Shear Capacity of a RC Bridge Deck Slab: Comparison between Multilevel Assessment and Field Test

被引:13
|
作者
Shu, Jiangpeng [1 ]
Bagge, Niklas [2 ,3 ]
Plos, Mario [1 ]
Johansson, Morgan [1 ,4 ]
Yang, Yuguang [5 ]
Zandi, Kamyab [1 ]
机构
[1] Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, S-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
[2] Lulea Univ Technol, Dept Civil Environm & Nat Resources Engn, S-97187 Lulea, Sweden
[3] WSP Sverige AB, Dept Bridge & Hydraul Engn, S-97231 Lulea, Sweden
[4] Norconsult AB, Theres Svenssons Gata 11, S-41755 Gothenburg, Sweden
[5] Delft Univ Technol, Dept Struct Engn, NL-2628 CD Delft, Netherlands
关键词
Shear and punching; Multilevel assessment strategy; Bridge deck slab; Finite-element (FE) analysis; Full-scale test; FINITE-ELEMENT-ANALYSIS; REINFORCED-CONCRETE SLABS; PUNCHING SHEAR; TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT; STRENGTH; FAILURE; MEMBERS;
D O I
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002076
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
For reinforced concrete (RC) slabs without shear reinforcement, shear and punching can be the governing failure mode at the ultimate limit state if subjected to large concentrated loads. Shear and punching of RC slabs without shear reinforcement has been a challenging problem in assessment based on current standards. To examine a previously developed enhanced analysis approach, this study was conducted by applying a multilevel assessment strategy to a 55-year old RC bridge deck slab subjected to concentrated loads near the main girder in a field failure test. This strategy clearly provides the engineering community a framework for using successively improved structural analysis methods for enhanced assessment in a straightforward manner. The differences between analysis methods at different levels of assessment were discussed regarding one-way shear and punching shear behavior of the slab. The influences of parameters, such as boundary conditions, location of concentrated loads, and shear force distribution, were investigated.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Distribution of shear force: A multi-level assessment of a cantilever RC slab
    Shu, Jiangpeng
    Plos, Mario
    Zandi, Kamyab
    Ashraf, Altaf
    ENGINEERING STRUCTURES, 2019, 190 : 345 - 359
  • [32] Comparison Between Punching Shear Capacity of PT and RC Slabs According to Different Design Codes
    Jones, Huw
    Mirshekari, Mohammad
    Rees, Tom
    Donchev, Ted
    HIGH TECH CONCRETE: WHERE TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING MEET, 2018, : 1583 - 1591
  • [33] Field investigation on the first bridge deck slab reinforced with glass FRP bars constructed in Canada
    El-Salakawy, E
    Benmokrane, B
    El-Ragaby, A
    Nadeau, D
    JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION, 2005, 9 (06) : 470 - 479
  • [34] Assessment of a cantilever bridge deck slab using multi-level assessment strategy and decision support framework
    Shu, Jiangpeng
    Honfi, Daniel
    Plos, Mario
    Zandi, Kamyab
    Magnusson, Jonas
    ENGINEERING STRUCTURES, 2019, 200
  • [35] Experimental Study of Thermal Actions on a Solid Slab Concrete Deck Bridge and Comparison with Eurocode 1
    Corres Peiretti, Hugo
    Ezeberry Parrotta, Javier
    Berecibar Oregui, Amets
    Perez Caldentey, Alejandro
    Arinez Fernandez, Freddy
    JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING, 2014, 19 (10)
  • [36] Investigation into Shear Experiment on Interface between Asphalt pavement and Concrete Bridge Deck
    Liu, HongFu
    Zheng, JianLong
    Qian, GuoPing
    Huang, YunYong
    NEW AND ADVANCED MATERIALS, PTS 1 AND 2, 2011, 197-198 : 1435 - 1442
  • [37] Experimental Study on the Shear Strength Between the Steel Bridge Deck and the Asphalt Overlay
    Yao, B.
    Li, F.
    Chen, J.
    JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION, 2017, 45 (01) : 313 - 322
  • [38] STUDY ON SHEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN BRIDGE STEEL TRUSS AND CONCRETE SLAB
    Machacek, J.
    Charvat, M.
    ENGINEERING MECHANICS 2014, 2014, : 372 - 375
  • [40] Experimental Investigations on the Influence of the Slab Width and the Moment-Shear-Ratio on the Shear Capacity of RC Slabs without Shear Reinforcement
    Adam, V.
    Herbrand, M.
    Classen, M.
    BAUINGENIEUR, 2018, 93 : 37 - 45