type are subjected to specified working loads. and removal of the HSS causes disrup- Fallow = allowable stress (yield stress. Loads. However. Type C.75 times that allowed by ASIC (1989). HSS which are used for emergency f( Qi) = elastically computed stress arising from the closures and which are subject to severe dynamic (hydrau- appropriately combined nominal loads lic) loading or are normally submerged where mainte- nance is difficult. For Type B HSS. strength.83 a. It is considered necessary to reduce the 4-2. Serviceability Requirements Group II Guidance in paragraph 3-5 is applicable. ASD is a method of proportioning structures such that Allowable stresses for three main types of HSS are speci- allowable stresses are not exceeded when the structure is fied in paragraph 4-4. buckling tion of the project. short duration load) loads depending on circumstances. General alone or in combination with Group I loads. Impact (vessel. Type B. Ice loads (static) 4-5. For Type A HSS. dixes B through I. HSS which are used for maintenance Group I and are not considered emergency closures. divided by a factor of safety). An elastically com. provided. the lesser allowable stress sented by is required. the allowable stress shall be 0. These allowable stresses are the maxi- Live load (serviceway) Hydrostatic load mum allowable values and may not be further increased Thermal stress load Operating equipment load due to Group II loading.1 times that allowed Dead load Buoyancy load by AISC (1989). discussed in the Commentary. the section thus provided shall not be fications contained in AISC (1989). Group II loadings as follows: c. b.

If ice hanging on the structure is being can be performed on a regular basis. and Type C the Stress Requirements least extreme case. abrupt changes in structure geometry or gate position as it modifications to AISC allowable stresses for HSS types is operated. it is lift crest gates.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 4-7. account for the improbability of the simultaneous occur- rence of maximum lifetime loads. Type A HSS include emergency gates. hydraulic fluctuations in velocity and pressure due to Because of the environment in which HSS are placed. and sector on the structure due to wind or flowing water. HSS Types: which are used to dewater for maintenance or inspection Modifications for Allowable Stresses of gates. and floodwall closures. Type B includes structures for which dynamic sidered either Group I or Group II depending on the loading is not significant and maintenance and inspection circumstances. The grouping by HSS type is a means to distin- guish characteristics of different HSS. d. sures and are usually opened and closed under balanced dictable loads than are buildings. Commentary on Paragraph 4-4. e. lock gates (miter gates. modified AISC allowable stresses and which loading Unpredictable dynamic loading may occur as a result of conditions are permitted a 1/3 increase in allowable stress. a. gate slots. unpredictable vibrations may also are applied to increase the factor of safety above that occur on structures subject to significant amounts of pass- which is used in building design. gates). Ice loads may be con. Load and considered to be the most extreme case. Therefore. tainter and vertical lift crest loads are those which vary with time. Type A includes those structures which are loading. it is con. under full pressure and flow conditions (unpredictable tively constant for a significant time period. In general. The 1/3 increase in gates used for regulation and subject to unknown dynamic allowable stress for structures subject to Group II loads hydraulic forces. and draft tubes. porary basis under essentially constant loading. it is considered that HSS are subjected type. draft tube gates. b. ing ice.1 factor applied to AISC (1989) paragraph 3-8 (commentary of paragraph 3-4) are among allowable stresses reflects a 1/3 increase of the Type B the causes of this additional uncertainty. Commentary on Paragraph 4-3. The 1. and Types A. Variables listed in head conditions. lift gates. Such structures are not considered emergency clo- to more extreme environments and are subject to less pre. bulkheads. Group I loads include those loads which are rela. an allowable stresses. or those which groups determine which conditions must stay within the are normally submerged where maintenance is difficult. and lock valves (normally submerged acting alone or in combination with Group I loads is to and difficult to maintain). regulating gates where the structure passes through moving water b. Type C structures include temporary closure items 4-8. The loading subject to unpredictable dynamic loading. HSS that may be considered as additional dead load or it is applying a classified as Type B include tainter crest gates. power intake gates designed for top of considered a Group I load. Severe. and Group II dynamic loading may occur). B. Type A is 4-2 . This increase is considered appropri- increase in the design factor of safety over that used for ate due to the fact that such structures are used on a tem- building design is considered necessary for HSS design. sidered a Group II load. and C stresses. ASD guidance for HSS considers Groups I and II c. and bulkhead gates are included in this a. Stoplogs. If ice is acting dynamically power pool. vertical lateral force due to expansion from thermal effects.

noncritical may be detailed by the fabricator. 1986. the designer shall clearly define the requirements of the non. Most HSS are constructed using welded connections. however. Eccentricities. welds. 1989) and AWS (1990) shall be followed. For nonstructural applica- in safe economical fabrication methods shall be used. angles. HSS connections forces. may be exposed to weather. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Chapter 5 between connected members remains fixed) or simple Connections and Details (pinned). Restraints. imposed restraints (fixity). toughness thickness or width. Following is a discussion of these design to selecting the connection details. impacts. Fisher. fresh or salt water. General located in uncongested areas of low or moderate stress. which makes field splicing neces- sary to form the completed structure. and geometric requirements (see Section A3 stress raising conditions. stiff. and fatigue resis. Avoid abrupt transitions in requirements (see Section 4 of AWS (1990)). forces obtained from the structural analysis.g. eccentricities. or for older HSS. Intersecting and overlapping welds should b. Connections which are considered maintained corrosion protection system. Connections between intersecting 1989) can be used as guidance but should be members are usually designed to be rigid (original angle 5-1 . Connections shall be designed to mini- eners. 1989) and AWS (1990) except as specified dance with Appendix K of AISC (1986. Welded Connections satisfy the particular design assumption. notches. Shipping restrictions require large HSS to posed welding processes and shop drawings. Bolted Connections critical connection. Details that will result HSS structural applications. and shall maintain sufficient ductility and rotation capacity to 5-4. Welding requirements considerations. gusset plates. 1986. and. 1986. Effects of eccentricity of fastener be avoided. be delivered in sections. of AISC (1986. Bolts shall be proportioned for the sum of the external load and tension resulting from prying action 5-2. General mitted). they should be shown on the Connections for HSS are usually in a more severe envi- drawings with accompanying splice details or design ronment than connections for buildings. 1989) and AWS (1990) are useful aids tance. AISC (1984. and other requirements. are followed. 1989) discussed in the appropriate appendixes. use of A307 bolts or snug-tight high-strength bolts Special critical connections for specific structure types are is allowed. and Struik (1987) Connections shall be designed to transfer the required are useful aids to designing bolted connections. AISC (1984. 1989) for toughness and geometric requirements). Intermittent welds should be avoided for groups and intersecting members shall be accounted for in dynamically loaded members and members subject to the design of connections (see Chapter J of AISC (1986. for many HSS. Commentary on Paragraph 5-1. When splices are necessary. brackets) and connectors mize the possibility of fatigue damage by using proper (bolts. 5-3. AISC (1986 or d. Any deviation from details originally specified by the design engineer shall be reviewed and Fully tensioned high-strength bolts shall be used for all approved by the design engineer. Connection detailing practices (see AISC (1984. provided requirements of AISC (1986. 1989) and Kulak. Thick plate weldments shall be designed considering heat a. If the design assumed a pinned connection.. Critical connections should be fully detailed by sion-fatigue shall be controlled with a well designed and the design engineer. Connections consist of connecting elements (e. Through-thickness welds should have backing 1989)). the as-built connection should provide for members to rotate relative to each other to accommodate simple beam end rotation (to accomplish this. corrosion. Splices. Splices should be 5-5. flowing water. Design Considerations produced by deformation of the connected parts. tions. Stress concentrations. e. bars removed and should be ground smooth. and limiting the stress range in accor- AISC (1986. inelastic deformation is per- 5-1. 1989) and design shall conform to the specifications contained in AASHTO (1978)). Corro- herein. field splices. of AISC (1986. Fatigue. rivets). The designer shall review and approve the contractor’s pro- c. sharp corners. 1989). Connection designs must consider stress concentrations.

provision shall be made stresses. See AISC (1984) for relative movement between members. However. however. The forces may consist of any com. 5-7. Heavy welding is labor intensive and members subject to cyclic loading should be balanced may result in member distortion and large residual about their gravity axes. Thermal effects due to welding further decrease centric connection or. for all HSS structural applications. thick fatigue resistance. in some cases. Residual cases a concentric connection may be undesirable because stresses in weldments are increased with increasing exter- it can require poorly shaped elements such as long gusset nal constraint so the designer should detail connections to plates with a limited buckling capacity that is difficult to minimize constraint. however. or elements widths. splices. in some selection of weld process and procedures. Many HSS contain thick (greater than 1. Typically. A concentric connection is detailed so that the which act on these low toughness areas and lamellar gravity axes of all members framing into the connection discontinuities creating high potential for cracking. Welded (1) Axial loads eccentric from fastener group Connections centroids can significantly increase local stresses or individual fastener loads due to additional shear and bend. This is because ductility of the size holes. sill plates. 5-8. material toughness and produce high residual stresses tion. full connections are often ignored in design with no decrease tightening is required for cyclic loads. Eccentricities. and lamellar discontinuities are more prevalent than in thinner (2) The designer has the option of selecting a con. and loads) than with steel building frames. and similar full penetration or large fillet welds to develop the full members may be of minor consequence. if not. welded or bolted connections. Commentary on Paragraph 5-2. Thick plates and jumbo rolled shapes often for bending and shearing stresses due to the eccentricity.5 in. The pass through a common point. thick). Stress concentrations. However. The axial force acting connected members. While eccentricities in weldments. Connections may also provide stiffness to limit based on their relative stiffness. These details are critical for machinery and appurtenances. that may need replacing sometime during the life of the structure. For example. Critical connections on HSS often consist of statically loaded single-angle. There- does not mean details that cause stress concentrations can fore. Most HSS use illustrated examples. and when it is necessary to improve water steel redistributes localized high stresses. AWS (1990) shows geometries for plates or jumbo sections (over 1. This ensures that the axial adverse thermal effects are reduced with gradual heating force in an intersecting member does not produce an and cooling of the weldment as it is welded. thick) plate ing imposed by the eccentricity. Bolted Connections 5-6. Per AISC (1986.5 in. a member of connections. bolted connections for HSS are limited to and at sharp discontinuities. Bolted connections are change in cross section such as termination of cover much less common on HSS than on buildings or bridges. plates. for bolts in over- in load-carrying capacity. an eccentric connec. 1989). or if corrosion of the joint is a concern. Commentary on Paragraph 5-3. Attention should be given to areas of large high-strength bolts shall be used. steel mem- welded connections that minimize stress concentrations at bers embedded in or supported by concrete. and proper additional moment in the connection. the use of rivets has largely been replaced by a. may be located such that its line of force passes through Connection details must be consistent with the assump. 5-2 . the corner of the gusset plate. Commentary on Paragraph 5-4. Design Considerations In the past many HSS have used riveted connections.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 supplemented with AASHTO (1989) since many HSS (3) An eccentric connection may be detailed to sim- members have more in common with bridges (sizes. exhibit low toughness away from rolled surfaces. double-angle. this tightness. locations transitions between members of different thicknesses or where future adjustments may be required. plates. Stress concentrations in use of high strength bolts. b. many older struc- tures have riveted connections. the lines of tions used in the design analysis of the structure and must action of the force in the intersecting members usually do be capable of transferring the required forces between not pass through the same point. connections for strength of a part. However. fully tensioned be ignored. welds where backing bars have not been removed. types plify the design of gusset plates. eccentrically will produce a moment in the connection bination of axial or shear loads and bending or torsional which must be distributed among the connected members moments. assess.

1986. Tunnels and Shaft in Rock American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 1989 EM 1110-2-2902 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Chicago 60601-2001. 1984. DC EM 1110-2-2702 20001. Standard Articles and Shop Fabrication Items CW-09940 A-1. S." New York 10017-2398." Miami.01 Tractor Gates-Broome Type Barsom and Rolfe 1987 Barsom." First Edition. CE-1507. Washington." Ninth Edition.. 1990. 1990. Conduits. EM 1110-2-3104 "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Struc- Structural Design of Pumping Stations tures (ASCE 7-88). Design of Spillway Tainter Gates American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 1984 EM 1110-2-2703 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Chicago 60601-2001." EM 1110-2-2602 * Washington. 1989. "Load and Resistance Factor Design Manual of Steel EM 1110-2-2901 Construction. DC 20001. "Guide Specifications for Fracture Critical Non-Redundant Steel Bridge Members. EM 1110-2-3400 American Welding Society (AWS) 1990 Painting: New Construction and Maintenance American Welding Society (AWS). EM 1110-2-2705 Structural Design of Closure Structures for Local Flood American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 1986 Protection Projects American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). EM 1110-2-3001 Planning and Design of Hydroelectric Power Plants American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1990 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1989. FL 33135. "Fracture and Fatigue CE-1602 Dam Gantry Cranes A-1 . Planning and Design of Navigation Lock Walls and Appurtenances American Association of State Highway & Transporta- tion Officials (AASHTO) 1989 EM 1110-2-2701 American Association of State Highway & Transportation Vertical Lift Crest Gates Officials (AASHTO)." Fourteenth Edition. 1990. "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Required Publications Painting: Hydraulic Structures and Appurtenant Works EM 1110-1-2101 CW-16643 Working Stresses for Structural Design Cathodic Protection Systems (Impressed Current) for Lock Miter Gates EM 1110-2-2400 Structural Design of Spillways and Outlet Works American Association of State Highway & Transporta- tion Officials (AASHTO) 1978 * EM 1110-2-2502 American Association of State Highway & Transportation Retaining and Flood Walls Officials (AASHTO). "Structural Welding Code . and Pipes "Allowable Stress Design Manual of Steel Construction. 1987. Culverts." Chicago 60601-2001. 1978. J. EM 1110-2-2105 Change 1 31 May 94 Appendix A CW-05502 References Miscellaneous Metal Materials.Steel. Lock Gates and Operating Equipment "Engineering for Steel Construction. and Rolfe.

ST5. Kulak. Fisher. G. C... Galambos. NJ 07632. New York Ellingwood. A. Ellingwood. Available from National Technical Information Service.." Englewood Cliffs. MacGregor. A.. "Probability Based Load McCormac 1990 Criteria: Assessment of Current Design Practice. A. and Struik. New York." ASCE McCormac. Vol 108. 1990... 1982 (May). and Kumar. Inc. Galambos. and Struik 1987 Kulak. 5285 Port Royal Road.A. Ellingwood...W. Report REMR-EM-6. ST5." Harper and Row. J. No." ASCE Dams. and Cornell. Galambos. H. "Structural Steel Design LRFD Journal of the Structural Division. G. John Wiley & Sons. Vol 108." Technical Journal of the Structural Division.. Springfield.. V. V. and Odeh. "Guide A-2 . Method. 1989.EM 1110-2-2105 Change 1 31 May 94 Control in Structures. Galambos. T. MacGregor. No. and Hydroelectric Plant Applications. Fisher." Second Mechanics. "Mechanical Proper- Cornell. Applications of Fracture to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints. C. MacGregor. 1982 (May). J. T. A. Criteria: Load Factors and Load Combinations.. and Cornell 1982 VA 22161. B. Edition. Publishers. and Cornell 1982 Kumar and Odeh 1989 Ellingwood. G. "Probability Based Load ties and Corrosion Behavior of Stainless Steels for Locks. Inc.. B. MacGregor. 1987. A. J.L.

to the resistance factor φ and the reliability factor α.4 Hs 1. Serviceway loads are not Development of the load factors included consideration of included in the above combinations due to their low mag- the respective load variability. and likeness to nitude. stresses need not be considered. for earthquake loading was chosen to remain consistent The 1. I = barge impact load Hs = hydrostatic load b.0. 2. 3. Load considerations.6 (C M) 1. Ice loads C design strengths at all sections at least equal to the are considered as gravity loads. This is not what might be (1) Hydraulic loads. it provides an adequate overall factor of safety. Ht. Miter gate D = dead load layout. This appendix provides guidance for 1. yet considering the reduction in resistance due (1990) and the 2nd edition of AISC (1986). M = mud load however. Load-carrying members (includ- ing but not limited to: skin plates. vertical diaphragms. unfavorable effect may occur when one or more of the loads in a particular load combination is equal to zero. C. ASCE (1990) and AISC (1986) specify load factors and load combinations for buildings. and they are counteracted by buoyancy of the those loads specified in ASCE (1990) and AISC (1986). EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Appendix B (B-1a) 1.6 (C M) 1. The load factor shall be equal to 1. definition.4 load factor in Equations B-1a and B-1b is rela- with what will be presented in the revision to ASCE tively low. It is not realistic to use load factors other than 1. The most paragraph B-2c).2 D 1.0 E (B-3) diagonals. 1.0 Ht a. B-1 . selection of materials. in part. Walkways are not HSS and should be designed Some loads I. Purpose. Loads D. Ht = temporal hydraulic load C = ice load c. Background.0 load factor which reflects the low level of uncertainty in the loading. difficult to predict and are highly variable.0 Ht (B-1b) B-1. Required references are listed in Appendix A. Load and Resistance Factor Design (2) Gravity loads. yet are assigned a load factor of 1.2 Hs 1. b. and M shall be a. and 5. References. The load factors and load combinations speci.4 Hs 1. Strength requirements.2 Q (B-2b) design of miter gates by the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) method. intercostals. ice acting as lateral loads required strengths calculated for the factored loads and are not considered in the load combinations (see forces in the following load combinations.0 I Load and Resistance Factor Design Criteria for Miter Gates 1. The predictability of maximum values. and anchorage systems) The nominal loads are defined as follows: shall be designed in accordance with the criteria contained in this appendix and Chapters 1. Loads due to thermal fied in paragraph B-2a pertain specifically to miter gates. on the basis that these loads are specified determined based on site-specific conditions for upper and based on historical experience and are assigned extreme lower pool elevations. Introduction (B-2a) 1. Mechanical and electrical E = earthquake load items shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 4 and guidance specified in EM 1110-2-2703.2 D 1.0 for barge impact and temporal hydraulic loads was 3-9 of EM 1110-2-2703. The temporal hydraulic load Ht expected for such unpredictable loads.0 hydrostatic load justifies using a relatively low load factor for such arbitrarily designated loads. for miter gates. girders. The hydrostatic load Hs shall be chosen. Miter gates shall have determined based on site-specific conditions. B-2. unique loads and load combina- tions exist. The 1. structure. and assumed member load- ing shall follow guidance specified in EM 1110-2-2703 Q = maximum operating equipment load unless otherwise stated herein. and E (discussed in paragraph B-2b) are in accordance with the requirements in AISC (1986).25 ft of head as specified in paragraph 1.

mass due to structural weight D. Load cases. 145-year mean recurrence interval. Both impact However. Loads include gravity surface loads (C. This load will control considered with the appropriate loading combinations: fatigue design and shall be equal to 30 pounds per square ft (psf) or 45 psf based on requirements given in (1) Case 1: Mitered condition. Inertial hydrodynamic loads assuming the lock is dewatered. The load Q shall be the maxi. Ht is applicable only to the sub- where merged part of the gate. M. and barge strength design when compared with Ht or Q and is not impact or temporal hydraulic loads (Equations B-1a and included in the load combinations. The lower gate shall be designed considering (B-4) normal upper and lower pool elevations including tempo- ral hydraulic loads Ht. Loads include Chapter 3 of EM 1110-2-2703. as discussed in the commentary of para- metric loading). and the assumed direction of ac shall be parallel to the lock centerline. Lateral ice loads. Hd never controls the hydrostatic loads due to upper and lower pools. or the load in place of I as specified by Equation B1-a. The effects will not control the member sizes and these loads load shall be applied in the downstream direction to are accounted for in load case 2 where they may control. D. However. The impact load I shall be equal to 250 will not control when compared to design required by I. B-1b). the machinery). B-1a and B-1b. and M act when the gate is in the (4) Barge impact load. or approximately a hydrostatic head of 6 ft shall be assumed. upper gate and lower pool for the lower gate) where barge mined based on an operational basis earthquake (OBE) impact may occur. The barge impact load I shall mitered position. in the mitered position their be specified as a point load as shown in Figure B-1. The skin plate and intercostals need defined as that earthquake having a 50 percent chance of not be designed for barge impact. standard barge width. Equation B1-a is applicable to the girders located above pool (upper pool elevation for the (5) Earthquake load. p = lateral pressure at a distance y below the pool (2) Case 2: Gate torsion. and mud M are mum load which can be exerted by the operating machin. from either lock wall. (a) Above pool. y = distance below the pool surface (b) Submerged obstruction.0069.0 structural effect. Although not included in Equations B-1a and B-1b. and operating equipment load Q or temporal hydraulic load Ht (Equations B-2a and B-2b). Ht = 0). The earthquake load E shall be based on inertial hydrodynamic effects of water (b) Below pool.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 (3) Operating loads. loads C. kips for unsymmetric loading and 400 kips for symmetric loading. This translates to a proba. The following load cases shall be Hd are included in paragraph B-2f. Equation B-2b shall be The lock wall shall be assumed rigid in determination of applied to consider leaf torsion which may be caused by a ac. and D). girders above pool level at: (a) the miter point (sym. insignificant compared to the effect of p and need not be ery (obtained from the mechanical engineer that designed considered. Loads include hydro- shall be determined based on Westergaard’s equation static loads due to upper pool only (Equation B-1b. In γ w = unit weight of water this condition there are no differential hydrostatic loads. Equation B-2a shall be gravitational acceleration g) applied to consider gate leaf torsion with the temporal hydraulic load acting on the submerged part of leaf (the H = pool depth temporal hydraulic load may act in either direction). Effects of c. a minimum bility of annual exceedance of 0. plate and intercostals located above pool. ac = maximum acceleration of the supporting lock wall due to the OBE (expressed as a fraction of (a) Temporal condition. The inertial forces resulting from the B-2 . The inertial resistance of water while a leaf is operated is the hydrodynamic load Hd. It would be appropriate to include such a This location is anywhere in the span at least 35 ft. design for a lateral ice load of 5 kips per ft (as locations shall be investigated to determine the maximum specified by EM 1110-2-2702) with a load factor of 1. and (b) anywhere in the girder span at graph 4-3 (paragraph 4-7) are not considered in Equations which a single barge may impact (unsymmetric loading). The upper gate shall be designed moving with the structure. ice C. For design of skin being exceeded in 100 years. Design loads shall be deter.

EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Figure B-1. Point load impact for miter gate girders B-3 .

mine the maximum load effect. The mini- applied assuming that the gate is mitered. criteria for action about the major axis specified in para- The minimum size for the skin plate located above the graphs 2-1d(6) and (7) of EM 1110-2-2703 shall be pool level shall be determined using an assumed hydro. The use of webs. 6 ft. The effective width of Mises criteria shown in EM 1110-2-2703) need not be skin plate adjacent to each edge of the upstream girder considered. The following is a skin plate is determined assuming the skin plate to be an brief description of design assumptions. Design for individual members. supported continuously by the skin plate. Stresses shall be determined on the basis (a) Horizontal girders are assumed to act as singly of small deflection thin plate theory using load cases 1 symmetric prismatic members subjected to axial force and and 3 of paragraph B-2c.. Upstream girder flanges are braced continuously by the skin plate. and load cases for the design of individual gate distance between cross sections braced against twist or members. The combined interaction of (b) An effective portion of the skin plate is assumed transverse stress due to intercostal or girder bending (Von to act with the upstream flange. the edges of Load cases 1 and 3 of paragraph B-2c shall be investi- the skin plate panels are assumed to be fixed at the cen. Intercostals may be designed as simple or fixed end beams (EM 1110-2-2703 (c) Webs shall be designed using requirements for specifies fixed end) supported at the centerline of girder uniformly compressed stiffened elements. each girder shall have an effective length equal to the distance from the (b) The skin plate is designed assuming that each quoin block to the miter block.0. (b) An effective portion of the skin plate is assumed to act as the intercostal flange. The ends shall be panel acts as a rectangular fixed plate. The assumed loading distribution for intercostals is the trapezoidal distribution (3) Case 3: Earthquake.e. Elastic structural analysis shall be performed with no allowance for ductility. lel to the lock centerline. For determination of column action static head of 6 ft. Load cases obstruction while Q is applied causing the gate leaf to 1 and 3 of paragraph B-2c shall be investigated to deter- twist. or noncompact flange). the ends of the intercostals are welded (Figure B-2 the bottom of the leaf is held stationary by a submerged illustrates possible details that may be used). The effective width of d. it is assumed that cases. λr = 95/ Fy). Small deflections are assured flexure about their major axis. gated for all girders to determine the maximum load terline of the intercostals or diaphragms and the edge of effect. flange shall be based on a width-to-thickness ratio consis- tent with design assumptions (i. The end connections shall be fabricated to match slenderness parameters for webs in combined flexural and the design assumptions as closely as possible.. uniform loading. For the design of a simple beam intercostal the compression flange is (1) Skin plate.e. assumption of compact (2) Intercostals. See paragraph 2-1c(2) of EM 1110-2-2703 for additional discussion. revised as follows. with paragraph 2-1c(1) of EM 1110-2-2703. Equation B-3 shall be shown in EM 1110-2-2703 and Figure B-3. These items are further discussed in the design lateral displacement of the compression flange has a con- examples of paragraph B-4 and EM 1110-2-2703. and hydrostatic mum size for intercostals located above the pool level loads due to upper and lower pools are acting.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 submerged obstruction. where α is defined in paragraph 3-4 and φb is defined in AISC (1986). load case 2 shall be investigated for girder flanges. shall be determined using an assumed hydrostatic head of quake acceleration shall be applied in the direction paral. the maximum stress occurs at the cen- terline of the long edge. In accordance assumed pinned. The small and significant membrane stresses do not develop). Girders shall be designed by limiting deflections per paragraph B-2e (deflections are as beam-columns in accordance with AISC (1986). trolling influence on the member strength. (a) Skin plates shall be sized such that the maximum calculated stress is less than the yield limit state of αφbFy (3) Girders. Additionally. For rectangular fixed plates subject to girders which resist diagonal loads. In most B-4 . appropriate LRFD unstiffened noncompact member (i. nominal bending strength of αφbMn. The formulas. Downstream (a) Intercostals shall be flat bars or plates sized such flanges are braced by vertical diaphragms which resist that the maximum calculated moment is less than the lateral displacement and twist of the cross section. For this case. the values of K and Cm shall be 1. The earth. buckling strength about the major axis.

EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Figure B-2. Assumptions for intercostal end connections B-5 .

Load case 2 of a minimum. design assumptions shall be based on procedures pre. serviceability can be checked using unfactored loads. connections. increased times the plate thickness. Diagonals shall be designed as ten. vibration considerations..4 the strut force and the dead weight of the leaf. Serviceability requirements. (6) Anchorage systems. This shall be verified by testing during case as used for the diagonals design. paragraph B-2c is applicable.) shall be chosen with due regard the gross section or fracture in the net section. (2) Gate leaf deflection (twist) shall be limited to a porting miter gate leafs are discussed in paragraph 2-1g(2) value which is less than 50 percent of the miter bearing of EM 1110-2-2703. etc. be avoided since these criteria were developed for rolled shape beam-columns and may not apply for deep girder e. (4) Diagonals. (1) The overall structure and the individual mem- (5) Vertical diaphragms. 10 percent for impact.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Figure B-3. bers. As sented in Chapter 3 of EM 1110-2-2703. The to assure the gate functions for its design life. These criteria require components block width. details for sion members considering the limit states of yielding in ease of maintenance. The anchorage systems sup. maximum deflections. Normally. Vertical diaphragms resist. designed for an expected life of 50 years.g. Limiting val- ues of structural behavior to ensure serviceability (e. EM 1110-2-2703. the following guidance shall be followed. Miter gates shall be sections. See paragraph erection as specified in paragraph 2-3q of 2-1c(3) of EM 1110-2-2703 for additional discussion. These loading criteria should be B-6 . and connectors shall be checked for ing diagonal loads shall be designed using the same load serviceability. of the system to be designed as individual units with the resultant force applied to the units being a combination of (3) The skin plate deflection shall be limited to 0. Nomenclature and assumed load area for intercostal design axial compression in Table B5-1 of AISC (1986) should used with load case 2 of paragraph B-2c.

Stress vari. These calculations are provided to impair the serviceability or operability of the structure. design of a miter gate. panels at the top of the gate) shall be determined based on costals for the assumptions of simple and fixed connec. B-7 . equipment. AISC (1986) equation numbers are f. and the diagonals for a horizontally framed miter gate. the intercostals and the edges of girder flanges. Examples for a horizontally framed downstream or less than the allowable stress variation given in appen. General. Figure B-2 illustrates panel. number. an intercostal. and fabrication of intercostals are spaced on 32-in. the hydrostatic load is due to upper and lower pools. The designer = 0. strut arm and are calculated by Westergaard’s equation for the corre- connection. and diagonals are con- sidered to be FCM. For example. These elements sponding depths. intercostal. Traditionally. or movable B-4. The following conditions shall be included. For panels 9-12 (see tions. The b. Ht. Members and their connections subjected identified by "AISC" followed by the appropriate equation to repeated variation of load shall be designed for fatigue. Requirements of paragraph 3-6 shall be assuming a maximum lock wall acceleration of 0. and connections. a. welds. 62 ft. Figure B-4) horizontal girders are spaced 4 ft apart and 2703 discuss the use of bolts. With 6-in. Nomen- clature for skin plate design is shown in Figure B-6. steel. the minimum size (for the details required for consistency in design of inter. temporal hydraulic Ht. The k/ft values for girders are deter- shall be evaluated based on variation of stress due to mined using the ksf loads distributed over a tributary area hydrodynamic load Hd acting as the gate operates. horizontal girder. Connection details shall be consistent with the equal to that of the pressure acting at the center of the design assumptions. demonstrate LRFD principles. intercostals. hinge and anchorage arms. The kips per square foot (ksf) values for Hs are determined by the hydrostatic head and those for E (2) Diagonals. and earthquake E loads. Examples for the skin plate. All material is assumed to be ASTM A36 (1) Skin plates. Design Examples supports shall not impair the operability of the gate. Connections and Details design loading includes hydrostatic Hs. miter gate that spans a 110-ft-wide lock chamber are dix K of AISC (1986). Examples are intercostals (instead of more efficient rolled sections) to limited to the design of the skin plate. Earthquake loading E is determined based on requirements of paragraph B-2b(5) g. and the load magnitudes for load Hs assuming the gate is in the mitered position and girders and panels are listed in Tables B-1 and B-2. Paragraphs 1-5a(6) and 1-5a(7) of EM 1110-2. respectively. the the topics which are discussed in the commentary of skin plate is designed as a plate fixed at the centerline of paragraph 3-6c (paragraph 3-9).1). Uniform pressure loads are Chapter 5 provides general guidance for connection assumed to act over the panel surface with a magnitude design. and shall determine which members are fracture critical for girder are for members located at the lower part of the the specific miter gate in question. example calculations are provided ate corrosion or be protected against corrosion that may in paragraph B-4b. The B-3. and paragraph 2-1j(3) includes a discussion on girder flanges (conservative approximation) the plate diagonal connections. vertical diaphragms.-wide gate leafs.1 g (ac applied to fracture critical members (FCM). The total number of loading cycles shall be determined based on changes in load due to lock operation. a make it easier to apply the paint system. and E ation shall be determined based on variation in hydrostatic are shown in Figure B-5. Typically. Fatigue. strut arms gate leaf where the critical loading occurs. Design examples for a horizontally framed miter range of stresses due to unfactored loads shall be equal to gate. and girders. A vertical cross section of the leaf is shown in Figure B-4. The distributions of unfactored loads Hs. anchorage arms. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 (4) Vibration of the seals. between panel center points. a 6-ft minimum hydrostatic head. they do not provide a Plates shall be used for girder web stiffeners and comprehensive design for the entire gate. Each leaf is 55 ft high and is required to span considered for fatigue analysis. Fracture. To illustrate LRFD principles for the (5) Structural components shall be designed to toler. Project specifications shall address (1) Skin plate design example. centers. Per paragraph B-2d(1).

EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Figure B-4. Vertical cross section for example miter gate B-8 .

Example miter gate loading B-9 . EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Figure B-5.

000 0.498 6.00 0.000 0.99 9 1.000 0.174 2.602 0.498 0.16 10 1.000 0.299 1.174 2.31 0.000 0.078 0.322 0.018 10 1.087 0.082 12 1.969 8.00 3 0.960 6.286 2.449 4 0.078 0.492 5 0. (ksf) (k/ft) (k/ft) (ksf) (k/ft) (k/ft) (k/ft) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 0.49 0.242 0.31 0.154 1. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.40 4 0.134 1.374 2.078 0.000 0.374 0.22 5 0.258 2.53 6.078 0.054 11 1.524 0.19 5.374 0.47 0.2Hs+E No.00 0.71 8.4Hs+Ht 1.498 6.000 0.00 0.00 0.162 0.39 7 1.35 0.00 0.437 0.740 1.749 4.35 Table B-2 Skin Plate and Intercostal Loads _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Panel Hs Ht E 1.374 0.906 0.310 5.498 6.23 0.123 0.65 6.498 0.000 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.000 0.146 0.000 0.310 2.524 0.578 8 1.000 0.649 7.71 8.00 0.780 6 0.62 6 1.906 9 1.77 0.091 8.000 0.498 4.24 0.374 0.2Hs+E No.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Table B-1 Girder Loads _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Girder Hs Hs Ht E E 1.065 0.498 0.449 3 0.090 1.03 6.498 6.181 2.00 0.43 0.28 0.000 0.94 8 1.61 3.24 0.563 0.71 7.105 0.522 3.31 0.273 1.346 1.000 0.195 8.674 6.23 0.657 7.4Hs+Ht 1.524 0.00 0.498 0.00 2 0.39 12 1.00 0.12 0.187 0.221 2.866 0.078 0.107 B-10 .174 2.200 0.38 11 1.043 0.71 8.174 2.800 8.078 0.63 0.221 7 1.061 4.449 2 0.

welds is always in compression. and φb = 0. Plate bending stresses due to hydrostatic loading act in com- pression on the downstream face of the skin plate. α = 0. limited to 0. select a 1/2-in.4t.9.174 ksf = 0. by b = 32 in. it is likely that residual tensile stresses due to welding will exist. Flim = αφbFy.9 the required thick- ness is (c) Fatigue considerations.0151 ksi. For a rectangular fixed plate with a uniform loading W and a limiting stress Flim. The skin plate will be checked for fatigue considering cyclic bending stresses along its welded edge. With W = 1. Nomenclature for skin plate design dimensions are a = 42 in. the required minimum skin plate thick- ness tmin is calculated using Equation B-5.498 ksf = 0. Per paragraph B-2e. the deflection δ is (B-5) Based on yield limit state for plate bending. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Figure B-6. the maxi- the critical load combination which yields a factored mum deflection δ under service loading (unfactored Hs) is uniformly distributed load of Wu = 2. Although the stress range due to plate bending at the Therefore. Equation B-1b is (b) Deflection check.0104 ksi and E = 29. (a) Required thickness based yield limit state. The welds which attach the skin plate to girder flanges and intercostals are typically located on the downstream side of the skin plate.000 ksi.-thick plate. Therefore. the B-11 . For a rectangular plate fixed on all edges. With W = Wu.

The fatigue stress range by treating the skin plate as an unstiffened noncompact will be controlled by the unfactored load due to the element under compression (see paragraph B-2d(2)).-thick plate is adequate. Per Table B5. F = 6 in. designed assuming either fixed or pinned ends. the designer must ensure that end connections are detailed consistent with the assumption (see Figure B-2). the critical load combination is determined by Equation B-1b. Figure B-7. the allowable stress range is Fr = 21 ksi. the allowable stress range is Fr = 29 ksi for a category B detail in load condition 2. Intercostals may be a 5-in.3 in. by 1/2-in.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 stress range will vary from an initial positive value and in. which exceeds the required Mu = 104. G = 48 in. compression flange has continuous lateral support (Lb = 0). a moment of inertia Ix = 19. Assuming a 6-in.7 kip-in. and b = 10 in.-thick skin plate is then plate is a category B detail. The stress on the The chosen intercostal section shown in Figure B-7 is a tee section composed of a 5-in.. and a yield moment of My = 154. For this case W = 0. and Flim of Equation B-5 is Fr.. stem and 15. and M limiting width-to-thickness ratio to satisfy noncompact = 72. Wu = 0.-wide girder flange (con- servative assumption).1 fatigue is a concern. S = 42 in. However. (2) Intercostal design example.4 in. on center and span 4 ft. assumed that the water in the lock chamber will be cycled between 100.0104 ksi. For this case W = (1986). The extreme fiber of the tee stem is a requirements is category A detail. The required factored moment capacity for the example intercostal subject to the trapezoidal load distribution is Mu = 104. the nominal strength Mn equals My. The ends of the intercostals are assumed pinned and the load is applied as an assumed trapezoidal distribution as shown in Figure B-3. The chosen section has an area A = 10.1 kip-in. λ < λr and the 0.0151 ksi.0104 ksi.1) condition 2 is Fr = 37 ksi > Fy = 36 ksi and fatigue will not control. a minimum section mod- ulus Sx = 4. Therefore.. by 1/2-in.. the allowable stress range for a category A detail in load (AISC Table B5. by 1/2-in. This example pertains to the design of miter gate intercostals located on panels 9 through 12 (see Figure B-4) which are spaced at 32 in.000 times.3. effective skin plate flange.4. For stress cate- gory C and loading condition 2.83- B-12 .7 in. The condition illustrated in of AISC (1986). The design strength is Therefore. stem is acceptable. Per Appendix K of AISC (1986). a = 16 in.7 kip-in. a 1/2-in. Sample intercostal section (a) Intercostal design. The effective width of skin plate acting as the intercostal flange shall be determined (b) Fatigue considerations.8 kip- in. the stem satisfies noncompact example 7 of Appendix K.000 and 500. It is requirements. For this case. AISC (1986) is assumed. The assumed loading for intercostals consists of a uniform pressure acting on the load area shown in Figure B-3 (nomenclature for this example is also included). The intersection of the stem and the skin The effective width b of a 1/2-in.2. The hydrostatic load Hs. Per Appendix K of AISC (1986). The fatigue stress range will be controlled In accordance with Equations F1-15 and F1-16 of AISC by the unfactored hydrostatic load Hs.

This loading produces an (d) Compact section check. upstream flange. (c) Chosen cross section.75 in. The width-thick- upstream girder flange. web with 4-1/2- in. longitudinal stiffeners located as shown. The effective width of the skin plate adjacent to each edge of the upstream B-13 . for the miter gate leaf. such that longitudinal stiffeners located as shown.77 in.3 compression.31 in. For the upstream flange.3 ksi.097. After several iterations.). This section is composed of 13-in. The upstream girder flange is laterally braced continuously along its length by the skin plate. kips.a) is fr = 3.2 (a) Width-thickness ratios. Sx1 = maximum section modulus Per paragraph B-2d(3). For this example. the controlling load combination is given by Equation B-1b.757 kip-in. the where member is proportioned with the following width-thick- ness ratios to satisfy compact section requirements in Ix = moment of inertia about the x axis order to avoid local buckling: rx and ry = radius of gyration about the x and y axes. Based on this geometry. Zx = 1. respectively For girder flanges. The required leaf span from the quoin block to miter block is 62 ft (744 in.86 in. This example applies to Ix = 35.71 kips/ft or 0.69 in. the maximum the direction of the moment produces compression in the clear distance of the web is d = 17. by 1-1/4-in.27 in.1 kip-in. Equation B-1b. details require that the girder depth be maintained at 55 in. For this girder.4 the design of the required cross section at center span of the critical horizontal girder (girders 9-11 of Figure B-4) rx = 21. downstream flange. Zx = plastic modulus yc = distance from outside face of upstream flange to neutral axis (b) Design loading.1 in. the sample girder cross section shown in Figure B-9 was The upstream flange is compact. The stress range (considering the presence of ratio as required to satisfy compact section requirements tensile residual stress per paragraph 3-6. selected. at the center span the upstream flange is in Sx2 = 1. The following calcula- axial compressive resultant force of Pu = 847 kips and a tions show that the section is compact. the factored uniformly distributed load Wu = 8. however. the thickness including the skin plate is 1. The girder is subject to reverse bending. This ensures compact sections for flexural behavior. is girder flange is based on a 65/ Fy width-to-thickness -3. 52-1/4-in. by 1-in.3 ksi < of AISC (1986).011. and a 16-in. Based on Ag = gross area. intermediate diaphragms every 128 in. Hydrostatic loading and reactions are shown in Sx1 = 1. Ag = 73. The maximum shear is Vu = 270 ness ratio for the web is acceptable. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 extreme fiber of the skin plate due to M = 72. and framing ry = 4. Transverse web stiffeners are placed at 64-in. Sx2 = minimum section modulus ened elements.726 kips/in. by 1/2-in. intervals.43 in. girder webs shall be propor- tioned using requirements of uniformly compressed stiff. the girder has Fr = 29 ksi.81 in. (3) Girder design example.3 The downstream flange of the girder is braced against lateral displacement and twist of the cross section by yc = 20. the following cross-sectional properties. by 7/16-in.3 Figure B-8.407.. With two lines of moment at center span of Mnt = 24.727.5 in.

Sample girder cross section B-14 . Girder hydrostatic loading and reactions Figure B-9.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Figure B-8.

(transverse stiffener spacing).0 and lx = 744 in. (AISC E2-1) (AISC E2-4) (e) Web shear.0 or [260/(h/tw)]2. and α = 0. (strong axis. distance between quoin and miter blocks).5 in. in which case k = 5. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 The downstream flange is compact. Column action is based on requirements of Chapter E of AISC (1986). φc = 0. Per EM 1110-2-2703 Ky = 0. and h = 17. (weak axis. Cm = 1. The girder web will be checked for the maximum shear Vu = 270 kips. This cate- gory of design is discussed in Chapter H of AISC (1986) and the section is checked by the following calculations. The horizontal girder is consid- ered a singly symmetric prismatic member subjected to axial force and flexure about its major axis.9 unless a/h exceeds 3. Per paragraph B-2d(3).85.0. (web maximum clear depth). Kx = 1. With a = 64 in. (AISC H1-1a) (AISC H1-2) (Acceptable) (AISC H1-3) (f) Combined forces. distance between intermediate diaphragms).65 and ly = 128 in. (controls) B-15 . Per Section F2 of AISC (1986) (AISC E2-2) (AISC F2-1) where (AISC F2-4) Given Pu = 847 kips.

(2 longitudinal stiffeners 4-1/2 in.497 kips. Therefore.) and assuming a verse stiffener or intermediate diaphragm.). The compression flange is point of impact are subject to larger stress variations under hydrostatic load- ing and will be checked for fatigue due to the probable tensile residual stress that exists as a result of welding.) For unsymmetric impact. in accordance with Section H1 of AISC (h) Design for barge impact. For the unfactored load due to hydrostatic load Hs. The impact girder resultant forces at the condition 2 is Fr = 21 ksi. x = 38. the tricity between the girder work line and the neutral axis is allowable stress range for a category C detail under load e = 31.28 kips/ft. I = 250 kips. a. Web 52-1/4 in. With a girder (g) Fatigue considerations. by 1-1/4 in. The stress range (considering tensile weld residual stress) is fr = 17. and e are defined in Figure B-1. acceptable. tric and symmetric barge impact.6 in. The B-16 .3 kips and at the location of impact. At the location of a trans. at the midspan of the girder. the controlling load combination is Equation B-1a. by 1 in. with the beam compression flange previously chosen section will be checked for unsymme- laterally supported continuously. P = 584 kips.054 kip-in. Due to hydrostatic loading Hs. Equation H1-1b applies.2 kip-in. Per Appendix K of AISC (1986). The eccen- category C detail. Mn = Mp. Downstream flange 13 in. (1986).28 kips/ft. Skin plate 1/2 in. by 1/2 in.8 ft (705.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 For compact sections. For the distributed loading W = 0. By Equation B-1a: The stress on the extreme fiber of the upstream flange is With Pn = 2. The cross section consists of the following elements: and for symmetric impact (P and M are constant along the girder length) Upstream flange 16 in. a = 58.8 ft (465.8 ksi < Fr = 21 ksi. W = 6 kips/ft. a category E detail should be assumed. and M = 17. by 7/16 in. For locations at the termination of a welded cover plate. M = 632. For girder number 3. the axial force P and flexural Substitution into AISC H1-1a: moment M (at the location of impact) are At the midspan location. P = 27. the chosen section is adequate for combined forces.6 in. span of 62 ft. where x. For unsymmetric impact.2 in. the girder is a barge width of 35 ft. the uniformly distributed load W is 0.

a compact section was chosen.28 kips/ft. and through-thickness tension of the web.0 -14. Plan and elevation views for the gate leaf. the distance from the pintle to the applied load z.1 3. the diagonal (Acceptable) elasticity constant (denoted as Q by EM 1110-2-2703) is represented as Q′ in the following calculations. reduced toughness in the heat- affected zone. M = 798 kip-in. For symmetric impact.625 sections. P = 27.00 31. Q is limited by a pressure relief valve engaged during gate motion and is equal to 125 kips. Compared to the case of placing stiff- Substitution of the appropriate values into Equation AISC eners on both sides of the web. Hd 33. I = 400 kips.771 ments for the design of members controlled by local buckling. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 required section at midspan. are shown in Figure B-10.0 3. and Hd. opening and a negative value is for the case of gate clos- ing. With Pn = 2. (4) Diagonal design example. (i) Commentary. only one side of the web is more attractive due to the cost savings in fabrication and detailing.00 19. Noncompact sections are D 286. Diagonal design will be controlled by Equation B-2a or B-2b.497 kips.0 -31.6 in.38 31. Longitudinal web stiffeners are placed on only one side of the web. Noncompact sections are allowed and may be more economical in some cases. are avoided. Furthermore. such as residual stress. The length of each diagonal is L = 831. Per AISC (1986). the moment arm of the applied load with respect to the center of moments (located at the operating strut Therefore. To avoid confusion of nomenclature. a positive value for Tz is for the case of gate is acceptable for this case (symmetric impact). General guidance for diagonal design is contained in EM 1110-2-2703.226 yield stress prior to local buckling. In slender element Q 125. For this particular example.971 Appropriate appendixes of AISC (1986) include require. However.0 55. Compact sections Force Moment Load (kips) Arm (ft) z (ft) Tz (kip-ft2) are capable of developing a fully plastic stress distribution _____________________________________________________ prior to element local buckling. placing stiffeners on (unsymmetric impact). in accordance with Section H1 of AISC (1986) elevation). Ht 93. non. Table B-3 Gate Torsion Load steel sections are classified as either compact.0 ±130.1 45. the (Acceptable) adverse effects due to welding of additional stiffeners. The unfac- tored loads. or slender element sections.0 ±130.0 ±47. The above example considered only the B-17 . Equation B-2b represents the case Equation B-1a: where a submerged obstruction constrains gate leaf motion while the maximum operating force Q is applied.3 kips represents the case where the gate is subject to temporal and at center span of the girder. illustrating the torsional loads. and the section should be checked for the appropriate design loading at the girder (AISC H1-1b) ends.53 31.5 46. Substitution of the appropriate case are estimated as shown in Table B-3. this requires slightly H1-1b shows that the section is acceptable for this case larger stiffener plates. local buckling will occur prior to initial yielding.53 31. For this example. values into Equation AISC H1-1a shows that the section Ht.308 proportioned such that compression elements can develop C+M 130. and corresponding load torque areas Tz for this Equation H1-1a applies. For loads Q. _____________________________________________________ compact. This example pertains to the design of miter gate diagonal members utilizing ASTM A36 steel. By hydraulic loading. Equation B-2a For the distributed loading W = 0.

047 kip-ft Since Tz(Q)u is greater than Tz(Ht)u. Case a controls and the limiting tensile stress is 29.509 kip-ft2 ≈ Tz(D)u (Acceptable) and φt = 0. Case b. The The end connections are welded to gusset plates with maximum tensile stresses will occur as follows: a total weld length greater than two times the bar width.0 and the effective area Ae is For the positive diagonal on gate closing: the same as the gross area Ag (Section B3 of AISC (1986)). U = 1. α = 0.9 Qp′Dp + Qn′Dn = 37. C + M = 0): (a) Design. For yielding in the gross section. Equation B-2b will Live load gate opening deflection (critical case is when control.EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 The factored loads for Equations B-2a and b are as follows: Qp′ = 229.418 kip-ft Qo′ = 0 (Conservative assumption) ∑Q′ = 440.9 (AISC D1-1) Let Dp = 7.11 Ap = 22 in. For fracture in the net section.16 ksi.9 Live load gate closing deflection: and φt = 0.5 in.2.16 ksi and the minimum stress of 1. α = 0. The design strength for tension members αφtPn is the lower of the following: Case a.2 (chosen area of negative diagonal) For the positive diagonal on gate opening: B-18 . Therefore. the following is obtained: A′ = 30 in.0 ksi (diagonals must always remain in tension). and Dn = -5.629 kip-ft and Qn′ = 210.2 (chosen area of positive diagonal) The minimum tensile stresses will occur as follows: An = 19 in. For the negative diagonal on gate opening: Per equations of EM 1110-2-2703.75 The stress in the diagonals must remain between the ten- (AISC D1-2) sile limiting stress of 29. Ro = ±0.0 in.

the end of each diagonal is considered a category E detail. Based on the above calculations. Area = 22. ensure that the material has adequate toughness as speci- sidering the absolute difference in opening and closing fied by paragraph 3-6b. and An = 19 in. The welded connection at members.1 ksi < 13 ksi (Acceptable) The maximum deflection will occur as Q acts with C and M (gate closing).5 in2.5 in2. (1/2 contact block width). For each opera. Negative diagonal: Select two 6-1/2-in. 6. thick. The diagonals range for load condition 2 is Fr = 13 ksi. Per paragraph B- 2e. Assuming a minimum service deflection. Ap = 22 in. by 1-1/2-in (c) Fatigue considerations. are fracture critical members. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 For the negative diagonal on gate closing: The maximum stress is in the negative diagonal (Rn > Rp). the allowable stress (d) Fracture control considerations. From appendix K of AISC (1986). by 1-1/2-in. The controlling load combination is Equation B-2b with unfactored loads. are adequate and the following sizes are chosen: Positive diagonal: Select two 7-1/2-in. B-19 .5 in. the stress range is calculated con. Area = 19. This deflection is based on the assumed temperature of -10o F (Zone 2) the material specifications hydrodynamic load Hd of 30 psf acting on the submerged should require a CVN toughness of 25 ft-lb tested at portion of the leaf during gate operation. Therefore the stress range is (b) Deflection serviceability check. 40o F for welded 36-ksi steel 1. the maximum deflection during operation shall not exceed 4 in. members. therefore it is necessary to tion of the miter gate.

Example miter leaf torsion loads B-20 .EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Figure B-10.

C-1 . EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Appendix C C-2. Introduction Allowable stress design (ASD) criteria shall be used until load and resistance factor design (LRFD) criteria have been developed. Reference Tainter Gates EM 1110-2-2702 Design of Spillway Tainter Gates C-1.

Introduction Allowable stress design (ASD) criteria shall be used until D-1 . EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Appendix D load and resistance factor design (LRFD) criteria have Tainter Valves been developed. D-1.

EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Appendix E load and resistance factor design (LRFD) criteria have Bulkheads and Stoplogs been developed. E-1. Introduction Allowable stress design (ASD) criteria shall be used until E-1 .

Introduction Dam Gantry Cranes Allowable stress design (ASD) criteria shall be used until load and resistance factor design (LRFD) criteria have been developed. EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Appendix F CE-1507.01 Vertical Lift Gates (Lock and Crest) Tractor Gates-Broome Type CE-1602 F-1. References EM 1110-2-2701 Vertical Lift Crest Gates F-1 . F-2.

G-1 . EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Appendix G G-2. Introduction EM 1110-2-3104 Allowable stress design (ASD) criteria shall be used until Structural Design of Pumping Stations load and resistance factor design (LRFD) criteria have been developed. References Hydroelectric and Pumping Plants EM 1110-2-3001 Planning and Design of Hydroelectric Power Plants G-1.

tial effects. 1. however. 3. Mechanical and electrical items shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 4 and guidance Hs = hydrostatic load specified in EM 1110-2-2705. Introduction a. Load unfavorable effect may occur when one or more of the carrying members (including but not limited to: skin loads in a particular load combination are equal to zero. however. LFPP gates shall have a. therefore. Loads due to thermal effects most commonly used LFPP gate types. This appendix addresses only inland struc- sures. and wave loads during closing operations before the main likeness to those loads specified in ASCE (1990) and hurricane storm strikes. typical HSS environment. as well as criteria in Chap- ters 1. Therefore. selec. intercostals. EM 1110-2-2105 Change 1 31 May 94 * Appendix H HSS and is more like building environments than the Load and Resistance Factor Design Cri. for LFPP clo. unique loads and load combinations exist. D = dead load b. Purpose.3 (Q or W) (H-2) tion of materials. and 5 where applicable. Closure struc. The most using the load and resistance factor design method. gates could be subjected to large of the load factors considered variability. other special loading conditions may be factors and load combinations specified in paragraph H-2a necessary for gate closures in hurricane flood protection pertain specifically to LFPP closure gates. AISC (1986). (1) Hydraulic loads. the environment they function in is not as severe as other * H-1 .2 D (H-1) contained in this appendix. plates. Many gate details need not be considered. Development projects. 2.0 unless the structural engineer teria for Local Flood Protection Project is aware of extenuating circumstances that require a more Closure Gates conservative design. and assumed member loading shall follow guidance in EM 1110-2-2705 unless otherwise The nominal loads are defined as follows: stated herein. definition. and trolley gates since these are the b. W = wind load The guidance presented in this appendix is limited to swing. The load tures. required strengths calculated for the factored loads and walls for inland local flood protection projects (LFPP) forces in the following load combinations. However. This appendix provides structural design design strengths at all sections at least equal to the guidance for gate closure openings in levees and flood.4 Hs + 1. Gate layout. Load and Resistance Factor Design H-1. remote. Earthquake loads need not be are shown in EM 1110-2-2705. and vertical dia- phragms) shall be designed in accordance with the criteria 1. For example. H-2. the seismic design for the concrete ASCE (1990) and AISC (1986) specify load factors and monolith supporting the open gate must include the iner- load combinations for buildings. Strength requirements. the reliability factor for LFPP gates shall be 1. diagonals. Load considerations. operating equipment capacity) tures for openings in levee and floodwall systems of LFPPs are usually either stoplog or gate type closures. miter. considered for the gate members since the probability of an earthquake occurring when the gate is closed is very (2) Load combinations and load factors. Q = maximum operating load (draw bar pull or (1) Types of LFPP closure structures. the protected side.2 D + 1. LFPP unprotected side and at or below the gate sill elevation on gates are considered hydraulic steel structures. girders. rolling. Background. Hydrostatic load Hs shall be (3) A discussion of the need for using reliability determined based on water to the top of the gate on the factor α for HSS design is given in paragraph 3-8.

where α is 1 as per paragraph H-1b(3). Load cases. Wind load W shall consist of a wind load of 15 psf when the gate is opening or closing (a) Skin plates shall be sized such that the maximum (gate operating). Deflection shall be limited to 0. H-2. designed for flexure due to hydrostatic loading only. H-2 with Q = 0 would apply.) shall be designed for flexure due to hydrostatic loading plus flexure and axial load induced by dead load in the d. or angle sections. The maximum load for determining shall be designed in accordance with the principles dis- the localized stresses for designing the operator connec. (Eq. This value should be obtained from the mechanical nificant membrane stresses. Dead load1 D shall be determined design of individual gate members. appropriate LRFD formulas. Horizontal girders for LFPP miter gates (b) Wheel gates. H-1 with D = 0 would apply. because of their environment. (Eq. generally not considered in LFPP gate load combinations. Load Q shall be the maximum basis of small deflection thin plate theory using load case load that can be exerted by the operator (stalling torque of 1(a) of paragraph H-2c. design per the applicable requirements of para- load at the operator (usually a draw bar) connection. tee sections. They may be flat bars or (2) Case 2: Gate operating. he should refer to paragraph B-2b(2). Rolling and trolley gate girders shall be paragraphs include a brief description of design assump. H-2 . maximum torsion load.2 Horizontal girders for tion (usually a winch plate) shall be the limiting load for swing gates that support components of the diagonal loads the operator. Load case 1(a) or paragraph H-2c shall be investigated to determine the (a) Hinge gates. The following load cases shall be considered with the appropriate loading combinations: (b) With requirements of paragraph H-2d(1)(a) above. If the designer has an * unusual situation and wants to consider these loads. (1) Case 1: Gate stationary.) (a) Intercostals shall be sized so the maximum calcu- lated moment is less than the nominal bending strength of (b) Open or closed. cussed in paragraph B-2d(3). c. no hydrostatic load. graph B-2d(2). (3) Wind loads. H-2 with W = 0 would apply. Ice and mud loads are ance is presented in EM 1110-2-2705. More than one thickness of engineer that designed the machinery or other equipment). Hinge gates shall be designed for a uniform wind load of 15 psf (refer to paragraph 9b(4) (b) With requirements of paragraph H-2d(2)(a) of EM 1110-2-2705) and an equal and opposite reaction above. Skin plates shall be designed for hydro- static loading only. a wind load as speci. design per paragraph B-2d(1)(b). plate may be desirable for taller gates. of the plate thickness to prevent the development of sig- etc. The following diagonals. (a) Closed under hydrostatic loads. EM 1110-2-2105 Change 1 31 May 94 * (2) Gravity loads. For tions. (1) Skin plate. LFPP gates generally use rolled load. Further design guid- based on site-specific conditions.) (3) Girders.4 motorized winch. in AISC (1986). The minimum plate thickness shall be 1/4 in. αφbMn where α is 1 as per paragraph H-1b(3) and φb is Q = 0 would apply. When the gate is in the latched closed calculated stress is less than the yield limit state of αφFy or open positions (gate stationary). Intercostals shall be designed for hydrostatic loading only. Stresses shall be determined on the (4) Operating loads. This loading condition results in the maximum load effect. plates. LFPP gates usually do not consider these loads sections. Design for individual members. (2) Intercostals. (Eq. load case 1(a) of paragraph H-2c 2 Paragraph B-2d(3) is written with emphasis on 1 Miter gate design includes ice and mud in the dead built-up sections. (Eq.) defined in AISC (1986). and φ is defined fied in EM 1110-2-2502 shall be used. capacity of manually operated winch. and load cases for the all types of LFPP gates.

closure structures due to the small number of stress cycles dance with the principles discussed in paragraph B-2d(4). Requirements of paragraph 3-6 shall be ing the gate against a 15-psf uniform wind loading. or other stabilizing systems for the various welds.) shall be effect. Load case 1(a) is Chapter 5 provides general guidance for connection applicable. inter- e. and their associated connections are considered well as flexure loads. LFPP gates horizontally framed miter gate is shown in Appendix B. Load applied to fracture critical members (FCM). EM 1110-2-2105 Change 1 31 May 94 * shall be investigated to determine the maximum load not damaged in the latched open position. or wind load (depending on the ments. Connections and Details They shall include axial and bending due to the forces from the wheels or trolley hangars. Appendices B and C demonstrate LRFD this load case. Components of the gate being used to H-4. hinges. and fabrication of miter gate leafs. g. wheels. costals. with the hydrostatic loading. Typically. design assumptions. Connection details shall be consistent with the element shall be 1/4 in. closing links. Paragraphs 1-5a(6) and latching devices. Design Example stabilize the gate in the closed position with hydrostatic load shall be designed using load case 1(a). Other gate components that are designed principles for the design of miter and tainter gate ele- to resist dead. f. trolleys. gates shall be designed to resist flexure loads only. The hinges. 1-5a(7) of EM 1110-2-2703 discuss the use of bolts. details for ease of operation. Figure B-2 illustrates the details required for consistency in intercostal design (6) Stabilizing systems. except those diaphragms in line with wheels or trolley hangars. respectively. gate hooks. Fatigue is not a concern for LFPP (4) Diagonals. the guidance is generally applicable for LFPP gates. they do not provide com- case 2. shall be designed for an expected life of 50 years. over the life of the structure. H-3. Fracture. Components of the system shall be designed as tions. and para- types of LFPP gates are shown in the plates in EM 1110. dead. They shall be designed to resist gate torsion to the dead load as well as the torsion resulting from closing or open. These examples should be used for guidance when ing values of structural behavior to ensure serviceability designing similar structural members for LFPP gates. The designer case 2(a) of paragraph H-2c is applicable. Vertical diaphragms for graph 3-6b. from hydrostatic. The minimum thickness of any diaphragm design. operating. Limit. wheels. Serviceability requirements. The force applied to the units may be gates.g. graph 2-1j(3) includes a discussion of diagonal connec- 2-2705. For example. Diagonals shall be designed in accor. prehensive design for entire gates. The maximum design wind loading acting against chosen so that the closure functions properly throughout the exposed gate surface is insignificant when compared its design life. and girders. Serviceability require. Specific LFPP gate design examples are not included in the gates hooks for the L-frame rolling gate would use this appendix. for simple or fixed connections.. Although EM 1110-2-2703 is written for lock individual units. Fatigue. Vertical diaphragms for wheel to be FCM. (e. etc. ensuring the gate is * H-3 . design of the diagonals for a ments shall be as specified in paragraph 3-5. Examples in the two appendices are limited to the design of skin plates. trolley gate hinge gates shall be designed to resist diagonal loads as hangers. details for ease of mainte- nance. The calculations are provided to component’s function) shall be designed using load demonstrate LRFD principles. maximum deflections. operating. or wind or a combina- tion of these loads. shall determine which members are fracture critical for the specific gate in question in accordance with para- (5) Vertical diaphragms. For example. Also. gate tie-down assemblies.

Culverts. Introduction EM 1110-2-2901 rMiscellaneous HSS include lock wall accessories. I-1 . EM 1110-2-2105 31 Mar 93 Appendix I I-2. Allowable stress design (ASD) criteria shall be used until load and EM 1110-2-2902 resistance factor design (LRFD) criteria have been Conduits. and sector gates. and Pipes developed. outlet Tunnels and Shaft in Rock works gates. penstocks. References Miscellaneous Hydraulic Steel Structures EM 1110-2-2400 Structural Design of Spilways and Outlet Works I-1.