Hyder Consulting: Winfred G. Liwanag II
Hyder Consulting: Winfred G. Liwanag II
Hyder Consulting: Winfred G. Liwanag II
Prepared By:
Winfred G. Liwanag II
Graduate Bridge Design Engineer HYDER CONSULTING
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
OBJECTIVE
Compare and contrast BD 37/01 and AASHTO LRFD 2007 using the
calculation of worked example of simply supported Prestressed
concrete beam by Nicholson.
LOAD TO CONSIDER:
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
LOADS:
COMBINATION OF LOADS:
COMBINATION DESCRIPTION
STRENGTH I—Basic load combination relating to
the normal vehicular use of the bridge without wind.
LIMIT STATES:
FATIGUE:
Deals with restrictions on stress range under
regular service conditions reflecting the number of
expected cycles.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
SAMPLE PROBLEM:
The example bridge has the following design The following materials will be used:
requirements:
Precast concrete fcu = 50 N/mm2
Span Length = 26.61m single span
fci = 40 N/mm2
Span Width = 7.3m carriageway + 1m hard
strip each side + 1.5m footpath each side In-situ concrete fcu = 40 N/mm2
Prestressing strand 15.2 mm dia Dyform
Loading HA + 37.5 units HB
fpu = 1820 N/mm2
Surfacing 100mm thk (minimum) + 20mm
Area = 165 mm2 per strand
waterproofing
SECTION PROPERTIES:
CALCULATION OF LOADS:
BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007
Computation:
3.6.1.2.4 a.) DESIGN LANE LOAD
Computation:
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
The HA UDL and KEL shall be multiplied by The extreme live load force effect shall be
the appropriate factors from table 14 before being determined by considering each possible
applied to the notional lanes indicated. combination of number of loaded lanes multiplied by
a corresponding multiple presence factor to account
for the probability of simultaneous lane occupation
by the full HL93 design live load which are intended
to account for the worst case scenario.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
APPLICATION OF LOADS:
BD 37/01
6.4 Application of types HA and HB loading
APPLICATION OF LOADS:
BD 37/01
2.) a. HD vehicle straddling two notional lane.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
APPLICATION OF LOADS:
BD 37/01
2.) b. HD vehicle straddling two notional lane.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
APPLICATION OF LOADS:
BD 37/01
Load Pattern Example:
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
APPLICATION OF LOADS:
3.6.1.3.1 General
Unless otherwise specified, the extreme force effect shall be taken as the larger of the
following:
The effect of the design tandem combined with the effect of the design lane load, or
The effect of one design truck with the variable axle spacing specified in Article 3.6.1.2.2,
combined with the effect of the design lane load.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
APPLICATION OF LOADS:
a.) The lane load is applied, without impact, to any span, or part of a span, as
needed to maximize the critical response.
b.) A single truck, with impact, is applied as needed to maximize the critical
response (except for the case of negative moment between inflection points).
b.1.) The Specification calls for a single truck to be applied, regardless of the
number of spans.
b.2.) The exception is for the case of negative moment between inflection points
where 2 trucks are used.
c.) If an axle or axles do not contribute to the critical response, they are
ignored.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
GRILLAGE MODELLING
GRILLAGE MODELLING
ANALYSIS
BD 37/01
Combination 1
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
ANALYSIS
BD 37/01
Combination 2
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
BD 37/01
Combination 9
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
MAXIMUM MOMENT
BD 37/01
Maximum Moment
@
Combination 9
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
MOMENT DIAGRAM
BD 37/01
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
BD 37/01
Combination 11
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
BD 37/01
Combination 17
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
MAXIMUM SHEAR
BD 37/01
Maximum Shear
@
Combination 11 and 17
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
SHEAR DIAGRAM
BD 37/01
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
ANALYSIS
Combination 1
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
ANALYSIS
Combination 2
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
Combination 5
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
MAXIMUM MOMENT
Maximum Moment
@
Combination 5
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
MAXIMUM DIAGRAM
Combination 14
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
MAXIMUM SHEAR
Maximum Shear
@
Combination 14
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
SHEAR DIAGRAM
COMPARISON OF RESULTS:
2753.14
2500
2000
1816.06
1500
1000
500
441.41
346.66
0
BD 37/01 AASHTO LRFD
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
1) DESIGN LOAD INTENSITY: British Code has higher bridge loads, because
they are designed to carry heavier loads than the AASHTO, primarily military
loads. The British code produces bending moment and shear effects that are 35
percent greater than the AASHTO levels.
3) In AASHTO LRFD the value of static load was increased by a certain IMPACT
FACTOR to compensate the dynamic effects.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
END
THANK YOU!