Surrey ENGM030 Unit 8 Presentation

hewson consulting engineers
civil, structural and bridge engineering
Module ENGM030
Bridge deck loading and analysis
Units 9: Local effects
Presented by Andy Hodgkinson

hewson consulting engineers ltd.
December 2009
Contents of lecture
Local analysis
Westergaard
Pucher
Application of influence surfaces
Strut and tie
Finite element analysis

1
Local and global analysis
Global analysis involves the determination of the

main stress resultants in a structure (bending moment,
shear, torsion). It is used to determine the overall effect
of the load on the behaviour of a structure.
Local analysis examines the stress resultants

around a small element in the structure. It is used to
design these elements.
Detailed analysis examines the stress field at a

point.

Grillage analysis
With grillage analysis, the loads (UDL, KEL, point loads) are
applied at the node points. Thus grillage analysis can only
provide information on the global behaviour of the deck.
When grillage analysis is used for beam and slab bridges
the loads are applied to the beams only. Thus the local
bending effects in the slab are ignored and only the overall
deformation of the deck is reproduced.
For the final design load effects, the local effects will have to
be determined separately and added to the grillage results
(superposition).

2
Local effects
P
If grillage analysis is used to
analysis a beam-and-slab deck, the 2
moments in the transverse grillage
members will not give the total 1
transverse moment in the slab. 3

Local effects
This is because the effects of the

load P acting locally on the slab P2
are ignored by representing the 2
load P as a series of loads action P3
P1
at the nodes. 1
P4 3
For the design of the transverse
reinforcement in the slab, these
local effects must be determined 4
separately and added onto the
moments derived from grillage.

3
Local effects
By replacing load P
with nodal loads P1
and P2, the local
P1 P2 effects in the slab are
ignored
1 2

Local effects
P1 P2
The moments shown are

ignored. This has only a
negligible effect on the
resulting moments in the
longitudinal members, but
1 2 they can be significant
when considering the
moments in the slab

4
Local effects
Wheel loads are idealised as point P

loads.
2
If the contact area over which the
load is applied is larger than the
grillage mesh, the load can be 1
3
considered to be sufficiently
dispersed for the grillage to
reproduce the distribution of 4
moments throughout the slab.

Local effects
If the contact area is small compared

to the grillage mesh, no information
will be obtained on the high local P
moments in the slab near the load.
Information on the local bending 2
moments in the slab can be obtained
from a separate analysis. 1
3
Superposition allows us to add the
local moments to the global moments 4
to determine the full design moment.
Note: Distribution of load through the
slab can be conservatively ignored.

5
Local effects
Local effects can be determined by using a more

sophisticated analysis, eg, finite element analysis, or be
carrying out a separate local analysis by hand and adding
the local moments to the grillage moments.
Influence surfaces can be used to determine the local
moments. These provide a very convenient solution.

Influence surfaces
An influence line is a graph which presents the variation of a

load effect (moment, shear, stress, deflection, etc) at a
particular point as the position of the load varies
An influence surface is a two dimensional influence line.
Influence lines are useful visual aids which can be used to
determine worst possible load effect to be determined.
A number of influence surfaces are available:

Westergaard
Pucher
Rusch and Hergenroder (for skew slab decks).

6
Westergaard
In the 1930s, Westergaard studied the stress in slabs resulting from

the application of wheel loads.
He first investigated infinitely wide, simply supported slabs (at the time
short span bridges had little transverse reinforcement so were
considered to be one-way slabs).
He also proposed a simple modification for dealing with fixed supports
and cantilever slabs, and provided guidance on the calculation of
shear forces and reactions.
His method is still applicable for determining the transverse moments
in slabs spanning between beams, even though they may have
significant transverse continuity.

One-way slab
The slab is supported in such a way

that it is effectively supported on two
edges only.
Example: beam and slab deck

7
Westergaard
Under HB (BD 37) or EN 1991-2 LM2 or SV loading, the
beams local to the heavy concentrated load tend to deflect
in a uniform way, so that the continuity moments (M1, M2)
can be reduced to zero.
Moment over beams could even be positive, so that
transverse bottom steel should always be continuous
across the slab.
Principles are the same whatever the concentrated
loading. We shall use the HB load model from BD 37 as
this best demonstrates the techniques
M1 M2

Westergaard
Westergaard produced the following equations for the moments
at point (0,0), the centre of the slab, due to a load P placed at
co-ordinates (x,y):
A Py π y 1 1
Mx = 0.10536 P log + 0.10625 sinh  B −
B s s A 
A Py π y 1 1
My = 0.10536 P log − 0.10625 sinh  B −
B s s A 
 π x π x
sin sin
Py s s 
M xy = − 0.10625 +
s  B A 
 
 π x π x
sin sin
Py s s 
M yx = − 0.10625  −
s  B A 
 
π y πx
where A = cosh + cos
s s
π y πx
and B = cosh − cos
s s
8
Westergaard
Centre-line of beams
Wheel load
y (x,y)
(0,0) X
x
s

Westergaard
For a load placed at a distance from the point (0,0), ie, the
centre of the slab, the effects of the wheel contact area are
negligible so the Westergaard equations can be used.
Where the wheel load P is acting at (0,0) the contact area is
significant and the bending moment is given by:
 s  c2  
M 0x = 0.21027 log − log 0.4 2 + 1 − 0.675  + 0.1815 P
 h  h  
 
M0y = M 0 x − 0.0676 P
M xy = 0 = M yx
where the load is acting over a circle of diameter c.

The total moment due to a number of wheel loads is given by:
M 0x + ∑Mx

9
Westergaard
A simplified expression for M0x was developed by Westergaard
to allow for the distribution of load when it is applied over a
circular contact area. It is was based on the idea of an
“effective width”.
A point load P acting on a strip spanning s gives
a moment of:
Ps
4
If the effective width of the slab is be , then the moment is
Ps1
M 0x =  
4  be 
Westergaard showed that using an effective width given by:
be = 0.58 s + 2 c
gives the correct moment.

Westergaard
Ps1
M 0x =  
4  be 
where
be
be = 0.58 s + 2 c
Note: Units are in kN and m

10
Westergaard
Example:
Find the maximum bending moment due to a wheel
load of 112.5kN acting on a circular area of 300mm
diameter at the centre of a slab 200mm thick spanning
2500mm between beams by:
1. Assuming a 1m wide strip

2. Westergaard’s exact equation
3. Assuming an effective width

Westergaard - example
1. Unit strip:
M = WL/4 = 112.5 x 2.5 / 4 = 70.31kNm/m
2. Westergaard equation
 2.5  0.32  
M 0x = 0.21027 log − log 0.4 2 + 1 − 0.675  + 0.1815 112.5
 0.2  0.2  
 
= 33.93 kNm/m

11
Westergaard - Example
3. Effective width equation:
Ps 1
M 0, 0 =  
4  be 
be = 0.58 s + 2 c
= 0.58 × 2.5 + 2 × 0.3 = 2.05m

112.5 × 2.5  1 
M 0, 0 =   = 34.30kNm / m
4  2.05 

Westergaard
To remove the need for tedious calculations, Westergaard

produced a series of influence surfaces to determine the
bending moments Mx, My, and Mxy.
The charts can be used to determine the moments at the centre
(0,0) of a simply supported slab due to a load placed at (x,y).
Using the reciprocal theorem, the charts can also be used to
determine the moments at any point (x,y) due to a load at (0,0).

12
Westergaard
Influence surfaces for Mx, My
and Mxy.
My Mx
Notes:
Charts are used for loads
remote from centre. For
loads at centre, use
Westergaard’s equation or
effective width.
Charts are only correct for
simply supported spans.
Charts cannot be used to
determine transverse
hogging moments in slabs
over beams.
Mxy
Example application
The edge region of a beam and slab deck is
subjected to 45 units of an HB vehicle. The wheels
can travel to within 0.5m of the free edge.
Determine:
The maximum local transverse moment in the slab
between beams
45 units of HB
1.5m 2.5m

13
Example application
1) Maximum sagging moment in slab
HB loading: Axle load of 10kN for each unit of HB

For 45 unit of HB, axle load is 450kN.
This gives wheel load of 112.5kN
Using Westergaard:
Position of HB vehicle to give worst moment: centre three
wheels between beams – see diagram
For (0,0) use the effective width (assuming c = 300mm)
For other wheels, mark positions on Westergaard chart (to
scale)
Determine moment for each of the 16 loads
Sum to find total moment

Example application
45 units of HB gives wheel load of 112.5kN
s = 2.5m
3 @ 1.0m
1.8m
Plan
1.5m 2.5m
hewson consulting Section

engineers
14
Example application
Co-ordinates of points:
1: (-1, 0)
2: (0, 0) 5 6 7 8
3: (1, 0)
Y
4: (2, 0)
5: (-1, 1.8) 1 2 3 4 X
6: (0, 1.8)
7: (1, 1.8)
8: (2, 1.8)
9: (-1, 7.8)
etc

Mx
Scale: For this example,

gridlines are at 0.25m
spacing

15
Example application
Influence values: from Westergaard chart:

1: (-1, 0) 0.03
2: (0, 0) moment to be calculated
3: (1, 0) 0.03
4: (2, 0) outside beams - ignore
5: (-1, 1.8) 0.016
6: (0, 1.8) 0.054
7: (1, 1.8) 0.016
8: (2, 1.8) outside beams - ignore
9: (-1, 7.8) Negligible
etc Negligible

Example application
At (0,0), the moment is given by:
Ps 1
M 0, 0 =  
4  be 
where
be = 0.58 s + 2 c
= 0.58 × 2.5 + 2 × 0.3 = 2.05m

112.5 × 2.5  1 
M 0, 0 =   = 34.30kNm / m
4  2.05 

16
Example application
Moments:
1: (-1, 0) 112.5 x 0.03 = 3.38 kNm/m
2: (0, 0) = 34.30
3: (1, 0) 112.5 x 0.03 = 3.38
4: (2, 0) = 0
5: (-1, 1.8) 112.5 x 0.016 = 1.80
6: (0, 1.8) 112.5 x 0.054 = 6.08
7: (1, 1.8) 112.5 x 0.016 = 1.80
8: (2, 1.8) 0
9: (-1, 7.8) 0
etc 0
TOTAL = 50.74 kNm/m

Cantilever slabs
For slabs cantilevering out from edge beams in a beam and slab
bridge, transverse bending moments can be high. Westergaard
produced the following expression for the transverse bending
moment at (0,0) due to a load acting at (x,y):
P  x2 
M 0c = −  
π  x 2 + y 2 
(0,0) centre-line of edge beam
y
(x,y)
edge of cantilever
x

17
Cantilever slabs
For a wheel load along the x-axis, ie at y = 0, then the cantilever
moment is:
P
M 0c = −
π
This is because the spread of the load to the y-axis is assumed to be
constant at 45o. For any given x, the total moment Px is distributed
over a corresponding larger distance.
(0,0) centre-line of edge beam
y
(x,0)
edge of cantilever
x
Example application
Determine:
3) The maximum local transverse moment in the
cantilever
45 units of HB
1.5m 2.5m

18
Example application
Maximum cantilever moment in slab
Ignore loads 3,4,7,8 (outside fixed support)

Loads 9-16 are negligible 5 6 7 8
Loads 2,6 centred on beam
– moment is 0 Y
X 1 2 3 4

Example application
Westergaard equation for cantilever moment:
P  x2 
M 0c = −  
π  x 2 + y 2 
For load 1: 5 6 7 8
112.5  1  2
M 1, 0 = −  
π  12 + 0 2 
Y
X 1 2 3 4
= − 35.81
For load 5:
P  12 
M 1,1.8 = −  2 
2 
π  1 + 1.8 
= − 8.45
Total moment = 44.26 kNm/m (hogging)

19
Pucher
Pucher (1964, revised 1977) produced influence surfaces for
determining the longitudinal and transverse bending moments at
critical locations for slabs with various boundary conditions for
both point and patch loads. Thus they are more comprehensive
than Westergaard’s charts but are used in the same way.
The wheel loads remote from the centre are positioned on the
relevant surface and the moment calculated from:
P Xi
M =
8π
where Xi is the influence line co-ordinate, taken from the influence
surface. The constant 8π is introduced only as a simplification)
The total moment for a group of loads is given by:
Pi X i
M = ∑
8π
Influence surfaces for wheel loads

At (0,0) there is a “singularity” point where the co-ordinate is
infinite. As no value is given, it is normal to distribute the load
onto a patch.
It is also usual to distribute the load through the surfacing and
concrete down to the neutral axis, as this gives lower and more
accurate moment.
When “patch” loads are used rather than point loads, the co-
ordinate values must be integrated over the area of the patch.
The simplest way is to subdivide the patch into segments,
determine the average co-ordinate for each segment and
summing the products Σ ai xi
The number of segments used depends on the required
accuracy.
Alternatively one of the equations given previously can be used.

20
Load dispersion
BD 37 (clause 6.3.2) allows the dispersion of wheel load (HB
loads or accidental wheel loads) over a circular or square
contact area assuming en effective pressure of 1.1N/mm2.
Loads can be dispersed down to the neutral axis, as this
reduces the effect of concentrated loads. (clause 6.3.3)
wheel
Surfacing: at a slope of 1:2
(where it is considered that this
may take place)
Concrete: at a slope of 1:1 surfacing
For EN 1991-2 load

dispersion of 1:1 is Neutral axis
permitted through
surfacing and concrete
slab. effective width

Pucher chart

21
Example application
Determine:
slab between beams
slab over the beams
cantilever
45 units of HB
1.5m 2.5m

Example application

Using Pucher:
Position of HB vehicle to give worst moment: three wheels
between beams, one at centre – see diagram
Cannot use chart for (0,0): spread load over 300mm x
300mm patch and divide into four quarters
For other wheels, mark positions on appropriate Pucher
Chart 1 (to scale)

22
Example application
s = 2.5m
3 @ 1.0m
1.8m
1.5m 2.5m

Example application
1: (-1, 0)
2: (0, 0) 5 6 7 8
3: (1, 0)
4: (2, 0) Y
5: (-1, 1.8) 1 2 3 4 X
6: (0, 1.8)
7: (1, 1.8)
8: (2, 1.8)
9: (-1, 7.8)
etc

23
Pucher chart
Scale: For this example gridlines

are at 0.5m spacing
Example application
Influence values: from Pucher Chart 1:

1: (-1, 0) 0.6
2: (0, 0) moment to be calculated
3: (1, 0) 0.6
4: (2, 0) outside beams - ignore
5: (-1, 1.8) 0.4
6: (0, 1.8) 1.45
7: (1, 1.8) 0.4
8: (2, 1.8) outside beams - ignore
9: (-1, 7.8) Negligible
etc Negligible

24
Example application
For load at (0,0), divide load of 112.5 into four patches each of
which is 150mm x 150mm.
From Pucher chart, average co-ordinate for each patch is 6.5.
Moment = 4 x 112.5/4 x 6.5/8π = 29.10 kNm/m

Pucher chart
Scale: For this example gridlines are

at 0.5m spacing.
Loading acts on on 300mm x 300mm
square

25
Example application
Moments:
1: (-1, 0) 0.6 x 112.5 / 8π = 2.69 kNm/m
2: (0, 0) 4 x 112.5/4 x 6.5/8π = 29.10
3: (1, 0) 0.6 x 112.5 / 8π = 2.69
4: (2, 0) = 0
5: (-1, 1.8) 0.4 x 112.5 / 8π = 1.78
6: (0, 1.8) 1.45 x 112.5 / 8π = 6.08
7: (1, 1.8) 0.4 x 112.5 / 8π = 1.78
8: (2, 1.8) 0
9: (-1, 7.8) 0
etc 0
TOTAL = 44.55 kNm/m
Note: previously from Westergaard 50.74 kNm/m

Example application
2) Maximum transverse moment in slab over beams
Westergaard charts cannot be used: Use Pucher Chart 16.

Position HB vehicle so as to straddle a beam. This gives full
fixity over beams – see diagram
Maximum moment occurs over centre-line of beam
All wheels are remote from (0,0)
Mark positions on Pucher chart (to scale)

26
Example application
2) Maximum transverse moment in slab
3 @ 1.0m
Load for each wheel 112.5kN
s = 2.5
1.8m
1.5m 2.5m

Example application
1: (-0.25, 0)
2: (0.75, 0)
5 6 7 8
3: (1.75, 0) – Outside fixed-fixed span
4: (2.75, 0) – Outside span
Y
5: (-0.25, 1.8)
1 2 3 4 X
6: (0.75, 1.8)
7: (1.75, 1.8) – Outside span
8: (2.75, 1.8) – Outside span
9: (-0.25, 7.8)
etc

27
Example application
Influence line values: from Pucher Chart 16:
1: (-0.25, 0) -3.0
2: (0.75, 0) -7.2
3: (1.75, 0) 0
4: (2.75, 0) 0
5: (-0.25, 1.8) -0.26
6: (0.75, 1.8) -0.15
7: (1.75, 1.8) 0
8: (2.75, 1.8) 0
9: (-0.25, 7.8) Negligible
etc Negligible

Pucher chart

are at 0.5m spacing

28
Example application
Moments:
1: (-0.25, 0) -3.0 x 112.5 / 8π = -13.43
2: (0.75, 0) -7.2 x 112.5 / 8π = -32.23
3: (1.75, 0) = 0
4: (2.75, 0) = 0
5: (-0.25, 1.8) -0.26 x 112.5 / 8π = -1.16
6: (0.75, 1.8) -0.15 x 112.5 / 8π = -0.67
7: (1.75, 1.8) = 0
8: (2.75, 1.8) = 0
9, etc 0
TOTAL -47.49 kNm/m
(hogging)
Note: Cannot use Westergaard

Example application
3) Maximum cantilever moment in slab
Can use Westergaard equations or Pucher chart 17.
Using Pucher Chart

Position HB vehicle with wheels as close to the edge as
possible – see diagram
Mark positions on appropriate Pucher chart (to scale)
Determine moment for each loads

29
Example application
3) Maximum cantilever moment in slab
Ignore loads 3,4,7,8 5 6 7 8

Loads 9-16 are negligible
Loads 2,6 centred on beam Y
– moment is 0 X 1 2 3 4
From Pucher Chart 17

Only need to consider 1 and 5
M = 112.5 x (-9.85-2.20)/8π
= -52.37 kNm/m
Using Westergaard equations: -44.26 kNm/m

Pucher chart

are at 0.3m spacing

30
Strut and Tie Method
• Adapted in early 1900s from the truss analogy

• Employs the ‘truss model’ as its design basis
• Used extensively in American Codes (ACI and
AASHTO) for many years and now the method is
embodied in Eurocode 2
• Useful for local design of:
• Corbels
• Half-joints
• Prestress tendon anchor blocks
• Bearing downstand beams
• Pilecaps

Strut and Tie Method - Principles
• Represents structure as simplified truss models

using concrete struts and ties provided by
reinforcement or prestressing.
• Unified approach that considers all load effects
(M, N, V, and T) simultaneously
• Suited to short and deep members such as
brackets, corbels, pilecaps, deck diaphragms
etc. where transfer of shear is by in-plane
compressive forces rather than shear stresses.

31
Strut and Tie Models - Examples

Strut and Tie Models - Assumptions
• STM is an Ultimate Method

• Equilibrium must be maintained
• Tension in concrete is ignored
• Forces in struts and ties are uni-axial
• External forces are applied at nodes
• Prestressing is treated as a load
• Adequate anchorage of tie reinforcement must
be provided in accordance with the Codes

32
STM –Design Procedure
Step 1 - Define the boundaries of the D-Region
and determine the boundary forces (the
ultimate design forces) from the imposed
local and sectional forces.
ULS reactions at
supports, h and v,
derived from
global analysis
v


Step 2 - Sketch the truss, determine the
equivalent boundary forces, and solve
for the truss member forces.

33
Step 3 - Select reinforcing or
prestressing steel to
provide the necessary
tie capacity and ensure
that this reinforcement
is properly anchored in
the nodes.
Step 4 - Evaluate the
dimensions of the
struts and nodes such
that the capacity of all
struts and nodes is
sufficient to carry the
truss member forces.


Step 5 - Provide distributed reinforcement to
ensure ductile behavior of the D-Region.

34
STM – Concrete Struts (EC2)
• Design Strength of a concrete strut is as follows:
• With transverse compressive stress or no transverse stress
σ Rd ,max = f cd
• With transverse tensile stress
σ Rd ,max = 0.6ν . f cd
f ck
where : ν = 1 −
250

STM – Ties (EC2)

• Design of transverse ties and reinforcement should be as
follows:
• Strength limited to f yk
f yd =
γs
• Reinforcement should be adequately anchored beyond nodes in
accordance with the relevant design rules

35
STM – Nodes (EC2)
• Forces acting at nodes shall be in equilibrium
• Bearing capacity of concentrated nodes shall be checked
as follows:
• Compression nodes without ties
σ Rd ,max = k1ν . f cd
where : k1 = 1
• Compression-tension nodes with anchored
ties in one direction
σ Rd ,max = k 2ν . f cd
where : k 2 = 0.85

STM - Example
• Design Data:
• P = 1600kN (ULS)
• fyk = 460MPa, fck = 40MPa

36
STM - Example
• Steps 1 & 2 – Define boundary and sketch the
truss

STM - Example
• Step 2 Cont’d – Determine the boundary forces
and solve the truss member forces
F
wc = BC
( f cd .b )
D = 2000 - e – wc /2

37
STM - Example
Tip: Use a
spreadsheet to solve if
multiple calculations
are required.
5T32 will satisfy this

tie reinforcement
requirement
STM - Example
• Bearing strength at loading and support points
• At Load Point (no tie reinforcement)
σ Rd ,max = k1ν . f cd = 1 x (1-40/250) x 26.7
= 22.4 MPa
Applied bearing stress = 1600,000/(450 x 500) = 7.1MPa << 22.4MPa
• At Support Point (with tie reinforcement)
σ Rd ,max = k 2ν . f cd = 0.85 x (1-40/250) x 26.7

= 19.1 MPa
Applied bearing stress = 1600,000/(450 x 500) = 7.1MPa << 19.1MPa
Hence bearing stresses are acceptable at nodes

38
15 Minute Break
After the break …

finite element analysis examples
Finite Element Analysis

• Element Types: plate (shell) and solid (continuum)
• Properties previously covered in Global Analysis
Unit 8

39
FE Analysis - Example
Transverse Slab Bending
(as Westergaard and Pucher example)
3 @ 1.0m
1.8m
1.5m 2.5m

FE Mesh 1.5m 2.5m 2.5m 2.5m
HB Vehicle Wheel
Loads
670mm

40
HB Wheel Load Distribution 45 Unit HB =112.5kN per wheel
Pressure = 1.1N/mm2
Therefore contact area = 112500/1.1
= 102273mm2
(320mm square contact area)
surfacing
100
Neutral axis
250
Load spread at deck slab N.A. = 320+2 x (100/2 + 125) = 670mm

Results
Max. Hog
Max. Sag Moment =
Moment = 39.2kNm/m
28.3kNm/m

41
Check alternative HB Position – wheels central
about beam

Check alternative HB Position – wheels central
about beam
Max. Hog
Moment =
38.7kNm/m
Thus, not
critical

42
FE Analysis - Comparison
Comparison of Results
Method Sagging Moment Hogging Moment

[kNm/m] [kNm/m]
Westergaard 50.7 N/A
Pucher 44.6 47.5
FE Analysis 28.3 39.2
Conclusion
FE Analysis can produce design economies over traditional hand
methods without considerable effort.

FE Local Analysis – Truss Joint

Truss member forces
obtained from global
analysis
Local
connection
design required

43
Create the chord tube element

BC2

Create the bottom transverse tube

element BT2

44
Rotate the BT2 tube

element

View of section before trimming

45
View of section after trimming


Bottom Chord BC2
D1
D1
Final joint with all tubes
BT2
V1

46
Meshing the tubes

View of meshing
around member
connections

47
Application of loads and

boundary conditions

Results – Deflected
shape under loads

48
Results – Principal
stress output at
connection

Computer Analysis
David Begg – TNO Diana UK

49
Questions?

END UNIT 9

50

Surrey ENGM030 Unit 8 Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surrey ENGM030 Unit 8 Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surrey ENGM030 Unit 8 Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the different types of analysis discussed?

What are the different types of analysis discussed?

What is the difference between global and local analysis?

What is the difference between global and local analysis?

hewson consulting engineers

civil, structural and bridge engineering

Presented by Andy Hodgkinson

hewson consulting engineers

Global analysis involves the determination of the

Local analysis examines the stress resultants

Detailed analysis examines the stress field at a

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

This is because the effects of the

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

The moments shown are

hewson consulting engineers

Wheel loads are idealised as point P

hewson consulting engineers

If the contact area is small compared

hewson consulting engineers

Local effects can be determined by using a more

hewson consulting engineers

An influence line is a graph which presents the variation of a

A number of influence surfaces are available:

hewson consulting engineers

In the 1930s, Westergaard studied the stress in slabs resulting from

hewson consulting engineers

The slab is supported in such a way

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

where the load is acting over a circle of diameter c.

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

Note: Units are in kN and m

hewson consulting engineers

1. Assuming a 1m wide strip

hewson consulting engineers

M = WL/4 = 112.5 x 2.5 / 4 = 70.31kNm/m

hewson consulting engineers

3. Effective width equation:

= 0.58 × 2.5 + 2 × 0.3 = 2.05m

hewson consulting engineers

To remove the need for tedious calculations, Westergaard

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

HB loading: Axle load of 10kN for each unit of HB

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting Section

hewson consulting engineers

Scale: For this example,

hewson consulting engineers

Influence values: from Westergaard chart:

hewson consulting engineers

At (0,0), the moment is given by:

= 0.58 × 2.5 + 2 × 0.3 = 2.05m