×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

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!

*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

Positive moment connection

Positive moment connection

Positive moment connection

(OP)
I have a PS beam design where I am now designing the positive moment connection. The design calls for a significant amount of reinforcement at the pier diaphragm. The ends are going to be pretty congested. I could mix some hairpins with extending some of the prestressing steel but it's still a lot.

The other option is to specify the beams are at least 90 days before continuity is established to reduce the retraining moment from shrinkage.

How common is this? Any challenges to adding this requirement?

I know some DOTs have in their design standards that this is always the case, but this particular client (city but following DOT standards) doesn't indicate this nor do the discuss in the bridge standards.

Looking for any help or advice in dealing with this issue.

RE: Positive moment connection

This is a simple span PC beam bridge made continuous for live load? I started to design a few of these several years ago, but decided it wasn't worth it and used link slabs over the piers instead. The pier diaphragms and positive moment connection made me shy away from it. How much capacity is gained by this type of design?

That doesn't help you very much with your problem though.

I will find some pictures of a bridge I was the inspector on when I was an EIT in Kansas. I have good pictures of the pier diaphragms formed up with all the steel tied. I don't remember there being that much steel in the pier diaphragms. Why are the pier diaphragms so congested?



RE: Positive moment connection

RE: Positive moment connection

Positive moment would be in the span, but you seem to be talking about a connection at a support.

RE: Positive moment connection

Hokie66 - Yes, this is the positive moment at the intermediate support due to patch loading. Not the usual positive moment resulting from a symmetrical load arrangement at mid span or thereabout.

Regards,
Qshake
pipe
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

RE: Positive moment connection

Qshake,

"Patch loading" is a new term to me, but then I am not a bridge guy. Sorry for my ignorance, but traditionally, positive moment means the bottom is in tension. If the top is in tension, it is negative moment.

RE: Positive moment connection

Rarely, there can be positive moment at the interior supports, due to upward camber of the girders resulting from creep. Upward camber (and net positive moment at the piers) is typically undesirable, and avoided by using harped or draped strands. The small amount of positive moment due to live load in another span is usually small enough that it doesn't overcome the negative moment from dead load.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

RE: Positive moment connection

Hi Hokie66 - I'm sure there are other terms for this, and is not specific to bridge engineering, that is essentially loading continuous spans differently to produce different maximum results for shears, moments, reactions and deflections. Alternate span loading, skip loading are others I've heard over the years. I hope this makes more sense now.

Regards,
Qshake
pipe
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

RE: Positive moment connection

BridgeSmith's explanation does make sense, but variation in gravity loading will not produce positive moment at supports.

RE: Positive moment connection

Correct hokie66, the patch or skip loading is live load. We need to combine the lane load (uniform load) with vehicle wheel loads to produce maximum results for all responses.

Regards,
Qshake
pipe
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

RE: Positive moment connection

RE: Positive moment connection

Thanks for that, OSUCivlEng. Now I understand your comment above that "it wasn't worth it".

RE: Positive moment connection

(OP)
Thanks for the replies. Some background. This is indeed referencing the bridge response shown in AASHTO 5.12.3.3.9 above. This issue I was having is the moment generated at the supports due to differential creep and shrinkage between the beam and closure pour.

Turns out buried in the state's bridge standards, was a note to age the 90 days prior to pouring continuity diaphragms, this is what I was looking for- The difference between 28day and 90day in the creep and shrinkage calculations cuts the positive moment at the support by almost half.

RE: Positive moment connection

How much capacity is gained from making a bridge continuous for live load?

RE: Positive moment connection

(OP)
Interesting question and one I never admittedly asked.

Without analyzing this bridge in particular. My bridge is a 3 span continuous. 60' ends spans, 75' main span.

If we look at 3 equal span and idealize the live load to a distributed load, a simple span max positive moment is 0.125wl^2. For a 3 equal span continuous, end spans loaded, the max positive moment is 0.101wl^2. So a ~20% increase by redistributing moment?

I don't know the history of this design, but my guess is that it stems from an effort to remove joints and since there is an increase in capacity you are allowed to consider it, provided its detailed correctly. It also likely helps manage compressive stresses in the beam from requiring more pre-stressing steel to carry all the live load. Although this design has some pretty shallow beams so, there is quite a bit of steel in the deck to carry the negative moment.




RE: Positive moment connection

The dead load is still supported as a simple span, except for perhaps the rail. Live loads are point loads and not dead loads, so I'm not sure that's an apples to apples comparison. There is some gain in capacity, but I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss.

If the desire is to remove joints in the deck, link slabs are a much simpler and less expensive way to go in my opinion. They are in the AASHTO Guide Spec for ABC, so I figure it's only a matter of time before they end up the Bridge Design Specs.

RE: Positive moment connection

Relative settlement with respect to adjacent piers would also add to positive moment at a pier. Are you seeing these as well? If so, sometimes these can be reduced based on geotechnical studies. Depends on project specs and the DOT involved too I guess. Reduction of settlement effects can also be achieved by doing a time dependent analysis to see the effect of creep on moments caused at supports from settlement.
It is nice for DOTs to put guidelines to achieve "best behavior". If there is no tight time frame in the Contract of course.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close