Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Furthermore, the line of trucks was positioned in additional three positions over girder 5; one east of the instrumented splice towards pier 4, the second west of pier 3 towards pier 2 and the third east of pier 4 towards pier 5. In the final position the trucks were side by side across the width of the bridge at the middle of span 4, as shown in Figure (4). Stresses calculated from measured strains agree reasonably well with those analytically calculated due to the weight of the wet concrete. The stresses given in Table (1) are basically due to the weight of the eist bound lanes' wet concrete and are calculated assuming no composite action between steel and concrete; as was the case. Furthermore, under the weight of the wet concrete the diaphragms connecting girder 5 to girder 4 were only loosely connected. Under the truck loads, the deck slab acts compositly with the steel girders. In this case the stresses calculated from measured strains differ from those analytically calculated in distribution and magnitude, as can be noted from Table (2). The calculated stresses were based on AASHTO load distribution method; and composite-beam action was considered using an effective slab width as recommended by AASHTO Standard Specification. The analytical stresses in load cases 4, 5 and 6 are all zero since according to AASHTO girder 5 will be subjected to loads only when the wheels are within the two adjacent slab spans, i.e. between girders 4 and
DOI link for Furthermore, the line of trucks was positioned in additional three positions over girder 5; one east of the instrumented splice towards pier 4, the second west of pier 3 towards pier 2 and the third east of pier 4 towards pier 5. In the final position the trucks were side by side across the width of the bridge at the middle of span 4, as shown in Figure (4). Stresses calculated from measured strains agree reasonably well with those analytically calculated due to the weight of the wet concrete. The stresses given in Table (1) are basically due to the weight of the eist bound lanes' wet concrete and are calculated assuming no composite action between steel and concrete; as was the case. Furthermore, under the weight of the wet concrete the diaphragms connecting girder 5 to girder 4 were only loosely connected. Under the truck loads, the deck slab acts compositly with the steel girders. In this case the stresses calculated from measured strains differ from those analytically calculated in distribution and magnitude, as can be noted from Table (2). The calculated stresses were based on AASHTO load distribution method; and composite-beam action was considered using an effective slab width as recommended by AASHTO Standard Specification. The analytical stresses in load cases 4, 5 and 6 are all zero since according to AASHTO girder 5 will be subjected to loads only when the wheels are within the two adjacent slab spans, i.e. between girders 4 and
Furthermore, the line of trucks was positioned in additional three positions over girder 5; one east of the instrumented splice towards pier 4, the second west of pier 3 towards pier 2 and the third east of pier 4 towards pier 5. In the final position the trucks were side by side across the width of the bridge at the middle of span 4, as shown in Figure (4). Stresses calculated from measured strains agree reasonably well with those analytically calculated due to the weight of the wet concrete. The stresses given in Table (1) are basically due to the weight of the eist bound lanes' wet concrete and are calculated assuming no composite action between steel and concrete; as was the case. Furthermore, under the weight of the wet concrete the diaphragms connecting girder 5 to girder 4 were only loosely connected. Under the truck loads, the deck slab acts compositly with the steel girders. In this case the stresses calculated from measured strains differ from those analytically calculated in distribution and magnitude, as can be noted from Table (2). The calculated stresses were based on AASHTO load distribution method; and composite-beam action was considered using an effective slab width as recommended by AASHTO Standard Specification. The analytical stresses in load cases 4, 5 and 6 are all zero since according to AASHTO girder 5 will be subjected to loads only when the wheels are within the two adjacent slab spans, i.e. between girders 4 and
ABSTRACT