Investigation of bevel-ended large-span soil-steel structures

Embaby, Kareem; Naggar, M. Hesham El; Sharnouby, Meckkey El

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114658

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study applied the following sources for material characteristics: the manufacturer data (for the steel shell), research and parametric analysis in the numerical analysis, and insights gained from the literature review: (i) backfill ( Figure 7 ) [ 43 , 44 ] and data obtained from ViaCon Poland, (ii) interface layer [ 45 ], and (iii) boundary conditions [ 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. All material characteristics applied in the analysis are summarized in Table 1 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Behaviour of Soil–Steel Composite Bridges under Strong Seismic Excitation with Various Boundary Conditions

Maleska

Bęben

2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil–steel composite bridges typically range from 3 to 32 m, and they can be applied as an effective alternative for reinforced concrete bridges with short spans. They are able to meet the same design and safety requirements as traditional bridges more rapidly and at a lower cost. The behaviour of such bridges under seismic events is not yet recognized, because seismic excitations are completely different from the static and dynamic loads that have been analysed so far. This paper presents the results of the numerical study of two various types of soil–steel composite bridges under strong seismic excitation. The first soil–steel composite bridge has a span of 17.67 m and a height of 6.05 m, and the second consists of two shells with a span of 4.4 m each and a height of 2.8 m. Numerical analysis was performed for three models for each bridge, taking into account different boundary conditions. The applied boundary conditions are intended to represent the commonly used reinforcements of this type of bridges (reinforced concrete collar, reinforced concrete front wall). The obtained results were compared with the model in which such reinforcements were not used. Calculations were conducted using the DIANA program based on a finite element method. The non-linear models with seismic excitation of El Centro from 1940 and Time History analysis were applied. The conclusions from the study can be useful in making a decision regarding the design of the soil–steel composite bridges located in seismic zones. In addition, it was found that the effect of the applied strengthening is significant in the behaviour of soil–steel composite bridges.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to adequately represent the performance of the structure, it is also very important to adequately define the boundary conditions for the analysed numerical models [ 1 , 2 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. Pinned supports were used as the boundary conditions for the soil (model base) and the shell.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviour of Soil–Steel Composite Bridges under Strong Seismic Excitation with Various Boundary Conditions

Maleska

Bęben

2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In [15,16], an assessment of the stressed-strained state of arched structures made of metal corrugated structures was carried out. As a result, it was established that the stressedstrained state of such structures depends on the fixing of the arch and the size of the arch span.…”

Section: Literature Review and Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the review of studies [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], it was established that most works report the results of the assessment of the stressed-strained state of facilities made of metal corrugated structures, which are subjected to the action of variable loads from vehicles. The tasks of assessing the stressedstrained state of structures made of PMCS, taking into account a set of factors, namely the degree of compaction of the soil fill and the height of the embankment above the vault of the structure, remained unsolved.…”

Section: Literature Review and Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the stresses and magnitude of plastic hinge in a tunnel conduit made of precast metal corrugated structures taking into account the soil backfill parameters

Kovalchuk,

Karnakov,

Onyshchenko

et al. 2023

EEJET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The object of research is a tunnel conduit made of star-shaped metal corrugated structures. The stresses and magnitude of the plastic hinge occurring in the metal corrugated structures of the tunnel conduit were investigated, taking into account the degree of compaction and the height of the soil backfill. It was established that when the height of the backfill above the tunnel conduit made of precast metal corrugated structures increases and the degree of compaction of the soil backfill decreases, there is an increase in the values of stresses and plastic hinge in metal structures. With the height of the backfill above the conduit equal to 2.75 m and the degree of compaction of the soil backfill RP=80 %, stresses of 235.89 MPa are reached, exceeding the permissible 235 MPa. At the same time, the value of the plastic hinge is 1.03, which exceeds the normative 1.0. It was established that at embankment heights above the tunnel conduit structures from 1.75 m to 2.0 m, the smallest difference in stresses and magnitude of the plastic hinge is observed. At RP=98 %, the stress difference is 0.66 MPa, and the value of the plastic hinge is 0.008. In the case of the height of the embankment above the conduit from 1.5 m to 1.75 m, the stress increase was 5.5 MPa, and the value of the plastic hinge – 0.031. When the embankment height increases from 2.0 m to 2.25 m, the stress difference is 7.57 MPa, and the value of the plastic hinge is 0.041. It was determined that when the height of the embankment above the conduit was increased by 1.0 m in the range from 0.75 m to 1.75 m, the stress difference at RP=98 % increased by 27.84 MPa. However, when the height was increased by 1.0 m in the range from 2.75 m to 3.75 m, the stress difference increased by 12.66 MPa. At the same time, the value of the plastic hinge at embankment heights from 0.75 m to 1.75 m increased by 0.139, and at embankment heights from 2.75 m to 3.75 m – by 0.093

show abstract

“…Li et al [31] proposed the analytical stress solution of circular water conveyance tunnel with composite lining subjected to uniform internal pressure. Ramadan et al [32], Maleska and Beben [33], and Embaby et al [34] analysed numerically large-span culverts and soil-steel bridges. Maleska et al [35], Maleska and Beben [36], Shen et al [37], Jiang et al [38], and Chen et al [39] obtained numerical seismic response of soil-steel bridges, a shield tunnel, and subway stations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stress and Displacement of Deep‐Buried Composite Lining Tunnel under Different Contact Conditions

Liu

Duan

Fan

et al. 2023

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stress and displacement of the composite lining are important factors to be considered during tunnel design. By the complex variable method, analytical solutions for stress and displacement of surrounding rock, primary support and secondary lining satisfying the interface continuity and boundary conditions under far-field stresses are derived. Taking the railway composite lining tunnel as an example, the analytical distributions of stress and displacement along boundaries are given, which was in good agreement with the numerical solution calculated by finite element software. The results show that the maximum normal stress ratio (load sharing ratio) of the outer boundary between the secondary lining and the primary support is 0.74. The radial displacement of the inner boundary of surrounding rock, primary support, and secondary lining change consistently. The maximum settlement and uplift occur at the vault and bottom, respectively. The tangential stress of secondary lining is compressive stress, while the tangential stress of primary support is tensile stress and compressive stress. The maximum tangential stress of primary support and secondary lining is smaller than the allowable stress of concrete.

show abstract

Investigation of bevel-ended large-span soil-steel structures

Cited by 11 publications

References 19 publications

Behaviour of Soil–Steel Composite Bridges under Strong Seismic Excitation with Various Boundary Conditions

Behaviour of Soil–Steel Composite Bridges under Strong Seismic Excitation with Various Boundary Conditions

Assessing the stresses and magnitude of plastic hinge in a tunnel conduit made of precast metal corrugated structures taking into account the soil backfill parameters

Stress and Displacement of Deep‐Buried Composite Lining Tunnel under Different Contact Conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About