Moving Load Lane Question
Answer:
Hi DK LEE,
Thank you for the quick response. Yes, I think your suggestion works, although it would be tedious for all the concurrent loadings in the 2 track cases. The typical routine I would do is to get the concurrent demands as shown. As there will be Service Load Combination for 2 track cases, Strength Load combination for 2 track cases, and so on. It would be tedious to determine which case below is the "true 2track case" so I can add LF2, and which one is the "actual 1track case" so I can add LF1. But still workable.
Hi,
And then convert this train loads to equivalent static loads from the Moving Load Tracer.
Finally, combine this static load case with LF2 in the load combination.
Please check and let me know.
Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager
Click here to give FEEDBACK
Hi DaeKeun Lee,
Thank you for the email. Let me explain what I need to do first and see if you have better suggestions.
First of all, the model consists of 2 spans, and these 2 spans are supported by the abutment as shown. The abutment consists of backwall, stem, and footing at the bottom. I’d like to find the stress at the footing calculating from the concurrent vertical reaction FZ, longitudinal moment MY, and transverse moment MX.
Per design criteria, we have to consider train longitudinal acceleration & deceleration load (call it LF) along with the live loads. If there’s no live load, LF = 0; if there’s one lane loaded, there will be a constant value LF1; if there’re two lanes loaded, there will be a constant value LF2. Values 0, LF1, and LF2 differ by quite a bit and thus affect the longitudinal moment MY.
From modeling standpoint for the best compliant with the code, in the load combination I would define 0track (no moving load, no LF), 1track (1 lane moving load + LF1), 2tracks (2 lanes moving load + LF2).
Below shows the result at the bottom of the footing from 2 loaded lanes. In this model in the lane definition, I defined the max. and min. lane number as 2. And I used the load combination as 2tracks (2 lanes moving load + LF2).
From max. MX standpoint, 1 lane loaded creates max. torsion as shown, even I defined max. and min. as 2. If strictly following the code, this max. MX from 1 lane loaded would only need to add LF1 for the footing design, instead of LF2 as defined in the load combination.
Your second question brings up a very interesting point. Consider max. MX case specifically:
1) In my opinion. two lanes loaded:
a. MX + LF2
b. MX is a bit smaller than max. MX from one lane loaded
c. MX combined with LF2 may still control the stress at footing
2) One lane loaded: Max. MX + LF1
a. This case can be obtained from one lane loaded only
This is the reason I am trying to separate the # of lanes into 0 loaded, 1 loaded, and 2 loaded cases, so that I can combine them with the corresponding LFs. From what I have now I think it is conservative but acceptable. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this - any better way to do this?
Thanks,
Hi,
First of all, in your model, the whole span consists of just one long element. If we divide it into 10 elements and view the vehicle position for the span center, we can see that two lanes are loaded as shown below and the positions of the two vehicles will cause the maximum torsion.
This is the case for all elements except for the start/end point of the span for which one vehicle is located inside the span and the other vehicle is located outside the span so that maximum torsion can be found. We cannot say that this algorithm is incorrect. Rather, it is the widely accepted algorithm among a lot of practical engineers for a very long time.
Secondly, we thought about your comment that two lanes must be loaded because the user entered 2 for both maximum and minimum number of lanes. Then, the following question arises. How should two vehicles be positioned on the two lanes inside the span? Is it case 1 or case 2 or case 3 and on what basis? We have not found the appropriate answer between ourselves.
Please understand that we cannot change the current rule of the program. If you let us know why you need to do this, we will try to find any workaround for you or we can consider this for the future development if there is no workaround.
Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager
Click here to give FEEDBACK
Hi Anuj,
Hello,
Thank you Anuj!
Hello,
Regards,
Anuj Asati
Sr. Technical Support Engineer
Click here to give FEEDBACK
Hi Anuj,
Hello,
Hi Anuj,
Please let me know if you see the same thing.
Hello,
Regards,
Anuj Asati
Sr. Technical Support Engineer
Click here to give FEEDBACK
Files | ||
---|---|---|
DataImage1.png 31 KB |
||
DataImage12.png 7 KB |
||
DataImage15.png 3 KB |
||
DataImage2.png 37 KB |
||
DataImage2[1].png 5 KB |
||
DataImage24.png 95 KB |
||
DataImage31.png 131 KB |
||
DataImage34.png 51 KB |
||
DataImage39.png 48 KB |
||
DataImage42.png 33 KB |
||
DataImage51.png 77 KB |
||
DataImage59.png 3 KB |
||
DataImage62.png 12 KB |
||
DataImage64.png 3 KB |
||
DataImage68.png 93 KB |
||
DataImage7.png 9 KB |
||
DataImage7[1].png 51 KB |
||
DataImage72.png 72 KB |
||
DataImage76.png 68 KB |
||
DataImage81.png 5 KB |
||
DataImage90.png 18 KB |
||
DataImage93.png 37 KB |
||
Perched Abutment Design_LRV.mcb 145 KB |
||
Perched Abutment Design_test.mcb 171 KB |