Qilin Zhang, Xiaoqun Luo, Ye Yuan, Yong Huang. The Mechanical Properties of the New STFE Membrane Material and Its Application in Membrane Structures[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2024, 39(2): 30-42. doi: 10.3724/j.gjgS23051902
Citation: ZHAO Qiu, CAI Wei, CHEN Peng, YU Ao, LIN Yongxin. Study on Refined Numerical Simulation Method of Mechanical Behavior of Prefabricated Bailey Beam[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2023, 38(2): 23-31. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS22111601

Study on Refined Numerical Simulation Method of Mechanical Behavior of Prefabricated Bailey Beam

doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS22111601
  • Received Date: 2022-11-16
    Available Online: 2023-04-20
  • In order to solve the disadvantages of modeling difficulty and high calculation cost in the finite element analysis of the Bailey beam solid model, a bar system model for the assembled Bailey beam is proposed based on the verified Bailey beam solid finite element model using the finite element analysis software ANSYS, and the modeling details of the solid model and bar system model are briefly described. It is also compared with the Bailey beam test in the Multi-purpose Manual for Prefabricated Highway Steel Bridges to verify the accuracy of the Bailey beam solid model and the member system model in the linear state. This paper carries out nonlinear buckling analysis, compares the differences between the two models in nonlinear state, and obtains the correct finite element model of the bar system through modification, and uses the modified bar system model to replace the solid model to study the ultimate bearing capacity under different conditions. The influence of initial geometric defects on the mechanical properties of Bailey beams is explored, and the selection reference of geometric defects for checking the ultimate bearing capacity of Bailey beams is proposed. The results show that the displacement value of the solid model under the same load in the linear stage is slightly larger than that of the rod model, and the maximum displacement difference in the midspan is 4%, but the displacement values of the rod model and the solid model at each measuring point are close to the test results, and the error range is less than 2%. The internal forces of the bar model and the solid model are basically consistent, and the maximum error of the average equivalent stress of the section is 2.78%; in the nonlinear stage, the instability modes obtained by the two models under different lateral bracing spacing are highly consistent, and the difference of ultimate bearing capacity is within 2.4%. The load-displacement curve is basically consistent, the failure mode is basically consistent, and the load-displacement curve of the member system model is in good agreement with the test curve. It is proved that the member model can replace the solid model for the ultimate bearing capacity analysis. The lateral support spacing of Bailey beams plays a decisive role in the failure mode of the structure. When the lateral spacing of Bailey beams is greater than or equal to 7.5 m, the overall buckling of the structure occurs. When the lateral support spacing is less than 5 m, the Bailey beam will be local buckling. The buckling mode is that the top chord of the mid-span element is subjected to out-of-plane bending failure, and obvious local buckling deformation occurs, and the Mises stress of the largest part of bending deformation reaches yield. When the Bailey beam is globally unstable, the overall geometric defect has a great impact on the bearing capacity of the structure, and when the structure is locally unstable, it is necessary to pay special attention to the local geometric defect of the structure. The stable bearing capacity is sensitive to the amplitude of the overall defect, while the in-plane local defect has little impact on the stable bearing capacity of the bailey beam, and the out-of-plane local geometric defect has a significant impact on the stable bearing capacity of the bailey beam. When considering the initial geometric defect with the out-of-plane initial bending amplitude of 1/1 000, the out-of-plane local defect of the chord, vertical bar and diagonal bar reduces the stable bearing capacity by 6.1%, 1.3% and 1.2% respectively, while the in-plane defect only reduces it by 1.0% 1.0% and 0.5%. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the out-of-plane deformation of the chord when selecting the bailey sheet.
  • [1]
    赵可.装配式贝雷梁受力性能分析及大跨度施工设计[J].钢结构,2018,33(2):84-88.
    [2]
    郭志永,赵可.复杂场地中跨度30 m以上装配式贝雷梁支架施工技术研究[J].钢结构(中英文),2019,34(12

    ):104-107,113.
    [3]
    赵秋,陈鹏,张骏超,等.钢桥板式加劲肋局部稳定试验与设计方法研究[J].中国公路学报,2022,35(6):49-61.
    [4]
    袁巧云.新型轻钢龙骨体系桁架梁承载力的试验及影响因素研究[D].武汉:武汉理工大学,2005.
    [5]
    刘勇,高磊,孙宏才,等.贝雷式龙门架设计中的有限元分析[J].钢结构,2007,22(4):69-72.
    [6]
    Jankowska-Sandberg J,Kolodziej J.Experimental study of steel truss lateral-torsional buckling[J].Engineering Structures,2013,46:165-172.
    [7]
    苟明康.装配式公路钢桥设计和使用中的几个问题[J].工兵装备研究,2001(1):1-6.
    [8]
    黄绍金,刘陌生.装配式公路钢桥多用途使用手册[M].北京:人民交通出版社,2002.
    [9]
    刘玉娟,郭锐.Krupp型装配式公路钢桥的研究[J].内蒙古公路与运输,2019(5):24-28.
    [10]
    谢晓鹏,杨露,窦国涛,等.节点刚度对贝雷梁强度和刚度性能影响分析[J].水利水电技术,2020,51(4):10-19.
    [11]
    曾勇全.履带起重机臂架节点接触静强度分析与试验研究[D].沈阳:东北大学,2010.
    [12]
    吴连杰.钢管桁架结构的整体稳定性能及设计方法研究[D].北京:北京交通大学,2007.
    [13]
    中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部.钢结构工程施工质量验收规范:GB 50205—2020[S].北京:中国计划出版社,2020.
  • Relative Articles

    [1]Yijun Xie, Hua Xia, Zhengfeng Shen, Linlang Tong, Wei Li, Hongyu Pan. Numerical Research on Shape Coefficients of Wind Loads of Industrial Buildings with Overhanging Awnings[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2025, 40(1): 52-57. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS23090801
    [2]Quanwei Liu, Lele Sun, Shoujie Ye, Peijun Wang. Numerical Analysis on Mechanical Properties of Bolted Beam-SHS Column Joints Strengthened by H-Steel[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2025, 40(2): 46-55. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS23111501
    [3]Shenghui Wu, Yongxuan Li, Jun Liu, Zhihua Fu, Chengjie Wu, Zichuan Xia, Yuchen Guan, Yurong Zhang. Key Construction Techniques for Steel Truss of Transfer Floor in Super High Rise Tower[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2024, 39(9): 52-59. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS23083001
    [4]Libo Yang. A Review on the Research and Application of Steel-UHPC Composite Beam[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2024, 39(9): 1-14. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS24022001
    [5]Qiliang Miao, Zhensen Song, Zhongxiang ZHANG. Numerical Study on Cold-formed Steel Built-up Stiffened Cruciform Specimen Subjected to Axial Load[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2022, 37(3): 20-27. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS21103101
    [6]Jun Wu. Simulated Analysis on Optimum Scheduling of Outrigger-Brace Connection for Super High-Rise Structure[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2022, 37(1): 46-52. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS21062901
    [7]WANG Wei-yong, WANG Zi-qi, TAN Xing-kui, PANG Shi-yun, HUANG Dan, HUANG Yong-dong. Load Bearing Capacity and Economic Analysis of Cold-Formed Stiffened High-Strength Steel Beams[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2022, 37(10): 32-42. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS22033101
    [8]Derun Du, Jintong Liu, Jitong Jiang. Study on the Mechanical Properties of Primary-Secondary-Beam Joints of U-Shaped Steel-Encased Concrete[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2022, 37(5): 28-35. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS22011402
    [9]Jiachen Liu, Jinghai Gong. Research on the Effect of Joint Deviation on the Mechanical Performance of Arc-Shaped Tubular Truss[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(12): 15-22. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20121301
    [10]Xiaodong Feng, Shengwei Liu, Weijia Yang, Yaozhi Luo. Research on Mechanical Properties of Truss String Structure with Spring Rods[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(7): 1-8. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20042502
    [11]Shixiang Zhang, Yande Lai, Qingxiang Li. Investigation on Failure Mechanism of the Standing Seam Metal Roof System[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2020, 35(5): 10-18. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20022301
    [12]Yande Lai, Shixiang Zhang, Qingxiang Li, Ruoqiang Feng. Numerical Simulation Investigation on Wind-Resistance Performance of the Metal Roof Aluminum Sheet[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2020, 35(9): 10-16. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20071303
  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-0405101520
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 12.3 %FULLTEXT: 12.3 %META: 81.9 %META: 81.9 %PDF: 5.8 %PDF: 5.8 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 13.0 %其他: 13.0 %万宁: 0.3 %万宁: 0.3 %上海: 4.4 %上海: 4.4 %东莞: 0.3 %东莞: 0.3 %兰州: 0.7 %兰州: 0.7 %勿加泗: 0.7 %勿加泗: 0.7 %北京: 1.7 %北京: 1.7 %南昌: 0.3 %南昌: 0.3 %厦门: 0.3 %厦门: 0.3 %合肥: 0.3 %合肥: 0.3 %嘉兴: 1.0 %嘉兴: 1.0 %天津: 1.0 %天津: 1.0 %宁波: 0.3 %宁波: 0.3 %宣城: 0.7 %宣城: 0.7 %常州: 0.7 %常州: 0.7 %常德: 0.3 %常德: 0.3 %广安: 0.7 %广安: 0.7 %广州: 0.7 %广州: 0.7 %廊坊: 0.3 %廊坊: 0.3 %张家口: 6.8 %张家口: 6.8 %成都: 1.7 %成都: 1.7 %扬州: 1.0 %扬州: 1.0 %抚州: 0.7 %抚州: 0.7 %无锡: 0.7 %无锡: 0.7 %昆明: 0.7 %昆明: 0.7 %杭州: 2.0 %杭州: 2.0 %武汉: 0.3 %武汉: 0.3 %沈阳: 1.0 %沈阳: 1.0 %济南: 0.3 %济南: 0.3 %深圳: 0.3 %深圳: 0.3 %湖州: 0.3 %湖州: 0.3 %漯河: 2.0 %漯河: 2.0 %益阳: 1.0 %益阳: 1.0 %石家庄: 0.3 %石家庄: 0.3 %福州: 1.0 %福州: 1.0 %芒廷维尤: 10.9 %芒廷维尤: 10.9 %芝加哥: 1.0 %芝加哥: 1.0 %西宁: 34.8 %西宁: 34.8 %贵阳: 0.3 %贵阳: 0.3 %运城: 0.7 %运城: 0.7 %郑州: 1.0 %郑州: 1.0 %重庆: 0.7 %重庆: 0.7 %长春: 0.3 %长春: 0.3 %长沙: 1.0 %长沙: 1.0 %青岛: 0.3 %青岛: 0.3 %马鞍山: 0.3 %马鞍山: 0.3 %其他万宁上海东莞兰州勿加泗北京南昌厦门合肥嘉兴天津宁波宣城常州常德广安广州廊坊张家口成都扬州抚州无锡昆明杭州武汉沈阳济南深圳湖州漯河益阳石家庄福州芒廷维尤芝加哥西宁贵阳运城郑州重庆长春长沙青岛马鞍山

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (240) PDF downloads(20) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return