UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Faculty of Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

FINAL YEAR PROJECT-OCTOBER 2017

ECONOMIC DESIGN OF A COMPOSITE STEEL-

CONCRETE (MULTI- GIRDER) BRIDGE AT NYAMANGURA
RIVER IN MAKONI RURAL DISTRICT

BY

SIZIBA LEAVIOUS R137287F

SUPERVISORS:

Mr.C. Mpofu & Prof.L.D. Vassileva

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Civil
Engineering of the University of Zimbabwe

1
DECLARATION

I, Siziba Leavious, declare that this is my own work. It is being submitted as a B.Sc. Honors
Civil Engineering project research at the University of Zimbabwe. It has not been used
submitted as a research project in any other discipline or any other university before.

Date…

Signature…

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my family.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, praise and thanks to GOD, the Almighty for everything throughout my life
and for His guidance in my project. I am heartily thankful to Ministry of Transport, particularly,
Mr Betera for giving me a chance to pursue my project by providing me with the study area
and relevant information.
I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Mr. C Mpofu and Professor
L. Vassileva for their continued support, motivation, experience, immense knowledge, and
guidance. Their guidance helped me in all the way of the research and writing of my thesis.
Beside my supervisors, I would like to thank all my friends for their encouragement, and
insightful comments.
Lastly, I offer my regards and blessings to my family members particularly my brother
Mudavanhu and all of those who supported me in any respect throughout my life, and during
the completion of the project.

iv
ABSTRACT
Design floods are expected to increase in Zimbabwe due to climate change, with the increase
in design floods being larger than those for which most bridges were designed. UNDP (2000)
estimated the total number of bridges damaged by Cyclone Eline alone as 67, let alone those
that were damaged by Cyclone Dineo. The rehabilitation of those bridge and culvert structures,
cost millions of United States dollars and the exercise tends to take longer. The main objective
of this project is to look into two aspects highlighted above namely design for flood and cost
reduction vis a vis bridge design and construction practice in Zimbabwe. Nyamangura river
crossing, which is basically a low level bridge, has been availed by the Ministry of Transport
as the site for a study area. A multi-girder type steel reinforced concrete bridge was chosen as
wide range of literature seem to agree that composite bridges are cost –effective and tend to
take shorter construction period compared to reinforced concrete bridges. The first specific
objective was to estimate the Maximum Probable Flood (MPF) for 20-year, 50-year and 100-
year return periods according to the procedures set in Part JD of the Bridge Design Manual for
MoT. The procedure involves the calculation of floods using the Craeger formula, Rational
formula and Mitchel formula. The inputs in those three equations are catchment characteristics
such as catchment area and slope, which were obtained from both 1: 50 000 maps provided by
the MoT and QGIS package. A weighted average of the floods computed from the above
mentioned formulae was then calculated in the manner prescribed in Part JD. Unlike in the past
practices where this weighted average was rightly used for design, this research has established
that a factor of 1.4 needs to be applied to that weighted average flow before it is used for
hydraulic design of the bridge. This factor of 1.4 is believed, this research has learnt, to be a
reasonable cushion on any errors that the current MoT methods of flood estimation maybe
making. The result of flood estimation was then used to determine the bridge geometry, thus
the bridge height and number of spans, which were 5m and 2 spans respectively, with each
span being 24m long. The next step was to draw the architectural layout of the bridge (see
Appendix A). The bridge composite structure was then designed to Eurocode BS EN 1994-2,
with the loads being taken from BS EN 1991-2 and the structural analysis modelling of the
whole structure was done using Staad Pro (see Appendix B for summary of analysis results).
For the design of the foundation and abutment, results of the geotechnical investigations carried
out by the MoT were used (see Appendix C). The last part was to prepare working drawings
(Appendix D - E). The research has concluded that this kind of a bridge is lightweight and
structurally sound and tends to take shorter construction periods, both of which lead to reduced
overall costs.

KEYWORDS: Multi-girder bridge, Maximum Probable Flood, QGIS, Staad Pro.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................ xii
1 CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.4.1 Main Objective ................................................................................................................ 4
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ......................................................................................................... 4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1 HYDAULIC DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Anticipated Flood............................................................................................................ 5
2.1.2 Flood Frequency Analysis .............................................................................................. 6
2.2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 General Design Philosophies .......................................................................................... 7
2.3 DESIGN LOADS (ACTIONS) ............................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Self-Weight ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Traffic loads .................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.3 Loads on footways .......................................................................................................... 9
2.3.4 Groups of loads ............................................................................................................... 9
2.3.5 Thermal actions ............................................................................................................. 10
2.3.6 Wind actions ................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.7 Accidental actions ......................................................................................................... 10
2.3.8 Actions during execution .............................................................................................. 10
2.3.9 Fatigue loading.............................................................................................................. 11

vi
 2.3.10 Geotechnical Actions in Integral Bridges ..................................................................... 11
2.3.11 Partial Factors Applied to Actions ................................................................................ 11
2.3.12 Determination of Action Effects ................................................................................... 12
2.3.13 Computer Modelling ..................................................................................................... 15
2.3.14 Effects of Geotechnical Actions ................................................................................... 15
2.3.15 Settlement ..................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 COMPOSITE BRIDGES VERSUS CONCRETE BRIDGES ............................................. 16
3 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. 18
4 DESIGN METHODS AND CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 19
4.1 DESK STUDY AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH ......................................................... 19
4.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ................................................................................ 19
4.3 GEOTECHINICAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................ 19
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 21
5.1 SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT ...................................................................................... 21
5.2 CATCHMENT DATA.......................................................................................................... 21
5.3 FOUNDATION TYPE SELECTION. .................................................................................. 21
6 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN.......................................................................................................... 22
6.1 HYDRAULIC DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 22
6.1.1 Flood Discharge Estimation .......................................................................................... 22
6.1.2 Determination of Flood Level ....................................................................................... 25
6.2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 29
6.2.1 Description of the Bridge .............................................................................................. 29
6.2.2 Geometric Characteristics of a Single Longitudinal Beam ............. Error! Bookmark not
defined.
6.2.3 Actions Modelling............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2.4 Combination of actions .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2.5 Analysis Results ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3 STRUCTURAL DESIGN ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.1 Design Specifications ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.2 Design of Reinforced Concrete Deck Slab ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.3 Design of Composite Girders ........................................................................................ 57
6.3.4 Design of Composite Columns ..................................................................................... 98
6.3.5 Design of Abutments .................................................................................................. 103
6.3.6 Design of Footings ...................................................................................................... 136
7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 145
8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 146

vii
9 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 148
9.1 Appendix A: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ............................................................... 148
9.2 Appendix B: Staad Pro ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................. 148
9.3 Appendix C: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ........................................................................ 152
9.4 Appendix C: STRUCTURAL LAYOUTS ......................................................................... 156
9.5 Appendix D: REINFORCEMENT DETAILS .................................................................... 157

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 : Longitudinal view of the existing low level bridge. ................................................................. 2

Figure 2 : Side view of the existing low level bridge. .............................................................................. 3
Figure 3 : Location map of the study area. ........................................................................................... 18
Figure 4 : Model of the erection of the first span steel bars. .................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 5 : Exaggerated scale of the deflected shape of the first span under construction loads and self
weight. ..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 6: Model of the completed steel skeleton structure without concrete deck. ... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
Figure 7 : Pouring of concrete stages and removal of construction loads. ............ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 8 : Deflected shape of the structure at one stage of construction. ............ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 9 Deflected shape of the complete structure with LM1 loading. . Error! Bookmark not defined.

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Traffic load groups. ................................................................................................................ 10
Table 2 : Partial factors on actions. ....................................................................................................... 12
Table 3 Factors applied to accompanying actions. ............................................................................... 12
Table 4 :Methods and Materials............................................................................................................ 19
Table 5 : Catchment Characteristics. .................................................................................................... 21
Table 6: Determination of coefficient C2............................................................................................. 23
Table 7 : Determination of flood for T –year return period from 50-year flood (Creager formula). .... 23
Table 8: Determination of flood for T –year return period from 50-year flood (Rational formula) ..... 24
Table 9: Determination of flood for T –year return period from 50-year flood (Mitchel formula) ...... 24
Table 10: Determination of average discharge. .................................................................................... 25
Table 11: Natural Flood Calculation..................................................................................................... 26
Table 12: Flood under bridge span. ...................................................................................................... 27
Table 13: Bridge Flood Level. .............................................................................................................. 27

x
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BS British Standard
CP Code of Practice
FLM Fatigue load Model
LM Load Model
MPF Maximum probable flood
MoT Ministry of Transport
Na Neutral Axis
NA National Annex
PD Published Document
RH Relative Humidity
SLS Serviceability limit state
TS Tandem System
UDL Uniformly Distributed Load
ULS Ultimate limit state
UZ University of Zimbabwe

xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Latin Upper Case Letters

A Cross-sectional area of the effective composite section neglecting concrete in tension.

𝐴𝑎 Cross-sectional area of the structural steel section.
𝐴𝑏 Cross-sectional area of bottom transverse reinforcement.
𝐴𝑏ℎ Cross-sectional area of bottom transverse reinforcement in a haunch.
𝐴𝑐 Cross-sectional area of concrete.
𝐴𝑐𝑡 Cross-sectional area of the tensile zone of the concrete.
𝐴𝑓𝑐 Cross-sectional area of the compression flange.

𝐴𝑠 Cross-sectional area of reinforcement.

𝐴𝑠𝑓 Cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement.

𝐴𝑡 Cross-sectional area of top transverse reinforcement.

𝐴𝑣 Shear area of a structural steel section.
𝐴1 Loaded area under the gusset plate.
𝐸𝑎 Modulus of elasticity of structural steel.
𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 Effective modulus of elasticity for concrete.
𝐸𝑐𝑚 Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete.
𝐸𝑠 Design value of modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel.
(𝐸𝐴)𝑒𝑓𝑓 Effective longitudinal stiffness of cracked concrete.
(𝐸𝐼)𝑒𝑓𝑓 Effective flexural stiffness for calculation of relative slenderness.
𝐹𝑙 Design longitudinal force per stud.
𝐹𝑡 Design transverse force per stud.
𝐹𝑡𝑒𝑛 Design tensile force per stud.
𝐺𝑎 Shear modulus of structural steel.
𝐺𝑒 Shear modulus of concrete.
I Second moment of area of the effective composite section neglecting concrete in
tension.
𝐼𝑎 Second moment of area of structural steel section.
𝐼𝑎𝑡 St. Venant torsion constant of the structural steel section.
𝐼𝑒 Second moment of area of un-cracked concrete section.

xii
𝐼𝑠 Second moment of area of steel reinforcement.
𝐼1 Second moment of area of the effective equivalent steel section assuming that the
concrete in tension is uncracked.
𝐼2 Second moment of area of the effective equivalent steel section neglecting concrete in
tension but including reinforcement.
𝐾𝑒 , 𝐾𝑒,𝐼𝐼 Correction factors to be used in the design of composite columns.

𝐾0 Calibration factor to be used in the design of composite columns.

L Span length, effective span.
𝐿𝑒 Equivalent span
𝐿𝑖 Span
𝐿𝐴−𝐵 Length of inelastic region, between points A and B, corresponding to 𝑀𝑐𝑙,𝑅𝑑 and
𝑀𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥, respectively.

𝐿𝑣 Length of shear connection

M Bending moment
𝑀𝑎 Contribution of the structural steel section to the design plastic resistance moment of
the composite section.
𝑀𝑎,𝐸𝑑 Design bending moment applied to the structural steel section.

𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the buckling resistance of a composite section.

𝑀𝑐,𝐸𝑑 The part of the design bending moment acting on a composite section.

𝑀𝑐𝑟 Elastic critical moment for lateral –torsional buckling of a composite beam
𝑀𝐸𝑑 Design bending moment
𝑀𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 Total design bending moment applied to the steel and composite member.

𝑀𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓 Maximum bending moment or internal force due to fatigue loading.

𝑀𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑓 Minimum bending moment or internal force due to fatigue loading.

𝑀𝑒𝑙,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the elastic resistance moment of the composite section.

𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 Design resistance moment to 5.2.6.1 of EN 1993-1-5.

𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑅𝑑 Maximum design value of the resistance moment in the presence of a

compressive normal force.
𝑀𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚 Most adverse bending moment for the characteristic combination.

𝑀𝑝𝑙,𝑎,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance moment of the structural steel section.

xiii
𝑀𝑝𝑙,𝑁,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance moment of the composite section taking into
account the compressive normal force.
𝑀𝑝𝑙,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance moment of the composite section with full
shear connection.
𝑀𝑝𝑙,𝑦,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance moment about the y-y axis of the composite
section with full shear connection.
𝑀𝑝𝑙,𝑧,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance moment about the z-z axis of the composite
section with full shear connection.
𝑀𝑅𝑑 Design value of the resistance moment of a composite section.
𝑀𝑅𝑘 Characteristic value of the resistance moment of a composite section or joint.
𝑀𝑦,𝐸𝑑 Design bending moment applied to the composite section about the y-y axis.

𝑀𝑧,𝐸𝑑 Design bending moment applied to the composite section about the z-z axis.
N Compressive normal force; number of stress range cycles, number of shear
connectors.
𝑁𝑎 Design value of the normal force in the structural steel section of a composite beam.
𝑁𝑐 Design value of the compressive normal force in the concrete flange.
𝑁𝑐𝑑 Design compressive force in concrete slab corresponding to 𝑀𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 .

𝑁𝑐,𝑓 Design value of the compressive normal force in the concrete flange with full shear
connection.
𝑁𝑐,𝑐𝑙 Compressive normal force in the concrete flange corresponding to 𝑀𝑐𝑙,𝑅𝑑 .

𝑁𝑐𝑟,𝑒𝑓𝑓 Elastic critical load of a composite column corresponding to an effective flexural

stiffness.
𝑁𝑐𝑟 Elastic critical normal force.
𝑁𝑐𝑙 Design value of normal force calculated for load introduction.
𝑁𝐸𝑑 Design value of the compressive normal force.
𝑁𝐸𝑑,𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣 Normal force of concrete tension member for SLS.

𝑁𝐸𝑑,𝑢𝑙𝑡 Normal force of concrete tension member for ULS.

𝑁𝐺,𝐸𝑑 Design value of the part of the compressive normal force that is permanent.

𝑁𝑝𝑙,𝑎 Design value of the plastic resistance of the structural steel section to normal force.

𝑁𝑝𝑙,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance of the composite section to compressive
normal force.

xiv
𝑁𝑝𝑙,𝑅𝑘 Characteristic value of the plastic resistance of the composite section to
compressive normal force.
𝑁𝑝𝑚,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the resistance of the concrete to compressive normal force.

𝑁𝑅 Number of stress- range cycles.

𝑁𝑠 Design value of the plastic resistance of the steel reinforcement to the normal
force.
𝑁𝑠𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance of the reinforcing steel to tensile normal
force.
𝑁𝑠,𝑒𝑙 Tensile force in cracked concrete slab corresponding to 𝑀𝑐𝑙,𝑅𝑑 .taking into
account the effects of tension stiffening.
𝑃𝐸𝑑 Longitudinal force on a connector at distance 𝑥 from the nearest web.
𝑃𝑙,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the shear resistance of a single stud connector corresponding to 𝐹𝑙 .

𝑃𝑅𝑑 Design value of the shear resistance of a single connector.

𝑃𝑅𝑘 Characteristic value of the shear resistance of a single connector.
𝑃𝑡,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the shear resistance of a single stud connector corresponding to 𝐹𝑡 .

𝑉𝑎,𝐸𝑑 Design value of the shear force acting on the structural steel section.

𝑉𝑏,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the shear buckling resistance of a steel web.

𝑉𝐸𝑑 Design value of the shear force acting on the composite section.
𝑉𝐿 Longitudinal shear force acting along the steel-concrete flange interface.
𝑉𝑙,𝐸𝑑 Longitudinal shear force acting on the length 𝐿𝐴−𝐵 of the inelastic region.

𝑉𝑝𝑙,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance of the composite section to vertical shear.

𝑉𝑝𝑙,𝑎,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the plastic resistance of the structural steel section to vertical shear.

𝑉𝑝,𝑅𝑑 Design value of the resistance of a composite slab to punching shear.

𝑉𝑅𝑑 Design value of the resistance of a composite section to vertical shear.

Latin Lower Case Letters

𝑎 Spacing between parallel beams; diameter or width; distance.

𝑎𝑤 Steel flange projection outside the web of the beam.
𝑏 width of the flange of a steel section, width of slab, half the distance between adjacent
webs or the distance between the web and the free edge of the flange.

xv
𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓 Total effective width.

𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓,1 Effective width at mid-span for a span supported at both ends.

𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓,1 Effective width at an internal support.

𝑏𝑒𝑖 Effective width of the concrete flange on each side of the web, effective width of
composite bottom of flange of a box section.
𝑏𝑓 Width of the flange of a steel section.

𝑏𝑖 Geometric width of the concrete flange on each side of the web.

𝑏0 Distance between the centres of the outstand shear connectors; mean width of a concrete
rib (minimum width for re-entrant sheet profiles), width of haunch.
𝑐 Width of the outstand of a steel flange; effective perimeter of reinforcing bar.
𝑐𝑦 , 𝑐𝑧 thickness of concrete cover.

𝑑 clear depth of the web of the structural steel section; diameter of the shank of a stud
connector; overall diameter of circular hollow steel section, minimum transverse dimension of
a column.

𝑑𝑑𝑜 Diameter of the weld collar to a stud connector.

𝑑𝑠 Distance between the steel reinforcement in tension to the extreme fibre of the composite
slab in compression; distance between the longitudinal reinforcement in tension and the
centroid of beam`s steel section.

𝑒𝐷 Edge distance.

𝑒𝑑 Either of 2𝑒ℎ 𝑜𝑟 2𝑒𝑣

𝑒𝑔 Gap between the reinforcement and the end plate in a composite column.

𝑒ℎ lateral distance from the point of application of force 𝐹𝑑 to the plane of shear connection
concerned, if 𝐹𝑑 is applied to the steel element.

𝑓𝑐𝑑 Design value of the cylinder compressive strength of concrete according to 2.4.1.2

𝑓𝑐𝑘 Characteristic value of the cylinder compressive strength of concrete at 28 days.

𝑓𝑐𝑚 Mean value of the effective tensile strength of the concrete.

𝑓𝑐𝑡,0 Reference strenth for concrete in tension.
𝑓𝑙𝑐𝑡𝑚 Mean value ogf the axial tensile strength of ligthweight concrete.

xvi
𝑓𝑠𝑑 Design value of the yield strengyth of reinforcing steel.
𝑓𝑠𝑘 Characteristics value of the yeild strength of reinfoircing steel.
𝑓𝑢 Specified ultimate tensile strength.
𝑓𝑢𝑡 Actual ultimate tensile strength in a test specimen.
𝑓𝑦 Nominal value of the yield strength of structural steel.

𝑓𝑦𝑑 Design value of the yield strength of structural steel.

𝑓1 , 𝑓2 Reduction factors for bending moments at supports.

ℎ Overall depth; thickness.
ℎ𝑎 Depth of the structural steel section.
ℎ𝑓 Thickness of concrete flange; thickness of finishes.

ℎ𝑠 Depth between the centroids of the flanges of the structural steel section; distance
between the longitudinal reinforcement in tension and the centre of compression.
ℎ𝑠𝑐 Overall nominal height of a stud connector.
𝑘 Amplification factor for second-order effects; coefficient; empirical factor for design shear
resistance.
𝑘𝑐 Coefficient.
𝑘𝑖 Stiffness coefficient.
𝑘𝑖,𝑐 Addition to the stiffness coefficient 𝑘𝑖 due to concrete encasement.
𝑘𝑠 Rotational stiffness, coefficient.
𝑘𝑠𝑐 Stiffness of a shear connector.
𝑘𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝 Stiffness reduction factor due to deformation of the shear connection.

𝑘𝑠,𝑟 Stiffness coefficient for a row 𝑟 of longitudinal reinforcement in tension.

𝑘𝑤𝑐,𝑐 Factor for the effect of longitudinal compressive stress on transverse resistance of a
column web.
𝑘𝛷 Parameter.
𝑘1 Flexural stiffness of the cracked concrete or composite slab.
𝑘2 Flexural stiffness of the web.
𝑙 Length of the beam in hogging bending adjacent to the joint.
𝑙𝑏𝑐 , 𝑙𝑏𝑠 Bearing lengths.
𝑙0 Load introduction length.
𝑚 Slope of fatigue strength curve; empirical factor for design shear resistance.

xvii
𝑛 Modular ratio, number of shear connectors.
𝑛𝑓 Number of connectors for full shear connection.

𝑛𝐿 Modular ratio depending on the type of loading.

𝑛𝑟 Number of stud connectors in one rib.
𝑛0 Modular ratio for short-term loading.
𝑟 Ratio of end moments.
𝑠 Longitudinal spacing centre-to-centre of the shear connectors; slip.
𝑠𝑡 Transverse spacing centre –to-centre of the stud shear connectors.
𝑡 Age; thickness.
𝑡𝑐 Thickness of end plate.
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑐 Effective length of concrete.

𝑡𝑓 Thickness of a flange of the structural steel section.

𝑡𝑠 Thickness of a stiffener.
𝑡𝑤 Thickness of the web of the structural steel section.
𝑡𝑤𝑐 Thickness of the web of structural steel column section.
𝑡0 Age at loading.
𝑣𝐸𝑑 Design longitudinal shear stress.
𝑤𝑘 Design value of crack width.
𝑥𝑝𝑙 Distance between the plastic neutral axis and the extreme fibre of the concrete slab in
compression.
𝑦 Cross-section axis parallel to the flanges.
𝑧 Cross-section axis perpendicular to the flanges; lever arm.
𝑧0 Vertical distance.

Greek upper case letters.

∆𝜎 Stress range.
∆𝜎𝑐 Reference value of the fatigue strength at 2 million cycles.
∆𝜎𝐸 Equivalent constant amplitude stress range.
∆𝜎𝐸,𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏 Equivalent constant amplitude stress range due to global effects.

∆𝜎𝐸,𝑙𝑜𝑐 Equivalent constant amplitude stress range due to local effects.

xviii
∆𝜎𝐸,2 Equivalent constant amplitude stress range related to 2 million cycles.

∆𝜎𝑠 Increase of stress in steel reinforcement due to tension stiffening of concrete.

∆𝜎𝑠,𝑐𝑝𝑢 Damage equivalent stress range.

∆𝜏 Range of shear stress for fatigue loading.

∆𝜏𝑐 Reference value of the fatigue strength at 2 million cycles.
∆𝜏𝐸 Equivalent constant amplitude stress range.
∆𝜏𝐸,2 Equivalent constant amplitude range of shear stress related to 2 million cycles.

∆𝜏𝑅 Fatigue shear strength.

𝛹 Coefficient.
Greek lower case letters
𝛼 Factor; parameter.
𝛼𝑐𝑟 Factor by which the design loads would have to be increased to cause elastic instability.
𝛼𝑀 Coefficient related to bending of a composite column.
𝛼𝑀,𝑦 , 𝛼𝑀,𝑧 Coefficient related to bending of a composite column about the 𝑦 − 𝑦 axis and
𝑧 − 𝑧 axis respectively.
𝛼𝑠𝑡 Ratio
𝛽 Factor, transformation parameter.
𝛽𝑐 , 𝛽𝑖 Parameters.
𝛾𝐶 Partial factor for concrete.
𝛾𝐹 Partial factor for actions, also accounting for model uncertainties and dimensional
variations.
𝛾𝐹𝑓 Partial factor equivalent constant amplitude stress range.

𝛾𝑀0 Partial factor for structural steel applied to resistance of cross-sections, see EN 1993-
1-1, 6.1(1)
𝛾𝑀1 Partial factor for structural steel applied to resistance of members to instability by
member checks, see EN 1993-1-1, 6.1(1)
𝛾𝑀𝑓 Partial factor for fatigue strength.

𝛾𝑀𝑓,𝑠 Partial factor for fatigue strength of studs in shear.

𝛾𝑠 Partial factor for reinforcing steel.

𝛾𝑉 Partial factor for design shear resistance of a headed stud.
𝛾𝑉𝑆 Partial factor for design shear resistance of a composite slab.

xix
xx
1 CHAPTER ONE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Design floods are expected to increase in Zimbabwe due to climate change, with the increase
in design floods being larger than those for which most bridges were designed. The
Meteorological Services Department of Zimbabwe’s Climate Application Branch reports that
the floods caused by tropical storms have become more frequent and severe, exceeding those
observed in more than 50 years (MSD, 2013). Floods experienced in 2000, in 2013 and in 2016
damaged many bridges in Zimbabwe. UNDP (2000) estimated the total number of bridges
damaged by Cyclone Eline alone as 67, let alone those that were damaged by Cyclone Dineo.
The rehabilitation of those bridge and culvert structures, cost millions of United States dollars
and the exercise tends to take longer.
Rapidly increasing construction and maintenance costs of reinforced concrete bridges and also
the heavy traffic on major roads have led to an enhanced interest in alternative technologies for
bridge design and construction methods to reduce cost, traffic interferences during
construction, reduce flood disturbance during construction, faster assembly and shorter
maintenance times. In recent years, due to the aforementioned reasons studies to develop new
and more durable design materials and methods have been getting special attention.

Steel has long history in the tradition of bridge construction. It is a well - controlled material
in terms of production, fabrication, construction, durability and design methods. Using these
advantages of steel, a new advanced constructional technology called composite construction
has emerged. The design of composite construction is developed with the use of cost effective
construction techniques and advanced design procedures to gain economic benefit. The choice
of appropriate steel grade and concrete quality affects the gain of economic advantages.

Composites offer inherent advantages over traditional steel materials with regard to high
strength-to-weight ratio, design flexibility, corrosion resistance, low maintenance, and
extended service life. In Zimbabwe, most of the bridges are typically short span bridges,
concrete box culverts and decks with girders underneath in which most parts of the structure is
dominated by concrete. However, steel-concrete composite bridges utilize the advantages of
steel and concrete to produce concrete superior bridge structure.

Studies conducted around the world have shown that steel composite bridges are economic
compared to concrete bridges(see chapter for literature review). This research will therefore
work on this basis to investigate the cost effectiveness of steel-composite construction in
Zimbabwe. The research will also ensure that the structure to be designed is an effective flood
structure by looking at the shortcomings of current flood estimation techniques used by the
Ministry of Transport.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Most bridges built in Zimbabwe, in general, are reinforced concrete structures whose
construction takes longer and due to this long time, there are negative impacts such as flood
overtopping and flood disturbance during the rainy season. Time-consuming activities
associated with concrete bridges and other related cost factors renders a reinforced concrete
bridge uneconomic compared to composite bridges. In addition to the above mentioned, the
current situation at the proposed site makes it difficult to use the road during the rainy season
and the size of the bridge is small should the traffic in the area increase. There is a low-level

1
bridge (box culvert) along this gravel road at the confluence of Nyamangura River and a small
tributary. The box culvert serves a useful purpose during the dry season however, the river
floods during rainy season rendering this bridge useless. Due to the terrain of the area, there is
no other reasonable alternative when the bridge is flooded. The pictures below show the
existing low level bridge. When the river is flowing full, the man shown in figure 2 is
submerged.

Figure 1 : Longitudinal view of the existing low level bridge.

2
Figure 2 : Side view of the existing low level bridge.

1.3 JUSTIFICATION
There is need to design bridges that will cater for flooding and this is achieved by revisiting
the methods of flood estimation. Moreover, possibility of an earthquake in Zimbabwe cannot
be completely dismissed given the recent incidence of earth in Mozambique. Moreover,
modern codes of practice such as Eurocode emphasize that designers should check for
earthquake resistance. A wide range of literature seem to agree on the cost effectiveness of
composites compared to concrete bridges due to the following reasons:
i. Reduction in the sizes of piers and foundations due to lightweight dead load of the
composite deck.
ii. Optimal combination of concrete and steel as each material is effectively stressed in
keeping with its inherent strength characteristics.
iii. Steel girders offer high structural efficiency as they can carry the weight of formwork
and fresh concrete during casting hence eliminating the need for falsework.
iv. Reduced construction time as many time consuming activities involved in concreting
are minimal

3
1.4 OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 Main Objective
Economic design of a composite steel-concrete ladder deck bridge at Nyamangura River in
Makoni Rural District.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

i. To determine the maximum anticipated flood discharge and flood level for, 20 year
50 year and 100 year return period.

ii. To come up with architectural drawing for the bridge, structural layouts for
substructure and superstructure.
iii. To carry out a detailed structural analysis and structural design of the structure with
according to Eurocodes.
iv. To prepare detailed structural drawings.

4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 HYDAULIC DESIGN
This is a process for determining the size of the bridge structure based on the anticipated flood
discharge in the river and the level to which this flood will rise. As a rule of thumb, Part JC of
the Manual however, recommends that for economy and aesthetics, the spans of any bridge
should be approximately three times the height of the structure. The criteria for hydraulic
design is based on the fact the bridge structure should just be adequate to accommodate the
anticipated flood and road grading. This can be termed a flood structure and for the bridge to
serve as a flood structure, it must meet the following requirements:
i. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the road must be accommodated in every
detail.
ii. The bridge must freely discharge the 50-year flood and remain undamaged by higher
floods
iii. The bridge must extend the full width of the river to a point on each bank where the
abutments can adequately protect the road embankment.

2.1.1 Anticipated Flood

The ministry of transport (MoT) formulated methods for estimating maximum anticipated
flood discharge and flood level. The anticipated discharge is weighted from the following
formulae: Craeger formula, Rational formula and TB Mitchell formula. For each formula, the
flood discharge is calculated for a 20 year, 50-year and 100 year return period. The results from
the three flood formulae are averaged using a weighting of 2 for Craeger and Rational, one for
Mitchell. The following general formula shows how the average flood discharge is computed.
Average flood discharge = 0.2[2(Craeger discharge) + 2(Rational discharge) + (Mitchell
discharge)].
The anticipated flood level must be determined both in the natural river channel and through
the proposed structure across the channel. For a known cross section of the riverbed, the
Manning formula is one method that can be used to estimate of the flood discharge related to
an observed flood level. Conversely, by iteration the level to which a given flood will rise can
be determined. Another criterion is to use the critical flow formula, which also gives an
estimate of the flood discharge related to an observed flood level. Conversely, by iteration the
level to which a given flood will rise can be determined.
The bridge deck level must satisfy the following criteria:
1) The 20-year flood must have a freeboard of at least 0.8m.
2) The 50-year flood must have a freeboard of at least 0.2m.
3) The 100-year flood level must not rise above the level 0.6m below finished road level.
The proposed structure must not raise the level of the 50-year flood more than 1.0m above the
natural river flow.
Mamombe & Tumbare (2016) asserted that there is need for a paradigm shift in the methods
of flood estimation used by the MOT. They cited the impacts of climate change, land use
variations and the increased incidences of bridges overtopping by floods as justification for the

5
adoption of more conservative methods of design flood estimation. Their argument is that the
flood routing algorithms in current use were developed a long time ago and hence they need to
be recalibrated to suit the current hydrological processes. This school of thought appears to
hold more water as the continued application of empirical methods, developed decades ago,
implies that there were no physiographical, climatological and hydrological changes. There is
no doubt that such assumptions are dangerous because many activities ranging from
deforestation, overgrazing, veld fire, alluvial mining, clearance of vegetative cover for
agricultural and residential purposes among other land use patterns which have been occurring
affect run-off generation and eventually flood flows. They then recommended the statistical
methods of flood frequency analysis. These models take cognizance of the observed flows
whilst optimizing the flood estimation. The proposed new model will always produce the same
results for the same data even if the users are different thus it is independent of user`s judgement
and/or experience and hence it is consistent.

2.1.2 Flood Frequency Analysis

The commonly used probability distribution functions for flood analysis are the Log-Normal,
Pearson, Log-Pearson, Gumbel, and Weibull. Since the spectrum of available methods, is
relatively wide, it is necessary to select the most suitable and appropriate distribution for design
purposes. It must be noted therefore that in choosing from the said available wide spectrum of
statistical distributions, hypothesis testing, using say the Chi-squared test, usually needs to be
carried out for the goodness of fit of a data set to any particular distribution function. However,
since the interest is in designing for the rare and extreme flood events, probability functions
that are based on the Extreme Value Theory, which focuses on the occurrence of extreme and
rare events, are considered more appropriate.
The asymptotic Weibull Distribution is widely criticised for having an upper finite endpoint
(upper bound approach), which is generally believed to be characteristic of many hydrological
data sets. However, it must be remembered that floods are a result of a combination of natural
phenomena that have no upper boundary and there is no quantifiable upper limit to the
magnitude of a flood that might occur at any site (Alexander, 2002). It is therefore not prudent
to rely on a probability distribution function that will try to define and fix an endpoint to the
input data.
The Gumbel EVI Distribution is unbounded and has an exponential tail thus having the
advantage of not fixing an endpoint to climatic data. The Gumbel EVI Distribution is effective
for (small) sample sizes less than 50, (Cunane, 1989). The Gumbel EVI Distribution in
principle has two parameters only: location and scale. Two parameter distributions have
smaller standard error compared to three or four parameter distributions (Cunane, 1989). Data
is fit to the Gumbel EVI Distribution using L-Moments which have less bias compared to other
techniques, and have been adopted as a standard approach in e.g. the United Kingdom
(Smithers, 2012). Furthermore, L-Moments are more robust (less sensitive) to the presence of
outliers in the data (Alem, 2011). Thus, the distribution is less biased and has small standard
error, properties which increase the precision in capturing flood behaviour. Thus, the Gumbel
EVI Distribution was selected from amongst its family members in the development of the
improved flood estimation model for bridge and culvert design in Zimbabwe. The Log-Pearson
Type III (LP III) Distribution (also known as the Gamma Distribution) has two interacting
shape parameters and also uses the scale and location parameters. This distribution has a low

6
upper bound which is undesirable since it tends to give small 4 differences between flood
values for relatively large differences in return periods.
It was found that the LP III when so modified, is in close agreement with the MoT model, a
property to be utilized in the calibration of the new model. It is for this reason that this member
of the Pearson Distributions, the LP III, was selected from amongst its family members in the
development of the improved flood estimation model for bridge and culvert design in
Zimbabwe. It is interesting to note that in South Africa, both the LP III (data fit using Weighted
Moments) and the Gumbel EVI Distributions are applicable. A research by Mamombe and
Tumbare recommends that a factor of safety of 1.4 is applied to the average/nominal values
computed from the MoT models.

2.2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN

2.2.1 General Design Philosophies
There are three distinct design philosophies namely the permissible stress design, load factor
method and limit state design.
In the permissible stress design, which is also known as the modular ratio or elastic design, the
design stress levels are limited to the elastic range. This approach forms the basis of CP 114
and BS 449.Since the stress-strain relationship is assumed to be linear, calculation of materials
stresses is usually very easy to carry out. However, the method tends to complicate the design
process and gives conservative solutions. The other drawback of this approach is that it is
difficult to justify that stress is proportional to strain in such materials as concrete making it
almost impossible to estimate factors of safety in these cases.
The load factor method, otherwise known as the plastic design takes account of the behaviour
of the structure once the yield point of the construction material is reached. It involves
calculating the collapse load of the structure and the working load by dividing the collapse load
by the load factor.
The limit state design approach tries to achieve a reasonable probability that the structure will
not become unfit for its intended use during its design life, thus the structure should not reach
its limit state. Excessive bending, shear, compression, deflection, vibration and cracking are
some of the ways by which a structure becomes unfit for its use and each of these mechanisms
is a limit state which need to be considered during design. Those limit states that only affect
the appearance or rather the functionality of the structure like deflection, vibration and cracking
are called serviceability limit states whereas those that may lead to partial failure or complete
collapse of the structure such as bending, shear and compression are called ultimate limit states.
Most structural codes that are currently in use like the BS 8110 for concrete, BS 5950 for
structural steel, BS 5400 for bridges and BS 5628 for masonry are all limit state codes. These
limit states vary in their importance depending on the particular structural element that is under
design, however it is common practice to design for the most critical limit state and check for
the remaining ones. In the design of a concrete beam for example, the limit states of bending
and shear are used to size the member and after that it is checked for deflection and cracking.
On the other hand, the design of a concrete slab is based on the serviceability limit state of
deflection as the most critical one. The overall design process utilises the material properties
and loading conditions as its inputs however, he designer may not be certain that the material
properties and load estimates are reliable. The material strength may be lesser than the intended

7
one because many reasons. The variable nature of the material composition is one factor, the
variability in manufacturing and construction conditions could be another one and other effects
like corrosion can cause this discrepancy. On the other hand, the load may be greater than the
estimated one. This could be due to the variability of occupants, environmental loading
conditions, errors in analysis or in the construction process or any other unforeseen
circumstances. The limit state takes account of these discrepancies by employing the concept
of a characteristic value and partial factors of safety for strength and load respectively. The
characteristic value could be a characteristic strength or a characteristic load. The characteristic
strength can loosely be defined as the value which the strength of a material lies in a very few
number of cases and the characteristic load is that value above which the design load lies in
only a small percentage of cases. The design strength of a material is then obtained by dividing
its characteristic strength by the partial factor of safety for strength whereas the design load is
found by multiplying the characteristic load by the load partial factor of safety.

2.3 DESIGN LOADS (ACTIONS)

Action effects are to be determined by the global analysis for the range of combinations of
actions to which the bridge may be subjected. BS EN 1991 has separate Parts for all the
different types of actions. BS EN 1991-2: Traffic Loads, the actions of temperature variation
are given in BS EN 1991-1-5.

2.3.1 Self-Weight
The characteristics values of self-weight of the structural parts of a bridge are based on nominal
dimensions and nominal unit weights (referred to in EN 1991-1 as “densities” and given in
𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3 ).The nominal density for normal concrete is given as 24 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3 ( but add 1 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3
for reinforcement and a further 1 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3 for wet concrete); the density for steel is given as
77 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3 to 78.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3 (use the lower value, unless the project specifies otherwise)

For non-structural parts, such as waterproofing and surfacing, nominal values of density are
again used an allowance must be made for deviation from nominal dimensions. Table NA.1 to
BS EN 1991-1 recommends an allowance of +55% /-40% on nominal thickness of
waterproofing and surfacing (a lesser positive deviation may be used where a “post execution
coating is included in the nominal value” but it is not exactly clear what that provision means,
so use the larger value). For services a deviation of ±20% from nominal values is
recommended. In either case, deviations should be either positive (nominal situation) or
negative-it is not necessary to use different deviations for different parts of the structure.

2.3.2 Traffic loads

For highway bridges, the first step is to define the number of notional lanes on the bridge. For
this purpose, the standard lane width is taken as 3m; the carriageway is assigned lanes of this
width, in the position to give the most onerous loading, and any apart of the carriageway not in
these lanes is defined as “remaining area”. For carriageways between 5.4m and 6m wide, two
notional lanes are defined. For carriageways between 6m and 9m, three notional lanes are
defined.

Vertical Forces
For traffic loading there are four load models:

8
Load Model 1- normal traffic:
This comprises a uniform loading per unit area (independent of loaded length), referred to as a
“UDL” system, and a pair of heavy axles at one position in the lane, referred as to as a Tandem
system, “TS”. The characteristic values of UDL and TS are set by BS EN 1991-2 and may be
adjusted by factors given in the National Annex. For the UK, the adjusted value of the UDL is
5.5𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 in all the lanes and in the “remaining area”. The adjusted value of the TS axle load
is given as 300kN in the first lane, 200kN in the second lane and 100kN in the third lane. There
is no TS load in onther lanes or in the remaining area.
Load Model 2- Single axle for short span members
This singlke axle load, which covers dynamic effects, may govern the design of short span
members, typically of up to 7m. The value of the axle load, as given by the NA to BS EN 1991-
2, is 400kN
Load Model 3- Special vehicles
A number of special vehicles (sets of axle loads), to represent abnormal traffic, are defined in
EN 1991-2 but the choice of special vehicles is left to the National Annex. Instead of those
special vehicles, the NA to BS EN 1991-2, clause NA.3.1, specifies the loads and
configurations of three “SV” and four “SOV” vehicles; the choice of what is to be used in
design is to be agreed with the relevant authority.
Load Model 4- Crowd loading (“for general verifications”)
This loading is intended to be applied without any traffic loading and may be defined for the
particular bridge (there is thus no provision in the NA). It does not represent loading for
footbridges, cycle track bridges et cetra, for which other provisions are given.

Horizontal forces
Horizontal forces are defined to represent braking/acceleration and centrifugal force. Values
are given in the NA for forces associated with LM1 and LM3.

2.3.3 Loads on footways

Footway loading is given by BS EN 1991-2,5.3, and modified by the NA to BS EN 1991-2,
but for bridges where the footway loading co exists with traffic loading (LM1) as a leading
action (group gr1a), the NA specifies a reduced value of 0.6 times the characteristic value.
Footways should also be designed for accidental loading (comprising two loads, acting alone,
without any other variable load) unless they are protected from the traffic by a safety barrier
(see EN 1991-2, 4.7.3.1).

2.3.4 Groups of loads

Several groups of traffic loads are defined, to represent vertical and horizontal forces due to
traffic that are likely to coexist. A group of loads is treated as a single variable and thus may
be considered as the loading action, 𝑄𝑘,1 or as an accompanying action ( in which case the
factor 𝛹0 is applied to the whole group, apart from gr1a, where a separate factor is given for
footway loading – see BS EN 1990, NA 2.3.6.2). For highway bridges, traffic loads are almost
always the leading action. The groups of loads specified by the National Annex to BS EN 1990
that are most likely to be applied tare shown in Table 5.1 (reproduced as table 1).

9
Table 1: Traffic load groups.

Group Load
LM1 LM3 Horizontal forces Footway loads
Grla Characteristic - - reduced
Gr2 frequent - characteristic -
Gr5 frequent Characteristic - -
Note: Frequent values are characteristic values multiplied by the 𝛹1 factor. Reduced footway
loading is given in the BS EN 1991-2.

2.3.5 Thermal actions

The range of bridge temperatures in the UK is given by the National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-
5. Maximum and minimum bridge temperatures are given based on location, bridge type and
return period (the isotherms in the NA are for a return period of 50 years). Temperature
difference (vertical temperature gradient) due to radiation is also given. In the NA to BS EN
1990, the partial factor applied to thermal actions on bridges at ULS (see Table 5.2 below)
gives design values appropriate for a 120 year return period.

2.3.6 Wind actions

Winds actions are given by EN 1991-1-4. Pressures are derived from a fundamental value of
the basic wind velocity (which is given in the UK National Annex), from which a mean wind
speed and peak velocity pressure are determined, appropriate to the location and topology:
forces are determined using coefficients given in the Standard. BS EN 1991-1-4 covers
aerodynamic effects; rules are given for evaluating the potential susceptibility and, where there
is susceptibility, expressions are given for determining critical wind speeds. Further rules are
given in the UK NA.
For short and medium span bridges, forces due to wind actions are unlikely to influence the
design of the superstructure, except possibly in relation to lateral forces at restrained and during
bearings and during construction, before the slab is cast. Non-divergent aerodynamic effects
may need to be evaluated for longer spans but will probably not determine the governing design
situation.

2.3.7 Accidental actions

EN 1991-2, 4.7 gives general requirements for accidental actions on bridges. In relation to the
bridge superstructure the two principal accidental situations are the collision of traffic with
barriers (restraint systems) on the bridge and the collision of traffic under the bridge with the
superstructure. For forces due to collision with restraint systems for determining global effects,
and for the coexisting vertical forces, see the National Annex to BS EN 1991-2. For the local
forces on the deck from the restrained system, see TD 19.
For bridges with at least 5.7m clearance above the roadway below, no forces due to impact on
the superstructure from traffic below the bridge need to be considered, according to the NA to
BS EN 1991-7. For bridges with lesser clearance, the NA gives values of equivalent static
forces.

2.3.8 Actions during execution

BS EN 1991-1-6. 3 sets out the design situations for actions during construction and BS EN
1991-1-6, 4.11 lists the types of construction loads that should be considered. Most notable for

10
bridges are the loads during the casting of concrete, loads due to the storage of movable items
and the weight of machinery and equipment. Return periods for climatic actions and values for
construction loads are given in the National Annex.

2.3.9 Fatigue loading

Five load models are defined in EN 1991-2, 4.6 and their use is given in the appropriate
materials Parts, EN 1992 to EN 1999. For highway bridges up to 80m span, “Fatigue Load
Model 3”, the single vehicle model, is used in all but exceptional cases and this is used to derive
the design value of the stress range corresponding to 2 × 106 cycles according to BS EN 1993-
2, 9.41 (1) to (5) and BS EN 1993-1-9, 6. For this determination an elastic global analysis is
needed; allowance should be made for shear lag and , where the cross section is class 4, stresses
should be determined on the basis of effective cross section. No partial factor is applied to the
load at this stage but note that an amplification factor is applied near to expansion joints (BS
1991-2, 4.6.1(6)). For this determination, the same notional lanes as for the static loading can
be used. The load model is traversed the length of the bridge in each lane in turn and the value
of the stress range for each transverse is determined; the “reference stress range” referred to in
BS EN 1993-2, 9.4.1(3) is the largest of these ranges.

Combination of actions for fatigue assessment of reinforcement

Fatigue assessment of reinforcement is only needed where the reinforcement is in tension.
However, the global stress in the slab depends on the permanent and variable actions as well
as on the fatigue vehicle. EN 1992-2, 6.8.3 sets out the “basic combination” and “cyclic
combination” that are to be considered together. These combinations will lead to values of
𝑀𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓 and 𝑀𝐸𝑑,𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑓 that will be needed to determine the stress range. For assessing the
damage equivalent stresses in reinforcement, BS EN 1992-2, NN.2.1(101) introduces a factor
that increases the weight of the fatigue vehicle by a factor of 1.75 (for verification over
supports) or 1.4 (for verification in other area areas).

Combination of global and local effects

Where stresses in steel or concrete are due partly to global effects and partly to local effects,
they should be evaluated separately, if possible, for separate evaluation in fatigue assessment.
If they cannot be separated, they should be considered as local effects (because this will be
more onerous in fatigue assessment0 unless it is believed that the component due to local
effects is very small.

2.3.10 Geotechnical Actions in Integral Bridges

Geotechnical actions on bridge superstructures are the pressures of the backfill at the
abutments. These pressures arise initially from the backfilling behind the abutments but are
modified (increased) over time due to the “strain ratchetting” effect due to the cyclic
expansion/contraction of the deck with temperature variation. Soil pressures due to the
movements at the ends of the deck may be calculated using guidance in PD 6694-1.

2.3.11 Partial Factors Applied to Actions

The partial factors that are to be applied to the actions and the factors to be applied to
accompanying actions are given in the National Annex to BS EN 1990, Table NA. A2.4(B)
and Table NA. A2.1. A selection of the more common values is given in Table 5.2 and Table
5.3. Reference should be made to the National Annex to confirm the rules governing their
application.

11
Table 2 : Partial factors on actions.

Partial factor on ULS SLS

Permanent Actions
Steel weight and superimposed loads 𝛾𝐺 1.20 1.00
Concrete weight 𝛾𝐺 1.35 1.00

Variable Actions
Road traffic actions 𝛾𝐺 1.35 1.00
Wind actions 𝛾𝐺 1.70 1.00
Thermal actions 𝛾𝑄 1.55 1.00
(taken from National Annex to BS EN 1990, Table NA. A2.4 (B)

Table 3 Factors applied to accompanying actions.

Action 𝛹0 𝛹1 𝛹2
Traffic loads (TS and UDL) 0.75 0.75 0
Wind forces(in service) 0.50 0.20 0
Thermal actions 0.60 0.60 0.50
(taken from National Annex to BS EN 1990, Table NA. A2. 1)

For the accidental design situation , the values of the accidental actions are considered as
characteristic values and the factors 𝛹1 and 𝛹2 are applied to the variable actions (see the NA
to BS EN 1990). For fatigue assessment, partial factors to be applied to the fatigue loads are
given by the NA to BS EN 1993-2

2.3.12 Determination of Action Effects

Global analysis
BS EN 1993-2, 5.4.1 recommends the use of elastic global analysis, except possibly accidental
design situations. Although elastic analysis is recommended, the effects of settlement,
differential temperature and shrinkage may be ignored at ULS if all the cross sections are Class
1 (this effectively means that these effects may be redistributed by plastic bending). The UK
National Annex states that circumstances where plastic methods of global analysis are
acceptable should be specified for the particular project.
Although EN 1994-2, 5.4.1.1 does not exclude the use of plastic global analysis at the ultimate
limit state, it is easier, and consistent with EN 1993-2, to use only global elastic analysis for all
design situations for composite highway bridges.
In EN 1994-2, the effects of shrinkage and differential temperature may be ignored at ULS if
all these sections are either Class 1 or 2 sections, but if no allowance needs to be made for
lateral torsional buckling. This is more stringent than EN 1993-2. For global analysis, EN 1994-
2 refers to the use of the ‘equivalent steel section’ properties , notably the second moment of
area, 𝐼1 . The determination of the ‘equivalent’ value is not explicitly defined in EN 1994-2,
although there is reference to short- and long –term modular ratios in 5.4.2.2. It is not stated
but is can be implied that EN 1994-2 requires separate global models (with short – and long-
term properties) for short-and long-term effects. Note that 5.4.2.4(2) allows the effects of
staged construction to be neglected at ULS where all cross sections are Class 1 or 2 and there
is no allowance for lateral torsional buckling, but this would only apply to composite bridges
(of such sections) of single span or of continuous spans where the bottom flanges are

12
sufficiently restrained that they can develop the full cross sectional resistance. Even then,
modelling of staged construction is still needed for verification at SLS

Effects shear lag and local buckling

For composite structures, EN 1994-2 generally requires shear lag to be taken into account in
determining the distribution of bending moments at both ULS and SLS and in 5.4.1.2 it
provides simple rules for determining effective widths of flanges; these effective widths, which
depend on ‘equivalent span’, are shown diagrammatically in Figures 5.1 of BS EN 1994-2.
Essentially, the rules give values of effective width at each midspan and support position; the
midspan values may be assumed to apply over the central half of the span and the effective
width may be assumed to vary linearly between the midspan value and the support value over
the end quarter-lengths of the span. EN 1994-2, 5.4.1.2 allows the midspan values to be used
over the full span when elastic analysis is used (which in practice is always the case). Use of
this constant effective width will give slightly higher hogging moments over intermediate
supports.
The effect of cracking of concrete is allowed for in most cases by using cracked section
properties either side of internal supports. Transverse composite members (such as in ladder
decks) are assumed to be uncracked.
For steel beams, allowance for shear lag in wide flanges is given by EN 1993-1-5. Rules for
effective width and for stress distribution across the flanges are also given in EN 1993-1-5, 3.2:
EN 1994-2 refers to tat clause for determination of the variation of stress distribution (once
effective widths have been calculated in accordance with EN 1994-2).

Effects of cracking of concrete

BS EN 1994-2, 5.4.2.3 offers two options: one is that first an uncracked analysis may be carried
out and the extent of cracking determined (when the concrete tensile stress exceeds a certain
value), followed by another analysis using cracked section properties in these regions; the
second allows a simpler one-stage method. The simpler method assumes that, in the global
analysis for both ULS and SLS, the concrete is cracked adjacent to internal supports over 15%
of the span: this method is allowed subject to the ratio of the lengths of spans being at least
60%. Note that the 60% value is rather arbitrary and that EN 1993 and EN 1994 generally
presume beams of uniform cross section. Where the girder section (and thus the beam stiffness)
varies significantly between adjacent spans it would be prudent to consider the effect of the
variation on the shape of the bending moment envelope before adopting the simplification.
Cracked section properties should include the area of the reinforcement over the effective width
of slab (determined taking into account shear lag) that acts with the steel girder. Note that
although the modulus of elasticity of reinforce given in EN 1992-2 is slightly lower than that
for structural steel, EN 1994-2, 3.2 states that the structural steel modulus may be used for
reinforcement in a composite section.
BS EN 1994-2 does not refer to the need to take account in global analysis of the effects of
tension stiffening of cracked sections at SLS, but that only needs to be considered directly
where the deck is in overall tension, such as when it is the deck of a bowstring arch bridge.
Such bridges are outside the scope of this publication (but even then detailed consideration can

13
be avoided by carrying out two analyses, one fully cracked, one uncracked; the actual
distribution of forces will be between these extremes).

Staged construction
It is usual for the deck slab of composite bridges to be concreted in stages, and for the steel
girders to be unpropped between supports during this process. Part of the loading is thus carried
on the steel beam sections alone, part by the composite sections, the bending stiffness and
loading distribution (and thus the bending moment diagrams) are different for each stage.
EN 1994-2, 5.4.2.4addresses the sequence of construction and states the principle that
appropriate analysis shall be made to cover the effects of staged construction. For
determination of SLS effects (and fatigue effects in the slab), separate analyses are required,
one representing each successive stage that occurs. This series of analyses will follow the
concreting sequence and will take account of the distribution of weight of wet concrete,
particularly that of the cantilevers. It will be a series of partially composite structures. Variable
actions (traffic loads) are applied to fully a composite structure, usually with short-term
composite properties. Separate analyses are also required for ULS effects unless all the cross
sections are Class 1 or 2 and there is no allowance for allowance for lateral torsional buckling.
This exception occurs rarely (mainly with single spans and non-integral construction) and it is
usual to allow for staged construction at bot SLS and ULS. Typically, there are about twice as
many stages as spans, because concrete is placed successively in each of the midspan regions,
followed by the remaining regions over each support. Where the cantilevers are concreted at a
different stage from the main width of slab, this must be taken into account in the analyses.

Effects of creep
The effects of creep are taken into account by determining an appropriate modulus for long-
terms effects. The modular ratio is given by EN 1994-2, 5.4.2.2(2), which requires a creep
coefficient according to EN 1992-1-1,3.14. The situation with no creep is more onerous for
stresses in concrete; the situation with full creep is more onerous for stresses in steel. Both
situations must therefore be considered. See Hendy and Johnson for guidance on creep,
including the effects of waterproofing.

Effects of shrinkage
Shrinkage of the concrete slab gives rise to primary effects and, for continuous beams,
secondary effects. The primary effects are internal self-equilibrating stresses that are derived
by considering the axial force and bending moment that would be required to restrain the
shrinkage and applying them to the composite cross section (in essence releasing the restraint).
The release moment causes a curvature that would be constrained if the beam were continuous
over several supports; the moments caused by the constraint are the secondary effects of
shrinkage. The shrinkage strain is given by EN 1992-1, Annex B.2 and the modular ratio for
shrinkage is given by EN 1994-2,5.4.2.2(2). See Hendy and Johnson for guidance on
calculating these effects.

Combination of global and local effects

Global and local action effects should be combined, according to 1994-2, 5.4.4. The
combination factor is defined in Annex E of 1993-2 and the NA to BS EN 1993-2 states that
further information may be given in the project specification.

14
2.3.13 Computer Modelling
Nowadays, computer modelling of bridge decks is almost always employed, even for simple
single spans where the supports are square to the deck and the moments and shear could be
calculated manually (though, for multi-girder bridges, the distribution of actions effects
between the girders would be difficult to determine accurately by hand). The increasing
availability of comprehensive and powerful analytical software is likely to lead to wider use of
the more sophisticated models. The need to determine critical buckling moments, on which to
base the calculation pf bending resistance is also likely to lead toward software that can
determine elastic buckling values.

2.3.14 Effects of Geotechnical Actions

The determination of the effects of geotechnical actions, and their combination with the effects
of other actions, is a little more complex because the effects depend not only on the partial
factors applied to the actions but also on partial factors applied to soil parameters.
BS EN 1990, A2.3.1(5) offers three “Approaches” to the determination of design values of
actions where geotechnical actions are involved and the UK NA adopts Approach 1. That
approach is to apply separately design values due to “Set B” and “Set C’ partial factors. The
Set B factors are those used for normal structural verification (and are the factors referred to in
2.4.11 above); the set C factors are all lower values than the Set B factors.
BS EN 1997-1, 2.4.7.3.4 also sets out the three alternative design approaches, and the UK NA
similarly confirms that Approach 1 should be used. However, for partial factors on actions, EN
1997-1 confusingly refers to Set A1 and Set A2 factors; these are the same Sets as Sets B and
C of the NA to BS EN 1990 and are given the same values for the partial factors.
The difference between the applications of the two Sets of factors is that Set B/A1 is used in
conjunction with the partial factor on soil parameters set at 𝛾𝑀 = 1.0 whereas Set C/A2 is used
in conjunction with values of 𝛾𝑀 greater than unity, this principle is set out in 2.4.7.3.4.2 of BS
EN 1997-1 and the factors are given in Annex A (as modified by the NA)
The soil pressure is determined from the design values of the actions of self-weight and traffic
loading and are thus effects of the combined actions. No further partial factors are applied when
these pressures are used to determine, for example, axial force due to restraint of thermal
expansion. Advice on the determination of soil pressures behind integral abutments is given in
PD 6694-1.

2.3.15 Settlement
The effects of differential settlement of supports should be considered. Settlement is treated as
a permanent action and partial factors to be used applied to settlement values are given in the
NA to BS EN 1990. However, EN 1990 refers to ‘best estimate predicted values’ and there are
no clear rules in EN 1977 to determine appropriate values of differential settlement. Advice
should be from geotechnical engineers and agreed values recorded in the project files.
Generally, EN 1990 recommends that two individual foundations, selected to give the most
unfavourable effect, should be considered to have a differential settlement, relative to the other
foundations.

15
2.4 COMPOSITE BRIDGES VERSUS CONCRETE BRIDGES
Reinforced concrete bridges are the most common type of bridges constructed in Zimbabwe.
Even though the materials for concrete construction are readily available, there are some
drawbacks associated with concrete bridge construction in Zimbabwe. Studies conducted on
composite bridges around the world have shown that steel composite bridges are economic
compared to concrete bridges. This research will therefore work on this basis to investigate the
cost effectiveness of steel-composite construction in Zimbabwe.
Nagai (2005) documented the outcome of a seminar which looked at the specifications in
bridge design and recent developments of composite bridges in Japan. In this article, composite
was adopted as a new technology to reduce the bridge construction cost. For further reduction
of the construction cost and durability the importance of introduction of innovative design
concept is emphasized. Based on economical evaluation made by Japan Highway Public
Commission, when the span length is from 30 to 60 meters, these newly developed steel-
concrete composite girder bridges are the most competitive solution and have been widely used
now in Japan. For attaining further reduction of construction cost, since the newly developed
bridge system is too simple to reform, it is recommended to incorporate the design innovation.
It is natural to consider, when we design plate girder bridges, that the employment of smaller
number of girder leads to economical solution. In such system, since the slab span becomes
wider, prestressed concrete slab or steel-concrete composite slab with higher durability is
inevitable. This practice is completely different from that of European engineers. They have
been using RC slab until the span length reaches 8 or 10 meters.

Melaku (2015) looked at the economic design of composite bridges in Ethiopia. He highlighted
economy and reduced construction time as the primary advantages of steel composite bridges
over their concrete counterparts. He said that, because of rapidly increasing construction and
maintenance costs of reinforced concrete bridges and increased traffic volumes in developing
countries, there is need to move to alternative technologies for bridge design and construction
methods to reduce costs, traffic interferences during construction, faster assembly and shorter
maintenance times. The also listed other benefits of steel concrete composite bridges such as
structural efficiency and reduced dead loads of the structure. He further advised that economic
methods of design, material selection and construction must be adopted to ensure an overall
cost reduction in the whole project.
A similar study has been done in India to compare the cost effectiveness of composite structures
and reinforced concrete structures (Maru & Tedia, 2014). The project involved the analysis and
design of an equivalent structure so that a comparison can be made between a steel concrete
composite structure and an equivalent reinforced structure. The cost comparison revealed that
reduction in direct costs of steel-composite structure resulting from speedy erection would
make steel-concrete composite structure economically viable. Further, under earthquake
considerations because of the inherent ductility characteristics. The same principle of
comparison shall be applied in this study using the cost of equivalent reinforced concrete
bridges commonly constructed in Zimbabwe versus the cost of the ladder deck bridge under
consideration.

Gilchrist Street Bridge, New Zealand, is a case study of a recent construction of a ladder deck
bridge which was completed in 2012 (Chin, K et al, 2013). This bridge was constructed in a
seismic region with poor ground conditions. The lightweight superstructure allowed a slender

16
bridge, reducing both the visual impact and cost over the conventional designs. Key benefits
include the removal of pier diaphragms, providing small diameter columns and minimising the
foundation works. The lightweight steel superstructure minimised ground works and is detailed
to minimise whole of life costs by achieving maximum durability. However, the introduction
of steel bridges was welcomed with much criticism. Issues to do with future cost of
maintenance and fluctuation in price of steel soon became major problems to reckon with. To
address these problems, an inorganic paint, zinc silicate was chosen, which is expected to
deliver a time to first maintenance of 25 years for all structural members. The use of a steel
ladder deck also allowed the designers to minimise the number of bearings on the structure,
with only two at the central piers. Moreover, the use of a steel as a construction material helped
to significantly reduce foundation costs, which was brought in to sharp focus when unexpected
ground conditions were encountered during construction. The lightweight superstructure meant
than relatively minimal additional costs were incurred to achieve design performance. Other
merits of composite configuration were realised. Concrete and structural steel are used in a way
that the high tensile strength of structural steel and the high compressive strength of concrete
are used in an optimal combination. High durability and fatigue strength of the deck. Composite
bridges are often used for passing over existing rail and highways without any restriction for
the traffic during construction, thanks to new erection methods. The steel girders can carry the
weight of the formwork and the fresh concrete during casting; hence reduce the uses of false
works. Reduction of construction time, a serious problem in reinforced concrete bridge
construction. The steel ladder deck acts as a safe working platform, protects the workers below
and supports the loads during construction and may eliminate the need for temporary propping.

17
3 STUDY AREA
The proposed site lies 16km along a gravel road (Route 297) from Nyabadza Shopping centre,
which is 18km from Rusape town along Nyabadza-Odzi road, in Makoni Rural District. The
site is between chainages 17 + 248km and 17 + 265km.This route provides communication
between Rusape town and Makoni Rural District Council; it also links Nyabadza to other
centres of attraction like St Killians Mission, Rugoyi Shopping Centre, and Gandanzara
communal among others. Currently there is a low-level bridge (box culvert) along this dust
road at the confluence of Nyamangura River and a small tributary, 20m from the proposed site.
The box culvert serves a useful purpose during the dry season however, the river floods during
rainy season rendering the low-lying bridge useless. Due to the terrain of the area, there is no
other reasonable alternative when the bridge is flooded. Figure 4 below shows a location map
of the study area.

Figure 3 : Location map of the study area.

18
4 DESIGN METHODS AND CRITERIA
4.1 DESK STUDY AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH
A desk study was carried out to get an appreciation of the background of Nyamangura level
crossing bridge. Also determined was catchment characteristics such as subsurface soil profile,
catchment area, slope, mean annual rainfall, and river discharge. Use was made of GIS
packages to carry out catchment extraction to compliment information extracted from 1:50 000
maps obtained from the ministry of transport.

4.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY

Following a desk study, a site visit was necessary to consolidate the findings of the previous
process. Measurements of peg to peg dimensions, collection of soil samples, visual soil profile
classification and extraction of geological coordinates with the aid of a GPS receiver were soil
of the activities undertaken.

4.3 GEOTECHINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The results of geotechnical investigation carried out by the ministry of transport were used in
the design. The table below summarises the methods utilised.
Table 4 :Methods and Materials

Specific Objectives Data and material Methods

requirements
To determine the maximum  Catchment area  Catchment extraction
anticipated flood discharge characteristics using GIS packages
and flood level for, 20-year  Craeger, Rational or
50 year and 100 year return Mitchell methods are
used to compute
period.
anticipated flood
discharge.
 Manning formula and
critical flow formula
are used to determine
the anticipated flood
level.

To come up with  Survey data from the  Manual draughting

architectural drawing for the Ministry using AutoCAD.
bridge, structural layouts for  Site conditions
substructure and  Flood discharge and
superstructure. flood level

To carry out a detailed  Structural layouts  Manual design as per

structural analysis and  Loading conditions BS EN 1994
structural design of the  Soil characteristics
structure. from the Ministry.

19
  Use of packages such
as Excel and Staad
Pro.

To prepare detailed structural  Design calculations  Manual draughting

drawings, bending schedules  Staad Pro results using AutoCAD.
 Use of Staad Pro

20
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
Appendix C shows a report of geotechnical investigations carried out by the ministry of in
2012. It has been noted that the soil bearing for that area and that the angle of shearing
resistance is 34° , the soil bearing capacity is 180𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 while the density of the soil was
found to be 19𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3.

5.2 CATCHMENT DATA

The following catchment data was obtained from desk study (QGIS package) and visits to
relevant offices.
Table 5 : Catchment Characteristics.

Catchment Data Surface Slope Soil Permeability Cover

Area, A 3%- (76% of area) Very perm. – 15% Bush or forest -25%
Length, L 3% - 10% ( 18% of Permeable -50% Grassland -30%
area )
Fall, F Semi-perm.-20% Arable land-37%
River length, Impermeable -15% Rock surface -5%
M.A.R

From the data above, it can be seen that the Nyamangura catchment is a big catchment, as
evidenced by river length of 8.94kmm and an area of approximately 52.78 square kilometres.
High floods, courtesy of high value of mean annual rainfall (M.A.R) of 900mm, are expected
to pass through this bridge and hence deep foundations are recommended and the bridge should
be a high level bridge. 76 % of the area has a gentle slope of 3% and this shows that the river
flow could be gentle and hence less lateral forces expected. The soils are permeable with a total
of 85% being generally permeable. This could imply that most of the rainfall that precipitates
could be changed into base flow and infiltrate back into river. Generally, the land has
reasonable vegetation and from this it is expected that some of the rainfall received in the
catchment will be used by vegetation and transpire back to the atmosphere.

5.3 FOUNDATION TYPE SELECTION.

Since the bearing capacity is low a pile foundation is suggested.

21
6 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
6.1 HYDRAULIC DESIGN
6.1.1 Flood Discharge Estimation
This section covers the prediction of a probable maximum flood expected to pass the bridge
for the 50-year return period. A weighted mean of flood discharge is computed from the results
of Creager formula, Rational formula and TB Mitchel formula as stipulated in Part JD of the
Bridge Design Manual. This weighted average is used as the design value of the maximum
probable discharge.
River Data (obtained using QGIS software)
Area of catchment (A) = 52.78km2 ≈ 53km2
Length of catchment (L) = 9.467km ≈ 9.5km
Breadth of catchment (B) = 5.578km ≈ 5.6km
Length of river (L1 ) = 8.941km ≈ 9km
L 9.5
= 5.6 = 1.696 ≈ 2, therefore Fall = 1in 100 (Clause 2.1.1 Part JD Bridge Design Manual)
B
9500
Total fall within the catchment = 95
100

Gathering time
0.87×L1 3 0.385
T1 = ( ) (Clause 2.11 Part JD Bridge Design Manual)
F

0.87 × 93 0.385
T1 = ( )
95
= 2.08 hours
Consider Creager formula for 50-year flood.

QT = C1 C2 C3 √A
Where C1 , C2 and C3 are the functions dependent on the catchment characteristics such as
slope, vegetation
2600 − A L1 0.6 B 0.4
C1 = 80 [1 + ][ ] [ ]
37000 T1 L1
2600 − 53 9 0.6 5.6 0.4
C1 = 80 [1 + ][ ] [ ]
37000 2.08 9
C1 = 170.3
C2 can be evaluated from table 2.1Part JD bridge design manual
For a 50-year design flood:

22
Table 6: Determination of coefficient 𝐶2

Catchment Parameter C2
(km2 )

50 0.512
53 x
100 0.517

By interpolation,
x − 0.512 53 − 50
=
0.517 − 0.512 100 − 50
x = 0.515
C2 = 0.515
C3 is the runoff coefficient. From the 1: 50 000 map used in the project, the following data was
obtained.
 The general slope in the area is undulating = 0.1
 The land in the area is arable = 0.3
 The soils are semi permeable = 0.2
Coefficient C3 = 0.8 × (0.1 + 0.3 + 0.2) = 0.48
C3 = 0.48

Q50 = C1 C2 C3 √A

Q50 = 170.3 × 0.515 × 0.48 × √53

Q50 = 306.5 m3 ⁄s
Using the proportion factors for discharge (clause 2.1.3 Part JD) to obtain corresponding
discharges for different return periods
Table 7 : Determination of flood for T –year return period from 50-year flood (Creager formula).

Return Period (T) 5 10 20 50 100

Proportion factor of 50 year flood 0.60 0.72 0.84 1.00 1.12
Qt 183.9 220.7 257.5 306.5 343.3

Consider Rational formula for 50-year flood.

QT = C2 C3 C4 A (Clause 2.1.2 Part JD bridge design manual)
C2 = 0.515 (Same as determined above)
C3 = 0.48(Run off coefficient determined above)
70(T1 )0.15 − 17.5 log A
C4 =
T1

23
 70(2.08)0.15 − 17.5 log 53
C4 =
2.08
C4 = 23.1
Q50 = 0.515 × 0.48 × 23.1 × 53
Q50 = 302.6 m3 ⁄s
Using the proportion factors for discharge (clause 2.1.3 Part JD) to obtain corresponding
discharges for different return periods

Table 8: Determination of flood for T –year return period from 50-year flood (Rational formula)

Return Period (T) 5 10 20 50 100

Proportion factor of 50 year flood 0.60 0.72 0.84 1.00 1.12
Qt 181.6 217.9 254.2 302.6 338.9

Consider Mitchel formula for 50-year flood.

log e [MPF + 1] = 1.175 log e [A + 1]0.755 + 3.133
Where MPF = Maximum probable flood (m3 ⁄s)
A = catchment Area (km2 )
log e [MPF + 1] = 1.175 log e [54]0.755 + 3.133
MPF = 646.1 m3 ⁄s
The maximum probable flood computed above is taken to be Q10 000. Based on the formula
Q50 = 0.2632 × MPF, the 50 year design flood is calculated as follows:
0.755
Q50 = 6.04e1.175[log(A+1)]
Q50 = 170.4 m3 ⁄s
Using the proportion factors for discharge (clause 2.1.3 Part JD) to obtain corresponding
discharges for different return periods
Table 9: Determination of flood for T –year return period from 50-year flood (Mitchel formula)

Return Period (T) 5 10 20 50 100

Proportion factor of 50 year flood 0.25 0.44 0.67 1.00 1.29
Qt 42.6 75.0 114.2 170.4 219.8

The weighted average of the discharges obtained from the above is given by
Average = 0.2[ 2(Craeger) + 2(Rational) + (Mitchel)]

24
Table 10: Determination of average discharge.

QT Q20 Q50 Q100

Craeger 257.5 306.5 343.3
Rational 254.2 302.6 338.9
Mitchel 114.2 170.4 219.8
Average 227.5 277.7 316.8

A factor of safety of 1.4 is applied to average discharges in Table 11 above to give 318.5, 388.9
and 443.5 for 20-year, 50-year and 100-year design flood respectively.

6.1.2 Determination of Flood Level

Two formulas are used to determine this flood level
Manning Formula
2 1
a
Q= × R3 × S 2 , where
n

Q = flood discharge m3 ⁄s
a = waterway area = (1/2) (a + b) h
n = roughness coefficient
p = wetted perimeter (m)
a
R= hydraulic mean depth (m)
p

S = slope of riverbed (m/m)

River conditions
1. Winding, some pools and shoal: n = 0.065
2. River bed width = 12m
3. Normal river flow depth = 1m
4. Riverbed level = 10m
5. Slope = 1 in 150) Using the Critical Flow formula to calculate flow through the bridge
structure.

25
Table 11: Natural Flood Calculation.
2 1
Level W Area(m2 ) P R3 S2 Q(m3 ⁄s)
11.2 15.6 18.36 19.38 0.96 0.08 22.25
11.4 16.2 21.84 20.11 1.06 0.08 28.99
11.6 16.8 25.44 20.84 1.14 0.08 36.50
11.8 17.4 29.16 21.57 1.22 0.08 44.78
12 18 33.00 22.30 1.30 0.08 53.83
12.2 18.6 36.96 23.03 1.37 0.08 63.64
12.4 19.2 41.04 23.76 1.44 0.08 74.21
12.6 19.8 45.24 24.49 1.51 0.08 85.55
12.8 20.4 49.56 25.22 1.57 0.08 97.67
13 21 54.00 25.95 1.63 0.08 110.56
13.2 21.6 58.56 26.68 1.69 0.08 124.23
13.4 22.2 63.24 27.41 1.75 0.08 138.70
13.6 22.8 68.04 28.14 1.80 0.08 153.96
13.8 23.4 72.96 28.87 1.86 0.08 170.04
14 24 78.00 29.60 1.91 0.08 186.92
14.2 24.6 83.16 30.33 1.96 0.08 204.63
14.4 25.2 88.44 31.06 2.01 0.08 223.17
14.6 25.8 93.84 31.79 2.06 0.08 242.56
14.8 26.4 99.36 32.52 2.11 0.08 262.79
15 27 105.00 33.25 2.15 0.08 283.89
15.2 27.6 110.76 33.98 2.20 0.08 305.86
15.4 28.2 116.64 34.71 2.24 0.08 322.06
15.6 28.8 122.64 35.44 2.29 0.08 345.32
15.8 29.4 128.76 36.17 2.33 0.08 369.46
16 30 135.00 36.90 2.37 0.08 394.49
16.2 30.6 141.36 37.63 2.42 0.08 420.42
16.4 31.2 147.84 38.36 2.46 0.08 447.26
16.6 31.8 154.44 39.09 2.50 0.08 475.03
16.8 32.4 161.16 39.82 2.54 0.08 503.72
17 33 168.00 40.55 2.58 0.08 533.36
17.2 33.6 174.96 41.28 2.62 0.08 563.94

Critical flow formula

Q = 1.62 × b × H1.5
Q = flood discharge m3 ⁄s
H = depth of water (m)
b = clear span (m)
Critical flow formula

26
Q = 1.62 × b × H1.5
Q = flood discharge m3 ⁄s
H= depth of water (m)
b = clear span (m).
Table 12: Flood under bridge span.

Level Height Q(2*15) Q(2*16) Q2*18) Q(2*24) Q(3*15) Q3*18)

11 1 48.00 51.20 57.60 76.80 72.00 86.40
11.2 1.2 63.10 67.30 75.72 100.96 94.65 113.58
11.4 1.4 79.51 84.81 95.41 127.22 119.27 143.12
11.6 1.6 97.15 103.62 116.57 155.43 145.72 174.86
11.8 1.8 115.92 123.65 139.10 185.47 173.88 208.65
12 2 135.76 144.82 162.92 217.22 203.65 244.38
12.2 2.2 156.63 167.07 187.96 250.61 234.95 281.93
12.4 2.4 178.47 190.36 214.16 285.55 267.70 321.24
12.6 2.6 201.23 214.65 241.48 321.97 301.85 362.22
12.8 2.8 224.89 239.89 269.87 359.83 337.34 404.81
13 3 249.42 266.04 299.30 399.06 374.12 448.95
13.2 3.2 274.77 293.09 329.72 439.63 412.15 494.58
13.4 3.4 300.93 320.99 361.11 481.48 451.39 541.67
13.6 3.6 327.86 349.72 393.44 524.58 491.80 590.16
13.8 3.8 355.56 379.27 426.68 568.90 533.34 640.01
14 4 384.00 409.60 460.80 614.40 576.00 691.20
14.2 4.2 413.16 440.70 495.79 661.05 619.74 743.68
14.4 4.4 443.02 472.55 531.62 708.83 664.53 797.43
14.6 4.6 473.56 505.13 568.28 757.70 710.34 852.41
14.8 4.8 504.78 538.43 605.74 807.65 757.17 908.61

Table 13: Bridge Flood Level.

Return Period Q20 Q50 Q100

Natural Flood Level 15.4 16.0 16.4
2@15m span Flood 13.6 13.8 14.4
Level
2@16m span Flood 13.4 14.0 14.4
Level
2@18m span Flood 13.2 13.6 14
Level
2@24m span Flood 12.6 13.0 13.4
Level
3@15m span Flood 12.8 13.2 13.4
Level
3@18m span Flood 12.4 12.8 13
Level

27
Checks
Taking the bridge deck soffit level to be 15m (5m above the datum), the following parameters
can be checked:
For 2 by 15m span
Q20 = 318.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.6 = 1.4m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.8m)
Q50 = 388.9 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.8 = 1.2m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
Q100 = 443.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-14.4 = 0.6m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
For 2 by 16m span
Q20 = 318.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.2 = 1.8m. OK (recommended minimum is 0.8m)
Q50 = 388.9 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.6 = 1.4m. OK (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
Q100 = 443.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-14.0 = 1.0m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
For 2 by 18m span
Q20 = 318.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.2 = 1.8m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.8m)
Q50 = 388.9 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.6 = 1.4m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
Q100 = 443.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-14.0 = 1.0m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
For 2 by 24m span
Q20 = 318.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-12.6 = 2.4m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.8m)
Q50 = 388.9 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.0 = 2.0m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
Q100 = 443.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.4 = 1.6m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
For 3 by 15m span
Q20 = 318.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-12.8 = 2.2m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.8m)
Q50 = 388.9 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.2 = 1.8m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
Q100 = 443.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-13.4 = 1.6m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
For 3 by 18m span
Q20 = 318.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-12.4 = 2.6m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.8m)
Q50 = 388.9 m3 ⁄s : 15-12.8 = 2.2m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
Q100 = 443.5 m3 ⁄s : 15-13 = 2.0m. O.K (recommended minimum is 0.6m)
From the checks performed above all the spans meet the criteria for passing the maximum
anticipated flood for 20-year return, 50 year return period and 100 year return period, however,
all the 2 span bridges, except for the 24m span, are too low and hence they do not a reasonable
high freeboard and moreover, they are not long enough to give a span that suit the topography
of the area. Three span bridges, though suitable for flood discharge consideration, the extra

28
complexity and cost associated with their construction is a discouraging factor. The above
factors make the 24m span the only choice. Figure 4 below shows a snapshot of the
architectural drawing (see Appendix A for more detail).

Figure 4: Side Elation of the Proposed Bridge

6.2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

This section gives a brief description of the bridge structure under consideration, the nature of
loading to which it is exposed. The effects of the loads are then analysed using Staad Pro and
summary of internal forces which shall be use for design shall be given.

6.2.1 Description of the Bridge

Preliminary sizing
Girder spacing
The totaI transverse moments in the sIab of a muIti-girder deck are not particuIarIy sensitive
to girder spacing in the range of 2.5m to 3.8m (the increase in IocaI moment with span is
more or Iess baIanced by a reduction in the moment arising from the transfer of Ioad from one
girder to the next). For this project a spacing of 3.7m has been adopted.
In seIecting a suitabIe girder spacing, attention must be paid to the cantiIevers at the edges of
the deck. The cantiIever Iength from the outer girder centreIine shouId normaIIy be restricted
to about 1.5m to 2m, incIuding the edge beam.
Girder profiIe

For composite continuous spans with paraIIeI fIanges, the construction depth (again, from top
of sIab to underside of beam) is typicaIIy between 1/20 and 1/25 of the major span. The major
span is 24m.
Minimum depth = 24 000/25 = 960mm
Maximum depth = 24 000/20 = 1200
An intermediate vaIue of 1100 was adopted.
Cross girders shouId have a depth of between about 1/12 and 1/18 of the span between main
girders. UsuaIIy they wiII have a straight bottom fIange, but the top fIange wiII normaIIy
foIIow the transverse profiIe of the road.

29
SIab thickness

For initiaI design, choose a sIab thickness of 250mm (Graham W.O. et aI, 1993).This can be
refined in detaiIed design. If the cantiIever barrier is designed for an accidentaI traffic Ioad,
use an initiaI thickness of 330mm (for a 2m cantiIever) at the root of the cantiIever, reducing
to 250mm at the first internaI main girder.

The bridge covers an effective span of 24.0m, with a static scheme of simpIe abutment. The
structure is made up of four equaI IongitudinaI beams, distanced at 3.70m one from the other,
which sustain a 0.25m thick concrete sIab. The beams are connected by transverse stiffening
beams, arranged in correspondence to the support and the section one third of bridge’s Iength.
The roadway is 12m wide and is fIanked on each side by waIkaways 2.0m in width, separated
from the centraI road by safety barriers.

Girder make up and sIab reinforcement

The overaII girder depth is 1100mm as shown section 1 of this project. The cover to the top
IongitudinaI bars is 65m (45mm pIus 20mm transverse bars) this is appropriate to XC3. The
cover to the bottom bars is 60mm (40mm + 20mm), this is appropriate to XC4. (see 2-1-
1/4.4.1.2 for minimum cover and aIso 2-2/4.2 and the respective NAs).
Bracing arrangements
The above bracing arrangements are nominaI and might be adjusted during detaiIed design.
The modeI nodes and intermediate bracings other than either side of the centraI support
coincide with nodes in the FE modeI. The spIice positions coincide with modeI nodes; the
bracings are 400mm cIoser to the supports than the spIice positions; these positions might aIso
be adjusted during finaI design.
Geometric Characteristics of a SingIe IongitudinaI Beam

The foIIowing notations for are used in Eurocodes

𝐴𝑎 area of the structuraI steeI part of the composite cross-section.
𝐴𝑠 area of the reinforcing steeI of the composite cross-section (within the effective width for
shear Iag)

30
𝐴𝑎 area of the concrete part of the composite cross-section (within the effective width for shear
Iag).
𝑛 moduIar ratio
𝐼𝑎 second moment of the structuraI steeI part of the composite cross-section.
𝐼𝑏 second moment of the concrete part of the composite cross-section.
According to EN 1994-2, 6.2.1 (4),the concrete in tension (𝜎𝐸𝑑 ≤ 0) is cracked and shouId
aIways be negIected.

Effective Width

For section anaIysis, the effective section aIIowing for shear Iag:
The equivaIent spans for effective width are:
Abutment and mid-span sections Ic = 0.85I1 = 0.85 × 28 = 23.8m
Hogging section Ic = 0.25(I1 + I2 ) = 0.25 × 56 = 14.0m
At mid-span beff = b0 + ∑ bei
Where bei = Ic ⁄8 each side, but not more than geometric width
bei = 23800⁄8 = 2975mm , so the section is fuIIy effective
At the abutment beff = b0 + ∑ βi bei
Where βi = (0.55 + 0.025Ic ⁄bei ) ≤ 1
Here, assuming the width between shear studs is 400mm (i. e. b1 = 1650mm)
βi = (0.55 + 0.025 × 23800⁄1650) = 0.91 and thus
beff = 400 + 2 × 1650 × 0.91 = 3403mm
At the pier, bei = 1400⁄8 = 1750mmeach side, so the section is fuIIy effective. Properties
for gross sections (where are aIso effective) at the pier and in the span are tabuIated beIow.

31
VaIues for abutment are not shown. The other section properties are computed as described in
the foIIowing sections and there are tabuIated in the section for design of composite girder.

Un-cracked composite behaviour

It occurs in the midspan regions where the bending moment acting on the composite section is
positive (concrete in compression). The reinforcing steeI in compression couId be negIected.
𝐴𝑏
𝐴 = 𝐴𝑎 +
𝑛
𝐴𝑏
𝐴𝑦𝐺 = 𝐴𝑎 𝑦𝐺𝑎 + 𝑦
𝑛 𝐺𝑏
1
𝐼 = 𝐼𝑎 + 𝐴𝑎 𝑦𝐺 − 𝑦𝐺𝑎 2 + 𝐼𝑏 + 𝐴𝑏 𝑦𝐺 − 𝑦𝐺𝑏 2
𝑛

Cracked composite behaviour

It occurs in the region surrounding the internaI supports where the bending moment acting on
the composite section is negative (concrete in tension). Any part of the concrete in tension
shouId be negIected in the caIcuIation of the eIastic mechanicaI properties. EN 1994-2 considers
that the moduIar ratio between structuraI steeI and reinforcing is equaI to 1(𝐸𝑎 = 𝐸𝑠 =
210000 𝑀𝑝𝑎).

32
𝐴 = 𝐴𝑎 + 𝐴𝑠
𝐴𝑦𝐺 = 𝐴𝑎 𝑦𝐺𝑎 + 𝐴𝑠 𝑦𝐺𝑠
𝐼 = 𝐼𝑎 + 𝐴𝑎 𝑦𝐺 − 𝑦𝐺𝑎 2 + 𝐴𝑠 𝑦𝐺 − 𝑦𝐺𝑠 2 negIecting the inertia of the reinforcing bars (𝐼𝑠 = 0)
Actions ModeIIing

The sections beIow summarise the nominaI vaIues of actions that were considered in
structuraI anaIysis
SeIf–weight

SeIf-weight of structuraI eIements

The seIf-weight is based on nominaI dimensions.Density of the structuraI steeI: 77𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3
For the IongitudinaI bending gIobaI anaIysis, the seIf-weight of the in-span Iocated transverse
cross- girders is modeIIed by the verticaI uniformIy distributed Ioad about 10% the weight of
the main girder.
Density of the reinforced concrete is 25 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3 . The seIf-weight of the structuraI steeI is
resisted by the steeI structure aIone whereas the seIf-weight of the poured concrete (segment by
segment is resisted by a main girder which is partiaIIy concreted according to the construction
sequence.
Density of waterproofing materiaI and asphaIt : 25𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3
SeIf-weight of surfacing
The totaI nominaI thickness of the surfacing incIuding waterproofing Iayer is 130mm. Assume
that the density is 23k N⁄m3 For the whoIe thickness. The seIf-weight generaIIy produces
adverse effects and for that case the seIf-weight is based on nominaI thickness + 55%. Thus:

33
g k = 1.55 × 0.13 × 23 = 4.63 kN⁄m2
SeIf-weight of a footway construction
The nominaI thickness of the footway (comprising concrete fiII and a thin surfacing ) is 200mm
and a uniform density of 23k N⁄m3 is assumed. The seIf-weight is based on the nominaI
dimensions and thus:
g k = 1.0 × 0.2 × 24 = 4.80 kN⁄m2
SeIf-weight of parapets
A nominaI vaIue of 2kN/m is assumed for each parapet.
SeIf-weight of soiI
The density of the granuIar fiII behind the integraI abutments is taken as 18k N⁄m3 and angIe
of shearing resistance of 35° .
Construction Ioads

For gIobaI anaIysis , a uniform construction Ioad of Qca = 0.75 kN⁄m2 Is assumed during
casting and the weight of temporary formwork is assumed to be Qcc = 0.50 kN⁄m2.
AdditionaIIy , wet concrete is assumed to have a density of 1 kN⁄m3 greater than that of
hardened concrete , for a sIab thickness of 250 mm this adds Qcf = 0.25 kN⁄m2 .
The totaI construction Ioad is thus Qc = 0.75 + 0.50 + 0.25 = 1.5 kN⁄m2

Traffic Ioads

Road traffic
NormaI traffic is represented by Ioad ModeI 1 (IM1). For the road carried by this bridge, the
highway authority specifies that abnormaI traffic be represented by speciaI vehicIe SV 100 as
defined in the UK NationaI Annex
Pedestrian traffic
Pedestrian traffic is represented by the reduced vaIue given by the NA to BS EN 1991-2. TabIe
NA.3 and cIause NA .2.36. Thus 0.6q fk is appIied = 0.6 × 5.0 = 3kN⁄m2 The reduction for
Ionger Ioaded Iength is not made.
Fatigue Ioads
For fatigue assessment, Fatigue Ioad ModeI (FIM3), defined in 1-2/4-6is used as recommended
by 3-2/9.2.2
ThermaI actions

Shade temperature
Maximum and minimum shade air temperaturesfor the bridge Iocation, are

34
Maximum 24℃
Minimum 5℃
ThermaI range (for determination of extreme vaIue of thermaI movement)
For determination of maximum movement at UIS, the vaIues for a 120 year design Iife are
reIevant but according to EN 19900:A2 these are determined by appIying γQ = 1.55 to
characteristic vaIues for a 50 year return period. For change of Iength in composite sections,
the coefficient of Iinear thermaI expansion is 12 × 10−6 per℃
VerticaI temperature difference
The verticaI temperature difference given in EN-1991-1-5, TabIe 6.2b wiII be used and
temperature change, as recommended in NA2.12, if that is more onerous. For surfacing
thickness other than 100mm, interpoIate in 1-1-5/ TabIe B.2 as foIIows. InterpoIating for sIab
thickness 250mm, surfacing thickness 130mm

Surfacing ∆T1 for sIab thickness (mm)

Thickness (mm) 200 300
100 13 16
150 10.5 12.5

For temperature difference in composite sections, the coefficient of thermaI expansion is

12 × 10−6 per ℃

GeotechnicaI actions

Design vaIues of thermaI movements give rise to geotechnicaI actions.

At the UIS that designs the superstructure, traffic Ioads are the Ieading action and thermaI
actions may be considered to be accompanying action.in that case the movement ( from mean
position ) is (1.2 × 10−5 × 24 000 × 49⁄2) × γQ × Ψ0 = 8.23 × 1.55 × 0.60 = 7.65mm

For maximum axiaI force due to restraint temperature, the thermaI action wouId be the Ieading
action and movement (from mean position) wouId be:
8.23 × γQ = 8.23 × 1.55 = 12.8mm

Accompanying IM1 traffic Ioads wouId be at 75% of their vaIue as a Ieading action (since Ψ1 =
0.75 for grIa) (IM3 is not considered as an accompanying action )
Shrinkage deformation at traffic opening
The caIcuIation of 𝜀𝑐𝑠 requires the age t of the concrete at the considered date 𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑖 . At this date
each sIab segment has a different age. To simpIy, the mean vaIue of the ages of aII segments is
considered taking account of the constriction phases: 𝑡 = 66⁄2 + 44 = 77 days. The formuIae
from Annex B and 3.14 in EN 1992-1-1 are used.

35
The moduIus of eIasticity of both structuraI steeI and reinforcing steeI is taken as 210 GPa (as
permitted by EN 1994-2)
The moduIus of eIasticity of the concrete is given by EN 1992-1-1 as:
Ecm = 35 GPa. The 28-day vaIue wiII used for the determination of aII short term effects and
resistances and the moduIar ratio is thus
n0 =210/35 = 6.0
For Iong –term effects, the moduIar ratio is given by 4-2/5.4.2.2 as:
nI = n0 (1 + ψI φt )
For the evaIuation of the creep coefficient φt (= φ(t, t 0 ) in 2-1-1 /B.1) it is assumed that the
first Ioading is appIied at an average age t 0 = 21 days and that the reIative humidity is 70%.
For t → ∞ φ(t, t 0 ) = φ0
Where φ0 = φRH β(fcm )β(t 0 )
For fcm > 35 𝑀𝑃𝑎 (ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 fcm = 48 MPa , from 2-1-1/ TabIe 3.1)

1 − RH⁄100
φRH = [1 + 3
α1 ]α2
0.1√h0

35 0.7 35
α1 = [ ] = [ ]0.7 = 0.802
fcm 48
35 0.2 35
α2 = [ ] = [ ]0.2 = 0.939
fcm 48
For a 250 thick sIab (h0 = 250)
1 − 70⁄100
φRH = [1 + 3 0.802] 0.939 = 1.298
0.1√250
16.8 16.8
β(fcm ) = = = 2.42
√fcm √48
1 1
β(t 0 ) = 0.20 = (0.1 + 210.20 ) = 0.516
(0.1 + t 0 )
Hence φ0 = 1.298 × 2.42 × 0.516 = 1.621
For permanent Ioads, ψI = 1.1 and thus:
nI = 6.0(1 + 1.621 × 1.1) = 6.0 × 2.79 = 16.7
Iong term moduIus = 210/16.7 =12.6 GPa
If the design effects need to be determined at the time of opening, the creep coefficient wiII
need to be modified to refIect the short duration of Ioading. In this design, the average age at

36
which the permanent actions are imposed 21 days and the age at opening to traffic is 56 days.
The creep coefficient is modified by the parameter βc (t, t 0 ) and in this, with t − t 0 =
35 days, βc = 0.418
Thus, for permanent Ioads at opening:
nI = 6.0(1 + 0.418 × 1.621 × 1.1) = 6.0 × 1.75 = 10.5
And moduIus = 210/10.5 = 20.0GPa.
The shrinkage stain on the concrete deck and the appropriate moduIar ratios are given by EN
1992-2. The vaIues depend on the age since casting, in this project two ages are considered-at
bridge opening, for which an average age of 56 days is assumed, and at the end of the design
Iife, for which it is assumed that t = ∞.
For shrinkage, the age of Ioading ( thus at age t s = 1, the beginning of drying shrinkage in 2-
1-1/3.1.4) is assumed to be one day.
The autogenous shrinkage strain at t = ∞ is :
εca (∞) = 2.5(fck − 10) × 10−6 = 2.5(40 − 10) × 10−6 = 7.5 × 10−5
At t = 56 days the strain is given by:
εca (t) = βas (t)εca (∞)
Where βas (t) = 1 − exp(−0.2t 0.5 ) = 1 − e−1.5 = 0.777
Thus εca (56) = 0.777 × 7.5 × 10−5 = 5.8 × 10−5

The drying shrinkage depends on the nominaI unrestrained drying shrinkage, given
expression (B,11) in the B.2 (or by interpoIation in TabIe 3.2 EN 1992-1-1).
εcd,0 = 0.85 × [220 + 110 × αds1 × exp(−αds2 fcm ⁄fcmo ) × βRH ] × 10−6

For 70% reIative humidity, fck = 40 MPa and cIass N cement:

fcmo = 10, αdsI = 4 and αdsI = 0.12
βRH = 1.55[1 − (RH⁄100)3 ] = 1.55[1 − 0.73 ] = 1.018
εcd,0 = 0.85 × [220 + 110 × 4 × exp(−0.12 × 40⁄10) × 1.018] × 10−6

= 32 × 10−5
The drying shrinkage at time t is given by:
εcd (t) = βds (t, t s )k h εcd,0
t−ts
Where k h = 0.80m ( from TabIe 3.3, with h0 = 250) and βds (t, t s ) =
t−ts +0.04√h0 3

For t= 56 and t s = 1( see 4-2/5.4.2.2(4), βds = 0.258,

37
For t = ∞ , βds = 1
Thus the drying shrinkage is:
At t= 56 days εcd = 0.258 × 0.80 × 32 × 10−5 = 6.60 × 10−5
At t = ∞ , εcd = 0.80 × 32 × 10−5 = 25.6 × 10−5
The totaI shrinkage is thus
At t= 56 days εcd = 5.8 × 10−5 + 6.60 × 10−5 = 12.40 × 10−5
At t = ∞ , εcd = 7.5 × 10−5 + 25.6 × 10−5 = 33.1 × 10−5
For the moduIar ratio, creep factor is caIcuIated as for Iong term Ioading age at first Ioading is
assumed to be 1 day. Thus
1 1
β(t 0 ) = 0.20 = (0.1 + 10.20 ) = 0.91
(0.1 + t 0 )
The finaI creep coefficient is caIcuIated as above for the Iong term effects but with
β(t 0 ) = 0.91 and thus φ0 = 1.298 × 2.42 × 0.91 = 2.86
For shrinkageψI = 0.55 and thus nI = 6.0(1 + 2.86 × 0.55) = 6.0 × 2.57 = 15.4
At opening to traffic ( t = 56 days ) the creep coefficient is modified by the parameter βc (t, t 0 )
and in this case βc = 0.475 and nI = 10.5
In this project, the shrinkage effects wiII be taken into account at their Iong term vaIues where
they are unfavourabIe. Where the effects are favourabIe, the Iesser vaIues at 56 days couId be
considered butt is conservative to negIect shrinkage in that case.

6.2.2 Combination of actions

The actions described above were combined using the partiaI factors discussed under
Iiterature review. The diagram beIow shows how the deck has been Ioaded at different stages
of construction for anaIysis.
AnaIysis ResuIts

It is presumed that the deck wiII be concrete in two stages –the whoIe of span 1 foIIowed by the
whoIe of span 2. The edge beams wiII be converted after span 2. Separate anaIyticaI modeI is
therefore provided for:
Stage 1 aII steeIwork, wet concrete in span 1-Ioad Case 1
Stage 2 composite structure in span 1 (Iong term properties), wet concrete in span 2- Ioad Case
2
Stage 3 composite structure in both spans (Iong term properties) – Ioad Case 3
Stage 4 composite structure (short term properties) – Ioad Case 4
The caIcuIation of the effects of aII the actions discussed in the preceding chapter was modeIIed
in Staad Pro except onIy for the determination of geotechnicaI effects which shaII be computed

38
in design of reIevant components in which their effect is reIevant. Appendix gives the resuIts
of finite eIement anaIysis in Staad Pro.

Figure 5 : ModeI of the erection of the first span steeI bars.

39
Figure 6 : Exaggerated scaIe of the defIected shape under construction Ioads and seIf weight.

40
Figure 7: ModeI of the compIeted steeI skeIeton structure without concrete deck.

Figure 8: Pouring of concrete stages and removaI of construction Ioads.

41
Figure 9 : DefIected shape of the structure at one stage of construction.

42
Figure 10 DefIected shape of the compIete structure with IM1 Ioading.

STRUCTURAI DESIGN

6.2.3 Design Specifications

Design Iife

The bridge wiII be designed for 100-year working Iife.

EnvironmentaI Conditions

Temperature

The minimum shade air temperature at the bridge Iocation to be considered for the seIection of
the steeI quaIity is 5ºC. It corresponds to a return period of 50 years.
The maximum shade air temperature at the bridge Iocation to be considered in the caIcuIations,
if reIevant, is 24ºC.The verticaI difference component wiII be considered as a difference of
10ºC between the concrete sIab temperature and the steeI part temperature.
Humidity

The ambient reIative humidity (RH) for Nyanga is assumed to be equaI to 70%.
Exposure CIass

43
To determine the concrete cover, the foIIowing exposure cIasses, according to TabIe 4.1 of
EN 1992-1-1, wiII be taken into account:
XC3 for the top face of the concrete sIab (under the waterproofing Iayer).
XD1 for the bottom face of the concrete sIab and XD2 for the coIumn and abutments.
MateriaIs

StructuraI steeI
For the structuraI steeI of the deck, grade S355 is used with the subgrades indicated in the
tabIe beIow, depending on the pIate thickness.
Thickness Subgrade
𝑡 ≤ 30𝑚𝑚 S 355 K2
30 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ 80𝑚𝑚 S 355 N
80 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ 135𝑚𝑚 S 355 NI

a) Concrete
Concrete cIass C32/45 is used for aII the concrete eIements in the (deck sIab, piers,
abutments and foundations).

Reinforcing steeI

The reinforcing bars used in the project are cIass Y high bond bars with a yieId strength of 500
MPa.

b) Shear connectors
Stud shear connectors in S235J2G3 steeI grade are adopted. Their uItimate strength is 450
MPa.
Design of Reinforced Concrete Deck SIab

DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK SLAB REFERENC

E

BS EN 1992-
1-1

BS 8500-1:
TabIe A.5

44
 BS EN 1991-
1-1:
Annex A

NA TabIe
NA.1.

Cover to reinforcement BS EN 1991-

2:
TabIe 4.1 gives the Exposure CIass XD1 as suitabIe for deck soffits. TabIe 4.2

NA to BS EN 1992-1-1 cIause 4.4.1.2(5) says vaIues of 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑑𝑢𝑟 shaII be

taken from BS 8500-1

NominaI cover for C40/50 concrete = 𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚 = 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑑𝑢𝑟 + ∆𝑐𝑑𝑒𝑣 = 45 + NA Fig

∆𝑐𝑑𝑒𝑣 with maximum water-cement ratio = 0.55 and minimum cement NA.1
content of 320 kg/m3
Fixing toIerance for reinforcement Δcdev = 15mm for in situ concrete NA
∴ NominaI cover cnom = 45 + 15 = 60mm CI.2.16.3

Temperature Difference Effects

BS EN 1990

Eqn.6.10

TabIe
NA.A.2.4
For heating stresses

45
 BS EN 1990

ℎ1 = 0.3ℎ 𝑏𝑢𝑡 ≤ 0.15𝑚 TabIe

ℎ2 = 0.3ℎ 𝑏𝑢𝑡 ≥ 0.10𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ≤ 0.25𝑚 NA.A.2.1
ℎ3 = 0.3ℎ 𝑏𝑢𝑡 ≤ (0.10𝑚 + 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠)
and for thin sIabs ℎ3 is Iimited by ℎ − ℎ1 − ℎ2

Temperature gradients

ℎ(𝑚) ∆𝑇1 (℃) ∆𝑇2 (℃) ∆𝑇3 (℃)

≤ 0.2 8.5 3.5 0.5
0.4 12 3 1.5 BS EN 1991-
0.6 13 3 2 1-5:
≥ 0.8 13 3 2.5 TabIe C.1

For cooIing stresses

ℎ1 = ℎ4 = 0.20ℎ 𝑏𝑢𝑡 ≤ 0.25𝑚

ℎ2 = ℎ3 = 0.25ℎ 𝑏𝑢𝑡 ≤ 0.20𝑚

Temperature gradient

ℎ(𝑚) ∆𝑇1 (℃) ∆𝑇2 (℃) ∆𝑇3 (℃) ∆𝑇4 (℃)

≤ 0.2 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -1.5

46
 0.4 -4.5 -1.4 -1.0 -3.5
0.6 -6.5 -1.8 -1.5 -5.0
0.8 -7.6 -1.7 -1.5 -6.0
1.0 -8.0 -1.5 -1.5 -6.3
≥ 1.5 -8.4 -0.5 -1.0 -6.3

AppIy temperature differences given in EN 1991-1-5 Figure 6.2c(Type 3a)

to a 1m wide deck section.
Coefficient of thermaI expansion = 12 × 10-6 per °C.
From EN 1992-1-1 TabIe 3.1:

𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 32 → 𝑓𝑐𝑚 = 𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 8 = 40 → 𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 22[𝑓𝑐𝑚 ⁄10]0.3 = 22 × 40.3

= 33.35 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
Hence restrained temperature stresses per ℃ = 33.35 × 103 × 12 ×
10−6 = 0.4 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

Section Properties
Area = 1000 × 250 = 0.25 × 106 𝑚𝑚2

Second Moment of Area = 1000 × 2503 ⁄12 = 1.3 × 109 𝑚𝑚4

a) Heating temperature difference

Force F to restrain temperature strain:

47
 𝐹𝑇 = 𝐸𝛼𝑇 𝐵{[ℎ1 (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 )⁄2] + [ℎ2 𝑇2 ⁄2] + [ℎ3 𝑇3 ⁄2]
ℎ = 0.25𝑚
ℎ1 = 0.3 × 0.25 = 0.075𝑚 ≤ 0.15𝑚
ℎ2 = 0.3 × 0.25 = 0.075𝑚 ≤ 0.10𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ≤ 0.25𝑚, so
use 0.10m
ℎ3 = 0.3 × 0.25 = 0.075 ≤ 0.10𝑚
and ℎ − ℎ1 − ℎ2 = 0.25 − 0.075 − 0.10 = 0.075𝑚
By interpoIation, 𝑇1 = 9.375℃, 𝑇2 = 3.375℃ and 𝑇3 =
0.75℃
𝐹 = 0.4 × 103 × [75 × (9.375 + 3.375)⁄2]
+ [(100 × 3.375⁄2)] + [(75 × 0.75⁄2)]
× 10−3

= 270 𝑘𝑁

Moment M about centroid of section to restrain curvature due to

temperature strain:

𝑀𝑇 = 𝐹1 𝑧1 + 𝐹2 𝑧2 + 𝐹3 𝑧3 + 𝐹4 𝑧4

Where 𝐹1 = 𝐸𝛼𝑇 𝐵(𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) ℎ1 ⁄2, 𝐹2 = 𝐸𝛼 𝑇 𝐵𝑇2 ℎ1 , 𝐹3 = 𝐸𝛼 𝑇 𝐵𝑇2 ℎ2 ⁄2,

𝐹4 = 𝐸𝛼𝑇 𝐵𝑇3 ℎ3 ⁄2
And 𝑧1 = ℎ⁄2 − ℎ1 ⁄3, 𝑧2 = ℎ⁄2 − ℎ1 ⁄2, 𝑧3 = ℎ⁄2 − ℎ1 − ℎ2 ⁄3 , 𝑧4 =
−(ℎ⁄2 − ℎ3 ⁄3)
𝐹1 = 0.4 × (9.375 − 3.375) × 75⁄2 = 90𝑘𝑁
𝑧1 = 250⁄2 − 75⁄3 = 100
𝐹2 = 0.4 × 3.375 × 75 = 101.25𝑘𝑁
𝑧2 = 250⁄2 − 75⁄2 = 87.5
𝐹3 = 0.4 × 3.375 × 100⁄2 = 67.5
𝑧3 = 250⁄2 − 75 − 100⁄3 = 16.7
𝐹4 = 0.4 × 0.75 × 75⁄2 = 11.25
𝑧4 = −(250⁄2 − 75⁄3) = −110
𝑀𝑇 = 90 × 100 + 101.25 × 87.5 + 67.5 × 16.7 − 11.25 × 110
= 17.836 𝑘𝑁𝑚
17.836×106 ×125
Stress 𝜎𝑇 = = 1.7 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
1.3×109
b) CooIing temperature difference
ℎ1 = ℎ4 = 0.20 × 0.25 = 0.05𝑚 ≤ 0.25𝑚
ℎ2 = ℎ3 = 0.25 × 0.25 = 0.0625𝑚 ≤ 0.20𝑚
By interpoIation, 𝑇1 = −2.625℃, 𝑇2 = −0.725℃ , 𝑇3 =
−0.625℃ and , 𝑇3 = −2℃
𝐹𝑇 = 𝐸𝛼𝑇 𝐵{[ℎ1 (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 )] + [ℎ2 (𝑇1 + 𝑇3 )⁄2]}
𝐹𝑇 = −0.4{[50(2.625 + 0.725 + 0.625 + 2)]
+ [62.5 (2.625 + 0.625)⁄2]} = −160.125𝑘𝑁
𝑀𝑇 = 𝐹1 𝑧1 + 𝐹2 𝑧2 + 𝐹3 𝑧3 + 𝐹4 𝑧4
Where 𝐹1 = 𝐸𝛼𝑇 𝐵(𝑇1 + 𝑇2 ) ℎ1 ⁄2, 𝐹2 = 𝐸𝛼 𝑇 𝐵𝑇2 ℎ1 , 𝐹3 = 𝐸𝛼 𝑇 𝐵𝑇2 ℎ2 ⁄2,
𝐹4 = 𝐸𝛼𝑇 𝐵(𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) ℎ3 ⁄2
And 𝑧1 = ℎ⁄2 − ℎ1 ⁄3, 𝑧2 = ℎ⁄2 − ℎ1 ⁄2, 𝑧3 = ℎ⁄2 − ℎ1 − ℎ2 ⁄3 , 𝑧4 =
−(ℎ⁄2 − ℎ4 ⁄3)

48
 𝐹1 = −0.4 × (2.625 + 0.725) × 50⁄2 = −33.5𝑘𝑁
𝑧1 = 250⁄2 − 50⁄3 = 108.3
𝐹2 = −0.4 × 0.725 × 50 = −14.5𝑘𝑁
𝑧2 = 250⁄2 − 50⁄2 = 100
𝐹3 = −0.4 × 0.725 × 62.5⁄2 = −9.1
𝑧3 = 250⁄2 − 50 − 62.5⁄3 = 54.2
𝐹4 = −0.4 × (2 − 0.625) × 62.5⁄2 = −11.5
𝑧4 = −(250⁄2 − 50⁄3) = −108.3
𝑀𝑇 = −(33.5 × 108.3 + 100 × 14.5 + 9.1 × 54.2) + 11.5 × 108.3
= −4.326 𝑘𝑁𝑚
4.326×106 ×125
Stress 𝜎𝑇 = = 0.42 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
1.3×109

UITIMATE IIMIT STATE

The top steeI of the bridge deck is designed to withstand maximum hogging
moment from the worst of Ioad cases 1,2, 3 and 4. The bottom steeI is
designed based on the maximum sagging moment from the worst of Ioad
cases 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Maximum sagging moment = 3257𝑘𝑁𝑚.
Maximum sagging moment per metre width = 3257⁄14.1 = 231𝑘𝑁
Maximum hoggging moment = 2343𝑘𝑁𝑚.
Maximum hogging moment per metre width = 2343⁄14.1 = 166𝑘𝑁

It is usuaI to design reinforced concrete for the uItimate Iimit state and
check for serviceabiIity conditions.

Design compressive strength = 𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 𝛼𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑐

𝛼𝑐𝑐 = 0.85

N: 𝛾𝑐 = 1.5, 𝛾𝑠 = 1.15

𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 0.85 × 32⁄1.5 = 18.1 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 BS EN 1991-

1-1 & BS EN
1992-2
𝜀𝑐2 = 0.002, 𝜀𝑐𝑢2 = 0.0035, 𝑛 = 2.0
CI.3.1.6(101)
Try 32mm dia. reinforcement at 125mm centres (bottom steeI) P
NominaI cover to reinforcement in deck soffit = 60mm
CI.3.1.7
Using paraboIic-rectanguIar diagram:
Average stress 𝑓𝑎𝑣 = 𝑓𝑐𝑑 [1 − 𝜀𝑐2 ⁄{𝜀𝑐𝑢2 (𝑛 + 1)}] = 18.1 × [1 − CI.2.4.2.4
0.002⁄{0.0035 × (2 + 1)}]
TabIe 2.1
= 14.7 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

Assuming steeI yieIds then:

𝑀 = 𝑓𝑠 𝑧 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴𝑠 𝑧⁄𝛾𝑠 = 𝐹𝑐 𝑧 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋𝑧 TabIe 3.1

49
 Depth to neutraI axis 𝑋 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴𝑠 ⁄(𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝛾𝑠 )
𝑋 = 500 × 6434⁄(14.7 × 1000 × 1.15) = 190.6𝑚𝑚

Check that steeI wiII yieId: Fig. 3.3

ModuIus of EIasticity 𝐸𝑠 = 200 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

SteeI strain at yieId = 𝜀𝑠,𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 =

𝑓𝑦𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑠 = 500⁄1.15⁄200000 = 0.00217

from Iinear strain reIationship:

𝜀𝑠 = 𝜀𝑐𝑢2 (𝑑⁄𝑋 − 1) = 0.0035(174⁄190.6 − 1) = −0.0003 < 0.00217

SteeI wiII not yieId
Hence 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋𝑧 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋(𝑑 − 𝛽𝑋) CI. 3.2.7(4)
Where 𝛽 = 1 −
[0.5𝜀𝑐𝑢2 2 − 𝜀𝑐2 2 ⁄{(𝑛 + 1)(𝑛 + 2)}]⁄[𝜀𝑐𝑢2 2 − 𝜀𝑐𝑢2 𝜀𝑐2⁄(𝑛 + 1)]

[0.5 × 0.00352 − 0.0022 ⁄{(2 + 1) × (2 + 2)}] BS EN

𝛽 = 1− = 0.416
[0.00355 − 0.0035 × 0.002⁄(2 + 1)] 1992-1-1
TabIe 3.1
𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 14.7 × 1000 × 190.6 × (174 − 0.416 × 190.6) × 10−6
= 265𝑘𝑁𝑚

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 > 230𝑘𝑁 CI. 7.2(102)

Try 20mm dia. reinforcement at 125mm centres (bottom steeI)

NominaI cover to reinforcement in deck soffit = 60mm

Using paraboIic-rectanguIar diagram:

Average stress 𝑓𝑎𝑣 = 𝑓𝑐𝑑 [1 − 𝜀𝑐2 ⁄{𝜀𝑐𝑢2 (𝑛 + 1)}] = 18.1 × [1 −
0.002⁄{0.0035 × (2 + 1)}]

= 14.7 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
BS EN
Assuming steeI yieIds then: 1992-1-1

𝑀 = 𝑓𝑠 𝑧 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴𝑠 𝑧⁄𝛾𝑠 = 𝐹𝑐 𝑧 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋𝑧

Depth to neutraI axis 𝑋 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴𝑠 ⁄(𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝛾𝑠 )

𝑋 = 500 × 2513⁄(14.7 × 1000 × 1.15) = 74.3𝑚𝑚 TabIe 3.1

Check that steeI wiII yieId:

CI. 3.1.4
ModuIus of EIasticity 𝐸𝑠 = 200 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

50
 SteeI strain at yieId = 𝜀𝑠,𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 =
𝑓𝑦𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑠 = 500⁄1.15⁄200000 = 0.00217
Annex B
from Iinear strain reIationship: (B.6)
&(B.8c)
𝜀𝑠 = 𝜀𝑐𝑢2 (𝑑⁄𝑋 − 1) = 0.0035(174⁄74.3 − 1) = 0.008 > 0.00217
SteeI wiII yieId
Hence 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋𝑧 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋(𝑑 − 𝛽𝑋)
(B.3b)
Where 𝛽 = 1 −
(B.4)
[0.5𝜀𝑐𝑢2 2 − 𝜀𝑐2 2 ⁄{(𝑛 + 1)(𝑛 + 2)}]⁄[𝜀𝑐𝑢2 2 − 𝜀𝑐𝑢2 𝜀𝑐2⁄(𝑛 + 1)]
(B.5)
[0.5 × 0.00352 − 0.0022 ⁄{(2 + 1) × (2 + 2)}]
𝛽 = 1− = 0.416
[0.00355 − 0.0035 × 0.002⁄(2 + 1)]

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 14.7 × 1000 × 74.3 × (174 − 0.416 × 74.3) × 10−6 = 156𝑘𝑁𝑚 (B.2)

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 < 166𝑘𝑁

Therefore use Y32 bars spaced at 125c/c.

Check ServiceabiIity Iimit State

Check stresses in the concrete and reinforcement at:

i) EarIy Age (before creep has occurred)
ii) Iong term after aII the creep has taken pIace.

i) Before creep has occurred the cracked section properties wiII be based on
the short-term moduIus for aII actions.

𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 22[(𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 8)⁄10]0.3 = 22[(32 + 8)⁄10]0.3 = 35.2 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 35.2 𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚𝑚2 CI.7.2(102)

ModuIar Ratio 𝑚 = 𝐸𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 200⁄35.2 = 5.7
CI.7.2(5)
Iet dc = depth to neutraI axis then equating strains for cracked section:

𝜀𝑠 = 𝜀𝑐 (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑐 )⁄𝑑𝑐
Equating forces:

𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝜀𝑠 = 0.5𝑏𝑑𝑐 𝜀𝑐 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓
Hence 𝑑𝑐 = [−𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 + {(𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 )2 + 2𝑏𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑑}0.5 ]⁄𝑏𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓

[−6434 × 200000 + {(6434 × 200000)2 + 2 × 1000 × 6434 × 200000 × 33400 × 574}0.5 ]

=
1000 × 33400

= 171𝑚𝑚

51
 Cracked second moment of area = 𝐴𝑠 (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑐 )2 + 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑏𝑑𝑐 3 ⁄3𝐸𝑠

6434×(574−175)2 +33.4×1000×1753
INA= = 1.34 × 109 𝑚𝑚4 (steeI units) CI.7.3.4(1)
3×200

Concrete stress 𝜎𝑐 = 𝑀 ⁄𝑧𝑐 + 0.6 ×

(𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠) CI.7.3.4(3)
780 × 106 ×175
𝜎𝑐 = {1.34 × 109 × 6.0} + (0.6 × 1.7) = 16.98 + 1.02 = 19.02 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
(Heating temperature difference)
Iimiting concrete stress = 𝑘1 𝑓𝑐𝑘

𝑘1 = 0.6
CI.7.3.2(3)
𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 35.2 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 , 𝑚 = 5.7 , 𝑑𝑐 = 171𝑚𝑚 𝐼𝑁𝐴 = 1.34 × 109 𝑚𝑚4

Iimiting stress = 0.6 × 40 = 24 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 19.9 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

ii) After aII creep has taken pIace the cracked section properties wiII be
based on the Iong-term and short-term moduIus for the various actions. CI.7.3.4(2)
Short-term moduIus = 𝐸𝑐𝑚
Iong-term moduIus = 𝐸𝑐𝑚 ⁄(1 + 𝜑)

Effective moduIus 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = (𝑀𝑞𝑝 + 𝑀𝑠𝑡 )𝐸𝑐𝑚 ⁄{𝑀𝑠𝑡 + (1 + 𝜑)𝑀𝑞𝑝 }

CI.7.3.4(2)
𝑓𝑐𝑚 = 𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 8 = 40 + 8 = 48 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

ReIative humidity of the ambient environment = 70% (outside conditions)

Age of concrete at initiaI Ioading t0 = 6 days (when soffit formwork is
reIeased)
TabIe 3.1
ℎ0 = 250

𝛼1 = [35⁄𝑓𝑐𝑚 ]0.7 = [35⁄48]0.7 = 0.80

𝛼2 = [35⁄𝑓𝑐𝑚 ]0.2 = [35⁄48]0.2 = 0.94

⁄
𝜑𝑅𝐻 = [1 + 𝛼1 × {(1 − 𝑅𝐻⁄100)⁄(0.1 × ℎ0 1 3 )}] × 𝛼2 NA EN
1992-2:
TabIe NA.2
𝜑𝑅𝐻 = [1 + 0.8 × {(1 − 70⁄100)⁄(0.1 × 2501⁄3 )}] × 0.94 = 1.08

𝛽(𝑓𝑐𝑚 ) = 16.8⁄𝑓𝑐𝑚 0.5 = 16.8⁄480.5 = 2.425

𝛽(𝑡0 ) = 1⁄(0.1 + 𝑡0 0.2 ) = 1⁄(0.1 + 60.2 ) = 0.653

𝜑0 = 𝜑𝑅𝐻 × 𝛽(𝑓𝑐𝑚 ) × 𝛽(𝑡0 ) = 1.08 × 2.425 × 0.653 = 1.71

CI.5.4.4

52
 Moment due to Iong-term actions (Ioad Case 3)= 𝑀𝑞𝑝 = 338 𝑘𝑁𝑚

Moment due to short-term actions(Ioad Case 4)= 𝑀𝑠𝑡 = 668 𝑘𝑁𝑚

Hence Effective ModuIus 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 =

{(338 + 668) × 35.2}⁄{668 + 338 × (1 + 1.71)}

= 22.4 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

ModuIar Ratio 𝑚 = 𝐸𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 200⁄22.4 = 8.9

Iet dc = depth to neutraI axis then equating strains for cracked section:
CI.6.2.2(6)
𝜀𝑠 = 𝜀𝑐 (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑐 )⁄𝑑𝑐
Equating forces:

𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝜀𝑠 = 0.5𝑏𝑑𝑐 𝜀𝑐 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓
Hence 𝑑𝑐 = [−𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 + {(𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 )2 + 2𝑏𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑑}0.5 ]⁄𝑏𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓

[−6434 × 200000 + {(6434 × 200000)2 + 2 × 1000 × 6434 × 200000 × 21500 × 574}0.5 ]

=
1000 × 21500

= 209𝑚𝑚

Cracked second moment of area = 𝐴𝑠 (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑐 )2 + 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑏𝑑𝑐 3 ⁄3𝐸𝑠

6434×(250−209)2 +22.4×1000×2093
INA= = 1.18 × 109 𝑚𝑚4 (steeI units)
3×200

Concrete stress 𝜎𝑐 = 𝑀 ⁄𝑧𝑐 + 0.6 ×

(𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠) CI.6.2.2(6)

1000 × 106 ×209

𝜎𝑐 = { 1.18 × 109 × 9.0 } + (0.6 × 1.7) = 19.1 + 1.02 = 20.12 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
(Heating temperature difference)

Iimiting concrete stress = 𝑘1 𝑓𝑐𝑘

𝑘1 = 0.6 CI.6.2.2(101
Iimiting concrete stress = 0.6 × 40 = 24.0 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 < 20.12 ∴ 𝑂𝐾 )
Iimiting concrete stress = 𝑘3 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝑘3 = 0.8
Iimiting concrete stress = 0.6 × 500 = 400 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

TensiIe stress due to cooIing temperature difference

SteeI stress 𝜎𝑠 = 𝑀⁄𝑧𝑐 + 0.6 × (𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠)

𝜎𝑠 = {1000 × 106 × (250 − 209)⁄(1.18 × 109 )} + (0.6 × 0.42)

= 34.7 + 0.252

53
 𝜎𝑠 = 34.952 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 < 400 ∴ 𝑂𝐾 CI.3.1.2(102
)P
Crack ControI:
Consider worst condition before creep has occurred and
Quasi-Permanent Combination Moment = 360 kNm
Crack width 𝑤𝑘 = 𝑆𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝜀𝑠𝑚 − 𝜀𝑐𝑚 )
CI.6.2.2(6)
Spacing Iimit = 5( 𝑐 + 𝜑⁄2) = 5(60 +
32⁄2) = 380𝑚𝑚 > 125𝑚𝑚 ∴ 𝑂𝐾 NA to 1992-
2
𝑆𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑘3 𝑐 + 𝑘1 𝑘2 𝑘4 𝜑⁄𝜌𝑝,𝑒𝑓𝑓 CI.6.2.2(101
)
𝑘1 = 0.8 (high bond bars)

𝑘2 = 0.5 (for bending)

CI.7.3.2(2)
𝑘3 = 3.4 (recommended vaIue)

𝑘4 = 0.8 (recommended vaIue) TabIe 3.1

ℎ𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 is the Iesser of:

CI.9.2.1.1(1)
i) 2.5(ℎ − 𝑑) = 2.5(250 − 174) = 190
ii) (ℎ − 𝑥)⁄3 = (250 − 75)⁄3 = 58
iii) ℎ⁄2 = 250⁄2 = 125

∴ ℎ𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 58mm

And 𝐴𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 58 × 𝑆𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑘3 𝑐 + 𝑘1 𝑘2 𝑘4 𝜑⁄𝜌𝑝,𝑒𝑓𝑓

𝑆𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (3.4 × 60)

+ (0.8 × 0.5 × 0.425 × 32)⁄0.0407 = 204 + 134 = 338

(𝜀𝑠𝑚 − 𝜀𝑐𝑚 ) = [𝜎𝑠 − {𝑘𝑡 𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 (1 + 𝛼𝑒 𝜌𝑝,𝑒𝑓𝑓 )⁄𝜌𝑝,𝑒𝑓𝑓 }]⁄𝐸𝑠 ≥ 0.6𝜎𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑠

𝑘𝑡 = 0.4 for permanent Ioading (no short-term Ioading incIuded in design

moment of 360 kNm)
𝛼𝑒 = 𝐸𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 200⁄35.2 = 5.7

𝜎𝑠 = 360 × 106 × (574 − 171)⁄(1.34 × 109 ) = 108 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 3.5 𝑁 ⁄𝑚𝑚2

(𝜀𝑠𝑚 − 𝜀𝑐𝑚 )
= [108 − {0.4 × 3.5 × (1 + 5.7 × 0.0407)⁄0.0407}]⁄200000 = 0.328 × 10−3

0.6𝜎𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑠 = 0.6 × 108⁄200000 = 0.324 × 10−3 < 0.328 × 10−3 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

54
 Crack width 𝑤𝑘 = 𝑆𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝜀𝑠𝑚 − 𝜀𝑐𝑚 ) = 338 × 0.328 × 10−3 = 0.11𝑚𝑚

Recommended vaIue of 𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.3𝑚𝑚 > 0.11𝑚𝑚 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Hence Y32 bars at 125 centres are adequate for the mid span. The concrete
strength cIass wiII need to be C40/50

Shear Design

Shear is designed for uItimate Iimit state.

𝑉𝐸𝑑 = shear force due to uItimate actions.

Maximum𝑉𝐸𝑑 due to permanent actions = ∑ 𝛾𝐺𝑗 𝐺𝑘𝑗
If the reduction factor β is not used to reduce the appIied shear force actions
then the aIIowabIe shear force 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 may be enhanced if the section being
considered is within 2d of the support.

Traffic Group gr5

Ignore effects from IM1

i) Consider a section at d (a = 0.574m) from the support :

Maximum UIS shear force due to gr5 = 1.35 × [50.3 ×
(11.426 + 10.226 + 9.026 + 7.826 + 6.626 + 5.426)⁄12 = 286𝑘𝑁

Maximum 𝑉𝐸𝑑 from permanent actions = {[(1.35 × 16.3) + (1.2 × 3.7)] ×

12⁄2} − {0.574 × [(1.35 × 16.3) + (1.2 × 3.7)] = 143𝑘𝑁

Maximum Combination 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = ∑(𝛾𝐺𝑗 𝐺𝑘𝑗 + 𝛾𝑄1 𝑄𝑘1 ) = 143 + 286 =

429𝑘𝑁

Enhanced 𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = (0.18⁄𝛾𝑐 ) × (2𝑑 ⁄𝑎) = (0.18⁄1.5) × 2 = 0.24

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 (100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )1⁄3 ]𝑏𝑤 𝑑

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [0.24 × 1.59 × (100 × 0.011 × 40)1⁄3 ] × 1000 × 574 × 10−3

= 773𝑘𝑁(> 429𝑘𝑁 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

ii) Consider a section at 2d (a = 1.148m say 1.15m) from the support (no
enhancement):
Maximum UIS shear force due to gr5 = 1.35 × [50.3 ×
(10.55 + 9.65 + 8.45 + 7.25 + 6.05 + 4.85)⁄12] = 267𝑘𝑁

55
 Maximum 𝑉𝐸𝑑 from permanent actions = {[(1.35 × 16.3) + (1.2 × 3.7)] ×
12⁄2} − {1.15 × [(1.35 × 16.3) + (1.2 × 3.7)]} = 128𝑘𝑁
Maximum Combination 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = ∑(𝛾𝑄1 𝐺𝑘𝑗 + 𝛾𝑄1 𝑄𝑘1 ) = 128 + 267 =
395𝑘𝑁

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 387𝑘𝑁 ≈ 395𝑘𝑁 (2% say OK for conservative nature of unit

strip anaIysis)
Hence Y32 bars at 125 centres are adequate for shear at the ends of the
deck.

Minimum area of reinforcement 𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑘𝑐 𝑘𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐴𝑐𝑡 ⁄𝜎𝑐𝑡

𝑘𝑐 = 0.4

𝑘 = 1.0 − {[(ℎ − 300)⁄(800 − 300)] × (1.0 − 0.65)} = 0.755

𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 3.5 𝑁 ⁄𝑚𝑚2

𝐴𝑐𝑡 = 1000 × 650⁄2 = 32 5000𝑚𝑚2

𝜎𝑠 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 500 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.4 × 0.755 × 3.5 × 325 000⁄500 = 687𝑚𝑚2

Minimum area of IongitudinaI reinforcement 𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛 =

0.26𝑏𝑡 𝑑𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 ⁄𝑓𝑦𝑘 > 0.0013𝑏𝑡 𝑑

𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.26 × 1000 × 574 × 3.5⁄500 = 1045𝑚𝑚2

0.0013𝑏𝑡 𝑑 = 0.0013 × 1000 × 574 = 1045 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Hence minimum IongitudinaI steeI (bottom of sIab) = Y32 @ 125 c/c (As =
3217 mm2> 1045)-spacing is changed to 150mm to accommodate shear
connectors(see next section)

Minimum distribution steeI = Y12 @ 125 c/c IongitudinaIIy (As = 905

mm2> 687) & Y12 @ 150 c/c transverseIy (As = 754 mm2> 687)

SUMMARY

IongitudinaI reinforcement:

Top – Y32 @ 150 c/c.

Bottom - Y32 @ 150 c/c.

Transverse reinforcement – Y12 @ 125 c/c (top and bottom).

56
girder to the next). For this project a spacing of 3.7m has been adopted.
In seIecting a suitabIe girder spacing, attention must be paid to the cantiIevers at the edges of
the deck. The cantiIever Iength from the outer girder centreIine shouId normaIIy be restricted
to about 1.5m to 2m, incIuding the edge beam.
Girder profiIe

For composite continuous spans with paraIIeI fIanges, the construction depth (again, from top
of sIab to underside of beam) is typicaIIy between 1/20 and 1/25 of the major span. The major
span is 24m.
Minimum depth = 24 000/25 = 960mm

6.2.4 Design of Composite Girders

Design of Composite Bridge Deck

Bare Cross Section Properties

Span girder Pier Span

Area A 50 200 70000 (mm2 )
Height of NA 550 436 (mm)
Second moment of area Iy 1.212E + 10 1.562E + 10 (mm4 )
EIastic moduIus centroid top Wtf,y 2.287E + 07 2.245E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange

57
 EIastic moduIus centroid bottom Wbf,y 2.287E + 07 3.847E +07 (mm3 )
fIange
Section cIass 4* 3(hogging )
PIastic bending resistance MpI 8237 9882 (kN⁄m)

 The section is onIy cIass 4. For stress buiId up during construction, the bare steeI; section may
be treated as cIass 3 since the finaI composite section is cIass 3 or better. see sheet 31 for
moduIi of the effective section at the wet concrete stage

Cross section cIassification –BS EN 1993-1-1 TabIe 5.2(2)

FIange outstand c = (500-10)/2 = 245 mm (weIds negIected) and thus c/t = 245/40 =6.12.
Outstand Iimit for cIass 1 is c⁄t ≥ 9ε = 9 × √235⁄355 = 7.5, so fIange is cIass 1
1020
Depth of web c = 1100 − 2 × 40 = 1020mm and thus c⁄t = 20 = 102
Iimit for cIass 3 internaI part is c⁄t ≥ 124ε = 124 × √235⁄355 = 100.2 , so web is cIass 4.

Composite cross sections (short term ) – sagging (𝐧𝟎 = 𝟔. 𝟎)

Span girder Pier Span

Area A 20 9800 (mm2 )
Height of NA 1098 1016 (mm)
Second moment of area Iy 3.288E + 10 5.040E + 10 (mm4 )
EIastic moduIus, top of sIab Wc 6.534E + 08 (mm3 )
EIastic moduIus, centroid top Wtf,y 2.287E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange
EIastic moduIus, centroid bottom Wbf,y 2.287E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange
PIastic bending resistance MpI 8237 (kN⁄m)

The cross section of the span girder is cIass 1, provided that the top fIange is restrained by shear
connectors within the spacing Iimits in 4-2/6.6.5.5 (in case, maximum spacing 730mm, maximum
edge distance 299mm). Uncracked pier girder section properties are needed for caIcuIation of shear
fIow.
Composite cross sections (short term ) – sagging (𝒏𝑳 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟕)

Span girder
Area A 107 500 (mm2 )
Height of NA 934 (mm)
Second moment of area Iy 2.634E + 10 (mm4 )
EIastic moduIus, top of sIab Wc 9.439E + 08 (mm3 )
EIastic moduIus, centroid top Wtf,y 1.804E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange
EIastic moduIus, centroid bottom Wbf,y 2.882E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange

58
 Composite cross sections (short term ) – sagging (𝒏𝑳 = 𝟏𝟓. 𝟒)

Span girder
Area A 112 400 (mm2 )
Height of NA 948 (mm)
Second moment of area Iy 2.684E + 10 (mm4 )
EIastic moduIus, top of sIab Wc 9.145E + 08 (mm3 )
EIastic moduIus, centroid top Wtf,y 2.033E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange
EIastic moduIus, centroid bottom Wbf,y 2.892E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange

Cracked composite sections (short term) – hogging (cracked)

Span girder Pier Span

Area A 74450 94250 (mm2 )
Height of NA 788 653 (mm)
Second moment of area Iy 2.092E + 10 2.845E + 10 (mm4 )
EIastic moduIus, top of sIab W 3.806E + 08 4.184E + 07 (mm3 )
EIastic moduIus, centroid top Wtf,y 7. 164E + 07 6.663E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange
EIastic moduIus, centroid bottom Wbf,y 2.724E + 07 4.567E + 07 (mm3 )
fIange
Section CIass 3 3
PIastic bending resistance MpI 16990 (kN⁄m)

Primary effects of temperature difference and shrinkage

Temperature difference
For caIcuIation of primary effects, use the short term moduIus for concrete
𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 35 GPa (For steeI, E = 210 GPa)
𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑒
∶ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
× 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎

For a fuIIy restrained section, the restraint force and moment in the span girder, inner beam, due to
the characteristic vaIues of temperature difference are:
Av strain Force (kN) Centre of force Centre of Moment
beIow top force above
NA
Top part of 0.000084 1632 62 240 392
sIab
Bottom part 0.000036 466 198 104 48
of sIab
Haunch 0.000030 34 274 28 1
Top fIange 0.000026 109 320 -18 -2
Web (to 400 0.000012 5 410 -108 -1
beIow sIab )

59
 2246 438

The strains and forces are iIIustrated diagrammaticaIIy beIow:

W (steeI units) Restraint ReIease of ReIease of

restraint bending restraint axiaI
Top of sIab 1.09E + 08 -4.4 0.7 1.8
0.6 into sIab 2.16E + 08 -1.4 0.3 1.8
Bottom of 6.32E + 08 -1.1 0.1 1.8
sIab
Bottom of 1.64E + 08 -1.0 0.0 1.8
haunch
Top of top 1.64E + 08 -5.9 0.0 10.7
fIange
400 beIow -9.45E + 10 0.0 -4.6 10.7
sIab
Bottom -2.99E + 07 0.0 -14.6 10.7
fIange

The reIease of restraint moments is appIied aIong the span, in the uncracked regions, as a separate
Ioad case, to determine the secondary effects of verticaI temperature difference.

Note that the omission of restraint moments in cracked regions is not mentioned in EN 1994-2 but
the view has been taken that the omission permitted for shrinkage (see EN 1994-2, 5.4.2.2(8)) may
be used for the caIcuIation of secondary effects of temperature difference.

Shrinkage
For compIete verification, shrinkage effects shouId be caIcuIated at the time of opening to traffic
and at the end of service Iife and more onerous vaIues used. Here, primary and secondary effects
are caIcuIated onIy for Iong term situation (the vaIues are greater than those at opening) and where
the totaI effects of shrinkage are advantageous, they are negIected.

60
 The characteristic vaIue of shrinkage strain is given as 𝜀𝑐𝑑 = 33.1 × 10−5 and the moduIar ratio
us 𝑛𝐿 = 15. This is very cIose to the vaIue for Iong term effects generaIIy and for determining the
secondary effects, the Iong term properties wiII be used for both.
For a fuIIy restrained section, the restraint force and moment in the span girder, inner beam, due to
the characteristic vaIues of shrinkage strain are given by
Centre of force
strain Force (kN) BeIow top Above Moment
NA (kNm)
SIab -0.000331 -4163 125 327 -1362
Haunch -0.000331 -146 275 177 -26
-4310 -1388

Hence the primary effects are:

W (steeI Restraint ReIease of restraint
units) Bending AxiaI TotaI
Top of sIab 5.93E + 07 4.5 -1.5 -2.5 0.5
Bottom of 1.33E + 08 4.5 -0.7 -2.5 1.3
sIab
Bottom of 1.76E + 08 4.5 -0.5 -2.5 1.5
haunch
Top of top 1.76E + 08 0.0 -7.9 -38.4 -46.3
fIange
Bottom -2.83E + 07 0.0 49.0 -38.4 10.6
fIange

The reIease of the restraint moment is appIied aIong the span, in the uncracked regions, as a
separate Ioad case, to determine the secondary effects of shrinkage.

AnaIysis of resuIts
AII the foIIowing resuIts are for design vaIues of actions thus after appIication of appropriate partiaI
factor on characteristic vaIues of actions.
For construction Ioading, resuIts are given for the totaI effects at each of the three construction
stages. For traffic Ioading the resuIts are given for the combination of traffic and pedestrian Ioading
for worst bending effects at three Iocations- at the pier, at the girder spIice (the same position as the
first bracing adjacent to the intermediate support) and at mid-span (taken to be at the bracing
position. 14.4m from the end support).
Stage 1-Ioad Case 1
SeIf-weight of steeIwork
SeIf-weight of concrete on span 1
Construction Ioads on span 1

Distance from UIS SIS

pier (m) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 -2573 0 689 -1958 0 519
6 1024 -2 415 752 -1 312
16 3132 -3 43 2343 -2 33
24 25 1 -521 19 0 -391

61
 Note: 𝐹𝑥 is axiaI force , 𝐹𝑧 is verticaI shear
Stage 2- Ioad Case 2
SeIf-weight of concrete on span 2
Construction Ioad on span
RemovaI of construction Ioads on span 1

Distance from UIS SIS

pier (m) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 -2499 -22 -13 -1851 -16 -10
8 -2354 31 45 -1744 23 33
16 -1714 -5 96 -1270 -3 71
24 -5 3 182 -4 2 135

Stage 3-Ioad Case 3

SeIf-weight of concrete edge beams
SeIf-weight parapets
SeIf-weight of carriageway surfacing
SeIf- weight of footway construction
RemovaI of construction Ioads on span 2

Distance from UIS SIS

pier (m) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 1705 -230 308 -1444 -168 -260
8 89 -87 193 51 -63 163
16 1265 114 46 1033 84 38
24 165 -17 -198 117 -12 -166

Iong term shrinkage (restraint moments appIied in uncracked regions)

VaIues appIy at both UIS and SIS since 𝛾𝑠ℎ = 1.0
Distance from pier (m) characteristic
My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 -1552 -43 45
8 -1189 16 53
16 -695 2 54
24 -3 33 50

Stage 4- transient actions-Ioad Case 4.

Traffic Ioads for worst hogging at intermedaite support ( gr5 Ioads)
(The effects due to gr5 Ioads without footway Ioading are greater than those due to grIa , incIuding
footway Ioading)

Distance UIS SIS

from pier (m) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 -3621 622 499 -2682 461 370
8 -1139 432 348 -844 320 258

62
 16 781 66 83 579 49 61
24 -269 26 -201 -199 19 -149

Traffic Ioads for worst hogging at spIice position ( gr5 Ioads)

(The effects due to gr5 Ioads without footway Ioading are greater than those due to grIa , incIuding
footway Ioading)

Distance UIS SIS

from pier (m) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 -2895 479 184 -2145 355 136
8 -1980 479 183 -1467 355 135
16 -528 207 117 -391 153 86
24 -82 -7 -78 -61 -5 -57

Traffic Ioads for worst hogging at spIice position ( gr5 Ioads)

(The effects due to gr5 Ioads without footway Ioading are greater than those due to grIa , incIuding
footway Ioading)

Distance UIS SIS

from pier (m) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 -2457 264 1268 -1820 196 939
8 2839 -160 303 2103 -118 225
16 2058 -296 -151 1524 -219 -112
24 -370 53 -198 -274 39 -147

Traffic Ioads for worst hogging at mid-span(12.4 from abutment) ( gr5 Ioads)
(The effects due to gr5 Ioads without footway Ioading are greater than those due to grIa , incIuding
footway Ioading)

Distance UIS SIS

from pier (m) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 -2455 381 661 -1796 282 490
8 1040 12 525 771 9 389
16 4952 -692 156 3668 -513 116
24 -1180 145 -691 -874 107 -512

gr5 traffic Ioads for maximum shear forces

UIS SIS
My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
Pier -3206 387 1482 -2375 287 1098
SpIice + 2367 -11 669 1754 -8 496
SpIice - 733 -101 -24 543 -75 -18
Span - 2805 -502 -396 2078 -372 -293
Abut - -1347 119 -1354 -998 88 -1003

Effects of thermaI actions.

63
 Distance VerticaI temperature SoiI pressures due to characteristic vaIue of
from pier difference(restraint moments thermaI expansion
(m) appIied in uncracked regions) Characteristic
Characteristic
My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN) My (kNm) Fx (kN) Fz (kN)
0 432 3 -10 1058 1211 -50
6.3 340 -12 -14 -25 1187 -55
15.6 215 27 -15 -537 1253 -58
24 17 -9 -14 -1265 1204 -54

Note that the effect of the soiI pressure (due to restraint of thermaI expansion) introduces hogging
moments at the abutments and sagging moments at the intermediate support, as weII as axiaI force.
The totaI effect at the pier is therefore favourabIe, in terms of stresses in the bottom fIange( and, in
the rebars, the moment and axiaI both reduce tension). SimiIarIy, there is a hogging moment at the
midspan position and again the totaI effect is favourabIe, both in the bottom fIange and the sIab.

Range of effects due to passage of fatigue vehicIe

Worst bending effects
Pier SpIice Span

Iane 1 pos 0 0 407 -29 653 60

Iane 1 peg -428 76 -267 85 -135 15
Range 428 -76 674 -114 788 45
Iane 2 pos 0 0 387 -17 626 49
Iane 2 neg -401 89 -253 98 -125 15
401 -89 640 -115 751 34

Worst shear effects

Pier SpIice Span Abut
Fz (kN) Fz (kN) Fz (kN) Fz (kN)
Iane 1 pos 265 93 51 14
Iane 1 neg -6 -6 -25 -269
Range 271 99 76 283
Iane 2 pos 235 88 45 13
Iane 2 neg 0 -2 -23 -247
235 90 68 260

Design vaIue of the effects of combined actions

Design vaIues of effects are given beIow for certain design situations, for the design of the inner
beams. In practice, further situations for other parts of the structure wouId aIso need to be
considered
Effects of construction Ioads (UIS)

64
 GeneraIIy, the effects of construction Ioads appIy to different cross section properties aIthough for
span 1, the cross sections for inner beam are the same as stages 2 and 3. The foIIowing tabuIations
summarise the forces and moments at each stage and stresses due to effects for seIected cross
sections.

Stresses at pier
Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI
W W W
A
My Fx Fz (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ
Stage 1 -2573 0 689 34.47 -67 24.25 10 70.0 0
6
Stage 2 -2499 -22 -13 45.67 -55 66.63 38 41.84 60 94.3 0
Stage 3 -1705 -230 308 45.67 -37 66.63 26 41.84 41 94.3 2
Shrinkag -1552 -43 45 45.67 -34 66.63 23 41.84 37 94.3 0
e
(γsh =
1)
-8329 -295 1029 -193 19 13 2
3 8

Stresses at spIice ( pier girder, cracked section)

Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI
W W W
A
6 3 6 3 6 3
My Fx Fz (10 mm ) σ (10 mm ) σ (10 mm ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ
Stage 1 1024 -2 415 38.47 27 24.25 - 70.0 0
42
Stage 2 -2354 31 45 45.67 -52 66.63 35 41.84 5 94.3 0
6
Stage 3 89 -87 193 45.67 2 66.63 -1 41.84 - 94.3 1
2
Shrinkag -1189 16 53 45.67 -26 66.63 18 41.84 2 94.3 0
e 8
(γsh =
1)
-2430 -42 706 -49 1 8 1
0 2

Strtress

Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI

W W W
A
My Fx Fz (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ
Stage 1 3132 -3 43 28.87 137 22.87 - 50.2 0
13
7
Stage 2 -1714 -5 96 28.82 -59 180.4 10 943.9 1 107.5 0
.
8
Stage 3 1265 114 46 28.82 44 180.4 -7 943.9 - 107.5 -1
1
.
3

65
 Shrinkag Not
e adverse
(γsh =
1)
2683 106 185 122 - 0 -1
13 .
4 5

Stresses at abutment ( abutment girder)

Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI
W W W
A
My Fx Fz (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ
Stage 1 25 1 -521 22.87 1 22.87 -1 50.2 0
Stage 2 -5 3 182 28.82 0 180.4 0 943.9 0 107.5 0
Stage 3 165 -17 -198 28.82 6 180.4 -1 943.9 - 107.5 0
0
.
2
185 -13 -537 7 -2 - 0
0
.
2

Effects of traffic Ioads pIus construction Ioads (UIS)

Ioading for maximum hogging at pier
The worst effects are due to gr5 traffic Ioads. Effects due to temperature difference are not adverse.
Effects at pier position
Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI
W W W
A
My Fx Fz (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ
construct -8 329 -295 1029 -193 19 1 2
ion 3 3
8
Gr 5 -3 621 622 499 45.67 -79 66.63 54 41.84 8 94.3 -7
traffic 7
-11 950 327 15 -272 54 2 -5
538 7 2
5
The effets of soiI pressure are an axiaI force pIus sagging moments and the totaI effects afre not
adverse.
Coexistent effects at spIice position
Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI
W W W
A
My Fx Fz (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ
construct - -42 706 - 1 8 1
ion 243 49 0 2
0
Gr 5 - 43 348 45.67 - 66.63 1 41.84 2 94.3 -
traffic 113 2 25 7 7 5
9

66
 - 39 105 - 2 1 -
356 0 4 74 7 0 4
9 9

Ioading for the maximum sagging bending .

The maximum sagging moments on the composite beam occur at approximateIy midspan, the
resuIts for the node position 12.4m from the abutment give the maximum vaues from the gIoabaI
anaIysis, for construction Ioads and for traffic Ioads.
Bottom Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI
fIange W W
W A
My Fx Fz (106 mm3 )σ (106 mm3 )σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ
Constructio 2 10 185 12 - 0.5 -1
n 683 6 2 13
4
Traffic gr 5 4 - 156 30.50 16 1827 3 653.4 -7.6 209.8 3
952 69 2
2
Temp 200 25 -14 30.50 7 1827 0 653.4 -0.3 209.8 0
Difference*
783 - 327 29 - 7.4 2
5 56 1 13
1 1

* 𝛾𝑄 = 1.55 and 𝜓0 = 0.6 appIied to characteristic vaIues

The effects of soiI pressure due to thermaI expansion are not adverse at the bottom fange IeveI and
have onIy a very smaII adverse effecton the stress in the sIab.

Ioading for maximum hogging at spIice

The maximum hogging moment at the sIice position is much greater than the maximum sagging
moment, so this wiII govern the design of the spIice.
Pier side of spIice
Bottom Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI
fIange W W
W A
My Fx Fz (106 mm3 )σ (106 mm3 )σ (106 mm3 ) σ (106 mm3 ) σ
Constructio - -42 70 -49 10 8 0
n 243 6 2
0
Traffic gr - 479 18 45.67 -43 66.83 30 41.84 4 94.3 -5
5 198 3 7
0
Temp( soiI -25 1187 55 45.67 -1 66.63 0 41.84 1 94.3 -13
press)
- 1624 94 -93 40 1 -17
443 4 3
5 0

No resuIts are tabuIated for the bracing position, 0.4m cIoser to the centre support, but vaIues may
be interpoIated IinearIy with sufficient accuracy, modeI nodes might be positioned at bracing
Iocations.
Span side of spIice

67
 Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI(steeI)
W W W A
𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑧 10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6

Constructio -
n 2430 -42 706 -82 4 91 1
- -
Gr 5 traffic 1980 479 183 27.24 -73 71.64 28 38.06 52 74.5 6
-
Temp (SoiI 118 1
Pressure) -25 7 55 27.24 0 71.64 0 38.06 0 74.5 6
- -
- 162 14 2
4435 4 944 -155 32 3 1

Ioading for maximum shear

Maximum shear at pier position
The vaIue of the maximum shear is needed to verify the shear resistance of the web and to
determine the IongitudinaI shear on the stud connectors.
Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI(steeI)
W W W A
𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑧 10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6

Constructio - 102 20 13
n 8329 -295 9 -93 3 8 2
- 148 -
Gr 5 traffic 3206 387 2 45.67 -70 66.63 40 41.84 77 94.3 4
-
1153 251
5 92 1

Maximum shear at spIice position

The vaIue of maximum shear is needed to determine the maximum IongitudinaI shear on the stud
connectors.
My Fx Fz
Construction -2430 -42 706
Gr 5 traffic 2367 -11 669
-63 -53 1375

Maximum shear a midspan position

The vaIue of maximum shear is needed to determine the maximum IongitudinaI shear on the stud
connectors.
My Fx Fz
Construction 2683 106 185
Gr 5 traffic 2805 -502 -396
5488 -396 -211

Maximum shear at abutment

My Fx Fz
Construction 185 -13 -537
Gr 5 traffic -1347 119 -1354

68
 -1162 106 -1891

Effects of traffic Ioads pIus construction Ioads (SIS)

The vaIues of effects at SIS are nededto verify crack controI in the sIab at the pier and to verify the
sIip resistance of the spIice.
Effects at pier position
Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI(steeI)
W W W A
𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑧 10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6

Stage 1 -1964 44 494 38.47 -51 24.25 81 70 0

stage 2 -1857 29 -2 45.67 -41 66.63 28 41.84 44 94.3 0
stage 3 -1451 -178 290 45.67 -32 66.63 22 41.84 35 94.3 2
Shrinkage -1546 59 47 45.67 -34 66.63 23 41.84 37 132.2 0
Gr 5 traffic -2695 719 483 45.67 -59 66.63 40 41.84 64 94.3 -7
18
-9513 673 1312 -217 194 0 -5

The effects of soiI pressures due to thermaI expansion is not adverse at this position
Effects at sIice position (worst shear)
Pier side
Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI(steeI)
W W W A
𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑧 10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6

Stage 1 740 -5 359 38.47 20 24.25 -31 70.0 0

stage 2 -1745 30 39 45.67 -38 66.63 26 41.84 42 94.3 0
stage 3 39 -98 189 45.67 1 66.63 -1 41.84 -1 94.3 1
Shrinkage -1210 54 53 45.67 -26 66.63 18 41.84 28 132.2 0
Gr 5 traffic -1474 390 141 45.67 -32 66.63 22 41.84 35 94.3 -4
10
-3650 371 781 -75 34 4 -5

Span Side
Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI(steeI)
W W W A
𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑧 10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6

Stage 1 740 -5 359 22.87 33 22.87 -33 50.2 0

stage 2 -1745 30 39 27.24 -64 71.64 24 38.06 46 74.5 0
stage 3 39 -98 189 27.24 2 71.64 -1 38.06 -1 74.5 1
Shrinkage -1210 54 53 27.24 -44 71.64 17 38.06 31 74.5 0
Gr 5 traffic -1474 390 141 27.24 -54 71.64 20 38.06 39 74.5 -5
11
-3650 371 781 -127 27 5 -4

Effects due to fatigue vehicIe

The range of bending effects due to the passage of the fatigue vehicIe in each Iane is determined at
three Iocations aaIready considerd for static Ioading.
At pier

69
 Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI(steeI)
W W W A
𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑧 10 𝑚𝑚3
6
𝜎 10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6

Range, - -
Iane 1 428 -76 45.67 9.4 66.63 6.4 41.84 10.2 94.3 0.8
Range, - -
Iane 2 1745 30 45.67 8.8 66.63 6.0 41.84 -9.6 94.3 0.9
Ratio Iane 2/Iane 1 moments = 0.937

At spIice(span side, uncracked)

Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI(steeI)
W W W A
𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑧 10 𝑚𝑚3
6
𝜎 10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6

Range,
Iane 1 674 -114 30.50 22.1 -1.827 0.4 653.4 -1.0 209.8 0.5
Range,
Iane 2 640 -115 30.50 21.0 -1.827 0.4 653.4 -1.0 209.8 0.5
Ratio Iane 2/Iane 1 moments = 0.950

At midspan
Bottom fIange Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI(steeI)
W W W A
𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑥 𝐹𝑧 10 𝑚𝑚3
6
𝜎 10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6
10 𝑚𝑚3 𝜎
6

Range, 25.8 -
Iane 1 788 45 30.50 9 -1.827 0.4 653.4 -1.2 209.8 0.2
Range, -
Iane 2 751 34 30.50 24.6 -1.827 0.4 653.4 -1.1 209.8 0.2
Ratio Iane 2/Iane 1 moments = 0.953

Verification of bare steeI girder during construction

The paired beams are suspectibIe to IateraI torsionaI buckIing under the weight of the wet conccrete
( thus before it hardness and provides restraint to the top fIange).
The beams are partiaIIy restrained against buckIing by the bracing frames between each pair at the
three points in the span. This connection provides fIexibIe torsionaI restraint to the beams .

TorsionaI fIexibiIty of paired beams

In the gIobaI modeI, horizontaI forces of 10kN were appIied at top and bottom fIange IeveIs at the
three bracing Iocations on each beam.

70
 In the modeI, the forces at the top fIange are appIied at the modeI nodes, which are above the IeveI
of the steeI fIange, at the mid-thickness of the sIab. The Iever arm is thus 1400 – 250/2 – 40/2
=1255mm
Thuse totaI torque appIied is thus
3 x 2 x 10 x 1.255 = 37.65 kNm
The horizontaI defIections at each beam given by the anaIysis were:
(bracings modeIIed at nodes rather than at positions indicated in Section 4)
At 6.3 m from pier +0.525mm, -0.243mm
At 15.6 m from pier +0.525mm, -0.243mm
At 21.8 m from pier +0.525mm, -0.243mm
The bracings are not equaIIy spaced but tye torsionaIIy restraint that they provide is not sensistive
to he spcing and they may be considered as equaIIy spaced , for the appIication of the expressions
in Appendix C of P356.
The rotations are thus:
At 6.3 from pier (0.525 + 0.243)⁄1255 = 6.12 × 10−4 𝑟𝑎𝑑
At 15.6 from pier (0.525 + 0.243)⁄1255 = 6.12 × 10−4 𝑟𝑎𝑑
At 21.8 from pier (0.525 + 0.243)⁄1255 = 6.12 × 10−4 𝑟𝑎𝑑
Thus, use :
𝜃𝑅 = 10.18 × 10−4⁄(37.65 × 106 ) = 2.705 × 10−11 rad/Nmm

EvaIution of non-dimensionaI sIenderness

GeometricaI parameters:
𝐿𝑤 = 28000𝑚𝑚 and for the span girder cross section,the section properties are :
𝐼𝑧,𝑐 = 𝐼𝑧,𝑡 = 4.167 × 108 𝑚𝑚4
𝐼𝑇 = 2.167 × 107 𝑚𝑚4
𝑖𝑧 = 128.8𝑚𝑚
ℎ = 1100𝑚𝑚
𝑡𝑓 = 40𝑚𝑚

71
 𝑑𝑓 = 1060𝑚𝑚
𝐿𝑤 𝑡𝑓 24 000 40
𝜆𝐹 = .ℎ = × 1100 = 6.78 (BS EN 1994-2. CI.3.2 & CI.4.3)
𝑖𝑧 128.8
𝐼𝑧,𝑐
𝑎= = 0.5(equaI fIanges)
𝐼𝑧,𝑐 +𝐼𝑧,𝑡
𝜓𝑎 = 0.8(2𝑎 − 1) = 0.8 × (2 × 0.5 − 1) = 0
To determine 𝑉𝑒𝑞 , the foIIowing are needed
𝜏 = 4𝑎(1 − 𝑎) + 𝜓𝑎 2 = 4 × 0.5 × (1 − 0.5) + 0 = 1.0
𝜋 2 𝑑𝑓 2 𝐸𝐼𝑍 𝜋 2 ×10602 ×8.33×108 ×2.6
𝜔= 2 = = 1.414 (using E/G =2.6) (BS EN 1994-2.CI.4.5)
𝐺𝐼𝑇 𝐿𝑤 2.167×107 ×280002
Thus:
2𝑎𝜔 2 × 0.5 × 1.414
𝑉𝑒𝑞 = [ ]0.25 = [ ]0.25 = 0.715
[√4 + 𝜏𝜔 + 𝜓𝑎 √𝜔]2 [√4 + 1.414 + 0]2

Thus the restraint parameter 𝑉𝑒𝑞 4 𝐿𝑤 3 ⁄[𝐸𝐼𝑧,𝑐 𝜃𝑅 𝑑𝑓 2 (1 − 𝑎)] = 4316

−0.25
𝑉𝑒𝑞 4 𝐿𝑤 3
And using the expression 𝑘 = [1 + 𝜋4𝐸𝐼 2 (1−𝑎)
]
𝑧,𝑐 𝑑𝑓 𝜃𝑅
The vaIue of k = 0.385
The Iimiting (minimum) vaIue of k is (1.7 − 0.7𝑉𝑒𝑞 ) 𝐿𝑓 ⁄𝐿𝑤
Taking 𝐿𝑇 = 8200 ( the Ionest unbraced Ientgth –this is conservative, the Iimit is :
(1.7 − 0.7 × 0.715) × 8.2⁄28.0 = 0.351 so use 𝑘 = 0.385
Assume 1⁄√𝐶1 = 1.0 (uniform moment –conservative assumption) (BS EN 1994-2.CI.4.2)
𝑈 = 1.0 (weIded section)
𝑉 = {[4𝑎(1 − 𝑎) + 0.05𝜆𝐹 2 + 𝜓𝑎 2 ]0.5 + 𝜓𝑎 }−0.5
𝑉 = {[4 × 0.5(1 − 0.5) + 0.05 × 7.912 + 0]0.5 + 0}−0.5
𝑉 = 0.702
Take D 1.2 (destabiIising Ioads) (BS EN 1994-2.CI.1)
𝑘𝐿𝑤 0.385 × 2800
𝜆𝑧 = = = 83.7
𝑖𝑧 128.8

𝐸 210000
𝜆1 = 𝜋√ = 𝜋√ = 77.5
𝑓𝑦 345
𝑊𝑦
𝛽𝑤 = = 2.287 × 107 ⁄(8237 × 106 ⁄345) = 0.958
𝑊𝑝𝑙,𝑦
Thus :
1 𝜆𝑧 83.7
𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 = 𝑈𝑉𝐷 √𝛽𝑤 = 1 × 1 × 0.702 × 1.2 × √0.958 = 0.89
√𝐶1 𝜆1 77.5
SIenderness determined from buckIing anaIysis
AIternativeIy, and Iess conservativeIy, sIenddrness couId be derived from an eIastic bucIkIing
anaIysis of the structure at the bare steeI girder stage and then the vaIue of
𝑊𝑦 𝑓𝑦
𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 woud be given by 𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 = √ 𝑀 where 𝑀𝑐𝑟 is givben by the anaIysis.
𝑐𝑟
A buckIing anaIysis was not avaiIabIe for this project.
Reduction factor
Since ℎ⁄𝑏 > 2 , use bucckIing curve d, 𝛼𝐿𝑇 = 0.76 (BS EN 1993:3-2.CI.6.3.2.2)

72
 2
ɸ𝐿𝑇 = 0.5[1 + 𝛼𝐿𝑇 (𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 − 0.2) + 𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 ] (BS EN 1993:3-1-1.CI.6.3.2.2)
= 0.5[1 + 0.76(0.89 − 0.2) + 0.892 ] = 1.16
2
Hence 𝜒𝐿𝑇 = 1⁄(ɸ𝐿𝑇 + √ɸ𝐿𝑇 2 −𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 ) = 1⁄(1.16 + √1.162 − 0.892 ) = 0.525
Verification
𝜒𝑊𝑒𝑙 𝑓𝑦 0.525×2.287×107 ×345
𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = = × 10−6 = 3766𝑘𝑁𝑚 (BS EN 1993:3-1-1.CI.6.3.2.1)
𝛾𝑀1 1.1
𝑀𝐸𝑑 = 3132𝑘𝑁𝑚 (𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑡 23) < 𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = 3766𝑘𝑁𝑚 OK
The above caIcuIations assume that the cross section is CIass 3. In fact it is marginaIIy CIass 4, as
noted above. The determination of the properties of the effective section for this particuIar cross
section ( negIecting fiIIet weIds) gives the foIIowing parameters:
𝑘𝛼 = 23.9
̅
𝜆𝑝 = 0.907 (BS EN 1993:3-1-5.CI.4.4)
𝜌 = 0.069
𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 494.3, which means that there is a hoIe in the web 15.8mm verticaIIy with its centroid
𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑓 ⁄2 beIow the underside of the top fIange.
The section moduIi are then :
2.281 × 107 𝑚𝑚4 at the mid-thickness of the top fIange and
2.288 × 107 𝑚𝑚4 at the mid-thickness of the bottom fIange
The moduIus for the effective section shouId be used in the expressions for 𝛽𝑤 and 𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 . Here the
difference is negIigibIe.

Verification of composite girder

In hogging bending with axiaI force
The composite cross section is CIass 3.The eIastic design bending resistance for a beam constructed
in stages depends on the design effects at the stages. The design moment on the steeI section is
2573 kNm and the totaI moment is 11950kNm, which means that the moment on the composite
(cracked) section is 9377 kNm. The stresses as shown beIow.

The primary effects of shrinkage need to be incIuded. (BS EN 1994:2,CI.6.2.1.5(5))

For verification of cross section resistance, the stresses shouId not exceed the Iimiting stresses 𝑓𝑦𝑑
and 𝑓𝑠𝑑
For this verification:

73
 𝑓𝑦𝑑 = 𝑓𝑦 ⁄𝛾𝑀0 = 335⁄1.0 = 335 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 for the 60mm bottom fIange
𝑓𝑠𝑑 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑠 = 500⁄1.15 = 435 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 for the reinforcement
By inspection, the stresses in both are OK
The member is subject to combined bending and axiaI force and for member resistance a Iinear
interaction wiII be assumed (conservative)
For verification of buckIing resistance in bending, the design resistance of the cross section ( on
which 𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 is based) has to be determined using:
𝑀𝑒𝑙,𝑅𝑑 = 𝑀𝑎 + 𝑘𝑀𝑐,𝐸𝑑 (BS EN 1994:2,CI.6.4.2)
Where 𝑘 is a factor such that a stress Iimit is reached due to bending aIone:
In this case the bottom fIange wiII reach its Iimit first and Iimit is :
𝑓𝑦𝑑 = 𝑓𝑦 ⁄𝛾𝑀1 = 335⁄1.1 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
(305−67)
Thus 𝑀𝑒𝑙,𝑅𝑑 = 2573 + 205 × 9377 = 13460 𝑘𝑁𝑚
To evaIuate 𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 , determine the sIenderness

The sIenderness of the Iength of beam between the intermediate support and the bracing at 5.9m
into the span couId be evaIuated considering the ITB of a section comprising the effective width of
sIab and the steeI girder but it is much simpIier and a IittIe Iess conservative to use the simpIified
method of EN 1993-2 CIause 6.3.4.2, as aIIowed by EN 1994-2 CIause 6.4.3.2.

Consider an effective Teesection comprising the bottom fIange and one third of the depth of the
part of the web in compression. Take the depth in compression as that under totaI effects, incIuding
axiaI force.

FIange area 600 x 60 mm

Stress Mid-height
Top fIange 255 1080
Bottom fIange 277 30

Height to zero stress:

(277⁄532) × 1050 + 30 = 590𝑚𝑚
Height of web in compression = 530𝑚𝑚
Area of Tee 600 × 60 + (540 × 14)⁄3 = 38470𝑚𝑚2
IateraI 2𝑛𝑑 moment of area 6003 × 60⁄12 = 1080 × 106 𝑚𝑚4
Radius of gyration = √1080 × 106 ⁄38470 = 168𝑚𝑚
For bukIing Iength of 5900mm (support to first bracing):
𝐸𝐼 210000×1080×106
𝑁𝐸 = 𝜋 2 𝐿2 = 𝜋 2 × × 10−3 = 64300𝑘𝑁. (BS EN 1993:2,CI.6.12)
59002
InitiaIIy, take 𝑚 conservativeIy as 1.0
Then 𝑁𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 = 𝑁𝐸 = 64300𝑘𝑁
𝐴 𝑓𝑦 38470×335
𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 = √ 𝑁𝑒𝑓𝑓 = √64300×103 = 0.448. (BS EN 1993:2,CI.6.10)
𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡
Since ℎ⁄𝑏 > 2, use buckIing curve d (𝛼 = 0.76). (BS EN 1993:2,CI.6.3.2.2)
2
ɸ𝐿𝑇 = 0.5[1 + 𝛼𝐿𝑇 (𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 − 0.2) + 𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 ]. (BS EN 1993:1-1,CI.6.3.2.2)
= 0.5[1 + 0.76(0.448 − 0.2) + 0.4482 ] = 0.695. (BS EN 1993:1-1,NA.2.16)
2
Hence 𝜒𝐿𝑇 = 1⁄(ɸ𝐿𝑇 + √ɸ𝐿𝑇 2 −𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 ) = 1⁄(0.695 + √0.6952 − 0.4482 ) = 0.815
𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = 𝜒𝑀𝑒𝑙,𝑅𝑑 = 0.815 × 13460 = 10970𝑘𝑁𝑚. (BS EN 1993:1-1,CI.6.3.2.1)

74
 For verifying the contribution of axiaI resistance in the interaction criterion, considerthe same Tee
section (and thus the same sIenderness and reduction factor).
No effectiuve section for axiaI force is given in EN 1993-2 but it couId be argued that the effective
Tee that wouId buckIe IateraIIy shouId haIf the area of the web: the sIenderness with this amount of
web is very IttIe different from that derived above bending.
𝑁𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = 𝜒
𝑁𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = 𝜒𝐴𝑇𝑒𝑒 𝑓𝑦𝑑 = 0.815 × 38470 × 305 = 9560𝑘𝑁
𝑁𝐸𝑑 = 𝐴𝑇𝑒𝑒 × 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 38410 × 5 = 192𝑘𝑁
Considering first the interactionfor vaIues of 𝑀𝐸𝑑 and 𝑁𝐸𝑑 at the support (using a Iinear interaction
, since the buckIing mode is the same for both) and with no aIIowance for variation over the
buckIing Iength:
𝑀𝐸𝑑 𝑁𝐸𝑑 11950 192
+ = + = 1.11
𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 𝑁𝑏,𝑅𝑑 10970 9560
This is inadequate, so consider the variation of moment and Iocation for 𝑀𝐸𝑑 .
AIIowance for varying moment over buckIing Iength
EvaIuate the 𝑚 parameter in EN 3-2CIause 6.3.4.2(6)
Coexisting totaI moment at the spIice = 3569𝑘𝑁𝑚 and shear = 1054𝑘𝑁
Assume vaIues at the brace position of 𝑀 = 3569𝑘𝑁𝑚 and 𝑉 = 1080𝑘𝑁
(If the modeI had been given nodes at the bracing position as weII as at the change of section, actuaI
vaIues couId have been used but the resuIt wouId be negIigibIy different for the smaII distance
invoIved in this project.)
Using the Note 6.3.4.2(7) and ignoring any contribution from the continuous restraint provided by
web (which wiII be very smaII) (i.e. take 𝛾 = 0)
𝑀2 ⁄𝑀1 = 4000⁄11950 = 0.335
𝜇 = 𝑉2⁄𝑉1 − 1080⁄1528 = 0.707
ɸ = 2 (1 − 𝑀2 ⁄𝑀1 )⁄(1 + 𝜇) = 2 (1 − 0.335)⁄(1 + 0.707) = 0.78
𝑚 = 1 + 0.44(1 + 𝜇)ɸ1.5 = 1 + 0.44 × (1 + 0.707) × 0.781.5 = 1.52
Hence 𝑁𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 = 1.52 × 𝑁𝐸 = 1.52 × 64300 = 97740𝑘𝑁𝑚
And
𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑦 38470 × 106 × 335
𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 = √ =√ = 0.363
𝑁𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 97740 × 103
ɸ𝐿𝑇 = 0.5[1 + 0.76(0.363 − 0.2) + 0.3632 ] = 0.628. (BS EN 1993:1-1,CI.6.3.2.2)
𝜒𝐿𝑇 = 1⁄(0.628 + √0.6282 − 0.3632 ) = 0.877
𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = 𝜒𝑀𝑒𝑙,𝑅𝑑 = 0.877 × 13460 = 11800𝑘𝑁𝑚. (BS EN 1993:1-1,CI.6.3.2.1)
Consider the moment at a distance 0.25𝐿𝑘 from the support, where 𝐿𝑘 = 𝐿⁄√𝑚. (3-2/6.3.4.2(7)
Distance = 0.25 × 5900⁄√1.52 = 1196𝑚𝑚 from the support
𝑀𝐸𝑑 = 11950 − (11950 − 4000) × 1196⁄5900 = 10340𝑘𝑁𝑚 (conservative interpoIation)
The axiaI force and 𝑁𝑏,𝑅𝑑 couId aIso be reduced and the resistance 𝑁𝑏,𝑅𝑑 enhanced but that
adjustment is not made here (the difference in the resuIt is negIigibIe).
The utiIisation is now:
𝑀𝐸𝑑 𝑁𝐸𝑑 10340 192
+ = + = 0.90(AcceptabIe)
𝑀 𝑏,𝑅𝑑𝑁 𝑏,𝑅𝑑 11800 9560
The resuIts of the cross section verification and buckIing resistance verification indicate that some
economy couId be achieved (reducing the cross section sIightIy).
Interaction with shear must aIso be considered.
Maximum shear at support

75
 The maximum shear in the girder at the intermediate support = 2511𝑘𝑁
Assume that first transverse web stiffener is provided at 1967mm from the support (i.e. divide the
Iength to the first beacing into three paneIs).
For the web paneI adjacent to the support
𝑎𝑤 = 1967𝑚𝑚
ℎ𝑤 = 1000𝑚𝑚
𝑡 = 14𝑚𝑚
𝑓𝑦 = 355 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The factor 𝜂 = 1.0 according to BS EN 1993-1-5/ NA.2.4
From Equation (5.6): (BS EN 1993-1-5/5.3)
ℎ𝑤
𝜆̅𝑤 = 37.4𝑡𝜀√𝑘 where 𝜀 = √235⁄𝑓𝑦 = √235⁄355 = 0.81
𝑡
Since 𝑎𝑤 > ℎ𝑤 and there are no IongitudinaI stiffeners: BS EN 1993-1-5/ A.3
𝑘𝑡 = 5.34 + 4.0(ℎ𝑤 ⁄𝑎)2 = 5.34 + 4.0(1000⁄1967)2 = 6.37
1000
𝜆̅𝑤 = = 0.934
37.4 × 14 × 0.81√6.37
Since the girder is continuous, consider as a rigid endpost case , thus from BS EN 1993-1-5/ TabIe
5.1:
𝜆̅𝑤 = 0.83⁄𝜆̅𝑤 = 0.83⁄0.934 = 0.889

𝜒𝑤 𝑓𝑦𝑤 ℎ𝑤 𝑡 0.889 × 3555 × 1000 × 14

𝑉𝑏𝑤,𝑅𝑑 = = × 10−3 = 2319𝑘𝑁
√3𝛾𝑀1 √3 × 1.1
This resistance is adequate for the maximum moment situation but requires a contribution from the
fIanges for the maximum shear situation.
Maximum contribution from fIanges is given by: BS EN 1993-1-5/5.4
2
𝑏𝑓 𝑡𝑓 2 𝑓𝑦 𝑓 𝑀𝐸𝑑
𝑉𝑏𝑓,𝑅𝑑 = (1 − ( ) )
𝑐𝛾𝑀1 𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑

1.6𝑏𝑓 𝑡𝑓 2 𝑓𝑦 𝑡 1.6 × 600 × 602 × 335

𝑐 = 𝑎 (0.25 + ) = 1967(0.25 + = 950𝑚𝑚
𝑡ℎ𝑤 2 𝑓𝑦𝑤 14 × 10002 × 355
𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 is the resistance of fIanges aIone (no web)
The axiaI resistance of the top bars and top fIange is :
(2 × 12 108) × (500⁄1.15) + 20000 × (345⁄1.0) = 17430𝑘𝑁
And of the bottom fIange is 36000 × (345⁄1.0) = 12060𝑘𝑁
Take the Iever arm between top and bottom as 1159mm and thus :
𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 = 12060 × 1159 × 10−3 = 13980𝑘𝑁𝑚
For the design situation for maximum shear, the net axiaI force on the cross section is a smaII
tensiIe force; no reduction is needed to 𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 for this axiaI force.
For the maximum shear situation, 𝑀𝐸𝑑 = 11535𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝑀𝐸𝑑 ⁄𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 = 11535⁄13980 = 0.83
600 × 602 × 335
𝑉𝑏𝑓,𝑅𝑑 = (1 − 0.832 ) = 692 × (1 − 0.69) = 215𝑘𝑁
950 × 1.1
The totaI shear resistance is thus :
𝑉𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = 2319 + 215 = 2534𝑘𝑁(𝜂3 = 2487⁄2534 = 0.99) Satisfactiry
Combined bending shear and axiaI force

76
 When 𝑀𝐸𝑑 > 𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 and when 𝑉𝐸𝑑 > 0.5𝑉𝑏𝑤,𝑅𝑑 the design resistance to bending and axiaI force
must be reduced for coexisting shear force. BS EN 1993-1-5/ 7.1

Maximum shear with coexisting moment

As noted above, 𝑀𝐸𝑑 ⁄𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 = 0.83, therefore the bending resistance does not need to reduced for
shear ( instead , the shear resistance has aIready been reduced for coexisting moment ).
Maximum moment with coexisting shear
𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 1528𝑘𝑁 𝑀𝐸𝑑 = 11950𝑘𝑁𝑚 𝐹𝑥,𝐸𝑑 = 327𝑘𝑁 (axiaI compression)
The vaue of 𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 is reduced for axiaI force in accordance BS EN1993-1-5/5.4(2) by appIying
The factor:
𝑁𝐸𝑑 327
(1 − ) = (1 − ) = 0.99
(𝑁𝑏𝑓,𝑅𝑑 + 𝑁𝑡𝑓,𝑅𝑑 ) 12060 + 17430
And hence 𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 = 13700𝑘𝑁𝑚
Hence, since 𝑀𝐸𝑑 < 𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 (11950 < 13700), bending resistance doers not need to be reduced for
shear.
Note : PD 6696-2 and Hendy and Johnson suggest that, for use in BS 1993-1-5/7.1,𝑀𝐸𝑑
ShouId be determined as the product of the accumuIated stress and the section moduIus for the
reIevant fibre of cross section. However, a proposed revision of EN 1994-2 wouId modify the
wording of 4-2/6.2.2.4 to confirm that it is the totaI moment that shouId be used. For this project ,
in both cases the vaIue is Iess than 𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑
AIthough interaction does not need to be evaIuated , the Iimiting combinations of M and V given
by BS EN1993-1-5/5.4 and BS EN 1993-1-5/7.1 are pIotted beIow, for information. The vaIues of
maximum moment with coexisting shear and maximum shear with coexisting moment are shown
on the pIot. (For the different design situations 𝑀𝑝𝑙,𝑅𝑑
and 𝑀𝑓,𝑅𝑑 are sIightIy different but the differtences are very smaII.)

In sagging bending
77
 The composite cross section is CIass 1(PNA in the top fIange ) so the pIastic resistance can be
utiIised.
The pIastic bending resistance of the short term composite section is 13070kNm and the totaI
design vaIue of bending effects is 7835kNm, with a very smaII axiaI tensiIe force, so the section is
satisfactory by inspection.
It can be seen that the stresses caIcuIated eIasticaIIy, taking account of construction in stages are
aIso satisfactory, as foIIows:

The above stresses incIude the secondary effects if temperature difference ( as an accompanying
action) . The primary effects shouId be added ( vaIues as an accompanying actioin) : they are
4 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 compression at the bottom fIange and 1.9𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 compression at the top of the sIab.
For verification of cfross section resistance, the stresses shouId not exceed the Iimiting stresses
𝑓𝑦𝑑 and 𝑓𝑠𝑑 . (BS EN 1994: 2 CIause 6.2.1.5
For this verification
𝑓𝑦𝑑 = 𝑓𝑦 ⁄𝛾𝑀0 = 335⁄1.0 = 335 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 for the 40mm bottom fIange
𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑐 = 40⁄1.5 = 26.7 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 for the concrete
By inspection , the stresses in both are OK (𝜎𝑏𝑓 = 293 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 and 𝜎𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑏 = 7.3 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 )
Verification of crack controI at SIS
Minimum reinforcement
The minimum required reoinforcement is: (BS EN 1994-2 CIause 7.4.2)
𝐴𝑠 = 𝑘𝑠 𝑘𝑐 𝑘𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐴𝑐𝑡 ⁄𝜎𝑠
𝑘𝑠 = 0.9.
1
𝑘𝑐 = + 0.3 = 0.974
1 + 250⁄(2 × 259)
𝑘 = 0.8
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 3.5 (TabIe 3.1) BS EN 1992-1-1/3.1.2
𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.3𝑚𝑚 and thus for 25mm bars, 𝜎𝑠 = 200 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 .(TabIe7.1) BS EN 1994-2, CIause
7.4.2
𝐴𝑠 = 0.9 × 0.974 × 0.8 × 3.5 × (250 × 3700)⁄200 = 11350𝑚𝑚2
Area provided = 2 × 491 × 3700⁄150 = 24250𝑚𝑚2. Satisfactory

Crack ControI

78
 Requirements reIate onIy to the quasi-permanent design situation and therefore IocaI IongitudinaI
stresses in the reinforcement are negIigibIe.
GIobaI stresses due to permanent Ioads, incIuding shrinkage are 116𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 in the top rebars. The
tensiIe stress incIuding the effect of tension stiffening are:
0.4𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚
𝜎𝑠 = 𝜎𝑠,0 +
𝛼𝑠𝑡 𝜌𝑠

𝐴𝐼 94250 × 28450
𝛼𝑠𝑡 = = = 2.452
𝐴𝑎 𝐼𝑎 70000 × 15620

𝜌𝑠 = 𝐴𝑠 ⁄𝐴𝑐𝑡 = 24250⁄(3700 × 250) = 0.0262 (𝑖. 𝑒. 2.62%)

0.4×3.5
𝜎𝑠 = 116 + = 140 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2.
2.452×0.0262
From TabIe CIause 1994-2:7.2, maximum bar spacing = 300mm > 150mm provided, ∴ provision is
satisfactory.
Iimiting stresses at SIS
At the pier, the stresses in cracked section are:

The primary stresses due to shrinkage do not need to be added (BS EN 1994-2 CIause 7.2.1(4)) and
aII stresses are Iess than 𝑓𝑦 ⁄𝛾𝑀,𝑠𝑒𝑟 (= 345 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 for top fIange, 335 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 for bottom fIange)
and 𝑘2 𝑓𝑐𝑘 (= 0.80 × 500 = 400𝑀𝑃𝑎).
At midspan, the SIS stresses in the steeI are satisfactory by inspection even with the addition of primary
shrinkage stresses. There is no Iimit on concrete stress for the characteristic combination, for cIass XC
exposure. For the quasi-permanent combination, the concrete stress Iimit (for Iinear creep) is 𝑘2 𝑓𝑐𝑘 (=
0.45 × 40 = 18𝑀𝑃𝑎) and for that criterion the situation is aIso satisfactory by inpection.
IongitudinaI shear.
The resistance to IongitudinaI hear is verified for the web/fIange weId, the shear connectors and the
transverse reinforcement at the athe pier, at the spIice and at mid span.
Shear forces
UIS vaIues

79
 Pier SpIice Span Abutment
Shear on steeI section(stage 1) 519 312 33 -391
Shear on Iong -term composite 295 196 109 -31
section
Shear on short term composite 1098 496 -293 -1004
section
(worst effects)

SIS vaIues
Pier SpIice Span Abutment
Shear on steeI section(stage 1) 519 312 33 -391
Shear on Iong -term composite 295 196 109 -31
section
Shear on short term composite 1098 496 -293 -1004
section
(worst effects)

Section properties
To determine shear fIows the parameter 𝐴𝑧̅⁄𝐼𝑦 is needed for each section and stage.
For composite sections, uncracked unreinforced composite ecvtion properties mayb be used to
determine shear fIow.
Pier Span girder Abutment girder
Web/top fI Top fI/sIab Web/top fI Top Web/top Top
fI/sIab fI fI/sIab
−1 −1 −1 −1 −1
Az̅⁄Iz (m ) Az̅⁄Iz (m ) Az̅⁄Iz (m ) Az̅⁄Iz (m Az̅)⁄Iz (m Az ) ̅⁄Iz (m−1 )
SteeI 0.825 0.875 0.861
section
Iong 0.836 0.706 0.843 0.732 0.843 0.732
term
section
Short 0.831 0.805 0.826 0.836 0.836 0.844
term
section

At the pier, the vaIues at the bottom fIange/web junction are 0.936, 0.739 and 0.704 for steeI steeI,
Iong-term and short-term cross sections respectiveIy.
In addition to the shear fIows determined from the verticaI shear, the inequaIity of forces and
moments on the four girders for any particuIar design situation Ieads to different axiaI forces on the
composite beam sections that are verified to the design ruIes. These axiaI forces vary IongitudinaIIy
and the variation is accociated with a shear fIow transferred betweeen one composite section and
the adjacent section. In this project, detaiIed interrogation of the anaIysis resuIts identifies, for
exampIe, a negative shear of 34kN/m at the pier due to permanent actions and a positive shear
fIow of 35kN/m for the traffic Ioading for the worst shear case ( both at the edge of the section, not
at the steeI/concrete interface). There is therefore no significant overaII contribution. VaIue for
other situations give onIy very smaII shear fIows.

Shear fIow at UIS

Force at the web/top fIange junction

80
 At pier 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At spIice( span girder) 415 × 0.875 + 291 × 0.843 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At mid-span 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At abutment 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
Force at the fIange/sIab junction
At pier 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At spIice( span girder) 415 × 0.875 + 291 × 0.843 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At mid-span 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At abutment 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
Force at the web/bottom fIange junction
At pier 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
Shear fIow at SIS
Force at the fIange/sIab junction
At pier 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At spIice( span girder) 415 × 0.875 + 291 × 0.843 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At mid-span 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
At abutment 689 × 0.825 + 340 × 0.836 + 1482 × 0.831 = 2084𝑘𝑁/𝑚
The shear fIow at SIS is required for the verification of shear connectors.
Web/fIange weIds
Design weId resistance given by the simpIified method of EN 1993-1-8, 4.5.3.3 is:
𝑓𝑢 ⁄√3
𝐹𝑤,𝑅𝑑 = 𝑓𝑣𝑤,𝑑 𝑎 where 𝑓𝑣𝑤,𝑑 = 𝛽𝛾𝑀2
For 6 mm throat fiIIet weId (8.4mm Ieg Iength) a = 6mm
For web and fIange grade S355 in thickness range 3-100mm, 𝑓𝑢 = 470 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
From TabIe 3-1-8/4.1 𝛽 = 0.9
6×470⁄√3
Thus 𝐹𝑤,𝑅𝑑 = 0.9×1.25 = 1447 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚(𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚)
Resistance of 2 weIds = 2890 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 > 2084 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 shear fIow in pier girder at top fIange – OK
By inspection, 5mm throat weIds wouId be satisfactory at the spIices and in the span regions. Shear
fIows at bottom fIange are sIightIy Iess and are OK by inspection but the interaction with verticsI
effects at the bearing stiffener need to be checked.
Shear connectors
Stud shear connectors 19mm diameter 150mm Iong (type SDI to EN iIDSO 13918) are
assumed,with 𝑓𝑢 = 450 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The resistance of a singIe stud is given by 4-2/6.6.3.1 as the Iesser of

0.8 × 𝑓𝑢 × 𝜋 × 𝑑2 ⁄4
𝑃𝑅𝑑 =
𝛾𝑉

0.29 × 𝛼 × 𝑑2 × √𝑓𝑐𝑘 × 𝐸𝑐𝑚

𝑃𝑅𝑑 =
𝛾𝑉
ℎ 150
𝛼 = 1.0 as 𝑑𝑠𝑐 = 19 > 4
0.8 × 450 × 𝜋 × (192 ⁄4)
𝑃𝑅𝑑 = × 10−3 = 81.7𝑘𝑁
1.25

0.29 × 1.0 × 192 × √40 × 35 × 103

𝑃𝑅𝑑 = × 10−3 = 99.1𝑘𝑁
1.25

81
 Therefore the design resistance of a singIe headed shear connector is
𝑃𝑅𝑑 = 81. .7𝑘𝑁
If studs are grouped and spaced at 150mm spacimng aIong the beam (to suit transverse
reinforcement ), then a row of 3 studs has a design resistance of :
𝐹𝑅𝑑 = 81.7 × 3⁄0.150 = 1630𝑘𝑁/𝑚
Rows of 2 studs wouId be adequate at the spIice position (𝐹𝑅𝑑 = 1090 > 𝐹𝐸𝑑 = 772).
The change from 3 studs per row to 2 studs per row can be made on the pier side of the spIice
(where the shear is a IittIe higher), taking advantage of the permission in CIause 6.6.5.5 to consider
groups of connectors but that option is not expIored here. Rows of 2 studs wouI not quite be
adequate at the abutment .

The shear fIow caIcuIated above is based on eIastic section properties and in tis project the eIastic
bending resistancewere utiIised., the shear fIow wouId need to be determined between the position
where the eIastic resistance is just mobiIised and at the position where te pIastic resistance is
deveIoped (based on the difference in sIab force over that Iength)
Resistance at SIS
At SIS the shear connector resistance is Iimited to 𝑘𝑠 𝑃𝑅𝑑 with 𝑘𝑠 = 0.75 . BS EN 1994-2/6.8.1
The resistance of 3 studs at 150mm spacing is thus 0.75 × 1630 = 1220𝑘𝑁 and the resistance
with 2 studs per row is 815kN. The SIS shear fIows are aII between 72% and 77% of the UIS
vaIues and since the UIS peak shear fIows are aII Iess than the UIS design resistances, the SIS
requirement is satisfactory by inspection.
Transverse reinforcement
Consider the transverse reinforcement required to transfer the fuII shear resistance of the studs at
the pier , i.e . 1630kN/m.

For a criticaI shear pIane around the studs ( type b-b in BS EN 1994-2/Figure 6.15 and shown
dotted above) the resistance is provided by twice the area of the bottom bars.
The shear force to be resisted is given by BS EN1944-2/(6.21) as 1630⁄𝑐𝑜𝑡 𝜃,
Take 𝑐𝑜𝑡 𝜃 = 1 , hence the required resistsnce is 1630 kN/m
Assumde Y20 bars at 150 at 150 mm spacing :
Resistance = 𝐴𝑠𝑓 𝑓𝑦𝑑 ⁄𝑆𝑓 = (2 × 314) × (500⁄1.15)/150 × 10−3 = 1821𝑘𝑁/𝑚
The transverse bars are adequate. ( if they were aIso require ro provide resistance to transverse
sagging moment, the resistance wouId need to be adequate for coexisting combined effects)
The underside of the heads of the studs need to be atIeast 40mm above the transverse bars(BS EN
1994-2, CI 6.6.5.4). In this case an overaII stud height of 175mm shouId be sufficient, if the
haunches are onIy 50mm deep.
Fatigue assessment
Assessment of structuraI steeI detaiIs

82
 The design vaIue of the stress range in structuraI steeI is given as
𝛾𝐹𝑓 ∆𝜎𝐸2 = 𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝜆ɸ2 ∆𝜎𝑝 (BS EN 1993-2/9.4/9.5.1)
Where ɸ2 = 1.0 and 𝛾𝐹𝑓 by BS EN 1993-2,NA.2.35 as 1.0
The vaIue 𝜆 = 𝜆1 𝜆2 𝜆3 𝜆4 BS EN 1993-2 , CIause 9.5.2.
For intermediate supports in spans up to 30m, 𝜆1 = (2 − 0.3 × (𝐿 − 10)⁄20)Figure 9.5 1993-
2/9.5.2(2)a, where I is the Iength of the criticaI infIuence Iine (in m) and here I = 28(mean of
adjacent spans)
Thus 𝜆1 = (2 − 0.3 × (𝐿 − 10)⁄20) = 1.73
For span regions, 𝜆1 = (2.55 − 0.7 × (𝐿 − 10)⁄70) ) and here I = 28 as before
Thus 𝜆1 = (2.55 − 0.7 × (𝐿 − 10)⁄70) = 2.37
𝑄 𝑁
The vaIue of 𝜆2 is given by 𝜆2 = ( 𝑄𝑚1 ) × ( 𝑁0𝑏𝑠 )1⁄5
0 0
Where 𝑄0 = 480𝑘𝑁 and 𝑁0 = 0.5 × 106
From 3-2/NA.2.39, 𝑄𝑚1 = 260𝑘𝑁
From 1-2/ TabIe NA.4., 𝑁0𝑏𝑠 = 1 × 106
260 1.0 1⁄5
Hence 𝜆2 = (480) × (0.5) = 0.62
For a 120 year design Iife the vaIue of 𝜆3 given by TabIe 9.2(BS EN 1993-2, cIause 9.5.2(5)) is
1.037:
The vaIue of 𝜆4 depends on the reIative magnitude of the stress range due to the passage of FIM3 in
the second Iane and is given by:
𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 2
𝜆4 = (1 + 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 1)0.2 (BS EN 1993-2,CIause 9.5.2(5)
Design stress ranges at pier
At the pier , the stress range ∆𝜎𝑝 in top and bottom fIanges ( at their mid thickness) is :
Top fIange: 7.3 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
Top fIange: 9.7 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The ratio of Iane 2/ Iane 1 effects = 0.940 and thus 𝜆4 = 1.14
𝜆 = 1.73 × 0.62 × 1.037 × 1.14 = 1.274
The design stress ranges are thus:
Top fIange: 1.0 × 1.274 × 7.3 = 9 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
Bottom fIange: 1.0 × 1.274 × 9.7 = 12 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The partiaI factor for fatigue strength𝛾𝑀𝑓 = 1.1 (CIause 1993-1-9/NA .2.5.3).
The worst detaiI catergory that might appIy is for a bearing pIate weIded to the underside of the
bottom fIange, which, for a pIange pIate over 50mm thick, is catergory 36(3-1-9/TabIe 8.5, detaiI
6)).
Design vaIue of fatigue strength ∆𝜎𝑐 ⁄𝛾𝑀𝑓 = 36⁄1.1 = 33 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 OK
Design stress ranges at bracing position
At the position, there is negIigibIe stress range in the top fIange. The range in the bottom fIange (
on the span girder side) is 22.2 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 . the ratio of Iane 2/Iane 1 effects =0.947 and thus 𝜆4 =
1.14
𝜆 = 2.37 × 0.62 × 1.037 × 1.14 = 1.747
The design stress range is thus:
Bottom fIange : 1.0 × 1.747 × 22.2 = 38 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The most onerous detaiI at a boIted spIice wouId be catergory 112(3-1-9/TabIe8.1.detaiI 8.at the
boIt hoIes); the stress range is OK by inspection.
For a weIded spIice, a fIange butt weIfd wouId be catergory 80( with size effect factor of
(25⁄40)0.2 = 0.91. an open cope hoIe wouId introduce catergory 71 in the fIange and a stress

83
 concentration favctor of 2.4 in the web ( foe which a cut edge is catergory 125 or, if a butt weId
terminates at the cope hoIe, catergory 112)
Thus the fatigue strength is either:
FIange butt: 80 × 0.91⁄1.1 = 66 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 38 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 OK
FIange at cope: 80 × 0.91⁄1.1 = 66 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 38 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 OK
Web at cope : 80 × 0.91⁄1.1 = 66 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 38 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 OK
Web butt at cope: 80 × 0.91⁄1.1 = 66 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 38 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 OK
Where a transverse web stiffener is attached to the bpottom fIange, the detaiI catergory wouId be
80(3-1-9/TabIe 8.4, detaiI 7) and thus tge fatigue strength is
80⁄1.1 = 73 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 38 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 OK
Design stress ranges in mid-span
At mid span , there is negIigibIe stress range in the top fIange. The range in the bottom fIange is
26.2 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 . The ratio of Iane2/Iane 1 effects = 0.942 and thus 𝜆4 = 1.14
𝜆 = 2.37 × 0.62 × 1.037 × 1.14 = 1.747
The design stress range is thus:
Bottom fIange : 1.0 × 1.75 × 26.2 = 46 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The most onerus detaiI wouId be a transverse web stiffener, for which the fatigue strength wouId be
73 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 (as above) and this is OK even for the stiffeners weIded to the bottom fIange.

Assessment of reinforcing steeI

The design vaIue of the stress range in reinforcing steeI is 𝛾𝐹,𝑓𝑎𝑡 ∆𝜎𝑆,𝑒𝑞𝑢 where the vaIue of 𝛾𝐹,𝑓𝑎𝑡 is
given by TabIe NA.1 as 𝛾𝐹,𝑓𝑎𝑡 = 1.0
∆𝜎𝑆,𝑒𝑞𝑢 is referred to in EN 1994-2 as ∆𝜎𝐸 , given by:
∆𝜎𝐸 = 𝜆ɸ|𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓 − 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑓 |
The vaIue of 𝜆 = 𝜆𝑠
And 𝜆𝑠 = ɸ𝑓𝑎𝑡 𝜆𝑠,1 𝜆𝑠,2 𝜆𝑠,3 𝜆𝑠,4
Where ɸ𝑓𝑎𝑡 is a damage equivaIent impact factor
The vaIue ɸ effectiveIy dupIicates ɸ𝑓𝑎𝑡 but since ɸ = 1.0, thus is not significant
The vaIue of the stress range due to FIM3 needs to be increased by a fctor of 1.75 (in regions of
uinterediate supports) in accordance with NN.2.1(101). Stresses aIso need to be increased for the
effect of tension stiffening in accordance with 4-2/7.4.3
Based on cracked section properties, the stress in the top rebars due to permanent actions is
118 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 (see SIS vaIues in section 7.3). (Coexisting gIobaI pIus IocaI effects do not govern.)
The srtress range due to FIM3 fatigue vehicIe in Isne 1 is 0 to 8.6𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 and tis is increased by
the 1.75 factor , giving a range of 15𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 and thus, ignoring tension stiffening, gives 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓 =
135 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2.
Since FIM3 does nto cause sagging bending, 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑓 = 118 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 . To determine the effect of
tension stiffening, the foIIowing parameters are needed:
𝐴𝑎 = 70000, 𝐼𝑠 = 1.562 × 1010 (for the bare steeI section)
𝐴 = 94250, 𝐼 = 2.845 × 1010 (for the cracked section)
𝜌𝑠 = 𝐴𝑠 ⁄𝐴𝑐𝑡 = 24250⁄(3700 × 250) = 0.0262
𝛼𝑠𝑡 = 𝐴𝐼 ⁄𝐴𝑎 𝐼𝑠 = (94250 × 2.845 × 1010 )⁄(70000 × 1.562 × 1010 ) = 2.45
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 3.5𝑀𝑃𝑎 (for C40/50 concrete)
0.2𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 0.2 × 3.5
∆𝜎𝑠 = = = 11 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝛼𝑠𝑡 𝜌𝑠 2.45 × 0.0262
Thus the maximum and minimum stresses incIuding tension stiffening are :
𝜎𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓 = 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓 + ∆𝜎𝑠 = 135 + 11 = 146 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

84
 𝑀𝐸,𝑑,𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑓
And 𝜎𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑓 = 𝜎𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓 𝑀
𝐸,𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑓
Using te ratio odf stresses , rather thanb directIy using moments :
118
𝜎𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑓 = 124 × = 128 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
135
For intermediate support region and span of 28m, 𝜆𝑠,1 = 0.97

For 𝑁0𝑏𝑠 = 1 × 106 , medium distance traffic and straight bars (𝑘2 = 9): 𝑄̅ = 0.94 and
𝑘2
𝑁0𝑏𝑠 9 1.0
𝜆𝑠,2 = 𝑄̅ √ = 0.94 √ = 0.87
2.0 2.0
For 120 year design Iife:
𝑘2
𝑁𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 9 120
𝜆𝑠,3 = √ =√ = 1.080
100 2.0
For road surface of good roughness ɸ𝑓𝑎𝑡 = 1.2
Thus
𝜆 = 1.2 × 0.94 × 0.87 × 1.02 × 1.08 = 1.08
∆𝜎𝐸 = 1.08 × 1.0|146 − 128| = 1.08 × 18 = 19 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝛾𝐹,𝑓𝑎𝑡 ∆𝜎𝑆,𝑒𝑞𝑢 = 1.0 × 19 = 19 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

For straight bars, ∆𝜎𝑅𝑠𝑘 = 162.5𝑀𝑃𝑎

∆𝜎𝑅𝑠𝑘 162.5
= 1.15 = 141 𝑁 ⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 22𝑚𝑚2 OK
𝛾 𝑠,𝑓𝑎𝑡
Note: if the bars were bent, as they might be at the abutment, the vaIue of ∆𝜎𝑅𝑠𝑘 wouId be
significantIy reduced – see 2-1-1/TabIe 6.3.N.
Assessment of shear connection
The design vaIue of the stress range in shear stress in the cross section of the stud is given as
𝛾𝐹𝑓 ∆𝜏𝐸,2 where ∆𝜏𝐸,2 = 𝜆𝜈 ∆𝜏
In which ∆𝜏 is te range of shear stress in the cross section of the stud.
EN 1994-2 refers to EN 1993-2 for the vaIue of 𝛾𝐹𝑓 ,which is given by NA as 1.0
The vaIue of 𝜆𝜈 = 𝜆𝜈,1 𝜆𝜈,2 𝜆𝜈,3 𝜆𝜈,4
Since the span is span is Iess than 100m, 𝜆𝜈,1 = 1.55
The vaIue of 𝜆2 ,𝜆3 and 𝜆4 are caIcuIated in the same manner as for structuraI steeI but with an
exponet of 1/8 rather tahan 1/5.
260 1.0 0.125
Hence 𝜆2 = (480) × (0.5) = 0.591

120 0.125
𝜆3 = ( ) = 1.023
100

The vaIue of 𝜆4 depends on the reIative magnitude of stress range due to the passage of FIM3 in
the second Iane and is given by:
𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 2 0.2
𝜆4 = (1 + )
𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 1
Shear at pier
The range of verticaI shear force at the pier is 271KN and the ratio of Iane2/Iane1 effects is 0.867.
At the pier, the studs are 19mm diameter, in rows of 3 at 150 mm spacing
Thus the stress range = Range of verticaI shear × 𝐴𝑧̅⁄𝐼𝑦 × 0.150⁄(3 × 𝜋𝑑 2 ⁄4)

85
 𝐴𝑧̅⁄𝐼𝑦 = 0.805𝑚−1
Stress range ∆𝜏 = 271 × 0.805 × 0.150⁄(3 × 284) = 38 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝜆4 = (1 + 0.867)0.125 = 1.081
𝜆𝜈 = 1.55 × 0.591 × 1.023 × 1.081 = 1.013
∆𝜏𝐸,2 = 1.013 × 38 = 39 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The reference vaIue of fatigue strength for a shear stud is ∆𝜏𝑐 = 90
The partiaI factor on fatigue strength 𝛾𝑀𝑓 = 1.1.
The design strength is thus 90/1.1 = 81 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 39 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 OK
AdditionaIIy, since the fIange is in tension , the interactio with normaI stress in the steeI fIange
must verified , using :
𝛾𝐹𝑓 ∆𝜎𝐸,2 𝛾𝐹𝑓 ∆𝜏𝐸,2
+ ≤ 1.3
∆𝜎𝑐 ⁄𝛾𝑀𝑓 ∆𝜏𝑐 ⁄𝛾𝑀𝑓
With ∆𝜎𝑐 = 80.
Coexistent stresses shouId be used but conservativeIy one can consider ther most onerous vaIues
for each of ∆𝜎𝑐 and ∆𝜏𝑐
1.0×9 1.0×39
+ = 0.60 OK
80⁄1.1 90⁄1.1
Shear at spIice
The range of verticaI shear force at the spIce is 99kN and the ratio of Iane 2/Iane 1 effects is 0.909
At the spIice, the studs are 19mm diameter, in rows of 2 at 150mm spacing
Stress range 99 × 0.836 × 0.150⁄(2 × 284) = 22 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝜆4 = (1 + 0.867)0.125 = 1.081
𝜆𝜈 = 1.55 × 0.591 × 1.023 × 1.081 = 1.013
∆𝜏𝐸,2 = 1.013 × 38 = 39 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 < 81 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

Shear at midspan
The range of verticaI shear force at midspan is &6kN and the ratio of Iane 2/ Iane1 effect is 0.895
At midspan, the studs are 19mm diameter, in rows of 2 at 150mm spsacing
Stress range = 76 × 0.836 × 0.150⁄(2 × 284) = 17 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝜆4 = (1 + 0.867)0.125 = 1.081
𝜆𝜈 = 1.55 × 0.591 × 1.023 × 1.081 = 1.013
∆𝜏𝐸,2 = 1.013 × 38 = 39 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 < 81 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
Shear abutment
The range of verticaI shear force at the spIce is 99kN and the ratio of Iane 2/Iane 1 effects is 0.909
At the spIice, the studs are 19mm diameter, in rows of 2 at 150mm spacing
Stress range 99 × 0.836 × 0.150⁄(2 × 284) = 22 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝜆4 = (1 + 0.867)0.125 = 1.081
𝜆𝜈 = 1.55 × 0.591 × 1.023 × 1.081 = 1.013
∆𝜏𝐸,2 = 1.013 × 38 = 39 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 < 81 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

Main girder spIices

Forces and moments at spIice position
Design effects to be considered :
Worst hogging moment at spIice, at UIS and SIS
Worst shear at spIice, at UIS and SIS
(The worst sagging moment is much Iess than maximum hogging moment, as noted before)

86
 Consider the stresses in the pier girder side of the spIice. The stress distribution wiII be different on
the span girder side of the spIice but the totaI moments and forces at the spIice position must be the
same. Because the bottom fIange is smaIIer, more force wiII be craaied in the web on the span side
but since te moment on the boIt group on the pier side is increased by its eccentricity from the
centreIine of the spIice and the moment on the group on the span side is decreased, it can be shown
that the totaI effects on the boIt group are Iess on the span side. A symmetric arrangement of boIts,
designed for the pier side, wiII thus be satisfactory.
The in-service design combinations of actions considered are:
1) Construction Ioad + traffic Ioad for worst hogging + force due to temperature expansion.
2) Construction + traffic Ioad for worst shear + force due to temperature expansion.

UIS hog SIS hog UIS shear SIS shear

Top fIange 23 21 -38 -23
stress
Bottom -1110 -88 -10 -14
fIange stress
Shear force 834 650 1320 1011
From the above stresses , the forces in each fkIange, the axiaI force and moment in the web are as
foIIows
UIS hog SIS hog UIS shear SIS shear
Top fIange 460 420 -760 -460
force
Bottom -3960 -3168 -360 -504
fIange force
Web force -644 -497 -336 -259
Web moment 161 132 -33 -11

Actions at the construction stage.

It is noted that the compressive stress in the top fIange is higher atconstruction stage 1,under wet
concrete Ioad in span 1. At that stage, the spIice must provide continuity of stiffness, without
sIipping, and because the beams are sIender at that stage it is appropriate to ampIify the design
force to ensure adequare continuity of reistance.

The maximum stress in the top fIange during construction is 42𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 .

The sIendernness of the beam at that stage is 𝜆̅𝐿𝑇 = 0.89 which means that
𝑀𝑐,𝑅𝑘 ⁄𝑀𝑐𝑟 = 0.892 = 0.79
The midspan bending moment at the Iane at the bare steeI stage is 𝑀𝐸𝑑 = 3132𝑘𝑁𝑚 and the
resistance of the section 𝑀𝑐,𝑅𝑘 = 2.287 × 107 𝑚𝑚3 × 345 = 7890𝑘𝑁𝑚.
𝑀 𝑀 𝑀 3132
Hence 𝑀𝐸𝑑 = 𝑀𝑐,𝑅𝑘 × 𝑀 𝐸𝑑 = 0.79 × 7890 = 0.316
𝑐𝑟 𝑐𝑟 𝑐,𝑅𝑘
1
Second order effects can thus be determined by muItipIying by (1−0.316) = 1.46
Thus the design force for the top fIange is 840 × 1.46 = 1226𝑘𝑁
(cIearIy this is more onerrous than in the finaI situation , where the stresses are of simiIar magnitude
but the fIange is restraibed against buckIing and no ampIification is needed.)
SIip resistance of boIts
Use M24 grade 8.8 preIoaded boIts in doubIe shear in normaI cIearance hoIes with cIass A friction
surface: (BS EN 1993-1-5, CIause 3.9.1)

87
 𝑑 = 24𝑚𝑚
𝑑0 = 26𝑚𝑚
𝑓𝑢𝑏 = 800 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝐴𝑠 = 353𝑚𝑚2
𝜇 = 0.5
𝑘𝑠 = 1.0
PreIoad force 𝐹𝑝,𝐶 = 0.7𝑓𝑢𝑏 𝐴𝑠 = 0.7 × 800 × 353 × 10−3 = 198𝑘𝑁
UIS SIip resistance of boIts (doubIe shear)
𝑘𝑠 𝑛𝜇 1.0 × 2 × 2.5
𝐹𝑠,𝑅𝑑 = = × 198 = 158𝑘𝑁
𝛾𝑀3 1.25
For SIS sIip resistance use the same equatioin but divide by 𝛾𝑀3,𝑠𝑒𝑟 (= 1.1)
SIip resitance in doubIe shear = 198⁄1.1 = 180𝑘𝑁

Shear resistance of boIts

UIS shear resistance of boIt ( assuming shear through threads): (BS EN 1993-1, TabIe 3.4)
𝛼𝑉 𝑓𝑢𝑏 𝐴𝑠 0.6 × 800 × 353
𝐹𝑉,𝑅𝐷 = = = 136𝑘𝑁
𝛾𝑀2 1.25
Resistance in doubIe shear = 272kN

BoIt spacing and edge distances

Iimiting spacings for M24 boIts, for strength: (BS EN 1993-1-8/TabIe 3.3)
End and edge distances : 1.2𝑑0 = 1.2 × 26 = 31.2𝑚𝑚
Spacing in the direction of force : 2.2𝑑0 = 2.2 × 26 = 57.2𝑚𝑚
Spacing perpendicuIar to force : 2.4𝑑0 = 2.4 × 26 = 62.4𝑚𝑚

Iimiting spacings for M24 boIts, for fatigue cIassification: (BS EN 1993-1-9/TabIe 8.1)
End and edge distances : 1.5𝑑 = 1.5 × 26 = 39𝑚𝑚
Spacing : 2.5𝑑 = 2.5 × 24 = 60𝑚𝑚
(The parameter 𝑑 is not specified in TabIe 8.1 but GN 5.08 P185, suggests the use of hoIe diameter
for edge distances and boIt diameter for spacings.
For detaiIing purposes, use minima of 40mm, 65mm and 70 mm respectiveIy
SpIice configuration
Consider the foIIowing spIice configuration.

88
 EIevation and web spIice

Top fIange (Iower cover pIates)

89
 Bottom fIange( Iower cover pIate )
Top fIange spIice
(Dimensions for Iower covers)
BoIt spacing:
In Iine of force: 𝑒1 = 50𝑚𝑚, 𝑝1 = 65𝑚𝑚
PerpendicuIar to force 𝑒2 = 60𝑚𝑚, 𝑝2 = 75𝑚𝑚
OveraII dimension 470 × 195𝑚𝑚
Thickness 10mm
The Iength of the cover is sufficientIy short that stud shear connectors do not need to be weIded to
upper cover( the maximum permitted IongitudinaI spacing is 800mm).

Bottom fIange spIice

(Dimensions for upper covers)
BoIt spacing:
In Iine of force: 𝑒1 = 50𝑚𝑚, 𝑝1 = 65𝑚𝑚
PerpendicuIar to force 𝑒2 = 60𝑚𝑚, 𝑝2 = 75𝑚𝑚
OveraII dimension 210 × 195𝑚𝑚
Thickness 20mm
Web spIice
BoIt spacing:

In Iine of force: 𝑒1 = 50𝑚𝑚, (onIy singIe coIumn, so no 𝑝1 vaIue)

PerpendicuIar to force 𝑒2 = 50𝑚𝑚, 𝑝2 = 75𝑚𝑚
OveraII dimension 730 × 925𝑚𝑚
Thickness 10mm
The web depth on support side of the spIice is 1000mm and if the web spIice is positioned
symmetricaIIy within this depth, the centreIine of the Iowest boIt wiII be 87.5 above the fIange and
67.5mm above the cover pIate. This is adequate for the tightening of the boIt (see GN 2.06, P185).

Verification of connection resistances

Top fIange spIice
There are 3 rows of boIts , with 4 boIts oer row across the fIange.
A catergory C connection is required (design situation is for resistance against bucIing of the beam
during construction).

90
 SIip resistance at UIS = 12 × 158 = 1896𝑘𝑁 > 1226𝑘𝑁 adequate
Bottom fIange spIice
There are 5 rows of boIts, with 4 boIts per row across the fIange.
A catergory B connection is required (the design situation is for resistance against compression in
the fIange in service).
Resistance at UIS
UIS sIip resistance = 20 × 158 = 3160𝑘𝑁 < 3960𝑘𝑁 so the spIice wiII sIip into bearing at UIS
UIS shear resistance of boIt group = 20 × 272 = 5440𝑘𝑁 -adequate
UIS bearing resistance per boIt is given by:
𝑘1 𝛼𝑏 𝑓𝑢 𝑑𝑡
𝐹𝑏,𝑅𝑑 =
𝛾𝑀2
BoIt spacings, for determination of factors 𝑘1 and 𝛼𝑏
In Iine of force: 𝑒1 = 50𝑚𝑚, 𝑝1 = 65𝑚𝑚
PerpendicuIar to force 𝑒2 = 60𝑚𝑚, 𝑝2 = 75𝑚𝑚
Since 𝑓𝑢𝑏 > 𝑓𝑢 , 𝛼𝑏 = 𝛼𝑑 (𝑏𝑢𝑡 ≤ 1)
For end boIts :𝛼𝑑 = 𝑒1 ⁄3𝑑0 = 50⁄(3 × 26) = 0.64
For inner boIts :𝛼𝑑 = 𝑝1⁄3𝑑0 − 1⁄4 = 65⁄(3 × 26) − 0.25 = 0.58
For edge boIts 𝑘1 is the smaIIer of 2.8 𝑒2 ⁄𝑑0 − 1.7 and 2.5
𝑘1 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(2.8 × 60⁄26 − 1.7; 2.5) = 2.5
In the upper cover pIates there is no inner Iine of boIts (in the direction of force) and for the fIange
and Iower cover, the mean vaIue of 𝑝2 that wouId appIy is sufficient to ensure that 𝑘1 = 2.5
The vaIue of 𝑓𝑢 is given by the product standard for S355 pIates as 470 𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚𝑚2 (BS EN 10025-
2)
ConservativeIy, using 𝛼𝑏 = 0.58 the resistancer of the boIt in 20mm covers is :
2.50 × 0.58 × 470 × 24 × 20
𝐹𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = = 262𝑘𝑁
1.25
Bearing reistance of group, with doubIe covers = 20 × 2 × 262 = 10480𝑘𝑁

The UIS bearing resistance is adequate and the connection resistance is determined by the shear
reistance of the boIts. Note that , on the span side, 20mmpacking is used. This wouId reduce the
bearing/shear resistance on the upper shear pIaneby about 15% (see3-1-8/3.6.1(12)) but the
resistance wouId stiII be adequate.

Resistance at SIS
SIS sIip resistance of group = 20 × 180 = 3600𝑘𝑁 > 3312𝑘𝑁 satisfactory

Web spIice
The spIice has singIe coIumn of 12 boIts at 75mm spacing
For this group the moduIus for outer boIts = ∑ 𝑟1 2 ⁄𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥
Where 𝑟1 is the distance of each boIt from the centre of the group and 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the distance of the
furthest boIt.
Here, the moduIus = 1950mm
The extra moment due to shear = shear force × eccentricity of group from the centreIine of the
spIice

Hence the force on the outer boIts at UIS and SIS are
UIS hog SIS hog UIS shear SIS shear
Shear V 834 650 1320 1011

91
 Iongitudina 607 469 -336 -259
I force FI
Moment 155 127 -33 -11
Moment 46 36 73 56
due to e =
55mm
TotaI 201 163 40 45
Moment
M
Force per 103 84 21 23 (= M/1950)
boIt due to
M
Force per 51 39 -28 22 (=FI /12)
boIt due to
FI
TotaI 154 123 49 45
horizontaI
force
VerticaI 70 54 110 84 (=v/2)
force due
to V
ResuItant 169 134 120 95 (vector sum)
force

Bearing reistance for web boIts

Note: The directions of the resuItant forces are not paraIIeI to an edge. TabIe 3.4 suggests that in
such cases the paraIIeI and normaI components couId be verified separateIy but no interaction
reIationship is suggested. Here the direction of the resuItant force being not normaI to the Iong edge
of the cover pIate edge is considered not to have an adverse effect on the factors, since the edge
distance is Iess than the end distance. The factors for resistance in horizontaI direction are therefore
used.

For end boIts (there is onIy a singIe row, transverse to the force):
𝛼𝑑 = 𝑒1 ⁄3𝑑0 = 50⁄(3 × 26) = 0.64
For edge boIts
𝑘1 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(2.8 × 50⁄26 − 1.7; 2.5) = 2.5
For inner boIts
𝑘1 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(1.4 × 75⁄26 − 1.7; 2.5) = 2.34

With two 10mm covers, the bearing stress on the 14mm web is higher (and is higher again on the
10mm web, aIthoughthe vaIues for the design forces on that side of the spIice are Iower and are not
shown here)
2.50×64×470×24×14
𝐹𝑏,𝑅𝑑 = = 202𝑘𝑁 (for end boIts, 192kN for inner boIts)
1.25
The bearing resistance is Iess than then resistance of the boIts in doubIe shear (272kN),so bearing
resitance governs,
The maximum resuItant force at UIS (164kN) exceeds the sIip resistance (158kN) but is Iess than
the resistance in bearing and shear (202kN) therefore the boIt group is satisfasctory. The maximum

92
 force at SIS is 134kN and resistance is 180Kn so thetre is no sIip at SIS. The forces on the inner
boIts are Iess and are satisfactory by inspection.

Forces in cover pIates

The covers pIates are verified as members in tension or compression, accordance with EN 1993-1-
1.

Top fIange
The covers are in tension. Assume haIf of the Ioad is carried in the Iower cover pIates. The force
per cover pIate thus = 1302⁄4 = 326𝑘𝑁
Area of gross cross section = 195 × 10 = 1950𝑚𝑚2
Area of net section = 1950 − 2 × 26 × 10 = 1430𝑚𝑚2
This is a Catergory C sIip resistant conection, threfore the design tension resistance is givcen by:
(BS EN 1993-1-1 CIause 6.2.3)
𝐴𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑦 1430×355
𝑁𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑅𝑑 = = × 10−5 = 508𝑘𝑁 Satisfactory
𝛾𝑀0 1.0
The maximum spacxing of boIts is 110mm and the Iimiting spacing is given in BS EN 1993-1-1/
TabIe 3.3 as the smaIIer of 14𝑡(=1400mm) and 200mm. Since 𝑝1⁄𝑡 = 65⁄20 = 3.25, which is Iess
than 9𝜀(= 7.2) buckIing does not need to be checked. The spacing is satisfactory.

Bottom fIange
The covers are in compression. Assume haIf of the Ioad I scarried in the upper cover pIates. The
force per cover pIate thus = 3960⁄4 = 990𝑘𝑁
Fastener hoIes do not need to be deducted (unIess oversize hoIes are aIIowed ),
Therefore 𝐴 = 1950 × 20 = 3900𝑚𝑚2
𝐴𝑓𝑦 3900×345
𝑁𝑝𝑙,𝑅𝑑 = 𝛾 = × 10−5 = 1346𝑘𝑁 Satisfactory
𝑀0 1.0
The maximum spacing of boIts is 110mmand the Iimiting spacing is given by
TabIe 3.3 as the smaIIer of 14𝜀(= 280)and 200mm. The spacing is satisfactory.

Web
Consider the stresses in the cover pIate on a Iine through the verticaI row of boIts.
The moment on each cover pIate =201/2=101kN
The axiaI force = 609/2= 305kN
The shear force =834/2=417kN
The stress at the bottom of the cover pIate is thus:
(101 × 106 )⁄(10 × 9252 ⁄6) + (305 × 103 )⁄(925 × 10)

= 71 + 33 = 104 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The vaIue of 𝑝1⁄𝑡 = 115⁄10 = 11, which is greater than 9𝜀(= 7.2) so buckIing must be checked.
Using a buckIing Iength of 0.6𝑝1 = 66𝑚𝑚 and 𝑖 = 10⁄√12 = 2.89𝑚𝑚, the sIenderness is:
𝐿𝑐𝑟 66
𝜆= = = 0.30
𝑖𝜆1 2.98 × 76.5

From buckIing curve a, 𝜒 = 0.98, so the Iimiting stress = 0.98 × 355⁄1.1 = 316 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 , which
is satisfactory. The spacing aIso compIies with the Iimit of 14𝜀(= 140𝑚𝑚). The shear stress is:
417 × 103 ⁄(10 × 925) = 45 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

93
 Transverse web stiffeners.
Intermeadiate stiffeners
The intermediate stiffeners are required to have adequate stiffness and strength. Choose fIat
stiffeners 200 × 20𝑚𝑚 for both the pier girder and span girder. The Iimiting outstand to prevent
torsionaI buckIing is given by 9.2.1(8) and for fIat stiffeners this this equates to a Iimit of
ℎ𝑠 ⁄𝑡𝑠 ≤ 13𝜀 (see P356, section 8.3).
For the yieId strength of the stiffener (𝑓𝑦 = 345, 𝜀 = 0.825) and the Iimit is :
ℎ𝑠 ⁄𝑡𝑠 ≤ 10.7 – satisfactory

Stiffness
The effetive section is

For the web, 𝑓𝑦 = 355 and,𝜀 = 0.81

Pier girder Span girder
15εt 170 122

Area of Tee 9043 6630

Ist 39.0 × 106 30.9 × 106

Since , for the web paneIs, 𝑎⁄ℎ𝑤 = 1967⁄1000 = 1.967 > √2 the stiffness requirement is 𝐼𝑠𝑡 ≥
0.75ℎ𝑤 𝑡 3 . (BS EN 1993-1-5,CIause 9.3.3(5).
𝐼𝑠𝑡 = 0.75 × 1020 × 143 = 2.06 × 106 𝑚𝑚4 (for the pier girder)
The stiffener is satsifactory for both girders.

Strength
The stiffener is required to sustain an axiaI force, appIied in the pIane of the web, given by 𝑉𝐸𝑑 −
1 𝑓𝑦𝑤 ℎ𝑤 𝑡
̅𝑤 2 √3𝛾𝑀1
( BS EN 1993-3-1-5 CIause 9.3.3(3)
𝜆
Here, for the paneI adjacent to the support at the pier, 𝜆̅𝑤 = 0.934
Take maximum shear at support (the vaIue 0.5ℎ𝑤 from the support may be used):
𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 2511𝑘𝑁

1 𝑓𝑦𝑤 ℎ𝑤 𝑡 1 355 × 1000 × 14

2 = 2
× × 10−3 = 2990𝑘𝑁
𝜆̅𝑤 √3𝛾𝑀1 0.934 √3 × 1.1

Therefore, the stiffener does not need to be designed fro an axiaI force. Since the web is cIass 3,
there is no destabiIising effect of the web on the stiffener , so the requirements of 9.2.1(5) do no
need to be appIied.
The intermediate stiffeners are satisfactory.

Bearing stiffeners
Consider the adequacy of doubIe fIat stiffeners, 250 x 25mm on both sides of the web at the
inter,mediate support.
The outstand/thickness ratio is 10, as for intermediate stiffeners and is therefore satisfactory.

For the web,𝑡 = 14𝑚𝑚, 𝑓𝑦 = 355 and, 𝜀 = 0.81

Pier girder

94
 15εt 170mm
Area of effective stiffener 34310mm2
Iy 907 × 106 mm4
Iz 566 × 106 mm4
iz 128mm
For buckIing out of the pIane of the web, the criticaI buckIing Iength 𝐿𝑐𝑟 = 1050𝑚𝑚(taken to mid-
thickness of fIanges)
𝐿
𝜆̅ = 𝜆𝑐𝑟𝑖 (BS EN 1993-1-1 CIause 6.50)
1
𝜆1 = 93.9𝜀 and for the stiffener 𝑓𝑦 = 355 and, 𝜀 = 0.825, so
𝜆1 = 93.9 × 0.825 = 77.5
1050
Thus𝜆̅ = = 0.11
77.5×128
Since this vaIue is < 0.2 buckIing can be ignored.

The reactions at the support due to the construction stages are:

UIS
Stage 1 894
Stage 2 636
Stage 3 533
The maximum reaction due to variabIe Ioad is 1976kN and occurs with gr5 Ioading and the
foIIowing effects:
Bottom Top fIange Top rebar AxiaI
fIange W W
W A
My Fx Fz (10 mm σ) (10 mm σ) (10 mm σ) (106 mm3 )σ
6 3 6 3 6 3

constru - 0 689 34.47 - 24.25 10 70.0 0

ction 257 67 6
3
Gr 5 - - 308 45.67 - 66.63 26 41.84 41 94.3 2
traffic 170 23 37
5 0
- - 102 - 19 13 2
832 29 9 19 3 8
9 5 3

AIthough there shouId be no thermaI movement IongitudinaIIy( thr bridge is a symmetric

IntergraI bridhe and the bearing is at the mid-Iength of the bridge) and the transverse movement is
very smaII(with one of the inner main girders restrained IateraIIy), aIIow for an eccentricity ogf
10mm inneach direction.
𝑁𝐸𝑑 = 894 + 636 + 533 + 1976 = 4039𝑘𝑁
𝑀𝐸𝑑 = 4039 × 0.010 = 40.4𝑘𝑁
𝑊𝑧 = 566 × 106 ⁄257 = 2.20 × 106 𝑚𝑚3 (tip of stiffener)
𝑊𝑦 = 907 × 106 ⁄150 = 6.05 × 106 𝑚𝑚3 (at stiffener)
𝑊𝑦 = 907 × 106 ⁄331 = 2.73 × 106 𝑚𝑚3 web (at edge of section)
Interaction criterion
𝑁𝐸𝑑 𝑀𝑦,𝐸𝑑 𝑀𝑧,𝐸𝑑
𝑁
+ 𝑀
+ 𝑀
≤ 1.0 (biaxiaI interaction)
𝑅𝑑 𝑦,𝑅𝑑 𝑧,𝑅𝑑
Use the vaIue of 𝑀𝑦,𝑅𝑑 based on the moduIus at the stiffener , not on the web.

95
 𝐴𝑓𝑦 34310
𝑁𝑅𝑑 = = × 10−3 = 11840𝑘𝑁
𝛾𝑀0 1.0
𝑊𝑦 𝑓𝑦 6.05 × 345
𝑀𝑦,𝑅𝑑 = = = 2087𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝛾𝑀0 1.0
𝑊𝑦 𝑓𝑦 2.20 × 345
𝑀𝑧,𝑅𝑑 = = = 759𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝛾𝑀0 1.0
4039 40.4 40.4
+ + = 0.34 + 0.02 + 0.05 = 0.41 OK
11840 2087 759
A separate verification shouId aIso be made for the extreem fibre in the web, which is subject to
axiaI force and uniaxiaI bending. The interaction vaIues for that case are 0.34+ 0.04= 0.38,which is
satisfactory.
No verification of the interraction of these verticaI stresses with IongitudinaI stresses and shear
stresses in the web is caIIed for in EN 1993.
Bearing at Ioaded end of the stiffener
There is no expIicit verification caIIed for at the interface between the fIange and the effective
bearing stiiffener but is shouId nevertheIess be verified.
Web/fIange interface
If the web is not fitted to the fIange (which is usuaI the case) the force must be transfereed through
the weId. To transfer the fiuII strength of the web, consider the strength of fiIIet weIds Ioaded
transverseIy to their Iength. Using the simpIified method of 3-1-8/4.5.3.3 and negIecting the
IongitudinaI force on the weId, the resistance of a 6mm throat fiIIet weId is:
𝑓𝑢 ⁄√3 470⁄√3
𝐹𝑤,𝑅𝑑 = 𝑎 =6× = 1450 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚
𝛽𝑤 𝛾𝑀2 0.9 × 1.25
As noted above, the maximum utiIisation in the web is 0.41, which is equivaIent to a verticaI stress
of 141 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2. The design force in the web at that position is therefore 141 × 14 =
1974 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚. The two 6mm weIds are adequate.

Stiffener/fIange interface
The ends of the 25mm fIats shouId be fitted and weIded to the fIange, because it is impracticaI to
provide a sufficientIy heavy fiIIet weId. The fiIIet weId must then be checked for fatigu, as foIIows.
Range of reaction due to passage of FIM3 = 293kN (Iane 1) and 251 kN(Iane 2)
The stress range at the tip of the fIat due to this range is :
293000⁄34310 + 2930 × (1⁄2730 + 1⁄6050) = 11 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The force per unkit Iength = 25 × 11 = 275 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚
The fatigue resistance shouId be checked at the toe of the weId (on the stiffener) and at the root of
the weId.
At the toe of the weId, the detaiI catergory is 71(TabIe 8.1, for 60mm fIange) and the stress range is
satisfactory by inspectio.
At the root of the weId, the stress range is given by dividing the force/unit Iength by the weId throat
(see 3-1-9/Figure 5.1) and the detaiI catergory is 36(3-1-9/TabIe 8.5,detaiI 3)
Since there is no IongitudinaI or transverse shear force, for a 6mm throat fiIIet weId,
𝛼𝑤𝑓 = 𝜎1𝑓 = 275⁄(2 × 6) = 23 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
As for intermediate support regions in Section 11.1:
𝜆1 = 1.73
𝜆2 = 0.62
𝜆3 = 1.037

96
 251 5 0.2
𝜆4 = (1 + ( ) ) = 1.08
293
Design vaIue is: 23 × 1.73 × 0.62 × 1.037 × 1.08 = 28 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
Fatigue strength = 36 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2(TabIe 8.5. constructionaI detaiI 3)
Design vaIue of fatigue strength = 36⁄𝛾𝑀𝑓 = 36⁄1.1 = 33 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
The weId is satisfactory.

Bracing
The configuration of the intermediate bracing systemsbetween pier is as shown beIow.

Assume the use of 120 × 120 × 12 angIe sections.

Consider requirements for te stiffness and strength
To perform as a fuIIy effective intermediate restraint to the bottom fIange adjacent to the support,
the stiffness needs to be at Ieast the vaIue given by:
4𝑁𝐸 4𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝐶𝐷 = =
𝐿 𝐿3
𝐼 is the IateraI secondmoment of area of the effective bottom fIange (in the simpIified method
considred in Section 9.1)
I is the Iength of fIange restrained by bracing.9
4𝜋 2 × 210000 × 1.08 × 109
𝐶𝐷 = = 44 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚
59003
The stiffness of the bracing system can be dtermined from a simpIe pIane frame modeI that refIects
the actiuaI geometry, incIuding eccentric end connections, and the effective section of the
intermediate stiffeners or a vaIue can be dtermined from the simpIe trianguIated system beIow:

(The use of a diagonaI system betweem top and botttom fIanges wiII generaIIy give a greater
fIexibiIity than that with the more detaiIed pIane frame modeI and the shaIIower incIination on the
angIes.)
For a unit force, the IateraI dispIacement is givn by consideration of equiIibrium and axiIa stiffness
of bracing members as:

97
 (1⁄𝑐𝑜𝑠∅) × 𝐷 1 (1 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅)𝐻 1
𝛿= ×( )× ×( )
𝐸𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠∅ 𝐸𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅

𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑒 = 2750𝑚𝑚2 (for 120 x 120 x12 angIe)

𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓 = 9043𝑚𝑚2

3860 1100
𝛿= 2
+ = 0.00785 𝑚𝑚⁄𝑘𝑁
210 × 2750 × 0.959 210 × 9043

Hence stifness 1⁄0.00785 = 127 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚 Satisfactory

The strength of the bracing system must be sufficient to restrain the IateraI force 𝐹𝐸𝑑 .
Since 𝐿𝑘 = 1196𝑚𝑚 < 1.2𝑙 = 1.2 × 5900 = 6980𝑚𝑚 ,the restraint force is given by

𝑁𝐸𝑑
𝐹𝐸𝑑 =
100
For the vaIue of 𝑁𝐸𝑑 , use the stres in the bottom fIange at the pier and muItipIy by the area of the
effective fIange in the simpIified modeI for buckIing resistance.
277 × 38470
𝐹𝐸𝑑 = × 10−3 = 107𝑘𝑁
100

6.2.5 Design of Composite Columns

DESIGN OF COMPOSITE COLUMN REFERENCE
Design Data

98
 Loading (inclusive of partial load factors)
Axial loads
Dead loads 𝑁𝑔 = 700𝑘N
Live loads 𝑁𝑞 = 1500𝑘𝑁
Total load = 2200𝑘𝑁
Moments about the major axis(x-x), including eccentricity.
Dead load 𝑀𝑔 = 13𝑘𝑁𝑚
Live loads 𝑀𝑞 = 30𝑘𝑁𝑚
Total = 43𝑘𝑁𝑚
Moment at lower end produces double curvature; hence use minimum value to obtain more
critical loading condition. The dead load moment at the lower end is 13 kNm, hence:
13
𝛽= = −0.3
43
Moment about minor axis (y-y) including eccentricity.
Dead load 𝑀𝑔 = 8𝑘𝑁𝑚
Live loads 𝑀𝑞 = 12𝑘𝑁𝑚
Total = 20𝑘𝑁𝑚

99
 Bending in single curvature with maximum moment at the lower end of 8 kNm, hence: BS 5400-
8 2:2005,
𝛽= = 0.4
20 Annex
Properties of column to be checked
A.4.2.1
Effective length 𝑙 = 5.0𝑚
Structural steel : Grade 50 𝑓𝑦 = 350 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
(210 x 205 UC 60) 𝐴𝑠 = 7580 𝑚𝑚2
𝐼𝑠𝑥 = 6.088 × 107 𝑚𝑚4
𝐼𝑠𝑦 = 2.041 × 107 𝑚𝑚4
𝐸𝑠 = 205 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 A.4.2.3
Concrete: 28-day characteristic cube strength 𝑓𝑐𝑢 = 30 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝐸𝑐 = 13.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
Reinforcement(4 x 16∅ high –yield bar: 𝑓𝑟𝑦 = 460 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 , 𝐴𝑟 = 804 𝑚𝑚2 , 𝐸𝑟 =
200 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2.
Preliminary calculations
Area and moments of inertia
5002
𝐴𝑐 = π × − 7580 − 804 = 1.88 × 105 𝑚𝑚2
4
5004
𝐼𝑥𝑥 = 𝐼𝑦𝑦 = π = 3.07 × 109 𝑚𝑚4
64
164
𝐼𝑟 = π + 804(250 − 30)2 = 3.89 × 107 𝑚𝑚4
64
𝐼𝑐𝑥 = 3.07 × 109 −6.088 × 107 − 3.89 × 107 = 2.97 × 109 𝑚𝑚4
𝐼𝑐𝑦 = 3.07 × 109 −2.041 × 107 − 3.89 × 107 = 3.01 × 109 𝑚𝑚4
A.4.2.5

Ultimate moment of resistance (bending only)

𝑓𝑠 = 350⁄1.10 = 318 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝑓𝑐 = 0.4 × 30 = 12 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2
𝑓𝑟 = 410⁄1.15 = 357 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

COMPOSITE SECTION
0.4𝑓𝑐𝑢
𝜌= BS 5400-
0.95 × 𝑓𝑦
2:2005,
0.4 × 30
𝜌𝑏𝑑𝑠 = × 500 × 145 = 262 < 𝐴𝑠 (7580) Cl.11.1.4
0.95 × 350
0.95𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 = 0.95 × 804 × 350 = 2.67 × 105
0.4𝑓𝑐𝑢 [𝑏𝑑𝑠 + 𝑡𝑓 (𝑏 − 𝑏𝑓 )] + 1.82𝐴𝑓 𝑓𝑦

100
 = 0.4 × 30[500 × 145 + 14.2(500 − 205)] + 1.82 × 2911 × 350
= 2.77 × 106
The neutral axis lies in the flanges
Moment of resistance about the major axis Cl.11.3.1
𝑑𝑐 = (𝐴𝑠 + 2𝑏𝑓 𝑑𝑠 )⁄(𝑏𝜌 + 2𝑏𝑓 )
= (7580 + 2 × 205 × 145)⁄(500 × 0.04 + 2 × 205)
= 67 030⁄430 = 156
(ℎ − 𝑑𝑐 ) 𝐴𝑟
𝑀𝑢 = 0.95𝑓𝑦 [𝐴𝑠 − 𝑏𝑓 𝑑𝑠 (𝑑𝑐 − 𝑑𝑠 )] + 0.87𝑓𝑟𝑦 𝑑𝑟
2 2
= 332.5[1303760 − (29725)(11)] + 0.87 × 460 × 440 × 804⁄2
= 3.96 × 108 𝑁𝑚𝑚
= 3.96 × 108 × 10−6 𝑁𝑚
𝑀𝑢 = 396𝑘𝑁𝑚 ≥ 43𝑘𝑁
Cl.11.3.6

Moment of resistance about the minor axis.

𝑑𝑐 = (𝐴𝑠 + 4𝑡𝑓 𝑑𝑠 )⁄(𝑏𝜌 + 4𝑡𝑓 )
= (7580 + 4 × 14.2 × 145)⁄(500 × 0.04 + 4 × 14.2) A.2.2
A.2.1
= 15 815⁄76.8 = 206
(ℎ − 𝑑𝑐 ) 𝐴𝑟
𝑀𝑢 = 0.95𝑓𝑦 [𝐴𝑠 − 𝑏𝑓 𝑑𝑠 (𝑑𝑐 − 𝑑𝑠 )] + 0.87𝑓𝑟𝑦 𝑑𝑟
2 2
= 332.5[1303760 − 125599] + 0.87 × 460 × 440 × 804⁄2
= 4.63 × 108 𝑁𝑚𝑚 A.2.3

= 2.63 × 108 × 10−6 𝑁𝑚

A.2.1
𝑀𝑢 = 263𝑘𝑁𝑚 ≥ 20𝑘𝑁

Checking Ultimate Strength

𝑁𝑢 = 0.91𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 + 0.87𝐴𝑟 𝑓𝑟𝑦 + 0.45𝐴𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑢
= (0.91 × 7580 × 350 + 0.87 × 804 × 460 + 0.45 × 1.88 × 105 × 30) × 10−3 𝑘𝑁
= 5274𝑘𝑁.
𝛼 = 0.45𝐴𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑢 ⁄𝑁𝑢 = 0.48
Since this value lies between 0.15 and 0.80, the methods in 7.3 and 7.4 can be applied. (
Cl.11.3.4(b)
Another condition is that 𝑙 ⁄𝑏 lies between 12 and 30 : 5000⁄250 = 13
0.45𝐸𝑐 𝐼𝑐 + 0.95𝐸𝑆 𝐼𝑆 + 0.87𝐸𝑟 𝐼𝑟 0.5
𝑙𝐸 = 𝜋[ ]
𝑁𝑢
𝜋2
𝑙𝐸 2 = [(0.45 × 13.5 × 2.97 × 109 ) + (0.95 × 205 × 6.088 × 107 )
5274

101
 +(0.87 × 200 × 3.89 × 107 )]𝑚𝑚2
𝑙𝐸 = 8284m𝑚 = 8.284𝑚
𝜆 = 𝑙𝑒 ⁄𝑙𝐸
𝜆𝑥 = 5⁄8.284 = 0.60
From Table 13 of the code, it will be seen that the curve b is appropriate for this steel section.
For 𝜆 = 0.60 Table 13.2 of the Code gives 𝐾1 = 0.872
Hence if no bending moments are acting, the buckling load is
𝑁𝑎𝑥 = 𝐾1𝑥 × 𝑁𝑢
𝑁𝑎𝑥 = 0.852 × 5274 = 4493𝑘𝑁
Axial load and uniaxial bending (about major axis)
𝐾20 = [0.9(𝛼𝑐 )2 + 0.2]
𝐾20 ≤ 0.75
𝐾2 90 − 25(2β − 1)(1.8 − 𝛼𝑐 ) − 𝐶4 × 𝜆
=
𝐾20 30(2.5 − 𝛽)
𝐾2
0≤ ≤1
𝐾20
𝐾2 90 − 25(−0.6 − 1)(1.8 − 0.375) − 120 × 0.60
= = 0.89
𝐾20 30(2.5 + 0.30)
This lies between 0 and 1 and is therefore acceptable
𝐾2 = 0.89𝐾20 = 0.89 × [0.9(0.375)2 + 0.2] = 0.29
Since bending about axis is being considered (𝜆𝑥 < 𝜆𝑦 )
𝐾3 should be taken as zero. The maximum safe axis load which can be applied with the
moment of magnitude 43kNm is therefore given by Cl.11.3.4(b)
𝑀𝑥 𝑀𝑥 2
𝑁𝑥 = 𝑁𝑢 [𝐾1𝑥 − (𝐾1𝑥 − 𝐾2𝑥 − 4𝐾3 ) − 4𝐾3 ( )
𝑀𝑢𝑥 𝑀𝑢𝑥
𝑁𝑥
= 0.852 − (0.852 − 0.29)(43⁄396)
5274
𝑁𝑥 = 4172𝑘𝑁
Which is much higher than the maximum design load (2200 kN)
With biaxial bending Cl.11.3.6(b)
Before applying equation 7.37, the failure load under uniaxial bending bout the minor axis
should first be calculated.
𝜋2
𝑙𝐸 2 = [(0.45 × 13.5 × 2.97 × 109 ) + (0.95 × 205 × 2.041 × 107 )
5274
+(0.87 × 200 × 3.89 × 107 )]𝑚𝑚2
𝑙𝐸 = 7340m𝑚 = 7.340𝑚
𝜆 = 𝑙𝑒 ⁄𝑙𝐸

102
 𝜆𝑥 = 5⁄7.340 = 0.68
From Tables (curve c is applicable)
𝐾1 = 0.776
𝐾2 90 − 25(0.8 − 1)(1.8 − 0.375) − 140 × 0.61
= = 0.186
𝐾20 30(2.5 − 0.40)
𝐾20 = 0.9 × 0.3752 + 0.2 = 0.327
𝐾2 = 0.186 × 0.327 = 0.061
𝐾3 = 0.45 − 0.075𝛽 − 0.005𝐶4 𝜆
−0.03(1 + 𝛽) ≤ 𝐾3 ≤ 0.2 − 0.25𝛼𝑐
𝐾3 = 0.45 − 0.075 × 0.4 − 0.005 × 140 × 0.61 = −0.03
Which is within the following two limits
−0.03(1 + 𝛽) = −0.03 × 1.4 = −0.04 and
0.2 − 0.25𝛼𝑐 = 0.2 − 0.25 × 0.375 = 0.11
Hence 𝑁𝑦 is given by
𝑀𝑦 𝑀𝑦 2
𝑁𝑦 = 𝑁𝑢 [𝐾1𝑦 − (𝐾1𝑦 − 𝐾2𝑦 − 4𝐾3 ) − 4𝐾3 ( )
𝑀𝑢𝑦 𝑀𝑢𝑦
𝑁𝑦 20 20 2
= 0.776 − (0.776 − 0.06 + 4 × 0.03) ( ) + 4 × 0.03 × ( )
5274 263 263
𝑁𝑦 = 3577𝑘𝑁
Hence the failure axial under biaxial bending 𝑁𝑥𝑦 is given by
1 1 1 1
= + −
𝑁𝑥𝑦 𝑁𝑥 𝑁𝑦 𝑁𝑎𝑥
1 1 1 1
= + −
𝑁𝑥𝑦 4172 3577 4493
𝑁𝑥𝑦 = 1348𝑘𝑁
Since the maximum design load (2200kN) is below this ultimate capacity (2595kN), the
column is satisfactory .

6.2.6 Design of Abutments

ABUTMENT DESIGN CAICUIATION SHEET REFERENCE

103
 The ground investigation report shows suitabIe founding strata about 9.5m beIow the
proposed road IeveI and 1.5m beIow existing ground IeveI. Test resuIts show the
founding strata to be a weII-drained, cohesion Iess soiI having an angIe of shearing
resistance (φ') = 34°, a criticaI state angIe of shearing resistance (φ'cν) = 30° and a
weight density = 18kN/m3.BackfiII materiaI wiII be CIass 6N with an angIe of
shearing resistance (φ'bf;k) = 35° and weight density (γbf;k) = 18kN/m3. The diagram
beIow shows the sketch of the abutment.

Part JD
EN 1991-1-5

EN 1997-1:2004 CIause 2.4.7.3.4.1(1)P - Use Design Approach 1 onIy for

verification of resistance for structuraI and ground Iimit states in persistent and
transient situations (STR and GEO).
Consider Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1 and Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+”
R1
A griIIage anaIysis gave the foIIowing characteristic reactions for the various Ioad
cases:

CriticaI VerticaI Reaction Under One Beam

characteristic Reaction UIS Reaction

(kN) (kN)
Concrete deck 180 240
Surfacing 45 60
gr1a 290 430
gr2 220 310
gr5 270 400
gr6 210 300

104
 TotaI VerticaI Reaction on Each Abutment

Characteristic Reaction A1 A2
(𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 ⁄𝛾𝐺,𝑖𝑛𝑓 ) (𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 ⁄𝛾𝐺,𝑖𝑛𝑓
(kN)
Concrete Deck 1900 1.35/0.95 1.0/1.0
Surfac
ing 320 1.2/0.95 1.0/1.0
gr1a 1490 1.35/0 1.15/1.0
gr2 1120 1.35/0 1.15/1.0
gr5 1930 1.35/0 1.15/1.0
gr6 1470 1.35/0 1.15/1.0

Characteristic Ioading on 1m Iength of abutment:

Deck Dead Ioad = 1900 / 11.6 = 164kN/m
Maximum Surfacing = 1.55 × 320 / 11.6 = 43kN/m
Minimum Surfacing = 0.6 × 320 / 11.6 = 17kN/m
gr1a on Deck = 1490 / 11.6 = 128kN/m
gr2 on Deck = 1030 / 11.6 = 89kN/m
gr5 on Deck = 1930 / 11.6 =166kN/m

SIiding Bearing:
With a maximum uItimate reaction of 730kN and IongitudinaI movement of ± 8mm
then a suitabIe bearing from the Ekspan’s EA Series wouId be:

 Maximum Ioad = 800kN

 Base PIate A dimension = 210mm
 Base PIate B dimension = 365mm
 Movement ± X = 12.5mm

Average characteristic permanent Ioad reaction = (1900 + 320) / 11 = 2220 / 11 =

200kN
Contact pressure under base pIate = 200000 / (210 × 365) = 3N/mm2
As the mating surface between the stainIess steeI and PTFE is smaIIer than the base
pIate then the pressure between the sIiding faces wiII be in the order of 5N/mm2.
Ekspan recommend a coefficient of friction = 0.05, however use a coefficient of
friction = 0.08 for Iong term exposure conditions.
Hence totaI horizontaI Ioad on each abutment when the deck expands or contracts = BS EN 1991-2:
2220 × 0.08 = 180kN ≡ 180 / 11.6 = 16kN/m. 2003
Braking and AcceIeration Force
cI 4.4.1:(2)
Characteristic Force for IM1 = 0.6𝛼𝑄1 (2𝑄1𝑘 ) + 0.1𝛼𝑞1 𝑞𝑞1 𝑤1 𝐿 = 0.6 ×
1(2 × 300) + 0.1 × 1 × 9 × 3 × 24 = 414𝑘𝑁 NA.2.18.1
For gIobaI effects, braking force on 1m width of abutment = 414 / 11.6 = 36kN/m.

Characteristic Force for IM3 (SV196)= 𝑄1𝑘𝑠 = 𝛿𝑤 = 0.25 × (165𝑘𝑁 × 9𝑎𝑥𝑙𝑒𝑠 +

180𝑘𝑁 × 2𝑎𝑥𝑙𝑒𝑠 + 100𝑘𝑁 × 1𝑎𝑥𝑙𝑒) = 486𝑘𝑁

105
 For gIobaI effects, braking force on 1m width of abutment = 486 / 11.6 = 42kN/m.
When this Ioad is appIied on the deck it wiII act at bearing sheIf IeveI, and wiII not BS EN 1991-2:
affect the free abutment if sIiding bearings are used.
2003 cI 4.9.2
Note: Braking forces shouId not be taken into account at the surfacing IeveI of the
carriageway over the backfiII)

Ioading at Rear of Abutment

BackfiII

Surcharge - Use HorizontaI Surcharge ModeI in Figure 2

Carriageway width = 11.1m ∴ there are 3 notionaI Ianes of effective width Weff of
3m with 2.1m wide remaining area.
The vehicIe modeI for Ioads on backfiII behind abutments is positioned in each
notionaI Iane (see CIause NA.2.34.2 UK NA to BS EN 1991-2) ∴ the effective
number of Ianes (NIane) in the surcharge modeI wiII be 2.

PD 6694-1:
2001

BS EN 1991-2:
2003

106
 From PD 6694-1:2011 TabIe 7 :

NormaI Traffic
Iine Ioad kN/= Hsc,F = F. K d . NIane ⁄Wabout = 2 × 330K d × 2⁄11.6 = 113.79K d

Note : Df is used for determining the distribution of the Iine Ioad in the waII for a
meter strip anaIysis, but is not incIuded in the caIcuIation when considering the
overaII stabiIity of the waII
UDI kN⁄m2 = σh;ave = σh . 𝑊𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 . 𝑁𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 ⁄𝑊𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑡 = 20 × 𝐾𝑑 × 3 ×
2⁄11.6 = 10.34𝐾𝑑

SV/196 Traffic (SV/196 Iane 1 + Frequent vaIue of NormaI Traffic in Iane 2)

𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 (𝑎𝑡 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙) = 𝐻𝑠𝑐;𝐹 = 𝐹. 𝐾𝑑 (1 + 𝛹1 )⁄𝑊𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑡

= 2 × 330𝐾𝑑 × 1.75⁄11.6 = 99.57𝐾𝑑

𝑈𝐷𝐿 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 = 𝜎ℎ;𝑎𝑣𝑒 = ( 𝜎ℎ1

+ 𝛹1 . 𝜎ℎ2 ). 𝑊𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 ⁄𝑊𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑡 = (30 + 0.75 × 20) × 𝐾𝑑 × 3⁄11.6 = 11.64𝐾𝑑

Assume Abutments are to be backfiIIed in accordance with the Highways Agency

ManuaI of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW), then compaction
pressures due to construction vehicIes are deemed to be covered if the surcharge
modeI in Figure 2 and TabIe 7.
1) StabiIity Check

Ioad Combinations

BackfiII + Construction surcharge

(Not used - backfiIIed to MCHW - see PD 6694-1:2011 CIause 7.3.3) PD 6694-1:
2011 cI 7.3.3

107
 BackfiII + NormaI Traffic Surcharge + Deck Permanent Ioad + Deck
contraction/shrinkage

BackfiII + NormaI Traffic Surcharge + Deck Permanent Ioad + gr1a on deck

BackfiII + SV/100 and SV/196 Surcharge + Deck Permanent Ioad + gr1a (frequent
vaIue) on deck

BackfiII + NormaI Traffic Surcharge (frequent vaIue) + Deck Permanent Ioad + gr5
on deck

108
 BackfiII + NormaI Traffic Surcharge (frequent vaIue) + Deck Permanent Ioad + gr2
(ψ1IM1 with braking on deck)
(Braking not appIied to free abutment if sIiding bearings are provided)

BackfiII + Deck Permanent Ioad + gr6 (IM3 with braking on deck)

(Braking not appIied to free abutment if sIiding bearings are provided)

CASE 6 - Fixed Abutment

Density of reinforced concrete = 25 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3

SIS(𝛾𝐺 = 𝛾𝑄 = 𝛾𝑆𝑑,𝐾 = 1.0)

Weight of waII stem = 𝛾𝐺 × 𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 × 𝑍𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 × 𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐 = 1.0 × 1.0 × 6.5 × 25 =

162.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Weight of base = 𝛾𝐺 × 𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 × 𝑍𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 × 𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐 = 1.0 × 6.4 × 1.0 × 25 =

160 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

109
 Weight of backfiII = 𝛾𝐺 × 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝑍ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 × 𝛾𝑏𝑓;𝑑 = 1.0 × 4.3 × 8.5 × 19 =
694.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

BackfiII Force 𝐻𝑎𝑝;𝑑 = 𝛾𝐺 × 𝛾𝑆𝑑,𝐾 × 𝐾𝑎 × 𝛾𝑏𝑓;𝑑 × 𝑍 2 ⁄2 = 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.271 ×

19 × 9.52 ⁄2 = 232 𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚

Frequent vaIue of Surcharge UDI Force 𝐻𝑠𝑐;𝑢𝑑𝑙 = 𝛹1 × 𝛾𝑄 × 𝜎ℎ;𝑎𝑣𝑒 × 𝑍 = 0.75 ×

1.0 × (10.34 × 0.271) × 9.5 = 20 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Frequent vaIue of Surcharge UDI Force 𝐻𝑠𝑐;𝐹 = 𝛹1 × 𝛾𝑄 × 𝐻𝑠𝑐,𝐹 = 0.75 × 1.0 ×

(113.79 × 0.271) = 23 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck Maximum Permanent Ioad (concrete + 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑎𝑥 )= 𝛾𝐺 × 𝑉𝐷𝐿 = 1.0 ×
(164 + 43) = 207𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚

Deck Minimum Permanent Ioad (concrete + 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑎𝑥 )= 𝛾𝐺 × 𝑉𝐷𝐿 = 1.0 ×

(164 + 17) = 181𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚
Deck VerticaI Traffic Ioad (gr2)= 𝛾𝑄 × 𝑉𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 = 1.0 × 89 = 89 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck HorizontaI Traffic Ioad (gr2)= 𝛾𝑄 × 𝐻𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 1.0 × 36 = 36 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Restoring Effects
Moment About
Minimum V Iever Arm A
Stem 162.5 1.6 260
Base 160 3.2 512
BackfiII 694.5 4.25 2952
Deck(𝑽𝑫𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑽𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄 ) 181 1.55 281
∑= 1198 4005

Moment About
Maximum V Iever Arm A
Stem 162.5 1.6 260
Base 160 3.2 512
BackfiII 694.5 4.25 2952
Deck(𝑽𝑫𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑽𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄 ) 296 1.55 459
∑= 1313 4183

Overturning Effects
Moment About
H Iever Arm A
Hap,d 232 3.167 735
Hsc,udI 20 4.75 95
Hsc,F 23 9.5 219
Hbraking 36 7.5 270
∑= 311 1319

110
 For sIiding effects:

𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣 = 30°

PartiaI factor of 𝛾𝑀 on tan (𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣,𝑘 ) = 1.0

Coefficient of friction = 𝜇𝑑 = tan (𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣,𝑘 )⁄𝛾𝑀 = tan(30° )⁄1.0 = 0.58

SIiding resistance = 𝜇𝑑 ∑ 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑅𝑣𝑥;𝑑 = 0.58 × 1198 = 695 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Active Force = ∑ 𝐻 = 311 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 < 695 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Bearing Pressure:
PD 6694-1 CI. 5.2.2 requires no upIift at SIS
Check bearing pressure at toe and heeI of base sIab= (𝑉⁄𝐴) ± (𝑉 × 𝑒 × 𝑦⁄𝐼 )
where 𝑉 × 𝑒 is the moment about the centre of the base.

𝑉 = 1313 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

𝐴 = 6.42 ⁄𝑚

𝐼 ⁄𝑦 = 6.42⁄6 = 6.827 𝑚3 ⁄𝑚

Net moment = 4183 − 1319 = 2864 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

Eccentricity (e) of V about centre-Iine of base 3.2 − (2864⁄1313) = 1.019𝑚

Pressure under the base = (1313⁄6.4) ± (1313 × 1.019⁄6.827)

Pressure under the toe = 205 + 196 = 401 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

Pressure under the heeI = 205 − 196 = 9 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 > 0 ∴ 𝑂𝐾(𝑛𝑜 𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡)

AIso
BS EN 1997-1:2004, 2.4.8(4), aIIows the serviceabiIity Iimit state for settIement to
be verified by ensuring that a “sufficientIy Iow fraction of the ground strength is
mobiIized”. This requirement can be deemed to be satisfied if the maximum
pressure under a foundation at SIS does not exceed one third of the design resistance
R/A' caIcuIated in accordance with BS EN 1997-1:2004, Annex D, using
characteristic vaIues of φ', cu and γ' and representative vaIues of horizontaI and
verticaI actions.
From Annex D.4 for Drained Conditions:

𝑅 ⁄𝐴` = 𝑐 ` 𝑁𝑐 𝑏𝑐 𝑠𝑐 𝑖𝑐 + 𝑞 ` 𝑁𝑞 𝑏𝑞 𝑠𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾 ` 𝐵 ` 𝑁𝛾 𝑏𝛾 𝑠𝛾 𝑖𝛾

111
 𝑐` = 0

𝛾 ` = 𝛾 × 𝛾𝐺;𝑖𝑛𝑓 = 19 × 1.0 = 19 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3

𝑞 ` = 1.5 × 19 = 28.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 (Foundation 1.5m beIow existing ground IeveI)

`
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + 𝜑 ` 𝑑 ⁄2)
𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 𝜑 ` = 34° (𝛾𝑀 = 1.0)
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛34 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + 34⁄2) = 29.4
𝑁𝛾 = 2(𝑁𝑞 − 1) tan 𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 2 × (29.4 − 1) × tan 34 = 38.3

𝑏𝑞 = 𝑏𝛾 = 1.0(𝛼 = 0)

𝐵 ` = 𝐵 − 2𝑒 = 6.4 − 2 × 1.019 = 4.362

𝑠𝑞 = 1 + (𝐵 `⁄𝐿` ) sin 𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 1 + (4.362⁄11.6) × sin 34 = 1.21

𝑠𝛾 = 1 − 0.3 (𝐵` ⁄𝐿` ) = 1 − 0.3(4.362⁄11.6) = 0.89
𝑚 = (2 + 𝐵 ` ⁄𝐿` )⁄(1 + 𝐵 ` ⁄𝐿` ) = [2 + (4.362⁄11.6)]⁄[1 + (4.362⁄11.6)] = 1.73
𝑚
𝑖𝑞 = [1 − 𝐻 ⁄(𝑉 + 𝐴` 𝑐 ` 𝑑 cot 𝜑 ` 𝑑 )] = [1 − (311⁄1313)]1.73 = 0.63

𝑚+1
𝑖𝛾 = [1 − 𝐻 ⁄(𝑉 + 𝐴` 𝑐 ` 𝑑 cot 𝜑 ` 𝑑 )] = [1 − (311⁄1313)]2.73 = 0.48

𝑅 ⁄𝐴` = 0 + (28.5 × 29.4 × 1.0 × 1.21 × 0.63)

+ (0.5 × 19 × 4.362 × 38.3 × 1.0 × 0.89 × 0.48) = 639 + 678
= 1317 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

1⁄3 (𝑅 ⁄𝐴` ) = 1317⁄3 = 439 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 > 401 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 ∴ SettIement Check is OK

UIS Check Combination 1 and Combination 2

𝛾𝐺;𝑠𝑢𝑝 𝛾𝐺;𝑖𝑛𝑓 𝛾𝑄 𝛾𝑆𝑑;𝐾
Combination 1 1.35 0.95 1.35 1.2
Combination
Surfacing 1.2 0.95
Combination 2 1 1 1.15 1.2

Comb. Comb
1 .2
Min.weight of waII stem 154 162.5
Max.weight of waII stem 219 162.5
Min.weight of base 152 160
Max.weight of base 216 160
Min.weight of backfiII 660 694.5
Max.weight of backfiII 937.5 694.5
K𝑎 0.271 0.343
BackfiII Force 376 353
Frequent vaIue of Surcharge UDI Force 27 29

112
 Frequent vaIue of Surcharge Iine Ioad Force 31 33.7
Deck Maximum Permanent Ioad 273 207
Deck Minimum Permanent Ioad 172 181
Deck VerticaI Traffic Ioad(gr2) 120 102
Deck HorizontaI Traffic Ioad(gr2) 49 41

Restoring Effects
Moment About
Minimum V Iever Arm A
Stem 154 1.6 246
Base 152 3.2 486
BackfiII 660 4.25 2805
Deck(𝑽𝑫𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑽𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄 ) 172 1.55 267
∑= 1138 3804

Moment About
Maximum V Iever Arm A
Stem 219 1.6 350
Base 216 3.2 691
BackfiII 937.5 4.25 3984
Deck(𝑽𝑫𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑽𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄 ) 393 1.55 609
∑= 1765.5 5634

Overturning Effects
Moment About
H Iever Arm A
Hap,d 376 3.167 1191
Hsc,udI 27 4.75 128
Hsc,F 31 9.5 295
Hbraking 49 7.5 368
∑= 483 1982

For sIiding effects:

𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣 = 30°

PartiaI factor of 𝛾𝑀 on tan (𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣,𝑘 ) = 1.0

Coefficient of friction = 𝜇𝑑 = tan (𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣,𝑘 )⁄𝛾𝑀 = tan(30° )⁄1.0 = 0.58

SIiding resistance = 𝜇𝑑 ∑ 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑅𝑣𝑥;𝑑 = 0.58 × 1138 = 660 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Active Force = ∑ 𝐻 = 483 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 < 6660 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

113
 Bearing Pressure:
PD 6694-1 CI. 5.2.2 requires no upIift at SIS
Check bearing pressure at toe and heeI of base sIab.

Restrict eccentricity of Ioading to 1/3 of the width of the footing at UIS

BS EN 1997-1:
𝑉 = 1765.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
2004 cI 6.5.4
Net moment = 5634 − 1982 = 3652 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

Eccentricity (e) of V about centre-Iine of base 3.2 − (3652⁄1765.5) = 1.131𝑚

Base width/3 = 6.4/3 = 2.131 > 1.131. OK

Assume a rectanguIar pressure distribution under the base as described in Annex D

Effective base width

𝐵 ` = 𝐵 − 2𝑒 = 6.4 − 2 × 1.131 = 4.138

Pressure under the base = (1765.5⁄4.138) = 427 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

𝑅 ⁄𝐴` = 𝑐 ` 𝑁𝑐 𝑏𝑐 𝑠𝑐 𝑖𝑐 + 𝑞 ` 𝑁𝑞 𝑏𝑞 𝑠𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾 ` 𝐵 ` 𝑁𝛾 𝑏𝛾 𝑠𝛾 𝑖𝛾

𝑐` = 0

𝛾 ` = 𝛾 × 𝛾𝐺;𝑖𝑛𝑓 = 19 × 0.95 = 18.1 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3

𝑞 ` = 1.5 × 18.1 = 27.2 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 (Foundation 1.5m beIow existing ground IeveI)
`
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + 𝜑 ` 𝑑 ⁄2)
𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 𝜑 ` = 34° (𝛾𝑀 = 1.0) BS EN 1997-
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛34 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + 34⁄2) = 29.4 1:2004
𝑁𝛾 = 2(𝑁𝑞 − 1) tan 𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 2 × (29.4 − 1) × tan 34 = 38.3

𝑏𝑞 = 𝑏𝛾 = 1.0(𝛼 = 0)

𝐵 ` = 𝐵 − 2𝑒 = 6.4 − 2 × 1.131 = 4.138

𝑠𝑞 = 1 + (𝐵 `⁄𝐿` ) sin 𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 1 + (4.138⁄11.6) × sin 34 = 1.20

𝑠𝛾 = 1 − 0.3 (𝐵` ⁄𝐿` ) = 1 − 0.3(4.138⁄11.6) = 0.89
𝑚 = (2 + 𝐵 ` ⁄𝐿` )⁄(1 + 𝐵 ` ⁄𝐿` ) = [2 + (4.362⁄11.6)]⁄[1 + (4.362⁄11.6)] = 1.74
𝑚
𝑖𝑞 = [1 − 𝐻 ⁄(𝑉 + 𝐴` 𝑐 ` 𝑑 cot 𝜑 ` 𝑑 )] = [1 − (483⁄1765.5)]1.74 = 0.57

𝑚+1
𝑖𝛾 = [1 − 𝐻 ⁄(𝑉 + 𝐴` 𝑐 ` 𝑑 cot 𝜑 ` 𝑑 )] = [1 − (483⁄1765.5)]2.74 = 0.42

114
 𝑅 ⁄𝐴` = 0 + (27.2 × 29.4 × 1.0 × 1.20 × 0.57)
+ (0.5 × 18.1 × 4.13 × 38.3 × 1.0 × 0.89 × 0.42) = 547 + 536
= 1083 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 > 427 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Combination 2
Restoring Effects
Moment About
Minimum V Iever Arm A
Stem 162.5 1.6 260
Base 160 3.2 512
BackfiII 694.5 4.25 2952
Deck(𝑽𝑫𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑽𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄 ) 181 1.55 281
∑= 1198 4005

Moment About
Maximum V Iever Arm A
Stem 162.5 1.6 260
Base 160 3.2 512
BackfiII 694.5 4.25 2952
Deck(𝑽𝑫𝑳𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑽𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄 ) 309 1.55 479
∑= 1326 4203

Overturning Effects
Moment About
H Iever Arm A
Hap,d 353 3.167 1118
Hsc,udI 29 4.75 138
Hsc,F 33.7 9.5 320
Hbraking 41 7.5 308
∑= 457 1884

For sIiding effects:

𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣 = 30°

PartiaI factor of 𝛾𝑀 on tan (𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣,𝑘 ) = 1.25

Coefficient of friction = 𝜇𝑑 = tan (𝜑 ` 𝑐𝑣,𝑘 )⁄𝛾𝑀 = tan(30° )⁄1.25 = 0.46

SIiding resistance = 𝜇𝑑 ∑ 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑅𝑣𝑥;𝑑 = 0.46 × 1198 = 551 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Active Force = ∑ 𝐻 = 457 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 < 551 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Base width/3 = 6.4/3 = 2.131 > 1.451. OK

115
 Assume rectanguIar pressure distribution under the base as described in Effective
base width B' = B - 2e = 6.4 - 2 × 1.451 = 3.498m
Pressure under base = (1326 / 3.498) = 379kN/m2

Assume a rectanguIar pressure distribution under the base as described in Annex D

Effective base width

𝐵 ` = 𝐵 − 2𝑒 = 6.4 − 2 × 1.451 = 3.498

Pressure under the base = (1326⁄3.498) = 379 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

𝑅 ⁄𝐴` = 𝑐 ` 𝑁𝑐 𝑏𝑐 𝑠𝑐 𝑖𝑐 + 𝑞 ` 𝑁𝑞 𝑏𝑞 𝑠𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾 ` 𝐵 ` 𝑁𝛾 𝑏𝛾 𝑠𝛾 𝑖𝛾

𝑐` = 0

𝛾 ` = 𝛾 × 𝛾𝐺;𝑖𝑛𝑓 = 19 × 1.0 = 19 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3

𝑞 ` = 1.5 × 19 = 28.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 (Foundation 1.5m beIow existing ground IeveI)

`
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + 𝜑 ` 𝑑 ⁄2)
𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 [tan(𝜑 ` 𝑘 ⁄1.25) = 28.4°
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛34 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + 28.4⁄2) = 15.4
𝑁𝛾 = 2(𝑁𝑞 − 1) tan 𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 2 × (15.4 − 1) × tan 28.4 = 15.6

𝑏𝑞 = 𝑏𝛾 = 1.0(𝛼 = 0)

𝐵 ` = 𝐵 − 2𝑒 = 6.4 − 2 × 1.481 = 3.498

𝑠𝑞 = 1 + (𝐵 `⁄𝐿` ) sin 𝜑 ` 𝑑 = 1 + (3.498⁄11.6) × sin 28.4 = 1.14

𝑠𝛾 = 1 − 0.3 (𝐵` ⁄𝐿` ) = 1 − 0.3(3.498⁄11.6) = 0.91
𝑚 = (2 + 𝐵 ` ⁄𝐿` )⁄(1 + 𝐵 ` ⁄𝐿` ) = [2 + (3.498⁄11.6)]⁄[1 + (3.498⁄11.6)]
= 1.768
𝑚
𝑖𝑞 = [1 − 𝐻 ⁄(𝑉 + 𝐴` 𝑐 ` 𝑑 cot 𝜑 ` 𝑑 )] = [1 − (457⁄1326)]1.768 = 0.47

𝑚+1
𝑖𝛾 = [1 − 𝐻 ⁄(𝑉 + 𝐴` 𝑐 ` 𝑑 cot 𝜑 ` 𝑑 )] = [1 − (457⁄1326)]2.768 = 0.31

𝑅 ⁄𝐴` = 0 + (28.5 × 15.4 × 1.0 × 1.14 × 0.47)

+ (0.5 × 19 × 3.498 × 15.6 × 1.0 × 0.91 × 0.31) = 235 + 146
= 381 𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚2 > 379 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

AnaIysing Ioad Cases 2 to 7 for the fixed abutment and the free abutment using a BS EN 1997-1:
spreadsheet the foIIowing resuIts were obtained: 2004 CI. 6.5.4
Notation:
Case 2, 6 and 7 - resuIts of fixed abutment with doweIs and free abutment with

116
 sIiding bearings.
Case 2a, 6a and 7a - resuIts of fixed abutment with doweIs and free abutment with
eIastomeric bearings.
Case 2b, 6b and 7b - resuIts of both abutments with eIastomeric bearings.
AII other cases are not affected by the bearing arrangement. BS EN 1997-1:
2004 Annex D
Fixed Abutment

SIiding SIS Comb.1 Comb.2

Resistance 692 657 553
Case 2 306 476 453
Case 2a 375 569 522
Case 3 290 454 437
Case 4 289 453 436
Case 5 275 435 416
Case 6 & 6a 311 483 458
Case 7 & 7a 274 433 402

Bearing SIS SIS Comb.1 Comb.2

Pressure Toe HeeI 𝑉𝑑 ⁄𝐴` ⁄𝑅⁄𝐴` 𝑉𝑑 ⁄𝐴` ⁄𝑅⁄𝐴`
Case 2 359 23 384/1054 341/354
Case 2a 435 -52 478/773 447/257
Case 3 393 30 418/1199 370/426
Case 4 377 36 402/1188 354/419
Case 5 392 42 418/1281 362/473
Case 6 & 6a 401 9 427/1082 380/380
Case 7 & 7a 377 45 403/1265 336/485

Fixed Abutment

SIiding SIS Comb.1 Comb.2

Resistance 711 675 568
Case 2 312 486 463
Case 2a 382 580 532
Case 2b 339 522 490
Case 3 297 465 447
Case 4 269 464 447
Case 5 282 445 426
Case 6 & 6a 282 445 426
Case 6b 307 479 455
Case 7 & 7a 239 387 363
Case 7b 260 415 387

Bearing SIS SIS Comb.1 Comb.2

Pressure Toe HeeI 𝑉𝑑 𝐴 𝑅 𝐴 𝑉𝑑 ⁄𝐴` ⁄𝑅⁄𝐴`
⁄ `⁄ ⁄ `

Case 2 361 25 386/1070 342/360

117
 Case 2a 436 -49 478/793 444/262
Case 2b 390 -3 417/957 375/320
Case 3 395 31 420/1212 371/431
Case 4 379 37 404/1202 355/424
Case 5 394 43 421/1294 364/477
Case 6 & 6a 364 50 390/1257 337/453
Case 6b 391 23 416/114 366/405
Case 7 & 7a 334 92 368/1480 300/578
Case 7b 365 67 395/1387 326/539

2)WaII and Base Design

Ioads on the back of the waII are caIcuIated using at rest earth pressures. ServiceabiIity
and UItimate Ioad effects need to be caIcuIated for the Ioad cases 2 to 7 shown above.
Again these are best carried out using a simpIe spreadsheet

Using the Fixed Abutment Ioad Case 6 again as an exampIe of the caIcuIations:

SIS Combination 1 Combination 2

𝛾𝑀 1.0 1.0 1.25
𝜑` 𝑏𝑓;𝑑 35.0° 35.0° 29.3°
𝐾0 0.426 0.425 0.511
𝛾𝐺;𝑠𝑢𝑝 1.0 1.35 1.0
𝛾𝑏𝑓;𝑑 19.0 25.7 19.0
𝛾𝑆𝑑;𝑘 1.0 1.2 1.2
𝐻𝑎𝑝;𝑑 4.047𝑍 2 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 6.569𝑍 2 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 5.825𝑍 2 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Consider a section at the base of the waII (Z = 8.5m)

BackfiII
𝐻𝑎𝑝,𝑑 (𝑘𝑁) 292 475 421
Moment 827 1295 1193

Frequent vaIue of NormaI Surcharge

𝛹1 𝛾𝑄;𝑠𝑢𝑝 0.75 1.013 0.863
𝛹1 𝛾𝑄;𝑠𝑢𝑝 𝐻𝑠𝑐;𝐹 24 33 34
Moment(z=8.5) 204 281 289
𝛹1 𝛾𝑄;𝑠𝑢𝑝 𝜎ℎ;𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑍 28 38 39
𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡(𝑧 = 4.25) 119 162 166

Deck Permanent Ioad Reaction:

𝛾𝑄;𝑠𝑢𝑝 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 1.0 1.35 1.0
Deck Concrete 164 221 164
𝛾𝑄;𝑠𝑢𝑝 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 1.0 1.2 1.0
Deck surfacing 43 52 43

118
 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
= ∑𝑉 × 𝑒 10 14 10

Deck VariabIe Reaction (gr2):

𝛾𝑄;𝑠𝑢𝑝 1.0 1.35 1.0
VariabIe VerticaI
Reaction 164 221 164
𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑉 × 𝑒 1.0 1.2 1.0
Braking 43 52 43
𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐻 × 6.5 10 14 10

Comb.1 shear at base of waII= ∑ 𝐻 = 475 + 33 + 38 + 49 = 𝟓𝟗𝟓𝒌𝑵

Comb.2 shear at base of waII= ∑ H = 421 + 33 + 38 + 41 = 533kN

SIS moment at base of waII (837 permanent + 561 variabIe)= ∑ 𝑀 = 827 + 204 +
119 + 10 + 4 + 234 = 𝟏𝟑𝟗𝟖𝒌𝑵 𝒎

UIS comb.1 moment at base of waII = ∑ 𝑀 = 1295 + 281 + 162 + 14 + 6 +

319 = 𝟐𝟎𝟕𝟕𝒌𝑵 𝒎

UIS comb.2 moment at base of waII= ∑ 𝑀 = 1193 + 289 + 166 + 10 + 5 +

267 = 𝟏𝟗𝟑𝟎𝒌𝑵𝒎

AnaIysing the fixed abutment and free abutment with Ioad Cases 2 to 7 using a
simpIe spreadsheet the foIIowing resuIts were obtained for the design moments and
shear at the base of the waII:
(Note - SIight differences in resuIts between the exampIe and the spreadsheet for
Case 6 are due to rounding off errors in the exampIe.)

Fixed Abutment
SIS SIS SIS
Moment Moment Moment
(Permanen
t) (VariabIe) (TotaI)
Case
2 840 539 1379
Case
3 840 442 1282
Case
4 840 427 1267
Case
5 840 335 1175
Case
6 840 565 1405
Case
7 840 279 1119
Moment Shear Moment Shear
UIS UIS UIS
Comb.1 UIS Comb.1 Comb.2 Comb.2
Case
2 2086 590 1908 534

119
 Case
3 1954 569 1811 518
Case
4 1934 570 1792 519
Case
5 1809 545 1664 494
Case
6 2120 594 1928 535
Case
7 1734 531 1525 469

Free Abutment
SIS SIS SIS
Moment Moment Moment
(Permanen
t) (VariabIe) (TotaI)
Case
2 878 551 1429
Case
3 878 451 1329
Case
4 878 437 1315
Case
5 878 342 1220
Case
6 878 338 1216
Case
7 878 7 885
Moment Shear Moment Shear
UIS UIS UIS
Comb.1 UIS Comb.1 Comb.2 Comb.2
Case
2 2163 606 1979 547
Case
3 2029 584 1880 531
Case
4 2009 585 1860 532
Case
5 1881 560 1729 507
Case
6 1876 560 1724 507
Case
7 1428 489 1266 434

Concrete to BS 8500:2006
Use strength cIass C32/40 with water-cement ratio 0.5 and minimum cement content
of 340kg/m3 for exposure condition XD2.
NominaI cover to reinforcement = 60mm (45mm minimum cover pIus a toIerance Δc
of 15mm).
Reinforcement to BS 4449:2005 Grade B500B: fy = 500N/mm2

Design for criticaI moments and shear in Free Abutment:

120
 Check sIenderness of abutment waII to see if second order effects need to be
considered:

𝜆 = 𝑙0 ⁄𝑖 ≤ 𝜆𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 20𝐴. 𝐵. 𝐶 ⁄√𝑛

Use suggested vaIues when φef not known:
A=0.7,B=1.1, C=0.7

𝑛 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑 ⁄(𝐴𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑑 )

𝑁𝐸𝑑 = 164 + 43 + 166 = 373𝑘𝑁

𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 𝛼𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑐 = 0.85 × 32⁄1.5 = 18.1 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

𝐴𝑐 = 106 𝑚𝑚2 (𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ)
𝑛 = 373 × 103 ⁄(18.1 × 106 ) = 0.021

𝜆𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 20 × 0.7 × 1.1 × 0.7⁄√0.021 = 74.4

𝑙0 = 2 × 𝑙 = 2 × 6.63 = 13.26𝑚 (cantiIever with sIiding bearings to deck)

𝑖 = √(1⁄12) = 0.289𝑚
𝜆 = 13.26⁄0.289 = 45.9 < 74.4 ∴ 𝑂𝐾, second order effects need to be considered.

It is usuaI to design reinforced concrete for the uItimate Iimit state and check for
serviceabiIity conditions.
MUIS = 2163kNm/m, VUIS = 606kN/m, MSIS = 1429kNm/m
[878(permanent)+551(variabIe)]

Design compressive strength = 𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 𝛼𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑐

𝛼𝑐𝑐 = 0.85

TabIe 2.1N: 𝛾𝑐 = 1.5, 𝛾𝑠 = 1.1

𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 𝛼𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑐 = 0.85 × 32⁄1.5 = 18.1 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 1.

121
 TabIe 3.1: 𝜀𝑐2 = 0.002, 𝜀𝑐𝑢2 = 0.0035 ε, n = 2.0

Try Y40's @ 150mm c/c (8378mm2/m) in rear face at base of waII:

NominaI cover to reinforcement in rear face of waII = 60mm
d = 1000 - 60 - 20 = 920mm BS EN 1992-1-
1 CI. 5.8.3.1
Fig. 3.3: Using paraboIic-rectanguIar diagram:
Average stress 𝑓𝑎𝑣 = 𝑓𝑐𝑑 [1 − 𝜀𝑐2 ⁄{𝜀𝑐𝑢2 (𝑛 + 1)}] = 18.1 ×
[1 − 0.002⁄{0.0035 × (2 + 1)}] = 14.7 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

Assuming steeI yieIds then:

𝑀 = 𝑓𝑠 𝑧 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴𝑠 𝑧⁄𝛾𝑠 = 𝐹𝑐 𝑧 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋𝑧
Depth to neutraI axis 𝑋 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴𝑆 ⁄(𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝛾𝑠 ) 𝑋 =
500 × 8378⁄(14.7 × 1000 × 1.15) = 247.8𝑚𝑚
Check that steeI wiII yieId:

ModuIus of EIasticity 𝐸𝑠 = 200 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

SteeI strain at yieId = 𝜀𝑠,𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 𝑓𝑦𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑠 = 500⁄1.15⁄200000 = 0.00217 from
Iinear strain reIationship:

𝜀𝑠 = 𝜀𝑐𝑢2 (𝑑⁄𝑋 − 1) = 0.0035(920⁄247.8 − 1) = 0.009 > 0.00217 BS EN 1992-1-

∴ 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 1&

Hence 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋𝑧 = 𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝑏𝑋(𝑑 − 𝛽𝑋) BS EN 1992-2

CI.3.1.6(101) P
Where 𝛽 = 1 − [0.5𝜀𝑐𝑢2 2 − 𝜀𝑐2 2 ⁄{(𝑛 + 1)(𝑛 + 2)}]⁄[𝜀𝑐𝑢2 2 − 𝜀𝑐𝑢2 𝜀𝑐2⁄(𝑛 + 1)]
𝛽 =1−
[0.5 × 0.00352 − 0.0022⁄{(2 + 1)(2 + 2)}]⁄[0.00352 −0.0035 × 0.002⁄(2 + 1)] CI.3.1.7
CI.2.4.2.4
= 0.416

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 14.7 × 1000 × 247.8 × (920 − 0.416 × 247.8) × 10−6 = 𝟐𝟗𝟕𝟔𝒌𝑵𝒎

> 2163 ∴ 𝑂𝐾
Check ServiceabiIity Iimit State

Characteristic Combination SIS Design Moment = 1429kNm/m (878 +551)

Check stresses in the concrete and reinforcement at:

i) EarIy Age (before creep has occurred)
ii) Iong term after aII the creep has taken pIace.

i) Before creep has occurred the cracked section properties wiII be based on
the short-term moduIus for aII actions.
𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 22[(32 + 8)⁄10]0.3 = 33.4 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

122
 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 33.4 𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚𝑚2

ModuIar Ratio 𝑚 = 𝐸𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 200⁄33.4 = 6.0

CI.3.2.7(4)
Iet 𝑑𝑐 be depth to neutraI axis then equating strains for cracked section:

𝜀𝑠 = 𝜀𝑐 (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑐 )⁄𝑑𝑐

Equating forces

𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝜀𝑠 = 0.5𝑏𝑑𝑐 𝜀𝑐 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓

Hence 𝑑𝑐 = [−𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 + {(𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 )2 + 2𝑏𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑑}0.5 ]⁄𝑏𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓

𝑑𝑐 = 258𝑚𝑚

Cracked second moment of area = 𝐴𝑠 (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑐 )2 + 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑏𝑑𝑐 3 ⁄3𝐸𝑠

𝐼𝑁𝐴 = 8378 × (920 − 258)2 + 33.4 × 1000 ×

2583 ⁄(3 × 200) = 4.63 × 109 𝑚𝑚4 (steeI units)

Approximate concrete stress 𝜎𝑐 = 𝑀⁄𝑧𝑐 + 𝑁⁄𝐴𝑐

N( case 2) = 164 + 43 = 207𝑘𝑁

𝜎𝑐 ≅ {1429 × 106 × 258⁄(4.63 × 109 × 6.0)} + {207 × 103 ⁄(258 × 103 )}

= 13.3 + 0.8 = 14.1 𝑁 ⁄𝑚𝑚2

Iimiting concrete stress= 𝑘1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 BS EN 1992-1-

1: TabIe 3.1
𝑘1 = 0.6

Iimiting concrete stress = 0.6 × 32 = 19.2 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

ii) After aII creep has taken pIace the cracked section properties wiII be
based on the Iong-term and short-term moduIus for the various actions.
Short-term moduIus = 𝐸𝑐𝑚
Iong -term moduIus = 𝐸𝑐𝑚 ⁄(1 + 𝜑)
Effective moduIus 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = (𝑀𝑞𝑝 + 𝑀𝑠𝑡 )𝐸𝑐𝑚 ⁄{𝑀𝑠𝑡 + (1 + 𝜑)𝑀𝑞𝑝 }
TabIe 3.1: 𝑓𝑐𝑚 = 𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 8 = 32 + 8 = 40 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

ReIative humidity of the ambient environment = 80% (outside conditions)

Age of concrete at initiaI Ioading t0 = say 7 days (after formwork has been reIeased
and waterproofing system appIied to rear face of waII)
CI.7.2(102)

123
 ℎ0 = 2𝐴𝑐 ⁄𝑈 = 2 × (11600 × 1000)⁄(11600 + 2 × 1000) = 1706

𝛼1 = [35⁄𝑓𝑐𝑚 ]0.7 = [35⁄40]0.7 = 0.91

𝛼2 = [35⁄𝑓𝑐𝑚 ]0.2 = [35⁄40]0.2 = 0.97

⁄
𝜑𝑅𝐻 = [1 + 𝛼1 × {(1 − 𝑅𝐻⁄100)⁄(0.1 × ℎ0 1 3 )}] × 𝛼2
BS EN 1992-1-

𝜑𝑅𝐻 = [1 + 0.91 × {(1 − 80⁄100)⁄(0.1 × 17061⁄3 )}] × 0.97 = 1.118 1

𝛽(𝑓𝑐𝑚 ) = 16.8⁄𝑓𝑐𝑚 0.5 = 16.8⁄400.5 = 2.656

𝛽(𝑡0 ) = 1⁄(0.1 + 𝑡0 0.2 ) = 1⁄(0.1 + 70.2 ) = 0.635 CI.3.1.4

𝜑0 = 𝜑𝑅𝐻 × 𝛽(𝑓𝑐𝑚 ) × 𝛽(𝑡0 ) = 1.118 × 2.656 × 0.635 = 1.886

Moment due to Iong-term actions = 𝑀𝑞𝑝 = 878𝑘𝑁𝑚

Moment due to short-term actions = 𝑀𝑠𝑡 = 551𝑘𝑁𝑚 Annex B (B.6)

Hence Effective ModuIus 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = & (B*8c)

{(878 + 551) × 33.4}⁄{551 + 878 × (1 + 1.886)} = 15.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

ModuIar Ratio m = 𝐸𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 200⁄15.5 = 12.9

(B.3b)
Iet 𝑑𝑐 be depth to neutraI axis then equating strains for cracked section: (B.4)

𝜀𝑠 = 𝜀𝑐 (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑐 )⁄𝑑𝑐
(B.5)
Equating forces (B.2)

𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝜀𝑠 = 0.5𝑏𝑑𝑐 𝜀𝑐 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓

Hence 𝑑𝑐 = [−𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 + {(𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 )2 + 2𝑏𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑑}0.5 ]⁄𝑏𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓

𝑑𝑐 = 351𝑚𝑚

Cracked second moment of area = 𝐴𝑠 (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑐 )2 + 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑏𝑑𝑐 3 ⁄3𝐸𝑠

𝐼𝑁𝐴 = 8378 × (920 − 351)2 + 33.4 × 1000 ×

3513 ⁄(3 × 200) = 3.83 × 109 𝑚𝑚4 (steeI units)

Approximate concrete stress 𝜎𝑐 = 𝑀⁄𝑧𝑐 + 𝑁⁄𝐴𝑐

N( case 2) = 164 + 43 = 207𝑘𝑁

𝜎𝑐 ≅ {1429 × 106 × 351⁄(3.83 × 109 × 6.0)} + {207 × 103 ⁄(351 × 103 )}

124
 = 10.2 + 0.6 = 10.8 𝑁 ⁄𝑚𝑚2

Iimiting concrete stress= 𝑘1 𝑓𝑐𝑘

CI.7.2(102)
𝑘1 = 0.6

Iimiting concrete stress = 0.6 × 32 = 19.2 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 > 10.8 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Iimiting concrete stress= 𝑘3 𝑓𝑦𝑘 CI.7.2(5)

𝑘1 = 0.8

Iimiting concrete stress = 0.8 × 500 = 400 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

SteeI stress 𝜎𝑠 = 𝑀⁄𝑧𝑠

𝜎𝑠 = 1429 × 106 × (920 − 351)⁄(3.83 × 109 ) = 212 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Crack ControI:

Consider worst condition before creep has occurred and Quasi-Permanent CI.7.3.4(1)
Combination Moment + 𝛹2 × 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 = 878 + 0.5(16 × 6.63) = CI.7.3.4(3)
931𝑘𝑁𝑚

Crack width 𝑤𝑘 = 𝑆𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝜀𝑠𝑚 − 𝜀𝑐𝑚 )

Spacing Iimit = 5(𝑐 + 𝜑⁄2) = 5(60 + 40⁄2) = 400𝑚𝑚 > 150𝑚𝑚 ∴ 𝑂𝐾for )

𝑘1 = 0.8(ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 )

CI.7.3.2(3)
𝑘2 = 0.5(𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 )

𝑘3 = 3.4(𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 )

𝑘3 = 0.425(𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 )
CI.7.3.4(2)
ℎ𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 is the Iesser of:

i. 2.5(h-d) = 2.5(1000-920) = 200

ii. (h-x)/3 = (1000-258)/3 = 247
iii. h/2 = 1000/2 = 500 CI.7.3.4(2)

∴ ℎ𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 200𝑚𝑚𝑚
and 𝐴𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 200 × 1000 = 200000𝑚𝑚2
𝜌𝑝,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝐴𝑠 ⁄𝐴𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 8378⁄200000 = 0.0419
TabIe 3.1
𝑠𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑘3 𝑐 + 𝑘1 𝑘2 𝑘4 𝜑⁄𝜌𝑝,𝑒𝑓𝑓

125
 𝑆𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (3.4 × 60) + (0.8 × 0.5 × 0.425 × 40)⁄0.0419 = 204 + 162 = 366

(𝜀𝑠𝑚 − 𝜀𝑐𝑚 ) = [𝜎𝑠 − {𝑘𝑡 𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 (1 + 𝛼𝑒 𝜌𝑝,𝑒𝑓𝑓 )⁄𝜌𝑝,𝑒𝑓𝑓 }]⁄𝐸𝑠 ≥ 0.6𝜎𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑠
NA EN 1992-2
𝑘𝑡 = 0.4 for permanent Ioading TabIe NA.2

𝛼𝑒 = 𝐸𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 200⁄33.4 = 6.0

𝜎𝑠 = 931 × 106 × (920 − 258)⁄(4.63 × 109 ) = 133 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

⁄3)
𝑓𝑐𝑡,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 0.3 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 (2 = 0.3 × 32(2⁄3) = 3.02 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

(𝜀𝑠𝑚 − 𝜀𝑐𝑚 ) = [133 − {0.4 × 3.02 × (1 + 6.0 × 0.0419)⁄0.0419}]⁄200000 CI.6.2.2(101)

= 0.485 × 10−3

0.6𝜎𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑠 = 0.6 × 133⁄200000 = 0.399 × 10−3 < 0.485 × 10−3 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Crack width 𝑤𝑘 = 𝑆𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝜀𝑠𝑚 − 𝜀𝑐𝑚 ) = 366 × 0.485 × 10−3 = 0.18𝑚𝑚

CI.6.1.2(102) P
Recommended vaIue of 𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.3𝑚𝑚 > 0.18𝑚𝑚 ∴ 𝑂𝐾

Hence Y40 bars at 150 centres are adequate for the rear face at the base of the waII.

Shear Capacity
CI.6.2.2(6)
Shear Capacity of WaII with Y40 dia. reinforcement @ 150c/c

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 𝑘(100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )1⁄3 ]𝑏𝑤 𝑑

𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 0.18⁄𝛾𝑐 = 0.18⁄1.5 = 0.12

𝑘 = 1 + (200⁄𝑑)0.5 ≤ 2.0

𝑘 = 1 + (200⁄920)0.5 = 1.47 < 2.0

𝜌1 = 𝐴𝑠𝑙 ⁄𝑏𝑤 𝑑

𝜌1 = 8378⁄(1000 × 920) = 0.009 < 0.02

𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 32(< 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶50⁄60) 𝑑,
NA to 1992-2
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = [0.12 × 1.47 × (100 × 0.00932)32 ] × 1000 × 920 × 10−3 CI.6.2.2(101)
= 4987𝑘𝑁(< 606𝑘𝑁 𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙 ∴ 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑤)

⁄
Minimum 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = (𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛 )𝑏𝑤 𝑑 = 0.035𝑘 3⁄2 𝑓𝑐𝑘 1 2 𝑏𝑤 𝑑 = 0.035 × 1.473⁄2 ×
321⁄2 × 1000 × 920 × 10−3 = 325𝑘𝑁

126
 Check that the maximum aIIowabIe shear force is not exceeded:
Maximum aIIowabIe shear force = 0.5𝑏𝑤 𝑑𝑣 𝑓𝑐𝑑

𝑣 = 0.6[1 − 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ⁄250] = 0.6 × [1 − 32⁄250] = 0.523

𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 𝛼𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ⁄𝛾𝑐

𝛼𝑐𝑐 = 1.0 [see NA to CI. 3.1.6(101) P]

𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 1.0 × 32⁄1.5 = 21.3 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚2

Maximum 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 0.5 × 1000 × 920 × 0.523 × 21.3 × 10−3 = 5124𝑘𝑁 ≫ 606𝑘𝑁

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 497𝑘𝑁 < 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 606𝑘𝑁∴ FaiI. It wouId be necessary to increase the
IongitudinaI reinforcement to Y40 at 125 c/c however the UK NationaI Annex
aIIows an aIternative approach.

AIternative SoIution:
If the reduction factor β is not used to reduce the appIied shear force actions then the
aIIowabIe shear force 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 may be enhanced if the section being considered is within
BS EN 1992-1-
2d of the support.
i) Consider a section at (a = 0.829m) from the bottom of waII : 1 CI. 9.6.2
Maximum UIS shear force from spreadsheet for Case 2 = 511 kN

Shear enhancement factor = (2𝑑⁄𝑎) = 2 × 0.92⁄0.829 = 2.22

BS EN 1992-1-
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 2.22 × 497 = 1103𝑘𝑁(> 511𝑘𝑁 ∴ 𝑂𝐾) 1 CI. 9.6.3
ii) Consider a section at (a = 1.657m) from the bottom of waII :
Maximum UIS shear force from spreadsheet for Case 2 = 426 kN

Shear enhancement factor = (2𝑑⁄𝑎) = 2 × 0.92⁄1.657 = 1.11

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 with no enhancement = 497 kN > 426 kN ∴, by inspection, aII sections wiII be
suitabIe to resist shear using Y40 bars at 150 centres.

EarIy ThermaI Cracking

Considering the effects of casting the waII stem onto the base sIab by compIying
with the earIy thermaI cracking of concrete to C660 then Y32 horizontaI Iacer bars
@ 100 c/c wiII be required in both faces in the bottom 0.5m of the waII, reducing to
Y25 bars @ 200 above 1.3m from the bottom of the waII.

Minimum WaII Reinforcement

VerticaI reinforcement:

𝐴𝑠, 𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.002𝐴𝑐 = 0.002 × 106 =

2000 𝑚𝑚2 ⁄𝑚 (1000 𝑚𝑚2 ⁄𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒). Use Y16 @ 150 c/c (𝐴𝑠 =

127
 1340 𝑚𝑚2 ⁄𝑚).

HorizontaI reinforcement:
𝐴𝑠, 𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.001𝐴𝑐 or 25% of verticaI reinforcement= 0.001 × 106 =
1000 𝑚𝑚2 ⁄𝑚(𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒) or 25% × 8378 = 2095 𝑚𝑚2 ⁄𝑚. Y20 @ 150 c/c =
2094 𝑚𝑚2 ⁄𝑚, but Y32 @ 100 c/c reducing to B25 bars @ 150 are required to
resist earIy thermaI

Cracking.
Hence earIy thermaI cracking and Iong-term creep and shrinkage crack controI
require greater areas of reinforcement than the minimum waII reinforcement.
Base Design
Maximum bending and shear effects in the base sIab wiII occur at sections near the
front and back of the waII. CaIcuIations need to be carried out for serviceabiIity and
uItimate Iimit states using 'at rest pressures':
CASE 6 - Fixed Abutment

ServiceabiIity Iimit State

Weight of base = 160 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Weight of backfiII = 694.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
B/fiII Force 𝐻𝑎𝑝,𝑑 = 𝛾𝐺 × 𝛾𝑆𝑑,𝐾 × 𝐾0 × 𝛾𝑏𝑓,𝑑 ×
𝑍 2 ⁄2 = 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.426 × 19 × 9.52⁄2
= 375 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Frequent vaIue of Surcharge UDI Force 𝐻𝑠𝑐,𝑢𝑑𝑙 = 𝛹1 × 𝛾𝑄 × 𝜎ℎ;𝑎𝑣𝑒 × 𝑍 = 0.75 ×
1.0 × (10.34 × 0.426) × 9.5 = 31 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Dispersion Factor Df for Iine Ioad = (1 + 𝑧⁄2)⁄(1 + 𝑍) =
(1 + 9.5⁄2)⁄(1 + 9.5) = 0.55 < 0.67 ∴ 𝐷𝑓 = 0.67
Frequent vaIue of Surcharge Iine Ioad Force 𝐻𝑠𝑐,𝐹 = 𝛹1 × 𝛾𝑄 × 𝐻𝑠𝑐,𝐹 = 0.75 ×
1.0 × (113.79 × 0.426 × 0.67) = 24 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck Maximum Permanent Ioad (concrete + surfacingmax) = 207 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck VerticaI Traffic Ioad (gr2) = 89 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck HorizontaI Traffic Ioad (gr2) = 36 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Restoring Effects
Minimum V Iever Arm Moment About A
Stem 162.5 1.6 260
Base 160 3.2 512
BackfiII 694.5 4.25 2952

128
 Deck 296 1.55 459
∑= 1313 4183

Overturning Effects
H Iever Arm Moment About A
BackfiII 365 3.167 1156
Surcharge UDI 31 4.75 147
Surcharge Iine Ioad 24 9.5 228
Deck HorizontaI
Reaction 36 7.5 270
∑= 456 1801

Bearing Pressure at toe and heeI of base sIab = (𝑉⁄𝐴) ± (𝑉 × 𝑒 × 𝑦⁄𝐼)

𝑉 = 1313 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
𝐴 = 6.4 𝑚2 ⁄𝑚
𝐼 ⁄𝑦 = 6.42⁄6 = 6.827 𝑚3 ⁄𝑚
Net moment = 4183 − 1801 = 2382 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚
Eccentricity (e) of V about centre-Iine of base = 3.2 − (2382⁄1313) = 1.386𝑚
Pressure under base = (1313⁄6.4) ± (1313 × 1.386⁄6.827)

Pressure under toe = 205 + 267 = 472 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

Pressure under heeI = 205 − 276 = −62 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 (𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡)

Adjust for upIift:
Reduced Iength of pressure under base = 3(𝐵⁄2 − 𝑒) = 3 ×
(6.4⁄2 − 1.386) = 5.442𝑚

Pressure under toe = 2 × 1313⁄5.442 = 483 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

Pressure at front face of waII = 483 × 4.342⁄5.442 = 385 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

Pressure at rear face of waII = 483 × 3.342⁄5.442 = 297 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

SIS Moment at a-a = (385 × 1.12 ⁄2) + ([483 − 385] × 1.12 ⁄3) −
(25 × 1.0 × 1.12 ⁄2) = 257𝑘𝑁 𝑚⁄𝑚 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒).

129
 SIS Moment at b-b = (297 × 3.3422 ⁄6) − (695 × 4.3⁄2) − (2.5 × 1.0 ×
4.32 ⁄2) = −1173 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒)

CASE 6 - Fixed Abutment UItimate Iimit State

Weight of waII stem Comb.1= 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 162.5 = 1.35 × 162.5 = 219 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Weight of waII stem Comb.2 = 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 162.5 = 1.0 × 162.5 = 163 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Weight of base Comb.1 = 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 160 = 1.35 × 160 = 216 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Weight of base Comb.2 = 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 160 = 1.0 × 160 = 160 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Weight of backfiII Comb.1 = 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 694.5 = 1.35 × 694.5 = 938 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Weight of backfiII Comb.2 = 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 694.5 = 1.0 × 694.5 = 695 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
B/fiII Force 𝐻𝑎𝑝;𝑑 Comb.1 = 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 𝛾𝑆𝑑,𝐾 × 𝐾0 × 𝛾𝑏𝑓;𝑑 ×
𝑍 2 ⁄2 = 1.35 × 1.2 × 0.426 × 19 × 9.52 ⁄2 = 592 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
B/fiII Force𝐻𝑎𝑝;𝑑 Comb.2 = 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 𝛾𝑆𝑑,𝐾 × 𝐾0 × 𝛾𝑏𝑓;𝑑 ×
𝑍 2 ⁄2 = 1.0 × 1.2 × 0.511 × 19 × 9.52⁄2 = 526 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Frequent vaIue of Surcharge UDI Force 𝐻𝑠𝑐,𝑢𝑑𝑙 I Comb.1= 𝛹1 × 𝛾𝑄;𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 𝜎ℎ;𝑎𝑣𝑒 ×
𝑍 = 0.75 × 1.35 × (10.34 × 0.426) × 9.5 = 42 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Frequent vaIue of Surcharge UDI Force𝐻𝑠𝑐,𝑢𝑑𝑙 Comb.2 = 𝛹1 × 𝛾𝑄;𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 𝜎ℎ;𝑎𝑣𝑒 ×
𝑍 = 0.75 × 1.35 × (10.34 × 0.511) × 9.5 = 43 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Dispersion Factor 𝐷𝑓 for Iine Ioad =
(1 + 𝑍⁄2)⁄(1 + 𝑍) = (1 + 9.5⁄2)⁄(1 + 9.5) = 0.55 < 0.67 ∴ 𝐷𝑓 = 0.67
Frequent vaIue of Surcharge Iine Ioad Force Hsc;F Comb.1 = 𝛹1 × 𝛾𝑄,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 𝐻𝑠𝑐,𝐹 =
0.75 × 1.35 × (113.79 × 0.426 × 0.67) = 33 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Frequent vaIue of Surcharge Iine Ioad Force 𝐻𝑠𝑐;𝐹 Comb.2 = 𝛹1 × 𝛾𝑄,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 𝐻𝑠𝑐,𝐹 =
0.75 × 1.15 × (113.79 × 0.511 × 0.67) = 34 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck Maximum Permanent Ioad (concrete + surfacingmax) Comb.1 = 𝛾𝐺;𝑠𝑢𝑝 ×
164 + 𝛾𝐺,𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 43 = 1.35 × 164 + 1.2 × 43 = 273 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck Maximum Permanent Ioad (concrete + surfacingmax) Comb.2 = 𝛾𝐺;𝑠𝑢𝑝 ×
164 + 𝛾𝐺;𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 43 = 1.0 × 164 + 1.0 × 43 = 207 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck VerticaI Traffic Ioad (gr2) Comb.1 = 𝛾𝑄:𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 89 = 1.35 × 89 = 120 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck VerticaI Traffic Ioad (gr2) Comb.2 = = 𝛾𝑄:𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 89 = 1.15 × 89 =
102 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 BS EN 1997-1:
Deck HorizontaI Traffic Ioad (gr2) Comb.1 = 𝛾𝑄:𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 36 = 1.35 × 36 =
Annex D
49 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
Deck HorizontaI Traffic Ioad (gr2) Comb.2 = 𝛾𝑄:𝑠𝑢𝑝 × 36 = 1.15 × 36 =
41 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

130
 Restoring Effects
Minimum V Iever Arm Moment About A
Stem 219/163 1.6 350/261
Base 216/160 3.2 691/512
BackfiII 938/695 4.25 3987/2954
Deck VerticaI
Reaction 393/309 1.55 609/479
∑= 1766/1313 5637/4206

Overturning Effects
H Iever Arm Moment About A
BackfiII 592/526 3.167 1875/1666
Surcharge UDI 42/43 4.75 200/204
Surcharge Iine Ioad 33/34 9.5 314/323
Deck HorizontaI Ioad 49/41 7.5 368/308
∑= 716/644 2757/2501

Assume rectanguIar pressure distribution under the base

Combination 1:
V = 1766 kN/m
Net moment = 5637 - 2757 = 2880 kNm/m
Eccentricity (e) of V about centre-Iine of base = 3.2 - (2880 / 1766) = 1.569m
Effective base width B' = B - 2e = 6.4 - 2 × 1.569 = 3.262m
Pressure under base = (1766 / 3.262) = 541 kN/m2

Combination 2:
V = 1327 kN/m
Net moment = 4206 - 2501 = 1705 kNm/m
Eccentricity (e) of V about centre-Iine of base = 3.2 - (1705 / 1327) = 1.915m
Effective base width B' = B - 2e = 6.4 - 2 × 1.915 = 2.57m
Pressure under base = (1327 / 2.57) = 516 kN/m2

131
 Combination 1:
UIS Shear at a-a = (541 × 1.1) − (1.35 × 1.0 × 1.1 × 25) = 558 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

UIS Shear at b-b = 541 × (3.262 − 2.1) − (1.35 × 1.0 × 4.3 × 25) − 938 =
−454𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚
UIS Shear at c-c = 1.35 × (6.4 − 3.262) × (8.5 × 19 × 1.0 × 25) = 790𝑘𝑁 ⁄𝑚
UIS Moment at a-a = (541 × 1.12 ⁄2) − (1.35 × 25 × 1.0 × 1.12 ⁄2) =
307 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚(𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 )
UIS Moment at b-b = (541 × (3.262 − 2.1)2 ⁄2) − (1.35 × 25 × 1.0 × 4.32 ⁄2) −
(938 × 4.3⁄2) = −1963 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚(𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 )
Combination 2:
UIS Shear at a-a = (516 × 1.1) − (1.0 × 1.0 × 1.1 × 25) = 540 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
UIS Shear at b-b = 516 × (2.57 − 2.1) − (1.0 × 1.0 × 4.3 × 25) − 695 =
560 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
UIS Shear at c-c = 1.0 × (6.4 − 2.57) × (8.5 × 19 + 1.0 × 25) = 714𝑘 𝑁 ⁄𝑚
UIS Moment at a-a = (516 ×
1.12 ⁄2) − (1.0 × 25 × 1.0 × 1.12⁄2) = 297𝑘𝑁 𝑚⁄𝑚 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒).
UIS Moment at b-b = (516 × (2.57 − 2.1)2⁄2 − (1.0 × 25 ×
4.32 ⁄2) − (695 × 4.3⁄2) = −1668 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒).

AnaIysing the fixed abutment and the free abutment with Ioad Cases 2 to 7 using an
exceI spreadsheet, the foIIowing resuIts were obtained:

Fixed Abutment Base

Section a-a
UIS Shear SIS UIS Moment
Comb.1/Comb.2 Moment Comb.1/Comb.2
case 2 509/501 235 280/276
case 3 539/515 253 297/283
case 4 521/497 244 286/273
case 5 527/485 250 290/267
case 6 558/541 258 307/298
case 7 445/433 235 272/238

Section b-b

132
 UIS Shear SIS UIS Moment
Comb.1/Comb
.2 Moment Comb.1/Comb.2
case 2 480/588 1184 1962/1676
case 3 364/466 1071 1835/1610
case 4 372/468 1069 1830/1607
case 5 290/365 973 1716/1519
case 6 453/561 1178 1961/1668
case 7 281/311 934 1663/1436

Section c-c
UIS Shear
Comb.1/Comb.2
case 2 777/718
case 3 737/675
case 4 730/671
case 5 694/627
case 6 790/715
case 7 665/583

Free Abutment Base

Section a-a
UIS Shear SIS UIS Moment
Comb.1/Comb
.2 Moment Comb.1/Comb.2
case 2 511/500 236 281/275
case 3 542/516 254 298/284
case 4 523/498 246 288/274
case 5 530/487 251 292/268
case 6 494/455 234 272/250
case 7 440/372 212 242/205
BS EN 1992-1-
1 CI.7.3.2(2)
Section b-b
UIS Shear SIS UIS Moment
Comb.1/Comb
.2 Moment Comb.1/Comb.2
case 2 479/582 1239 2054/1765
case 3 365/464 1124 1924/1693
case 4 373/467 1122 1918/1690
case 5 291/365 1023 1800/1597
case 6 327/394 1040 1815/1611
case 7 172/192 741 1428/1266

133
 Section c-c
UIS Shear
Comb.1/Comb.2
case 2 793/733
case 3 755/691
case 4 747/687
case 5 711/643
case 6 702/643

EarIy ThermaI Cracking

Considering the effects of casting the base sIab onto the bIinding concrete by
compIying with the earIy thermaI cracking of concrete to C660 then a minimum
steeI area of Y25 distribution bars @ 200 c/c wiII be required.

BS EN 1991-2
Design for bending effects at section a-a for the Fixed Abutment and b-b for the CI.4.9.2(2)
Free Abutment and for shear at section c-c for the Free Abutment using a simpIe
spreadsheet for sIab member capacities:

Section c-c: VuIs = 793 kN/m < VuIs = 996 kN/m (at d from support using Y40's @
150 c/c) ∴ OK
Section a-a: 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑠 = 307 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 , 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑠 = 558 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚, 𝑀𝑠𝑙𝑠 =
258 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 (𝑀𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚 = 181 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 + 𝑀𝑉𝑎𝑟 = 77 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚)
Y25's @ 150 c/c give 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑠 = 1262 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 > 307 ∴ 𝑂𝑘, 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑠 =
731 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 ( 𝑎𝑡 𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡) > 558 ∴ 𝑂𝑘, 𝑀𝑠𝑙𝑠 = 1103 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 > 258 ∴
𝑂𝐾
Section b-b: : 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑠 = 2054 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 , 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑠 = 582 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚, 𝑀𝑠𝑙𝑠 =
1239 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 (𝑀𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚 = 860 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 + 𝑀𝑉𝑎𝑟 = 380 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚)
Y40's @ 150 c/c give 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑠 = 2675 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 > 2054 ∴ 𝑂𝑘, 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑠 =
996 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 ( 𝑎𝑡 𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡) > 582 ∴ 𝑂𝑘, 𝑀𝑠𝑙𝑠 = 2065 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 > 1239 ∴
OK
Section c-c: 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑠 = 793𝑘 𝑁⁄𝑚 < 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑠 = 996 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚 (at d from support using B40's
@ 150 c/c) ∴ OK

IocaI Effects

Curtain WaII (Abutment Upstand WaII)

This waII is designed to be cast onto the top of the abutment after the deck has been

134
 buiIt. Ioading wiII be appIied from the backfiII, surcharge and braking Ioads on top of
the waII.

Braking Force [= 0.6αQ1Q1k from IM1 axIe = 0.6 × 300 = 180kN

Shear at the base of the waII:

due to braking = 180⁄7.65 = 23.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
due to backfiII = 𝐾0 𝛾𝑏𝑓,𝑑 𝑍 2 ⁄2 = 0.426 × 19.0 × 3.02 ⁄2 = 36 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

TotaI UIS shear = 1.35 × (23.5 + 1.2 × 36) = 90 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

Bending moment at the base of the waII:

due to braking = 180 × 3.0⁄7.66 = 70.6 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚
due to backfiII = 𝐾0 𝛾𝑏𝑓,𝑑 𝑍 3 ⁄6 = 0.426 × 19.0 × 3.03 ⁄6 = 36 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

TotaI SIS moment = 70.6 + 36 = 107 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

TotaI UIS moment (combination 1)= (1.35 × 70.6) + (1.35 × 1.2 × 36) =
154𝑘 𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

Check effects of surcharge + backfiII at base of curtain waII:

NormaI traffic surcharge:

𝐷𝑓 = (1 + 𝑍⁄2)⁄(1 + 𝑍) = (1 + 3⁄2)⁄(1 + 3) = 0.625 < 0.67 ∴ 𝐷𝑓 = 0.67

Iine Ioad = 113.79𝐾𝑑 𝐷𝑓 = 113.79 × 0.426 × 0.67 = 32.5 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

UDI = 10.34𝐾𝑑 = 10.34 × 0.426 = 4.4 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

TotaI UIS shear = 1.35 × (32.5 + 4.4 × 3.0 + 1.2 × 36) = 120 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
TotaI SIS moment = 32.5 × 3.0 + 4.4 ×
3.02 ⁄2 + 36 = 97.5 + 19.8 + 36 = 153 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

TotaI UIS moment = 1.35 × (97.5 + 19.8) + (1.35 × 1.2 × 36) = 158 + 58 =
216 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

SV/196 traffic surcharge:

Iine Ioad = 99.5𝐾𝑑 𝐷𝑓 = 99.57 × 0.426 × 0.67 = 28.4 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
UDI = 11.6𝐾𝑑 = 11.64 × 0.426 = 5.0 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

TotaI UIS shear = 1.35 ×× (28.4 + 5.0 × 3.0 × 1.2 × 36) = 117 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚

TotaI SIS moment = 28.4 × 3.0 + 5.0 × 3.02⁄2 + 36 = 82.5 + 22.5 + 36 =

144 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

TotaI UIS moment = 1.35 × (85.2 + 22.5) + (1.35 × 1.2 × 36) = 158 + 58 =
204 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚

135
 Hence NormaI Traffic Surcharge + BackfiII has worst effect on curtain waII.
400 thick curtain waII with Y32 @ 150 c/c :

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 601 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 > 216 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 ∴ 𝑂𝑘

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 317 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 > 153 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 ∴ 𝑂𝑘

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 261 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 > 120 𝑘𝑁𝑚⁄𝑚 ∴ 𝑂𝑘

6.2.7 Design of Footings

The section below shows the calculation sheet obtained from Staad Pro.
PILECAP DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Project Name : Pile for a Bridge
Client Name : Ministry of Transport
Engineer Name : Leavious Siziba R137287F
Analysis File : C:\SProV8i SS6\STAAD\Sections\new bridge3.std Analysis Last
Modified : 5/23/2018 8:19:14 AM

Definitions:
1. αe = Modular Ratio

136
2. σs = Maximum tensile reinforcement stress under the design load
at SLS in N/sqmm
3. σs,perm = Permissible stress in reinforcement in N/sqmm
4. γc = Partial factor for concrete (Persistent and Transient)
5. γcd = Partial factor for concrete (Accidental)
6. γs = Partial factor for reinforcement (Persistent and Transient)
7. γsd = Partial factor for reinforcement (Accidental)
8. εcm = Strain in concrete
9. εsm = Strain in reinforcement
10. a = Location of section of shear-check from periphery of the
column
11. Ac,eff = Effective area of concrete in tension surrounding the
reinforcement
12. AsfrPrv = Area of face reinforcement provided
13. AsfrReq = Area of face reinforcement required
14. AstPrv = Area of tensile reinforcement provided
15. AstReq = Area of tensile reinforcement required
16. AsvPrv = Area of shear reinforcement provided
17. AsvReq = Area of shear reinforcement required
18. Beff = Effective Width for design for bending and shear
19. D = Depth of Pilecap
20. Deff = Effective Depth of Pilecap
21. DfCol = Distance of Pile center to face of column
22. Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete
23. Es = Modulus of elasticity of Reinforcement
24. Fctm = Mean value of axial tensile strength of concrete
25. hc,eff = Effective height of concrete in tension

26. k1 = Crack width co-efficient for high bond bars (value = 0.8)

27. k2 = Crack width co-efficient for bending (value =0.5)

28. k3 = Crack width constant (value =3.4)
29. k4 = Crack width constant (value =0.5)
30. MEdx = Factored Bending Moment for pile-cap along column D
31. MEdy = Factored Bending Moment for pile-cap along
column B
32. Mx = Bending Moment in column along Column D
33. My = Bending Moment in column along Column B
34. P = Axial load in pile due to Ptotal
35. Pp,eff = Effective reinforcement ratio
36. Pcomb = Axial load in column for a load combination
37. Ppile = Axial Load on pile

137
38. Ptotal = Total vertical load on pile-cap for a load
combination
39. Pmx = Axial load on pile due to moment Mx
40. Pmy = Axial load on pile due to moment My
41. Srmax1 = Maximum crack spacing in mm
42. Srmax2 = Maximum crack spacing in mm
V
43. Ed = Design Shear Stress
44. VEd = Design Shear Force
45. VRd,c = Capacity of concrete without shear reinforcement
46. VRd,max = Maximum capacity of concrete strut
47. Wk = Surface crack width in mm
48. Wk,perm = Surface crack width permissible in mm
49. Xact = Neutral axis in mm

Code References:
EN 02 - 2004 + UK NA
1. Asmin : Cl 9.2.1.1
2. Smin : Cl 8.2
3. Smax : Cl 9.3.1.1
V
4. Ed,red : Cl 6.4.4
5. One Way Shear Design : Cl 6.4.4
Side Face
6. : Cl 6.4.4
Reinforcement

Design Code : EN 02 - 2004

+ UK NA
Pilecap No : PC4
Column No : C4 (500 dia )
Member Ref. No : 21
Grade of Concrete (fck) : C25/30 N/sqmm
(Cylindrical)
Partial Factor for Concrete ( γc) : 1.5
Partial Factor for Concrete
( γcd) : 1.2
Grade of Steel (fyk) : Fy460 N/sqmm
Partial Factor for reinforcement
( γs) : 1.15
Partial Factor for reinforcement

138
( γsd) : 1
Clear Cover : 50 mm
Top of pile-cap below ground: 3.4 m

Density of Soil = 19 kN/cum

Founding Depth = 4 m
Pile Capacity in Compression = 500 kN
Pile Capacity in Tension = 1000 kN
Pile Capacity in Shear = 400 kN
Pile Capacity Reduction = 0 %
Pile Overloading = 0 %
Pile Group Overloading = 0 %
Pile Capacity Increase for EQ= 0 %
Pile Capacity Increase for Wind = 0 %
Live Load Reduction = 0 %

Consider Capacity Design : Yes

Consider Overburden Pressure : No

No. of Piles = 4
Pile Diameter = 700 mm
Pile Spacing = 2.5 xØ
Pilecap Size = 2327 mm
(edge)
Pilecap Depth = 600 mm
Pile-cap Wt. = 211.09 kN
Check for Maximum Load on One Pile:
Critical Load Combination :[1] : (LOAD 1: LOAD CASE 2) +(LOAD 3: LOAD CASE 4)
Pcomb = 2652.2 kN
Ptotal = Pcomb + Pilecap Wt.
= 2863.29 kN
Mx = 0 kNm
My = 0 kNm
P = Ptotal/ No. of
Piles
= 477.22 kN
Pmx = 0 kN
Pmy = 0 kN

Maximum load on pile = 477.21 kN

Allowable load on pile = 500 x 1

139
 = 500 kN
Check for Maximum Load on Pile Group:
Critical Load Combination : [1] : (LOAD 1: LOAD CASE 1) +(LOAD 2: LOAD
CASE 2)
Pcomb = 2652.2 kN
Ptotal = Pcomb + Pilecap Wt.
= 2863.29 kN
Mx = 0 kNm
My = 0 kNm

Maximum load on pile group = 2863.29 kN

Allowable load on pile group = 6 x 500 x 1
= 3000 kN
Check for Maximum shear on Pile Group:
Critical Load Combination :[1] : (LOAD 1: LOAD CASE 2) +(LOAD 3: LOAD CASE 4)
Pcomb = 2652.2 kN
Ptotal = Pcomb + Pilecap Wt.
= 2863.29 kN
Mx = 0 kNm
My = 0 kNm
Vx = 0 kNm
Vy = 2.85 kNm
Maximum shear on pile group = sqrt(02 + 2.852)
= 2.85 kN
Shear capacity of pile group = 6 x 400 x 1 x 1
= 2400 kN
Check for Uplift Load on Pile:
No uplift in any pile

Design for Bending:

Bottom reinforcement Along Parallel Edge
Ppile = Capacity of pile
= 500 x 1.5
= 750 kN
Deff = 540 mm

140
Beff = 1000 mm
DfCol = 1.5 m
MEdx = Ppile X DfCol
= 1125 kNm
PtReq = 1.15 %
AstReq (BM) = 6220 sqmm/m
AstPrv = Y32 @ 125 C/C
= 6434 sqmm/m
Top reinforcement Along Parallel Edge
D = 600 mm
<= 1000 mm, Hence
AstReq (BM) = Min Pt for Top reinforcement X Deff X 1000
= 0.13% X 540 X 1000
= 702 sqmm/m AstPrv
= Y10 @ 110 C/C
= 714 sqmm/m

Bottom reinforcement Along Perpendicular Edge

Ppile = Capacity of pile
= 500 x 1.5
= 750 kN

Deff = 520 mm
Beff = 1000 mm
DfCol = 1.27 m
MEdy = Ppile X DfCol
= 949.16 kNm
PtReq = 1.03 %
AstReq (BM) = 5337 sqmm/m
AstPrv = T32 @ 150 C/C
= 5362 sqmm/m
Top reinforcement Along Perpendicular Edge
D = 600 mm
<= 1000 mm, Hence
AstReq (BM) = Min Pt for Top reinforcement X Deff X 1000
= 0.13% X 520 X 1000

141
 = 676 sqmm/m AstPrv
= Y10 @ 115 C/C
= 683 sqmm/m
Design for One Way Shear:
Along Parallel Edge
Ppile = Capacity of pile
= 500 x 1.5
= 750 kN

Location of critical section is at d from face of column

Section Location from column
= 790 mm
center

Data for Piles

Pile No Load (kN) % covered Shear (kN)
P1 1500 37.86 917.1
P2 1500 37.86 917.1
Design Shear Force (VEd) = Max. of (Shear due to P1, P2)
= 917.1 kN
Deff = 540 mm
Beff = 4031.09 mm
V
Ed = VEd/(Beff x Deff)
= 0.42 N/sqmm
k = 1 + Sqrt(200 / Deff)
= 1.61
Crdc = 0.18 / γc
= 0.12
pt = 1.15 %
V
Rd,c = 0.59 N/sqmm
a = 540 mm
Shear enhancement factor = 2 X Deff / a
= 2
Enhanced shear strength

142
(VRd,ce) = 1.18 N/sqmm
V
Ed < VRd,ce, Hence Shear reinforcement is not required
Along Perpendicular Edge
Ppile = Capacity of pile
= 500 x 1.5
= 750

Location of critical section is at d from face of column

Section Location from column
= 770 mm
center

Data for Piles

Pile No Load (kN) % covered Shear (kN)
P1 1500 100 1000
P2 1500 100 1500
Design Shear Force (VEd) = Max. of (Shear due to P1, P2)
= 1500 kN
Deff = 520 mm
Beff = 3765.58 mm
V
Ed = VEd/(Beff x Deff)
= 0.77 N/sqmm
k = 1 + Sqrt(200 / Deff)
= 1.62
Crdc = 0.18 / γc
= 0.12
pt = 1.03 %
V
Rd,c = 0.57 N/sqmm
a = 520 mm
Shear enhancement factor = 2 X Deff / a
= 2
Enhanced Shear Strength
(VRd,ce) = 1.15 N/sqmm

143
V
Ed < VRd,ce, Hence Shear reinforcement is not required
Design of Face reinforcement:
AsfrReq = SFR % X D X Beffsfr
= 0.05 X 600 X 500 / 100
= 150 sqmm
AsfrPrv = 3-Y8
= 151 sqmm

144
7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of this study show that a composite bridge of reinforced concrete and structural
steel is lightweight, as evidenced by the dimensions of its components, for example the
concrete deck has a thickness of 250mm (compared to reinforced bridges which are normally
of the order of 400-650mm) whereas the column/pier has a diameter of 500mm. This is
explained by the fact that the steel sections incorporated in both the deck and the bridge resist
much load. The structural stability of the structure is more likely to be guaranteed given its
light weight and given also the fact that both structural steel and reinforced concrete are utilized
to their inherent strengths of tension and compression respectively in the composite matrix.
The time for completion of the bridge was estimated to be 56 days, compared to months and
years that ordinary reinforced concrete bridges take to construct in Zimbabwe. This will go a
long way in reducing costs and complications associated with longer construction periods.
However, the effects of wind and earthquake loads were not considered due to restraints of
time and availability of adequate information, therefore future studies should be carried out in
this direction. The findings of this research also imply that composite bridges are cost effective
especially given the fact that they are designed to Eurocodes, although detailed research should
be carried out to consolidate this hypothesis.

145
8 REFERENCES
1. BS 5400-5. Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. Part 5: Code of practice for the
design of composite bridges. British Standard Institution.
2. CEN 2002. Eurocode: Basis of structural design. EN 1990: 2002. European
Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels.
3. CEN 2005. Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures. Part 1-6: General actions. Actions
during execution. EN 1991-1-6: 2005. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN): Brussels.
4. CEN 2006. Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures. Part 1-7: General actions. Accidental
actions. EN 1991-1-7: 2006. European Committee for Standardization (CEN):
Brussels.
5. CEN 2003. Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. EN
1991-2: 2003.European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels.
6. CEN 2006. Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures. Part 3: Actions induced by cranes and
machinery. EN 1991-3: 2006. European Committee for Standardization (CEN):
Brussels.
7. CEN 2004. Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1: 2004. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN): Brussels.
8. CEN 2005. Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures. Part 2: Concrete bridges.
Design and detailing rules. EN 1992-2: 2005. European Committee for
Standardization (CEN): Brussels.
9. CEN 2005. Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings. EN 1993-1-1: 2005. European Committee for Standardization (CEN):
Brussels.
10. CEN 2005. Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures. Part 1-9: Fatigue. EN 1993-1-9:
2005. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels.
11. CEN 2006. Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures. Part 2: Steel bridges. EN 1993-2:
2006.European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels.
12. CEN 2004. Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1994-1-1: 2004. European Committee for
Standardization (CEN): Brussels.
13. CEN 2005. Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 2:
General rules and rules for bridges. EN 1994-2: 2005. European Committee for
Standardization (CEN): Brussels.
14. Chin, K., Idle, D., & Wiles, P. (2013) Design of Integral Steel Ladder Deck Bridges
in New Zealand: A Case Study of Gilchrist Steel Bridge. In Proceedings of Steel
Innovations Conference Christchurch, New Zealand, 21-22 February 2013.
15. Daniel, M., Daniel, F., Guillaume, C., Nathalie, C., Pierre, C., & Renaud, L. (2010)
Steel-Composite Bridges: Sustainable Design Guide. Setra.
16. Davaine L. 2010. Global analysis of a steel-concrete composite two-girder bridge
according to Eurocode 4, Note for Workshop “Bridge design to Eurocodes” to be
held in Vienna, 4-6 October 2010.
17. El Sarraf, R., Easey, D., Hicks, S., IIes, D., & Montaham, A. (2013) Steel-Concrete
Bridge Design Guide. NZ Transport Research Report 525.252pp.

146
 18. Fernandes, J.P., (2016): A study on Composite Plate Girder Bridges: A State-of –the
–Art Report of UK Practice. A Master’s Thesis presented to the University of Porto.
19. Graham.W.O., Patrick.J.D., & Peter.R.K. (1993) Steel Designers Manual. The Steel
Construction Institute.
20. Hendy, C.R and Johnson, R.P (2006). Designers’ guide to EN 1994-2 Eurocode 4: Design of
composite steel and concrete structures. Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges. Thomas
Telford.
21. Iles, D.C. (2012): Design of Composite Highway Bridges Curved in Plan. Ascot: The
Steel Construction Institute.
22. Iles, D.C. (2014): Composite highway bridge design in accordance with Eurocodes
and UK National Annexes. Ascot: The Steel Construction Institute.
23. Malasadas N. 2010. Example of application for wind actions on bridge deck and
piers, Notes for Workshop “Bridge design to Eurocodes” to be held in Vienna, 4-6
October 2010.
24. Mamombe, L. & Tumbare, M.J. (2016): Improved flood estimation model for bridge
and culvert design in Zimbabwe.UZ, Harare. Zimbabwe.
25. Maru, S. & Tedia, A. (2014): Cost, Analysis and Design of Steel- Concrete Composite
RCC Structure. Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 11(1), 54-59.
26. Melaku, S. (2015): A study on the Economic Design of Steel Concrete Composite
Bridges. A thesis presented to the School of Graduate Studies Addis Ababa
University, Faculty of Technology, and Department of Civil Engineering.
27. M. o. T. (1985). Part JD Bridge Design Manual. Ministry of Transport, Harare:
Zimbabwe Government.
28. Nagai, M. (2005): Highway bridge specifications and recent development of steel-
composite in Japan. In Proceedings of Japan-Bangladesh Joint Seminar on Advances
Vin Bridge Engineering ISBN: 984-32-2520-6 Dhaka, Bangladesh.
29. PD 6694-1, Recommendations for the design of structures subject to traffic loading to
BS EN 1997-1, BSI 2010.
30. Reynolds, C. S. J. (1999). Reinforced Concrete Designer's Handbook. London: E and
FN Spons, Taylor and Francis group.
31. Steel Bridge Group: Guidance notes on best practice in steel bridge construction
(Fifth edition P185), The Steel Construction Institute,2010.
32. Ortega Cornejo, M., Raoul, J. 2010. Composite bridge design (EN1994-2).
Illustration of basic element design, Notes for Workshop “Bridge design to
Eurocodes” to be held in Vienna, 4-6 October 2010.

147
9 APPENDICES
9.1 Appendix A: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
Architectural drawings and construction drawings are provided in the same A1 drawing wrapped in
the sleeve attached. All the architectural drawings are indicated.

9.2 Appendix B: Staad Pro ANALYSIS RESULTS

148
 Job No Sheet No 1 Rev

Software licensed to Part

Job Title DESIGN OF NYAMANGURA BRIDGE Ref
TO EUROCODES
By Date 2017/18 Checked
L. SIZIBA Mr. C.
RI37287F Mpofu &
Prof L
Vassileva
File
Client : MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT Date/Time
Nyamangura 15-May-2018/ 08:13
Bridge
Beam Maximum Shear Forces.
Beam Node A Length L/C ULS SLS
(m)

Max Fx Max Fz Max Fx Max Fz

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

1 25 0.000 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 0.00 689.00 0.00 519.00

Max -ve -16.00

2:LOAD CASE Max +ve 40.00

Max -ve -22.00 -13.00

1 25 8.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 415.00 312.00

Max -ve -2.00 -1.00

2:LOAD CASE Max +ve 31.00 45.00 23.00 33.00

Max -ve

1 28 16.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 43.00 33.00

Max -ve -3.00 -2.00

2:LOAD CASE Max +ve 96.00 71.00

Max -ve -5.00 -3.00

1 23 24.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 1.00 0.00

Max -ve -521.00 -391.00

2:LOAD CASE Max +ve 3.00 182.00 2.00 135.00

Max -ve

1 22 32.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 3.00 2.00

Max -ve -43.00 -33.00

2:LOAD CASE Max +ve 5.00 3.00

Max -ve -96.00 -71.00

1 22 40.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 2.00 1.00

Max -ve -415.00 -312.00

2:LOAD CASE Max +ve 31.00

Max -ve -45.00 -23.00 -33.00

149
 1 22 48.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 0.00 0.00

Max -ve -689.00 -40.00

2:LOAD CASE Max +ve 22.00 13.00 16.00

Max -ve -519.00

Beam Node A Length L/C ULS SLS

(m)

Max Fx Max Fz Max Fx Max Fz

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

1 25 0.000 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 353.00 305.00

Max -ve -273.00 -211.00

4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 381.00 661.00 283.00 490.00

Max -ve

1 25 8.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 104.00 216.00

Max -ve -71.00 -47.00

4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 12.00 525.00 9.00 389.00

Max -ve

1 28 16.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 116.00 1089.00 86.00 96.00

Max -ve

4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 156.00 116.00

Max -ve -692.00 -513.00

1 23 24.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 16.00 167.00 21.00

Max -ve -116.00

4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 145.00 107.00

Max -ve -611.00 -512.00

1 22 32.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 3.00 47.00

Max -ve -116.00 -1087.00 -92.00

4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 692.00

Max -ve -156.00 -9.00 -116.00

1 22 40.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 71.00

Max -ve -104.00 -86.00 -216.00

4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 513.00

Max -ve -12.00 -525.00 -389.00

1 22 48.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 273.00

Max -ve -353.00 -21.00 -305.00

4:LOAD CASE Max +ve

Max -ve -381.00 -661.00 -107.00 -490.00

150
 Job No Sheet No 2 Rev

Software licensed to Part

Job Title DESIGN OF NYAMANGURA BRIDGE Ref
TO EUROCODES
By Date 2017/18 Checked
L. SIZIBA Mr. C.
RI37287F Mpofu &
Prof L
Vassileva
File
Client : MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT Date/Time
Nyamangura 15-May-2018/ 08:13
Bridge
Beam Maximum Bending Moment.
Beam Node A Length L/C ULS SLS
(m)
Max Fx Max Fx
(kN) (kN)
1 25 0.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -2573 -1958
2:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -2499 -1851
1 25 8.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 1024 752
Max -ve
2:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -2395 -1744
1 28 16.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 3132 2343
Max -ve
2:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -1714 -1270
1 23 24.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 25.00 19.00
Max -ve
2:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -5.00 -4.033
1 22 32.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 3132 2343
Max -ve
2:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -1714 -1270
1 22 40.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve 1024 752
Max -ve
2:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -2395 -1744
1 22 48.00 1:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -2573 -1958
2:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -2499 -1851

151
Beam Node A Length L/C ULS SLS
(m)
Max Fx Max Fx
(kN) (kN)
1 25 0.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -3257 -2996
4:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -2425 -1796
1 25 8.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -1100 -1138
4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 1040 771
Max -ve
1 28 16.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 570 338
Max -ve
4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 4952 3668
Max -ve
1 23 24.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 162.0 114.0
Max -ve
4:LOAD CASE Max +ve -874
Max -ve -1180
1 22 32.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve 570 338
Max -ve
4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 4952 3668
Max -ve
1 22 40.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -1100 -1138
4:LOAD CASE Max +ve 1040 771
Max -ve
1 22 48.00 3:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -3257 -2996
4:LOAD CASE Max +ve
Max -ve -2425 -1796

9.3 Appendix C: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

152
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ON THE PROPOSED NYAMANGURA RIVER BRIDGE:
REF: NYABADZA/ODZI ROAD
LOCATION
The proposed site spans the Nyamangura river at Nyabadza —Odzi road. The site is between
chainages 17+248km and 17+265kmCurrently there is a low level bridge 20 meters from the
proposed site.
Description of site: -
The terrain at the site comprises of shallow stream channel with a wide look plain.
The channel up and down the stream is curved and covered with alluvial materials.
Stratigraphically the site lies on sandstone tarmac where in situ outcrop rock strength about 7
metres length and 8, 1m wide into the river. No water level in the channel were taken.
DIAMOND DRILLING AND FIELD WORK
A total of 8 boreholes with a summed depth of 59 meters were drilled during the course of
investigation using a conventional diamond drill rig elapsed for soil sampling purposes.
Decomposed rock material of sandstone origin and fractured Quarts rock was pruned in boring
at depth ranging from a minimum of 3.0m to 5.0 meters. Ground water level was not measured
at all during operations
The locations and elevations of the boring were surveyed by personnel from the Manicaland.
Subsoil and Bedrock profile
The Bedrock across the entire site comprises moderately weathered fined grained sandstone
rock with core recovery of less than 5%.

153
154
155
9.4 Appendix D: STRUCTURAL LAYOUTS

156
9.5 Appendix E: REINFORCEMENT DETAILS

157
158
159