Ments were caused by the difference in the geosynthetic rein-įorcement used for the two test sections. The differences in performance between the two test abut. Ing criteriaâ in this chapter, are from studies conducted byīozozuk (1978), Walkinshaw (1978), Grover (1978), Moul. The performance criteria, referred to as âthe exist. Mum lateral movement of the abutment wall were allĪssessed. Load-carrying capacity andĭuctility, sill settlement and angular distortion, and maxi. The assessment of the measured performance and observedīehavior of the two full-scale test abutments was madeĪgainst performance criteria previously established based onĮxperiences with real bridges. (1) the measured performance and observed behavior wereĮvaluated against existing performance criteria for bridgeĪbutments and (2) the safety factors and failure loads of theĪbutments were evaluated using the design method in theĬurrent NHI manual (Elias et al., 2001) through the computer The NCHRP test abutments were assessed in two ways: INTERPRETATION, APPRAISAL, AND APPLICATIONS Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages. Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |