Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Soil Steel Composite Bridges: A comparison of conventional and stainless steel solutions
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Structural Engineering and Bridges.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Structural Engineering and Bridges.
2019 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

In this study the aim is to compare soil steel composite bridges in conventional andstainless steel. The parameters that are compared are calculations according to theDesign method by Pettersson and Sundquist, finite element modelling, life cycleassessment and life cycle costing.Three different types of soil steel composite bridges are designed, one corrugated inconventional steel and two in stainless steel. The compared bridges are one MP200and two stainless steel plates with U120x55x9- and T80x80x8-stiffeners along theperimeter respectively. These bridges are evaluated with two different height of soilcover, 0.8 m and 2 m.The results obtained from the calculations in the Design method show that all threebridges pass the in this study applied capacity checks. The normal forces do nothave considerable differences between the three different bridges. For a height ofsoil cover of 0.8 m the stress is bigger in MP200 than U120x55x9 and T80x80x8.With a height of soil cover of 2.0 m T80x80x8 has the biggest stresses followed byMP200 and U120x55x9.The bridges are modelled as pipes surrounded by soil in the software Abaqus withtraffic loads acting on them. When the stresses from the finite element modelling arecompared to the ones from the Design method it can be seen that the ratios are 10-63%.The biggest difference between the bridge in conventional steel and the ones instainless steel in the life cycle assessment is the lifespans. The bridge inconventional steel is assumed in this study to have a lifespan of 60 years comparedto 120 years for the bridges in stainless steel. This lead to higher emissions for thebridge in conventional steel than the ones in stainless steel.The life cycle cost-analysis shows that the total cost is lower for the bridge inconventional steel than the two bridges in stainless steel, where the total cost in thisstudy is the sum of owner and user cost. The user cost is small compared to theowner cost.This is a preliminary study and the methods and results should be used with caution.The study is partly based on assumptions and simplifications. The input data andresults should be adjusted to be applicable in other studies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019.
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-253716OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-253716DiVA, id: diva2:1325692
External cooperation
WSP Örebro
Available from: 2019-06-17 Created: 2019-06-17

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

By organisation
Structural Engineering and Bridges
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 34 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf