Lso simulated by FEM. The three-dimensional finite element model was formed in Midas Civil (2018) as shown in Figure 12; the entire model consisted of 1786 nodal points, 80 truss components, 2735 beam elements, and 370 plate components. TheAppl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9607 PEER REVIEW13 of 17 17Table two. Calculation results from the removal approach in distinctive circumstances in the course of deck is described by plate course of action. although hangers are represented with truss elements, the the new hanger installation components,Case Simple parameter Initial state 1st tensionCase 1st unloadothers are represented with beam components. The supplies with the modal are listed in Table 3. [N] [N] [m] [mm] [mm] [ ] Moreover, the boundary situations imposed the finish of the arch rib and the bottom of on En = two.05 1011 Pa, An = 0.0042 m2 the pier inside the model had been all fixed constraints.0 2.03 T 2.49 i5 [N]1.01 106 9.55 10 eight.11 Ai5 2] [m27.126 27.F 27.118 i [N]27.090 27.090 27.097Li [m]m0 2.xi -1.45[mm]0.76 2.Xi [mm] 1.Table 2. Calculation outcomes of your removal approach in various instances through the new hanger installation procedure. 5Basic parameter En =27.111 2.05 Pa, An 27.097 = 0.0042 2nd tension four.06 10 7.65 10 1.65 3.10 Initial state 05 27.126 27.090 0 0.76 1.015106 2nd unload 4.56 10 five six.09 ten 27.111 27.104 -1.59 1.52 1st tension 27.118 27.090 two.13 two.90 two.03 10 9.55 105 3rd tension 6.09 105 105 5.64 105105 27.105 27.104 1.60 1.45 3.12 1st unload 27.118 27.097 – 1.45 two.49 eight.11 five 2ndunload tension 27.111 27.097 1.65 3.10 4.06105 ten 7.655105 3rd 6.59 4.06 10 27.105 27.111 -1.60 1.52 2nd unload 27.111 27.104 -1.59 1.52 4.56 105 6.09 105 4th tension 8.11 105 105 three.61 105105 27.098 27.111 1.60 1.60 three.12 3rd tension 27.105 27.104 3.12 6.09 five.64 5 3rd unload 27.105 27.111 – 1.52 six.59 5 four.06 4th unload 8.62 105 ten 2.03 10510 27.098 27.118 -1.60 1.60 1.52 5 4th tension 27.098 27.111 1.60 3.12 8.11 10 three.61 105 5th tension 1.01 106 105 1.58 105105 27.092 27.118 1.60 1.60 3.12 4th unload 27.098 27.118 – 1.52 8.62 two.03 six five 5th tension 27.092 27.118 3.12 1.01 5th unload 1.07 106 10 01.58 ten 27.092 27.126 -1.601.60 1.52 5th unload internal force of the6new hanger; 0the internal force on the pocket D-Lysine monohydrochloride Biological Activity hanging hanger; : the unstressed length 27.092 27.126 -1.60 1.52 1.07 ten Note: : the :Note: Fi :hanger; : forceunstressed length iof the pocket hangingpocket hanging hanger; Li : the unstressed length of the hanger;the of the the internal the on the new hanger; T : the internal force with the hanger; : the displacement in the present case; : Li : the unstressed length with the pocket hanging hanger; xi : the displacement inside the existing case; Xi : the accumulative displacement. accumulative displacement.3.50 Displacement [mm] 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.Theoretical valueMeasured valueDifferent construction stages Figure 11. Bridge deck displacement test results the lower end on the new hanger in in different Figure 11. Bridge deck displacement test results atat the reduce end from the new hanger different circumstances. cases. Table three. Components in the model.Material Type 16Mn OVMLZM7-55III Completed deformed bar OVMLZM7-55IV C50 QDeck Principal girders and crossbeamsIt may be noticed from Table two that the internal force improve from the new hanger was 3 Applicable Parts Modulus of reduce of the2 ] generally the same because the internal force Elasticity [kN/m pocket Bulk Density [kN/m ] two hanging hanger just after rounds of Cyanine5 NHS ester Chemical tensioning and unloading, even though the8 accumulative displacement showed an alArch.
