Session

Civil Engineering, Infrastructure and Environment

Description

This study consists on a structural analysis comparison of a typical highway bridge between KTP, EN and AASHTO based on load capacity. The Eurocodes are currently in the process of national implementation towards becoming the Europe wide means for structural design of civil engineering works. A team from Mott Macdonald inspected 562 bridges and the main causes of the defects are figured out in the study as traffic load, nature force, and aging, lack of maintenance and design deficiencies. As design codes are advancing with time, the need of Albania to upgrade its code has become a must. This paper presents the deficiencies of KTP when compared to the other design codes in order to help identify the areas which KTP is prone to problems and defects. A typical highway bridge with three spans (60, 80 and 60m) was selected to be compared. CSi Bridge was used as the tool to do a structural analysis of this bridge. The bridge was designed three times according to each code. Maximum moment is compared for the maximum load combinations of each code, on the columns and beams supporting the highway. Due to the design of the bridge the only members giving a cross-section of the load effect from the main deck are the one chosen. KTP is 40%-90% lower than EN and 20%-80% lower than AASHTO when compared for maximum moment at mid span of the beam and column. These refer to the biggest areas of deficiency KTP faces when compared with EN and AASHTO.

Keywords:

KTP, EN, AASHTO, Road Bridge, CSi Bridge

Proceedings Editor

Edmond Hajrizi

ISBN

978-9951-550-13-0

First Page

144

Last Page

149

Location

Durres, Albania

Start Date

7-11-2015 9:00 AM

End Date

7-11-2015 5:00 PM

DOI

10.33107/ubt-ic.2015.73

Download

Share

COinS
 
Nov 7th, 9:00 AM Nov 7th, 5:00 PM

Structural analysis of a typical highway bridge comparison between KTP, EN and AASHTO load models

Durres, Albania

This study consists on a structural analysis comparison of a typical highway bridge between KTP, EN and AASHTO based on load capacity. The Eurocodes are currently in the process of national implementation towards becoming the Europe wide means for structural design of civil engineering works. A team from Mott Macdonald inspected 562 bridges and the main causes of the defects are figured out in the study as traffic load, nature force, and aging, lack of maintenance and design deficiencies. As design codes are advancing with time, the need of Albania to upgrade its code has become a must. This paper presents the deficiencies of KTP when compared to the other design codes in order to help identify the areas which KTP is prone to problems and defects. A typical highway bridge with three spans (60, 80 and 60m) was selected to be compared. CSi Bridge was used as the tool to do a structural analysis of this bridge. The bridge was designed three times according to each code. Maximum moment is compared for the maximum load combinations of each code, on the columns and beams supporting the highway. Due to the design of the bridge the only members giving a cross-section of the load effect from the main deck are the one chosen. KTP is 40%-90% lower than EN and 20%-80% lower than AASHTO when compared for maximum moment at mid span of the beam and column. These refer to the biggest areas of deficiency KTP faces when compared with EN and AASHTO.