Numerical Simulations of Steel Integral Abutment Bridges under Thermal Loading

LaFave, James M.; Riddle, Joseph; Jarrett, Matthew; Wright, Beth Ann; Svatora, Jeffrey; An, Huayu; Fahnestock, Larry A.

doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000919

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Integral bridge building in Europe was summarized by White et al in 2010 [9] and more recently in Germany by Pak and Seidl [10]. Previous research on the subject has mainly addressed the thermal load effect [11][12][13], time-dependent deformations due to creep and shrinkage [14][15][16], and seismic loading [17][18][19]. Little published work has considered live load distribution in such bridges, except for the work of Dicleli, Yalcin and Erhan, which is summarized below.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicability of the AASHTO’s Live Load Distribution Requirements for Integral Bridges

Tabsh¹,

Mourad²

2021

IJCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integral abutment bridges are structures that lack joints and bearings between the superstructure and substructure at their outmost points. They accommodate displacements due to temperature, creep and shrinkage through flexible foundation composed of an abutment wall on single row of piles. Experience has shown that such bridges possess lower construction and maintenance costs, enhanced structural performance, fast construction schedules, and improved vehicular ride-ability. While most design specifications around the world devote ample attention to traditional jointed bridges, they do not adequately cover integral abutment bridges. Hence, this study addresses the issue of whether the current AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications for live load distribution are applicable to integral abutment bridges. To achieve the objective, single span monolithic bridges are modelled by finite elements with consideration of different girder spacing, free standing pile lengths and wing-wall lengths. The girder distribution factors for flexure and shear from the finite element results are compared with the corresponding formulas in the specifications. The approach utilized by AASHTO to compute the flexural live load effect in the deck slab by considering a unit strip of the slab on rigid supports is checked against the finite element results. In general, findings of the study showed that the AASHTO specifications can be safely used to compute the load effect in girders and deck slab of bridges without joints.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicability of the AASHTO’s Live Load Distribution Requirements for Integral Bridges

Tabsh¹,

Mourad²

2021

IJCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The structural analysis model of the IPM bridge ( Figure 7) was created by the design drawings in Figure 5 and references previous IAB studies [8][9][10][14][15][16]30,31]. The detailed structural analysis model of the IPM bridge is equivalent to the Park and Nam [2] model.…”

Section: Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical Analysis of the Behavior of an IPM Bridge According to Super-Structure and Sub-Structure Properties

Park

Nam

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:A bridge with an integrated and pile-bent abutment with a mechanically stabilized earth-wall (IPM) was developed by separating earth pressure from the abutment to overcome the problems typically faced by integral abutment bridges. Also, the IPM bridge removes expansion joints and bearing by integrating the super-structure and the abutment and does not need many piles because it separates the earth pressure from backfills. Therefore, it is superior in cost, durability, and maintainability to traditional bridges and is sustainable due to using less material. A numerical analysis was conducted to ascertain the behavior of the IPM bridge according to its super-structural and sub-structural characteristics. Based on the analysis results, the behaviors of the IPM bridge are as follows: The bending moments M y of the pre-stressed concrete (PSC) girder and the steel-plate girder of the bridge were influenced by the presence of the time-dependent loads. The contraction behavior in the PSC girder is largely due to the time-dependent loads, whereas the expansion behavior in the steel-plate girder is large due to its greater thermal expansion coefficient and temperature range compared with those of the PSC girder. In general, the suggested bridge length limit for PSC girders in both the integral abutment bridge and the IPM bridge is larger than that in a steel bridge. This needs to be reviewed again with consideration of the long-term and seasonal behaviors.

show abstract

“…Moreover, most previous studies [12,[19][20][21][22][23][24] focused on substructure response corresponding to varied soil properties and pile orientations. American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design (AASHTO LRFD) (2014) [25] or other state design guidelines consider only the bridge length parameter and assume that bridge response is linearly proportional to bridge length.…”

Section: Introduction 1background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Construction Joint and Bridge Geometry on Integral Abutment Bridges

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although integral abutment bridges (IABs) have become a preferred construction choice for short- to medium-length bridges, they still have unclear bridge design guidelines. As IABs are supported by nonlinear boundaries, bridge geometric parameters strongly affect IAB behavior and complicate predicting the bridge response for design and assessment purposes. This study demonstrates the effect of four dominant parameters: (1) girder material, (2) bridge length, (3) backfill height, and (4) construction joint below girder seats on the response of IABs to the rise and fall of AASHTO extreme temperature with time-dependent effects in concrete materials. The effect of factors influencing bridge response, such as (1) bridge construction timeline, (2) concrete thermal expansion coefficient, (3) backfill stiffness, and (4) pile-soil stiffness, are assumed to be constant. To compare girder material and bridge geometry influence, the study evaluates four critical superstructure and substructure response parameters: (1) girder axial force, (2) girder bending moment, (3) pile moment, and (4) pile head displacement. All IAB bridge response values were strongly related to the four considered parameters, while they were not always linearly proportional. Prestressed concrete (PSC) bridge response did not differ significantly from the steel bridge response. Forces and moments in the superstructure and the substructure induced by thermal movements and time-dependent loads were not negligible and should be considered in the design process.

show abstract

Numerical Simulations of Steel Integral Abutment Bridges under Thermal Loading

Cited by 27 publications

References 17 publications

Applicability of the AASHTO’s Live Load Distribution Requirements for Integral Bridges

Applicability of the AASHTO’s Live Load Distribution Requirements for Integral Bridges

Numerical Analysis of the Behavior of an IPM Bridge According to Super-Structure and Sub-Structure Properties

Influence of Construction Joint and Bridge Geometry on Integral Abutment Bridges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About