1 / 60

Evaluation of the Sandwich Plate System in Bridge Decks Using a Plate Approach

Project Overview. SPS Introduction. SPS for Civil Structures. . Introduction to SPS. Developed by Intelligent EngineeringMaritime industryBridge Application (deck). Pre-fab Panels. DisadvantagesCostLimited applicationNo design provisions. AdvantagesLightweightRapid installationNew/rehab. Prefabricated Decks/Bridges.

bud
Download Presentation

Evaluation of the Sandwich Plate System in Bridge Decks Using a Plate Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Evaluation of the Sandwich Plate System in Bridge Decks Using a Plate Approach Devin Harris – Michigan Tech Chris Carroll – Virginia Tech

    2. Project Overview

    3. SPS for Civil Structures

    4. Introduction to SPS Developed by Intelligent Engineering Maritime industry Bridge Application (deck)

    5. Prefabricated Decks/Bridges Fabricated panel – limited girder configuration Wide girder spacing Larger cantilevers Fast erection Structured Panel Deck

    8. Sequence of SPS Construction

    9. Sequence of SPS Construction

    10. Prefabricated Decks/Bridges Simple plate – many girder configuration Small girder spacing Short cantilevers Girders attached to deck in factory Very fast erection Simple Plate Deck

    12. Fabrication Process

    13. Current Bridge Projects New Bridge IBRC – Cedar Creek – Texas – June ‘08

    14. Research Objective To develop a simple design procedure for SPS decks for bridge applications

    15. SPS Deck Design Approach AASHTO Deck Design Design Methods Linear Elastic (Equivalent Strip) Inelastic (Yield-Line) Empirical (R/C only) Orthotropic Plate Limit States Serviceability Strength Fatigue SPS Approach (Layered Plate) Variable loads and B.C.s Assume deflection controls

    16. SPS Plate Representation

    17. Analysis Options Classical Plate Approach Navier Levy Energy (Ritz) Finite Element Approach Shell Solid Grid (line elements) Note: Focus here will be on the FE approach, but the classical plate approach will be used primarily as a validation mechanismNote: Focus here will be on the FE approach, but the classical plate approach will be used primarily as a validation mechanism

    18. FE Model Approach Shell Model Advantages Ideal for thin elements Computationally efficient Membrane/bending effects Single thru thickness element Solid Model Advantages Realistic geometry representation Element connectivity Disadvantages Element compatibility Element connectivity Stacking limitations* Disadvantages Can be overly stiff User error (more likely) Complicated mesh refinement

    19. Material Properties

    20. Element Validation (Generic) Givens: Boundary Conditions: Fully Restrained Material Properties: E=29,000 ksi; n=0.25 Dimensions: thickness=6” (constant); a=b=L [L/t … 1-200] Load: q = 0.01 ksi (uniform) ANSYS Shell 63 (4-node) Shell 91/93 (8-node) Solid 45 (8-node) Solid 95, Solid 191 (20-node) GT STRUDL BPR (4-node plate) SBHQ6 (4-node shell) IPLS (8-node solid) IPQS (20-node solid)

    22. GT STRUDL Models

    23. GT STRUDL Models

    24. GT STRUDL Models

    25. GT STRUDL Models

    26. GT STRUDL Models

    27. GT STRUDL Models

    28. GT STRUDL Models

    29. GT STRUDL Models

    30. GT STRUDL Models

    31. GT STRUDL Models

    32. SPS Models Case I Simple Support on all edges Cold-formed angles – assume minimal rotational restraint

    33. SPS Models Case II Simple supports perpendicular to girders Fixed supports along girders Rotation restrained by girders & cold-formed angles

    34. SPS Models Case III Full restraint on all edges Rotation restrained by girders & cold-formed angles

    35. GT STRUDL Models

    36. GT STRUDL Models Simple – Simple Simple – Fixed Fixed – Fixed 2” Thick Plate 1” Thick Plate Symmetry

    37. GT STRUDL Models

    38. GT STRUDL Models

    39. GT STRUDL Models Stiffness Analysis GTSES GTHCS

    41. Summary of Element Validity ANSYS Solids Converged with single thru thickness element ANSYS Shells Minimal mesh refinement required for convergence STRUDL Plate/Shells Converged but no multiple layer capabilities STRUDL Solids Converged with sufficient thru thickness refinement

    42. Suggested Improvements Layered element for composite materials Redraw Issues in GT Menu Contour plots without mesh Undo Button in GT Menu

    43. Model Validation – SPS Panel

    44. Model Validation – SPS Panel SPS Plate (0.25” plates; 1.5” core) Support by W27 x 84 beams Loaded to 77.8 k with concrete filled tires (assumed 10” x 20”)

    45. Experimental vs. Shell Model Predictions ANSYS

    46. Experimental vs. Shell Model Predictions ANSYS

    47. Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions ANSYS

    48. Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions GT STRUDL

    49. Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions GT STRUDL

    50. Model Validation – SPS Bridge

    51. Model Validation – SPS Bridge SPS Plate (0.125” plates; 0.75” core) Support by Built-up Girders (depth ~ 23”) Loaded ~ 24 k with bearing pad (9” x 14”)

    52. Experimental vs. Shell Model Predictions ANSYS

    53. Experimental vs. Shell Model Predictions ANSYS

    54. Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions ANSYS

    55. Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions GT STRUDL

    56. Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions GT STRUDL

    57. Comparison of ANSYS and GT STRUDL Models

    58. Conclusions SPS deck behavior can be modeled as plate with variable boundary conditions Solid and shell elements are applicable Attention to mesh refinement critical to solid elements Higher order elements significantly increase # DOFs Layered elements ideal for efficiency GT STRUDL and ANSYS yield similar results, but not identical Future investigation of differences in solid/shell boundary conditions

    59. Acknowledgements Virginia Department of Transportation Intelligent Engineering (www.ie-sps.com) GT STRUDL Users’ Group Virginia Tech

More Related