Advertisement
Wheel loads from highway bridge strains field studies refe
Wheel loads from highway bridge strains field studies refe
Upcoming SlideShare
Three modeling of soil erosion by waterThree modeling of soil erosion by water
Loading in ... 3
1 of 2
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Wheel loads from highway bridge strains field studies refe(20)

Advertisement

Wheel loads from highway bridge strains field studies refe

  1. APPENDIX. REFERENCES Agarwal, A. C, and Billing, J. R. (1990). "Dynamic testing of the St. Vincent Street Bridge." Proc. Annual Conf., Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, vol. IV-1, 163-182. Bakht, B., and Pinjarkar, S. J. (1990). "Review of dynamic testing of bridges." Transportation Research Record, 1223, 93-100. Billing, J. R. (1982). "Dynamic loading and testing of bridges in Ontario, 1980." Proc, Int. Conf. on Short and Medium Span Bridges, Canadian Society of Civil Engineering, vol. 1, 125-139. Cantieni, R. (1983). "Dynamic load tests on highway bridges, 60 years experience of EMPA." Report No. 271, Swiss Federal Lab. for Mater, and Testing Res., Dubendorf, Switzerland. Closure by Colin O'Connor6 This paper, together with Chan and O'Connor (1990), O'Connor and Chan (1988a, b), and O'Connor and Pritchard (1985), form part of a con- tinuing program of research into bridge-vehicle interaction. At no stage has it been suggested that observed field values of impact be employed directly in bridge design. For example, O'Connor and Pritchard (1985) say, "it would be premature to use these values in design." Rather, the thrust of these papers has been that these high values of I are surprising and need further study. The reference to "direct practical significance" in the original paper was in the context of "the development of the calibrated design vehicle." Indeed, the whole paper dealt with loads rather than stresses, and there is no evidence that in this connection the results have been misused (O'Connor and Chan 1988a). However, the writer simply cannot accept the final conclusion reached in the discussion: "Bridge designers should not be alarmed by the very high values of / reported by the authors; they are the result of misinterpretation of the test data." The distinctive character of these results is that they are for service vehicles; most other work on impact has been done with pre- chosen test vehicles, and the chances that these are high-impact vehicles are small. In this writer's opinion, conclusion 10 of the paper is still correct. Although elastic impact values for a single girder may differ from those for the bridge as a whole, it is simply not good enough for the authors to argue as they have done from Fig. 18, for the provenance of this diagram is unknown. For girder values of / for Six Mile Creek Bridge, it would be necessary to analyze that bridge, with its heavy transverse diaphragm at midspan, as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 18 is for another case. To obtain girder values of /, the procedure implicit in this paper would be: 1. Select the first mode corresponding to the maximum stress variation in the selected girder. 2. Apply the dynamic vehicle, with its transverse location chosen to maximize the effect on the chosen girder. 3. Compute values of /. 6 Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia. 1708 J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:1708-1709. Downloadedfromascelibrary.orgbyUniversidadNacionalAutonomadeMexicoon09/29/15.CopyrightASCE.Forpersonaluseonly;allrightsreserved.
  2. The authors' comment on accuracy is also incorrect. As recorded in Table 1, O'Connor and Pritchard (1985) carried out two earlier series of tests for /, in December 1981 and September 1983. The second of these tests was carried out simply because the writer was surprised by the results of the first. The bridge was then also calibrated with static loads. The quality of the response was good. In this study, the performance of the bridge was less reliable, possibly because of some intervening overload. However, the values of / are entirely compatible with those of the proceeding study. In closing, the authors quite correctly draw attention to values of / as they affect elastic girder bending moments, and these were not given par- ticular attention in this paper. Rather, the thrust of the paper was to use field data to calibrate the dynamic vehicle model, recognizing that this could then be used for a variety of cases, incuding the authors' case and many others. There are also other important matters that should be addressed, such as those raised in the last two conclusions of the paper. The use of prob- abilistic design codes raises major difficulties in dealing with field data. The occurrence of adjacent or following vehicles is being studied at the University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, by R. J. Heywood with the writer. A study has also been completed here on incremental collapse, by Duczmal and Swannell, and it is hoped that this work will be published shortly. There are other matters of at least equal importance, as in conclu- sions 12 and 13. It is better to think in terms of causes and loads, rather than in the direct application of values of /. WIND PRESSURES ON BUILDINGS WITH MULLIONS3 Discussion by Charles D. Clift,3 Member, ASCE Use of the word mullion by the curtain-wall industry sharply differs from the connotation implied by the authors. Since a very significant amount of exterior cladding in building construction involves curtain-wall and related systems, consistent terminology or definitions should be acknowledged and used correctly. ASTM E 631 defines mullion as "a member used between windows or doors as a means of connection, which may or may not be structural" ("Terminology" 1989). The American Architectural Manufacturers Asso- ciation, which publishes many curtain-wall industry guides, defines mullion as "a vertical or horizontal framing member separating fixed lights of glass" (Aluminum 1987). Even with architects' penchant for postmodern designs, the great majority of curtain wall mullions project no more than 6 or 8 in. (150 or 200 mm) from the cladding surface. To call a cladding element that is 1 m or 2 m deep a mullion is inappropriate and misleading. "August, 1990, Vol. 116, No. 8, by Theodore Stathopoulos and Xiwu Zhu (Paper 24982).3 Prin., Curtain Wall Design & Consulting, Inc., 10450 Brickwood Road, Dallas, TX 75238. 1709 J. Struct. Eng. 1992.118:1708-1709. Downloadedfromascelibrary.orgbyUniversidadNacionalAutonomadeMexicoon09/29/15.CopyrightASCE.Forpersonaluseonly;allrightsreserved.
Advertisement