On some common errors in iron bridge design by Kernot William Charles 1845-

Author:Kernot, William Charles, 1845-
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Bridges -- Design and construction
Publisher: Melbourne, Ford & Son
Published: 1898-03-25T05:00:00+00:00

angle iron double

r

zj.

anqle iron double

|

angle iron, fig. S.3

remedying an entirely imaginary lack of lateral stability. Its radius of gyration is 3'9 inches in the plane of its web, and 1 inch at right angles to that plane. It is 25 feet long and is regarded as fixed in direction at the ends, though whether this fixing is perfectly reliable is not altogether certain. It is braced against lateral bending by a costly system of bars in the plane*oi the web. Taking the most favourable view, calculation shows that it would give way under a compression of 98,000 Ibs., whereas if it were turned the other way, as it easily might have been, so as to be braced in the direction in which it was weakest, its resistance would be more than 200,000 Ibs. This is an instructive example of the neglect of condition b, p. 25.

Fig. 25 represents a very usual section of compression chord of the earlier types of lattice girder bridges in England and Australia. Here the side plates are so thin and so liable to buckle or wrinkle at the edges that it was decided in the calculations made by Professor Warren and the writer, and published in the Report of the Royal Commission on Railway Bridges, N.S.W., 1886, to ignore the outer half of their width as contributing anything to the compressive resistance of the chord. As an example of improved practice, Fig. 26 is given, representing the upper chord of the very fine steel bridge over the Yarra, on the Gippsland Railway.

Of transgression against condition d, I am happily unable to quote a case.

Condition e applies to very numerous cases of compression diagonals, where two parallel angle, T or channel bars are braced together. Fig. 27 represents an arrangement that has been adopted on the two most recently erected bridges over the Yarra, and shows that the latest practice is not always the best. The only function that the cross connections perform is to ensure that the two main bars bend the same way, and if they are of themselves inclined to do so no gain of strength ensues as compared with entirely disconnected bars. Fig. 28 shows a vast, improvement with the same amount of iron and rivetting, and the dotted lines show how any lateral bending must be of a very different character to that of Fig. 27. In fact the shorter curves and more numerous nodes in the latter case are equivalent to a reduction to the effective length of the column to the distance XY,

which means a valuable gain in strength. There would be no difficulty and but little expense in altering these structures now, removing the cross pieces one or two at a time when the bridge was free from live load, and replacing them by square plates as in Fig. 28. An even better but slightly more expensive arrangement would*be to insert a complete triangulation similar to that shown for a different purpose in Fig. 8.

Fig. 29 represents a

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.