C C JTS 16:00 17:30. Lebet

Transcription

1

2 () C C JTS 21 ( ) 16:0017:30 Lebet SGST //

3 Branson Bridge, Martigny, 2006 Léopold-Sédar-Senghor Bridge, Nantes (F), 2009 Taulhac Bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012 Langensand Bridge Lucerne, 2010 Hans-Wilsdorf Bridge, Geneva, 2012 Pont de la Poya Fribourg, Bridge over the Fiume Verzasca Gordola, 2005, L = 120m ( ) Bridge over the Fiume Ticino Claro, 1997, L = 120m ( ) 3 4 Bridge Monte Carasso 2009, L = 205 m, arch: 68 m Bridge Monte Carasso 2009, L = 205 m, arch: 68 m 5 6 Branson Bridge, Martigny, 2006 Léopold-Sédar-Senghor Bridge, Nantes (F), 2009 Taulhac Bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012 Langensand Bridge Lucerne, 2010 Hans-Wilsdorf Bridge, Geneva, 2012 Pont de la Poya Fribourg, 2013 Bridge Pratocarasso 2010, L = 160 m 7 8

4 Branson bridge, Fully, 2006, (60 m) Branson bridge, Fully, 2006, (60 m) 9 10 Branson bridge, Fully, 2006, (60 m) Branson bridge, Fully, 2006, (60 m) Branson bridge, Fully, 2006, (60 m) Léopold-Sédar-Senghor bridge, Nantes, 2009, L = 300 m, lmax 70 m Loire river Architect: Marc Mimram Léopold-Sédar-Senghor bridge, Nantes, 2009, L = 300 m, lmax 70 m Léopold-Sédar-Senghor bridge, Nantes, 2009, L = 300 m, lmax 70 m 15 16

5 Léopold-Sédar-Senghor bridge, Nantes, 2009, L = 300 m, lmax 70 m Léopold-Sédar-Senghor bridge, Nantes, 2009, L = 300 m, lmax 70 m Built with cranes from a temporary plate form Léopold-Sédar-Senghor bridge, Nantes, 2009, L = 300 m, lmax 70 m Léopold-Sédar-Senghor bridge, Nantes, 2009, L = 300 m, lmax 70 m Transportation from switzerland (Aigle) to France (Nantes) : 900 km Taulhac bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012, L = 425 m, lmax = 92 m Taulhac bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012, L = 425 m, lmax = 92 m Taulhac bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012, L = 425 m, lmax = 92 m Taulhac bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012, L = 425 m, lmax = 92 m Depth of the main beam: 3,60 m Width of lower flange: 1,50 m Width of upper flange : 1,20 m Depth of cross beam: 1,30 to 2,10 m Depth of overhang: 0,35 to 1,20 m 23 24

6 Taulhac bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012, L = 425 m, lmax = 92 m Taulhac bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012, L = 425 m, lmax = 92 m Put in place by launching Taulhac bridge, Puy-en-Velay (F), 2012, L = 425 m, lmax = 92 m Langensandbridge Lucerne, 2010, L = 80 m To widen and replace the old one And do not interrupt the traffic Langensandbridge Lucerne, 2010, L = 80 m Langensandbridge Lucerne, 2010, L = 80 m m lang, 27 m wide, skew Built in two phases Depth of the box: 1.18 m to 2.20 m Slenderness: L/35!! Problem: longitudinal welding of 31 the two half bridges Langensandbridge Lucerne, 2010, L = 80 m Langensandbridge Lucerne, 2010, L = 80 m Launching in 4 steps Launching nose 7 m long 32 33

7 Langensandbridge Lucerne, 2010, L = 80 m Langensandbridge Lucerne, 2010, L = 80 m Second half bridge finishe First half bridge Box section 4.5 m wide Depth of the lower flange: 30 to 70 mm Frame cross girders every 3.6 m Concrete slab 24 cm depth Langensandbridge Lucerne, 2010, L = 80 m 100% paid by Rolex foundation Architect picture Truss-tube composite bridge?? Not a beam, not a truss, not an arch. Bridge completed But the three resist together Old bridge Three bottom boxes supporting a concrete slab Two frames at the ends of the bridge Two upper chords Two arches Elliptical diagonals Curves to break the symmetry All square section tubes with thick walls -> joints welding on site!!!!

8 The two arches under fabrication Starting of the erection on site with a special arm October

9 complex joints! Arch joint Under the composite slab Visite on the site: October 2011 Situation December 28th Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, The longest cable-stayed bridge in Switzerland currently under construction 56 57

10 Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, One side of the bridge was launched Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, Pont de la Poya Fribourg, (2013), L = 852 m, Situation december The other side of the bridge is erected with cranes from the ground 64 Concreting of the slab with a mobile formwork Situation December

11 66 67

12 Advances in composite bridge researches (research activities in bridge design at ICOM) LTB in bridge design (new research) New steel-concrete connection for composite bridges (ongoing) Innovative design method for steel-concrete composite plate girder bridges (just finished) Residual stress effects in tubular K-joints (ongoing) LTB in bridge design (new research) New steel-concrete connection for composite bridges (ongoing) Innovative design method for steel-concrete composite plate girder bridges (just finished) Residual stress effects in tubular K-joints (ongoing) Japan Japan LTB in bridge design (new research) LTB in bridge design (new research) Different curves for LTB in bridges Reduction factor a) Canal bridge Mitelland. (Germany, 1982) b) Highway bridge Kaiserslautern. (Germany, 1954) c) Saint-Ilpize bridge. (France 2004) Field of bridges Japan Japan Methodology LTB in bridge design (new research) LTB in bridge design (new research) Temperature measurements during flame-cutting and welding to validate numerical model Japan Sectionning Japan LTB in bridge design (new research) Advances in composite bridge researches (research activities in bridge design at ICOM) LTB in bridge design (new research) New steel-concrete connection for composite bridges (ongoing) Innovative design method for steel-concrete composite plate girder bridges (just finished) Residual stress effects in tubular K-joints (ongoing) Japan Japan

13 Rapid and durable connection with prefabricated slab First solution: connection with field welding of two plates..tolerances Problem, but for a bridge length of 215 m, only 8 month of construction Joints glued Tolerances problem Japan Japan Direct shear tests Connection resisting by adhesion, interlocking and friction Japan Japan max (N/mm2 ) max (N/mm2 ) Ribbed steel Concrete UHPFRC Japan versus normal stress - failure criteria a) ribbed-steel cement grout interface, b) roughened concrete cement grout interface Japan Japan Japan

14 Test of a composite beam Test of a composite beam major results P=275 (1-sin3.14t) KN P max = 550 KN P min = 140 KN v max = 537 KN/m v min = 137 KN/m P/3 2P/3 Japan Japan Conclusions Connection resisting by adhesion, interlocking and friction can support static and fatigue loadings with a good reliability Practical design rules were define This connection allows a rapid, safe and durable construction 50 m long injection test of the connection Japan Japan Advances in composite bridge researches (research activities in bridge design at ICOM) LTB in bridge design (new research) New steel-concrete connection for composite bridges (ongoing) Innovative design method for steel-concrete composite plate girder bridges (just finished) Residual stress effects in tubular K-joints (ongoing) Innovative design method for steel-concrete composite plate girder bridges Introduction, context Basis of the new design method Step by step procedure Conclusion, exemple Japan Japan Current analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges: EER and EE or EP Under negative bending moment, slender composite beams show some deformation capacity Deformation capacity Cl.1 Cl.3 / 4 Cl.1 Need to consider: Loading history Shrinkage and creep of concrete Long and tiresome calculations for an illusory precision This deformation capacity is called Available rotation capacity of the composite beam in the support region Japan Japan

15 How to use the available rotation capacity over support? o To redistribute bending moments from supports to span o When span region in elasto-plastique domain, to redistribute bending moments from span to supports Available rotation capacity M ref av av M el,rd Requiers some rotation capacity from cross-sections over supports Required rotation capacity Verification: req av over support Japan Japan Available rotation capacity av Available rotation capacity av 63 mrad av [mrad] av is a function of: Shear force if V > 0.8 V Slendernesses of the web and of the compressed flange Position of the neutral axis Steel grade 4mrad< av < 24 mrad Class 1 Existing composite bridges FEM results si Japan Japan Required rotation capacity req Required rotation capacity req,1 req req,1 req,2 [mrad] req,1 M - Ed req,2 l [m] req,1 Japan Japan Required rotation capacity req,2 Required rotation capacity req req mrad M [mrad] = 0.95 = = 0.85 = = 0.75 = l [m] req,2 pl,span req req,1 req,2 Japan Japan

16 Existing bridges Allow to find hidden bearing capacity (evolution of the traffic loading) Design method applicable with other assumptions o Larger deflection o Use of updated load models Influence of a longitudinal stiffener [mrad] stiffener Without stiffener Allow to take into account of longitudinal stiffeners on the web av,sup = V Ed /V Rd av,sup = V Ed /V Rd si h 1 = 0.2 h w si h 1 = 0.3 h w Japan Step by step procedure to apply the new design method Japan Japan Japan Shear force: M Distance between lateral supports of the compressed flange (lateral torsional buckling): M ref Japan Japan M pl M av Class 1 si Japan Japan

17 Max. bending moment over the support: Max. bending moment in the span: M - Ed M - Ed M - r,ed M + r,ed M + Ed Japan Japan req,1 [mrad] l [m] av req req,1 req,2 req,2 req,2 < 0 ( req,1 too large) step 1 req,2 0 following step av 70 req [mrad] = 0.3 = 0.2 = 0.1 = 0.0 Japan Japan Verification over the support (indirect): Appui Travée Verification in the span: Japan Japan Analysis EER, EE Support,span Element Upper fl. web Lower fl. Cross-sections support Cross-sections in span Cross-sections area [%] Support : 100 Span : 100 Benefit - The new design method makes it possible to carry out a calculation of structural safety nearer to the behaviour of the structure and more precise The advantages which result from this are numerous and are related to the plastic design of the structures: EER, support EP, span New method Upper fl. web Lower fl. Upper fl. web Lower fl Support : 100 Span : 86 Support : 88 Span : % span 12 % support 14 % span The history of the loading and the visco-elastic behaviour of the concrete can be neglected at ULS Better optimization of the cross-sections of the beams Very interesting Method for the verification of the safety of existing bridges Japan Japan

18 Advances in composite bridge researches (research activities in bridge design at ICOM) LTB in bridge design (new research) New steel-concrete connection for composite bridges (ongoing) Innovative design method for steel-concrete composite plate girder bridges (just finished) Residual stress effects in tubular K-joints (ongoing) Claire Acevedo Farshid Zamiri Prof. Alain Nussbaumer Japan d*

19 dd*/dn(mm/cycle) dd*/dn(mm/cycle) d*(mm) d*(mm) Simulated residual Japan Japan Japan