Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
bridges in Europe
EPFL
Content
10
11
12
FKA UTM 2012
13
14
Weathering steel
15
16
Weathering steel
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Launching procedure
FKA UTM 2012
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
North
American Steel
FKA UTM
2012
Construction conference April 6
Legs
erected
vertically,
then
inclined,
pulling the
main girders
North
American Steel
FKA UTM
2012
Construction conference April 6
34
34
35
35
North
American Steel
FKA UTM
2012
Construction conference April 6
36
36
Content
Usual sizes
For continuous beams
With a span length : 30 80 m
slab
[mm]
Stud
connector
main beam
wind
support
cross
bracing
pile
Span
Support
width
300 700
300 1200
depth
15 40
20 100
10 18
12 22
depth
plan bracing
for erection
width
depth
40 120
37
38
39
40
10
41
42
43
44
11
Total length:
945 m
Two long 130 m
main spans
Height of the
central piers:
100 m
FKA UTM 2012
45
N
R=1000 m
Crane
46
R=1000 m Launching
Crane
Launching
3.73 m
945 m
56
56
56
56
56
62
62
62
130
16
130
3.73 m
62 45
4.28-6.40 m
40 56
13.46 m
6.00 m
longitudinal
and transverse
stiffeners
diaphragms
47
48
12
Erection Procedure
0.25 m
3.73 m
0.40 m
13.46 m
6.00 m
3.40 m
3.73 m
49
50
Content
51
52
13
Tubular trusses
Tubular trusses
Railbridge Olten,
Switzerland 2003
Span Length: 44 m
53
54
Tubular trusses
Hagneck Bridge,
Switzerland 2004
FKA UTM 2012
55
56
14
57
58
77m
59
105m
84m
60
15
Tubular trusses
61
Tubular trusses
62
Tubular trusses
Sindelfingen
Footbridge,
Germany 1989
Traun Bridge,
Germany 2000
FKA UTM 2012
63
64
16
Tubular trusses
Tubular trusses
Bern
26m
39m
39m
39m
39m
26m
Zurich
215m
Dttwil Bridge
2001
Construction duration
8 month
Nesenbachtal Bridge,
Germany 2000
FKA UTM 2012
65
section en trave
66
67
68
17
Branson Bridge,
Switzerland 2006
69
Branson Bridge,
Switzerland 2006
70
Content
71
72
18
Switzerland, 1980
FKA UTM 2012
73
74
75
76
19
Pont
de lEurope, F, Orlans, 2000,(202 m)
FKA UTM 2012
77
Pont
de lEurope, Orlans (202 m)
FKA UTM 2012
78
Reggio Emilia,
Italia
Calatrava, 2008
221 m
Reggio Emilia,
Calatrava, 2008
179 m
FKA UTM 2012
79
80
20
81
82
Content
83
84
21
85
86
87
88
22
89
90
91
92
23
93
Content
Steel structure
From the ground by crane
Launching
Cantilever
Concrete slab
Slab cast in-situ,
Slab launched in stages,
Precast slab.
FKA UTM 2012
95
96
24
97
98
By launching
LANCEMENT
99
100
25
By launching
By launching
101
102
By launching
103
104
26
By launching
By launching
105
By launching
106
By launching
107
108
27
Cantilever erection
ENCORBELLEMENT
109
Cantilever erection
110
Cantilever erection
111
112
28
Lifting of a span
Content
Steel structure
From the ground by crane
Launching
Cantilever
Concrete slab
Slab cast in-situ,
Slab launched in stages,
Precast slab.
FKA UTM 2012
113
114
115
116
29
117
118
119
120
30
121
122
123
124
31
125
126
127
128
32
129
130
131
132
33
133
134
135
136
34
137
138
139
140
35
Dttwil
141
142
143
144
36
145
146
147
148
37
149
150
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
151
38
04/09/2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Shrinkage effect
0.1
Free
shrinkage
N corresponding
0.9
FKA UTM 2012
calculated
Measured according vertical
deformation
3
04/09/2012
Shrinkage effect
Shrinkage effect
-25 N/mm2
Design value
Temperature effect
measurements
Temperature effect
temprature [C]
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
400
2850
2
0h
3
Tamb = 16C
2h
04/09/2012
Temperature effect
Temperature effect
temprature [C]
15
20
25
30
35
temprature [C]
40
45
15
400
0h
Tamb = 22C
2h
3
2850
4h
0h
2h
6h
10
Temperature effect
20
25
30
35
temprature [C]
40
45
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
400
0h
2h
Tamb = 29C
4h
2850
6h
8h
Tamb = 26C
4h
temprature [C]
15
0h
2h
4h
Tamb = 34C
6h
8h
10h
45
Temperature effect
40
2850
35
30
400
25
400
2850
20
5
11
12
04/09/2012
Temperature effect
Temperature effect
temprature [C]
15
20
25
30
35
temprature [C]
40
45
15
400
20
25
30
35
40
45
400
1
0h
2h
4h
Tamb = 35C
6h
3
2850
8h
10h
2850
0h
2h
4h
6h
10h
12h
12h
4
14h
13
14
Temperature effect
Temperature effect
temprature [C]
15
20
25
30
35
temprature [C]
40
45
15
400
1
0h
4h
Tamb = 26C
8h
3
2850
10h
12h
2850
35
40
45
0h
4h
6h
Tamb = 21C
10h
12h
14h
16h
16h
18h
30
8h
14h
4
25
2h
2h
6h
20
400
Tamb = 33C
8h
5
15
16
04/09/2012
Temperature effect
Temperature effect
temprature [C]
15
20
25
30
35
temprature [C]
40
45
15
400
25
30
35
40
45
400
0h
20
0h
2h
2h
4h
2850
4h
6h
8h
Tamb = 19C
10h
3
2850
12h
14h
6h
8h
10h
14h
16h
16h
4
18h
18h
20h
20h
22h
17
18
Temperature effect
Temperature effect
Max compression stresses in the steel girder
contraintes [N/mm2]
-30
-20
-10
10
20
Web
max -20 N/mm2
contraintes [N/mm2]
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
-2
span
portes
42
m 1
section
128
m4
section
42
m 5
section
2
hauteur [m]
-4
128 m4
section
span
portes
42 m 1
section
130
m7
section
0.4
Tamb = 18C
12h
42 m 5
section
Lower flange
max - 5 N/mm2
130 m7
section
Upper flange
max - 20 N/mm2
5
19
20
04/09/2012
Measurements
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Example of vertical
reaction results
Reaction [MN]
level adjustments
6
5
4
3
measured values
calculated values
tolerance
zone: 15 %
Movement of
the bridge
0
0
10
20
30
[m]
21
Measurements
22
Measurements
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
0
-10
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Example of
vertical stress
results
10
-20
-30
-40
1
2
3
4
-50
-60
-70
20
25
Bridge position [m]
4
2
1000 mm
40
16 mm
30
2354 kN
23
max =
1.5 mm
max =
2.0 mm
21 mm
4114 kN
24
04/09/2012
Measurements
Slab cracking
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
40
25.5 h
Temperature [C]
35
Durability
Concrete slab
Steel girder
Tamb
30
25
<70 cm
8C
20
15
10
55
0
24.02
25.02
26.02
27.02
28.02
1.03
2.03
3.03
4.03
Date
25
Slab cracking
26
Slab cracking
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
27
28
04/09/2012
29
Span 30.0 m
Span 80.0 m
Hydratation effects
0.6
1.8
1.8
0.8
0.3
0.8
2.7
1.3
0.1
1.4
30
Hydration effects
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Origin
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
[ N/mm2
stresses
In section 2 :
t = 0.9 N/mm2
1.3
19.6
Systme statique
= +25
E c = 8 kN/mm2
19.6
Moments dus T
34.2
1.3
= -25
E c = 25 kN/mm2
31
2.2
2.2
34.2
32
04/09/2012
Measurements
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Steps
28C
40
25.5 h
35
Temperature [C]
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Concrete slab
Steel girder
Tamb
30
25
<70 cm
direction of concreting
8C
20
15
10
55
0
24.02
25.02
26.02
27.02
28.02
1.03
2.03
3.03
Concreting piano
direction de concreting
4.03
Date
33
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
34
Span 30.0 m
Span 80.0 m
12500
13000
TRANSVERSE
CRACKING
1900
Span: 80 m
4500
End to end
4500
c = 2. 7 N /mm2
Piano
Piano
c = - 0.2 N /mm2
t=2.7 N/mm2
35
End to end
2
c = 1.8 N /mm
c = - 0. 5N /mm2
36
04/09/2012
Eurocodes (EN)
EN 1990
EN 1991
EN 1992
EN 1993
EN 1994
EN 1995
EN 1996
EN 1997
EN 1998
EN 1999
38
EN 1991 : actions
basis of design
actions
concrete
steel
composite
timber
masonry
geotechnic
seismic
aluminium
EN1991-1-1
EN1991-1-3
EN1991-1-4
EN1991-1-5
EN1991-1-6
EN1991-1-7
EN1991-2
densities
snow
wind
thermal actions
execution
accidental actions
traffic
39
10
04/09/2012
EN 1992 : concrete
applications
Partie
4.1
Silos
Partie
2
bridges
Partie
7.1
pylons
Partie
7.2
chimneys
Partie 6
Partie
4.2
tanks
Partie
4.3
Partie 5
Pipelines
piling
Partie
1.1
General rules
building
Partie
1.7
Plated elements
loaded transv.
Partie
1.2
fire
Partie
1.8
joints
sheetings
Partie
1.9
Fatigue
Partie
1.4
Stainless steel
Partie
1.10
Brittle
fracture
Partie
1.5
Plated elements
Partie
1.11
cables
Partie
1.6
shells
Partie
1.12
Partie
1.3
S500 to S690
Cranes
42
Structural analysis
EN 1994-2
(material)
non linear
steel
concrete
FKA UTM 2012
44
11
04/09/2012
Structural analysis
Elastic
Cl.1
Cl.2
Mpl
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Cl.3
Mel
Cl.4
45
46
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Class of
webs
Cl.1
Cl.3 / 4
47
48
12
04/09/2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Class
of
flanges
49
Structural Analysis
Actual design
50
Structural Analysis
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
6
4
2
60
140
200
0
0
20
40
80
100
120
160
180
-2
-4
EI1
EI1
2f ctm 6, 4MPa
-6
EI2
-8
-10
-12
Cracked zone
17 %15,6 %
51
23 % 17,7 %
52
13
04/09/2012
Structural Analysis
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Alternative if
No prestressing (tendons or jacking on supports)
lmin/lmax>0.6
Imin
Imax
EI1
EI1
EI2
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
0.15Imax
53
Actual design
54
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Actual design
14
04/09/2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Qi, qi et qr = 0.9
Transverse distribution
line of loads
57
Effectives width
O
Effectives width
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
58
beff
bv
59
Actual design
60
15
04/09/2012
Check - ULS
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Le
; bi )
8
L
i 0,55 0,025 e 1 end supports
bei
elsewhere
1
bei min(
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
partial
factor
= 1,15
fy/a
s fys/s
beff
be1
b0
be2
Local
buckling
b1
b1
Steel section
Load during erection
b2
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
n0
Ea
E cm
62
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Value of t0 :
~ 6 = Ea/Ec
L is given by :
partial
factor
= 1,05
n L n 0 . 1 L t
traffic
Resisting
Resisting
composite
Steel alone ~ 18
unpropped during erection
fy/a
63
1,1
0,55
Imposed
deformations
1,5
64
16
04/09/2012
Check - ULS
Check - ULS
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
fck/c
compression
partial
factor
= 1,5
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
partial
factor
= 1,5
In span
PNA
beff
ENA
a y 0,85 fck/a
c = cu
-
partial
factor
= 1,05
a Mpl,Rd
h
+
fy/a
traction
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
xp
fyd = fy/a
partial
factor
= 1,05
66
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Longitudinal shear v
Q
q
L1
L2
Verification:
Mpl
Without load on
steel section alone
With load on
steel section alone
Mg
el
pl= 5 el
67
68
17
04/09/2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Elasto-plastic region
FA
FB
Bending
moment
Shear
force
FB
longitudinal
shear
69
70
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
2 )
PRk min(P1Rk ;PRk
P1Rk 0,8 f u d
4
and
2 0,29d2 f E
PRk
ck cm
0,2. h 1 if
d
Elasto-plastic
region
If not
bending
At U.L.S.
Longitudinal
shear
Stud
resistance
At S.L.S.
PRd
3 h 4
d
PRk
1.25
0.75 PRd
72
18
04/09/2012
Verification at SLS
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Limitation of stresses
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
73
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
partial factor
for loading =
1,0
verification
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Category
of detail
Actual design
74
Fatigue SN
curves in EC3
75
Actual design
76
19
04/09/2012
Actual design
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
77
20
04/09/2012
Introduction, context
Basis of the new design method
Innovative connection
Conclusion, exemple
LTB
Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet
Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne
UTM 2012
Introduction, context
Introduction, context
Under negative bending moment, slender composite beams show
some deformation capacity
Deformation
capacity
F [kN]
400
300
Cl.1
Cl.3 / 4
Cl.1
200
Need to consider:
100
Loading history
Shrinkage and creep of concrete
FB1 [mm]
0
25
50
75
100
UTM 2012
04/09/2012
to span
Mref
av
Mel,Rd
Verification:
req av
over support
UTM 2012
UTM 2012
70 av [mrad]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
63 mrad
Steel grade
p
'
UTM 2012
Class 1
4 mrad <
av < 24 mrad
av is a function of:
UTM 2012
cv
15 .75
'2
FEM results
p'
1.5
2.0
fy
0.5 cr
bw 1.05
0.5 tw
k
fy
si
0.5 0.5
E
8
04/09/2012
req,1 [mrad]
M -Ed
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
M
M Ed
Ed
r ,Ed
10
req,2 [mrad]
UTM 2012
UTM 2012
pl,span
= 0.3
l [m]
UTM 2012
req,2
= 0.2
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
in span
M +r,Ed
= 0.1
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.95= 0.95
0.85= 0.85
0.75= 0.75
=
0.9
0.8
=
0.7
=
0.90
0.80
0.70
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
l [m]
70 req [mrad]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.70
0.80
M r ,Ed
M pl
M r ,Ed
M pl
0.90
= 0.3
= 0.2
= 0.1
= 0.0
M Ed M r ,Ed
M Ed
1.00
UTM 2012
12
04/09/2012
Existing bridges
80 av [mrad]
80 av [mrad]
15.75
c
60
60
40
Without stiffener
40
20
20
p'
0
0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0= 40 0.5
av,sup
46 VEd1.0
/ VRd si1.5
h1 = 0.22.0
hw
Existing bridges
Allow to find hidden bearing capacity
(evolution of the traffic loading)
'2
stiffener
13
UTM 2012
14
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
5. BENDING MOMENTS
5. BENDING MOMENTS
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
8. VERIFICATIONS
8. VERIFICATIONS
UTM 2012
15
UTM 2012
16
04/09/2012
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Shear force:
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
5. BENDING MOMENTS
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
bfc
5. BENDING MOMENTS
E
fy
Mref 0.9Mel
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
17
UTM 2012
18
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
In span:
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
Mpl
5. BENDING MOMENTS
UTM 2012
av
8. VERIFICATIONS
UTM 2012
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
Mref
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
8. VERIFICATIONS
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
VEd 0.80VRd
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
Over support:
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
5. BENDING MOMENTS
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
8. VERIFICATIONS
8. VERIFICATIONS
19
UTM 2012
70
60
50
40
30
av20
10
0
av [mrad]
cv
15 .75
'2
Class 1
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
0.0
p'
0.5
p
'
1.0
fy
0.5 cr
1.5
2.0
bw 1.05
0 .5 t w
k
fy
E
si 0.5 0.5
20
04/09/2012
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
M -Ed
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
M -Ed
M -r,Ed
5. BENDING MOMENTS
5. BENDING MOMENTS
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
M +r,Ed
8. VERIFICATIONS
M
M Ed
Ed
r ,Ed
21
UTM 2012
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
5. BENDING MOMENTS
req,1 [mrad]
70
60
50
40
30
20
req,1
10
0
= 0.1
22
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
= 0.2
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
M Ed M r ,Ed
M Ed
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
= 0.3
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
l [m]
5. BENDING MOMENTS
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
8. VERIFICATIONS
UTM 2012
M +Ed
8. VERIFICATIONS
UTM 2012
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
av
70 req [mrad]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
8. VERIFICATIONS
23
UTM 2012
24
04/09/2012
Conclusion
1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
M r ,Ed M pl ,Rd
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY
req
av
Appui
Trave
5. BENDING MOMENTS
Example
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO
Ed
M pl ,Rd
8. VERIFICATIONS
UTM 2012
25
UTM 2012
Conclusion
Analysis
Element
Conclusion
Cross-sections
support
Cross-sections
in span
Cross-sections
area [%]
Benefit
EER, EE
Support,span
Upper fl.
web
Lower fl.
Support : 100
Span : 100
EER, support
EP, span
Upper fl.
web
Lower fl.
Support : 100
Span : 86
14 %
span
New
method
Upper fl.
web
Lower fl.
Support : 88
Span : 86
12 %
support
14 %
span
UTM 2012
26
27
28
04/09/2012
Contents
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Introduction
New connection
Fatigue
Conclusions
TUM 2012
30
TUM 2012
Context
Context
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Joints
31
TUM 2012
32
04/09/2012
Context
Context
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Joints ?
Connexion ?
33
TUM 2012
Context
34
TUM 2012
Context
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Prcontrainte
Joints
Glued joints
Connection
Welding on site
TUM 2012
35
TUM 2012
36
04/09/2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Preliminary push-out
tests with cement
paste on different
connection types
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
push-out tests
Load [kN]
HR
HR
HP
HH
Cement paste
Steel beam
Slip [mm]
Embossed steel plate and bonding layer HR
Perfobond and bonding layer HP
Bonding layer HH
Stud connectors D
Embossed steel plate R
Perfobond P
connection
types
37
TUM 2012
38
TUM 2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Cement paste
Bonding layer
Embossed steel plate
Steel beam
TUM 2012
39
TUM 2012
40
10
04/09/2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Slip s Force v
ec-4
Opening of
cracks
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Slip s Uplift u
Uplift u Normal stresses
Normal stresses Shear sresses
v=bx
Uplift 2u [mm]
ec-6
Cement paste
s, v
TUM 2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
42
TUM 2012
Slab rigidity
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
crack
deformed
position
,2
Internal stresses
Deformed position
b2
b1
43
TUM 2012
44
11
04/09/2012
Numerical model
Interface behaviour
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Numerical model
confinement effect
-modelling of the relationship between the confinement stress, and
the uplift, u
Direct shearInterfaces
tests
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
behaviour
nofurtherincrease
yieldingofmiddlereinforcement
crackingofconcrete
45
TUM 2012
Interface behaviour
Ribbed steel
Concrete
Interface behaviour
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Interfaces behaviour
TUM 2012
46
TUM 2012
UHPFRC
47
TUM 2012
48
12
04/09/2012
Interface behaviour
Interface behaviour
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Failure criteria
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Kinematic law u - s
u c (N/mm2 )
Failurecriteriaforthethreeinterfaces
independent of the
normal stress,
49
TUM 2012
Interface behaviour
2
uSu ( s su )
u
( s su ) sa
)
uSu umax uSu (1 e
50
TUM 2012
Interface behaviour
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
s su
s su
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Constitutive law - s
kel s
s u k pl s sel
s su / sa
fr u fr e
s sel
sel s su
s su
s C1+C2
TUM 2012
k pl
kel
du s
ds
TUM 2012
52
13
04/09/2012
Interface behaviour
Failure criteria
max,2
max,1
3
2
2 1
u
s
confinement
=
= 1 2
s2 s3
Interface 1
Interface 3
Interface 2
Interface 4
u2
u3
conf
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
Constitutive law - s
s1
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
s s
= 2
= 1
Kinematical law s - u
53
TUM 2012
Connection behaviour
54
TUM 2012
Connection behaviour
model validation
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
TUM 2012
55
55
TUM 2012
56
14
04/09/2012
Connection behaviour
Fatigue
Connection behaviour
Fatigue
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
57
TUM 2012
Connection behaviour
Fatigue
5
9
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
cyclic loading
58
TUM 2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
sVmax,N su
3 x 1000 kN
4 to 8 metres
59
4. Comportement des poutres mixtes Institute of Steel Structures - Xian University of Architecture & Technology 60
15
04/09/2012
Composite beams
behaviour
Composite beams
behaviour
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
P=275 (1-sin3.14t) KN
Pmax = 550 KN
Pmin = 140 KN
vmax= 537 KN/m
vmin = 137 KN/m
P/3
2P/3
61
TUM 2012
Composite beams
behaviour
62
TUM 2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
63
TUM 2012
64
16
04/09/2012
UTM 2012
65
66
UTM 2012
66
cr
Yield strength
fy
Reduced slenderness
fy
cr
Theory / Tests
a) Canal bridge Mitelland.
(Germany, 1982)
Verification
c) Saint-Ilpize bridge.
(France 2004)
b) Highway bridge Kaiserslautern.
(Germany, 1954)
UTM 2012
Partial factor :
67
UTM 2012
Ed
fy
M1
M1 1,1
Reduction
curve
f 1,0
68
17
04/09/2012
1 2EI
cr
L2
Ncr
(Eulers formula)
NEd
(Engessers formula)
NEd
N
1 2EI
1
1 2EI
cr cr 2 EIc 2
l
L2
l
l
Consequences
typical method LT -
with c = Cd / l
(springs supposed to be uniformly
distributed)
NEd
LT
rarely usable
Note : These formulae assume that I and are constant over the whole length L.
UTM 2012
69
UTM 2012
70
60,00 m
fyf
ultimate amplification factor ult,k min
Ed
80,00 m
60,00 m
600
C
IPE 600
7000
op
reduction factor
Verification:
UTM 2012
op
2 op
ult,k
1,0
M1
with
1,0
2
1
with 1 op 0,2 op
M1 1,1
71
UTM 2012
1500
1100
C
A
ult,k
cr,op
op
slenderness
2800
a = 7,5 m
a=8m
2800
cr
cr
Ed
1100
cr,op
B
7000
72
18
04/09/2012
P1
P2
60,00 m
C3
80,00 m
60,00 m
40
80
bfi = 1200 mm
120
80
55
55
40
80
120
80
2720
2690
2640
2560
2640
2690
2720
2690
2640
2560
2640
55
40
55
tfi (mm) =
2690
2720
2800
40
20
0
-20
50
100
150
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
Acier S355
200
Abscisse x (m)
UTM 2012
73
UTM 2012
74
Norm
hw,c 3
LT
ANE
hw,c
50
hw,c t w
t f bf 3
12
Ncrit 2 EIc
30
20
10
0
0
Ncrit 191,9 MN
-10
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0,505 0,4
Fasc. 61 titre V
1978
160
180
200
Rd
Ed 249,25 MPa
SIA 161
1990
SIA 263
2003
Welded section
Conditions
for the
function LT
inf
Aeff bf t f
fy
crit
n = 2,25
=> Curve c
EN 1993-2, 6.3.4.2
2007
Welded section
h/bf = 2800/1200 > 2
=> Curve d
LT
0,904
0,980
0,840
0,776
M1
1,0
1,1
1,05
1,1
266,7 MPa
262,8 MPa
236 MPa
208,1 MPa
-9,6 %
-10,9 %
-20,0 %
-29,5 %
YES
YES
NO
NO
LTfy
M1
Ok?
Abscisses (m)
UTM 2012
75
UTM 2012
76
19
04/09/2012
EN 1993-2, 6.3.4.1
a = 7,5 m
cr,op
a=8m
Mode
a = 7,5 m
8,86
uy
x
10,26
300
200
80 m
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
LT
op
-200
-300
op
17,49
2
1
1 LT op 0,2 op 0,63
-100
60 m
ult,k
1,18
0,365 0,2
cr,op
8,86
op
100
-400
60 m
fyf
295
118
,
f 249, 25
ult,k min
400
LT LT 2 op
0,875 1,0
ult,k 1,036
0,94 1,0
1,1
M1
NO
77
UTM 2012
78
Stresses (MPa)
200
150
100
50
0
-50 0
20
40
60
80
1000
20
40
60
80
10
-100
-150
-200
Field of bridges
UTM 2012
C0
79
UTM 2012
P1
C0
P1
80
20
04/09/2012
e0
Lf/150
Lf/300
Lf/150
Lf/300
max (MPa)
74,58
37,57
50,44
25,41
64,5
64,5
50
50
271,00
247,76
278,81
262,52
62,5
60 (P1)
60 (P1)
60 (P1)
Always verified :
YES
II is mainly due to the first iteration of the second order analysis (quasi
proportional to the value of e0).
e0 should be defined following the value of the reduced slenderness
parameter.
Wel
e0 0,76 0,2
use
(so 25 mm instead of L/150 = 133 mm)
UTM 2012
81
UTM 2012
82
Methodology
83
UTM 2012
ECCS, n33,
1984
84
21
04/09/2012
Specimens fabrication
Flame-cutting set up and temperature measurements
Initials
measurements Li
1
2
Finals
measurements Lf
Strain:
Stresses:
UTM 2012
85
UTM 2012
86
Specimens fabrication
Geometry of welding and pass sequencing
Plan view
Flange PL60mm, S355N
2600 x 730 x 60 mm
A
FC
Submerge
d Arc
Welding
process
(SAW)
T2b
Web PL20mm, S355J2
2600 x 180 x 20 mm
730
Rolling direction
Weld direction,
Temperature
measuring zones
FC
A
2600
180
20
3
3
22 11
web
33
2
11 2
60
flange
1. Introduction
UTM 2012
2. Le projet
3. Travaux
raliss
UTM 2012
730
88
22
04/09/2012
90
UTM 2012
89
UTM 2012
Cutting steps
1@15mm
6@10mm
9@20mm
6@10mm
200
70
6@10mm
1@15mm
9@20mm
1@15mm
6@10mm
70
200
70
60
5@10mm
6@10mm
2. Band saw
6@10mm
2@17.5mm
Design of sectioning
Welding
Specimens
1@15mm
90
5
70
50
730
Flame-cutting Specimens
1@15mm
2@25mm
13@20mm
13@20mm
1@15mm
6@10mm
280
70
60
5@10mm
6@10mm
1. Circular saw
5
70
280
30
730
UTM 2012
91
UTM 2012
92
23
04/09/2012
a) Longitudinal deformation
b) Curvature deformation
250 mm
Deformeter
UTM 2012
93
Needle comparator
UTM 2012
94
UTM 2012
95
UTM 2012
96
24
04/09/2012
UTM 2012
97
UTM 2012
98
UTM 2012
99
25
04/09/2012
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE
04/09/2012
Viaduc de Millau
Narrow and
winding access
roads
Height above
ground
Long and
innovative
bridge
04/09/2012
From North,
717 m
10
11
12
04/09/2012
Translators used
for the launching
13
14
Systmes de lanage
Pale
provisoire T1
Pile
P1
15
04/09/2012
Step 2 Translation
Step 1 up
Step 3 Down
04/09/2012
04/09/2012
28
04/09/2012
29
30
31
32
04/09/2012
33
34
35
36
04/09/2012
10