DOCSLIB.ORG

G 13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
G 13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis.Pdf G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis 2nd Edition American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials National Steel Bridge Alliance AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. ii G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis PREFACE This document is a standard developed by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration. The primary goal of the Collaboration is to achieve steel bridge design and construction of the highest quality and value through standardization of the design, fabrication, and erection processes. Each standard represents the consensus of a diverse group of professionals. It is intended that Owners adopt and implement Collaboration standards in their entirety to facilitate the achievement of standardization. It is understood, however, that local statutes or preferences may prevent full adoption of the document. In such cases Owners should adopt these documents with the exceptions they feel are necessary. Cover graphics courtesy of HDR Engineering. DISCLAIMER The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with recognized engineering principles and is for general information only. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by a licensed professional engineer, designer, or architect. The publication of the material contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty of the part of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of this information assumes all liability arising from such use. Caution must be exercised when relying upon other specifications and codes developed by other bodies and incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended from time to time subsequent to the printing of this edition. The authors and publishers bear no responsibility for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the time of the initial publication of this edition. Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-1-56051-514-2 Pub Code: NSBASGBA-2 Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis iii AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2014–2015 Voting Members Officers: President: Mike Hancock, Kentucky Vice President: John Cox, Wyoming Secretary-Treasurer: Carlos Braceras, Utah Regional Representatives: REGION I: Chris Clement, New Hampshire, One-Year Term Shailen Bhatt, Delaware, Two-Year Term REGION II: Sheri LeBas, Louisiana, One-Year Term John Schorer, Tennessee, Two-Year Term REGION III: Paul Trombino, Iowa, One-Year Term Vacant, Two-Year Term REGION IV: John Halikowski, Arizona, One-Year Term Malcom Dougherty, California, Two-Year Term Nonvoting Members Immediate Past President: Michael P. Lewis, Rhode Island AASHTO Executive Director: Bud Wright, Washington, DC Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. iv G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES 2014 GREGG FREDRICK, Chair BRUCE V. JOHNSON, Vice Chair JOSEPH HARTMMAN, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary RAJ AILANEY, Federal Highway Administration, Assistant Secretary PATRICIA BUSH, AASHTO Liaison ALABAMA, John F. “Buddy” Black, Eric J. NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark W. Richardson, David Christie, William “Tim” Colquett L. Scott ALASKA, Richard A. Pratt NEW JERSEY, Nagnath “Nat” Kasbekar, Xiaohua ARIZONA, Shafi Hasan, Pe-Shen Yang “Hannah” Cheng, Eli “Dave” Lambert III ARKANSAS, Carl Fuselier NEW MEXICO, Raymond M. Trujillo, CALIFORNIA, Barton J. Newton, Susan Hida, Rick Padilla, Jeff C. Vigil Michael Keever NEW YORK, Richard Marchione, Wahid Albert, COLORADO, Joshua R. Laipply Donald F. Dwyer CONNECTICUT, Timothy D. Fields NORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. Perfetti DELAWARE, Barry A. Benton, Jason Hastings NORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. Udland DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Konjit “Connie” OHIO, Timothy J. Keller, Jawdat Siddiqi Eskender, Donald Cooney, Richard Kenney OKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Walter Peters, FLORIDA, Sam Fallaha, Dennis Golabek, Jeff John A. Schmiedel Pouliotte OREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz Seradj GEORGIA, Paul V. Liles, Jr., Bill DuVall, PENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P. Macioce, Lou Ruzzi Ben Rabun PUERTO RICO, (Vacant) HAWAII, Paul T. Santo RHODE ISLAND, David Fish IDAHO, Matthew M. Farrar SOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, ILLINOIS, D. Carl Puzey, Tim Armbrecht Jeff Sizemore INDIANA, Anne M. Rearick SOUTH DAKOTA, Kevin Goeden IOWA, Norman L. McDonald, Ahmad Abu-Hawash TENNESSEE, Wayne J. Seger, John S. Hastings KANSAS, Loren R. Risch, James J. Brennan, TEXAS, Gregg A. Freeby, John M. Holt, Calvin Reed Keith L. Ramsey KENTUCKY, Mark Hite, Marvin Wolfe U.S. DOT, Joseph Hartmann, LOUISIANA, Paul Fossier, Arthur D’Andrea, Raj Ailaney Zhengzheng “Jenny” Fu UTAH, Carmen Swanwick, Cheryl Hersh MAINE, Wayne Frankhauser, Michael Wight Simmons, Joshua Sletten MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Jeffrey L. Robert, VERMONT, Wayne B. Symonds Gregory Scott Roby VIRGINIA, Kendal “Ken” Walus, Prasad L. MASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. Bardow, Nallapaneni. Walter P. Heller WASHINGTON, Thomas E. Baker, Tony M. Allen, MICHIGAN, David Juntunen, Matthew Chynoweth Bijan Khaleghi MINNESOTA, Nancy Daubenberger, WEST VIRGINIA, Gregory Bailey, William H. Arielle Ehrlich, Kevin Western Varney MISSISSIPPI, Nick J. Altobelli, Austin WISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, Banks, Justin Walker William C. Dreher MISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, Scott B. Stotlemeyer WYOMING, Keith R. Fulton, Paul G. Cortez, MONTANA, Kent M. Barnes Michael E. Menghini NEBRASKA, Mark J. Traynowicz, Mark Ahlman, Fouad Jaber DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY, NEVADA, Mark P. Elicegui Shoukry Elnahal Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis v GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND U.S. COAST GUARD, Kamal Elnahal TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE— Kary H. Witt FOREST SERVICE, Tom Gillens MDTA, Dan Williams ALBERTA, Lloyd Atkin N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, KOREA, Eui-Joon Lee, Sang-Soon Lee Richard J. Raczynski SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea N.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH William J. Moreau BOARD, Waseem Dekelbab PENN. TURNPIKE COMMISSION, James L. Stump U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS— DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Phillip W. Sauser, Christopher H. Westbrook Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. vi G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis AASHTO/NSBA STEEL BRIDGE COLLABORATION TASK GROUP 13, ANALYSIS OF STEEL GIRDER BRIDGES DOMENIC COLETTI, HDR Engineering, Chair Wahid Albert, New York State DOT Andres Sanchez, Universidad Benjamin Allis, AI Consultants San Francisco de Quito Atorod Azizinamini, Florida International Kevin Sears, URS University Tony Shkurti, HNTB Karl Barth, West Virginia University Jason Stith, Michael Baker Shane Beabes, AECOM Eugene Thimmhardy, California DOT Bradley Bell, Michael Baker Corporation Todd Ude, Parsons Transportation Group Allan Berry, Atkins Steve Walsh, Upstate Detailing Frank Blakemore, Garver Don White, Georgia Institute of Technology Matthew Bunnerm, HDR Engineering Gary Wisch, Delongs Terry Cakebread, Lusas John Yadlosky, HDR Engineering Brandon Chavel, HDR Engineering Yuan Zhao, Texas DOT Stuart Chen, SUNY Buffalo Hannah Cheng, New Jersey DOT Bob Cisneros, High Steel Structures Allen Crozier, HDR Engineering Thomas Cummings, Gannett Fleming Jason Doughty, Parsons Brinckerhoff Chris Douty, MDX Lian Duan, California DOT Jamie Farris, Texas DOT Karl Frank, Hirschfeld Industries Christina Freeman, Florida DOT Chung Fu, Descus/University of Maryland Chris Garrell, NSBA Walter Gatti, Tensor Engineering Dennis Golabek, Florida DOT Dongzhou Huang, Atkins Charles, Hummel, URS Greg Kochersperger, HDR Engineering Travis Konda, HNTB Brian Kozy, Federal Highway Administration Dan Linzell, University of Nebraska at Lincoln Jack Lopez, TY Lin, Inc. Bill McEleney, NSBA Ronnie Medlock, High Steel Structures Glenn Myers, Atkins Walid Najjar, WSP-SELLS Steve Nanney, South Carolina DOT Thanh Nguyen, Georgia Institute of Technology Steve Percassi, Bergmann Associates Jay Puckett, University of Wyoming Paul Rimmer, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Sougata Roy, Lehigh University Franscesco (Frank) Russo, Michael Baker Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. G13.1—Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis vii FOREWORD The First Edition of G13.1, Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis was originally published in 2011 and represented a comprehensive treatment of issues related to steel girder bridge analysis, but the guidance presented was largely qualitative. In the interim since the writing of the First edition, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) completed NCHRP Research Project 12-79, the results of which are documented in NCHRP Report 725,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge
    Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge Andreas Greuel T. Michael Baseheart, Ph. D. Graduate Research Assistant Associate Professor of Civil University of Cincinnati Engineering Cincinnati, Ohio University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Bradley T. Rogers Engineer LJB, Inc. As part of the FHWA (Federal Highway Admin- Dayton, Ohio istration) High Performance Concrete Bridge Program, two full-scale truckload tests of Bridge GUE-22-6.57 were carried out. The main ob- jectives of these tests were to investigate the static and dynamic response of the high perfor- Richard A. Miller, Ph. D. mance concrete (HPC) structure. A secondary Associate Professor of Civil Engineering objective was to investigate the load transfer University of Cincinnati between the box girders through experimental Cincinnati, Ohio middepth shear keys. The structure was loaded using standard Ohio Department of Transporta- tion (ODOT) dump trucks. A model test of the bridge was conducted as well. It was found that the bridge behavior is well predicted using sim- ple models. The bridge behaves as a single unit and all girders share the load almost equally. Bahram M. Shahrooz, Ph. D. The dynamic behavior of the bridge is typical Associate Professor of Civil for comparable structures. Engineering University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio 60 PCI JOURNAL he use of high performance con- located on US Route 22, a heavily in that the Ohio box girder has only a crete (HPC) can lead to more traveled two-lane highway near Cam- 5 in. (127 mm ) thick bottom flange Teconomical bridge designs be- bridge, Ohio. rather than the 5.5 in.
    [Show full text]
  • Review on Applicability of Box Girder for Balanced Cantilever Bridge Sneha Redkar1, Prof
    International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056 Volume: 03 Issue: 05 | May-2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 Review on applicability of Box Girder for Balanced Cantilever Bridge Sneha Redkar1, Prof. P. J. Salunke2 1Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MGMCET, Maharashtra, India 2Head, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MGMCET, Maharashtra, India ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract - This paper gives a brief introduction to the 1874. Use of steel led to the development of cantilever cantilever bridges and its evolution. Further in cantilever bridges. The world’s longest span cantilever bridge was built bridges it focuses on system and construction of balanced in 1917 at Quebec over St. Lawrence River with main span of cantilever bridges. The superstructure forms the dynamic 549 m. India can boast of one such long bridge, the Howrah element as a load carrying capacity. As box girders are widely bridge, over river Hooghly with main span of 457 m which is used in forming the superstructure of balanced cantilever fourth largest of its kind. bridges, its advantages are discussed and a detailed review is carried out. Concrete cantilever construction was first introduced in Europe in early 1950’s and it has since been broadly used in design and construction of several bridges. Unlike various Key Words: Bridge, Balanced Cantilever, Superstructure, bridges built in Germany using cast-in-situ method, Box Girder, Pre-stressing cantilever construction in France took a different direction, emphasizing the use of precast segments. The various advantages of precast segments over cast-in-situ are: 1. INTRODUCTION i. Precast segment construction method is a faster method compared to cast-in-situ construction method.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges
    10/23/2014 Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications • Bridges are used to span across distances that are difficult to otherwise pass through. • Rivers • Deep gorges • Other roadways Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges • There are four basic types of bridges – Arch – Beam – Suspension – Cable‐stayed • Each type has different design and is therefore better suited to different applications 1 10/23/2014 Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • Instead of pushing straight down, the weight of an arch bridge is carried outward along the curve of the arch to the supports at each end. Abutments, carry • These supports, called the abutments, carry the load the load and keep the ends of the bridge from spreading outward. and keep the ends of the bridge from spreading outward Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • When supporting its own weight and the • Today, materials like steel and pre‐stressed weight of crossing traffic, every part of the concrete have made it possible to build longer arch is under compression. and more elegant arches. • For this reason, arch bridges must be made of materials that are strong under compression. New River Gorge, – Rock West Virginia. – Concrete 2 10/23/2014 Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • Usually arch bridges employ vertical supports • Typically, arch bridges span between 200 and called spandrels to distribute the weight of 800 feet. the roadway to the arch below. Arch Bridges One of the most revolutionary arch bridges in recent years is the Natchez Trace Parkway Bridge in Franklin, Tennessee, which was opened to traffic in 1994. It's the first American arch bridge to be constructed from segments of precast concrete, a highly economical material.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Steel Construction 2009
    Reprinted from 2009 MSC Steel Bridges 2009 Welcome to Steel Bridges 2009! This publication contains all bridge related information collected from Modern Steel Construction magazine in 2009. These articles have been combined into one organized document for our readership to access quickly and easily. Within this publication, readers will find information about Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), short span steel bridge solutions, NSBA Prize Bridge winners, and advancement in coatings technologies among many other interesting topics. Readers may also download any and all of these articles (free of charge) in electronic format by visiting www.modernsteel.org. The National Steel Bridge Alliance would like to thank everyone for their strong dedication to improving our nation’s infrastructure, and we look forward to what the future holds! Sincerely, Marketing Director National Steel Bridge Alliance Table of Contents March 2009: Up and Running in No Time........................................................................................... 3 March 2009: Twice as Nice .................................................................................................................. 6 March 2009: Wide River ..................................................................................................................... 8 March 2009: Over the Rails in the Other Kansas City ........................................................................ 10 July 2009: Full House .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 • Modern Steel Construction November 2005 • Modern Steel Construction • 36 Diation of the Existing Steel Stringers Was Minimal
    NATIONAL STEEL BRIDGE ALLIANCE PRIZE BRIDGE COMPETITION NATIONAL AWARD RECONSTRUCTED Red Cliff Arch Rehabilitation Project Red Cliff, CO Gregg Gargan ocated near Red Cliff, CO, southwest of Vail railroad. Any falling material would have been haz- existing connections. A bare concrete deck was used on U.S. Highway 24, the Red Cliff Arch Bridge ardous not only to the public, but also to the envi- to minimize the dead loads. Because of the widening, Lwas originally completed in 1941. Sixty-three ronment. A hard platform scaffolding system was the overhang became larger. To minimize the effects years later, the bridge was in dire need of help. Due required and provided several safety and schedule of the large overhang, a mandatory construction to age, as well as loads and traffic that were not envi- benefits. joint was placed beyond the exterior stringer. The sioned in the 1940s, the bridge needed an extensive Since Highway 24 is the main access to this core of the deck was placed first and allowed to gain rehabilitation. popular ski destination, closure of the highway was strength. The curb and remaining deck was then The newly rehabilitated Red Cliff Arch Bridge a concern. In order to achieve a superior concrete placed with their loads distributed to the newly com- was dedicated in November 2004. Preserving the product for the deck, a complete closure for the posite bridge core. To increase strength of the reha- structure’s historical integrity, while updating it to bridge was deemed necessary. To minimize the bilitated bridge, shear studs were added to stringers current safety standards and strength requirements, impact on the town, the contract required the bridge to create a composite deck.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridges for Planes, Trains, but Not Automobiles by David A
    bridges for Planes, Trains, buT noT auTomobiles By David A. Burrows, P.E., LEED AP BD+C ® British Airways 747 crossing beneath the Taxiway “R” bridge, June, 2012. Courtesy of City of Phoenix Aviation Department. Copyright s described in the August edition of STRUCTURE® maga- zine, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport opened the first stage of their automated transit system, PHX Sky Train™, on April 8, 2013. Thousands of passengers have already boarded the Sky Train and experienced the comfortable five A th minute ride from the 44 Street Station through the East Economy Lot Station, over Taxiway “R” (more than 100 feet above Sky Harbor Blvd.), ending at Terminal 4. The next phase, known as Stage 1A, is currently under con- struction and continues Sky Train’s route from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3. Scheduled to be open in early 2015, Stagemagazine 1A, similar to the Stage 1 construction,S faces theT task ofR crossing U an active C T U R E taxiway. Unlike the first Stage’s crossing above Taxiway “R”, the current phase of construction crosses beneath Taxiways “S” and “T”. Both Stages’ taxiway crossings presented several design and construction challenges. A US Airways jet passes beneath the Taxiway R crossing with the PHX Sky Train overhead. Courtesy of City of Phoenix Aviation Department. The World’s First In addition to the challenging geometry was the schedule constraint On Oct. 10, 2010, a celebration to mark the re-opening of Taxiway for constructing the bridge. Because the construction required the “R” was held by the City of Phoenix with members of the City’s taxiway to be closed, a limited shutdown period of six months was Aviation Department, designers, contractors and media watching possible due to airport operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Innovative Comparison of Costs Between Tied-Arch Bridge and Cable-Stayed Bridge
    MATEC Web of Conferences 258, 02015 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20192 5802015 SCESCM 20 18 Simple innovative comparison of costs between tied-arch bridge and cable-stayed bridge Järvenpää Esko1,*, Quach Thanh Tung2 1WSP Finland, Oulu, Finland 2WSP Finland, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam Abstract. The proposed paper compares tied-arch bridge alternatives and cable-stayed bridge alternatives based on needed load-bearing construction material amounts in the superstructure. The comparisons are prepared between four tied arch bridge solutions and four cable-stayed bridge solutions of the same span lengths. The sum of the span lengths is 300 m. The rise of arch as well as the height of pylon and cable arrangements follow optimal dimensions. The theoretic optimum rise of tied-arch for minimum material amount is higher than traditionally used for aesthetic reason. The optimum rise for minimum material amount parabolic arch is shown in the paper. The mathematical solution uses axial force index method presented in the paper. For the tied-arches the span-rise-ration of 3 is used. The hangers of the tied-arches are vertical-The tied-arches are calculated by numeric iteration method in order to get moment-less arch. The arches are designed as constant stress arch. The area and the weight of the cross section follow the compression force in the arch. In addition the self-weight of the suspender cables are included in the calculation. The influence of traffic loads are calculated by using a separate FEM program. It is concluded that tied-arch is a competitive alternative to cable-stayed bridge especially when asymmetric bridge spans are considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Trail Bridge Design
    U.S. Department of Transportation United States Department of Agriculture Federal Highway Administration Sustainable Trail Bridge Design Forest National Technology & 2023–2805P–NTDP March 2020 Service Development Program 2300–Recreation Sustainable Trail Bridge Design Notice Ordering Information This document was produced in cooperation with You can order a copy of this document using the the Recreational Trails Program of the U.S. Depart- order form on FHWA’s Recreational Trails Program ment of Transportation’s Federal Highway Adminis- website <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rec- tration in the interest of information exchange. The reational_trails/publications/trailpub.cfm> U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of Fill out the order form and submit it electronically. information contained in this document. Or you may email your request to: [email protected] The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names Or you may mail your request to: appear in this report only because they are consid- Szanca Solutions/FHWA PDC ered essential to the objective of this document. 700 North 3rd Avenue The contents of this report reflect the views of the Altoona, PA 16601 authors, who are responsible for the facts and Fax: 814–239–2156 accuracy of the data presented herein. The con- tents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Produced by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report USDA Forest Service does not constitute a standard, specification, or National Technology and Development Program regulation. 5785 Hwy. 10 West Missoula, MT 59808–9361 Phone: 406–329–3978 Fax: 406–329–3719 Email: [email protected] U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch. 407 Structural Steel
    2012 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—2012 DESIGN MANUAL CHAPTER 407 Steel Structure NOTE: References to material in 2011 Design Manual have been highlighted in blue throughout this document. 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 5 407-1A Plate Thicknesses ........................................................................................................ 5 407-1B Flange Grouping for Fabrication ................................................................................ 5 407-1C Girder Weld Splice Details ......................................................................................... 5 407-1D Safety Handrail Details ............................................................................................... 5 407-1E Bearing Restraints ....................................................................................................... 5 407-2A Weathering Steel (Paint Limits) .................................................................................. 5 407-2B Drip Bar Details .......................................................................................................... 5 407-4A Annual Traffic Growth Rates ...................................................................................... 5 407-4B Schematic of Top Flange
    [Show full text]
  • Arched Bridges Lily Beyer University of New Hampshire - Main Campus
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Honors Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2012 Arched Bridges Lily Beyer University of New Hampshire - Main Campus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/honors Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Beyer, Lily, "Arched Bridges" (2012). Honors Theses and Capstones. 33. https://scholars.unh.edu/honors/33 This Senior Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL ENGINEERING Arched Bridges History and Analysis Lily Beyer 5/4/2012 An exploration of arched bridges design, construction, and analysis through history; with a case study of the Chesterfield Brattleboro Bridge. UNH Civil Engineering Arched Bridges Lily Beyer Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I: History
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Bridge Design Handbook Vol. 13
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Steel Bridge Design Handbook Bracing System Design Publication No. FHWA-HIF-16-002 - Vol. 13 December 2015 FOREWORD This handbook covers a full range of topics and design examples intended to provide bridge engineers with the information needed to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the selection, design, fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. Upon completion of the latest update, the handbook is based on the Seventh Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The hard and competent work of the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) and prime consultant, HDR, Inc., and their sub-consultants, in producing and maintaining this handbook is gratefully acknowledged. The topics and design examples of the handbook are published separately for ease of use, and available for free download at the NSBA and FHWA websites: http://www.steelbridges.org, and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge, respectively. The contributions and constructive review comments received during the preparation of the handbook from many bridge engineering processionals across the country are very much appreciated. In particular, I would like to recognize the contributions of Bryan Kulesza with ArcelorMittal, Jeff Carlson with NSBA, Shane Beabes with AECOM, Rob Connor with Purdue University, Ryan Wisch with DeLong’s, Inc., Bob Cisneros with High Steel Structures, Inc., Mike Culmo with CME Associates, Inc., Mike Grubb with M.A. Grubb & Associates, LLC, Don White with Georgia Institute of Technology, Jamie Farris with Texas Department of Transportation, and Bill McEleney with NSBA. Joseph L. Hartmann, PhD, P.E. Director, Office of Bridges and Structures Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Bridge Design Handbook
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Steel Bridge Design Handbook Design Example 4: Three-Span Continuous Straight Composite Steel Tub Girder Bridge Publication No. FHWA-HIF-16-002 - Vol. 24 December 2015 FOREWORD This handbook covers a full range of topics and design examples intended to provide bridge engineers with the information needed to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the selection, design, fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. Upon completion of the latest update, the handbook is based on the Seventh Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The hard and competent work of the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) and prime consultant, HDR, Inc., and their sub-consultants, in producing and maintaining this handbook is gratefully acknowledged. The topics and design examples of the handbook are published separately for ease of use, and available for free download at the NSBA and FHWA websites: http://www.steelbridges.org, and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge, respectively. The contributions and constructive review comments received during the preparation of the handbook from many bridge engineering processionals across the country are very much appreciated. In particular, I would like to recognize the contributions of Bryan Kulesza with ArcelorMittal, Jeff Carlson with NSBA, Shane Beabes with AECOM, Rob Connor with Purdue University, Ryan Wisch with DeLong’s, Inc., Bob Cisneros with High Steel Structures, Inc., Mike Culmo with CME Associates, Inc., Mike Grubb with M.A. Grubb & Associates, LLC, Don White with Georgia Institute of Technology, Jamie Farris with Texas Department of Transportation, and Bill McEleney with NSBA. Joseph L. Hartmann, PhD, P.E.
    [Show full text]