×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Lateral Load distribution on bridge deck: Traditional methods vs FEM
2

Lateral Load distribution on bridge deck: Traditional methods vs FEM

Lateral Load distribution on bridge deck: Traditional methods vs FEM

(OP)
I posted this matter in another forum Computers and Structures: SAP2000. Until now cant get any response so i am posting here again.

Traditionally the lateral load distribution on bridge deck girders are done by different semi imperical methods mainly based on lever theory. By such methods most of the times we get that the outermost longitudinal girder is loaded more than internal girders.

But when i analyse a bridge deck with slab & girders by FEM software(SAP2000), many times the moment on intermediate girders is more than external girders. This happens when the CG of the moving load is nearer to the intermediate girder.

Is this natural? Or is my FE model wrong?

Please see my thread on forum "Computers and Structures:SAP2000" for more clarification.
Thank you!
 

RE: Lateral Load distribution on bridge deck: Traditional methods vs FEM

The traditional methods give you an envelope of distributed long. moments which accounts for the extents of the lateral variation in the position of the live load.  Your model shows the results for a single load position which is almost centered on the bridge.  Making the load more eccentric, if actually possible, will increase the loading on the exterior girders.

Modeling the deck will also have a significant impact on the distribution.  I would also recommend modeling wheel lines instead of the CG of a truck/lane.

RE: Lateral Load distribution on bridge deck: Traditional methods vs FEM

This, of course, depend on deck arrangement and mostly on the cantilever length.

Normally for short cantilevers (supporting sidewalks) the envelope of moments is most severe on the first internal beam (the one after the external) under the condition that heavy  traffic loads can reach the external.

So probably your analysis is not wrong.
 

URL: www.diolkos-eng.gr

RE: Lateral Load distribution on bridge deck: Traditional methods vs FEM

(OP)
Thank you guys. In my post i presented a simple arbitrary model to make my case clear. In reality there are multiple lanes and moving loads with different eccentricity. And of course the deck slab is also there. I am still checking my models and i feel more confident in my analysis after your opinions.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources