Discussion of “Structural Response of Concrete Box Girder Bridge”

1974 ◽  
Vol 100 (8) ◽  
pp. 1737-1738
Author(s):  
Sanivarapu V. Narasimham ◽  
Karl Van Dalen
1975 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 1141-1145
Author(s):  
Alexander C. Scordelis ◽  
Jack G. Bouwkamp ◽  
S. Tanvir Wasti

1973 ◽  
Vol 99 (10) ◽  
pp. 2031-2048
Author(s):  
Alexander C. Scordelis ◽  
Jack G. Bouwkamp ◽  
S. Tanvir Wasti

2015 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 470-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukáš Krkoška ◽  
Martin Moravčík

1982 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-104
Author(s):  
Alexander C. Scordelis ◽  
S. Tanvir Wasti ◽  
Frieder Seible

2010 ◽  
Vol 163-167 ◽  
pp. 2369-2375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming Yuan ◽  
Dong Huang Yan

The stress state of finished bridge and service stage is influenced by various closure schemes in cantilever construction of multi-span prestressed concrete box-girder bridge. Two typical bridges—multi-span prestressed concrete continuous rigid frame bridge and girder bridge are investigated, The stress state in different closure schemes are analyzed using finite element(FE) analysis. Meanwhile, compared the healthy monitoring data, it has been found that taking the closure sequence from side span to middle span in cantilever construction of multi-span prestressed concrete box-girder bridge can lower stress of girder and pier in finished bridge stage, as well as reducing deformation of girder in service stage. Hence, the closure sequence from side span to middle span is more suitable for cantilever construction of multi-span prestressed concrete box-girder bridge.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document