Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
INTRODUCTION
Segmental box girder bridges externally post-tensioned are one of the major new developments in
bridge engineering in the last years. In contrast to classical monolithic constructions a segmental
bridge consists of small precast elements stressed together by external tendons (Fig. 1). The many
advantages of this type of structure like fast and versatile construction, no disruption at ground level,
high controlled quality and cost savings have made them the preferred solution for many long elevated
highways, especially in South East Asia (see [1], [2]), and bridges.
Although many segmental bridges had been built in the last years the design of the unreinforced
joints between the segments, which is of critical importance regarding the safety of the structure, is
still under discussion (Fig.9). There is a big discrepancies between the various design models. The
known models are either too conservative and thus too uneconomic (German Specification [3]) or not
valid for high compressive stresses (AASHTO [4]). Therefore numerical calculations had been
conducted and verified by full-scale tests. The results, which will be presented in this paper, lead to a
better understanding of the behaviour of segmental constructions and a more realistic design of the
joints.
Fig. 1
[cm]
10,2 m
2,4 m
Cross-section
0,40
q
g
h
0,30
point
0,20
Finite Element
experiment
opening of the joint
up to 1/
3h
0,10
20
38 40
2/3 h
46,9
are under compression whereas keyed joints can still transfer forces until a certain gap is reached.
Even bigger differences can be seen in the webs. The plain joint reach the limit condition lim Fz =
0,7n just after the joint opens whereas the force in the keyed joint still increases.
q DA
3,0
g+q
joint no. 1
q
g
y
2,0
top slab
1,0
-1,0
Segmental bridge
with shear keys
monolithic girder
Segmental bridge with plain joint
-2,0
-3,0
bottom slab
0 2
10
15
-1,0
-2,0
-3,0
lim F =
z 0,7
n
-4,0
-5,0
-1,0
Horizontal force Fz [MN]
loading increased
0 2
10
15
20
26
30
35
15
-3,0
30
20
35
39
joint opening
up to 2/3 h
26
30
35
39
left web
-2,0
lim F
-4,0
-5,0
-6,0
-7,0
0 2
10
26
joint opening
up to 1/3 h
20
= 0,7
Segmental bridge
with shear keys
monolithic girder
Segmental bridge with plain joint
39
There is a great uncertainty regarding the design of the joints between the segments (see Fig. 9).
This is surprising as the behaviour of the joint is of critical importance for the safety of a segmental
structure.
The shear capacity of a keyed joint is a combination of the friction between the plain surfaces and
the shear capacity of the keys. The latter one is neglected in the German regulations.
(1)
Asm
fck
Akey
A k A sm
A sm
Ak
According to the German recommendations for design of segmental bridges [3] only the frictional
forces should be considered in the design. The load bearing of the shear keys is neglected as only
epoxy joints can be used. Please note the difference between eq. (1) and (2) regarding the frictional
area Asm resp. AT.
L L
3 L+H
V j = n AT
(2)
b(z)
zi
AT
L/2
80 20 50
100
150
To develop a design concept for the joints tests with specimens, similar to that described in [7]
having one or multiple shear keys (Fig. 7) were conducted to calibrate the finite element model. The
study includes dry and glued joints. The dimensions of the shear keys are representative for
segmental bridges. The non-linear material behaviour of the concrete like e.g. crushing and cracking
and the interaction between the indented surfaces (bond, slippage, friction) has been considered in
the numerical model.
115
35
150
[mm]
250
250
dry joint
200
shear force in kN
shear force in kN
glued joint
205,5 kN
198,5 kN
200
150
100
150
100
50
50
experiment
Finite Element calc.
experiment
Finite Element calc.
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
Fig. 8 Test results versus numerical results for a dry and epoxy joint
3.3 New design model
After the verification of the finite element model, a numerical parametric study had been conducted
with various number and shapes of shear keys, concrete qualities etc. [6]. The results lead to a design
model that differs from the existing concepts. The shear capacity of a keyed dry joint Vd,j is a
combination of a frictional and a shear part. For the first one the total area of the joint Ajoint is used and
not only the smooth parts (ASm) like in AASHTO recommendations. The load bearing capacity of the
keys depends on the concrete tensile resp. compressive strength and the area of the failure plane
Akey.
Akey = min hne.bn
left
right
min hne = h ne,1-3 < h ne,1-4
(3)
minimal
failure
surface
r
hne,2
hne,3
h ne,2
h ne,3
hne
bn
bn
Ajoint
fck
b
f = 0,14
Akey
coefficient of friction
safety coefficient
average compressive stress across the joint
area of the compression zone
characteristic concrete compressive strength
width of the web
factor for the indentation of the joint
min. area of the base of all keys in the failure
plane
height of keys, with hne 6bn
width of the keys
hne,4
= 0,65
F = 2,0
n
A joint = h.b
where:
b
bn
h ne,1
hne,1
The failure plane Akey will have the least area of key breakage. A relatively high safety coefficient of
For glued joints only the frictional part can be used (eq. 4). Experiments showed a relatively small
increase in strength of appr. 20% between a glued and a dry joint. Furthermore a sufficient quality of
the glue can not be guaranteed on site.
for glued joints:
Vd , j =
n Ajo int
(4)
To compare the results of both models, the shear stress = Vd,j / Ajoint is calculated for a standard
segment of the segmental bridge in Bangkok [2]. The relevant joints are fully closed. The concrete
compressive strength is fck = 40 MPa.
Fig. 9 shows the load bearing capacity of a keyed joint according to various design models. The
great differences between AASHTO and the German regulations can be seen. The first model can not
be used for high compressive stresses, which may occur near the ultimate design load of a multispan
segmental bridge. Furthermore it seems to overestimate the load bearing capacity of a joint.
510cm
SH
TO
AA
15
10
an
rm
e
G
n
co
gn
i
s
de
w
Ne
on
ati
c
i
f
ci
sp e
Detail A
35
t
cep
50
200
75
240 cm
22.5
20
185cm
Shear Keys
fck = 40 MPa
10
15
20
25
30
35
AASHTO [4]:
DBV [3]:
= 4,17 + 1, 06 n
= 0, 7 n
[MPa]
SUMMARY
A non-linear finite element model of a single span segmental bridge is presented. The results show
that the behaviour is dominated by the dry joints. The indentation of the joint is of great significance
when torsion effects have to be considered. Based on experimental and numerical studies a new
concept for the design of dry and glued joints is proposed.
REFERENCES
[1]
Brockmann, Ch., Shafer, G.: Design and Construction of the Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong
Expressway. in: Stoelhorst, D. et al: Challenges for Concrete in the Next Millenium, Vol. 1,
pp. 275-280, Rotterdam 1998
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Takebayashi, T., Deeprasertwong, K., Leung, Y.: A Full-Scale Destructive Test of a Precast
Segmental Box Girder Bridge with Dry Joints and External Tendons, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, August 1994, pp. 297-315
[6]
Specker, A.: Der Einfluss der Fugen auf die Querkraft- und Torsionstragfhigkeit extern
vorgespannter Segmentbrcken. Thesis, Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, 2001
[7]
Buyukozturk, O., Bakhoum, M., Beattie, S.: Shear Behaviour of Joints in Precast Concrete
Segmental Bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering, No. 12, December 1990, pp. 33803401
[8]
Roberts, C.L., Breen, J.E., Kreger, M.E.: Measurements Based Revisions for Segmental
Bridge Design and Construction Criteria. Research Report 1234-3F, The University of Texas
at Austin, Austin 1993