View
213
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
1
ARCHING ACTION IN ARCHING ACTION IN
CONCRETE BRIDGE DECKSCONCRETE BRIDGE DECKS
Research at Queen’s University of BelfastDr. Su TaylorDr. Barry RankinProf. David ClelandProf. AE Long
2
IntroductionIntroduction
• BackgroundBackground
• Previous researchPrevious research
• Changes to bridge designChanges to bridge design
• Recent laboratory and field testsRecent laboratory and field tests
• Comparison with existing standardsComparison with existing standards
• Future researchFuture research
• ConclusionsConclusions
3
Background to researchBackground to research
Arching action or Compressive Membrane Action (CMA)
applied applied loadload
arching thrust
KKr r = = external external
lateral restraint lateral restraint stiffnessstiffness
4
• laterally restrained slabs have inherent laterally restrained slabs have inherent strength due to in-plane forces set up as strength due to in-plane forces set up as a result of external lateral restrainta result of external lateral restraint
• external restraint occurs due to the slab external restraint occurs due to the slab boundary conditions boundary conditions
e.g. beamse.g. beamsdiaphragmsdiaphragmscontinuity of slabcontinuity of slab
5
Midspan deflection
Ap
pli
ed
load
Arching Arching capacitycapacity
Bending Bending strengthstrengthfirst
cracking
Load vs. deflection for laterally restrained concrete slab
6
Previous researchPrevious research
external external lateral lateral restraint, restraint, stiffness = Kstiffness = K
applied applied loadload
arching thrust
K,K, K,K,
LeLe
E, AE, A
Load, PLoad, P
Arching action and three-hinged arch analogy (Rankin, 1982)
7
Clinghan’s bridge test modelClinghan’s bridge test model(Kirkpatrick et al, 1984)
8 Model Clinghan’s bridge deck slab
9
Model Clinghan’s bridge deck slab failures loads (Kirkpatrick et al, 1984)
10
Clinghan’s bridge load test
11
Advantages from CMA in Advantages from CMA in bridge designbridge design
• NI bridge code amendment in 1986- reinforcement reduced from 1.7% to 0.6%T&B
• Improved durability and cost benefits
• BD81/02 – Highways Agency ‘Use of CMA in bridge decks’ is direct result of research at Queens University
12
Calgary bridge
Canadian approachCanadian approach
13
Calgary bridge –reinforcement detailno internal reinforcement
14
Developments in UKDevelopments in UK
Majority of bridges RC
Advance knowledge of CMA:
• High strength concrete and fibres
• Reinforcement Single layer at mid-depth Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP’s)
• Goal: maintenance free deck slabs
15
Beam and slab superstructuresBeam and slab superstructures
Total unit cost over service life
standard deck (normal durability)
CMA deck (normal durability )
CMA deck CMA deck (enhanced durability)(enhanced durability)
Un
it c
ost
Years in service
16
Recent Laboratory testsRecent Laboratory tests
• Series of tests on full-scale slab strips typical of a bridge deck slab
• Variables were:
Concrete compressive strength
Reinforcement type and position
Boundary conditions
17
Slab strips test load arrangement
Restraint, KRestraint, K
1425mm1425mmb=475mmb=475mmh=150mmh=150mmd=75 to 104mm d=75 to 104mm
KEY :KEY :
Fixed End & Longitudinal Fixed End & Longitudinal Restraint = F/E+L/RRestraint = F/E+L/R
Simple Support & Longitudinal Simple Support & Longitudinal Restraint = S/S+L/RRestraint = S/S+L/R
Simple Support = S/SSimple Support = S/S
18 Typical test set-up
19
0 20 40 60 80 100
Concrete Cube Strength (N/mm^2)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300Fail
ure
Lo
ad
(K
N)
KKrr=197kN/mm=197kN/mmKKrr=410kN/mm=410kN/mm
BS5400 (F/E)BS5400 (F/E)
BS5400 (S/S)BS5400 (S/S)
F/E + L/R S/S S/S + L/R F/E + L/R
Summary of test results
Fai
lure
load
(k
N)
Fai
lure
load
(k
N)
Concrete compressive strength (N/mmConcrete compressive strength (N/mm22))
20 HSC - F/E + L/R model post-failure
topside
severe crushing in compression zone
21
0 20 40 60 80 100 1200
50
100
150
200
250
Fai
lure
load
(k
N)
Fai
lure
load
(k
N)
Concrete compressive strength (N/mmConcrete compressive strength (N/mm22))
Comparison Phase 1 results with theory
proposed methodproposed method
F/E + L/R (S1-S5)S/S + L/R (S8)
BS5400 (F/E)BS5400 (F/E)
22
Bridge model testsBridge model tests
• Final series of tests on one-third scale bridge deck models
• HSC with variables of:
lateral restraint stiffness reinforcement (type & amount)
23
Applied line load
Applied load, PkN
SECTION
Support beam
50mm
PLAN
Typical one-third scale bridge deck model
bb = 100, 150, 200mm
24 Typical reinforcement details
25 Typical test
26
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.40
50
100
150
200
250
Third scale bridge model test results - effect of reinforcement
conventional bars T&Bconventional bars Cunbonded bars Cfibres only (1%)F
ailu
re lo
ad (
kN
)F
ailu
re lo
ad (
kN
)
% reinforcement% reinforcement
Two wheel loads45 units HB (ULS)
trend
line
27
Third scale bridge model test results – varied restraint to slab
50 100 150 200 2500
50
100
150
200
250
Fai
lure
load
(k
N)
Fai
lure
load
(k
N)
Edge beam width (mm)Edge beam width (mm)
BS5400 shear capacity
BS5400 flexural capacity
conventional bars T&B in slab
QUB capacity
28
Corick BridgeCorick Bridge
29 Deck slab reinforcement
30
Test panel arrangement
A1 B1
A2
C1
C2B2
D1
D2
F2
F1
E2
E1
Cen
tre
rein
forc
e-m
ent
T &
B
rein
forc
e-
men
t0.5%C 0.25%C 0.5%C reinforcement
0.6%T&B reinforcement
= testing order
31
Typical test arrangement
2000mm1500mm
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
hydraulic jack 300mm steel plate
32 Typical test set-up
33
Typical test set-up: deck underside
centreline and span of test panel
T1 T2 T4T3
midspan of test panel
34
app
lied
load
(k
N)
app
lied
load
(k
N)
midspan deflection (mm)midspan deflection (mm)
max. wheel load (45units HB)
=span/4250=span/4250
2m test panels- comparison of midspan deflections
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
A1B1C1D1E1F1
35
app
lied
load
(k
N)
app
lied
load
(k
N)
crack width (mm)crack width (mm)
wheel load (45units HB)
2m test panels- comparison of crack widths
0
100
200
0 0.1 0.2
A1B1C1D1E1F1
36
CMA in FRP Reinforced BridgesCMA in FRP Reinforced Bridges
• Series of tests on full-scale slab strips
• FRP and steel reinforcement compared
• variables:
boundary conditions
concrete strength
37
Preliminary results on GFRP slabsPreliminary results on GFRP slabs
In simply supported slabs • service behaviour of GFRP poor • ultimate strengths similar
In laterally restrained slabs • GFRP & steel slab behaved
similarly in service• GFRP slabs higher ultimate
capacities
38
Test results for full scale laterally restrained slab strips
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Experimental:L/R + Steel
Experimental:L/R + GFRP
predicted strength from arching theory
Fai
lure
load
(k
N)
Fai
lure
load
(k
N)
Concrete compressive strength (N/mmConcrete compressive strength (N/mm22))
BS predictions
39
ConclusionsConclusions• Degree of external restraint and concrete
strength influence capacity
• deflections up to 45 units HB wheel load were independent of %As
• crack widths up to 45 units HB wheel load were substantially narrower than BS limits
• strength of panels with centre reinforcement in excess of ultimate wheel load
40
• Structural benefits of CMA well understood
• CMA incorporated in Ontario & UK codes
• Improved strength/serviceability less problems for assessment
• Arching phenomenon has potential for substantial economies
Concluding remarksConcluding remarks
Recommended