Local Deformation Analysis and Optimization of Steel Box Girder during Incremental Launching
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Project Background
2.1. Introduction to Main Bridge
2.2. Incremental Launching Construction Technology
2.3. Problems in Construction
3. Finite Element Model
3.1. Multi-Scale FEM
3.2. Integral FEM
- (1)
- Plane assumption: The temporary piers and main piers are set in pairs, and the reactions at the temporary piers and main pier supports upstream and downstream are equal. The model is calculated based on a plane bar system.
- (2)
- One-step incremental launching construction: No further assembly or adjustment of the main girder structure is considered during incremental launching.
- (3)
- Compression-only constraint: A compression-only elastic connection was used to simulate the support effect between the launching platform and temporary pier. The platform length was 90 m, and ten groups of tank wheels were set at the top with equal spacing. Therefore, the temporary support of the platform was simulated using ten elastic connections only under pressure.
3.3. Local FEM
4. Parameter Analysis
4.1. Influence of Elastic Cushion Material
4.2. Influence of Elastic Cushion Size
4.3. Influence of Distance between Launching Stiffeners
4.4. Influence of Tank Wheel Width
5. Improved Measures and Monitoring Results of Launching
- (1)
- The PTFE cushion above the walking jack is replaced by a steel cushion composed of multiple I-beams, and the rubber cushion between the original PTFE plate and steel box girder is removed, as illustrated in Figure 13a. The rubber layer wrapping the tank wheel is removed and the steel tank wheel makes direct contact with the bottom plate of the steel box girder, as shown in Figure 13b.
- (2)
- The original elastic cushion size of 1 m × 2 m is optimized to 0.7 m × 1.8 m.
- (3)
- When the steel box girder is assembled, the launching stiffener is welded to double the stiffener spacing from 0.9 m to 0.45 m, as illustrated in Figure 13c.
- (4)
- The original tank wheel with a width of 0.8 m is replaced by one with a width of 1.0 m, as shown in Figure 13d.
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- The choice of elastic cushion material and size significantly impacts the deformation of the steel box girder bottom plate during incremental launching. Specifically, a stiffer cushion material and larger cushion size lead to reduced deformation.
- (2)
- The spacing of launching stiffeners and the width of the tank wheel play crucial roles in minimizing bottom plate deformation. Decreasing the spacing of launching stiffeners and increasing the width of the tank wheel effectively reduces deformation.
- (3)
- Implementing optimized measures such as replacing the cushion material with steel, selecting specific cushion sizes, adjusting pushing stiffener spacing, and setting the tank wheel width resulted in a notable 48.32% reduction in average bottom plate deformation, as evidenced by monitoring data during the launching process.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, K.; Lu, W.; Zhang, Z. Walking-Type Bidirectional Incremental Launching and Mid-Span Closure Technology for Steel Box Girders with Long Cantilevers. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 632, 022032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, P.; Jiang, X.; Gan, H. Research on the Overall and Local Mechanical Behaviors of Steel Box Girder Cable-Stayed Bridge via Incremental Launching Construction. Insight-Civ. Eng. 2023, 6, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, T.; Yuan, Q.; Ma, L. Research on Construction Control of Semi Hybrid Steel-concrete Comoposite Cable-stayed Bridge. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 510, 052096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhang, R.; Hao, R. Hangzhou Jiangdong Bridge Designed as a Spatial Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge, China. Struct. Eng. Int. 2010, 20, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, N.H.; Chiu, T.C.; Chen, K.Y. Full-span Pre-cast Launching Method (FPLM) analysis with Dynamic Simulation-Case studies of Taiwan High-Speed Rail (THSR) Project. Autom. Constr. 2008, 17, 592–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, M.; Hisham, Z.E.D.; Moheeb, E.S. Application of computer simulation to construction of incremental launching bridges. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 13, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Z.P.; Li, Z.C.; Li, M.C.; Kai, C.; He, C.C. Study of Box Girder Steel Structure Locally Reinforced by CFRP. Mater. Sci. Forum 2016, 860, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, J.; Yang, Y. Causes and repatriation for cracks in bridge deck of steel box girder bridges. Electr. Weld. Mach. 2018, 48, 61–64. [Google Scholar]
- Kova, C.V.S.; Markovic, N. Experimental study on the influence of patch load length on steel plate girders. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 151, 106733. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Luo, R. Patch loading and improved measures of incremental launching of steel box girder. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 68, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granath, P.; Thorsson, A.; Edlund, B. I-shaped steel girders subjected to bending moment and travelling patch loading. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2000, 54, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernando, N.; Carter, J.P. Elastic Analysis of Buried Pipes under Surface Patch Loadings. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1999, 125, 1104–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topkaya, C. A numerical study on linear bifurcation web buckling of steel I-beams in the sidesway mode. Eng. Struct. 2006, 28, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, T.; Tong, G.S. Elastic buckling of web plates in I-girders under patch and wheel loading. Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 1528–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil-Martin, L.M.; Scepanovic, B.; Hernandez-Montes, E. Eccentrically patch-loaded steel I-girders: The influence of patch load length on the ultimate strength. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2010, 66, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maiorana, E.; Pellegrino, C.; Modena, C. Linear buckling analysis of unstiffened plates subjected to both patch load and bending moment. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 3731–3738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graciano, C.; Edlund, B. Failure mechanism of slender girder webs with a longitudinal stiffener under patch loading. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2003, 59, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graciano, C. Strength of Longitudinally Stiffened Webs Subjected to Concentrated Loading. J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 131, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tore, T.; Arild, H.C.; Svein, R. Effect of Material and Geometry Variations on Beam under Patch Loading. J. Struct. Eng. 2001, 127, 930–939. [Google Scholar]
- Scepanovic, B.; Gil-Martin, L.M.; Hernandez-Montes, E. Ultimate strength of I-girders under eccentric patch loading: Derivation of a new strength reduction coefficient. Steel Constr. 2009, 31, 1403–1413. [Google Scholar]
- Granath, P. Distribution of support reaction against a steel girder on a launching shoe. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1998, 47, 245–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.F.; Lin, J.P.; Fu, Y. Safety Control Research of Steel U Girder of Composite Bridge with Incremental Launching Construction. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011, 90, 926–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, W.; Li, W. Field monitoring of a tunnel bridge during jacking construction. In Proceedings of the 2009 8th International Conference on Reliability, Maintainability and Safety, Chengdu, China, 20–24 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.B.; Li, Y.; Kong, X.S. Model Experimental Study on Incremental Launching Construction Method of Large-Span Arch-Girder Combination Bridge. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 178, 2316–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bing, J.L. Model Test on Incremental Launching Construction Method for JIUBAO Bridge in Hangzhou. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 2377, 389–393. [Google Scholar]
- Chacón, R.; Uribe, N.; Oller, S. Numerical Validation of the Incremental Launching Method of a Steel Bridge Through a Small-Scale Experimental Study. Exp. Tech. 2016, 40, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.L.; Zheng, G.D. Finite Element Calculation and Pushing Construction Analysis on the Superstructure of Beijiang Auxiliary Channel Bridge. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 204, 2167–2171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.X.; Luo, Z.X.; Li, J.J. Incremental Launching Construction Analysis of Continuous Skewed Bridge with Uniform Cross Section. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 368, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Y.L.; Li, A.Q.; Du, D.S.; Liu, T. Multi-scale damage analysis for a steel box girder of a long-span cable-stayed bridge. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 6, 725–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.F.; Ni, Y.Q.; Wong, K.Y.; Chan, K.W. Structural health rating (SHR)-oriented 3D multi-scale finite element modeling and analysis of Stonecutters Bridge. Smart Struct. Syst. 2015, 15, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Hao, G.; Qin, S. Fatigue performance analysis and experimental study of steel trusses integral joint based on multi-scale FEM. Eng. Rev. 2017, 37, 257–262. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, J.; Di, J.; Qin, F.J. Finite Element Analysis on Incremental Launching Construction for Steel Box Girder. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 2331, 974–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, T.Y.; Tian, Z.C.; Xu, J.H. Key Technologies of Whole Incremental Launching Construction Control for Inclined Continuous Box Girder with Steep Longitudinal Gradient. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 204, 2034–2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vu, Q.V.; Thai, D.K.; Kim, S.E. Effect of intermediate diaphragms on the load-carrying capacity of steel-concrete composite box girder bridges. Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 122, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.E.; Vu, Q.V. Effect of residual stress and geometric imperfection on the strength of steel box girders. Steel Compos. Struct. 2020, 34, 423–440. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, P.; Luo, X.; Zou, H. A study on properties of GM(1,1) model and direct GM(1,1) model. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services, Nanjing, China, 18–20 November 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.X.; Qin, L. Modelling the nonlinear relationship between CO2 emissions and economic growth using a PSO algorithm-based grey Verhulst model. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Elastic Boundary | Shear Force (kN) | Bending Moment (kN·m) | Front End Displacement (mm) | Rear End Displacement (mm) | Support Reaction (kN) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Section24 | 10,336.69 | −165,023.5 | −0.22032 | −0.00234 | 11,698.25 |
Section 39 | 3106.156 | 5346.362 | 0.0109 | 0.0109 | 3083.65 |
No. | Model Type Notation | * YE (MPa) | Stiffener Spacing (m) | Size (m) | Maximum Equivalent Stress (MPa) | Evaluation Parameters | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
* C | * S | * M | λ | ρ | ε | Max | Min | |||||
1 | R | 500 | 0.9 | 1 × 2 | 232.06 | 288.93 | 272.92 | 11.40 | 2.941 | 67.03 | 16.21 | 6.53 |
2 | T | 1420 | 0.9 | 1 × 2 | 147.76 | 180.69 | 285.85 | 8.70 | 1.057 | 18.44 | 10.16 | 6.49 |
3 | S | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 2 | 137.56 | 147.02 | 318.51 | 8.43 | 0.901 | 15.12 | 9.47 | 6.48 |
4 | W-0.7 | 2060 | 0.9 | 0.7 × 2 | 157.50 | 164.75 | 295.12 | 9.74 | 0.927 | 6.33 | 10.99 | 7.60 |
5 | W-0.8 | 2060 | 0.9 | 0.8 × 2 | 155.43 | 169.73 | 299.24 | 9.67 | 0.976 | 7.55 | 10.96 | 7.48 |
6 | W-0.9 | 2060 | 0.9 | 0.9 × 2 | 149.93 | 167.41 | 294.46 | 9.45 | 0.952 | 8.10 | 10.67 | 7.34 |
7 | W-1.0 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 2 | 137.56 | 147.02 | 318.51 | 8.43 | 0.901 | 15.12 | 9.47 | 6.48 |
8 | W-1.1 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1.1 × 2 | 182.61 | 169.65 | 267.72 | 9.36 | 0.870 | 8.96 | 10.18 | 7.29 |
9 | W-1.2 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1.2 × 2 | 178.19 | 165.44 | 260.93 | 9.17 | 0.829 | 9.13 | 10.00 | 7.22 |
10 | W-1.3 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1.3 × 2 | 168.58 | 163.66 | 259.16 | 9.14 | 0.804 | 9.56 | 9.98 | 7.24 |
11 | L-1.4 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 1.4 | 127.53 | 131.07 | 289.79 | 10.71 | 1.425 | 15.26 | 12.18 | 7.70 |
12 | L-1.6 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 1.6 | 108.61 | 189.04 | 319.08 | 10.13 | 1.208 | 12.24 | 11.48 | 7.51 |
13 | L-1.8 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 1.8 | 105.32 | 150.21 | 258.23 | 8.81 | 0.630 | 5.55 | 9.52 | 7.44 |
14 | L-2.0 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 2 | 137.56 | 147.02 | 318.51 | 8.43 | 0.901 | 15.12 | 9.47 | 6.48 |
15 | L-2.2 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 2.2 | 139.00 | 161.50 | 318.75 | 9.20 | 1.034 | 9.51 | 10.35 | 7.13 |
16 | L-2.4 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 2.4 | 128.95 | 159.31 | 289.75 | 8.88 | 1.006 | 8.93 | 10.06 | 6.99 |
17 | L-2.6 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 2.6 | 126.07 | 166.84 | 317.96 | 8.30 | 0.777 | 6.45 | 9.27 | 6.82 |
No. | Model Type Notation | * YE (MPa) | Stiffener Distance (m) | Size (m) | Maximum Equivalent Stress (MPa) | Evaluation Parameters | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
* C | * S | * M | λ | ρ | ε | Max | Min | |||||
1 | S-0.45 | 2060 | 0.45 | 1 × 2 | 124.54 | 124.36 | 251.26 | 5.09 | 0.799 | 1.06 | 6.02 | 3.37 |
2 | S-0.9 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1 × 2 | 137.56 | 147.02 | 318.51 | 8.43 | 0.901 | 7.60 | 9.47 | 6.48 |
3 | S-1.8 | 2060 | 1.8 | 1 × 2 | 178.41 | 159.05 | 321.50 | 8.47 | 0.975 | 8.26 | 9.69 | 6.44 |
No. | Model Type Notation | * YE (MPa) | Stiffener Spacing (m) | Width of Tank Wheel (m) | Maximum Equivalent Stress (MPa) | Evaluation Parameters | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
* C | * S | * M | λ | ρ | ε | Max | Min | |||||
1 | T-0.8 | 2060 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 100.08 | 61.85 | 151.92 | 1.75 | 0.106 | 0.148 | 1.89 | 1.54 |
2 | T-0.9 | 2060 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 93.66 | 54.46 | 152.00 | 1.72 | 0.088 | 0.140 | 1.84 | 1.53 |
3 | T-1.0 | 2060 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 89.23 | 53.83 | 151.99 | 1.71 | 0.082 | 0.137 | 1.83 | 1.52 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, L.; Xu, R.; Wang, Y.; Tian, C.; Qiu, K. Local Deformation Analysis and Optimization of Steel Box Girder during Incremental Launching. Buildings 2024, 14, 2241. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072241
Zhao L, Xu R, Wang Y, Tian C, Qiu K. Local Deformation Analysis and Optimization of Steel Box Girder during Incremental Launching. Buildings. 2024; 14(7):2241. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072241
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Lin, Runze Xu, Youzhi Wang, Changjin Tian, and Kai Qiu. 2024. "Local Deformation Analysis and Optimization of Steel Box Girder during Incremental Launching" Buildings 14, no. 7: 2241. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072241
APA StyleZhao, L., Xu, R., Wang, Y., Tian, C., & Qiu, K. (2024). Local Deformation Analysis and Optimization of Steel Box Girder during Incremental Launching. Buildings, 14(7), 2241. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072241