步行荷载作用下人行天桥的设计方法比较与评述

IF 0.6 4区 工程技术 Q4 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
A. M. Avossa, C. Demartino, F. Ricciardelli
{"title":"步行荷载作用下人行天桥的设计方法比较与评述","authors":"A. M. Avossa, C. Demartino, F. Ricciardelli","doi":"10.3846/BJRBE.2017.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims at pointing out some misconceptions concerning the evaluation of the walking-induced dynamic response of footbridges, and their impact on design procedures. First, a review of the existing Code provisions is briefly presented. In particular single-walker models and multiple-walker models are addressed; in doing so, models originally presented in different forms are made homogeneous for the purpose of comparison; their limits of applicability and advantages are pointed out. Then, the response of six steel box girder footbridges with different spans is evaluated following the provisions of existing Standards and Guidelines, and compared with allowable comfort levels. The comparison showed a wide scatter of the results, revealing some inconsistencies of the procedures, and underlining a clear need for their critical revision.","PeriodicalId":55402,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering","volume":"12 1","pages":"94-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Design Procedures for Footbridges Subjected to Walking Loads: Comparison and Remarks\",\"authors\":\"A. M. Avossa, C. Demartino, F. Ricciardelli\",\"doi\":\"10.3846/BJRBE.2017.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper aims at pointing out some misconceptions concerning the evaluation of the walking-induced dynamic response of footbridges, and their impact on design procedures. First, a review of the existing Code provisions is briefly presented. In particular single-walker models and multiple-walker models are addressed; in doing so, models originally presented in different forms are made homogeneous for the purpose of comparison; their limits of applicability and advantages are pointed out. Then, the response of six steel box girder footbridges with different spans is evaluated following the provisions of existing Standards and Guidelines, and compared with allowable comfort levels. The comparison showed a wide scatter of the results, revealing some inconsistencies of the procedures, and underlining a clear need for their critical revision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55402,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"94-105\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3846/BJRBE.2017.12\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3846/BJRBE.2017.12","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

本文旨在指出人行天桥人行动力响应评价中的一些误区及其对设计程序的影响。首先,简要介绍了对现行《守则》条款的审查。特别地,讨论了单步行者模型和多步行者模型;在这样做的过程中,为了便于比较,原来以不同形式呈现的模型变得同质;指出了它们的适用范围和优点。然后,按照现行标准和指南的规定,对6座不同跨径的钢箱梁人行桥进行了响应评价,并与允许的舒适水平进行了比较。比较显示了结果的广泛分散,揭示了程序的一些不一致之处,并强调了对其进行关键修订的明确需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Design Procedures for Footbridges Subjected to Walking Loads: Comparison and Remarks
This paper aims at pointing out some misconceptions concerning the evaluation of the walking-induced dynamic response of footbridges, and their impact on design procedures. First, a review of the existing Code provisions is briefly presented. In particular single-walker models and multiple-walker models are addressed; in doing so, models originally presented in different forms are made homogeneous for the purpose of comparison; their limits of applicability and advantages are pointed out. Then, the response of six steel box girder footbridges with different spans is evaluated following the provisions of existing Standards and Guidelines, and compared with allowable comfort levels. The comparison showed a wide scatter of the results, revealing some inconsistencies of the procedures, and underlining a clear need for their critical revision.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering
Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: THE JOURNAL IS DESIGNED FOR PUBLISHING PAPERS CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF RESEARCH: road and bridge research and design, road construction materials and technologies, bridge construction materials and technologies, road and bridge repair, road and bridge maintenance, traffic safety, road and bridge information technologies, environmental issues, road climatology, low-volume roads, normative documentation, quality management and assurance, road infrastructure and its assessment, asset management, road and bridge construction financing, specialist pre-service and in-service training;
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信