Shz713
Structural
- Aug 21, 2015
- 221
Hi all,
I would like to get forum user's viewpoint about the following cases:
-In case of wall-type pier (width >4m) in bridge structures, is it safe practice to consider it as series of separate columns for modelling? Or gross cross section must be used as a single element?
_If there's a construction joint between the deck and kerb, can the kerb be not modelled and instead its load be distributed to adjacent girder by considering it not integral part of deck(assuming we know that kerb was casted after deck)? Such as figure attached.
_Other than guideline provided in the code, is there any general/rule of thumb about effective flange width? When we should be worried about it for bridges with cantilever edge. Can we have rough assumption like if the flange width is less than <1m no need to consider the shear lag effect.
Cheers,
Shoot for the Moon, even if U miss, U still land among Stars!
I would like to get forum user's viewpoint about the following cases:
-In case of wall-type pier (width >4m) in bridge structures, is it safe practice to consider it as series of separate columns for modelling? Or gross cross section must be used as a single element?
_If there's a construction joint between the deck and kerb, can the kerb be not modelled and instead its load be distributed to adjacent girder by considering it not integral part of deck(assuming we know that kerb was casted after deck)? Such as figure attached.
_Other than guideline provided in the code, is there any general/rule of thumb about effective flange width? When we should be worried about it for bridges with cantilever edge. Can we have rough assumption like if the flange width is less than <1m no need to consider the shear lag effect.
Cheers,
Shoot for the Moon, even if U miss, U still land among Stars!
