Dynamic Properties Comparison of 1D, 2D, and 3D Model for Concrete Box-Girder Bridge of 40-meter Span

  • Wira Sucitra Ibrahim Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Akhmad Aminullah Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Ali Awaludin Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Bambang Suhendro Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Bambang Supriyadi Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Renga Rao Krishnamoorthy School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)
Keywords: Comparison, Dynamic, Modeling, Box-Girder, Concrete

Abstract

Concrete box-girder structure is considered the thin-walled structure, undergoing deformation and forces, as well as having structural rigidity in three dimensional directions. However, it’s commonly modeled as 1D structure for the sake of design practicality, which influences the numerical result of its dynamic properties when compared to both real time SHMS and field test result. To see how far the difference of the dynamic properties between 1D, 2D, and 3D model of concrete box-girder structure, the concrete box-girder structure is modeled as 1D (frame), 2D (shell), and 3D (solid) element with MIDAS Civil 2019. Considering the allowable deflection and stress limited by design code, concrete box-girder structure is modeled and analyzed as linearly elastic material. The dynamic properties obtained from these 3 models were compared with those obtained from real time SHMS and field test. These results indicate that both natural frequency and period of 2D and 3D models are close to those of real time SHMS and field test. However, the natural frequency of 1D model is slightly larger than the real SHMS and field test, indicating that 1D model gives the slightly overestimate natural frequency and structural rigidity compared to the reality. Unlike 2D and 3D model, the structure is accounted to have the uniform sectional rigidity along transversal direction in 1D model. This is why 1D model seems to have higher structural rigidity compared to 2D and 3D model, which subsequently yields the higher natural frequency than 2D and 3D model. This research proves that the designers’ discretion is advised if 1D model is used for the sake of design practicality.

References

Aloisio, A., 2021. Aspects of Vibration-Based Methods for the Prestressing Estimate in Concrete Beams with Internal Bonded or Unbonded Tendons. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6060083

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, Eighth Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001.

Atmaca, B., 2019. Comparison of Dynamic Characteristics of Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete Beams. Düzce University Journal of Science & Technology, 7 (2019) 37-44.

Bhavikatti, S.S., 2005. Finite Element Analysis. New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers 4835/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110002.

Carrera, E., Pagani, A., Zangallo, F., 2015. Comparison of Various 1D, 2D, and 3D FE Model for The Model of Thin-walled box with Transverse Ribs Subjected to Load Factors. Elsevier BV, Finite Element in Analysis and Design 95 (2015) 1-11, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2014.10.004

Direktorat Jenderal Bina Marga, 2021. Panduan Praktis Perencanaan Teknis Jembatan 02/M/BM/2021. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat, Jakarta.

Hamed, E., Frostig, Y., 2006. Natural Frequencies of Bonded and Unbonded Prestressed Beams – Prestressed Force Effects. Elsevier Ltd., Journal of Sound and Vibration 295 (2006) 28–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2005.11.032

Ibrahim, E.S.M., 2004. Comparison Study on The Accuracy of Reinforced Concrete T-Beam Analyzed by Using Plane Stress and Solid Finite Elements. Yogyakarta: Master Thesis Report. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Liu, G.R., Quek, S.S., 2003. The Finite Element Method – A practical course. Elsevier Science Ltd. Butterworth-Heinemann, England.

Miyamoto, A., Tei, K., Nakamura, H., Bull, J.W., 2000. Behaviour of Prestressed Beam Strengthened with External Tendons. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 9, September, 2000. ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/00/0009-1033–1044.

Suhendro, B., 1990. Analisis Buckling pada Struktur dengan Finite Element Method. Media Teknik Edisi No. 1 Tahun XII, April 1990, No. ISSN 0216-3012.

Published
2022-07-29
How to Cite
Ibrahim, W. S., Aminullah, A., Awaludin, A., Suhendro, B., Supriyadi, B., & Krishnamoorthy, R. R. (2022). Dynamic Properties Comparison of 1D, 2D, and 3D Model for Concrete Box-Girder Bridge of 40-meter Span. Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum, 8(3), 321-328. https://doi.org/10.22146/jcef.4148
Section
Articles