Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Composite bridge decks usually consist of a steel structure that works together with a top concrete slab, which forms the road, rail or
pedestrian platform. This structural solution has been adopted over the last 50 years in small span bridges, as well as in medium and long
span bridges.
Composite steel-concrete decks are particularly well designed to work in mid-span regions. The top concrete slab withstands the
compressive forces while the bottom steel structure copes with the tensile forces generated by the positive bending moments. However,
these composite decks are less efficient for the negative bending moments over the intermediate support cross-sections. On one hand,
the slab of concrete tends to crack under the tensile forces, and significant quantities of reinforcing are needed to control this effect. On
the other hand, the steel structure below needs stiffeners to ensure its high resistance to compression, without local or global instability.
Decks with double composite action are a recent development in this structural solution, in which a second slab of concrete is added to
the bottom flange of the steel structure. The aim is to ensure stability of the steel structure and increase its resistance, improving the
functioning of the cross-sections over the intermediate supports.
Results indicate that decks with double composite action use less structural steel per deck area unit; have higher resistance to bending
moments and better response to torsional effects when compared with a conventional composite steel-concrete deck, even though the
deck section is heavier.
Key words: Composite steel-concrete bridges; Decks with double composite action; Box-girder deck; Twin plate girder deck.
1 Introduction
process,
geotechnical
conditions,
economic
aspects
intended,
with
this
solution,
to
achieve
the
following
[3].
Composite
Steel-Concrete
Decks
with
Double
Composite Action
Calzn
stress in the materials, steel and concrete, such that they are
The deck cross-section (Fig. 2) is 3.85 m deep and the top slab
[4],
4 Bending Analysis
Fig. 1 View of underside of Arroyo de las Piedras viaduct
action
alternative.
The
actions
and
safety
[6].
thickness: 0.40 m over the steel top flange and 0.20 m in the
slab panel min-span and at the cantilever tips. The steel
beams, 2.60 m deep, are connected to the slab by stud
connectors, forming a total 3 m deep deck. Though the bridge
deck is much longer, only the first 4 spans, each 45 m long,
were modeled.
For this case study, in addition to this built conventional
solution, alternative A (Fig. 5), an alternative solution was also
studied, alternative B (Fig. 6), which has double composite
action in the deck cross-sections over the internal supports. For
this study a 0.25 m thick lower concrete slab was assumed in
these sections, and the lower flanges were assumed to be less
thick.
st
Msd
(kNm)
Mrd
(kNm)
Mrd /
Msd
1
span
st
1 internal
pier
Typical
span
Typical
pier
148812
-183398
100904
-148068
188500
-193500
149500
-166500
1.27
1.06
1.48
1.12
176 kg/m2 for alternative A and 167 kg/m2 for alternative B. This
difference is only due to the reduction of the bottom flange
Msd
(kNm)
Mrd
(kNm)
Mrd /
Msd
st
1st
span
1 internal
Typical
pier
Typical
span
147877
-188385
99801
-150434
188500
-253500
149500
-221000
1.27
1.35
1.50
1.47
pier
4.2 Case Study #2
(m)
1 span
Typical
span
Alternative A
0.037
0.033
Alternative B
0.036
0.031
st
mx =
L/600
0.068
Lateral span
Internal pier
Internal span
Msd (kNm)
83522
-381703
251588
Mrd (kNm)
248500
-412000
324500
Mrd / Msd
3.07
1.08
1.26
Internal pier
Lateral span
Internal span
Msd (kNm)
84836
-372409
255874
Mrd (kNm)
248500
-397000
324500
Mrd / Msd
2.93
1.07
1.27
(m)
Lateral
span
Alternative
A
0.012
mx =
L/1000
Internal
span
0.046
0.064
Alternative
B
mx =
L/1000
0.012
0.112
0.046
5 Torsion Analysis
The torsional behavior was assessed for the twin plate girder
Alternative A
(mm)
Alternative B
Alternative C
1st span
30.9
10.8
29.5
11.8
21.5
8.8
Typical span
27.2
9.4
25.2
10.6
18.4
7.8
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
A ()
B ()
B/A
C ()
C /A
1 span
0.104
0.086
0.
83%
0.024
28%
Typical span
0.084
0..061
73%
0.009
11%
6 Concluding Remarks
References