![]() ![]() If we want to consider composite action, (where Girder + Deck properties need to taken together for calculation of design forces), then we select a composite section in a grillage analysis. I will attach my model with plate in the subsequent reply. I hope to hear some comments from MIDAS team on this.Īttached together is the model using grillage method for your reference. I am unsure whether it's my loading definition issue or other issues, which causes this discrepancies. I have tried to diagnose the problem, however, I've failed to find the cause for this. Since the difference is only on the method used in modelling, I assumed that results should be more or less the same. As for the other static and moving load cases, it can be noticed that the results obtained from the grillage method is more critical (higher moment) as compared to plate method. The two model doesn't have big difference but there is positive sagging moment for the grillage model, but not for the plate model.ģ. I have also checked the envelope for Creep Secondary. Shrinkage Secondary B M Envelope for PlateĢ. ![]() Shrinkage Secondary BM Envelope for Grillage I've noticed that the bending moment envelope due to "Shrinkage Secondary" in both model differs significantly (in terms of shape and value) as shown below. I have three query regarding my model's output.ġ. ![]() I have tried to model my bridge using grillage method and plate method. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |