ES - 04 - Local Effects On Deck's Slabs

4 Local effects on slabs 1/25
BRIDGE DESIGN
LOCAL EFFECTS ON
SLABS
Politecnico di Torino
Department of structural and geotechnical engineering
“Bridge design”
Summary:
1. General considerations
2. Actions on the slab
3. Equivalent beam dimensioning
“Bridge design”
1.1 Differences between free spans and axis spans
Axis spans Free spans
“Bridge design”
In the bridge studied in the previous lessons the slab is separated

from the transverse beams so we have:
•3 inner fields of 14.7x3m of axis spans
•2 external cantilevers of 14.7x1.5m of axis spans
“Bridge design”
1.2 Aspect ratios

a
Called b the longest side of a slab
Called a the shorter one b
b
If  2.5 The slab can be dimensioned as equivalent beam
a
b
If  2.5 The slab has to be dimensioned as a real slab
a
“Bridge design”
1.3 Level of restraint

In both cases (real slab or equivalent beam) the real level of restraint
provided by longitudinal beams and transverse beams is difficult to be
correctly evaluated.
For a simplified analysis the slab can be dimensioned for the envelope
of the two limit situations of:
rigid restraint on the edges simple support on the edges
“Bridge design”
The rigid restraint condition is used for evaluating the maximum

negative moments at the edges (i.e. points A and B), whereas the
simple support condition is used for the bending moments in mid-span
(i.e. point M)
A
B B M
In case of automatic design by use of f.e.m. both conditions are used

for every point of the slab and the results are enveloped.
“Bridge design”
2. Actions on the slab

• Dead load g1
• Carried permanent loads g2
Kerbs, pavement, barriers, parapets, etc.
• Creep and shrinkage 2

• Thermal actions 3
• Load Model 1 (LM1)

Tandem and distributed loads (use lane 1)

Tandem or single tyre load 200kN (0.35x0.60m)
Concentrated load for local verification 150kN (0.4x0.4m)
“Bridge design”
2.1 Permanent loads
kN
• Dead load g1  hs   s  0.25m  25 3
 6.25kN / m 2
m
• Carried permanent loads

pavement g 2, p  3.00kN / m 2
kN
kerb g 2,k  hk   k  0.23m  25 3
 5.75kN / m 2
m
pedestrian barrier g 2, pb  1.00kN / m
2.2 Imposed deformations

No imposed deformations will be taken into account for sake of simplicity
“Bridge design”
3. Equivalent beam dimensioning
3.1 Inner field of slab

b 14.7 We can use the equivalent beam
In our case   4.9  2.5
a 3 simplification on the transverse span
3.1.1 Effective span calculation
“Bridge design”
“Bridge design”
Effective span calculation
Cantilever leff  ln  a1  1.25  min 0.125, 0.25  1.38m
Inner span leff  ln  a1  a2 

Fully restrained 2.5  min 0.125, 0.25  min 0.125, 0.25  2.75m
Inner span leff  ln  a1  a2 

Simply supported 2.5  0.125  0.125  2.75m
“Bridge design”
3.1.2 Bending moment due to permanent loads
1.382
Cantilever M cant , g   6.25  5.75    1.0 1.38 
2
11.4  1.4  12.8kN / m  m
Inner span
2.752
Fully restrained M in _ edge, g   6.25  3.00    5.83kN / m  m
12
At the edge
Inner span
2.752
Simply supported M in _ mid , g   6.25  3.00    8.74kN / m  m
8
In mid-span
“Bridge design”
3.1.3 Bending moment due variable loads
3.1.3.1 Load Model 1 (LM1)
Dispersal of concentrated loads
1 wheel dimension
2 pavement thickness = 0.13m
3 half slab thickness = 0.125m

Width of the dispersed load area
b  0.40  2   0.13  0.125   0.91m
“Bridge design”
Maximum positive in mid span  Scheme of simply supported beam.
Influence line of bending moment due to vertical forces (in transverse direction)
b  0.91m 150kN
q  165kN / m
0.91
  0.5 q
x
 1 l  l  0.5
4 2
2.75
l
2 1.375
M  2 
( l 91)
q  y ( x)dx  2  
0.92
q  y ( x)dx  2  0.455  q  yave 
2
1  2.75 0.92 
 0.91 q      0.52  q  85.8 KNm / m
2 4 2 
“Bridge design”
N.B.
If we had considered the load without dispersion we would have found a bending
moment of:
l 2.75
M Q  150  103kNm / m
4 4
That is 21% greater than the value obtained before.
“Bridge design”
What is the effective resisting cross section that bears the bending moment
just calculated ?
In longitudinal 0.44
direction we place 2 α
single wheels of each 0.91
tandem along the
mid-span longitudinal 0.28 1.20
axis of the slab as
the other two of each 0.91
tandem fall on the
other field of the 1.55 These other 2
slab. 0.92 wheels are outside
1.375 the studied field
The dispersion
angle α is 25.6° 2.75
“Bridge design”
The dispersion length is: ldisp  0.91  2  0.92  tg (25.6)  1.79m

The overlapping length
(painted in orange) spreads
for
lovrl  0.44  2  0.28  0.60m 0.44

α
The acting bending moment 1.79 0.91
is then
lovrl 0.28 1.20
M  M conc ,trasv / ldisp 
1.79 0.91
85.8 /1.79  47.9kNm / m
This value has to be
doubled as the overlapping 0.92
length is >0 so
M conc , LM 1  95.8kNm / m 2.75
“Bridge design”
Maximum negative at the edges  Scheme of fully restrained beam.
Influence line of bending moment due to vertical forces (in transverse direction)
b  0.91m
q  165kN / m
 1
x 1 3 1 2
y x  x
l2 l
The bending moment is then

x  0.91 x  0.91
1 1  q 1 3
M ( x)  x
q   2 x3  x 2  dx 
l l  l x
l
x  x 2 dx
“Bridge design”
x  0.91
q1 1 
M ( x)   x 4  x 3 
l  4l 3 x
To find the maximum value of M(x) we set equal to 0 its derivative and we find
M max  M ( x  1.375)  0.347q  57.2kNm / m
“Bridge design”
What is the effective resisting cross section that bears the bending moment
just calculated ?
In longitudinal direction we place 2

single wheels of each tandem in the
position given us by the influence line
just calculated. α 0.22
The dispersion angle α is 25.6° 0.91
The dispersion length is: 0.28 1.20

ldisp  0.91  2  0.465  tg (25.6)  1.36m 0.91
1.36
The overlapping length
(painted in orange) is 1.375 0.465
lovrl  0.22  2  0.28  0.16m
2.75
“Bridge design”
The acting bending moment is then

M  M conc ,trasv / ldisp  57.2 /1.36  42.1kNm / m
This value has to be doubled as the overlapping length is >0 so
M conc , LM 1  84.2kNm / m
For the distributed live load we get
Maximum positive in mid span  Scheme of simply supported beam.
ql 2 9  2.752
M distr , LM 1    8.51kNm / m
8 8
Maximum negative at the edges  Scheme of fully restrained beam.
ql 2 9  2.752
M distr , LM 1     5.67 kNm / m
12 12
“Bridge design”
4. Finite element analysis

The same slab has been analyzed by F.E.M.
Maximum positive in mid span  hinge supports on the two sides.
“Bridge design”
Myy – transverse bending moment Mxx – longitudinal bending moment

Myy,max = 42.4 kNm Mxx,max = 19.7 kNm
“Bridge design”
The transverse bending moment Myy = 42.4 kNm is similar to the acting bending
moment calculated in slide 18 before overlapping .
M  M conc ,trasv / ldisp  85.8 /1.79  47.9kNm / m
F.E.M. analysis seems then to give smaller transverse bending moment but
provides a better estimation of the longitudinal ones .
“Bridge design”

ES - 04 - Local Effects On Deck's Slabs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ES - 04 - Local Effects On Deck's Slabs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Local effects on slabs 1/25

4 Local effects on slabs 2/25

1.1 Differences between free spans and axis spans

Axis spans Free spans

4 Local effects on slabs 4/25

In the bridge studied in the previous lessons the slab is separated

1.2 Aspect ratios

4 Local effects on slabs 6/25

1.3 Level of restraint

rigid restraint on the edges simple support on the edges

The rigid restraint condition is used for evaluating the maximum

In case of automatic design by use of f.e.m. both conditions are used

4 Local effects on slabs 8/25

2. Actions on the slab

• Creep and shrinkage 2

• Load Model 1 (LM1)

• Load Model 2 (LM2)

2.1 Permanent loads

• Carried permanent loads

pedestrian barrier g 2, pb  1.00kN / m

2.2 Imposed deformations

4 Local effects on slabs 10/25

3. Equivalent beam dimensioning

3.1 Inner field of slab

3.1.1 Effective span calculation

4 Local effects on slabs 12/25

Effective span calculation

Cantilever leff  ln  a1  1.25  min 0.125, 0.25  1.38m

Inner span leff  ln  a1  a2 

Inner span leff  ln  a1  a2 

3.1.2 Bending moment due to permanent loads

4 Local effects on slabs 14/25

3.1.3 Bending moment due variable loads

3.1.3.1 Load Model 1 (LM1)

Dispersal of concentrated loads

2 pavement thickness = 0.13m

3 half slab thickness = 0.125m

b  0.40  2   0.13  0.125   0.91m

Maximum positive in mid span  Scheme of simply supported beam.

4 Local effects on slabs 16/25

That is 21% greater than the value obtained before.

4 Local effects on slabs 18/25

The dispersion length is: ldisp  0.91  2  0.92  tg (25.6)  1.79m

lovrl  0.44  2  0.28  0.60m 0.44

M conc , LM 1  95.8kNm / m 2.75

Maximum negative at the edges  Scheme of fully restrained beam.

The bending moment is then

4 Local effects on slabs 20/25

M max  M ( x  1.375)  0.347q  57.2kNm / m

In longitudinal direction we place 2

The dispersion angle α is 25.6° 0.91

The dispersion length is: 0.28 1.20

4 Local effects on slabs 22/25

The acting bending moment is then

For the distributed live load we get

Maximum positive in mid span  Scheme of simply supported beam.

4. Finite element analysis

Maximum positive in mid span  hinge supports on the two sides.

4 Local effects on slabs 24/25

Myy – transverse bending moment Mxx – longitudinal bending moment

M  M conc ,trasv / ldisp  85.8 /1.79  47.9kNm / m

You might also like