RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      기존 강교의 재하능력 평가방법의 개선에 관한 연구 = Development of Bridge Rating Method of Continuous I-beam Bridges

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A45036963

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      The purpose of this paper is to rate the old I-beam bridges designed by workirig stress design method(WSD) by new bridge rating method(ASD) and compare it with other rating methods(WSD and LFD). In rating, only the bending stresses were considered.
      At first, in order to use more reliable rating data an I-beam of a two span continuous composite bridge was selected by the WSD method and rated by three methods mentioned above respectively. It was found that the live load rating by the LFD method has 116% higher than the WSD rating and the live load rating by the ASD has 179% higher than by the WSD rating.
      번역하기

      The purpose of this paper is to rate the old I-beam bridges designed by workirig stress design method(WSD) by new bridge rating method(ASD) and compare it with other rating methods(WSD and LFD). In rating, only the bending stresses were considered. A...

      The purpose of this paper is to rate the old I-beam bridges designed by workirig stress design method(WSD) by new bridge rating method(ASD) and compare it with other rating methods(WSD and LFD). In rating, only the bending stresses were considered.
      At first, in order to use more reliable rating data an I-beam of a two span continuous composite bridge was selected by the WSD method and rated by three methods mentioned above respectively. It was found that the live load rating by the LFD method has 116% higher than the WSD rating and the live load rating by the ASD has 179% higher than by the WSD rating.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • Ⅰ. 서론
      • 1. 연구목적
      • 2. 연구방법
      • Ⅱ. 본론
      • 1. 평가대상의 교량선정
      • Ⅰ. 서론
      • 1. 연구목적
      • 2. 연구방법
      • Ⅱ. 본론
      • 1. 평가대상의 교량선정
      • 2. Rating
      • 2-1. WSD Rating
      • 2-2. LFD Rating
      • 2-3. ASD Rating
      • 2-4. Rating 결과의 비교
      • Ⅲ. 결론
      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼