This pier design example is based on AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (through 2002 interims). The design methods presented throughout the example are meant to be the most widely used in general bridge engineering practice.
Refer to Design Step 1 for introductory information about this design example. Additional information is presented about the design assumptions, methodology, and criteria for the entire bridge, including the pier.
X Force Keygen Structural Bridge Design 2019 Free Download Dmg
Download File š„ https://urloso.com/2xYua1 š„
For the pier in this design example, the maximum live load effects in the pier cap, column and footing are based on either one, two or three lanes loaded (whichever results in the worst force effect). Figure 8-4 illustrates the lane positions when three lanes are loaded.
The positioning shown in Figure 8-4 is arrived at by first determining the number of design lanes, which is the integer part of the ratio of the clear roadway width divided by 12 feet per lane. Then the lane loading, which occupies ten feet of the lane, and the HL-93 truck loading, which has a six-foot wheel spacing and a two-foot clearance to the edge of the lane, are positioned within each lane to maximize the force effects in each of the respective pier components.
The total braking force is computed based on the number of design lanes in the same direction. It is assumed in this example that this bridge is likely to become one-directional in the future. Therefore, any and all design lanes may be used to compute the governing braking force. Also, braking forces are not increased for dynamic load allowance. The calculation of the braking force for a single traffic lane follows:
It is assumed in this design example that the structure is located in Seismic Zone I with an acceleration coefficient of 0.02. For Seismic Zone I, a seismic analysis is not required. However, the Specifications require a minimum design force for the check of the superstructure to substructure connection. Also, at locations of expansion bearings, a minimum bridge seat must be provided.
Since the bearings at the pier are fixed both longitudinally and transversely, minimum bridge seat requirements for seismic loads are not applicable. Also, since the bearing design is carried out in Design Step 6, the calculations for the check of the connection will not be shown here. Therefore, the earthquake provisions as identified in the above paragraph will have no impact on the overall pier design and will not be discussed further.
For the purpose of this design example, a total force of 20 kips will be assumed. This force acts in the longitudinal direction of the bridge (either back or ahead station) and is equally divided among the bearings. Also, the forces at each bearing from this load will be applied at the top of the bearing (i.e., five inches above the pier cap).
The first step within this design step will be to summarize the loads acting on the pier at the bearing locations. This is done in Tables 8-4 through 8-15 shown below. Tables 8-4 through 8-8 summarize the vertical loads, Tables 8-9 through 8-12 summarize the horizontal longitudinal loads, and Tables 8-13 through 8-15 summarize the horizontal transverse loads. These loads along with the pier self-weight loads, which are shown after the tables, need to be factored and combined to obtain total design forces to be resisted in the pier cap, column and footing.
In addition to all the loads tabulated above, the pier self-weight must be considered when determining the final design forces. Additionally for the footing and pile designs, the weight of the earth on top of the footing must be considered. These loads were previously calculated and are shown below:
The first set of additional factors applies to all force effects and are represented by the Greek letterĀ (eta) in the Specifications. These factors are related to the ductility, redundancy, and operational importance of the structure. A single, combined eta is required for every structure. These factors and their application are discussed in detail in Design Step 1.1. In this design example, all eta factors are taken equal to one.
The other set of factors mentioned in the first paragraph above applies only to the live load force effects and are dependent upon the number of loaded lanes. These factors are termed multiple presence factors by the Specifications. These factors for this bridge are shown as follows:
It is important to note here that the maximum load factors shown in Table 8-16 for uniform temperature loading (TU) apply only for deformations, and the minimum load factors apply for all other effects. Since the force effects from the uniform temperature loading are considered in this pier design, the minimum load factors will be used.
The controlling limit states for the design of the pier cap are Strength I (for moment, shear and torsion) and Service I ( for crack control). The critical design location is where the cap meets the column, or 15.5 feet from the end of the cap. This is the location of maximum moment, shear, and torsion. The reactions at the two outermost bearings (numbered 4 and 5 in Figure 8-4), along with the self-weight of the cap overhang, cause the force effects at the critical section. In the following calculations, note that the number of lanes loaded to achieve the maximum moment is different than that used to obtain the maximum shear and torsion.
The controlling limit states for the design of the pier column are Strength I (for biaxial bending with axial load), Strength III (for transverse shear) and Strength V (for longitudinal shear). The critical design location is where the column meets the footing, or at the column base. The governing force effects for Strength I are achieved by excluding the future wearing surface, applying minimum load factors on the structure dead load, and loading only Lane B and Lane C with live load. Transverse and longitudinal shears are maximized with wind attack angles of zero and 60 degrees, respectively.
The foundation system for the pier is a reinforced concrete footing on steel H-piles. The force effects in the piles cannot be determined without a pile layout. The pile layout depends upon the pile capacity and affects the footing design. The pile layout used for this pier foundation is shown in Design Step 8.10 (Figure 8-11).
The controlling limit states for the design of the pier footing are Strength I (for flexure, punching shear at the column, and punching shear at the maximum loaded pile), Strength IV (for one-way shear), and Service I ( for crack control). There is not a single critical design location in the footing where all of the force effects just mentioned are checked. Rather, the force effects act at different locations in the footing and must be checked at their respective locations. For example, the punching shear checks are carried out using critical perimeters around the column and maximum loaded pile, while the flexure and one-way shear checks are carried out on a vertical face of the footing either parallel or perpendicular to the bridge longitudinal axis.
When a structural member meets the definition of a deep component, the Specifications recommends, although does not mandate, that a strut-and-tie model be used to determine force effects and required reinforcing. Specifications Commentary C5.6.3.1 indicates that a strut-and-tie model properly accounts for nonlinear strain distribution, nonuniform shear distribution, and the mechanical interaction of Vu, Tu and Mu. Use of strut-and-tie models for the design of reinforced concrete members is new to the LRFD Specification.
For the purpose of this design example, all structural components, regardless of dimensions, will be designed in accordance with the conventional strength of materials assumptions described above. This approach is currently standard engineering practice.
From Design Step 8.7, it can be seen that the only force effects contributing to the longitudinal moment are the live load braking force and the temperature force. Neither of these are permanent or long-term loads. Therefore, d is taken equal to zero for this design.
These maximum shear forces do not act concurrently. Although a factored longitudinal shear force is present in Strength III and a factored transverse shear force is present in Strength V, they both are small relative to their concurrent factored shear. Therefore, separate shear designs can be carried out for the longitudinal and transverse directions using only the maximum shear force in that direction.
It is worth noting that although the preceding design checks for shear and flexure show the column to be overdesigned, a more optimal column size will not be pursued. The reason for this is twofold: First, in this design example, the requirements of the pier cap dictate the column dimensions (a reduction in the column width will increase the moment in the pier cap, while good engineering practice generally prescribes a column thickness 6 to 12 inches less than that of the pier cap). Secondly, a short, squat column such as the column in this design example generally has a relatively large excess capacity even when only minimally reinforced.
The provisions for the transfer of forces and moments from the column to the footing are new to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. Although similar provisions have existed in the ACI Building Code for some time, these provisions are absent from the AASHTO Standard Specifications. In general, standard engineering practice for bridge piers automatically satisfies most, if not all, of these requirements.
In this design example, and consistent with standard engineering practice, all steel reinforcing bars in the column extend into, and are developed, in the footing (see Figure 8-13). This automatically satisfies the following requirements for reinforcement across the interface of the column and footing: A minimum reinforcement area of 0.5 percent of the gross area of the supported member, a minimum of four bars, and any tensile force must be resisted by the reinforcement. Additionally, with all of the column reinforcement extended into the footing, along with the fact that the column and footing have the same compressive strength, a bearing check at the base of the column and the top of the footing is not applicable. be457b7860
Bolide Movie Creator 1.4 Build 1006 Key
Driver Simulator Apk Mod Unlimited
vladimir bartol alamut epub 34
Chronoform validation key crack