1 / 16

AASHTOWare Bridge Rating – Curved Girder Module

AASHTOWare Bridge Rating – Curved Girder Module. Vanessa Storlie , E.I.T. Chad Clancy, P.E. Presentation Organization. Background Info Modeling Analysis Results Conclusions. Background Info. Performed Beta Testing of Curved Girder Module in BrR 6.5

sonja
Download Presentation

AASHTOWare Bridge Rating – Curved Girder Module

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. AASHTOWare Bridge Rating – Curved Girder Module Vanessa Storlie, E.I.T. Chad Clancy, P.E.

  2. Presentation Organization • Background Info • Modeling • Analysis • Results • Conclusions

  3. Background Info • Performed Beta Testing of Curved Girder Module in BrR 6.5 • Needed to use a bridge where design force effects and resistances were available • Bridge had to be curved but with a small enough radius where the curvature would have an effect • Selected a four-span continuous unit with a radius of 1145.92 feet; four girders in cross-section spaced at 10’-4”; bridge was designed by MM

  4. Modeling – General Information • Appurtenances (medians, parapets, railings, etc.) do not have to be input as “generic” as shown in example. • Define different diaphragm/cross-frame types using “Diaphragm Definitions”

  5. Modeling – Superstructure Definition – Definition Tab

  6. Modeling – Superstructure Definition – Analysis Tab

  7. Modeling – Structure Framing Plan Details

  8. Modeling – Structure Framing Plan - Diaphragms

  9. Modeling – Structure Framing Plan Schematic

  10. Modeling – Diaphragm Loading Selection • Check the boxes for which you want force effects to be calculated • Adds a significant amount of time to the analysis.

  11. Modeling – Member Alternatives • Curved girders input the same way as straight girders. • Girder web does not have to be defined with separate sections for each different cross-section • For bearings aligned along a chord line, angles should be closer to zero than to 90. • Local z-axis is transverse and y-axis is vertical

  12. Modeling – Visual Verification of Input • Traditional framing plan, cross-section, and girder schematics are still available. • 3D schematics showing elements are available when using 3D FEA analysis

  13. Analysis – Analysis Settings

  14. Results • Dead load and live load moments and shears can be obtained from “View Analysis Report”; element level forces/stresses can be found in xml files by using “View analysis output” • Report tools function but it appears as though there are small bugs in populating the reports for both LFR and LRFR.

  15. Results • Compared BrR moments and shears to BSDI values used for design. Generally very similar for interior girders, some differences for exterior girders that with additional effort could be eliminated.

  16. Conclusions • BrR provides moments and shears similar to those from BSDI analysis used for design. • Some significant differences in positive moments – reason yet to be identified • Need to look at cross frames • More comparisons planned as part of rating 5-span units on the Huey P. Long bridge in New Orleans

More Related