Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 28

Corus Construction & Industrial

Composite steel highway bridges

Contents

Contents
Acknowledgement of author Advantages of steel bridges 1 2 Design standards Conceptual design 2.1 Spans and component lengths 2.2 Cross sections 2.3 Intermediate supports 2.4 Bracings 2.5 Steel grades 2.6 Further guidance 3 Initial sizes and overall unit weight 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Use of charts 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 4 Plate girder flange sizes Plate girder web sizes Overall unit weight Universal beams List of symbols This guide is an update of a publication originally prepared by A.C.G. Hayward. Corus gratefully acknowledges the work of Mr Hayward and the contribution made by D.C. Iles, The Steel Construction Institute, during this update.

Worked examples use of charts 4.1 Continuous plate girder bridge 4.2 Simply supported universal beam bridge

5 6

References Figures Figure 4 Simply supported bridges Figure 5 Continuous bridges span girders Figure 6 Continuous bridges pier girders Figure 7 Girder spacing factors Figure 8 Overall unit weights plate girder bridges Figure 9 Universal beams elastic stress analysis Figure 10 Universal beams plastic stress analysis

1. Left: Waterside Bridge Newburgh, Scotland 2. Right: A1(M) Yorkshire, England

Composite steel highway bridges

Advantages of steel bridges

Composite steel highway bridges


The Author Alan C. G. Hayward FREng CEng FICE FIStructE Alan Hayward was a founding Partner of bridge specialists Cass Hayward & Partners of Chepstow who design and evolve construction methodology for all types of bridges, particularly steel highway, railway, footbridges, movable bridges and Roll-On/Roll-Off linkspans in the UK and overseas. He remains active in the firm as a Consultant. Alan Hayward was continuously involved with the development of bridge codes including BS 5400 and Eurocodes and has been National Technical Contact for the composite bridge code EC4-2. He contributes to the education of engineers by lecturing at Universities on behalf of industry, and has written numerous papers on steel bridge construction. He was a long-standing member of the Steel Bridge Group who disseminate best practice through their published Guidance Notes.

Advantages of steel bridges


Feature Low weight of superstructure. Light units for erection. Simple site joints. Maximum pre-fabrication in factory. Predictable maintenance costs. Low construction depth. Self supporting during construction. Continuous and integral spans. Adaptable details. Re-usable product. Leading to Fewer piles and smaller sizes of pile caps/foundations. Typical 30 50% reduction over concrete decks. Composite bridges 6.0 8.0kN/m2 typical. Erection by smaller cranes. Delivery of long pieces. Launch erection with light equipment (skates or rollers). Bolted joints: easy to form larger pieces from small transported components taken to remote sites. Quality control in good factory conditions avoiding outdoor site affected by weather and difficult access. Commuted painting costs can be calculated. If easy repainting is made possible by access and good design then no other maintenance necessary. Depth/span ratio 1/20 to 1/30 typically. Lower depth achieved with half-through girders. Falsework eliminated. Slab formwork and falsework also avoided using permanent formwork. Continuity easy with bolted or welded joints. Most expansion joints eliminated. Number of bearings reduced. Compliance with BD57. Pleasing appearance taking advantage of curves and colour. Demountable structures and recyclable components which reduce manufacturing energy input. Advantages Cheaper foundations.

Cheaper site costs. Flexible site planning. More reliable product.

Total life cost known.

Slender appearance. Reduces costs of earthworks in approaches. Falsework costs eliminated. Significant if more than 8m above ground. Better appearance. Improved durability. Improved running surface. Aesthetic gain. Sustainable product.

Composite steel highway bridges

1. M4/M25 Poyle Interchange

1. Design standards
The current bridge code BS 5400 (Ref. 1) was conceived in 1967. Its ten parts cover the more common structural media. The 1980 conference in Cardiff introduced the Code relating to steel and made use of research carried out since 1970. Part 3 (Design of Steel Bridges) is compatible with the workmanship standards and tolerances defined in Part 6, drawn up jointly with industry. The Code uses limit state principles. The ultimate limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS) must be satisfied. In practice the ULS generally governs, exceptions being the checking at SLS for slip of HSFG bolts and the design of shear connectors. While most rolled universal beams, columns and BS 5400 encourages the use of steel for a number of reasons: (i) Plastic stress analysis option offers the use of lighter members and extends the span range of rolled sections. For structural analysis, elastic methods are utilised using gross sections (i.e. not allowing for shear lag or effective width). channels will be compact, plate girders will often be non-compact and must be stressed elastically. (See also Section 3.2.4.) For compact sections, the entire load can also be assumed to act on the composite section even if the steelwork is unpropped, provided that SLS checks are made. Use of the plastic modulus is permitted for stress analysis of compact sections and where the slenderness is controlled by sufficient restraints, the effects of shrinkage and differential temperature can be neglected. (ii) Design clauses are easier to use than previous Codes. (iii) Workmanship requirements, including tolerances, are rationalised. (iv) Longitudinal web stiffeners to girders are rarely needed.

Composite steel highway bridges

Redistribution of moments arising from the formation of plastic hinges is not permitted, but redistribution due to cracking of concrete over intermediate supports may be assumed using Part 5.

For example: (i) (ii) Do not locate welded attachments close to or on flange edges (class 'G'). Re-entrant corners should be radiused. (iii) Use HSFG bolts for permanent bolted connections. (iv) Restrict doubler flange ends to areas of low stress (class 'G'). (v) Avoid single sided partial penetration butt welded joints which are subject to tensile stress. (vi) Avoid welded cruciform joints, which are subject to significant tensile stresses. An example is when using integral crossheads (see Figs. 1B & 1F) where fillet welds should be used in preference to full penetration butt welds. If butt welds are necessary, the use of steel with through-thickness quality (Z-grades to BS EN 10164 Ref 14) may be considered in view of the strains which will be caused during welding.

Combined bending and shear is dealt with using interaction formulae. This is sometimes critical at intermediate supports. The Code contains no specific limits on slenderness of members or proportion of plate panels. Longitudinal web stiffeners are usually only necessary for very deep girders or those with curved soffits. For rolled sections the full shear yield stress can generally be used without the need for intermediate stiffeners. Bearing stiffeners are virtually mandatory at supports, together with lateral bracing or a system of bracing to maintain verticality. Fatigue is checked to Part 10, although for highway bridges this rarely demands a reduction in working stresses provided good detailing practice is used.

Composite steel highway bridges

1. This page: A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct (Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.) Northumberland, England 2. Right: Festival Park Flyover Stoke, England 3. Far right: Simon De Montford Bridge Evesham, England

Conceptual design

2. Conceptual design
2.1 Spans and component lengths
Spans are usually fixed by site restrictions and clearances. Where freedom exists, budget costing including foundations is desirable to determine the economic span. A range of 25m to 50m is likely. Where deep piled foundations are needed, cost will encourage the use of longer spans, thus keeping foundations to a minimum. Skew and plan tapered bridges may also be built in Multiple spans Multiple spans of approximately 24m suit universal beams, this being the longest readily available length and because continuous spans are convenient and economic. Site splices may be bolted with HSFG bolts or welded near points of contraflexure. The length of end spans should ideally be about 0.8 of the penultimate span. Continuous spans The optimum for using plate or box girders for continuous spans is about 45m, because 27m long span girders can be spliced with pier girders of a single plate 18m long. For longer spans, more shop or site splices are needed. Component lengths for shop fabrication should be the maximum possible consistent with delivery and site restrictions to reduce the amount of on-site assembly. The maximum length for road delivery without restrictions is normally 27.4m although longer lengths can readily be transported by arrangement. A minimum number of shop butt welds should be used consistent with plate sizes available. The decision whether to introduce thickness changes within a fabricated length should take account of the cost of butt welds compared with the potential for material saving (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6). Integral bridges The Highways Agency requires consideration of integral bridge forms for spans up to 60m with the objective of improved durability by elimination of bridge deck movement joints (Ref. 4 & 5). Girders may then be required to develop a degree of continuity with substructures at end supports such that axial forces and reverse moment effects need to be considered in the design of the composite deck. Design principles remain the same but girder sizes and bracing provision may be influenced. Further guidance is available from the Steel Construction Institute (Ref. 8, 9, 10 & 10a). steel. Ideally, plan layout should be as simple as possible (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6). Curved bridges Curved bridges in plan may be formed using straight fabricated girders, with direction changes introduced at each site splice. However, steel girders can be curved in plan which simplifies the cantilever formwork and permits the use of standard systems. An example is the A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct (radius 540m)

2.2 Cross sections


Deck type construction Deck type construction is common and is suitable for highway bridges as shown in Fig. 1. A span-to-girder depth ratio of 20 is economic although 30 or more can be achieved. A half-through bridge (U frame) can be appropriate in cases of severely limited depth, such as where approach lengths are restricted. Footbridges and rail under-bridges are common examples.

Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

Where permanent formwork is envisaged, the slab should be made sufficiently thick to accommodate the details taking account of reinforcement cover and practical tolerances (Ref. 7). When using composite part depth planks such as Omnia then a minimum thickness of 250mm may be needed. Universal beams and plate girders Universal beams may be appropriate for bridges up to 25m span and above when continuous, or when use can be made of the plastic modulus. For spans above 22m, plate girders, especially if continuous, can be economic because lighter sections can be inserted in mid-span regions. Costs per tonne of painted and erected universal beams were traditionally lower but, more recently, automated fabrication and less expensive plate material has allowed economic supply of plate girders for the shorter spans. A girder spacing of 3.0m to 3.5m is usual with a deck slab of about 250mm thick (see Figs. 1A and 1B). Edge cantilevers should not exceed half the beam spacing and to simplify falsework should, where possible be less than 1.5m. Shorter cantilevers are usually necessary with a locally thickened slab where very high containment parapets are specified, e.g. over rail tracks. An even number of girders achieves better optimisation of material (ordering) and allows bracing in pairs. For wide girder spacings, the slab may be haunched, but use of standardised permanent formwork is unlikely to be possible and construction depth is increased (see Fig. 1C). Where spans exceed 40m, twin plate girders with a central stringer have been used on some single carriageway decks up to about 13m wide (see Fig. 1D). Twin girders and cross beams (often referred to as ladder decks) have proved economic for a wide range of spans (Ref. 10b). They can be used for single carriageway decks (see Fig. 1E) and for wider decks supporting more lanes.

Box girders Where spans exceed 100m box girders are likely to be more economic than plate girders with which flange sizes would be excessive. Other reasons for using box girders include aesthetics (where justifiable), aerodynamic stability, severe plan curvature, the need for single column supports or very limited depth. Other than in the cases noted, box girders being heavier than plate girders are more expensive because although less flange material may be demanded due to inherent torsional properties, this is usually more than offset by the amount of internal stiffening and extra costs for workmanship. Fabrication costs are higher because the assembly/welding processes take longer and more shop space is needed. However, erection work is often reduced because box girders require little or no external bracing. Multiple box girders have in the past proved to be economic for spans of around 50m in particular situations. Using narrow cross sections eliminates the need for longitudinal stiffeners (see Fig. 1F). An example of which is the M25/M4 Poyle Interchange. For box girders, consideration of the safety of personnel in confined spaces is essential during fabrication, erection and for maintenance. Detailing must recognise the need to avoid internal welding as far as possible and to allow sufficient ventilation and openings for access and recovery in emergency situations. Open-topped trapezoidal and rectangular shaped box girders have been used efficiently, but provisions are needed to preserve stability during erection, for example the Forrest Way Bridge, Warrington. Plate girder flanges Plate girder flanges should be as wide as possible but consistent with outstand limitations in BS 5400 (i.e. 12t in compression if fully stressed and up to the 20t robustness

Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

limit), to give the best achievable stability during erection and to reduce the number of bracings. For practical reasons a desirable minimum width is about 400mm to accommodate detailing for certain types of permanent formwork, especially precast concrete. A maximum flange thickness of 63mm is recommended to avoid heavy welds, minimise pre-heating requirements and also limit the reduction in design yield strength. Limiting the thickness also has benefits in terms of notch toughness specification.

Intermediate bracings require to be spaced at about 20 x top flange width and need to be adequate to prevent lateral torsional buckling. Bracing is necessary at supports if only to prevent overturning during erection. At abutments this can be a channel trimmer composite with the slab and supporting its free end. Over piers a channel section can be used between each pair of girders of up to about 1.2m deep. For deeper girders triangulated angle bracings are usual (see Fig. 1B). Intermediate lateral bracings are usually necessary in hogging regions with a maximum spacing of about 12 x bottom flange width. If the bridge is curved they should be close to the site splices where curvature induces torsion. Bracings may be of a triangulated form or of single channel sections between each pair of girders of up to 1.2m deep (see Fig. 1A). Alternatively, bracings can take the form of inverted 'U' frames, but for spans exceeding around 35m it may be necessary to interconnect all the girders by bracings during erection so that transverse flexure from wind is adequately shared. Although plan bracing systems are uneconomic and should be avoided, they may be required for spans exceeding 55m for temporary stability, especially if launch erection is used (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6). Use may be made of bracings in distributing live loads between girders. This may offer reduced flange sizes under HB loading but the uniformity of current loading to BD37 across the carriageway (HB + 2 lanes HA + 0.6 HA other lanes) tends to discourage this. An optimum design is likely to include bracings only between pairs of girders, such discontinuous bracings attracting minimal effects under deck loading except in cases of heavy skew or curvature where a different system may be appropriate. Bracings should be included in the global analysis to check for possible overload or fatigue effects.

2.3 Intermediate supports


Piers can take the form of reinforced concrete, leaf, column or portal. Steel columns are also used. For example, tubular steel columns (concrete filled composite), were used in the M5 Almondsbury Interchange and deserve consideration. Leaf piers or multiple columns supporting every girder are convenient but where fewer columns are demanded for aesthetic reasons, integral steel crossheads provide a solution. The popularity of these crossheads has recently increased following earlier examples on M25 bridges including Brook Street Viaduct, Mar Dyke Viaduct and South Mimms Interchange Bridges (see Figs. 1B and 1F). They were extensively used for the Second Severn crossing approach roads and for the new Thelwall Viaduct. It should, however, be recognised that the introduction of these additional members is only likely to be economic where the use of fewer supports is essential. Costs can increase especially if column spacing is not arranged to allow balanced erection and temporary trestles become necessary. Care is also needed detailing cruciform welded joints at the crosshead/main girder connection (Ref. Section 1 (vi)).

2.4 Bracings
For most universal beam or plate girder bridges, lateral bracings are needed for erection stability and during deck concreting.

1. Far Left: Nene Bridge Peterborough, England 2. Left: Forrest Way Bridge Warrington, England 3. Right: M20 Road Bridge Folkstone, England

Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

DECK WIDTH W

230 TO 250 mm D 1A Multiple U.B. (N=4)

2.5 TO 3.5

230 TO 250 mm D 1.0 TO 1.75 TYPICAL 1B Multiple P.G. (N=4)

300 TO 350 mm 1C Twin P.G. Haunch Slab (N=2) D

1.0 TO 3.3 AT MID-SPAN Figures 1A 1F Typical deck type cross-sections

4.0 TO 5.5 AT PIER

1. Left: Humber Road Bridge Immingham, England 2. Right: Thelwall Viaduct M6, Warrington, England

10 Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

230 TO 320 mm 1D Twin P.G. & Stringer (N=2) D

1.0 TO 3.3

6.0 TO 7.0

230 TO 250 mm 1E Twin P.G. & Cross Girders (N=2) 3.0 TO 3.5 c/c

>7.0

230 TO 250 mm 1F Multiple Box (N=6)

0.9 TO 1.2

2.5 TO 3.5 AT MID-SPAN AT PIER

Composite steel highway bridges 11

2.5 Steel grades


BS EN 10025-2: 2004 Grade S355 steels (Ref. 12) are usual for bridges as they offer a lower cost-to-strength ratio than Grade S275. BS 5400 requires all steel parts to achieve a specified notch toughness, depending upon design minimum temperature, stress level and construction features (e.g. welding details). Subgrades J2 and K2 will be most common. Composite bridge decks are specifically categorised in the composite version of BS 5400: Part 2 (implemented by BD37), to allow a range of effective bridge

temperatures to be determined from isotherms of minimum and maximum shade air temperature for a particular site location. Limiting thicknesses for steel parts are prescribed in BS 5400: Part 3, as implemented by BD13 (Ref. 3), as appropriate to these effective bridge temperatures, and the other factors mentioned above. Weathering steel To eliminate the need for painting, weathering steels to BS EN 10025-5: 2004 (Ref. 13) should be considered. Although it can be shown that the commuted costs of repainting are less than 1% of the initial bridge cost, weathering steel bridges can be more economical on a

1. Above: Findhorn Viaduct Inverness, Scotland 2. Left: Westgate Bridge Gloucester, England 3. Right: Slochd Beag Bridge Inverness, Scotland

12 Composite steel highway bridges

first cost basis and are particularly useful in eliminating maintenance where access is difficult over a railway, for example.

design standard BD 7 (Ref. 6) and Corus Publication Weathering steel bridges (Ref. 11).

2.6 Further guidance


Weathering steel is not suitable at or near the coast, (i.e. within about 2km from the sea) due to the chloride laden environment or in areas of severe pollution. BCSA Publication No. 34/02 Steel Bridges The Highways Agency requires sacrificial thickness to be added to all exposed surfaces for possible long term corrosion (1.5mm per face in a severe marine or industrial environment, 1mm in mild environments and 0.5mm inside box girders) and detailed guidance is given in Alan Hayward, Neil Sadler and Derek Tordoff, 2002. SCI-P-185, Steel Bridge Group: Guidance notes on Best Practice in Steel Bridge Construction. Particularly relevant information for initial (and detailed) design is included within two publications:

Composite steel highway bridges 13

Initial sizes and overall unit weight

3. Initial sizes and overall unit weight


3.1 Introduction
Charts are given to provide initial estimates of flange area (A f) web thickness (t w) and overall unit weight of steelwork (kg/m2) for typical composite bridge cross sections as shown in Fig. 1. Continuous or simply supported span plate girders and simply supported universal beams are included. The charts were derived from approximate BS 5400 designs using simplifying assumptions for loads, transverse distribution and to achieve correlation with modern bridges. The charts take account of the latest highway loading requirements in BD37.

(viii) Steelwork is unpropped and therefore not acting compositely under its own weight and that of the concrete slab. The steel is however composite for all superimposed loads after the concrete has cured. (ix) Sufficient transverse bracings are included such that bending stresses are not significantly reduced due to buckling criteria. (x) Top flanges in sagging regions are dictated by the maximum stress during concreting allowing for formwork and live load to BS 5975 (Ref. 15). Continuous bridge mid-span regions are concreted in turn followed by portions over the piers. (xi) Live loading HA (assuming 3.5m wide lanes), or alternatively 45 units of HB loading with co-existent HA loading (BD37). (xii) Continuous spans are approximately equal.

3.2 Use of charts


It is emphasised that the sizes obtained do not represent final designs, which must always be executed to take account of all factors, such as bridge configuration and loading. Adjustments will need to be made to take account of the likely effects of end continuity if integral construction is intended. The charts are based on the following assumptions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Deck slab 250mm average thickness (6.25kN/m2). Superimposed dead loads equivalent to 100mm of surfacing (2.40 kN/m2). Permanent formwork weight 0.50 kN/m of slab
2

3.2.1 Plate girder flange sizes


Flange areas (Af in m2) are read against the span L. (a) (b) For simply supported bridges (refer Fig. 4) For continuous bridges Size of span girder (refer Fig. 5) Size of pier girder (refer Fig. 6) Figures 4, 5 and 6 are applicable to an average girder spacing s of 3.5m. Fig. 7 gives a girder spacing factor K af which is multiplied by the flange areas, obtained above, to give values appropriate to the actual average girder spacing. i.e. Top Flange A ft = A ft (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x K af (Fig. 7) i.e. Bottom Flange A fb = A fb (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x K af ( Fig. 7) Two different span-to-depth ratios, L/D = 20 and L/D = 30, are included for either HB or alternatively HA loading. Values for intermediate L/D ratios can be read by interpolation.

soffit area. Steel grade S355. Span to depth ratios L/D of 20 & 30. Plate girder webs have vertical stiffeners at approx. 2.0m centres where such stiffening is required. (vii) Elastic stress analysis is used for plate girders. If however the plastic modulus is used for compact cross sections, then economies may be possible.

14 Composite steel highway bridges

Initial sizes and overall unit weight

The charts also show actual flange sizes using 400mm x 15mm to 1000mm x 75mm. Flange area of pier girders of continuous unequal spans can be estimated by taking the greater of the two adjacent spans. End spans of continuous bridges may be estimated using L = 1.25 x actual span.

depth (L/D) ratio for each span based upon the average girder depth (D) within that span. For box girder bridges a rough estimate may be obtained assuming that N = 2 x number of box girders in the cross section (see Fig. 1F where N = 2 x 3 = 6). For continuous bridges the end spans should be assumed as 1.25 x actual span, following which the mean span for use in Fig. 8 may be determined as follows:

3.2.2 Plate girder web sizes


Web thicknesses are similarly obtained using Figs. 4, 5 and 6 applicable to 's' = 3.5m. Adjustment for the actual average girder spacing 's' is obtainable from Fig. 7 using girder spacing factor k tw. i.e. Web thickness t w = t w (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x k tw (Fig. 7). The thickness obtained may be regarded as reasonably typical. However, designers may prefer to opt for thicker webs to reduce the number of web stiffeners. Mean span L =

L14 + L24...Ln4 n

where n = number of spans.

3.2.4 Universal beams


An indication of beam size for simply supported spans may be obtained from Figs. 9 and 10 for elastic or plastic stress analysis respectively. BS 5400 permits the use of either option, provided that the cross section is compact; this condition being satisfied for all sections shown in Fig. 10. Sufficient ductility is also required. It is apparent that plastic stress analysis can achieve significant economy in extending the span range of universal beams. In practice, a serviceability stress check (SLS) must be made including the effects of shear lag. There is advantage also in using the plastic design option for continuous spans but some universal beams may need to be classed as 'non-compact', requiring elastic analysis in hogging regions because the web depth between the (elastic) neutral axis and its compressive edge may exceed 28t w, depending upon the amount of longitudinal slab reinforcement. An overall unit weight for universal beam bridges may be estimated at the conceptual stage by adding an allowance of approximately 8% to the weight of the main beams to allow for any bracings and stiffeners etc. Figs. 9 and 10 refer to mass per metre of universal beams.

3.2.3 Overall unit weight


Overall unit weight (kg/m2 of gross deck area) for plate girders is read against the span L from Fig. 8 for simply supported or continuous bridges with L/D ratios of 20 or 30, under HB or alternatively HA loading and applicable to s = 3.5m. Adjustment for average girder spacing 's' other than 3.5m is obtainable from Fig. 7 using girder spacing factor k w. i.e. Unit weight kg/m2 = kg/m2 (Fig. 8) x k w (Fig. 7). The unit weight provides an approximate first estimate of steelwork tonnage allowing for all stiffeners and bracings. For continuous bridges with variable depth, Fig. 8 may be used to provide a rough guide, assuming a span-to-

1. Left: Milton Bridge Lesmahagow, Scotland 2. Right: Fossdyke Bridge (Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.) Lincoln, England

Composite steel highway bridges 15

Initial sizes and overall unit weight

Reference figures 9 & 10

Universal beam size Serial size (mm) 914 x 419 Mass per metre (kg/m) 388 343 914 x 305 289 253 224 201 838 x 292 226 194 176 762 x 267 197 173 147 686 x 254 170 152 140 125 610 x 305 238 179 149 610 x 229 140 125 113 101

Actual depth (mm)

3.2.5 List of symbols


Af Flange area (m2) Bottom flange area (m2) Top flange area (m 2) Girder or beam overall depth excluding slab or finishes (m) HA HB K af K tw Kw L Standard highway loading defined in BD37 Abnormal highway loading defined in BD37, 45 units assumed Girder spacing factor for flange area Girder spacing factor for web thickness Girder spacing factor for unit weight Span centre to centre of bearings (taken as 1.25 x span for end span of continuous bridges) kg/m
2

388 343 289 253 224 201 226 194 176 197 173 147 170 152 140 125 238 179 149 140 125 113 101

921.0 911.8 926.6 918.4 910.4 903.0 850.9 840.7 834.9 769.8 762.2 754.0 692.9 687.5 683.5 677.9 635.8 620.2 612.4 617.2 612.2 607.6 602.6

A fb A ft D

Unit weight of steelwork in bridge expressed as: total steelwork weight (kg) W x overall bridge length

s tw W n N

Average girder spacing defined as W/N (m) Web thickness (mm) Overall deck width including parapets (m) Number of spans Number of girders (refer to Section 3.2.3 for box girders)

Notes (i) Where relevant, symbols correspond with BS 5400 Part 3. (ii) Units where relevant are shown in parentheses.

Table 1 (with reference to sizes in Figs. 9 and 10)

Table 1 above defines the referencing system for the serial sizes in Figs. 9 and 10, which is based on the mass per metre of universal beams. Larger sizes are available (e.g. 1016), but are unlikely to be economic compared to fabricated plate girders.

16 Composite steel highway bridges

Worked examples use of charts

4. Worked examples use of charts


4.1 Continuous plate girder bridge
A composite highway bridge has 3 continuous spans A, B and C of 24, 40 and 32m. Overall deck width is 12m and it carries 45 units of HB loading (as shown in figure 2). There are 4 plate girders in the cross section of 1.75m depth. Estimate the main girder sizes and the total weight of structural steel. Average girder spacing 's' = W/N =12m/4 No. = 3.0m Flange and web sizes Girder spacing factors: for 'S' = 3.0m From Fig. 7: K af = 0.87, Kaf = 0.85*, K tw = 0.95 (*top flange span girders only).

W = 12m

D = 1.75m

Span girder

Pier girder

Span girder

Pier girder

Span girder

24m Span A

40m Span B

32m Span C

Figure 2 Worked example

1. Left: Trent Viaduct Newark, England 2. Right: A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct (Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.) Northumberland, England

Composite steel highway bridges 17

Worked examples use of charts

Span A: 24m
This is an end span so take L = 1.25 x 24m = 30m Therefore L/D = 30m/1.75m = 17, so assume L/D = 20 Top flange A ft = A ft (from Fig. 5) x K af = 0.006 x 0.85 = 0.0051m2 400 x 15 top flange Bottom flange A fb = A fb(from Fig. 5) x K af = 0.014 x 0.87 = 0.012m2 500 x 25 bottom flange Web t w = t w (from Fig. 5) x K tw = 10 x 0.95 = 9.5mm Use 10mm web

Pier girders Take L as the greater of the two adjacent spans, i.e. assume L = 40m at both supports, hence, L/D = 40m/1.75m = 22.9 Top flange A ft = A ft (from Fig. 6) x K af = 0.017 x 0.87 = 0.015m2 400 x 40 top flange Bottom flange A fb = A fb(from Fig. 6) x K af = 0.033 x 0.87 = 0.029m2 500 x 60 bottom flange Web t w = t w (from Fig. 6) x K tw = 16.8 x 0.95 = 16mm Therefore use 18mm web

Span B: 40m
Span girder L/D = 40m/1.75m = 22.9 Top flange A ft = A ft (from Fig. 5) x K af = 0.009 x 0.85 = 0.0077m 400 x 20 top flange Therefore mean span Bottom flange A fb = A fb (from Fig. 5) x K af = 0.020 x 0.87 = 0.017m2 500 x 35 bottom flange
4 4 2

Steel tonnage
Girder spacing for end span A: for centre span B: for end span C: = 3.0m L = 1.25 x 24m = 30m L = 40m L = 1.25 x 32m = 40m

L14 + L24...Ln4 n 304 + 404 + 404 = 37.5m 3 L/D = 37.5m/1.75m = 21

Web t w

= t w (from Fig. 5) x K tw = 10 x 0.95 = 9.5mm Use 10mm web

Span C: 32m
This is an end span so take L = 1.25 x 32m = 40m therefore sizes as 40m span.

= kg/m2 (from Fig. 8) x Kw (from Fig. 7) = 145kg/m2 x 1.04 = 151kg/m2 Hence, steel weight = 151 kg/m2/1000 x (24m + 40m + 32m) x 12m wide = 174 tonnes

18 Composite steel highway bridges

Worked examples use of charts

4.2 Simply supported universal beam bridge


A composite bridge has a simply supported span of 24m. (as shown in figure 3). Overall deck width is 9.6m and it carries HA loading only. Estimate the beam size and total weight of structural steel assuming there are 4 beams in the cross section.

W = 9.6m

24m

Figure 3 Worked example

(a) For an elastic stress analysis refer to Fig. 9 For 4 beams 'S' = 9.6m/4No. = 2.4m. Use 388 i.e. 914 x 419 x 388kg/m Universal Beam

(b) For a plastic stress analysis refer to Fig. 10 For 'S' = 2.4m. Use 289 i.e. 914 x 305 x 289kg/m universal beam Total weight approx.

Total weight approx. (388kg/m/1000) x 4No. x 24m x 1.08

(289kg/m /1000) x 4No. x 24m x 1.08 = 30 tonnes (i.e. 130kg/m 2)

(the 1.08 factor allows for 8% bracing + stiffener allowance) = 40.2 tonnes (i.e. 174kg/m )
2

Thus, plastic stress analysis offers a significant reduction in beam size but SLS checks must be made.

1. Left: A9 Bridge Pitlochry, Scotland 2. Right: A1(M) Yorkshire, England

Composite steel highway bridges 19

References

5. References
1. BS5400, Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. British Standards Institution. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB): 2. DMRB 1.3 BD37 Loads for Highway Bridges. 3. DMRB 1.3 BD13 Codes of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges. 4. DMRB 1.3 BD & BA 57 Design for Durability. 5. DMRB 1.3 BA 42 Design of Integral Bridges. 6. DMRB 2.3 BD7 Weathering Steel for Highway Structures. 7. DMRB 2.3 BA36 The Use of Permanent Formwork. Steel Construction Institute Publications 8. P163: Integral Steel Bridges Design Guidance. 9. P180: Integral Steel Bridges Design of a Single Span Bridge. 10. P250: Integral Steel Bridges Design of a Multi Span Bridge. 10a. P340: Technical Report on Integral Steel Bridges. 10b. P339: Design Guide for Ladder Deck Bridges. 11. Corus Publication Weathering steel bridges. Material Standards (EN) 12. BS EN 10025-2 Non-alloy structural steels. 13. BS EN 10025-5 Structural Steels with improved atmospheric corrosion resistance. 14. BS EN 10164 Steel products with improved deformation properties perpendicular to the surface of the product. Other Standards (BS) 15. BS 5975 Code of Practice for Falsework.

BS 5400 Part
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Title

DMRB Document*

MCDHW Document**
Volume 1 Series 1800 Volume 1 Series 1700

General Statement Specification for Loads Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges Code of Practice for Design of Concrete Bridges Code of Practice for Design of Composite Bridges Specification for Materials & Workmanship, Steel Specification for Materials & Workmanship, Concrete, Reinforcement & Prestressing Tendons Recommendations for Materials & Workmanship, Concrete, Reinforcement & Prestressing Tendons Bridge Bearings Code of Practice for Fatigue

BD15 BD37 BD13 BD 24 BD16

Volume 2 Series NG1700 BD20 BD9

* Design Manual for Roads and Bridges published by the Stationery Office for the Overseeing Organisations. ** Manual of Contract Document for Highway Work published by the Stationery Office for the Overseeing Organisations.

20 Composite steel highway bridges

6. Figures

Figure 4: Simply supported bridges flange (at mid-span) and web (at support)

S = 3.5m Af (m2) 0.07


L/ D
30

1000 x

75

Flange size (mm)

70
HB
30

65 0.06

800 x

60

75

HA

55 0.05

70

65

650 x

Afb
HA /HB

Aft

30

50

60

75

600 x

HB
HA

20 20
Afb

45 0.04

70

55

75

Afb

65

70

50

500 x

60

65 0.03

Afb

20

45

55

60

40

50

55

HB HA/
tw (mm)

45

50

35 0.02

40

45

Aft
15 tw 30 14 13 0.01
tw

35

40

30

35

25

30

25

75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20

12 11
20

400 x 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 0 20 25 30 35

10 40 45 Span (m) 50 55 60

Figures

Composite steel highway bridges 21

Figures

22 Composite steel highway bridges


L/
HB

Figure 5: Continuous bridges flange and web sizes of span girders

S = 3.5m

650 x

600 x

Flange size (mm)

Af (m2)

70

75

65

70

500 x

0.04

60

65

55

60

50

55

30
tw (mm)

0.03

45

50

40

45

Afb
Afb

30
HA

20
Afb HB

15

35

40

30

35

0.02

20
30 14

25

30

20
HA

25

75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20

0.01

Aft
Aft

Afb HA/HB

20

13

400 x 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15

HA/HB
tw

12 11 tw 30 10

0 25 30 35 40 Span (m) 45

50

55

60

Figure 6: Continuous bridges flange and web sizes of pier girders

S = 3.5 Af (m2)

1000 x

800 x

Flange size (mm)

60 0.05
H B A/H Afb

75

L / 30 D

tw (mm) 21 20 tw 30

70

55

65

650 x

50 0.04

60

75

600 x

20

45

55

70

75

19

65

70

50

500 x

60 0.03

65

Afb HA/ HB
Aft B HA/H
20

18 tw
30

45

55

60

20

17 16 15
Aft

40

50

55

35 0.02

45

50

40

45

35

40

30

35

14
HA/HB

25 0.01

30

25

13 12 11

75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20

400 x 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 0 20 25 30 35 40 Span (m)

10 45 50 55 60

Figures

Composite steel highway bridges 23

Figures

Figure 7: Girder spacing factors

2.0 Kw 1.9
-sp an mi To p Fla n ge d
Ka f

1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8


w

Kaf, Ktw, Kw

Ka

0.6 0.5 0.4 1 2 3 4 5 Haunch slab Girders & slab 6 7 8


Ka f

Kt

24 Composite steel highway bridges 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
Ktw
on ly

L=40

L=60

0.7

Stringer Girder spacing - S (m)

Cross girders

Figure 8: Overall unit weights plate girder bridges (S = 3.5)

400

380

30 L / D 30

360

HB
HA
20

340

300

280

HB

20

260

HA

Kg/m2

240

30

20 20

220

HB

200
HA

al b

180

ea

140

HB

120

100

80 30 35 40 Span (m) 45 50 55 60

Figures

Composite steel highway bridges 25

20

25

Continuous

160

Un ive

rs

HA

Simply supported

320

Figures

Figure 9: Universal beams elastic stress analysis

34

28

224

253
8 38
9

1 20

Beam spacing - S (m)

26 Composite steel highway bridges HA HB


8 38

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

7 19

3.0

4 19

/23

2.9

19

4/2

38

201

2.8

17

2.7

17

2.6

79

2.5

2.4

17

173

2.3

22

28

3 25

3 34

14

6 22

2.2 15 16 17 18 Span (m) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12

13

14

Figures

HB

HA

8 38
25
8 38

25
28 9

3
20

21

34

22

28

23

24

34

26

27

28

29

22
2 53

6
20 1

4 22

Figure 10: Universal beams plastic stress analysis

6 22 20 1

19
22 4

7/2

38

17

6
17 3

19

4/2

197 176

17

79 0/1
14 2.2 12 13

173 170

15

7 14
9(6 86) (61 0)

) 86 0(6 14 9 14 0) (61 140

3.2

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

Composite steel highway bridges 27

2.3

179

/14

15

14 40/

140

125

125 113 101

15 Beam spacing - S (m)

38

16

17

19

18

Span (m)

19

www.corusgroup.com
Care has been taken to ensure that this information is accurate, but Corus Group plc, including its subsidiaries, does not accept responsibility or liability for errors or information which is found to be misleading. Copyright 2005 Corus Designed and produced by Orchard Corporate Ltd.

Corus Construction & Industrial Technical Sales & Marketing PO Box 1 Brigg Road Scunthorpe North Lincolnshire DN16 1BP T +44 (0) 1724 405060 F +44 (0) 1724 404224 E tsm@corusgroup.com www.corusconstruction.com
English language version CC&I:CD:3000:UK:04/2005/r