CORUS Composite Steel Highway Bridges

Corus Construction Centre
Composite steel highway bridges
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgement of author
Advantages of steel bridges
1
2
Design standards
Conceptual design
2.1 Spans and component lengths
2.2 Cross sections
2.3 Intermediate supports
2.4 Bracings
2.5 Steel grades
2.6 Further guidance
Initial sizes and overall unit weight

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Use of charts
3.2.1
Plate girder flange sizes
3.2.2
Plate girder web sizes
3.2.3
Overall unit weight
3.2.4
Universal beams
3.2.5
List of symbols
Worked examples use of charts

4.1 Continuous plate girder bridge
4.2 Simply supported universal beam bridge
References
Figures
Figure 4 Simply supported bridges
Figure 5 Continuous bridges
Figure 6 Continuous bridges
Figure 7 Girder spacing factors
Figure 8 Overall unit weights plate girder bridges
Figure 9 Universal beams elastic stress analysis
Figure 10 Universal beams plastic stress analysis
1. Left: Waterside Bridge

Newburgh, Scotland
2. Right: A1(M)
Yorkshire, England
Advantages of Steel Bridges

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

Feature
Leading to
Advantages
Low weight of
superstructure.
Fewer piles and smaller sizes of pile caps/foundations.

Typical 30 50% reduction over concrete decks.
Composite bridges 6.0 8.0kN/m2 typical.
Cheaper foundations.
Light units for erection.
Erection by smaller cranes. Delivery of long pieces.

Launch erection with light equipment (skates or rollers).
Cheaper site costs.
Simple site joints.
Bolted joints: easy to form larger pieces from small

transported components taken to remote sites.
Flexible site planning.
Maximum
pre-fabrication in
factory.
Quality control in good factory conditions avoiding outdoor

site affected by weather and difficult access.
More reliable product.
Predictable
maintenance costs.
Commuted painting costs can be calculated. If easy repainting

is made possible by access and good design then no other
maintenance necessary.
Total life cost known.
Low construction
depth.
Depth/span ratio 1/20 to 1/30 typically.

Lower depth achieved with half-through girders.
Slender appearance.
Reduces costs of earthworks
in approaches.
Self supporting
during construction.
Falsework eliminated.
Slab formwork and falsework also avoided using permanent formwork.
Falsework costs eliminated.

Significant if more than 8m
above ground.
Continuous and
integral spans.
Continuity easy with bolted or welded joints. Most expansion

joints eliminated. Number of bearings reduced.
Compliance with BD57.
Better appearance.
Improved durability.
Improved running surface.
Adaptable details.
Pleasing appearance taking advantage of curves and colour.
Aesthetic gain.
Re-usable product.
Demountable structures and re-cyclable components which

reduce manufacturing energy input.
Sustainable product.
Design standards
1. M4/M25 Poyle Interchange
1. Design standards
The current bridge code BS 5400 (Ref. 1) was conceived
in 1967. Its ten parts cover the more common structural
media. The 1980 conference in Cardiff introduced the
Code relating to steel and made use of research carried
out since 1970.
(ii)
Design clauses are easier to use than

previous Codes.
(iii) Workmanship requirements, including tolerances,

are rationalised.
(iv) Longitudinal web stiffeners to girders are
rarely needed.
Part 3 (Design of Steel Bridges) is compatible with the

workmanship standards and tolerances defined in Part
Use of the plastic modulus is permitted for stress
6, drawn up jointly with industry.
analysis of compact sections and where the slenderness

is controlled by sufficient restraints, the effects of
The Code uses limit state principles. The ultimate
shrinkage and differential temperature can be neglected.
limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS) must

be satisfied.
For compact sections, the entire load can also be

assumed to act on the composite section even if the
In practice the ULS generally governs, exceptions being
steelwork is unpropped, provided that SLS checks
the checking at SLS for slip of HSFG bolts and the
are made.
design of shear connectors.

While most rolled universal beams, columns and
BS 5400 encourages the use of steel for a number
channels will be compact, plate girders will often be
of reasons:
non-compact and must be stressed elastically. (See also

Section 3.2.4.)
(i)
Plastic stress analysis option offers the use of

lighter members and extends the span range of
For structural analysis, elastic methods are utilised
rolled sections.
using gross sections (i.e. not allowing for shear lag or

effective width).
Design standards
Redistribution of moments arising from the formation of
For example:
plastic hinges is not permitted, but redistribution due to

cracking of concrete over intermediate supports may be
(i)
assumed using Part 5.
Do not locate welded attachments close to or on

flange edges (class 'G').
(ii)
Re-entrant corners should be radiused.
Combined bending and shear is dealt with using
(iii) Use HSFG bolts for permanent bolted connections.
interaction formulae. This is sometimes critical at
(iv) Restrict doubler flange ends to areas of low stress
intermediate supports.
(class 'G').
(v)
The Code contains no specific limits on slenderness of

members or proportion of plate panels. Longitudinal web
Avoid single sided partial penetration butt welded

joints which are subject to tensile stress.
(vi) Avoid welded cruciform joints, which are subject to
stiffeners are usually only necessary for very deep
significant tensile stresses. An example is when
girders or those with curved soffits.
using integral crossheads (see Figs. 1B & 1F)

where fillet welds should be used in preference to
For rolled sections the full shear yield stress can
full penetration butt welds. If butt welds are
generally be used without the need for intermediate
necessary, the use of steel with through-thickness
stiffeners. Bearing stiffeners are virtually mandatory at
quality (Z-grades to BS EN 10164 ref 14) may be
supports, together with lateral bracing or a system of
considered in view of the strains which will be
bracing to maintain verticality.
caused during welding.
Fatigue is checked to Part 10, although for highway

bridges this rarely demands a reduction in working
stresses provided good detailing practice is used.
Conceptual design
1. This page: A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct*

Cumbria, England
2. Right: Festival Park Flyover
Stoke, England
3. Far right: Simon De Montford Bridge
Evesham, England
*Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.
Conceptual design
2. Conceptual design
2.1 Spans and component lengths
Curved bridges
Spans are usually fixed by site restrictions and
Curved bridges in plan may readily be formed using
clearances. Where freedom exists, budget costing
straight fabricated girders, with direction changes
including foundations is desirable to determine the
introduced at each site splice. If required however, steel
economic span. A range of 25m to 50m is likely.
girders can also be curved in plan. An example is the
Where deep piled foundations are needed, cost will
A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct (radius 540m)
encourage the use of longer spans, thus keeping

foundations to a minimum.
For smaller radii, curved girders are necessary to avoid

the effects of long cantilevers. Skew and plan tapered
Multiple spans
bridges may also be built in steel. Ideally, plan layout
Multiple spans of approximately 24m suit universal
should be as simple as possible (Ref. Documents in
beams, this being the longest readily available length and
Section 2.6).
because continuous spans are convenient and economic.

Site splices may be bolted with HSFG bolts or welded
Integral bridges
near points of contraflexure. The length of end spans
The Highways Agency requires consideration of integral
should ideally be about 0.8 of the penultimate span.
bridge forms for spans up to 60m with the objective of

improved durability by elimination of bridge deck
Continuous spans
movement joints (Ref. 4 & 5). Girders may then be
The optimum for using plate or box girders for
required to develop a degree of continuity with
continuous spans is about 45m, because 27m long
substructures at end supports such that axial forces and
span girders can be spliced with pier girders of a
reverse moment effects need to be considered in the
single plate 18m long. For longer spans, more shop or
design of the composite deck. Design principles remain
site splices are needed. Component lengths for shop
the same but girder sizes and bracing provision may be
fabrication should be the maximum possible consistent
influenced. Further guidance is available from the Steel
with delivery and site restrictions to reduce the amount
Construction Institute (Ref. 8, 9 & 10).
of on-site assembly. The maximum length for road

delivery without restrictions is normally 27.4m although
2.2 Cross sections
longer lengths can readily be transported by
Deck type construction
arrangement. A minimum number of shop butt welds
Deck type construction is common and is suitable for
should be used consistent with plate sizes available. The
highway bridges as shown in Fig. 1. A span-to-girder
decision whether to introduce thickness changes within
depth ratio of 20 is economic although 30 or more can
a fabricated length should take account of the cost of
be achieved. A half-through bridge (U frame) can be
butt welds compared with the potential for material
appropriate in cases of severely limited depth, such as
saving (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6).
where approach lengths are restricted. Footbridges and

rail under-bridges are common examples.
Conceptual design
Where permanent formwork is envisaged, the slab
Box girders
should be made sufficiently thick to accommodate the
Where spans exceed 100m box girders are likely to be
details taking account of reinforcement cover and
more economic than plate girders with which flange sizes
practical tolerances (Ref. 7). When using composite part
would be excessive. Other reasons for using box girders
depth planks such as Omnia then a minimum thickness
include aesthetics (where justifiable), aerodynamic
of 250mm may be needed.
stability, severe plan curvature, the need for single column

supports or very limited depth. Other than in the cases
Universal beams and plate girders
noted, box girders being heavier than plate girders are
Universal beams may be appropriate for bridges up to
more expensive because although less flange material
25m span and above when continuous, or when use can
may be demanded due to inherent torsional properties,
be made of the plastic modulus. For spans above 22m,
this is usually more than offset by the amount of internal
plate girders, especially if continuous, can be economic
stiffening and extra costs for workmanship. Fabrication
because lighter sections can be inserted in mid-span
costs are higher because the assembly/welding
regions. Costs per tonne of painted and erected
processes take longer and more shop space is needed.
universal beams were traditionally lower but, more
However, erection work is often reduced because box
recently, automated fabrication and less expensive plate
girders require little or no external bracing.
material has allowed economic supply of plate girders

for the shorter spans.
Multiple box girders have proved to be economic for

spans of around 50m in particular situations. Using
A girder spacing of 2.5m to 3.5m is usual with a deck
narrow cross sections eliminates the need for longitudinal
slab of about 230mm 250mm thick (see Figs. 1A and
stiffeners (see Fig. 1F). An example of which is the
1B). Edge cantilevers should not exceed half the beam
M25/M4 Poyle Interchange.
spacing and to simplify falsework should, where

possible be less than 1.5m. Shorter cantilevers are
For box girders, consideration of the safety of personnel in
usually necessary with a locally thickened slab where
confined spaces is essential during fabrication, erection and
high containment (P6) parapets are specified, e.g. over
for maintenance. Detailing must recognise the need to avoid
rail tracks. An even number of girders achieves better
internal welding as far as possible and to allow sufficient
optimisation of material (ordering) and allows bracing in
ventilation and openings for access and recovery in
pairs. For wide girder spacings, the slab may be
emergency situations.
haunched, but use of standardised permanent formwork

is unlikely to be possible and construction depth is
Open-topped trapezoidal and rectangular shaped box
increased (see Fig. 1C). Where spans exceed 40m, twin
girders have been used efficiently, but provisions are
plate girders with a central stringer may be suitable for
needed to preserve stability during erection, for example the
single carriageway decks up to about 13m wide, giving
Forrest Way Bridge, Warrington.
economies in material and erection work (see Fig. 1D).

Twin girders and cross beams have similar advantages
Plate girder flanges
and are appropriate where girders have a curved soffit.
Plate girder flanges should be as wide as possible but
This becomes viable for spans greater than 45m (see
consistent with outstand limitations in BS 5400 (i.e. 12t in
Fig. 1E) and has been used for wider decks supporting
compression if fully stressed and up to the 20t robustness
more lanes.
Conceptual design
limit), to give the best achievable stability during erection
Intermediate bracings require to be spaced at about
and to reduce the number of bracings. For practical
20 x top flange width and need to be adequate to
reasons a desirable minimum width is about 400mm to
prevent lateral torsional buckling. Bracing is necessary
accommodate detailing for certain types of permanent
at supports if only to prevent overturning during
formwork, especially precast concrete. A maximum flange
erection. At abutments this can be a channel trimmer
thickness of 63mm is recommended to avoid heavy welds,
composite with the slab and supporting its free end. Over
minimise pre-heating requirements and also limit the
piers a channel section can be used between each pair
reduction in design yield strength. Limiting the thickness
of girders of up to about 1.2m deep. For deeper girders
also has benefits in terms of notch toughness specification.
triangulated angle bracings are usual (see Fig. 1B).
2.3 Intermediate supports
Intermediate lateral bracings are usually necessary in
Piers can take the form of reinforced concrete, leaf,
hogging regions with a maximum spacing of about
column or portal. Steel columns are also used. For
12 x bottom flange width. If the bridge is curved they
example, tubular steel columns (concrete filled
should be close to the site splices where curvature
composite), were used in the M5 Almondsbury
induces torsion. Bracings may be of a triangulated form
Interchange and deserve consideration. Leaf piers or
or of single channel sections between each pair of
multiple columns supporting every girder are convenient
girders of up to 1.2m deep (see Fig. 1A). Alternatively,
but where fewer columns are demanded for aesthetic
bracings can take the form of inverted 'U' frames, but
reasons, integral steel crossheads provide a solution. The
for spans exceeding, say, 35m it may be necessary to
popularity of these crossheads has recently increased
interconnect all the girders by bracings during erection
following earlier examples on M25 bridges including
so that transverse flexure from wind is adequately
Brook Street Viaduct, Mar Dyke Viaduct and South
shared. Although plan bracing systems are uneconomic
Mimms Interchange Bridges (see Figs.1B and 1F). They
and should be avoided, they may be required for spans
were extensively used for the Second Severn crossing
exceeding 55m for temporary stability, especially if
approach roads and for the new Thelwall Viaduct.
launch erection is used (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6).
It should, however, be recognised that the introduction
Use may be made of bracings in distributing live loads
of these additional members is only likely to be
between girders. This may offer reduced flange sizes
economic where the use of fewer supports is essential.
under HB loading but the uniformity of current loading to
Costs can increase especially if column spacing is not
BD37 across the carriageway (HB + 2 lanes HA + 0.6 HA
arranged to allow balanced erection and temporary
other lanes) tends to discourage this. An optimum design
trestles become necessary. Care is also needed detailing
is likely to include bracings only between pairs of girders,
cruciform welded joints at the crosshead/main girder
such discontinuous bracings attracting minimal effects
connection (Ref. Section 1 (vi)).
under deck loading except in cases of heavy skew or

curvature where a different system may be appropriate.
2.4 Bracings
Bracings should be included in the global analysis to
For most universal beam or plate girder bridges, lateral
check for possible overload or fatigue effects.
bracings are needed for erection stability and during

deck concreting.
1. Far Left: Nene Bridge

Peterborough, England
2. Left: Forrest Way Bridge
Warrington, England
3. Right: M20 Road Bridge
Folkstone, England
Conceptual design
DECK WIDTH W
230 TO
1A
Multiple U.B.
(N=4)
250 mm
D
2.5 TO 3.5
230 TO
1B
Multiple P.G.
(N=4)
250 mm
D
1.0 TO 1.75
TYPICAL
300 TO 350 mm
1C
Twin P.G.
Haunch Slab
(N=2)
D
1.0 TO 3.3
4.0 TO 5.5
Figures 1A 1F
Typical deck type cross-sections
1. Left: Humber Road Bridge

Immingham, England
2. Right: Thelwall Viaduct
M6, Warrington, England
10 Composite steel highway bridges
Conceptual design
230 TO 320 mm
1D
Twin P.G.
& Stinger
(N=2)
D
6.0 TO 7.0
1.0 TO 3.3
230 TO
1E
Twin P.G.
& Cross Girders
(N=2)
250 mm
3.0 TO 3.5 c/c
>7.0
230 TO
1F
Multiple Box
(N=6)
250 mm
0.9 TO 1.2
2.5 TO 3.5
AT MID-SPAN
AT PIER
Composite steel highway bridges 11
Conceptual design
2.5 Steel grades
temperatures to be determined from isotherms of
BS EN 10025 1993 Grade S355 steels (Ref. 12) are usual
minimum and maximum shade air temperature for a
for bridges as they offer a lower cost-to-strength ratio
particular site location. Limiting thicknesses for steel
than Grade S275. BS 5400 requires all steel parts to
parts are prescribed in BS 5400: Part 3, as implemented
achieve a specified notch toughness, depending upon
by BD13 (Ref. 3), as appropriate to these effective bridge
design minimum temperature, stress level and
temperatures, and the other factors mentioned above.
construction features (e.g. welding details). Subgrades J2

and K2 will be most common.
Weather resistant steel

To eliminate the need for painting, weather resistant
Composite bridge decks are specifically categorised in
steels to BS EN 10155 1993 (Ref. 13) should be
the composite version of BS 5400: Part 2 (implemented
considered. Although it can be shown that the commuted
by BD37), to allow a range of effective bridge
costs of repainting are less than 1% of the initial bridge

cost, weather resistant steel bridges can be more
1. Above: Findhorn Viaduct

Inverness, Scotland
2. Left: Westgate Bridge
Gloucester, England
3. Right: Slochd Beag Bridge
Inverness, Scotland
Conceptual design
economical on a first cost basis and are particularly useful
design standard BD 7 (Ref. 6) and Corus Publication
in eliminating maintenance where access is difficult over
Weathering Steel Bridges (Ref. 11).
a railway, for example.
2.6 Further guidance

Weather resistant steel is not suitable at or near the coast,
Particularly relevant information for initial (and detailed)
(i.e. within about 2km from the sea) due to the chloride
design is included within two publications:
laden environment or in areas of severe pollution.

BCSA Publication Steel Bridges D. Tordoff 1985
The Highways Agency requires sacrificial thickness to be
added to all exposed surfaces for possible long term
corrosion (1.5mm per face in a severe marine or industrial
1st revision due 2002.

SCI-P-185, Steel Bridge Group: Guidance notes on
Best Practice in Steel Bridge Construction.
environment, 1mm in mild environments and 0.5mm

inside box girders) and detailed guidance is given in
3. Initial sizes and overall

unit weight
(viii) Steelwork is unpropped and therefore not acting

compositely under its own weight and that of the
concrete slab. The steel is however composite for
all superimposed loads after the concrete has cured.
3.1 Introduction
(ix)
due to buckling criteria.
area (A f) web thickness (t w) and overall unit weight of

steelwork (kg/m2) for typical composite bridge cross
Sufficient transverse bracings are included such

that bending stresses are not significantly reduced
Charts are given to provide initial estimates of flange

(x)
Top flanges in sagging regions are dictated by the

maximum stress during concreting allowing for
sections as shown in Fig. 1.
formwork and live load to BS 5975 (Ref. 15).

Continuous or simply supported span plate girders and
Continuous bridge mid-span regions are concreted
simply supported universal beams are included. The
in turn followed by portions over the piers.
charts were derived from approximate BS 5400 designs
(xi)
HA loading (BD37).
distribution and to achieve correlation with modern

bridges. The charts take account of the latest highway
Live loading HA (assuming 3.5m wide lanes), or

alternatively 45 units of HB loading with co-existent
using simplifying assumptions for loads, transverse
(xii) Continuous spans are approximately equal.
loading requirements in BD37.
3.2 Use of charts

It is emphasised that the sizes obtained do not represent
final designs, which must always be executed to take
3.2.1 Plate girder flange sizes
account of all factors, such as bridge configuration and
Flange areas (Af in m2) are read against the span L.
loading. Adjustments will need to be made to take

account of the likely effects of end continuity if integral
(a)
For simply supported bridges (refer Fig. 4)
construction is intended.
(b)
For continuous bridges

Size of span girder (refer Fig. 5)
The charts are based on the following assumptions:

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Deck slab 250mm average thickness (6.25kN/m2).
Figures 4, 5 and 6 are applicable to an average girder
Superimposed dead loads equivalent to 100mm of
spacing s of 3.5m. Fig. 7 gives a girder spacing factor
surfacing (2.40 kN/m2).
K af which is multiplied by the flange areas, obtained
Permanent formwork weight 0.50 kN/m of slab
above, to give values appropriate to the actual average
soffit area.
girder spacing.
(iv)
Steel grade S355.
(v)
Span to depth ratios L/D of 20 & 30.
(vi)
Size of pier girder (refer Fig. 6)
i.e. Top Flange A ft = A ft (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x K af (Fig. 7)
Plate girder webs have vertical stiffeners at approx.

2.0m centres where such stiffening is required.
i.e. Bottom Flange A fb = A fb (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x K af ( Fig. 7)
(vii) Elastic stress analysis is used for plate girders. If

however the plastic modulus is used for compact
Two different span-to-depth ratios, L/D = 20 and L/D =
cross sections, then economies may be possible.
30, are included for either HB or alternatively HA loading.

Values for intermediate L/D ratios can be read
by interpolation.
The charts also show actual flange sizes using
depth (L/D) ratio for each span based upon the average
400mm x 15mm to 1000mm x 75mm.
girder depth (D) within that span.
Flange area of pier girders of continuous unequal spans
For box girder bridges a rough estimate may be
can be estimated by taking the greater of the two
obtained assuming that N = 2 x number of box girders in
adjacent spans.
the cross section (see Fig. 1F where N = 2 x 3 = 6).
End spans of continuous bridges may be estimated
For continuous bridges the end spans should be assumed
using L = 1.25 x actual span.
as 1.25 x actual span, following which the mean span for

use in Fig. 8 may be determined as follows:
3.2.2 Plate girder web sizes

Web thicknesses are similarly obtained using Figs. 4, 5
and 6 applicable to 's' = 3.5m. Adjustment for the actual
Mean span L =
L14 + L24...Ln4
n
average girder spacing 's' is obtainable from Fig. 7 using

girder spacing factor k tw.
i.e. Web thickness t w = t w (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x k tw (Fig. 7).
The thickness obtained may be regarded as reasonably
typical. However, designers may prefer to opt for thicker
webs to reduce the number of web stiffeners.
3.2.3 Overall unit weight

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

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

Lesmahagow, Scotland
2. Right: Fossdyke Bridge*
Lincoln, England
Reference
figures 9 & 10
Universal beam size
Actual depth (mm)
3.2.5 List of symbols
Serial
size (mm)
Mass per
metre (kg/m)
914 x 419
388
921.0
343
911.8
289
926.6
253
253
918.4
224
224
910.4
HA
Standard highway loading defined in BD37
201
903.0
HB
Abnormal highway loading defined in BD37,
226
850.9
388
343
289
914 x 305
201
226
838 x 292
194
194
840.7
176
176
834.9
197
769.8
173
173
762.2
147
147
754.0
197
170
762 x 267
686 x 254
170
692.9
152
152
687.5
140
140
683.5
125
125
677.9
238
179
149
Af
Flange area (m2)
A fb
Bottom flange area (m2)
A ft
Top flange area (m2)
Girder or beam overall depth excluding slab

or finishes (m)
45 units assumed
K af
Girder spacing factor for flange area
K tw
Girder spacing factor for web thickness
Kw
Girder spacing factor for unit weight
Span centre to centre of bearings

(taken as 1.25 x span for end span of
continuous bridges)
kg/m2
Unit weight of steelwork in bridge expressed as:

total steelwork weight (kg)
W x overall bridge length
Average girder spacing defined as W/N (m)
tw
Web thickness (mm)
635.8
Overall deck width including parapets (m)
179
620.2
Number of spans
149
612.4
Number of girders (refer to Section 3.2.3 for
140
617.2
125
125
612.2
113
113
607.6
101
101
602.6
238
140
610 x 305
610 x 229
box girders)
Notes
(i) Where relevant, symbols correspond with
BS 5400 Part 3.
(ii) Units where relevant are shown in parentheses.
Table 1 (with reference to sizes in Figs. 9 and 10)
Table 1 above defines the referencing system for the

serial sizes in Figs.7 and 8, which is based on the mass
per metre of universal beams. Larger sizes are available
(e.g. 1016), but are unlikely to be economic compared to
fabricated plate girders.
Worked examples - use of charts
4. Worked examples - use of charts

4.1 Continuous plate girder bridge
Flange and web sizes
A composite highway bridge has 3 continuous spans
Girder spacing factors: for 'S' = 3.0m
A, B and C of 24, 40 and 32m.
From Fig. 7: K af = 0.87, Kaf = 0.85*, K tw = 0.95
Overall deck width is 12m and it carries 45 units of HB
(*top flange span girders only).
loading (as shown in figure 2).

There are 4 plate girders in the cross section of
1.75m depth.
Estimate the main girder sizes and the total weight of
structural steel.
Average girder spacing 's' = W/N =12m/4 No. = 3.0m
W = 12m
D = 1.75m
Span girder
Pier girder
24m
Span A
Span girder
40m
Span B
Pier girder
Span girder
32m
Span C
Figure 2
Worked example
1. Left: Trent Viaduct

Newark, England
2. Right: A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct*
Cumbria, England
Span A: 24m
Pier girders
This is an end span so take L = 1.25 x 24m = 30m
Take L as the greater of the two adjacent spans, i.e.
Therefore L/D = 30m/1.75m = 17, so assume L/D = 20
assume L = 40m at both supports, hence, L/D =

40m/1.75m = 22.9
Top flange A ft
= A ft (from Fig. 5) x K af
= 0.006 x 0.85 = 0.0051m2
Top flange A ft
= 0.017 x 0.87 = 0.015m2
400 x 15 top flange
400 x 40 top flange

Bottom flange A fb
= A fb(from Fig. 5) x K af
Bottom flange A fb
= 0.014 x 0.87 = 0.012m 2
= A fb(from Fig. 6) x K af
= 0.033 x 0.87 = 0.029m 2
500 x 25 bottom flange

Web t w
= t w (from Fig. 5) x K tw
Web t w
= 10 x 0.95 = 9.5mm
= 16.8 x 0.95 = 16mm
Use 10mm web
Therefore use 18mm web
Span B: 40m
Span girder
Steel tonnage
L/D = 40m/1.75m = 22.9
Girder spacing
for end span A:
Top flange A ft
= 0.009 x 0.85 = 0.0077m
= 3.0m
L = 1.25 x 24m = 30m
for centre span B:
L = 40m
for end span C:
L = 1.25 x 32m = 40m
400 x 20 top flange

Therefore mean span
Bottom flange A fb
= A fb (from Fig. 5) x K af
L14 + L24...Ln4
= 0.020 x 0.87 = 0.017m 2

4
Web t w
= 10 x 0.95 = 9.5mm
304 + 404 + 404 = 37.5m

3
Use 10mm web

L/D = 37.5m/1.75m = 21
Span C: 32m
= kg/m2 (from Fig. 8) x Kw (from Fig. 7)
This is an end span so take L = 1.25 x 32m = 40m
= 145kg/m2 x 1.04 = 151kg/m2
therefore sizes as 40m span.

Hence, steel weight
= 151 kg/m2/1000 x (24m + 40m + 32m) x 12m wide
= 174 tonnes
4.2 Simply supported universal

beam bridge
A composite bridge has a simply supported span of
24m. (as shown in figure 3). Overall deck width is 9.6m
and it carries HA loading only. Estimate the beam size
and total weight of structural steel assuming there are 4
beams in the cross section.
W = 9.6m
24m
Figure 3
Worked example
(a) For an elastic stress analysis refer to Fig. 9
(b) For a plastic stress analysis refer to Fig. 10
For 4 beams
For 'S' = 2.4m. Use 289
'S' = 9.6m/4No. = 2.4m. Use 388
i.e. 914 x 305 x 289kg/m universal beam
i.e. 914 x 419 x 388kg/m Universal Beam

Total weight approx.
(289kg/m /1000) x 4No. x 24m x 1.08
Total weight approx.

(388kg/m/1000) x 4No. x 24m x 1.08
= 30 tonnes (i.e. 130kg/m )

(the 1.08 factor allows for 8% bracing + stiffener
Thus, plastic stress analysis offers a significant
allowance)
2
reduction in beam size but SLS checks must be made.
= 40.2 tonnes (i.e. 174kg/m )
1. Left: A9 Bridge
Pitlochry, Scotland
2. Right: A1(M)
Yorkshire, England
References
5. References
1. BS5400, Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. British Standards Institution.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB):
2. DMRB 1.3 BD37 Loads for Highway Bridges.
3. DMRB 1.3 BD13 Codes of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges.
4. DMRB 1.3 BD & BA 57 Design for Durability.
5. DMRB 1.3 BA 42 Design of Integral Bridges.
6. DMRB 2.3 BD7 Weathering Steel for Highway Structures.
7. DMRB 2.3 BA36 The Use of Permanent Formwork.
Steel Construction Institute Publications
8. P163: Integral Steel Bridges Design Guidance.
9. P180: Integral Steel Bridges Design of a Single Span Bridge.
10. P250: Integral Steel Bridges Design of a Multi Span Bridge.
11. Corus Publication Weathering Steel Bridges.
Material Standards (EN)
12. BS EN 10025 Hot Rolled Products of non-alloy structural steels.
13. BS EN 10155 Structural Steels with improved atmospheric corrosion resistance.
14. BS EN 10164 Steel products with improved deformation properties perpendicular
to the surface of the product.
Other Standards (BS)
15. BS 5975 Code of Practice for Falsework.
BS 5400
Title
Part
DMRB
MCDHW
Document*
Document**
General Statement
BD15
Specification for Loads
BD37
Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges
BD13
Code of Practice for Design of Concrete Bridges
BD 24
Code of Practice for Design of Composite Bridges
BD16
Specification for Materials & Workmanship, Steel
Volume 1 Series 1800
Specification for Materials & Workmanship, Concrete,

Reinforcement & Prestressing Tendons
Recommendations for Materials & Workmanship, Concrete,

Reinforcement & Prestressing Tendons
Bridge Bearings
BD20
10
Code of Practice for Fatigue
BD9
Volume 1 Series 1700

Volume 2 Series NG1700
* Design Manual for Roads and Bridges published by the Stationery Office for the Overseeing Organisations.
** Manual of Contract Document for Highway Work published by the Stationery Office for the Overseeing Organisations.
45
50
55
75
60
50
45
35
25
30
35
25
30
35
40
45
55
50
40
60
55
45
40
65
70
75
600
x
60
65
70
75
650
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
500
x
Flange size (mm)
50
55
60
65
70
800
x
65
70
75
1000
x
S = 3.5m
400
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
(m2)
Af
20
25
30
Figure 4: Simply supported bridges - flange (at mid-span) and web (at support)
6. Figures
35
Afb
40
Afb
Afb
Span (m)
45
Aft
50
Afb
HA
HB
HA
55
/HB
tw
tw
HB
HA/
HB
HA
Aft
60
30
30
30
30
L/
20
20
20
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
tw (mm)
Figures
70
65
65
60
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
75
70
55
600
x
650
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
500
x
400
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Flange size (mm)
S = 3.5m
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Af
(m2)
25
30
Figure 5: Continuous bridges - flange and web sizes of span girders
35
Aft
40
Span (m)
Aft
tw
HA/HB
Afb
HA/HB
Afb
45
tw
HA
Afb
50
Afb
HA
HB
HB
55
60
30
30
30
L/
30
20
20
20
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
tw (mm)
Figures
45
50
55
60
1000
x
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
800
x
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
55
70
70
65
75
75
60
600
x
650
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
500
x
Flange size (mm)
S = 3.5
400
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Af
(m2)
20
25
Figure 6: Continuous bridges - flange and web sizes of pier girders
30
35
Span (m)
40
HA/HB
HA/H
B
A/H
45
HB
HA/
Afb
50
Aft
Aft
Afb
55
tw
tw
L / 30
D
60
30
30
20
20
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
tw (mm)
Figures
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Kw
f
Ka
5
Haunch
slab
Girder spacing - S (m)
Girders & slab
f
Ka
1.9
no
nly
Stringer
f
Ka
2.0
Fla
n
To
-sp
a
d
mi

ge
Figure 7: Girder spacing factors
Cross girders
L=60
L=40
Ktw
Figures
Kt
Kaf, Ktw, Kw
Kg/m2
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
20
al
b
ea
400
25
30
35
HB
40
Span (m)
45
HA
50
HA
HB
55
HB
HA
HA
HB
60
30
30
30
L /
D
20
20
20
20
Simply supported
Continuous
Un
iv
er
s
Figure 8: Overall unit weights plate girder bridges (S = 3.5)
Figures
7
19
1
20
17
12
13
14
15
28
9
17
17
79
14
2.2
4
19
2.3
38
2.4
4/2
2.5
19
2.6
2.7
/23
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
22
4
16
17
34
Beam spacing - S (m)
Figure 9: Universal beams elastic stress analysis
18
28
9
Span (m)
19
20
21
22
23
24
HB
HA
25
Figures
8
38
3
34
38
8
3
25
22
6
253
224
201
173
28
26
27
HA
HB
29
Figures
8
25
38
23
24
34
28
21
34
22
38
22
20
18
53
Span (m)
19
28
20
25
38
7/2
19
4
22
16
20
17
17
38
15
4/2
19
79
0/1
197
176
12
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.7
3.1
125
113 101
125
2.8
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
0)
(61
140
2.3
86)
2.9
3.0
15
/14
14
40/
13
7
14
15
9(6
179
)
86
0(6
14
9
14
0)
(61
140
2.4
173
170
14
17
Beam spacing - S (m)
Figure 10: Universal beams plastic stress analysis
19
6
22
17
22
www.corusgroup.com
Care has been taken to ensure that the
contents of this publication are accurate, but
Corus UK Ltd and its subsidiary companies
do not accept responsibility for errors or for
information which is found to be misleading.
Suggestions for or descriptions of the end
use or application of products or methods of
working are for information only and Corus
UK Ltd and its subsidiaries accept no liability
in respect thereof. Before using products
supplied or manufactured by Corus UK Ltd
and its subsidiaries the customer should
satisfy himself of their suitability.
Copyright 2002
Corus
Designed and produced by
Orchard Corporate.
Corus Construction Centre

PO Box 1
Brigg Road
Scunthorpe
North Lincolnshire
DN16 1BP
Tel +44 (0) 1724 405 060
Fax +44 (0) 1724 404 224
Email corusconstruction@corusgroup.com
www.corusconstruction.com
English language version
CL&I:SML:3000:UK:02/2002

CORUS Composite Steel Highway Bridges

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CORUS Composite Steel Highway Bridges

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Corus Construction Centre

Composite steel highway bridges

Initial sizes and overall unit weight

Plate girder flange sizes

Plate girder web sizes

Overall unit weight

Worked examples use of charts

1. Left: Waterside Bridge

Composite steel highway bridges

Advantages of Steel Bridges

Composite steel highway bridges

Alan Hayward is continuously involved with the

Alan C. G. Hayward FREng CEng FICE FIStructE

development of bridge codes including BS 5400 and

Alan Hayward was a founding Partner of bridge

Eurocodes and has been National Technical Contact for

specialists Cass Hayward & Partners of Chepstow who

the composite bridge code EC4-2. He contributes to the

design and evolve construction methodology for all

education of engineers by lecturing at Universities on

types of bridges, particularly steel highway, railway,

behalf of industry, and has written numerous papers on

footbridges, movable bridges and Roll-On/Roll-Off

steel bridge construction. He is a long-standing member

linkspans in the UK and overseas. He remains active in

of the Steel Bridge Group who disseminate best practice

the firm as the Principal Consultant.

through their published Guidance Notes.

Advantages of steel bridges

Fewer piles and smaller sizes of pile caps/foundations.

Light units for erection.

Erection by smaller cranes. Delivery of long pieces.

Cheaper site costs.

Simple site joints.

Bolted joints: easy to form larger pieces from small

Flexible site planning.

Quality control in good factory conditions avoiding outdoor

More reliable product.

Commuted painting costs can be calculated. If easy repainting

Total life cost known.

Depth/span ratio 1/20 to 1/30 typically.

Falsework costs eliminated.

Continuity easy with bolted or welded joints. Most expansion

Pleasing appearance taking advantage of curves and colour.

Demountable structures and re-cyclable components which

Composite steel highway bridges

1. M4/M25 Poyle Interchange

Design clauses are easier to use than

(iii) Workmanship requirements, including tolerances,

Part 3 (Design of Steel Bridges) is compatible with the

Use of the plastic modulus is permitted for stress

6, drawn up jointly with industry.

analysis of compact sections and where the slenderness

The Code uses limit state principles. The ultimate

shrinkage and differential temperature can be neglected.

limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS) must

For compact sections, the entire load can also be

In practice the ULS generally governs, exceptions being

steelwork is unpropped, provided that SLS checks

the checking at SLS for slip of HSFG bolts and the

design of shear connectors.

channels will be compact, plate girders will often be

non-compact and must be stressed elastically. (See also

Plastic stress analysis option offers the use of