Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Two-Span LRFD Design Example Karl Barth and Jennifer Righman West Virginia University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Two-Span LRFD Design Example Karl Barth and Jennifer Righman West Virginia University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Two-Span LRFD Design Example Karl Barth and Jennifer Righman West Virginia University

2 Objective The primary focus of this example is to demonstrate the use of Appendix A and Appendix B for a two-span continuous structure

3 Appendix A Overview Accounts for the ability of compact and non-compact sections to resist moments greater than M y Economy gained by Appendix A provisions increases with decreasing web slenderness Effects of St. Venant torsion are incorporated

4 Appendix B Overview Traditional AASHTO specifications have permitted up to 10% of the maximum pier section bending moment to be redistributed to positive bending regions Appendix B provisions explicitly compute the level of redistribution based on an effective plastic moment concept for sections meeting prescribed geometric criteria

5 Design Information

6 Framing Plan

7 Design Notes 2004 AASHTO LRFD Specifications, 3 rd Edition Structural steel: ASTM A709, Grade 50W Normal weight concrete (145 pcf) with f c ’=4 ksi F yr = 60 ksi for reinforcing steel Operational importance, redundancy, and ductility factors = 1.0

8 Design Loads – DC 1 DC 1 loads are equally distributed to all girders Slab=0.983 k/ft Haunch (average wt/length) =0.017 k/ft Overhang taper=0.019 k/ft Girder (average wt/length, varies) =0.200 k/ft Cross-frames and misc. steel=0.015 k/ft Stay-in-place forms =0.101 k/ft  =1.335 k/ft

9 Design Loads – DC 2 and DW DC 2 Barrier weight = 520 lb/ft Weight/girder = (0.520)x(2)/(4) = k/ft DW Future wearing surface = 25 psf DW = (0.025 ksf)x(34 ft)/4 = k/ft

10 Design Loads – WS and WL WS Wind forces are calculated assuming bridge is located 30’ above water in open country Wind on upper half of girder, deck, and barrier assumed to be resisted by diaphragm action of the deck WS = k/ft (on bottom flange) WL Assumed to be transmitted by diaphragm action WL is neglected

11 Design Loads – Live Load Controlling case of: Truck + Lane Tandem + Lane 0.9 (Double Truck + Lane) (in negative bending) Impact factors used for all vehicular live loads (excluding lane load) I=1.15 for fatigue limit state I=1.33 for all other limit states

12 Design Loads – Live Load Live load effects are approximated using distribution factors Interior girder AASHTO empirical equations are used Exterior girder AASHTO empirical equation correction factor Lever rule Special analysis

13 Interior Girder Distribution Factors Moment Varies with girder dimensions due to K g term One design lane Two or more design lanes

14 Interior Girder Distribution Factors Shear One design lane Two or more design lanes (CONTROLS)

15 Exterior Girder Distribution Factors AASHTO exterior girder correction factor Moment Shear Empirical formulas for exterior girder will not control

16 Exterior Girder Distribution Factor Lever Rule – One Design Lane

17 Exterior Girder Distribution Factor Special Analysis One design lane Two or more design lanes Controls for Moment

18 Distribution Factors for Fatigue Based on one design lane No multiple presence factor applied Maximum one lane distribution factor results from the lever rule, i.e., EXTERIOR GIRDER CONTROLS DF = 0.70

19 Unfactored Design Moments

20 Limit States All applicable limits states for steel structures were considered Strength Strength I controls in this example Strength I = 1.25DC + 1.5DW (LL+I) Strength III = 1.25DC + 1.5DW + 1.4WS Strength IV = 1.5(DC + DW) Strength V = 1.25DC + 1.5DW (LL+I) + 0.4WS Service Service II = 1.0(DC + DW) + 1.3(LL+I) Fatigue = 0.75(LL+I)

21 6.10 Provisions Addressed Cross section proportion limits Constructibility Serviceability Fatigue Strength

22 Appendix A Design 63’ 54’ 12 x 3/4 16 X 1-1/4 12 x 3/4 16 x 1-1/2 16 x 2-1/2 16 x 1-1/2 36 x 7/1636 x 1/2 36 X 7/16 63’ 54’ 12 x 3/416 x 1-1/412 x 3/4 16 x 1-1/2 16 x 2-1/2 16 x 1-1/2 36 x 7/16 36 x 1/2 36 x 7/16

23 Cross Section Proportion Limits

24 Constructibility For discretely braced compression flanges F nc may be computed using Appendix A which accounts for increased torsional resistance For discretely braced tension flanges and continuously braced flanges

25 Constructibility - Loads Vertical DC1 loads are determined considering deck casting sequence Lateral flange bending stresses are induced by the overhang form brackets  Construction dead and live loads considered

26 Constructibility Check Stresses in compression flange of positive bending section control the allowable cross-frame spacing Strength I Strength IV

27 Service Limit State For top flange For bottom flange Bottom flange in positive bending (controls)

28 Fatigue Limit State Fatigue requirements significantly impact the design of the positive bending region Bolted stiffener to flange connections employed at locations of maximum stress range, i.e., cross-frames at midspan Bolted connections / Category B details Welded connections / Category C’ details

29 Fatigue Limit State (cont.) Use of bolted cross-frame connections requires that net section fracture requirements are satisfied Assuming one 7/8” diameter bolt hole is used:

30 Positive Flexural Capacity If, then Otherwise Unless certain geometric conditions are satisfied Ductility check:

31 Negative Flexural Capacity Appendix A Therefore, Appendix A is applicable.

32 Web Plastification Factors Check if web is compact - NO Noncompact web plastification factors are used

33 Web Plastification Factors (cont.)

34 Compression Flange Local Buckling Resistance Check if flange is compact - YES

35 Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance

36 Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance

37 Negative Flexural Capacity Summary

38 Appendix A Performance Ratios Positive Bending Region Constructibility (Strength I) Top Flange0.94 Bottom Flange0.30 Constructibility (Strength IV) Top Flange0.93 Bottom Flange0.36 Service Limit State Top Flange0.47 Bottom Flange0.70 Fatigue and Fracture Limit State Bolted Conn.0.80 Welded Conn.0.98 Strength Limit State (Strength I) Flexure0.69 Shear0.83

39 Appendix A Performance Ratios Negative Bending Region Constructibility (Strength I) Top Flange0.46 Bottom Flange0.34 Constructibility (Strength IV) Top Flange0.55 Bottom Flange0.39 Service Limit State Top Flange0.57 Bottom Flange0.69 Fatigue and Fracture Limit State Bolted Conn.NA Welded Conn.0.58 Strength Limit State (Strength I) Flexure0.96 Shear0.78

40 Appendix B Design Moment redistribution procedures are used to create a more economical design 63’ 54’ 12 x 3/416 x 112 x 3/4 16 x 1-1/2 16 x 2 16 x 1-1/2 36 x 7/1636 x 1/2 36 x 7/16

41 Appendix B Requirements Appendix B is valid for girders meeting certain geometric and material limits Web Proportions

42 Appendix B Requirements (cont.) Compression flange proportions Lateral Bracing

43 Appendix B Requirements (cont.) Shear Section Transitions No section transitions are permitted within the first cross-frame spacing on each side of the pier Bearing Stiffeners Bearing stiffeners are required to meet projecting width, bearing resistance, and axial resistance requirements

44 Redistribution Moment Amount of moment redistributed to positive bending region is a function of the effective plastic moment, M pe Higher M pe values are permitted for girders with either: Transverse stiffeners placed at D/2 or less on each side of the pier “Ultra-compact” webs such that Alternative M pe equations are given for strength and service limit states

45 Redistribution Moment (cont.) Redistribution moment at pier: Redistribution moment varies linearly at other locations along the span Pier 1Pier 2 M rd1 M rd2

46 Redistribution Moments (Strength I)

47 Appendix B Design Checks Positive bending capacity Evaluated for positive bending moment plus redistribution moment (at strength and service limit states) Negative bending capacity within one lateral brace spacing on each side of the pier Not evaluated Negative bending capacity at other locations Evaluated for negative bending moment minus redistribution moment Otherwise, same as before

48 Appendix B Performance Ratios Positive Bending Region Constructibility (Strength I) Top Flange0.94 Bottom Flange0.30 Constructibility (Strength IV) Top Flange0.93 Bottom Flange0.36 Service Limit State Top Flange0.47 Bottom Flange0.70 Fatigue and Fracture Limit State Bolted Conn.0.80 Welded Conn.0.99 Strength Limit State (Strength I) Flexure0.75 Shear0.83

49 Appendix B Performance Ratios Negative Bending Region Constructibility (Strength I) Top Flange0.55 Bottom Flange0.42 Constructibility (Strength IV) Top Flange0.66 Bottom Flange0.48 Service Limit State Top Flange0.62 Bottom Flange0.79 Fatigue Limit StateWelded Conn.0.55 Strength Limit State (Strength I) Flexure*0.48 Shear0.78 * Design of negative bending region controlled by 20% limit

50 Appendix A / Appendix B Design Comparisons Positive moment region same in both designs (controlled by fatigue) Cross-frame spacing the same (controlled by constructibility) Appendix B negative moment region 18% lighter Appendix B girder 6% lighter overall 63’ 54’ 12 x 3/416 x 112 x 3/4 16 x 1-1/2 16 x 2 16 x 1-1/2 36 x 7/16 36 x 1/2 36 x 7/16 63’ 54’ 12 x 3/416 x 1-1/412 x 3/4 16 x 1-1/2 16 x 2-1/2 16 x 1-1/2 36 x 7/16 36 x 1/2 36 x 7/16 APPENDIX A DESIGN APPENDIX B DESIGN

51 Concluding Comments Fatigue requirements significantly impact the design of the positive moment region due to the relatively high distribution factor for the exterior girder Constructibility and Appendix B requirements led to the use of a 15 ft cross-frame spacing throughout Use of Appendix A leads to increasing economy with decreasing web slenderness (that is a section with a noncompact web at the upper limit will gain very little from Appendix A) Appendix B provides even greater economy

52


Download ppt "Two-Span LRFD Design Example Karl Barth and Jennifer Righman West Virginia University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google