BD 6110

DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES
volume 3

section 4
highway structures:
inspection and
maintenance
assessment
Part 16
BD 61/10
the assessment of composite
highway bridges and structures
SUMMARY
This Standard gives requirements and guidance for the
assessment of existing composite highway bridges and
structures on motorways and other trunk roads. This
is a revised document to be incorporated into Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges. It supersedes and
replaces BD 61/96 and BA 61/96.
instructions for use
1.
Remove existing contents pages for Volume 3

and insert new contents pages for Volume 3 dated
June 2010.
2.
Remove BD 61/96 and BA 61/96 from Volume 3,

Section 4 and archive as necessary.
3.
Insert BD 61/10 into Volume 3, Section 4,

Part 16.
4.
Please archive this sheet as appropriate.
Note: A quarterly index with a full set of Volume

Contents Pages is available separately from The
Stationery Office Ltd.
June 2010
design manual for roads and bridges
BD 61/10
Volume 3, Section 4,
Part 16
the highways agency
TRANSPORT SCOTLAND
welsh assembly government

llywodraeth cynulliad cymru
the department for regional development

northern ireland
The Assessment of Composite

Highway Bridges and Structures
Summary:

This Standard gives requirements and guidance for the assessment of existing
composite highway bridges and structures on motorways and other trunk roads.
This is a revised document to be incorporated into Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges. It supersedes and replaces BD 61/96 and BA 61/96.
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Registration of Amendments
REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS
Amend
No
June 2010
Page No
Signature & Date of

incorporation of
amendments
Amend No
Page No
Signature & Date of

incorporation of
amendments
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Registration of Amendments
REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS
Amend
No
Page No
Signature & Date of

incorporation of
amendments
Amend No
Page No
Signature & Date of

incorporation of
amendments
June 2010
DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES
volume 3

section 4
highway sructures:
inspection and
maintenance
assessment
Part 16
BD 61/10
the assessment of composite
highway bridges and structures
Contents
Chapter
June 2010
1.
Introduction
2.
Assessment of Strength
3.
Use of Appendix A, BS 5400-5:2005 and

BD 16 (DMRB 1.3)
4.
References
5.
Enquiries
Appendix A

Amendments to BS 5400-5:2005 and

Annex A of BD 16 for assessment
Appendix B

BD 61/10 The Assessment of

Composite Highway Bridges and
Structures in English DBFO Schemes
Chapter 1
Introduction
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
1. introduction
General
1.1 This Standard, which replaces BD 16 for
assessment purposes, gives requirements and guidance
for the assessment of existing composite structures and
structural elements. It must be used in conjunction with
BD 21, BD 37, BD 86, BD 56, BD 44 and other relevant
documents. The revisions in the present Standard
mainly concern the changes in the British Standard
BS 5400-5:2005 and improvements to existing clauses
based on the use of the earlier assessment standard.
1.2 Appendix A of this Standard contains the
relevant assessment clauses and annexes which have
been presented in the same format as the design
clauses in BS 5400-5:2005. These clauses have been
specifically developed to suit assessment conditions
and, therefore, must not be used in new design or
construction. The commentary is contained alongside
the assessment clauses. It contains explanations for the
main changes from the design code, BS 5400-5:2005,
and gives advice on the interpretation of the assessment
requirements. Also included are comments and
references which provide additional information, and
sometimes assessment criteria, appropriate to special
situations. Where such situations arise, any special
method of analysis or variation of criteria proposed
for an assessment should be agreed with the Technical
Approval Authority (TAA).
1.3 All references to characteristic strength should be
to characteristic strength or to worst credible strength.
1.4 The major changes to the Standard compared to
the earlier version are as follows:
a)
A single BD with mandatory clauses including

commentary/guidance replacing the previous
BD and BA 61.
b)
To cover old forms of construction cast iron and

wrought iron have been inserted in addition to
steel.
c)
Loading standards BD 37 and BD 86 have been

added since the scope of assessment has changed.
d)
Clarifications have been made to a number of

clauses based on the use of the earlier assessment
standards.
June 2010
The latest revisions to BS 5400-5 have been

included in the Standard.
e)
Scope
1.5 This Standard gives requirements for the

assessment of existing steel/concrete composite
highway bridges and structures on trunk roads and
motorways. For use in Northern Ireland, this Standard is
applicable to all roads.
Equivalence
1.6 The construction of highway structures will
normally be carried out under contracts incorporating
the Specification for Highway Works (MCHW 1).
In such cases products conforming to equivalent
standards or technical specifications of other states of
the European Economic Area and tests undertaken in
other states of the European Economic Area will be
acceptable in accordance with the terms of the 104 and
105 Series of clauses of that Specification. Any contract
not containing these clauses must contain suitable
clauses of mutual recognition having the same effect
Implementation
1.7 This Standard must be used forthwith for the
assessment of steel/concrete composite highway bridges
and structures. The requirements must be applied to
assessments already in progress provided that, in the
opinion of the Overseeing Organisation, this would
not result in significant additional expense or delay. Its
application to particular assessments must be confirmed
with the Overseeing Organisation.
Mandatory Sections
1.8 Sections of this document which form part of
the standards of the Overseeing Organisations are
highlighted by being contained in boxes. These are
the sections with which the Design Organisations
must comply or must have agreed a suitable
departure from standard with the relevant TAAs.
The remainder of the document is commended to
Design Organisations for consideration.
1/1
Chapter 2
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
2. ASSESSMENT OF STRENGTH
General
2.1 The objective of this Standard is to produce a
more realistic assessment of the strength of composite
elements than has previously been possible using the
requirements of the existing design code. This in part
is achieved by taking advantage of the information
available to an assessing engineer in respect of
the material strength, geometrical properties and
imperfections which can only be predicted at the design
stage.
2.2 Many of the criteria given in the design code are
based on experimental evidence which in some cases
have been either conservatively interpreted for use in
design or updated by later evidence allowing a less
conservative interpretation. For assessment purposes
such criteria have been reviewed and amended where
appropriate.
2.3 The following assessment criteria differ in some
respects from criteria used in design:
a)
There is relaxation or partial relaxation of some

design criteria which are of significance in a
minority of structures.
b)
Measured characteristic strength with modified

safety factors may be used in place of design
values.
c)
Forms of shear connection, strengthening and

stiffening, including incidental forms, are
taken into account where their presence can be
identified.
d)
It may be appropriate to assess some structures

on the basis that composite action exists, even
though they were not designed as composite
structures.
Partial Safety Factor for Loads, fL

2.5 Assessment loads QA* must be obtained
by multiplying the nominal loads, Qk by fL, the
partial safety factor for loads. The relevant values
of fL are given in BD 21, BD 37 and BD 86, as
appropriate. The assessment load effects, SA* must
be obtained by the relation:

SA* = f3 (effects of QA*)
where f3 is a factor that takes account of inaccurate

assessment of the effects of loading, unforeseen
stress distribution in the structure and variations in
dimensional accuracy in construction. f3 must be
taken as 1.1 for the ultimate limit state and 1.0 for
the serviceability limit state. When measurements
have been taken to verify the dimensional accuracy
and the measured stresses closely resemble the load
effects f3 may be reduced to 1.05 at the ultimate
limit state with the agreement of the TAA.
Partial Safety Factor for Materials, m
2.6 An important feature of the design code is the
application of the partial safety factor for material
strength, m, to the characteristic values. In assessment,
a reduced value of m may be used as an alternative
based on the results of laboratory tests.
Limit State
2.7 Although BD 21 (DMRB 3.4.3) specifies that
assessments must be carried out at the ultimate limit
state, this Standard requires that serviceability limit
state checks need to be carried out in a number of
cases. However certain serviceability checks required
by the design rules may be waived when permanent
deformations are acceptable.
2.4 This standard contains certain requirements

on partial and combination factors for abnormal
vehicles. In assessment for Special Types General
Order (STGO) and Special Order (SO) vehicle
loading, and associated Type HA or Authorised
Weight (AW) vehicle loading, the fl values and
combination factors must be in accordance with
BD 86.
June 2010
2/1
Chapter 2
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Fatigue
2.8 In assessment, fatigue analysis is not
normally necessary. Where the configuration of the
bridge is such that fatigue assessment is essential
the loading and the method of analysis must be as
given in BS 5400-10 as implemented by
BD 9 (DMRB 1.3). Assessors must determine the
remaining life taking into account previous damage
to the structure, which may be significantly less
than that assumed in the code.
2.9 Where it is not possible to determine stresses
accurately by theoretical analysis fatigue assessment
based on actual stress measurements may be carried out
with the agreement of the TAA.
Condition Factor in BD 21 (DMRB 3.4.3)
2.10 While the application of the condition factor Fc
in BD 21 (DMRB 3.4.3) is not affected in principle by
the requirements of this Standard, care should be taken
to ensure that the estimated values of Fc do not allow
for deficiencies of the materials in a structure which are
separately allowed for by using the amended values of
m.
2/2
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Chapter 3
Use of Appendix A, BS 5400-5:2005 and BD 16 (DMRB 1.3)
3. USE OF APPENDIX A, BS 5400-5:2005 AND BD 16

(DMRB 1.3)
3.1 Appendix A is presented in the same format as
the design clauses in BS 5400-5:2005. Changes have
been made to the design clauses to provide relaxations
or increased strength capacity based on most up to date
information. The terminology and clause numbering of
the design clauses have been retained but the advisory
clauses with the same numbering as the mandatory
clauses have been provided with a suffix A. Comments
are given on those clauses where the changes from
BS 5400-5:2005 are substantial or are not self evident.
3.2 The tabulated values and formulae have been
amended to include partial material factors to take
advantage of the worst credible material strength.
3.3 Where reference is made to any part of
BS 5400, this must be taken as a reference to
that part as implemented by the Overseeing
Organisation. Additionally, since BD 56 is to be
used with BS 5400-3, when a reference is made
in this Standard to any part of BD 56 this must be
taken as a reference to either BD 56 or BS 5400-3
as appropriate.
3.4 A bibliography is included in Annex J of
Appendix A. Where an in-depth investigation of certain
aspects of assessment is required these references
should provide an additional source of background
information.
June 2010
3/1
Chapter 4
References
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
4. references
1. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
(DMRB): HMSO

Volume 1 Section 3 General Design

BD 9

Implementation of BS 5400-10:
1980, Code of Practice for
Fatigue. (DMRB 1.3.14)
BD 13 Design of Steel Bridges. Use of

BS 5400-3:2000. (DMRB 1.3.14)
BD 16 Design of Composite Bridges.

Use of BS 5400-5:2005.

(DMRB 1.3.14)
BD 24

BD 37 Loads for Highway Bridges.

(DMRB 1.3.14)
Design of Concrete Highway

Bridges and Structures.
Use of BS 5400-4:1990.
(DMRB 1.3.1)
2.
British Standards (BS): BRITISH

STANDARDS INSTITUTION
BS 5400-3:2000. Steel, Concrete and Composite

Bridges. Code of Practice for Design of Steel
Bridges. British Standards Institution, 1982.

Bridges. Code of Practice for Design of Concrete
Bridges. British Standards Institution, 1990.

Bridges. Code of Practice for Design of
Composite Bridges. British Standards Institution,
1979.

Bridges. Code of Practice for Fatigue. British
Standards Institution, 1980.
Volume 3 Section 4 Assessment

BD 21 The Assessment of Highway

Bridges and Structures.

(DMRB 3.4.3)
BD 44 The Assessment of Concrete

Highway Bridges and Structures.

(DMRB 3.4.14)
BD 56 The Assessment of Steel


(DMRB 3.4.11)
BA 44

The Assessment of Concrete

(DMRB 3.4.15)
BD 86

The Assessment of Highway

Bridges and Structures For the
Effects of Special Types General
Order (STGO) Vehicles and
Special Order (SO) Vehicles.
(DMRB 3.4.19)
June 2010
4/1
Chapter 5
Enquiries
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
5. enquiries
All technical enquiries or comments on this Standard should be sent in writing as appropriate to:
Chief Highway Engineer

The Highways Agency
123 Buckingham Palace Road
London
SW1W 9HA
G CLARKE
Director, Major Transport Infrastructure Projects

Transport Scotland
8th Floor, Buchanan House
58 Port Dundas Road
Glasgow
G4 0HF
A C McLAUGHLIN
Director, Major Transport Infrastructure
Projects

The Welsh Assembly Government
Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru
Crown Buildings
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ
S C SHOULER (BSc(Hons), C.Eng.MICE)

Director of Engineering
The Department for Regional Development
Roads Service
Clarence Court
10-18 Adelaide Street
Belfast
BT2 8GB
R J M CAIRNS
Director of Engineering
June 2010
5/1
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
APPENDIX A AMENDMENTS TO BS 5400-5:2005 AND

ANNEX A OF BD 16 FOR ASSESSMENT
June 2010
A/1
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Contents
Mandatory clauses Guidance clauses Page
Foreword
1. Scope
2. References
10
3. Definitions and symbols
11
4. Assessment: general

4.1.1 General
4.1.1A General

4.1.2 Assessment loads due to shrinkage

of concrete

4.1.3 Assessment loading effects

4.1.4 Verification of structural adequacy

4.2 Material properties

4.2.1 General

4.2.2 Structural steel and iron

4.2.3 Concrete, reinforcement and

prestressing steel

4.3 Limit state requirements

4.3.1 General

4.3.1A General

4.3.2 Serviceability limit state
4.3.2A Serviceability limit state

4.3.3 Ultimate limit state
19
5. Assessment of the superstructure for the

serviceability limit state

5.1 Analysis of structure

5.1.1.1 General
5.1.1.1A General

5.1.1.2 Continuous beams
5.1.1.2A Continuous beams

5.1.13 Prestressing in continuous beams

5.2 Analysis of sections

5.2.1 General
5.2.1A General

5.2.2 Analysis
5.2.2AAnalysis

5.2.3 Effective breadth of concrete flange

5.2.3.1 General
5.2.3.1A General

5.2.3.2 Effective cracked flange
5.2.3.2A Effective cracked flange

5.2.3.3 Width over which slab reinforcement
5.2.3.3A Width over which slab reinforcement

is effective
is effective

5.2.4 Deck slabs forming flanges of

composite beams

5.2.4.1 Effects to be considered

5.2.4.2 Serviceability requirements

5.2.4.3 Co-existent stresses
5.2.4.3A Co-existent stresses

5.2.5 Steel section

5.2.5.1 General

5.2.5.2 Unpropped section

5.2.5.3 Propped construction
5.2.5.3A Propped construction

5.2.5.4 Slab casting sequence
5.2.5.4A Slab casting sequence
A/2
24
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
5.2.6 Assessment of cracking in concrete

5.2.6.1 General
5.2.6.2 Loading
5.2.6.3 Limiting crack width
5.3 Longitudinal shear
5.3.1 General
5.3.2 Shear connectors

5.3.2.1 Nominal strengths of shear connectors

embedded in normal density concrete


embedded in lightweight concrete


in haunched slabs

5.3.2.4 Tests on shear connectors

5.3.3 Assessment of shear connection

5.3.3.1 General

5.3.3.2 Horizontal cover to connectors

5.3.3.3 Resistance to separation

5.3.3.4 Assessment procedure: general

5.3.3.5 Assessment resistance of shear

connectors

5.3.3.6 Shear connector spacing and

longitudinal shear resistance

5.3.3.7 Uplift on shear connectors

5.3.3.8 Incidental shear connection

5.3.3.8.2 Resistance of groups of incidental

connectors arranged in rows transverse to

the span

5.3.3.8.3 Testing

5.3.3.9 Partial interaction

5.3.3.10 Modification of horizontal force for

concentrated loads

5.4 Temperature effects, shrinkage modified

by creep and differential settlement

5.4.1 General

5.4.2 Temperature effects

5.4.2.1 Effects to be considered

5.4.2.2 Coefficient of linear expansion

5.4.2.3 Longitudinal shear

5.4.2.4 Longitudinal Stresses

5.4.3 Shrinkage modified by creep

5.4.4 Different settlement

5.5 Deflections

5.5.1 General

5.5.2 Elastic deflections
June 2010
Appendix A
5.2.6A Assessment of cracking in concrete
5.3.1A General
5.3.2.1A Nominal strengths of shear connectors
embedded in normal density concrete
5.3.2.4A Tests on shear connectors
5.3.3.5A Assessment resistance of shear

connectors
5.3.3.6A Shear connector spacing and
longitudinal shear resistance
5.3.3.7A Uplift on shear connectors
5.3.3.8A Incidental shear connection
5.3.3.8.1A Isolated incidental shear connectors
5.3.3.8.3A Testing
5.3.3.9A Partial interaction
5.3.3.10A Modification of horizontal force for
concentrated loads
5.4.1A General
5.4.2.3A Longitudinal shear

5.4.4A Differential Settlement
5.5.1A General
5.5.2A Elastic Deflections
A/3
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6. Assessment of superstructure for the ultimate

limit state

6.1 Analysis of structure

6.1.1 General
6.1.1A General

6.1.2 Deck slabs forming the flanges of

composite beams

6.1.3 Composite action
6.1.3A Composite action

6.1.4 Distribution of bending moments and

vertical shear forces

6.1.4.1 Elastic analysis

6.1.4.2 Redistribution of support moments
6.1.4.2A Redistribution of support moments

in principal longitudinal members
in principal longitudinal members

6.1.4.3 Redistribution of span moments in
6.1.4.3A Redistribution of span moments in

principal longitudinal members
principal longitudinal members

6.1.5 Temperature effects, shrinkage modified
6.1.5A Temperature effects, shrinkage

by creep and differential settlement
modified by creep and differential settlement

6.1.6 Vertical shear resistance of composite
6.1.6A Shear resistance of composite beams

beams

6.2 Analysis of Sections

6.2.1 General

6.2.2 Plastic moment of resistance of sections
6.2.2A Bending resistance of compact sections

6.2.3 Moment of resistance of non-compact.
6.2.3.3A Conditions under which lateral

cross sections
torsional buckling can be disregarded

6.2.3.1 General

6.2.3.2 Bending resistance of non-compact

sections

6.2.3.3 Conditions under which lateral

torsional buckling is disregarded.

6.3 Longitudinal Shear

6.3.1 General
6.3.1A General

6.3.2 Deck slab

6.3.2.1 Haunches

6.3.3 Transverse reinforcement

6.3.3.1 Definitions and general requirements
6.3.3.1A Definition and general requirements

6.3.3.2 Longitudinal shear

6.3.3.3 Interaction between longitudinal shear

and transverse bending

6.3.3.4 Minimum transverse reinforcement

6.3.3.5 Minimum transverse reinforcement in

haunched beams

6.3.3.6 Curtailment of transverse reinforcement

6.3.3.7 Detailing of transverse reinforcement

6.3.4 Shear Connectors
7. Composite box girders

7.1 General

7.2 Effective Span

7.3 Effective Breadth

7.4 Distribution of Bending Moments and

Vertical Shear Forces


7.5.1 Spacing of shear connectors

7.5.2 Assessment of shear connectors

7.6 Torsion

7.7 Composite Plate
A/4
57
77
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
8. Cased beams and filler beam construction

8.1 Scope

8.2 Limit State Requirements

8.3 Analysis of Structure

8.3.1 General

8.3.2 Transverse moments in filler beam

decks (approximate method)



8.5.1 Serviceability limit state


8.6 Temperature and Shrinkage Effects

8.6.1 General

8.6.2 Longitudinal stresses and strains

8.6.3 Longitudinal shear

8.7 Assessment of Cracking

8.7.1 General

8.7.2 Cased beams

8.7.3 Filler beams

8.8 Construction
Appendix A

8.1.1 Introduction
8.1.2 Cased beams
8.1.3 Complying filler beams
8.1.4 Non-complying filler beams
8.1.5 Vertical shear resistance
8.1.6 Procedure when longitudinal shear
resistance is inadequate
8.1.7 Punching shear resistance
8.1.8 Effect of end restraints and of finishings
and infill material not satisfying BD 44
9. Permanent formwork

9.4 Temporary Construction Loading

9.5 Assessment

9.5.1 General

9.5.2 Non-participating formwork

9.5.3 Participating formwork

9.6 Special Requirements for Precast

Concrete or Composite Precast Concrete

Participating Formwork

9.6.1 Assessment

9.6.2 Welding of reinforcement

9.6.3 Interfaces

9.6.4 Cover to reinforcement
9.1 General
9.2 Materials
9.3 Structural Participation
June 2010
61
95
A/5
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
10. Assessment of friction grip bolts used as shear

connectors in composite beams

10.1 General

10.2 Assessment Requirements: Static Loading

10.2.1 Serviceability limit state.


10.3 Fatigue

10.4 Other Considerations
11. Composite columns

A/6
11.1 General
11.1.1 Scope
11.1.2 Materials
11.1.2.1 Steel
11.1.2.2 Concrete
11.1.2.3 Reinforcement
11.1.3 Shear connection
11.1.4 Concrete contribution factor
11.1.6 Limits on slenderness
11.2 Moments and Forces in Columns
11.2.2 Semi-empirical assessment method
for restrained composite columns
11.2.2.1 Scope
11.2.2.2 Moments and forces on the
restrained column
11.2.2.3 Equivalent pin-ended column
11.2.2.4 Effective length
11.2.2.5 Transverse Loads
11.2.2.6 Column self weight
11.3 Analysis of Columns
11.3.1 Concrete encased steel section
11.3.2 Major and minor axes
11.3.3 Definition of slender columns
11.3.4 Slenderness limits for column lengths
11.3.5 Short columns that resist combined
compression and bending
11.3.5.1 Scope
11.3.5.2 Design eccentricities of the axial
force
11.3.5.3 Assessment for bending about the
major axis
11.3.5.4 Assessment for bending about the
minor axis
11.3.5.5 Assessment for biaxial bending
11.3.6 Slender Columns
11.3.7 Ultimate strength of axially loaded
concrete filled circular hollow sections
11.3.8 Tensile cracking of concrete
11.3.9 Details
97
99
11A Composite columns
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
12. Influence of method of construction on assessment

12.1 Sequence of construction

12.2 Permanent formwork
109
13. Prestressing in composite construction

13.1 General

13.2 Methods of prestressing

13.3 Limit state requirements

13.4 Prestressing the steel beam

13.5 Stress limitations in concrete at transfer

13.6 Loss of prestress
110
14. Jack arch and trough construction

14.1 Jack arch construction

14.2 Trough construction
112
Annex A (Normative) Crack widths in

composite beams
114
Annex B (Informative) Lateral-torsional

buckling of composite beams with slab and
girders tied laterally and rotationally
116
Annex C (Informative) Lateral-torsional

buckling of composite beams with slab and
girders tied laterally but not rotationally
122
Annex D (Normative) Vibration of composite

bridges
131
Annex E (Informative) F Fatigue in reinforcement

of composite beams
133
Annex F Not Used
Annex G (Informative) Significance of nominal

considerations
135
Annex H (Informative) Suggested properties of

infill material not satisfying BD 44 for the
assessment of filler beams and jack arches
137
Annex I (Informative) Sample flow charts

illustrating the assessment procedures for bridge
decks considered in clauses 8 and 14
140
Annex J Bibliography
145
Annex K References
148
June 2010
A/7
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
FOREWORD
In the original drafting of BS 5400, important innovations had been made in respect of loading and environmental
assumptions, design philosophy, load factors, service stresses and structural analysis, taking into account theoretical
and experimental research and several design studies made on components and on complete bridges. In drafting of
the Assessment version of the Standards further work of this nature has been undertaken, some of which is relevant
only to assessment.
The relationship between Parts 3, Part 4 and Part 5 of BS 5400
The design of composite bridges requires the combined use of Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5 of BS 5400.
BS 5400-3 was drafted on the assumption that for the design of steelwork in bridges with either steel or concrete
decks the methods of global analysis and all the procedures for satisfying the limit state criteria would be as
prescribed in BS 5400-3. For beams it is used without any modification in conjunction with those provisions of
BS 5400-5 that are applicable to the properties of the composite slab and its connection to the steel section.
It will be noted that more serviceability checks are required for composite than for steel bridges. This difference
is due to the special characteristics of composite construction, such as the large shape factor of certain composite
sections; the addition of stresses in a two-phase structure (bare steel/wet concrete and composite); and the effects
of shrinkage and temperature on the girders and on the shear connectors. It is considered inadvisable to entirely
dispense with these secondary effects for purposes of assessment, but wherever possible the criteria have been
relaxed.
Assessment Standards. For the assessment of existing bridges, BD 56 (DMRB 3.4) is used in place of BS 5400-3
and BD 44 (DMRB 3.4) is used in place of BS 5400-4. However when the steel sections are to be assessed prior to
composite action BD 56 must be used otherwise BD 61 will be used for all steel/concrete composite bridges.
BD 61 has expanded BS 5400-5 to include the following forms of construction:

Partial shear connection
older forms of shear connectors lacking the capacity to resist uplift
various forms of incidental shear connection
filler beam construction not satisfying Clause 8
jack arch construction.
Rules for lateral torsional buckling which are particularly applicable to composite beams are included.
Reference is made to iron structures; guidance of whether wrought, ductile or cast iron is applicable is given in the
Standard.
NOTE: There are a number of situations in which dimensional and other criteria specified in this Standard may be
infringed without significantly affecting the structural performance (for example in clauses 5.3.3 and 6.3.3). These
are indicated by the words (see * in Foreword). An agreed procedure with the TAA should then be adopted
taking into account the guidance in the Standard.
A/8
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
1 SCOPE
This Standard augments the provisions of BD 56 (DMRB 3.4) for structural steel, BD 44 (DMRB 3.4) for
reinforced and prestressed concrete and BD 9 (DMRB 3.1) for fatigue when components of steel and reinforced
concrete are so interconnected that they act compositely.
It gives requirements and guidance for assessment of rolled or fabricated steel sections, cased or uncased, and
for filler beam systems when used in composite construction. Consideration is given to simply supported and
continuous composite beams, composite columns and to the special problems of composite box beams. The
requirements for the concrete element cover normal and lightweight aggregate, cast in situ and precast concrete.
Prestressing and the use of permanent formwork designed to act compositely with in situ concrete are also covered.
June 2010
A/9
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
2 REFERENCES
The titles of the standards publications referred to in this Standard are listed at the end of this document.
A/10
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
3 DEFINITIONS AND SYMBOLS

3.1 Definitions
For the purpose of this Standard the following definitions, and those given in BS 5400-1, apply.
3.1.1 Uncased composite beam. A beam composed of either rolled or built-up structural steel, wrought iron, or
cast iron sections, without a concrete encasement, which acts in conjunction with a concrete slab where the two
elements are interconnected so as to form a composite section.
3.1.2 Composite box beam. A steel box girder acting compositely with a concrete slab.
NOTE: In a closed steel box the concrete is cast on the top steel flange, whereas in an open steel box the box is
closed by the concrete slab.
3.1.3 Composite column. A column composed either of a hollow steel section with an infill of concrete or of a
steel section cased in concrete so that in either case there is interaction between steel and concrete.
3.1.4 Composite plate. An in situ concrete slab cast upon, and acting compositely with, a structural steel plate.
3.1.5 Concrete slab. The structural concrete slab that forms part of the deck of the bridge and acts compositely
with the steel beams. The slab may be of precast, cast in situ or composite construction.
3.1.6 Composite slab. An in situ concrete slab that acts compositely with structurally participating permanent
formwork.
3.1.7 Participating permanent formwork. Formwork to in situ concrete, when the strength of the formwork is
assumed to contribute to the strength of the composite slab.
3.1.8 Non-participating permanent formwork. Permanent formwork that does, or does not, act compositely with
the in situ concrete, but where the formwork is neglected in calculating the strength of the slab.
3.1.9 Filler beam construction. Rolled or built-up iron or steel sections that act in conjunction with a concrete slab
and which are contained within the slab or with slab surfaces flush with one or both flanges.
3.1.10 Cased beam construction. Rolled or built-up iron or steel sections, fully or partially encased in concrete,
but not such that they are fully within the depth of the slab, such that composite action occurs.
3.1.11 Jack arch construction. Rolled or built-up iron or steel sections separated by concrete, stone or brick arches
supported by the lower flanges, generally with loose fill or concrete fill above.
3.1.12 Interaction
3.1.12.1 Complete interaction. This implies that no significant slip occurs between the steel and the concrete slab
or encasement.
3.1.12.2 Partial interaction. This implies that slip occurs at the interface between steel and concrete and a
discontinuity in strain occurs but that composite action is still capable of being generated.
3.1.13 Shear connector. A mechanical device to ensure interaction between concrete and steel.
3.1.14 Connector modulus. The elastic shear stiffness of a shear connector.
3.1.15 Worst credible strength. Worst credible strength at a location is the lower bound to the estimated strength.
(see BD 44 for concrete and reinforcement).
June 2010
A/11
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
3.1.16 Cross section redistribution class. Criteria relating to the permitted redistribution of support moments.
3.1.17 Slip. Movement of concrete along the steel/concrete interface
3.1.18 Separation. Movement of concrete perpendicular to the steel/concrete interface.
3.1.19 Yield moment moment at first yield according to elastic theory using full composite section, if appropriate
with ultimate limit state m factors.
3.1.20 Complying Filler Beam. Filler beam in which the transverse reinforcement is assessed to be adequate for
moments described in the standard.
3.2 Symbols
The symbols used in this Standard are as follows:
A
Area of equivalent cracked transformed section
A1, A2
Projected areas of concrete resisting connector forces
Ab

Cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement in the bottom of the slab effective in resisting
bursting stresses in the concrete from the connector forces
Abs
Cross-sectional area of other transverse reinforcement in the bottom of the slab
Abv
Cross-sectional area of additional transverse reinforcement
Ac
Cross-sectional area of concrete
Ae
Effective cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement
Aft
Cross-sectional area of top flange of steel section
Ar
Cross-sectional area of reinforcement
As
Cross-sectional area of steel section
Ast
Area of the encased tension flange of the structural steel member
At

Area of tension reinforcement, cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement near the top of
the slab
Distance from centroid of steel section to axis of rotation
a1
Distance from the compression face to the point at which the crack width is calculated
acr
Distance from the point considered to the surface of the nearest longitudinal bar
Width of section or portion of flange or least lateral dimension of a column or overall depth of
composite column perpendicular to the minor axis
bc
Width of section or portion of slab
be
Effective breadth of portion of flange
bf
Breadth of flange
A/12
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
bfc
Breadth of compression flange
bfo
Breadth of flange outstand
bft
Breadth of compression flange
bs
External dimension of the wall of the RHS or the breadth of steel section
bsc
Dimension of a connector transverse to the span
bt
Effective breadth of the composite section at the level of the tension reinforcement
bw
Half the distance between the centre lines of webs
A constant (with appropriate subscripts)
Constant
cmin
Minimum cover to the tension reinforcement
cnom
Cover to outermost reinforcement controlling cracking
Diameter
Diameter of shank of stud, or width of channel or bar connector
De
External diameter of CHS
dw
Depth of steel web
Ec
Static short term secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
Er
Modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement
Es
Modulus of elasticity of structural steel
ex, ey
Eccentricities of axial load about x and y axis
FT
Tensile force per unit length
fc
Concrete strength
fcc
Enhanced characteristic strength of triaxially contained concrete
fci
Concrete strength at (initial) transfer
fcu
Characteristic or worst credible concrete cube strength
fk
Characteristic resistance
fL
Longitudinal stress
fmax
Maximum longitudinal stress in concrete flange
fry
Characteristic or worst credible strength of reinforcement
ftc
Tensile stress in uncracked concrete flange
June 2010
Appendix A
A/13
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
f1y
Reduced nominal or worst credible yield strength of the iron or steel casing
fu
Characteristic tensile strength of studs
fy
Nominal or worst credible yield strength of iron or structural steel
Gs
Shear modules of steel
Thickness (with appropriate subscripts), greatest lateral dimension of a column, or overall depth of
a composite beam or a composite column perpendicular to the major axis
hc
Thickness of the concrete slab forming the flange of the composite beam
hf
Distance between shear centres of flanges
h1
Lesser of hc and bc
h2
Greater than hc and bc
hs
Depth of structural steel girder or depth of the steel section in the plane of the web
hsc
Mean height of shear connector
Second moment of area (with appropriate subscripts), of composite section in steel units
Isx, Isy
Second moment of area of steel section about x or y axis
Isfy
Second moment of area of bottom flange about minor axis of steel member
St. Venant torsion constant of composite member
Js
St. Venant torsion constant of steel member
A constant (with appropriate subscripts), or a coefficient
Sample standard deviation correction factor or a constant (with appropriate subscripts)
k1, k1x, k1y
Slenderness reduction factors
Distance between effective torsional restraints, or distance between lateral restraints to bottom
flange, or length of span with concrete in compression
Ls
Length of the shear plane under construction
Distance from face of support to the end of the cantilever, or effective span of a beam (distance
between centres of supports) or length of column between centres of end restraints
lE
Length of column for which the Euler load equals the squash load
lex, Iey
Effective length of a column about x or y axis
ls
Distance from end of beam
lss
One-fifth of the effective span
lv
Distance from internal support
A/14
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
lw
Length of wheel patch
Bending moment (with appropriate subscripts)
Mmax
Maximum moment
Mtx
Equivalent uniform bending moment
Mu
Ultimate moment of resistance
Mux
Ultimate moment of resistance about the major axis
Muy
Ultimate moment of resistance about the minor axis
Mx

Moment acting about the major axis, longitudinal bending moment per unit width of filler beam
deck
My

Moment acting about the minor axis, longitudinal bending moment per unit width of filler beam
deck
Constant, or statistical expressions (with appropriate subscripts) used in calculating mt
mt
Equivalent uniform bending moment factor
Ultimate axial load at the section considered, or actual number of commercial vehicles
Na
Equivalent number of SFV's
Nax, Nay
Axial failure loads
Nf
The endurance for a particular stress range (N in BS 5400-10)
Npl
Squash load of a column
Nux
Axial failure load of a member subjected to a constant ultimate moment Mx
Nuxy
Axial failure load of a member in biaxial bending or about an undefined axis
Nuy
Axial failure load of a member subjected to a constant ultimate moment My
Total number of connectors per unit length of girder or number of sample, or number of connectors
in a row transverse to the beam
Number of connectors per unit length placed within 200mm of the centre line of the web
na, nb
Equivalent number of standard fatigue vehicles in 5.3.2.1
Pa
Worst credible static connector strength
Pam
Nominal present mean static strength at time of assessment
PD
Axial load capacity of composite sections
Pim
Initial nominal static connector strength
Pim
Reduced Pim accounting for the presence of other connectors.
June 2010
A/15
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Pr
Range of longitudinal shear in connector from passage of an SFV
Pu
Failure load of the connectors at concrete strength fc, or axial load in steel section
Reduction factor for longitudinal shear force due to partial interaction
Longitudinal shear force
Q*
Assessment or worst credible load
Reduced longitudinal shear force
Qk
Nominal load effect
Qx
Longitudinal shear on a connector at a distance x from the web centre line in box girder
Longitudinal shear per unit length, or ratio of tapered to total length between torsional restraints
qp
Longitudinal shear force per unit length of beam on the particular shear plane considered
qr
Assessment longitudinal shear resistance per unit length
Ratio of greater to lesser depth of section between effective torsional restraints
R*
Resistance as defined in BS 5400-1
rx, ry
The greater and lesser radii of gyration of a structural steel section
rxy
Radius of gyration about xy axis
s or 0.87s depending on cross section slenderness
S*
Loading effects
The shape factor or a constant stress of 1 N/mm2 re-expressed where necessary in units consistent
with those used for other quantities
sb
Spacing of bars
sL
Equivalent spacing of connector rows
sL
Longitudinal spacing of individual connectors
sT
Transverse spacing of individual connectors
Tu
Tension
Wall thickness
tfc, tfo
Compression flange thickness
tw
Web thickness
VD
Shear resistance of steel or iron member
v1
Ultimate longitudinal shear stress of concrete
A/16
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
vt
Slenderness parameter
wsc
Dimension of a connector along the span
Ratio of limiting to elastic critical stresses
Neutral axis depth, coordinate, distance, or depth of section in compression, or torsional index
Coordinate with appropriate subscript
Zxe
is the lowest value of Zxc, Zxt and Zxr
Zxc, Zxt and Zxr are the effective elastic section moduli of a composite section of a slab on girder (composite or

non-composite) for bending about the x-axis of the extreme fibres of the structural steel section in

compression and in tension and of the reinforcement in tension respectively
Zxpr
Reduced plastic modulus of effective section due to axial load
Zxp
Effective plastic section modulus of beams Zpe as defined in BD 56
Angle between axis of moment and direction of tensile reinforcement
Concrete contribution factor
Modular ratio
Ratio of the product of the partial safety factors fl f3 for abnormal vehicles to the corresponding
product for normal live assessment loading for the limit state being considered
Ratio of the smaller to the larger of the two end moments acting about each axis with appropriate
subscripts
Coefficient of linear thermal expansion
Additional safety factor for incidental shear connectors
fL
Partial safety factor for loads and load effects
f1, f2, f3
Partial safety factors for loads and load effects
Partial safety factor for strength
mb
Partial safety factor for bond strength
mc
Partial safety factor for concrete strength
mr
Partial safety factor for reinforcement strength
mt
Partial safety factor for strength from testing
mv
Partial safety factor for concrete shear strength
Mi
Beam end moments
Difference between the free strains at the centroid of the concrete slab and the centroid of the steel
beam
June 2010
A/17
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Steel contribution factor
= (355 /y)
cs
Free shrinkage strain
Average strain
Strain at the level considered
Strain in the reinforcement
A dispersion function for concentrated forces in slabs, or slenderness correction factor
Slenderness correction factor
Slenderness function (with appropriate subscripts)
Euler slenderness function
Coefficient of friction
Ratio of the average compressive stress in the concrete at failure to the design yield strength of the
steel, taken as 0.67 fcu /0.95 mc fy
Stress of steel member (with appropriate subscripts) as defined in BD 56
Poisson's ratio for steel
Bar size
Creep coefficient
Creep reduction factor
Non-dimensional coordinate
Effective breadth ratio, coefficient, or ratio of hogging moment to simply supported sagging
moment, ratio of extreme stresses in web with maximum compression in denominator
A/18
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
4 ASSESSMENT: GENERAL
4.1 Assessment Philosophy
4.1.1 General. Assessment must be in accordance with BD 21 and other relevant documents and follow the
principles in BS 5400-1.
4.1.1A General
The statistical methods in 4.3.3 of BD 56 enable the design strength to be derived directly from the test results
without first deriving a characteristic value. To gain full benefit, BD 56 recommends at least 5 tests are included.
However for composite bridges 3 tests should be sufficient.
In estimating the predicted value, the material strength used should be the mean from the tests on the specimen or,
when the material tests relate only to the batch of elements tested and not the individual specimens, the mean of
those for the batch.
There are two statistical methods for deriving strengths in BD 56, one relating to tests on elements, which is an
add-on to 4.3.3, and one relating to tests on materials in Annex H. The method of 4.3.3 is considered sufficient for
the special requirements of composite construction.
4.1.2 Assessment loads due to shrinkage of concrete. For shrinkage modified by creep, the partial safety
factor fL must be taken as 1.0 for the serviceability limit state and 1.2 for the ultimate limit state.
NOTE: For the definition of the partial safety factor, see BS 5400-1.
4.1.3 Assessment loading effects. The assessment loading effects S* for assessment in accordance with this
Standard must be determined from the assessment loads Q* in accordance with BD 21, BD 37 and BD 86, as
appropriate.
The partial factor of safety f3 must be taken as a 1.0 at the serviceability limit state and 1.1 at the ultimate
limit state. The f3 value at the ultimate limit state may be reduced with the agreement of the TAA.
4.1.4 Verification of structural adequacy. The assessment criterion for resistance is:

R* S*
(1)
where R* is the assessment resistance.

f
i.e. function k
m
f3 (effects of fL .Qk)
(2a)
where fk, m, fL and Qk are defined in BS 5400-1.

When the resistance function is linear, and a single value of m is involved, this relation may be rearranged as:

f m
June 2010
. function( f k ) (effects
Q kk))
(effectsofoffLfL ..Q
(2b)
A/19
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
It is noted that the format of equation 2a is used in BD 44 whereas the format given in equation 2b is used in
BD 56. Therefore when using this Standard in conjunction with either BD 56 or BD 44 f3 must be applied
correctly. In this Standard the approach in BD 56 has been adopted throughout.
For purposes of assessment, alternative methods of calculating strength or resistance of elements can be
used provided that the results of an adequate number of representative laboratory tests are performed to
enable statistical relationships between the strength or resistance predicted by the alternative method and that
observed to be obtained. The tests must relate to elements having dimensional parameters of similar size to
those for the parts assessed. Consideration must be given to the similarity of the situations, the condition, the
material properties and the loading.
In those circumstances, the value of resistance to be used in assessment may be taken as

The value of the predicted mean resistance/mf3
where m must be replaced by the value of m calculated in accordance with 4.3.3 of BD 56. For shear
connectors in beams, the value of m so calculated must be multiplied by an additional safety factor of 1.25 to
allow for the brittle nature of failure along the shear connection.
4.2 Material Properties
4.2.1 General. In analysing a structure to determine the load effects, the material properties associated with
the unfactored characteristic, or worst credible, strength must be used, irrespective of the limit state being
considered. For analysis of sections, the appropriate value of the partial factor of safety m, to be used in
determining the design strength, must be taken from BD 56, BD 44 or below depending on the materials and
limit state. It should be noted that the stress limitations given in BD 44 allow for m. The appropriate values of
m are explicitly given in the expressions for assessment resistance in this Standard.
The values of m at the ultimate limit state are as given in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Values of m at the ultimate limit state
Structural component and behaviour
Shear connectors in isolation
1.10
Shear connectors in beam
1.375
At the serviceability limit state, m for shear connectors in beams is replaced by slip = 1.375 and a variable
quantity given by 5.3.2.1 taking into account fatigue damage.
4.2.2 Structural steel and iron. The characteristic, nominal or worst credible properties of structural steel or
iron must be determined in accordance with BD 56 or BD 21 as appropriate.
4.2.3 Concrete, reinforcement and prestressing steels. The characteristic or worst credible properties of
concrete, reinforcement and prestressing steels must be determined in accordance with BD 44. For sustained
loading, it is sufficiently accurate to assume a modulus of elasticity of concrete equal to one half of the value
used for short term loading.
A/20
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A

4.3.1 General. Except as specified in this Standard all structural steelwork in composite beams must be
checked for conformity with the requirements of BD 56 in relation to all limit states. The effects of creep,
shrinkage and temperature must be calculated in accordance with the recommendations of this Standard, for
the relevant limit state.
The concrete and reinforcement in concrete slabs must satisfy the limit state requirements of BD 44 including
the serviceability limit state stress limitations given in 4.1.1.3 of BS 5400-4 as modified by 5.2.6.3 and
5.5 below. Deflection estimates may be disregarded unless specifically requested. Where they are part of a
composite beam section they must also satisfy the limit state requirements of this Standard. The method of
assessing crack widths at the serviceability limit state must follow the requirements of this Standard.
Shear connectors must be assessed to meet the requirements of the serviceability limit state and the ultimate
limit state given in this Standard.
Structural steelwork must satisfy the fatigue requirements of BS 5400-10. Reinforcement must satisfy the
fatigue requirements of BD 44.
When construction does not comply with the provisions of 5.3.3.3 and 6.3.3 composite action at the ultimate
limit state must be disregarded unless it can be shown to be effective at large deflections of the beam
(see 6.1.3).
4.3.1A General
Comments made here relate only to the limiting criteria specified. Deflections are seldom by themselves critical,
although:
(a)
they are taken into account in buildings because deflection of flat soffits above 20mm or span/500 is visible
and may cause cracking of brittle finishes whereas L/350 deflections may cause cracking of less brittle
finishes(5). Neither of these criteria are routinely considered in bridge design and neither are appropriate to
assessment except in unusual circumstances;
(b)
a check on deflection provides an implicit guide to vibration, which in the Standard is more accurately taken
into account by specific criteria;
(c)
when the headroom below is insufficient the deflection may exacerbate the difficulties.
Deflection calculations however are needed for comparison with deflection measurements and it is mainly for this
reason that the rules have been developed; more accurate procedures are available(6).
4.3.2 Serviceability limit state. A serviceability limit state is reached when any of the following conditions
occur:
(a)
The stress in the structural steel reaches yc/mf3 or yt/mf3, where yc and yt are defined in BD 56. See
also 5.2.1 below.
(b)
The stress in cast iron reaches the limits in BD 21with the values of fl for dead and superimposed load
as in BD 21 and
for ALL (Assessment Live Load) fl =1.0
for STGO and SO vehicles fl =1.0
for Associated Type HA or AW vehicles combined with STGO or SO vehicles fl =1.0
June 2010
A/21
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
(c)
The stress in concrete reaches the appropriate limit given in BD 44 or the stress in the reinforcement
reaches 0.80 fry/mrf3. See also 5.2.1 below.
(d)
The width of a crack in concrete assessed in accordance with Annex A reaches the appropriate limit
given in BS 5400-4 as modified by 5.2.6.3 below.
(e)
The vibration in a structure supporting a footway or cycle track reaches the appropriate limit given in
BD 37.
(f)
The slip at the interface between steel concrete becomes excessive.
NOTE 1: In deriving the rules slip has been assumed to occur when the calculated load on a shear
connector exceeds 0.55 times its nominal initial mean static strength when the risk from fatigue is high
and at 0.60 times its nominal initial mean static strength when the risk from fatigue is low. This criterion
is implicitly taken into account in the safety factors and in the allowance for fatigue.
NOTE 2: There are no SLS stress limits for wrought iron in BD 21.
4.3.2A Serviceability Limit State

(a)
Checks at the serviceability limit state (SLS) are more important for composite bridges than either steel or
concrete bridges for the following reasons:

being lighter and more flexible than concrete bridges and normally of shorter span than steel bridges
they are more prone to vibration problems than either concrete or steel bridges;
the most common type shear connectors, studs, exhibit unusual fatigue behaviour as discussed in
5.3.2.1, which needs to be taken into account, albeit approximately;
compact cross sections sometimes have very high shape factors, which have the effect of increasing
the criticality of the performance at SLS;
the SLS condition relative to the ultimate limit state (hereafter ULS) conditions is more critical in
assessment than in design due to the less conservative assumptions at ULS;
moment redistribution is now permitted at ULS but not at SLS which further increases the criticality of
the SLS condition.
(b)
The shear check for structural steel at SLS is not necessary for sections assessed elastically at ULS in which
no moments have been redistributed. For other situations the SLS condition tends to be more critical than in
initial design (for the reason given above) and so needs to be checked.
An important relaxation in the rules, which is not appropriate to design, is that the stress check at SLS
disregards both lateral torsional and local buckling. For composite beams it is considered to be adequately
taken into account at ULS.
(c)
There is no firm evidence to differentiate between the stress limit in the reinforcement of 0.75fry in
BS 5400-4(7) and that of 0.80fry in BS 8110 and for assessment the higher of the two values has been adopted.
It should be noted however that the limit in BS 8110 only relates to the validity of the expression for the
determination of crack widths, whereas in BS 5400-4 it also applies to consideration of fatigue. There are
stress limits in BD 44 relating to fatigue in reinforcement which are very restrictive in relation to unpropped
composite beams as the stress in the reinforcement is mainly due to live loads. It is considered the relaxation
is justifiable here because there is no evidence of fatigue failures in the reinforcement of composite bridges.
The fatigue in the reinforcement of composite beams is considered in Annex E.
A/22
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
(d)
Appendix A
The limiting crack width has been set at 0.4mm for the slab of a composite beam, which compares with the
limit of 0.25mm for reinforced concrete construction in a non-aggressive environment in BS 5400-4. The
higher limit in the assessment of composite beams is justified because:
(i)
In studies on the relationship between crack widths and corrosion in reinforced concrete beams the
conclusions indicated that corrosion was mainly determined by the quality of the concrete, which was
significantly more important even than the cover. No relationship between corrosion and crack width
could be made over a wide range of crack widths and the limit of 0.4mm is not close to the range
of crack widths at which corrosion might be expected to increase. These conclusions would appear
to be unaffected were these findings to be expressed in terms of the crack angle (crack width/cover
to longitudinal steel), which is now recognised as more relevant to corrosion than the crack width.
Beeby(8) has investigated what aspect of the concrete quality was most important; he found there was
little to choose between the water/cement ratio and the strength, both of which were of rather greater
importance than the cement content (better correlation still would be expected with permeability or
porosity determined by mercury vapour diffusion).
(ii)
It is generally easier to satisfy crack width criteria in reinforced concrete bridge beams and slabs
than in composite beams since most of the flexural resistance is provided by large reinforcing bars,
mainly within the width of the rib (and mainly confined by stirrup reinforcement). The large total
bar perimeter and excess area of reinforcement over the minimum required for crack control and the
appreciable amount of reinforcement (provided for other reasons) in the slab enables small crack
widths to be achieved at little cost to the design. In contrast in composite beams the crack width is
the determining factor in selecting the longitudinal slab reinforcement at support locations in many
designs, so there is an incentive to ensure that the criteria are not unduly conservative. The choice of
a less conservative limiting crack width is also influenced by the fact that a composite beam is not
wholly reliant upon the strength of the reinforcement (as in a reinforced concrete beam) and that about
half the reinforcement is in the bottom of the slab, so slight corrosion to the top reinforcement would
not endanger the structure (which is generally protected by waterproofing). If the waterproofing has
degraded or there is evidence of corrosion this needs to be reconsidered in assessment.
(e)
Limiting criteria for vibration are given in BD 49, as modified by Annex D.
(f)
The limit to the load on the shear connector at SLS, of 55% of the nominal static strength, was specified with
a view to limiting the slip under the passage of heavy vehicles. For the majority of minor roads, when the
risk of fatigue failure of the shear connectors is low, some increase is clearly warranted. In the new method
the shear connector strength depends upon the fatigue history, unlike the method in the Design Code in
which there is no such dependence. For this reason no checks are required on the slip, though it should be
noted that the limiting criterion specified in this clause was adopted when selecting the connector stiffness
used in developing some of the deemed-to-satisfy criteria in the Standard (see 5.3.2 and 5.3.3).
(g)
Failure at the serviceability limit state does not necessarily dictate strengthening of the structure unless
there are structural problems caused by the serviceability failure. Typically an inspection and monitoring
programme will be appropriate as part of the maintenance strategy, which should be included in the approval
in principle document (see BD 79).
4.3.3 Ultimate limit state. General requirements for composite structures at the ultimate limit state are as
given in BS 5400-1.
June 2010
A/23
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
5 ASSESSMENT OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR THE SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE

5.1.1 Distribution of bending moments and vertical shear forces
5.1.1.1 General. The distributions of bending moments and vertical shear forces, due to loading on a simply
supported composite member, may be calculated by an elastic analysis assuming the concrete to be uncracked
and unreinforced. The effects of shear lag may be neglected.
For continuous construction other than prestressed construction this method of global analysis or alternative
methods accepted by the TAA may be adopted subject to the requirements of 5.1.1.2(b), but where aspects of
the construction assessed from the results of these analyses fail the specified criteria they must be reassessed
using the methods in 5.1.1.2(a).
5.1.1.1A General
The requirements of 5.1.1 are quite different from those in the Design Code but the clause structure has been
retained as far as possible. As a result 5.1.1.1 contains both the general statements and the simplified method of
designing continuous composite beams. The simplified method could be regarded as the general method, since it is
appropriate to simply supported and continuous beams (see below). It is deemed to be a Category A method for the
purposes of this commentary.
For simply supported spans the global analysis is governed by considerations of equilibrium, so bending moments
and vertical shear forces are independent of whether or not shear lag is taken into account.
For continuous construction a simplified procedure is given in 5.1.1.1 whereby the concrete at supports is assumed
to be uncracked and shear lag is neglected. This procedure however overestimates the support moments, and
aspects of the construction failing the assessment criteria must be repeated using the more accurate method of
analysis in 5.1.1.2(a).
The simplified procedure in 5.1.1.1 underestimates the mid-span moments and this is taken into account by the
correction in 5.1.1.2(b). It should be noted however that in spans of substantially uniform depth, the mid-span
region under nominal assessment live loading is seldom critical and the construction can generally be assumed to
have sufficient capacity for negative moment redistribution (moment redistributed from the support to the midspan)
to compensate for the inaccuracy in the analysis.
The degree of inaccuracy of the representation of the method in 5.1.1.1 for continuous beams depends on the
situation. It may accurately represent the situation in prestressed composite bridges but it poorly represents the
situation in some older bridges in which there may be little or no reinforcement in the slab. It is also inappropriate
where there is a low grade fill with some compression resistance, which may sometimes be taken into account (see
Clause 8). The method is appropriate to the rare circumstances in which the determination of a reliable estimate of
the effective breadth is impossible.
A/24
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.1.1.2 Continuous beams. In continuous beams, the distributions of bending moments and vertical shear
forces must be calculated assuming the appropriate steel member acts compositely with a concrete flange.
The effective breadth of the uncracked concrete flange may be assumed to be constant over any span and may
be taken as the quarter-span value for uniformly distributed loading given in BD 56 for = 0, except for beams
simply supported one end and fixed or continuous the other when the mean of the quarter-span values for the
fixed ended and simply supported beams may be used. For a b/l value of 0.125 or less may be assumed to be
1.00. The concrete must be assumed to be cracked in accordance with 5.2.3.2.
Either:
(a)
the distribution of bending moments must be determined as in 5.1.1.1 but neglecting the stiffening
effect of the concrete over 15% of the length of the span on each side of each support. For this purpose,
longitudinal tensile reinforcement in the slab may be included. Or, alternatively,
(b)
provided adjacent spans do not differ appreciably in length, uncracked unreinforced concrete may be
assumed throughout. The maximum sagging moments in each span adjacent to each support must then
be increased by 40ftc/fcu% to allow for cracking of the concrete slab at the support. In this case, the
support moments, except for cantilevers, must be reduced by 10% in beams of substantially uniform
cross section in beams of span not exceeding 40m or 5% for beams of longer span.
5.1.1.2A Continuous Beams

The check in the Design Code to determine whether or not the cross section is cracked invariably shows that the
cross section is cracked. Whilst accepting that there may be situations, in lightly loaded short span beams and in
composite cross members in longer span bridges, where the concrete is uncracked, for purposes of assessment
the cracked condition may generally be assumed. The use of the cracked section properties should therefore be
regarded as a feature of the assessment method. Frequently no cracks will be observable, but their absence is not
considered sufficient justification for the assumption of uncracked conditions.
The use of the same effective breadth in both the global and cross section analysis will give a more economic
assessment of the support cross section than the procedure in the Design Code. The procedure in the Design Code
has been justified, to the required degree of accuracy for the Standard, by finite element studies. However for b/l
ratios of 0.125 or less the designer has the option of using the full breadth for the global analysis. Intermediate
effective breadths between the theoretical and unity give a more economical solution for b/l ratios less than
0.125, so the assessor may choose to group cross sections in a beam (for this purpose a continuous beam over
many spans may be considered to be a single beam). At greater b/l ratios the assumption of the full breadth in the
global analysis is considered too conservative for assessment generally, but there is no objection to its adoption on
theoretical grounds. For example it might be appropriate in short span structures (say of 12m span or less). In each
span variation is only required between the support and mid-span cross section.
It should be noted that the assumption of a mean cracked length of 15% gives a good indication of the distribution
of moments for cracked lengths of between 10-25% of the span and is generally applicable.
The method in 5.1.1.2(b) differs from the general method in 5.1.1.1 in that shear lag is taken into account.
5.1.1.3 Prestressing in continuous beams. Where the concrete flange in the hogging (negative) moment
region of a continuous composite beam is longitudinally prestressed the distribution of bending moments and
vertical shear forces must be determined in accordance with 5.1.1.2(b), but the support moments must not be
reduced.
June 2010
A/25
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10

5.2.1 General. The stresses in composite sections must be determined in accordance with 5.2.2 to 5.2.5. When
no moment is redistributed at the ULS, then at cross sections assessed elastically at the ULS no stress checks
are required at the SLS. Crack widths must be assessed in accordance with 5.2.6 if required.
5.2.1A General
See also comments under 5.1.1.2.
Assumptions regarding the method of construction are now considered; these affect 5.2.5.2 to 5.2.5.4 and also the
global analysis.
It is necessary for the engineer to assess the worst credible construction sequence, which should take into account
design and construction procedures current when the bridge was designed and constructed. Occasionally the special
nature of the construction may suggest the use of special procedures and these should be taken into account where
appropriate.
For simply supported composite beams the greatest flexural resistance is obtained with propped construction,
whereby the beam is propped until the slab has hardened. For reasons unrelated to composite action the size of
the steel beam is generally larger than the minimum achievable with propped construction and normally sufficient
resistance is obtained by using unpropped construction, when the slab is cast on the beam in the unpropped
condition. When the method of construction is unknown it is required to make safe assumptions, but which do not
result in the structure being overstressed. Unfortunately, no single set of assumptions can be made which can be
regarded as generally safe.
If propped construction is assumed when unpropped construction was used, it is likely that the shear connection
and possibly the slab will be found to be overstressed, whereas the steel section will have a large reserve capacity.
If unpropped construction is assumed when propped construction was used, it is likely that the shear connection
will be found to have a large reserve capacity but the steel section will be overstressed.
Where it is suspected this situation has been encountered on completing the assessment the structure should be reexamined for evidence of the sequence of construction and possible signs of distress in areas which the calculations
suggest have been overstressed. The subsequent procedure should then be agreed with the TAA.
However it is noted that the usual assumptions in composite bridge design in 1963(11) were that the steel carried the
weight of the steel section and the weight of the wet concrete, and the composite section carried the applied load
(which included the surfacing). This corresponds to present day practice except in regards to the practice (which
was common by 1970) of concreting the part of slab at mid span before that at the support.
It is suggested therefore that for bridges constructed since 1960 the unpropped condition should be assumed, but
that the casting of the support section last should only be assumed when it can be justified. Otherwise it is advisable
to make the assumption that the slab over the entire length of the beam was placed in one pour. The worst case
scenario, that the support sections were cast first, is considered unjustifiable.
For internal beams of spans up to at least 40m the stresses in the concrete from live load sufficiently exceed
those from superimposed dead load that the short term concrete properties may be assumed throughout. In other
situations the engineer should make a sensible assessment in differentiating between short term and long term cross
section properties, taking into account the lesser sensitivity of the global analysis to the precise properties assumed
than in the cross section analysis, which reduces as the ratio of the area of concrete to that of the steel beam
increases.
A/26
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
In deriving the cross section properties of the cracked cross section it should be noted that the elastic modulus of
reinforcement in BS 5400-4 is 200,000 N/mm2 and the elastic modulus for steel in BS 5400-3 is 205,000 N/mm2,
consequently the modular ratio of the reinforcement should be taken as 1.025.
5.2.2 Analysis. Stresses due to bending moments and vertical shear forces must be calculated by elastic theory
using the appropriate elastic properties given in 4.2 and effective breadths as given in 5.2.3, assuming that
there is full interaction between the steel beam and the concrete in compression.
When the cross section of a beam and the applied loading increases by stages and the actual construction
sequence is unknown, worst credible construction sequences must be assumed initially These must be used
in assessing the adequacy of the final condition. The bending stresses must not exceed the appropriate limits
given in 6.2.4 using the appropriate values of m and f3 for the serviceability limit state except that the limiting
tensile stress in the reinforcement must be replaced by

0.80 fry/ mrf3
However, in the event of a failure due to the assumed construction sequence a more realistic procedure must
be used in agreement with the TAA. Such procedure must take into account any evidence of possible signs
distress following inspection of the structure.
5.2.2A Analysis
Vertical shear was required to be checked at SLS in the Design Code. However for steel sections the rules in BD 56
impose no restrictions on the webs at SLS, so the check on vertical shear is omitted from assessment.
5.2.3 Effective breadth of concrete flange
5.2.3.1 General. In calculating the stresses in a concrete flange, and in the absence of rigorous analysis, the
effect of in-plane shear flexibility (i.e. shear lag) must be allowed for by assuming an effective breadth of
flange in accordance with 5.2.3.2, 5.2.3.3 and BD 56, except that for b/l values less than 0.05, a value of 1.0
may be assumed.
5.2.3.1A General
Finite element studies on composite beams have indicated that shear lag may be neglected, within the accuracy
required for assessment, for b/l ratios of 0.05 or less.
5.2.3.2 Effective cracked flange. For a concrete flange in tension (which is assumed to be cracked), the
effective breadth ratio must be replaced by the effective cracked flange factor, which is:

(2 + 1) 3
(5.1)
where is the effective breadth ratio for the uncracked concrete flange.
5.2.3.2A Effective cracked flange
The effective cracked flange factor is a new term, but the effective breadth obtained is the same as given by the
method in the Design Code. The use of an effective breadth for cracked sections wider than that for uncracked
sections is attributable to the shear stiffness of a cracked slab being greater than the longitudinal stiffness(12). It is
moreover supported by evidence from tests.
June 2010
A/27
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.2.3.3 Width over which slab reinforcement is effective. Only reinforcement within the effective breadth of
the concrete slab must be assumed to be effective in analysing cross sections. The effective area of longitudinal
reinforcement must be taken as (Ar cos4 1), where 1 is the angle between the bars and the web of the steel
beam. When the reinforcement assumed to be at its design strength in tension produces a net transverse force
on the steel beam this force must be taken into account in the assessment or the effective areas adopted such
that there is no net transverse force.
5.2.3.3A Width over which slab reinforcement is effective
The common situation in skew bridges, in which the slab reinforcement is not parallel to the beam, is now taken
into account. Theoretically for strength calculations (as in this paragraph) the angle in the expression should be
squared, but reflecting the lack of research on flexural resistances of composite beams and reinforced concrete
beams with the slab reinforcement so arranged, and the need therefore to be conservative, the angle has been taken
to the power of four. This has the benefit to the assessor that the same power is used when calculating the cross
section properties for determining the crack width (when it is theoretically correct), so that the same cross section
properties may sometimes be used for purposes of both strength and crack width control calculations. It is noted
that in BS 5400-4 non-parallel reinforcement is taken into account in the calculation of crack widths, but not of
flexural resistance.
This is because in reinforced concrete T-beams most of the main top tensile reinforcement is contained within the
stirrups and therefore must lie within the width of the web, and so be parallel to the beam.
5.2.4 Deck slabs forming flanges of composite beams
5.2.4.1 Effects to be considered. The slab must be assessed to resist:
(a)
the effects of loading acting directly on it, and
(b)
the effects of loading acting on the composite member or members of which it forms a part,
including effects of any differential displacement of the composite members.
Where these effects co-exist, they must be combined in accordance with 4.8 of BD 44.
5.2.4.2 Serviceability requirements. When required, crack widths must be assessed in accordance with 5.2.6.
5.2.4.3 Co-existent stresses. In calculating co-existent stresses in a deck slab, which also forms the flange of a
composite beam, the global longitudinal bending stress across the deck width must be calculated in accordance
with ANNEX A.6 of BD 56.
5.2.4.3A Co-existent stresses
Co-existent stresses in the deck slab need to be taken into account particularly in bridges with skew. Annex A of
BD 56 applies only to the steel flange of box girders.
A/28
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.2.5 Steel section

5.2.5.1 General. The serviceability limit state must be checked in accordance with BD 56; and the
requirements and guidance in 5.2.5.2 to 5.2.5.4.
5.2.5.2 Unpropped construction. Except as noted in 5.2.5.4, where the steel section carried load prior to the
development of composite action, the resulting stresses and deflections must be added algebraically to those
later induced in the composite member, of which the steel section forms a part, and the appropriate limit states
must be satisfied.
5.2.5.3 Propped construction. Where composite action has been assumed for the whole of the assessment
load, bending induced prior to the attainment of composite action must be disregarded for the purposes of
assessment.
5.2.5.3A Propped construction. In propped construction it is likely that the beams were propped at discrete
locations rather than continuously, so that the beam would have spanned between the props. The propped state
may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment, unless it is evident that excessive prop settlement has occurred.
To do otherwise would be impractical as details of the propping may be unavailable, and most composite beams,
even non-compact ones, have some capacity for stress redistribution within the cross-section. Even if they do not
it is most unlikely that the stresses would be sufficiently high to invalidate any aspect of the assessment. See also
comments under 5.2.1.
5.2.5.4 Slab casting sequence. The dead load stresses in the composite section must be assessed for the
construction sequences defined in 5.2.2 and 12.1, using the effective breadth determined from BD 56 as
modified in this Standard and the relevant design procedures.
NOTE: For the purpose of estimating the effective breadth of the slab, where the slab was or is assumed to
have been concreted in stages, the effective span must be taken as the continuous length of concrete in the
flange containing the section under consideration which is assumed to act compositely.
5.2.5.4A Slab casting sequence. See comments under 5.2.1 and 12.1.
5.2.6A Assessment of cracking in concrete
Reinforcement in the slab controls the development of cracking resulting from differential thermal strains during
curing and subsequently, shrinkage on the loss of moisture and flexural strains. Whilst the cracking itself does not
invalidate the strength assessment it may:
(a)
affect the susceptibility of the reinforcement to corrosion and also, when the crack passes through the full
depth of the slab (which is likely only in the deeper beams);
(b)
when cracking passes through the full depth of the slab it is accommodated by slip of the shear connectors
which, although taken into account in the methods of analysis, does not otherwise necessarily occur (see
5.3.2.1(b)(ii)). When the slab is protected by a waterproof membrane, water ingress cannot occur, so
depending on the quality of the waterproofing and its maintenance cracking may be unimportant. The
concrete in edge beams however may be more exposed and so too is the soffit, particularly for wide spacings
of main beams.
If there is evidence of significant cracking or corrosion, stress and crack width calculations may help in diagnosing
the cause and the likely crack width should be assessed where a significant increase in the loading is likely.
June 2010
A/29
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
5.2.6.1A General. Adequate reinforcement is required in composite beams to prevent cracking from adversely
affecting the appearance or durability of the structure. In using 5.2.6.2 shrinkage (except when the abnormal
circumstances in 5.2.6.3 apply) and thermal effects may be disregarded.
NOTE: Special requirements for cased beams and filler beams are given in clause 8.
5.2.6.2 Loading. For assessing the crack widths in 5.2.6.3, live loads equal to 50% of full Type HA must be
used. Settlement must also be included.
5.2.6.3 Limiting crack width. In consideration of the present condition, change of usage or other reason, the
widths of cracks in the slab of a composite beam must not exceed the limiting values given in BS 5400-4
except that a crack width of 0.4mm is acceptable for assessment. Surface crack widths in the slab of a
composite beam under the action of the loadings specified in 5.2.6.2 may be calculated by the appropriate
method given in Annex A. In calculating the strain due to global longitudinal bending, account may be taken
of the beneficial effect of shear lag in regions remote from the webs in accordance with Annex A.6 of BD 56.
Crack widths on the side faces and the underside of cased beams must be checked in accordance with
BS 5400-4.
Where it is suspected that the concrete was subject to abnormally high shrinkage strains (>0.0006) allowance
must be included for the increased tensile strain in the concrete slab. In the absence of a rigorous analysis, the
value of longitudinal strain at the level where the crack width is being considered must be increased by adding
50% of the assessed shrinkage strain.
5.3.1 General. The longitudinal shear in composite beams at the serviceability limit state must be assessed
from the vertical shear stresses determined from a global analysis assuming cracked sections at the supports
over which the beams are continuous, as specified in 5.1.1.2. The longitudinal force per unit length of the
beam on longitudinal shear planes, q or qp as appropriate, must be calculated elastically, using the properties
of the transformed composite cross section, assuming the concrete flange to be uncracked and unreinforced
in both sagging and hogging moment regions. The quarter-span values of the effective breadth in BD 56 must
be used except for beams simply supported one end and fixed or continuous the other, when the mean of the
quarter-span values for the fixed ended and simply supported beams may be used.
Where the second moment of area of the composite section, thus obtained, varies significantly along the length
of any span account must be taken of this variation of stiffness in calculating the longitudinal shear flow.
The effects of short term and long term loading must be determined from separate global analyses except
where a single analysis using the short term concrete properties is considered sufficient.
5.3.1A General
The distribution of vertical shear from which the longitudinal shear force is calculated is affected less by the global
analysis than the distribution of bending moments and so a global analysis using cracked section properties at
supports may be used.
Studies on continuous beams of different spans, with medium and relatively high amounts of slab reinforcement
and short and long term concrete properties, indicated that global analyses employing the cracked cross section
properties required significantly fewer shear connectors at the supports and in total than analyses employing
uncracked cross section properties throughout. Taking into account the effect of tension stiffening in the concrete
(see Annex A), in both the global analysis and cross section check, cracked analysis is considered to be potentially
unsafe(13). Consequently the method in the Design Code is retained, with a modification to the effective breadth in
beams simply supported one end and fixed or continuous the other, when the analyses suggested that the method of
the Design Code overestimated the effective breadth.
A/30
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Due to the doubt over the assessment of the shrinkage effects expressed later, and the uncertainty as to whether
differential settlement will occur, these effects are only included in the load combinations which include
temperature.
The equation for determining longitudinal shear per unit length is
d MAy VAy
d Ay
+M
dx I
I
dx I
q=
with the second term being zero for beams of uniform section. The second term can increase (e.g. haunched
sections at supports) or decrease (e.g. on fish-bellied girders) the value of q.
Where the section changes suddenly (e.g. at a splice), this can usually be ignored if the changes in neutral axis
level or second moment of area are small(24), noting that an increase in I due to the steel section changing is usually
accompanied by an increase in y. If the change in longitudinal force Q is significant, then Q may be applied each
side of the change in section over a length of lss (see 5.4.2.3).
5.3.2 Shear Connectors
5.3.2.1 Nominal strengths of shear connectors embedded in normal density concrete.
(a)
Nominal initial mean static strengths. Table 5.1 gives the nominal initial mean static strengths Pim
of commonly used types of connectors, which are illustrated in Figure 5.1, in relation to the specified
characteristic cube strengths or worst credible strengths of the normal grades of concrete. The nominal
strengths given in Table 5.1 must be used where the slab is haunched provided that the haunch complies
with 6.3.2.1. For other haunches reference must be made to 5.3.2.3.
(b)
Nominal present mean static strength.
The nominal present mean static strength at the time of the assessment Pam is given by:
m+ 2
N a Pr
0.82 P im
P am = Pim 1 23.3 kPim
(5.2)
where
Na
is the equivalent number of Standard Fatigue Vehicles (SFV) as defined in BS 5400-10 and may
be taken as 0.5062N for modern traffic.
is the actual number of commercial vehicles carried by the bridge since construction.
P r
is the range of the longitudinal shear in the connector from the passage of an SFV.
is 5.1.
is 1.0 except where otherwise agreed.
Where the standard fatigue vehicle induces further fatigue shear cycles exceeding 0.4Pr, these should be
taken into account by including additional terms in the equation for Pam with the appropriate values of
(Pr/Pim) and Na (if the flow of commercial vehicles varies between lanes).
June 2010
A/31
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
(c)
Strengths of connectors not included in Table 5.1. Static strengths must be determined experimentally
by push-out tests in accordance with 5.3.2.4. Where the connector type is included in Table 5.1, but the
appropriate size is not given, the fatigue strength must be determined in accordance with BS 5400-10.
(d)
Strength of connectors not complying with 5.3.3.3. There are various connections between slabs and
steel girders which do not satisfy the general requirements of 5.3.3, and which would perform poorly
if tested in accordance with 5.3.2.4(b), but which nevertheless are known to have sufficient shear
resistance to control the behaviour of composite bridges under serviceability loading. These may be
used, subject to agreement, in assessing the performance of a bridge (at the serviceability limit state or
for fatigue) in accordance with the provisions in 5.3.3.8.
5.3.2.1A Nominal strength of shear connections embedded in normal density concrete

(a) Nominal initial mean static strength
The term nominal to describe the strength is intended to indicate that these strengths are not necessarily related to
routine testing. They are nevertheless considered to accurately represent the strength of the shear connectors.
The nominal strengths in the Design Code are the mean values from tests, not characteristic values as sometimes
assumed, and this is now clear in the terminology. More recent research using improved test specimens and
reanalysis of earlier research has resulted in an increase in the predicted strength of stud shear connectors of about
10%(4)(14), which assumes the weld collar having a height of 0.28d(15). The significance of this feature was not
appreciated until 1981 and, as the current programme of bridge assessment extends only to structures built before
the end of 1985, it is considered inevitable that many shear connectors will have lower weld collars. In recognition
of the impracticality of inspecting more than a small sample of shear connectors on any bridge, this increase has not
been taken into account in Table 5.1. The strengths in Table 5.1 have however been adjusted to reflect the variation
in strengths suggested by the more recent work.
Furthermore, recent research(16) has established that longitudinal cracks weaken the shear connectors, so the use
of strengths somewhat lower than the values now being used for design makes a nominal adjustment for this
effect. In the very occasional case of severe cracking, or construction joints being encountered on the line of shear
connectors, the reduction in strength indicated in (16) should be taken into account.
Channels and bar shear connectors have not been subject to the same intensity of research as stud shear connectors
and adjustments to these values have been made solely on the basis of the strengths of studs.
(b) Nominal present mean static strength
The nominal present mean static strength is the nominal initial mean static strength reduced to take account of the
progressive damage suffered by the shear connection since the bridge was constructed(17)(18).
Shear connectors exhibit the unusual characteristic that the static strength is reduced in proportion to the equivalent
number of fatigue vehicles which have passed. Other materials suffer similar degradation(19), but in general
materials can be subject to a significant and sometimes very large number of fatigue cycles before the degradation
commences.
Combining Oehlers requirements with those of BS 5400-10 one obtains

A/32
1 n
(Pri / Pim )m when Na 107

Pam = Pim 1
1320 i =1
(5.2a)
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Where n is the total number of stress cycles which may be of varying amplitude (this is the n in BS 5400-10).

Due to the high power of m it is permissible in practical situations to take n as Na, the equivalent

number of SFV.

Pri is the range of the shear connector force for the ith reservoir.
This method is found to be conservative compared to the present method for taking into account fatigue in shear
connectors in BS 5400-10. Taking into account a nominal increase in strength to reflect the absence of stud shear
connector failures two modifications have been introduced. One is a correction factor k and the other the correction
for low stress fatigue from BS 5400-10.
The following expression is proposed for the usual circumstances in which Pri/kPim is less than 0.133.
1 n
(Pri / kPim )m + 2
Pam = Pim 1
23
.
3
i =1
(5.2b)
Where

n and Pri are as equation 5.2(a),
k is considered below.
If Pri/kPim is greater than 0.133, equation 5.2(a) should be used but with Pri/kPim in place of Pri/Pim.
Including only the peak to peak reservoirs the expression 5.2(b) simplifies to expression 5.2 of the Standard.
Whilst it has not been shown that the above approach applies to types of shear connectors other than welded studs,
it has been extended to other types of shear connectors on the assumption that it is applicable to shear connectors
part of which are flexible and part rigid and to rigid types on the assumption that their performance in fatigue is at
least equivalent to that of the studs. Where the shear connectors are not welded, methods relating to the procedures
in BS 5400-10(20) are acceptable as an alternative.
There is however as yet no evidence, despite unforeseen increases in HGV loading, that any fatigue failures of
shear connectors have occurred in bridges, either for road or rail traffic. The new fatigue criterion will generally
be found to be less restrictive than the rules in the Design Code for most composite bridges as they are a relatively
new form of construction, there being few composite bridges constructed in the UK before 1950. The clause
however may be found to be more conservative than the rules in the Design Code which are nearer the end of their
fatigue design life than any are believed to be at present.
Should a structure fail the assessment criteria the measures proposed are:
(i)
conduct an inspection to determine if the bond has been broken. When the bond has been broken, friction
may be used in assessing the effect of imposed load on shear connectors, and a coefficient of friction of 0.40
is suggested. When the bond has not been broken, a situation considered to exist in the majority of composite
bridges (but see 5.2.6(b)) Pri may be reduced by a factor of 1.15 for stud shear connectors and 1.25 for other
connectors(18) subject to TAA approval.
(ii)
take into account other forms of incidental shear connection or other incidental strengthening as may be
appropriate to the bridge.
(iii) review the latest literature, because this is a subject on which research can be expected to continue, as the
cumulative damage law for shear connectors of equation 5.2 differs from that for most other materials, for
which the resistance reduces significantly only towards the end of the design life.
June 2010
A/33
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
A possible rule for calculating Na (21) is that the number of years in the following periods should be multiplied by:

1925 to 1950
1950 to 1965
1965 to 1975
1975 to 1990
by 1/5
by 1/3
by 1/2
by 2/3
Due to the high power of m (5.1) it is not necessary to consider all reservoirs (see BS 5400-10). For a fatigue
reservoir of a depth of 40% of the peak to peak range the effect for an equivalent number of occurrences is only 2 3% of the peak to peak values. It is therefore permissible to neglect fatigue reservoirs more shallow than this depth.
For assessment, checks on the fatigue endurance of shear connectors in accordance with BS 5400-10 are not
required.
(c) Strength of connectors not included in Table 5.1
See comments in 5.3.2.4.
(d) Strength of connectors not complying with 5.3.3.3
Shear connectors not satisfying 5.3.3.3 are essentially of two types:
(i) there are connectors similar in form to complying connectors, except that they lack the capacity to resist uplift,
which were assumed in the design to be shear connectors;
(ii) there are shallow devices projecting into the slab from the beam which were not considered to be shear
connectors in the original design.
In the Standard the two types are considered by the same approach (see 5.3.3.8), except that with the very shallow
connectors larger safety factors are required and that without other devices to resist the uplift they offer little shear
resistance at ULS.
5.3.2.2 Nominal strengths of shear connectors embedded in lightweight concrete. The strengths of shear
connectors in lightweight concrete of density greater than 1400 kg/m3 must be taken as 15% less than the
values for normal density concrete in 5.3.2.1(a) or as determined by the tests in accordance with 5.3.2.1(c).
5.3.2.3 Nominal strengths of shear connectors in haunched slabs. Where the haunch does not comply with
6.3.2.1 the nominal initial mean static strength of the shear connectors Pim must be determined experimentally
by push-out tests from published work (see 5.3.2.4).
The fatigue strength must be determined in accordance with BS 5400-10.
5.3.2.4 Tests on shear connectors
(a)
Nominal initial mean static strength. The nominal initial mean static strength of a shear connector
may be determined by push out tests. No fewer than three tests are to be made and the nominal initial
mean static strength Pim is taken as the lowest value of fcuP/fc for any of the tests, where P is the failure
load of the connectors at concrete strength fc, and fcu is the lower of the specified characteristic or worst
credible cube strength at 28 days. For five or more tests the mean value is taken. Sometimes it may be
permitted to justify strength by calculation, when the effects of bending must be included.
(b) Details of tests. Suitable dimensions for the push-out specimens are given in Figure 5.3. Bond at the
interfaces of the flanges of the steel beam and the concrete must be prevented by greasing the flange or
by other suitable means. The slab and reinforcement must be either as given in Figure 5.3 or as in the
beams for which the test is designed.
A/34
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
The strength of the concrete fc, at the time of testing, must not differ from the specified or worst credible
cube strength fcu of the concrete in the beams by more than 20%. The rate of application of load must
be uniform and such that failure is reached in not less than 10 minutes.
(c) Resistance to separation. Where the connector is composed of two separate elements, one to resist
longitudinal shear and the other to resist forces tending to separate the slab from the girder, the ties
which resist the forces of separation may be assumed to be sufficiently stiff and strong if the separation
measured in push-out tests does not exceed half of the longitudinal slip at the corresponding load
level. Only load levels up to 80% of the nominal initial mean static strength of the connector need be
considered.
Table 5.1: Nominal initial mean static strengths Pim of shear connectors for different concrete strengths
Type of connector
Headed studs (see Figure 5.1a)
Connector material
Nominal static strengths in kN per

connector for concrete strengths
fcu, N/mm2
20
30
40
15
50
Material with a characteristic

yield stress of 385 N/mm2,
minimum elongation of 18%
and a characteristic tensile
strength of 495 N/mm2
Diameter, mm
Overall height, mm
25
100
22
100
19
100
19
75
16
75
13
65
Bars with hoops
Grade 43 of BS 4360
(see Figures 5.1b and 5.1c)
50mm x 40mm x 200mm bar
25mm x 25mm x 200mm bar
Channels (see Figure 5.1d)
Grade 43 of BS 4360
127mm x 64mm x 14.90kg x 150mm
102mm x 51mm x 10.42kg x 150mm
76mm x 38mm x 6.70kg x 150mm
Friction grip bolts
BS 4395
105
81
66
63
49
32

492
245

252
210
177
126
147
168
103
125
142
82
98
109
74
85
96
61
73
82
39
46
52

963
661
830
482
330
415

419
316
380
364
268
326
305
225
273
See Clause 10
183
159
121
108
90
57
1,096
548
442
390
326
Notes on Table 5.1

Note 1: fcu is the specified characteristic cube strength at 28 days or the worst credible strength.
Note 2: Strengths for concrete of intermediate grade may be obtained by linear interpolation.
Note 3: For bars (see Figures 5.1b and 5.1c) and channels (see Figure 5.1d) of lengths different from those
quoted above, the capacities are proportional to the lengths for lengths greater than 100mm.
Note 4: For stud connectors of overall height greater than 100mm the nominal static strength must be taken
as the values given in Table 5.1 for 100mm high connectors unless the static strength is determined
from push-out tests in accordance with 5.3.2.4.
June 2010
A/35
Volume 3 Section 4
Part
16 BDA61/09
Appendix
VolumeAppendix
3 Section 4A
Part 16 BD 61/10
Figure 5.1: Shear connectors (page 1 of 2)
A/36
April 2009
June 2010
A/42
Volume 3 Section 4
Volume
Section
Part 16 3BD
61/10 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
Appendix
A
Appendix
A

June 2010
A/37
Volume 3 Section 4
Appendix
A
Part 16
BD 61/10
Volume 3 A
Section 4
Appendix
Part 16
BD 61/09
Volume
3 Section 4
Appendix A
Part 16 BD 61/09
Figure
5.2:
Dimensions
of
haunches
Figure
5.2:
Dimensions
haunches
Figure
5.2:
Dimensions
ofofhaunches
Figure 5.3: Dimensions of specimens for test on shear connectors

April 2009
A/38
April 2009
5.3: Dimensions
specimens for
onon
shear
connectors
FigureFigure
5.3: Dimensions
ofofspecimens
fortest
test
shear
connectors
A/44
June 2010
A/44
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.3.2.4A Tests on shear connectors

a) Nominal initial mean static strengths
When tests are performed the initial mean static strength is taken as the lowest test result of three specimens or the
average of a group of five or more. Clearly five will generally be preferable when new testing is undertaken, but
existing test data is likely to relate to only three specimens.
5.3.3 Assessment of shear connection
5.3.3.1 General. In order to satisfy the assessment assumption of a continuous shear connection, the transverse
reinforcement need not be precisely located relative to shear connectors. The longitudinal spacing of the
connectors must be not greater than the lesser of four times the thickness of the slab or four times the height of
the connector, including any hoop which is an integral part of the connector or 800 mm.
The distance between the edge of a shear connector and the edge of the plate to which it is welded must be not
less than 25mm (see * in Foreword) (see Figure 5.1).
Except where otherwise permitted for encased and filler beams, shear connectors must be present throughout
the length of the beam.
5.3.3.2 Horizontal cover to connectors. The horizontal distance between a free concrete surface and any
shear connector must be not less than the lesser of the width of the shear connector or 50mm (see * in
Foreword) but must not be less than the required cover to the reinforcement (see Figure 5.3). At the end of
a cantilever, as for example in a cantilever-suspended span structure, sufficient transverse and longitudinal
reinforcement must be present adjacent to the free edge of the concrete slab to transfer the longitudinal shear
connector loads back into the concrete slab.
5.3.3.3 Resistance to separation. The slab must be positively tied to the girder by connectors or other means
that can be deemed to fulfil the following requirements:
(a)
The overall height of a connector, including any hoop which is an integral part of the connector, must be
not less than 65mm (see * in Foreword). When this criterion is not met the connectors must be assessed
in accordance with 5.3.3.8.
(b)
The surface of a connector that resists separation forces, i.e. the inside of a hoop, the inner face of the
top flange of a channel or the underside of the head of a stud, must neither extend less than 40mm (see
* in Foreword) clear above the bottom transverse reinforcement (see Figure 6.2) nor less than 40mm
(see * in Foreword) into the compression zone of the concrete flange in regions of sagging longitudinal
moments. Alternatively, where a concrete haunch is used between the steel girders and the soffit of the
slab, transverse reinforcing bars, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 6.3.3, must be present in the
haunch at least 40mm (see * in Foreword) clear below the surface of the connector that resists uplift.
For a shear connection adjacent to a longitudinal edge of a concrete slab to be effective there must be
transverse reinforcement satisfying 6.3.3, fully anchored in the concrete between the edge of the slab
and the adjacent row of connectors.
(c)
Where the slab is connected to the girder by two separate elements, one to resist longitudinal shear and
the other to resist forces tending to separate the slab from the girder, there must be ties which satisfy (a)
and (b).
5.3.3.4 Assessment procedure: general. Shear connectors must be assessed at the serviceability limit state in
accordance with 5.3.3.5 and for fatigue in accordance with BS 5400-10 as modified by 5.3.2.1.
June 2010
A/39
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Shear connectors must be checked for static strength at the ultimate limit state as required by 5.3.3.6 or 6.1.3,
or when redistribution of stresses from the tension flange or web panels has been made in accordance with
BD 56.
5.3.3.5 Assessment resistance of shear connectors. The assessment longitudinal shear resistance of shear
connectors Pa is

Pa = Pam/slip f3
(5.3)
where Pam is the nominal present mean static strength at assessment (5.3.2.1) and slip for shear connectors is
given in 4.2.1.
5.3.3.5A Assessment resistance of shear connectors
The design longitudinal shear resistance of a connector Ps, disregarding f3, is

Pam/slip
where slip is a reduction factor to ensure that slip is not excessive, which in 4.2.1 is assigned a value of 1.375.
The maximum value Pam permitted by equation 5.2 is 0.82Pim, so that the maximum value of Ps is 0.82Pim/1.375
or 0.60Pim, in which 0.60 is the Figure in 4.3.2(e). It only applies when the risk from fatigue is low, as when the
fatigue risk is high the first criterion in equation 5.2 gives a lower value of Pam.
5.3.3.6 Shear connector spacing and longitudinal shear resistance
(1)
Connector spacings not greater than 1000mm or span/20
The size and spacing of the connectors at each end of each span under the maximum loading considered
must be such that the maximum longitudinal shear force per unit length q does not exceed the
assessment longitudinal shear resistance qr per unit length by more than the margins in Table 5.2, in
which the fatigue vulnerability adopted must be agreed. The size and spacing of connectors required
must extend:
10% of the length of the span for q/qr 1.1
20% of the length of the span for 1.1 < q/qr 1.25
33% of the length of the span for q/qr > 1.25
but not greater than 5m.
Elsewhere the size and longitudinal spacing of connectors present may be constant over any length over
which the total assessment shear force does not exceed the product of the number of connectors and the
assessment static strength per connector as defined in 5.3.2.5, provided the maximum shear force per
unit length does not exceed the assessment shear resistance per unit length by more than the margin in
Table 5.2.
Where the connector spacing satisfies the above requirements except over regions not exceeding span/8
where the shear connectors do not comply with 5.3.3.7 then the shear connectors over this region must
comply with 5.3.3.8 and q/qr locally must not exceed unity.
A/40
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
(2)
Connector spacing exceeding 1000mm or span/20, but less than span/8.
The size and spacing of the connectors under the maximum loading considered must be such that the
maximum longitudinal shear force per unit length q does not exceed the assessment shear resistance qr
at any section taking account of the elastic distribution of longitudinal shear
(3)
Connector spacings exceeding span/8
The connectors must be assessed for the force obtained from an analysis with the beam modelled such
that the slab and beam are rigidly connected by discrete connections at the position of the connectors.
The connectors must be checked for the combined effect of horizontal and vertical loading and the
transverse reinforcement must be assessed to resist the bursting stresses in the concrete
Table 5.2: Maximum values of the ratio of shear flow to longitudinal shear resistance (q/qr)
Fatigue
vulnerability
Connector class
At simple supports
At fixed supports
Elsewhere in
Beams
High
Class a
1.05
1.25
1.25
Class b
1.05
1.05
1.1
Class c
1.0
1.0
1.0
Class a
1.25
1.5
1.5
Class b
1.05
1.05
1.1
Class c
1.0
1.0
1.0
Low
Note: Fatigue vulnerability is considered high in motorway and trunk road bridges.
Class a connectors are connectors in beams of span not exceeding 25m, with a steel beam to slab depth ratio
not less than 2.2 and with a stiffness of the shear connection under static load nowhere exceeding 4,000MN/m
per metre of beam at 60% of ultimate load and with the resistance using Table 5.1 not exceeding 2.0MN/m
Class b connectors are connectors satisfying 5.3.3.1 to 5.3.3.3, but which are excluded from the definition of
class a connectors.
Class c connectors are the connectors considered in 5.3.3.8 which do not satisfy 5.3.3.1 to 5.3.3.3.
For continuous beams over internal supports the values for Class a connectors may be determined by
interpolating between the simple support and the fixed support condition, pro-rata the ratio of the actual
support moment from the loadings causing the longitudinal shear to the moment from that loading if the beam
was fixed at that support.
5.3.3.6A Shear connector spacing and longitudinal shear resistance
For the purposes of assessment the rules for calculating the connector forces have been developed to cover any
spacing of shear connector groups as follows(22):
(1)
not greater than 1000mm nor span/20
(2)
exceeding 1000mm but less than span/8
(3)
exceeding span/8
June 2010
A/41
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
The VAy/I method is used for (1) and may be used for (2), but a more accurate result is obtained for (2) using the
approach required for (3).
(1) is the normal situation for which, in the Design Code, q/qr is 1.0 at the end of a span and 1.10 elsewhere, with
the maximum values maintained over 10% of the span. For assessment these restrictions have been relaxed by
taking advantage of the flexibility of shear connectors and the facts that at internal supports (see Figure 5.5):
(i)
where the spans are similar the shear connectors under dead load are undeflected (due to symmetry)
and so unloaded, and;
(ii)
the horizontal forces in the shear connectors at the ends are redistributed as a result of the shear
deflection of the steel beam.
The values of q/qr take into account variation in the ratios of adjacent span lengths up to 1.50, with a reasonable
allowance for distributed live load effects, but not concentrated loads. If account has been taken of cracking the
values in Table 5.2 would be appreciably greater.
Table 5.2 was determined from finite element analyses of bridges with spans between 10 and 25 metres, and
Class a shear connectors were assumed to be studs with a stiffness of 200kN/mm (13)(23) whereas Class b and
c connectors were assumed to be rigid. The stiffness of the shear connection increases as the number of shear
connectors increases, which reduces the redistribution of longitudinal shear along the span in continuous beams.
In simply supported beams the redistribution due to flexibility is small and may be adverse, but there will be some
benefit from shrinkage, so there is a small net benefit. Class a shear connectors allow up to 20 number 19mm
studs per metre, which have a stiffness per metre run of 4000kN/mm (or 4000MN/m). In fact the benefit from
shear connector flexibility reduces only slowly with increase in stiffness and if the stiffness specified for class a
connectors were doubled, q/qr values would be mid way between those for class a and b shear connectors in
Table 5.2.
Shear connectors in beams in which the steel beam to slab depth ratio is less than 2.2 are excluded from class a due
to the increased tendency of large tensile forces developing in the shear connectors with reduction in the depth of
the steel beam from end effects in simply supported beams and from shear deflection in continuous beams.
For (2) q/qr must not exceed unity and the shear connector force needs to be estimated for the distribution of the
shear flow mid way between adjacent groups of shear connectors such that the force in the ith shear connector is
Psi q ri .d X
as shown in Figure 5.6.
For connector spacings exceeding span/8 the method in (2) may not provide an accurate estimate of the connector
forces for concentrated loads (though it has been shown to give a good indication of the shear connector forces
under uniform loading up to a spacing exceeding span/4). For this situation an analysis is required in which the
steel beam and concrete slab are modelled as separate members connected rigidly at the position of the shear
connectors. For beams of normal span there is little advantage with such connector spacings of including the effect
of connector flexibility. Furthermore for most situations in which these conditions apply the connectors are likely to
be rigid (see 5.3.3.8).
A/42
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.3.3.7 Uplift on shear connectors. Where the shear connectors are subject to significant direct tension due
either to:

(a) forces tending to separate the slab from a girder caused, for example, by differential bending of the
girders or of the two sides of a box girder or from tension field action in a web, or
(b) transverse moments on a group of connectors resulting from transverse bending of the slab
particularly in the region of diaphragms or transverse cross bracing, or from the forces generated at the
corners when the slab acts as part of a 'U' frame,
then additional ties, suitably anchored, must be present to resist these forces.
Where stud connectors are used and are subject to both shear Q and tension due to uplift Tu the equivalent
shear Qmax to be used in checking the connectors for static strength and fatigue must be taken as:

2
Q max = ( Q + T u2 /3)
(5.5)
In addition the stud connectors must be also checked at the ultimate limit state in accordance with 6.3.4 using
the appropriate value of Qmax.
5.3.3.7A Uplift on shear connectors
In deriving the uplift forces on the shear connectors in unstiffened girders from differential bending of adjacent
girders it is acceptable to disregard the stiffness of the web, so that the slab/beam connection is assumed to be
pinned in the transverse direction. With stiffened webs however, particularly in the deeper beams, the effect of the
rigidity of the connection may be significant and therefore should be evaluated.
Shear connectors may also subject to significant direct tension due to slab tie-down forces, particularly severe in the
corners of some skew slabs. Another common situation which causes uplift in shear connectors occurs where there
are composite cross girders which do not extend outside the external main girders, i.e., the cantilever is a concrete
slab. Parapet impact combined with accidental wheel loading can cause significant uplift in shear connectors on the
crossbeam near its junction with the main beam.
5.3.3.8 Incidental shear connection. Attachments to beams penetrating the concrete slab have the potential
to provide longitudinal shear resistance between the beam and slab, so too have steps in the top surface of the
metal beam (for example at flange plates) when they occur such as to oppose relative movement of the slab
and steel girder. These generally lack the resistance to uplift and so do not satisfy the requirements of 5.3.3.1
to 5.3.3.7. Testing may be desirable in circumstances other than that in 5.3.3.8.3 and these must be agreed
with the TAA. Where the attachments would suffer fatigue damage or cause fatigue damage to the metal beam
if they acted as shear connectors, their possible action as shear connectors must be disregarded, but possible
damage to the beam must be taken into account or inspections made to ensure that the attachments are in good
condition and the flanges and connecting plates are uncracked.
5.3.3.8A Incidental shear connection
The method for assessing the strength of incidental shear connectors is derived from the method for bar connectors
in BS EN 1994. The method gives appreciably lower strengths than those in Table 5.1 for bar connectors and an
additional safety factor b introduced for incidental shear connectors which has the values:
1.25 for bolt heads, plate ends and other vertical surfaces
2.00 for rivet heads
June 2010
A/43
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
These values have been derived from an assessment of the relative efficiency of these devices compared to shear
connectors satisfying the requirements of 5.3.3.7.
Attention is drawn to the increased stresses in many bolt groups resulting from their action as shear connectors, and
frequently this action would appear to increase the shear in half the bolts and reduce it in the other half (compare
Figures 5.9a and 5.9b). Possible actions then are:
(i)
assess the spare capacity in the bolts and take this as the limiting capacity of the group of incidental
shear connectors;
(ii)
assess the bolts taking into account the extra force from the incidental shear connection;
(iii) disregard the incidental action on the grounds that bolt failure of this kind has never been attributed to
incidental action;
(iv) take full advantage of the incidental shear connection and ignore its possible adverse effects for the
reasons given under (iii).
The procedure adopted should be included in the AIP document.
Consideration has been given to specifying an upper limit to the increase in the resistance permissible with
incidental shear connections. For tall devices, which may be effective as shear connectors but for their lack of
capacity to resist uplift forces, and which were probably designed as shear connectors, no upper limit is imposed.
Provisional limitations to the increase in the capacity of the steel beam permissible for bolts and other vertical
bearing surfaces of 40%, and for rivet heads of 33%, are to be used until more accurate values can be justified.
For tall devices formed of plate which are clearly not rigid it is proposed that Pim given by equation 5.6 is multiplied
by a factor k which is the ratio of the area of plate which under the design pressure (Pam/A1) deflects by no more
than 0.2mm to the total area of the plate.
In checks assuming devices act as incidental shear connectors unpropped construction is appropriate, so these
devices carry no longitudinal shear under the self weight of the structure. They may however be assumed to be
effective in carrying longitudinal shear from the superimposed dead load.
(a) Provision of devices to resist uplift
In riveted or bolted construction, composite action can be ensured by replacing some of the rivets or bolts by long
bolts(25) or other suitable devices, as shown in Figure 5.8. This would provide a nominal uplift capacity at positions
where the analysis showed this to be most effective. Each scheme needs to be assessed on its merits, taking into
account that the passage of a concentrated load will tend to cause uplift in the shear connectors at all positions. The
frequency of the position of restraint to uplift therefore must ensure:
(i)
the capacity of the slab to carry the load to where the uplift is resisted;
(ii)
that significant vertical separation between the slab and the beam cannot occur.
For this purpose a maximum separation of 0.5mm disregarding the loading on the slab is suggested.
Where the whole of the deck is replaced, the replacement of rivets or bolts can be done on a more systematic basis.
For heavily trafficked bridges there is advantage to be gained by providing devices to resist uplift which do not
themselves carry longitudinal shear, since the longitudinal shear significantly reduces their capacity to resist uplift
(see 5.3.3.7). Fewer devices would then be needed.
Where the girders are of cast or wrought iron, careful consideration should be given to the selection of connectors;
there may be reasons for preferring mechanical fixings (as in Figure 5.8) to welded fixings in this situation.
A/44
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
(b) Buckle plates and troughs

The undulation of the concrete surface in contact with the steelwork in construction using buckle plates and troughs
constitutes a potential shear connection. The connectors between these features and the steel beam should be
capable of carrying the longitudinal shear force calculated assuming full interaction.
5.3.3.8.1A Isolated incidental shear connectors. The initial static strength of rigid shear connectors lacking
resistance to uplift forces may be taken as the lower of the shear strength of the weld and:

Pim =
0.80 A1 f cu

mc b
(5.6)
where

= (A2/A1)0.5, but
2.5 for normal density concrete, or
2.0 for lightweight concrete of density not less than 1400kg/m3
= bsc hsc
A1

A2

is the area of concrete over which the shear connector force is distributed on the rear plane of the
next shear connector, assuming a lateral dispersion angle of 1:5 from the front plane of the
connector (see Figure 5.4)
bsc
is the dimension of the connector transverse to the span
hsc
the mean height of the shear connector.
For an isolated internal connector (defined such that the lateral dispersion line, shown in Figure 5.4, does not
intersect the edge of the slab), the value of A2/A1 is:
A2 = 1 + 0.2 s L - wsc 1 + 0.4 s L - wsc
A1
h sc h sc
bsc bsc
when
A2 =
A1

where
S L 5 hc - 1 + wsc
or,
h sc
h sc h sc
hc
s L wsc
h sc 1 + 0.4 bsc bsc
(5.8)
when S L > 5 hc - 1 + wsc

h sc
h sc h sc
wsc
is the dimension of the individual connectors along the span
sL
is the spacing of the shear connectors longitudinally
hc
is the depth of the concrete slab.
June 2010
(5.7)
A/45
Volume 3 Section 4
Part
16 BD
Appendix
A 61/09
VolumeAppendix
3 SectionA4
Part 16 BD 61/10
is an additional safety factor to take into account the greater proneness to brittle fracture on
account
of the
lackfactor
of resistance
toaccount
separation,
whichproneness
must nottobebrittle
less than:

is an
additional
safety
to take into
the greater
fracture on account of
the lack of resistance to separation, which must not be less than:
1.25 for bolts and other potential connectors with vertical surfaces resisting the
longitudinal
1.25 for bolts shear.
and other potential connectors with vertical surfaces resisting the longitudinal shear.
2.0 for rivet heads and other potential connectors with non-vertical surfaces resisting the
2.0 for rivet heads and other potential connectors with non-vertical surfaces resisting the
longitudinal shear.
longitudinal shear.
For incidental connectors on concrete surfaces confined between rigid vertical surfaces, or within re-entrant
For
incidental
profiles,
b mustconnectors
be taken as on
1.0.concrete surfaces confined between rigid vertical surfaces, or within reentrant profiles, b must be taken as 1.0.
Figure 5.4: Definition of A2
Figure 5.4: Definition of A2
April
A/46 2009
53
June A/
2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.3.3.8.2 Resistance of groups of incidental connectors arranged in rows transverse to the span. The
resistance of a group of connectors arranged in a row transverse to the span is the lesser of the resistances Pim
in (i) and (ii) below:
(i)
The resistance Pim given by 5.3.3.8.1, but with bsc redefined as the overall width of the group of
connectors.
(ii)
The resistance nPim where

n
is the number of connectors in the row
Pim is the resistance given by 5.3.3.8.1 for the individual connectors, but with sL replaced by sL
given by:

sL = sT - 0.2 (sL - wsc) but sL
sL
is the spacing of rows of connectors along the beam
sT
is the spacing of the individual connectors transverse to the beam
is the number of shear connectors in a row transverse to the beam
(5.9)
For incidental connectors unable to resist uplift the projected contact area must take into account the vertical
separation between the slab and the steel girder.
5.3.3.8.3 Testing. Where the amount of composite action is required to increase the flexural resistance by 25%
or more, appropriate site testing must be carried out to demonstrate that the stiffness is consistent with the
composite action required in the assessment.
5.3.3.8.3A Testing
When appreciable dependence is being placed upon the strength of the incidental shear connection (here defined
as increasing the flexural strength of beam by 25% or more) field tests are required to demonstrate the existence
of flexural stiffening effects. It may be assumed for the purpose of interpreting the results that 50% of the increase
in flexural stiffness can be attributed to increase in strength, or 75% when 75% or more of composite action is
confirmed by strain profiles(46) (See also 5.5.3).
Whilst accidental composite action may often appear to have withstood the test of time it may reduce with time
due to slip or corrosion. Therefore, when compliance with the assessment criteria is dependent on accidental
shear connectors, the bridge should be tested periodically under identical live loading to determine whether or not
the stiffness of the bridge is diminishing. Where such a testing programme is adopted and finishes, furniture and
parapets are replaced, tests should be conducted before and after the replacement.
June 2010
A/47
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.3.3.9 Partial interaction. When the fatigue risk is low the required resistance for Class a shear connectors
on the longitudinal shear plane may be reduced by the reduction in force in the slab due to the flexibility of the
shear connectors. Elastic analysis assuming cross sections remain plane may be used by reducing the modulus
of elasticity of the concrete and slab reinforcement, providing:
(1)
Where the vulnerability to fatigue damage is low and very limited inelasticity in the shear connection
at the serviceability limit state is acceptable the total force in the slab is not less than p times the force
derived using the full value of the short term of modulus elasticity of the concrete, where
p = 0.60 + 0.025 l where 16m l 8m
(5.10)
where l is the length in metres of the span with concrete in compression, which for beams of
substantially uniform cross section may be taken as:
the full span for simply supported beams,
0.70 times the full span for fixed ended beam,
0.85 times the span for a simple support one end and with continuity the other.
but for spans up to 25m with continuity at one or both ends p need not be taken greater than 0.95.
(2)
The beam with the reduced elastic modulus satisfies all the requirements of this Standard except for the
control of cracking, for which p must be taken as unity.
(3)
The shear connectors are of class a as defined in 5.3.3.6.
5.3.3.9A Partial interaction

For short span beams with Class a connectors two effects combine which improve the overall efficiency of
composite beams.
(i)
the deflection of flexible shear connectors not only redistributes but also significantly reduces the
longitudinal force, but the reduction in the moment of resistance of the composite section in bridges of
normal span designed for full interaction (as in the Design Code) is too small to justify consideration;
(ii)
continuous beams with elastic shear connectors possess the ability to redistribute the longitudinal
shear force along the shear connection in such a way as to reduce the maximum shear flow in bridges
of normal spans designed for full interaction (as in the Standard)(13)(26). The amount of redistribution
is significant even when the shear connectors remain elastic, but in continuous short span beams
without point loads a substantially uniform distribution of shear flow occurs, and a virtually uniform
distribution is obtained with minimal inelasticity in the shear connection.
The procedure adopted is to assess the moments and forces using the short term modulus of elasticity and then to
reduce the modulus of elasticity such that the force in the slab is not less than p times the value obtained using
the short term modulus. The entire cross section is then checked for this slab stiffness.
A/48
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.3.3.10 Modification of horizontal force for concentrated loads. For a concentrated load normally
represented in the global analysis as a point load or line load the longitudinal force between load and a fixed
support may be reduced for class a shear connector as defined in 5.3.3.6 to p times the force calculated
assuming plane sections remain plane, where p is given by

p = 0.40 + 0.075 lv but 1.0
(5.11)
where lv is the distance in metres from the load to the support at which there is fixity.
For continuous beams over internal supports the values may be determined by interpolating between the
simple support for which p is unity and the value for the fixed support condition multiplied by the ratio of the
actual support moment from the loadings causing the longitudinal shear to the moment from that loading if the
beam was fixed at that support.
5.3.3.10A Modification of horizontal force for concentrated load
The method in 5.3.3.9 is very conservative for point loads close to the supports and very low values of p may
be obtained analytically. Unfortunately, for point loads at mid-span the method of estimating the effective breadth
in composite construction underestimates the true effective breadth, and strictly Annex A of BS 5400-3 should be
used in this situation. Equation 5.11 has therefore been modified to take account of the fact that there are likely to
be other point loads nearer mid-span, for which the method presented would be otherwise be unsafe.
CL
CL
Support
Span
Steps defined in clause
5.3.3.6 & Table 5.2
1.00
0.80
Distribution of shear flow with
Class A connectors in fixed ended
beam
0.60
q/qmax
Horizontal shear distributed as
calculated from vertical shear
0.40
qi/qri = 1.25
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
x/l
x = distance from support
Figure 5.5: Shear flow normalised on shear force

June 2010
Figure 5.7: Shear flow normalised on shear force
A/49
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
L
L
= = = =
d=x =
= =
dx
Figure 5.6: Calculation of shear connector force when S span/8

Figure
5.8:5.8:
Calculation
connectorforce
force
when
span/8
Figure
Calculationofofshear
shear connector
when
S S
span/8
Concrete slab
Concrete slab
CL
CL
Support
(a) Bolt distortion due to flexure

Support
Unloaded
end of plate
Unloaded
end of plate
CL
CL
Concrete slab
Concrete slab
Loaded
end of
plate
Loaded
end of plate
Support
(b) Bolt distortion due to incidental

shear connector action
Support
(b)
distortion
to incidental

(a)(a)
Bolt
distortion
due todue
flexure
(b) Bolt
Bolt distortion
duedue
to incidental
Bolt
distortion
to
Figure
5.9: Interaction
of flexure
bolt forces from flexure
and
incidental
shear connector action

shear
connector
action
shear
connector
action
Figure 5.7: Interaction of bolt forces from flexure and incidental shear connector action
Figure 5.9: Interaction of bolt forces from flexure and incidental shear connector action
A/50
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Long bolts or other

suitable devices to
replace rivets if required
Appendix A
Long bolts or other

suitable devices to
replace rivets if required
Rivets
Buckle plate
Top flange
Figure 5.10: Typical device to resist

uplift
Rivets
Buckle plate
Top flange
Figure 5.8: Typical device to resist uplift
Figure 5.10: Typical device to resist uplift
Shrinkage moments
m
Shrinkage moments
m
(a) Assumptions in design
Shrinkage moments
m
0.15 l
m
m
m
(a) Assumptions
in design
Shrinkage moments
(b) Assumptions in assessment

m
0.15 l
Figure 5.9: Application of shrinkage moments

l
(b) Assumptions in assessment

A/51
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.4 Temperature Effects, Shrinkage Modified by Creep and Differential Settlement.

5.4.1 General. Longitudinal stresses due to the effects of temperature and shrinkage modified by creep must
be considered at the serviceability limit state for the beam section. Serviceability checks are however essential
for shear connectors. In such checks account must be taken of the longitudinal shear forces arising from these
effects. Where appropriate, variations in the stiffness of the composite beam along its length due to variations
in the cross section of the steel member or where the concrete flange was cast in stages, must be taken into
account when calculating the longitudinal shear force per unit length. When the casting sequence is unknown
worst credible sequences must be assumed (see 5.2.5.4).
For assessment, differential settlement and shrinkage need only be included in the load combinations which
include temperature.
5.4.1A General
Whilst there is no justification for completely eliminating temperature effects and shrinkage modified by creep in
assessment, their effect can be modified such that they are less onerous than in the design situation. The justification
for this is in part that the design situation specified is very conservative, having to take account of the worst likely
situation (which is usually more severe than the actual situation) and in part the very few occurrences of damage to
structures attributed to thermal and shrinkage effects.
Measures taken to relax the severity of the measure in this clause are as follows:
(i)
include differential settlement and shrinkage only in the load combination which includes temperature,
so these effects are excluded for the combination with the highest load factors on dead and live load,
which tends to be critical;
(ii)
assume that concrete cracked in tension is unable to carry thermal and shrinkage strains, and that the
moments from these effects are applied to the beam at 0.15l(10) from the supports, as shown in
Figure 5.9 (see 5.4.2.1). In fixed ended beams this reduces the support moment due to shrinkage by
30%; and
(iii) in the calculation of ls in equation 5.12, reduce the concentrated loading from temperature and
shrinkage at simply supported ends of span by 20% for class a connectors and 10% for class b
connectors (see 5.4.2.2).
5.4.2 Temperature Effects
5.4.2.1 Effects to be considered. Longitudinal stresses and longitudinal shear forces due to temperature
effects must be taken into account where appropriate. The effects to be considered are:
(a)
primary effects due to a temperature difference through the depth of the cross section of the composite
member.
(b)
primary effects due to a uniform change of temperature in a composite member where the coefficients of
thermal expansion of the structural steel or iron and concrete aggregate are significantly different, and
(c)
secondary effects, in continuous members, due to redistribution of the moments and support reaction
caused by temperature effects of the types described in (a) or (b).
A/52
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
In the absence of a partial interaction analysis (see 3.1.13.2), longitudinal stresses and shear forces due to
temperature effects must be calculated by elastic theory assuming that full interaction exists between the
concrete slab and the steel beam. The stiffness must be based on the transformed composite cross section
using a modular ratio of e appropriate to short term loading. The effective breadth of concrete flange must be
taken as the actual breadth. Alternatively where b/l does not exceed 0.20 it may be taken as the quarter-span
value for uniformly distributed loading in BD 56, except for beams simply supported one end and fixed or
continuous the other, when the mean of the effective breadth values for the simply supported and fixed ended
cases may be used. Concrete must either be assumed to be uncracked, except that for calculating longitudinal
bending stresses due to the secondary effects in (c) above the concrete in tension may be ignored, or be
assumed to be cracked as in 5.1.1.1(a) and the thermal strains in the zone of cracked concrete disregarded in
the global analysis.
5.4.2.2 Coefficient of Linear Expansion
(a)
Structural Steel and Reinforcement. The coefficient of linear expansion L may be taken as
12 x 10-6/0C.
(b)
Concrete. The coefficient of linear expansion L, of normal density concrete (2300 kg/m3 or greater),
must be taken as 12 x 10-6/0C, except when limestone aggregates are used, when a value of 9 x 10-6/0C
must be adopted. For lightweight aggregate concrete (density 1400 kg/m3 to 2300 kg/m3) the coefficient
of linear expansion must normally be taken as 8 x 10-6/0C.
5.4.2.3 Longitudinal shear. The longitudinal shear force Q, due to either a temperature difference through
the depth of the cross section or differential thermal expansion between the concrete and steel beam, must
be assumed to be transmitted from the concrete slab to the steel beam by connectors at each end of the beam
ignoring the effects of bond. The forces on the connectors must be calculated on the basis that the rate of
transfer of load varies linearly from 2Q/ls at each end of the beam to zero at a distance ls from each end of the
beam, where

l s = 2 KQ/f
(5.12)
where
Q
is the longitudinal shear force due to the primary effects of temperature. To take account of the
proportion of Q transmitted elsewhere in the span (which is well distributed and so is disregarded)
the value of Q, for the purpose of this sub-clause, may be reduced by a factor of 0.8 for
connectors Class a in 5.3.3.6(3) or 0.9 for connectors Class b.
is the difference between the free strains at the centroid of the concrete slab and the centroid of
the steel beam, and
K=
spacing of the connectors (mm)

Connector modulus (N/mm)
The value of K in mm2/N will vary with the connector and concrete type and may be taken from Table 5.3.
Alternatively, where stud shear connectors are used the rate of transfer of load may be assumed to be constant
for a distance lss from each end of the beam, where lss is equal to one-fifth of the effective span.
June 2010
A/53
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
5.4.2.3A Longitudinal shear

There is a problem inherited from CP117 Part 2 in relation to the K values which appear unconservative, but
modifications based upon more accurate theory are overconservative. This is that the present requirements allow
for only 1.67 shear connectors per metre, whereas in practice at the ends of beams there are likely to be 10 to 25
connectors/metre(13). For shrinkage such a reduction could be attributed to early age effects, but if this was the case
then the shrinkage force would be many times too high. Such a justification for the use of the specified K values for
shrinkage is not applicable to their use for temperature, for which they can only be justified on the grounds that:
(i)
Differential temperature movements in the sense which increases forces in connectors at the free end
are generally much less than the shrinkage movements (which occur in the opposite direction).
(ii)
Differential temperature movements which occur in the sense which increase moments at the
penultimate support are unloading the end shear connectors, so due to inelastic effects, the stiffness is
lower.
5.4.2.4 Longitudinal Stresses. Longitudinal stress due to temperature effects must be calculated using the
assumptions given in 5.4.2.1.
5.4.3 Shrinkage modified by creep. When the effects of shrinkage modified by creep adversely affect the
maximum resultant forces on the shear connectors or the maximum resultant stresses in the concrete slab and
the steel beam, they must be calculated in the manner described for temperature effects in 5.4.2.1, 5.4.2.3
and 5.4.2.4, but using values of cs the free shrinkage strain and a modular ratio e, appropriate to long term
loading, which must be taken as the approximate value of 2Es/Ec or the more accurate value of Es/cEc.
where

Ec is the static secant modulus of elasticity of concrete.
Es is the elasticity of structural steel.
NOTE: Values of cs and c are given in Table 5.4.

The values in Table 5.4 must only be used where the concrete specification complies with the limits given in
Figure 5.10. For situations outside the scope of Figure 5.10 and Table 5.4, or where a better estimation of the
effect of shrinkage modified by creep is required, the value of free shrinkage strain cs and the creep coefficient
must be determined in accordance with Appendix C of BS 5400-4.
The value of c must then be taken as
c =
1

1+
(5.13)
Table 5.3: K Values for estimating transfer lengths

Stud Connectors
Other Connectors
Normal density concrete
0.003
0.0015
Lightweight aggregate concrete
0.006
0.003
A/54
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 163BD
61/094
Volume
Section
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Appendix A
Table 5.4: Shrinkage strains and creep reduction factors

Environment
cs
Table 5.4: Shrinkage strains and creep reduction
factors
Very humid, e.g. directly over water.
Environment
VeryGenerally
humid, e.g.indirectly
overair.
water.
the open
Generally in the open air.
Very dry, e.g. dry interior enclosures.
Very dry, e.g. dry interior enclosures.
-100 x 106
0.5
cs
- 200 -100
x 10x610-6
- 200 x 10
-300 x 106
-6
-300 x 10-6
0.40.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
FigureFigure
5.5: 5.10:
Range
of concrete mixes for which Table 5.4 can be used
Range of concrete mixes for which Table 5.4 can be used
5.4.4
Differentialsettlements
settlements
must
be included
theysignificant.
are significant.
The
5.4.4Differential
DifferentialSettlement.
Settlement. Differential
must
be included
whenwhen
they are
The effects
may normally
be assessed
assuming
cracked cross-section
properties at
supports provided
theyprovided
do not reverse
effects
may normally
be assessed
assuming
cracked cross-section
properties
at supports
they do
direction
the bending
moment
in the
composite
section
at the supports.
settlements
notthereverse
theofdirection
of the
bending
moment
in the
composite
section When
at the differential
supports. When
are larger, settlements
the momentsare
for larger,
all loadings
must be assessed
assuming must
an uncracked
crossassuming
section at an
the uncracked
support
differential
the moments
for all loadings
be assessed
suffering
the
greater
settlement.
cross section at the support suffering the greater settlement.
5.4. 4A Differential Settlement
5.4. 4A Differential Settlement
Following
principles
in BA
34, that
the normally
smaller
SLS effects
can be disregarded
for assessment
Followingthethe
principles
in BA
34, that
the normally
smaller
SLS effects
can be disregarded
for
unless
they
are
unusually
large,
differential
settlements
should
be
disregarded
unless
they
significantly
affect
the
assessment unless they are unusually large, differential settlements should be disregarded unless
they
calculation. As a guide for assessment, the effects need only be considered when the flexural moments exceed
significantly affect the calculation. As a guide for assessment, the effects need only be considered when
10% of the sum of the moments from dead and live loads, or alternatively where there are physical signs that
the flexural
10%
the sumcracking,
of the moments
from deadbetween
and livecolumns,
loads, or
alternatively
settlement
hasmoments
occurred. exceed
Such signs
areofexcessive
relative settlement
abutments
and
where
there areand
physical
that settlement
occurred.
Such
signshas
areoccurred
excessive
the
carriageway,
bearingsigns
distortion.
Sometimes,has
when
excessive
cracking
andcracking,
excessiverelative
drying
settlement
between columns,
and theiscarriageway,
bearing
distortion.
shrinkage
is considered
unlikely, abutments
support settlement
the most likelyand
cause.
Attempts
should Sometimes,
then be madewhen
to
excessive
excessive
shrinkage
is considered
support
estimate
thecracking
magnitudehas
of occurred
differentialand
settlement
as itdrying
may have
a significantly
adverse unlikely,
effect on the
stress state in
the
bridge. is the most likely cause. Attempts should then be made to estimate the magnitude of
settlement
differential settlement as it may have a significantly adverse effect on the stress state in the bridge.
5.5 Deflections
5.5.1 General. Deflections must be calculated only when required or when deflection tests are undertaken.
Requirements for deflections and general guidance on their calculation are given in BS 5400-1. The partial
load factor fL is given in BD 37 and f3 is given in 4.1.3.
April 2009
June 2010
A/62
A/55
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
5.5.1A General
See comments in 4.3.1.
5.5.2 Elastic deflections. In calculating elastic deflections, consideration must be given to the sequence of
construction and, where appropriate, proper account must be taken of the deflections of the steel section due
to loads applied to it prior to the development of composite action and of partial composite action where deck
slabs are cast in stages. Where the construction sequence is unknown the worst credible sequence must be
assumed (see 5.2.5.4).
Deflections must be calculated by elastic theory using the elastic properties given in 4.2 and assuming full
interaction between the concrete and steel beam. Allowance for in-plane shear flexibility (shear lag effects)
in the flange must be made in calculations based on the elementary theory of bending by using an effective
breadth of flange in accordance with BS 5400-3. The quarter-span values must be used throughout.
In the absence of a more rigorous analysis of the effects of creep, the deflections due to sustained loading
must be calculated by using a modulus of elasticity of concrete appropriate to sustained loading determined in
accordance with 4.2.3. Alternatively, under sustained loading, the modulus of elasticity must be taken as
1/(1 + ) times the short term modulus given in 4.2.3, where is the creep coefficient determined in
accordance with Appendix C of BS 5400-4 or as c times the short term modulus, where c is given in
Table 5.4 for concrete mixes complying with Figure 5.10.
5.5.2A Elastic Deflections
The importance of shear deflection of the webs of steel beams is disregarded in conventional steelwork
calculations, but its effect has been shown to be very significant in continuous beams. For typical continuous
composite beams with a span to steel beam depth ratios of 20 and 27 the shear deflection in cracked analyses
increases the deflection by 22% and 13%, and it is very much higher both for lower span/depth ratios and if the
uncracked, or partially cracked, state of the concrete is taken into account. In simply supported beams the effect is
still significant, increasing the deflection typically by 25% at an l/d ratio of 10, 9% at an l/d ratio of 20 and 6% at
an l/d ratio of 6. The shear deflection is generally more significant in composite beams than steel beams because the
shear stress in the webs is higher.
However, deflections of all bridges tend to be significantly less than theory predicts, which is due, inter alia, to
unintended composite action, unintended lateral distribution (e.g., from erection bracing which has not been
removed) and from bearing restraint (the effect of which is often large). Unless advantage is taken of such
unintended composite action, the shear deflection may be disregarded.
Unintended composite action includes not only the effect of incidental shear connectors but also the stiffening
effects of the carriageway and the parapets. This is why in 5.3.3.8.3 of the commentary only a proportion of the
increased stiffness found in tests may be attributed to incidental shear connectors. However the stiffening from
the carriageway and parapet are significantly enhanced by the incidental shear connection, so these effects may be
indicative of its occurrence.
What is unknown, when incidental shear connection is justified by testing, is how close the condition to the failure
of the shear connection is. For this reason special care should be taken to ensure structures with incidental shear
connectors are not overloaded, either during the test or as a result of change of traffic usage.
A/56
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6 ASSESSMENT OF SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR THE ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE

6.1.1A General. Except where alternative methods are given in 6.1.2 elastic analysis must be used to
determine the distribution of bending moments, shear forces and axial loads due to the design ultimate traffic
loadings specified in BD 21, but with the load combinations in BD 37. The use of alternative methods must
be in accordance with 8.2 of BS 5400-1 and must only be undertaken where they can be shown to model
adequately the combined effects of local and global loads due to combinations 1 - 5 as given in BD 37.
Wrought iron and cast iron structures must be assessed elastically as for steel using the material properties and
strengths in BD 21. Shrinkage, temperature and differential settlement effects must be disregarded at the ULS
except for the most slender cross sections.
6.1.2 Deck slabs forming the flanges of composite beams. The deck slab must be assessed to resist
separately the effects of loading given in 5.2.4.1, but assessment loads relevant to the ultimate limit state must
be used. In general, the effects of local wheel loading on the slab must be determined by elastic analysis.
Alternatively, an inelastic method of analysis, e.g. yield line theory, is permissible where an appropriate
solution exists subject to the requirements in 6.1.1.
The resistance to global effects must be determined in accordance with 6.2. For local effects the assessment
of the slab cross section must be in accordance with BD 44. The combined effects of global bending and local
wheel loading must be taken into account in accordance with BD 44.
Proper account must be taken of the interaction between longitudinal shear forces and transverse bending
of the slab in the region of the shear connection. The methods given in 6.3 may be deemed to satisfy these
requirements.
6.1.3 Composite action. Where, for a beam built in stages, the entire load is assumed to act on the final cross
section in accordance with 9.9.5 of BD 56, or where tensile stresses are redistributed from the web or the
tension flange in accordance with 9.5.4 or 9.5.5 respectively of BD 56, the shear connectors and transverse
reinforcement must be assessed for the corresponding longitudinal shear in accordance with 6.3.
Composite action from shear connectors not complying with 5.3.3.3 must be disregarded at the ultimate limit
state, except:
(i)
where the connectors can be shown to be strong enough to resist the bending including any additional
bending caused by the calculated separation gap when lift-off occurs or
(ii)
in checking for lateral-torsional buckling in accordance with Annex C.
Where (i) apply the contact area between the connector and the concrete must be adjusted for any separation.
When the construction cannot be justified by this procedure consideration must be given to providing nominal
ties to ensure the integrity of the construction generally and particularly in sagging moment regions in the
vicinity of hinges or the greatest sagging moment curvatures.
June 2010
A/57
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.1.3A Composite action

Composite action from incidental connectors at ULS is only permitted where separation is taken into account and
when the connectors can resist the bending due to separation. Separation at ULS is most likely to occur under
heavy axle loads, and adjacent to any cross sections at which inelastic rotation has occurred. It is however sufficient
for the purposes of the calculation to assume elastic conditions throughout and model the structure as discussed in
5.3.3.6, but using an iterative procedure in which connections are removed when the deflection exceeds 0.50mm,
which with adjustment to the resistance could be relaxed to a significant proportion of the depth of the connectors,
or when the moment exceeds their flexural capacity.
Lift off is unlikely to occur over appreciable lengths of beam, even under the effect of concentrated loads. This is
because away from the immediate vicinity of these loads the self weight of the slab will ensure the slab is in contact
with the beam. For this reason shallow incidental shear connectors may be assumed to provide lateral restraint to
the top flange at ULS, even though composite action may be inappropriate for the design of the cross section.
6.1.4 Distribution of bending moments and vertical shear forces
6.1.4.1 Elastic analysis. The assessment envelopes of bending moments and vertical shear forces which are
produced by the whole of any particular combination of loads applied to the composite member may be found
by elastic analysis, in accordance with 5.1.1.2.
6.1.4.2 Redistribution of support moments in principal longitudinal members. For beams which have
a substantially uniform cross section throughout each span, and for which the elastic section modulus at the
level of the reinforcement is not less than that at the level of the underside of the structural steel part, a portion
of the support moments may be redistributed to the span provided that equilibrium between the internal forces
and external loads is maintained under each appropriate combination of ultimate loads. In the global analysis
the concrete adjacent to the support may be assumed to be cracked as in 5.1.1.2(a) or uncracked throughout
the span. The corresponding proportions of the support moments which may be redistributed depend upon the
cross section redistribution classes (defined in Table 6.2 and 6.3) and are given in Table 6.1.
In Table 6.1, the cross section class in the hogging moment region is the higher class number for the flange and
web given in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 when the cross-sections are assessed elastically or in Tables 6.2 and 6.4 when
they are assessed plastically. Cross sections excluded from redistribution class 3 are in class 4.
When cross sections in Class 1 are assessed elastically the redistribution must not exceed that permitted for
Class 2 cross sections.
In Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4
= 355/ y
A/58
bfo
is the width of the flange outstand as defined in Figure 1 of BD 56.
tfo
is the thickness of the flange outstand, as defined in Figure 1 of BD 56.
d w
is the depth of the web as defined in Figure 1 of BD 56.
tw
is the thickness of the web.
is the extreme stress in the less highly compressed part of the web (usually in tension) as a
proportion of the extreme stress in the more highly compressed part calculated elastically. Tensile
stresses are negative and compressive stresses positive.
is the proportion of the web depth in compression.
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Table 6.1: Limits to redistribution of hogging moments, as a percentage of the elastic support moments
Class of cross section in hogging moment regions
For `uncracked' elastic analysis, span 30m
40
30
20
10
For `uncracked' elastic analysis, 30m < span 45m
32
22
15
For `cracked' elastic analysis
25
15
10
Table 6.2: Limiting bfo/tfo ratios for compression flanges in cross section redistribution classes
June 2010
Cross section
redistribution class
Rolled section
Welded section
12
11
A/59
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Table 6.3: Limiting dw/tw ratios for webs in cross section redistribution classes for elastic design of
cross section
Cross section
redistribution
Web in pure
bending (=-1)
1
2
3
56
64
92
Web in Compression
Rectangular
Triangular
stress
stress
distribution
distribution
(=+1)
24
24
32
32
46
34
Web in
intermediate
state of tension/
compression
Web in nonuniform
compression
24(1-4/3)
32(1-)
46(1-)
24
32
(46-12)
Table 6.4: Limiting dw/tw ratios for webs in cross section redistribution classes for plastic design of
cross section
Cross section
redistribution class
1
2
A/60
Web in pure bending

(=-1)
56
64
Web in pure compression Web in intermediate state

(=+1)
of tension/compression
24
168/(8-1)
32
32/
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.1.4.2A Redistribution of support moments in principal longitudinal members

In BS EN 1993 and BS EN 1994 there are four classes of cross section which compare with two in BS 5400-3,
described as compact and non-compact. The finer cross section classification permits a more economical
calculation procedure to be defined for many cross sections, and BD 56 has followed BS EN 1993 in dividing
compact cross sections into those suitable and those unsuitable for plastic analysis.
Plastic global analysis is not used in the Standard for two reasons, as follows:
(1)
The rules necessary for plastic analysis of composite beams have onerous restrictions, which severely
restrict their usefulness in the assessment of UK bridges. One is effectively a requirement that most of
the loading is uniformly distributed and there are others restricting the ratios of adjacent span lengths.
Of these the former is the most restrictive in application to UK bridges. Furthermore the rules were
derived for beams of uniform cross section, although this is not a limitation on the method.
(2)
The method in assuming unlimited redistribution of support moments results in the ULS becoming
less critical than the SLS, to the extent that the assessment relies upon the SLS check for satisfactory
performance of the bridge, rather than in ensuring against severe infringements of the SLS condition the most appropriate approach for assessment.
In BS EN 1994 the cross section classes determine a number of aspects of the calculation, but they have been
adopted in the Standard purely to define the amount of redistribution permitted, and, to avoid confusion with the
compact and non-compact definitions in BD 56, they are described as cross section redistribution classes. The
values in the Table for cracked analysis are intended (in BS EN 1994) to give comparable results to those for
uncracked analysis; it is likely however that in the larger bridges, when the strength of the steel section by itself is
high in comparison to that of the composite cross section, that the uncracked analysis, after moment redistribution,
will result in lower support moments. Therefore as an interim measure until more precise guidance can be offered
the amount of redistribution made when spans exceed 30m has been reduced, and when spans exceed 45m cracked
analysis is required.
The cross sections are defined by the more critical of the web and compression flange cross section slenderness. For
assessment, having redistributed the moments, one has the option for the more compact cross sections of designing
them elastically or plastically (see 6.2.2), and for this reason the cross section classes are defined both in terms of
the elastic and plastic stress distribution. The limits for the elastic redistribution have been derived such that they
approximately agree with those for the plastic redistribution in Table 6.4, which differentiates between cross section
classes 1, 2 and 3 only in terms of the plastic cross section, and so the values in Table 6.3 are an approximation
to those in Table 6.4, which may be used instead, even if an elastic cross section check is intended. However for
plastic assessment of the cross section Table 6.3 may not be used.
The use of an elastic cross-section check for cross-sections at which the degree of moment redistribution ensures
plasticity within the cross-section effectively introduces a degree of partial shear connection equivalent to that for
full interaction and an even lower degree where 5.3.3.9 applies.
Moment redistribution is restricted to beams of substantially uniform cross-section throughout each span. The
reason for this restriction is that a unit moment at supports produces a greater support rotation in a beam with a
reduced mid span cross-section than in a beam of uniform cross-section over its length. The degree of moment
redistribution is related to the hinge rotation capacity and upon there being spare flexural capacity at the more
critical cross-sections in adjacent spans. For spans in which the cross-sections are non-uniform the permitted
redistribution at a support could be taken as k times the value in Table 6.1 where:

end rotation of beam B under unit moment at that support

k=

end rotation of beam A under unit moment at that support
June 2010
A/61
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
where:

beam A is the actual beam, but which may be considered fixed at the remote end of the span
beam B is a beam with the second moment of area of the support cross-section uniform across the span and
with the same fixity at the remote end as beam A
However k may be taken as unity where the second moment of area of the cracked support cross-section does not
exceed the second moment of area at the mid span cross-section.
6.1.4.3 Redistribution of span moments in principal longitudinal members. Subject to the limitations on
uniformity in 6.1.4.2, where all cross sections in the span concerned and the adjacent spans are in cross section
classes 1 and 2, a portion of the span moments may be redistributed to the supports, providing the maximum
hogging moments for the loading cases concerned are not increased by more than 20% for cracked elastic
analysis and 10% for uncracked elastic analysis.
6.1.4.3A Redistribution of span moment in principal longitudinal members
In assessment of bridges for STGO vehicles there may be some benefit to be gained for redistributing mid-span
moment to the support. For beams in which the cross section varies substantially the correction in 6.1.4.2 does not
apply but, where the support sections are stiffer, the permitted degrees of redistribution may be applied to the span
section. When this is done the ratio of adjacent span lengths should satisfy the requirements for plastic analysis in
BS 5950-3.
6.1.5 Temperature effects, shrinkage modified by creep and differential settlement. The shrinkage,
temperature and differential settlement effects may be disregarded provided that at supports where the beam
is continuous there are no cross sections of beams in cross section redistribution class 4 as defined in 6.1.4.2,
when these effects must be included The methods given in 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 may be used but the partial factors
of safety must be appropriate to the ultimate limit state.
6.1.5A Temperature effects, shrinkage modified by creep and differential settlement
Where there are no obvious construction defects and no appreciable transverse loads on the girder then the
requirement from BD 56 that shrinkage should be included when

LT 30
355M pe
M ult y
is onerous and in most circumstances may be relaxed to:

LT 70
355M pe
M ult y
and may be disregarded in bridges more than 15 years old entirely if the condition is considered good.
See also comments under 6.1.
A/62
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.1.6 A Vertical shear resistance of composite beams

No moment redistribution is permitted in determining the shear forces.
When the shear force V is too high to satisfy the inequalities (c) and (d) in 9.9.3.1 of BD 56 and the subsequent
modification for rolled sections, these inequalities may be replaced by the following:

(1 - ) VD + VNC V
(6.1)
where

= (D - 800)/800, but 1.0 0.0
is the depth of the steel member at the cross section in mm,
VD
is the shear capacity under pure shear in BD 56, and

VNC is the lowest value of V when the above mentioned inequalities in BD 56 have a value of unity

assuming proportional loading.
Alternatively when cross sections are designed elastically in accordance with 6.2 and redistribution of moments in
6.1.4.2 is limited to 15% for cracked and 30% for uncracked analysis, the shear force V applied to the steel cross
section in accordance with 9.9.3.1 of BD 56 may be reduced by the shear carried by the slab in an analysis in which
the slab is represented by an uncracked plate element with an elastic modulus adjusted to take account of cracking.
The coincidental direct tension in the slab reduces its shear strength and must be taken into account. The shear
strength is first estimated using BD 44, and the reduction due to the tension must be based on the latest edition of
AASHTO(30).
6.1.6A Vertical Shear resistance of composite beams
Tests show that for shear, composite beams may be designed disregarding the interaction of shear and moment.
However the tests were confined mainly to beams in which the ratio of the slab depth to the girder depth was rather
greater than in bridges with steel girder depths greater than 800mm, and this is taken into account in the assessment
rules. This assumes concrete deck thicknesses of about 230mm(29).
The rule for shear interpolates between a condition of no moment-shear interaction for a steel beam with a depth of
800mm and the normal design situation in BS 5400-3 in a steel beam with a depth of 1600mm.
An alternative procedure is allowed whereby the shear in the steel beam is reduced by the shear carried by the
slab in a finite element analysis in which the slab is modelled by plate elements. It is suggested that cracking in
the slab can be adequately taken into account by reducing the stiffness of the slab over a length of 0.15l from the
supports to two-thirds of that of the cracked slab disregarding tension stiffening. This method is not permitted when
the moment redistribution taken exceeds that permitted for a beam in cross section redistribution class 2. For this
method the moment/shear interaction expressions of BD 56 must be used.
The coincidental direct tension in the slab reduces its shear strength and must be taken into account. The shear
strength is first estimated using BD 44, and the reduction due to the tension should be based on the latest edition of
AASHTO(30).
June 2010
A/63
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A

6.2.1 General. The strength of composite sections must be assessed in accordance with BD 56 as modified by
this standard and in accordance with 6.2.2, 6.2.3 and 6.2.4.
6.2.2 Plastic moment of resistance of sections
The plastic moment of resistance of the compact section at the stage under consideration with longitudinal
shear connections satisfying 5.3.3.1 to 5.3.3.7, 6.3.3 and 6.3.4 must be determined in accordance with 9.7.1 of
BD 56 assuming that the entire load acts on the cross section of the beam subject to the following:
The plastic modulus Zpe must include the transformed area of the concrete in compression which must be
obtained from:

The gross area of the concrete x
0.67 f cu / mc
yc / m
where
fcu
is the characteristic or worst credible concrete cube strength.
yc
is the nominal or worst credible yield stress of the steel compression flange as defined in BD 56.
is the partial material factor for steel in accordance with BD 56.
mc
is the partial material factor for concrete in compression in accordance with BD 44.
Concrete in tension must be ignored but the transformed area of the reinforcement in concrete subject to
tension must be included and must be obtained from:

The gross area of reinforcement x
where
f ry / mr
yc / m
fry
is the characteristic or worst credible yield strength of the reinforcement.
mr
is the partial material factor for reinforcement in accordance with BD 44.
Compact cross sections with shear connectors in accordance with 5.3.3.8 must be designed for lateral torsional
buckling according to 6.2.3.1(4).
6.2.2A Bending resistance of compact sections
The coefficient in the parabolic stress block for concrete is increased from the value of 0.60 used in reinforced
concrete design/assessment to 0.67. This is roughly equivalent to a uniform stress block above the neutral axis of
0.45fcu used in column design in the Design Code and in the more accurate stress block of BS 8110. It is noted that,
based on studies by Stark(31), BS EN 1994 uses a higher concrete strength than BS EN 1992.
Lateral-torsional buckling is disregarded in the assessment of composite beams with compact cross sections when
the shear connectors have adequate capacity to resist uplift forces, when U-frame action exists.
A/64
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Compact beams with incidental shear connectors however are subject to lateral torsional instability and they should
be checked in accordance with Annex B.
Whether the composite cross section or the steel cross section alone is employed in the check depends upon criteria
given in 6.1.3 of the Standard. With shallow devices extra ties may be required if it is required to assume the entire
cross section is composite.
6.2.3 Moment of resistance of non-compact cross sections
6.2.3.1 General
(1)
A steel flange that is attached to a concrete or composite slab by shear connection in accordance with
5.3.3.3 and 6.3.3 is assumed to be laterally stable, provided that the overall width of the slab is not less
than the depth of the steel member.
(2)
All other steel flanges in compression must be checked for lateral stability.
(3)
An alternative calculation procedure for assessing lateral torsional buckling at the supports of composite
beams is given in Annex B.
(4)
The calculation procedure for assessing the lateral-torsional buckling effect of composite beams with
incidental shear connectors assuming U-frame action is inadmissible, but a calculation procedure
assuming lateral restraint to the top flange is permitted. Suitable procedures for this type of restraint are
given in Annex C (this is developed from Annex G of BS 5950 Part 1).
(5)
Where the modulus of elasticity of the concrete has been reduced in accordance with 5.3.3.9 this should
be taken into account in assessing the bending resistance.
(6)
Lateral restraints to compression flanges not in contact with the concrete slab must be assessed in
accordance with 9.12.1 of BD 56.
6.2.3.2 Bending resistance of non-compact sections

The moment of resistance of non compact cross section if lateral torsional buckling is prevented must be
determined in accordance with 9.8 of BD 56 except that Mult must not exceed Zxr x(frym/mr) or
Zxs x(0.75 fcum/mc) as appropriate.
Where
Zxr
is the elastic modulus of the transformed section with respect to the extreme reinforcement for a
section where the concrete is in tension.
Zxs
is the elastic modulus of the transformed section with respect to the extreme fibre of the concrete
where the concrete is in compression.
fcu
is the characteristic or the worst credible strength of concrete cube strength.
fry
is the characteristic or the worst credible yield strength of the reinforcement.
f3
is the partial safety factor in accordance with BD 56.
is the partial material factor for steel in accordance with BD 56.
mc
mr
June 2010
A/65
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.2.3.3 Conditions under which lateral torsional buckling is disregarded. A continuous non-compact beam
or a beam in a frame that is composite throughout its length can be assessed without additional lateral bracing
when the following conditions are satisfied.
(a)
Adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than 35% of the shorter span. Where there is a cantilever,
its length does not exceed 15% of that of the adjacent span.
(b)
The uniformly distributed part of the permanent load on each span is not less than 50% of the total
design load.
(c)
The top flange of the steel member is attached to a reinforced concrete or composite slab by shear
connectors in accordance with 5.3.3.3 and 6.3.3.
(d)
The longitudinal spacing of studs or rows of studs sL is such that for uncased beams
s L 0.02 d h s

3
bf
tw
2
where
d is the diameter of the shank of the studs, and
bf, hs and tw are as shown in Figure 6.1.
(6.2)
For steel members partly encased in concrete in accordance with 8.1 the spacing does not exceed 50%
of the maximum spacing for the uncased beam.
Volume
Section
4
Appendix
(e) 3The
longitudinal
spacing of connectors other than studs is such that the resistance of the connection
to A
Part 16 BD
61/09
transverse bending is not less than that required when studs are used.
Figure
6.1:Lateral
Lateral Torsional
Torsional Buckling
Figure
6.1:
Buckling
The same slab is also attached to another supporting member approximately parallel to the composite
(f)(f) The
same slab is also attached to another supporting member approximately parallel to the
beam considered to form an inverted-U frame of breadth a (Figure 6.1).
composite beam considered to form an inverted-U frame of breadth a (Figure 6.1).
(g)
If the slab is composite, it spans between the two supporting members of the inverted-U frame
(g)
Ifconsidered.
the slab is composite, it spans between the two supporting members of the inverted-U frame
considered.
(h)
Where the slab is simply-supported at the composite beam considered, fully anchored top
reinforcement must be present over the length AB shown in Figure 6.1. The area of this June 2010
reinforcement is such that the resistance of the slab to hogging transverse bending, per unit length
of beam, is not less than f t 2 /4 , where the notation is as in (d) above.
A/66
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
(h)
Where the slab is simply-supported at the composite beam considered, fully anchored top reinforcement
must be present over the length AB shown in Figure 6.1. The area of this reinforcement is such that the
resistance of the slab to hogging transverse bending, per unit length of beam, is not less than fy tw2 /4m,
where the notation is as in (d) above.
(j)
At each support of the steel member, its bottom flange is laterally restrained and its web is stiffened.
Elsewhere the web may be unstiffened.
(k)
The bending stiffness of the solid or composite slab is such that:
(l)
E c I c 0.35Es t w a/h s
3
(6.3)
where

EcIc

is the mean of the flexural stiffnesses per unit width of slab at mid-span and above
the steel beam considered, neglecting concrete in tension, and including transformed
areas of reinforcement and any profiled sheeting that contributes to the resistance of the
slab in accordance with BD 44.
Ec
is the short term secant modulus of elasticity of the concrete.
Es
is the modulus of elasticity of the structural steel.
tw, a and hs are as shown in Figure 6.1.
The steel member is an UB, UC, joist section or another hot-rolled section of similar shape, with yield
stress not exceeding 355 N/mm2.
6.2.3.3A Conditions under which lateral torsional buckling can be disregarded

When the steel section comprises a UB, UC or similar section with equal flanges of strength not exceeding
355 N/mm2 and certain other conditions (unrelated to the cross section slenderness) are satisfied, lateral torsional
effects can be disregarded. The conditions were derived by consideration of Annex B, but taking into account
work by Weston, Nethercot and Crisfield(32) which shows that lateral torsional buckling can be disregarded for LT
values up to 60, which includes all UB sections not exceeding 355 N/mm2. It will be found that for a very few cross
sections Annex B gives slightly lower strengths than the method of 6.2.3.3, even when all the conditions on 6.2.3.3
are satisfied(33).
June 2010
A/67
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.2.4 Construction in stages

Beams which have non compact cross sections at supports must satisfy the following rules. Composite
sections are considered to be built in stages. A check for adequacy must be made at each stage of construction
including the final stage of assessment in accordance with 9.9.5 of BD 56.
In addition to the limitations stated in 9.9.5.4 a) and b) of BD 56 the total accumulated stresses must not
exceed
a)
0.75 fcu/mc f3 for concrete in compression or
b)
fry//mr f3
for reinforcement in tension
In the application of 9.9.5.5 and 9.9.5.6 of BD 56 where the fibre being considered is either concrete in
compression or reinforcement in tension the value of M, Mx,max, MDx, My,max, MD,max should be based on Zxr, Zxs,
Mult, as defined in 6.2.3.
fry
is the characteristic or worst credible yield strength of the reinforcement.
f3
is the partial safety factor in accordance with 4.1.2 and BD 56.
is the partial material factor for steel in accordance with 4.1.2 and BD 56.
mc
mr

6.3.1 General
When cross sections are assessed elastically the horizontal shear should be assessed from the effect of vertical
shear on the elastic cross section in accordance with 5.3.
When cross sections are assessed plastically the longitudinal shear in beams between supports and the
positions of maximum sagging moments in the adjacent spans is the sum of the forces in the slab either end
of this region determined from the analysis in 6.1.4.1. Longitudinal shear under moment reversal need not
be checked. There are no special conditions either for the distribution of shear connectors or relating to the
position of point loads, both of which are adequately taken into account at the serviceability limit state.
The shear flow used to assess the transverse reinforcement must be determined for the maximum shear flow
resistance of shear connectors required.
For any span which has compact cross-sections at supports where there is continuity, the strength of the shear
connection must be checked adjacent to cross sections where plasticity occurs. The slab forces, calculated
from the assumptions made in satisfying 6.2.2, must be resisted over the length between peak moments in
opposite sense or between peak moments and points of zero moment. Intermediate equilibrium checks on the
cross section must be made either side of significant point loads and at intervals along the span of the greater
of 5m or span/10.
Transverse reinforcement and shear connectors must satisfy these requirements.
A/68
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
The resistance of shear connectors must be obtained from the method in 5.3.3.5, as modified by 6.3.4. The
longitudinal shear resistance so calculated need not exceed the value assessed using plastic cross sections
analysis.
Where the other provisions in 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 are not satisfied a reduced resistance may be employed with the
agreement of the TAA.
Alternative rules to those in 6.3.3.1 to 6.3.3.6 for the area of transverse reinforcement are given in 6.3.3.8,
though these are less general in their application.
6.3.1A General
A check is required on the strength of the shear connectors at ULS on spans where cross sections are assumed in the
assessment to be plastic(46), but no check is required on spans where the beam is assumed to be elastic throughout.
Shear connector will also have to be checked at ULS if stresses are redistributed from the web or tension flange
or if there is uplift in the connectors. When cross sections are designed plastically, the compression force in
the concrete in the sagging moment region and the tensile force in the reinforcement in the adjacent hogging
moment region (which act in the same direction) are combined, and a check is made that there are sufficient shear
connectors between the two sections to resist this force.
When stud shear connectors or other flexible shear connectors are used, there is sufficient redistribution of the
longitudinal force between the shear connectors to obviate the need to check the distribution of longitudinal shear
under this condition. When the shear connectors are rigid a different situation exists and the condition could be
somewhat more critical. However, there is no known evidence suggesting that a beam designed for the elastic
longitudinal shear distribution at SLS performs poorly at ULS, so no check is required.
The longitudinal shear force from a concentrated load is uniform between the load and the adjacent supports, both
in the plastic and elastic design of the longitudinal shear connection, so it is unlikely to be critical at ULS provided
the yield moment is not exceeded. No check at the load is then required. If, however, the yield moment is exceeded,
due to the absence of a recognised intermediate state of plasticity, a plastic hinge must be assumed under the point
load. This is likely to produce a more critical condition for the check on the longitudinal shear resistance.
The effective breadth used in determining the longitudinal shear may now be taken as the quarter span values,
except for very wide slabs.
The plastic capacity provides an upper limit to the longitudinal shear force calculated elastically. This situation is
only likely to be realised where there are deep edge beams integral with the slab.
6.3.2 Deck slab. The deck slab and its reinforcement must be capable of resisting the assessment forces
imposed on it by the shear connectors without excessive slip or separation and without longitudinal splitting,
local crushing or bursting. Of particular concern is where there is a free concrete surface adjacent to a
connector, e.g. at an end or a side of a slab or in a haunch.
NOTE: Construction in accordance with 6.3.1 to 6.3.3 satisfies these requirements for the ultimate limit state
and is deemed to satisfy the fatigue and serviceability requirements for transverse reinforcement. Where
separate ultimate limit state checks are necessary for shear connectors the requirements are given in 6.3.4.
Special consideration must be given to details which are not in accordance with 5.3 and 6.3.1 to 6.3.3.
6.3.2.1 Haunches. Where concrete haunches are used between the steel flange and the soffit of the concrete
slab the sides of the haunch must lie outside a line drawn at 450 from the outside edge of the connectors as
shown in Figure 5.2. The requirements of 5.3 and 6.3 to 6.3.3.7 inclusive must also apply.
June 2010
A/69
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.3.3 Transverse reinforcement

6.3.3.1 Definitions and general requirements.
(a)
The assessment method given in 6.3.3.2 to 6.3.3.5 is applicable to haunched and unhaunched composite
beams of normal density concrete or lightweight aggregate concrete. The method takes account of
interaction between longitudinal shear and transverse bending of the slab.
Attention is drawn to the difference between the meaning of the symbols q and qp:
(b)
is the total longitudinal shear force per unit length of composite beam at the steel or iron/
concrete interface, determined in accordance with 6.3.1;
qp

is the assessment longitudinal shear force per unit length of beam on the particular shear
plane considered. It is equal to or less than q, depending on the shear plane.
Only reinforcement transverse to the steel or iron beam that is fully anchored on both sides of a possible
plane of longitudinal shear failure (shear plane) must be included in the definitions given below. Crosssectional areas of transverse reinforcement per unit length of beam are defined thus:

At

is reinforcement placed near the top of the slab forming the flange of the composite beam
and may include that provided for flexure;

A b

is reinforcement placed in the bottom of the slab or haunch at a clear distance not greater
than 50mm from the nearest surface of the steel or iron beam (see * in Foreword), and
at a clear distance of not less than 40mm below that surface of each shear connector that
resists uplift forces, including that bottom reinforcement provided for flexure (see * in
Foreword);

Abs

is other reinforcement in the bottom of the slab placed at a clear distance greater than
50mm from the nearest surface of the steel or iron beam (see * in Foreword);

Abv

is reinforcement placed in the bottom of the slab or haunch, but excluding that provided
for flexure, which complies in all other respects with the definition of Ab above.
NOTE 1: Where the depth of a haunch does not exceed 50mm, reinforcement in the bottom of a
slab may be included in the definitions of Ab and Abv provided that it is placed at a clear distance
of not less than 40mm below that surface of each shear connector which resists uplift forces (see
* in Foreword) and at a clear distance not greater than 80mm from the nearest surface of the steel
beam (see * in Foreword).
Examples of five types of shear plane are given in Figure 6.2 with typical arrangements that
satisfy the definitions of Ab, At and Abs as given above.

Ae

A/70
is the reinforcement crossing a shear plane that is assumed to be effective in resisting

shear failure along that plane.
NOTE 2: For planes in unhaunched beams that do not cross the whole thickness of the slab
(Plane type 2-2 in Figure 6.2), Ae = 2Ab.
For planes that cross the whole depth of the slab (shear plane type 1-1 in Figure 6.2) Ae is the total
area of fully anchored reinforcement intersected by that plane including reinforcement provide for
flexure, e.g. in shear plane type 1-1 in Figure 6.2(a), Ae = At + Ab.
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
For planes in haunched beams that do not cross the whole depth of the slab (shear plane types
3-3, 4-4, or 5-5 in Figure 6.2) Ae is the total area of fully anchored reinforcement intersected by
that plane, which is placed at a clear distance of not less than 40mm below that surface of each
shear connector that resists uplift forces and may include the area of the hoop in a bar and hoop
connector where appropriate.

For planes of type 5-5 (see Figure 6.2(d)) in cased beams Ae is the total cross sectional area of
stirrups (both legs) crossing the shear plane (see 8.5.2 and 8.8).
(c)
Ls
is the length of the shear plane under consideration;
fry

is the characteristic or worst credible yield strength of the transverse reinforcement but not greater
than 500 N/mm2;
fcu

is the characteristic cube strength of concrete or worst credible cube strength used in the
assessment of the slab but not greater than 45 N/mm2;
is a constant stress of 1 N/mm2 re-expressed where necessary in units consistent with those used
for the other quantities.
(d)
When the spacing of shear connectors does not exceed 1000mm or span/20 the size and spacing of
transverse reinforcement must follow the requirements relating the shear flow and the longitudinal shear
resistance in 5.3.3.6(1). When this connector spacing is exceeded the connector force must be assumed
to be resisted over a distance equal to the lesser of 600mm, or three times the thickness of the slab on
the compression side of the shear connectors. The total area of transverse reinforcement required in this
zone to resist the local shear connector forces must not be less than:

(i)
the calculated area in 6.3.3 if the conditions in 6.3.3.8 are not satisfied, or alternatively
(ii)
half the calculated area in 6.3.3 if the conditions in 6.3.3.8 are satisfied.
June 2010
A/71
Volume 3 Section 4
PartAppendix
16 BD 61/10
A
Appendix
Volume 3ASection 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
Figure 6.2: Shear planes and transverse reinforcement

Figure 6.2: Shear planes and transverse reinforcement
A/72
April 2009
JuneA/
2010
81
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.3.3.1A Definition and general requirements

The rules for transverse reinforcement in the Design Code require broadly similar amounts of transverse
reinforcement to the rules in BS EN 1992 (for reinforced concrete) which is used in design to BS EN 1994(34). The
areas of transverse reinforcement required by these codes are very much higher than those required by BS 8100(35),
in which the minimum transverse reinforcement in the slabs of T beams is 0.15%, which is placed near the top
surface. The same quantity of reinforcement is required for mild steel, high yield steel, smooth bars and deformed
bars. The amount specified is the same as in CP 114(36), the code of practice used in designing concrete buildings
in the 1960s (and for minor structures until more recently), but it had been increased to 0.30% (with similar lack
of qualification) in CP 110(37), issued in 1972. The drafting committee of BS 8110, which replaced CP 110 in 1985,
chose to revert to the earlier values on the practical consideration that no problems were known to have resulted
from this aspect of construction in building structures designed to CP 114.
The satisfactory performance of building structures designed to CP 114 and BS 8110 is attributed to the fact that the
cracking of the slab parallel to the face of the beam is never sufficient to significantly reduce the longitudinal shear
resistance of the beam below its uncracked strength, which is so high, at least with good concrete, as to be able to
carry the longitudinal shear without assistance from the reinforcement. The rules in the Design Code and
BS EN 1992(38) however are based on tests in which large cracks had been induced along the sides of the beams
(by high slab loading), a degree of cracking only to be expected when the slab was on the point of failure. BS 8110,
therefore, effectively recognises the practicality of a situation that is likely to occur in bridges. BS 5400-4 requires
the same minimum amount of transverse reinforcement as BS 8110, but, on account of considerations unrelated to
the strength of the shear connection, slabs designed to BS 5400-4 usually have much more reinforcement than the
minimum requirement for transverse reinforcement.
When shear connectors are grouped such that the spacing exceeds span/8 the bursting stresses on the concrete are
likely to be higher than when the connectors are more uniformly distributed. Successive stress blocks, as used for
end block design(39) need to be considered to ensure that splitting does not occur. This approach does not work well
for shear connections as the transverse tensile stress on the bearing side of a loaded area is greatest over a distance
of 0.2d to 2.0d(7), and for 19mm studs this zone is about 0 to 50mm in front of the bearing face of the stud. There
is however no requirement for transverse reinforcement over this distance, but reinforcement is nevertheless likely
within 100mm of the bearing face.
For this reason the alternative approach has been adopted, of preventing splitting in the general vicinity of the
shear connectors by requiring that the longitudinal shear due to the group is carried over a limited distance on the
compression side of the group of shear connectors, using the normal design expression of the Standard.
The indirect tensile forces from incidental shear connectors are lower than those from other shear connectors. The
requirement for longitudinal shear resistance carried locally is therefore reduced.
June 2010
A/73
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.3.3.2 Longitudinal shear. The longitudinal shear force per unit length qp on any shear plane through the
concrete must not exceed the lesser of the following:
(a)
k1 fcu Ls/mvf3
(6.4)
(b)
v1Ls/mvf3 + 0.80 Aefry/mrf3
(6.5)
where
k1
is a constant equal to 0.23 for normal density concrete and 0.18 for lightweight aggregate
concrete.
v1
is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress in the concrete for the shear plane under consideration,
to be taken as 1.35 N/mm2 for normal density concrete and 1.05N/mm2 for lightweight aggregate
concrete.
mv is 1.50 but may be reduced to 1.25 when the characteristic strength is 45 N/mm2 or the worst
credible strength 35N/mm2.
If fcu is taken to be less than 20 N/mm2, the term v1Ls in (b) must be replaced by k2fcuLs where k2 is a constant
equal to 0.060 for normal density concrete and 0.045 for lightweight aggregate concrete.
In haunched beams, not less than half the reinforcement required to satisfy (b) above in respect of shear planes
through the haunch (planes 3-3 and 4-4 in Figure 6.2) must be bottom reinforcement that complies with the
definition of Abv in 6.3.3.1(b).
6.3.3.3 Interaction between longitudinal shear and transverse bending.
(a)
Beams with transverse compression around shear connectors. Where the assessment loading at the
ultimate limit state causes transverse compression in the region of the shear connectors, no account need
be taken of interaction between longitudinal shear and transverse bending providing the requirements of
6.3.3.2 are satisfied.
(b)
Beams with shear planes passing through the full depth of slab. Where the shear plane passes
through the full depth of the slab, no account need be taken of the interaction between longitudinal shear
and transverse bending.
(c) Unhaunched beams with shear planes passing round the connectors. In unhaunched beams where
the assessment loading at the ultimate limit state causes transverse tension in the slab in the region of the
shear connectors, account must be taken of the effect of this on the strength of shear planes that do not
cross the whole depth of the slab (plane 2-2 in Figure 6.2) by replacing 6.3.3.2(b) by

(6.6)
Where the assessment loads at the ultimate limit state can cause transverse compression in the slab in
the region of the shear connectors account may be taken of the beneficial effect of this on the strength
of shear planes that do not cross the whole depth of the slab (shear plane type 2-2 in Figure 6.2) by
replacing 6.3.3.2(b) by
A/74
qp < v1Ls/mvf3 + 1.60Abv fry/mr f3
qp < v1Ls /mvf3 + 0.80Ae fry/mr f3 + 1.60FT/f
(6.7)
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
where
FT
is the minimum tensile force per unit length of beam in the transverse reinforcement in the top of
the slab due to transverse bending of the slab. Only loading that is of a permanent nature must be
considered when calculating FT.
NOTE: For remaining symbols see 6.3.3.1(a), (b) and (c).
(d) Haunched beams. In haunched beams, where the assessment loading at the ultimate limit state causes
transverse tension in the slab in the vicinity of the shear connectors, no account of this need be taken,
provided the reinforcement required to satisfy 6.3.3.3(a) is reinforcement that satisfies the definition of
Abv and the haunch dimensions satisfy the requirements of 6.3.2.1.
6.3.3.4 Minimum transverse reinforcement. The cross sectional area, per unit length of beam, of
reinforcement in the slab transverse to the steel or iron beam must be not less than

0.7mrshc/fry
hc
is the thickness of the concrete slab forming the flange of the composite beam.
where
Not less than 50% of this area of reinforcement is required near the bottom of the slab so that it satisfies the
definition of Abv given in 6.3.3.1(b).
Where the length of a possible plane of shear failure around the connectors (shear plane 2-2 in Figure 6.2) is
less than or equal to twice the thickness of the slab hc, reinforcement in addition to that required for flexure is
required in the bottom of the slab transverse to the steel or iron beam to prevent longitudinal splitting around
the connectors. The cross sectional area of this additional reinforcement, per unit length of beam, Abv must be
not less than 0.7 mr s hc/fry. This additional reinforcement is not required if the minimum compressive force
per unit length of beam, acting normal to and over the surface of the shear plane, is greater than 1.4 shc.
6.3.3.5 Minimum transverse reinforcement in haunched beams. The cross-sectional area of transverse
reinforcement in a haunch per unit length of beam Abv as defined in 6.3.3.1(b) must not be less than

0.35mrs Ls/fry
where
Ls
is the length of a possible plane of shear failure around the connectors (see shear plane type 3-3 or
4-4 in Figure 6.2).
6.3.3.6 Curtailment of transverse reinforcement. The transverse reinforcement provided to resist

longitudinal shear which is curtailed is acceptable provided the conditions 6.3.3 are satisfied in all respects for
the shear planes through the slab of type 1-1 in Figure 6.2. For this purpose the longitudinal shear force per
unit, length qp for such a plane, must be assumed to vary linearly from the calculated maximum force on the
relevant plane, which is adjacent to the shear connectors, to zero mid-way between the centre line of the beam
and that of an adjacent beam or to zero at an adjacent free edge.
6.3.3.7 Detailing of transverse reinforcement. The spacing of bottom transverse reinforcement bars,
if present and satisfying the conditions in 6.3.3, must be not greater than four times the projection of the
connectors (including any hoop which is an integral part of the connector) above the bars nor greater than
600mm (see *in Foreword).
June 2010
A/75
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
6.3.4 Shear Connectors. The design of the shear connectors need not be considered at the ultimate state
except as directed in 5.3.3.6, 6.1.3 or where redistribution of stresses from the web or the tension flange is
carried out in accordance with BD 56. Then the size and spacing of shear connectors must be determined in
accordance with 5.3.3.5 except that longitudinal shear per unit length must be determined in accordance with
6.3.1 and the assessed static strength, per connector at the ultimate limit state, must be taken as

Pam/m f3
where
A/76
Pam
is the nominal present mean static strength as defined in 5.3.2.1 or 5.3.2.2, but the 0.82 limit in
the equation of 5.3.2.1(b) must be disregarded.
= 1.375
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
7 COMPOSITE BOX GIRDERS

7.1 General
Composite box girders must satisfy the relevant requirements for steel box girders given in BD 56, together
with the requirements for uncased beams given in this Standard and also those given in this clause.
7.2 Effective Span
The effective spans for bending of longitudinal or transverse box girders must be as defined in BS 5400-1.
7.3 Effective Breadth
The effective breadth of concrete flange for serviceability limit state calculations must be determined in
accordance with BD 56. For closed box girders when the steel top flange, which is continuous between
webs, acts compositely with the concrete deck slab the effective breadth of the composite plate must also be
determined in accordance with BD 56.
7.4 Distribution of Bending Moments and Vertical Shear Forces
In the absence of more exact analysis the distribution of longitudinal bending moments and vertical shear
forces may be calculated in accordance with 5.1.1 or 6.1 as appropriate.
7.5.1 Spacing of shear connectors. The concrete slab must be positively tied down to the top steel flange
plate in accordance with the requirements of 5.3.3.3 and 5.3.3.6.
In closed box girders, shear connectors must be present over the whole area of the top flange plate at spacings
longitudinally and transversely not greater than 600mm or three times the thickness of any concrete slab
or four times the height of the connector (including any hoop which is an integral part of the connector),
whichever is the least. The longitudinal spacing of these shear connectors must not exceed twenty five times
(see * in Foreword), and the transverse spacing must not exceed forty times (see * in Foreword), the thickness
of the top flange plate.
In open-top box girders the spacing of shear connectors must satisfy the requirements for composite I beams in
5.3.3.1.
The distance from the edge of the top flange plate to the near edge of the nearest row of shear connectors must
not exceed twelve times the thickness of the plate (see * in Foreword).
7.5.2 Assessment of shear connectors. The shear connectors in box girders must satisfy clause 5 for
the serviceability limit state, except that in closed box girders the number of shear connectors and their
distribution over the breadth of the steel flange plate must satisfy 5.3.3.4 and 5.3.3.6 and the following
requirements.
NOTE 1: The connectors at any cross section must be assumed to be all of the same type and size. The
assessment of the shear connectors between each steel web and its associated concrete flange must be
considered for each web separately.
June 2010
A/77
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
The longitudinal shear force Qx on a connector at distance x from the web centre line must be determined
from:

Qx =
q
n
x 2
) + 0.15
K(1 bw
(7.1)
where
q
is the assessment longitudinal shear due to global and local loadings per unit length of girder at
the serviceability limit state for the web considered, calculated assuming full interaction between
the steel plate and the concrete slab (in accordance with 5.3.1).
is a coefficient determined from Figure 7.1.
b w
is equal to half the distance between the centre lines of adjacent webs, or, for portions projecting
beyond an outer web, the distance from the centre line of the web to the free edge of the steel
flange.
is the total number of connectors per unit length of girder within breadth bw, including any
provided in accordance with 7.5.1 or 7.7(a).
is the number of connectors per unit length placed within 200mm of the centre line of the web
considered.
NOTE 2. The force on any connector due to coexistent global and local loadings must not exceed its assessed
strength at the serviceability limit state determined from clause 5.
If the connector density (number of shear connectors per unit area of steel flange) in any area outside
the effective breadth of the steel flange exceeds the least density within the effective breadth at the cross
section considered, the connectors additional to those that would give equal densities must be omitted when
calculating n in this assessment method.
NOTE 3: This method is not applicable when connectors are placed in groups or when the number of
connectors in any transverse row across the flange is small.
A/78
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
Appendix A
Figure 7.1: Coefficient K
Figure 7.1: Coefficient K
7.6 Torsion
In open box girders with no steel top flange continuous between webs consideration must be given to the effect
of cracking of the concrete flange in negative (hogging) moment regions on the torsional rigidity of the box
girder
and on the distribution of torsional shear forces.
7.6
Torsion
In addition to its effect on the global distribution of moments and shear forces, the cracking may also need to
In
open box girders with no steel top flange continuous between webs consideration must be given to the
be taken into account when assessing the torsional resistance of the particular section.
effect of cracking of the concrete flange in negative (hogging) moment regions on the torsional rigidity of
the
girder and
on the distribution of torsional shear forces.
7.7box
Composite
Plate
Where
the concrete
deckon
slab
is global
cast on distribution
the top steel flange
plate ofand
a closed
girderthe
thecracking
plate andmay
the also
In
addition
to its effect
the
of moments
shearbox
forces,
concrete
slab,
including
the
reinforcement,
must
be
considered
as
acting
compositely
in
resisting
longitudinal
need to be taken into account when assessing the torsional resistance of the particular section.
and transverse effects of loading on the deck, provided that:
7.7 Composite
Plate shear connectors are present to transmit the resulting shear force at the interface,
(a) adequate
Where the concrete
slab of
is cast
ignoringdeck
the effect
bond;on the top steel flange plate of a closed box girder the plate and the
concrete slab, including the reinforcement, must be considered as acting compositely in resisting
(b) adequate
in loading
accordance
5.3.3.3
and 5.3.3.6
to prevent separation of the two
ties areeffects
presentof
longitudinal
and transverse
on with
the deck,
provided
that:
elements;
(a)
adequate shear connectors are present to transmit the resulting shear force at the interface,
the combination of coexistent effects is taken into consideration, as required by 5.2.4.1 and 6.1.2,
ignoring the effect of bond;
together with the effects caused by the weight of wet concrete acting on the steel flange plate
alone during construction. Consideration must be given to the effects of temporary construction
(b) loading
adequate
ties are present
in accordance with 5.3.3.3 and 5.3.3.6 to prevent separation of
in accordance
with 9.4.
(c)
the two elements;
When these considerations are not satisfied the deck slab and the steel top flange plate must be assessed as
non-composite
elements
in accordance
with BD effects
56 or BD
as appropriate.
Proper account
must bebytaken
of and
(c)
the combination
of coexistent
is 44
taken
into consideration,
as required
5.2.4.1
the additional shear
forces
due
to
transverse
bending
of
the
deck
and
the
effects
of
local
wheel
loading
that
6.1.2, together with the effects caused by the weight of wet concrete acting on the steel
may be imposed on the shear connectors provided to resist longitudinal shear in accordance with 7.5.
flange plate alone during construction. Consideration must be given to the effects of
temporary construction loading in accordance with 9.4.
June 2010
A/79
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
The longitudinal shear forces due to local wheel loads in the regions of a composite plate supported by crossmembers must be determined by considering the plate as an equivalent simply supported beam spanning
between these cross-frames; the width of the equivalent beam, b, supporting the wheel load must be taken as:

b=
4
x + l w
3
(7.2)
where
A/80
is the distance from centroid of wheel patch to the nearest cross-frame.
lw
is the length of wheel patch which is parallel to the cross-frame.
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
8 CASED BEAMS AND FILLER BEAM CONSTRUCTION

8.1 Scope
This clause applies to simply supported filler beam decks, with or without the soffit or the upper surface of
the flanges of the steel or iron member exposed, and to simply supported or continuous cased beams. The
requirements apply only where the encasement or filling is of normal density concrete (2300 kg/m3 or greater)
and the characteristic or worst credible strength of the concrete is not less than 25N/mm2. In calculations the
characteristic or worst credible strength must not be taken in excess of 40N/mm2.
8.1.1 Introduction
Since BS 5400-5, BD 21 and BA 16 were written certain aspects of the assessment of cased beams and filler beams
have been re-examined. Less conservative methods have been developed for the assessment of longitudinal and
transverse shear. New methods of analysis have been developed for old forms of construction which does not
conform to BD 61. New guidance is provided on incidental stiffening and strengthening, particularly in relation to
the fill.
Sample flow charts summarising the use of the various methods for the assessment of cased beam decks and for
filler beams are appended in Annex I.
One problem in the assessment of cased beams may be that if plastic cross section analysis is to be permitted at
ULS, the longitudinal shear strength of the steel/concrete interface may be exceeded.
This is also the situation for some filler beams, but tests have been conducted on construction without transverse
reinforcement, or with reinforcement inadequate to satisfy the requirements of 8.3.2, which indicate the plastic
design of the composite cross section at ULS is often achievable. In a form of filler beam construction developed in
France(41), which includes special details and transverse prestressing, no check is required on the local bond stress
at either SLS or ULS. However until such time as longitudinal shear in filler beams has been researched a check
on the longitudinal shear on planes of type 6 and 7 in Figure 8.3 is required as a safeguard against possible failure
modes not yet observed.
Alternative procedures to those in 8.1.4, 8.1.8 and Annex H are permitted provided they are justified and provided
they take into account differences in the performance of the structure at SLS and ULS.
8.1.2 Cased beams
Cased beams exist which do not comply with the requirements of the Standard, and reduced interface shears are
appropriate for less efficient casings and partial casings which do not have efficient confining reinforcement and
may be entirely unreinforced. These are types B, C and D in Figure 8.2. Permissible interface bond stresses at SLS
for these beams are as follows (N/mm2):

A.
(As in Standard)
0.10fcu but 0.70
B.
20mm cover 50mm
0.07fcu but 0.40
C.
0.06fcu but 0.35
D.
0.10fcu but 0.50
Cover 50mm
At ULS the same values apply but for partial shear connection calculations the longitudinal shear stress should not
exceed 0.50N/mm2.
June 2010
A/81
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
The following conditions apply:

(i)
For cased beams of types A and C the checks required are as follows. Partial shear connection calculations
should assume plastic methods of cross section design and a ductile shear connection. The equilibrium
method is the method of 5.5.2 of BS 5950-3 or the 'plastic theory' method of 6.2.1.2 of EN 1994 Part 1-1(4).
The linear interpolation method is the more conservative method of 6.2.1.2 of EN 1994 Part 1-1(4).
(ii)
For spans exceeding 12m the local bond stress at SLS should not exceed the permissible bond stress given
above nor 0.5N/mm2. At ULS the moment of resistance should be taken as the yield moment.
For spans exceeding 9m and up to 12m, the local bond stress at SLS should not exceed the permissible bond
stress. At ULS the moment of resistance should be taken as the yield moment.
For spans between 6m and 9m, the local bond stress at SLS should not exceed the permissible bond stress.
At ULS the moment of resistance should be assessed as the greater of the yield moment and the flexural
resistance assuming partial shear connection by the linear interpolation method.
For spans less than 6m, at SLS the local bond stress should not exceed the permissible bond stress. At ULS
the moment of resistance should be assessed as the greater of the yield moment and the flexural resistance
assuming partial shear connection by the equilibrium method.
(iii) Where the moment of resistance is taken as the yield moment the design strength of the metal should not be
taken greater than 275N/mm2.
(iv) The moment of resistance for cased beams type B should not be taken greater than the yield moment. Checks
on the shear connection at ULS are not required.
(v)
The moment of resistance for beams type D should not be taken greater than the lower of the moment at
bond failure and the moment of resistance calculated in accordance with clause 6 of the Standard assuming
full composite action. A check at SLS is not required.
(vi) The moment of resistance for beams of types A and C may be assumed to be the yield moment where this is
sufficient to satisfy the assessment loading.
(vii) These rules do not apply to cased beams where the soffit of the slab is above the top flange of the steel beam
by more than 25mm. This is because, despite the rules, cased beams rely disproportionately upon the bond to
the top flange, which is reduced by raising the soffit of the slab. There is no relevant experimental work on
such construction, but clearly lower interface bond stress would be needed, possibly 20% lower for beams
type A and C and 40% lower for beam type B and zero for beam type D.
(viii) In beams with abnormal concrete depths above the metal beam the depth of concrete used in calculation
should be restricted such that the elastic neutral axis lies within the depth of the steel section for both elastic
and plastic cross section analysis.
(ix) As an alternative to (viii) the full depth of concrete may be assumed and the metal beam concentrated at the
centroid of the steel section.
(x)
The yield moment and flexural resistance are calculated using the assessment strengths of materials
appropriate to the ULS.
(xi) Generally the same rules apply to cased beams not attached to a slab, when they are subject to the same
slenderness limitations as RC beams.
A/82
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
8.1.3 Complying filler beams

This section considers only filler beam construction in which the transverse reinforcement is adequate to resist the
moments obtained from orthotropic plate or conventional grillage analysis. For this situation it is recommended that
orthotropic plate analysis is adopted for analysis, but grillage representations, allowing for the different stiffness
transversely and longitudinally, are an acceptable alternative. The transverse distribution rules of BA 16 are
inappropriate for this form of construction.
The method in 8.3.2 of the Standard, which gives transverse distribution rules for 45 units of HB loading, should
now be regarded as a Category A alternative (see Foreword). However providing the conditions in 8.3.2(b) and (d)
are satisfied:
(i)
the transverse hogging moment may be taken as 10% of the maximum sagging moment, and
(ii)
it may be assumed that there is a linear reduction in the transverse sagging moment in the 2m side strips as
specified in the Standard.
Filler beams may be assessed assuming the principles in 8.1.2, but the stress on the shear connection at ULS taken
as 1.4 times the values for cased beams type A and:
For spans exceeding 8m the permissible bond strength should not be exceeded at SLS and the flexural capacity
at ULS should be assessed as the greater of the yield moment and the flexural resistance assuming partial shear
connection by the linear interpolation method.
For spans less than 8m the permissible bond strengths at SLS should not be exceeded at SLS and the flexural
capacity at ULS should be assessed as the greater of the yield moment and the flexural resistance assuming partial
shear connection by the equilibrium method.
Alternatively, irrespective of the span, for beams satisfying 8.3.2(c) of the Standard the moment of resistance
may be assumed to be the full plastic moment of resistance without a check on the bond stress at ULS, provided
the yield stress of the metal beam used in the calculation is not greater than 275N/mm2 and provided 8.1.2(vi) is
satisfied or provided there is not more than 75mm of concrete above the top flange of the steel section. Where of
these conditions only 8.3.2(c) of the Standard is not satisfied the moment of resistance may be taken as the yield
moment.
8.1.4 Non-complying filler beams
(i)
Filler beams with concrete encasement/infill
For beams not complying with 8.1.3 of the above, providing there is no evidence of excessive corrosion, fretting
action or cracking (in the case of cemented materials) sufficient to adversely affect the achievement of composite
action, 8.1, 8.3.1, 8.4, 8.5.1 and 8.5.2 apply.
In filler beams without transverse reinforcement, the lateral distribution of load is greater than that suggested by
grillage analysis with pinned transverse members. To reproduce the actual distribution the flexural stiffness of
beams should be based on the composite cross section, and the torsional stiffness of internal beams taken as that of
the rectangle of concrete horizontally between mid span of adjacent infill elements and vertically by a height above
the soffit of the metal beam no greater than 1.5 times the vertical distance between the flanges. Suitable grillages
for analysing filler beam decks are shown in Figure 8.4, where the member properties to be assumed are shown in
Table 8.1. In using the grillage in Figure 8.4(b) the torsion per unit width is to be taken as the sum of the torsions
per unit width in the two directions. The two grillages give similar distributions of bending moments and torsions,
but that in Figure 8.4(b) allows lateral distribution of reactions, whereas the grillage in Figure 8.4(a) allows none.
In skewed bridges the transverse beams should be approximately perpendicular to the longitudinal beams.
June 2010
A/83
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Table 8.1: Cross Section Properties for Global Analysis of Non-complying Filler Beams
Lateral Distribution of Reactions:
Disregarded (as in
Figure 8.4(a)
Included (as in
Figure 8.4(b)
Main beams
I
J
A*
Icomposite
Jsteel
Acomposite or
Icomposite
Jsteel
Acomposite or
Intermediate beams
I
J
A*
0
Jconcrete/2
Aconcrete or
Transverse beams
I
J
A*
0
Jconcrete
Aconcrete or
Iconcrete
Jconcrete/2
Aconcrete or
* Analysis is insensitive to A
The grillage in Figure 8.4(b) should only be used where the abutments are sufficient to resist the torsions, a
condition which may be assumed providing.
(a)
the abutments are in good condition and not sufficiently cracked so as to relieve torsion moments, and
(b)
the slab should project a distance equal to the depth of the metal beam past the end of the beam, or
(c)
the concrete in the deck should be monolithic with a substantial abutment beam of depth not less than
50% greater than the depth of the filler deck, or
(d)
the concrete in the deck should be monolithic with a concrete abutment.
In assessing the results of the analysis, the flexural resistance may be assumed to be the same as for complying filler
beams providing the effective concrete is restricted for torsion to that within a depth above the steel beam soffit of
1.5 times the depth between the flanges. For flexure 8.1.2(vi) applies (the alternative in 8.1.2(vii) does not apply).
The torsional strength of the concrete may be taken as

0.41( f CU / mc ) 0.5
when the beam spacing/depth ratio of the metal beams exceeds 2.0
or otherwise

0.58( f cu / mc )0.5
f3
When this stress is exceeded the reduced stiffness given by the expression H1 in Annex H, may be used, when no
check on the stress is required.
A/84
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
(ii)
Appendix A
Filler beams with masonry infill
Dense brickwork filler beams with the mortar fully bonded to the bricks and the metal beams must be assessed in
accordance with the above provisions and those in 5.4 (of BD 61), except the bond stress in 8.5.1 and the strength
of the shear planes through the masonry must be taken not greater than 0.35N/mm2, the resistance of attachments
must not be taken greater than 60% of the value in 5.3.3.8.1 and moment of resistance should not be taken in excess
of the yield moment of the composite section as defined above in 8.1.2(x).
For the analysis two methods are permitted is as follows: An analysis using comparable section properties as those
in Table 8.1, for which the stiffness is calculated as 1000 times the compressive strength in accordance with
Annex H (clause H1), when the torsional stresses in the masonry should not exceed:

0.65( f mk / m )
0.5
f3
when the beam spacing/depth ratio of the metal beams exceeds 2.0, or otherwise

0.75( f mk / m ) 0.5
f3
Where this is exceeded the stiffness may be reduced to that given by expression H1 in Annex H, when no check on
the stress is required.
When the brickwork is not bonded to the steel beams, similar provisions apply except that the bond must be taken
not greater than 0.30N/mm2 and the resistance of attachments must be taken no greater than 40% of the values in
5.3.3.8.1.
Where the soffit between the beam flanges is of sound structural material and the material above is weaker but
complies with 8.1.8, then providing the total depth of the deck less the top 75 mm of surfacing is not less than
20% thicker than the depth of the metal beams, the transverse stiffness per unit length may be taken as 2% of the
longitudinal stiffness, per unit width. No checks are then required on the stresses in the elements orthogonal to the
girders in the analysis.
8.1.5 Vertical shear resistance
For cased beams and filler beams the shear resistance of cemented material up to 250mm above the level of the
steelwork, and for a width on either side as shown in Figure 8.5, may be added to that of the steelwork assuming
a shear strength of concrete vc based on the concrete strength fcu as given in BD 44. Strictly this value applies only
when there is a small amount of longitudinal reinforcement and for this purpose the steelwork is deemed to be
effective as reinforcement. The shear assumed to be carried by the concrete should not exceed 15% of the total
shear in cased beams and 30% of the total shear in filler beams.
For dense brickwork filler beams the provisions of 8.4 (of BD 61) apply.
8.1.6 Procedure when longitudinal shear resistance is inadequate
When the longitudinal shear exceeds the permissible interface bond stress at either SLS or ULS composite action
should be disregarded and all beams with fill on both sides should be considered to be compact, irrespective of the
cross section slenderness.
8.1.7 Punching shear resistance
The punching shear resistance to a wheel load may be assessed assuming the load is replaced by two strip loads,
each of which has the same width and centroid of the part of the load which would be carried by statics to the
June 2010
A/85
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
supporting beam. The shear may be assumed to be carried over a width equal to the loaded width plus av, assuming
a concrete strength of 3vcd/av, where av is the distance from the strip to the face of the web of the neighbouring
metal beam and d is the depth from the surface of the concrete to the lower web/flange intersection of the metal
beam. For dense brickwork the shear strength should be taken as 3 fv/avmv, where fv is from BS 5628 and mv is
taken as 2.5.
For a wheel load on a bay adjacent to an edge beam the resistance should be taken as 70% of that for an internal
bay of similar dimensions, unless it can be shown that the horizontal thrust resulting from the arching action shown
in Fig 8.6 can be adequately resisted.
Flexural checks under local loading are not required providing the beam spacing to web depth ration does not
exceed 4.0 for internal bays and 2.5 for external bays. Where checks are necessary arching action may be assumed
and horizontal composite action between the lower part of the metal beam and the concrete on either side of the
web equal to the least of:

the half of the distance between the webs of the metal beams
the position of the centreline of the nearest load
the edge of the construction.
8.1.8 Effect of end restraints and of finishing and infill material not satisfying BD 44
Where tests with vehicles of weight not less than 70% of the assessment vehicle suggest there are significant
incidental strengthening effects under four passages of the vehicle, or where these effects can confidently be
regarded of comparable or better characteristics to those demonstrated to have substantial stiffness in the literature,
an increase in strength may be taken into account as follows:
(i)
Effect of end restraint
The effect of end restraint from friction in resisting the resolved longitudinal and transverse forces (if any are
assumed) may be taken into account calculated from the dead loads above the level of the soffit, including
that in the abutment beam and a coefficient of friction of:
0.35 for concrete on masonry or masonry on masonry
0.50 for concrete cast on concrete with an unprepared surface
0.60 for concrete cast on concrete with a prepared surface, or monolithic concrete of strength not
exceeding 20N/mm2
0.75 for monolithic concrete of strength exceeding 20N/mm2
It should be noted that where the abutments are thicker than the slab there may be significant end moments
from continuity with the support, but this should be discounted due to the likely loss of this effect when the
concrete cracks, unless there is flexural reinforcement present satisfying BD 44.
(ii)
Effect of finishing
The contribution of the concrete which would not normally be regarded of structural quality (here described
as weak concrete), masonry and well compacted (cohesive or weakly cemented cohesive) material,
between and above the steelwork, may be taken into account in the assessment of the effect of live loads
on the longitudinal bending (for stiffness and strength) of filler beam decks, where it can be shown that
the material is in contact with the full depth of the web or on flat rough concrete surfaces of construction
satisfying 8.1.2, 8.1.3 or 8.1.4. The following guidance is restricted to metals for which the characteristic or
worst credible strength does not exceed 275 N/mm2 and relates to checks on load levels up to SLS loading.
The effective cross section to be used in the calculations is as defined in Annex H, Section H5. The method
assumes that the better traffic compaction of the fill in the older bridges offset the probably greater variability
of the properties in the original materials. The effect of any finishing above sprayed-on waterproofing
systems should be disregarded.
A/86
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
An initial elastic cross section analysis is required in which such material may be taken into account by
assuming combined modular ratios for the fill and weak and structural concrete of:

e
=

15 where there is at least 150mm of structural concrete above the top flange of the
steel beam, or otherwise
30
The strain at the surface of the carriageway determines the method by which the finishing may be taken into
account in carrying the live load moments as follows:
Multiple passage
of vehicles
(as at SLS)
Single passage
of vehicles
(as at ULS)
Method of taking finishing into account
350
500
by the analysis just described

700
1000

by increasing the elastic section

modulus of the steel by (hc + hs)/hs
In the calculations the dead load should be assumed to be carried by the bare steel section, but the
superimposed dead load may be carried on a composite cross section satisfying 8.1.2, 8.1.3, or 8.1.4 and
Annex H.
The calculation may be used for any purposes for which the results are more economical than the methods of
8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.4 and Annex H. No checks on the stresses in the finishing are required.
In structures in which shear is critical the effect of finishing should only be taken into account when
approved.
It is difficult to offer guidance in regard to construction in which it is suspected that the parapets may carry a
significant portion of the bending moment

A load test might damage the parapet.
When the deck is less strong than the theory suggests brittle failure could result.
Where the parapet is well connected to the deck it could sometimes contribute to the strength.
Substantial parapets can span independently of the deck, thereby removing heavy dead loads
from the deck.
(iii) Effect of infill material not satisfying BD 44

Suggestions for inclusion at the ULS of the effects of infill material not satisfying BD 44 are presented in
Annex H, which may be used when approved.
(iv) Combined effects of end restraint, finishes and infill material not satisfying BD 44.

End restraints and either finishes or, where permitted, infill material not satisfying BD 44 may be considered
to act simultaneously, but account should be taken of the fact that end moments may reduce deflections
disproportionately to their increase in resistance to the load. The effect of finishes not satisfying Annex H
and infill material not satisfying BD 44 may not be combined.
June 2010
A/87
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
(v)
Testing
As an alternative to (i) to (iv), where due to non uniformity of material, doubt as to its quality or where these
procedures are believed to underestimate the strength, other agreed procedures are permitted. A procedure
such as that in the second sentence of 5.3.3.8.3 above may be valid, but the increase in strength attributable
to increase in stiffness needs to be established.
Filler beams
Jack arches
Hogging plate
Figure 8.1: Filler beams and jack arches

Filler beams
Jack arches
Hogging plate
Figure 8.1: Filler beams and jack arches

Filler beams
Jack arches
Hogging plate
FigureFigure
8.1: Filler
beams
and
jack
8.1: Filler
beams
and
jackarches
arches
50
Type A
50
50
50
(a) Type of cased

beam considered in the standard
Type A
50
(a) Type of cased beam considered in the standard

50
Type A
25
(a) Type of cased beam considered in the standard

Type B
Type C
25
25
Type B
Type D
25
(b) Other types of Type

cased
C beams occasionally encountered
Type D
25
Figure 8.2: Cased and partially cased beams
(b) Other types of cased beams occasionally encountered
Type B
25
Type C
Type D

(b) Other types of cased beams occasionally encountered

e
5
5
e
Filler Beams
Cased Beams
7 possible modes
6 neither yet observed
5
Filler Beams
e
Cased Beams
7 possible modes
b
5
7 possible modes
Filler Beams
Figure 8.3: Failure
modes in longitudinal shear
Figure 8.3: Failure modes in longitudinal shear
Cased Beams
b

A/88
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Cross members representing slab

modelled as torsion beams
Steel beams
(a) Model for static distribution of beam reactions
Cross members representing slab

with half torsional stiffness of
concrete
Torsion beams midway between

steel beams with half torsional
stiffness of concrete
Steel beams
(b) Model for transverse distribution of beam reactions
Flexural discontinuity
Torsional restraint
Pinned support
Figure 8.4: Grillages for the analysis of non-complying filler beams
Figure 8.4: Grillages for the analysis of non-complying filler beams
June 2010
A/89
he
hs
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
hs
3
hs
3
Effective concrete shear area
be
hs
he
Figure 8.5: Effective concrete shear area of filler beams

hs
3
hs
3
be

P/2
=
P/2
=
Patch loading representing

wheel load dispersed
trough finishing
d
Sideway
thrust
P/2
av
P/2
=
av
Patch loading representing

wheel load dispersed
trough finishing
Figure 8.6: Raking strut representation of punching shear

Sideway
thrust
Except where special requirements are given in the following clauses, cased beams and filler beam decks must
av
be assessed for the serviceability andavultimate limit states in accordance
with clauses 4, 5 and 6. Construction
with cast iron beams must be assessed only at the serviceability limit state as specified in 4.3.2(b) and in this
clause. The properties of cast iron and wrought iron must be as specified in BD 21.

8.3.1 General
The distribution of bending moments and vertical shear forces, due to the assessment loadings at the
serviceability and ultimate limit states, must be determined by an elastic analysis in accordance with 5.1 and
6.1, using an orthotropic plate or grillage analysis. Redistribution of moments at the ultimate limit state (see
6.1.4.2) is not permitted in cased beams.
In simply supported filler beam decks transverse bending moments may be determined by the method given in
8.3.2.
Where there are no bearings the effective span must be as the clear span plus the lesser at each end of (a) or (b)
below.
A/90
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
(a) the lesser of the depth of the metal section and the depth from the soffit to the elastic neutral axis of the
metal section.
(b) half the projection of the metal beam past the face of the support.
8.3.2 Transverse moments in filler beam decks (approximate method). This method is applicable to filler
beam decks subject to the full nominal assessment live loading (the UDL and KEL) and/or up to the equivalent
of 45 units of type HB loading where the following conditions are satisfied:
(a)
the construction consists of simply supported steel or iron beams solidly encased in normal
density concrete;
(b)
the span in the direction of the beams is not less than 6m and not greater than 18m and the angle
of skew does not exceed 20o;
(c)
the clear spacing between the tips of the flanges of the beams does not exceed two-thirds of their
depth;
(d)
the overall breadth of the deck does not exceed 14m;
(e)
the amount of transverse reinforcement in the top of the slab is not less than 300mm2/m if mild
steel is used or 200mm2/m if high yield steel is used.
The maximum transverse sagging moment per unit length of deck, My due to either HA or HB loading, at any
point not less than 2m from a free edge, is

My = (0.95 - 0.04 l) Mx L
(8.1)
where
Mx
is the longitudinal bending moment per unit width of deck at the point considered due to the full
nominal assessment live loading for the limit state considered.
is the span of the beams in metres.
is the ratio of the product of the partial safety factors fLf3 for the HB loading to the
corresponding product for the full nominal assessment live loading for the limit state being
considered.
Longitudinal bending moments per unit width of deck due to the full assessment loading are found by analysis
of the deck as a set of separate longitudinal strips each of width not exceeding the width of one traffic lane.
It is assumed that there is a linear reduction in My from the value at 2m from the free edge of the deck to zero
at the edge.
The transverse hogging moment at any point may be taken as 0.1 My per unit length of deck.
June 2010
A/91
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A

The moments of resistance of cased and filler beams must be assessed in accordance with 5.2 and 6.2 at the
serviceability and ultimate limit states respectively. For this purpose a beam must be considered as compact
(class 2 in Table 6.1) provided any part of the steel or iron section not encased in concrete satisfies the criteria
given in BD 56 (DMBR 3.4.11) and BD 21( duly modified for buckling), except that any wrought iron or steel
beam next to a cast iron beam must be assessed as a class 3 cross-section and the moment of resistance of a
cased beam with a slab width exceeding 1.5 times the depth of the metal section must be restricted to 60%
of the plastic moment of resistance of the composite section. Vertical shear must generally be assumed to be
resisted by the steel or iron section alone and the effects of shear lag in filler beam decks must be neglected.
(See also 8.1.5)). The stresses in cast iron must not exceed the limits in 4.3.2(b). Where there is sufficient bond
between the section and the concrete vertical shear can be carried by the concrete subject to the agreement of
the TAA.
8.5.1 Serviceability limit state. The longitudinal shear force per unit length between the concrete and steel
beam must be calculated by elastic theory, in accordance with 5.3.1 except that, in positive (sagging) moment
regions of cased beams and in filler beams, concrete in tension must be neglected. Shear lag effects must
be neglected in filler beam decks. The shear force to be transferred must be that appropriate to the area of
concrete and steel reinforcement in compression.
For highway bridges and footbridges, providing there is no evidence of corrosion, fretting action or cracking
sufficient to adversely affect the achievement of composite action, the longitudinal shear force may be
assumed to be resisted by bond between the steel or iron and concrete provided the local bond stress nowhere
exceeds 0.5 N/mm2 in cased beams or 0.7N/mm2 in filler beams. The bond may be assumed to be developed
uniformly only over both sides of the web and the upper surface of the top and bottom flanges of the steel
beam where there is complete encasement and over both sides of the web and the upper surface of the top
flange of the steel beam where the beam soffit is exposed. Where both flanges of a filler beam are exposed, the
bond may be assumed to be developed uniformly over both sides of the web provided that the filler beams are
adequately tied together e.g. by reinforcement passing through the webs or through tie bars. Where the local
bond stress, calculated in the manner described, exceeds 0.5 N/mm2 in cased beams or 0.7 N/mm2 in filler
beams the bond must be ignored entirely.
Where there are attachments present satisfying the requirements for incidental longitudinal shear connectors in
5.3.3.8.1 the resistance of these may be assumed in addition to the bond, but because of the (elastic) local bond
criterion this is permitted only where connectors are well distributed.
8.5.2 Ultimate limit state. The longitudinal shear force per unit length of beam must be calculated in
accordance with 8.5.1, but for the assessment loading at the ultimate limit state. Where there are no shear
connectors to transmit the longitudinal shear force due to vertical loading (see 8.5.1), particular attention
must be given to shear planes of type 5-5 (Figure 6.2(d)). In the assessment of filler beams in which the beam
spacing exceeds that in 8.3.2(c) possible failure planes through the concrete must be examined including
planes partially on the steel/concrete interface, when part of the interface must be taken as 2/3 that in through
concrete. The total cross sectional area per unit length of beam of fully anchored reinforcement intersecting the
shear surface Ae must not be less than

mr(qpf3 - v1Ls/mv)
A/92
0.8fry
(8.2)
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
where
qp
is the longitudinal shear force per unit length at the ultimate limit state acting on that shear plane.
L s
is the total length of shear plane minus one third bf.
NOTE: The remaining terms are as defined in 6.3.3.

In the assessment of the effects of incidental shear connectors at ULS isolated connectors within span/5 of the
supports only may be considered and separation gaps (6.1.3) must be disregarded.
8.6 Temperature and Shrinkage Effects
8.6.1 General. Temperature and shrinkage effects need not be considered in filler beam construction. In cased
beams, other than filler beams, consideration must be given to the effects of temperature and shrinkage at the
serviceability limit state. In the absence of more precise information the effects of temperature in cased beams
must be determined using the temperature effects given in BD 37 for a similar reinforced concrete structure.
The effects of shrinkage as modified by creep must be assessed using the values of free shrinkage strain Ecs
and the reduction factor for creep c as given in 5.4.3.
8.6.2 Longitudinal stresses and strains. Longitudinal stresses and strains due to temperature effects and
shrinkage modified by creep must be calculated in accordance with 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.
8.6.3 Longitudinal shear. There must be shear connectors at the ends of cased beams, to transmit the
longitudinal shear force Q, due to temperature effects and shrinkage modified by creep as described in 5.4.2.3
and 5.4.3. The longitudinal shear force to be transmitted by the connectors must be the net longitudinal force
in the steel or iron beam due to temperature and shrinkage effects calculated on an elastic basis assuming full
interaction. It may be assumed to be distributed at the ends of the beam in the manner described in 5.4.2.3. The
concrete must be assumed to be uncracked. The effective breadth of the concrete flange must be determined in
accordance with 5.4.2.1.
8.7 Assessment of Cracking
8.7.1 General. The methods given in 5.2.6, supplemented by the provisions in 8.7.2 and 8.7.3, may be used to
assess whether the degree of cracking is not excessive at the serviceability limit state. Tensile reinforcement,
satisfying the provisions of this clause, may be assumed to contribute to the section properties of the composite
beam.
8.7.2 Cased beams. Longitudinal bars placed in the side face of beams to control flexural cracking must be of
a diameter such that:

sb s b

f ry
sb
is the spacing of bars in the side face of the beam.
is the breadth of the section at the point where the crack width is being considered.
is a constant stress of 1 N/mm2, re-expressed where necessary in units consistent with those used
for other quantities.
fry
is the characteristic yield stress of the reinforcement.
(8.3)
where
June 2010
A/93
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Where the overall depth of a cased beam exceeds 750mm there must be longitudinal bars at 250mm spacing
or closer in the side faces of the beam over a distance of two-thirds of the overall depth measured from the
tension face, unless the assessment of crack widths (see 5.2.6) shows that a greater spacing is acceptable.
8.7.3 Filler beams. The widths of cracks due to transverse bending of a filler beam deck must be assessed in
accordance with BS 5400-4, as for a reinforced concrete slab, neglecting any contribution from the steel beams
to the control of cracking.
8.8 Construction
The concrete cover to the metal beam must not be less than 50mm, except that the underside of the bottom
flanges of the filler beam can be exposed.
The soffit and upper surface of exposed flanges of filler beams must be protected against corrosion.
In cased beams, other than filler beams, there must be stirrups formed by reinforcing bars enclosing the steel or
iron beam and longitudinal reinforcement for control of cracking of the beam encasement. The spacing of the
stirrups must not exceed 600mm. The total cross-sectional area of stirrups (both legs) crossing a possible plane
of shear failure of type 5-5 (Figure 6.2(d)) must be not less than

0.7 mr s Ls/fry per unit length of beam
(8.4)
where

Ls is as defined in Figure 6(d).
s is defined in 6.3.3.1.
NOTE: Alternatively, mesh of equivalent area may be used.

Concrete cover to reinforcement must be in accordance with the requirements of BD 44.
When the above criteria are not met an agreed procedure must be adopted (see * in Foreword).
A/94
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
9 PERMANENT FORMWORK
9.1 General
The assessment requirements of this clause apply to formwork for in situ concrete generally supported from
the steelwork or ironwork, which is an integral part of the permanent construction. Where the steel or iron plate
forming the top flange of a closed box girder acts as permanent formwork to the concrete deck slab separate
assessment requirements are given in 7.7.
Special attention must be given to checking that there is a suitable seal between the steelwork or ironwork and the
permanent formwork and that there is no corrosion.
9.2 Materials
Materials used as permanent formwork which may be included in the assessment are as follows:
(a)
reinforced or prestressed precast concrete.
(b)
precast concrete acting compositely with a steel girder or lattice embedded in the overlying in situ
concrete.
(c)
profiled steel sheeting.
(d)
reinforced plastic or glass reinforced cement sheeting or similar.
9.3 Structural Participation

Permanent formwork may be considered as either:
(a)
structurally participating with the overlying in situ concrete slab under the action of loading imposed
upon the slab after casting; or
(b)
structurally non-participating.
9.4 Temporary Construction Loading

Attention is drawn to the possibility of damage having occurred from handling, from construction plant and
from the mounding of concrete that may have occurred during casting. The assessment loads due to temporary
construction loading must be determined in accordance with BS 5975 and BD 37. Where the temporary
loading is of a transient nature and the resultant stresses and strains are not locked into the structure there is no
need to consider this.
9.5 Assessment
9.5.1 General. The permanent formwork must be assessed to establish the stresses and deflections that would
have arisen from temporary construction loading and it must satisfy the relevant limit states given in BD 44
and BD 56 as appropriate, see 9.4.
9.5.2 Non-participating formwork. Permanent formwork made from the materials given in 9.2(d) must be
considered as structurally non-participating. Where the permanent formwork is structurally non-participating
account must be taken of any effects of differential shrinkage or composite action that may adversely affect the
structure. Assessment criteria for cover to reinforcement and crack control applicable to the in situ slab must
be satisfied ignoring the presence of the formwork.
June 2010
A/95
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
9.5.3 Participating formwork. Where composite action between the permanent formwork and in situ slab
exists, the assessment of the composite slab must satisfy all relevant requirements of this Standard and in
particular the:
(a)
fatigue behaviour;
(b)
durability;
(c)
bond between permanent formwork and concrete slab both under long term and under impact
loading;
(d)
corrosion protection.
Participating formwork must only be included in the assessment with the prior agreement of the appropriate
TAA.
9.6 Special Requirements for Precast Concrete or Composite Precast Concrete Participating Formwork
9.6.1 Assessment. To qualify as participating formwork precast concrete units must comply with the relevant
clauses given in BD 44. With continuity between units achieved by the lapping of reinforcement projecting
from units, post-tensioning, and the use of high-strength bolts or other means acceptable to the TAA.
9.6.2 Welding of reinforcement. Reinforcement that has been welded must only be included when the effects
of repeated loading can be shown not to have been detrimental to the permanent structure. Compliance with
BD 44 is deemed to satisfy this requirement.
9.6.3 Interfaces. Interfaces between precast and in situ concrete must have developed sufficient shear
resistance to ensure composite action in both the transverse and longitudinal directions.
9.6.4 Cover to reinforcement. Where the clear distance between a precast unit and reinforcement embedded
in the in situ concrete slab exceeds the maximum nominal size of aggregate used in the in situ concrete by less
than 5mm and there are known problems with the structure the absence of voids beneath the reinforcement
must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the TAA.
A/96
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
10 ASSESSMENT OF FRICTION GRIP BOLTS USED AS SHEAR CONNECTORS IN COMPOSITE

BEAMS
10.1 General
High strength friction grip bolts are used to provide the shear connection between the steel or iron member
and the concrete slab forming the flange of the composite beam. The following method must be used for the
assessment of the connection where general grade bolts complying with the requirements of BS 4395-1 is used
in accordance with BS 4604-1. The resistance of higher grades of bolts must only be included when justified
by adequate tests.
10.2 Assessment Requirements: Static Loading
10.2.1 Serviceability limit state. The longitudinal shear resistance per unit length developed by friction
between the concrete slab and steel or iron beam must be not less than the longitudinal shear force per
unit length at the serviceability limit state assessed in accordance with clause 5. The assessment frictional
resistance developed by each bolt at the interface must be taken as:

(net tensile force in the bolt)/1.2f3
where , the coefficient of friction at first slip may be taken as 0.45 provided the criteria of 10.4 are satisfied.
Where the concrete flange is cast in situ on the steel beam the value of must be taken as 0.50. The nominal
initial tensile force in the bolt must be taken as the proof load as given in BS 4604: Part 1 provided there is
evidence that the method of tightening complies with the requirements of that British Standard. In determining
the net tensile force in the bolt account must be taken of the loss of bolt tension due to shrinkage of the
concrete and creep of the steel or iron and concrete.
Where the connectors are subject to external tensile forces in addition to shear, e.g. where loads are suspended
from the steelwork or ironwork, account must be taken of the reduction in effective clamping force in the bolt.
10.2.2 Ultimate limit state. Shear connectors which comply with 10.2.1 are deemed to satisfy the
requirements at the ultimate limit state. When assessing the possibility of longitudinal shear failure through the
depth of the slab in accordance with 6.3.3, it must be taken into account that the presence of pockets for the
bolts reduces the length of the effective shear plane.
10.3 Fatigue
For connections subject only to shear in the plane of the friction interface no account need be taken of the
effects of repeated loading.
June 2010
A/97
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
10.4 Other Considerations

The resistance of the connection must only be taken into account if all the following conditions are satisfied:

there must be a uniform bearing surface between the steel or iron beam and the concrete slab;
suitable washers or bearing plates must have been provided to spread the loads from the bolts in order to
prevent the concrete underneath being crushed;
where the slab is precast suitable bedding material can be shown to be present between the slab and the
steel beam;
similarly the inspection or record drawings must have confirmed that there is nothing present on
the interface (for example applied finishes, oil, dirt, loose rust, loose mill scale, burrs and other
defects) which would prevent a uniform seating between the two elements or would interfere with the
development of friction between them;
Adequate reinforcement, for example in the form of spirals, must be present to ensure that the load is
transferred from the bolt to the interface without local splitting or crushing of the concrete slab;
The details around the bolt holes need careful scrutiny to ensure that local crushing forces on the
concrete have not been increased by loads being directly transmitted via the bolt heads. The details must
be such as to ensure that forces and moments can be adequately transmitted across the joints between
adjacent precast units, and that there are no gaps between the flange and the concrete slab, where
corrosion could take place.
A/98
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
11 COMPOSITE COLUMNS
11.1 General
11.1.1 Scope. This clause gives an assessment method for concrete encased steel or wrought iron sections
and concrete filled circular and rectangular hollow steel sections which takes account of the composite action
between the various elements forming the cross section. For axi-symmetric columns, moments must be
resolved into the principal directions. For columns which are not axisymmetic bending about the two principal
axes of the column is considered separately for each axis. A method is given in 11.3.5.5 for determining the
effect of interaction when bending about both axes occurs simultaneously. The column may be either statically
determinate or rigidly connected to other members at one or both ends, in which case the loads and moments
depend on the relative stiffnesses of adjoining members and cannot be obtained by statics alone. Members
are assumed to be rigidly connected where, for example, the connection possesses the full rigidity that can be
made possible by welding or by the use of high strength friction grip bolts.
Where construction does not satisfy the requirements of the assessment methods of this clause the method of
BS 5400-5 or a cased strut method, such as that in BS 5950-1, may be employed with the agreement of the
TAA.
11.1.2 Materials
11.1.2.1 Steel or iron or wrought iron. In columns formed from concrete encased steel or iron sections the
structural steel or iron section used in the assessment must be one of the following:
(a)
a rolled steel joist or universal section of grade 43 or 50 steel which complies with the
requirements of BS 4: Part 1 and BS 4360; or
(b)
a symmetrical I-section fabricated from grade 43 or 50 steel complying with BS 4360.
(c)
a symmetrical I-section of which the properties are taken from information on the drawings or in
BD 21.
Concrete filled hollow steel or iron sections used in the assessment may be either rectangular or circular and
must:
(1)
be a symmetrical box section fabricated from grade 43 or 50 steel complying with BS 4360 or
iron complying with BD 21; or
(2)
a structural hollow steel section complying with BS 4360 and BS 4-2 or BS 4848-2 as appropriate
or wrought iron complying with BD 21; and
(3)
have a wall thickness of not less than:
bsfy/3Es
for each wall in a rectangular section (RHS), or
Defy/8Es
for circular hollow section (CHS)
where

bs
De is the outside diameter of the CHS.
E s
is the modulus of elasticity of steel or wrought iron.
fy
is the nominal yield strength of steel or wrought iron.
June 2010
is the external dimension of the wall of the RHS.
A/99
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
11.1.2.2 Concrete. The concrete must be of normal density (not less than 2300 kg/m3) with a characteristic 28
day cube strength or lowest credible strength of not less than 20 N/mm2 for concrete filled tubes nor less than
25 N/mm2 for concrete encased sections and a nominal maximum size of aggregate not exceeding 20mm.
11.1.2.3 Reinforcement. Steel reinforcement must comply with the relevant clauses on strength of materials
given in BD 44.
11.1.3 Shear connection. To use this assessment method provision is required for loads applied to the
composite column to be distributed between the steel and concrete elements in such proportions that the shear
stresses at the steel/concrete interface are nowhere excessive. Shear connectors must be present where these
shear stresses, due to the assessment ultimate loads, would otherwise exceed 0.6 N/mm2 for cased sections or
0.4 N/mm2 for concrete filled hollow steel sections.
11.1.4 Concrete contribution factor. The method of analysis in 11.3 is restricted to composite cross sections
where the concrete contribution factor c, as given below, lies between the following limits:

for concrete encased steel or wrought iron sections 0.15 < c < 0.8.
for concrete filled hollow steel or wrought iron sections 0.10 < c < 0.8.
where

c=

0.67 Ac fcu
Npl mc
and the squash load Npl is given by:

Asfy
Arfry

Npl=
+
+
mf3
mrf3
0.67 Acfcu
mcf3
except that for concrete filled circular hollow steel or iron sections c and Npl must be determined in
accordance with 11.3.7.
In the previous expressions,
A/100
= 1.05.
As
is the cross-sectional area of the rolled or fabricated structural steel section.
A r
is the cross-sectional area of reinforcement.
Ac
is the area of concrete in the cross section.
fy
is the nominal yield strength or worst credible strength of the structural steel or iron.
fry
is the characteristic yield strength or worst credible strength of the reinforcement.
fcu
is the characteristic 28 day cube strength or worst credible cube strength of the concrete.
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
11.1.5 Steel contribution factor. The steel contribution factor is

=

A s fy
Npl mf3
11.1.6 Limits on slenderness. The ratio of the effective length, determined in accordance with 11.2.2.4 to the
least lateral dimension of the composite column, must not exceed:
(a)
55 for concrete filled circular hollow sections; or
(b)
65 for concrete filled rectangular hollow sections.
11.2 Moments and Forces in Columns

11.2.1 General. The loads and moments acting in the two principal planes of the column, due to loading at the
ultimate limit state, must be determined by an appropriate analysis in which the actual length of the column is
taken as the distance between the centres of end restraints. Proper account must be taken of the rotational and
directional restraint afforded by adjoining members and the reduction in member stiffness due to inelasticity
and axial compression. Alternatively, the method given in 11.2.2 may be used.
11.2.2 Semi-empirical assessment method for restrained composite columns
11.2.2.1 Scope. The semi-empirical method of analysis given in 11.2.2.2 to 11.2.2.6 is only applicable to
isolated columns or columns forming part of a single storey frame provided that the restraining members
attached to the ends of the column remain elastic under their assessment ultimate load; otherwise the stiffness
of the restraining members must be appropriately reduced in calculating the effective length of the column and
the end moments. The method is not applicable to cast iron sections.
1.2.2.2 Moments and forces on the restrained column. End moments and forces acting in the two principal
planes of the column must be determined either by statics, where appropriate, or by an elastic analysis
neglecting the effect of axial loads both on member stiffness and on changes in the geometry of the structure
as it deflects under load. The relative stiffness of members (I/l) must be based on the gross (concrete assumed
uncracked) transformed composite cross section using an appropriate modulus of elasticity determined from
BD 44, with 1 taken as the distance between centres of end restraints.
11.2.2.3 Equivalent pin-ended column. The actual column must be replaced by an equivalent pin-ended
column of length equal to the effective length of the restrained column in the plane of bending and subjected
to the same end loads and end moments as the restrained column, except that where the column is free to sway,
the equivalent pin ended column must always be considered to be in single curvature bending with the smaller
end moment in a particular plane taken as the calculated value or three-quarters of the larger end moment,
whichever is greater. The strength of the equivalent pin-ended column must then be determined in accordance
with 11.3.
11.2.2.4 Effective length. The effective length of the restrained column must be determined from Table 11 of
BD 44.
11.2.2.5 Transverse Loads. Transverse loads must be included in the elastic analysis of the restrained column
if this results in a more severe loading condition. In a braced frame (or column) when the maximum resultant
moment within the length of the column Mmax, due to the whole of the assessment ultimate loads, is greater
than half the modulus of the algebraic sum of the end moments the alternative loading condition of single
curvature bending must also be considered with the end moments equal to Mmax. Single curvature bending is
here assumed to produce end moments of the same sign at each end of the column.
June 2010
A/101
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
11.2.2.6 Column self weight. The axial component of self weight must be considered in assessment as an
additional end load acting concentrically on the column. In raking columns, account must also be taken of the
bending moments in the column due to the normal component of its self weight.
11.3 Analysis of Columns
11.3.1 Concrete encased steel section. Assessment methods are given for both short and slender column
lengths subjected to any combination of axial load and bending moments at their ends such that the transverse
shear force does not exceed VD/3 where VD is as defined in BD 56.
No account is taken of transverse loading applied within the column length, so that any such loading must be
negligible.
The steel section must be a rolled or fabricated H or I section with
rx/hs 0.39 and ry/bs > 0.24
where
rx
is the greater radius of gyration of the steel section,
ry
is the lesser radius of gyration of the steel section,
h s
is the depth of the steel section in the plane of the web,
b s
is the breadth of the steel section.
The value of the yield strength of the structural steel to be used in calculations must not exceed 355N/mm2..
The concrete cover to the structural steel must be fully bonded to the steel and must be unaffected by cracks
likely to affect the composite action.
11.3.2 Major and minor axes. For the methods of 11.3, the major and minor axes of bending of the composite
section are to be taken as the major and minor axes of the structural steel section.
11.3.3 Definition of slender columns. For the methods of 11.3 a column length is defined as short when
neither of the ratios lex/h and ley/b exceeds 12,
where
h
is the overall depth of the composite section perpendicular to the major axis, and
is the overall depth of the composite section perpendicular to the minor axis.
lex
and ley are the effective lengths calculated in accordance with 11.2.2.4 in respect of the major
axis and minor axis respectively.
It must otherwise be considered as slender.

11.3.4 Slenderness limits for column lengths. The effective length lex must not exceed the least of:

20h, 250 rx and 100 h12 /h2
The effective length ley must not exceed the least of:

A/102
20b, 250 ry and 100 h12 /h2
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Where
h1
is the lesser of h and b
h2
is the greater of h and b
other symbols are as defined in 11.3.1 and 11.3.3.

11.3.5 Short columns that resist combined compression and bending.
11.3.5.1 Scope. Concrete-encased short columns may be assessed in accordance with 11.3.5.2 to 11.3.5.5 if the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1)
The steel contribution ratio, defined in 11.1.5 is not less than 0.50.
(2)
The assessment eccentricities of the axial force, ex and ey satisfy
ex>| 1.5h
and
(11.1a)
ey>| 1.0b
(11.1b)
where ex and ey are determined in accordance with 11.3.5.2.
(3)
Neither hs/h nor bs/b is less than 0.50, where the symbols are as defined in 11.3.1 and 11.3.3.
Where the end moments about the minor axis are nominally zero and the column is unrestrained against failure
about the minor axis, the column is likely to fail in a biaxial mode unless the axial load is very small. The
column must be such that:
(a)
the requirements of 11.3.3 are satisfied, and
(b)
the assessment load acting on the column N is not greater than the strength of the column in
biaxial bending Nuxy calculated from the equation given in 11.3.5.5 except that Nuy must be
calculated from 11.3.5.4 taking ey as equal to 0.03b to allow for construction tolerances, where b
is the least lateral dimension of the column.
11.3.5.2 Design eccentricities of the axial force. Assessment resistances given in 11.3.5.3 to 11.3.5.5 are for
columns subjected to single-curvature bending. The eccentricity of loading about each axis must be taken as
the greater of the values for the two ends of the column, subject to conditions (1) to (3) below.
(1)
Where the applied load is eccentric about one axis only, the eccentricity about that axis must be
taken as not less than 0.04h1, where h1 is as defined in 11.3.4. No nominal eccentricity about the
other axis need be considered.
(2)
Where the applied load is eccentric about both axes, neither eccentricity must be taken as less
than 0.04h1.
(3)
Where 11.3.5 is used for an axially loaded column, the eccentricity of loading must be taken as
0.04h1 about the axis that gives the lower strength.
June 2010
A/103
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
For a column subject to double-curvature bending, or with at least one end prevented from rotation in the plane
or planes considered, the design resistances given in 11.3.5.3 to 11.3.5.5 must be increased as follows:

(a) by 5% when lex/h 8 and ley /b 8, and
(b) by 10% when lex /h > 8 and ley /b 12
11.3.5.3 Assessment for bending about the major axis. The assessment ultimate load must not exceed the
assessment resistance Nux given by:

Nux = Np1k1/(1 + k2)
(11.3)
where
k2 =
2.3 e x /h
h s /h + (1 - )/3
Npl
is the squash load calculated in accordance with 11.1.4.
k1
is the lower of the values of k1x and k1y.
k1x and k1y are slenderness reduction factors

other symbols are as defined elsewhere in 11.3.
Values of k1x and k1y are given in Figure 11.1. As an alternative, they may be calculated from the following
equations, which must only be used within the bounds of the Figure:
k 1x = 1.007 -
1 l ex
0.2 l ex 26.1 h s
+ 31.2
- 4.5
1000 h
h
h
k 1y = 1.010 -
1 l ey
l ey
- 3 33.2 - 32.9 y + - 20 (0.42 y + 0.1)

1000 b
b
where y = (1 - )bs/b
A/104
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
hs /
h=
0 .9
0
Figure 11.1: Values of k1x and k1y
June 2010
A/105
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
11.3.5.4 Assessment for bending about the minor axis. The assessment ultimate load must not exceed the
design resistance Nuy given by:

Nuy = Np1K1/(1 + k3)
(11.4)
where
4 e y /b
bs /b + (1 - )/2
k3 =
Other symbols are as defined elsewhere in 11.3.
11.3.5.5 Assessment for biaxial bending. The design ultimate load must not exceed the assessment resistance
Nuxy given by

Nuxy = Np1K1/(1 + k2 + k3)
(11.5)
where the symbols are as defined in 11.1.4 and elsewhere in 11.3.

11.3.6 Slender Columns. A concrete-encased column length that is slender as defined in 11.3.3 may be
assessed conservatively by the methods given for short columns in 11.3.5. Alternatively, and providing that
the conditions (1) to (3) of 11.3.5.1 are satisfied, the assessment resistance may be calculated from 11.3.5.2 to
11.3.5.5, with k2 and k3 replaced by k4 and k5 given by

k4 = k2 [1 = (max - 12)/37]
k5 = k3 [1 = (max - 12)/37]
where
max is the greater of ley/b and 12, when k1y k1x, or
max is the greater of 0.7 lex/h and 12, when k1y > k1x
other symbols are as defined elsewhere in 11.3.
The substitutions for k2 and k3 are both applicable when the column length is slender about one axis only.
11.3.7 Ultimate strength of axially loaded concrete filled circular hollow sections. In axially loaded
columns formed from concrete filled circular hollow steel or iron sections account must be taken of the
enhanced strength of triaxially contained concrete in the method given above by replacing the expressions for
c and Npl given in 11.1.4 by the following:

c =
c =
0.67 f cc Ac

N pl mc f 3
f y '' As
m f 3
0.67 f cc Ac
N pl mc f 3
(11.6)
(11.7)
where
A/106
= 1.05
mc
= 1.50
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
fcc
Appendix A
is an enhanced characteristic strength of triaxially contained concrete under axial load, given by:
f cc = f cu + C 1
t
De
f y
fy
is a reduced nominal yield strength of the steel or iron casing, given by:
fy = C2 fy
(11.8)
C1 and C2 are constants given in Table 11.1.

De
is the outside diameter of the tube.
is the wall thickness of the steel or iron casing and the remaining symbols are defined as in 11.1
and 11.2.2.4.
Table 11.1 Value of constants C1 and C2 for axially loaded concrete filled circular hollow sections
1e
De
C1
C2
0
5
10
15
20
25
9.47
6.40
3.81
1.80
0.48
0.00
0.76
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
11.3.8 Tensile cracking of concrete. No check for crack control need be made in the following:
(a)
concrete filled hollow steel sections, or
(b)
concrete encased steel or iron sections provided the assessment axial load at the ultimate limit
state is greater than 0.3 fcu Ac/mc, where the symbols are as defined in 11.1.4.
Where the assessment axial load in concrete encased steel or iron sections is less than the value given in (b)
and tensile stresses due to bending can occur in one or more faces of the composite section, cracking of the
concrete must be assessed in accordance with 5.2.6 considering the column as a beam.
11.3.9 Details. To prevent local spalling of the concrete under loading above the capacity of the bare steel or
iron section, reinforcement must be present in concrete encased sections. Stirrups of an appropriate diameter
must be present throughout the length of the column at a spacing not exceeding 200mm anchored around at
least four longitudinal bars.
The concrete cover to the nearest surface of the steel member must be fully bonded to the steel or iron steel
member, there must be no cracks likely to affect the composite action, and proper compaction of the concrete
must be established, including between steel elements.
11A COMPOSITE COLUMNS
June 2010
A/107
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
The Standard does not consider filled tubes subject to bending. The method for designing cased columns in the
Design Code is more elaborate and more conservative than the method in BS EN 1994 and it is seldom used. A
method has been produced (43) which is simpler than either method and which has been calibrated to give column
strengths agreeing with strengths obtained using the Design Code to the following tolerances:

at normal eccentricities of column

load (ex/hx and ey/hy 0.60 for
uniaxial bending)
5% unsafe to
10% safe
for biaxial bending and at higher

eccentricities in uniaxial bending
10% unsafe to
25% safe
This is the basis of the present assessment procedure.

The method is considered to be generally conservative compared to the method in EC4.
A/108
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
12 INFLUENCE OF METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION ON ASSESSMENT

12.1 Sequence of Construction.
Where a partially cast slab is assumed to act compositely the shear connection must be assumed for this
condition as well as for the final condition.
Consideration must be given to the possibility of damage having occurred to partly matured concrete as
a result of limited composite action, due to deformation of the steel beams under subsequent concreting
operations. Damage is likely to have occurred where loading of the composite section was not delayed until
the concrete has attained a cube strength of 20N/mm2.
Where the composite section was loaded before the concrete had attained its 28 day characteristic cube
strength the elastic properties and limiting compressive stresses of the concrete and the nominal strengths of
shear connectors must be based upon fc, the cube strength of the concrete at the time considered, except that
no reduction in stiffness of the concrete need be made if

0.75 fcu < fc < fcu
Where the cube strength of the concrete at the time considered fc, was not less than 20 N/mm2, the nominal
strengths of shear connectors must be determined by linear interpolation of the values given in Table 5.1.
12.2 Permanent Formwork
Requirements for temporary construction loading, which must be assumed in assessing the permanent
formwork, are given in 9.4.
June 2010
A/109
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
13 PRESTRESSING IN COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION

13.1 General
Prestressing can reduce, or in some circumstances prevent, the cracking of concrete under service loading so
increasing stiffness and improving the protection of steel from corrosion.
13.2 Methods of Prestressing
Among the methods by which prestressing may have been achieved are the following:
(a)
system whereby a moment is applied to the steel section in the same direction as it will act in
the structure. The tension flange is then encased in concrete and the moment relaxed when the
concrete has adequate strength;
(b)
the use of jacking to alter the relative levels of the supports of a continuous member after part or
whole of the concrete deck has been cast and matured;
(c)
prestressing the concrete slab or sections of the slab by tendons or jacking whilst it is independent
of the steel section and subsequently connecting them;
(d)
prestressing the steel beam by tendons prior to concreting irrespective of whether they were or
were not released after the concrete has matured;
(e)
prestressing the composite sections by tendons or jacking.
Special consideration must be given to composite beams which have been prestressed by an external system
or by tendons not directly bonded to the concrete. In these circumstances, the effect of the prestressing forces
must take account of the deformation of the whole structure.
Prestressed composite members must be assessed for the serviceability and ultimate limit states in accordance
with the general requirements of this and other parts of this Standard.
13.4 Prestressing the Steel Beam
Consideration must be given to the stresses that were developed in the steel beam during prestressing. The
stresses in the steelwork must not exceed the limiting stresses given in BD 56.
13.5 Stress Limitations in Concrete at Transfer
Where it is considered that cracking resulted from stresses at transfer these must be calculated in accordance
with 5.2.
Where the concrete was pre-compressed by the release of a temporary prestress in the steel beam the
compressive stress in the concrete at transfer, or where the concrete slab or a section of the slab was
permanently prestressed before it acted compositely with the steel beam, the stresses in the concrete at transfer,
in tension or compression, must not exceed the limitations given in BD 44 for prestressed concrete.
A/110
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
13.6 Loss of Prestress

The loss of prestress and the effects of shrinkage in non composite prestressed concrete members must be
calculated in accordance with the requirements of BD 44.
Where the concrete acts compositely with the steel section account must be taken of the reduction in prestress
and the effect on the stresses in the composite section due to elastic deformation, shrinkage and creep of the
concrete and relaxation in the prestressing steel or tendon.
June 2010
A/111
Appendix A
14
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
JACK ARCH AND TROUGH CONSTRUCTION
A method for assessing jack arches which may be used on the approval of the TAA is given below; this is less
conservative than the method in BA 16.
For trough construction the method in BA 16 is generally appropriate, but there are situations in which greater
strengths can be justified and these are discussed in the standard.
14.1 Jack arch construction
The rules for the assessment of jack arches are the same as those for non-complying filler beams subject to the
following modifications.
It is at present premature to identify a preferred simple approach to the analysis of jack arches. However restrictions
in the scope are necessary for most methods (including that in BA 16), as indicated below.
(i)
The method of clause 7 of BA 16 which permits the use of clause 8 of BD 61, but with the simple transverse
distribution rules in clause 2 of BA 16. It is permitted to use this method with the provisions of BD 21 and
BD 61.
(ii) An orthotropic plate or grillage analysis in which the depth of the transverse members is taken as an effective
depth, constant across each vault, equal to the thickness at the crown of the arch plus one fifth of the vertical
distance between the crown and the soffit of the steel section(40). The tensile stresses in these members,
neglecting arch compression, should not exceed 70% of the limiting torsional stresses in clause 8. Methods
(i) and (ii) only are admissible where the edge girders, or ties at a spacing longitudinally not exceeding 1.3
times the spacing of the metal beams, are sufficient to resist the lateral thrusts.
(iii) The analysis in Table 8.1 with Jconcrete assessed from the area of concrete of the depth of the rectangle
described in 8.1.4, but extending horizontally between the crowns of the adjacent vaults.
For masonry the above methods may be used with the following modification. Method (i) may only be used when
the condition factor for the masonry in BD 21 and BA 16 is not less than 0.90 and when the minimum depth of
material at the crown, excluding the top 75mm of surfacing, is not less than the depth of the metal beam. Where
there is concrete above the masonry the thickness of masonry in this section should be the depth of masonry at the
crown. The stiffnesses of the materials may be estimated by the method in H1 (opening paragraph). The interface
stresses between masonry and concrete need not be checked. It is permitted to use this method with the provision
of BD 21, BD 61 and relevant parts clause 8, but neither 8.1.8, nor the related parts of Annex H. Methods (ii) and
(iii) above are both applicable with the modifications for masonry in 8.1.4, providing the condition factor is not less
than 0.70. The method in the last paragraph 8.1.4 is of general applicability but the tensile stress check for method
(ii) above should be used.
A flow chart summarising the use of the various methods here, in BA 16 and BD 21, is included in Annex I.
The effective perimeter assumed to provide bond should be restricted to the upper surface of the top flange and
the web where the infill is at least 50mm thick. The bond strength for concrete at SLS and the stress on the shear
connection at ULS reduced by a factor of 1.40 (or some other agreed factor), and the option of sometimes using the
plastic moment of resistance does not apply.
The shear resistance of jack arches may be assumed to be the same as for filler beams in 8.1.5.
The effect of finishing may be taken into account by the method in 8.1.8. When the girders are of cast iron the
values of e should be halved.
A/112
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
In hogging plate construction, which is the more modern form of jack arch construction (in which the beams are
more likely to be of mild steel than cast iron), the horizontal shear resisted between the hogging plate and the fill
should be disregarded, except where the fill is of concrete when incidental shear connection from rivet (or bolt)
heads may be taken into account.
Tie rods are often present in jack arches to resist the arch thrust along the sides of the bridge. The adequacy of
these should be established. Where these are sufficient the resistance of the arches to transverse loads should be
established, for example by an arch program. Where these are insufficient, spreading of the arches should be taken
into account by use of a multiple arch program.
14.2 Trough Construction
Smooth troughs with open profiles have substantially lower incidental composite action than jack arch or filler
beam construction, so troughs should be assessed in accordance with BD 21, though the following modifications
are permitted. Where the depth of fill is nowhere less than 70% of the total depth the transverse stiffness may
be assumed to be 10% of the longitudinal stiffness. Transversely there is full composite action, but as troughs are
seldom interconnected transversely this affects stiffness, but not strength. However where there are rivet or bolt
heads penetrating concrete overlays the rules for incidental shear connectors in 5.3.3.8 may be used, and, where the
surfaces of the troughs are sufficiently steep that these devices resist uplift, consideration may be given to reducing
values of b. Alternative procedures to the above are permitted provided they can be justified and provided they take
into account differences in the performance of the structure at SLS and ULS.
June 2010
A/113
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX A (Normative)
This Annex applies to the concrete flange (the slab) of composite beams in hogging moment regions. It is
applicable to both longitudinal beams and cross members.
The calculated crack width is the larger of:

w=
and
w=
3a cr m
(a c )
1 + 2 cr nom
hx
1/3
0.40 ( f cu /s)

2
6
10 ( Ar / hc be )
(A.1)
(A.2)
where
acr
is the distance from the location of the crack considered to the surface of the nearest bar which
controls the crack width included in the calculation of Ar.
cnom is the cover to the outermost reinforcement included in the calculation of Ar.
h
is the overall depth of the section.
is the depth of the section in compression.
is the calculated strain at the level where cracking is being assessed, allowing for the stiffening
effect of the concrete in the tension zone; a negative value of m indicates that the section is
uncracked. The value of m for a solid slab is given by the lesser of:
3.4h c b e
80
m = 1 -
(A.3)
and
m = 1
(A.4)
is the calculated strain at the level where cracking is being considered ignoring the stiffening
effect of the concrete in the tension zone:
hc
is the depth of the slab
10 r ( Ar + A ft )
10 r
be is the sum of the effective breadths of the slab on either side of the web.
r
is the strain in the reinforcement, which may conservatively taken as 1.
A r
is the total area of top and bottom reinforcement in the direction of the steel member in the
effective breaths of the slab.
Where the axis of the assessment moment and the direction of the reinforcement resisting that moment are not
normal to each other (eg in a skew slab) Ar must be taken as

A/114
Ar = (Ar1 cos41)
(A.5)
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Ar1
Appendix A
is the area of reinforcement in a particular direction

1
is the angle between the axis of the assessment moment and the direction of the reinforcement,
Ar1, resisting that moment.
is yft/yr
is the diameter of the reinforcement near the top of the slab.
Aft
is the area of the tension flange.
yr
is the distance from the neutral axis to the centroid of the reinforcement.
yft
is the distance from the neutral axis to the centre line of the tension flange of the steel section.
fcu
Characteristic or worst credible concrete cube strength.
a constant stress of 1 N/mm2 re-expressed where necessary in units consistent with those used for
other quantities.
June 2010
A/115
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX B (Informative)
LATERAL-TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF COMPOSITE BEAMS WITH SLAB AND GIRDERS TIED
LATERALLY AND ROTATIONALLY
B.1 GENERAL
B.1.1 This Annex deals with the assessment of the hogging moment region of non-compact girders in which the
slabs and girders are tied horizontally and vertically such that flexural transverse stiffness of the slab restrains the
girder. This condition may be assumed when the conditions in 5.3.3.3 are satisfied.
B.2 BASED ON A CONTINUOUS INVERTED-U FRAME MODEL
B.2.1 Elastic Critical Stress.
(1)
This clause is applicable to non-compact composite girders or portions of girders with continuity at one or
both ends and a restrained top flange, that satisfy conditions (c) and (f) to (j) of 6.2.3.3. The steel member
must be a doubly symmetrical or mono-symmetrical rolled or welded I-section of uniform depth throughout
the span considered. The shear connection must satisfy (7) and (8) below.
(2)
The model for this method is the continuous inverted-U frame. It does not rely on the provision of web
stiffeners except those required by 6.2.3.3(j).
(3)
No special provision need be made at internal supports to provide warping fixity or to prevent rotation in
plan of the steel bottom flange.
(4)
The elastic critical buckling moments from the hogging moment at an internal support may be taken as:
(5)
A/116
M cr =
[(
k cC 4
G s J s + k s (16L / C 4 )2 E s I sfy
L
0.5
(B.1)
where
L
is the length of the beam between points at which the bottom flange of the steel member is laterally
restrained.
C4
is a property of the distribution of bending moment within length L given in Tables B.1 to B.3. Where
the bending moments at the supports are unequal, C4 relates to the support with the larger hogging
moment.
The properties of the effective cross-section refer to those in the hogging moment region and are as follows:
kc
is a factor given in B.2.2 or B.2.3.
Es
and Gs are respectively the modulus of elasticity and the shear modulus for steel, given in BD 56.
is the area of the equivalent cracked transformed composite section, calculated with the effective
breadth of the concrete flange in 5.2.3 and the short term modulus of elasticity of concrete neglecting
concrete in tension but including reinforcement in tension.
Ix
is the second moment of area for major-axis bending of the composite section of Area A.
A s
is the area of the structural steel section.
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
rxy2
= (Isx + Isy)/As
Isx
& Isy are second moments of area of the structural steel section about the centroid of area A.
Isfy
is the second moment of area of the bottom flange about the minor axis of the steel member.
J s
is the St Venant torsion constant of the steel section.
ks
is a transverse stiffness per unit length of the beam, given by
ks =

k1
k1 k 2

k1 + k 2
(B.2)
(B.3)
is the flexural stiffness of the cracked concrete or composite slab in the direction transverse to the steel
beam, which may be taken as
k1 = 4EsI2/a for a slab continuous across the steel beam,
and
k1 = 2EsI2/a for a simply supported or cantilever slab
(B.4)
(B.5)
EsI2 is the cracked flexural stiffness per unit width of the concrete or composite slab and I2 must be taken
as the lower of:

k2
the value at mid-span of the slab, for sagging bending, and

the value at an internal support of the slab, for hogging bending
is the flexural stiffness of the steel web, to be taken as:

3
k2 =
E s tw
for an uncased beam
4 (1 - v 2s ) h s
k2 =
E s t w b ft
for a cased beam
16 h f (1 + 4 e t w / b ft )
is the modular ratio for long term loading calculated in accordance with 5.4.3.
is Poisson's ratio for steel.
bft
is the breadth of the steel flange of the steel member to which shear connectors are attached.
hf
is the distance between the shear centres of the flanges of the steel member.
(B.6)
(B.7)
Other symbols are defined in Figure B.1.

(6)
LT is obtained from
LT = 2E s
Z pe
M cr
where
Mcr is the elastic buckling moment as determined in (4).
June 2010
(B.8)
A/117
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
(7)
Except where specific account is taken of the influence of inverted U-frame action on the resistance of the
shear connection, the longitudinal spacing of studs or rows of studs, sL must be such that:
2
s L 0.4 f u d (1 - X)
b ft
ks X
(B.9)
where
X
is MR/Mcr
is the diameter of the studs.
fu
is the characteristic tensile strength of the studs (see Table 5.1).
k s
is as defined in B.2.2(5).
bft
is as defined in (5).
MR
is as defined in 9.8 of BD 56.
Mcr can be taken from (4) above.

(8)
The longitudinal spacing of connectors other than studs must be such that the resistance of the connection to
transverse bending is not less than that required when studs are used.
B.2.2 Doubly symmetrical steel sections

Where the cross section of the steel member is symmetrical about both axes, the factor kc in B.2.1 is given by:

h f I x / I s x
2

h /4 + r x y
+h f
e
(B.10)
AI sx

As y c (A - As )
(B.11)
kc =
2
f
where

e=
yc
is the distance between the centroid of the area of the steel member and mid-depth of the slab.
Other symbols are defined in B.2.1.
A/118
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
B.2.3 Mono-symmetrical steel sections

Where the cross-section of the steel member has unequal flanges, the factor kc in B.2.1 is given by:
kc =
h f I x / I sx
( y f - y s ) + r 2xy
+ 2( y f - y j )
(B.12)
yf = hf Isfy/Isy
(B.13)
where

y j = y s - As
y( x 2 + y 2 )dA
and may be taken as
2 I sx
2 I sfy
- 1 when Isfy > 0.5 Isy
y j = 0.4 h f
I sy
(B.14)
Volume
4
Appendix
A
is the distance
from the centroid of the steel section (C in Figure B.1) to its shear centre, which
is
ys 3 Section
Part 16 BDpositive
61/09 where the shear centre and the compression flange are on the same side of the centroid
Other symbols are defined in B.2.1 or B.2.2.
Other symbols are defined in B.2.1 or B.2.2.
FigureB.1:
B.1: Lateral-torsional
Lateral-torsional buckling
Figure
buckling
June 2010
A/119
Table B.1: Value of factor C4 for spans with transverse loading
A/131
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Table B.1: Value of factor C4 for spans with transverse loading
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
A/120
April 2009
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Volume 3 Section 4
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
Part 16 BD 61/09
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Table B.2: Values of factor C4 for spans without transverse loading
Table B.2: Values of factor C for spans without transverse loading

Table B.2: Values of factor C44 for spans without transverse loading
Table B.3: Values of factor C4 at end supports, for spans with cantilever extension
Mo is the maximum moment in the span when simply supported

Table
B.3: the
Values
of factor
C at
end supports, for spans with cantilever extension
Interpolation
between
values
this Table
is permitted
Table
B.3: Values
ofinfactor
C44 at
end supports, for spans with cantilever extension
M is the maximum moment in the span when simply supported

Moo is2010
the maximum moment in the span when simply supported
June
Interpolation between the values in this Table is permitted
Interpolation between the values in this Table is permitted
A/121
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX C (Informative)
LATERAL-TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF COMPOSITE BEAMS WITH SLABS AND GIRDERS TIED
LATERALLY BUT NOT ROTATIONALLY
C.1 GENERAL
C.1.1 Introduction.
C.1.1.1 Scope. This Annex deals with the assessment of the hogging moment regions of compact and non-compact
girders, or portions of girders between effective torsional restraints to both flanges, along which the tension flange
is laterally restrained at intervals. See Figure C.1. The rules below do not include the effects of minor axis bending.
Where appropriate these effects must be included in the summation checks in C.2(a)(1) and C.2(a)(2), as in 9.9.4.2
and 9.9.4.1 of BD 56.
C.1.1.2 Application of rules to incidental shear connectors at least 50mm deep and satisfying the spacing
rules of 5.3.3.4.
In applying the following rules P, Mtx and Mx must be determined from

P = Ass-mean, and
M tx or M x =
M(1/ Z xc + 1/ Z xt )composite cross section

(1/ Z xc + 1/ Z xt )non-composite cross section
where

s-mean is the stress in the composite cross section at the centroid of the steel section.
M is Mtx or Mx as applicable to the whole beam.
Zxc and Zxt are respectively the section moduli at extreme fibres of the structural steel section subject to
compression and tension (both taken as positive).
A/122
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
Appendix A
Appendix A
Figure
Members
restrained
onflange
tension flange
Figure
C.1:C.1:
Members
restrained
on tension
C.1.1.3 Application to other incidental shear connectors. For incidental shear connectors not satisfying C.1.1.2
lateralC.1.1.3
torsionalApplication
buckling must
checked
disregarding
action,
soincidental
that the slabshear
is used
only to provide
tobe
other
incidental
shearcomposite
connectors.
For
connectors
not satisfying
lateralC.1.1.2
restraintlateral
to the steel
flange
with
which
it
is
in
contact.
torsional buckling must be checked disregarding composite action, so that the slab is used
only to provide lateral restraint to the steel flange with which it is in contact.
C.1.1.4 Application of rules to plate girders. For beams with a web slenderness dw/tw exceeding 100 the resistance
must also be checked in accordance with Annex B and the lower resistance given by the two appendices assumed
C.1.1.4 Application of rules to plate girders. For beams with a web slenderness dw/tw exceeding 100_
for assessment.
the resistance must also be checked in accordance with Annex B and the lower resistance given by the
C.1.1.5
Application
of assumed
rules to composite
beams without lateral restraint to the compression flange. Where
two
appendices
for assessment.
there are no intermediate lateral restraints to the lower flange between end supports the resistance must be taken as
the lower
of: Application of rules to composite beams without lateral restraint to the compression flange.
C.1.1.5
Where there are no intermediate lateral restraints to the lower flange between end supports the resistance
must be taken as the lower of:-
June 2010
April 2009
A/123
A/134
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
the resistance assuming lateral restraints to the compression flange only at the ends, and the resistance assuming
lateral restraints to the compression flange at a distance hs on the span side of the point of contra flexure under dead
load.
C.1.2 Failure Mode
C.1.2.1 The resistance of the member must be checked in accordance with BD 56 using an effective length le equal
to longitudinal spacing of the shear connections.
C.1.2.2 The overall buckling of the member in the torsional mode between effective torsional restraints to both
flanges must be checked according to the provisions of this Annex.
C.1.3 Elastic stability. Members or portions of members restrained as in C.1.1 which do not contain plastic hinge
locations must be checked according to C.2(a) to ensure stability between effective torsional restraints to both
flanges.
C.1.4 Plastic Stability. Members or portions of members restrained as in C.1.1 which contain locations where the
moment exceeds the yield resistance must be checked according to C.2(b) to ensure stability between effective
torsional restraints to both flanges.
The compression flange must be fully restrained laterally at all plastic hinge locations, or where this is
impracticable within hs/2 of the hinge location, where hs is the depth of the steel member.
C.2 STABILITY
Members or portions of members restrained as in C.1.1 must satisfy one of the following conditions to ensure
stability between effective torsional restraints, which are a distance L apart (L as in BD 56).
(a) Elastic stability (see C.1.3)

(1) Uniform members
+ M tx 1
P D M Dx
(C.1)
(2) Tapered members
1
P Mx
+
PD M R m
f3
at any section
(C.2)
(b) Plastic stability (see C.1.4). For uniform members use (1) or (2); for tapered members use (2).

(1) Lengths without vertical loads

0.5
(C.3)
(2) Lengths with vertical loads
A/124
L M p

L k
m t M pr + aP
L Lk
c t
(C.4)
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
where
P
is the applied axial load where present
PD
is the compression resistance determined in accordance with BD 56, except that for buckling about the
minor axis the slenderness must be taken as TC
TC
is defined in C.3.2
Mtx is mtMAx
mt
is as defined in C.3.4
MAx is the maximum moment on the member or portion of the member under consideration.
MDx is the bending resistance of the beam derived in accordance with 9.9.1 of BD 56.
TB
M1x, M2x is the applied moment (see Figure C.1).

A
is the effective cross-sectional area at the section considered.
Zxp
is the plastic modulus of the effective section cross section considered.
Mp
is yZxp
Mpr is yZxpr
Zxpr is the reduced plastic modulus of the effective section due to axial load.
a
Lk
Mx
is the applied moment
MR
is as defined in 9.8 of BD 56.
June 2010
A/125
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
C.3
OFOF
FACTORS
C.3DETERMINATION
DETERMINATION
FACTORS
C.3.1 General
C.3.1 General
The situation considered is shown in Figure C.2.
The situation considered is shown in figure C.2.
Figure C2: Typical haunch
Figure C2: Typical haunch

where:
where:
is the distance between the centroid of the steel section at its shallow end to the axis of rotation, which
for a composite beam with shear connectors must be taken a distance of the lesser of hsc/2 or wsc above
is theofdistance
between the
centroid of the steel section at its shallow end to the axis of
the soffit
the steel/concrete
interface;
rotation, which for a composite beam with shear connectors must be taken a distance of the
wscshear
above
the soffit
ofinthe
lesser
hsc/2oforthe
wsc is the
meanofwidth
connectors
and
thesteel/concrete
direction of theinterface;
span;
hscw sc is the
height
of theofshear
connectors.
is mean
the mean
width
the shear
connectors and in the direction of the span;
C.3.2 Minor axis slenderness ratio TC
is the mean height of the shear connectors.
hsc
The minor axis slenderness ratio used to determine the compression resistance in C.2 must be taken as:
C.3.2 Minor axis slenderness ratio TC
TC = y
(C.5)
The minor axis slenderness ratio used to determine the compression resistance in C.2 must be taken as:
where

TC = y
where
(C.5)
is the slenderness L/ry of the member between effective torsional restraints to both flanges
0.5
2a 2
1+
is the
slenderness
L/ry of the member between effective torsional restraints to both flanges
f
(C.6)
y=

2a 2 1 2
0.5
+ 2a
2
1 +
h
20
x
f
1
+
hf
2a 2 1 2
1
+

is defined
C.3.1
h in
20
x
f
doubly symmetrical I sections may be taken as hs/tf

x y = = 0.566hs (As/Js), which for
hf
A/126
April 2009
(C.6)
is the distance between the shear centres of the flanges
= 0.566hs (As/Js) , which for doubly symmetrical I sections may be taken as hs/tf
June 2010
A/137
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
C.3.3 Minor axis slenderness ratios TB

The minor axis slenderness ratio TB used to determine the bending resistance in C.2 must be taken as:

TB = t k4vtc
(C.7)
where
0.5
4a
hf
vt =

2a 2 1 2
+

1 +
h
f 20 x
(C.8)
For tapered members vt is calculated by reference to the smallest section:

where
a
is defined in C.3.1
is defined in C.3.2
hf
k4
is as defined in BD 56 except for tapered members where k4 must be taken as 1.0
is taken as 1.0 where there are no intermediate loads between restraints; otherwise t is as defined
in C.3.6
is taken as 1.0 for uniform members and as follows for tapered members:
C = 1+
3
2/3 1/2
( R 1) q
x9
(C.9)
is the ratio of the greater depth to the lesser depth of the section between effective torsional restraints
is the ratio of the tapered length to the total length of the section between effective torsional restraints.
C.3.4 Equivalent uniform moment factor mt

The value of mt must be taken as 1.0 when intermediate loads are applied between effective torsional restraints.
Otherwise mt must be obtained from Table C.1 where:
y
is obtained from C.3.2;
is the ratio of the algebraically smaller end moment to the larger. Moments which produce
compression on the unrestrained flange must be taken as positive. When t<-1 the value of t must be
taken as -1. See Figure C.3.
June 2010
A/127
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
C.3.5 Limiting Length Lk

The limiting length Lk must be taken as:
5.4 + 600 y r y x
E
Lk =

1
y 2 2
5.4 J s 1
E
(C.10)
For tapered members Lk must be calculated for the smallest section.

C.3.6 Slenderness correction factor t
C.3.6.1 General. The general expression of the slenderness correction factor t is given for situations included in
Figure C.3 by:

1 N
N
3N 2 4N 3 3N 4 N 5
N
t = 1 +
+
+
+
+ 2 s E
12 M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5
Ms ME
1
2

(C.11)
where
N1 to N5
are the values of the applied moments at the ends of the quarter points and mid length of the
length between effective torsional restraints as shown in Figure C.4, which in the presence
of axial loads must be modified as indicated in C.3.6.2. Only positive values of N must be
included. N is positive when it produces compression in the unrestrained flange.
M1 to M5
are the moment capacities of the sections corresponding to N1 to N5, but see C.3.6.3.
Ns
2
Ms
is the greater of
N2 , N3 , N4
3
M2 M3 M4
NE
4
ME
is the greater of
N1 , N5 5
M1 M5
A/128
Ns NE
6 should be included
Only the positive value of
Ms ME
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Volume
Section
Part
16 3BD
61/104
Volume
3 Section
Part
16 BD
61/09 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
Appendix
AppendixAA
Appendix
A
FigureC.3:
C.3: Value
Value of
Figure
of
Figure C.3: Value of
Figure C.4: Intermediate moments

C.3.6.2
Axialloading.
loading.Where
Where
elastic
stability
is considered
no allowance
must
beinmade
in the
of n
C.3.6.2 Axial
elastic
stability
is considered
no allowance
must be
made
the value
of value
nt for the
C.3.6.2
Axial
loading. Where elastic stability is considered no allowance must be made in the value of nt t
effects
axial of
load.
for
the of
effects
axial load.
for the effects of axial load.
Where plastic
considered
the the
values
of Nof
to N must be taken as:
1 N 5to N must be taken as:
Where
plasticstability
stabilityisisbeing
being
considered
values
Where plastic stability is being considered the values of N1 1 to N5 5 must be taken as:

NN++aPaP
N + aP
where
where
where

a a
the reference
axis and
theand
axisthe
of restraint;
is the
distance
between
is the
distance
between
the reference
axis
axis of restraint;
P P
load.load.
is the
applied
axialaxial
is the
applied
a
P
is the distance between the reference axis and the axis of restraint;
is the applied axial load.
C.3.6.3 Moment capacities. For elastically assessed members of uniform section M1 to M5 must be taken as:
C.3.6.3 Moment capacities. For elastically assessed members of uniform section M1 to M5 must be taken
C.3.6.3 Moment capacities. For elastically assessed members of uniform section M1 to M5 must be taken
as:

M = yZxc/mf3
(C.12)
as:
= yZelastic
/ f3
(C.12)
where ZM
for the compression flange of the section.
xc
Mis=the
yZxcxc/mmmodulus
f3
(C.12)
where Zxc is the elastic modulus for the compression flange of the section.
In
all other
is given
by:
is theMelastic
modulus
for the compression flange of the section.
where
Zxc cases
In
other
is given by:
Inall
= cases
Zxp/mM
M

ycases
f3 is given by:
all M
other
M = yZxp/mf3
where ZxpMis=the
of the section.
yplastic
Zxp/mmodulus
f3
where Zxp is the plastic modulus of the section.
where Zxp is the plastic modulus of the section.
June 2010
April 2009
April 2009
(C.13)
(C.13)
(C.13)
A/129
A/140
A/140
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Table C.1: Equivalent uniform moment factor mt

y
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
-1.0 1.00 0.76
0.61
0.51
0.44
0.39
0.35
0.31
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.21
-0.9 1.00 0.78
0.63
0.52
0.45
0.40
0.36
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.23
-0.8 1.00 0.80
0.64
0.53
0.46
0.41
0.37
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.27
0.26
-0.7 1.00 0.81
0.66
0.55
0.47
0.42
0.39
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.28
-0.6 1.00 0.83
0.67
0.56
0.49
0.44
0.40
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.31
-0.5 1.00 0.85
0.69
0.58
0.50
0.46
0.42
0.40
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.34
-0.4 1.00 0.86
0.70
0.59
0.52
0.48
0.45
0.43
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.37
-0.3 1.00 0.88
0.72
0.61
0.54
0.50
0.47
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.41
0.41
-0.2 1.00 0.89
0.74
0.63
0.57
0.53
0.50
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.44
-0.1 1.00 0.90
0.76
0.65
0.59
0.55
0.53
0.51
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.0
1.00 0.92
0.78
0.68
0.62
0.58
0.56
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.1
1.00 0.93
0.80
0.70
0.65
0.62
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.2
1.00 0.94
0.82
0.73
0.68
0.65
0.63
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.3
1.00 0.95
0.84
0.76
0.71
0.69
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.4
1.00 0.96
0.86
0.79
0.75
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.5
1.00 0.97
0.88
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.75
0.75
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.6
1.00 0.98
0.91
0.85
0.82
0.81
0.80
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.7
1.00 0.98
0.93
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.8
1.00 0.99
0.95
0.92
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.9
1.00 1.00
0.98
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.0
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
A/130
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX D: VIBRATION OF COMPOSITE BRIDGES (Normative)

D.1 Traffic Vibration
Vibration is not normally a problem in older bridges as they are generally heavier than modern bridges,
although on some of the more heavily trafficked bridges it is possible that a degree of loosening of parts of the
structure has occurred. In this case vibration of those parts is possible. The main concern is with footbridges.
Foot and cycle track bridges need not be checked if the span is less than 35m for simply supported spans or
40m if continuous one or both ends. Highway bridges need not be checked if the span is less than 55m for
simply supported spans or 65m if continuous one or both ends. Foot and cycle track bridges with rolled steel
beams with non-structural parapets are particularly prone to vibration problems.
Nevertheless checks must be made on any bridge about which there has been public complaint.
D.2 Aerodynamic Vibration
Aerodynamic criteria are given in BD 49(9). However composite highway bridges need not be checked for
aerodynamic effects when two of the three following criteria are satisfied:
(a)
the deck widths do not exceed 12m if not more than 10m above ground level, or otherwise 15m,
(b)
the edge details satisfy 2.1.3.2 of BD 49 and the overhang should not be less than 0.75d4,
(c)
both the following are satisfied:
(i)

the super elevation of the line between the top of the fascias on either side of the bridge
does not exceed 1/40, and
(ii)

the incident wind within 45o of the normal to the span is not consistently inclined to the
horizontal (on account of the local topography).
Footbridges need not be checked for spans less than 35m when condition (b) above and (c)(ii) are satisfied;
otherwise they need not be checked for spans less than 30m.
Further, vortex shedding need not be considered for any composite bridge of span less than 70m.
These limits are rather greater than the limits advisable for steel bridges as composite decks are very stiff
torsionally and therefore are not particularly susceptible to the more dramatic form of vibrational instability.
Cable suspension bridges pose particular problems, but are not considered here.
D.3 Cantilevered Footways
Footways cantilevered from vehicular bridges may pose particular problems and should be checked when
the length of the cantilever from the primary beams exceed 10m. Sometimes there is a problem with shorter
cantilevers, but this is due to interaction with the transverse bending.
June 2010
A/131
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
D.4 Calculation Procedures

Generally the bridge design codes quoted above should be sufficient, but the information may be supplemented
by the procedure in clause 7.6 of reference 50 and by the use of computer programs, many of which give the
frequencies and shapes of the main modes of vibrations, although with some this facility may require the
choice of particular, and more powerful, types of elements.
There is a problem in continuous bridges of whether the exciting energy is sufficient to excite adjacent spans,
as when this is the case the effective stiffness of continuous beams reduces to a value similar to that of simply
supported beams. Some account of this is taken in the method of ref. 50. More sophisticated use of computers
is permissible to determine the effect of particular excitations, but then the problem is encountered of how best
to represent the excitation.
D.5 Damping Values
It is acceptable to assume a logarithmic decrement of 0.04 for composite bridges, as suggested in BD 37(49).
A/132
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX E: FATIGUE IN REINFORCEMENT OF COMPOSITE BEAMS (Informative)

There are two methods of considering fatigue in reinforcement in BD 44. In the first method, which relates to local
combination 1 at SLS under HA loading, the permissible stress ranges for unwelded non-corroded reinforcement
under imposed loading are given. In shorter span composite bridges these criteria may be critical(21). In this situation
the alternative method which refers to BS 5400-10(20) should be used.
Corrosion and manufacturers markings can significantly reduce the resistance to a greater extent than the loss of
bar area might suggest. Such conditions are not specifically taken into account, but could be assumed to be taken
into account in the general conservatism of the first method. For composite beams in which the reinforcement is
corroded, BA 38(52) should be used in estimating the remaining fatigue life.
June 2010
A/133
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX F: NOT USED
A/134
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX G: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOMINAL CONSIDERATIONS (Informative)

There are a number of situations in which dimensional and other criteria specified in the Standard may be infringed
without significantly affecting the structural performance, but which in some may significantly affect its rate of
deterioration after the assessment. Other criteria may not significantly affect the performance of many structures.
Some aspects of the construction which are clearly satisfactory need only be checked by calculation if there is a
likelihood of them becoming affected by a change of use.
The measures to be taken depend upon the category of the infringement as follows:
Category A: Where these criteria are infringed by 20% or more an inspection must ensure that the concrete has not
spalled locally as a result of corrosion.
Category B: Where these criteria are infringed the strength may be lower than assumed in the Standard. When
infringed the effect on the strength must be assessed.
Category C: As Category B, but assess only when infringements are greater than 5% (or 7% when they affect
areas).
Category D: As Category B, but assess only when infringements are greater than 35%.
The various dimensional criteria of the Standard are categorised as follows:
June 2010
A/135
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Clause Category Remarks

5.2.6.3
Figures 5.1, C
5.2
5.3.3.2
5.3.3.3(a)
5.3.3.3(b)
5.3.3.6(1)
6.2.3.3
6.3.3.1(b)
Figure 6.2
6.3.3.7
8.7.2
8.8

A for 50mm dimension

D for 600mm dimension
9.6.4
11.1.2.2
11.3.1
11.3.4
11.3.9
A/136
Check also concrete flange for cracks

Except for stud dimensions and widths of shear connectors which
are category B and edge distances which are category D
If no evidence of honeycombing disregard this limit
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX H (Informative)
SUGGESTED PROPERTIES OF INFILL MATERIAL NOT SATISFYING BD 44 FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF FILLER BEAMS AND JACK ARCHES
H1. Properties of cemented compression only materials

The Youngs Modulus of cemented materials other than concrete may be taken as 1000 times the
compression strength.
The Youngs Modulus of cemented materials without the torsional shear resistance necessary to carry the
torsional shear stresses in 8.1.3 above may be analysed by a torsion beam analysis derived from a strut
analogy in which the Youngs Modulus is taken
0.10
h Et 3 w
for filler beams as 2.3
a E f h 3
cos2 E f
(H.1)
for jack arches as 0.35Ef
(H.2)
where
tw is the thickness of the web of the metal beam
h is the height between the flanges of the metal beam
a is the spacing of the metal beams
Ef is Youngs Modulus of the fill
is the angle between the diagonal connecting the roots of the top and bottom of the adjacent webs
(of metal beams) and the horizontal
H2. Local Bond Strength

For artificial materials, including brick and weakly cemented stone the local bond strength should not be
taken greater than the greater of:

for weakly cemented material 1/40 times the compressive strength determined from large diameter
cores or large undisturbed specimens when practical, but not greater than 0.50N/mm2, or
for uncemented but well compacted and weakly bound material the square root of the product of 1/40
of the mean of the confined and unconfined compressive strength, and
the shear strength forecast by the principles of geotechnical engineering.
June 2010
A/137
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
H3. Soils

Using the principles of geotechnical engineering soils and other fill material beneath the blacktop on bridge
decks which are predominately granular:
(i)
are insufficiently stiff, and
(ii)
suffer longitudinal shear failure at too low a load
to justify the stiffening effects of beam cross-sections demonstrated in load tests on old bridges. There
is however evidence that the properties of well compacted hard standings perpendicular to the surfaces
appreciably exceed the most optimistic properties forecast by geotechnical engineering. It is therefore
premature at the present time to include geotechnical engineering principles in the routine assessment of
bridge decks.
H4. Blacktop

The stiffness of blacktop is temperature dependent, but as the upper layer is disregarded (see 8.1.8 (ii)) it is
conservative to assume a maximum temperature of 20C and a stiffness of 2000MPa, when the blacktop is in
direct contact with the deck.
In the absence of specific information on the adhesion of blacktop the local bond strengths in H2 may be
assumed.
H5. Restrictions on the effective cross-section

A/138
In assessing the resistance of the cross-section the following restrictions apply:

(a)
In calculating the resistance of the composite cross section the top 75 mm of finishing should be
disregarded, the part of the fill in tension should be disregarded and, to provide an additional margin of
safety, the depth of the fill in excess of 200mm above the steelwork should be reduced by:
30% for weakly cemented materials, or
40% for uncemented materials.
Any material below the soffit of the metal beams should be neglected as this is liable to spall.
(b)
Unless justified by load tests the flexural strength of filler beams at ULS should not exceed the strength
of the composite cross-section steel/concrete cross-section by more than:
35% for weakly cemented materials, or
20% for uncemented materials.
(c)
In the absence of contrary evidence the proportionate increase at strength at ULS should be taken as
half the increase in strength forecast in the load tests.
(d)
For strength assessment at loadings not exceeding those at the SLS (as for cast iron) the proportionate
increase in strength under the assessment loading should not be taken greater than 70% the increase in
strength forecast from the load tests.
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
(e)
In no case should the strengthening effect at ULS assessed elastically using the modular ratios in
8.1.8(ii) be taken greater than that suggested by the measured deflection (or preferably strain) readings,
nor greater than:
2.5 times the strength of the bare metal section, or
1.7 times the strength of a composite section which satisfies 8.1.2, 8.1.3 or 8.1.4.
(f)
When interpreting the results of load tests:i)
the transverse distribution characteristics are easily established;
ii)
it is less easy, and needs more instrumentation, to determine whether composite action, partial
end fixity or arching action is responsible for the low strains. It is acceptable in assessment
calculations to attribute the entire benefit to composite action. When this is done the limiting
values in (e) may be increased to:
3.2 times the strength of the bare metal section or
2.2 times the strength of a composite section which satisfies 8.1.2, 8.1.3, and 8.1.4.
(g)
The rules for jack arches are as for filler beams except that, when the depth of construction is less than
1.5 times the depth of the bare metal section, the increase in the bending resistance of the composite
section should not be taken greater than 30% of the bare metal section.
(h)
The above approach has not been checked for situations in which the ratio of the depth of fill to the
span is such that arching action in the fill occurs in the direction of the span. For this situation, the fill
within the depth of the metal beams may be considered as acting compositely with them, and the fill
above is to be considered as spanning by arching action and anchored at the ends by friction against
the composite section, or by lateral resistance from material of at least similar compressive strength
and compaction.
June 2010
A/139
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
ANNEX I (Informative)
SAMPLE FLOW CHARTS ILLUSTRATING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR BRIDGE DECKS
CONSIDERED IN CLAUSES 8 AND 14
Due to the large variation in the bridge types covered by clauses 8 and 14 it is not possible to produce flow charts
covering all the situations likely to be encountered and the different checks necessary for cast iron, wrought iron
and steel.
Sample flow charts are included for:
Cased beams
Filler beam decks with concrete infill
Jack arch decks with masonry vaults.
The advisory criteria for filler beams and cased beams are different from those specified as mandatory requirements
(boxed) and are also different for different types of construction. It is often easier to refer to the flow chart first to
identify which checks are required. The text then gives details of the checks.
These summarise the options for the analysis and the assessment procedures.
Notes for the assessment of Cased Beams and Cased Beam Decks
1.
The commentary gives rules for construction complying with BD 61 which, overall, generally justifies an
increase in capacity.
2.
The methods normally employed for cased beams are grillage analysis, analysis with ribbed thin plate
FE elements and the method in Clause 2 of BA 16. Orthotropic plate analyses have been used but are not
common.
3.
The method contained in the commentary shows higher local bond stresses at SLS than the method using
the requirements (boxed) in the Standard and thus the latter normally is found to be the critical condition.
However in the commentary the flexural resistance is subject to a more rigorous check at ULS which
often gives a lower capacity than the simple check using the method given as requirements. Therefore it is
inadmissible to check flexure/interface bond stresses at SLS using the commentary and at ULS using the
requirements.
4.
The effect of incidental effects in 8.1.8 on cased beam construction has not been assessed, but there is no
reason why they should not be considered in the assessment of cased beams, provided the assessed strength
of the metal beams does not exceed 275N/mm2 and provided sprayed on waterproofing systems (on the
beam) have not been used. Normally the effects should be considered only when they are appreciable.
Notes for Assessment of Filler Beams

1.
The commentary considers construction beyond the scope of the Design Code, which includes construction
in which there is insufficient reinforcement to resist transverse moments. It also gives rules for construction
complying with the requirements (boxed), which overall generally justifies an increase in capacity.
2.
The commentary contains different rules from those given as requirements (boxed) for bond stresses, shear
on longitudinal planes through the concrete and vertical shear it has a new clause on punching shear from
point loads.
A/140
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
3.
The commentary gives higher local bond stresses at SLS than that using the requirements and thus using
the later, is normally found to be the critical condition. However in the commentary the flexural resistance
is subject to a more rigorous check at ULS which often gives a lower capacity than the simple check given
as requirements. Therefore it is inadmissible to check flexure/interface bond stresses at SLS using the
commentary and at ULS using the requirements..
4.
The commentary gives higher shear resistance.
5.
Besides advice in the Foreword and that implicit in the flow chart it is beyond the scope of the Standard and
the commentary to advise on procedures to best suit an individual project.
6.
Where there are masonry infill the assessment procedure is similar, but the stiffness and limiting stresses are
appropriately modified.
7.
Where incidental effects are included it is always necessary to ascertain the capacity without these effects
since the permitted increase in capacity for these effects is related to the capacity of the deck without them.
Notes for the Assessment of Jack Arch Decks

1.
In the method of BA 16 Clause 7 there is no requirement for stress checks in the elements transverse to the
metal beams; so the method is potentially unsafe. To kerb the use of this method where the method is likely
to be unsafe restrictions have been placed on the condition factor of the masonry, and the method is not
permitted where there is poor lateral restraint.
2.
Where there is concrete above the masonry see 14.1. In this situation method (iii) of 14.1 (the torsion beam
method) may be difficult to apply.
3.
Besides the advice in Notes 1 and 2 and that implicit in the flow chart it is beyond the scope of the Standard
to advise on choice of the different methods or how the guidance can be best used for a particular project.
4.
Where the vaults are of concrete (lined or unlined) see 14.1.
June 2010
A/141
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
Beam Type
SLS Checks
(3)
8.1.2
A and C
ULS Rigorous Check

8.1.2 (i) to (ii), (vii) to (ix)
SLS Simplified Check

8.1.2 (i) to (iii), (iv) to (ix)
8.1.2
8.1.2 (ii) to (iii), (iv), (vii) to (xi)
None
None
8.1.2 (ii) to (iii), (v), (vii) to (xi)
None
Figure I1 Assessment of cased beam and cased beam decks
Figure I1 - Assessment of Cased Beam and cased Beam decks
A/142
April 2009
June 2010
A/153
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/09
Appendix A
Appendix A
Figure
I2 AssessmentofofFiller
filler Beam
beam decks
with
concrete
infill Infill
Figure
I2 - Assessment
Decks
with
Concrete
April 2009
June 2010
A/154
A/143
Volume 3 Section 4
Part
16 BD
Appendix
A 61/09
Appendix
A 4
Volume
3 Section
Part 16 BD 61/10
I3 Assessment
of jackArch
arch Decks
decks with
vaults
FigureFigure
I3- Assessment
of Jack
withmasonry
Masonry
Vaults
April 2009
A/144
A/155
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX J: BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Not used.
2.
BA 44/96 The Use of Departmental Standard BD 44 for the Assessment of Concrete Highway Bridges and
Structures, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
3.
BD 56 The Assessment of Steel Highway Bridges and Structures, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
4.
BS EN 1994, Design of composite steel and concrete structures: Part 1 1 General rules and rules for
buildings, European Pre-standard, Final Draft, prENV 1994 1 1:1002E ECN, April 1992 (BSI Document No
92/14118 of Committee B/525/4).
5.
BS 8110: Part 2, Structural use of concrete: Part 2: Code of practice of special circumstances, British
6.
Technical Paper TP12, Testing of composite bridges, Background document for BS 5400 Part 5; Use for
Assessment of Bridges.
7.
BS 5400: Part 4, Steel, concrete and composite bridge - Part 4: Code of Practice for the design of concrete
bridges, British Standards Institution, 1990.
8.
Beeby AW. Cover to reinforcement and corrosion protection, International Symposium on behaviour of
offshore concrete, ARBEM, Brest, 1980.
9.
BD 49/93, Design rules for aerodynamic effects on bridges, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
10.
Technical Paper No 2, Global Analysis and cross section design - serviceability limit state, Background
Document for BS 5400 Part 5: Use for Assessment of Bridges.
11.
McHardy Young J Examples of the design of steel girder bridges in accordance with BS 153: Parts 3A, 3B
and 4 (as at October, 1963), British Constructional Steelwork Association, Publication No 22, 1963.
12.
Smith DGE, Effective breadths of reinforced concrete T-beams and composite beams in hogging moment
regions, document written in preparing Ref. 34.
13.
Technical Note No 7, Partial interaction and assessment of the longitudinal shear connections, Background
document for BS 5400 Part 5: Use for Assessment.
14.
Oehlers DJ and Johnson RP, The strength of stud shear connectors in composite beams, The Structural
Engineer, Vol. 65B, No 2, June 1987 pp. 44-48.
15.
Johnson RP and Oehlers DJ, Analysis and design for longitudinal shear in composite T-beams, Proc. Inst.
Civ. Engnrs., Pt 2, 71, Dec 1981, pp. 989-1021.
16.
Oehlers DJ and Park SM, Shear connectors in composite beams with longitudinally cracked slabs, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No 8, August 1992, pp. 2004-2022.
17.
Oehlers DJ, Assessing the residual strength of shear connectors in composite bridges, Bridge Management
2, Thomas Telford, London, 1993, pp. 842-851.
18.
Technical Paper TP10, Shear Connectors, Background document for BS 5400:Part 5 Use for Assessment
of Bridges.
19.
Oehlers DJ, Residual strength of structural components subject to cyclic loads, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No 10, Oct 1992, pp. 2645-2658.
June 2010
A/145
Appendix A
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
20.
BS 5400:Part 10: Steel, concrete and composite bridges, Part 10. Code of Practice for fatigue, BSI 1980.
21.
Technical Paper TP13, Fatigue in composite beams, Background document for BS 5400 Part 5: Use for
22.
Technical Paper No 9, Incidental shear connectors, Background document for BS 5400 Part 5: Use for
23.
Menzies JB, CP117 and shear connectors in steel-concrete composite beams made with normal density or
lightweight concrete, The Structural Engineer, No 3 Vol. 49, March 1971, pp. 137-154.
24.
Johnson RP and Buckby RJ, Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete: Volume 2: Bridges, Collins,
London, 2nd Edition, 1986.
25.
Hayward A, Traditional forms of composite construction, Subcontract Study report prepared for Scott
Wilson Kirkpatrick by Cass Howard and Partners on behalf of the TRL/DoT, 9 July 1993.
26.
Johnson RP, Loss of interaction in short span composite beams and plates, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 1, No 2, Jan 1981, pp. 11-16.
27.
BA 34/90, Technical requirements for the assessment and strengthening programme for highway structures Stage 1 - Older short span bridges and retaining structures, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
28.
BS 5950 Part 3, Structural use of steelwork in building: Section 3.1: Code of Practice for design of
continuous composite beams, British Standards Institution, 1990.
29.
Technical Paper No 4, Global analysis, cross section slenderness criteria and shear at the ultimate limit
state, Background Document for BS 5400 Part 5: Use for Assessment of Bridges.
30.
Standard specifications for highway bridges, American Association of State Highways and Transportation
Officials", 15th Edition, 1992.
31.
Stark JWB, Rectangular stress blocks for concrete, Technical Paper S16 for EC4 Drafting Panel,
June 1984.
32.
Weston G, Nethercot DA and Crisfield MA, Lateral buckling in continuous composite bridge girders, The
Structural Engineer, Vol. 69, No 5, 5 March 1991, pp. 79-87.
33.
Technical Paper No TP6, Lateral torsional buckling in composite beams, Background Paper. BS 5400:
Part 5: Use of Assessment of Bridges.
34.
Smith DGE and Johnson RP, Commentary on the 1985 draft of BS EN 1994: Composite steel and concrete
structures, Building Research Establishment, 1986.
35.
BS 8110: Part 1, Structural use of concrete: Part 1: Code of practice for design and construction, British
36.
CP 114, The Structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings, British Standard Code of Practice, British
Standard Institution, 1957.
37.
CP 110 Part 1, The structural use of concrete : Part 1 : Design, materials and workmanship, British
Standard Institution, 1972.
38.
BS EN 1992, Design of concrete structures: Part 1. General rules and rules for buildings, European
Committee for Standardisation, Dec 1991. Issued as DD ENV:1992 1 1:1992 together with UK National
Application Document, March 1993.
A/146
June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
39.
Guyon Y, Prestressed Concrete, Volume 1: Simply supported beams, John Wiley and Sons, 1953.
40.
Technical Paper TP11, Cased beams, filler beams and Jack arches. Background document for BS 5400:
Part 5: Use for Assessment of Bridges.
41.
Ponts dalles poutrelles ajoures precontraints (filler beams), PSI-PAP Guide de conception, Service
d'Etudes Techniques et des Autoroutes (SETRA), Dec 1985, Bridges Division, part translation by
Department of Transport, 1993.
42.
Ricketts NJ and Low AMC, The Assessment of Filler beam bridge decks without transverse reinforcement,
Transport Research Laboratory, 1993 (In preparation).
43.
Johnson RP and Smith DGE, A simple design method for composite columns, The Structural Engineer,
Part A, Vol. 58A, No 3, March 1980, pp. 85-93.
44.
Technical Paper No 5, Cracking, tension stiffening and effective breadths in composite beams, Background
Document for BS 5400 Part 5: Use for Assessment of Bridges.
45.
Randl E and Johnson RP, Widths of initial cracks in concrete tension flanges of composite beams, IABSE
Proceedings, P54/82, Nov 1982.
46.
Technical Paper No TP8, Design and assessment requirements for longitudinal shear resistance at the
ultimate limit state, Background paper for BS 5400 Part 5: Use for Assessment of Bridges.
47.
BS 5400: Part 3, Steel concrete and composite bridges, Part 3, Code of Practice for the design of steel
bridges, British Standards Institution, 2000.
48.
BS 5950: Part 1, Structural use of steelwork in building - Part 1: Code of practice for design in simple and
continuous construction: hot rolled sections, BSI, 1990.
49.
BD 37/01, Loads for Highway Bridges, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
50.
Wyatt TA, Design guide on vibration of floors, The Steel Construction Institute/Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, Steel Construction Institute, 1989.
51.
Tilly GP, Fatigue classification of steel reinforcing beams, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Dept
of Transport, Crowthorne, May 1988.
52
BA 38/93, Assessment of the Fatigue Life of Corroded or Damaged Reinforcing Bars, Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges.
June 2010
A/147
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
ANNEX K: REFERENCES
BS 4

Structural steel sections

Part 1 Hot-rolled sections
BS 4395

High strength friction grip bolts and associated nuts and washers for structural engineering
Part 1 General grade
BS 4604

The use of high strength friction grip bolts in structural steelwork

Part 1 General grade
BS 5400 Steel, concrete and composite bridges

Part 1
General statement

Part 2
Specification for loads

Part 3
Code of practice for design of steel bridges

Part 4
Code of practice for design of concrete bridges

Part 6
Specification for materials and workmanship, steel

Part 7
Specification for materials and workmanship, concrete, reinforcement and prestressing

tendons

Part 8
Requirements for materials and workmanship, concrete, reinforcement and prestressing

tendons

Part 9
Code of practice for bearings

Part 10
Code of practice for fatigue
BS 5950

Structural use of steelwork in building

Part 1
Code of practice for design in simple and continuous construction: hot rolled sections
BS 5975
Code of practice for falsework
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges:

Volume 1 Section 3 General Design
BD 9/81 Implementation of BS 5400: Part 10: 1980: Code of Practice for Fatigue
BD 13/06 Design of Steel Bridges: Use of BS 5400: Part 3: 1982
BD 16/82 Design of Composite Bridges: Use of BS 5400: Part 5: 1979
BD 24/92 Design of Concrete Bridges: Use of BS 5400: Part 4: 1990
BD 37/01 Loads for Highway Bridges
Volume 3 Section 4 Assessment
BD 21/01 The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Structures.
BD 44/95 The Assessment of Concrete Highway Bridges and Structures

BD 46/92 Technical Requirements for the Assessment and Strengthening Programme for Highway

Structures: Stage 2 Modern Short Span Bridges

BD 50/92 Technical Requirements for the Assessment and Strengthening Programme for Highway

Structures: Stage 3 Long Span Bridges

A/148
BD 56/10 The Assessment of Steel Highway Bridges and Structures

June 2010
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix A
BA 16/97 The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Structures

BA 34/90 Technical Requirements for the Assessment and Strengthening Programme for Highway

Structures, Stage 1 Older Short Span Bridges and Retaining Structures

June 2010
BA 44/96 The Assessment of Concrete Highway Bridges and Structures
A/149
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 16 BD 61/10
Appendix B
appendix b bd 61/10 the assessment of

composite highway bridges

and structures in english

dbfo schemes
When used on the M25 DBFO Scheme, this standard is to be amended as follows:
Para No.
1.8
Description
Delete or must have agreed a suitable departure from standard with the relevant TAAs and
insert or submit a proposal to the Department's Nominee as an Alternative Proposal, unless it is
in respect of the Works in relation to a Later Upgraded Section and before the Price Adjustment
in respect of such Later Upgraded Section is determined, in which case a Departure from
Standard is to be applied for.
Appendix A
5.1.1.1
Delete accepted by the TAA and insert for which there has been no objection under the
Review Procedure.
9.6.1
Delete TAA and insert Departments Nominee.
9.6.4
When used on all other English DBFO Scheme, this standard is to be amended as follows:
Para No.
All
occurrences
Description
A requirement for agreement, approval or acceptance of the TAA shall mean that there is no
objection under the Review Procedure.
1.7
Delete the heading and paragraph and insert Not used
1.8
Delete the Design Organisations and insert the Designer.

Delete or must have agreed a suitable departure from standard with the relevant TAAs and
insert or submit a proposal to the Department's Nominee as an Alternative Proposal.
Delete to Design Organisations and insert to the Designer.
Appendix A
5.3.3.8A
9.6.4
June 2010
Delete be included in the AIP document and insert be included in the TAF document.
B/1

BD 6110

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BD 6110

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BD 6110

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES

Remove existing contents pages for Volume 3

Remove BD 61/96 and BA 61/96 from Volume 3,

Insert BD 61/10 into Volume 3, Section 4,

Please archive this sheet as appropriate.

Note: A quarterly index with a full set of Volume

design manual for roads and bridges

the highways agency

welsh assembly government

the department for regional development

The Assessment of Composite

Signature & Date of

Signature & Date of

Signature & Date of

Signature & Date of

DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES

Use of Appendix A, BS 5400-5:2005 and

Amendments to BS 5400-5:2005 and

BD 61/10 The Assessment of

A single BD with mandatory clauses including

To cover old forms of construction cast iron and

Loading standards BD 37 and BD 86 have been

Clarifications have been made to a number of

The latest revisions to BS 5400-5 have been

1.5 This Standard gives requirements for the

There is relaxation or partial relaxation of some

Measured characteristic strength with modified

Forms of shear connection, strengthening and

It may be appropriate to assess some structures

Partial Safety Factor for Loads, fL

SA* = f3 (effects of QA*)

where f3 is a factor that takes account of inaccurate

2.4 This standard contains certain requirements

3. USE OF APPENDIX A, BS 5400-5:2005 AND BD 16

Volume 1 Section 3 General Design

BD 13 Design of Steel Bridges. Use of

BD 16 Design of Composite Bridges.

BD 37 Loads for Highway Bridges.

Design of Concrete Highway

British Standards (BS): BRITISH

BS 5400-3:2000. Steel, Concrete and Composite

BS 5400-4:1990. Steel, Concrete and Composite

BS 5400-5:2005. Steel, Concrete and Composite

BS 5400-10:1980. Steel, Concrete and Composite

Volume 3 Section 4 Assessment

BD 21 The Assessment of Highway

BD 44 The Assessment of Concrete

BD 56 The Assessment of Steel

The Assessment of Concrete

The Assessment of Highway

Chief Highway Engineer

Director, Major Transport Infrastructure Projects

Chief Highway Engineer

S C SHOULER (BSc(Hons), C.Eng.MICE)

APPENDIX A AMENDMENTS TO BS 5400-5:2005 AND

3. Definitions and symbols

5. Assessment of the superstructure for the

5.2.6 Assessment of cracking in concrete