![]() ![]() Analytical predictions agree well with experimental results. Read chapter Appendix F Comparison of Crack Width Prediction Equations for Prestressed Concrete Members: TRBs National Cooperative Highway Research Pro. The empirical design method does not necessarily employ any design procedures, as the minimum reinforcement required is specified. Cracking of the deck is followed using sequential linear analyses with a smeared cracking model. Per Article 9.7.2.4 of the AASHTO LRFD (7th Edition, 2014), the empirical design method can only be used if several limitations related to the geometric configuration of the concrete deck slab are satisfied. Detailed finite element models of the specimen are developed for both the cast‐in‐place and precast panel deck cases. After cracking, significant compressive membrane forces are present in the deck, and could significantly increase its flexural capacity. ![]() Membrane forces do not noticeably affect the performance of the bridge prior to deck cracking. Under service and overload conditions (about three times the current AASHTO design wheel load), the behavior of the deck slab is essentially linear. A full‐scale bridge deck (both cast‐in‐place and precast), detailed in accordance with the Texas State Department of Highways provisions for Ontario‐type decks, and having about 60% of the reinforcement required by the current AASHTO code, performs well under current AASHTO design load levels. Keywords- GUI, Simple Span Bridges, Solid Deck Slab Bridge, T-Beam Deck Slab Bridge, Finite element method. An experimental and analytical investigation is conducted regarding the behavior of Ontario‐type reinforced concrete bridge decks. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |