Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum

Dynamic Properties Comparison of 1D, 2D, and 3D Model for Concrete Box-Girder Bridge of 40-meter Span Wira Sucitra Ibrahim; Akhmad Aminullah; Ali Awaludin; Bambang Suhendro; Bambang Supriyadi; Renga Rao Krishnamoorthy
Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum Vol. 8 No. 3 (September 2022)
Publisher : Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22146/jcef.4148

Abstract

Concrete box-girder structure is considered the thin-walled structure, undergoing deformation and forces, as well as having structural rigidity in three dimensional directions. However, it’s commonly modeled as 1D structure for the sake of design practicality, which influences the numerical result of its dynamic properties when compared to both real time SHMS and field test result. To see how far the difference of the dynamic properties between 1D, 2D, and 3D model of concrete box-girder structure, the concrete box-girder structure is modeled as 1D (frame), 2D (shell), and 3D (solid) element with MIDAS Civil 2019. Considering the allowable deflection and stress limited by design code, concrete box-girder structure is modeled and analyzed as linearly elastic material. The dynamic properties obtained from these 3 models were compared with those obtained from real time SHMS and field test. These results indicate that both natural frequency and period of 2D and 3D models are close to those of real time SHMS and field test. However, the natural frequency of 1D model is slightly larger than the real SHMS and field test, indicating that 1D model gives the slightly overestimate natural frequency and structural rigidity compared to the reality. Unlike 2D and 3D model, the structure is accounted to have the uniform sectional rigidity along transversal direction in 1D model. This is why 1D model seems to have higher structural rigidity compared to 2D and 3D model, which subsequently yields the higher natural frequency than 2D and 3D model. This research proves that the designers’ discretion is advised if 1D model is used for the sake of design practicality.
Effect of Creep on The Long-Term Deflection of Box Girder Balanced Cantilever Bridge Structure Using B3 Model and CEB 2010 Luki Hariando Purba; Bambang Supriyadi; Bambang Suhendro
Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum Vol. 9 No. 1 (January 2023)
Publisher : Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22146/jcef.4905

Abstract

Creep significantly affects the long-term deflection of the prestressed concrete bridge structure. Some models often used in predicting creep do not consider the water-cement ratio. The water-cement ratio is a factor in the magnitude of creep. If the water-cement ratio is excessive, the creep will also be significant. B3 Model uses the water-cement ratio in predicting creep in prestressed concrete bridge structures and has provided good accuracy with measured deflection data. This study compares B3 Model with Model CEB 2010 to predict the effect of creep on the long-term deflection. The author modeled the bridge structure using Midas Civil 2022 v1.2 software by utilizing the construction stages analysis facility to idealize the balanced cantilever and the effect of creep on the long-term deflection. Envelope displacement of bridge B3 Model is more significant than CEB 2010. The prediction deflection of the B3 Model in 100 years of service life of the bridge is -16.34 cm, while CEB 2010 is -11.90 cm. Creep affects total deflection by 84% to 88%. Creep affects the deflection significant because, in the construction process, each box girder segment is stressed and loaded at the age of 3 days. At the age of 3 days, the elastic modulus of the concrete is still not entirely, and the cement paste on the concrete is still in the hydration process. The results showed a significant difference between B3 Model and CEB 2010. B3 Model predicts that the long-term deflection of the bridge until the end of the bridge's service life is 44% to 49% greater than the CEB 2010 model. Prediction of total deflection until the end of 100 years of bridge service life does not exceed the limit determined by SNI and CEB codes.