LRFD Cast-In-Place (CIP) Slab Span Design Example
|
|
- Derick Holland
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 LRFD Cast-In-Place (CIP) Slab Span Design Example County: Any Hwy: Any Design: BRG Date: 12/2006 CSJ: Any Project: Any Checked: BRG Date: 12/2006 Design Parameters The basic bridge geometry can be found on the Bridge Layout and 75' Slab Span Details (see the Appendix, Pages 21 and 22). Deck is 46 ft wide with a 15 degree skew Roadway is 44 ft wide Type T501 Rail (0.326k/ft) 14" Thick Slab Span Assume NO 140 pcf (0.023 ksf) Use Class "S" Concrete f' c =4.0 ksi w c =150 pcf (for weight) w c =145 pcf (for Modulus of Elasticity calculation) Grade 60 Reinforcing f y =60 ksi Methodology The following procedure is based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd Ed. 2004, 2005 Interim Revisions, and 2006 Interim Revisions and the TXDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual (hereafter refered to as TXDOT policy). Calculations Determine the Equivalent Strip Width, E (LRFD ) The equivalent strip width defines the width of the slab that will be impacted by the live load within a design lane. The slab is designed based on the forces developed within this width. L = span length (ft) L 1 = the minimum of L or 60 ft. (ft) W = edge to edge width (ft) W s = the modified edge to edge width taken as a minimum of W or 30 ft (ft) for a single loaded lane W m = the modified edge to edge width taken as a minimum of W or 60 ft (ft) for multiple loaded lanes L = 25 ft L 1 = min( L, 60 ft) L 1 = ft W = W s W m 46 ft = min( W, 30 ft) W s = ft = min( W, 60 ft) W m = ft page 1
2 N = number of lanes, the interger part of W Rdwy /12 ( ) W rdwy = Clear roadway width W rdwy = 44 ft N L 1 W rdwy ft = trunc N 12 L = The trun function truncates the calculated value to a single interger (ie would be 3). E s = equivalent strip width for single loaded lane (in) E s = ( ) in 10.0 in + 5 L 1 W s ft LRFD eq E s = in E s = ft E m = equivalent strip width for multiple loaded lanes (in) E m1 ( ) in = 84.0 in L 1 W m E ft m1 = in LRFD eq in 12.0 W m ft E m2 = E N m2 = in L E m ( ) LRFD eq = min E m1, E m2 E m = in E m = ft Skew For skewed bridges, the longitudinal force effects may be reduced by the factor r, where skew = 15.deg Note: TXDOT policy limits the skew on CIP Slab Spans to 30 degrees. r 1 = tan( skew) r 1 = LRFD eq r shall not be greater than 1 ( ) r = min r 1, 1 r = This factor is applied to the moments developed in the following sections. page 2
3 Determine the Design Loads (Live and Dead) The live load is comprised of the design lane load (0.640 k/ft) and the design wheel loads. The dead load is comprised of the rail and slab weights, as well as any sidewalks or overlay (where applicable). The slab is modelled as a simply supported continuous beam. Dead Load (DL) Rail: Rail Load (RL) is distributed across the slab by the following TxDOT policy. If the slab is width is less than 32 feet, the rail weight is distributed over the entire width of the slab. Otherwise, the rail is distributed over the first 16 feet of slab adjacent to the rail. W r = weight of the rail (kip/ft) DL rail = the distibuted rail load on the slab (kip/ft/ft) W r = kip ft W r 2 W r DL rail = if W < 32 ft,, DL W 16 ft rail = kip ft 2 Slab: W c = weight of concrete (kcf) t = thickness of the slab (inches) DL slab = weight of the slab (kip/ft/ft) W c = kip ft 3 t = 14 in t DL slab = W c 12 in DL slab = kip ft 2 ft Total DL: DL = DL rail + DL slab DL = kip ft 2 Live Load LRFD The slab is designed based on 1-foot strips, therefore the live load most be distributed to these strips. To obtained a live load per foot divide the lane load and truck loads by the effective width. LL lane = distributed lane load = k/ft ( ) LL t8 and LL t32 = design truck load, 8 k and 32 k, respectively ( ) I = impact factor LL lane = kip ft LL t8 = 8 kip LL t32 = I = kip page 3
4 LL s = lane load over E s (single lane loaded) LL t8_s = 8 k load over E s (single lane loaded) LL t32_s = 32 k load over E s (single lane loaded) LL lane LL s = LL E s = kip s ft 2 ILL t8 LL t8_s = LL E t8_s = kip s ft LL t32_s ILL t32 = LL E t32_s = kip s ft LL m = lane load over E m (multiple lanes loaded) LL t8_m = 8 k load over E m (multiple lanes loaded) LL t32_m = 32 k load over E m (multiple lanes loaded) LL lane LL m = LL E m = kip m ft 2 ILL t8 LL t8_m = LL E t8_m = kip m ft LL t32_m ILL t32 = LL E t32_m = kip m ft Determine the Design Moment The design moment is determined using BMCOL51 (Moveable Load Analysis of Beam Columns). Due to the nature of the program the moment is determined by first modelling the dead load only and then the live load only. The maximum moment from each analysis is then combined using Tables and of the AASHTO LRFD. BMCOL51 Model page 4
5 BMCOL51 Input Files for Live Load - Single Lane Loaded BMCOL51 Input Files for Dead Load The input and resultant output files for single lane loaded and multiple lanes loaded are included in the Appendix. Output Results - Table 8A Single Lane Loaded M_DL pos_s and M_DL neg_s = Maximum positive and negative moment due to the Dead Load M_LL pos_s and M_LL neg_s = Maximum positive and negative moment due to the Live Load M_DL pos_s M_LL pos_s = kip ft M_DL neg_s = kip ft = kip ft M_LL neg_s = kip ft Multiple Lanes Loaded M_DL pos_m and M_DL neg_m = Maximum positive and negative moment due to the Dead Load M_LL pos_m and M_LL neg_m = Maximum positive and negative moment due to the Live Load M_DL pos_m M_LL pos_m = kip ft M_DL neg_m = kip ft = kip ft M_LL neg_m = kip ft page 5
6 The maximum moment from each analysis is then combined using Tables and of the AASHTO LRFD using Service I and Strength I LL s and LL st = live load factor for service and strength, respectivelly DC s and DC st = dead load factor for service and strength, respectivelly and reduced for skew using r. LL s = 1.00 LL st = 1.75 DC s = 1.00 DC st = 1.25 M_Serv pos_s, M_Serv neg_s = Positive or negative combined Service Moment for single loaded lane M_Serv pos_m, M_Serv neg_m = Positive or negative combined Service Moment for multiple loaded lanes M_Serv pos, M_Serv neg = Positive or negative combined Service Moment for design, the maximum of the moments for single lane loaded or multiple lanes loaded M_Serv pos_s = rll s M_LL pos_s + DC s M_DL pos_s M_Serv pos_s = kip ft M_Serv pos_m = rll s M_LL pos_m + DC s M_DL pos_m M_Serv pos_m = kip ft M_Serv pos M_Serv neg_s M_Serv neg_m M_Serv neg ( ) = max M_Serv pos_s, M_Serv pos_m M_Serv pos = kip ft = rll s M_LL neg_s + DC s M_DL neg_s M_Serv neg_s = kip ft = rll s M_LL neg_m + DC s M_DL neg_m M_Serv neg_m = kip ft ( ) = max M_Serv neg_s, M_Serv neg_m M_Serv neg = kip ft M_Ult pos_s, M_Ult neg_s = Positive or negative combined Strength Moment for single loaded lane M_Ult pos_m, M_Ult neg_m = Positive or negative combined Strength Moment for multiple loaded lanes M_Ult pos, M_Ult neg = Positive or negative combined Strength Moment for design, the maximum of the moments for single lane loaded or multiple lanes loaded M_Ult pos_s M_Ult pos_m M_Ult pos M_Ult neg_s M_Ult neg_m M_Ult neg = rll st M_LL pos_s + DC st M_DL pos_s M_Ult pos_s = kip ft = rll st M_LL pos_m + DC st M_DL pos_m M_Ult pos_m = kip ft ( ) = max M_Ult pos_s, M_Ult pos_m M_Ult pos = kip ft = rll st M_LL neg_s + DC st M_DL neg_s M_Ult neg_s = kip ft = rll st M_LL neg_m + DC st M_DL neg_m M_Ult neg_m = kip ft ( ) = max M_Ult neg_s, M_Ult neg_m M_Ult neg = kip ft Summary of Results (includes reduction for skew) M s_pos M s_neg M u_pos M u_neg = M_Serv pos M s_pos = kip ft = M_Serv neg M s_neg = kip ft = M_Ult pos M u_pos = kip ft = M_Ult neg M u_neg = kip ft page 6
7 Moment Capacity Design - Negative (Top) - Typ. Bars A LRFD b h = = 12 in Design strip width per TxDOT policy 14 in Compressive Strength of Concrete: f c = 4 ksi Thickness of the slab. Yield Strength of Rebar: f y = 60 ksi cover neg = 2in "cover" is measured to edge of top reinforcement. Try, #8's at 6 inch spacing N bar_neg = 2 Number of bars in 12 in strip. d bar_neg = 1.00in Diameter of main reinforcing bars. A bar_neg 0.79in 2 = Area of one main reinforcing bar. A s_neg = ( N bar_neg ) A bar_neg A s_neg = in 2 Area of steel in tension. 1 d neg = h cover neg 2 d bar_neg d neg = in ( ) 0.05 β 1_neg = min 0.85, max 0.65, 0.85 f 1ksi c 4ksi β 1_neg = LRFD Resistance Factor: φ M = 0.9 LRFD Depth of Cross Section in Compression under Ultimate Load: c neg A s_neg f y = c 0.85 f c β 1_neg b neg = in LRFD Eq Depth of Equivalent Stress Block: a neg = c neg β 1_neg a neg = in LRFD Thus, Nominal Flexural Resistance: a neg 1ft M n_neg = A s_neg f y d neg M 2 12in n_neg = kip ft LRFD Eq Factored Flexural Resistance: M r_neg = φ M M n_neg M r_neg = kip ft M u_neg = kip ft ( ) OK UltimateMom = if M r_neg M u_neg,, NG UltimateMom = "OK!" page 7
8 Check Serviceability- Negative (Top) - Typ. Bars A LRFD To find s max_neg : 1 d c_neg = cover neg + 2 d bar_neg d c_neg = in Es = ksi "cover" is measured to edge of the top reinforcement. 1 Ec = 1820 f c ksi ksi Ec = ksi LRFD Eq. C Modular Ratio: n Es = n = Ec A s_neg Tension Reinforcement Ratio: ρ neg = ρ bd neg = neg For service loads, the stress on the cross-section is located as drawn: k neg = ( 2 ρ neg n) + ( ρ neg n) 2 ( ρ neg n) k neg = k neg j neg = 1 j 3 neg = Service Load Bending Stress: f s_neg M s_neg 12in = f A s_neg j neg d neg 1ft s_neg = ksi Exposure Condition Factor: γ e_top = 0.75 For class 2 exposure conditions. d c_neg β s_neg = 1 + β 0.7 h d s_neg = c_neg ( ) kip 700 in γ e_top s max_neg = 2d β s_neg f c_neg s max_neg = in LRFD Eq s_neg s Actual_neg = 6in ( ) OK ServiceabilityCheck = if s max_neg s Actual_neg,, NG ServiceabilityCheck = "OK!" The negative reinforcement can usually be reduced to #8 bars at 12 inches about 6 feet from the centerline of the bent. However, this shoud be verified by checking the moment capacity of 1 bar versus the moment at 6 feet from the centerline of the cap. For this example problem, 1 bar will provide kip-ft of M r_neg with a M u_neg of kip-ft. In addition, the max. bar spacing is in excess of 12 inches. page 8
9 Moment Capacity Design - Positive (Bottom) - Typ. Bars B LRFD cover pos = 1.25 in "cover" is measured to edge of the bottom reinforcement. Try, #8's at 6 inch spacing N bar_pos = 2 Number of bars in 12 in strip. d bar_pos = 1.00in Diameter of main reinforcing bars. A bar_pos = 0.79in 2 Area of one main reinforcing bar. A s_pos = ( N bar_pos ) A bar_pos A s_pos = in 2 Area of steel in tension. 1 d pos = h cover pos 2 d bar_pos d pos = in ( ) 0.05 β 1pos = min 0.85, max 0.65, 0.85 f 1ksi c 4ksi β 1pos = LRFD Depth of Cross Section in Compression under Ultimate Load: LRFD Eq c pos A s_pos f y = c 0.85 f c β 1pos b pos = in Depth of Equivalent Stress Block: a pos = c pos β 1pos a pos = in Thus, Nominal Flexural Resistance: LRFD Eq M n_pos a pos 1ft = A s_pos f y d pos M 2 12in n_pos = kip ft Factored Flexural Resistance: M r_pos = φ M M n_pos M r_pos = kip ft M u_pos = kip ft ( ) OK UltimateMom pos = if M r_pos M u_pos,, NG UltimateMom pos = "OK!" page 9
10 Check Serviceability- Positive (Bottom) - Typ. Bars B To find s max_pos : "Control of cracking by Distribution of Reinforcement", LRFD d c_pos = cover pos + 2 d bar_pos d c_pos = in "cover" is measured to edge of the bottom reinforcement. Tension Reinforcement Ratio: ρ pos = A s_pos bd pos ρ pos = k pos = ( 2 ρ pos n) + ( ρ pos n) 2 ( ρ pos n) k pos = k pos j pos = 1 j 3 pos = Service Load Bending Stress: f s_pos M s_pos 12in = f A s_pos j pos d pos 1ft s_pos = ksi Exposure Condition Factor: γ e_bot = 1.00 For class 1 exposure conditions. d c_pos β s_pos = 1 + β 0.7 h d s_pos = c_pos ( ) kip 700 in γ e_bot s max_pos = 2d β s_pos f c_pos s max_pos = in s_pos LRFD Eq s Actual_pos = 6in ( ) OK ServiceabilityCheck pos = if s max_pos s Actual_pos,, NG ServiceabilityCheck pos = "OK!" page 10
11 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement- Negative (Top) - Typ. Bars T LRFD Try #4 bars at 12 inch spacing N bar_t_neg = 1 d bar_t_neg = 0.500in A bar_t_neg = 0.20in 2 A s_t_neg = ( N bar_t_neg ) A bar_t_neg A s_t_neg = in 2 As req_t_neg min max 0.11 in 2 ( 1.3 b h) in =, 1 2 ( b + h) f y ksi, 0.60 in 2 As req_t_neg = in 2 ( ) OK TemperatureCheck neg = if A s_t_neg As req_t_neg,, NG TemperatureCheck neg = "OK!" Transverse Distribution Reinforcement- Positive (Bottom) - Typ. Bars D LRFD and TxDOT policy Try #4 bars at 6 inch spacing N bar_d_pos = 2 d bar_d_pos = 0.500in A bar_d_pos = 0.20in 2 A s_d_pos = ( N bar_d_pos ) A bar_d_pos A s_d_pos = in 2 PercentAs d_pos = min 50, 100 L 1 ft PercentAs d_pos = LRFD Eq PercentAs d_pos As req_d_pos = A s_pos As 100 req_d_pos = in 2 ( ) OK Distribution d_pos = if A s_d_pos As req_d_pos,, NG Distribution d_pos = "OK!" Shear Reinforcement From LRFD , "Slabs and slab bridges designed for moment in conformance with Atricle may be considered satisfactory for shear." page 11
12 Design for the Edge Beam The edge for the slab is designed based on LRFD and The design width (W edge ) of the longitudinal edge is the sum of the distance between the edge of the deck and the inside face of the barrier (C) plus 12 inches plus 1/4E, not to exceed 1/2E or 72 inches. C = 17 in Type T501 Rail, bottom width is 17 inches E m = ft ( ) 0.5 E m W edge = min C + 12 in E m,, 72 in W edge = ft Determine the Design Loads (Live and Dead) The live load is comprised of the design lane load (0.640 k/ft) and the design wheel loads. The dead load is comprised of the rail and slab weights, as well as any sidewalks or overlay (if applicable). The slab is modelled as a simply supported continuous beam. Dead Load Same as calculated on page 2. DL rail = kip ft 2 DL slab = kip ft 2 page 12
13 Live Load LRFD The slab is designed based on 1-foot strips, therefore the live load must be distributed to these strips. To obtained a live load per foot divide the lane load and truck loads by the effective width. LL lane = distributed lane load = k/ft ( ) LL t4 and LL t16 = design truck load, 4 k and 16 k, respectively ( ). The truck load is half the load because the edge width only accommodates half the truck. I = impact factor LL lane = ft kip ft 2 LL t4 = 4 kip LL t16 = 16 kip I = LL edge = lane load over W edge LL t4_edge = 4 k load over W edge LL t16_edge = 16 k load over W edge W edge LL lane 12 LL edge = LL W edge = ft kip edge ft 2 ILL t4 LL t4_edge = LL W t4_edge = kip edge ft LL t16_edge ILL t16 = LL W t16_edge = kip edge ft Determine the Design Moment The design moment is determined using BMCOL51 (Moveable Load Analysis of Beam Columns). Due to the nature of the program the moment is determined by first modelling the dead load only and then the live load only. The maximum moment from each analysis is then combined using Tables and of the AASHTO LRFD. The input and resultant output files for single lane loaded and multiple lanes loaded are included in the Appendix. Output Results - Table 8A M_DL edge_pos and M_DL edge_neg = Maximum positive and negative moment due to the Dead Load M_LL edge_pos and M_LL edge_neg = Maximum positive and negative moment due to the Live Load M_DL edge_pos M_LL edge_pos = kip ft M_DL edge_neg = kip ft = kip ft M_LL edge_neg = kip ft page 13
14 The maximum moment from each analysis is then combined using Tables and of the AASHTO LRFD using Service I and Strength I LL s and LL st = live load factor for service and strength, respectivelly DC s and DC st = dead load factor for service and strength, respectivelly and reduced for skew using r. LL s = LL st = DC s = DC st = M_Serv edge_pos, M_Serv edge_pos = Positive or negative combined Service Moment for edge beam M_Serv edge_pos = rll s M_LL edge_pos + DC s M_DL edge_pos M_Serv edge_pos = kip ft M_Serv edge_neg = rll s M_LL edge_neg + DC s M_DL edge_neg M_Serv edge_neg = kip ft M_Ult edge_pos, M_Ult edge_neg = Positive or negative combined Strength Moment for edge beam M_Ult edge_pos = rll st M_LL edge_pos + DC st M_DL edge_pos M_Ult edge_pos = kip ft M_Ult edge_neg = rll st M_LL edge_neg + DC st M_DL edge_neg M_Ult edge_neg = kip ft Summary of Results (includes reduction for skew) M s_edge_pos M s_edge_neg M u_edge_pos M u_edge_neg = M_Serv edge_pos M s_edge_pos = kip ft = M_Serv edge_neg M s_edge_neg = kip ft = M_Ult edge_pos M u_edge_pos = kip ft = M_Ult edge_neg M u_edge_neg = kip ft page 14
15 Moment Capacity Design - Negative (Top) - Typ. Bars A LRFD b = in Design stip width per TxDOT policy h = in Thickness of the slab. cover e_neg = 2in "cover" is measured to edge of the top reinforcement. Try, #8's at 6 inch spacing N bar_e_neg = 2 Number of bars in 12 in strip. d bar_e_neg = 1.00in Diameter of main reinforcing bars. A bar_e_neg 0.79in 2 = Area of one main reinforcing bar. A s_e_neg = ( N bar_e_neg ) A bar_e_neg A s_e_neg = in 2 Area of steel in tension. 1 d edge_neg = h cover e_neg 2 d bar_e_neg d edge_neg = in ( ) 0.05 β 1_e_neg = min 0.85, max 0.65, 0.85 f 1ksi c 4ksi β 1_e_neg = LRFD Resistance Factor: φ M = LRFD Depth of Cross Section in Compression under Ultimate Load: c e_neg A s_e_neg f y = c 0.85 f c β 1_e_neg b e_neg = in LRFD Eq Depth of Equivalent Stress Block: a e_neg = c e_neg β 1_e_neg a e_neg = in Thus, Nominal Flexural Resistance: a e_neg 1ft M n_e_neg = A s_e_neg f y d edge_neg M 2 12in n_e_neg = kip ft LRFD Eq Factored Flexural Resistance: M r_e_neg = φ M M n_e_neg M r_e_neg = kip ft M u_edge_neg = kip ft ( ) OK UltimateMom edge_neg = if M r_e_neg M u_edge_neg,, NG UltimateMom edge_neg = "NO GOOD!" Thought the resistance is less than the ultimate, the presented design is considered acceptable because the difference is less than 3 percent of the ultimate. Though not necessary, the bar spacing is reduced to 4 inches within the outside 1-foot of the slab in order to provide additional reinforcement for rail attachment. page 15
16 Check Serviceability- Negative (Top) - Typ. Bars A To find s max_e_neg : 1 d c_e_neg = cover e_neg + 2 d bar_e_neg d c_e_neg = in Tension Reinforcement Ratio: "Control of cracking by Distribution of Reinforcement", LRFD "cover" is measured to edge of the bottom reinforcement. ρ e_neg = A s_e_neg bd edge_neg ρ e_neg = k e_neg = ( 2 ρ e_neg n) + ( ρ e_neg n) 2 ( ρ e_neg n) k e_neg = k e_neg j e_neg = 1 j 3 e_neg = Service Load Bending Stress: f s_e_neg M s_edge_neg 12in = f A s_e_neg j e_neg d edge_neg 1ft s_e_neg = ksi Exposure Condition Factor: γ e_top = 0.75 For class 2 exposure conditions. d c_e_neg β s_e_neg = 1 + β 0.7 h d s_e_neg = c_e_neg ( ) kip 700 in γ e_top s max_e_neg = 2d β s_e_neg f c_e_neg s max_e_neg = in LRFD Eq s_e_neg s Actual_e_neg = 6in ( ) OK ServiceabilityCheck e_neg = if s max_e_neg s Actual_e_neg,, NG ServiceabilityCheck e_neg = "NO GOOD!" Thought the spacing is greater than the maximum spacing, the presented design is considered acceptable because the difference is less than 1/2 inch. page 16
17 Moment Capacity Design - Positive (Bottom) - Typ. Bars B LRFD b = in Design stip width per TxDOT policy h = in Thickness of the slab. cover e_pos = 1.25 in "cover" is measured to edge of the bottom reinforcement. Try, #8's at 6 inch spacing N bar_e_pos = 2 Number of bars in 12 in strip. d bar_e_pos = 1.00in Diameter of main reinforcing bars. A bar_e_pos 0.79in 2 = Area of one main reinforcing bar. A s_e_pos = ( N bar_e_pos ) A bar_e_pos A s_e_pos = in 2 Area of steel in tension. 1 d edge_pos = h cover e_pos 2 d bar_e_pos d edge_pos = in ( ) 0.05 β 1_e_pos = min 0.85, max 0.65, 0.85 f 1ksi c 4ksi β 1_e_pos = LRFD Resistance Factor: φ M = LRFD Depth of Cross Section in Compression under Ultimate Load: c e_pos A s_e_pos f y = c 0.85 f c β 1_e_pos b e_pos = in LRFD Eq Depth of Equivalent Stress Block: a e_pos = c e_pos β 1_e_pos a e_pos = in Thus, Nominal Flexural Resistance: a e_pos 1ft M n_e_pos = A s_e_pos f y d edge_pos M 2 12in n_e_pos = kip ft LRFD Eq Factored Flexural Resistance: M r_e_pos = φ M M n_e_pos M r_e_pos = kip ft M u_edge_pos = kip ft ( ) OK UltimateMom edge_pos = if M r_e_pos M u_edge_pos,, NG UltimateMom edge_pos = "OK!" Based on past experience, the above reinforcement is considered acceptable. Though not necessary, the bar spacing is reduced to 4 inches within the outside 1-foot of the slab in order to provide additional reinforcement for rail attachment. page 17
18 Check Serviceability- Positive (Bottom) - Typ. Bars B "Control of cracking by Distribution of Reinforcement", LRFD To find s max_e_pos : 1 d c_e_pos = cover e_pos + 2 d bar_e_pos d c_e_pos = in "cover" is measured to edge of the bottom reinforcement. Tension Reinforcement Ratio: ρ e_pos = A s_e_pos bd edge_pos ρ e_pos = k e_pos = ( 2 ρ e_pos n) + ( ρ e_pos n) 2 ( ρ e_pos n) k e_pos = k e_pos j e_pos = 1 j 3 e_pos = Service Load Bending Stress: f s_e_pos M s_edge_pos 12in = f A s_e_pos j e_pos d edge_pos 1ft s_e_pos = ksi Exposure Condition Factor: γ e_bot = 1.00 For class 1 exposure conditions. d c_e_pos β s_e_pos = 1 + β 0.7 h d s_e_pos = c_e_pos ( ) kip 700 in γ e_bot s max_e_pos = 2d β s_e_pos f c_e_pos s max_e_pos = inlrfd Eq s_e_pos s Actual_e_pos = 6in ( ) OK ServiceabilityCheck e_pos = if s max_e_pos s Actual_e_pos,, NG ServiceabilityCheck e_pos = "OK!" page 18
19 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement- Negative (Top) - Typ. Bars T LRFD Try #4 bars at 12 inch spacing N bar_te_neg = 1 d bar_te_neg = 0.500in A bar_te_neg = 0.20in 2 A s_te_neg = ( N bar_te_neg ) A bar_te_neg A s_te_neg = in 2 As req_te_neg min max 0.11 in 2 ( 1.3 b h) in =, 1 2 ( b + h) f y ksi, 0.60 in 2 As req_te_neg = in 2 ( ) OK TemperatureCheck e_neg = if A s_te_neg As req_te_neg,, NG TemperatureCheck e_neg = "OK!" Transverse Distribution Reinforcement- Positive (Bottom) - Typ. Bars D LRFD and TxDOT policy Try #4 bars at 6 inch spacing N bar_de_pos = 2 d bar_de_pos = 0.500in A bar_de_pos = 0.20in 2 A s_de_pos = ( N bar_de_pos ) A bar_de_pos A s_de_pos = in 2 PercentAs de_pos = min 50, 100 L 1 ft LRFD Eq PercentAs de_pos = PercentAs de_pos As req_de_pos = A s_e_pos As 100 req_de_pos = in 2 ( ) OK Distribution de_pos = if A s_de_pos As req_de_pos,, NG Distribution de_pos = "OK!" Shear Reinforcement From LRFD , "Slabs and slab bridges designed for moment in conformance with Atricle may be considered satisfactory for shear." page 19
20 Appendix Bridge Layout... pg 21 Slab Span Details... pg 22 BMCOL51 Input File (Dead Load)... BMCOL51 Output File (Dead Load)... BMCOL51 Input File (Single Loaded - Live Load)... pg 23 pg 24 pg 41 BMCOL51 Output File (Single Lane Loaded - Live Load)... pg 42 BMCOL51 Input File (Multiple Lanes - Live Load)... pg 59 BMCOL51 Output File (Multiple Lanes Loaded - Live Load)... pg 60 BMCOL51 Input File (Edge Beam - Live Load)... BMCOL51 Output File (Edge Beam - Live Load)... pg 77 pg 78 page 20
21
22
23 COUNTY HWY BRG 12/02/2006 SLAB SPAN DESIGN EXAMPLE 1 DEAD LOAD E CEASE 01/30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 23
24 PSF HIGHWAY PD- CONTROL- CODED NO COUNTY NO IPE SECTION-JOB BY DATE COUNTY HWY BRG 12/02/2006 SLAB SPAN DESIGN EXAMPLE PROB 1 DEAD LOAD TABLE 1 - PROGRAM-CONTROL DATA ENVELOPES TABLE NUMBER OF MAXIMUMS HOLD FROM PRECEDING PROBLEM (1=HOLD) NUM CARDS INPUT THIS PROBLEM DEFL MOM SHR RCT OPTION (IF=1) TO PLOT ENVELOPES OF MAXIMUMS TABLE 2 - CONSTANTS NUM INCREMENTS 150 INCREMENT LENGTH 5.000E-01 NUMBER OF INCREMENTS FOR MOVABLE LOAD 56 INITIAL POSITION OF MOVABLE LOAD STA ZERO -56 FINAL POSITION OF MOVABLE LOAD STA ZERO 150 NUMBER OF INCREMENTS BETWEEN EACH POSITION OF MOVABLE LOAD 2 TABLE 3 - SPECIFIED DEFLECTIONS AND SLOPES STA CASE DEFLECTION SLOPE E+00 NONE E+00 NONE E+00 NONE E+00 NONE TABLE 4 - STIFFNESS AND FIXED-LOAD DATA FROM TO CONTD F QF S T R P E E E E E E+00 TABLE 5 - MOVABLE-LOAD DATA FROM TO CONTD QM NONE TABLE 6 - SPECIFIED STATIONS FOR INFLUENCE DIAGRAMS ( SHEAR IS COMPUTED ONE HALF INCREMENT TO THE LEFT OF THE DESIGNATED STATION) NONE 01/30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 24
25 PSF HIGHWAY PD- CONTROL- CODED NO COUNTY NO IPE SECTION-JOB BY DATE COUNTY HWY BRG 12/02/2006 SLAB SPAN DESIGN EXAMPLE PROB 1 DEAD LOAD TABLE 7 - FIXED-LOAD RESULTS STA I DIST DEFL SLOPE MOM SHEAR SUP REACT E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E+00 01/30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 25
26 TABLE 7 - FIXED-LOAD RESULTS STA I DIST DEFL SLOPE MOM SHEAR SUP REACT E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E+00 01/30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 26
27 TABLE 7 - FIXED-LOAD RESULTS STA I DIST DEFL SLOPE MOM SHEAR SUP REACT 1.923E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E+00 01/30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 27
28 TABLE 7 - FIXED-LOAD RESULTS STA I DIST DEFL SLOPE MOM SHEAR SUP REACT E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E+00 01/30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 28
29 TABLE 7 - FIXED-LOAD RESULTS STA I DIST DEFL SLOPE MOM SHEAR SUP REACT E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E+00 01/30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 29
30 TABLE 7 - FIXED-LOAD RESULTS STA I DIST DEFL SLOPE MOM SHEAR SUP REACT E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E+00 01/30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 30
31 PROB (CONTD) 1 DEAD LOAD TABLE 8A- ENVELOPES OF MAXIMUMS * = HELD FROM PRIOR PROBLEM STA MAX +DEFL LOC MAX -DEFL LOC MAX +MOM LOC MAX -MOM LOC E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E /30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 31
32 TABLE 8A- ENVELOPES OF MAXIMUMS * = HELD FROM PRIOR PROBLEM STA MAX +DEFL LOC MAX -DEFL LOC MAX +MOM LOC MAX -MOM LOC E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E /30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 32
33 TABLE 8A- ENVELOPES OF MAXIMUMS * = HELD FROM PRIOR PROBLEM STA MAX +DEFL LOC MAX -DEFL LOC MAX +MOM LOC MAX -MOM LOC E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E /30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 33
34 TABLE 8A- ENVELOPES OF MAXIMUMS * = HELD FROM PRIOR PROBLEM STA MAX +DEFL LOC MAX -DEFL LOC MAX +MOM LOC MAX -MOM LOC E E E E /30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 34
35 TABLE 8B- ENVELOPES OF MAXIMUMS * = HELD FROM PRIOR PROBLEM STA MAX +SHEAR LOC MAX -SHEAR LOC MAX +REACT LOC MAX -REACT LOC E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E /30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 35
36 TABLE 8B- ENVELOPES OF MAXIMUMS * = HELD FROM PRIOR PROBLEM STA MAX +SHEAR LOC MAX -SHEAR LOC MAX +REACT LOC MAX -REACT LOC E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E /30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 36
37 TABLE 8B- ENVELOPES OF MAXIMUMS * = HELD FROM PRIOR PROBLEM STA MAX +SHEAR LOC MAX -SHEAR LOC MAX +REACT LOC MAX -REACT LOC 4.583E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E /30/2007 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT) PAGE 37
2018 LOUISIANA TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE. Mohsen Shahawy, PHD, PE
2018 LOUISIANA TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE Sunday, February 25 - Wednesday, February 28, 2018 DEVELOPMENT OF U-BEAM PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DESIGN STANDARDS Mohsen Shahawy, PHD, PE SDR Engineering Consultants,
More informationDesign principles and Assumptions
Design principles and Assumptions The design and use of concrete slabs that utilise ARMOURDECK 300 in composite construction may be carried out using either: the relevant Australian and international Standards
More informationAnalysis Methods for Skewed Structures. Analysis Types: Line girder model Crossframe Effects Ignored
Analysis Methods for Skewed Structures D Finite Element Model Analysis Types: Line girder model Crossframe Effects Ignored MDX Merlin Dash BSDI StlBridge PC-BARS Others Refined model Crossframe Effects
More informationCONSULTING Engineering Calculation Sheet. Reference Sheets - Pile Cap Capacity (Generic) Tables XX
Job No. Sheet No. E N G I N E E R S Consulting Engineers jxxx 1 Pile Cap Capacity (Generic) Input Characteristic strength of concrete, f cu ( 60N/mm 2 ; HSC N/A) 40N/mm 2 OK Yield strength of longitudinal
More informationRevision and Errata List AISC Steel Construction Manual, 13 th Edition, Third Printing (Revision 2 June 2010)
Revision and Errata List AISC Steel Construction Manual, 13 th Edition, Third Printing (Revision 2 June 2010) The following list represents corrections that have been made in the Fourth Printing of the
More informationPost-Tensioned Concrete U-Girder Design. Midas Elite Speaker Series. Doug Midkiff, PE AECOM
Post-Tensioned Concrete U-Girder Midas Elite Speaker Series Doug Midkiff, PE AECOM POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE U-GIRDER BRIDGE DESIGN (I-49 LAFAYETTE CONNECTOR) Doug Midkiff Structural Engineer III AECOM E
More informationFDOT S CRITERIA FOR WIND ON PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BRIDGES
FDOT S CRITERIA FOR WIND ON PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BRIDGES DENNIS GOLABEK CHRISTINA FREEMAN BIOGRAPHY Mr. Golabek has recently joined Kisinger Campo & Associates and is the Chief Structures Engineer. He
More informationCase Study of Bridge Load Rating in KY using BrR. C.Y. Yong, P.E., S.E., ENV-SP
Case Study of Bridge Load Rating in KY using BrR C.Y. Yong, P.E., S.E., ENV-SP Project Overview Choosing the Right Tool Validation Challenges Conclusions Outline KY Bridge Load Rating Horizontally curved
More information1962: HRCS Circular 482 one-page document, specified vehicle mass, impact speed, and approach angle for crash tests.
1 2 3 1962: HRCS Circular 482 one-page document, specified vehicle mass, impact speed, and approach angle for crash tests. 1973: NCHRP Report 153 16-page document, based on technical input from 70+ individuals
More informationUS 191 Load Rating Past and Present. By Ron Pierce, P.E.,S.E., CBI David Evans & Associates Bridge Operations Services Practice Leader
US 191 Load Rating Past and Present By Ron Pierce, P.E.,S.E., CBI David Evans & Associates Bridge Operations Services Practice Leader Inspection Experience Bridge Inspection with Idaho Transportation Department
More informationSTANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
American National Standard SJI-K 1.1 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR OPEN WEB STEEL JOISTS, K-SERIES SECTION 1. SCOPE Adopted by the Steel Joist Institute November 4, 1985 Revised to November 10, 2003 - Effective
More informationScope : Steel Beam Design. Pinned-Pinned Bm Wt. Added to Loads LL & ST Act Together # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # Start Location End Location
Dsgnr: Date: 9:01AM, 12 MAR 10 (c)1983-2009 ENERCALC Engeerg Soware B2 check @ wdnw "6" General Information Code Ref: AISC 9th ASD, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Steel Section : W6X15 Fy ksi Center
More informationCFIRE December 2009
i BRIDGE ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF EFFECTS UNDER OVERLOAD VEHICLES (PHASE 1) CFIRE 02-03 December 2009 National Center for Freight & Infrastructure Research & Education College of Engineering Department
More informationUSING NSBA S LRFD SIMON SOFTWARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF A CURVED HAUNCHED STEEL PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE
USING NSBA S LRFD SIMON SOFTWARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF A CURVED HAUNCHED STEEL PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE THOMAS DENSFORD BIOGRAPHY Thomas Densford, P.E. is a Sr. Principal Engineer with the firm Fay, Spofford
More informationFIELD TESTING AND LOAD RATING REPORT: RIDOT#896 NORTH KINGSTOWN, RI
FIELD TESTING AND LOAD RATING REPORT: RIDOT#896 NORTH KINGSTOWN, RI SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY: AECOM USA, Inc. 10 Orms Street, Suite 405 Providence RI 0290 www.aecom.com BRIDGE DIAGNOSTICS, INC. 1965
More informationBridge Overhang Brackets
Bridge C49, C49D, C49S and C49JR Bridge Dayton Superior offers the bridge contractor four different Horizontal Length versions of the C49 Bridge Bracket, which allows for maximum adjustability to meet
More informationMid-States Concrete Industries flexicore
2" STRUCTURAL TOPPING (2 HOUR FIRE RATING) COMPOSITE DESIGN 1.75-108 10-1/2 1.530 254.02 229 219 209 200 192 183 168 155 143 131 121 111 1.75-28410 2-1/2,4-.6 1.174 204.16 326 308 292 278 264 251 231 210
More informationDIVISION: METALS SECTION: STEEL DECKING REPORT HOLDER: CONSOLIDATED SYSTEMS, INC. (CSi )
0 ICC-ES Report ICC-ES (800) 423-6587 (562) 699-0543 www.icc-es.org 000 Most Widely Accepted and Trusted ESR-2839 Reissued 05/2015 This report is subject to renewal 05/2016. DIVISION: 05 00 00 METALS SECTION:
More informationCatalog VF4. Verco s manufacturing facilities are located in Phoenix, Arizona, and the California cities of Fontana and Antioch.
This catalog covers Verco Decking, Inc. s FORMLOK composite decks and VERCOR non-composite form decks. It also features the innovative PunchLok System for floor deck applications. By significantly speeding
More information4.5 COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE
4.5 COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE 4.5.1 RULES OF THUMB 4.5 Composite Steel and Concrete (1/11) Typical starting point Overall concrete depth 130mm (Grade 30) Depth of profiled decking 60mm Size beam with
More informationDEVELOPING AN ASSESSMENT CRITERION FOR MEDIUM-TERM AXLE LOAD BRIDGE CAPACITY IN MALAYSIA. S.K. Ng Evenfit Consult Sdn Bhd MALAYSIA
DEVEOPING AN ASSESSMENT CRITERION FOR MEDIUM-TERM AXE OAD BRIDGE CAPACITY IN MAAYSIA C.C. im Public Works Department MAAYSIA S.K. Ng Evenfit Consult Sdn Bhd MAAYSIA Z. Jasmani Zeca Consult Sdn Bhd MAAYSIA
More informationPlate Girder and Stiffener
Plate Girder and Stiffener (Gelagar Pelat dan Pengaku) Dr. AZ Department of Civil Engineering Brawijaya University Introduction These girders are usually fabricated from welded plates and thus are called
More informationDIVISION: METALS SECTION: METAL FASTENINGS SECTION: STEEL DECKING REPORT HOLDER: ITW BUILDEX
0 Most Widely Accepted and Trusted ICC ES Evaluation Report ICC ES 000 (800) 423 6587 (562) 699 0543 www.icc es.org ESR 3270 Reissued 12/2017 This report is subject to renewal 12/2019. DIVISION: 05 00
More informationPlastic Hinging Considerations for Single-Column Piers Supporting Highly Curved Ramp Bridges
Plastic Hinging Considerations for Single-Column Piers Supporting Highly Curved Ramp Bridges Western Bridge Engineers Seminar Reno, NV Greg Griffin, P.E., S.E. - Senior Bridge Engineer e Griffin, P.E.,
More informationSTRUCTURAL EDGE ENGINEERING, PLLC
STRUCTURAL EDGE ENGINEERING, PLLC STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS HINES BLD 3 BOISE, ID SE PROJECT NO: SE16-181 PREPARED FOR: CODE: DATE: NEUDESIGN ARCHITECTURE & LAWSON DESIGN INC 2012 IBC APRIL 23, 2017 683
More informationProbability based Load Rating
Probability based Load Rating Dennis R. Mertz, Ph.D., P.E. Center for Innovative Bridge Engineering University of Delaware Fundamentals of LRFR Part 1 Introduction to Load Rating of Highway Bridges 1-2
More informationRapid Field Classification Booklet
*GTA 05-07-013 Rapid Field Classification Booklet 1 July 2006 HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DISTRIBUTION: United States Army Training Support Centers. DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public
More informationLoad Testing, Evaluation, and Rating Four Railroad Flatcar Bridge Spans Over Trinity River Redding, California
Load Testing, Evaluation, and Rating Four Railroad Flatcar Bridge Spans Over Trinity River Redding, California SUBMITTED TO: Bureau of Reclamation Water Conveyance Group D-8140 Technical Service Center,
More informationBehavior & Design. Curved Girder. Curved Steel Girder Bridges. PDF Created with deskpdf PDF Writer - Trial ::
Curved Steel Girder Bridges Curved Girder Behavior & Design Curved Steel Girder Design L1 L2 OUTSIDE GIRDER CROSS FRAME d C L PIER C L ABUT CL ABUT RADIUS INSIDE GIRDER CURVED BRIDGE - PLAN VIEW Crossframe
More informationOhio Transportation Engineering Conference 2012
Ohio Transportation Engineering Conference 2012 October 31, 2012 Mitch Hardert Chief Engineer CBC Engineers Jim Noll Director Engineering Services CONTECH Joe Dennis Director Business Development CBC Engineers
More informationSTANDARD SPECIFICATION
STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR OPEN WEB STEEL JOISTS, K-SERIES Adopted by the Steel Joist Institute November 4, 1985 Revised to May 18, 2010, Effective December 31, 2010 SECTION 1. SCOPE AND DEFINITION 1.1
More informationDeltaStud - Lightweight Steel Framing
DeltaStud - Lightweight Steel Framing B C H A t P Load Tables for Wind Bearing and Combined Wind & Axial Load Bearing Condition January 2014 Table of Contents Commentary Introduction...3 Product Identification...3
More informationTRUS JOIST BEAMS, HEADERS, AND COLUMNS
FLOOR SOLUTIONS ROOF SOLUTIONS TRUS JOIST BEAMS, HEADERS, AND COLUMNS Featuring TimberStrand LSL, Microllam LVL, and Parallam PSL Uniform and Predictable Minimal Bowing, Twisting, and Shrinking Strong
More informationFLUSH SEAT DESIGN GUIDE FOR USE WITH ECOSPAN COMPOSITE JOISTS. economy THROUGH ecology. v1.3
FLUSH SEAT DESIGN GUIDE FOR USE WITH ECOSPAN COMPOSITE JOISTS economy THROUGH ecology v1.3 Nucor-Vulcraft / Verco Group Ecospan Composite Floor System 6230 Shiloh Road Suite 140 Alpharetta, GA 30005 P:
More informationLoad Rating in Michigan
Load Rating in Michigan February 22, 2006 Why Load Rate Bridges Public Safety Federal and State Requirements Bridge Preservation Load Rating Influences: NBI Item 67 (Structural Evaluation) Structurally
More informationLive Load Distribution in Multi-Cell Box-Girder Bridges and its Comparison with Current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Live Load Distribution in Multi-Cell Box-Girder Bridges and its Comparison with Current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications by Rob Y.H. Chai, Eddy Shin-Tai Song & Karl M. Romstad Department of Civil
More informationTable of Contents. PrimeJoist
JamStud Introduction Table of Contents PrimeJoist Introduc on...1 Fire & Sound Tested Assemblies...2 PrimeJoist Design Considera ons...3-4 PrimeJoist Product Profile...5 PrimeJoist Sec on Proper es...6
More informationPARAPETS / RAILS / MEDIANS / SIDEWALKS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25 FILE NO. TITLE DATE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND INTRODUCTION 25.TOC-1 Table of Contents Chapter 25... 28Dec2016 25.00 Introduction Chapter 25... 28Dec2016 VDOT STANDARD PARAPETS
More informationDecember 1, Table of Contents. TABLE TOPIC PAGE General TABLE TOPIC PAGE. Roof Decks (continued) (Diaphragm Shear Values)
Page 1 of 57 Table of Contents Report ER-78P December 1, 02 TABLE TOPIC PAGE General 1 Allowable Shear Values - Spot or Seam Welds 2 2 Allowable Tension Loads - Hilti Fasteners... 2 3 Allowable Shear and
More information101 st T.H.E. Conference February 24,2015
101 st T.H.E. Conference February 24,2015 Design & Construction of Skewed & Curved I-Girder Bridges How Do These Bridges FIT Together? Steel: The Bridge Material of Choice National Steel Bridge Alliance
More informationSECTIO N 610 PAVEMENT SMO O THNESS
SECTIO N 610 PAVEMENT SMO O THNESS 610.1 Description. This work shall consist of measuring the smoothness of the final pavement surface. Smoothness shall be measured using the International Roughness Index
More informationPARAPETS / RAILS / MEDIANS / SIDEWALKS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25 FILE NO. TITLE DATE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND INTRODUCTION 25.TOC-1 Table of Contents Chapter 25... 08Aug2018 25.00 Introduction Chapter 25... 03May2018 VDOT STANDARD PARAPETS
More information2.0E ES LVL U.S. Design Manual
I N T E R N A T I O N A L B E A M S 2.0E ES LVL U.S. Design Manual August 2013 2 INTERNATIONAL BEAMS, INC. Our Company At International Beams, Inc. we take pride in providing our customers with premium
More informationBOISE GLULAM 24F-V4 IJC
Engineered Wood Products 24F-V4 IJC I-Joist Compatible Glulam Guide 3½" x 7½" 3½" x 9½" 3½" x 11⅞" 3½" x 14" 3½" x 16" Sizes Available 5½" x 7½" 5½" x 9½" 5½" x 11⅞" 5½" x 14" 5½" x 16" IJG 01/2010 2 I-Joist
More informationLIVE-LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS IN PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER BRIDGES
LIVE-LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS IN PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER BRIDGES By Paul J. Barr, 1 Marc O. Eberhard, 2 and John F. Stanton 3 ABSTRACT: This paper presents an evaluation of flexural live-load distribution
More informationESR-2408 Reissued August 2014 This report is subject to renewal August 2015.
ICC-ES Evaluation Report ESR-2408 Reissued August 2014 This report is subject to renewal August 2015. www.icc-es.org (800) 423-6587 (562) 699-0543 A Subsidiary of the International Code Council DIVISION:
More informationLoad Rating for SHVs and EVs
Load Rating for SHVs and EVs and Other Challenges Lubin Gao, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Bridge Engineer Load Rating Office of Bridges and Structures Federal Highway Administration Outline Introduction Specialized
More informationRiverhawk Company 215 Clinton Road New Hartford NY (315) Free-Flex Flexural Pivot Engineering Data
Riverhawk Company 215 Clinton Road New Hartford NY (315)768-4937 Free-Flex Flexural Pivot Engineering Data PREFACE Patented Flexural Pivot A unique bearing concept for applications with limited angular
More informationComparison of Live Load Effects for the Design of Bridges
J. Environ. Treat. Tech. ISSN: 2309-1185 Journal weblink: http://www.jett.dormaj.com Comparison of Live Load Effects for the Design of Bridges I. Shahid 1, S. H. Farooq 1, A.K. Noman 2, A. Arshad 3 1-Associate
More informationParametric study on behaviour of box girder bridges using CSi Bridge
Parametric study on behaviour of box girder bridges using CSi Bridge Kiran Kumar Bhagwat 1, Dr. D. K. Kulkarni 2, Prateek Cholappanavar 3 1Post Graduate student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDMCET Dharwad,
More informationAASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015
AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, 2015 AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015 Full Scale MASH Crash Tests (NCHRP 22-14(02)) Conducted several
More informationThe FRACOF Composite Slab Test
The FRACOF Composite Slab Test Experiment, Predictions & Results Anthony Abu & Ian Burgess Fire Resistance Assessment of partially protected COmposite Floors - FRACOF Introduction To increase the use of
More informationPRELIMINARY REVIEW COPY
PRELIMIAR REVIEW COP. Report o. Preliminary Review Copy 4. Title and Subtitle A EXPLORATIO OF LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTIO I A GIRDER-SLAB BRIDGE I GATESVILLE, TEXAS Technical Report Documentation Page 2.
More informationRosboro TM. Next-Generation Glulam. n Architectural Appearance. n Full Framing-Width Stock. Glulam. n I-Joist and Conventional.
n Architectural Appearance n Full Framing-Width Stock Glulam n I-Joist and Conventional Depths 2 X-Beam: X-Beam is the building industry s first full framing-width stock glulam in architectural appearance.
More information2507 (IBC 2006 ONLY) 3054 (IBC 2006 ONLY) Supreme Framing System Product Catalog
12 0 2 / 2009IANT C B I PL COM 2507 (IBC 2006 ONLY) 3054 (IBC 2006 ONLY) R Supreme Framing System Product Catalog Supreme Framing System The Benefits of Supreme Framing System Speak for Themselves What
More informationLVL User s Guide. Technical Data for LVL Headers, Beams, Column Applications for Residential Floor and Roof Systems
LVL User s Guide Technical Data for LVL Headers, Beams, Column Applications for Residential Floor and Roof Systems U N I T E D S T A T E S V E R S I O N Quality Products Committed Service O U R H I S TO
More informationGENERAL PROVISIONS: Furnish and install one steel multi-platform motor truck scale and associated electronic controls.
GENERAL PROVISIONS: Furnish and install one steel multi-platform motor truck scale and associated electronic controls. The scale shall have a clear and unobstructed weighing surface of not less than 72
More informationSupreme. Supreme Framing System. Product Catalog IAPMO UNIFORM ER #0313
Supreme Supreme Framing System Product Catalog IAPMO UNIFORM ER #0313 2507 Table of Contents Certification of Materials 5 LEED Credits 5 Independent Product Certification 5 Code Approvals, Performance
More informationBase Plate Modeling in STAAD.Pro 2007
Base Plate Modeling in STAAD.Pro 2007 By RAM/STAAD Solution Center 24 March 2007 Introduction: Base plates are normally designed using codebase procedures (e.g. AISC-ASD). Engineers often run into situations
More informationGP Lam LVL. Grade Thickness Depth , , , , , 149, 169, 189, 249 (209and 229 by special order) 2.
GP Lam LVL Grade Thickness Depth 2.0E 1 3 49, 3 1 29 7 1 49, 9 1 49, 9 1 29, 11 1 49, 11 7 89, 149, 169, 189, 249 (209and 229 by special order) 1.5E 1 3 49 7 1 49, 9 1 49, 9 1 29, 11 1 49, 11 7 89, 149,
More informationComparison of T-Beam Girder Bridge with Box Girder Bridge for Different Span Conditions.
The International Journal of Engineering and Science (IJES) ISSN (e): 2319 1813 ISSN (p): 23-19 1805 Pages PP 67-71 2018 Comparison of T-Beam Girder Bridge with Box Girder Bridge for Different Span Conditions.
More informationImpact of Heavy Loads on State and Parish Bridges. Aziz Saber, Ph.D., P.E. Program Chair Civil Engineering Louisiana Tech University
Impact of Heavy Loads on State and Parish Bridges Aziz Saber, Ph.D., P.E. Program Chair Civil Engineering Louisiana Tech University Acknowledgement Funds from Louisiana Transportation Research Center LA
More informationConstructability Testing of Folded Plate Girders
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Civil Engineering Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research Civil Engineering Summer 8-3-2010 Constructability Testing
More informationGP Lam LVL. Grade Thickness Depth , 9 1 4, 9 1 2, , , 14, 16, 18, 24 (20 and 22 by special order) 2.
GP Lam LVL GP Lam LVL Introduction.....................32 Bearing Details...................34 Handling and Installation..........35 Floor Beams.....................35 Window, Patio Door and Garage Door
More informationIBC 2009/2012 COMPLIANT. Supreme Framing System. Product Catalog
IBC 2009/2012 COMPLIANT 2507 Supreme Framing System Product Catalog Supreme Framing System The Benefits of Supreme Framing System Speak for Themselves What is the Supreme Framing System? Supreme Framing
More informationRESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE June 1 4, 2016
RESILIENT INFRASTRUTURE June 1 4, 2016 RE-TESTING OF A FIRE-DAMAGED RIDGE Alexander M.. Au, Senior ridge Engineer, Highway Standards ranch, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, anada ASTRAT A proof load
More informationThis product is no longer manufactured.
s t e e l R O O F d e c k L E G A C Y P R O D U C T This product is no longer manufactured. This product information has been made available to support the retrofit of existing buildings by providing the
More informationInnovative Overload Permitting in Manitoba Allowing a Kg (GVM) Superload
Innovative Overload Permitting in Manitoba Allowing a 363 250Kg (GVM) Superload Geoffrey C. Oramasionwu, M.Eng., P.Eng., Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Marta E. Flores Barrios, M.Sc., P.Eng.,
More informationShaft Design. Dr. Mostafa Rostom A. Atia Associate Prof.
Shaft Design Dr. Mostafa Rostom A. Atia Associate Prof. 1 Loading modes A shaft is a rotating member, usually of circular cross section, used to transmit power or motion. It provides the axis of rotation,
More informationTITLE: EVALUATING SHEAR FORCES ALONG HIGHWAY BRIDGES DUE TO TRUCKS, USING INFLUENCE LINES
EGS 2310 Engineering Analysis Statics Mock Term Project Report TITLE: EVALUATING SHEAR FORCES ALONG HIGHWAY RIDGES DUE TO TRUCKS, USING INFLUENCE LINES y Kwabena Ofosu Introduction The impact of trucks
More informationInfluence of cross beam spacing on load distribution factor at girder bridges
Influence of cross beam spacing on load distribution factor at girder bridges * Hyo-Gyoung Kwak 1) and Joung Rae Kim 2) 1), 2) Department of Civil Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon 305-600, Korea 1) kwakhg@kaist.ac.kr
More informationTrutek TCM 385RE - Pure Epoxy 3:1
Features and Benefits Version 23/12/2013 High bond strength with High load resistance Used with all grades of threaded rod and rebar in accordance with TR029 Ideal for deep embedment installations Used
More informationBuilt-Up Columns with Components in Contact with Each Other
CHAPTER Structural Steel Design LRFD Method Third Edition DESIGN OF AXIALLY LOADED COMPRESSION MEMBERS A. J. Clark School of Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Part II Structural
More informationHS20-44 vs HL-93 (Standard Specifications vs LRFD Code)
HS2-44 vs HL-93 (Standard Specifications vs LRFD Code) Fouad Jaber, P.E. Assistant State Bridge Engineer Topics to cover: Ø Topic 1: Comparison of ASD, LFD and LRFD Ø Topic 2: LRFD Objective and calibration
More informationLive Load Distribution for Steel-Girder Bridges
Eng. & Tech. Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, 29 Dr. Ammar A. Ali * Received on:5//28 Accepted on:2/4/29 Abstract Grillage method is used here to determine girder distribution factor (GDF). STAAD Pro. 26 program
More informationDESIGN CHART # 1: Lamit Basic S.I.P Properties
DESIGN CHART # 1: Lamit Basic S.I.P Properties LAMIT S.I.P. PROPERTIES - WEAK AXIS ORIENTED PARALLEL TO SPAN Panel Weight Core Facing Moment Section Elastic Shear Shear Radius Allowable Allowable Allowable
More informationSchedule 18 (Technical Requirements) DBFO Agreement EXECUTION VERSION APPENDIX B - SELECT DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWINGS AND REFERENCE TABLES
Schedule (Technical Requirements) DBFO Agreement EXECUTION VERSION APPENDIX B - SELECT DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWINGS AND REFERENCE TABLES Schedule (Technical Requirements) DBFO Agreement EXECUTION VERSION
More informationAluminum Box Culverts
Steel and Aluminum s The Solution for Small Bridge Replacement: s Contech s are a practical and costefficient solution for small bridge replacement. They have a lower installed cost because they are faster
More informationM. A. Memberg, J. A. Yura, E. B. Williamson, and K. H. Frank Research Report
Technical Report Documentation Page. Report No.. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-03/898-4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date A Design Procedure for Intermediate External Diaphragms
More informationDRAFT REPORT TXDOT SH 183 MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF ELM FORK OF TRINITY RIVER CROSSING AT SH 183 WITHIN THE ELM FORK WATERSHED
DRAFT REPORT TXDOT SH 183 MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF ELM FORK OF TRINITY RIVER CROSSING AT SH 183 WITHIN THE ELM FORK WATERSHED FOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DALLAS DISTRICT CONTRACT
More informationMultideck 80-V2 Features and Applications
Features and Applications is designed to incorporate all the advantages of the Multideck 60-V2 but in a deeper profile to provide longer spans up to 5.4m unpropped. Concrete Volume Savings Due to its unique
More informationDepth of Bury Tables 9B-5. A. General. B. Rigid Pipe Assumptions. Design Manual Chapter 9 - Utilities 9B - Trench Design
Design Manual Chapter 9 - Utilities 9B - Trench Design 9B-5 Depth of Bury Tables A. General The depth of bury tables on the following pages are based upon the design methodology from the various pipe material
More informationCOUNTY DIVISIBLE LOAD PERMITS ISSUED IN 2013 PERMIT FEES PERMITS?
COUNTY DIVISIBLE LOAD PERMITS ISSUED IN 2013 PERMIT FEES PERMITS? GARFIELD NO Single OS - 57 Single Trip OS $15.00 Single OW - 710 Single Trip OW $15.00 + $5.00/axle Single OS/OW - 798 Annual OS $250.00
More informationwestern for products manufactured in White City, Oregon
western VERSA-LAM SPECIFIER Guide for products manufactured in White City, Oregon Western VERSA-LAM Guide 11/29/2012 2 VERSA-LAM Products An Introduction to VERSA-LAM Products When you specify VERSA-LAM
More informationAllowable Holes in VERSA-LAM Beams
VERSA-LAM Products 23 An Introduction to VERSA-LAM Products When you specify VERSA-LAM laminated veneer headers/beams, you are building quality into your design. They are excel lent as floor and roof framing
More informationPurlins and Girts. A division of Canam Group
Purlins and Girts A division of Canam Group TABLE OF CONTENTS OUR SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES............................................................ 5 Cautionary statement..................................................................
More informationMultideck 50-V2 Features and Applications
Features and Applications is a dovetail profile deck with a depth of 50mm providing spans up to 4m unpropped. Greater Design Efficiency The larger range of Multideck gauge thicknesses available allow much
More informationRELIABILITY-BASED EVALUATION OF BRIDGE LIVE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES. Lubin Gao 1
RELIABILITY-BASED EVALUATION OF BRIDGE LIVE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES Abstract Lubin Gao 1 In accordance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), each bridge must be load
More informationAPPENDIX D. D.1 Macalloy Bars. Approximate safe working loads (kn) Appendix D - Proprietary Components (1/9) Stainless steel architectural ties
Appendix D - Proprietary Components (1/9) APPENDIX D D.1 Macalloy Bars Bar dia. mm Stressing ties Stainless steel stressing ties Stainless steel architectural ties High strength Tie rods grades precision
More informationMaximum Span Tables. for Joists and Rafters. MSR Lumber. for Performance. Figure provided courtesy of the American Forest & Paper Association
Maximum Span Tables for Joists and Rafters MSR Lumber for Performance Figure provided courtesy of the American Forest & Paper Association 2 MSRLumber Producers Council Span Tables Purpose and Introduction
More information10. Predesign charts of castellated beams
. Predesign charts of castellated beams rcelorittal has developed predesign charts to enable engineers to quickly determine initial section sizes and web opening layouts based on the loading conditions
More informationLive-Load Test and Finite-Model Analysis of an Integral Abutment Concrete Girder Bridge
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2013 Live-Load Test and Finite-Model Analysis of an Integral Abutment Concrete Girder Bridge Robert W.
More informationOverview. HDS replaces built-up curtain wall headers. HDS replaces load-bearing box beam headers
Overview The Heavy-Duty Stud (HDS ) Framing System is a high-performance, costeffective, multipurpose, heavy-duty framing stud for headers, jambs, posts and built-up tube truss chords and webs. The superior
More informationWorkshop Agenda. I. Introductions II. III. IV. Load Rating Basics General Equations Load Rating Procedure V. Incorporating Member Distress VI.
Workshop Agenda I. Introductions II. III. IV. Load Rating Basics General Equations Load Rating Procedure V. Incorporating Member Distress VI. Posting, SHV s and Permitting VII. Load Rating Example #1 Simple
More informationPN 420-7/18/ SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS
PN 420-7/18/2014 - SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS DESCRIPTION: The surface tolerance specification requirements are modified as follows for all mainline lanes and collector-distributor road
More informationEXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF SHEAR STRENGTHENING OF RC BEAMS WITH CFRP SHEETS
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF SHEAR STRENGTHENING OF RC BEAMS WITH CFRP SHEETS Yasuhiro Koda and Ichiro Iwaki Dept. of Civil Eng., College of Eng., Nihon University, Japan Abstract This research
More informationMETAL BEAM GUARDFENCE TRANSITION AND END TREATMENT IDENTIFICATION GUIDE
2016 TxDOT Design Division METAL BEAM GUARDFENCE TRANSITION AND END TREATMENT IDENTIFICATION GUIDE A guide to help TxDOT employees identify metal beam guardfence transitions and end treatments for the
More informationFeasibility of Ultra Long-Span Suspension Bridges Made of All Plastics
IASE SYMPOSIUM MELOURNE 1 Feasibility of Ultra Long-Span Suspension ridges Made of All Plastics Ken-ichi MAEDA Professor Dr. Eng. Tokyo Metropolitan Univ. Tokyo, Japan Torahiko IKEDA ridge Engineer M.
More informationLoad Distribution In Adjacent Precast "Deck Free" Concrete Box-Girder Bridges
Ryerson University Digital Commons @ Ryerson Theses and dissertations 1-1-2010 Load Distribution In Adjacent Precast "Deck Free" Concrete Box-Girder Bridges Waqar Khan Ryerson University Follow this and
More informationSTRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STRUCTURE AND BRIDGE DIVISION INSTRUCTIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM GENERAL SUBJECT: Load Rating and Posting of Structures (Bridges and Culverts) SPECIFIC SUBJECT:
More information