4.5 Article

Stress Distributions in Girder-Arch-Pier Connections of Long-Span Continuous Rigid Frame Arch Railway Bridges

Journal

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001250

Keywords

Continuous rigid frame arch bridge; Girder-arch-pier connections; Model test; Railway bridge; Strain distribution

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51108382]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2682015CX07]
  3. Science and Technology Research and Development Plan of China Railway Construction [2014-C34]
  4. Chinese Scholarship Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Because of their large stiffness and spanning capability, continuous rigid frame arch bridges are attracting increasing interest in the development of high-speed railway networks in China. The internal loadings are associated with both the continuous rigid frame and arch substructural systems. Thus, the bridges are subjected to complex stresses, in particular, at the girder-arch-pier connections. The evaluation of the mechanical performance and understanding of the stress distribution of the girder-arch-pier connection are critical for ensuring the effective design and condition assessment of the bridges. This paper investigates the stress distributions in the girder-arch-pier connections of the world's longest continuous rigid frame arch railway bridge, the Yichang Yangtze River Bridge. Two models with a length scale of 1/10 were prepared and tested for the side-span and midspan girder-arch-pier connections, respectively. Detailed stress distributions in the connection models were measured, and three-dimensional finite-element models were established to help understand the measured stress distributions. The side-span and midspan connections are primarily in compression and have similar stress distributions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available