Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Proposal of concept for structural modelling of hybrid beams Cover

Proposal of concept for structural modelling of hybrid beams

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 44 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Nov 2022
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Different side views (upper row) and cross sections (middle and bottom rows) of girders with composite dowels. 1–5: With single dowel strip, 6–9: sections using two dowel strips [4].

Figure 2

Bridge in Elbląg using both steel and concrete webs in the girder [4, 5].

Figure 3

Steel T-sections of Elbląg bridge. High T-sections for mid-span regions, low T-sections for internal support regions [4].

Figure 4

External span of the Elbląg bridge [4, 5].

Figure 5

Hybrid beams of Sobieszewo bridge [4, 6].

Figure 6

Hybrid girder of Sobieszewo bridge [7].

Figure 7

Cross section of one of the bridges along the S3 road being designed currently by Europrojekt Gdańsk.

Figure 8

Cross section of the Dąbrowa Górnicza bridge and, on the right, longitudinal section showing the T-sections and rebar arrangement in the girder's web.

Figure 9

Bridge in Dąbrowa Górnicza after erection. Source: Nowak Mosty.

Figure 10

Concrete cracking ranges in (a) reinforced concrete beam, (b) composite beam, (c) hybrid beam.

Figure 11

Different numerical models for composite bridges’ analysis (on basis of [9]).

Figure 12

Hybrid beam assumed for FE analysis (rebars only in the tensile regions are displayed).

Figure 13

Side view, 3d view and cross section of a finite element model of the considered beam (steel web highlighted in blue).

Figure 14

Tension stiffening model adopted in approach C according to annex L1 [27].

Figure 15

Tensile stress layout in in situ slab (top view), upper slab (top view) and concrete web of the prefab (side view) – uncracked analysis (step 1).

Figure 16

Tensile stress layout in in situ slab (top view), upper slab (top view) and concrete web of the prefab (side view) – cracked analysis (step 2).

Figure 17

Tensile stress layout in in situ slab (top view), upper slab (top view) and concrete web of the prefab (side view) – cracked analysis (step 3).

Figure 18

Comparison of cracked zones in the web in approaches A, B and C. Cracked zones in slabs are equal to the length of cracked zones in the top part of a web at the internal support.

Figure 19

Bending moment envelope depending on the assumed approach (A, B, C).

Table 1

Bending moment values (kN m) along the girder's length (m), depending on the assumed approach (A, B, C). Numerical interpretation of Fig. 19.

No.012345678910M+ / M0+M− / M0−
Approachx [m]02,034,066,098,1210,1512,1814,2116,2418,2720,3
Base stateM+ uncracked (M0+)017822940365237493401262615051−1902−4129100,0%
M− uncracked (M0−)0529787789520−16−820−1892−3252−4922−6865100,0%
AM+ cracked A (Step 2)01804298437273853353527861684183−1730−3947102,8%
M− cracked A (Step 2)0561850885648143−628−1668−2996−4634−654795,4%
M+ cracked A (Step 3)01816300937683909360728701779279−1637−3845104,3%
M− cracked A (Step 3)0579884936716229−526−1548−2860−4481−636992,8%
M+ cracked A (Step 4)01820301737823928363028981811312−1607−3819104,8%
M− cracked A (Step 4)0584896953739257−492−1508−2814−4432−632192,1%
BM+ cracked B (15%)01829303538113968368229541873372−1544−3748105,8%
M− cracked B (15%)0597920990787318−419−1423−2717−4321−619490,2%
CM+ C (TS)01781301237603951359028281616125−1902−4068105,4%
M− C (TS)06029471019824343−366−1415−2719−4346−627491,4%
Figure 20

Influence of creep on the bending moment distribution in dependence of the assumed approach (A, B, C). Continuous lines – bending moments without creep, dotted lines – after creeping of concrete.

Table 2

Bending moment values (kN m) along the girder's length (m0 due to creep in dependence of the assumed approach (A, B, C). Numerical interpretation of Fig. 20.

No.012345678910M+ / M0+M− / M0−
Approachx [m]02,034,066,098,1210,1512,1814,2116,2418,2720,3
Base stateM uncracked t = 00391631733685489147−345−1006−1853−2868100,0%100,0%
M uncracked t = 100 y04427308858877414498−603−1401−2367120,7%82,5%
AM cracked A (Step 4) t = 100 y044273188688884445212−599−1397−2364109,3%92,2%
M cracked A (Step 4) t = 100 y044473589289675346425−584−1379−2342121,7%81,7%
BM cracked B (15%) t = 00419685815794626311−154−788−1607−2595111,2%90,5%
M cracked B (15%) t = 100 y044273188788974445313−598−1393−2360121,0%82,3%
CM cracked C (TS) t = 000427715851845672370−105−746−1584116,1%89,9%
M cracked C (TS) t = 100 y00459782951982838569128−480−1286129,7%78,4%
Figure 21

Bending moment distribution due to shrinkage in dependence of the assumed approach (A, B, C).

Table 3

Bending moment values (kN m) along the girder's length (m) due to shrinkage in dependence of the assumed approach (A, B, C). Numerical interpretation of Fig. 21.

No.012345678910M− / M0−
Approachx [m]02,034,066,098,1210,1512,1814,2116,2418,2720,3
Base stateM uncracked Shrinkage0−35−70−106−141−177−212−247−282−319−365100,0%
AM cracked A (Step 4) Shrinkage0−34−67−101−134−168−202−235−268−304−34093,2%
BM cracked B (15%) Shrinkage0−26−51−77−103−129−154−180−204−233−25670,1%
CM cracked C (TS) Shrinkage0−29−58−88−116−147−175−204−234−263−29480,5%
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0023 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X (formerly 0137-124X) | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 317 - 332
Submitted on: Feb 8, 2022
Accepted on: Aug 30, 2022
Published on: Nov 21, 2022
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
sand,
mean grain size,
mean pore size model,
pore size distribution,
water retention curve
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Composites,
Porous materials,
Physics,
Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2022 Maciej Kożuch, Łukasz Skrętkowicz, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 44 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)
Previous article
Next article