X hits on this document

14 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

6 / 7

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 3, 2010

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976

4399

3.2 Analysis of 3D underpass RCC bridge model A 3D underpass RCC bridge is modeled considering total length 13m with details shown above and there is no change in details except length. Box dimensions: 13mx7.5mx4.1m (LxWxH) (Center to center).The max BM and SF obtained for 3D underpass RCC bridge model considering without soil stiffness are shown in Table 2.

Max SF

458.85

BM ­Mid Span

530.49

BM ­Corner

413.63

Max SF

282.49

BM ­ Mid Span

377.87

BM ­ Corner

154.14

Max SF

78.93

BM ­ Mid Span

220.74

BM ­Corner

413.63

Member

Top Slab

Bottom Slab

Side Walls

Table 2: Max BM and Max SF of 3D

Results

Max BM & Max SF of 3D model without soil stiffness(kN­m)

4. Comparison of Result of 2d & 3d Underpass Rcc Bridge Model The comparison of the maximum bending moment and shear force values obtained for 2D and 3D underpass RCC bridge models which are considered without soil stiffness are compared. The comparison between these two results (Table 3) shows that the values of

bending for the Practice same.

moment and shear force for 2D and 3D model for all loading cases considered

analysis purpose from IRC: 6­2000,

Standard Specifications

Road

Bridges

The

Indian

Roads

Congress

and

combinations,

are

and Code of approximately

Max BM of 2D model without soil stiffness (kN­m)

Max BM of 3D model without soil stiffness (kN­m)

% Difference

456.33 572.72 339.94

458.85 530.49 413.63

0.55 ­7.96 17.82

Table 3: Comparison of Max BM and Max SF of 2D model and 3D model of the box

Comparison of Max BM of 2D & 3D model without soil stiffness

Member

Results

Max SF Top Slab BM ­Mid Span BM ­ Corner

563

Document info
Document views14
Page views14
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 00:33:19 UTC 2016
Pages7
Paragraphs274
Words2084

Comments