POLITECHNIKA KRAKOWSKA im. T.

Kościuszki
Wydział Inżynierii Lądowej
Instytut Materiałów i Konstrukcji Budowlanych
Katedra Budowy Mostów i Tuneli

Analysis of folded steel shell - earth bridge

Diploma work of: Under supervision of:

Michał Wszołek dr hab. inż. Aleksander Urbański, prof. PK
Przemysław Milczarek dr inż. Karol Ryż
Contents

y General information
y Analytical design methods
y ZSoil modeling of folded shell
y Conception
y Computer modeling of a bridge and results
Construction
Exploitation
y Conclusions
Examples
Examples, cont.

11 000 kN

24m
Main components of the structure

y Folded steel shell y Soil

typical shapes soil parameters

Is=0,95-1,00

φ=36o-45o
Analytical method of design:
Sundquist-Pettersson („swedish method”)- 2010
y geometry (almost) arbitrary, min depth of backfill 0.5m:
y plane strain condition
y formulas for: N,M –forces and bending moments for dead
weihgt and moving load
Swedish Method, cont.
moving load
y stresses in fill according to Boussinesq theory
y q and P
Swedish Method, cont. dead load, 2 phazes of construction:

1 phaze 2 phaze
Identification of folded shell model in ZSoil
in Robot Milenium: how to deal with it in ZSoil ?

K[kN/m]

B[kNm]

H[kN/m]

⎡ Nxx⎤ ⎡kxxxx kxxyy ⎤ ⎡ Exx⎤

⎢ Nyy ⎥ ⎢ s kyyyy O O ⎥ ⎢ Eyy⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Nxy ⎥ ⎢ kxyxy ⎥ ⎢ Γxy ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Mxx ⎥=⎢ bxxxx bxxyy ⎥⋅⎢ κxx ⎥
⎢ Myy⎥ ⎢ O s byyyy O ⎥ ⎢ κyy ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
9 module ⎢ Mxy⎥ ⎢ bxyxy ⎥ ⎢ κxy ⎥
⎢ Qx ⎥ ⎢ O O hxx ⎥ ⎢ βx ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢⎣ Qy ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣
= ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
hyy⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ βy ⎥⎦
 Identification of folded shell model in ZSoil, cont.
symetric reiforcements, different in x,y
ky = Ea Fa

kx
ζ Xh E2
v 2 = v1 ⋅
2 E1
ζ Xh
2
h ⎡ E1 v 2 ⋅ E1 ⎤
0⎥
⎡σ XX ⎤ ⎢1 − v1 ⋅ v 2 1 − v1 ⋅ v 2 ⎡ε ⎤
kx ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ E2 ⎥ ⎢ XX ⎥
σ = σ YY = ⎢ − s − 0 ⎥ ⋅ ε YY = D ⋅ ε
⎢ ⎥ 1 − v1 ⋅ v 2 ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣σ XY ⎥⎦ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢γ ⎥
ζYh
2 ky ⎢ 0 0 G 0⎥ ⎣ XY ⎦
ζYh
2
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
plane stress orthotropic model
in core layer
10 parameters:
h, G 0, E 1, E 2, v1 ζ X , ζ Y , kx , ky κ
 Identification of folded shell model in ZSoil, cont.
Robot Milenium => ZSoil, with help of MathCad
1. Given
G0 ⋅ h kxyxy

G0 = 1630894847.794 [kPa]
G0 3
⋅h bxyxy
12 h = 0.227 m [m]
hxx
κ κ = 1.944 [-]
G0 ⋅ h
3
E2 h y
2. 1. ⋅ + 2⋅ky⋅ byyyy
12 2 E2 4 E1,E2, such as kx>0, ky>0:
1 − v1 ⋅
E1
3 E1 = 2100 [kPa]
E1 h x
2. ⋅ + 2⋅kx⋅ bxxxx
12 2 E2 4
1 − v1 ⋅ E2 = 10 [kPa]
E1
x
[m2] ζx := = 0.378
3. E1⋅
h
+ 2⋅kx kxxxx
x = 0.007 h
2 E2
1 − v1 ⋅ [m2] y
E1 y = 0.007 ζx := = 0.378
h
4. E2⋅
h
+ 2⋅ky kyyyy kx = 1233343.1 [kNm]
2 E2
1 − v1 ⋅
E1 ky = 1172.1 [kNm]
E2 ⎛ h ⎞ [-]
5. v1⋅
E1
⋅⎜ E1⋅ + 2⋅kx⎟ kxxyy v1 = 0.0599
2 E2
⎜ 1 − v1 ⋅ ⎟
⎝ E1 ⎠
Design conception of a bridge
[mm]
Profile 381 140 Railway load
7 (kl. 2)
SUPERCOR
1.9

H=5.89
13.0 10.0
5.0

R.C.
foundation Backfill
 Computer modeling in ZSoil
General assumptions
‰3D model, with materials
Mohr-Coulomb (soil), elastic (shell, concrete)
‰small displacement
‰use of:
construction stages,
Nodes: 48880
contact (sheel-backfill),
Nele : B8 - 37712
infinite elements,
SQ4, CQ4 - 2304
kinematic constraints
 Model components

y Continuum

rail-road bed
E = 250 MPa , φ = 41o

embankment-backfill

E = 175MPa , φ = 36o

embankment-old
Model components, cont.

y Continuum

stone linning

concrete foundation
Model components, cont.

y Beam & truss

kinematic
constraint

y Infinite el.
Model components, cont.

y Shell
elastic, anizotropic

y Contact
Existence functions
Results - final construction stage
displacement, bending moments and forces in shell

Mxx
|u|

Mxx

Nxx
Results - construction stage,

Ux Uy Uz IUI
max
6,477 7,611 0,801
[cm]
8,096
min
-6,477 -4,596 -0,799
[cm]

maximal displacement
uplift Uy=6,00cm
Simulation of moving railway load
y loads in ZSoil set on the top
independently from FE discretization
y set of 129 LTF to simulate moving load
Results – exploitation phaze
Deformation under moving load

Ux Uy Uz IUI
max [cm] 0,778 0,635 0,708
1,845
min [cm] -0,286 -1,816 -0,707
Results – exploitation phaze
shell displ. at the top

left right

load placement load placement

Results – exploitation phaze
bending moment Mxx in shell
left right

load placement load placement

Persistent forces
Nxx –after one run of load

Stress level in soil

Conclusions
Result comparison
Model Max. shell stress [MPa]
Model 1 (basic) 246,36
Model 2 (expanded) 168,63
Model 3 (one shell) 129,81
Swedish method 157,16

Model 1 Model 2

Model 3
Thank you for your attention

Michał Wszołek Aleksander Urbański ( aurbansk@pk.edu.pl )

Przemysław Milczarek Karol Ryż