File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Deterministic and reliability analysis of prestressed concrete bridge girders: Comparison of the Chinese, Hong Kong and AASHTO LRFD Codes

TitleDeterministic and reliability analysis of prestressed concrete bridge girders: Comparison of the Chinese, Hong Kong and AASHTO LRFD Codes
Authors
KeywordsDeterministic analysis
Limit state design
Prestressed concrete structures
Reliability analysis
Issue Date2005
PublisherElsevier BV. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/strusafe
Citation
Structural Safety, 2005, v. 27 n. 3, p. 230-245 How to Cite?
AbstractThis paper compares the prestressing requirements and reliability indices of prestressed concrete bridge girders designed using three codes: the Chinese Code, the Hong Kong Code and the AASHTO LRFD Code. Typical post-tensioned concrete girders of spans ranging from 25 to 40 m are considered. Deterministic analysis indicates that the service limit state governs the design according to the Chinese Code and the AASHTO LRFD Code. However for the Hong Kong Code, only those with longer spans are controlled by the service limit state. The actual number of strands needed by the AASHTO LRFD Code is quite close to that needed by the Chinese Code, while that required by the Hong Kong Code is about 18-33% higher than that required by the AASHTO LRFD Code. Disparity between reliability indices for flexural capacity based on the requirements of the service and strength limit states exists in all three codes. However, the disparity does not follow the same trends as that of the required number of strands for service and strength limit states in the three codes. In addition, the reliability index for flexural capacity according to the requirements of the service limit state is always higher than that of the strength limit state in the three codes. The actual reliability indices for flexural capacity of the girders considered according to the three codes, which are governed by the service limit state, are close to one another. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/71032
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.086
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.609
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDu, JSen_HK
dc.contributor.authorAu, FTKen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T06:28:18Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T06:28:18Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_HK
dc.identifier.citationStructural Safety, 2005, v. 27 n. 3, p. 230-245en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0167-4730en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/71032-
dc.description.abstractThis paper compares the prestressing requirements and reliability indices of prestressed concrete bridge girders designed using three codes: the Chinese Code, the Hong Kong Code and the AASHTO LRFD Code. Typical post-tensioned concrete girders of spans ranging from 25 to 40 m are considered. Deterministic analysis indicates that the service limit state governs the design according to the Chinese Code and the AASHTO LRFD Code. However for the Hong Kong Code, only those with longer spans are controlled by the service limit state. The actual number of strands needed by the AASHTO LRFD Code is quite close to that needed by the Chinese Code, while that required by the Hong Kong Code is about 18-33% higher than that required by the AASHTO LRFD Code. Disparity between reliability indices for flexural capacity based on the requirements of the service and strength limit states exists in all three codes. However, the disparity does not follow the same trends as that of the required number of strands for service and strength limit states in the three codes. In addition, the reliability index for flexural capacity according to the requirements of the service limit state is always higher than that of the strength limit state in the three codes. The actual reliability indices for flexural capacity of the girders considered according to the three codes, which are governed by the service limit state, are close to one another. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherElsevier BV. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/strusafeen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofStructural Safetyen_HK
dc.rightsStructural Safety. Copyright © Elsevier BV.en_HK
dc.subjectDeterministic analysisen_HK
dc.subjectLimit state designen_HK
dc.subjectPrestressed concrete structuresen_HK
dc.subjectReliability analysisen_HK
dc.titleDeterministic and reliability analysis of prestressed concrete bridge girders: Comparison of the Chinese, Hong Kong and AASHTO LRFD Codesen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0167-4730&volume=27&issue=3&spage=230&epage=245&date=2005&atitle=Deterministic+and+Reliability+Analysis+of+Prestressed+Concrete+Bridge+Girders:+Comparison+of+the+Chinese,+Hong+Kong+and+AASHTO+LRFD+Codesen_HK
dc.identifier.emailAu, FTK:francis.au@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityAu, FTK=rp00083en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.strusafe.2004.10.004en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-14944365924en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros102071en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-14944365924&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume27en_HK
dc.identifier.issue3en_HK
dc.identifier.spage230en_HK
dc.identifier.epage245en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000228783300002-
dc.publisher.placeNetherlandsen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDu, JS=36442226500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridAu, FTK=7005204072en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats