You are on page 1of 8

Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 327-334 (2017) DOI: 10.6180/jase.2017.20.3.

07

Finite Element Analysis and Static Load Test of


Precast U-shaped Beam
Jiahai Liu1,2*, Dingyong Yu 1, Gang Chen3, Linhai Lu2 and Wei Zhang4
1
Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, P.R. China
2
Jinan Rail Transit Group Co., Ltd., Jinan 250101, P.R. China
3
Shan Dong Province Project Management & Consulting Co., Ltd., Jinan 250001, P.R. China
4
Beijing Urban Construction Design & Development Group Co., Ltd., Beijing 100037, P.R. China

Abstract
Thin-walled U-shaped beam is widely used in the construction of urban rail viaduct, but finite
element analytic theory and experimental study has lagged behind. The finite element calculation
indicate that deflection caused by static load and live load is 9.17 mm. The ratio of deflection to span is
1/3271. The state of mid-span section is longitudinal compressive pre-stress. The transverse drawing
stress is more than ultimate tensile strength of C55 concrete, reinforcement ratio or section size of
transverse reinforcement should be appropriately increased. The static load test shows that the
deflection of mid-span section caused by static live load is 7.22 mm. The ratio of deflection to span is
1/4141. Minimum compressive stress of mid-span section is 2.82 MPa. Deflection and stress under
various loading case are less than the calculated value of finite element analysis. Obvious crack of
U-shaped beam is not founded. Load test shows that U-shaped beam has greater safety reserves
compared to design value.

Key Words: Urban Rail Viaduct, U-shaped Beam, Finite Element Analysis, Static Load Test

1. Introduction Shanghai [7,8].


U-shaped beam, as a kind of through supported st-
With the development of economic and urban con- ructure, has more advantages as follows: low height, en-
struction, road resource has become more and more scared. vironmental friendly, good adaptability to architecture
Urban rail transit is developing rapidly in China at pre- landscape, construction of the whole life and operation
sent [1,2]. In early 2000, only four domestic cities had
urban rail transit with total 7 lines and total 146 km
length. By December 2014, 20 cities had completely
build total 95 subway lines with total 2900 km length. At
present, 37 cities are still under construction. Compared
with underground tunnel construction, urban rail transit
viaduct system (Figure 1) has more advantages as fol-
lows: intensive land use, lower operation and mainte-
nance cost, more favor by the builder. There are many
successful cases such as line S1 in Nanjing [3-5], line 3
in Chongqing [6], line 1 in Guangzhou, line 6 and 8 in

*Corresponding author. E-mail: 47963794@qq.com Figure 1. Urban rail transit viaduct system.
328 Jiahai Liu et al.

of low cost, system integration, efficient anti-noise func- 3. The Finite Element Calculation
tion, etc. [9,10]. Compared with the traditional trough
girder, transverse pre-stressed reinforcement is cancelled 3.1 Model
in the bottom of U-shaped beam, and web plate of both A standard of U-shaped beam was established which
sides are asymmetric. Engineers pay more attention to its span 30 m, to simulate the late static load test, construc-
strength, stiffness, cracking resistance and ultimate bear- tion and operation stages. Beam element in the finite ele-
ing capacity when under loads. ment software was established from section C55 con-
Up to now, there are not mature and systematic experi- crete unit. Existing material database in software will be
ence in U-shaped beam. Based on metro line R1 in Jinan, in simulated with common reinforced, steel strand which
order to provide the basis of U-shaped beam, we made finite arranged within each beam element. Constraints will be
element calculation and static load test of U-shaped beam. applied in actual bearing position. U-shaped beam finite
element model is shown in Figure 4.
2. U-shaped Beam Design
3.2 The Load Calculation
The parameter of standard U-shaped beam is as fol- Load could be divided into fixed load and moving
lows: the span of beam is 30 m, the width of top of beam load. Fixed load includes structure weight and secondary
is 5.17 m, with bottom is 4 m, and the thickness of bot- dead load. Concrete density was 26.25 kN/m3. The sec-
tom is 0.26 m, the height of beam is 1.8 m. Distribution ondary load, which was 36.8 kN/m3, includes track load,
across is from 28 m to 35 m. According to the actual situ- sound barrier and other ancillary facilities weight. The
ation, widening and wider beam need to be increased train was the national standard B car, four drag with six
from 5.37 m to 5.57 m. U-shaped beam standard profile cars. The train loadding layout is shown in Figure 5, and
is shown in Figure 2. the maximum axle load of vehicle was 140 kN.
Concrete strength grade of U-shaped beam is C55.
Concrete grade in anchor seal use harsh and non-shrin-
kage polymer is not lower than C55. Polypropylene fi-
ber is added in concrete. Common reinforced are used
HPB 300 and Q235. The high strength with low relax-
ation steel stranded which tensile stress is 1860 MPa
and diameter is 15.2 mm are chosen. The stress of steel
strand is added through three phases: pre tension, initial
tension and final tension. From the Figure 3, pre-stressed
tensioning is synchronous on both ends, and symmetri-
cal on left and right sides.
Figure 2. U-shaped beam standard profile (mm).

Figure 3. Layout figure of pre-stressed steel strand wire (mm).


Finite Element Analysis and Static Load Test of Precast U-shaped Beam 329

Figure 4. U-shaped beam finite element model.

Figure 5. Train loading layout (mm).

3.3 Loading Calculation deformed to the inside in Table 2. The deformation of the
The maximum bending moment under the design outside flange plate was 0.22 mm, and the inside was
load was defined as the final working stage. Calculation 3.37 mm in Figure 7. The maximum vertical deflection
of the multi-stage load by the finite element method was
shown in Table 1. The load distribution of the maximum Table 1. Table of load classification
middle span moment was shown in Figure 6. Load step Load classification
1 One stage dead load
3.4 Calculation Results 2 Secondary dead load
3 One quarter of live load
3.4.1 Deflection Deformation 4 One quarter of live load
When the middle span moment reached the maxi- 5 One quarter of live load
6 One quarter of live load
mum value, the left and right flange plate of U-beam was

Figure 6. The load distribution of the maximum middle span moment (mm).

Table 2. Calculation value of cross section deformation


Transverse deformation (mm) Vertical deformation (mm)
Load
step Outer edge of the upper edge Outer edge of the upper edge The left of The middle of the The right of
of the left flange plate of the right flange plate flange plate flange plate flange plate
1 -0.12- 0.13 -8.58 -8.49 -8.65
2 0.91 2.37 -3.50 -2.62 -1.00
3 0.75 2.62 -5.91 -5.11 -3.35
4 0.59 2.87 -8.32 -7.60 -5.71
5 0.42 3.12 -10.740 -10.080 -8.06
6 0.22 3.37 -13.150 -12.570 -10.410
330 Jiahai Liu et al.

in the mid-span section was 13.15 mm in Figure 8. The during its whole life, while the compressive stress at the
deformation of internal and external web is different to the upper edge of outside and inside web were 13.7 MPa and
asymmetry of the left and right section shape of U-beam and 12.3 MPa. Longitudinal stress at the bottom of the bed
the asymmetry of secondary dead load. Under the static live slab were 2.22 MPa, 2.04 MPa, 2.66 MPa in Figure 10.
load, the deflection in the mid-span section was 9.96 mm.
The ratio of deflection to span was 1/2882, which was less 4. Load Test
than 1/2000. It also satisfy the need of “Code for design of
metro” (GB50157-2013) in China. 4.1 Load Calculation
Under 1.2 times designed load, the maximum value
3.4.2 Stress Distribution of the middle span under the load was taken as the final
Stress calculation results in the mid-span section of working condition. And it was divided into three loading
the U-beam is shown in Table 3. It is in tension trans- conditions.
versely at the bottom of the U-beam bed slab. The maxi- Case 1: Secondary dead load, 36.8 kN/m, was imposed
mum transverse tensile stress was 5.03 MPa, which was symmetrically, uniformly, fast and completely;
more than 3.3 MPa of concrete’s ultimate tensile strength. Case 2: Unnormal working stage, the maximum bending
The bottom of the concrete slab has been cracking, while moment under the main load combination satisfy
the transverse reinforcement of the bottom plate was sub- the maximum bending moment and shear force.
jected to tensile stress in Figure 9. At the top of the bed Kb = [Mb/(1 + m) + MZ + Md] / (Mh + MZ + Md)
slab, the concrete was compressed in its whole life. The = [3775.6/(1 + 0.163) 6358.0 3841.9]/
maximum transverse compressive stress was 4.38 MPa. (3775.6 6358.0 3841.9) = 0.962;
Longitudinal section of the U-beam was in compression Case 3: In cracking stage, under the 1.2 times main load
combination, the load was imposed as the bend-
ing moment value was the maximum.

Figure 7. Transverse deformation of cross section (mm). Figure 8. Vertical deformation of cross section (mm).

Table 3. Stress value of cross section (MPa)


Calculation value of cross transverse stress Calculated value of cross - longitudinal stress
Load
The bottom slab The top slab The bottom slabUpper edge Upper edge
step
Left web Middle web Right web The middle Left web Middle web Right web of left web of right web
1 0.21 0.74 0.11 -0.52 -7.92 -7.88 -7.90 -3.70 0-3.6
2 1.02 2.25 0.42 -1.90 -4.73 -4.96 -5.33 -9.20 0-7.8
3 1.30 2.94 0.62 -2.52 -4.04 -4.22 -4.66 -10.3 0-8.9
4 1.58 3.64 0.81 -3.14 -3.37 -3.50 -3.99 11.3 -10.1
5 1.84 4.34 1.01 -3.76 -2.69 -2.77 -3.32 -12.5 -11.2
6 2.11 5.03 1.21 -4.38 -2.22 -2.04 -2.66 -13.7 -12.3
Finite Element Analysis and Static Load Test of Precast U-shaped Beam 331

Figure 9. Cross transverse stress (MPa).

Figure 10. Cross longitudinal stress (MPa).

The load arrangement in the maximum working load which was based on the principle that “the moment value
of the mid-span is shown in Figure 11 and the load ar- of the middle span is equal and the shear value of the ful-
rangement in the case of the maximum working load of crum is approximately equal”. The frame was five load-
the fulcrum shear force is shown in Figure 12. ing points, the center spacing 5.5 m. The longitudinal
The internal force value of each load was calculated and transverse load transferred by the transverse and lon-
in Table 4. gitudinal beam. The design load imposed on the bottom
plate, and 1.0 to 1.2 times load imposed on bottom and
4.2 Loading Design flange plate. The longitudinally arranged of loading im-
The test load was carried out by the reaction frame, posed on U-shaped beam is shown Figure 13.

Figure 11. The load arrangement of the maximum moment in mid-span (mm).

Figure 12. The load arrangement of the maximum shear in fulcrum (mm).
332 Jiahai Liu et al.

Table 4. Internal force value calculation table


Loading condition
Calculated value of bending moment (kN.m) Calculated value of shear value (kN)
and grade
First stage The second Total First stage Total
Load Loading Live load The second Live load
loading loading bending loading bending
condition coefficient moment loading shear shear
moment moment moment shear shear
Case 1 0.6 0 2305.2 0 2305.2 0 319.1 0 0319.1
0.8 0 3073.5 0 3073.5 0 425.4 0 0425.4
1 0 3841.9 0 3841.9 0 531.8 0 0531.8
Case 2 0.6 0 3841.9 2265.4 6107.3 0 531.8 394.3 0926.1
0.8 0 3841.9 3020.5 6862.4 0 531.8 525.7 1057.5
Kb / / / 7474.0 / / / 1163.9
1 0 3841.9 3775.6 7617.5 0 531.8 657.1 1188.9
Case 3 01.05 317.9 4034.0 3964.4 8316.3 044.2 558.4 690.0 1292.6
1.1 635.8 4226.1 4153.2 9015.1 088.3 584.9 722.8 1396.0
01.15 953.7 4418.2 4341.9 9713.8 132.5 611.5 755.7 1499.7
1.2 1271.60 4610.3 4530.7 10412.60 176.6 638.1 788.5 1603.2

Figure 13. Loading point vertical arrangement (mm).

According to the designed load, internal force value section in the cross-section, quarter-section and near the
was calculated in Table 3-1, the load value imposed on fulcrum section U-shaped beam (shown in Figure 14 and
reaction frame were calculated in Table 5. Figure 15).

4.3 Test Results and Analysis 4.3.1 Deflection Deformation


Deflection observation points and strain test points The results of deflection deformation are shown in
were designed on the track bed floor, left and right web Table 6. The maximum mid-span deflection was 7.43
Table 5. Load value summary
Internal force value
Loading condition and grade Loading force on the Total loading force Shear loading
numerical analysis
bottom plate P (kN) P’ = 2P (kN) efficiency
Case Loading coefficient Moment Shear
Case 1 0.6 2305.2 0319.1 058.7 117.5 0.85
0.8 3073.5 0425.4 078.3 156.6 0.83
1 3841.9 0531.8 097.9 195.8 0.82
Case 2 0.6 6107.3 0926.1 155.6 311.2 0.83
0.8 6862.4 1057.5 174.8 349.7 0.83
Kb 7474.0 1163.9 190.4 380.8 0.83
1 7617.5 1188.9 194.1 388.2 0.83
Case 3 01.05 8316.3 1292.6 211.9 423.8 0.87
1.1 9015.1 1396.0 229.7 459.4 0.85
01.15 9713.8 1499.7 247.5 495.0 0.83
1.2 10412.60 1603.2 265.3 530.6 0.82
Finite Element Analysis and Static Load Test of Precast U-shaped Beam 333

6.33 MPa under the first stage loads. The minimum


mid-span compressive stress was 3.41 MPa under the Kb
level load. Under the loading grade 1.2, the minimum
compressive stress was 2.82 MPa. The minimum com-
pressive stress at the top edge of web plate was 3.6 MPa
Figure 14. Field layout on deflection and strain. whole-life cycle. In its whole life, the longitudinal stress
of the beam is compressed, and the measured strain value
was less than the theoretical value.

5. Conclusions

(1) The finite element analysis results show that the U-


beam is reasonable for loading. The deflection of
Figure 15. Prototype observation load test. mid-span section is 9.17 mm due to the static live
load and ratio of deflection to span is only 1/3271. At
mm under the first stage loads. The maximum mid-span the same time, compressive stress and transverse
deflection was 14.65 mm under the Kb level load. Under drawing stress exceeds ultimate tensile strength of
the loading grade 1.2, the maximum deflection was C55 concrete. In addition, calculated crack width is
19.12 mm. The mid-span section deflection was 14.65 - 0.15 mm in the invisible range.
7.43 = 7.22 mm due to the static live load. The ratio of (2) The load test results show that the deflection and
deflection to span was 1/4141 and the measured deflec- stress of the U-beam meet the code and design re-
tion value was less than the calculated value. So it was quirements under various loading conditions. Due to
seen that the measured stiffness of the U-beam is higher the static live load, the mid-span section deflection is
than the design rigidity, and is satisfied the requirements 7.22 mm, and the ratio of deflection to span is only
of the code “Code for design of metro” (GB50157-2013). 1/4141. Meanwhile, the minimum mid-span section
During the test, there was no visible crack in the beam. compressive stress of beam is 2.82 MPa, which is
less than the theoretical value. So, the U-beam has a
4.3.2 Stress Measurement great safety reserve, and there are no visible cracks
The longitudinal stress test results are shown in Ta- during the loading process.
ble 7. The minimum mid-span compressive stress was (3) U-beam has good adaptability and can reduce the
Table 6. Test result of deflection deformation
The load on The load on the Mean value of Average Actual
Loading Loading Load
the web floor deflection settlement of deflection
condition coefficient Pk (kN)
Pk (kN) Pk (kN) (mm) bearing (mm) value (mm)
Case 1 0.6 117.5 / 117.5 04.88 0.76 04.12
0.8 156.6 / 156.6 06.92 1.22 5.7
1 195.8 / 195.8 9.4 1.97 07.43
Case 2 0.6 311.2 / 311.2 14.46 3.28 11.18
0.8 349.7 / 349.7 17.65 4.04 13.61
Kb 380.8 / 380.8 19.13 4.48 14.65
1 388.2 / 388.2 19.53 4.58 14.95
Case 3 01.05 423.8 035.6 388.2 21.02 5.02 16
1.1 459.4 071.2 388.2 21.77 5.33 16.44
01.15 495 106.8 388.2 23.55 5.71 17.84
1.2 530.6 142.4 388.2 25.20 6.08 19.12
334 Jiahai Liu et al.

Table 7. Longitudinal stress test results


The load on The load on The load on the floor (MPa)
Upper edge Upper edge
Loading Loading Load
the web the floor The left The The right of left web of right web
condition coefficient Pk (kN)
Pk (kN) Pk (kN) edge middle edge (MPa) (MPa)
Case 1 0.6 117.5 / 117.5 -7.92 -7.88 -7.90 -3.7 -3.6
0.8 156.6 / 156.6
1 195.8 / 195.8 -6.33 -6.68 -6.75 -5.1 -5.2
Case 2 0.6 311.2 / 311.2 / / / / /
0.8 349.7 / 349.7 / / / / /
Kb 380.8 / 380.8 -3.41 -3.72 -4.00 0-8.84 0-8.37
1 388.2 / 388.2 -3.38 -3.86 -4.10 0-8.97 0-8.45
Case 3 01.05 423.8 035.6 388.2 / / / / /
1.1 459.4 071.2 388.2 / / / / /
01.15 495 106.8 388.2 / / / / /
1.2 530.6 142.4 388.2 -2.82 -3.16 -3.77 -10.65 -10.12

cost, which has good application prospect. After fur- of the U-shaped Beam Hoisting, Carrying and Erect-
ther optimization, the beam will be popularized and ing for City Rail,” Railway Construction Technology,
applied in the field of rail construction, and can cre- Vol. 8, pp. 1-4 (2015). (Chinese)
ate better social and economic benefits. [5] Li, Q., “Structural Calculation and Experiment of U-
beam in Nanjing Metre Line,” Urban Mass Transit,
Acknowledgments Vol. 12, No. 8, pp. 8-12 (2009). (Chinese)
[6] Zhuang, Y., “Experimental Study on U Type Liang
The authors are very grateful for the funding from Jing Load of Urban Rail Transit,” Southwest Jiaotong
the projects 2014QG009, 2017-K2-011, 2017-K2-012 sup- University (2011).
ported by Science and Technology Project of Shandong [7] Wen, Z. Y., Ai, L. Q. and Liu, Z. H., “Experimental
Housing and Urban-Rural development. Study on Groove Beam of Shanghai Rail Transit Line
6,” China Municipal Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 32-34
References (2006). (Chinese)
[8] Wang, F. Y., Wu, Y. F. and Lu, Y. C., “Application of
[1] Chen, S., Diao, B., Guo, Q., et al., “Experiments and U-type Beam in No. 8 Shanghai Rail Transit Line En-
Calculation of U-shaped Thin-walled RC Members gineering,” Shanghai Construction Science & Tech-
under Pure Torsion,” Engineering Structures, Vol. nology, Vol. 5, pp. 13-15 (2009). (Chinese)
106, pp. 1-14 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015. [9] Su, J. F., “Finite Element Analysis of Large Pre-
10.019 stressed Precast “U” Beam in Guangzhou Metro Line
[2] Yang, X. R., “Research and Innovation for Key Tech- Two,” Guangzhou Architecture, Vol. 1, pp. 14-17
nologies of U-shaped Girder Elevated System in Ur- (2004). (Chinese)
ban Rail Transit,” Urban Rapid Rail Transit, Vol. 28, [10] “Ministry of Housing and Urban-rural Development
No. 5, pp. 27-30 (2015). (Chinese) of the People’s Republic of China. Code for Design of
[3] Liu, Y. C. and Liu, G. X., “Concentric Circle Design Metro GB50157-2013,” Beijing: China Architecture
for Elevated U Beam on Nanjing Metro Airport Line,” & Building Press (2013). (Chinese)
Urban Mass Transit, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 62-65 (2014).
(Chinese) Manuscript Received: Dec. 13, 2016
[4] Zhou, M., “Comprehensive Construction Technology Accepted: May 10, 2017