Welcome!
Home

Welcome to the BridgeTalk TM Discussion Forum!

First-time user? - click here


BridgeTalk (tm) Discussion Forum

Subject: "wood armer"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend    
Conferences Bridge Software Topic #32
Reading Topic #32
jay
Charter Member
Jul-21-05, 10:56 AM (PDT)
Click to EMail jay Click to send private message to jay Click to add this user to your buddy list  
"wood armer"
 
   can anyone explain me what is wood armer method for
bridge slab design and what is the baisc of the
same.? under what condition this method if relevent
/irrelevent....?

thanks in advance


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
  RE: wood armer Brian Jul-22-05 1
     RE: wood armer jay Jul-25-05 2
         RE: wood armer Brian Jul-27-05 3
             RE: wood armer Raz Nov-10-05 4
                 RE: wood armer Brian Nov-18-05 5
  RE: wood armer santhosh Dec-05-06 6
     RE: wood armer Deepali Saxena Jan-18-07 7
         RE: wood armer parhyang May-28-07 8

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Brian
Charter Member
Jul-22-05, 03:54 AM (PDT)
Click to EMail Brian Click to send private message to Brian Click to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: wood armer"
In response to message #0
 
   The Wood Armer method is a way of optimising reinforcement design in a reinforced concrete slab.

The original source is the paper "The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre-determined field of moments", RH Wood, 'Concrete', February 1968, and a follow-on letter from GST Armer, 'Concrete', April 1968. Their method is summarised in the book 'Concrete Bridge Design to BS 5400' by LA Clarke.

Wood Armer is usable only for design, and only where the reinforcement design is relatively straightforward (e.g. ultimate limit state analysis) - it can't optimise for designs where the relationship between reinforcement and load effect is non-linear (as is the case for crack-width limits at the serviceability limit state, for example).

Wood Armer is useful because it allows moment triads from grillages (Mx, My, Mxy) to be transformed into simple bending moments in two directions for reinforcement design. This is important because the twisting moment Mxy can be significant.

An alternative to Wood Armer is the method of Denton and Burgoyne, see 'The assessment of reinforced concrete slabs', SR Denton and CJ Burgoyne, 'The Structural Engineer', Volume 74, Number 9, May 1996. This is useful where the reinforcement is already known e.g. in a existing bridge slab.

Modern software can automate the Wood Armer or Denton Burgoyne calculations, for example, SAM-LEAP5 is a program I use which can convert the grillage moments automatically.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jay
Charter Member
Jul-25-05, 10:44 AM (PDT)
Click to EMail jay Click to send private message to jay Click to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: wood armer"
In response to message #1
 
   Mr. Brian -Thank you very much for the information

i will tryout your references

can we summarise that this method is used when we
have Mx.My & Mxy is present together.
is this of any significance if Mxy is not present OR very small ?

thanks in advance

jay



  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Brian
Charter Member
Jul-27-05, 04:15 AM (PDT)
Click to EMail Brian Click to send private message to Brian Click to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: wood armer"
In response to message #2
 
   It can still be useful if Mxy is not present or is low. It can be used to transform the directions of the moments, so if the reinforcement in the slab is not parallel to the members in the grillage model, these equations can be used to correctly derive moments perpendicular or parallel to the reinforcement.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Raz
Charter Member
Nov-10-05, 03:30 AM (PDT)
Click to EMail Raz Click to send private message to Raz Click to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: wood armer"
In response to message #3
 
   The Wood Armer Method is used for Design and it is suggested that for existing slabs which are being assessed the method of Denton & Burgoyne should be used. However, I have noticed that many engineers have used Wood Armer for assessment and TAA's seem never to challenge the validity of their approach, contrary to the views of academics. What is the difference between the two methods and why is Wood Armer not appropriate for assessment of slabs ?


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Brian
Charter Member
Nov-18-05, 05:45 AM (PDT)
Click to EMail Brian Click to send private message to Brian Click to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: wood armer"
In response to message #4
 
   Wood Armer explicitly attempts to calculate "optimum" amounts of reinforcement in two directions - it doesn't explicitly use "real" moments of resistance in any of its terms. Denton and Burgoyne does precisely that - uses actual moments and moment resistances to check whether the combined moment triad exceeds the available capacity at any point on the slab.

Because Wood Armer is about calculating optimums, it contains an inherent assumption (that the cost of reinforcement is proportional to the capacity provided). This is pretty much valid for an under-reinforced slab at ultimate limit state, but is not valid for an over-reinforced slab, or for crack width limitations.

Clark's book explains on page 59 the approach in more detail, particularly that the entire method is about optimising so you have the smallest total amount of reinforcement (rebar in both perpendicular directions). For an existing bridge, this is irrelevant - the proportion in each direction is already known. As a result, Wood/Armer can give a *conservative* result for assessment for any situation where the rebar in each direction is not optimal i.e. most real situations.

Further information is available in, for example, Appendix F of the SAM-LEAP5 user manual (if you have access to that), or in Denton and Burgoyne's paper, available online at http://www-civ.eng.cam.ac.uk/cjb/papers/p33.pdf


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
santhosh
Charter Member
Dec-05-06, 02:13 PM (PDT)
Click to EMail santhosh Click to send private message to santhosh Click to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: wood armer"
In response to message #0
 
   you can do wood armer design assessment with LUSAS , send me a mail to tech@pro-sim.com I can get more details on this


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Deepali Saxena
Charter Member
Jan-18-07, 09:54 AM (PDT)
Click to EMail Deepali%20Saxena Click to send private message to Deepali%20Saxena Click to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: wood armer"
In response to message #6
 
   Can u just explain me how wood-armer design assessment can be done by Lusas


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
parhyang
Charter Member
May-28-07, 08:36 AM (PDT)
Click to EMail parhyang Click to send private message to parhyang Click to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: wood armer"
In response to message #7
 
   You can see in tutorials (pdf), I don't know why in LUSAS we must define bars spacing first? somebody know? in other FE slabs based on W&A such as REAL3D is different (not define bar spacing)


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Rate this topicRate this topic