23 views

Uploaded by Djordje Ladjinovic

Bridge Analysis and Design

- Columns
- FORMULATION OF STIFFNESS CONSTANT AND EFFECTIVE MASS FOR A FOLDED BEAM..pdf
- Simple Connections in Steel Structures
- Storage Tank Calculation
- Methods to Reduce Oblique Bending in a Steel Sheet Pile Wall
- Civil Engineering Model Questions
- Theory of Structure
- E3
- Concrete Forming Work in Progress
- ejercicio
- AE-May-2015-07-Str-A1
- sillabus_5_fsi
- Sa,CD,Ab,Bp,Rockako Mp109 Centek Ct 20131014
- Symbols
- 001-FPL_1782ocr
- Composite Floor Deck Design.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S0021892814000458-main
- HandoutonDesignOfShortColumns_2008
- Shot Crete
- Load Path and Tributary Areas

You are on page 1of 57

SE 151A

Concrete Mechanics and Design

Department of Structural Engineering

University of California, San Diego

Jose Restrepo

Alvin Aguelo

Luke Robinson

Term Project

Fall 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5

II. Dimensions & Section Properties............................................................................................................................... 6

III. Design Loads ................................................................................................................................................................ 8

IV. Structural Analysis........................................................................................................................................................ 9

V. Slab Design ................................................................................................................................................................... 19

VI. Girder Design ............................................................................................................................................................. 20

VII. Development of Longitudinal and Miscellaneous Requirements ..................................................................... 21

VIII. Column Design ....................................................................................................................................................... 22

IX. Drawings ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28

X. Appendix....................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 1.1: Calculations for Ag,slab ,Ixx,slab and Se,slab ........................................................................................... 36

Appendix 1.2: Calculations for Ag,column, Ixx,column and Se,column. .............................................................................. 36

Appendix 1.3: Calculations for yb, yt, Ag,girder, Ixx,girder and Se,girder. ......................................................................... 37

Appendix 1.4: Calculations for Slab Design Loads................................................................................................. 38

Appendix 1.5: Calculations for Girder Design Loads. ........................................................................................... 38

Appendix 1.6: Calculations for the Slab Design ...................................................................................................... 39

Appendix 1.7: Calculations for the Positive Girder Design .................................................................................. 41

Appendix 1.8: Calculations for the Negative Girder Design ................................................................................ 44

Appendix 1.9: Calculations for the Shear Design Slab Section ......................................................................... 47

Appendix 2.0: Calculations for the Shear Design Girder Section..................................................................... 48

Appendix 2.1: Bar Development Girder Calculations ........................................................................................... 50

Appendix 2.2 : Column Design Sample Calculation .............................................................................................. 53

Appendix 2.3: MATLAB Program used for Linear Interpolation ....................................................................... 55

XI. Hours Spent per Student .......................................................................................................................................... 56

|01

|02

|03

DESIGN PROCESS

ARCHITECTURAL

RENDERINGS

I. REFERENCES

PURPOSE:

The proposed bridge is designed as a connecting two-span pedestrian path for a park located in

East San Diego County. The proposed geometric layout requires a crossing of a 5 lane lowvolume roadway designed for frequent loading (due to pedestrians). As stated, the bridge will

account for multiple loading cases that are designed to assure public safety (reference accordance

with the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)). The

permanent load cases are defined as follows: dead load of structural components (DC, AASHTO

3.3.2) and dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities (DW, AASHTO 3.3.2). Transient loading

are also accounted for and defined as: pedestrian live load (PL, AASHTO 3.3.2).

The preliminary design for the bridge was originally a T-shaped girder cross section which was

re-designed to have a taper of 30 mm depth. This design was primarily chosen for aesthetic basis

and as well as safety purposes. In addition, the slab and overhanging girder depth are designed

with consideration of the minimum code requirements (with specifications from the

client). Column size for the bridge was designed to have a side dimension of 850 mm.

Additional specification for the loading is as follows: the structure shall be designed to support

its own dead weight, the weight of a 50mm asphaltic concrete overlay (unit weight of asphaltic

concrete is 16 kN/m3, a 1 kN/m handrail load at the slab edges, and a live load per AASHTO

LRFD of 4.1 kN/m2. The normal weight of concrete are also considered and defined as 23.5

kN/m3 with a specified compressive strength of fc = 38 MPa. The average aggregate size used

in the concrete is 25 millimeters in diameter.

II. DIMENSIONS & SECTION PROPERTIES

Analysis of the decking slab and determination of the slab depth was based on idealizing

the T-section as a solid one way cantilevered beam. Checking against ACI Code in Table

9.5(a), to avoid calculating deflections the minimum depth of the fixed end of the

cantilever must be 0.19m or larger. For the proposed bridge a slab depth of 0.20m was

chosen for simplicity.

Cross-Sectional Properties:

Decking Slab

Ag,slab

Ixx,slab

Se,slab

0.2 m2

6.667e-4 m4

6.667e-3 m3

Table 1: Sectional Properties of Decking Slab (For Calculation See Appendix 1.1)

B) Girder:

Analysis of the girder and determination of the girder depth was based on ACI Code for

non-pre-stressed beams. Checking against ACI Code in Table 9.5(a), to avoid calculating

deflections the minimum depth of the non-pre-stressed beam with one end continuous

must be a minimum if 0.95m. For the design proposed a depth of 1m was chosen for

calculation purposes.

Cross-Sectional Properties:

Decking Girder

Ag,girder

yb

yt

Ixx,girder

Sb,girder

St,girder

1.510 m2

0.701 m

0.299 m

0.1254 m4

0.1788 m3

0.420 m3

C) Column:

The design of the column is allowed to be 850mm, 900mm, 950mm. For the proposed

bridge, a slanted square cross section has been chosen with a width of 850mm. The

thinner column has a more aesthetic quality to it and gives an overall more transparent

appearance to the bridge. Should it be found later that the bridge needs a larger column, it

can always be increased easily.

Cross-Sectional Properties:

Column

Ag,column

Ixx,column

Se,column

0.723 m2

0.0435 m4

0.1024 m3

A) Deck Slab Design Loads: The design loads for the deck slab were determined to be:

Design Factor

Design Loads: Deck Slab

WDC1,slab

PDC2,slab

WPL,slab

WDW,slab

4.70 kN/m

1.00 kN

4.10 kN/m

0.80 kN/m

1.25

1.25

1.75

1.50

Final Load

Design with

Factors

5.875 kN/m

1.25 kN

7.175 kN/m

1.20 kN/m

Table 4: Design Loads for Deck Slab Cantilever (For Calculation See Appendix 1.3)

The design loads for the girder were determined to be:

WDC1,girder

WDC2,girder

WPL,girder

WDW,girder

35.49 kN/m

2.000 kN/m

18.655 kN/m

3.640 kN/m

Table 5: Design Loads for Deck Slab Cantilever (For Calculation See Appendix 1.4)

Shear Value

Moment Value

WDW, slab

WPL, slab

WDC1, slab

WDC2, slab

Wcomb1, slab

2.28 kN

2.17 kN-m

13.63 kN

12.95 kN-m

11.16 kN

10.6 kN-m

1.25 kN

2.25 kN-m

28.33 kN

27.97 kN-m

Table: 6The shear and the moment values for the loads are calculated through SAP and yield:

A) Slab:

i) Model:

Figure 5: Cross-Sectional View of the idealized model for transverse bending and shear in the slab.

Using ASSHTO Code for structural analysis, limit states STRENGTH I and

STRENGTH III recommend a load factor of 1.75 for pedestrian live loads in Table

3.4.1-1. Referring to Table 3.4.1-2, ASSHTO Code recommends a minimum load

factor of 1.25 for DC Components and 1.50 for DW wearing surfaces. The following

load factors are incorporated in the Design Envelope.

iii & iv) Bending Moment Diagrams & Shear Force Diagrams:

NOTE: The following shear and moment diagrams were modeled for a solid fixed

end one-way cantilever of length 1.9m. The design loads used were according to

Table 4 of this document and did not use ASSHTO design load factors.

10

1)

2)

3)

4)

11

B.) Girder:

i.) Model:

Figure 16: First-order SAP Model of the proposed bridge. All dimensions are in mm.

12

The un-factored loads used in the girder design can be found in Table 5. Five load

cases were considered for the proposed bridge to account for moving live loads and

variability in specific gravity of materials used in the construction of Pollo Gigante

Pedestrian Bridge.

Figure 17: Load Case 1 Live load across entire bridge span with max load factors used in dead weight of

construction materials.

Figure 18: Load Case 2&3 Live load across half bridge span with min. load factors used in dead weight of

construction materials.

13

Figure 19: Load Case 4&5 Live load across half bridge span with max load factors used in dead weight of

construction materials.

Load Case 1

Design

LF

Load

Load

(p)

(kN/m)

WDC1,girder 1.25 44.36

WDC2,girder 1.25 2.500

WPL,girder 1.75 32.65

WDW,girder 1.5 5.460

Load Case 4

Design

LF

Load

Load

(p)

(kN/m)

WDC1,girder 1.25 44.36

WDC2,girder 1.25 2.500

WPL,girder 1.75 32.65

WDW,girder 1.5

5.46

Load Case 2

Load Case 3

Design

Design

LF

LF

Load

Load

Load

Load

(p)

(p)

(kN/m)

(kN/m)

WDC1,girder 0.9 31.94 WDC1,girder 0.9 31.94

WDC2,girder 0.9 1.800 WDC2,girder 0.9 1.800

WPL,girder 1.75 32.65 WPL,girder 1.75 32.65

WDW,girder 0.65 2.366 WDW,girder 0.65 2.366

Load Case 5

Design

LF

Load

Load

(p)

(kN/m)

WDC1,girder 1.25 44.36

WDC2,girder 1.25 2.500

WPL,girder 1.75 32.65

WDW,girder 1.5

5.46

Table 7: Design Loads and Load factors used for Girder analysis.

Load Case 1 is considered to account for the possibility of the bridge being

completely loaded with pedestrians, LC 1 yields a maximum negative moment in the

girder near the column and in the top of the column and also yields maximum shear in the

girders and column. Load Cases 2, 3 were considered for possible maximum positive

bending in the girder, but was not large enough to control the design. Load cases 4 and 5

were also considered to determine maximum positive bending moments in the left and

14

right side of the girder and did control the design. The design loads for the load cases

used in analysis are as follows.

Figure 20: Moment Diagram for Load Combination 1 with Max Values units in kN-m.

Figure 21: Moment Diagram for Load Combination 2 with Max Values units in kN-m.

Figure 22: Moment Diagram for Load Combination 3 with Max Values units in kN-m.

15

Figure 23: Moment Diagram for Load Combination 4 with Max Values units in kN-m.

Figure 24: Moment Diagram for Load Combination 5 with Max Values units in kN-m.

Figure 25: Shear Diagram for Load Combination 1 with Max Values units in kN.

16

Figure 26: Shear Diagram for Load Combination 2 with Max Values units in kN.

Figure 27: Shear Diagram for Load Combination 3 with Max Values units in kN.

Figure 28: Shear Diagram for Load Combination 4 with Max Values units in kN.

Figure 29: Shear Diagram for Load Combination 5 with Max Values units in kN.

17

Figure 30: Moment Design Envelope. All Load Combinations with Max Values in kN-m

Figure 31: Shear Design Envelope with All Load Combinations with Max Values in kN

The results for the Girder Analysis are shown below. These results are consistent with

those found from the values in the Moment and Shear Diagrams. From the table, we

check for possible design loads:

1. Shear Analysis (Left Girder): The highest positive shear on the left girder (from

nodes 2 & 3) is 918 kN and the highest negative shear to design for is -567 kN.

2. Shear Analyis (Right Girder): The highest positive shear on the right girder

(from nodes 5 & 6) is 629 kN and the highest positive shear to design for is -848

kN.

18

LC 1

LC 2

LC 3

LC 4

LC 5

Pos. M

(kN*m)

1664

1576

503

1892

815

Loc.

(m)

6.1

6.7

5.5

6.7

5.5

LC 1

LC 2

LC 3

LC 4

LC 5

Pos. M

(kN*m)

2130

741

1901

1147

2309

Loc.

(m)

9.8

10.4

9.8

10.4

9.8

LC 1

LC 2

LC 3

LC 4

LC 5

Pos. M

(kN*m)

1222

905

611

1142

848

Loc.

Girder

Girder

Girder

Girder

Girder

Girder Analysis

Element Nodes 2-3: Girder Left

Neg. M

Pos. V

(kN*m)

Loc.

(kN)

Loc.

-3295

Col.

918

Col.

-2069

Col.

708

Col.

-2000

Col.

425

Col.

-2699

Col.

883

Col.

-2630

Col.

599

Col.

Element Nodes 5-6: Girder Right

Neg. M

Pos. V

(kN*m)

Loc.

(kN)

Loc.

-2102

Col.

602

Sup.

-1304

Col.

232

Sup.

-1285

Col.

512

Sup.

-1703

Col.

347

Sup.

-1684

Col.

629

Sup.

Element Nodes 8-9: Column

Neg. M

Pos. V

(kN*m) Loc.

(kN)

Loc.

-1863

Ft.

458

Ft.

-1016

Ft.

287

Ft.

-1302

Ft.

286

Ft.

-1381

Ft.

378

Ft.

-1667

Ft.

343

Ft.

Neg. V

(kN)

-532

-466

-191

-567

-293

Loc.

Sup.

Sup.

Sup.

Sup.

Sup.

Neg. V

(kN)

-848

-384

-662

-546

-824

Loc.

Col.

Col.

Col.

Col.

Col.

Neg. V

(kN)

425

262

262

344

377

Loc.

Girder

Girder

Girder

Girder

Girder

Table 8: Tabular results of load case analysis. Listed are the maximum and minimum moments and shears

for each load case and their locations on the girder and column. (Col. Column/Girder Node [3 or 5], Sup.

Support/Girder Node [2 or 6], Ft. Footing/Column Node [9], Girder Column/Girder Node [8]) If Location

is in meters, it is the distance from the left node [2 or 5] of the girder element analyzed.)

19

V. SLAB DESIGN

Bar

Size

4

No.

Bars

7

d (mm)

c (mm)

c/d

144

14.881

0.1

c/d<0.42

db (mm)

Ab (mm2)

As (mm2)

smin (mm)

s (mm)

12.7

129

903

60

130.2

Mn (kNMcr (kNm)

m)

51.59

25.89

Mn > 1.85Mcr

Mu (kNm)

46.53

28

Mn > Mu

Mn (kN-m)

Table 9: This table lists the slab design for multiple spacing. It also includes the checks for each of the bars

recommended.

From analysis of the load case for the slab sections, it was determined that the

concrete in the slab has a factored resistance of 79kN. The analysis listed a maximum

demand of 28kN at the base of the cantilevered section. Per ACI-318, when designing for

shear, no shear reinforcement is needed if the factored demand is less than half the

resistance of the concrete. With a factored resistance of more than 3x the demand, no

shear reinforcement was considered for the slab design.

20

i.)

11

No.

Bars

7

d (mm)

919

c (mm)

29.38

Bar Size

Bar Size

17

d (mm)

923

db (mm)

Ab (mm2)

As (mm2)

smin (mm)

s (mm)

35.81

1006

7042

50.8

62

c/d

Mn (kN-m) Mcr (kN-m)

0.032

265

68

c/d<0.42

Mn > 1.85Mcr

Mn (kN-m) Mu (kN-m)

2383

2309

Mn > Mu

No.

db (mm) Ab (mm2)

As (mm2)

smin (mm)

s (mm)

Bars

9

28.65

645

10965

50.8

varies

c (mm)

c/d

Mn (kN-m) Mcr (kN-m) Mn (kN-m) Mu (kN-m)

240.44

0.26

3763

485

3387

3295

c/d<0.42

Mn > 1.85Mcr

Mn > Mu

Table 10: This table provides the chosen design for the girder

Figure 33: Design of Girder cross section for the critical positive moment case. Units in mm.

Figure 34: Design of Girder cross section for the critical negative moment case. Units in mm.

21

III.)

IV.)

The shear Design was completed per ACI-318. All calculations may be found in

Appendix 2.0. It was found that the worst case shear dictated a large section of Case 2,

another Case 3 section near the columns and a small case 1 section at mid-span. Due to

seismic loading in California no unreinforced shear sections were designed for. Minimum

reinforcement was used in all sections of the girder up to section 3. Lastly even though

one side of the bridge experienced less loads per analysis, to be safe and make for easier

constructability, the worst case will be mirrored about the centerline at the column.

V.)

Case 4

Case 3

Case 2

Range

Vn (kN)

Start (mm)

3Vc<Vu<Vc

1600

733

50

4875

Vc<Vu<0.5Vc

End (mm)

# sets

Not Encountered

4690

32

17325

35

Rebar

Config.

s (mm)

#4

#3

4 leg

4leg

135

400

22

REQUIREMENTS

From the ACI code, all calculations passed the design checks. It was decided that

the negative reinforcement would be cut off from 17#9 bars to 6#9bars more than

3.27m from the column. Then cut off from 6#9 bars to 4#9 bars at more than 5.61m

from the column and continue till the support for shear stirrups.

The positive reinforcement was determined that the 7#11 bars would be cut off to

4#11 bars at a distance greater than 15.29m from the column and less than 4.08m

from the column, taking proper development into account.

The shear calculations per ACI 12.10.5.1 all passed and no design changes were

needed in that regard. The following is the graphs used in the design of the bar

development. For calculations See Appendix2.1 and for more detail see drawings IV

and V in section IX. Drawings.

1800

1600

Case 3:

Vn = 1600kN

1400

Positive

Moment

1200

1000

800

Negative

Moment

Case 2:

Vn = 733kN

600

Design

Capacity

400

200

0

0

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12

Distance x from Column Face (m)

13

14

15

16

17

Graph 1: Shear Design Envelope including factored resistances per the girder shear design and plots of the

shear for the maximum positive moment case and maximum negative moment case.

23

-4000

Positive

Moment

Negative

Moment

B-CutOff (+)

-1000

0

10

11

12

13

14

15

1000

3000

17

A-CutOff (-)

xBR+=15.29m

2000

16

B-CutOff (-)

xBL+=4.08m

-2000

xA-=6.04m

xB-=3.27m

-3000

Max Positive

Moment

4000

Graph 2: Moment Design Envelope used for designing bar development of the girder section. The graph

includes maximum positive moment demand and maximum negative moment demand, then plotted are the

corresponding cutoff rebar locations and the distances from the column face.

24

i.

The analysis for the column was performed through the simplification of the bars chosen

for a potential design. The following schematic illustrates the simplification:

The following results were calculated using five cases that determine the

resistance-flexure axial load interaction diagram. These results are then used as the limits

and criteria for determining the amount of #10 bars that will be used in the column

reinforcement. The cover for the stirrups from the edge of the column is considered to be

50 mm while the stirrup used along the reinforcement is a 12 mm bar. The calculations

for the column design can be found in Appendix 2.2.

25

Case

1

2

3

4

5

Pn(MN)

-17

2.7

-2.88

-4.26

-6.34

= .01

Mn(MN-m)

0

0

1.81

2.24

2.054

Pn(MN)

-22.3

10.76

-0.2

-2.66

-6.08

= .04

Mn(MN-m)

0

0

3.36

4.27

3.48

Table 12: Design schematic of the cross section of the bridge (girder) with appropriate dimensions

ii.

Graph 3: This table provides the chosen design for the girder; the graph displays all the maximum values

from the results of the structural analyses are within the red circle. The chosen design is marked by the red

dashed circle.

26

Linear Interpolation of

4

3.5

0.04, 3.5

3

Mn

2.5

2

0.0213, 1.86

1.5

1

0.01, 0.875

0.5

0

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

g

Graph 4: Linear Interpolation Graph

From the linear interpolation of the data from the resistance-flexure axial load interaction

diagram, the value for rho was found to be .0213. This can now determine the

reinforcement that will be used for the

column.

iii.

The final column reinforcement

design is the following:

cover from the edge of the

column; 12 mm stirrup at 250

o.c.

Reinforcement Design

27

iv.

db10 32.26mm

12 fy t_bottome

d

1.3m

b10

20

f

MPa

c

ld_col

A development length 0f 1.3m will cause teh rebar to protrude from the decking surface. Use Std

hooks.

Factor 1.0

the coloumn member, the factor shall be 1.0

0.02e fy

ldh_col max

db10Factor8 db10 150mm 0.258m

fc MPa

12 db10 0.387 m

D10 8 db10 0.258 m

R10

(ACI 12.5.3)

D10

0.129m

2

For images and Detailed drawings of Bar development for the Column please refer to Section IX.

Drawings.

28

IX. DRAWINGS

I.

T

r

a

n

s

v

e

r

s

e

R

e

b

a

r

S

p

a

c

i

29

II.

L

o

n

g

i

t

u

d

i

n

a

l

R

e

b

a

r

S

p

a

c

i

n

g

a

30

III.

L

o

n

g

i

t

u

d

i

n

a

l

R

e

b

a

r

S

p

a

c

i

n

g

31

IV.

G

i

r

d

e

r

R

e

i

n

f

o

r

c

e

m

e

32

V.

S

u

p

p

o

r

t

R

e

b

a

r

33

34

35

36

X. APPENDIX

h 1m

hf .2m

Ag_slab hf be 0.2m

bw .750m

be 1.00m

b h 3

e f 6.667 10 4 m4

Ixx_slab

12

b h 3

e f

Ixx_slab

Se_slab

12

Ixx_slab

hf

2

Girder Calculations

APPENDIX 1.2: CALCULATIONS FOR A G , C O LU MN , I X X, C OL U MN AND S E , C OL U MN .

bc .850m

hc .850m

Acolumn bc hc 0.722m

b h 3

c c 0.044m4

Ixx_column

12

Se_column

Ixx_column

3

0.102m

hc

2

37

h 1m

hf .2m

bw .750m

hw h hf 0.8 m

Agirder1 bw hw 0.6m

Agirder2 be hf 0.91m

hw

y1

0.4m

2

hf

y2 hw

0.9m

2

Ag_girder Agirder1 Agirder2 1.51m

yb

Agirder1y1 Agirder2y2

Ag_girder

0.701m

yt h yb 0.299 m

d1 yb y1 0.301 m

d2 yb y2 0.199 m

b h 3

2

4

w w A

Ixx1

girder1d1 0.086m

12

b h 3

2

4

e f A

Ixx2

girder2d2 0.039m

12

Ixx_girder Ixx1 Ixx2 0.1254m

Sb_girder

Ixx_girder

3

0.1788m

yb

St_girder

Ixx_girder

3

0.42m

yt

be 4.55m

38

concrete 23.5

kN

m

asphalt 16

kN

m

hasphalt 0.05m

kN

WDC1_slab concretehf 1m 4.7

m

kN

WDW_slab asphalthasphalt1m 0.8

m

kN 1m 1 kN

PDC2_slab 1

kN 1m 4.1 kN

WPL_slab 4.1

2

m

m

kN

WDC1_girder concreteAg_girder 35.485

m

kN

WDW_girger asphaltbe hasphalt 3.64

m

kN

kN

WDC2_girder 2 1

2

m

m

kN b 18.655 kN

WPL_girder 4.1

2 e

m

m

39

fc 38MPa

fy 414MPa

hf 200mm

h 1000mm

db4 12.7mm

bw 1000mm

d 144mm

l 1900mm

c 14.61mm

Mu 28kN m

be 1000mm

1 0.85 0.05

a 1 c 11.375mm

2

db4

886.738mm2

As 7

2

0.25 38MPa

2

bw d 536.036mm

fy

As_min

6

yt 100mm

4 4

Ig 6.66710

fr Ig

Mcr

25.686kN m

yt

5

C 0.85fc 1 c bw 3.674 10 N

5

T As fy 3.671 10 N

C T 100 0.082

Error 2

CT

a

Mn T d 50.776kN m

2

(d c) .003 0.027

s 0.005

c

0.9 if 0.42

d

d

c

0.65 0.15 1 if 0.375 0.42

c

d

c

0 if 0.42 otherwise

d

0.9

Mn 45.698kN m

(5.5.4.2.1 LRFD)

40

(5.7.3.3.2 LRFD)

"FAIL" if Mn Mmin

"FAIL" if Mn Mu

d

c

"FAIL" if 0.42 d

(5.7.3.3.1 LRFD)

"FAIL" if As As_min

Check1 "PASS"

Check2 "PASS"

Check3 "PASS"

Check4 "PASS"

41

Assuming No.4 Stirrup and No.11 Flexural Rebar to get a rough As (design)

and a strength reduction factor of 0.9

fc 38MPa

fy 414MPa

be 3950mm

dstr 12.7mm

db

d 1000mm dclear dstr

919.395mm

.9

Mu 2309kN m

a1

fy

2 .85 fc be

1

671.693 MPa

m

b b 2 4 a c

1

1 1

2

1

559849mm

b b 2 4 a c

1

1 1

2

1

6822 mm

2 a1

smin 50.8mm

bw 750mm

Mu

c1

2566kN

m

1

b1 fy d 380630 kN

m

2 a1

dNo9 28.65mm

2

A No9 645mm

dNo10 32.26mm

2

A No10 819mm

dNo11 35.81mm

2

A No11 1006mm

NNo9

bw 2 dstr

NNo10

NNo11

2 d clear s min

8.501

d No9 s min

bw 2 dstr

2 d clear s min

d No10 s min

bw 2 dstr

2 d clear s min

d No11 s min

8.131

7.798

42

fc 38MPa

hf 200mm

h 1000m

bw 750mm

c 29.41mm

l 17500mm

Mu 2309kN m

l

3

be min bw 2 8 hf 3.95 10 mm

4

1 0.85 0.05

( 38 28)

7

0.779

a 1 c 0.023m

2

db11

As 7

7.062 10 3 m2

2

w

fy

As_min

6

yt 701mm

fr Ig

m

689.21kN

yt

Ig 0.1254m

M cr

6

C 0.85 fc 1 c b e 2.921 10 N

6

T A s fy 2.924 10 N

Error 2

CT

C T

100 0.076

a

3

Mn T d 2.653 10 kN m

2

( d c)

c

.003 0.091

s 0.005

c 0.42

d

d

c

0.65 0.15 1 if 0.375 0.42

c

d

c

0 if 0.42 otherwise

d

0.9 if

0.9

3

M n 2.388 10 kN m

(5.5.4.2.1 LRFD)

43

m

Check1 "PASS" if Mn Mmin

"FAIL" if Mn Mmin

(5.7.3.3.2 LRFD)

Check2 "PASS" if Mn Mu

"FAIL" if Mn Mu

c

Check3 "PASS" if 0.42

"FAIL" if 0.42 c

d

(5.7.3.3.1 LRFD)

"FAIL" if As As_min

Check1 "PASS"

Check2 "PASS"

Check3 "PASS"

Check4 "PASS"

44

Critical Negative Moment Case:

Assuming No.4 Stirrup and No.11 Flexural Rebar to get a rough As (design)

and a strength reduction factor of 0.9

fc 38MPa

fy 414MPa

be 750mm

dstr 12.7mm

db

d 1000mm dclear dstr

919.395mm

Mu 3295kNm

a1

fy

.9

2 .85 fc be

3 1

3.538 10

b b 2 4 a c

1

1 1

2

1

As_design1

96918mm

2 a

1

smin 50.8mm

bw 3950mm

Mu

c1

3661kN

m

1

b1 fy d 380630 kN

m

MPa

b b 2 4 a c

1

1 1

2

1

As_design2

10678mm

2 a1

dNo9 28.65mm

2

A No9 645mm

dNo10 32.26mm

2

A No10 819mm

dNo11 35.81mm

2

A No11 1006mm

Assuming Number 4 stirrup Max number of flexural rebar and Max areas.

NNo9

bw 2 dstr

NNo10

NNo11

2 d clear s min

48.778

d No9 s min

bw 2 dstr

2 d clear s min

d No10 s min

bw 2 dstr

2 d clear s min

d No11 s min

46.658

44.745

NNo.9design

A s_design2

A No9

16.556

45

fc 38MPa

fy 414MPa

hf 200mm

h 1000mm

db9 28.7mm

bw 750mm

d 923mm

c 240mm Mu 3295kN m

be 3950mm

1 0.85 0.05

( 38 28)

7

0.779

a 1c 186.857mm

db9

As 17

1.1 104 mm2

2

w

fy

As_min

6

fr Ig

3

1.616 10 kN m

yt

yt 299mm

Ig 0.1254m

Mcr

6

C 0.85 fc 1 c b w 4.527 10 N

6

T A s fy 4.553 10 N

Error 2

100 0.582

C T

CT

a

3

Mn T d 3.777 10 kN m

2

( d c)

c

.003 0.009

s 0.005

c 0.42

d

d

c

0.65 0.15 1 if 0.375 0.42

c

d

c

0 if 0.42 otherwise

d

0.9 if

0.9

3

M n 3.399 10 kN m

(5.5.4.2.1 LRFD)

46

"FAIL" if Mn Mmin

(5.7.3.3.2 LRFD)

Check2 "PASS" if Mn Mu

"FAIL" if Mn Mu

c

Check3 "PASS" if 0.42

"FAIL" if 0.42 c

d

(5.7.3.3.1 LRFD)

"FAIL" if As As_min

Check1 "PASS"

Check2 "PASS"

Check3 "PASS"

Check4 "PASS"

47

bw 1000mm d 144mm

Vu 28kN

fc 38MPa

1

Vc

6 38MPa bw d 147.946kN

Vc

2

Vc

"Needs Reinforcement" if Vu

2

0.75

48

bw 750mm

fc 38MPa

d 919mm

fy 414MPa

0.75

1

Vc

6 38MPa bw d 708.137kN

Case1max

Vc

2

Case 1 will be ignored and considered Case2

265.551kN

Case2max Vc 531.103kN

3

567kN

5

Vul

( 6.677m d ) 4.89 10 N

6.677m

kN

5

Vur 918

(10.810m d ) 8.4 10 N

10.810m

s 2max min

600mm 0.46m

s 2 400mm

bw s 2 38MPa bw s 2

2

279.185mm

( 3 414)

16 fy

Av_min max

db3 9.525mm

db3

2

Av2 4

285.023mm

s 3max min

600mm 0.46m

s 3 135mm

3 Vc

1 s 3

2

Vc 502.534mm

f

d

A v3min

2

db4

2

506.707mm

Av3 4

db4 12.7mm

49

Does not occur in Design

Per the Shear Envelope - Designing for Critical Case 3 and Using Case 2 everywhere else.

x3min

918kN

4557.157mm

n3min

( 4557mm 50mm)

135mm

1 34.385

n3 35

Case 2 - starting at 50mm of clear cover from the end of the girder at the support

n2max

400mm

1 32.587

n2 32

50

1450

Vu_neg ( x) 918

x kN

17.075

1450 2

Mu_neg ( x)

x 918x 3295 kN m

34.15

1453 x 824 kN

17.075

1453 2

Mu_pos ( x)

x 824x 1684 kN m

34.15

Vu_pos ( x)

fc 38 MPa

fy 414MPa

bw 750mm d max(919mm923mm)

bw d

fy

2.577 10 mm

lr 17.075m

(10.5.1 ACI)

Development Length

t_top 1.3 t_bottom 1.0 e 1.0

1

db11 35.81mm

s 1

db9 28.65mm

12 fy t_top e

d 1.501m

20 fc MPa b9

ld_neg

12 fy t_bottom e

d

1.443m

20 fc MPa b11

ld_pos

Bars Cutting off 11#9 bars- 10 in the flanges and one in the web

2

db9

AsA1 6

3.868 10 3 m2

2

2

db9

AsB1 11

7.091 10 3 m2

2

Mn A1 1283kN m Determined Via MATLAB

xtrB1 2.475m

5

51

1

5

Vc fc MPa bw d 7.112 10 N

6

A v2 279.185m m

A v3 502.534m m

s 2 400mm

s 3 135mm

d

5

Vs2 Av2 fy 2.667 10 N

s 2

V n( x)

0.75 Vc Vs2

0.75 Vc Vs3

d

6

Vs3 Av3 fy 1.422 10 N

s 3

if x 4.690

if x 4.690

V n ( 3.398) 1.6 10 N

Check1neg

Check2neg

(10.5.1 ACI)

Check1neg "PASS"

"PASS" if A sA1

"FAIL" if A sA1

Check3neg

"PASS" if

"FAIL" if

AsA1 AsB1

3

(12.12.3 ACI)

Check2neg "PASS"

AsA1 AsB1

Vu_neg ( 3.398)

V n ( 3.398)

Vu_neg ( 3.398)

V n ( 3.398)

2

3

(12.10.51 ACI)

Check3neg "PASS"

xpir 4.54m

lr

16

52

Bars Cutting off 3#11 bars, every very other in the in the web

2

db11

AsA2 4

4.029 10 3 m2

2

2

db11

AsB2 3

3.021 10 3 m2

2

Mn A2 1371kN m

xtl2 4.9967m

5

Check1pos

Check2pos

(10.5.1 ACI)

Check1pos "PASS"

"PASS" if A sA2

"FAIL" if A sA2

Check3pos

"PASS" if

"FAIL" if

AsA2 AsB2

3

(12.12.3 ACI)

Check2pos "PASS"

AsA2 AsB2

Vu_neg ( 5.623)

V n ( 5.623)

Vu_neg ( 5.623)

V n ( 5.623)

2

3

2

3

(12.10.51 ACI)

Check3pos "PASS"

Bars A per (10.5.1-ACI) & (12.11.1-ACI) need to be embedded 150mm into column.

53

Using AASHTO code for Design:

Column Schematic (Idealized version):

h 850mm

b 850mm

gh h 2 5 12

32.3

2

gh 693.7mm

g .01

Ast g Ag

Mn 0MN

Strength Reduction Factor

g .04

2

7225mm

28900mm

26.09MN

34.37MN

0MN

0MN

.65

.65

Pn Ast fy

2.99MN

Mn 0MN

0MN

0MN

.90

.90

11.96MN

ccolumn .23h

a 1 c .779(195.5.5

mm)

a 195.5mm

c

c

1.535 10

h

2

( 1 g) 772mm

54

Layer (1)

s1 (d c) .0085

s1 0fs1 min Es s1 fy

fs1 414MPa

fs2 414MPa

Layer (2):

s2

c .0035

s2 0fs2 min Es s2 fy

Layer (3):

h

s3 ( 1 g) c .0018

2

s3 0a

h

2

( 1 g) c

Summing the Forces:

fs 3 327.7MPa

g .01

g .04

1122kN

4487kN

748kN

2991kN

3

Fs1 Ast fs1

8

2

Fs2 Ast fs2

8

3

Fs3 Ast fs3

8

Cc .85fprime_cab

P n

889kN

3551kN

4181kN

4181kN

3200kN

253kN

Mn Fs1 x1 Fs3 x3 Cc xc

gh

x1

3.468

2

gh

x3

3.468

2

h

a

xc 348.9

2 2

2.01MN m

3.73MN m

55

P n M n

(2.88MN1.81MN m)

(.2MN3.36MN m)

3

ccolumn d 289.43mm

8

a 1 c 194.3mm

.003

289.43

1.037 10

is similar to Case 3.

ccolumn

cu

cu y

d 463.2mm

a 1 c 360.83mm

b

.003

463.2

The linear interpolation of the actual graph was determined through the use of MATLAB code.

clc;

clear;

y1 = input ('y1 value=');

y0 = input ('y0 value=');

x1 = input ('x1 value=');

x0 = input ('x0 value=');

y = input ('y value=');

% x = input ('x value=');

x = x0+(y-y0)*((x1-x0)/(y1-y0))

% y = y0+(x-x0)*((y1-y0)/(x1-x0))

56

Hours Spent

Luke

Robinson

Alvin

Aguelo

1. References

0

0.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

0.25

4

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

a. Slab

b. Girder

c. Column

3. Design Loads

a. slab

i. Dead Load

ii. Superimposed Dead Load

iii. Live Load

b. Girder

i. Dead Load

ii. Superimposed Dead Load

iii. Live Load

4. Structural Analysis

a. Slab

i. Model

ii. Load Combinations

iii. Bending Moment Diagrams of Load Combinations

iv. Shear Force Diagrams of Load Combinations

v. Design Envelopes

b. Girder

i. Model

ii. Load Combinations and Factors

iii. Bending Moment Diagrams of Load Combinations

iv. Shear Force Diagrams of Load Combinations

v. Design Envelopes

5. Slab Design

a. Flexure Design of Critical Section

b. Design for Shear

6. Girder Design

a. Flexure Design of Critical Section

i. Negative Moment

ii. Positive Moment

b. Design for Shear

57

a. Slab reinforcement

i. Longitudinal Bar Development

ii. Shrinkage and Temperature

iii. Cross Section Sketches

b. Girder Reinforcement

i. Longitudinal Bar Development

ii. Cross Section Sketches

8. Column Design

a. Interaction diagrams

b. Pn, Mu combinations

c. Design for Shear

d. Longitudinal Bar Development

9. Handrail Base Design

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

15

25

10. Drawings

10. Editing/Formatting Report

Total Hours Spent

Luke Robinson

59.25

Alvin Aguelo

58.5

- ColumnsUploaded byme-elorm
- FORMULATION OF STIFFNESS CONSTANT AND EFFECTIVE MASS FOR A FOLDED BEAM..pdfUploaded bySabino HectorCampos
- Simple Connections in Steel StructuresUploaded bySetup Computer
- Storage Tank CalculationUploaded byPaijo Tejo
- Methods to Reduce Oblique Bending in a Steel Sheet Pile WallUploaded byjawhockx
- Civil Engineering Model QuestionsUploaded byCgpscAspirant
- Theory of StructureUploaded bybagmass
- E3Uploaded byJuin
- Concrete Forming Work in ProgressUploaded bylindavg67
- ejercicioUploaded byMargoth Huarocc
- AE-May-2015-07-Str-A1Uploaded bydovi01
- sillabus_5_fsiUploaded byFlyNarutoFly27
- Sa,CD,Ab,Bp,Rockako Mp109 Centek Ct 20131014Uploaded byflyingcow1999
- SymbolsUploaded byong0625
- 001-FPL_1782ocrUploaded byJimmy Villca Sainz
- Composite Floor Deck Design.pdfUploaded bysaipodin
- 1-s2.0-S0021892814000458-mainUploaded byMarko
- HandoutonDesignOfShortColumns_2008Uploaded bypanos2244662864
- Shot CreteUploaded byZaka Emad
- Load Path and Tributary AreasUploaded byRizki Hambali
- CH 3Uploaded bydhanya1995
- Shape Optimization Design and Material Selection for a Fitness EquipmentUploaded bydavid david david
- Thermal Buckling of Heat-exposed Axially Compressed Composite Column_2006Uploaded byMicheline Cousin
- CGNA18403ENS_001.pdfUploaded bygabrielghica
- Truss terminologyUploaded byIzza Valiente
- SSRay - Reinforced ConcreteUploaded byandyoch86
- macneal_tests.pdfUploaded byThái Trần
- MARCO_1Uploaded byTauro Ijder
- Building InternshipUploaded bychandan sharma
- 446-1217-1-SPUploaded byडॉ. कनिष्क शर्मा

- YTONG Katalog Proizvoda 2016Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Pushover Analysis of BridgeUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Elementi visokogradnje 2Uploaded bynikolalucic
- Tesic_zbornik1Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Nonlinear Frame AnalysisUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Static Pushover AnalysisUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Lee et al. (2017)Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Seismic Bridge Pier Analysis for Pile FoundationUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Seismic Bridge Pier Analysis for Pile FoundationUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Seismic Bridge Pier Analysis for Pile FoundationUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Casopis 4 2011Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Thikpad T440p Ug La-rsUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- CCIP_16167 Concrete Buildings Scheme Extract FINALUploaded byDerek Ang
- Finite Element Procedures - K J Bathe - 1996Uploaded bySanjay Balakrishnan
- Diplomska KaminUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Lista Coloc FreqUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Casopis 4 2014Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Pci Manual for the Design Hollow Core Slabs[1]Uploaded bymedodo
- 1979 -Simplified Design of Building StructuresUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- 2-zidane-konstrukcije-1Uploaded byMirza Proho
- common mistakes in englishUploaded byxtreme2002
- Casopis 2 2014Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- 112701 Sample Paper R W PETUploaded byEduard Urgell
- c Class Coupe1Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- 15WCEE Paper 4018 BridgeUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- Katalog bazeni 2011Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- 14ecee - Author Index 2608Uploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic
- KURIKULUM - GRADJEVNAUploaded byDusan Markicevic
- Earthquake Resistant Steel StructuresUploaded byDjordje Ladjinovic

- Clean Copy Foundation Estimate Rev 1.9Uploaded byAhmed Hassan Aboelfath
- Michael Lawrence Homes ProposalUploaded bydanielecibati
- Door systems for garage doorsUploaded byTg
- 9. Fracture GradientsUploaded byidua olunwa
- CFS Screw ConnectionUploaded bymabuhamd
- Mohammed R SnookUploaded byBechir Mettali
- COO Healthcare Multi-Unit Operations in Phoenix AZ Resume Scott GemberlingUploaded byScottGemberling
- Berkeley Ownwes ManualUploaded byMoses Alvarado
- 7050 Aluminum Sheet SuppliersUploaded bysanghvi overseas inc
- Demag - Rail Mounting System 0509Uploaded byToni Renedo
- Prince George's County Landscape Manual - December 2010Uploaded byportatil31164
- Sucker_Rods_Product_General_Catalogue.pdfUploaded byAdam Gordon
- PE0590_172_01 REV ZUploaded byVho-Ren Takalani
- Plastic Pipes and Residential PipingUploaded byAnonymous MVHQ97KEoP
- FLY-ASH IN GEOTECHNICAL INDUSTRY.Uploaded bySujay Raghavendra N
- 125760133 Buckling of Thin Metal Shells 28Uploaded bypawkom
- Underground ConduitUploaded byemmanuel
- Performance of Steel Structures During the 1994 Northridge EarthquakeUploaded byamare21
- PAM FinalisedUploaded bysahabat_bukitkuda
- Strenght of material explanationUploaded byMohamed Mostafa
- polymer.pdfUploaded bymisterpoke
- 0-3-dala_engUploaded byera1ert
- 09 Parking DatedUploaded byBilal Yousaf
- TX1500b Eng WebManualUploaded byilp70
- Belven Procesfolder Butterfly ENG LRUploaded byMy Style
- Product CatalogUploaded byJeremiah Diola
- CSEC Industrial Technology 2017Uploaded byali
- ASTM A 572Uploaded byVijay Kumar
- STRAHMAN 5700tgUploaded byGABRIEL
- Cost-effective Piled-raft Foundation for High-rise BuildingUploaded byxheurtaux