Assessment of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge - FTP Directory ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

thus all the analyses by assuming linear cable elements for dynamic analysis areacceptable.CableNo.SectionArea(×10 -3 m 2 )Table 6.5Tensile forcef c (kN)Maximum force and stress in stay cablesDesign forcef d (kN)Tensile stress Design stressσ c (MPa) σ d (MPa)σ d / σ cσ y / σ c1 8.08 3814 6165 472 765 1.62 3.942 8.08 3790 6174 469 765 1.63 3.973 7.49 3503 5618 468 752 1.61 3.974 6.74 3176 5218 472 772 1.64 3.945 6.44 3127 4857 486 752 1.55 3.836 6.14 3456 4702 563 765 1.36 3.307 5.54 3558 4510 643 814 1.27 2.898 5.54 3852 4470 696 807 1.16 2.679 5.24 3771 4083 720 779 1.08 2.5810 4.64 3391 3781 731 814 1.11 2.5411 4.64 3419 3567 737 765 1.04 2.5212 4.49 3352 3305 746 738 0.99 2.4913 4.04 3192 3096 790 765 0.97 2.3514 3.45 2727 2629 792 765 0.97 2.3515 3.14 2068 2344 658 745 1.13 2.8316 2.85 979 2086 344 731 2.12 5.4117 2.85 373 1957 131 690 5.26 14.218 3.14 1511 2304 481 731 1.52 3.8719 3.45 2240 2615 650 758 1.17 2.8620 3.59 2540 2651 707 738 1.04 2.6321 4.34 3046 3127 702 724 1.03 2.6522 4.49 2991 3305 666 738 1.11 2.7923 4.64 3077 3572 663 772 1.16 2.8124 5.09 3308 3848 650 758 1.17 2.8625 5.54 3577 4186 646 758 1.17 2.8826 5.54 3667 4475 663 807 1.22 2.8127 6.28 4219 4848 671 772 1.15 2.7728 6.59 4349 5062 660 765 1.16 2.8229 6.74 4336 5338 644 793 1.23 2.8930 7.34 4475 5542 610 758 1.24 3.0531 8.08 4418 6316 547 779 1.43 3.4032 8.08 3849 5547 476 690 1.45 3.9190
Tensile stress (MPa)8007507006506005505004504000 20 40 60 80Time (s)Figure 6.17 Time history of tensile stress in Cable 14140120Tensile stress (MPa)1008060402000 20 40 60 80Time (s)Figure 6.18 Time history of tensile stress in Cable 176.4 RemarksThe Bill Emerson Memorial Cable-stayed Bridge model has been analyzed under severalearthquakes to understand its seismic behavior. Based on this understanding, the bridgestructure was evaluated under a design earthquake. Based on extensive numerical results,the following observations can be made:1. Time history analysis indicates that an earthquake excitation of higher peakacceleration does not necessarily induce a stronger response. The maximumresponse does not necessarily occur in the same direction of the bridge under91
Page 1 and 2:
Organizational Results Research Rep
Page 3 and 4:
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Page 5 and 6:
Executive SummaryOpen to traffic on
Page 7 and 8:
8. All cables behave elastically un
Page 9 and 10:
Table of ContentsExecutive summary.
Page 11 and 12:
List of Figure CaptionsFigure 1.1 A
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 5.30 29 th mode shape (1.032
Page 15 and 16:
1. Introduction1.1. GeneralCable-st
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 1.1Artist rendering of the B
Page 19 and 20:
Expansionand lateralearthquakerestr
Page 21 and 22:
3. Evaluate the model by conducting
Page 23 and 24:
2. Automatic Retrieval of Peak Acce
Page 25 and 26:
2.2.3. Map/Find stationsClicking th
Page 27 and 28:
2.2.5. Displaying seismogramsTo dis
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 2.8Directory chooser2.2.6. S
Page 31 and 32:
3.2. Seismic instrumentation networ
Page 33 and 34:
The main bridge from Bent 1 to Pier
Page 35 and 36:
(a) South side of deck at support o
Page 37 and 38:
(a) North side of deck at middle of
Page 39 and 40:
The seismic responses at the top (T
Page 41 and 42:
Polyreference Complex Exponential (
Page 43 and 44:
are evaluated and presented in Figu
Page 45 and 46:
0.353.50.330.252.5Amplitude0.20.15A
Page 47 and 48:
1 x 10-4 Frequency(Hz)Amplitude0.90
Page 49 and 50:
Amplitude0.20.180.160.140.120.10.08
Page 51 and 52:
Amplitude0.20.180.160.140.120.10.08
Page 53 and 54: 1.20.80.400 100 200 300 400 500 600
Page 55 and 56: 4. Finite Element Modeling of Bill
Page 57 and 58: Since the cable stays are connected
Page 59 and 60: Table 4.3Initial property of cables
Page 61 and 62: Table 4.4Spring and damping coeffic
Page 63 and 64: (a) View of the entire bridge(b) Vi
Page 65 and 66: 4.6. RemarksA detailed 3-D FE model
Page 67 and 68: knω = (5.4)nm nSimilarly, when dam
Page 69 and 70: mainly corresponds to the vertical
Page 71 and 72: thFigure 5.10 9 mode shape (0.740Hz
Page 73 and 74: thFigure 5.19 18 mode shape (0.947H
Page 75 and 76: Figure 5.27 26 th mode shape (0.977
Page 77 and 78: When the bridge deck moves up and d
Page 79 and 80: 1.1Frequency (Hz)0.90.70.5BC Case 1
Page 81 and 82: 1.1Frequency(Hz)0.90.70.5Plus 0Plus
Page 83 and 84: no difference among the three cases
Page 85 and 86: The FE model of the bridge was vali
Page 87 and 88: 10.6TestFE model0.2-0.20 100 200 30
Page 89 and 90: 1.20.80.40-0.4TestFE model0 100 200
Page 91 and 92: differences is that the exact locat
Page 93 and 94: (a) Vertical acceleration time hist
Page 95 and 96: The FE model of the cable-stayed br
Page 97 and 98: Displacement (m)0.30.20.10-0.1-0.2X
Page 99 and 100: Station D1 (before amplification) a
Page 101 and 102: ending of the tower as shown in Fig
Page 103: symmetric about the centerline of t
Page 107 and 108: 7. Conclusions and RecommendationsB
Page 109 and 110: The vast arrays of acceleration dat
Page 111 and 112: 14. Cunha A, Caetano and Delgado T.
Page 113 and 114: 42. Song, W., Giraldo, D.F., Clayto
Page 115 and 116: Figure A.2 Vertical stiffness and d
Page 117 and 118: A.2 Group Interaction FactorThe cro
Page 119 and 120: For a group of piles with identical
Page 121: Missouri Department of Transportati
show all

Assessment of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge - FTP Directory ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?