The steel launching nose is designed for the longitudinal launching of a concrete chamber on the bridge viaduct of the D35 highway in the Czech Republic. It is flexible for future variations, for example by shortening with the omission of the middle segment. The structure is attached to the concrete cross-section using post-tensioning rods. A beam model was created for the basic analysis, while a more detailed analysis was conducted in RFEM. The authors of the model are Ing. Petr Nečesal, Ing. David Marván, PIS PECHAL, s.r.o.
Overall
This page has 0 user ratings.
| 5 star | ||
| 4 star | ||
| 3 star | ||
| 2 star | ||
| 1 star |
Steel Cantilever Beam for Bridge Viaduct
No Download Possible
Customer Project / View Only
| Number of Nodes | 744 |
| Number of Lines | 1140 |
| Number of Members | 978 |
| Number of Surfaces | 20 |
| Number of Load Cases | 172 |
| Number of Load Combinations | 135 |
| Number of Result Combinations | 5 |
| Total Weight | 111.432 tons |
| Dimensions (Metric) | 40.420 x 5.400 x 4.467 m |
| Dimensions (Imperial) | 132.61 x 17.72 x 14.66 feet |
| Program Version | 5.36.01 |
Duration: 00:01:12 min
Duration: 00:00:35 min
Duration: 00:00:53 min
Knowledge Base
Duration: 00:01:06 min
Duration: 00:00:00 min
Duration: 00:42:00 min
Duration: 00:00:25 min
Duration: 00:00:22 min
Knowledge Base
Duration: 00:00:53 min
Very small torsional moments in the members to be designed often prevent certain design formats. In order to neglect them and still perform the designs, you can define a limit value in RF‑/STEEL EC3 from which torsional shear stresses are taken into account.
The RF‑/STEEL EC3 add-on module automatically transfers the buckling line to be used for the flexural buckling analysis for a cross-section from the cross-section properties. The assignment of the buckling line can be adjusted manually in the module input for general cross-sections in particular, as well as for special cases.
This technical article deals with the design of structural components and cross-sections of a welded truss girder in the ultimate limit state. Furthermore, the deformation analysis in the serviceability limit state is described.
This technical article deals with the stability analysis of a roof purlin, which is connected without stiffeners by means of a bolt connection on the lower flange to have a minimum manufacturing effort.
Want to automatically consider steel joint stiffness in your global RFEM model? Utilize the Steel Joints add-on!
Activate joint-structure interaction in the stiffness analysis of your steel joints. Hinges with springs are then automatically generated in the global model and included in subsequent calculations.
In the ultimate configuration of the steel joint design, you have the option to modify the limit plastic strain for welds.
The "Base Plate" component allows you to design base plate connections with cast-in anchors. In this case, plates, welds, anchorages, and steel-concrete interaction are analyzed.
In the "Edit Section" dialog box, you can display the buckling shapes of the Finite Strip Method (FSM) as a 3D graphic.
I am designing a set of members using the equivalent member method in RF‑/STEEL EC3, but the calculation fails. The system is unstable, delivering the message "Non-designable - ER055) Zero value of the critical moment on the segment".
What could be the reason?
What could be the reason?
Why are the equivalent member design checks grayed out in the Stability tab when activating the plastic design using the partial internal force method (RF‑/STEEL Plasticity)?
What is the difference between the RF‑/STEEL and RF‑/STEEL EC3 add-on modules?
I am performing a stability analysis of a beam for lateral-torsional buckling. Why is the modified reduction factor χLT,mod used in the design according to DIN EN 1993‑1‑1, 6.3.3 Method 2? Is it possible to deactivate this?
I need to define different types of lateral intermediate restrains for a single element in RF-/STEEL EC3. Is this possible?
I am comparing the flexural buckling design according to the equivalent member method and the internal forces according to the linear static analysis with the stress calculation according to the second-order analysis, including imperfections. The differences are very large. What can be the reason for this?
_1.jpg?mw=350&hash=ab2086621f4e50c8c8fb8f3c211a22bc246e0552)
-querkraft-hertha-hurnaus.jpg?mw=350&hash=3306957537863c7a7dc17160e2ced5806b35a7fb)
-gigapixel-standard_v2-2x.jpg?mw=350&hash=9166b062b07ae89e60417bff40b33fe9043f9d5e){kind=tracking}