G2 Steel Bridge Proposal 2.2

G2 Engineering
Steel Bridge Proposal
2013
2013

G2 Engineering Consultancy
G2 Engineering
Steel Bridge Design Proposal
School of Civil Engineering

2013/14
Module:
Integrated Design Project IV
Module Code:
CIVE5707M
Design Client:
Major Stakeholders:
Design Client, Local Council Authority, National Rail, Train Operators, Local Residents
Design Group:
2
G2 Engineering Design Team:

Group Leader: Nii A. Dodoo-Amoo (N.D),
Liaison Officer: Luke Sheffield (L.S),
Secretary: Ian Burnett (I.B),
Editor: Josh Holland (J.H),
Researcher: Ali Mohammed (A.M),
Structural Arrangement: Benjamin Lees (B.L)
ii
2013
G2 Engineering
2013
Abstract
G2 Engineering Consultancy was tasked to produce a feasibility report for a 220-meter bridge
crossing major railway lines. The bridge is to supplement a local re-generation scheme and is
situated in an undisclosed area. All prospective engineering consultancies received a brief detailing
the clients requirements. As required by the brief, G2 Engineering produced two scheme designs, an
arch bridge spanning from abutment to abutment and a single tower cable stayed. The cable-stayed
bridge was then chosen for the recommended detailed design.
Brief calculations were used to help rate the two initial scheme designs in terms aesthetics,
constructability, costs, maintenance, durability and life span. The cable stay was then examined in
more detail including detailed calculations, maintenance procedures, protection systems,
construction method and procedure from which the timeline of construction is expected to take
approximately 290 days and the cost of the bridge was shown to be approximately 10 million. The
report below explores these points in more detail explaining this development and how G2
Engineering Consultancy came to the final decision.
iii
G2 Engineering
2013
Table of Contents
1.0 Introductory Statement .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Steel Bridge Project ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Major Project Stakeholders ................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Steel Bridge Design Process .......................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Initial Design Scheme Stage .................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Analysis of Modern Bridges .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Analysis of Arch Bridges ......................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Analysis of Cable-Stayed Bridges ........................................................................................... 8
2.2 Selection of Bridge Design Direction of Schemes ......................................................................... 8
2.3 Design Scheme A (Steel Tied-Arch Bridge Design) ...................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Brief Design Description (Scheme A) ................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Innovative Design Feature: Large Spanning Arches (Scheme A) ......................................... 14
2.3.3 General Structural Arrangement (Scheme A) ...................................................................... 14
2.3.4 General Construction Procedure (Design Scheme A) .......................................................... 15
2.3.5 Initial Design Costing (Scheme A) ........................................................................................ 17
2.4 Design Scheme B (Steel Cable-Stay Single Tower Bridge Design) ............................................... 18
2.4.1 Brief Design Description....................................................................................................... 18
2.4.2 Innovative Design Feature: Observation Deck (Scheme B) ................................................. 20
2.4.3 General Structural Arrangement (Scheme B) ...................................................................... 20
2.4.4 General Construction Procedure (Design Scheme B) .......................................................... 22
2.4.5 Initial Design Costing (Scheme B)......................................................................................... 24
2.5 Initial Scheme Construction Time Frame (Scheme A & B) .......................................................... 25
2.6 Environmental Analysis (Scheme A & B) ..................................................................................... 25
2.7 Maintenance Procedure (Scheme A & B) ................................................................................... 25
3.0 Selection of Final/Client Recommended Scheme ................................................................... 28
3.1 Scheme Design Cost Comparison................................................................................................ 29
3.2 Scheme Construction Comparison.............................................................................................. 29
3.3 Structure Detailed Design Comparison ....................................................................................... 30
3.4 Scheme Design A & B Comparison Conclusion ........................................................................... 30
iv
G2 Engineering
2013
4.0 Final/Client Recommended Scheme ...................................................................................... 32

4.1 Final Report on Steel Bridge Proposal (Further Developed Design Scheme B) .......................... 32
4.2 Detailed Construction Procedure ............................................................................................... 33
4.2.1 Free Cantilever Method of Construction. ............................................................................ 33
4.2.2 Access to Site. ...................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.3 Checking the Foundation. .................................................................................................... 34
4.2.4 Installation of Bearings. ....................................................................................................... 34
4.2.5 Installation of Ladder Girders. ............................................................................................. 34
4.2.6 Casting of deck ..................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.7 Erection of Composite Tower. ............................................................................................. 35
4.2.8 Cable to Deck Connection. ................................................................................................... 35
4.2.9 Cable Stay Bridge Erection-Free-cantilever method. ........................................................... 36
4.3 Key Structural Members and Connections ................................................................................. 36
4.3.1 Beam to Girder Connection ................................................................................................. 36
4.3.2 Cable Deck Connection ........................................................................................................ 36
4.3.3 Back-Stay Anchorage ........................................................................................................... 36
4.3.4 Tower Design; Steel & Concrete Composite Design ............................................................ 36
4.4 Bridge Durability ......................................................................................................................... 37
4.5 Maintenance Procedure ............................................................................................................. 37
4.5.1 Steel Stay Cables .................................................................................................................. 39
4.5.2 Damping Systems ................................................................................................................. 39
4.5.3 Abutments............................................................................................................................ 39
4.5.4 Bridge Bearings .................................................................................................................... 40
4.5.5 Steel Material ....................................................................................................................... 40
4.5.6 Concrete Material ................................................................................................................ 40
4.6 Bridge Lighting ............................................................................................................................ 40
4.7 Aerodynamic Design and Testing Recommendation .................................................................. 40
4.8 Abutment Stability Issue ............................................................................................................. 41
4.9 Glass Enclosed Walk-Way: Observation Deck............................................................................. 41
4.10 Lightning Strike Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 42
G2 Engineering
2013
4.11 Future Modifications and Post Design of the Bridge ................................................................ 42

4.12 Bridge Bearings & Expansion Joint ............................................................................................ 43
4.13 Concrete Back-Stay Cables Anchors.......................................................................................... 43
4.14 Recommended Scheme Costing ............................................................................................... 44
4.14 Client Recommended Scheme Conclusions .............................................................................. 45
5.0 Recommended Design Scheme Drawings .............................................................................. 46
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 47
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 47
THE BRIEF DOCUMENT.................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 53
CIVE 5707M: Integrated Design Project........................................................................................ 53
Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 54
Recommended Scheme Risk Assessment ..................................................................................... 54
Appendix 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 56
Detailed Design Calculations ......................................................................................................... 56
Appendix 4b, i (Cable Sizes) .......................................................................................................... 56
Appendix 4b, ii (Moment Diagram) .............................................................................................. 57
Appendix 5 ........................................................................................................................................ 58
Recommended Scheme Costing ................................................................................................... 58
Appendix 6 : ...................................................................................................................................... 59
Project Implementation Plan (PIP), Initial PIP. .............................................................................. 61
Final PIP. ........................................................................................................................................ 62
Design Team Meeting Minutes ..................................................................................................... 63
References................................................................................................................................. 64
vi
G2 Engineering
2013
1.0 Introductory Statement

The following document is a design report that illustrates the effort of our engineering consultancy in
addressing an engineering brief concerning the design and construction of a single carriageway roadover-rail bridge. The specific details of the engineering brief can be seen in the appendix of this
document (Appendix 1). This is part of a major redevelopment of the adjacent local area. From the
engineering brief we acknowledge the clients need for a stylish, elegant but cost effective bridge
design that will serve as a visual statement and aid in the reinvigoration of the redevelopment area.
Within this report is the culmination of our extensive research and analysis of viable bridge design
options that meets the brief stated by the client. The design, as stated by the client, will be a
primarily steel bridge that will be a ground breaking structure, ranking amongst the best steel
structures in the UK and it is in our opinion that the design schemes within this report addresses
these requirements of the client. This report forms as the bases of the feasibility study of the steel
bridge proposal.
The main elements of the engineering brief are as follows;
The site to be bridges is predominantly flat and has a large number of railway lines that
must be crossed.
The total length to be bridges is approximately 220m.
There is enough space to have permanent structures or two construction zones that
could facilities the construction of pylons as part of the bridge design but the structure
must respect the restriction of the railway lines.
The scope of the scheme design covers only the superstructure and if required bridge
supports/pylons of the bridge, abutments and the approach embankment.
The super structure must be a single deck design and the two lanes of traffic on this
single carriageway cannot be split two separate detached lanes. The deck its self is
14.5m in width.
Refer to Appendix 1 for the full site description and engineering brief.
G2 Engineering is committed to providing the stated client requirements in our design scheme. It is
understood that the client is in need of an elegant and creative steel design that will represent the
regeneration that is to take place in the local surroundings of the site. We are looking to design and
propose a bridge that will also verse as a visual statement of the regeneration of the local area. The
proposed design is to incorporate the cutting edge developments in steel bridge design and
construction. This is done in hope to have an engineer-able but elegant solution to the bridging of
the span stated in the brief. It should be noted that the exact geographical location of the clients
site has is not stated in the brief and to this effect sensible assumptions may have to be made in
order to further the feasibility report into a final design phase. It is understood that project is part of
a major development plan to transform the old industrial image of the locale to a more modern
1
G2 Engineering
2013
image. This is to be reflected, as stated earlier, in the design of the steel bridge. The bridge is to
serve as a new link in the management of traffic as part of the overall locale development.
1.1 Steel Bridge Project
We as a consultancy are taking are undertaking a feasibility study into the new steel bridge design
and construction. Within this feasibility study is two distinctive and viable structural arrangements
for the steel bridge, a clear recommendation on which scheme we have assessed to be the optimal
in addressing the clients brief and a detailed structural design for the recommended scheme. As part
of this feasibility study it is important to firstly understand the implication of the steel bridge project
in terms of design and construction on the locality of the site. An early consideration of external
impacts of the steel bridge on the sites and locality and the impacts of external processes on the
project can better inform the design and construction of the steel bridge. Becoming more aware of
these project impacts and effects makes coming up with an elegant and cost effective design more
likely. This can be done through applying a basic PESTEL analysis framework (political, economic,
social, technological, environmental and legal) to the steel bridge project. Using a PESTEL framework
aids the decision making process on the project by identifying external influences on the project and
possibly the design.
In terms of political influences on the project, it is important to note that the steel bridge will be part
of the existing road network and will be used to alleviant traffic flow generated through the
regeneration of the local area. This being an infrastructure project some form of intervention for
local political authorities is to be expected. It can be seen that the local authorities are stakeholders
in this steel bridge project. Their views and interests need to be considered in design and
construction of the steel bridge. Considering the economical aspect of the project, it has already be
specified that the steel bridge be of a design with is both elegant but cost-effective. In accounting
for the cost of the project it should be taken into account economic variables such as the inflation
rate. Within this feasibility study the costings of the project are done using the prices of the day but
depending on the start date of the project these values will vary and this should can affect decision
made in design and the construction of the steel bridge.
There are social responsibilities that need to be upheld within the steel project by carrying out the
construction of the bridge in a socially conscious way. To this effect the design and subsequent
construction should minimise the disturbance to the local residents and occupants around the site.
This could be done by maximise all offsite work and prefabrication to reduces work done on site and
disruption. The design of the bridge will also need to be considerate of the local occupants around
the site as to not cause offence to them. The safety of the design will also need to be considered.
The hazards from the construction of the bridge needs to be considered in the design process and
mitigated if possible; the safety or construction workers are important in a project such as this. The
swift and cost-effective delivery of the steel bridge project can be done by utilising the latest in
construction technology and innovation. Modern construction techniques can often save time and
2
G2 Engineering
2013
deliver a better quality outcome. These are considerations that are made in the construction method
of the bridge design. Environmental considerations on this bridges project are a major consideration
that can influence the design and construction of the bridge. Ecologically is would be advisable to
have a constructions that does not drastically impact the local wildlife. This should be part of the
assessment of the site that is carried out before construction. Elements such as excavations and
embankments need to be done with the environmental considerations of their construction taken
into consideration. Legal concerns relating to this steel bridge project centre on the use of the
appropriate design codes in the design to ensure correct design and construction of the bridge. The
designers of the bridge may be liable for any damage cause due to improper design of the bridge and
this should be considered in the design stage of the bridge to ensure all safeguard are put in place.
1.1.1 Major Project Stakeholders
The use of the PESTLE framework as shown above has shown several elements that have an
influence on this steel bridge project and potentially affect the design. An understanding of the
requirements of the major stakeholders is important as considerations made at an early stage can
influence design and construction to prevent problems further down the line in the steel bridge
project. This goes for internal and external stake holders of this steel bridge project. Internal
stakeholders include the design client, in-house design staff at G2 Engineering and site contractors.
External shareholders are the local residents, National rail, the rain operators, environment agency
and the local council authority
1.2 Steel Bridge Design Process
As a design team we, through our research, developed two distinct and viable steel bridge design
schemes that address the requirements of the brief. A single recommended scheme is highlighted
and further developed on the optimal steel bridge design scheme for construction is shown. This
report serves as the feasibility study of those two viable bridge design options and the
recommended detailed design scheme. The schemes only cover the superstructure design of the
steel bridge with moderate consideration given to the substructure of the bridge. The feasibility
study follows a simple but general three stages of design as procedure as seen below;
Initial Design Scheme Stage; proposal of two distinctive viable bridge design options (Design
Scheme A and Design Scheme B)
Selection of Client Recommended Scheme Stage; recommendation of a single schemes deign
to the client with clear justification that relate to the needs and requirements of the client.
Further/Final Development of Recommended Scheme Stage; further development of
recommended design scheme and defining specific design details of the final design.
A systematic approach was taken in each stage to arrive at the end having considered a series of
elements about the design. A broad view was taken initially with initial research done into all types
of bridge. The scope then gradually narrowed through a simple justification process of which design
G2 Engineering
2013
will best meet the client requirements. The Initial Design Schemes were developed through the
following process of;
Performing a critical analysis into the modern steel bridge designs and construction
techniques that are available to identify the current style trends.
Initially selecting steel bridge design direction (suspension, arch, cantilever etc.) through an
option analysis table based on a list of a design, constructability and maintenance criteria in
accordance to the design and site constraints highlighted in the brief whilst acknowledging
the modern trends in bridge construction. The selection of two different design directions
allowed for two distinctive designs to be explored in the initial scheme. This increased the
likelihood of covering a good majority of bridge design types but also allowed the best design
direction which best represented the requirements in the client brief.
Performing further research into the bridge design type to arrive at two conceptual steel
bridge schemes which in broad terms adhere to the engineering brief given.
Identify a site with similar characteristics to the one outline previously and use of a design
case study site in order to make sensible and relatable assumptions due to the fact that the
exact geographical location of the clients site is not stated.
Proposing two distinctive initial steel bridge scheme designs with a general outline of the
super structure such as structural loadings, construction method, hazards and risks in
construction, costing and the identification of potential construction issues. As well as initial
consideration regarding the substructure.
Through this process above two distinctive but viable steel bridge design schemes were chosen for
initial development with a focus on their overall design of the superstructure, constructability,
structural loading and their general feasibility as a construction project. From this initial feasibility
study of those two deigns schemes, there was a selection and further development of a single
recommended scheme based a series of specific reasons which are described within this report.
Aspects of the selected initial scheme design gradually are defined in detail as the design process
moves from the initial scheme stage to the recommended scheme. As a point of reference a site
location has been chosen as the bases of design. This site location has similar site characteristics such
as the clients site. This site is only used as a working example in construction the use of an optimal
construction procedure and will allow a fuller feasibility study to be carried out. A site in Doncaster
was identified which had similar regeneration objectives and had a bridge crossing over similar
amounts of railway lines. This site is used to aid the assumptions that are made in the feasibility
study.
G2 Engineering
2013
2.0 Initial Design Scheme Stage

Our initial considerations of the outline design for the steel bridge scheme is based on the research
and critical analysis of the current trend in steel bridge design and construction that are currently
being employed. They are also a reflection of the elements that the client has stated in the brie. The
research covered a range of bridges but focused on the following key elements;
Design Aesthetics
General Construction and lifecycle Costs
Constructability
Maintenance Procedure
Life Span
Durability & Environmental Factors
From the design brief it was stated that the designed steel bridge need to be cost effective but yet
elegant enough to stand amongst best the steel structures in the UK. To achieve this it is necessary
to consider several aspects. Each of these considerations reflects the requirements within the brief
and other requirements of modern steel structures. The cost of a bridge and any structure does not
just cover the construction of the bridge but the maintenance, renovation and eventual demolish
and replacement. It is important to also consider the life cycle costs of this structure in the short
term and long. To this effect the considerations of construction costs, maintenance procedure,
durability and life span stated above will play a key role in the initial scheme stage of this design
proposal. Another main consideration is the design aesthetics of the proposed steel bridge. This, as
stated by the client in the brief, is of key important as it is required for this structure to be ranked
alongside the very best steel structures in the UK.
2.1 Analysis of Modern Bridges
With the design life of a bridge ranging from 100 120 years, we endeavoured to look back 40 years
on the modern bridges. There has not been a significant design philosophy in 40 years so it is felt as a
safe time range in which the designs bridges can be considered as modern. A number of steel
bridges were looked at from the past 40 years of bridge construction but for the purposes of this
report two design types will be highlighted for each bridge type, namely an arch, cable-stayed,
suspension and cantilever bridge types. These considerations were made with the engineering brief
in mind and how such a design may fit with the site and design constraints set within the brief.
Positive and negative elements of each modern design example are looked at in comparison to the
brief.
There is only the inclusion of the initial analysis done for cable-stayed bridges and Arch bridges
within the design report. These have not been included in this part of the initial analysis of bridge
types but is reviewed and discussed in the subsequent section involving the selection of bridge
design direction. Other initial design directions that were looked at were box girder, steel plate
girder, box truss design and a cantilever bridge design. The initial research of steel bridges over the
5
G2 Engineering
2013
last 20 years has shown that the current trend of modern bridge designs are mainly based around
suspension, arch and cable-stayed bridges. This is not to say that theses bridge design will not be
possible for the site but as but the clients brief, there is the need for a design that will rival the best
current crop of steel bridges. And as stated earlier these are mainly designs based on arch,
suspension and cable-stayed bridges.
After reviewing the brief and its specification of a top of the range but cost effective steel design, it
was deduced the span length stated did not match the cost effective requirements of a suspension
bridge. Our research found that a 220m length was no long enough to be economical to have a
suspension bridge. The use of a suspension bridge design will represent an inefficient use of material
as there is a lot of steel cabling required for a comparatively short spanning length. The research also
showed that in average the typical cost of a suspension bridge is 5,100/m2 to 5,700/m2 as
compared to 2,900/m2 to 3,200/m2 for a cable-stayed bridge design (New Civil Engineer, 2011).
The difference in a cable-stayed design and a suspension bridge design considering they both use
steel cable designs is very significant. Even giving a margin of error the difference in initial design
costs cannot be ignored. With this it is clear that a suspension bridge on such a small span will not be
a cost-effective bridge design; this is a main requirement that was sated by the client brief.
2.1.1 Analysis of Arch Bridges
For a modern example of an arch bridge the Humber Bay Arch Bridge in Toronto Canada as seen in
the Figure 2.1 below was one of the bridges that was looked at. The Humber Bay Bridge was
completed in 1994 and is a single span pedestrian and cyclist bridge design. The bridge is 130m in
length with an arch length of 100m and crosses over the Humber River. This bridge is a through arch
bridge design with two steel tube arches 1.2m in diameter and connected by a steel lattice design.
Each arch is a single homogenous steel tube with no joints.
The deck is hung beneath the two arches by 44 stainless steel hangers that connect to the outside of
Figure 2.1 Humber Bay Arch Bridge in Toronto Canada, 1994. through-arch footbridge crossing 130 meters.
the deck structure in a pin action. The arches are embedded into the foundations which are made up
of concrete filled caissons which go 30meters into the ground to the bedrock. In relation to the
design brief given, it was in our analysis that the Humber bay arch bridge has elements to its design
which could make it applicable to the site and needs of the brief. In particular, the steel tubular
arches, vertical hangers that connect to the outside of the bridge deck and the lattice design that
connected the two arches together are elements of note that could be used in accordance to the
G2 Engineering
2013
brief to formulate an initial scheme. Other elements of this design were not suitable for the site or
the brief such as the extremely deep caissons foundations needed for the arches bridge due to them
being a single homogenous steel tube spanning the entirety of the bridge length. Considering that
this is a foot/cyclist bridge and only 130m long compared to the necessary 220m vehicular road
bridge that is required by the given brief, it could be expected that the foundations and the through
arch bridge design may not be feasible. It should be noted that the ground conditions of the Humber
Bay Bridge site and the site in the brief are not known.
Another arch bridge that we looked at was the Lake Champlain Bridge in New York, USA. This bridge
as seen below in Figure 2.2 was completed in 2011 and is a tied-arch design. The length of the arch is
123 meters. The sub structure is concrete and the superstructure is constructed from steel. It can be
Figure 2.2 Lake Champlain Bridge in New York State, USA, 2011. Tied-arch bridge.
noted that in this design, similar to the pervious Humber Bay Bridge, there is a lattice design that
connect the two arched together. The Lake Champlain Bridge has 64 DYNA Grip Stay Cables
consisting of 175mm diameter (DYWIDAG-Systems International, 2013). During construction the
cables were installed and only partially tensioned, only after lifting the arch into its final place were
the cabled tensioned to their final tensile force. There was also the use of post tensioned concrete
slabs in the substructure of the construction. The use of a tied-arch bridge design is advantageous for
less robust foundation due to the outward horizontal forces of the arch are borne as tension by the
bottom chord of the arch rather than by the foundations. The bridge deck ties the ends of the arch
together and is under tension much like a string of a bow. With no horizontal forced on the
abutments of the design a tied-arch bridge can be constructed on less robust foundations or areas of
unstable soil profiles. The nature of this design also lends its self to prefabrication off-site with the
removal of horizontal forces as part of the archs structural integrity. A tied-arch bridge design could
be more suitable to the given site and brief as opposed to the pervious through arch bridge design in
the Humber Bay Bridge design. The opportunity to quickly assemble a tied arch off site and transport
onto site for installation is an element of design that would fit the given brief as it is required for
there to be minimal disruption of railways line and the local population around the site. This would
be a time and disruption saving aspect of this design. The cable arrangement of the Lake Champlain
Bridge is unique as on one side of the arch the cables are connected diagonally right to left to the
bridge deck and on the other side the opposite is done where the cabled connect to the deck
diagonally but in the other direction. This make this arch bridge has a diamond cut cable
arrangement when viewed in the side elevation. The cable arrangement give the bridge an
7
G2 Engineering
2013
interesting design from every possible viewing angle which referring to the brief is an aspect of deign
that is required for the proposed bridge.
2.1.2 Analysis of Cable-Stayed Bridges
The analysis of cable-stayed bridges involved the example of the Puente de la Unidad in Monterrey,
Mexico as seen in Figure 2.3 below. This is an inclined single tower stayed cable bridge design. The
Figure 2.3 Puente De La Unidad in Monterrey, Mexico, 2003. Single Tower Cable-Stayed Bridge.
main span of this bridge is 185 meters which is close to the 220m that is required to be bridged by
the brief. The mono strand cables connect to the outside of the steel bridge deck. The tower of this
particular cable-stayed bridge is constructed out of concrete which is not the preferred construction
materials as stated in the brief. The tower is 134m high and utilises a harp cable arrangement but
research has shown that some modern cable-stayed bridges use a fan cable arrangement. The
design of a single tower with stay cabled spanning the entirety of the bridge span is an interesting
design that is now being used in modern Cable-stayed designs. Having only one tower in its design,
the Puente de la Unidad has also incorporated back stay anchors to resist the greater forced that the
single tower is subjected to. The increased support length makes back anchors necessary for
structural stability of the tower. A single tower is a design element that could be worth investigating
but it should be noted that the tower of this design is in the middle of the deck and road. This is not
permitted in the given engineering brief for the proposed bridge. Another modern cable-stay design
looked at was the Erasmus Bridge in Rotterdam, Netherlands as pictured in Figure 2.4. This bridge
also uses the single tower/pylon similar to the Puente de la Unidad Bridge. Its main span is 280m
long. It is a steel pylon 129 meters high and steel deck construction which spans a total length of 800
meters. The single tower design in this bridge is also anchored with two back stay anchors.
Figure 2.4 Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1996.
2.2 Selection of Bridge Design Direction of Schemes

8
G2 Engineering
2013
It is essential to narrow down the vast range of bridge design types that have been researched into
two basic design directions that can be further explored to develop two distinctive initial bridge
designs schemes. To quantify the research that has been done a design matrix is to be used from
which two bridge types would be selected based on a rating systems against the initial
considerations that were highlighted earlier in this chapter. The rating systems is numbered from 15 with 1 being a least desirable aspect of its design and 5 being a very desirable aspect of the design.
This rating is done with aid from the initial research into bridge types and how well it is perceived
that that bridge design type will fulfil the requirements of the brief. It is important to note that is a
comparative and semi-subjective rating based on research and an interpretation of the client brief.
This is not an overall general rating of any specific bridge design. Table 2.1 below shows the design
matrix. From the design matrix above, it can be seen that the Cable-stay and arch bridge design
types have the highest rating amongst the selection of bridge design types. Justifications of the
rating given to the cable-stay and arch bridge designs in Table 2.1 are as follows; A Particular point to
note in the cable-stay design is relatively high rating of 4 in the Design and Construction Capability
consideration as compared to the other designs. This was mainly to do with the fact that a cable-stay
bridge design has several constructible iterations of its design making it a more versatile design. This
is particularly true with the use of steel and not concrete as the super structure material,
construction complications and limitation of concrete make versatility of design more difficult. This
makes it more likely that a bridge design the Cable-stayed bridge design type can be developed
designed and constructed to best match the requirements of the client brief. In terms of durability
cable-stayed bridges have fewer components in comparison to other structures. This is certainly the
case as compared to a truss bridge and arch bridge.
Possible Steel Bridge Designs
Suspension
CableStay
Box
Girder
Truss
Arch
Cantilever
Steel
Plate
Girder
Life Span
Maintenance
Aesthetics
Construction Time
Frame
Sustainability/ Material
Impact / Carbon
Footprint
Total
19
25
21
20
24
17
19
Initial Considerations
Construction Cost (Life
Cycle Cost)
Design and
Construction
Capabilities
Durability
Table 2.1 Bridge Design Matrix Considering Types of Bridges Against Initial Design Considerations and Engineering Brief.
It also should be noted that the length that is required to be bridges is 220m. This is a prime range
9
G2 Engineering
2013
for a cable-stayed bridge in terms of design; this is a point that was shown at the 5th international
symposium on steel bridges in 2003. The steel to be used in the design is also recognised as a very
durable material, both easy to treat and change at a molecular level to ensure corrosive protection.
The use of moderate quantities of steel leads to a relatively low material cost. As a complicated
structure it requires highly skilled labour which can increase costs however this is offset by the fact
that a large amount of the structure can be prefabricated offsite and brought onto site ready for
installing, this can dramatically reducing the construction time. It has already been highlighted the
cost of a comparable length cable stay bridge compared to a suspensions bridge is much cheaper
with it being shown recently to cost on average 2,900/m2 to 3,200/m2 for a cable-stayed bridge
design (New Civil Engineer, 2011).
From Table 2.1 it can be seen that the arch bridge design had high ratings of 4 in terms of the
aesthetics and constructions time frame considerations. With the aesthetics of an arch bridge design
it is easy to appreciate its slime curved arch as compared to the other bridge designs which are more
straight angled and orthodox. This is the main reason it has the highest rating in aesthetics compared
to any other deign type. The arch bridge design also has a high rating of 4 for the construction time
frame consideration. This is because it lends its self to prefabrication. Being made from steel, a large
section of the arch can be constructed off site and transported and lifted into place as done in the
Lake Champlain arch bridge case example featured earlier in this report. The arch bridge had a rating
of 2 in the consideration of construction cost and this was many motivated by the technically more
challenging aspect of designing and construction a structural arch.
Taking the example of the Pat Tillman memorial arch bridge, 2010 into consideration, the budget for
this deck arch bridge was 150 million. This budget was for a 579m span arch bridge and considering
the span of the project under investigation is 220m, this gives a general look into the initial finances
of the project. Other estimates give the arch bride design a cost range between 2,500/m2 to
3,100/m2. Barring extenuation site circumstances and other unknown factors it can be reasonable
to suggest that the cost of this project will be in the range of 75 - 100 million; which is still a
considerable about to put into a road bridge project. The arch bridge has a rating of 3 for the Design
and Constructability consideration. There are varying types of arch bridges such as a through bridge
arch, tied-arch, aqueduct, viaduct or deck arch bridge. This makes an arch design a very versatile one
but it should be noted that there are only two arch bridge designs that are feasible having take into
account the engineering brief which only details two construction zones that can be used for pylon
construction. This effectively rules out viaduct and aqueduct arch bridges. But the intricate design of
the arch is fundamental to the bridges strength making this a very difficult but crucial aspect of the
bridge.
But through the initial design research and the design matrix above is clear that an Arch bridge
design and cable-stayed designs are the most appropriate to fit with the initial considerations stated
10
G2 Engineering
2013
at the start of this section as well as loosely relating to the given client brief.
The selected bridge design directions are in line with the current thinking in steel bridge design and
construction as seen above in Figure 2.5. This is a graph taken from the 5th international symposium
on steel bridges in 2003, where the topic of steel bridge design was discussed. Based on research
carried out by Reiner Saul, Leonhardt, Andr and Partner GmbH, the data collected from Germany
looked at the most economical type of bridge for various spans and collated the data to form the
graph seen in Figure 2.5. The assumption made earlier regarding the use of bridge designs over 40
years makes this data relevant though it should be noted the currency inaccuracy. In the past 40
years of bridge engineering there has not been a radical change in the overall design process of
bridges. The curve indicates the economical design for a given span, with the central span
mittelffnung given on the x axis and the cost Kosten on the y-axis given in Deutsche Mark per
meter squared.
For the given span in the client brief and indicated in Figure 2.5 with the grey shading it can be seen
that the span length is in the appropriate range of and arch, cable-stay and a simple cantilever box
girder bridge design. With the design stating that the design of the steel bridge needs to be pleasing
and evaluated from every possible viewing, a simple cantilever box girder bridge would not be
aesthetically pleasing in all viewing angles. This is a point already expressed in the design matrix
about for evaluating bridge design types in table 2.1 where the box girder design got a rating of 1 out
of 5 for its aesthetic design. This was mainly due the design not having several appealing viewing
angles. This is compared to the rating of 3 out of 5 for the cable-stay bridge design and 4 out of 5 for
the arch bridge design which can be evaluated to have more aesthetically pleasing angles to their
design.
Figure 2.5 Guideline For Structural Forms and Construction Costs [DM/m] of Road and Highway Bridges Taken From the
th
5 International Symposium on Steel bridges (2003); by Reiner Saul, Leonhardt, Andr and Partner GmbH. Aesthetics VS
Economics.
Based on the initial research into steel bridge design types, the design matrix where different design
11
G2 Engineering
2013
types were rated and the conclusions already draw by Reiner Saul, Leonhardt, Andr and Partner
GmbH concerning the most aesthetic but economically viable bridge design type based on span
length, the design process proceeds with the chosen two initial design to be developed from the arch
and cable-stayed bridge design directions.
2.3 Design Scheme A (Steel Tied-Arch Bridge Design)
Design scheme A for the steel bridge proposal in based of an arch bridge design, more specifically a
tied-arch bridge design. This is based off the research and finding in the previous section as well as
the judgment on what can be designed from this basic design to meet the clients brief. There are
three main reasons for specifically perusing the development of a tied-arch bridge solution and these
are;
The less robust foundations that can be designed, this was could be a potential design
saving. As seen in initial the research the other variations of arch bridge such as a through
arch bridge will need to be design with deep sturdy foundations which are likely to add an
extra cost for having that variation of an arch bridge.
The second reason is the ability to not have permanent support structures next to the rail
lines below the bridge deck. This is a particular benefit in terms of safety of construction
workers, rail operators of maintenance teams etc, and costs of the number of possessions
that will be needed of the rail lines below the bridge span. The possible construction
methods of an arch bridge will mean that there could be a saving to be made in the number
of rail closures that may be necessary. The arches of the bridge will need to be supported
temporarily during construction but this cost is not as significant as the cost of closing the
rain lines for permanent supporters to be built.
There is also the possibility to only close the rail lines twice with the installation and use of a
crash deck construction method. This is a method that can be used on an arch bridge but not
to a useful extent on the other bridge design considered. This makes an arch bridge more
flexible in its construction method.
The last reason being there is further scope to have a creative design in respect to the steel arches
and the arrangements of the hanger cables that will add to the design of the bridge. This is a
relatively cost effective way of having an innovative design based of a simply arch design without the
overpriced design costs of coming up with a radical new bridge design. Along with material specifics
and colour there is a wide range or variations for this arch cable design to meet the design
requirements of the client which will put it up most the best steel structures in the UK.
2.3.1 Brief Design Description (Scheme A)
This tied-arch bridge design is made of two steel box hollow section arches which span the entirety
of the proposed 220m span over all the rail lines below. A side elevation view of the basic tied-arch
arrangement is shown in Figure 2.6. An initial sketch drawing is shown in Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8
12
G2 Engineering
2013
where an outline of the tied-arch design has been drawing using Google sketch-up is seen. The
superstructure is composed of two main elements; the arches and the deck structure. It is the
intention of having both these elements made of steel as per the brief given. The arches are steel
box hollow sections that are rigidly connected to the deck structure. The deck structure is of a steel
box girder ladder design. The arch structures are welded onto the deck. The ladder design is
constructed from bolted up box girder sections. On top of which are pre-cast concrete slab sections.
The substructure of the bridge will be two abutments and spread pad foundations at either end of
the bridge span. The deck structure has a load transfer through the spread pad foundations and not
the abutments. There are no permanent support structures in the proposed construction zone on
the ground level of the rain way lines. But the arch structures are be temporarily supported during
construction. The arches are connected to the deck structure by steel cable hangers. The steel cable
hangers will be of a spiral strand design. They are encased with an aerodynamically design shell to
prevent vortex shedding vibrations and other aerodynamic instabilities.
Figure 2.6 Side Elevation View of Tied-Arch Bridge (Initial Scheme Design A) Showing the Two composite Steel Arches and
Deep Pad Foundations. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
Figure 2.7 Side Elevation View of Tied-Arch Bridge (Initial Scheme Design A) Showing the Two composite Steel Arches and
Deep Pad Foundations. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
There are 42 steel hanger cables that will specifically connect to the deck through block sockets that
are bolted onto the box girder ladder deck. There is the allowance of horizontal bridge movements
by having electrometric pad bridge bearings and expansions joints at either end of the bridge span.
13
G2 Engineering
2013
Figure 2.8 Initial Sketch of Tied-Arch Bridge (Initial Scheme Design A) From Google Sketch-Up Showing the Two
composite Steel Arches and Spanning Over the Rail Line Beneath.
2.3.2 Innovative Design Feature: Large Spanning, Hollow Box Section Arches (Scheme A)
In Scheme A there has been the proposal of a tied-arch bridge design to solve the engineering brief
given. This tied are bridge design incorporates a 220 meter spanning box hollow section arches.
These two steel arches would represent the second largest spanning steel arches in the UK and
would be a feat of engineering. This would be iconic and importantly a visually stunning feature in
the landscape of the site. The addition of bridge lighting and colours (white, blue etc. steel arches)
could make this the bridge that would represent the changing modern image of the local site.
2.3.3 General Structural Arrangement (Scheme A)
Scheme design A uses a tied-arch system in dealing with the structural loading of the deck from
pedestrians and vehicles. A tied-arch works by having the both steel arches connected to the steel
ladder girder deck. This results in the arches and the deck acting as one whole system in deflecting
and transferring load. Figure 2.9 below shows the basic element loading (tension or compression)
expected in the design. Direct loading is taken by pre-cast concrete slabs from the road structure on
to of it and is subsequently applied to the secondary traversing steel girders below and is transferred
onto the primary longitudinal girders through the bolted connection.
Figure 2.9 General Structural Loading of Tied-Arch Bridge (Initial Scheme Design A) Showing the Compression and
Tension Members. Red Indicates Tension Members whereas Green indicated Compression. (Not-to-scale, for
Descriptive Purposes Only).
There is a deflection/deformation of these primary beams and thus a tensile flexing/bending of the
ladder deck structure as a whole. This flex/bend transfers loading into the steel hanger cables and
put them into tension as well. The tensile cables then transfer the loading into the steel box hollow
section arch which puts them into compression and they in turn push inwards flexing and bending
the deck structure. This whole system as illustrated by Figure 2.10 sits on an electrometric bearing
which transfers the vertical loading onto the pad foundation and subsequently into the ground.
Structural elements in tension are the steel hanger cables and the ladder steel deck structure with
both arches and the pad foundations in compression as seen in Figure 2.9. No loading is subjected
14
G2 Engineering
2013
onto the abutments as this would require extra-ordinary sized abutments leading to increased
construction cost and time. Figure 2.10 below shows the load path of the tied arch design and the
inward deflection of the arches as well as the downward flex of the ladder deck structure of the
bridge. The tied-arched bridge is to be designed and constructed as a 3-pinned arches to limit the
bending moments in the arches allowing for slender sized section. The whole structure sits on an
elastomeric bearing and is to be design as pinned and roller structure allowing for horizontal loading
and movement i.e. through thermal expansion, in one direction.
Figure 2.10 General Structural Load Path of Tied-Arch Bridge (Initial Scheme Design A) Showing the Compression of
3-Pinned Arch and Tension of Steel Hanger Cables. (View Images Left to Right). Blue indicated Applied Load and Pin
Joint, Red Indicates Tension Members whereas Green indicated Compression. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes
Only).
2.3.4 General Construction Procedure (Design Scheme A)

The construction method chosen for the erection of the steel tired-arch bridge is one that has been
used by several bridged and has been shown to be a quick, efficient and cost-effective method of
arch bridge construction. The temporary support method is to be used to erect the arch bridge
design. Although temporary supports themselves may be costly, this type of construction
significantly lowers the construction time which will end in a more efficient and cost effective bridge
erection. Temporary steel supports are installed in the two constructions zones, hence allowing
segmental construction of the bridge over the railway lines. After completion of the bridge, the
temporary supports are to be removed. The steel superstructure is fabricated off site and is then
delivered to site in segments which are as large as possible without incurring transportation
costs/problems. The bridge can be lifted piece by piece by cranes and the deck is to be launched in
position by sliding or rolling from the abutment. The bridge erection sequence takes a simple 5
staged construction procedure. The construction procedure is as follows; Stage 1 At the
commencing of the project the bridges pad foundations and bearings are constructed and aligned as
well as the temporary supports (primary supports) should be installed as seen in Figure 2.11. Erect
the end pieces of the deck structure by lifting them into place onto the temporary supports by
15
G2 Engineering
2013
cranes. Stage 2 Erect the centre section of ladder girders for the deck and associated cross girders
using cranes located in adjacent construction area. Use the fully erected deck structure as a working
platform to install further temporary staging supports (secondary supports) on top of the deck as
seen in the second image of Figure 2.11. Stage 3 Erect end sections of arch ribs on temporary
staging. Stage 4 Erect centre sections of arch ribs and tie beams and Remove temporary staging
(secondary supports) as shown in Figure 2.12. Stage 5 Installation of steel hanger cables and
remove temporary supports (primary supports) as shown in Figure 2.13.
Figure 2.11 Stage 1 & 2 of Tied-Arch Bridge Erection Sequence (Initial Scheme Design A). (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive
Purposes Only).
Figure 2.12 Stage 3 & 4 of Tied-Arch Bridge Erection Sequence (Initial Scheme Design A. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive
Purposes Only).
Figure 2.13 Stage 5 of Tied-Arch Bridge Erection Sequence (Initial Scheme Design A). (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive
Purposes Only).
The construction procedure stated above is expected to involve be approximately 6 possessions. A

two are to be used for the erection of the end sections of the deck structure girders over the siding,
another possession for the installation of the middle deck structure section spanning over the main
line. Two for the erection for the end sections of the steel arches spanning over the rail sidings (two
arch sections are erected in each of these possessions). Then final one more possession of the main
lines for the erection of the centre section of the arch. This totals 4 sidings possessions and 2 main
line possessions. It is intended for this to be carried out over the Christmas/New year period when
the trains are not running a full schedule. This will limit the disruption on the local
residents/commuters, rail operator and national rail. This could also limit the construction cost as
there is an assumption that there should not be a charge for a possession over the holidays as the
rail line are already closed and not running. The cost of paying construction workers the extra
holiday pay will be a better option than paying for the possession of the rail lines over a weekday.
The risk assessment for the bridge will encapsulate the safety issues and the potential hazards that
may be faced by the construction workers and associates (railway operators) during the construction
of both bridges. The main concerns include working at height, construction over operational railway
16
G2 Engineering
2013
lines and lifting over and the issue of constructing a bridge. To view the risk assessment in detail see
appendix where it is contained.
2.3.5 Initial Design Costing (Scheme A)
Table 2.1 shows the initial material and construction cost of the tied-arch bridge (Design Scheme A).
This costing does not include the variable labour costs and plant hire costs, this allows for a pure
design costing to be made and analysed. The general total design cost of the proposed tied-arch
bridge design is in the region of 6.6 Million and is accumulated from the design details listed below
as seen in the table.
Activity
Cost
Design Scheme A
Calculated Price
Construction Work
Concrete piers, abutments and
anchorage blocks for cables if required.
650/m^3
N/A
Concrete deck (non-steel) [including

formwork, reinforcing, placing, curing
200/m^2
Concrete Deck
629,200
etc]
Waterproofing, surfacing and finishes
70/m2
Arch structure, deck,
250000 per
Railway Closures
closure
cables
6 Possessions
678,708.64
1,500,000
Erected Fabricated Steelwork in Grade S255

Plate Girders
1900/tonne
Rolled Sections
2000/tonne
Fabricated box sections or stiffened

steel plate decks
Hollow sections
Saving for using of grade S275
N/A
Ladder Deck
4200/tonne
3800/tonne
440,000
N/A
Arch Structure
25/tonne
2,128,000
N/A
Cables
5/kN of
Stay cables and arch hangers
breaking load
42 cables
315,043.44
42 cables
873,600
per 100m
1/kN of
maximum
Cable and hanger end anchorages
breaking load
of cable per
end
Foundations for piers
N/A
17
G2 Engineering
2013
Total
6,564,552.08
Table 2.1 Initial Scheme Costing (Scheme Design A).
2.4 Design Scheme B (Steel Cable-Stay Single Tower Bridge Design)

Design scheme B is based on a cable-stayed bridge design. It is a single pylon design cable-stayed
bridge with the tower located on one side of the span and inclined cables connecting the tower to
the deck. Reasons for this design are again based on the initial research and the judgment of what
can be designed to from the basic design to meet the clients brief, the main of which are as follows;
The design of a single tower steel structure can serve as an iconic symbol as part of the
regeneration of the surrounding area. This H-type design can be very innovative in terms of
the inclusion of glass and special lighting. Research that has been shown in this report
suggests that the single tower of pylon design can dominate the landscape and make a visual
statement. This is in line with the given client brief of having a steel structure that is ranked
amongst the best in the UK.
The use of one single tower structure means that the majority of the structural intricacies
can be concentrated in one element. This makes the design more economical as the
increased design considerations of having a more reinforced single tower structure as
compared to having two or four structures for a span of 220m is not as significant; savings
can be made i.e. number of structure foundations, excavations etc.
Having a vertical H-type tower as opposed to an inclined pylon (as seen in initial research)
allows for a design saving to be made. This saving can be used in other design elements that
could make the design more unique.
2.4.1 Brief Design Description
The pylon/tower is of an H-type design; that is there are two steel structures either side of the deck
and they are connected vertically at three different points like similar to an H. The two steel legs
of the H-design of the tower are filed with concrete and are a composite steel concrete design as
shown in Figure 2.14. The steel structure has two outer non-structural integral structures linked to
the sides of the H design. This will house an elevator that will allow an ascent all the way to the top
of the Pylon. The upper most connection between the two steel structural integral structures has a
glass enclosed walk-way (Observation Deck) on it allowing you to walk from one steel structure to
the other and gives 360 degree view of the site. Figure 2.14 shows the general schematic side
elevation of the proposed single tower cable-stayed bridge design. Figure 2.15 shows the initial
concept of this single tower design of the cable-stayed bridge and shows the 86m high single H-type
design steel tower. The deck structure (similar to one shown in Figure 2.7) also has a cantilevered
girder section on either side of the main deck structure. The cantilevered section runs parallel to the
deck structure and serves as the location of the connections between the arch cables and the deck.
The stay cables connect to the deck using block anchors. The steel cable will be of a spiral strand
design. They are encased with an aerodynamically design shell to prevent vortex shedding vibrations
18
G2 Engineering
2013
and other aerodynamic instabilities. The deck structure has a load transfer to the ground through
electrometric bearings that are on spread pad foundations and not the abutments. The deck and
tower have separate foundations. The deck structure of the cable-stayed bridge is not connected to
the tower and is an independent structure on its own; meaning it can deform horizontally or
vertically without affecting the tower. There are 8 Back stay cables that are anchored into a large
concrete block embedded underground; 4 back-stray cables per concrete anchor block. The concrete
block anchorage is a large mass of reinforced concrete with steel cable anchorage cylinders
embedded into it. There is a glass-enclosed observation deck on the topmost rung of the H-type
tower design. This is made out of non-structural glass. There are two elevator shafts that allow
access to the observation deck. These are house on the outsides of the H-type tower design and are
not structurally integral to the resistance of bridge loading but are a separate structural entity.
Figure 2.14 Side Elevation View of Tied-Arch Bridge (Initial Scheme Design A) Showing the Two composite Steel Arches
and Deep Pad Foundations. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
Figure 2.15 Initial Sketch of Single Tower cable-stayed Bridge (Initial Scheme Design B) Showing the H-Design of Single
Steel Tower. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
19
G2 Engineering
2013
Figure 2.16 Initial Sketch of Single Tower cable-stayed Bridge (Initial Scheme Design B) From Google Sketch-Up Showing
H-Type Design of the Tower Structure and Inclined Steel Support Cables Connecting to the Deck Structure.
2.4.2 Innovative Design Feature: Observation Deck (Scheme B)

Scheme Design B has an interesting design lay-out where by there has been an integration of a glass
enclosed walk way or observation deck as party of its design. This is accessible through an elevator
lift shaft in an enclosed secondary structure. This secondary structure is not structurally integral to
the resistance of brigade loading. The glass is also non-structural glass as that would be an increase
in design costs and is independent of the tower, allowing for some vertical displacement of the
tower. This design aspect to Scheme B has the potential to draw a steady revenue in tourist would
be charged to go to the top of the 86 meters high bridge tower to have a 360 degree angle view of
the surrounding area of the bridge location. This capitalises on the landmark bridge effect of having
such a striking structure in the horizon and will try to monetize that by charging a reasonable fee to
have the pleasure of the extraordinary views that will be gained from this bridge in the day and in
the night though the use of lighting. This could be similar to a light house in its lighting layout. There
could also be spot light shining upward at the tower and observation deck to highlight the bridge at
night. The tourist will also have the rare opportunity to get up close to the cable-tower connection.
This will be a view that not many modern bridge can provide to interested tourists. There is also the
added benefit of incorporating this to be used in the aid of maintenance of the cable tower
connections. The elevator shaft can be used to gain access to the tower cable connection for
checking and tensioning if necessary. The generated revenue could be used in the up keep and
maintenance of the bridge. This is justifiable as seen in the research (shown previously in Chapter
2.1.2) and on most single tower cable stayed design, they have inclined towers. This inclination
comes at a cost and this cost can be put up for the design and construction of the elevator shafts and
the observation deck whilst having the tower vertical. This would be a general redistribution of costs
to enhance the design of the bridge; this is a cost effective way of having an innovative design as
required by the client.
2.4.3 General Structural Arrangement (Scheme B)
Figure 2.17 shows the expected general structural element forces. The deck structure of the bridge is
expected to be in compression (green) from the pedestrian and vehicular loading. The steel staycabled are expected to be in tension (red). The spread pad foundation of the tower and the deck are
in compression. The elevator shaft and the observation deck are not structurally utilised in the
20
G2 Engineering
2013
resistance of the bridge loading but should be designed to sustain the expected loading from their
use. The back stay cables are attached to the single tower and are anchored into a large concrete
block anchor. The tension in the anchored cables causes a tensile pull out force that is resisted by the
self-weight of the concrete block.
Figure 2.17 General Structural Loading of Single Tower cable-stayed Bridge (Initial Scheme Design B) Showing the
Compression and Tension Members. Red Indicates Tension Members whereas Green indicated Compression. Black
Indicates the Non-Structurally Integral Elevator Shafts. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
Figure 2.18 (a&b) below shows the load path of the cable-stayed bridge. The loading is applied to the
road deck and is transferred as seen in Figure 2.18a into the pre-cast concrete slab that sits on top of
the secondary beams in the ladder girder structure. The secondary beams then transfer the loading
onto the longitudinal beams which in turn transfer the load into the bearings and then to the pad
foundations of the deck. In Figure 2.18b, there is a deformation in the deck structure from the
applied load that puts the stay-cables into tension as load is transferred from the deck through the
block anchor connections into the stay cables. These cables are attached to the tower and pull on the
tower causing a bending moment in the tower. The deformation in the tower also causes the backstay cables to be in tension and these are anchored in the large concrete block anchors. The concrete
blocks resist the tensile pull out force of the back stay-cables by self-weight and skin friction through
soil-anchor interaction and the bend in the tower. The downward forces in the tower are transferred
down into the pad foundations of the tower which are separate from the foundations of the deck.
21
G2 Engineering
2013
Figure 2.18a General Structural Load Path of Tied-Arch Bridge (Initial Scheme Design A) Showing the Compression
and Tension Members.). Blue indicated Applied Load and Pin Joint, Red Indicates Tension Members whereas Green
indicated Compression. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
Figure 2.18b General Structural Load Path of Tied-Arch Bridge (Initial Scheme Design A) Showing the Compression
and Tension Members. Blue indicated Applied Load and Pin Joint, Red Indicates Tension Members whereas Green
Indicated Compression. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
2.4.4 General Construction Procedure (Design Scheme B)

Temporary supports can be completely avoided if the superstructure is erected using the freecantilever method lowering costs and construction time. Cranes will be used for erection as this is
the most cost effective erection method. It is assumed that the adjacent site is suitable for crane use.
The cranes to be used will be influenced by weight and size of the steel section. Due to the need to
minimise closures, installation will be done as quick as possible so the largest sections possible will
be lifted at a time, with only minimal construction activities once the bridge is in position. Permanent
formwork is to be used as this provides a safe working platform for deck slab completion. The
construction procedure is as follows; Stage 1 Installation of bridge bearings as seen in the left
image of Figure 2.19. These bearings transfer weight of the superstructure to the substructure.
These are aligned and levelled on the substructure which girders will be attached to subsequently.
There is also the simultaneous construction of the concrete black anchors.
Figure 2.19 Stage 1 & 2 of Cable-Stayed Bridge Erection Sequence (Initial Scheme Design B). (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive
Purposes Only).
Stage 2 The tower is erected on abutment with back anchors installed in segments as seen in the
right-side image of Figure 2.19. The 86m tower will be prefabricated offsite in 4 steel sections, to
satisfy transportation limitations and craned into place and connected using mobile cranes. The
sections will be subsequently installed through bolts and reinforced with a concrete mix poured into
the sections as they are bolted up section by section as shown by the image on the right of Figure
22
G2 Engineering
2013
2.19. During construction, the cable stays are not in place so the tower needs to have necessary
resistance against wind loads by itself. The critical stage is when the tower is at its full height with no
cables attached. Due to steels small mass, large flexibility and low dumping, these effects can be
significant so checks of the towers stability need to be carried out. Following the erection of the
tower, Back anchor cables are to be installed as seen in the left hand side image of Figure 2.20. These
back anchors will be incrementally tensioned as the main girder is installed.
Figure 2.20 Stage 3 & 4 of Cable-Stayed Bridge Erection Sequence (Initial Scheme Design B). (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive
Purposes Only).
Stage 3 Using derrick cranes, the deck segments are lifted to the required elevation and connected.
Each road deck section will be prefabricated offsite and assembled onsite. The sections are 10.5m
ladder girder sections with cross girders at 3.5m centres. Cables are attached to protruding box
sockets which are bolted on to the flange of the girder. These will be lifted in using derrick cranes to
the required elevation and connected. Stage 4 As the cantilevers grow, the cables are installed and
tensioned to the correct forces to carry the weight of newly erected segment. The cables are
connected and the next section of girder is craned in as seen in Figure 2.20. Stage 5 As seen in
Figure 2.21, eventually the bridge deck reaches the other abutment and is connected. The
connection between bridge deck and embankment is with an expansion joint and elastomeric pad to
allow for expansion and movement. Pour of the concrete deck can be done simultaneously with the
erection of the main girder.
Figure 2.21 Stage 5 of Cable-Stayed Bridge Erection Sequence (Initial Scheme Design B). (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive
Purposes Only).
The construction procedure stated above is expected to involve be approximately 4 possessions. One
possession while work is carried out over first sidings, two possessions to allow work to be carried
out over main lines and one final possession for work over final sidings. It is intended for this to be
carried out over the Christmas/New year period when the trains are not running a full schedule. This
will limit the disruption on the local residents/commuters, rail operator and national rail. This could
also limit the construction cost as there is an assumption that there should not be a charge for a
possession over the holidays as the rail line are already closed and not running. The cost of paying
23
G2 Engineering
2013
construction workers the extra holiday pay will be a better option than paying for the possession of
the rail lines over a weekday.
The risk assessment for the bridge will encapsulate the safety issues and the potential hazards that
may be faced by the construction workers and associates (railway operators) during the construction
of both bridges. The main concerns include working at height, construction over operational railway
lines and lifting over and the issue of constructing a bridge. To view the risk assessment in detail see
appendix where it is contained.
2.4.5 Initial Design Costing (Scheme B)
Table 2.2 shows the initial material and construction cost of the Single tower cable-stayed bridge
(Design Scheme B). This costing does not include the variable labour costs and plant hire costs, this
allows for a pure design costing to be made and analysed. The general total design cost of the
proposed single tower cable-stayed design is in the region of 8.5 Million and is accumulated from
the design details listed below as seen in the table.
Activity
Cost
Design Scheme B
Calculated
Price
Construction Work
anchorage blocks for cables if
8 anchorage block,
650/m^3
2 concrete filled
required.
1,604,769
towers
Concrete deck (non-steel)

[including formwork, reinforcing,
200/m^2
Concrete Deck
629,200
placing, curing etc]

Waterproofing, surfacing and
finishes
Railway Closures
2 towers, deck,
70/m2
cables
250,000 per closure
4 possessions
506,783
1,000,000

Plate Girders
Rolled Sections
Fabricated box sections or
stiffened steel plate decks
Hollow sections
1900/tonne
2,000/tonne
N/A
Ladder Deck, 2
Towers
976,000
4,200/tonne
N/A
3,800/tonne
N/A
25/tonne
N/A
Cables
5/kN of breaking
42 cables, 8 back
load per 100m
cables
2,435,138
1/kN of maximum
breaking load of
cable per end
24
50 cables
1,353,000
G2 Engineering
2013
For each foundation: 12500 +

8 per kN
Total
8,504,890
Table 2.2 Initial Scheme Costing (Scheme Design B).
2.5 Initial Scheme Construction Time Frame (Scheme A & B)
2.6 Environmental Analysis (Scheme A & B)

As both bridges are situated on the same site, many of the environmental effects will be similar, if
not the same. Even so, environmental issues such as sustainability have become very important in
recent years so needs considering. Steel has been chosen as the primary construction material for
this project. Steel is widely used for bridge construction. It is a material which is efficient and
beneficial when used correctly. In terms of sustainability, it performs well against other building
materials such as concrete. Iron, which is the basic raw material in steel, is very abundant. Steel can
be recycled without any loss of performance. Through responsible sourcing of materials and a
manufacturing process to increase efficiency steel can be highly sustainable which an obvious benefit
is over other less sustainable building materials. Steel is very easy to reuse and recycle as no loss of
performance is seen. When the lifecycle of the bridge has ended, the steel can be cut down and
transported to steelworks where the material is recycled. 99% of structural steel is either recycled or
reused.
There may be damage to surrounding area. Due to its lightweight construction, the foundation works
are kept to a minimum. This minimises costs as well as environmental impact. Due to the composite
tower of the cable stay bridge, the foundations for this scheme design will be larger so have more of
an impact on the surrounding environment. There is no way to mitigate the effects of construction
on the local community, CO2 production and surrounding areas fully, however steel design achieves
relatively low disruptions and negative environmental effects. Waste in modern steel bridge design
can be minimised using computer programs. It ensures in fabrication plants and during construction,
waste is lowered. Use of minimal materials is a good way to reduce waste and both scheme designs
have a relatively small amount of materials.
2.7 Maintenance Procedure (Scheme A & B)
Bridges require protection systems to improve their durability and life span, steel bridges is
particularly vulnerable to corrosion of the structural steelwork. Steel components that are vulnerable
to corrosion are those that are exposed to the elements, these components can be the cables, deck
girders, arch sections and tower sections. For corrosion to occur three factors all need to be present
which are.
(
25
G2 Engineering
2013
Figure 2.22 Schematic Representation of Corrosion Mechanism for steel Take From Corus Construction & Industrial
(2005).
Protection systems influence the design of steel bridges, the influences range from the deck joint
durability, expansion joints, bearing pads and the ease of accessibility for all areas along the bridge
which that could require maintenance throughout the bridges lifespan which could include the
application of paint coatings or re-surfacing (Corus Construction & Industrial, 2005). The design and
layout of the structural components is affected by the potential for corrosion, certain connections
and stiffeners can trap and retain water which in turn can lead to corrosion. To counteract this and
minimise this issue steps that can be taken include:
Flush welds are grinded

Avoid the use of channels that toe upwards
In addition to these, drainage and ventilation systems should be in place that minimise the time that
the steel is exposed to water and hence reduce the risk of corrosion. To design for this, steps could
be taken which include spacing girders and beams at least 4m apart and run off channels for surface
water which prevent water and steel touching one another. Protection coatings are the most
common method of preventing the corrosion of structural steel; before the steel can be coated the
steel surface must be prepared. As the structural steel will be pre-fabricated hot rolled steel the steel
surface will comply with rust grades A and B and because they are bridge steelwork the surface
preparation will require:
SA 21/2
SA 3
Thorough Blast Cleaning

Blast Cleaning to visually clean steel
The surface profile for bridge steel work should be angular this would allow for a greater mechanical
lock when a coating is applied, to achieve this angular surface a grit abrasive should be used when
blast cleaning. Once preparation is complete either paint or metallic coatings can be applied, paint
systems consist of a primer, undercoats and finish coats, with each layer having a specific function.
The primers are applied directly onto the steel surface; the primer is to apply good adhesion to for
the subsequently applied coats. The undercoats are applied to build a film thickness, with the
general rule of a thicker coat the longer the paint life. The finish provides the surface resistance of
26
G2 Engineering
2013
the system.
Figure 2.23 Schematic Cross-Section Through a Typical Modern High Performance Coating System Take From Corus
Construction & Industrial (2005).
Metallic coatings use the method of hot dip galvanising which immerses the steel in a bath of molten
zinc, the surface is uniformly coated with a zinc alloy and zinc layers that form a bond with the
structural steel (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2012). The
thickness of the galvanised coating is influenced by factors including the thickness and size of the
steel, the steel surface preparation and the steel composition. Generally abrasive blast cleaned tends
to produce relatively thick coatings.
27
G2 Engineering
2013
3.0 Selection of Final/Client Recommended Scheme

In the previous section there was the proposal of two viable and distinctive initial steel bridge
scheme designs. In general both schemes are feasible and are competent design schemes. To
recommend a single scheme to the client, it is important to relate each of the designs to the key
points that were identified in the client brief given. These will aid in selecting a recommended
scheme to go into further development. The following key elements were identified in the client
brief given;
An elegant & innovative steel bridge design which reflects the new modern image
A visual statement that stand-out in the surrounding area with particular care shown for
multiple aesthetically pleasing viewing angles.
A cutting edge bridge to rival top steel structures in the UK and be a cost-effective design.
The table below (Table 3.1) is a brief summary comparison of the initial scheme designs.
Design Scheme A
Design Scheme B
Tied-Arch Bridge Design; two Steel box
Single Tower Cable-Stayed Bridge Design; single
hollow sections arches spanning entire
steel concrete composite design tower with a
bridgeable gap with steel hanger
total of 8 back-stay cables encased in a concrete
cables and a steel ladder deck
block anchor embedded in ground. With a steel
structure.
ladder deck structure
Design Cost
6.5 Million
8.5 Million
Number of Possessions
General Construction
Use primary and secondary temporary
Self-supporting
Method
support construction technique.
Cantilevered construction technique.
Of the ladder girder deck and element
Prefabricated steel tower sections and steel
of the tied-arches off-site. Bolt slots
ladder deck section off-site. Bolt slots provide
provide for on-site installation.
for on-site installation.
If constructed would be the second
Single tower, observation deck (accessible by
largest spanning tied arch bridge in
two elevator shafts) that allows 360 degree
the UK.
elevated views of surround area
Bride Design Type
Prefabrication
Distinctive Design
Element
Table 3.1Initial Design Scheme Summary Table.
Both design schemes have been design in part to address the key elements (shown above) that were
identified. Table 3.1 shows that ways in which each scheme tries to address these elements. In terms
of having two distinctive designs, the design procedure chosen ensured that there would be two
different bridge types considered in the initial scheme design stage. In a design comparison between
both scheme A and scheme B, it can be argued that both are distinctive from each other. The general
construction method proposed show that both scheme designs are viable engineering structures and
to pick a scheme to go into further development as the client recommended scheme several
comparisons need to be carried out.
28
G2 Engineering
2013
3.1 Scheme Design Cost Comparison

In terms of the costs of both scheme designs, using prices specified from the brief, it was found that
the tied arch bridge (Design Scheme A) would cost an approximate 6.5 million as seen in Table 3.1
and the cable stayed bridge (Design Scheme B) would cost an approximate 8.5 million pounds. This
costing does not cover variable labour costs or plant hire so represents the pure design costs. This
materials and installation cost gives a good idea of the price of each scheme design. It can be seen
that the tied arch bridge design is approximately 2 million cheaper than the cable stayed bridge.
Although the tied arch has more main line possessions, the cost of cables and other materials is
lower, reducing overall price. However, when it comes to the whole life cost of the bridges the cable
stayed bridge (Scheme B) can potential generate steady revenue from tourist paying to get the views
from the observation deck. It can be expected that this revenue can be put up against the cost of
maintaining the bridge. Over its lifespan of approximately 120 years, the initial cost of the bridge
would be covered by this tourism charge. Maintenance costing must also be considered. Both
scheme designs have been found to have very similar maintenance procedures to be carried out over
the bridges lifetime, therefore the maintenance costs will also be very similar so should not affect
the choice of recommended design a huge amount.
3.2 Scheme Construction Comparison
Both scheme designs incorporate prefabrication into their construction to limit the disruption and
potentially cut down on-site work. In terms of construction methods suggested in both schemes,
they are very different though they both utilise off-site prefabrication in elements of their
construction. Scheme A suggest the use of temporary supports in the section-by-section construction
of its steel ladder girder deck. It also uses secondary temporary supports, using the fully constructed
bridge deck as a working platform, in the construction of the Steel box hollow section arches.
However in Design Scheme B, the cable supported bridge is always self-supported due to the use of a
cantilevering construction system. This cantilever system can proceed after the construction of the
steel tower and the concrete block anchor with the installation of the back stay cables. The
cantilever construction system is more simplistic and less costly than the temporary support
structures. The cantilever method has been used on many bridges and is the method used on the
Puente de la Unidad Bridge in Mexico, which has a similar single tower design with back stay cables.
The proposed design in Design Scheme B has a tower structure of a composite steel concrete design;
this may increase construction time as compared to the Design Scheme A construction time frame.
There will be an extra cost incurred from the use of temporary structures. It should be noted that the
secondary temporary supports used in Design Scheme A requires the use of a fully constructed
bridge deck as a working platform. This could affect the depth pf steel section needed for the steel
ladder deck as it would need to be design to support the two end span arches as seen in Figure 2.12.
The temporary supported method of Scheme A is an overly complicated construction technique
compared to the cantilever method of scheme B. Based on this fact in terms of easy of construction
29
G2 Engineering
2013
Scheme B would be the better option. It should be noted that the planned construction method of
Scheme B required 6 closures of the railway line compared to the 4 closures required by Scheme A.
The construction technique of Scheme A represents less disruption to one of the identified
stakeholders in this project.
3.3 Structure Detailed Design Comparison
In terms of the superstructure of Scheme A and B very different as already pointed out, this is due to
the particular design procedure used in picking two distinctive bridge design directions to peruse in
the initial design scheme stage. The distinctive element of Scheme A is that if constructed it would
be the second largest spanning steel arch in the UK. This would be a massive engineering
achievement and again addressing the clients need for an innovative elegant and iconic steel
structure. The curvature of these steel arches will be very distinctive in the landscape particularly
with the use of some colouring, (White or blue etc. arches) Similarly, in Scheme B there is an
innovative observation deck built into the design to capitalise on the potential tourist that would
come to see this 86m high iconic steel structure that would dominate the landscape. This
observation deck would act like a light house with the use of elegant lighting. There is an initial
specification of spread pad foundation in both Design Schemes thus making a comparison in
effective till more detailed assessment of the foundation are made. But holistically it should be noted
that the excavations needed for the foundations of Scheme A is less than the exactions of Scheme B
as in Scheme A there is only the requirement of two pad foundations for the deck structure (one at
each end) to transfer load to the ground. This is opposed to the 4 independent foundations that are
needed for Scheme B; two for the deck structure (at each ends) and 2 for the tower structure which
is an H-type design. This would suggest the excavation and foundation costs of scheme B would be
great that Scheme B, this is similar for the environmental impact on the landscape where Scheme A
will have less of an impact due to this fact than Scheme B.
3.4 Scheme Design A & B Comparison Conclusion
Several points have been identified and made in the comparisons of the two design schemes and
there has been an evaluation of the key elements of each scheme that suits the clients brief, but
ultimately a single scheme must be chosen. The chosen design scheme to go into the further/ final
design development stage and be subsequently recommended to the client is Design Scheme B. This
is due to the innovative and creative design that has been adopted into the cable-stay bridge design
with the addition of an observation deck that could potentially generate some revenue which could
be used to maintain the bridge. Though Design Scheme B costs 2 million more than Scheme A, it
could be said that this initial design cost difference could be recovered over time by the revenue
stream. It has been also identified that there could be an additional and variable cost incurred by the
use of a temporary support construction technique in Design Scheme A. Furthermore it has also
been identified that the construction technique in Design Scheme A may affect section sizes in the
design of the bridge deck whereas the self-supporting cantilever technique in scheme B would not
30
G2 Engineering
2013
incur an extra cost and would not affect the actual design of the bridge. The 86m high single tower
and the observation deck will be an iconic steel structure that in the words of the client will rival any
steel structure in the UK and due to the scale and design of the bridge would be a visual statement
that would represent the regeneration of the local area to have a more modern image.
31
G2 Engineering
2013
4.0 Final/Client Recommended Scheme

In the previous section there was the selection of Design Scheme B as the final scheme to go into
further development and be subsequently recommended to the client. The following serves as the
further development of Design Scheme B and confirms/ modifies the proposed scheme made in the
initial designs scheme stage.
4.1 Final Report on Steel Bridge Proposal (Further Developed Design Scheme B)
The recommended steel bridge deign scheme to be put towards the client is of a description as
follows;
This is a single tower cable-stayed bridge spanning 220 meters from abutment to abutment. The
tower is of an H-type design but has three vertical section members that link two steel horizontal
sections together. These horizontal sections are of a steel and concrete composite design; the two
steel legs of the H-design of the tower are filed with concrete. The tower is now an increased
height of 92.4 meters and has a total of 8 back-stay cables. There is still the addition of two outer
non-structural steel structures that each house an elevator shaft that enables the access of an
observation deck that is placed onto of the upper most rung of the H-design tower. These elevators
also make stops at the cable to tower connections to allow for maintenance to these connections.
This secondary structure is independent of the cable-stayed bridge and is not structurally integral to
the resistance of bridge loadings. The upper most connection between the two steel structural
integral structures has a glass enclosed walk-way (Observation Deck) on it allowing you to walk from
one steel structure to the other and gives 360 degree view of the site. There is a glass-enclosed
observation deck on the topmost rung of the H-type tower design. This is made out of non-structural
glass and steel floor deck.
Figure 4.1 Side Elevation View of Recommended Bridge Design Scheme Showing Single composite Steel Tower, Inclined
Stay-Cables, Group Pile Foundations, Spread Pad Foundations and L-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Stay-Cable Anchors.
(Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
The stay cables now connect directly to the main deck and not a secondary cantilever beam that runs
alongside the deck structure as stated in the initial scheme. The connection between the cables and
32
G2 Engineering
2013
the deck is a block anchor connection. The deck structure has a load transfer to the ground through
elastomeric pad bearings on top of spread pad foundations at both ends of the span and not the
abutments. The deck and tower have separate foundations. The tower has its two vertical section
founded on two separate group pile foundations. Each pile group consists of 8 piles, 30 meter deep
of a 0.75m diameter. The deck structure of the cable-stayed bridge is not connected to the tower
and is an independent structure on its own; meaning it can deform horizontally or vertically without
affecting the tower. There are 8 Back stay cables that are anchored into a large concrete block
embedded underground. The concrete block anchorage is a large mass of reinforced concrete and is
of an L-shape when viewed through its side elevation.
4.1.1 Change Log of Recommended Design Scheme from Outlined Initial Design Scheme
The following table (Table 4.1) highlights the main aspects that have been developed in the
recommended scheme from the initial design scheme.
Design Aspect
Initial Design Scheme B
Recommended Design Scheme
Tower Structure
Composite steel concrete,
Composite steel concrete, 92.4m high. 42
86m high. 42 Steel spiral
Steel spiral inclined cables. 8 back-stay
inclined cables. 8 inclined steel inclined cables anchored into individual Lback-stay cables; 4 cables per
shaped concrete anchors. 8 Group pile
concrete anchor block. Spread
foundations. Tower structure is now 10
pad foundations.
back from the face of the embankment and

abutment due to increased slope stability.
Deck Structure
Composite deck design action Composite
deck
design
action
from
from concrete slab and steel concrete slab and steel members. Steel
members.
Steel
cable cables connect directly on to primary
connects to block anchors on longitudinal beams through block anchors.

a cantilever beam running
parallel to deck structure.
Main
construction Self-supporting
process
structure
of
cantilever Self-supporting cantilever method involving
Deck method involving lifting and lifting and installation of prefabricated

installation of prefabricated sections.
sections.
Table 4.1 Design Scheme Change Log Summary.
4.2 Detailed Construction Procedure

4.2.1 Free Cantilever Method of Construction.
The erection of steel work is made up of the assembly of steel components into a frame on site. The
free cantilever method consists of developing the bridge structure by individual segments. These
33
G2 Engineering
2013
segments are concreted into formwork and then this is fixed in to a movable steel structure which is
known as a form traveller. Cantilever span is used from one side with no temporary supports used;
just the bearings are put in place in the beginning. Cantilevers as a form of construction method have
the advantage of that it will only require 2 possessions of deck segments to be lifted in to place over
the main rail lines. This minimises the disruption to the main railway lines therefore satisfying the
clients requirements.
4.2.2 Access to Site.
Adequate access is needed by the steelwork contractor for steel transportation, unloading and
erection, on the site as well as surrounding or adjacent access roads. The construction site can only
be accessed from the south. Access on the East and West is ready available with land available
adjacent for any storage or preassembly. The ground level should be examined for its bearing
capacity to accommodate the requisite wheel loads which carry the materials and all necessary
equipment on to the site. The materials of the deck and tower will be delivered in segments on site
prefabricated, ready to be installed in sections.
4.2.3 Checking the Foundation.
The foundations have to be suitable and safe for erection to begin. Foundation is the part of the
structure that transmits loads directly to the underlying soil. Two separate foundations will be
utilised one for the deck and one for the composite tower. It is stated in the brief outline interface
details and as well as loads should be indicated on the drawings. In the figure 2.14 below it shows
the load path in the cable stayed bridge. The loads act on the road deck; this is then transferred on
to ore-cast concrete slab that is on top of the secondary beams which are in the ladder girder
structure. The loads are then passed on to the longitudinal secondary beams which in turn transfer
the load on to the bearings and then to the pad foundations on the deck. The loads transmitted of
the cables, composite tower and deck have to be checked that they do not exceed the capacity of
the foundations. Also the effects of settlement can be neglected when considering the bridge and its
foundations.
4.2.4 Installation of Bearings.
Installation of bridge bearings has to be placed in to position before the beams can be put in place.
The function the bearings will have is that they will allow for the movement of the deck. As bearings
can be affected by stagnant water, a layer of bitumen paint should be applied in order to prevent the
accumulation of water.
4.2.5 Installation of Ladder Girders.
Ladder deck bridges are commonly used in the UK as medium span composite bridges. The ladder
design is built from bolted up box girder sections. These will attach to the bearings and together they
will be connected to the abutment. The reason for selecting a ladder girder design is because it is
economic in that it has a reduced tonnage of steel compared to multi-girder construction. Other
34
G2 Engineering
2013
reasons for it being an economically viable option include the use of permanent formwork that
speeds up construction as well the reliance on labour in-situ work such as form work construction.
The appearance of the ladder girder means that due to fewer columns, no leaf piers and suitability
for plan curvature and the ability to adapt to wide range of support arrangements make it
aesthetically pleasing (SteelConstruction.info, 2013).
4.2.6 Casting of deck
The structure of the deck is that it consists of certain number of beams spanning between each
abutment that are fixed to bearings. Reinforced concrete deck then rests on top with all the
surfacing required on the deck. The slab will be made of concrete and the beams will be made up of
steel. The concrete that will be utilised for the slab will be ready-mixed and tested by the concrete
manufacturer on site to ensure it is up to the exceptional required quality. As the deck will be
constructed in segment, each segment will contain three layers which are the deck, beam and slab.
This arrangement was purposefully chosen in order to speed up the method of construction. Each
segment of the deck that will be installed will have to be bolted together. Over all four possessions of
the deck will be lifted in to place by a derrick cranes, including two of these which will be over the
main rail lines.
4.2.7 Erection of Composite Tower.
This will be prefabricated off site in five sections and then it will be transported on to site. It will be
assembled in segments on site and lifted in to position using a mobile crane. The design of the tower
will have a single steel structure with the addition of glass and special lighting. The single tower
layout gives the design the advantage of that all its structural issues can be focused on one element.
This makes the design more economical, easier and faster to construct as the number of structural
elements are reduced e.g. number of foundations, excavations etc. The composite tower will have
two structural elements, one which will have cables attached and the other structural element will
contain a lift shaft that leads to an observational deck. As the tower is 92.4m long, each segment of
the tower that will be erected will have an approximate length of around 18m roughly, therefore this
should give an estimate of around five possessions. The first segment of the tower is erected on the
abutment and the back anchors will then be installed. This method will be repeated five times until
all the tower is put in place; this should speed up the construction process. Each segment of the
tower, specifically the part which contains the lift will be welded together. As the cables are not
connected the tower will require protection against wind loads. Because of this the tower will be
protected against the wind by the concrete as this will be able to provide enough torsional stiffness.
4.2.8 Cable to Deck Connection.
The stay cables will be connected to the deck using block anchors. As soon as the tower is erected,
there will be six back stay cables that will be anchored in to a large concrete block that is embedded
underground. This should provide immediate support for the tower against the wind load. The
35
G2 Engineering
2013
concrete block anchorage will consist of reinforced concrete with steel cylinders contained with in it.
The value of the anchor that will be used is around 357 metres cubed. On the other side, the tower
will have a series cables attached to it that will span the whole of the bridge. The cables will be
tensioned to carry the correct force of the newly erected segment of the deck. Overall this should
increase the overall stability of the bridge.
4.2.9 Cable Stay Bridge Erection-Free-cantilever method.
Temporary supports can be completely avoided if the superstructure is erected using the freecantilever method lowering costs and construction time.
Cranes will be used for erection as this is the most cost effective erection method. It is assumed that
the adjacent site is suitable for crane use. The cranes to be used will be influenced by weight and size
of the steel section. Due to the need to minimise closures, installation will be done as quick as
possible so the largest sections possible will be lifted at a time, with only minimal construction
activities once the bridge is in position. Permanent formwork is to be used as this provides a safe
working platform for deck slab completion.
4.3 Key Structural Members and Connections
4.3.1 Beam to Girder Connection
The cross beam to girder connection on the ladder deck consists of a bolted double angle
connection, the beam and girder depths are almost equal therefore the cross beam is coped on both
ends allowing the double angle to be used. The double angle connection will consist of two rows of
six M20 8.8 non-preloaded bolts with an angle depth of 680 mm; this will provide adequate capacity
in shear and bearing for the angle connection itself but also the bolts and the two connecting beam
and girder elements. The connection has been designed in accordance with Eurocode 3 Design of
Steel Structures, see appendix.
4.3.2 Cable Deck Connection
The cable deck connection uses an open socket with a turnbuckle attached to an end plate bolted on
top the main girder. The end plate will contain a fabricated hook which allows the open socket with a
turnbuckle to be used. The cable will reach the end plate through the parapet via channels already
cast into the parapet. See Drawings
4.3.3 Back-Stay Anchorage
The back stay cables will be anchored into the ground with the use of reinforced concrete ground
anchors cast into an L shaped pile which with its weight, the backfill weight and the skin friction
resistance the pile provides will give adequate resistance to the vertical and horizontal forces. See
appendix
4.3.4 Tower Design; Steel & Concrete Composite Design
The anchor cables as well as the cables connecting the deck to the tower induce a large maximum
36
G2 Engineering
2013
moment of 200kNm into the tower. Whilst this large moment must be resisted it is also essential
that the tower remains a slim and elegant structure. To ensure this a steel square hollow member
filled with high strength concrete of 70 MPa will be used. High Performance Concrete (HPC) can be
designed to improve properties for a given situation as normal is not sufficient. Most commonly a
HPC will address the compressive strength of concrete however the performance of properties such
as durability, workability and ductility are also be improved. Cementitous replacement materials
such as silica fume and fly ash are to be considered for usage due to the effect of increasing the
performance of the concrete in addition these replacement materials reduce the concretes impact
upon the environment.
4.4 Bridge Durability
The primary building material of steel which is being used in both schemes has a proven lifespan of
well over 100 years. Its fatigue life can be easily predicted and any problems are visible and
accessible. As well as this, most corrosion only affects the steel surface and does not compromise
structural integrity. Any corrosion that does occur can be countered easily with repainting. New
coating techniques can have a lifespan of over 30 years.
4.5 Maintenance Procedure
Table 4.2 shows the details of the expected maintenance procured for the recommended single
tower cable-stayed bridge design.
Component Life Span- Inspection
Maintenance Procedure.
Foundation
A small hole should be drilled

in the post of the foundation to
allow drainage; in essence this
creates grooves in the top of
the foundation. All of this
process can be carried out
during routine maintenance.
The foundation will need to be visible so that a

routine annual inspection can take place. If the
foundation is not visible and hidden then this can
accelerate corrosion damage.
Drainage problems can also occur; therefore this
has to be accounted for. Inspection for water
ponding in the foundations should happen.
37
G2 Engineering
Bearings
Deck
Ladder
Girder
Composite
Tower
Cables
Bearings will need a routine annual inspection with

replacement approximately every 20 years.
Inspection of the bearing can not only show
whether it is in good condition or not but it can also
reveal if it is able to resist the rotational and
translational movements of the structure as well as
settlement/distress or impact damage that has
occurred to the structure.
Aims of Inspection:
The existence of dirt or debris as well as
water ponding on or around the bearing
Visible cracks or distress to the adjacent
elements of the structure
Checking of the holding-down bolts are
loose or corroded
Presence of excessive shearing or bulging
Presence of splitting at intermediate plates
(Hewson, 2008).
The overall deck consist of three layers that are:
Deck- that is made of reinforced concrete
Beam- that is made of steel
Slab- that is made of concrete.
All these elements of the deck have to be annually
inspected.
Corrosion of steel can take place on the ladder

girder; therefore this has to be inspected for. The
bolts that connect the girder sections should be
checked if they are loose or corroded. Also the
connection to the bearing must be checked as well.
2013
Bearings should be designed in

such a way that they inspected,
maintained and replaced if
necessary. Access for
inspection must be available, in
order to make this possible.
The bearings should be
installed by being bolted to the
girders above and the
substructure below to allow
replacement.
There should be provision for
future replacement such as
space for jacking (Hewson,
2008).
Corrosion of steel in the

reinforced concrete can take
place. Any visible degradation
of concrete has to be checked
for. As the beams will be made
of steel this will not require
coatings although they should
still be inspected for any areas
of yielding or corrosion.
The provision of space is
needed for access to the
bolted up parts of the girder.
Annual Structural inspection is demanded on the

composite tower. Corrosion can result on steel part
of tower and any visible defects in the concrete
must be checked for.
The elevator shafts should be

looked at for how long it can
withstand wear and decay and
remain within serviceability
limits.
Checks need to be made on the load carrying

capacity of these main cables through nondestructive testing.
Every 15-20 years painting of metal enclosure.
Routine annual inspection should take place
regularly.
Protection should be made

around the cable from
moisture, temperature
variations, ultraviolet attack
and environmental corrosions.
38
G2 Engineering
Cable
Anchorage
A Routine annual inspection should take place

regularly. The anchorage should be inspected for
the following elements:
The water tightness at the end of the guide
pipes
The area of the drainage between guide and
transition pipes should be checked for the
build-up of water
The protection system for the corrosion of
the system should be inspected. The
soundness of the paint of the exposed
metal should be checked every 10 years
(Hewson, 2008).
2013
Water proofing system should

be provided at the connection
to the cable. Any defect in this
area must be repaired
immediately. Recoating of this
section should conform to the
coating of the rest of the
bridge (Chen, 2000).
Table 4.2 Expected Maintenance Procedure for Recommended Bridge Scheme Design.
4.5.1 Steel Stay Cables

Protection against corrosion The parallel strand cables adopted will be galvanised and surrounded
by a polyethylene pipe. The cables will be inspected to ensure the surrounding pipe is in good
condition. Cracks can be fixed using fibreglass tape. Cable casing should be rewrapped every 5 years.
Mitigation of rain-wind vibration rivulets which form on cables is the cause of cable vibration. To
mitigate this, it is recommended to use spiral indents on the surface of the cables which disrupt the
flow of water.
Inspection of cable vibration The Bridge will be equipped with a laser Doppler vibrometer. This is an
instrument that makes non-contact vibration measurements of the cables which can be used to
determine aging, reliability and need for maintenance.
Anchorage Maintenance The anchorage of cables should be inspected to ensure;
Water tightness.
Sufficient drainage. Anchorages are subjected to pooling water which needs to properly
drain to minimize water damage.
Effectiveness of corrosion protection. Painting of exposed metal should be carried out and
lubrication of nuts and bolts is needed.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_353.pdf
4.5.2 Damping Systems
Inspection of damping systems Inspected regularly to ensure good performance. The damping
systems should always be kept watertight. If damping systems are seriously damaged, the whole
system might need replacing.
4.5.3 Abutments
These should be checked for scour (removal of sediment around the abutment) and undercutting.
Settlements could occur which causes serious damage to the bridge, including tilting of bridge
elements and opening
39
G2 Engineering
2013
4.5.4 Bridge Bearings

Unusual events, such as traffic incidents, will be amplified in the bearings, so these should be
inspected after such events. The condition of the bearings should be noted, looking specifically for
bulging, splitting and flattering of the pads which would result in uneven load distribution.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/80926/47088870.pdf?sequence=1
4.5.5 Steel Material
Steel components need to be checked for corrosion, damaged members and fastenings, and work
associated with problems such as fatigue cracking. Recoating is needed when there is a breakdown
of paint or loss of galvanizing, normally due to water damage. Fastenings should be inspected and
replaced
if
the
quality
has
lowered,
normally
due
to
vibrations
or
corrosion.
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/bridge-inspection-maintenance-manual/docs/4-structuralsteel.pdf
4.5.6 Concrete Material
Concrete components need to be checked for creep, seepage, leakage, spalling, and efflorescence
amongst others. To do this, ultrasonic pulse velocity testing will be used to provide information on
uniformity of the concrete, cracks, cavities and any other defects. http://www.proceq.com/nondestructive-test-equipment/concrete-testing/ultrasonic-pulse-velocity.html
4.6 Bridge Lighting
An important part of the aesthetics of the recommended bridge design is how it is to be illuminated.
Lighting can create a more spectacular, iconic and monumental bridge which not only is impressive
in the day, but also at night. Three aspects of the bridge will be illuminated. The observation deck,
the bridge deck structure and the steel stay cables. The observation platform will be illuminated by
powerful white lights that are hidden from view situated next to the railway sidings adjacent to the
abutments. This will give a sense of a beacon when the light hits the glass of the platform, ensuring
the tower can be seen from miles around. The cables will be illuminated with LEDs running the
length of each cable. These LEDs can be different colours with the ability for stunning dynamic
effects and lightshows. This will not only add to the aesthetics of the design, but would also be a
factor which could increase tourism to the area. The deck will be illuminated from LEDs that run the
length of the span situated in the parapets. This will add to the aesthetics of the bridge at night, and
will also help illuminate the pedestrian walkway. Similarly to the LEDs of the cables, these have the
ability to be coloured and can add to any lightshows that could be introduced.
4.7 Aerodynamic Design and Testing Recommendation
The aeroelastic response of any bridge design is an important aspect of the steel bridge design that
needs to be investigated. The calculations shown in the appendix shows the cable-stayed bridges
response to the static loading that is expected on the bridge but is equally important to consider the
40
G2 Engineering
2013
bridges response to a dynamic action, in particular to wind. It has been stated in the brief that the
site for the bridge is predominantly flat, and this could contribute to moderate/high speed winds.
Slender flexible structures such as the cable-stayed bridge proposed are susceptible to the variable
loading from the wind which in certain cases generates a deformation response. These deformation
responses are born mainly due to the fluid-structure interaction of the wind and the bridge
particularly the deck structure which is the most flexible structural element. A wind sensitivity
analysis will need to be carried out on the over-all bridge design as well as the deck structure. A cost
effect method of carrying out a wind sensitivity analysis will involve the use of a win tunnel though a
more accurate but costly method would be to carry out large scale testing in ambient wind speed
conditions in the proposed site. It is suggested that wind tunnel modelling testing be carried out as
part of a wind sensitivity analysis to assess the design of the bridge to aeroelastic phenomena such
as vortex shedding on the steel tower and vortex shedding on the stay and back-stay cables and
most importantly the galloping flutter response of the deck structure design. The critical flutter
velocity should be identified from a section model of the deck structure and this should directly
influence the deck design. As it stands the deck is a ladder girder but that could change after a wind
analysis. Required aeroelastic studies;
Wind tunnel section model of deck structure to ensure high critical flutter velocity.
Full aeroelastic model of the cable stayed bridge with single tower, cable hangers and bridge
deck.
4.8 Abutment Stability Issue
Due to the nature of the recommended design the abutment to the side of the railway lines is
subject to a large compressive force near the face of the slope and embankment. With this in mind
the stability of the slope is questioned as slope failure could occur with this sizeable loading. To
counteract this issue bridge will be built 10m back from the abutment edge this is will reduce the
load on the slope and improve the stabilisation, in addition to this various methods will be used in
conjunction to further increase slope stability.
To further increase the slope stability the usage of vegetation (Birch Trees) and possibly chemical
treatment would add strength to the soil and increase the stability of the slope, vertical and
horizontal drains that allow water to flow out of the abutment at a much faster rate which in turn
increases the soils shear strength. Another consideration could be a retaining structure at the foot
of the abutment which would be of considerable size but with it used in conjunction with other
stabilisation techniques would provide adequate slope stability.
4.9 Glass Enclosed Walk-Way: Observation Deck
The observation deck is a distinctive and original aspect of the recommended bridge design. It will
allow people to access a platform 92.4m up the tower structure giving 360 degree views of the
bridge and surrounding area from a unique perspective. To access the observation deck, two lift
41
G2 Engineering
2013
shafts will be constructed attached to the tower structure. These are not structurally integral to the
bridge, however will offer some wind resistance to the main tower structure. The lift shafts as well
will be beneficial for maintenance, allowing access to the tower and the cable connections. The
observation deck itself will be constructed of high strength glass to maximise lines of sight. It is to be
illuminated at light, creating a beacon which will be seen from miles around, creating a stunning and
distinctive aesthetic, attracting visitors and tourists. There is the option to charge for the use of the
observation deck which will create a chance of payback which could cover maintenance costs and
other expenses. If the bridge is successful at being a tourist attraction, especially if the local area is
rejuvenated significantly, the bridge may pay for itself with this charge. There may have to be the
provision of parking but this could also be used to generate revenue from tourist paying a very small
fee to park their cars.
4.10 Lightning Strike Mitigation
Due to the height and steel material used in the cable stay tower, it is also important to consider the
potential of lightning strikes to the bridge. The bridge tower particularly could act as an electrical
conductor. This is particularly of concern as the recommended bridge design incorporates an
observation deck. A lighting strike could make this an unsafe for the public. To this effect it would be
prudent to have a lightning rod at the top of this 92.4 meter high tower that will be insulate and
ground the tower and the bridge into the earth. It should be ensured that the conductor wire from
the lighting rod to the ground be insulated for safety purposes. This would safely conduct and
electrical currents from lighting strike that may have hit the steel tower.
4.11 Future Modifications and Post Design of the Bridge
Throughout the design life of the bridge considerations may need to be made in expanding the
capacity and the volume of traffic that can cross the bridge. This is a major issue as the design life of
the recommended cable stay bridge is fifty years and above, in 1950 the numbers of licensed
vehicles was 4 million in 2010 that figure is 34 million in the space of sixty years the figure has
increased almost 9 fold (U.K Department of Transportation, 2011). With this increase in traffic, the
bridge may be required to be expanded to deal with the increased volume of traffic. Modifications
will to allow another deck will be required which may include moving the cables from their current
positions and increasing the number of cables and add another set of girders either side of the
current to deal with the extra lanes.
Once the bridge has reached the end of its design life the owner of the bridge at the time is
responsible for decommissioning the bridge. The decommissioning of the bridge should follow the
environmental aims of the project with the maximum amount of material recycled with focus on the
structural steel which currently 99% can be recycled. Provision should be made to for another
crossing point to replace the decommissioned one as this will be required to deal with the traffic
using the crossing point. Consideration to should be made for the use of the site of which the bridge
stood on, if the site is to be returned to the environment then impact and the evidence the bridge on
42
G2 Engineering
2013
the environment should be at minimal this includes a detailed site clean-up.

4.12 Bridge Bearings & Expansion Joint
To transfer the bridge loading from the deck structure to the foundations there is the use of
elastomeric bridge bearings. Figure 4.2 shows the recommended layout of these elastomeric pads.
There will be the provision of two elastomeric pads which a both multi directional and allow for
multidirectional movements of the bridge deck structure.
Figure 4.2 Plan Elevation View of Recommended Bridge Design Deck Structure Showing Elastomeric Bearing Pad Layout
and Provided Expansion Joints.(Not-to-scale, for Descriptive Purposes Only).
The expansion joints of the bridge will be located at the two end points of the deck structure of the
bridge as seen in Figure 4.2; these will accommodate for the thermal expansion of the bridge mass
which is calculated to be 1.2m with from the initial scheme design. The type of expansion joint used
will be a cantilever comb which can accommodate a movement of up to 600mm 300mm two of
these combined will accommodate the bridge expansion.
Figure 4.2 Details of Bridge Expansion Joint. Taken from ICE Manuel of Bridge Engineering.
The joint in more detail is a prefabricated joint where metal teeth plates move back and forth
between one another across a gap. The joint is bolted to the concrete deck and a drainage channel
will be installed below to transport water and chlorides from de-icing salts placed on the deck, this
will intern increase the durability of the joint and hence the surrounding structural components.
4.13 Concrete Back-Stay Cables Anchors
The concrete anchor is used to anchor the back stay cables of the tower structure into the ground,
the structures cross section is L-shaped and is designed in this way as it provides adequate
resistance to the vertical and horizontal components caused due to the tension in the back stay
43
G2 Engineering
2013
cables. The anchor was designed as a pile with the skin friction and toe resistance working in
conjunction with the back fill of the clay on top of the anchor will provide the adequate resistance.
There will be eight of these back anchors to correspond to the eight back stay cables in total, the
anchor dimensions are 10m x 10m x 7m with a thickness of 3m.
Figure 4.3 Individual L-Shaped Concrete Cable Anchors; To Be Embedded Beneath Backfill. (Not-to-scale, for Descriptive
Purposes Only).
4.14 Recommended Scheme Costing

Table 4.3 shows the expected cost of material, construction and labour of the Single tower cablestayed bridge (Recommended Scheme Design). This costing does not include the variable labour
costs and plant hire costs, this allows for a pure design costing to be made and analysed. The general
total design cost of the proposed single tower cable-stayed design is in the region of 10 Million and
is accumulated from the design details listed below as seen in the table. This is an expected increase
in cost from the developments made to Scheme Design B. This is mainly due to the inclusion of
labour costs and the particular redesign of single concrete anchor blocks to individual L-shaped
anchors.
Activity
Cost

anchorage blocks for cables if
required.
Concrete deck (non-steel)
[including formwork, reinforcing,
placing, curing etc]
Waterproofing, surfacing and
finishes
Railway Closures
Plate Girders
Rolled Sections
Bridge Details
Construction Work
650/m^3
4 anchorage
block, 2
concrete filled
towers
200/m^2
Concrete Deck
70/m2
2 towers, deck,
cables
4 possessions
250000 per
closure
1900/tonne
2000/tonne
Ladder Deck, 2
Towers
44
Calculated
Price
1,604,769
629,200
506,783
1,000,000
1,724,000
G2 Engineering
Fabricated box sections or stiffened

steel plate decks
Hollow sections
4200/tonne
3800/tonne
25/tonne
Cables
5/kN of
42 cables, 8
breaking load
back cables
per 100m
1/kN of
50 cables
maximum
breaking load
of cable per
end
For each
foundation:
12500 + 8
per kN
Labour
Labour Costs
3000 per day
280
Total
Table 4.3 Recomended Scheme Costing.
4.15 Client Recommended Scheme Conclusions
45
2013
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,435,138
1,353,000
N/A
840,000
10,092,890
G2 Engineering
5.0 Recommended Design Scheme Drawings

A1 Drawing 1 Plans, elevations and cross sections
A1 Drawing 2 Typical details
Poster a3 size
46
2013
G2 Engineering
2013
Appendices
Appendix 1
THE BRIEF DOCUMENT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
As part of an urban regeneration scheme, a new single carriageway road bridge is proposed across
an area of sidings and main railway lines. As the area around the railway is predominantly flat, the
bridge will be a major landmark, seen from all directions. The client is aware that modern highway
bridges in steelwork are not utilitarian in form, but can be designed as elegant, cost-effective
structures, enriching the local environment and acting as a visual statement. The client is seeking
such a structure, to be ranked alongside the very best steel structures in the UK.
1.2 APPOINTMENT AS CONSULTANT
You have been retained as a consultant to carry out a feasibility study for the new bridge, and to
report your findings to the client. Your brief is to prepare a report that is to have the following
scope:
a) Consideration of at least two distinct and viable structural arrangements for the bridge;
b) A clear recommendation to the client on which scheme should be selected, with reasons for your
choice;
c) A detailed structural design for the recommended scheme.
1.3 DETAILS OF THE PROJECT
a) Site Description
A plan of the site is shown in Figure 1 below.
The key feature of the site is the large number of railway lines that the bridge must cross. The
primary inter-city lines are approximately central to the crossing, with branch lines adjacent. In
addition to the branch lines, there are a number of sidings on both sides of the main lines. The
position of the lines shown in Figure 1 is fixed, so the structure must respect the restrictions
imposed by the railway lines. Construction zones are shown in Figure 1. Any permanent works must
be within these zones. The extent of the zones allows sufficient lateral clearance to the tracks. The
scope of the design is limited to the bridge structure and supports over the tracks; the abutments
and approach embankments at each end of the bridge are to be designed by others. A cross section
through the proposed bridge is shown in Figure 2. The superstructure must be a single deck. The two
traffic lanes cannot be separated to accommodate any central cables or other structure. If cables are
required, they must be located outside the cross-section shown.
47
G2 Engineering
2013
Figure 1 Site Plan
Figure 2 Cross-section of proposed bridge

b) General arrangement
A schematic elevation of the proposed bridge is shown in Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3, the
clearance above the main lines and branch lines must be 5.5 m. A reduced clearance of 4.5 m is
required over the sidings. Longitudinally, the bridge may be flat, or curved vertically.
48
G2 Engineering
2013
Figure 3 Longitudinal elevation of the proposed bridge

c) Construction constraints
Access to the construction site is from the South (see Figure 1) only. Access from both East and West
is readily available, and there is land available adjacent to the site for any storage or preassembly.
Although the sidings can be shut for periods of time, both the branch lines and the main lines must
generally remain in use. Clearly, these lines will have to be closed during certain periods to allow
construction of the new bridge directly over the railway. However, the railway authority is insistent
that both the number of closures (called possessions) and the duration of each closure are
minimised. It is critically important that method be carefully considered, and closures justified.
1.4 BASIS FOR THE DESIGN

a) Structural Behaviour
The primary bridge structure, including any pylons or towers, is to be of steel, which is to be
designed making efficient use of material in accordance with basic structural theory. If guidance is
required, reference may be made to the Eurocodes for bridge design (EN 1993-2 and EN 1994-2), or
the simplified version of the Eurocodes for student projects, which may be found at
http://discus.steel-sci.org
Checks for deflections, fatigue and dynamic response are not required.
b) Materials
i) Structural steel
The primary members of the proposed structure must be steel of the appropriate grade. Steel
elements are to be Advance rolled sections, Celsius hollow sections or sections fabricated from plate
(e.g. plate girders and box girders). The materials used should be chosen from the following:
BS EN 10025-2:Grade S275 or S355
49
G2 Engineering
2013
BS EN 10025-5:Grade S355
BS EN 10025-3:Grade S275, or S355
BS EN 10025-4:Grade S275, or S355
BS EN 10210:Grade S355
You will be expected to demonstrate an appreciation of theimplications of the mechanical
properties on the selection of steel grades in relation to strength, ductility, notch toughness (impact
strength) and weldability. In choosing an appropriate sub-grade, students are advised that the
minimum effective bridge temperature may be taken as 200C.
ii) Cables
If cables are used as structural members, the material strength of the wire in the cables should be
taken as 1600 N/mm2. Checks on cables at the Serviceability Limit State are not required.
iii) Foundations material
Foundations will be provided by others, and do not form part of the final design. However,
foundations can be expensive, and must be included in the estimated cost of the works. Costs of
foundations are indicated in Table 1 of this brief.
c) Loading
Permanent actions (dead loads and superimposed dead loads) should be determined from the sizes
of the structural members and their specific weights (see the simplified version of the Eurocodes for
student projects). The variable actions should be taken as Load Model 1, comprising a UDL over all of
the superstructure, plus a pair of axles, as described in Bridge Design to the Eurocodes Simplified
rules for use in student projects, available from the discussion site at http://discuss-steel-sci.org
If a concrete slab were to be used for the composite deck, a 250 mm slab would be typical, as is
shown in the simplified Eurocode document. Although shear lag can be ignored for the design of
steel deck plates, a maximum plate width of 28t either side of the web of the main girder should be
used, when the plate is in compression. Wind load need not be considered in detail, but
consideration must be given to any parts of the bridge, or stages of erection, that might become
sensitive to wind effects. Overall stability effects should be checked under a nominal wind load of 2
kN/m2 applied over the projected surface area in elevation, with no other variable action on the
bridge. The accommodation of temperature effects and articulation of bearings should be described,
and the submission should explain how all the forces are carried to the foundations. This description
should be a properly resolved system of forces, not merely an abstract flow diagram. Partial safety
factors on actions can be taken from the simplified version of the Eurocodes for student projects,
available from http://discus.steel-sci.org Prestressing actions in cables (which would normally be
necessary to ensure the intended geometry under permanent actions) may be neglected.
d) Substructures
50
G2 Engineering
2013
For outline design of the bridge substructure (e.g. piers and foundations) and for estimating the cost
of the proposals, the following should be assumed. However, note that major supporting structures
(e.g. pylons and arch elements) should be considered as part of the superstructure and thus require
design.
i) Piers:
Steel piers should be designed as simple compression members. Concrete piers should have at least
100 mm2 of concrete provided for every 1 kN of ULS vertical reaction that is to be supported.
ii) Foundations:
A detailed design is not required for any foundations, but outline interface details and loads should
be indicated on the drawings.
iii) The height width ratio:

The ratio of the height of the pier to the smaller cross sectional dimension should not exceed 16 for
steel piers or 12 for concrete piers, unless a detailed analysis is presented to show that more slender
piers could be used.
iv) Movement:
The effects of settlement may be neglected when considering the bridge and its foundations.
e) Other design requirements

The bearing system at the bridge support points should be selected and explained in words and
sketches but need not be designed in detail. Deck details at the end of the bridge and any
intermediate joints, accommodating anticipated movements, should be shown. Annotated sketches
will be satisfactory. Durability issues of the structure (i.e. corrosion protection, numbers of joints,
bearing replacement) should be considered and explained in the submission. A detailed design of
the bridge substructure, beyond that provided under d)
above, is not necessary.
1.5 CONSTRUCTION TIME RATES AND COSTS
The construction time for the proposed design should be considered in terms of the construction
time rates detailed in Table 1. It should be assumed that the activities listed in Table 1 cannot be
overlapped. Both steel erection and the concreting of a composite deck in situ directly over the main
lines and branch lines require closures of the railway. It can be assumed that no other operations
require the railway to be closed. Note that if a composite deck is to be concreted in situ, it may be
assumed that the area over the main lines and branch lines can be concreted in one 32 hour closure.
Construction costs for the various items involved in the building and erection of the bridge are also
detailed in Table 1. It should be noted that the costs given are notional values, selected for the
51
G2 Engineering
2013
purpose of this exercise. There are also overhead costs involved in staffing and running the site; fast
construction times will clearly minimise these. A nominal overhead cost of 3,000 per day must be
added to the calculated construction costs.
52
G2 Engineering
Appendix 2
CIVE 5707M: Integrated Design Project
53
2013
G2 Engineering
2013
Appendix 3
Recommended Scheme Risk Assessment
ACTIVITY ASSESSED
ASSESSMENT DATE
ASSESSED BY
Cable Stay Bridge Construction
4/11/2013
Group 2 IDP
NEXT ASSESSMENT
ASSESSED BY
ACTIVITY LOCATION
BEFORE
Group 2 IDP
N/A
Whos
HAZARD
at
Likelihood
Severi
Risk
ty
Product
(1-3)
(/6)
PRECAUTIONS
(1-3)
risk?
Safety helmets, safety barriers, edges clearly

1. Working at
height
2. Falling objects
due to gangs
working at
height
3. Concrete
Hazards and
skin damage
(dermatitis)
4. Tripping
Hazards
marked, appropriate climbing equipment used

when required.
Crash mats and safety nets erected around the

building to catch falling equipment
Skin protection set about by the health and

safety guidelines
Clearance of excess materials on the site
Goggles and other appropriate PPE should be

5. Airborne
Particles
6. Injury from
power tool
misuse
warn
Correct training for individuals using the power

tools
Crane lifting zones to prevent workers being

7. Falling objects
from prefabricated
segments
below while the crane is in operation and with

a certified crane operator and gangman to
direct the material being lifted into place
54
G2 Engineering
2013
Weather checks to with wind speeds to be with

guidelines stated by the Eurcodes, the use of
8. Welding
trained operatives and the use of bolted
connections instead.
9. Falling into
foundations
10. Workers and

objects on train
lines
Adequate safety nets, signs and barriers to

protect workers
Safety nets and barriers provided over the train
lines to prevent workers and object on the train
lines.
Adequate signs notifying the dangers of the
11. Train lines

electric cables
lines, crane lifts avoid crossing them and reduce

crossing them a minimum.
Construction phase loads and worst case
12. Instability of
permanent
structure during
construction
13. Instability of
temporary
works
scenarios will be calculated for using finite

element model analysis in conjunction with
navisworks.
Temporary works will be chosen and used in
conjunction with Eurocodes and past case
studies to find the accurate sizings.
All plant equipment will have designated
14. Plant
Equipment and
its interaction
with workers
operation zones which include lifting equipment

where the plant can operate and interaction
with the surroundings workers is at a minimum.
55
G2 Engineering
2013
Appendix 4
Detailed Design Calculations
Appendix 4b, i (Cable Sizes)
Deck
(m)
Tower
(m)
Tensile
Cable
Horizontal
Angle
Force
diameter
component of tensile
(Radians)
(kN)
(mm)
forces kN
15.00
4.40
0.29
8915.30
103.16
8554.84
25.50
8.80
0.33
7692.44
95.82
7271.61
36.00
13.20
0.35
7289.43
93.28
6843.87
46.50
17.60
0.36
7089.01
91.99
6630.00
57.00
22.00
0.37
6969.15
91.21
6501.68
67.50
26.40
0.37
6889.41
90.68
6416.13
78.00
30.80
0.38
6832.53
90.31
6355.02
88.50
35.20
0.38
6789.93
90.03
6309.20
99.00
39.60
0.38
6756.82
89.81
6273.55
109.50
44.00
0.38
6730.35
89.63
6245.03
120.00
48.40
0.38
6708.71
89.49
6221.70
130.50
52.80
0.38
6690.68
89.37
6202.26
141.00
57.20
0.39
6675.43
89.26
6185.81
151.50
61.60
0.39
6662.37
89.18
6171.71
162.00
66.00
0.39
6651.05
89.10
6159.49
172.50
70.40
0.39
6641.15
89.04
6148.79
183.00
74.80
0.39
6632.41
88.98
6139.36
193.50
79.20
0.39
6624.65
88.92
6130.97
204.00
83.60
0.39
6617.70
88.88
6123.47
56
G2 Engineering
2013
214.50
88.00
0.39
6611.46
88.84
6116.71
225.00
92.40
0.39
6605.80
88.80
6110.60
Appendix 4b, ii (Moment Diagram)

250000
200000
150000
Moment Nm
100000
50000
0
-50000 0
20
40
60
80
-100000
-150000
-200000
-250000
Length on tower (m)
57
100
G2 Engineering
Appendix 5
Recommended Scheme Costing
58
2013
G2 Engineering
2013
Appendix 6:
Cable-Stayed Construction Time Frame
59
G2 Engineering
2013
Arch Construction Time Frame
60
G2 Engineering
2013
Appendix 7 :
Project Implementation Plan (PIP), Initial PIP.
61
G2 Engineering
2013
Final PIP.
62
G2 Engineering
Design Team Meeting Minutes
63
2013
G2 Engineering
2013
References
NEW CIVIL ENGINEER. (2011). Cable-stay revolution: Experts debate viability of long span cablestayed bridges [Online]. [Accessed 10 October 2013]. Available from http://www.nce.co.uk/
Lake Champlain Arch Bridge, USA - DYWIDAG-Systems International. (2013). Lake Champlain Arch
Bridge, USA - DYWIDAG-Systems International. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.dywidagsystems.com [Accessed 10 December 2013].
Corus Construction & Industrial. (2005). Corrosion protection of steel bridges. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://resource.npl.co.uk/ [Accessed 10 December 2013].
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Corrosion Protection of
Steel Bridges. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ [Accessed 10 December 2013].
U.K Department of Transportation. 2011. Transport Statistics Great. [ONLINE] Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/ [Accessed 10 December 2013].
Chen, S.-G. 2000. Maintenance of Cable Stayed Bridges. [Online]. [Accessed 10/12/2013]. Available
from: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/80926/47088870.pdf?sequence=1.
Hewson, G.P.a.N. 2008. ICE manual of bridge engineering Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay,
London, E14 4JD, UK.: Institution of Civil Engineers.
64

G2 Steel Bridge Proposal 2.2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G2 Steel Bridge Proposal 2.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G2 Engineering

Steel Bridge Proposal

Steel Bridge Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

School of Civil Engineering

G2 Engineering Design Team:

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

4.0 Final/Client Recommended Scheme ...................................................................................... 32

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

4.11 Future Modifications and Post Design of the Bridge ................................................................ 42

Steel Bridge Proposal

1.0 Introductory Statement

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

2.0 Initial Design Scheme Stage

General Construction and lifecycle Costs

Durability & Environmental Factors

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Figure 2.4 Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1996.

2.2 Selection of Bridge Design Direction of Schemes

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

2.3.4 General Construction Procedure (Design Scheme A)

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

The construction procedure stated above is expected to involve be approximately 6 possessions. A

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Concrete deck (non-steel) [including

Arch structure, deck,

Erected Fabricated Steelwork in Grade S255

Fabricated box sections or stiffened

Foundations for piers

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Table 2.1 Initial Scheme Costing (Scheme Design A).

2.4 Design Scheme B (Steel Cable-Stay Single Tower Bridge Design)

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

2.4.2 Innovative Design Feature: Observation Deck (Scheme B)

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

2.4.4 General Construction Procedure (Design Scheme B)

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

Concrete deck (non-steel)

placing, curing etc]

250,000 per closure

Erected Fabricated Steelwork in Grade S255

load per 100m

Foundations for piers

Steel Bridge Design Proposal

For each foundation: 12500 +

Table 2.2 Initial Scheme Costing (Scheme Design B).

2.5 Initial Scheme Construction Time Frame (Scheme A & B)

2.6 Environmental Analysis (Scheme A & B)