4.7 Article

Number of stress cycles for fatigue design of simply-supported steel I-girder bridges considering the dynamic effect of vehicle loading

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 110, 期 -, 页码 70-78

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.054

关键词

Stress cycle; Fatigue design; Steel I-girder bridge; Road surface condition; Deterioration process

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51208189, 51478176]
  2. Excellent Youth Foundation of Hunan Scientific Committee [14JJ1014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The number of stress cycles (NSC) specified in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications for the fatigue design of steel bridges is evaluated in this paper. A new approach for determining the reasonable number of stress cycles for the fatigue design (NSC_(FD)) of simply-supported steel I-girder bridges is proposed which takes the dynamic effect of vehicle loading into account. A three-dimensional vehicle bridge coupled model is developed to simulate the interaction between the bridge and vehicle, in which both the bridge and fatigue load models are adopted from the LRFD code. The equivalent number of stress cycles (ENSC), which is calculated based on the fatigue damage accumulation from the dynamic stress time history due to each truck passage, is used for the fatigue analysis of steel girders. Numerical simulations are conducted to study the influence of three important parameters, including the road surface condition (RSC), bridge span length and vehicle speed, on the ENSC of simply-supported steel I-girder bridges. Results show that the RSC has a great impact on the ENSC. By considering the cumulative fatigue damage caused by each truck passage under different RSCs and the deterioration process of the RSC during its whole life cycle, simple and reasonable expressions are proposed for calculating the NSC_(FD) of simply-supported steel I-girder bridges under the given traffic and environmental condition. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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