4.5 Article

Analysis of auxiliary ribs in steel-concrete joint of hybrid girder

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIONAL STEEL RESEARCH
Volume 112, Issue -, Pages 363-372

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.05.015

Keywords

Hybrid structure; Steel-concrete joint; Orthotropic steel deck; Auxiliary rib; Hot spot stress; FEM

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51108153]
  2. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China [2012M511188]
  3. fundamental Research Funds for National Universities [B12020019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The auxiliary ribs are utilized to reinforce the steel-concrete joints (SCJs) of hybrid girders. However, the demands of the ribs and the design of orthotropic steel decks with the auxiliary ribs are not addressed in design specifications. Solid element models are used to study the auxiliary ribs of the SCJ. The joints with and without auxiliary ribs are analyzed to clarify the demands and the reinforcing effects of the ribs. Stress dispersal efficiency of three typical auxiliary ribs is investigated. The trough-auxiliary rib (TA) joint is analyzed to check the steel deck design assumption and the approach to suppress stress concentration is discussed. The effective length of the auxiliary ribs is studied considering the geometric variations. Results show that the auxiliary ribs enlarge the steel deck and narrow the steel-concrete centroid deviation. The auxiliary ribs disperse about 50% axial force and the stress transmission of the joint is improved. The T-rib inserted in the trough is efficient to reinforce the SCJ with the effective length of 2-4 times the concrete slab thickness. The TA joint with abrupt tip suffers stress concentration and the safety margin of the steel deck is reduced. The joint is improved with about 60% hot spot stress decrease using the gentle tip with crossbeam constraint. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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