4.5 Article

Long-term field test of temperature gradients on the composite girder of a long-span cable-stayed bridge

期刊

ADVANCES IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
卷 22, 期 13, 页码 2785-2798

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1369433219851300

关键词

cable-stayed bridges; extreme value analysis; long-term field test; small cantilever length-to-web depth ratio; specification; steel-concrete composite girder; temperature gradient

资金

  1. Foundation of the Transport Construction Science and Technology Project of Ministry of Transport of China [2014318363230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bridges are inevitably affected by daily, seasonal and annual air temperature and solar radiation. The thermal effects on bridges, especially for long-span cable-stayed bridges with composite girders, are significant and complicated. The evaluation of temperature distribution has been a primary concern to bridge engineers and researchers. This article presents a more than one-year temperature database of a long-span cable-stayed bridge with a small cantilever length-to-web depth ratio in the composite girder. Uniform temperature, linear temperature difference, thermal curvature, and self-equilibrated thermal stress are considered to imply the characteristics of the temperature distribution in such composite girders. Two profiles (profile 1 and profile 2) for positive vertical temperature gradient and one profile (profile 3) for negative vertical temperature gradient are proposed. The extreme temperature differences with a 100-year return period are determined for each profile with extreme value analysis. Among the three profiles, profile 2 is unique for composite girders with a small cantilever length-to-web depth ratio. Based on parametric studies, profile 2 is revised with the cantilever length-to-web depth ratio for wide applications. Finally, comparisons of vertical temperature gradients are made between the investigated composite girder and the recommendations in Chinese Specification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据