How to resolve CS 454 ALL 1 Moving Load Optimization issues in my model?

Question:

Hi,


I'm currently carrying out an assessment to ALL 1 as per CS454.


Currently I’m having a some issues as below:


CS454 table 5.9a specifies different notional lanes widths for single vehicle (3m lane width) and convoy of vehicles (2.5m width).

and in table 5.9c lane factors for each lane (1.0 for lane 1 and 2 and 0.5 for lane 3). The Lane factors are also interchangeable as per Table 5.9c.

Where the assessment live loading exceeds 7.5t Clause 5.16 also requires a udl of 5 kN/m3 to be applied over the remaining area of the carriageway.


For example I have a carriage of 9.144m, when considering the single vehicle loading 3 lanes of 3m should be specified with a remaining area of 0.144m and in the convoy vehicle loading 3 lanes of 2.5m with a remaining area of 1.644m. Now to be able to do this efficiently, the software needs to optimise the lanes/vehicles to get the most onerous loading for each element that is being checked. Currently in Lusas this is achieved by defining the kerbline rather than lanes and the software applies lanes/factors/vehicles as per code and in the most onerous locations for each of the elements. In Midas I believe this is achieved through the moving load optimisation, however I couldn’t get this to work.  The model you have sent me in your email also doesn’t have the moving load optimisation defined. Can you please send me a tutorial on how this can be defined/achieved and if lanes/factors/vehicles are optimised?


I have attached screenshots from relevant CS454 tables and clauses and have my model also attached.





Dear DK Lee,


Thanks, I look forward to receive your response. Please not this is quite urgent and the assessment is on hold due to this issue.


Regards,



Hi,

In the mean time, I recommend that you should try it without using optimisation. You can manually define lanes and apply ALL Model 1, which is not so difficult.

Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager

Click here to give FEEDBACK


Dear DK Lee,


I have tried doing it manually however because the lane factors are interchangeable and remaining area could be in different locations, there will  be many scenarios that needs to be checked for each element. Few scenarios for longitudinal elements, few scenarios for transverse elements etc this is not efficient and waste of time. I can see moving load optimisation is defined but how does this work because right now its not working. Do you have a tutorial to show how this works? I can see there are tutorials on previous versions of MIDAS but nothing for version 2020 3.1. I am awaiting your response.


Regards,




Hi,

- Even though moving load analysis is manually defined, the lane factors are automatically interchanged by the program to find the maximum effects for each element.
- The location of remaining area needs to be defined by the user, but most engineers try three cases below generally for the location of the remaining area to find maximum effects for all the elements. 
- I have tried the moving load optimisation for ALL Model 1 single vehicle and convoy vehicles and found that UDL is applied in some cases but not in other cases. So, the developer is looking into it now. But, considering your urgent project, I recommend you use manual definition for your project.

Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager

Click here to give FEEDBACK


Dear DK Lee,


Thanks for your response.


Can you send a quick tutorial/screenshot to show how you have defined the moving load optimisation? I wasn't able to do this and when defined only got 1 lane, see screenshot attached to show how I am defining the moving load optimisation.


Please let me know what each of the inputs are and what I need to input to get 1 optimised lane of 9.144m divided into 3 lanes of 3m and a remainder area (I'm aware currently UDL is not applied in some cases but would like to test the vehicle load optimisation).


Regards,



Hi,

Please find the attached sample model file and document. Thank you for your patience.

Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager

Click here to give FEEDBACK


Dear DK Lee,


Thanks for your response. Can you please double check the width lane and let me know why you have used 3.6? Shouldn't be this 3m?


Please see screenshot.


Kind Regards,



Also can you advise how I can see if the model has applied the udl or not as the moving load tracer only shows the vehicle load.


This has always been a question to me to be able to see what combination of load the software is applying. Is it possible to check how the loads (DL + SIDL + LL) is applied something similar to moving load tracer but for all loads?


Kind Regards,



Hi,

1. Yes, the lane width should be 3.0 m. It was a mistake.
2. You will see no UDL in the moving load tracer with my sample model. As you see below, vehicle loads are applied on three lanes.

If you change the number of loaded lanes from 3 to 2 just in order to see how UDL is applied, you can see UDL is applied as shown below.


3.  It is not possible to check how the load combination (DL + SIDL + LL) is applied. The applied loads can only be viewed by each load case as shown below.


Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager

Click here to give FEEDBACK


Hi,

I have got a reply from the development team about the remaining area of optimisation. The algorithm of moving load optimization cannot handle the remaining area properly in all cases. The only way to improve it is that the location of remaining area should be defined by the user and the optimisation is performed for the area left.

For now, I have made a sample file based on the above concept using the following steps.
1. Create moving load case 1 for remaining area only.
2. Create moving load case 2 for the optimisation area.
3. Combine two moving load cases using load combination.

In the sample file, only one location of remaining area is considered for the purpose of showing above concept. For other possible location of remaining area, you should create more moving load cases.

Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager

Click here to give FEEDBACK


Dear DK Lee,


Thanks for your response and for providing the details of the workaround to the problem. Is the issue with remaining area going to get solved? Lusas algorithm is handling this with no issue.


Regards.




Thanks a lot for your reply. Regarding the future implementation, the development team will implement the same method as the Eurocode optimization. As I mentioned, the location of remaining area need to be determined by the user, and for the left part on the carriageway optimisation lane is defined. And then, from the moving load case dialog box, both remaining area and optimisation lane are selected.
 

After analysis, you can see both remaining area and optimised aree at the same time under one moving load case. I would like to know your opinion about this method for CS 454 ALL Model 1 optimisation. Thanks.

Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager

Click here to give FEEDBACK


Thanks for your quick reply. I believe this is another solution to the problem and allows the assessor to be flexible with the remaining area to choose where it will be. However, I don't think this would be the best solution as it be more efficient if the software applied the UDL automatically by considering all cases and finding the optimum solution. I suggest this issue be resolved in future implementation.


Another issue I was having is combining ALL 1 with HB vehicles. In current version this is not achievable and only ALL2 can be combined with HB loading. CS454 Appendix C suggest HB can be combined with either ALL1 or ALL2 and for the assessment to be in accordance with the current standards ALL1 should be able to be combined with HB loading. Can you let me know if for the current version you have a workaround for this issue?


Regards,



Also can you let me know how the current workaround would work for when you have the remaining area in between lanes? Currently the workaround would only work if the remaining area is before lane 1 or after lane 3 but as the lanes are optimised how would I introduce a remaining area in between lane 1 and 2 and in between lane 2 and 3. Clause 5.11 of CS 454 states: The notional lanes for ALL model 1 shall be located to cause the most adverse loading effects on the member or element under consideration. Therefore these combinations will also need to be checked.


I look forward to your response.


Regards,



Dear DK Lee,


I have tried to implement your workaround to my model. However, I'm getting errors when using the moving load tracer and the model crashes. Please see screenshots attached and I have also attached the model.


Please let me know why this is happening.


Regards,




1. Combined ALL Model 1 and HB vehicle has not been implemented due to the limited time for development. Also, as far as we know, ALL Model 2 will govern most of the situations. I don't think there is a workaround of combined ALL Model 1 and HB in the current version.

2. Remaining area would have less adverse effects than normal lanes. Thus, I don't think that remaining area will be located between normal lanes in any case. Don't you think so?

Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager

Click here to give FEEDBACK


Dear DK Lee,


Thanks for your responses.


1- It would be great if you could implement combination of ALL Model 1 and HB in next releases as this is required to be checked under the new CS454.

2- I agree that the remaining area in between lanes may not be the most onerous case, so for now I can ignore this but it would be great if it is possible for software to do this and check for the different elements in future releases.


Regards,



Hi,

It is fixed now. Here is the patch below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I2DZ-80sdgp2WYBfaTjyb6zN0IUUyMdj/view?usp=sharing



Regards,
DK Lee
Technical Manager

Click here to give FEEDBACK


That's Great! Its now working for me as well.


Regards,

Creation date: 7/23/2020 8:29 PM      Updated: 7/3/2023 3:46 PM
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles.mcb

50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles.mcb
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles 0731.mcb

50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles 0731.mcb
DataImage83.png

DataImage83.png
Moving load optimization CS 454.pdf

Moving load optimization CS 454.pdf
DataImage44[1].png

DataImage44[1].png
DataImage14[1].png

DataImage14[1].png
DataImage58.png

DataImage58.png
DataImage39.png

DataImage39.png
DataImage64[1].png

DataImage64[1].png
DataImage6.png

DataImage6.png
DataImage95.png

DataImage95.png
DataImage40.png

DataImage40.png
DataImage64.png

DataImage64.png
DataImage73.png

DataImage73.png
Test 2.mcb

Test 2.mcb
Error with new patch.pdf

Error with new patch.pdf
SV vehicles weird results.pdf

SV vehicles weird results.pdf
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles[1].mcb

50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles[1].mcb
Midas model (40t) v0.3 (2020) - TL movement.mcb

Midas model (40t) v0.3 (2020) - TL movement.mcb
DataImage5.png

DataImage5.png
DataImage53.png

DataImage53.png
DataImage14.png

DataImage14.png
SV Vehicle Axles.pdf

SV Vehicle Axles.pdf
Auto LL combination.pdf

Auto LL combination.pdf
DataImage56.png

DataImage56.png
DataImage78.png

DataImage78.png
DataImage89.png

DataImage89.png
DataImage45.png

DataImage45.png
DataImage1.png

DataImage1.png
Optimisation sample.xlsx

Optimisation sample.xlsx
ALL 1 Optimisation.mcb

ALL 1 Optimisation.mcb
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment 1.mcb

50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment 1.mcb
CS454 Table 5.9c.jpg

CS454 Table 5.9c.jpg
CS454 Table 5.9a.jpg

CS454 Table 5.9a.jpg
CS454 Clause 5.16.jpg

CS454 Clause 5.16.jpg
DataImage31.png

DataImage31.png
DataImage1[1].png

DataImage1[1].png
Moving Load tracer.JPG

Moving Load tracer.JPG
Lane width.JPG

Lane width.JPG
Moving load optimisation.JPG

Moving load optimisation.JPG
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment Single Vehicle 1.mcb

50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment Single Vehicle 1.mcb
Error 2.png

Error 2.png
Error 1.png

Error 1.png
DataImage69.png

DataImage69.png
ALL 1 Optimisation workaround.mcb

ALL 1 Optimisation workaround.mcb
DataImage44.png

DataImage44.png
Files   
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles.mcb
2 MB
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles 0731.mcb
2 MB
DataImage83.png
88 KB
Moving load optimization CS 454.pdf
2 MB
DataImage44[1].png
102 KB
DataImage14[1].png
79 KB
DataImage58.png
89 KB
DataImage39.png
30 KB
DataImage64[1].png
33 KB
DataImage6.png
51 KB
DataImage95.png
224 KB
DataImage40.png
112 KB
DataImage64.png
113 KB
DataImage73.png
121 KB
Test 2.mcb
2 MB
Error with new patch.pdf
498 KB
SV vehicles weird results.pdf
145 KB
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment SV Vehicles[1].mcb
2 MB
Midas model (40t) v0.3 (2020) - TL movement.mcb
701 KB
DataImage5.png
18 KB
DataImage53.png
4 KB
DataImage14.png
4 KB
SV Vehicle Axles.pdf
442 KB
Auto LL combination.pdf
253 KB
DataImage56.png
66 KB
DataImage78.png
59 KB
DataImage89.png
27 KB
DataImage45.png
71 KB
DataImage1.png
112 KB
Optimisation sample.xlsx
248 KB
ALL 1 Optimisation.mcb
780 KB
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment 1.mcb
2 MB
CS454 Table 5.9c.jpg
21 KB
CS454 Table 5.9a.jpg
49 KB
CS454 Clause 5.16.jpg
13 KB
DataImage31.png
85 KB
DataImage1[1].png
91 KB
Moving Load tracer.JPG
53 KB
Lane width.JPG
15 KB
Moving load optimisation.JPG
35 KB
50 FT Concrete Spans without cantilevers - Assessment Single Vehicle 1.mcb
2 MB
Error 2.png
144 KB
Error 1.png
119 KB
DataImage69.png
14 KB
ALL 1 Optimisation workaround.mcb
818 KB
DataImage44.png
20 KB