1. bridge engineering khmer

8/9/2019 1. Bridge Engineering Khmer

1/63


2/63

National Polytechnic Institute of Cambodia (NPIC)

v ng neer ng acu y

Design of Highway Bridges:

based on -

,

1

. ž

Š Šž

2

Ð ý Š

¤ Ð ¤.

(Jn, 88)¤

J J H () 63

3¤

.. Wooden Bridges)

P Wnwg Š

u g Š ¤ P Š

Pqu Nw Hp ¤ Wnwg ý ãCuå

u un, nn vn ,6 ¤

4

Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, M. Eng,


3/63

Fig. 1.1 James J. Hill Stone Arch Bridge, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(Hibbard Photo, Minnesota Historical Society, July 1905.)5

Fig. 1.2 Trussed arch—designed by Lewis Wernwag, patented 1812.

Fig. 1.3 Arched truss—designed by Theodore Burr, patented 1817. (From

Bridges and Men by Joseph Gies. Copyright © 1963 by Joseph Gies.6

Fig. 1.4 Philippi covered bridge. (Photo by Larry Belcher, courtesy of

West Virginia Department of Transportation.)7

Bu Š (3) Ð

Ð Ð P

gn ž Vgn¤ Lu Cnw Š

Ð Š ( u)

I wn ¤ 8



4/63

ž ž ()¤ Š

ý ¤ Ð Ð Ð ýŠ ¤

ý Cn S n H Lng O (dwd, )¤ Cn Lng

9

Ð¤ Š Ð ð ž ý

.

.

Metal Truss Bridges).

.

Metal Truss Bridges)

( d) Š

n ng ¤

Š P Ð

10

Fig. 1.5 Lattice truss—designed by Ithiel Town, patented 1820.

Fig. 1.6 Multiple king-post truss—designed by

Colonel Stephen H. Long in 1829.11

Fig. 1.7 Howe truss, designed by William Howe, patented in 1841.

Fig. 1.8 Pratt truss, designed by Thomas and Caleb Pratt,

patented in 1844.12



5/63

Fig. 1.9 Bowstring arch—designed by Squire Whipple,

patented in 1841.

Fig. 1.10 Double-intersection Pratt—credited to Squire Whipple.13

¤ šŠ ý Š P (8)

S u W Š ( u bdg) ()¤

Š P Š

.

.

Suspension Bridges).

.

Suspension Bridges)

J Fn (wugn n)

14

Jb’ C Unnwn, Pnnvn¤ Ð ð

n ng g Cnn 3 B 86¤

ng ¤ š ¤

15

Fig. 1.11 Wheeling Suspension Bridge. (Photo by John Brunell,

courtesy of West Virginia Department of Transportation.)16



6/63

Table 1.1 Long-span suspension bridges in the United States

17

.. Metal Arch Bridge)

Ð un p wnv

Ð Pnn vn ¤ (f xd upp)¤

6 6 38¤

Wngn 18

¤ Ð p g n Hw ¤

Ð ð 3ž ž 3

d

Ð ¤ H G 8 ž Nw Y

19

Fig. 1.12 Eads Bridge, St. Louis, Missouri. (Photo courtesy of Kathryn

Kontrim, 1996.)20



7/63

Fig. 1.13 New River Gorge Bridge.21

Bnn K vn Ku Sn Ind Nw J 8

w v g 8 Ð Fv, ž Vgn 8 Ð M B, j, In (3)¤ R i f d C t B id ).. Reinforced Concrete Bridges)

Ð R n Ð AvdL Gdn G, Sn Fn¤

22

¤

(pnpnd) Gg Wngu

u Ðž

Bxb C Ðž C, Cf n

Ð

n

u

23

Fig. 1.14 Bixby Creek Bridge, south of Carmel, California. [From Roberts

(1990). Used with permission of American Concrete Institute.]24



8/63

..

Girder Bridge)

Ð ¤

Š ¤ Š

Š¤ š ¤ š ž ¤

25

Fig. 1.15 Napa River Bridge. (Photo courtesy of California Department

of Transportation.)26

Š Ð ¤

n bd

¤ Ð Š

. Brid e S ecification

27

C Hn Nw Y (dwd, )¤ d Cp

¤ Cp Ð n ng n ng n,

AR A ¤ Š Ð

(AASHO) 28



9/63

Ð Ð ð ¤ Ð Ð

Ð ð AASHO¤

ãHå AASHO u

Ð ¤ Ð ð ¤ AASHO

29

Ð (An An f S Hgw ndnp n ,

Ð Ð ð ÐÐ (Ld nd R n F

, LRFD Ð¤ Ð LRFD¤

30

Ð AASHO LRFD ¤ (AASHO, 8)

, , ¤

Ð Ð ð AASHO

3, , , , 3, , 6,6, 6, 3, , 83, 8, , 6 ¤

31

(Problem) ž

Ð

? Ð?

d bd

Š (u) ¤

32



10/63

33



11/63

Aesthetics and Bridge Types

. (Introduction) Š Ð

Ð ý

¤ Š Ð ð Ð

1

¤ ¤

ý

Ð

Ð (how is a conceptual designformulated)? ( design Ð , Ð )¤ ý ý Ð

Ð ? Ð Ð ð Ð

2

š ¤.

(Nature of the Structural Design Process)

Ð Ð ð Ð Š ý Ð Š ¤ š Ð ¤

Ð Ð š

Addis (1990) Output, Input, Regulation Design Procedure¤3

2.1 Ð Ð Ð ð (Addis, 1990)

4Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


12/63

Ð Ð 2.1¤

Description and Justification

Drawings

andSpecification

Structural Integrity

andStability

5

(Design Process)- (Topography), Š

(Functional),

(Requirement),

šŠ

(Soil

Condition), (Availability of Materials), (Hydrology) (Temperature range)¤

- , Ð

, Š ý , , , Š ý ¤

6

. (Aesthetics in Bridge Design)

..

Definition of Aesthetics)

¤ (beauty) (philosophy) (effect) ¤ Ð

Ð Ð ¤ 7

.

.

Qualities of Aesthetic Design)

Watson Hurd(1990)

Burke (1991)

Gottemoeller (2004)

Ð Ð ¤ Ð Š (function), (proportion), ý (harmony), (order), (rhythm), ý (contrast)

(texture) ¤



13/63

Function)

Š

Straits Bosporus Istanbul (2.2)¤ Š (Brown et al., 1976)¤

Š ð Ð ¤

Proportion)

Ð 2.3¤

9

2.4 ý Ð Ð

¤

2.5 (Leonhardt,1991) ý ¤ Ð Magnan Viaduct Nizza French Riviera 2.6 (Muller, 1991)¤

¤ (low profile)

10

2.2 Bosporus Straits Istanbul (Brown et al., 1976)11

2.3 Š Mancunian Way (Lee, 1990)12Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


14/63

2.4 , ý (Leondardt, 1991)

2.5 V: (Leondardt, 1991)

13

¤ 2.7¤ Wasserman (1991) Ð

ð

ž

Ð

ž

2.8 2.9 ý ¤Ð ÐÐ

¯ þ 2.10(Menn, 1991)¤ Leonhardt (1991)

1/8 (2.11)¤ ý Ð

14

2.6 Magnan Viaduct Nizza, France (Muller, 1991)15

2.7 (ž) , (ž)

(Leonhardt, 1991)



15/63

2.8 Ð ð ž 17

2.9 Š ý Ð ð ž

18

2.10 þ Š (Menn, 1991)

19

2.11 1/8

(Leonhardt, 1991)



16/63

2.12 1/3 (Leonhardt, 1991)

21

1/3 (2.12)¤

Harmony)

ý

ý ¤ Ð ð ý Ð ð ¤

ý

Ð ¤

Ð 2.13¤22

Š ý Ð 2.14¤

ý Ð (overpass) 2.15 Linn Cove Viaduct 2.16¤

Order and Rhythm)

2.17 ¤

Contrast and Texture)

ý ý ž 23

2.13 , Napa, California



17/63

2.14 ý ý (Murray, 1991)

25

2.15 West Lilac, I-15

26

2.16 Linn Cove ž Carolina27

2.17 Tunkhannock Nicholson,Pennsylvania Ð A. Burton Cohen



18/63

¤ (cable-stay) (suspension)

þ

2.18

2.19¤

ý ¤

Light and Shadow)

ž

(2.21)¤ 2.22¤

29

2.18 East Huntingtion Huntington, West Virginia30

2.19 Brooklyn, New York

31

2.20 þ , I-82 Hinzerling , Prosser, Washington



19/63

2.21 Š ý

33

2.22 Ð ý (a) Ð ð Š

(b)

Ð (c)

34

Resolution

I-90 Olympia, Washington 2.23¤ 2.24 Š Š ž ¤ 2.25¤ Š (haunch) Ð 2.26

¤ Leonhardt (1991) ŠÐ ý 35

2.23 Cedar Falls, I-90, King County, Washington36Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


20/63

2.24 Š ý

37

2.25 (a) Ð ð ž (b) Ð ð ž (c) Ð ð ž ž

38

¤2.27 ¤

/

Girder Span/Depth Ratio)

Leonhardt (1990) šŠ ž / (L/d)¤ šŠ Ð ð L/d Š ý ¤ 2.1

Ð ACI-ASCE 343 (1988) 2.5.2.6.3-1 AASHTO (2004)¤39

2.26 (a) Š Ð ð (b) ŠŠ ð



21/63

2.27 I-39 north-central Illinois

41

2.1 /

42

Deck Overhangs)

L/d 30 2.1¤ 2.22 2.28 ¤

Ð S Ð W 0.4S ý ¤ W Ð

h¤ Leonhardt (1991) W/h 2:1 43

2.28 ž (Leonhardt, 1991)44Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


22/63

Also shown in Figure 2.29 is an important and practical detail-the

drip groove.

2.29 (Mays, 1990)45

4:1 ¤

Piers)

2.30 ¤ Š Ð (2.4, 2.5 2.31) ž¤ Š (2.32)¤ 2.33 ¤

2.31 2.34 ¤ Ð Wasserman (1991) T

46

2.30 (a-e, g, h)

T (f) (i)(Glomb, 1991)

47

2.31 Š Ð48Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


23/63

2.32 ý ž þ cab beam

49

2.33 (Seim and Lin, 1990)50

2.34 San Diego, California51

2.35 52Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


24/63

2.36 (Multiple-column bent)53

2.37

54

(2.8) (2.35) (multiple-column bent) 2.36¤ ý ý 2.37¤

Abutments)

2.38 þ (þ ) ¤

Ð 1:2 ¤

55

Integral Abutment and Jointless Bridges)

2.39¤

¤ Ð ð ž Ð ¤ Ð ð ž ¤ ý ý Ð ð ¤



25/63

2.38 (Mays, 1990)57

2.39

58

.

.

Computer Modeling)

(a)

(b)

2.40 Broadway, Daytona,Florida. (a)

(b) ¤

59

(a)

(b)

2.41 Lee RoySelmon , Tanipa, Florida(a) (b)



26/63

(a)

(b)

2.42 Smart Road,Blacksburg, Virginia.

(a) (b)

¤

61

. (Types of Bridges) -

:

- : - : Š ..

Š (Arched and Truss-arched bridge) ¤

- ( ) Ð ð ž

62

š Š ¤

- (arch rib)¤

- Ð ð ¤-

ý Š

¤ (2.45) 63

2.43 New River Gorge64Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


27/63


28/63

¤•

Š

Š

¤

• Š Ð ¤

• (a) (b) local ¤ ý ž ¤

• Ð ð Š¤

69

• ý 600m 300m¤

Ð Š ž ¤

Š (truss bridge) 2.47

Š ý ž Š (three-dimensional truss) ¤

70

ž Š 2.48¤

..

T 2.49¤ 2.50¤

ý

(applied load)¤

Š

ý 2.2¤71

2.47 Š



29/63

2.48 Š Greater new Orleans

73

2.49

74

2.50

75

2.2 Š


2.2 Š ()


30/63

2.2 Š ()

77

ž Š 2.48¤

.

.

T 2.49¤ 2.50¤

ý (applied load)¤ Š ý 2.2¤

78

. (Selection of Bridge Type)

.. Factors to be Considered)

¤ Ð Š šŠ ¤

79

2.3 Ð ð žŠ ý


10 20 ¤


31/63

..

Bridge Types Used for Different Span Length)

(Small-Span Bridge) [ 15m]- (Culvert)- (Slab) š Ð ð

Š 12m¤- T (T-beam) T 2.2(e) š

81

10m - 20m¤- (Wood Beam)- (Precast Concrete Box

Beam)

2.2(b) 2.2(f) (g)Ð 10m - 50m¤

- I (Precast Concrete IBeam)

I 82

10m - 50m š ¤

- (Rolled Steel Beam) Ð

Ð š ¤ š 30m Ð Ð (cover plate) ¤

(Medium-Span Bridge) [ 75m]- I 83

(Precast Concrete Box Beam and Precast ConcreteI-Beam)

- (Composite Rolled SteelBeam)

20% - 30% 15m¤ Ð š 100m¤

- (Composite Steel Plate Girder) 25m - 50m 84Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.

Ð 100 ¤ 20 150 ¤


32/63

Ð 100m¤- (Cast-in-Place

Reinforced Concrete Box Girder)

15m - 35m š ¤

- (Cast-in-Place Post-tensioned Concrete Box Girder)

180m¤- (Composite Steel Box Girder) 2.2(b) (c)

85

20m - 150m¤ (Large-Span Bridges) [ 50m - 150m]- (Composite Steel Plate Girder)-

(Cast-in-Place Post-tensioned Concrete Box Girder)-

(Post-tensioned Concrete Segmental Construction, ACI -

ASCE Committee 343, 1988)- (Concrete Arch and

Steel Arch)

86

- Š (Steel Truss) (Extra Large (Long) Span Bridge)[ 150m]

2.3

Ð

150m¤ Ð

¤

87

2.4


(Problem)


33/63

2.51 Sydney89

(Problem) . description

justification Ð ¤ . ÐÐ

ý ? . Š ý Š

(Arch) (Suspension)?

. Ð ð ?

90

. Š Ð Ð ?

. Š ? . š ?

91

The End


Ð


34/63

. (Introduction) Ð

Š

¤

Ð Ð ð ð

1

Ð (Resistance) (effect of load) (3.1)

. (Development of Design Procedure)

Ð Ð ¤

Ð Ð AASHTO ¤

2

. . (Allowable Stress Design, ASD)

ÐÐ š Ð ð ¤

()

T

f t :3

Ð 1860 Ð

Š (truss) ¤ ASD Ð ¤


Š S Ð M žÐÐ¤ ASD


35/63

f b :

. . (Variability of Load)

Ð (ADS) ð

ý ¤ Š Ð ý ASD¤ Ð

ðž Ð 3.15

(3.2)

ðž Ð Ð ¤ ASD

ASD Ð Ð (design code)¤

. . (Shortcomings of Allowable Stress Design)

ž ASDÐ Ð ð ¤ Ð

6

Ð šž. ýÐ š

¤ .

ž ¤

. Ð ¤ Ð Ð()¤

. Ð 7

(3.3)

¤. . (Load and Resistance Factor Design, LRFD)

R n šŠ Ð

3.3 Ð Ð Ð Ð ÐÐ Ð

(LRFD)¤ Ð φ Ð Ð 8Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.

» š (Material properties)


36/63

š » (Equation that predict strength)» / (Workmanship)» Ð (Quality control)» (Consequence of a failure)Ð

i

»

(Magnitudes of loads)

» () (Arrangement(position) of load)» (Possible combination of loads)

9

LRFD Advantage of LRFD Method)

. Ð Ð ¤ . ý

ý Ð Ð ¤

. Ð ¤. Ð (

ACI AISC)¤

LRFD Disadvantage of LRFD Method)

. Ð( AASHTO )¤10

. Ð Ð ¤

. Ð ý Ð Ð

¤.

(Design Limit State)

.. (General)

Ð

Ð

Ð

ASSHTO (2007) LRFD Ð 11

(3.4)

Qi , R n , i Ð ý , φ Ð ý

i

Ð ¤ Ð (nonstrength limit state) φ = 1¤

3.4 3.3 Ð Ð

i

¤ i


(3 5a) D [A1.3.3]


37/63

(3.5a)

(3.5b)

Ð , R

Ð

Ð ž¤ Ð

¤ Ð = R

=1.0 ¤

13

D [A1.3.3]Ð

Ð D 1.05 D 1.00 Ð ý D 0.95 Ð

D= 1.00 R [A1.3.4]

14

Ð

R 1.05 R 1.00 R 0.95 Ð R = 1.00

I [A1.3.5]

ž

15

Ðð ð ¤ ž ¤ ž

ð Š¤ ž

I 1.05 žI 1.00 I 0.95 ž


Ð and nonstructural attachment)


38/63

I = 1.00

(Load Designation) [A3.3.2]

(permanent) (transient) Ð ž

Y (Permanent Loads)

DD Ð (Downdrag)DC Ð ð Ð ð (Dead load of structural components

17

)

DW ž (Dead load of wearing surface and utilities)

EH (Horizontal earthpressure load)

EL š ž

(Accumulated lock-in forceeffects resulting from the construction process,including the secondary forces from posttension)

18

ES (Earth surcharge load)EV

(Vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill)

Y (Transient Loads)

BR (Vehicular braking force)CE (Vehicular centrifugal force)CR (Creep)CT ð (Vehicular collision force)CV

ð

(Vessel collision force)

EQ (Earthquake force)19

FR (Friction)IC (Ice load)IM (Vehicular dynamic load

allowance)

LL (Vehicular live load)LS (Live load surcharge)PL (Pedestrian live load)SE (Settlement)SH

(Shrinkage)

TG (Temperature gradient)20Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.

TU (Shrinkage) 3 1 3 2¤ Š


39/63

WA (Water load

and stream pressure)

WL Š (Wind load on liveload)

WS Š Ð ð (Wind load onstructure)

(Load Combinations and Load Factors)

Ð ý 21

3.1 3.2¤ Š ý Š ž¤

.

.

(Service Limit State)

šŠ [A1.3.2.2]¤

Ð φ=1.0 ÐÐ

i

1.0¤

22

3.1 Ð

23

3.2 Ð p


I (Service I). II (Service II)


40/63

. I (Service I)

Š

90km/h

¤ Ð ð Ð ð Ð

¤ Ð ¤

25

Ð ð š Š (slip of slip-critical connection) ¤ šŠ Ð ð AASHTO ¤

. III (Service III)

Ð Ð ð ž ý

26

¤ Ð 0.80 Ð Š Š

Š ¤ I ¤

. IV (Service IV)

Ð ð ž 27

¤ Ð 0.70 Š 135km/h¤

.. (Fatigue and Fracture Limit State)

šŠ Ð¤ šŠ (stress-range)

[A1.3.2.2]¤


ð 1.0 Š ý


41/63

¤ φ = 1.0¤

.. (Strength Limit State) [A1.3.2.4]

Ð ý (3.4)

¤ (Flexure) (Shear) (Axial force)¤ Ð φ

29

Š ý ¤. I (Strength I)

ý ý Š ¤

. II (Strength II) ý

¤ ý Š ý¤

30

. III (Strength III)

Š 90km/h¤ Š ž ž ¤

. IV (Strength IV) ¤ Ð γ i Ð

φ 60m¤ ž 31

Ð Š ý Ð

þ Š ¤ Ð

Ð I Ð IV ¤. V (Strength V)

Š

90km/h¤

V Š III 32Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.

Š Š Ð ð Ð


42/63

Ð ð ¤

.. (Extreme Event Limit State)

Ð ð Ð ž ð [A1.3.2.5]¤

ý Ð ý ¤ žž Ð [C1.3.2.5]¤

33

š ž TU, TG, CR, SH SE šŠ [C3.4.1]¤ φ = 1.0¤

. I (Extreme Event I) ¤

WA FR¤

ž Š ý Ð ¤ [C3.4.1]¤

34

Ð ý ¤ Ð Ð ý [A3.4.1]¤ γ EQ Ð 0.0, 0.5 1.0 [C3.4.1]¤

. II (Extreme Event II) ð ¤ Ð

0.5

ý

CT ¤35

3.3 Ð

. (Geometric Design Considerations)

Ð ð Š 3.1¤ Š 3.3¤



43/63

3.1 Ð ð 37

3.2 Š

38

3.3

39


(Problems) . Ð Ð


44/63

. Ðý ASSHTO LRFD

Ð

¤

ý

Ð

? ð ?. Ð ð

Ð ð ?

. Ð II III ý 1.0?

41

(Fatigue) (Fracture)?

Ð

1.0?

. ý Ð strength III strength IV?

. Ð γ p ý ?

. Ð 1.0 EQ, IC, CT CV?

42

. Ð š š Ð 18.90m (62ft)¤ Ð 3.3 Š ? Š Ð ?

43

The End


Ð ¤¤


45/63

Design Loads

. (Introduction) Ð Ð

¤

Ð: (permanentload) (transient load)¤

1

Ð ð ¤¤

ž Š ð ¤. (Gravity Loads)

Ð

¤

¤

2

. . (Permanent Loads)

¤ Ð ð Ð ð

(DC) (DW) (EV) (EH)

Ð

ð

(ES)

š ž (EL)3

4.1 (US unit)



46/63

Š 9 3kN/ (0 064ki /ft) 3 0


47/63

9.3kN/m (0.064kip/ft) 3.0m(10ft)¤ ý 3.1kPa (64lb/ft2)

Š Ð 3m¤ š ÐÐ

Š ¤ 3.1 3.2¤

4.2¤- (Fatigue Load) ž

9

4.1 AASHTO HL-93 (US unit)10

4.1 AASHTO HL-93 (SI unit)11

4.2 Ð

ãFatigueå¤ Š šŠ ¤ Ð

9.0m Ð 0.75 3.1¤


Š ¤ AASTHO [A3 6 1 4 2]

4.3 Ð Š , p


48/63

AASTHO [A3.6.1.4.2] ¤ (ADTT) Š Ðž

ADTTSL = p(ADTT)

p Ð Š 4.3¤ ADTT

Š (ADT)¤ 4.4¤

13

4.4 Ð

14

- (Pedestrian Loads) AASTHO[A3.6.1.6] Ð 3.6kPa

¤ 4.1kPa ¤

ý 4.8kPa (IBC, 2009)¤ /

Ð 0.73N/mm Ð

ð

[A13.8.2 &

A13.9.3]¤ 4.2 Ð15


890N ž¤

14.6N/mm 300mm Ð 4 3¤


49/63

ž ¤-

(Deck and Railing loads)

Ð AASHTO [A3.6.1.3.3]¤ Ð ¤ Ð

ý ý ¤(deck overhang) ž cantilever Ð

17

4.3¤ 220kN

7.6m (25ft)¤ 4.4(a)¤

Ð Ð ð [A9.4.3]¤

Ð Š cantilever 4.4(b)¤Ð

18

4.3 19

4.4 (a) (b) 20Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.

š AASHTO [A13.7.2]¤ ÐÐ

4.6 AASHTO [Table A3.6.1.1.2-1]¤


50/63

ÐÐ 4.5 (TL)¤

AASHTO [A13.7.2]¤- (Multiple Presence) Š ý

Š Ð Š ý

ý ¤ Š Ð¤ Ð Ð AASHTO[A3.6.1.1.2] Ð Ð ¤

21

4.5 Ð

22

4.6 Ð Ð

- (Dynamic Effects) 4.5 Ð

Š ý ¤Ð Š ý

dynamic load factor, dynamic load allowance impactfactor¤

23

Ð Ð 4.6

Dsta Ddyn ¤

AASHTO

(Dynamic Load Allowance, DLA)

4.1 [A3.6.2]¤24Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


51/63

4.5 25

4.6 Ð (Hwang and Nowak, 1991)26

4.7 (Hwang and Nowak, 1991)

27



Ð ULL+I = UL(1+IM) (4.1)


52/63


29

4.7 IM

LL+I L( ) ( )

ULL+I UL IM Ð 4.7

30

(Buried Components) Ð ð Ð

IM = 33(1.0 - 4.1x10-4DE)0% (4.2)

DE Ð Ð ð (mm) (Wood Components)¤

Ð ð Ð ð

š¤31

(4.3)

(4.4)

(Centrifugal Forces)

¤ Ð

V r ¤ 4.10¤

Nowton

Ð


(4.5)


53/63

4.10 ð 33

(4.6)

Fr ( )¤ 1.8m ž [A3.6.3]¤

m

W g (9.807m/s2)¤ 4.6 4.5

34

(4.8a)

(4.8b)

(4.7)

ý AASHTO[A3.6.3]Ð

f=4/3

f=1.0

v Ð Ð m/s, R Š 35

Ð m Fr 1.8m ž ¤

Ð Š 4/3 Ð

Ð 4/3 Ð ý (train of truck)¤ (Braking Forces) V

s¤ ¤ (kinetic)


(4 9)


54/63

(4.10a)

(4.10b)

(4.9)

FB m ¤

FB 4.6

37

4.11 ð 38

b Ð Ð ¤ Ð AASHTO Ð 90km/h (55mph) = 25m/s (80ft/s) 122m (400ft)¤

Ð

25% Ð Ð Š [A3.6.4]¤

39

1.8m (6ft) ž ¤

Permit (Permit Vehicles and Miscellaneous Considerations)

Pennsylvania (PennDOT) ãumbrella loadså ¤ 4.12 umbrella ¤ PennDOT Ð ¤ ÐÐ 907kN 16.8m¤

ý California (Caltrans)40Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.


55/63

4.12 PennDOT umbrella loads (Koretzky et al., 1986).41

4.13 Caltrans umbrella loads (Cassano and Lebeau, 1978).42

Ð Ð Ð ð ( 4.13)¤

. (Lateral Loads)

(incompressible fluid) 4.14¤ Bernoulli (upstream) a b

(4.11)

43

4.14 a b ý a b Ð


(4.12)

(Wind Forces)Š Ð


56/63

(4.13)

Ð (drag coefficient) Cd Ð š ¤ Ð ð Ð

45

š ¤ Ð ð Ð ¤ š Š ¤ Ð 4.15 ž ¤

ÐÐ Ð

Ð

¤

46

4.15 Š (Velocity profile)47

(4.14)

C ¤ Ð ¤

Š Ð

Z Ð , von Karman(~0.4), Z0 ,

(4.15)


0 ž ρ Š ¤ V0

4.15 4.16


57/63

(4.16)

( ) Z0 ¤

Š ž Ð

D0 Ð V0 Š 10m(30ft)Ð Ð [mph]¤ Z = 10m

4.14 V0:(4.17)

49

(4.18a)

(4.18b)

(4.19)

4.17 4.18a

4.19 4.18b 50

(4.20)

(4.21)

Ð AASHTO [A3.8.1.1] Ð

VDZ Š Ð Z (mph)[ý V(Z) 4.14], VB Š ý 100mph(160km/h), V0 ã å š Š 4.8 šžŠ (mph)

51

4.8 V0 Z0 šŠ žZ0 ã å 4.8¤

2.5 0.4 von Karman¤ (V30 /VB) () Š Š 100mph (160km/h)¤

4.19 V0 Z0¤ Š Ð ð


Š ý VB = 100mph ¤ Ð

4.22 Ð ý ¤


58/63

4.9 ý PB VB =100mph (160km/h)

(4.22)

Š ý 4.9[Table A3.8.1.2.1-1]¤4.9 Ð (Ð )¤

53

Š Ð 4.4N/mm(0.3kip/ft)

Š (windward) 2.2N/mm (0.15kip/ft) Š (leeward) Š (arch components) 4.4N/mm [A3.8.1.2.1]¤ Š Š Ð

ð

-

(WS)

4.9¤

Š

Ð

Ð ý Ð¤

54

Š (WL)¤ Ð 1.46N/mm (0.1kip/ft) 1.8m(6ft) ž [A3.8.1.3]¤

(Water Forces)

Ð ð ž ž Ð ð ¤ šŠ ý ž ¤ Ð ¤

4.13 =1000kg/m3

55

(4.23US)

(4.23SI)

(4.24US)

(4.24SI)

AASHTO [A3.7.3.1] Ð

CD Ð 4.10 V Ð 56Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.

4 10 Ð C

[ft/s(m/s)]¤

p = ž (Mpa)CL = Ð ž 4.11¤


59/63

4.10 Ð , CD

ž Ð ð ž

(4.25SI)

57

4.11 Ð , C L

58

4.16

Š

. (Forces due to Deformations)

.. (Temperature) Ð Ð

Ð ð ž( [A3.12.2] [A3.12.3])¤ 59

(Uniform temperature) Ð ð ž ¤ 4.17(a)¤

(non-

uniform heating) (gradient) Ð ð ž [4.17(b)]¤ ž ž¤

4.12 ¤ Ð¤


4.12


60/63

4.17(a) (b) 61

Ð Ð Ð ð Ð ð Ð

š šŠ Š ¤¤

62

Ð ð Ð ð ¤ Ð (solar)

ž ¤ 4.13¤

¤ ý Ð¤ AASTHO [A3.12.3]

4.19¤

AASTHO¤ T3 63

4.18 (AASHTO Fig. 3.12.3-1).64Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.

4.13 a¤

A = 300mm Ð ð ž t


61/63

a Ð -0.3 -0.2 (asphalt overlay)¤

T3 30C¤

4.19 A ž A = 300mm Ð ð

400mm ¤ Š A = 100mm 65

¤

Ð Ð ð ¤..

(Creep and Shrinkage)

Ð ð ¤

66

4.19 Ð(AASHTO Fig. 3.12.3-2).67

¤ Ð ð ¤

.

.

(Settlement)

- Ð ¤ š ž ¤


Ð Ð ð ¤ Ð šÐ Ð ð ¤

. (Collision Loads).. (Vessel Collision)


62/63

Ð consolidation,

( ) Ð ¤ Ð Ð ð ¤

Ð

ð

¤

Ð

ð

ž ¤

69

ð ¤ ð Ð Ð ð ¤ ð AASTHO[A3.14] ¤

.. (Rail Collision)

70

ð ¤ Ð ð 3.2 3.2¤

9m Ð

15m Ð 1800kN 1.2m [A3.6.5.2]¤..

(Vehicle Collision)

ð Š ¤

71

. (Summary) ý

AASHTO ¤

Ð ð ¤


(Problem). AASTHO HL-93 Ð ? Š ? ý AASTHO LRFD ž The End


63/63

. ý AASTHO LRFD ž

? ¤ Ð Ð (multiple presence factor), m Ð Š , p. Ð ð Š ?

.

Ð

?

. Š (traffic lane) Š Š Ð (design lane) ?

73 74

Lecturer: SOK RASMEY, MEng.

1. bridge engineering khmer

Documents