Technical Report: AF2203 Bridge Design, Advanced Course

1
Royal Institute of Technology

Stockholm, 9
th
of December 2011

AF2203 Bridge Design, Advanced course

Technical Report
Design of a pedestrian steel arch bridge

Professor: Raid Karoumi

Palmn, Anders
820111-7150
apalmen@kth.se
Widn, Daniel
831102-4056
dwiden@kth.se
1

Table of contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Aim and scope .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1.1 Obligatory requirements ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.2 Optional task ......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 The bridge .................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Rules and regulations ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Structure of the report................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Properties of the Bridge ................................................................................................................................ 6
Chapter 2 Geometry .............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1Global geometry ............................................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Local geometry ............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Cross sections ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Deck plate ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Foundations .................................................................................................................................................. 9
2.5 Interactions ................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.6 The Model in LUSAS................................................................................................................................. 10
2.6.1 Mesh and elements ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.6.2 Local coordinate system ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.6.3 Material in LUSAS ............................................................................................................................. 11
Chapter 3 Loads and material .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Material ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Loads .......................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Permanent loads ......................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Self weight .......................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Pavement ............................................................................................................................................ 12
3.3.3 Omitted permanent loads .................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Variable loads ............................................................................................................................................. 13
3.4.1 Service vehicle .................................................................................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Breaking force .................................................................................................................................... 14
3.4.3 Omitted variable loads ........................................................................................................................ 14
3.5 Load combinations ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 4 Quality assurance................................................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Model checking .......................................................................................................................................... 16
4.1.1 The mass of the model ........................................................................................................................ 16
4.1.2 Influence line ...................................................................................................................................... 16
2

4.1.3 Load combination ............................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Result line ................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Convergence analysis ................................................................................................................................. 18
Chapter 5 Section forces ...................................................................................................................................... 21
5.1 Result line ................................................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Denominations in LUSAS .......................................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Members of importance.............................................................................................................................. 21
5.4 von Mises stresses ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 6 Resistance verification in ULS ............................................................................................................ 23
6.1 General procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 23
6.2 Stiffening beam .......................................................................................................................................... 23
6.2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 23
6.2.2 Results and reflections ........................................................................................................................ 24
6.3 Arch ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
6.3.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 24
6.4 Hangers ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
6.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 25
6.5 Deck beams ................................................................................................................................................ 25
6.5.1 Generals .............................................................................................................................................. 25
6.6 Deck plate ................................................................................................................................................... 25
6.6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 25
6.7 Fatigue resistance ....................................................................................................................................... 27
6.7.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 27
6.8 Conclusions resistance verification ............................................................................................................ 28
Chapter 7 Serviceability ....................................................................................................................................... 29
7.1 General ....................................................................................................................................................... 29
7.2 Results and reflections................................................................................................................................ 29
Chapter 8 Optional tasks ...................................................................................................................................... 30
8.1 Refined quality assurance ........................................................................................................................... 30
8.1.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 30
8.2 LCC-analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 31
8.2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 31
3

8.3 Frequencies and mode shapes .................................................................................................................... 32
8.3.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 32
8.4 Global Buckling ......................................................................................................................................... 33
8.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 33
8.5 The influence of the pavement ................................................................................................................... 35
8.5.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 35
8.5.2 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Reference list ........................................................................................................................................................ 38
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix A: Load calculations ........................................................................................................................ 39
Appendix B: Fatigue resistance ........................................................................................................................ 42
Appendix C: Resistance verification for ULS .................................................................................................. 43

4

Chapter 1

Introduction

The objective of this report is to gather a greater understanding of the real procedure of designing and assessing a
bridge. This will be achieved through performing an assessment of an existing bridge for a new heavier service
vehicle. The geometry of this bridge is well suited for the three dimensional finite element tool LUSAS which
will be the tool at hand for the solution process of its real behaviour. This introduction part will explain the
principle and level of the full rapport.
1.1 Aim and scope
The model of the bridge to be studied is presented in chapter 3. The objective is to determine the maximum
allowable axel load of a service vehicle passing the bridge. The calculations are obligatory to be performed all
the way just as in a real case. However the number of included loads and load cases are reduced. Further the
finite element model to be created needs to be sufficiently accurate for use in a real design or assessment project.
1.1.1 Obligatory requirements
There are some obligatory requirements of what needs to be included in this report.
- A description of the bridge including figures of the main features
- A three dimensional finite element model of the bridge with a description of the model with figures and
relevant results.
- A technical report with appropriate assumptions and conditions outlined as well as the result of the design
calculations
- Oral presentation
Additional requirements are that the technical report shall also treat the requirements specified in chapter 4 to
chapter 7.
1.1.2 Optional task
The optional tasks presented and treated in this report are:
8.1 A refined quality assurance of the bridge model through a 2D model
8.2 LCC-analysis
8.3 A verification of frequencies, mode shapes and comfort criteria
8.4 Global buckling
8.5 Influence of the pavement
1.1.3 Limitations
The design is performed as close as possible to the actual constructed bridge as possible. However there are
some limitations introduced to the model and calculations. The limitations introduced are:
- The number of included loads has been reduced, for example: no considerations have been given to wind
loads, uniformly distributed loads, concentrated loads and thermal variations.
- The foundation of the bridge will not be designed or considered.
- Only the longitudinal result line is required, the transversal has been neglected.
- No verifications due to shear force and torsion are performed in the ULS calculations
- Only a linear-elastic response will be analysed
Some of these limitations might be considered in the optional tasks.
5

1.3 The bridge
The pedestrian bridge to be examined in this project task is located in the Tantolunden in Stockholm, between
the commuter train station Stockholm Sdra and the rsta bridge, Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Map displaying the bridge location (Eniro, 2011).
The simply supported steel bowstring arch bridge was constructed 2005 and is a connecting walk path over the
railway track. On one side it is connected to the bedrock and on the other it is linked to an inclining walk path at
the position of the concrete foundation. A photo of the bridge is displayed in Figure 1.2 and 1.3.

Figure 1.2: The bridge to be studied, in North-East direction (Leander, 2011)

Figure 1.3: The bridge to be studied, in South-West direction (Eniro, 2011).
1.3 Rules and regulations
The design calculations have been carried out accordingly to certain guidelines given in:
- Eurocode - EN 1990, (CEN, 2002a)
- Eurocode 1 - EN 1991-1-1, (CEN, 2002b), EN 1991-2 (CEN, 2003)
- Eurocode 3 - EN 1993-1-1, (CEN, 2005a), EN 1993-1-7 (CEN, 2009), EN 1993-1-9 (CEN, 2005b), EN
1993-2 (CEN, 2006).
- Swedish standard TK Bro (Banverket and Vgverket, 2009).
- In order to understand and adopt different theories and methods for arch structures the book Arch
Structures (Sundquist, 2007) has been used.
1.4 Structure of the report
Below is a brief description of the content of each chapter.
- Chapter 2 Geometry description of the bridge.
- Chapter 3 Loads and material detailed properties of the bridge and the model.
6

- Chapter 4 Quality assurance a control of that the 3D model is accurate.
- Chapter 5 Section forces outlines the section forces at the points of interest.
- Chapter 6 Resistance verification in ULS.
- Chapter 7 Serviceability reviews the performance of the bridge.
- Chapter 8 Optional tasks preformed optional tasks accordingly to section 1.1.2 above.
- Reference list outline of the used books, regulations, codes and other vital documents to this report.
1.6 Properties of the Bridge
A suspended arch bridge is described as a bridge where the bridge deck is connected to the arch at the supports,
further the deck is carried by hangers connecting the arch and the stiffening beam in the deck. Also the idea with
an arch bridge is that the arch itself should be constructed in such geometry resulting in basically no bending
moment in the arch member due to the self-weight of the bridge.

7

Chapter 2

Geometry

2.1Global geometry
The position of the bridge can be pinpointed through entering the coordinates in Table 2.1. The Swedish
coordinate system SWEREF 99 TM has been used and is based on the Meridian 15 degrees east of Greenwich
with a scale reduction factor of 0.9996. The N-coordinate commence from the Equator and the E-coordinate
commences from the earlier mentioned Meridian, but with an addition of 500 000m. The SWEREF 99 systems
are based on the metric system and conventionally the X-coordinate is positive in the North direction and the Y-
coordinates positive in the East direction (Lantmteriet, 2011)

Table 2.1: Coordinates from SWEREF 99 TM (Eniro, 2011)
2.2 Local geometry
The main structural systems are made up by two arches both with curved centre lines, two stiffening beams and
14 hangers. The bridge has a span width of 30 m. The global geometry of the bridge is presented in Figure 2.1-
2.3.

Figure 2.1: Elevation of the bridge. Dimensions are in meter (Leander, 2011).
The secondary structural system of the bridge is made up of deck beams symbolised with F
1
- F
3
in the figure
below. On top of the deck beams the deck plate is found with a loading width of 3 meter see Figure 2.3.
X [m] Y [m]
6 578 755 673 640
6 578 722 673 652
SWEREF 99 TM
8

Figure 2.2: A plan of the bridge deck with the notation F
1
- F
3
for the deck beams. All dimensions are in meters (Leander,
2011).

Figure 2.3: Section of the bridge in mid span. Dimensions are in meter (Leander, 2011).
2.2 Cross sections
As explained earlier the structural members are different depending on where in the structure they are located.
Figure 2.4 displays the cross section of the circular cross sections of the arch and the hangers. Figure 2.5
demonstrates the cross section of the stiffening beam. As noted above, the deck beams are denoted F
1
- F
3
due to
the difference in design. The locations of these beams are presented in the Figure 2.2. The cross sections of these
beams are presented in Figure 2.6. In order to perform the further calculations in this report the cross section
properties has been established, these values are presented in Table 2.1.

Figure 2.4: Cross-section of the arch (a) Figure 2.5: Cross section of the stiffening beam
and of the hanger (b) (Leander, 2011) (Leander, 2011).
9

Figure 2.6: Cross section of the deck beams F
1
, F
2
and F
3
(Leander, 2011).

Table 2.1: Cross-section properties
2.3 Deck plate
The deck plate is 16 mm thick and has the geometry as shown in Figure 2.7. Between the deck beams and the
deck plate there is a 2 mm thick rubber liner. The plate is connected to the beams with sparse bolts, for the
connection details read further under Section 2.5 Interactions. On top of the deck plate the pavement in
constructed out of a 50 mm thick Asphalt concrete layer.

Figure 2.7: Cross section of the deck plate (Leander, 2011).
2.4 Foundations
The bridge foundations will not be needed to be included in the FE-model. Realistic support conditions are
needed in order to get at scenario as close to the real case as possible. At the first support the bearings are
movable and at the seconded one the bearings are pinned. The support conditions are displayed in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Support conditions (Leander, 2011).
2.5 Interactions
The interactions to consider for this bridge are the connections between the deck plate and the deck beams. Due
to a weak connection between the deck beams and the deck plate, the plate should not be able to contribute to the
main bearing of the bridge. The connection shall be modelled to transmit the vertical forces but not the
horizontal ones. This will be achieved by using the joint elements in LUSAS.
Stiffening beam Arch Hanger Florbeam
Direction unit M
1
A
1
H
6
F
2
Cross section area [m
2
] - *10
-3
m
2
13.05 6.85653 2.3889 10.5
Elastic Moment of inerita [m
4
] y-y *10
-6
m
4
320.3 72.63 4.36 244.3
z-z *10
-6
m
4
85.85 72.63 4.36 34.59
Elastic section modulus [m
3
] y-y *10
-5
m
4
177.9 48.66 6.87 135.7
z-z *10
-5
m
4
52.83 48.66 6.87 28.82
10

2.6 The Model in LUSAS
2.6.1 Mesh and elements
This bridge analysis is completed in the finite element software LUSAS Bridge Plus. One of the key factors in
deriving a trustworthy and accurate result in finite element software is to make sure the mesh of the model is
working correctly with appropriate element sizes (Pacoste, 2011). This model has been modelled with Thick 3D
Beam Element and Thick Shell Elements assigned to the lines and surfaces respectively. It is highly important to
divide the mesh for each structural geometry in equal divisions and shapes (Kringos, 2011). Kringos (2011)
continues explaining that each element need to be able to correspond to the element it is connected to, in other
words, there must be a node above another node if the connected elements shall be able to communicate with
each other.

Figure 1.4: To the left, the geometry of the bridge, to the right, the model in 3D views (LUSAS, 2010b).
The mesh used for the surfaces are a square quadrilateral mesh with the element QTS4, for all the Thick 3D
beam components the element BMS3 is used and for the joints between the deck beams and the deck plate JNT4
is assigned. In Figure 1.5 to the left, the names of the elements can be reviewed.
2.6.2 Local coordinate system
It has also been of great importance to know how the local coordinate system is located in order to be able to
carry out the quality assurance and compare the forces and moments corresponding to each other. This is
displayed to the right in Figure 1.5.
11

Figure 1.5: To the left, the element types used for the 3D model, to the right, view of the local coordinates (LUSAS, 2010b).
2.6.3 Material in LUSAS
All the members in the 3D model have been assigned a linear-elastic isotropic material with the steel properties
as described in Table 3.1. An Isotropic material behaves identical in every direction accordingly to Kringos
(2011b). The only difference to the structural components is the modification of the deck plate with belonging
pavement. The pavement and steel deck plate has been modelled as on solid material where combined densities
of both have been assigned. This is explained later in section 3.3.2.

12

Chapter 3

Loads and material

The design of the railway bridge has been carried out using the Eurocode 1: EN 1991-1-1 (CEN, 2002b) and EN
1991-2 (CEN, 2003). The loads applied have been simplified as discussed in the section 1.2 Limitations.
3.1 Material
The material in the bridge is mainly steel with quality S355J2G3 which has the material properties as displayed
in Table 3.1. In this table f
y
is the yield strength f
u
is the ultimate limit strength, E
.k
the characteristic modulus of
elasticity and is Poissons ratio.

Table 3.1: Material properties for steel grade S355J2G3 (Leander, 2011).
3.2 Loads
The design loads considered for this pedestrian bridge is General actions and Traffic loads. These load cases are
specified in the Eurocode 1: EN 1991-1-1 (CEN, 2002b) and EN 1991-2 (CEN, 2003). The coefficients for
calculating the load combination STR (structural) in ULS are displayed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Loads and load coefficients (Leander, 2011).
3.3 Permanent loads
3.3.1 Self weight
The density for steel is 78kN/m
3
accordingly to table A.1 in EN 1991-1-1 (CEN, 2002b). The self-weight is
applied as a body force with a linear acceleration of 10 m/s
2
in the vertical direction.

Figure 3.1: Self weight applied as a body force with the linear acceleration of 10m/s
2
(LUSAS, 2010b).
3.3.2 Pavement
The pavement consists of gussasphalt (PGJA) which has a density of 24kN/m
3
accordingly to Table A.6 in EN
1991-1-1 (CEN, 2002b).
13

Since a dynamic analysis of the bridge will be performed the mass of the pavement has been modelled as a co-
vibrating mass. This is done through combining the density of the steel and the density of the asphalt and
applying that weight to the thickness of 16 mm of the deck plate see Equation 3.1. This weight is then applied as
a body force with a linear acceleration of 10m/s
2
Figure 3.2.

Equation 3.1: Weight combination of deck plate and asphalt.

Figure 3.2: Body force of the deck plate. Combination of steel and asphalt (LUSAS, 2010b).
3.3.3 Omitted permanent loads
The bridge is constructed as a simply supported bridge; therefore the loads support dislocation has no effect. The
loads that do not exist in this case are overburden, pre-stressing and pore pressure.
3.4 Variable loads
3.4.1 Service vehicle
The service vehicle to consider is presented in Figure 3.3 with the geometry of the wheel loads presented in
Figure 3.4. The contact area of all four wheels are 0,2*0.2 m
2
and the applied load is P at each front wheel and
P/2 at each of the rear wheels. A starting value of P has been set to 1 kN in order to calculate the maximum
allowed load for the vehicle. Each wheel load has been applied as four discrete point loads with local coordinates
with at the centre of the vehicle

Figure 3.3: Service vehicle configuration (Leander, 2011). Figure 3.4: Wheel geometry and load (Leander, 2011).
In order to find the worst load case the service vehicle has been placed with a maximum eccentricity and applied
as a moving load function in LUSAS along a traffic line running along the x-axis of the bridge Figure 3.5.
14

Figure 3.5: The moving load running with maximum eccentricity. The dotted line above the bridge is the traffic line
(LUSAS, 2010b).
3.4.2 Breaking force
The load breaking force is set to 60%, Figure 3.6, of the vertical load and is applied in the same manner as the
vertical load from the service vehicle, along the traffic line. After this a load combination is preformed to get the
maximum values for the service vehicle.

Figure 3.6: Geometry of breaking force
3.4.3 Omitted variable loads
There are some actions that have been excluded in this report. These loads are: uniformly distributed load,
concentrated load, wind load, creep and thermal variation. All these loads need to be considered in a real design
procedure. Other loads that are not accounted for are: ice and water flow, snow load and construction loads.
3.5 Load combinations
The governing load combination in the ULS is denoted STR in the Eurocode EN 1990 (CEN, 2002a). The effect
of the loads should be combined as

]
or

]
The most unfavourable alternative of these two should be used.
Accordingly to Table A2.4(B) in EN 1990 (CEN, 2002a) the -factor shall be set to 0,85.
The different load combinations needed in order to receive a correctly combined result are presented in Table
3.3. The setup is valid for the load combination STR and the following abbreviations are used: LTC load cases to
15

consider, PLF: permanent load factor, VLF: variable load factor. For the fatigue evaluation, no safety
coefficients should be applied to the load. Use the characteristic values for the service vehicle.

Table 3.3: Load combinations to consider (Leander, 2011).

16

Chapter 4

Quality assurance

4.1 Model checking
In order to verify that the created 3D model in LUSAS is correct, important output from the model needs to be
compared with hand calculations.
4.1.1 The mass of the model
The hand calculations results in a total mass of the bridge of 40268 kg see Appendix A: Load calculations, which
are compared with the total mass of 40209 kg derived from LUSAS see Table 4.1. Comparing the results, one
can clearly see that this quality assurance successfully passes the check.

Table 4.1: Geometrical summary (LUSAS, 2010b).
4.1.2 Influence line
When comparing the generated influence lines displayed in Figure 4.2-4.3 with the correct influence line, Figure
4.4, it clearly states that the theoretical model of the bridge behaves as it is supposed to. The resulting moment
M
y
in Figure 4.2-4.3 is derived due to the fact that the bridge contains two stiffening beams and will therefore
half the correct values from Figure 4.4. This leads to a successful check of the influence lines.

Figure 4.1: Bending moment in the stiffening beam at the seconded hanger.
This result is valid for a moving point load of 1kN over the midpoint of the deck plate (LUSAS, 2010b).
17

Figure 4.2: Bending moment in the stiffening beam at the seconded hanger.
This result is valid for a moving point load of 1kN over the stiffening beam (LUSAS, 2010b).

Figure 4.3: The correct theoretical influence line for the stiffening beam at the second
hanger with a unit point load of 1kN running over the stiffening beam (Leander, 2011).
4.1.3 Load combination
The load combination consists of comparing the maximum hand calculated load, at the specific point where the
seconded hanger is attached to the stiffening beam, with the load derived from LUSAS for the same point. The
hand calculations (more extensively presented in Appendix A: Load calculations) are displayed in the equations
below where the designing load is the maximum out of the two equations 6.10a and 6.10b from EN 1990, A2
(CEN, 2002a).
] [
]
()
The value of 2.352 kNm is compared with the value of 2.352 kNm from LUSAS using the load combination
STR Fin max, see Table 4.2. Check passed!

Table 4.2: Load combination STR Fin max from LUSAS

Node Fx [N] Fy [N] Fz [N] Mx [Nm] My(*) [Nm] Mz [Nm]
Str max 1008 174673,00 -53,36 4700,03 -0,20 2351,95 2806,28
18

4.2 Result line
Deriving results for shell elements are usually trickier than for a beam elements and the result volume is usually
excessively larger for shell structures. The Result line is created so that the results can easily be extracted from
exactly the same line with millimetre precision.
The result line for this analysis is placed so that the results are picked at the highest utilized side. In this case it is
placed in the middle of the wheel path for a case where the wheels are operating as close as possible to the side
of the deck plates, Figure 4.4

Figure 4.4: Position of the result line (Leander, 2011).
4.3 Convergence analysis
The theorem of finite element analysis states that a more exact result can be obtained through increasing the
number of elements of which the model is constructed out of (Kringos, 2011a). In this section an evaluation of
the element mesh sizes has been carried out in order to obtain the best element mesh size for this project. The
element used for making the model are Thick 3D Beam Elements and Quadrilateral Thick Shell Elements as
explained in section 2.6.1. However this evaluation is carried out on the deck plate only which consisting of the
later.
In order to make sure that the mesh is correctly applied and that the correct element types and sizes are used a
convergence analysis needs to be performed in order to receive the wanted results. The finer the mesh the more
exact result will be obtained, but also the finer the mesh the more computing power and time spent (Pacoste,
2011).
This convergence analysis is preformed of the deck plate where every surface is divided in equal divisions in x-
direction and an equal divisions in y-direction with the aim to generate as close to a quadratic formed elements
as possible. Mesh size one: divisions in x=1, y=2. Mesh size two: divisions in x=2, y=4. Mesh size three:
divisions in x=2, y=6. How the model is converging is presented in Figure 4.5 4.10. Where the graphs in
Figure 4.8 4.10 are derived from the result line explained in section 4.2.
From the figures below it is evident that the result is not getting a lot more precise after the last simulation due to
a finer mesh. Based on this analysis this report will be carried out with the mesh size of the second simulation,
displayed in Figure 4.9, with a number of divisions x=2, y=4. This will save both time and computing power but
will not compromise the rehabilitee of the result.

19

Figure 4.5: Number of divisions in: x=1, y=2 (LUSAS, 2010b).


20

Figure 4.8: M
y
as a graph through 2D through the middle of the deck plate.
Number of divisions in: x=1, y=2 (LUSAS, 2010b).

Figure 4.9: M
y

Figure 4.10: M
y

21

Chapter 5

Section forces

5.1 Result line
Because of the eccentric loading of the bridge by the service vehicle one side will carry more loads then the
other. For the beam elements the results will be picked at the highest utilized side. The result line for the deck
plate will be positioned in the middle of the wheel path, Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Longitudinal result line in the deck plate (Leander, 2011).
5.2 Denominations in LUSAS
In LUSAS (2010b) the following notations are used for the sectional forces. In table 5.1 the sectional forces used
for the design calculations in ultimate limit state are presented.
F
x
axial force
F
y
shear force in the local y-axis
F
z
shear force in the local z-axis
M
x
torsion moment
M
y
bending moment about the local y-axis
M
z
bending moment about the local z-axis
5.3 Members of importance
Different cross-sections and members needs to be verified in the bridge construction, this verification is carried
out under Chapter 6. In order to perform this verification the section forces for each position of interest needs to
be extracted from LUSAS (2010b). In Figure 5.2 the positions of interest are displayed. These positions denoted
in the figure below have been found to carry the maximum section forces which will be the designing forces and
moments later in Chapter 6. In Table 5.1 there is a notation F
1
which indicates the deck beam in which the
highest section forces is occurring. This floor beam is located in the midspan of the bridge connecting to hanger
H
4
.

Figure 5.2: Notation of important members, the distance a = 8.6m (Leander, 2011).
22

Table 5.1: Sectional forces used for the design calculations in ULS.
5.4 von Mises stresses
The verification of the deck plate will be carried out using von Mises stress. von Mises stress are a stress
resultant with a direction that might not coincide with any of the axis x, y and z (LUSAS, 2010a). It is simply the
highest value of stress in any direction. With this knowledge von Mises has only been used for computing the
resistance in the deck plate. In the other structural members the axial force and the bending moment has been
used through use of Naviers formula in order to find the highest stresses.

Section F
x
[kN] M
y
[kNm] M
z
[kNm]
A
1
495,4 69,2 3,4
M
1
488,6 186,9 1
H
6
85,9 2,6 15,5
F
1
63,3 87,7 5,5
23

Chapter 6

Resistance verification in ULS

The resistance for four members of the bridge is needed to be checked in order to verify that the resistance is not
exceeding the yield point of the members. The four members are the stiffening beam, arch, one of the hangers
and one of the floor beams. Also the stress in deck plate needs to be controlled and delimited.
These calculations will be carried out in the Ultimate limit state and the worst case out of the combinations
presented in CEN (2002a) Eq. 6.10a, 6.10b will be used. The result will indicate the maximum allowed weight
of the service vehicle. In Figure 6.1 the notations and sections of the different members which resistance needs
to be verified.

Figure 6.1: Member and section notations for the resistance verification (Leander, 2011).

6.1 General procedure
The initial step in the resistance verification procedure is to classify the cross-sections of the different members.
This is done through Table 5.2 in EN 1993-1-1 (CEN, 2005a). Further on the resistance will be calculated
through following Eurocode 3 EN1993-1-1 (CEN, 2005a) step by step. The reason for using this part is due to its
general formulation and the fact that it easily can be simplified to fit various combinations of section forces.
Finally the verification is made by using the equations 6.61 and 6.62 EN 1993-1-1 (CEN, 2005a), see below. All
the ultimate limit state calculations are personated in Appendix C: Resistance verification for ULS
Eq. 6.61 (CEN, 2005a)

and
Eq. 6.62 (CEN, 2005a)

6.2 Stiffening beam
6.2.1 General
The resistance verification of the stiffening beam is carried out at the point M
1
in Figure 6.1. The stiffening beam
is exposed to both bending and axial tension. Lateral torsional buckling in the stiffening beam is prohibited due
to all the deck beams. The stiffening beam is always subjected to axial tensile forces mainly due to the dead
weight. In order to perform this verification Eurocode 3 - EN 1993-1-1 (CEN, 2005a) has been studied and
adopted. The criterion for the stiffening beam can be viewed below, where SF
1
is the safety factor against failure
and are not allowed to exceed one.

24

6.2.2 Results and reflections
When performing the cross section classification stiffening beam accordingly to Table 5.2 in EN 1993-1-1
(CEN, 2005a) the assumption that only bending is present has been resulting in the worst case. Doing this it
turns out that the web belongs to cross section class 1 and the flange to cross section class 2. Cross section class
3 is dealing with both compression and bending moment and are therefore the one used for the resistance
verification of the stiffening. This is resulting in a usage of 44.6% of the total resistance for the stiffening beam,
see Table 6.2.2. For the complete ULS calculation see Appendix C: Resistance verification for ULS.

Table 6.2.2: Design section forces and usage of total construction member resistance
6.3 Arch
6.3.1 General
The resistance verification of the arch is carried out at the point A
1
in Figure 6.1. The arch is always subjected to
a compressive axial force due to the geometry and the dead weight of the structure. It will also be subjected to
bending moments. Since this arch has a hollow circular cross-section it will not be susceptible to lateral-torsional
buckling. It also can be assumed that the elastic resistance is in cross-sectional class 3. These last two
simplifications are quiet rough but will lead to a more manageable analyse process. There is though a must for
checking the in-plane and out of plane buckling accordingly to EN 1993-1-1 section 6.3.2.1 (CEN, 2005a) and
the critical buckling force is carried out through EN 1993-2 D.3, (CEN, 2006). These criterions are displayed
below.

SF
2y
and SF
2z
cannot exceed 1.0. The reduction factors k
yy
, k
yz
, k
zy
, k
zz
has been introduced due to interaction
between the axial force and the bending moment. The factors
y
,
z
are introduced due to flexural buckling and
LT
are dealing with lateral torsional buckling. This last factor is not accounted for in this design due to the
limitations stated in the beginning of the report.
The arch belongs to cross section class 2 but the brutal simplifications of that it is not prone to any torsional
buckling and belongs to the elastic cross section class 3 is made. For the arch it is vital to check for both in and
out of plane buckling which introduces some reduction factors as written about above. Performing the
computation as presented in Appendix C results in a total usage of the arch resistance of 67.3% and 98.5% for in
plane and out of plane buckling respectively. The highest value of these two becomes the designing one for the
arch, see Table 6.2.2.
Stiffening
Arch beam Hanger Desk beam
F
x
[kN] 495.4 488.6 85.9 63.3
M
y
[kNm] 69.2 186.9 2.6 87.7
M
z
[kNm] 3.4 1,00 15.5 5.5
Usage of r tot esistance [%] 98.5 44.6 80.1 20.9
25

6.4 Hangers
6.4.1 General
The resistance verification of the hangers is carried out at for one of the hangers H
1
-H
7
in Figure 6.1. The
hangers will be subjected to axial tensile force in combination with a bending moment. However, it will not be
susceptible to lateral torsional buckling. The resistance verification is carried out accordingly to Eurocode 3 -
EN 1993-1-1 (CEN, 2005a). Where SF
3
is the safety factor against failure and is not allowed exceeding the value
of one.

The hanger belongs to cross section class 1 and accordingly to the criteria above the usage of the resistance in
the most effected hanger comes to 80.1%, see Appendix C: Resistance verification for ULS.
6.5 Deck beams
6.5.1 Generals
The resistance verification of the deck beams is carried out at for the deck beam in the middle of the bridge.
Since the deck plate will give sufficient restraint to the compression flange it will not be subjected to lateral-
torsional buckling. The active forces will be a bending moment in combination with tensile axial forces. The
verification has been carried out through following Eurocode 3 - EN 1993-1-1 Section 6.3.3 (CEN, 2005a).
Where SF
4
is the safety factor against failure and not allowed to exceed one.

Since the deck beam also has an I-shape as the stiffening beam the same procedure is adopted resulting in a cross
section class 1 for the web and 3 for the flanges. Because the flanges belong to the higher cross section class, it is
accordingly to this class the resistance verification for the deck beam is completed resulting in a total usage of
20.9% of its capacity.
6.6 Deck plate
6.6.1 General
The deck plate has been verified through following Eurocode 3 - EN 1993-1-7 (CEN, 2009). In the ultimate limit
state for the bridge the deck plate needs to fulfil the condition:
where

and

26

The extraction of values for this verification has been derived through using the load P equal to 1kN and
multiplying this with a factor of 40 in order to get an equivalent axial load of 40 ton. The measurements are
extracted from a graph through 2D running under the wheel located closest to the centre line of the bridge Figure
6.2. The resulting stresses at the bottom of the deck plate are around 47MPa and at the top 48MPa, see Figure
6.3 and 6.4 respectively.

Figure 6.2: Stress at the bottom of the deck plate between two hangers, to the left of the middle hanger (LUSAS, 2010b).

Figure 6.3: Graph displaying the stress at the bottom of the deck plate under the wheel closest to the centre line of the bridge
(LUSAS, 2010b).

Figure 6.4: Graph displaying the stress at the top of the deck plate under the wheel closest to the centre line of the bridge
(LUSAS, 2010b).
27

Using the values derived from LUSAS in the graphs above it becomes evident that:

resulting in a safety factor of approximately 7.4 or a total usage of 13.5% of the deck plates capacity.
6.7 Fatigue resistance
6.7.1 General
A verification of the fatigue resistance of the connection between the sixth hanger, H6 in Figure 6.1, and the
stiffening beam has been carried out in order to find the maximum allowed load cycles (load repetitions). The
geometry of the connection is displayed in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5: The geometry of the butt welded hanger connected to the stiffening beam (Leander, 2011).
This verification follows the Eurocode 3 - EN 1993-1-9 (CEN, 2005b) with a selected welding geometry
accordingly to Table 8.6 figure 6 in the same Eurocode. The maximum stress range has been selected in the
element closest to the connection to the stiffening beam. In this element the highest stress value out of the four
fibres, Figure 6.6, has been selected in order to calculate for the worst case scenario.

Figure 6.6: The left displays the element (the black line) chosen displaying max stress. The right displays position of the
highest stress (LUSAS, 2010b).
With the stress range of 240MPa, see Figure 6.7, derived from LUSAS (2010b) the maximum number of yearly
load repetitions comes to 61. This number is derived using the maximum load of P = 60ton. For the fatigue
calculations see Appendix B: Fatigue resistance
28

Figure 6.7: The spectrum displaying the stress range for one passage of the vertical load. The red plot is the fibre displayed
in ir . an t rn ot is t ir from the chosen fibre (LUSAS, 2010b).

6.8 Conclusions resistance verification
In order to find the maximum allowed vehicle weight or P-load the calculation process needed to start off with
an initial P-value of 1kN. Performing the computation of the resistance verification in ULS would indicate how
much more the P-load could be increased. The P-load was set to 60kN and this value is the load behind the
results in Table 6.2.2 which clearly states that the out of plane buckling for the arch is the designing resistance.
Also a fatigue resistance verification was carried out for the connection between the hanger H
6
and the stiffening
beam with the consequence of a total number of annual passages for a service vehicle with P=60kN to 61 or
7440 for the life time of the bridge. This would be more than enough for the maintenance of the bridge.

29

Chapter 7

Serviceability

7.1 General
There are no specified limits for vertical deformations in the Eurocode concerning a pedestrian bridge.
Nevertheless, there are some limitations in the Swedish publication TK Bro (Banverket and Trafikverket, 2009)
stating that the deformation is not allowed to exceed 1/400 of the theoretical span length calculated on the
characteristic values of the traffic load only.
7.2 Results and reflections
The values derived from the 3D model for the maximum displacement of the stiffening beam is 41.1mm at
x=22.55m which is below the criteria stated in TK Bro (Banverket and Trafikverket, 2009), also displayed
below. Figure 7.1 displays the deformation in the model.

There is however a comfort criteria in the Eurocode 3 EN 1993-2 (CEN, 2006) regarding vibrations. These
criteria state that the Eigen frequencies are not allowed to undermine 5 Hz for vertical vibrations and 2.5 Hz for
horizontal (transversal) and torsional vibrations.

Figure 7.1: Max displacement for only the vertical load. 41.1mm (LUSAS, 2010b).

30

Chapter 8

Optional tasks

8.1 Refined quality assurance
8.1.1 General
In order complete a further check of the functionality of the 3D model, a refined quality assurance is carried out.
This is achieved through creating a two dimensional beam model in LUSAS (2010b), see Figure 8.1.1, and then
applying the same load as for the 3D model. The resulting section forces from the 2D model are then compared
to the section forces from the 3D model in order to verify the resemblances. Also any differences are discussed
and taken into consideration.
Some simplifications have been made in order to generate the 2D model which reflects the 3D model and the
real case as good as possible. The same beam components (Thick 3D beams) have been used with the same
stiffness as in the 3D model but in order to account for the fact that the 3D model distributes half the applied
load to each side (containing one stiffening beam and one arch) the applied load to the 2D model have been set
to half value of the original load, see Figure 3.3. To avoid as many 3D effects as possible when modelling a 2D
case with Thick 3D Bams Poissons ratio av n st to zro or t matria rortis. Since the P-load had
not been derived jet upon completion of this task, P was set to 1000N. Furthermore a distributed load of
3050N/m was applied across the length of the stiffening beam. This distributed load symbolise the weight of half
the deck plate and half the deck beams.
Due to the fact that the breaking force applied a moment when using the moving load function in LUSAS this
breaking force has been neglected in this analysis. Another simplification of the application of the load is that a
stationary load case has been used positioning the load at the midspan of the bridge, this is valid both for the 2D
and 3D model, see Figure 8.1.1 and 8.1.2.

Figure 8.1.1: Positioning of the load for the 2D simulation (LUSAS, 2010b).

Figure 8.1.2: Positioning of the load for the 3D case (LUSAS, 2010b).
Table 8.1 presents a comparison between the section forces in the 2D and 3D model. The notation A1, M1 and
H6 is the positions where these values have been extracted, illustration of these positions can be found in Figure
6.1. It is evident after studying the section forces that all forces and moments are slightly higher in the 3D model.
This can be explained through the fact that the vehicle load applied and the weight of the deck plate and deck
31

beams, Figure 8.1.2, has some eccentricity resulting in a lever arm which increases the values. One factor to
consider when comparing these values is that the fairly low vehicle load of P=1kN has been used, this load might
not have a such a big influence on the section forces because it is rather small in comparison with the self-weight
of the bridge. Although, it could be reasoned the self-weight itself could result in a measure accurate enough for
the refined quality assurance.

Table 8.1: Comparison between the section forces for the 3D model and the 2D model.

8.2 LCC-analysis
8.2.1 General
The life cycle cost (LCC) is calculated out from an owner perspective with an annual interest rate of 4%. Which
give the total cost of the bridge over its designed life of 120 year. The bridge is usually only trafficked by
walking people and people on bicycles. It seems unlikely that people crossing the bridge will get seriously
injured and that maintenance work will affect the train traffic driving under the bridge. Therefore the costs for
the society and for the users have not been taken into consideration. The initial cost of the bridge can be studied
in the upper part of Table 8.2.1.

( )

The expected life span of the bridge, T, is set to 120 years. C
t
is the sum of all costs incurred at time t and the
real interest rate, p, is set to 4%. In Figure 8.2.2 a graph over the cost in relation to time is displayed and in Table
8.2.1 the costs are outlined a bit more detailed.
Contractor and project leader costs are 25% of the total material cost also other unexpected costs are 30% based
on the total material cost. Figure 8.2.1 is displaying the costs as parts of the total life cost of the bridge.

Table 8.2.1: Total net present cost of the bridge
Figure 8.2.1 presents a pie-chart over the total costs at present value incurred over the bridges life time. Studying
this chart it becomes evident that the major costs, 68%, of the total cost for the bridge is incurred during the
initial construction phase. Moreover can be noted that the total cost of 2.08 million SKR seems like a rather low
value, but one needs to remember that the limitation of not considering the foundation work for the bridge.
3D 2D 3D 2D 3D 2D
A1 -124,1 -93,6 0,8 0,3 -6,3 -5,0
M1 192,3 143,4 4,1 4,1 -6,7 -6,2
H6 27,7 20,2 0,02 0,9 1,6 1,2
F
x
[kN] [kN] M
y
[kNm]
% Mass [kg] Cost [kr/unit] Tot. Cost [kr] % of total
Steel 29773 30 893 190 kr
Pavement 10436 1.2 12 523 kr
Total Material cost 905 713 kr
Contractor and projec leader cost 25 226 428 kr
Unexpected costs 30 271 714 kr
Tot construction cost 1 403 855 kr 0.676
Intervals Unit Cost [kr/unit] Tot. Cost [kr] % of total
Major Inspection 3 years - 12000 95 128 kr 0.046
Painting 20 years m
2
500 181 454 kr 0.087
Exchange of asphalt concrete 40 years m
2
11000 235 315 kr 0.113
Rehabillitation of erosion protection 6 years m
2
50 5 602 kr 0.003
Cleaning of the drainage system 1 years - 5000 123 870 kr 0.060
Cleaning from vegetation 5 years - 7000 31 955 kr 0.015
Total present value of maintenance 673 324 kr
Total present cost of bridge 2 077 179 kr 1.000
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

c
o
s
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

c
o
s
t
32

Figure 8.2.1: Chart of total life cost. Figure 8.2.2: Total cost of the bridge compared with time.

Table 8.2.2: Area of the construction components needed to be painted

8.3 Frequencies and mode shapes
8.3.1 General
Accordingly to Section A.2.4.3.2 in CEN (2006), a verification of comfort criteria should be performed if the
fundamental frequency of the bridge is less than 5Hz for vertical deformations and less than 2.5Hz for horizontal
and torsional vibrations. Here the first ten frequency mode shapes will be evaluated for two different support
conditions, simply supported (pinned free) and pinned (pinned pinned).
Extract the ten first frequency modes turned out that the first three mode shapes does not need to be considered.
These mode shapes occurs with varying frequency due to the assumed stiffness in the horizontal directions of the
springs which is symbolizing the connection between the deck plate and the deck beams. This joint stiffness is
rather flexible and results in three different horizontal translations of the deck, one in x-direction, one in y-
direction and one rotational around the z-axis, displayed in Figure 8.3.1 to the left. Hence these mode shapes
does not need to be considered.

Figure 8.3.1: To the left, one of the horizontal mode shapes of the deck due to high flexibility in the joints 1.05Hz, middle,
first horizontal mode shape 2.73Hz, to the right, the first vertical mode shape 2.89Hz (LUSAS, 2010b).
68%
5%
9%
11%
0%
6%
1%
Life cost
Tot construction cost
Major Inspection
Painting
Exchange of asphalt concrete
Rehabillitation of erosion protection
Cleaning of the drainage system
Cleaning fromvegetation
Length [m] Quantity Perimeter [m] Area [m2]
Arch 31.54 2 0.94 59.2
Stiffening beam 30.00 2 2.00 120.0
Hangers 37.06 1 (tot length of all) 0.40 14.8
Floor beams, F1 4.10 2 0.60 4.1
Floor beams, F2 4.10 11 1.66 67.4
Floor beams, F3 4.10 28 0.93 94.3
Deckplate 30.00 1 3.41 81.4
Sum: 441.1
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

m
e
m
b
e
r
33

Accordingly to Table 8.3.1 a comfort criteria needs to be performed for the two first vertical mode shapes when
the bridge have the support condition pinned free in x-translation. All horizontal modes pass the criteria
control. When changing the support condition to pinned pinned the comfort criteria needs to be performed only
for the first vertical mode, all others passes the comfort control. Further it is interesting to note that through
changing the support condition to the later the second vertical mode shape changes from 7
th
to 9
th
position
resulting in a higher frequency and passing the comfort criteria.
Notable is that all these frequencies are for the global structure of the bridge and that the decks frequencies are
highly dependent on the modelled spring stiffness between the deck beams and the deck plate. A further
evaluation of the influence of the pavement stiffness to the global vibrational modes is performed in optional
task 8.6.

Table 8.3.1: The ten first mode shapes of the bridge with the support condition pinned free

Table 8.3.2: The ten first mode shapes of the bridge with the support condition pinned pinned

8.4 Global Buckling
8.4.1 General
In this part a global buckling analysis consisting of a verification of the load capacity needs to be performed for
different load positions. The influences of the different load positions needs to be compared, not only with each
other but also with the buckling analysis done in the ULS calculations in section 6.3. When exposing the model
of the positioned loads the buckling modes needs to be extracted for the arch. The first vertical mode for the arch
will be the first in plane buckling mode and the first horizontal mode for the arch will be the first out of plane
buckling mode. From these modes the load factor and the axial force will be extracted, multiplying the two
results in the total buckling load for the arch.
This analysis has been carried out with a Thick nonlinear 3D beam elements, and the maximum vehicle load of
P=60kN concluded under section 6.0. The positions of the load have been set to L/2, L/3 and L/4. For each of
Mode shape Frequency [Hz ] Kind of mode f
1,vert
> 5Hz f
1,horz
> 2.5Hz
1 1.05 Deck
2 1.13 Deck
3 1.20 Deck
4 2.73 1
st
Horizontal OK
5 2.89 1
st
Vertical Not
6 4.17 Arch Horizontal -
7 4.48 2
nd
Vertical Not
8 4.55 Torsional OK
9 4.88 2
nd
Horizontal OK
10 5.83 3
rd
Horizontal OK
Not considered
Not considered
Not considered
Comfort criteria
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
:

P
i
n
n
e
d

-

F
r
e
e
Mode shape Frequency [Hz ] Kind of mode f
1,vert
> 5Hz f
1,horz
> 2.5Hz
1 1.05 Deck
2 1.13 Deck
3 1.20 Deck
4 2.77 1
st
Horizontal OK
5 2.89 1
st
Vertical NOT
6 4.17 Arch Horizontal -
7 4.55 Torsional OK
8 4.92 2
nd
Horizontal OK
9 5.10 2
nd
Vertical OK
10 5.83 3
rd
Horizontal OK
Comfort criteria
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
:

P
i
n
n
e
d

-

P
i
n
n
e
d
Not considered
Not considered
Not considered
34

these load positions the first 200 buckling modes have been extracted and examined in order to find the first in-
and out of plane buckling. These modes have then been studied further in order to find the load factor and the
highest axial force, two of the first in- and out of plane buckling modes are displayed in Figure 8.4. The
calculations for the buckling are presented in Table 8.4.1.

Table 8.4.1: Calculation of the buckling forces for each buckling mode
It is interesting that the buckling force for the out of plane is decreasing as the load is moved closer to either side
of the bridge, the reason for this might be due to the fact that a larger deflection is occurring in the middle of the
bridge. The opposite is displayed for the in plane buckling force which is increasing as the load is moved
towards the either side of the bridge, a reason for this might be that the vehicle load is closing in on the
connection between the arch and the stiffening beam resulting in a higher transferred buckling load to the arch.
The change in buckling load due to vehicle load position is displayed in Table 8.4.1.
Onwards a comparison is made with the values derived from the analysis of the buckling forces in ULS for the
arch. Examining the Table 8.4.2 it becomes evident that the buckling loads from LUSAS are slightly higher than
the values calculated accordingly to the Eurocode EN 1993-2 (CEN, 2006). A motivation for this might be that
in the ULS calculations the simplification of assuming the cross-section to be in cross-section class 3 is not
xacty t cas. T arcs cross-section might belong to class 2 resulting in a higher resistance.
This buckling load control is highly interesting due to the fact that it verifies the statement in the ULS
calculations in section 6.0 which states that it is the out of plane buckling force that will result in the governing
design values.

Table 8.4.2: comparison between buckling force derived from LUSAS and calculated accordingly to Eurocode
Position Mode Eigenvalue Load factor Axial force
[kN]
Buckling force
[kN]
Out of plane L/2 7 6.83 6.83 157.5 1 076
L/3 9 6.90 6.90 159.8 1 103
L/4 7 7.48 7.48 157.4 1 177
In plane L/2 72 30.03 30.03 106.0 3 183
L/3 84 30.30 30.30 160.1 4 851
L/4 77 32.48 32.48 288.3 9 363
Model Check Buckling force
[kN]
From Lusas Out of plane 1076.0
In plane 3183.5
Eurocode Out of plane 1045.3
In plane 3782.9
35

Figure 8.4: Left displays the first in plane buckling mode. Right displays the first out of plane buckling mode (LUSAS,
2010b).

8.5 The influence of the pavement
8.5.1 General
The task here is to investigate the influence of the stiffness of the pavement and determine the natural
frequencies and mode shapes for the bridge. This is done through varying the stiffness of the pavement
accordingly to the variance of the temperature. The temperature ranges from -20C to 20C with steps of 10C.
This analysis will examine the ten first mode shapes.
8.5.2 Assumptions
In orr to carry ot sc an anaysis t Yons mos or t ssasat a to stimated for each
temperature step. The reference value for this estimation is derived from Figure 8.5.1. The E-modulus is
assumed to increase linearly with the value of 4GPa per every 10C, starting at 4GPa at 20C. The Poisons ratio
has been set to a value that also varies linearly between 0.35 and 0.2 for 20C and -20C respectively. A few
simulations in LUSAS (2010b) quickly showed that Poisons ratio ad a minor influence on the natural
frequencies, it will therefore not be investigated further due to the lack of time. Furthermore, the joint between
the deck beams and the deck plate has been modelled with a vertical stiffness of 100GPa and 10GPa in the two
horizontal directions.

Figure 8.5.1: Resilient modulus for asphalt at different temperatures (Erlingson, 2010)
It becomes evident after studying the frequencies that the joint has a great impact on the influence of the
pavement stiffness. A stiff joint results in a higher influence depending on the stiffness of the pavement and as
36

expected if the joint is modelled with a very flexible behaviour the influence of the pavement stiffness converts
against having no influence at all, which of course is not the case in the real world. In Table 8.5 the different
natural frequencies are presented and evaluated. The letters indicates the kind of mode shape, vertical,
horizontal, torsional, arch horizontal or a combination of a few. Only the vertical and the ones containing a
horizontal component are analysed further, therefore the others have been crossed out. The comfort criterion
states that the vertical frequencies need to exceed 5Hz and the horizontal 2.5Hz (CEN, 2006). Comparing the
result in Table 8.5 results in the conclusion that the first vertical mode shape does not meet the criterion, but the
first horizontal is conceded. This is displayed with the red and green colour in Table 8.5. Sinc t Yons
modulus of the asphalt is assumed to vary linearly it seems like the natural frequencies follow the same
relationship with a linear increase as the temperature decreases to -20C.
Conirmin t assmtion o t varianc in Yons mos co on tro incrasin t natra
frequency of the simulation for 20GPa with f equal to 0.009Hz for every 4GPa up to 100GPa. This would
result in a natural frequency of 3.251Hz which is close to the simulated one of 3.214 for 100GPa. Therefor the
assumption is valid and accurate enough for the real case situation.

Table 8.5: The variation of the natural frequencies with variation of the stiffness of the asphalt. The green indicates a passing
the comfort criterion and the red failing the comfort criterion.
The three columns to the right, 100GPa, Real model and Only steel deck plate is for comparison. The steel deck
plate one is with just the deck plate without anything on it, the Real model has a combination of the density for
steel and asphalt combined and assigned to the thickness of the 16mm (as explained in section 3.3.2 of this
report) and 100GPa is the true value for the pavement stiffness at -20C. Now in hindsight it is clear that the real
model is a rather good approximation of the pavements influence on the vibration performance of the bridge, this
by studying Table 8.5. Even if it is slightly off, the difference is on the safe side and results in a worse case with
the vertical and horizontal frequencies lower than the real ones. This will of course make it harder to pass the
comfort criterion. In Figure 8.5.2 the variation of the influence of the first vertical and horizontal mode shapes is
displayed.
Since all horizontal mode shapes in this simulation is passing the comfort criteria the important once becomes
the vertical mode shapes. The first mode shape is always a vertical mode, but it is interesting to study the trend
of the second vertical mode shape which is moving up in positions as the stiffness of the pavement is increasing.
At the temperature of -20C and a stiffness of 100GPa the second vertical mode shape is still failing the comfort
criteria, but just failing so it could be assumed that if the stiffness was increased further to approximately 140
GPa the second vertical mode shape would also pass the comfort criteria.
Mode
1 V 3.032 V 3.044 V 3.053 V 3.062 V 3.071 V 3.214 V 2.897 V 3.368
2 AH 3.170 AH 3.296 AH 3.380 AH 3.446 AH 3.499 AH 3.804 AH 3.960 AH 3.979
3 AH 4.174 AH 4.176 AH 4.176 AH 4.177 AH 4.178 AH 4.185 AH 4.176 AH 4.177
4 T 4.626 T 4.660 T 4.690 T 4.719 T 4.747 V 4.924 T 4.658 T 4.859
5 H+AH 4.721 V 4.757 V 4.771 V 4.783 V 4.793 T 5.255 V 4.686 V 5.485
6 V 4.738 H+AH 4.832 H+A.H 4.928 H+AH 5.020 H+AH 5.111 H+T+AH 6.290 V 6.949 AH 7.628
7 V 7.008 V 7.058 V 7.094 V 7.124 V 7.150 V 7.518 AH+T+H 7.542 AH+T 8.030
8 AH 7.625 AH 7.627 AH 7.629 AH 7.630 A.H 7.631 AH 7.641 AH 7.628 T 8.177
9 T+AH 7.692 T+AH 7.765 T+A.H 7.795 T+AH 7.814 T+AH 7.828 T+AH 7.941 T+AH 7.995 V 8.179
10 T 7.789 T 7.824 T 7.853 T 7.880 T 7.908 T 8.389 T 9.407 T+H 10.560
deck plate
4 Gpa 8 Gpa 12 Gpa 100GPa AC+Steel 210GPa
Only steel
Pavement modeled Real model
V=Vertical mode
H=Horizontal mode
AH=Arch horizontal
T=Torsional
16 Gpa 20 Gpa
= passing the comfort criteria
= failing the comfort criteria
37

Figure 8.5.2: To the left, the first vertical vibration mode for 10C. To the right, the first horizontal (antisymetrical) vibration
mode for 10C (LUSAS, 2010b).

38

Reference list

Banverket, Vgverket, 2009. TK Bro. Banverket & Vgverket, ISSN: 1401-9612.
CEN, 2002a. Eurocode - Basis of structural design. CEN, EN 1990.
CEN, 2002b. Eurocode 1 Actions on structures Part 1-1: General actions. CEN, EN 1991-1-1
CEN, 2003. Eurocode 1 Actions on structures Part 2: Trafic loads on bridges. CEN, EN 1991-2
CEN, 2005a. Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, EN
1993-1-1.
CEN, 2009. Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-7: Strength and stability of planar plated structures
subject to out of plane loading. CEN, EN 1993-1-7.
CEN, 2005b. Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 1-9: Fatigue. CEN, EN 1993-1-9.
CEN, 2006. Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 2: Steel bridges. CEN, EN 1993-2.
Eniro. 2011. Kartor. http://kartor.eniro.se Access 2011-12-05.
Erlingsson, S., 2010. Lecture: Material characterization AF2901. KTH. 2010-11-19.
Karoumi, R., 2011. Whole life costing of bridges. Stockholm: KTH.

Kringos, N., 2011a. Lecture: Modeling of pavement structures. AF2024. KTH. 2011-10-04.

Kringos, N., 2011b. Lecture: Intro to continuum mechanics. AF2024. KTH. 2011-10-04.

Lantmteriet. 2011. Tvdimensionella system SWEREF 99, projektioner.
www.lantmateriet.se/templates/LMV_Page.aspx?id=4219 Access 2011-12-05.

Leander, J., 2011. Project task: Assessment of a steel arch bridge. Stockholm: KTH.

LUSAS, 2010a. Application Examples Manual (Bridge, Civil and Structural). Lusas version 14.5 Issue 1.

LUSAS, 2010b. LUSAS Bridge Plus software. Lusas version 14.5-.

Pacoste, C., 2011a. Lecture: Isoparametric formulation AF2024. KTH. 2011-09-08.

Sundquist, H. 2007. Arch structures. Technical Report 107. Stockholm: KTH.

39

Appendix
Appendix A: Load calculations

Appendix A: Load calculations
In data
g 9.82
m
s
2
:=
Steel quality S355J2G3
v 0.3 :=
steel
7800
kg
m
3
:=
steel
78
kN
m
3
:=
E
k.steel
210GPa :=
f
u.steel
490MPa := utlimat strength
yield strength
-16 mm
16-40 mm
40-63 mm
63-80 mm
80-100 mm
f
y
355
345
335
325
315
|
\
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
MPa :=
Asphalt concrete
AC
2400
kg
m
3
:=
AC
24
kN
m
3
:=
3. 3 Permanent Loads
Sti ffeni ng beam
L
sb
30m := The very small slope of this beam has been
neglected
A
sb
0.01305m
2
:= Cross sectioonal area of the stiffening beam
V
sb
2 L
sb
A
sb
0.783m
3
= := Volume of the two stiffening beams
Arch
r
a
28.9m :=
o cos
2 28.9
2
30
2
2 28.9
2
\
|
|
|
.
1
:=
o 63.981deg = The angle between the two radius forming
the bridge arch.
L
a
o r
a
:= L
a
32.272m = Length of the arch
A
a
0.006857m
2
:= Cross sectional area
V
a
2 L
a
A
a
0.443m
3
= := Volume of the two arch beams
40

Hangers
L
h
37m := This length is derived from LUSAS and is the
total length of all the hangers.
A
h
0.002389m
2
V
h
L
h
A
h
0.088m
3
= := Volume for all the hangers
Deck beams F
1
, F
2
and F
3
L
db
4.1
4.1
4.1
|
\
|
|
|
.
m := Length
A
db
0.0029
0.0105
0.003877
|
\
|
|
|
.
m
2
Number of beams of each kind
No
2
11
28
|
\
|
|
|
.
:=
V
db
No L
db
A
db
( )

0.024
0.474
0.445
|
\
|
|
|
.
m
3
= := Volume of all the deckbeams
V
db
0.942m
3
=
Deck pl ate
t
d
0.016m := thickness of the deck plate
A
d
0.05024m
2
L
d
30m := Length
V
d
A
d
L
d
1.507m
3
= := Volume
Self weight of the bri dge
V
self
V
sb
V
a
+ V
h
+ V
d
+ V
db
+ 3.764m
3
= := The volume of all the steel in the bridge
W
self
V
self

steel
293.559kN = :=
Pavement
t
p
0.05m := thickness of the deck plate
A
p
0.1415m
2
L
p
30m := Length
41

V
p
A
p
L
p
4.245m
3
= := Volume
W
p
V
p

AC
101.88kN = :=
W
bridge
W
self
W
p
+ 395.439kN = := Weight of the total bridge
Mass
W
bridge
g
40269kg = :=
Combination of the density of the pavement and deck plate
comb
steel
t
d

AC
t
p
+
t
d
153
kN
m
3
= :=
Check of Load combinations
g.j
1.35 := 0.85 :=
G
k.j
1742.18N m := self weigt including pavement, value taken from LUSAS
Q
k.i
0.77N m := traffic load, taken from LUSAS
M
g.j
G
k.j

g.j
G
k.j

g.j
Q
k.i
+
|
\
|
|
|
.
2.352
2
|
\
|
|
.
kNm = :=
max M ( ) 2.352kNm =
42

Appendix B: Fatigue resistance

Appendix B: Fatigue resistance
In data
Steel quality S355
f
y
355MPa := Yield strength
r 0.0635m := Radius
t 0.0063m := Thickness of steel
A r
2
r t ( )
2
t 2.389 10
3
m
2
= := Cross sectional area
Partial coefficients
d
1.0 := safety class 3, very sever damage
Mf
1.35 := safe life
Ff
1.0 := partial factor for fatigue
M0
1.0 :=

d

Mf

Ff
1.35 = :=
n
1
1 := Number of cycles of stress range
Check over the butt weld
Stress range at the butt welded attachment, value derived
from LUSAS
Ao 240MPa :=
Ao
c
50MPa := from Table 8.6, figure 6, if this is not the correct one, it
is anyway the worst case for the weld.
Ao
D
0.737Ao
c
36.85MPa = := s
D
= the endurance limit at constant stress range
Ao
L
0.549Ao
D
20.231MPa = := s
L
= endurance limit at variable stress range
Ao Ao
D
> OK! Criteria
Ao
i
Ao 324 MPa = := From the failure criterion one obtains
N
R
Ao
c
Ao
i
|
\
|
|
.
3
2 10
6
7.4 10
3
= := Number
D
n
1
N
R
1.36 10
4
= := Accumelated damage
n
events
1
D
7.35 10
3
= := Number of events
n
events
120
61.252 = Number of events per year.
43

Appendix C: Resistance verification for ULS

Appendix C: Resistance verification for ULS
General equation
Characteristic values
M1
1.0 :=
f
y
355 MPa :=
E 210 GPa :=
c
235 10
6
Pa
f
y
:= c 0.814 =
Moment of inertia
I
y.el
b h , d , t , ( )
b h
3
12
b d ( ) h 2 t ( )
3
12
:=
I
z.el
b h , d , t , ( ) 2
t b
3
12
h 2 t ( ) d
3
12
+ :=
El astic secti on modulus for I-beams
W
y.el
I
y.el
h ,
( )
I
y.el
h
2
|
\
|
|
.
:=
W
z.el
I
z.el
b ,
( )
I
z.el
b
2
|
\
|
|
.
:=
N
Rk
A ( ) f
y
A := [N]
Moment Resistance in section cl ass 1 and 2
M
y.Rk.pl
W
y.pl
( )
W
y.pl
f
y
:=
M
z.Rk.pl
W
z.pl
( )
W
z.pl
f
y
:=
Moment Resistance in section cl ass 3
M
y.Rk.el
W
y.el
( )
W
y.el
f
y
:=
M
z.Rk.el
W
z.el
( )
W
z.el
f
y
:=
44

1. Stiffening beam
b
1
0.325m := With [m]
h
1
0.360m := Heigth [m]
d
1
0.010m := Web thickness [m]
t
1
0.015m := Flange thickness [m]
A
1
0.01305m
2
:= Cross section area [m
2
]
I
1.y.el
I
y.el
b
1
h
1
, d
1
, t
1
,
( )
3.203 10
4
m
4
= := Moment of inertia, y-direction [m
4
]
I
1.z.el
I
z.el
b
1
h
1
, d
1
, t
1
,
( )
8.585 10
5
m
4
= := Moment of inertia, z-direction [m
4
]
Only assuming bending when this results in the worst case.
Section class for the web. EN 1993-1-1 Table 5.2
72 c 58.58 = Cross section class 1
S
1
h
1
2 t
1

d
1
33 = :=
S
1
72 c < The web belongs to cross section class 1
Cross section class for the flange. EN 1993-1-1 Tabl e 5.2
S
1
b
1
b
1
d
1
t
1
11.167 = :=
10 c S
1
< 14 c <
The flange belongs to cross section class 2 but almoust cross section
class 3. Cross section class 3 is the worst case and therefore the
calculations are done in cross section class 3.
El astic secti on modulus
W
1.y.el
W
y.el
I
1.y.el
h
1
,
( )
:= W
1.y.el
1.779 10
6
mm
3
=
W
1.z.el
W
z.el
I
1.z.el
b
1
,
( )
:= W
1.z.el
5.283 10
5
mm
3
=
45

Resistans for uniform compression
N
1.Rk
N
Rk
A
1
( )
:= N
1.Rk
4.633 10
3
kN =
Resistance moment
M
1.y.Rk
M
y.Rk.el
W
1.y.el
( )
:= M
1.y.Rk
631.612 kN m =
M
1.z.Rk
M
z.Rk.el
W
1.z.el
( )
:= M
1.z.Rk
187.544 kN m =
Design values for compression force and maximum moments from LUSAS
N
1.Ed1
C:\...\Forces and moments from Lusas.xls
:= N
1.Ed
N
1.Ed1
N :=
M
1.y.Ed1
:= M
1.y.Ed
M
1.y.Ed1
N m :=
M
1.z.Ed1
:= M
1.z.Ed
M
1.z.Ed1
N m :=
Formula 6.2 EN 1993-1-1
SF
1
N
1.Ed
N
1.Rk
M1

M
1.y.Ed
M
1.y.Rk
M1

+
M
1.z.Ed
M
1.z.Rk
M1

+ :=
Maximum value from equation 6.2
SF
1.max
max SF
1
( )
0.446 = :=
4. Floor beam
b
4
0.240 m := With [m]
h
4
0.360 m := Heigth [m]
d
4
0.010 m := Web thickness [m]
t
4
0.015 m := Flange thickness [m]
A
4
0.0105 m
2
:= Cross section area [m
2
]
I
4.y.el
I
y.el
b
4
h
4
, d
4
, t
4
,
( )
2.443 10
4
m
4
= := Moment of inertia, y-direction [m
4
]
I
4.z.el
I
z.el
b
4
h
4
, d
4
, t
4
,
( )
3.459 10
5
m
4
= := Moment of inertia, z-direction [m
4
]
46

Section class for the web. EN 1993-1-1 Table 5.2
72 58.58 = Cross section class 1
S
1
h
4
2 t
4

d
4
33 = :=
S
1
72 < The web belongs to section class 1
Cross section class for the flange. EN 1993-1-1 Table 5.2
S
4
b
4
b
4
d
4
t
4
8.333 = :=
10 S
4
< 14 < The flange belongs to section class 3
Because the flange belongs to section class 3 all calculations for the stiffening beam are made in
section class 2.
Elastic section modulus
W
4.y.el
W
y.el
I
4.y.el
h
4
,
( )
:= W
4.y.el
1.357 10
6
mm
3
=
W
4.z.el
W
z.el
I
4.z.el
b
4
,
( )
:= W
4.z.el
2.882 10
5
mm
3
=
N
4.Rk
N
Rk
A
4
( )
:= N
4.Rk
3.728 10
3
kN =
Resistance moment
M
4.y.Rk
M
y.Rk.el
W
4.y.el
( )
:= M
4.y.Rk
481.868 kN m =
M
4.z.Rk
M
z.Rk.el
W
4.z.el
( )
:= M
4.z.Rk
102.321 kN m =
N
4.Ed4
:= N
4.Ed
N
4.Ed4
N :=
M
4.y.Ed4
:= M
4.y.Ed
M
4.y.Ed4
N m :=
M
4.z.Ed4
:= M
4.z.Ed
M
4.z.Ed4
N m :=
47

Formula 6.2 EN 1993-1-1
SF
4
N
4.Ed
N
4.Rk
M1

M
4.y.Ed
M
4.y.Rk
M1

+
M
4.z.Ed
M
4.z.Rk
M1

+ :=
Maximum value from equation 6.2
SF
4.max
max SF
4
( )
0.209 = :=
Circular sections
General equations
Moment of inertia for circular hollow sections
I
c
d d
i
,
( )
64
d
4
d
i
4
( )
:=
Elastic section modulus for circular hollow sections
W
c.el
d d
i
,
( )
32
d
4
d
i
4
d
:=
d
A
0.2985 m :=
d
Ai
0.2835 m :=
t
A
0.0075 m :=
A
A
0.00685653 m
2
:=
I
A
I
c
d
A
d
Ai
,
( )
7.263 10
5
m
4
= :=
L
A
31.54 m :=
50
2
33.099 =
70
2
46.338 =
90
2
59.577 =
S
2
d
A
t
A
39.8 = :=
50
2
S
2
< 70
2
<
2 Arch
Outer diameter [m]
Inner diameter [m]
Thickness of steel [m]
Cross section area [m
3
]
Moment of inertia [m
4
]
Length of arch [m]
Section class for the arch
Cross section class 1
48

W
2.el
W
c.el
d
A
d
Ai
,
( )
:= W
2.el
4.866 10
4
m
3
=
N
2.Rk
N
Rk
A
A
( )
:= N
2.Rk
2.434 10
3
kN =
M
2.y.Rk
M
y.Rk.el
W
c.el
d
A
d
Ai
,
( ) ( )
:= M
2.y.Rk
172.744 kN m =
M
2.z.Rk
M
z.Rk.el
W
c.el
d
A
d
Ai
,
( ) ( )
:= M
2.z.Rk
172.744 kN m =
N
2.Ed2
:= N
2.Ed
N
2.Ed2
N :=
M
2.y.Ed2
:= M
2.y.Ed
M
2.y.Ed2
N m :=
M
2.z.Ed2
:= M
2.z.Ed
M
2.z.Ed2
N m :=
y1
:=
y y1
m :=
z1
:=
z z1
m :=
M
Ed.max
max M
2.y.Ed
M
2.z.Ed
,
( )
:= M
Ed.max
69.21 kN m =
max
max
y
( ) ( )
2
max
z
( ) ( )
2
+ :=
max
63.63239 mm =
The arch belongs to section class 2. But after a brutal simplification
the arch is calculated in cross section class 3.
Resistance moment
The maximum displacements in y- and z direction in the arch
Maximumn moment that acting in the arch
Resultant of the the maximum displacements
49

3 Hanger
d
H
0.127 m := W
c.el
d d
i
,
( )
32
d
4
d
i
4
d
:=
d
Hi
0.1144 m :=
t
H
0.0063 m :=
A
H
0.0023889 m
2
:=
I
H
0.00000436218 m
4
:=
M
3.y.Rk
M
y.Rk.el
W
c.el
d
H
d
Hi
,
( ) ( )
:= M
3.y.Rk
24.387 kN m =
M
3.z.Rk
M
z.Rk.el
W
c.el
d
H
d
Hi
,
( ) ( )
:= M
3.z.Rk
24.387 kN m =
N
3.Rk
N
Rk
A
H
( )
:= N
3.Rk
848.059 kN =
N
3.Ed3
:= N
3.Ed
N
3.Ed3
N :=
M
3.y.Ed3
:= M
3.y.Ed
M
3.y.Ed3
N m :=
M
3.z.Ed3
:= M
3.z.Ed
M
3.z.Ed3
N m :=
Section class for the hanger
50
2
33.099 = Cross section class 1
70
2
90
2
S
3
d
H
t
H
20.159 = :=
S
3
50
2
< The Hanger belongs to section class 1
According to Eurocode CEN 6.3.2.1
SF
3
N
3.Ed
N
3.Rk
M1

M
3.y.Ed
M
3.y.Rk
M1

+
M
3.z.Ed
M
3.z.Rk
M1

+ :=
SF
3.max
max SF
3
( )
0.801 = :=
50

Reduction factor due to flexural buckling
Formulas (6.49) EN 1993-1-1
, ( )
1
2 2
+
:= Reduction factor due to flexural buckling
, ( ) 0.5 1 0.2 ( ) +
2
+
(
:=
A N
cr
,
( )
A f
y
N
cr
:=
Cold formed hollow section gives the worst case of the imperfection factor . Table 6.2
in EN 1993-1-1
0.49 := Table 6.1 in EN 1993-1-1
Formula for the uniform moment factor C
mi
C
m
L N
Ed
, N
cr
,
( )
1
2
E I
A
max
L
2
M
Ed.max
1
|
\
|
.
N
Ed
N
cr
+

:= Table A.2 EN 1993-1-1
Interaction factor
k
i
C
m
, N
Ed
, N
cr
,
( )
C
m
1
N
Ed
N
cr

:= Table A.1 EN 1993-1-1
In plane buckling
PICTURE 6.2
Critical buckling force. Formula D.3 EN 1993-2
N
cr.y
s , I , ( )
s
( )
2
E I :=
s
2
L
A
2
:= Half length of the arch s
2
15.77m =
n 7 := Number of hangers
f 4.2m := Height of arch
L
2
30 m := Projected length of the arch
f
L
2
0.14 = actor n or
0.4 := Buckling length factor
N
cr.y2
N
cr.y
s
2
, I
A
,
( )
:= N
cr.y2
3.783 10
3
kN =
y
A
A
N
cr.y2
,
( )
:=
y
0.802 =
y y
,
( )
:=
y
0.969 =
y y
,
( )
y
,
( )
:=
y
0.661 =
C
my
C
m
L
2
N
2.Ed
, N
cr.y2
,
( )

:=
k
yy
k
i
C
my y
, N
2.Ed
, N
cr.y2
,
( )
:=
51

Out plane buckling
Critical buckling force. Formula D.4 EN 1993-2
N
cr.z
L , I , ( )
L
( )
2
E I :=
N
cr.z2
N
cr.z
L
2
, I
A
,
( )
:= N
cr.z2
1.045 10
3
kN =
z
A
A
N
cr.z2
,
( )
:=
z
1.526 =
z z
,
( )
:=
z
1.989 =
z z
,
( )
z
,
( )
:=
z
0.306 =
C
mz
C
m
L
2
N
2.Ed
, N
cr.z2
,
( )

:=
k
zz
k
i
C
mz z
, N
2.Ed
, N
cr.z2
,
( )
:=
Equation 6.61 En 1993-1-1 for in plane buckling
SF
2y
N
2.Ed
y
N
2.Rk
M1

k
yy
M
2.y.Ed
M
2.y.Rk
M1
\
|
|
.

+ k
zz
M
2.z.Ed
M
2.z.Rk
M1
\
|
|
.

+ :=
Equation 6.62 En 1993-1-1 for out of plane buckling
SF
2z
N
2.Ed
z
N
2.Rk
M1

k
yy
M
2.y.Ed
M
2.y.Rk
M1
\
|
|
.

+ k
zz
M
2.z.Ed
M
2.z.Rk
M1
\
|
|
.

+ :=
SF
2y.max
max SF
2y
( )
0.673 = :=
SF
2z.max
max SF
2z
( )
0.985 = :=
SF
max
max SF
1.max
SF
2y.max
, SF
2z.max
, SF
3.max
, SF
4.max
,
( )
0.985 = :=

Technical Report: AF2203 Bridge Design, Advanced Course

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

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

Technical Report: AF2203 Bridge Design, Advanced Course

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

Royal Institute of Technology

Eq. 6.61 (CEN, 2005a)

Eq. 6.62 (CEN, 2005a)

Você também pode gostar