4.5 Article

Simplified method of analysis accounting for shear-lag effects in composite bridge decks

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIONAL STEEL RESEARCH
Volume 67, Issue 10, Pages 1684-1697

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.04.013

Keywords

Composite bridge; Concrete deck; Effective width; Shear-lag

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [DP110103028]
  2. Australian Academy of Science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a simplified method of analysis for the design of twin-girder and single-box steel-concrete composite bridge decks. Its main advantages rely on (i) the use of the real width of the slab for the whole bridge length when performing the global analysis, i.e. without modifying the deck geometry based on the effective width method, and (ii) its ability to evaluate the normal longitudinal stress distribution on the slab by means of a cross-sectional analysis considering the internal actions obtained from the global analysis. In the latter cross-sectional analysis the properties of the concrete component are based on an effective width calculated using new analytical expressions presented in this paper. The proposed approach is capable of handling different loading conditions, such as constant uniformly distributed loads, envelopes of transverse actions due to traffic loads, support settlements and concrete shrinkage. These analytical expressions have been obtained based on the results of an extensive parametric study carried out by means of the finite element formulation described in the first part of the paper. The accuracy of the proposed approach is validated for a typical four-span bridge with constant cross-section throughout its length against the results obtained based on the finite element method. Finally, a realistic case study of a bridge with varying cross-section is considered to show the robustness of the proposed methodology. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available