10.04.2013 Views

The Design of Modern Steel Bridges - TEDI

The Design of Modern Steel Bridges - TEDI

The Design of Modern Steel Bridges - TEDI

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

90 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Design</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Modern</strong> <strong>Steel</strong> <strong>Bridges</strong><br />

References<br />

Buckling <strong>of</strong> compression flanges <strong>of</strong> laterally unsupported beams could not<br />

be included in the derivation <strong>of</strong> the target reliability, as the available statistical<br />

data on the modelling uncertainty were considered to be inconsistent. After<br />

further research into these data, a g m value <strong>of</strong> 1.20 was adopted for the design<br />

rules in the year 1982 version <strong>of</strong> reference[8]. <strong>The</strong> buckling strength formula<br />

for laterally unsupported beams was changed in the year 2000 version <strong>of</strong><br />

reference[8], and g m to be used in conjunction with the latest formula has been<br />

specified as 1.05. For buckling <strong>of</strong> webs <strong>of</strong> beams in shear, a g m value <strong>of</strong> 1.05<br />

was considered appropriate for webs <strong>of</strong> low slenderness which fail primarily by<br />

yielding, while a g m value <strong>of</strong> about 1.25 was required for very slender webs<br />

that fail by the tension-field mechanism. In the design rules, a g m value <strong>of</strong> 1.05<br />

was stipulated, along with a variable adjustment factor incorporated in the<br />

strength formula. <strong>The</strong> calibration exercise showed that the use <strong>of</strong> these g m<br />

factors and the strength formulae given in BS 5400 Part 3, along with the g fL<br />

and gf3 factors given in BS 5400 Part 2, would require approximately 6% less<br />

steel than in the previous design practice, while achieving the same degree <strong>of</strong><br />

reliability on average. Another benefit was the very significant reduction in the<br />

scatter <strong>of</strong> the failure probability about this mean value, as can be seen from<br />

Table 4.3.<br />

1. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318–77). American<br />

Concrete Institute, 1977.<br />

2. Specifications for the <strong>Design</strong>, Fabrication and Erection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Steel</strong> Buildings.<br />

American Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Steel</strong> Construction, 1978.<br />

3. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway <strong>Bridges</strong>, American Association <strong>of</strong><br />

State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1996.<br />

4. CP 110: Part 1: 1972. <strong>The</strong> Structural Use <strong>of</strong> Concrete. British Standards Institution,<br />

London.<br />

5. BS 5400: Part 1: 1978. <strong>Steel</strong>, Concrete and Composite <strong>Bridges</strong>. British Standards<br />

Institution, London.<br />

6. Flint A. R. et al. 1981. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Design</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Steel</strong> <strong>Bridges</strong>. Paper 2: <strong>The</strong> derivation <strong>of</strong><br />

safety factors for design <strong>of</strong> highway bridges. Granada, London.<br />

7. BS 5400: Part 2: 1978. <strong>Steel</strong>, Concrete and Composite <strong>Bridges</strong>: Specification for<br />

Loads. British Standards Institution, London.<br />

8. BS 5400: Part 3: 1982: Code <strong>of</strong> Practice for <strong>Design</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Steel</strong> <strong>Bridges</strong>. British<br />

Standards Institution, London.<br />

9. BS 153: 1958. Specification for <strong>Steel</strong> Girder <strong>Bridges</strong>. British Standards Institution,<br />

London.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!