几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 - 查看单个帖子

deck overhang width
a topic of much (well some anyway) debate in the office. why does the width of deck overhangs for cast in place bridges with pre-cast girders continually increase?
with girder centres at 8-10 feet, going from a 2 or 3 foot overhang to a 5 or 6 foot overhang has saved at most 1 girder. at most, because in some cases larger girder spacing could be accomodated, meaning the same number of girders and smaller overhangs.
we've ticked off overall cost as an unlikey reason. the cost of one extra girder - including materials, forming, crane rental and transport (excluding girders which need top flange post-tensioning for transport) is pretty much equivalent to the extra fab time and labour for installing temporary bracing and blocking/shimming overhang brackets against the underside of the girder flange. in cases where a larger centre to centre girder spacing could be used the costs seem to make the larger overhangs more expensive.
so, am i missing something, or are these changes purely for aesthetic reasons?
a good rule of thumb to use is that the overhang should be about 40% of the girder spacing. this helps to economize the concrete deck thickness and reinforcing. the overhang is the most likely controlling feature for bridge deck design.
regards,
qshake
eng-tips forums:real solutions for real problems really quick.
gradually, most of the dots are increasingly using bulb-ts, which have very wide top flange. this probably has made the wider deck over hang possible compared to what used to be in the past.

2009-09-08, 04:35 PM	#1
huangyhg 超级版主注册日期: 04-03 帖子: 18592 精华: 36 现金: 249466 标准币资产: 1080358888 标准币	deck overhang width deck overhang width a topic of much (well some anyway) debate in the office. why does the width of deck overhangs for cast in place bridges with pre-cast girders continually increase? with girder centres at 8-10 feet, going from a 2 or 3 foot overhang to a 5 or 6 foot overhang has saved at most 1 girder. at most, because in some cases larger girder spacing could be accomodated, meaning the same number of girders and smaller overhangs. we've ticked off overall cost as an unlikey reason. the cost of one extra girder - including materials, forming, crane rental and transport (excluding girders which need top flange post-tensioning for transport) is pretty much equivalent to the extra fab time and labour for installing temporary bracing and blocking/shimming overhang brackets against the underside of the girder flange. in cases where a larger centre to centre girder spacing could be used the costs seem to make the larger overhangs more expensive. so, am i missing something, or are these changes purely for aesthetic reasons? a good rule of thumb to use is that the overhang should be about 40% of the girder spacing. this helps to economize the concrete deck thickness and reinforcing. the overhang is the most likely controlling feature for bridge deck design. regards, qshake eng-tips forums:real solutions for real problems really quick. gradually, most of the dots are increasingly using bulb-ts, which have very wide top flange. this probably has made the wider deck over hang possible compared to what used to be in the past. __________________ 借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心! [url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]