Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guidebook-2 Design of Bridges PDF
Guidebook-2 Design of Bridges PDF
DESIGN of BRIDGES
Pietro Croce et al.
Guidebook 2
DESIGN of BRIDGES
Pietro Croce et al.
Editor:
Pietro Croce, University of Pisa, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division
Authors:
Pietro Croce, University of Pisa, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Division
Milan Holick, Czech Technical University in Prague, Klokner Institute
Jana Markov, Czech Technical University in Prague, Klokner Institute
Angel Arteaga, E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC, Madrid
Ana de Diego, E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC, Madrid
Peter Tanner, E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC, Madrid
Carlos Lara, E. Torroja Institute of Construction Sciences, CSIC, Madrid
Dimitris Diamantidis, University of Applied Sciences in Regensburg, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Ton Vrouwenvelder, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Delft
Guidebook 2
Design of B ridges
ISBN: 978-80-01-04617-3
E dite d by : Piet ro Cro c e, Universit y of Pis a
Publishe d by : Cz e ch Te chnic a l Universit y in Prague, K lok ner Inst itute
olnova 7, 166 08 Prague 6, Cz e ch R epublic
Pages: 230
1 st e dit ion
Foreword
FOREWORD
The Leonardo da Vinci Project CZ/08/LLP-LdV/TOI/134020 Transfer of Innovations
Provided in Eurocodes, addresses the urgent need to implement the new system of European
documents related to design and construction work and products.
These documents, called Eurocodes, are systematically based on the recently
developed Council Directive 89/106/EEC The Construction Product Directive and its
Interpretative Documents ID 1 and ID 2. Implementation of Eurocodes in each Member State
is a demanding task as each country has its own long-term tradition in design and
construction.
The project should enable an effective implementation and application of the new
methods for designing and verification of buildings and civil engineering works in all the
partner countries (CZ, DE, ES, IT, NL) and in other Member States.
The need to explain and effectively use the latest principles specified in Eurocodes
standards is apparent from enterprises, undertakings and public national authorities involved
in construction industry and also from university and colleges. Training materials, manuals
and software programmes for education are urgently required.
The submitted Guidebook 2 completes the set of two guidebooks intended to provide
required manuals and software products for training, education and effective implementation
of Eurocodes:
Guidebook 1: Load Effects on Buildings
Guidebook 2: Design of bridges.
It is expected that the Guidebooks will address the following intents in further
harmonization o f European construction industry:
-
Annex A to Guidebook 2 concerns new traffic trends in European countries and their
consequences on load models and on assessment of existing bridges; Annex B provides basic
information about action and combination rules for special structures, like cranes, masts,
towers and pipelines.
Foreword
Pisa 2010
Contents
CONTENTS
Foreword
Contents
15
27
33
63
79
99
105
119
134
147
165
191
209
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
221
Contents
Summary
The Eurocode system establishes a series of basic requirements that must be met by all
structures to ensure their suitability for their intended use and durability. Those requirements,
based on European Commission Directives and other construction standards in place, are
reviewed and explained in Chapter 1 of Guidebook 1. This first chapter of Guidebook 2
describes the specific requirements applicable to bridges.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background documents
All the essential requirements to be met by any construction work, bridges included,
are laid down in Eurocode EN 1990 [1]. The serviceability limits specifically applicable to
bridges, in which user safety and comfort are the prime concerns, are set out in EN 1990/A1
(EN 1990 Annex 2) [2]. That standard also specifies the combinations of actions to be
considered when verifying ultimate and serviceability limit states in bridges.
1.2
General principles
Chapter 1 of Guidebook 1 on buildings [3] provides a detailed account of the
requirements that, pursuant to the Construction Products Directive (CPD) [4], must be met by
construction products for their free circulation on the European construction products market.
The provisions of the CPD are applicable not only to buildings, but to construction
works in general. The definition of construction works contained in Interpretative document
No 1: Mechanical resistance and stability [5], expressly includes bridges. Hence, the entire
content of that Chapter 1 is relevant to bridges. Readers who wish to consult the general
requirements for bridges are referred to the aforementioned chapter of Guidebook 1: the
present chapter of Guidebook 2 is limited to questions exclusively pertinent to bridges.
In its Annex I [4], the CPD lists six essential requirements that must be met by all
construction products and works, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Of these, only the first two are generally related to structural behaviour and
consequently only they are covered by structural Eurocodes.
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
2.1
General
The scope of EN 1990 Annex A2 [2] and EN 1991 Part 2 [6 ] covers road, rail and
foot bridges. By contrast, certain special kinds of bridges, such as moveable bridges,
aqueducts and combination road and railway bridges are excluded.
EN 1990 Annex A2 [2] also lists criteria for the combination of actions to be applied
to verify ultimate limit states (ULS), serviceability limit states (SLS), partial factors ( values)
and combination coefficients ( values). These issues are addressed in detail in Chapter 6
hereunder.
Annex A2 also lays down procedures and methods for verifying SLS when such limit
states are not related to the structural materials.
2.2
is required to prevent EQU failure. In such cases, the possible position and values of selfweight and loads at different construction times must be taken into consideration, in the full
understanding that the values of characteristic actions, partial factors and combination
coefficients may differ from the permanent situation values. In this phase, the weight of
concrete cast on decks, for instance, is regarded to be not a permanent action as in the finished
structure, but a variable action. As a result, the -factor applicable will be Q equal to 1.5
rather than G equal to 1.35.
The values of these parameters applicable to transient situations are given in Eurocode
EN 1991-1-6: Actions during execution [7].
SERVICEABILITY REQUIREMENTS
3.1
General
As specified in [3], most serviceability criteria defined in terms of structural materials
are equally applicable to bridges and buildings.
Variable actions Qd
Leading
Others
Qk,1
0,i Qk,i
Frequent
Gkj,sup
Gkj,inf
1,1 Qk,1
2,i Qk,i
Quasi-permanent
Gkj,sup
Gkj,inf
2,1 Qk,1
2,i Qk,i
Generally speaking, EN 1990 [1] recommends the use of characteristic and frequent
combinations for irreversible and reversible SLS, respectively, and the quasi-permanent
combination for long-term effects and structural aesthetics. Certain specific SLS for road
bridges address durability or user comfort and safety.
Damage to structural load bearings before the end of their design working life must be
prevented by limiting the amplitude of deck vibration over the supports. Another solution is to
adopt for these elements, if replaceable, a shorter service life than for other members: 15-25
years, instead of the 100 years normally established for bridges.
There are SLS directly related to user comfort and safety, such as uplift of the deck in
the supports (and, which would be, as noted, also cause damage to the bearings). Since these
limit states are related to human safety may be demanding higher safety levels than other
SLS.
Wind- or traffic-induced deck vibrations may also have to be limited to ensure user
comfort.
3.3
10
Some of the above phenomena also affect passenger comfort due to excessive vertical
or horizontal acceleration.
To determine the effect of the actions on the bridge could be necessary to perform a
dynamic analysis, the EN 1991-2 [6] gives the conditions when this analysis is needed. In
general is needed in bridges serving lines with Maximum Line Speed in site bigger than 200
km/h, with no simple structure, spanning more than 40 m and with first natural torsional
frequency more than 1,2 times the first natural bending frequency. That document indicates
also the way to perform a dynamic analysis, but this is out of the scope of this Guidebook.
If this dynamic analysis is not needed, static load effects are enhanced by a dynamic
factor . This factor assume the value 2 or 3 depending on the track conditions, it results
1,44
2 =
+ 0.82
1.00 2 1.67
(1)
L 0.2
for carefully maintained track and
2,16
3 =
+ 0.73
1.00 3 2.0,
(2)
L 0.2
being L the determinant length (length associated with), which is given in EN 1991-2 [6]
paragraph 6.4.5.3 depending on kind and dimensions of the elements.
EN 1991/A1 [2] gives the criteria regarding the traffic safety limiting vertical
acceleration in deck, deck twist and vertical deformation of the deck:
- Vertical acceleration in deck: acceleration is limited to prevent track instability and
thereby ensure traffic safety. The maximum design values specified for frequencies of
11
up to 3.5 Hz or 1.5 times the frequency of the fundamental mode of vibration of the
member considered are 3.5 m/s2 in ballasted track or 5 m/s2 for decks in which the
elements supporting the track are secured directly.
- Deck twist: maximum track twist must be limited. For tracks with gauge s [m] of 1.435
m, t [mm/3m] measured over a length of 3 m (see figure 2) should not exceed the values
given in Table 2.
One of the first things a designer must know when designing a structure is its
projected working life. The indicative design working life categories listed in Eurocode EN
1990 [2] and given in Table 4 below may be modified in the national annexes.
In bridges, as noted earlier, not all members need be designed to the same working
life: some of them, which are more or less readily replaceable, like bearings, may be classified
under category 2 and designed for shorter working lives than the main members.
In Table 4 bridges are included under category 5, with a design working life of 100
years. These values are indicative only, and in each specific case subject to an agreement
between the owner (usually the authorities) and the designer, in which bridge characteristics
play a significant role: traffic density, accessibility, existence of alternative routes and so on.
For instance, for a bridge in a main road the 100 years design working life appears adequate,
but for a minor bridge serving an area with little traffic with alternative paths a 25 or 50 years
would be more adequate design working life.
12
DURABILITY
Durability is a major issue in bridges. They normally have a fairly long design
working life (100 years) and are directly exposed to environmental conditions, for they have
not protective superstructure. Furthermore, in cold climates de-icing salts, which cause
aggressive corrosion in steel, are frequently strewn over bridges. In any event, the presence of
water always intensifies durability problems in any material.
The requirements for long durability can be summarised as follows:
- appropriate choice of materials, in keeping with the environmental conditions
- careful design from the standpoint of durability: speedy evacuation of rainwater, for
instance
- quality control measures
- inspection and maintenance programme tailored to the prevailing conditions.
REFERENCES
[3] Milan Holick et al., Guidebook1: Load Effects on Buildings. Leonardo da Vinci Project,
CTU, Klokner Institute, Prague, 2009
[4] Construction Products Directive (Council Directive 89/106/EEC). European
Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General, 2003
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/internal/cpd/cpd.htm
[5] Interpretative document No. 1: Mechanical resistance and stability. European
Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General, 2004
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/internal/intdoc/idoc1.htm
[6] EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[7] EN 1991-1-6 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 6: Actions during execution.
CEN, Brussels, 2003.
[8] EN 1991-1-7 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 7: Accidental actions. CEN,
Brussels, 2006.
14
Summary
Uncertainties affecting structural performance can never be entirely eliminated and
must be taken into account when designing any construction work. Various design methods
and operational techniques for verification of structural reliability have been developed and
worldwide accepted in the past. The most advanced operational method of partial factors is
based on probabilistic concepts of structural reliability and risk assessment. General principles
of structural reliability and risk assessment can be used to specify and further calibrate partial
factors and other reliability elements. Moreover, developed calculation procedures and
convenient software products can be used directly for verification of structural reliability
using probabilistic concepts and available experimental data.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background materials
Basic concepts of structural reliability are codified in a number of national standards,
in the new European document EN 1990 [1] and the International Standard ISO 2394 [2].
Additional information may be found in the background document developed by JCSS [3]
and in recently published handbook to EN 1990 [4]. Guidance for application of probabilistic
methods of structural reliability may be found in working materials provided by JCSS [5] and
in relevant literature listed in [4] and [5].
1.2
General principles
General principles of structural reliability are described in both the international
documents EN 1990 [1] and ISO 2394 [2]. Basic requirements on structures are specified in
Section 2 of EN 1990 [2]: a structure shall be designed and executed in such a way that it will,
during its intended life, with appropriate degrees of reliability and in an economic way
- sustain all actions and influences likely to occur during execution and use;
- remain fit for the use for which it is required.
It should be noted that two aspects are explicitly mentioned: reliability and economy
(see also Guidebook 1 [6]). However, this Guidebook shall be primarily concerned with
reliability of bridge structures, which include
- structural resistance;
- serviceability;
- durability.
15
UNCERTAINTIES
2.1
Classification of uncertainties
It is well recognised that construction works including bridges are complicated
technical systems suffering from a number of significant uncertainties in all stages of
execution and use. Depending on the nature of a structure, environmental conditions and
applied actions, various types of uncertainties become more significant than the others. The
following types of uncertainties can be identified in general:
- natural randomness of actions, material properties and geometric data;
- statistical uncertainties due to a limited size of available data;
- uncertainties of the resistance and load effect models due to simplifications of actual
conditions;
- vagueness due to inaccurate definitions of performance requirements;
- gross errors in design, during execution and use;
- lack of knowledge concerning behaviour of new materials and actions in actual
conditions.
The order of the listed uncertainties corresponds approximately to the decreasing level
of current knowledge and available theoretical tools for their description and consideration in
design (see following sections). It should be emphasized that most of the above listed
uncertainties (randomness, statistical and model uncertainties) can never be eliminated
absolutely and must be taken into account when designing any construction work.
2.2
16
RELIABILITY
3.1
General
The term "reliability" is often used very vaguely and deserves some clarification.
Often the concept of reliability is conceived in an absolute (black and white) way the
structure either is or isnt reliable. In accordance with this approach the positive statement is
understood in the sense that a failure of the structure will never occur. This interpretation is
unfortunately an oversimplification. Although it may be unpleasant and for many people
perhaps unacceptable, the hypothetical area of absolute reliability for most structures (apart
from exceptional cases) simply does not exist. Generally speaking, any structure may fail
(although with a small or negligible probability) even when it is declared as reliable.
The interpretation of the complementary (negative) statement is usually understood
more correctly: failures are accepted as a part of the real world and the probability or
frequency of their occurrence is then discussed. In fact in the design it is necessary to admit a
certain small probability that a failure may occur within the intended life of the structure.
Otherwise designing of civil structures would not be possible at all. What is then the correct
interpretation of the keyword reliability and what sense does the generally used statement
the structure is reliable or safe have?
Several bridge failures have been occurred in the past. Frequent causes of bridge
failures are floods, collisions and fatigue problems. Figure 1 shows the failure of the bridge
over the Mississippi River in central Minneapolis, which collapsed in 2007. The bridge had an
age of 40 years, not many compared to the 100 years desired lifetime of bridge. Therefore the
reliability of a bridge should be focussed through all phases i.e. design, construction,
operation, maintenance and upgrading.
Under this basic consideration it appears even more important to implement reliability
concepts from the very initial design stage and consequently to use modern reliability based
design elements. Therefore a scientific definition of reliability and an associated derivation of
the reliability based design elements are necessary. Such steps have been implemented in the
Eurocodes and are explained and illustrated next.
3.2
Definition of reliability
A number of definitions of the term reliability are used in literature and in national
and international documents. ISO 2394 [2] provides a definition of reliability, which is similar
to the approach of national standards used in some European countries: reliability is the
ability of a structure to comply with given requirements under specified conditions during the
intended life, for which it was designed. In quantitative sense reliability may be defined as the
complement of the probability of failure.
17
18
probability of failure Pf (and reliability index ) are indicated with regard to failure
consequences (see Guidebook 1 [6]).
3.3
Probability of failure
The most important term used above (and in the theory of structural reliability) is
evidently the probability of failure Pf. In order to defined Pf properly it is assumed that
structural behaviour may be described by a set of basic variables X = [X1, X2, ... , Xn]
characterizing actions, mechanical properties, geometrical data and model uncertainties.
Furthermore it is assumed that the limit state (ultimate, serviceability, durability or fatigue) of
a structure is defined by the limit state function (or the performance function), usually written
in an implicit form as
Z(X) = 0
(1)
The limit state function Z(X) should be defined in such a way that for a favourable (safe) state
of a structure the function is positive, Z(X) 0, and for a unfavourable state (failure) of the
structure the limit state function is negative, Z(X) < 0 (a more detailed explanation is given in
the following Chapters of this Guidebook 2).
For most limit states (ultimate, serviceability, durability and fatigue) the probability of
failure can be expressed as
Pf = P{Z(X) < 0}
(2)
The failure probability Pf can be assessed if basic variables X = [X1, X2, ... , Xn] are
described by appropriate probabilistic (numerical or analytical) models. Assuming that the
basic variables X = [X1, X2, ... , Xn] are described by time independent joint probability density
function X(x) then the probability Pf can be determined using the integral
Pf =
X ( x )dx
(3)
Z( X ) < 0
More complicated procedures need to be used when some of the basic variables are
time-dependent. Some details concerning theoretical models for time-dependent quantities
(mainly actions) and their use for the structural reliability analysis are given in other Chapters
of this Guidebook 2. However, in many cases the problem may be transformed to a timeindependent one, for example by considering in equation (2) or (3) a minimum of the function
Z(X) over the reference period T.
Note that a number of different methods [2] and software products [8, 9, 11] are
available to calculate failure probability Pf defined by equation (2) or (3).
3.4
Reliability index
An equivalent term to the failure probability is the reliability index , formally defined
as a negative value of a standardized normal variable corresponding to the probability of
failure Pf. Thus, the following relationship may be considered as a definition
= U1 ( Pf )
(4)
Here u1 ( p f ) denotes the inverse standardised normal distribution function. At present the
reliability index defined by equation (4) is a commonly used measure of structural
reliability in several international documents [1], [2], [5].
It should be emphasized that the failure probability Pf and the reliability index
represent fully equivalent reliability measures with one to one mutual correspondence given
by equation (4) and numerically illustrated in Table 1.
19
In EN 1990 [1] and ISO 2394 [2] the basic recommendation concerning required
reliability level is often formulated in terms of the reliability index related to a certain
design working life.
Table 1. Relationship between the failure probability Pf and the reliability index .
Pf
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
1.3
2.3
3.1
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.2
3.5
RELIABILITY TARGETS
4.1
Reliability classes
Design failure probabilities pd are usually indicated in relation to the expected social
and economical consequences in order to reflect the aforementioned risk acceptance criteria.
Table 2 shows classification of target reliability levels provided in EN 1990 [1]. Reliability
indexes are given for two reference periods T (1 year and 50 years) only, without any
explicit link to the design working life Td. The values are based on calibration and
optimization and reflect results from several studies. It is noted that similar -values as in
Table 1 are given in other national and international guidelines (see for example [2], [3]).
It should be underlined that a couple of values (a and d) specified in Table 2 for
each reliability class (for 1 year and 50 years) corresponds to the same reliability level.
Practical application of these values depends on the time period Ta considered in the
verification, which may be connected with available statistical information concerning time
variant actions (wind, earthquake, etc.) and the related vector of basic variables X = X1, X2, ...,
Xn.
By considering for example a 50 years design working period then the reliability index
d = 4.3 should be used in the verification of structural reliability. The same reliability level
corresponding to class 3 is achieved when the time period Ta = 1 year and a = 5.2 is used,
again in case of limit states dominated by time varying actions. If the working life is 100
years as it usual for bridges then in case of time dependent actions the lifetime target
reliability index (i.e. for T= 100years) can be obtained from the formulae discussed in 3.3 of
Guidebook 1 [6] and results approximately as d = 4,1 (for T = 100 years)
20
Medium
4.7
3.8
RC1 low
Low
4.2
3.3
5.1
General
During their historical development the design methods have been closely linked to
the available empirical, experimental as well as theoretical knowledge of mechanics and the
theory of probability. The development of various empirical methods for structural design
gradually crystallized in the twentieth century in three generally used methods, which are, in
various modifications, still applied in standards for structural design until today: the
permissible stresses method, the global factor and partial factor methods. All these methods
are often discussed and sometimes reviewed or updated.
The following short review of historical development illustrates general formats of
above mentioned design methods and indicates relevant measures that are applied to take into
account various uncertainties of basic variables and to control resulting structural reliability.
In addition a short description of probabilistic methods of structural reliability and their role
21
Permissible stresses
The first of the worldwide-accepted design methods for structural design is the method
of permissible stresses that is based on linear elasticity theory. The basic design condition of
this method can be written in the form
(6)
The coefficient k (greater than 1) is the only explicit measure supposed to take into account all
types of uncertainties (some implicit measures may be hidden). Moreover, only a local effect
(a stress) max is compared with the permissible stress per and, therefore, a local (elastic)
behaviour of a structure is used to guarantee its reliability. No proper way is provided for
treating geometric non-linearity, stress distribution and ductility of structural materials and
members. For that reasons the permissible stress method leads usually to conservative and
uneconomical design.
However, the main insufficiency of the permissible stress method is lack of possibility
to consider uncertainties of individual basic variables and computational models used to
assess load effects and structural resistances. Consequently, reliability level of structures
exposed to different actions and made of different material may be not only conservative
(uneconomical) but also considerably different.
5.3
(7)
Thus the calculated safety factor must be greater than its specified value s0 (for
example s0=1,9 is commonly required for bending resistance of reinforced concrete
members). The global safety factor method attempts to take into account realistic assumptions
concerning structural behaviour of members and their cross-sections, geometric non-linearity,
stress distribution and ductility; in particular through the resulting quantities of structural
resistance R and action effect E.
However, as in the case of the permissible stresses method the main insufficiency of
this method remains a lack of possibility to consider the uncertainties of particular basic
quantities and theoretical models. The probability of failure can, again, be controlled by one
explicit quantity only, by the global safety factor s. Obviously, harmonisation of reliability
degree of different structural members made of different materials is limited.
5.4
(8)
where the design values of action effect Ed and structural resistance Rd are assessed
considering the design values of basic variables describing the actions Fd = F Fk, material
22
Probabilistic methods
The probabilistic design methods introduced in the International Standard [2] are
based on a requirement that during the service life of a structure T the probability of failure Pf
does not exceed the design value pd or the reliability index is greater than its design value d
Pf Pd or > d
(9)
In EN 1990 [1] the basic recommended reliability index for ultimate limit states
d = 3.8 corresponds to the design failure probability Pd = 7.2 10-5, for serviceability limit
states d = 1.5 corresponds to Pd = 6.7 10-2. These values are related to the design working
life of 50 years that is considered for building structures and common structures. In general
greater - values should be used when a short reference period (one or five years) will be
used for verification of structural reliability.
It should be mentioned that probabilistic methods are not yet commonly used in
design praxis. However, the developed calculation procedures and software products (for
example [8, 9] and [11]) already enable the direct verification of structural reliability using
probabilistic concepts and available experimental data. Recently developed software product
CalCode [11] is primarily intended for calibration of codes based on the partial factor method.
5.6
Risk assessment
The risk assessment of a system consists of the use of all available information to
estimate the risk to individuals or populations, property or the environment, from identified
hazards. The risk assessment further includes risk evaluation (acceptance or treatment). The
whole procedure of risk assessment is typically an iterative process as indicated in Figure 2.
The first step in the risk analysis involves the context (scope) definition related to the system
and the subsequent identification of hazards.
The system is understood as a bounded group of interrelated, interdependent or
interacting elements forming an entity that achieves in its environment a defined objective
through the interaction of its parts. In the case of technological hazards related to civil
engineering works, a system is normally formed from a physical subsystem, a human
subsystem, their management, and the environment. Note that the risk analysis of civil
engineering systems (similar to the analysis of most systems) usually involves several
interdependent components (for example human life, injuries, and economic loss).
Any technical system may be exposed to a multitude of possible hazard situations. In
the case of civil engineering facilities, hazard situations may include both environmental
effects (wind, temperature, snow, avalanches, rock falls, ground effects, water and ground
23
water, chemical or physical attacks, etc.) and human activities (usage, chemical or physical
attacks, fire, explosion, etc.). As a rule, hazard situations due to human errors are more
significant than hazards due to environmental effects.
S tart
Probability analysis
Risk assessment
Risk analysis
No
R is k tre a tm e nt
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The basic concepts of the probabilistic theory of structural reliability are characterized
by two equivalent terms, the probability of failure Pf and the reliability index . Although
they provide limited information on the actual frequency of failures, they remain the most
important and commonly used measures of structural reliability. Using these measures the
theory of structural reliability may be effectively applied for further harmonisation of
reliability elements and for extensions of the general methodology for new, innovative
structures and materials.
Historical review of the design methods worldwide accepted for verification of
structural members indicates different approaches to considering uncertainties of basic
variables and computational models. The permissible stresses method proves to be rather
conservative (and uneconomical). The global safety factor and partial factor methods lead to
similar results. Obviously, the partial factor method, accepted in the recent EN documents,
represents the most advanced design format leading to a suitable reliability level that is
24
relatively close to the level recommended in EN 1990 ( = 3.8). The most important
advantage of the partial factor method is the possibility to take into account uncertainty of
individual basic variables by adjusting (calibrating) the relevant partial factors and other
reliability elements.
Various reliability measures (characteristic values, partial and reduction factors) in the
new structural design codes using the partial factor format are partly based on probabilistic
methods of structural reliability, partly (to a great extent) on past empirical experiences.
Obviously the past experience depends on local conditions concerning climatic actions and
traditionally used construction materials. These aspects may be considerably different in
different countries. That is why a number of reliability elements and parameters in the present
suite of European standards are open for national choice.
It appears that further harmonisation of current design methods will be based on
calibration procedures, optimisation methods and other rational approaches including the use
of methods of the theory of probability, mathematical statistics and the theory of reliability
and risk assessment. The probabilistic methods of structural reliability provide the most
important tool for gradual improvement and harmonisation of the partial factor method for
various structures from different materials. Moreover, developed software products enable
direct application of reliability methods for verification of structures using probabilistic
concepts and available data.
Design of a structure assisted by risk assessment may be effectively used when there is
a need to consider failure consequences of a system containing the structure and costs of
safety measures. Probabilistic optimisation of the system utility may provide valuable
information concerning the optimum target reliability level. Finally it should be mentioned
that many famous structures have been designed according to the Eurocodes [12], and a
typical case is the famous bridge in Millau, France, which is illustrated in Figure 3.
25
7.
REFERENCES
26
A.1
General principles
(A.1)
i =1
(A.2)
where p(x) denotes the initial probability of failure that is dependent on the decisive parameter
of structural resistance x. Then the failure probability Pfn(x) during n years can be estimated
by the sum of the sequence Pf(x,i) given as
Pfn(x) = 1 (1 p(x))n n p(x)
(A.3)
(A.4)
Here q denotes discount rate. Thus, the cost of malfunctioning Cf is discounted by the factor
Q(q,i) depending on the discount rate q and the point in time (number of year i) when the loss
of structural utility occurs.
The necessary conditions for the minimum of the total cost follow from equation (A.1)
as
n
C tot ( x, q, n)
P ( x, i )
(A.5)
= C f Q ( q, i ) f
+ C1 = 0
x
x
i =1
thus
n
P ( x, i )
C
(A.6)
Q (q, i ) f
= 1
x
Cf
i =1
Equation (A.6) represents a general form of the necessary condition for the minimum
of total cost Ctot(x,q,n) and the optimum value xopt of the parameter x. It generates also the
27
optimum (target) probability of failure and corresponding target value of the reliability index
.
Considering equation (2) and (4) the total costs Ctot(x,q,n) described by equation (A.1)
may be written as
n
(1 p( x))
1
(1 + q)
Ctot(x,q,n) = Cf p( x)
+ C 0 + x C1
(1 p( x))
1
(1 + q)
(A.7)
Note that the total sum of expected malfunction costs during the period of n years is
dependent on the product of the one-time malfunction Cf , initial probability p(x) and a sum of
the geometric sequence having the quotient (1 p(x)/(1+ q).
Thus the total malfunction cost Ctot(x,q,n) depends on the annual probability of failure
p(x), discount rate q and on number of years n. For small probabilities of failure p(x), the cost
given by equation (A.7) may be well approximated as
Ctot(x,q,n) Cf p(x) PQ(x,q,n) + C0 + x C1
(A.8)
where the time factor PQ(x,q,n) depends primarily on the number of years n and discount rate
q. It is almost independent of the structural parameter x and, for small probability p(x) may be
approximate as
n
(1 p( x))
1
1
1
(1 + q)
(1 + q)
= PQ(q,n)
PQ (x,q,n) =
(1 p( x))
1
1
1
(1 + q)
(1 + q)
(A.9)
For given q and n the simplified time factor PQ(q,n) is independent of x; for q = 0.03 and n =
50, the simplified time factor PQ(q,n) ~ 26.5, for q = 0.03 and n = 100 PQ(q,n) ~ 32,5. If the
discount rate is small, q ~ 0, then the simplified time factor converts to number of years n,
PQ(q,n) ~ n.
The necessary condition for the minimum of the total costs then follows from
equations (A.8) and (A.9) as
dp( x)
C1
=
(A.10)
dx
C f PQ(q, n)
Equation (A.10) can be used for assessing the target (optimum) value pt(x) of the initial
annual probability p(x).
A.2
A special case
A special case concerns structures when a failure is dominated by a load like wind
with an exponential distribution. Then the failure probability p(x) may be expressed as
p(x) = exp{-x/a }
(A.11)
where a is an appropriate statistical parameter. Then the target (optimum) probability pt(q,n)
follows from equation (A.10) as
a C1
(A.12)
pt ( q , x ) =
Cf PQ ( q, n)
28
aC1
n
PQ(q, n) C f
(A.15)
The value of n/PQ(q,n) runs for q = 0.03 from 1.1 for n = 1 to 3.0 for n=100. Note that for
small discount rates q ~ 0, the value n/PQ(q,n) = 1. This means that the optimum failure
probability is almost independent of n and, thus, of the design working life.
Consider for instance the case that for q = 0.03 and a certain value of aC1/Cf, the
optimum failure probability for a design life time of 50 years is 7.2 10-5, which corresponds to
= 3.8. If the design life time is 100 years, the optimum failure probability decreases to 10-4,
or = 3.7; if the design life time is 10 years, the optimum increases to 3.9. The difference
between 3.7 and 3.9 is small enough to be neglected in practical design.
A.3
An example
The following example illustrates the general principles and special case of
probabilistic optimization described above. To simplify the analysis the total costs Ctot(x,q,n)
given by equation (A.1) is transformed to the standardized form tot(x,q,n) as
tot(x,q,n) =
Ctot ( x, q, n) C0
= p( x) PQ( x, q, n) +x C1/ Cf
Cf
(A.16)
Obviously, both costs Ctot(x,q,n) and tot(x,q,n) achieve the minimum for the same
parameter xopt.
The exponential expression for the probability p(x) in equation (A.11) is simplified
assuming a = 1. Further it is considered that the discount rate q = 0.03 and the total period of
time is n = 50 years. Under this assumptions Figure A.1 shows variation of the total
standardized costs tot(x,q,n) (given by equation (A.14)), and the reliability index
corresponding to the probability Pfn(x) (given by equation (A.3)), with structural parameter x
for selected costs ratio C1/Cf. The optimum values xopt(q,n) of the structural parameter x are
indicated by the dotted vertical lines.
Figure A.2 shows variation of the optimum structural parameter xopt(q,n) with the costs
ratio C1/Cf , again for q =0.03, n =50. The optimum parameter xopt(q,n) may be obtained from
general condition (A.6) or from simplified expression (A.13) for the simplified time factor
Q(q,n) ~ 26.5.
29
tot(x,q,n)
0.04
0.03
C1/ Cf =0.002
0.02
C1/ Cf =0.001
C1/ Cf =0.0001
C1/ Cf =0.00001
0.01
10
12
14
16
18
1
20
Figure A.1. Variation of the total standardized costs tot(x,q,n) and the reliability index
with structural parameter x for q =0.03, n = 50 and selected costs ratios C1/Cf.
xopt(q,n) for q =0.03, n =50
16
14
12
10
8
C1 / Cf
6
5
1 .10
1 .10
1 .10
0.01
Figure A.2. Variation of the optimum structural parameter xopt obtained from equation
(4) or (13) with the costs ratio C1/Cf for q =0.03, n =50.
The optimum reliability index opt is generally a function of a number of basic
variables. In the fundamental case considered above, the optimum reliability index opt =
opt(q,n,C1/Cf) depends particularly on the discount rate q, design working life n and the cost
ratio C1/Cf. However, the index opt is primarily dependent on the cost ratio C1/Cf and its
dependence on the discount rate q and the design working life n seems to be insignificant.
This is well illustrated by Figure A.3 that shows variation of the optimum reliability index opt
with the cost ratio C1/Cf for selected design working life n = 10, 50, 100, and the discount rate
q = 0.03.
It follows from Figure A.3 that with increasing working life n (and increasing discount
rate q) the optimum reliability index opt slightly decreases. For very small discount rate q 0,
the value n/PQ(q,n) = 1 and the index opt is independent of n.
30
opt
n = 10
50
100
C1/Cf
2
6
.
1 10
1 .10
1 .10
1 .10
0.01
Figure A.3. Variation of the optimum reliability index opt with the cost ratio C1/Cf for
selected design working life n = 10, 50, 100, and the discount rate q = 0.03.
A.4
Concluding remarks
31
32
Summary
In contemporary codes for bridges, load traffic models for static verification aim to
reproduce the real values of the effects induced in the bridges by the real traffic, i.e. the
effects having specified return periods; therefore they are artificial models, generally not
representing real vehicles. Static traffic load models of EN1991-2 are illustrated and their
origin is discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Whilst in traditional bridge codes static loads were represented by real vehicles, in
modern codes, static verifications are performed through artificial models, resulting in the
same values of the effects induced in the bridges by the real traffic.
Static traffic load models for road, pedestrian and railway bridges of the new
Eurocode EN 1991-2 [1] are illustrated, stressing the background philosophy and the applied
methodological criteria.
Calibration of traffic models for road bridges was based on real traffic data recorded in
two experimental campaign performed in Europe between 1980 and 1994 and mainly on the
traffic recorded in may 1986 in Auxerre (F) on the motorway Paris- Lyon. The Auxerre traffic
was identified, on the basis of the available data, as the most representative European
continental traffic in terms of composition and severity, also taking into account the expected
traffic trends. This conclusion was confirmed by more recent studies [2].
The calibration is discussed in much more detail in Appendix A to the present chapter.
The static load model for road bridges of the EN 1991-2 is illustrated in the following.
As the load model is calibrated for road bridges having carriageway width smaller
than 42 m and span length up to 200 m, it cannot be used, in principle, outside the above
mentioned field. Anyhow, it results generally safe-sided for bigger spans.
2.1
33
The carriageway is divided in notional lanes, generally 3 m wide, and in the remaining
area, according to Table 1, as reported, for example, in figure 1. If the carriageway is
physically divided in two parts by a central reservation, then:
-
each part, including all hard shoulder or strips, should be separately divided in
notional lanes, if the parts are separated by a fixed safety barrier;
the whole carriageway, central reservation included, should be divided in notional
lanes, if the parts are separated by demountable safety barriers or another road
restraint system.
Number of
notional lanes nl
Width of a
notional lane
Width of the
remaining area
w<5.4 m
3m
w-3 m
5.4 m w<6 m
0.5 w
6 m w
Int(w/3)
3m
w-3nl
Remaining area
3.0
Notional lane n. 1
Remaining area
3.0
Notional lane n. 2
Remaining area
3.0
Notional lane n. 3
Remaining area
Figure 2. Lane numbering in case the entire carriageway is supported by a single deck
Figure 3. Lane numbering in case the carriageway consists of two separate parts
supported by two separate decks
2.2
load model n. 1 (LM1) generally reproduces traffic effects to be taken into account
for global and local verifications; it is composed by concentrated and uniformly
distributed loads;
load model n. 2 (LM2) reproduces traffic effects on short structural members; it is
composed by a single axle load on specific rectangular tire contact areas;
load model n. 3 (LM3), special vehicles, should be considered only when
requested, in a transient design situation; it represents abnormal vehicles not
complying with national regulations on weight and dimension of vehicles. The
geometry and the axle loads of the special vehicles to be considered in the bridge
design should be assigned by the bridge owner;
load model n. 4 (LM4), a crowd loading.
2.3
Load model n. 1
Load model n. 1 consists of two subsystems:
-
The adjustment factors Q and q depend on the class of the route and on the expected
traffic type: in absence of specific indications, they are assumed equal to 1. The characteristic
loads values on the notional i-th lane are indicated QiQki and qiqki while on the remaining
area the weight density of the uniformly distributed load is expressed as qrqkr.
35
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.6
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
1.2
0.4
0.8
0.4
Uniformly distributed
load qik [kN/m2]
Notional lane n. 1
300
9.0
Notional lane n. 2
200
2.5
Notional lane n. 3
100
2.5
2.5
Remaining area
2.5
For bridges without road signs restricting vehicle weights, it should be assumed
Q10.8 for the tandem system on the first notional lane, while for i2, qi1.0 except for the
remaining area.
The load model n. 1 should apply according to the following rules (see figure 5):
-
36
in each notional lane only one tandem system should be considered, situated in the
most unfavourable position;
the tandem system should be considered travelling in the direction of the
longitudinal axis of the bridge, centred on the axis of the notional lane;
when present, the tandem system should be considered in full, i.e. with all its four
wheels;
the uniformly distributed loads apply, longitudinally and transversally, only on the
unfavourable parts of the influence surface;
the two load systems can insist on the same area;
the impact factor is included in the load values QiQki and qiqki;
when static verification is governed by combination of local and global effects, the
same load arrangement should be considered for calculation of local and global
effects;
when relevant, and only for local verifications, the transverse distance between
adjacent tandem systems should be reduced, up to a minimum of 0.4 m.
Q ik
Q ik
qik
0.5
Q1k =300 kN
q1k =9.0 kN/m
Lane n. 1
2.0
0.5
0.5
Q 2k=200 kN
2
q 2k=2.5 kN/m
Lane n. 2
2.0
0.5
0.5
2.0
Q 3k=100 kN
2
q 3k=2.5 kN/m
Lane n. 3
0.5
Remaining area
0.6
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
1.4
0.6
2.4
0.35
37
is subject to special authorisation, because they exceed the legal limits in length, in width
and/or in mass.
These special vehicles are represented by a set of standardised arrangements of axle
loads, where the bridge owner can pick-up, according to his specific necessities, one or more
vehicles to be taken into account in the bridge design.
The load model should be considered only if expressly required and its application
should regard only the selected special vehicles.
A useful reference is represented by the set of standardized special lorries given in the
informative Appendix A of EN 1991-2, which is reported in Tables 3.a and 3.b.
The nominal values of the axle loads of the special lorries are associated exclusively to
transient design situations.
Each axle load is considered uniformly distributed over two or three narrow
rectangular surfaces 1.20 m long and 0.15 m wide. Axles weighing 150 or 200 kN are
considered distributed on two surfaces, axles weighing 240 kN are considered distributed on
three surfaces, as illustrated in figure 7.
Special vehicles characterised by axle loads in the interval 150 to 200 kN occupy the
notional lane n. 1, while special vehicles characterized by 240 kN axle loads occupy two
adjacent notional lane, lanes n. 1 and n. 2 (figure 8). The lanes are situated in the most
unfavourable position, at most excluding hard shoulders, hard strips and marker strips. More
favourable positions can be considered, if transit is allowed only under special limitations.
Table 3.a. Special vehicles with axle weighing 150 and 200 kN
150 kN axle loads
Vehicle
weight
Geometry
Axle loads
Vehicle
type
600 kN
31.5 m
4150 kN
600/150
900 kN
51.5 m
4150 kN
900/150
1200 kN
71.5 m
4150 kN
1500 kN
91.5 m
1800 kN
111.5 m
Geometry
Axle loads
Vehicle type
1200/150
51.5 m
6200 kN
1200/200
4150 kN
1500/150
71.5 m
1100+7 200 kN
1500/200
4150 kN
1800/150
81.5 m
9200 kN
1800/200
2400 kN
111.5 m
12200 kN
2400/200
2400 kN
51.5+12+51.5 m
12200 kN
2400/200/200
3000 kN
141.5 m
15200 kN
3000/200
3000 kN
71.5+12+61.5 m
15200 kN
3000/200/200
3600 kN
171.5 m
18200 kN
3600/200
Geometry
Axle loads
Vehicle type
2400 kN
81.5 m
10240 kN
2400/240
3000 kN
121.5 m
1120+12200 kN
3000/240
3600 kN
141.5 m
15240 kN
3600/240
3600 kN
71.5+12+61.5 m
15200 kN
3600/240/240
38
1.2
of the bridge
Longitudinal axis
0.3
1.2
0.3
1.2
0.3
Figure 7. Axle lines and wheel contact areas for special vehicles
4.20
(1)
being w1 is the lane width and L the length of the loaded area.
This force, that includes dynamic magnification, should be considered located along
the axis of any lane. When the eccentricity is not significant, the force may be considered
applied along the carriageway axis and uniformly distributed over the loaded length.
40
(2)
and it is given by
Qtk = 0.2 Qv [kN], r<200 m; Qtk = 40
Qv
[kN], 200 mr1500 m;
r
(3)
Qtk = 0 , r>1500 m.
2.8
Carriageway
Vertical loads
Group of
loads
Main load
model
Characteristic
values
Frequent
values
Special
vehicles
Horizontal loads
Crowd
loading
Centrifugal
force
Uniformly
distributed loads
Combination value
Characteristic Characteristic
values
values
Characteristic
values
4
5
Braking force
Characteristic
values
see 2.5 and
figure 9
Characteristic
values
Characteristic
values
41
1infq
Tandem System
0.75
0.80
0.75
UDL
0.40
0.80
0.40
0.80
0.75
Traffic loads
(see table 9)
0.80
0.80
0.75
1.0
Action
Symbol
gr1a (LM1)
The values of 0, 1, 2 for gr1a, referring to load model n.1 are assigned for routes
with traffic corresponding to adjusting factors Qi, qi, qr and Q equal to 1, while those
relating to UDL correspond to the most common traffic scenarios, in which an accumulation
of lorries can occur, but not frequently. Other values may be envisaged for other classes of
routes or of other classes of expected traffic, according to the relevant factors.
For example, for traffic situations characterised by severe presence of continuous
traffic, like for bridges in urban areas, a value of 2 other than zero may be envisaged for the
UDL system of LM1 only.
The factors for the UDL, given in table 5, apply not only to the distributed part of
LM1, but also to the combination value of the pedestrian load mentioned in table 5.
ACTIONS ON FOOTBRIDGES
42
On the contrary, if the application of the aforesaid Load Model 4 is not required, a
uniformly distributed load qfk, to be applied to the unfavourable parts of the influence surface,
should be considered.
Value of qfk depends on the loaded length L [m] and it is given by
(4)
120
5.0 kN/m 2 .
L + 30
In road bridges supporting footways or cycle tracks, the characteristic value 5 kN/m2
or the combination value (2.5 kN/m2) should be considered, according to figure 10.
q fk =5.0 kN/m
Figure 10. Characteristic load on a footway (or cycle track) of a road bridge
3.1.2 Concentrated load
For local assessments, a 10 kN concentrated load Qfwk, representing a maintenance
load should be considered on the bridge, acting on a square surface of sides 0.1 m. The
concentrated load will not be combined with other variable non-traffic loads.
Obviously, when the service vehicle described in 3.1.3 is taken into account, Qfwk
should be disregarded.
3.1.3 Service vehicle
Service vehicles for maintenance, emergencies (e.g. ambulance, fire) or other services
can be assigned when necessary, depending on the particular situation. When no special
information is available and no permanent obstacle prevents the transit of vehicles on the
bridge deck, the special service vehicle defined in figure 11 should be considered in transient
design situations.
When consideration of the service vehicle is not required, the transit of the vehicle
shown in figure 11 should be considered as accidental.
0.2
Q sv2=40 kN
0.2
Q sv1=80 kN
0.2
1.3
0.2
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
0.2
0.2
43
3.2
The horizontal force, which does not coexists with the concentrated load Qfwk, acts
along the bridge deck axis at the pavement level on a square surface of sides 0.1 m and it is
normally sufficient to ensure the horizontal longitudinal stability of the footbridge.
3.3
Vertical forces
Uniformly
Service
distributed load vehicle
Horizontal forces
Groups
gr1
Fk
Fk
of loads
gr2
Fk
Fk
Wind and snow are not considered to act simultaneously with traffic loads on
footbridges, except on roofed bridges, which are considered according to the appropriate rules
given in EN 1991-1-3.
Wind and thermal actions should not be considered as simultaneous.
3.4
3.5
44
(5)
(6)
to be considered separately.
In equations (5) and (6) fv is the natural vertical frequency of the bridge closest to 2
Hz, fh is the natural horizontal frequency of the bridge closest to 1 Hz, t is the time in s and
kv(fv) and kh(fh) are suitable coefficients, depending on the frequency according to figure 12.
For the evaluation of fv, fh and of the inertia effects, Fn should be associated, if
unfavourable, with a static mass equal to 800 kg, applied at the same location.
45
The uniformly distributed load model Fs, to be applied on the whole deck of the
bridge, consists in a uniformly distributed pulsating load with vertical component
Fs ,v = 15 k v ( f v ) sin(2 f v t ) [N/m2],
(7)
(8)
to be considered separately.
For the evaluation of fv, fh and of the inertia effects, Fs should be associated, if
unfavourable, with a static mass equal to 400 kg/m2, applied at the same area.
In special cases, likes relevant footbridges, it may be possible to increase the reliability
degree of the assessments, by specifying to apply Fs on limited unfavourable areas (e.g. span
by span) or with an opposition of phases on successive spans.
kv(f v)
kh(f h)
Vertical vibrations
0
f v [Hz]
Horizontal vibrations
5
f h [Hz]
Figure 12. Relationships between coefficients kv(fv), kh(fh) and frequencies fv, fh
3.5.3. Comfort criteria
In order to ensure pedestrian comfort, the maximum acceleration of any part of the
deck should not exceed
-
The assessment of comfort criteria should be performed for natural vertical frequency
of the footbridge up to 5 Hz or horizontal and torsional natural frequencies up to 2.5 Hz.
In the evaluation of natural frequencies fv or fh the mass of any permanent load should
be taken into account and the stiffness parameters of the deck should be calculated using the
short term dynamic elastic properties of the structural material and, if significant, of the
parapets. It must be noted that generally the mass of pedestrians is relevant only for very light
decks.
If comfort criteria cannot be satisfied with a significant margin, the possible
installation of dampers in the structure after its completion should be envisaged in the design.
46
Evaluation of accelerations shall take into account the damping of the footbridge,
through the damping factor referring to the critical damping, or the logarithmic decrement,
which is equal to 2.
For rather short spans, when calculations are performed using the groups of
pedestrians given before, the effect of the damping on the acceleration can be considered
through the reduction factors:
-
where n is the number of steps necessary to cross the span under consideration.
For a simply supported bridge, the design value of the vertical acceleration a1d due to
the group of pedestrians may then be assumed as:
a1d = 165 k v ( f v )
1 exp(2 n )
[m/s2],
M
(9)
where M is the total mass of the bridge, f is the relevant, i.e. the determining, fundamental
frequency, and kv(fv) is given in figure 12.
Like road bridge load models, also railway bridges load models of EN 1991-2 do not
describe actual loads, although weight and geometry of trains are often exactly known.
Load models for railway bridges have been set-up in such a way that their effects,
amplified by the dynamic coefficients, which in this case are given separately, represent the
characteristic effects of the most severe train traffic expected on the European railways
network.
The rail traffic within the scope in EN1991-2 concerns standard track gauge and wide
track gauge of the European mainline network. In general, the load models given here are not
applicable to narrow-gauge railways, tramways and other light railways, preservation
railways, rack and pinion railways, funicular railways and so on, that require specific loading
models, to be specifically defined.
Of course, when other traffic conditions need to be considered, which are outside the
scope of the load models specified in EN 1991-2, specific alternative load models and
combination rules should be defined for the particular case under consideration.
4.1
vertical loads,
vertical loading for earthworks,
dynamic effects,
centrifugal forces,
nosing forces,
traction and braking forces,
combined response of a structure and track to variable actions,
aerodynamic effects from passing trains,
47
4.2
actions due to overhead line equipment and other railway infrastructure and
equipment.
Vertical loads
In EN 1991-2 five load models are given for railway loading:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The loadings can vary depending on the nature, the volume and maximum weight of rail
traffic on different railways, as well as on different qualities of track.
4.2.1 Load Model 71
Load Model 71, representing the vertical static effect of normal rail traffic, is composed
by a 4-axles vehicle weighing 1000 kN and by a uniformly distributed load equal to 80 kN/m,
not limited in extension, as illustrated in figure 13.
Q vk=250 kN 250 kN 250 kN 250 kN
q vk =80 kN/m
0.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.8
q vk =80 kN/m
no limitation in extension
no limitation in extension
Table 7. Characteristic values of vertical loads for Load Models SW/0 and SW/2
48
Load
qvk
Model
[kN/m]
[m]
[m]
SW/0
133
15.0
5.3
SW/2
150
25.0
7.0
q vk
q vk
qv1 +q v2
Qv1 +Qv2
qv2
e
qv1
Qv1
qv2
qv1
Qv2
Qv2
Qv1
1.25
1.25
r
e 18
r
Figure 15. Eccentricity of vertical loads
4.2.5
49
through the ballast can be considered according to figure 17, where a represents the
sleepers spacing;
in the transverse direction depending on the track configuration: the actions should
be distributed transversely according to figure 18 for bridges with ballasted track
without cant, according to figure 19 for bridges with ballasted tracks with cant and
for full length sleepers, where the ballast is only consolidated under the rails, or for
duo-block sleepers; according to figure 20 for bridges with ballasted tracks with cant
and full length sleepers; finally, in case of bridges with ballasted track and cant and
for full length sleepers, where the ballast is only consolidated under the rails, or for
duo-block sleepers, figure 20 should be suitably modified to take into account the
transverse load distribution under each rail shown in figure 19.
Qvi
Qvi
4
Qvi
2
Qvi
4
Qvi
sleeper
4:1
reference
plane
uniformly distributed over a width of 3.0 m at a level 0.70 m below the running surface of the
track. Dynamic effects can be disregarded.
For local elements close to a track (e.g. ballast retention walls and so on), the maximum
local vertical, longitudinal and transverse loadings on the element due to rail traffic actions
should be evaluated.
4.2.7 Footpaths and general maintenance loading
For pedestrian and cycle paths and for general maintenance loads a uniformly
distributed load with a characteristic value qfk=5 kN/m should be taken into account, while
for design of local elements a concentrated load Qk=2.0 kN acting alone should be applied on
a square surface with a 200 mm side.
Qh
Qv
Qr
4 :1
R M
reference
plane
A
M
Figure 18. Transverse distribution of action for ballasted tracks without cant
Qh
0.6
Qr
Qv
4:1
4:1
running
plane
0.6
R M
reference
plane
51
Qh
Qr
Qv
running
plane
u
4:1
reference
plane
A
M
Figure 20. Transverse distribution of action for ballasted tracks with cant
Dynamic magnification factors (2, 3)
Provided that risks of resonance effects and excessive vibrations of the bridge are
negligible, dynamic magnification of stresses and vibration effects can be taken into account
through the dynamic factor .
On the contrary, when risks of resonance or excessive vibrations exist, a suitable
dynamic analysis is necessary. In these cases static load effects multiplied by the dynamic
factor are unable to predict resonance effects from high speed trains, therefore dynamic
analysis techniques, taking into account the time dependant nature of the loading from the
High Speed Load Model (HSLM) and Real Trains (e.g. by solving equations of motion) are
required for predicting dynamic effects at resonance.
The dynamic factors can be applied also to structures with more than one track.
4.3
1.2
1.3
Cross girders
1.4
End cross girders
Deck plate with cross girder only
2.1
2.2
Cross girders
2.3
Steel grillage: closed deck with ballast bed (orthotropic deck plate) (global and local transverse
stresses)
3.1
Rail bearers:
- as an element of continuous
grillage
- simply supported
3.2
3.3
3.4
For arch bridges and concrete bridges of all types with a cover of more than 1.00 m, 2
and 3 may be reduced according to the formula
red 2,3 = 2,3 -
h - 1.00
1.0 ,
10
(12)
being h [m] the height of cover from the top of the deck to the top of the sleeper, including the
ballast, or, in case of arch bridges, from the crown to the extrados.
Rail traffic actions on columns with a slenderness <30, abutments, foundations, retaining
walls and ground pressures may be calculated disregarding dynamic effects.
Bridges sensitive to dynamic effects and in any case bridge on high speed lines
(V200 km/h) require specific dynamic analysis considering Real trains or High Speed Load
53
Model, according to the specific application rules. The question is outside the scope of the
present Guidebook and it will not be discussed here.
cross girders
transverse cantilever
supporting railway loadings
4.2
Deck slab continuous (in main girder
direction) over the cross girders
4.3
4.4
4.5
Note: For cases 1.1 to 4.6 inclusive L cannot exceed the determinant length of the main girders
54
Structural element
Determinant length L
5.1
5.2
L=min[(1+0.1n)Lm; Li,max]
5.3
spanning in longitudinal
direction
5.4
5.5
5.6
4.4.
any number of uniformly distributed loads qvk should be applied on the track and up
to four concentrated loads Qvk should be applied once per track,
55
for elements carrying two tracks, Load Model 71 shall be applied to either track or
both tracks,
for bridges carrying three or more tracks, LM 71 should be applied if loaded tracks
are less than three, while 0.75 times LM71 should be applied for three or more
loaded tracks;
When relevant, the following rules apply for the Load Model unloaded train:
-
the Load Model unloaded train shall only be considered in the design of
structures carrying one track.
any number of lengths of the uniformly distributed load qvk shall be applied to a
track.
4.5
56
Qtk =
v2
V2
( f Qvk ) =
( f Qvk ) [kN]
gr
127 r
(13)
qtk =
v
V
( f qvk ) =
( f qvk ) [kN/m],
gr
127 r
Table 9. Number of tracks to be loaded for checking limits of deflection and vibration
Limit States Checks and
associated acceptance criteria
Traffic Safety Checks:
3
1 or 2 or 3 or
more *)
1 or 2 or 3 or
more *)
1 or 2 or 3 or
more *)
1 or 2 *)
1 or 2 *)
1 or 2 *)
1 or 2 *)
1 or 2 *)
1 or 2 *)
1 or 2 or 3 or
more *)
*)
Number of tracks
SLS Checks:
Passenger comfort criteria (EN 1990 Annex 2
A2.4.4.3)
ULS Checks
Avoidance of unrestrained uplift at bearings
In equations (13), v in m/s and V in km/h are the maximum line speed, g is the gravity
acceleration and r is the radius of curvature in m. In case of varying radius, r could suitably set
to its mean value.
Centrifugal forces should be combined with the pertinent vertical traffic load.
The centrifugal force shall not be multiplied by the dynamic factor 2 or 3.
The factor f takes into account the reduced mass of higher speed trains, therefore, as for
short loaded lengths the magnitude of centrifugal forces is dictated by faster light vehicles, for
Load Model 71 (and where significant Load Model SW/0) the cases considered in table 10 shall
be considered, depending on the line speed V and on the adjustment factor .
For Load Model 71 (and LM SW/0, if relevant) the reduction factor f is given by:
V 120 814
2.88
1.0,
f = 1
+
1
.
75
1
1000 V
L f
(14)
where V is the maximum line speed in km/h and Lf is the influence length in m of the loaded part
of curved track on the bridge, which is most unfavourable for the design of the structural element
57
under consideration.
For Load Model 71 (and where significant Load Model SW/0) and V>120 km/h, two
cases should be taken into account:
-
case a: in this case Load Model 71 (and where relevant Load Model SW/0) is taken
into account with its dynamic factor and the centrifugal force is evaluated according
to equations (13) setting V=120 km/h, so that the latter is not reduced (f = 1);
case b: in this case Load Model 71 (and where relevant Load Model SW/0) is taken
into account with its dynamic factor and the centrifugal force is evaluated according
to equations (13) considering the maximum speed V=120 km/h and the related
reduction factor f, evaluated according (14).
<1
Max
Line
Speed
[km/h]
>120
1f(LM71+SW/0)
1(LM71+SW/0) or
0.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
120
=1
>120
120
>1
>120*)
120
1 (LM71+SW/0)
---
---
---
1 (LM71+SW/0)
---
---
---
1f(LM71+SW/0)
11(LM71+SW/0)
or10.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
120
11 (LM71+SW/0)
---
---
---
11 (LM71+SW/0)
11(LM71+SW/0)
or10.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
---
---
---
1f(LM71+SW/0)
11(LM71+SW/0)
or10.5(LM71+SW/0)
when vertical traffic actions
are favourable
120
1 (LM71+SW/0)
---
---
---
1(LM71+SW/0) or
0.5(LM71+SW/0)
1 (LM71+SW/0)
0
------* valid only if maximum speed of heavy freight traffic limited to 120 km/h
)
58
1(LM71+SW/0) or
0.5(LM71+SW/0)
120
When the line speed V is bigger than 300 km/h and the influence length Lf is bigger
than 2.88 m a lower bound exists for f, f (V=300 km/h).
For Load Models SW2 and unloaded train f=1.0.
4.5.2 Nosing force
The nosing force Qsk, to be always combined with the vertical traffic load, is
represented by a concentrated force acting horizontally, applied at the top of the rails,
normally to the centre-line of track, on both straight and curved track. For rail traffic with
maximum axle load of 250 kN, the characteristic value should be taken as Qsk=100 kN and it
should be multiplied by the dynamic magnification factor Qsk.
Nosing force should by multiplied by the adjustment factor only when >1.
4.5.3 Actions due to traction and braking
Traction and braking forces are commonly considered as uniformly distributed over the
corresponding influence length La,b for traction and braking effects related to the structural
element considered.
Traction force is indicated with Qlak and braking force is indicated with Qlbk.
Traction and braking forces, applied the top of the rails in the longitudinal direction of
the track, should be determine according to the following expressions, which are applicable to
all types of track construction, e.g. continuous welded rails or jointed rails, with or without
expansion devices, being La,b in m:
Traction force:
Braking force:
(15)
(16)
In some special case, like for lines carrying special traffic (restricted to high speed
passenger traffic for example) the traction and braking forces may be taken as equal to 25% of
the sum of the axle-loads of the Real Train acting on the influence length of the action effect of
the structural element considered, with an upper limits of 1000 kN for Qlak and 6000 kN for Qlbk.
4.6
59
n=
1
Number
of tracks
Horizontal forces
6.5.1
6.5.2
Centrifugal Nosing
force(1)
force
11
T1
1 (5)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
12
T1
0.5 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
13
T1
1 (4)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
1
1
14
15
T1
T1
1 (4)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
1
1 (5)
1
1 (5
1
1
2
16
17
21
T1
T1
T1
T2
1
1
1 (5)
0.5 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
0.5 (5)
1 (5)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
1 (5)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
22
T1
T2
1
1
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
23
24
1 (4)
1 (4)
1 (4)
1 (4)
26
T1
T2
T1
T2
T1
T2
T1
T2
Ti
1
1
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
0.75 (5)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
1
1
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
0.75 (5)
0.5 (5)
0.5 (5)
1
1
0.5 (5)
0.,5 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
0.75 (5)
2
3
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Vertical forces
27
31
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
Comment
Max. vertical
1 with max.
longitudinal
Max. vertical
2 with max.
transverse
Max.
longitudinal
Max. lateral
Lateral
stability with
unloaded
train
SW/2
SW/2
Max. vertical
1 with max
longitudinal
Max. vertical
2 with max.
transverse
Max.
longitudinal
Max. lateral
SW/2
SW/2
Additional
load case
60
Vertical load
Horizontal load
Notes
Group of
loads
Vertical load
(1)
Unloaded
train (1)
Traction
Braking
Centrifugal
force
Nosing force
Group 1
(2)
1.00
----
0.5 (0)
1.00 (0)
1.00 (0)
Maximum
vertical and
lateral
action
Group 2
(2)
----
1.00
1.00 (0)
1.00 (0)
Lateral
stability
Group 3
(2)
1.00 (0.5)
----
1.00
0.5 (0)
0.5 (0)
Maximum
longitudinal
action
Group 4
(3)
Concrete
cracking
Leading action
(1)
(2)
(3)
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In recent years, bridge codes have considerably evolved. This evolution is the result of
the positive interaction of several factors, namely
-
The most evident outcome of the modern code development is the artificial nature of
traffic load models.
Since they aim to reproduce to real traffic effects characterised by specified return
period or by given probability to be exceed in the design working life of the bridge, traffic
load models can differ considerably by real vehicles, in terms of silhouette and axles
arrangement as well as in terms of axle and vehicle weights.
61
Amongst the contemporary codes for bridge design, Eurocode emerges for its primary
importance, profiting of out to date background and ad hoc studies.
It must be highlighted that Eurocode has been widely checked and it is successfully
applied in current design practice in Europe.
In the present chapter the static traffic load models for road, pedestrian and railway
bridges of EN 1991-2 have been discussed, highlighting the application rules and the group of
traffic loads to be considered in combination with non-traffic actions.
When relevant, particular attention has been devoted to background information, also
aiming to suggest safe-sided simplified assumptions.
In the appendix A to this chapter, calibration study of the traffic load models for road
bridges are illustrated in details, while in the Annex A to the present Guidebook, the future
traffic trends of the lorry traffic in European road network is discussed and their consequences
on EN 1991-2 load models are analysed.
Non traffic actions are illustrated in chapter 5 and load combinations in chapter 7.
The practical application of the load models for road bridges is better detailed in
chapters 8, 9 and 10, where three case studies are developed.
REFERENCES
[1] EN1991-2, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[2] OConnor, A.J. et al., Effects of traffic loads on road bridges Preliminary studies for the
re-assessment of the Eurocode 1, Part 3. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on
Weigh-in-motion of road vehicles. Lisbon, 1998
[3] EN1990-A2, Eurocode: Basis of structural design Annex A2: Applications for bridges.
CEN, Brussels, 2005
[4] Croce, P. & Sanpaolesi, L., Design of bridges. Pisa: TEP, 2004.
[5] OBrien, E.J. et al., Bridge applications of weigh-in-motion. Paris: Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chausses, 1998.
[6] Bruls, A et al., ENV1991 Part 3: The main model of traffic loads on road bridges.
Background studies. Proceedings of IABSE Colloquium on Basis of Design and Actions
on Structures. Background and Application of Eurocode 1. Delft, 1996.
[7] Croce, P. & Salvatore, W., Stochastic model for multilane traffic effects on bridges.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 6(2): 136-143, 2001
[8] Tschemmernegg, F. & al, Verbreiterung und Sanierung von Stahlbrcken. Stahlbau n. 9,
1989.
[9] Sedlacek, G. & al. 1991. Eurocode 1 - Part 12. Traffic loads on road bridges. Definition
of dynamic impact factors. Report of subgroup 5.
62
Appendix A to Chapter 3 Development of static load traffic models for road bridges
of EN 1991-2
A.1
General principles
Static load models for road bridges of EN 1991-2 have been developed considering
that an up to date structural code should
-
be easy to use;
be applicable independently on the static scheme and on the span length of the
bridge;
reproduce as accurately as possible the real load effects induced on the bridge by
all possible flowing and jammed traffic scenarios, that can occur on the bridge
during its design working life; the real load effects are characterised by a specified
return period or by a given probability to be exceeded during the design working
life;
include the dynamic magnification due to the road-vehicle and to the bridgevehicle interactions in load values;
allow combinations of local and global effects of actions;
be unambiguous, covering all the cases that could occur in the design practice.
Obviously, as load models are to be defined and calibrated referring to traffic effects
having specified return periods, pre-normative studies had to deal with complicated
theoretical and methodological problems. Among these, especially significant were those
concerned with the extrapolation to very long time periods of effects due to flowing traffics,
recorded on the slow lane for few days or few weeks, taking into account the most severe
flowing and/or congested traffic scenarios that could happen on one or on several lanes.
A.2
As a rule, the evaluation of real traffic effects and the subsequent drafting and
calibration of the load model can be carried out by analytical and numerical methodologies
consisting of:
-
63
A.3
model refinement.
As said, the first phase of the study was devoted to statistic analysis of European
traffic data, in order to select the most representative traffics, in terms of the expected flow
and composition.
Available European traffics data were mainly the result of two large measurement
campaigns performed, respectively, within 1977 and 1982 on bridges situated in France,
Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Holland and within 1984 and 1988 on several roads all
around the Europe. Recorded daily flows on the slow lane were varying between 1000 and
8000 lorries on motorways, and between 600 and 1500 lorries on main roads, while fast lane
daily flows on motorway and slow lane daily flows on secondary roads resulted drastically
reduce to 100-200 lorries. [4, 5].
Statistical analyses, that allowed to know the distributions of the most significant
traffic parameters, like traffic composition, inter-vehicle distances, axles spacing, weight,
length and speed of each lorry, essentially was limited to data recorded in Italy, France and
Germany; in fact, UK data appeared poorly representative of the continental situation, while
Spanish and Dutch data seemed excessively influenced by the respective road systems
peculiarities.
Significant data, derived from long distance motorway traffics (Auxerre (F), Garonor
(F), Brohltal (D), Fiano Romano (I), Sasso Marconi (I) and Piacenza (I)), are summarized in
tables A.1A.5. Table A.1 shows the daily flows of cars and lorries per lane and the
percentage of inter-vehicular distances smaller than 100 meters; table A.2 illustrates the traffic
compositions in terms of standardized lorries, while table A.3 illustrates the composition of
the entire fleets of circulating commercial vehicles in the three above mentioned Countries.
Finally, daily flows of axles heavier than 10 kN and lorries, together with the respective
values of statistical parameters are shown in table A.4 and A.5, respectively.
Generally, the analysis of the European traffic data shows that
-
mean values of axle-loads and total weight of heavy vehicles strongly depend on
the traffic typology, i.e. on the road classification; they are usually very scattered:
the statistical distribution of the axle-load is generally unimodal, with the mode
around 60 kN, while the statistical distribution of the total weight is bimodal with
the first mode around 150 kN and the second mode around 400 kN;
Lorries
% intervehicle
distance<100 m
11126
4793
26.7
Garonor (F 1982)
--
2570
32.6
Garonor (F 1984)
--
3686
32.3
8158
2630
18
1664
153
8.5
Fiano R. (I)
8500
4000
26.1
Piacenza (I)
8500
5000
30.9
Sasso M. (I)
7500
3500
24.3
Brohltal (D)
64
Lorries (%)
(>2 Axles)
1.6
Articulated
lorries (%)
40.2
Lorries with
trailer (%)
41.6
Garonor (F - 1982)
38.6
2.6
47.6
11.2
Garonor (F - 1984)
47.5
2.2
44.3
6.0
22.7
1.3
65.2
10.8
27.6
3.5
58.4
10.5
Fiano R. (I)
41.4
7.0
29.0
22.6
Piacenza (I)
35.3
7.5
35.8
21.4
Sasso M. (I)
40.1
10.0
30.2
19.7
Brohltal (D)
France
Italy
2 axles
17.0
32.0
38.67
3 axles
5.0
5.8
9.0
4 axles
25.0
25.0
10.0
5 axles
52.0
33.2
33.0
6 axles
1.0
4.0
8.0
> 6 axles
--
--
1.33
Table A.4. Daily flows and statistical parameters of axles heavier than 10 kN and lorries
ALL AXLES
Flow Pmean
[kN] [kN]
TANDEM AXLES
Pmax
[kN]
TRIDEM AXLES
[kN]
Pmax
[kN]
Brohltal
(D)
60.0
230.0 355.0
Garonor
(F) 1982
8470
90.0
200.0 295.0
Garonor
(F) 1984
90.0
200.0 320.0
712
Auxerre (F)
10442 82.5 35.2 195.0
slow lane
844
Auxerre (F)
fast lane
47
581
51
Fiano R. (I) 15000 56.8 32.9 142.0 2000 115.2 45.5 245.0 900
Piacenza
(I)
80.0
260.0 360.0
20000 61.8 31.0 135.0 2500 127.0 44.1 260.0 1500 100.0 220.0 365.0
Sasso M. (I) 13000 61.9 30.8 135.0 1600 136.4 49.5 260.0 800
65
Pmax
Flow
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
Brohltal (D)
4793
245.8
127.3
650.0
2570
189.8
107.5
550.0
3686
186.5
118.0
560.0
2630
326.7
144.9
630.0
153
277.2
163.6
670.0
Fiano R. (I)
4000
204.5
130.3
590.0
Piacenza (I)
5000
235.2
140.0
630.0
Sasso M. (I)
3500
224.9
149.0
620.0
on the contrary, daily maxima are much less sensitive to traffic composition and
they vary between 130 and 210 kN for single axles, between 240 and 340 kN for
two axles in tandem, between 220 and 390 kN for three axles in tridem, and
between 400 and 650 kN for the total lorry weight;
daily maxima of axle-loads and of total weight of the vehicle largely exceed the
legal values;
in consequence of industrial choices of lorry manufacturers, vehicle geometries
have remained practically unchanged since the 1980s: the inter-axle distance
distribution strongly results trimodal: the first mode, a little scattered, is located
around 1.30 m, corresponding to the usual axles spacing for tandem and tridem
arrangements of axles, the second mode, also characterized by low scattering, is
located around 3.20 m, a typical value for tractors of articulated lorries, while the
third one, located around 5.40 m, is much more dispersed;
long distance continental Europe traffic data are sufficiently homogeneous;
the heavy traffic composition evolved in a very straightforward way during the
1980s: the percentage of articulated lorries stepped up despite a strong reduction
in the less commercially profitable trailer trucks, in conjunction with a contraction
of the number of single lorries, whose use is increasingly limited to local routes;
in consequence of a better and more rational management of the lorry fleets, the
number of empty lorry passages has been strongly reduced and often limited to the
sole tractor unit in case of articulated lorries, , so raising the mean vehicle loads;
long distance traffics are much more aggressive than local traffics;
generally lorry flows tend to increase, even if the absolute maximum flow was
recorded in 1980 in Germany on the Limburger Bahn (8600 lorries per day on the
slow lane).
On the basis of the above mentioned considerations, the studies for calibration of EN
1991-2 load models for road bridges were based on the traffic recorded in Auxerre (France),
on the motorway A6 Paris-Lyon.
The Auxerre traffic is very severe and summarizes effectively the main characteristics
of the long distance European traffic, especially in terms of composition.
Other traffic data have been used only for checking the reliability of the results
obtained with Auxerre data.
The most relevant parameters of the slow lane Auxerre traffic are summarized in
figures A.1A.6. More precisely, in figures A.1, A.2 and A.3 are shown the histograms of
66
vehicle speeds, inter-vehicle distances and axle loads, respectively, referring to the total
vehicles flow (lorries plus cars), while in figures A.4, A.5 and A.6 are reported the analogous
histograms referring only to the lorry flow.
The statistical analyses allow to conclude that speed and length of vehicles are poorly
correlated and, from the probabilistic point of view, practically independent on the axle-loads
and on the total weight of the vehicles.
It must be stressed, finally, that European traffics exist which are more aggressive than
the Auxerre traffic, like the one recorded in Paris on the Boulevard Prifrique. Such traffics,
nevertheless, are not very significant, since they depend on local situations and are hard to
generalize.
0.08
0.07
Slow lane
0.06
Auxerre (F)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
speed - [m/s]
Figure A.1. Histogram of the vehicle speed frequency Auxerre total flow
0.40
Slow lane
0.30
Auxerre (F)
0.20
0.10
0.00
1.36 10
5.07 10
1.00 10
1.50 10
2.00 10
Inter-vehicle distance - [m]
Figure A.2. Histogram of the inter-vehicle distance frequency Auxerre total flow
67
0.45
0.40
Slow lane
0.35
Auxerre (F)
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
12
25
38
51
64
77
90
Figure A.3. Histogram of the axle load frequency Auxerre total flow
0.07
0.06
Slow lane
0.05
Auxerre (F)
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
speed - [m/s]
A.4
Traffic scenarios
The evaluation of the reference values of the real traffic effects induced on the bridge
by the recorded traffic is not trivial.
Traffic records generally refer to normal flowing situations; they are often inadequate
to represent the most severe situations, which can happen in disturbed traffic scenarios. For
this reason, in order to consider extreme traffic situations as well, traffic data have been
opportunely manipulated, considering deterministic traffic scenarios being representative of
some relevant real situation [6], [7].
Concerning the single lane, four different types of traffic models have been developed
as follow: flowing, slowed down, and congested with/or without cars.
68
0.30
0.25
Slow lane
0.20
Auxerre (F)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
8.9 101
5.83 103
1.16 104
Intervehicle -distance - [m]
0.07
0.06
Slow lane
0.05
Auxerre (F)
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
10
37
64
91
118
145
172
Axle load - [kN]
69
The traffic scenarios are particularly influenced by the driver behaviours, therefore,
among the congested traffic configurations, it is particularly meaningful that one
characterized by the presence on the slow lane of lorries only. In fact, when the traffic slows
down, the drivers of lighter and faster vehicles tend to change lane to overtake heaviest
vehicles.
This effect is very well represented in classical photos, like that reported by
Tschemmenerg & al. [8], relative to traffic jams on the Europa bridge (figure A.7). Obviously,
the congested traffic without cars can be simply obtained disregarding light vehicles, below
35 kN.
70
for the most loaded lane, the first lane, the extrapolated effect induced by the slow
lane traffic as recorded;
for the second lane, the daily maximum effect (not extrapolated), induced by the
slow lane traffic as recorded;
for the third lane, the mean daily effect induced by the slow lane traffic as
recorded;
for the fourth lane, the mean daily effect induced by the fast lane traffic as
recorded.
for the most loaded lane, the first lane, the extrapolated effect induced by the
congested traffic without cars, deduced from the slow lane traffic;
for the second lane, the daily maximum effect induced by the congested traffic
with cars, deduced from the slow lane traffic;
for the third lane, the daily maximum effect induced by the slow lane traffic as
recorded;
for the fourth lane, the mean daily effect induced by the slow lane traffic as
recorded.
Target values have then been evaluated referring to a considerable number of bridge
spans and influence surfaces. In particular, nine cylindrical influence surfaces have been
considered for simply supported as well as continuous bridges, spanning between 5 and 200
m.
A.5
Extrapolation methods
As mentioned above, the choice of the main load model and its calibration requires the
preliminary knowledge of the reference values, which are the relevant values of the effects characteristic, infrequent, frequent, and quasi-permanent - to be reproduced through the load
model itself.
Obviously, even considering deterministic traffic scenarios, the methodology to
evaluate the reference values cannot be taken for granted, so that suitable numerical
procedures, based on appropriate extrapolation methods of the histograms of the traffic
induced effects must be set-up.
The relationship between the return period and the distribution fractile can be easily
determined, assuming a uniform flow of lorries on the bridge. Under this hypothesis the
distance amongst two vehicles can be considered as equivalent to unit time interval, so that
the vehicles are described by a stationary time series X1, X2., Xi,,Xn, being Xi the weight
of the i-th vehicle entering the bridge at time i.
If the weights Xi are independent and distributed according to the same cumulative
distribution function F(x), the return period Rx of the x value of Xi, which is defined as
R x = E [N x ] , where N x = inf {n | X 1 < x, X 2 < x,...., X n1 < x, X n x},
(A.1)
(A.2)
If the time series is replaced by a stationary stochastic process {Xt, t>0}, then
R x = E [Tx ], where Tx = inf {t | X t x X u < x, u < t}.
(A.3)
If YN is the maximum value of Xi and N is the total number of vehicles crossing the
bridge during Rx, then it is
YN = max{X i ,0 < i N }.
(A.4)
71
(A.5)
( )
p = 1 F yp ,
(A.6)
( )
R = R yp =
T
T
, where 0 < p << 1 .
ln(1 p ) p
(A.7)
The expression (A.7), which does not depends on yp and on the distribution of X,
associates the return period and the fractile. For example, when the design life is 50 year, the
5% fractile (p=0.05) matches the value having a return period R=974.781000 years.
In general, to evaluate the extreme values of the effects induced by the traffic, three
different methods of extrapolation have been employed in the framework of EN 1991-2
works.
The methods are based on the half-normal distribution, on the Gumbel distribution and
the Monte Carlo method, respectively. It is important to stress, however, that the characteristic
values of real traffic effects resulted practically independent on the extrapolation method.
A.5.1 Half-normal distribution extrapolation method
In the half-normal distribution extrapolation method the upper tail of the extreme
values distribution of the stochastic variable X is approximated by a normal distribution,
through an opportune choice of two parameters of the normal distribution.
The value xR, having a return period R, is given then by
x R = x0 + z R ,
(A.8)
where x0 is the last mode of the distribution and zR is the upper p-fractile of the standardized
normal variable Z,
p = (2 N )1 ,
(A.9)
(A.10)
where m and are the mean value and the standard deviation of the histogram itself.
The value xR is then
xR = u + y ' ,
being
(A.11)
y = ln ln(1 R )1 ,
72
(A.12)
Gumbel chart
200
190
Effect
T(y)
180
170
160
150
-2
Reduced variable y
Figure A.8. Example of data extrapolation on a Gumbel chart
A.5.3 Monte Carlo extrapolation method
Numerical extrapolation procedures based on the Monte Carlo method make use of
automatic generations of a suitable set of extreme traffic situations, derived from the recorded
traffic data, in such a way that a suitable population of extreme values is obtained. This
population is elaborated in turn with an appropriate extrapolation method.
The population can be produced in several ways.
The simplest and intuitive procedure consists in the repeated application of the Monte
Carlo method.
The vehicles crossing the bridge are randomly selected amongst a complete set of
standard vehicles, representing the most common real lorries. Lorry silhouettes, axle loads,
axle spacings and the inter-vehicle distances are generated according to the relevant statistic
parameters of the recorded traffic.
An alternative procedure, more complicated but also much more effective, has been
proposed and adopted for calibrating the reference values of real traffic effects [7]. In this
methodology the crude Monte Carlo method is employed to obtain representative statistics of
the effects, which are the input data for the calculation of the statistical parameters of the
Gumbel distribution.
This latter method allowed also to underline that reference values are poorly
dependent upon the traffic jam frequency, at least for the most loaded lane [7].
A.6
In addition to the extrapolated static effects, the target values evaluation requires also
specific knowledge about the dynamic effects, due to vehicle-bridge interactions, to be
considered in calibration studies [9].
73
max dyn
max st
(A.13)
The physical impact factor refers to a well precise load configuration and it depends
on such a quantity of parameters that cannot to be directly employed for load model
calibration. Besides, heaviest vehicles, which mainly influence the extreme values of the
dynamic distribution of traffic effects, are generally slow and are characterised by small value
of factors.
For calibration purposes, two alternative approaches can be adopted:
- the first approach takes into account dynamic effects referring directly to the
dynamic effects distribution;
- an alternative method takes into account the static effect distribution multiplied by
a suitable calibration value of the impact factor, cal. cal can be defined as the
ratio between the dynamic value Edyn(p-fractile) and the static value Est(p-fractile)
corresponding to the same assigned p-fractile
cal =
74
E dyn( p fractile)
E st ( p fractile)
(A.14)
Effect
Dynamic
oscillogram
Static
oscillogram
N0
Dynamic
increment
E dyn( x fractile) =
cal local
E st ( x fractile) .
in
(A.15)
75
1.8
1.7
Bending 1
lane
1.6
Bending 2
lanes
cal
1.5
1.4
1.3
Bending 4
lanes
1.2
Shear
1.1
1
0
100
200
L [m]
Figure A.10. Calibration value of the impact factors cal (EN 1991-2).
A.7
Concluding remarks
Traffic load models for road bridges of EN 1991-2 have been defined and calibrated
step by step balancing demand for accuracy and demands for ease of use.
Preliminary calibrations highlighted that load models best fitting the target values
should consist of concentrated loads and distributed loads:
-
The preliminary outcome has been successively modified to simplify the structure and
the application rules of the load model, mainly to eliminate any reason for ambiguity, finally
arriving to a load model characterised by:
-
For the sake of model coherence, it has been established that, when relevant, the entire
carriageway width can be loaded, i.e. not only the part occupied by the physical lanes, but
also that one remaining.
In order to reproduce the real traffic effects in secondary elements, characterized by
influence surfaces with very small base length, it has been also introduced a local load model,
constituted by a single axle, which should be considered alone on the bridge.
Once opportunely calibrated, the so defined load model constitutes the load model of
EN 1991 - 2, which is illustrated more precisely in 2 of chapter 3.
76
characteristic values of traffic effects increase slowly with the return period, in fact
taking into account a medium roadway roughness, infrequent values of traffic
effects are about 90% of the corresponding characteristic values;
taking into account a good roadway roughness, infrequent values reduce a little
and become about 80% of the corresponding characteristic values;
frequent values of traffic effects are 70%80% of the corresponding characteristic
values;
since the frequent values of traffic effects depend substantially on flowing traffic,
as the span increase frequent values tend to precise lower limits, which are
approximately 40%50% of the corresponding characteristic values.
77
78
Summary
Fatigue performance of bridges is becoming more and more important due to the
growth of traffic flows, the increase of mean weight of the Heavy Good Vehicles, the
advances in conception and plan of bridges, the refinement of stress analysis techniques and
the deeper knowledge of the mechanical properties of the materials. In many cases fatigue
assessments strongly influence the design of new bridges and the assessment of existing
bridges. Fatigue traffic load models of EN1991-2 [1] for road and railway bridges are
illustrated and their background is discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In the last years the advances in conception and designing of bridges, the refinement
of stress analysis techniques and the deeper knowledge of the mechanical properties of the
materials have determined a relevant improvement of the bridge design as well as of the
bridge performances. At the same time, as the traffic flows and the mean weight of the Heavy
Good Vehicles have increased considerably, the fatigue resistance demand of modern bridges
have so significantly risen, that in many cases fatigue assessments strongly influence the
design.
On the base of the aforesaid considerations, in modern bridge codes sophisticated
fatigue load models should be given aiming to reproduce as well as possible the fatigue
induced by real traffic.
In the following fatigue traffic load models of EN1991-2 for road and railway bridges
are illustrated and their background is discussed.
The knowledge of the actual road traffic is affected by high uncertainties, on the
contrary, railway traffic is not only better known, but can be managed much more easily. For
this reason the calibration of fatigue traffic models for road bridges, mainly based on the real
traffic recorded in 1986 in Auxerre (F) on the motorway Paris- Lyon, is discussed in much
more detail.
In the following the pre-normative background studies which have been carried out in
the framework of EN 1991-2 to define fatigue loads models for road traffic is discussed,
together with the main features of the models themselves.
2.1
79
fluctuating stresses and strains at some point or points and that may culminate in cracks or
complete fracture after a sufficient number of fluctuations.
In engineering structures, fatigue is induced by actions and loads varying with time
and/or space and/or by random vibrations. Thus fatigue can be originated by natural events,
like waves, wind and so on, or by loads deriving from the normal service of the structure
itself.
Among the civil structures exposed to fatigue, bridges occupy a prominent position, as
they are subjected to the fluctuating action of lorries or trains crossing the bridges themselves.
The assignment of appropriate fatigue load models is therefore a key topic in contemporary
bridge design codes of practice.
In principle, modelling of fatigue loads asks for the complete knowledge of the socalled load spectrum, expressing the load variations or the number of recurrences of each load
level during the design working life of the structure. Load spectrum is generally given in
terms of an appropriate function, graph, histogram or table.
The load spectrum is often deduced from recorded data, referring to relatively short
time intervals. In this case, additional problems must be faced regarding the statistical
processing, the reliability over longer periods of the available data and the future trends of
traffic.
Whenever the real load spectrum results so complicated that cannot be directly used
for fatigue checks, as it happens for bridge, it is replaced by some conventional load
spectrum, aimed to reproduce the fatigue induced by the real one.
The evaluation of conventional load spectra is particularly problematic, because it
requires to consider the actions also from the resistance point of view. In fact, fatigue depends
on the nature of the varying actions and loads, and additionally on structural material details,
through the shape and the properties of the relevant S-N curves.
Problems become even tougher when details exhibit endurance (fatigue) limit. As
fatigue limits under constant amplitude represents a threshold value for the damaging stress
range, it needs to distinguish between equivalent load spectra, aiming to reproduce the actual
fatigue damage, and frequent load spectra, aiming to reproducing the maximum load range to
be taken into account for fatigue assessments.
Since fatigue verifications are performed in different ways, depending on the necessity
to assess fatigue damage or boundless fatigue life, the distinction between equivalent and
frequent spectra appears quite obvious.
Moreover, the powerful methods of the stochastic process theory, often used in
defining fatigue load spectra in other engineering structures, cannot be applied to bridges, as
road traffic loads induce broad band stress histories. All that implies that the link between the
action and the effect cannot be expressed by simple formulae, while further difficulties arise
when vehicle interactions, whether due to simultaneity or not, become significant.
Nevertheless, provided that vehicle interaction problems can be solved in some way,
as shown in the Appendix A to the present chapter, it is intuitive enough to think that fatigue
load spectra for bridges are composed by suitable sets of standardized lorries, where each
lorry is identified by its own relevant properties, i.e. relative frequency, number of axles, axle
loads, axles spacing, deduced processing appropriate traffic records.
At this stage, it appears quite evident that definition of load spectra for bridges
requires careful consideration of fatigue assessment methodology, to assure that assessments
based on conventional spectra or on real spectra lead to the same results.
2.1.1 Fatigue verification methods
The preliminary explanation of fatigue assessment methodology based on
conventional load spectra is a crucial question in studying fatigue load models.
80
It can be easily recognised that fatigue verification methods goes along with a welldefined procedure, characterised by the following steps
1
2
3
4
81
For this reason, fatigue models have been refined, supplementing the main calibration,
based on Auxerre traffic data, with supplementary studies, based on different traffic data, in
order to enlarge their field of application,.
These supplementary calibrations regarded not only motorway traffics - Brothal (D),
Piacenza, Fiano Romano, Sasso Marconi (I) but also local traffic on secondary roads (Epone
(F)). In effect, long distance traffics, typical of motorways and main roads, are characterised
by high percentage of heavy vehicles, while local traffics, typical of secondary roads, are
lighter and composed mostly by two axle lorries. Besides, it should be considered that, as
confirmed by recent traffic data, European traffics show a trend characterised by
- marked increase of the number of articulated lorries vis--vis the simultaneous
reduction of the number lorries with trailer;
- reduction of the number of three axle lorries for the benefit of two axle lorries;
- increase of the average load per lorry.
2.2
82
S
m
m
=3
=3
m=
5
L
?
5106
5106
108
This last definition implies that the return period of max is about half a day, giving
so direct explanation of frequent load spectrum denomination.
In EN 1991-2 studies, to derive equivalent load spectra independently from the fatigue
classification of details, cumulative damage has been computed referring generally to
simplified S-N curves with unique slope, in turn m=3 (figure 3) or m=5 (figure 4). S-N curves
with double slope (figure 5) and without endurance limit have been used for some additional
calculations.
Some comparisons show that load spectra obtained using the simplified curve m=5 are
free from significant errors and reproduce generally well the actual fatigue damage.
S
m
=3
m=
5
N
O
Figure 3. Single slope S-N curve (m=3)
N
O
Figure 4. Single slope S-N curve (m=5)
S
m
=3
m=
5
5106
Figure 5. Double slope m=3- m=5 S-N curve without endurance limit
83
Qik
qik
0.5
Lane n. 1
2.0
Q1k =210 kN
q1k =2.7 kN/m2
0.5
0.5
Lane n. 2
2.0
Q 2k=140 kN
q 2k=0.75 kN/m2
0.5
0.5
2.0
Lane n. 3
Q 3k=70 kN
q 3k=0.75 kN/m2
0.5
Remaining area
The verification consists of checking that the maximum stress range max induced by
the model is smaller of the fatigue limit D. The application rules for the load model n. 1
agree exactly with those given for the main load model, so that the absolute minimum and
maximum stresses correspond as rule to different load configurations. The model allows
making coarse verifications also in multi-lane configurations, generally resulting extremely
safe-sided.
The simplified fatigue model n. 3, conceived for damage computation, is constituted
by a symmetrical conventional four axle vehicle, also said fatigue vehicle (figure 7). The
equivalent load of each axle is 120 kN. This model is accurate enough for spans bigger than
10 m, while for smaller spans it results safe-sided.
84
Axle spacing
[m]
Frequent
axle loads
[kN]
Wheel type
(see table 3)
4.5
90
190
A
B
4.20
1.30
80
140
140
A
B
B
3.20
5,20
1.30
1.30
90
180
120
120
120
90
190
140
140
90
180
120
110
110
A
B
C
C
C
A
B
B
B
A
B
C
C
C
3.40
6.00
1.80
4.80
3.60
4.40
1.30
85
TRAFFIC TYPE
Medium
distance
Local
traffic
Lorry
percentage
Lorry
percentage
Axle
Equivalent
Lorry
spacing
Axle loads
percentage
[m]
[kN]
4.5
70
130
20.0
40.0
80.0
4.20
1.30
70
120
120
5.0
10.0
5.0
3.20
5.20
1.30
1.30
70
150
90
90
90
50.0
30.0
5.0
3.40
6.00
1.80
70
140
90
90
15.0
15.0
5.0
4.80
3.60
4.40
1.30
70
130
90
80
80
10.0
5.0
5.0
The types of wheels pertaining to each standardised lorries of fatigue load models n. 2
and n. 4 are indicated in table 1, referring to table 3.
The number of lorries to be taken into account for damage assessments depends on the
traffic category: indicative values of Nobs, representing the number of lorries of year per slow
lane, are given in table 4. The additional traffic on the fast lane can be assumed to be 10% of
the slow lane traffic.
In fact, in EN 1991-2 a further general purpose fatigue model is anticipated too,
denominated fatigue model n. 5. This model is constituted by a sequence of consecutive axle
loads, directly derived from recorded traffic, duly supplemented to take into account vehicle
interactions, where relevant.
Fatigue model n. 5 is aimed to allow accurate fatigue verifications in particular
situations, like suspended or cable-stayed bridges, important existing bridges or bridges
carrying unusual traffics, whose relevance justifies ad hoc investigations [2].
2.2.4 Accuracy of fatigue load models
In the following, some significant results obtained using the fatigue load models are
compared with those pertaining to the reference traffic, allowing to highlight the accuracy and
the field of application of the each conventional model.
86
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
Geometrical definition
0.22
0.32
0.32
1.78
0.22
0.22 0.22
2
0.22
0.32
1.73
0.27
0.27
0.32
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
0.22
0.54
0.32
0.54
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
0.32
Table 4. Indicative number of lorries expected per year and for a slow lane
Traffic categories
1
2
3
4
Essentially, the comparison concerns the four influence surfaces shown in figure 8, for
bridges span L varying between 3 m and 100 m. The influence surfaces pertain to bending
moment M0 at midspan of simply supported beams, bending moments M1 and M2 at midspan
and on the support, respectively, of two span continuous beams and bending moment M3 at
midspan of three span continuous beams.
87
88
89
90
eq = 1 2 3 4 fat p = fat p ,
(1)
where
-
- 1 is a coefficient depending on the shape and on the base length of the influence
surface, i.e. on the number of secondary cycles in the stress history;
- 2 is a coefficient allowing to pass from reference traffic, used in fatigue model
calibration, to expected traffic;
- 3 depends on the design life of the bridge;
- 4 takes into account vehicle interactions amongst lorries simultaneously crossing
the bridge;
- fat is the equivalent dynamic magnification factor for fatigue verifications.
mp
m
.
(2)
n Q
n
i
Qm1 = m
m
i
(3)
and N0 and Q0 the flow and the equivalent vehicle weight of the reference traffic, it results
1
Q
2 = k m1
Q0
N m
1 .
N0
(4)
Def
Dv
Q0
,
Qm1
(5)
91
where Dv is the damage produced by N0 fatigue vehicles and Def is the damage produced by
N0 real lorries.
For Auxerre traffic it ensues Q0 = 480 kN and N 0 = 2 106 lorries per year.
3 is given by
3 = m
T
,
TR
(6)
where TR is the reference design working life (TR=100 years) and T is the actual design
working life.
4, which, as said, takes into account vehicle interactions, can be expressed as
4 (l , N1 ) = m
N*
N1*
+ i
N1
N
i
1
i
1
N
+ comb
i N1
comb
1
(7)
where N1 is the lorry flow (number of the lorries) on the main lane, Ni the lorry flow on the ith lane, i the max ordinate of the influence surface corresponding to i-th lane, N i* the
lonely, i.e. not interacting, lorry flow on the i-th lane, Ncomb the number of interacting lorries
and comb the overall ordinate of the influence surface for the interacting lanes, being the
second summation extended to all relevant combinations of lorries on several lanes.
An appropriate closed form expression for 4 can be theoretically derived for two
simultaneously loaded lanes, as shown in the Appendix A to the present chapter.
The equivalent impact factor fat, finally, is the ratio between the damage due to the
dynamic stress history and the damage due to the corresponding static stress history
fat = m
ni,dym ( i,dym )m
ni,stat ( i,stat )m
(8)
In conclusion, said c the detail category, the fatigue assessment reduces to check
that expression
eq = fat p c
(9)
is satisfied.
Partial factors M
The partial factors f, regarding the action aspect, and m, regarding the fatigue
resistance aspect, cover uncertainties in the evaluation of loads and stresses as well as fatigue
strength scattering.
According to the experience from steel structures, these partial factors affecting stress
ranges are generally combined in a unique factor M = f m . Beside the material, the
2.4
numerical values of M depend on the possibility to detect and repair fatigue cracks and on the
consequences of fatigue failure and are given ion the relevant Eurocodes.
2.5
92
circulation of Long and Heavy Vehicles (LHV), characterised by mass up to 60 t and length
till 25 m. This possibility has been admitted in Germany and in northern Countries, in
particular Sweden, Finland, Denmark and The Netherlands. For this reason in these Countries
a significant increase of the number of LHVs in long distance traffic has been experienced.
Despite of their effectiveness in terms of decrease of pollutant emissions and cost
reduction, LHVs could result too much demanding for existing infrastructures, in particular
for bridges, so that their impact requires careful examination.
In order to evaluate the aptness of EN 1991-2 fatigue load models to cover also the
effects of LHVs, some additional studies has been performed on relevant bridge schemes and
spans comparing the Auxerre traffic effects with those induced by a more recent one,
containing a relevant number of LHVs, recorded with a WIM device at the Moerdijk site in
the Netherlands in April 2007. These studies are illustrated in the Annex A to the present
Guidebook.
For fatigue damage assessments of railway bridges subjected to normal railway traffic
based on characteristic values of Load Model 71, including the dynamic factor , EN 1991-2
assigns three different fatigue load spectra.
These load spectra refer to three different traffic mixes, usual traffic mix, traffic with 250
kN-axles mix or light traffic mix, depending on whether the structure carries mixed (usual) traffic,
predominantly heavy freight traffic or lightweight passenger traffic.
The above mentioned load spectra are based on an annual traffic tonnage of 25 Mt per
each track.
If not otherwise specified, fatigue damage should be assessed taking into account that:
- in structures carrying multiple tracks, fatigue loadings shall be applied to a maximum
of two tracks, which should be the most unfavourable;
- the structural design working life of the bridge is 100 years;
- when dynamic effects can be considered through static dynamic factors, static
dynamic factors should be determined according to the method illustrated in 3.2;
- bridges requiring dynamic analysis could necessitate of additional investigations
and/or recommendations.
3.1
3.2
SW/2.
Since the static dynamic factors are intended for static assessments of bridge members,
they are evaluated considering extreme loading cases that can occur in the design working life.
For this reason, they would be excessively onerous if applied to Real Trains included in
fatigue load spectra.
93
Number of
trains/day
Mass of
train [t]
Traffic volume
[Mt/year]
12
663
2.90
12
530
2.32
940
1.72
510
0.93
2160
5.52
12
1431
6.27
1035
3.02
1035
2.27
Total
67
24.95
Number of
trains/day
Mass of
train [t]
Traffic volume
[Mt/year]
2160
4.73
13
1431
6.79
11
16
1135
6.63
12
16
1135
6.63
Total
51
24.78
Number of
trains/day
Mass of
train [t]
Traffic volume
[Mt/year]
10
663
2.4
530
1.0
2160
1.4
190
296
20.5
Total
207
25.3
In reality, in fatigue verifications only the equivalent dynamic effect over the assumed
100 years design working life needs to be considered, therefore the dynamic enhancement for
each Real Train can be reduced, for Maximum Permitted Vehicle Speeds up to 200 km/h, to
1
1
1 + '+ "
2
2
(10)
where
L2
K
100
"
0
,
56
'=
and
=
e
1 K + K 4
94
(11)
being v the Maximum Permitted Vehicle Speed in m/s, L the determinant length L in m of
v
v
for L20 m and K =
for L>20 m.
the structural member and K =
160
47,16 L0, 408
2.6
11.5
2.6
3.6
2.6
11.5
2.6
3.2
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
6x225 kN
12x(4x110 kN)
4x225 kN
2.5
16.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
16.5
2.5
2.9
3.3
3.3
6.7
10x(4x110 kN)
4x20 t
3.0
8.46
3.0
4.45
2.5
4.95
2.5
16.5
2.5
4.45
3.0
3.0
8.46
4x20 t
13x(4x150 kN)
4x170 kN
3x170 kN
3x170 kN
8x(2x170 kN)
3.0
11.0
3.0
3.3
3.0
15.7
3.0
3.0
15.7
3.0
15.7
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.0
11.0
4x170 kN
5.7
1.8
1.8
5.0
1.8
1.8
5.7
1.8
1.8
4.0
15x(6x225 kN)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
4.4
6x225 kN
1.8
3.2
8.0
3.5
1.8
12.8
4x225 kN
6.5
4x225 kN
1.8
3.7
2x70 kN
3.7
1.8
6.5
3.8
2x70 kN
3.9
2.1
2.1
4.4
2.1
2.1
6x225 kN
6.5
CABBBAAC+
CABCAACCB
1.8
11.0
1.8
3.2
1.8
11.0
1.8
3.0
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
6x225 kN
10x(4x225 kN)
5.5
4.2
5.5
4.2
5.5
3.5
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
6x225 kN
20x(2x225 kN)
95
1.8
1.8
5.7
1.8
1.8
5.0
1.8
1.8
5.7
1.8
1.8
4.0
15x(6x225 kN)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
4.4
6x225 kN
1.8
3.2
8.0
3.5
1.8
6.5
12.8
4x225 kN
1.8
3.7
4x225 kN
3.7
1.8
2x70 kN
3.8
6.5
3.9
4.4
2.1
2.1
2x70 kN
2.1
2.1
6x225 kN
6.5
CABBBAAC+
CABCAACCB
1.8
11.0
1.8
3.2
1.8
11.0
1.8
3.0
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
6x225 kN
10x(4x250 kN)
5.5
4.2
5.5
4.2
5.5
3.5
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
6x225 kN
20x(2x250 kN)
2.6
11.5
2.6
2.6
3.6
11.5
2.6
3.2
2.2
2.2
6.9
2.2
2.2
6x225 kN
12x(4x110 kN)
4x225 kN
2.5
16.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
16.5
2.5
2.9
3.3
3.3
6.7
10x(4x110 kN)
5.7
1.8
1.8
5.0
1.8
1.8
5.7
1.8
1.8
4.0
15x(6x225 kN)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
4.4
6x225 kN
4x130 kN
4x110 kN
2x(4x130 kN)
4x110 kN
4x130 kN
96
2.5
14.0
4.3
2.5
2.5
11.5
2.5
4.3
2.5
14.0
4.3
2.5
2.5
11.5
2.5
4.3
2.5
14.0
2.5
3.3
Ff 2 71
Mf
(12)
where Ff is the partial factor for fatigue loading, usually set to 1.00, is the damage
equivalent factor for fatigue, which takes account the expected railway traffic on the bridge and
the span of the member, 2 is the dynamic factor, 71 is the maximum stress range due to the
Load Model 71 (and where required SW/0), C is the reference value of the fatigue strength,
i.e. the class of the detail, and Mf is the partial factor for fatigue strength.
Load model should be placed in the most unfavourable position for the element under
consideration, disregarding any adjustment factor.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Fatigue verifications are decisive for designing new road and railway bridges as well
for assessing existing ones.
In up to date structural codes fatigue loads are given through suitable load spectra,
deduced from real traffic data, recorded using weighing in motion devices.
In theory, load spectrum can be directly deduced from real traffic data, provided that
they are representative of the traffic concerning the bridge, during its design working life. In
practice, the management of real load spectrum is very complicated and it requires a huge
amount of calculations; therefore, its application is justified only for particularly important
bridges.
Usually, in structural codes fatigue loads are assigned through conventional load
spectra, which reproduce the fatigue effects induced by the real traffic. Since fatigue effects
depend not only on the actions but also on the material properties, through the appropriate S-N
curve, the definition and the use of conventional load spectra is not trivial.
Duly taking into account the theoretical differences that exist between equivalent load
spectra, intended to reproduce fatigue damage, and frequent load spectra, intended to
reproduce the maximum load range for fatigue assessments, in EN 1991-2 five load spectra
are assigned for road bridge assessments and three load spectra are assigned for railway
bridges assessments.
In addition to the usual damage computations, based on Palmgren-Miner rule, EN
1991-2 allows to adopt also a conventional simplified fatigue assessment method, based on
damage equivalent factors, which are dependent on the material. This method brings back
fatigue verification to conventional resistance check, where an appropriate equivalent stress
range, eq, is compared with the detail category.
In the present chapter, background information and main features of EN 1991-2 load
spectra have been illustrated, discussing their possibilities and their fields of application and
highlighting the results of pre-normative calibration studies.
When vehicles interactions are significant, EN 1991-2 fatigue load models cannot be
used, unless additional information is available. Vehicles interactions problems are tackled
97
from the theoretical point of view in Appendix A to the present chapter, where simplified
formulae are also given for the evaluation of the pertinent damage equivalent factor 4.
Finally, in Annex A to the present Guidebook, the aptness of EN 1991-2 fatigue load
models to face the actual trends of road traffic and in particular the effects of Long and Heavy
Vehicles, allowed by the 96/53/EC Directive is discussed and additional studies are
illustrated.
REFERENCES
98
A.1
General principles
A.2
The probability that several vehicles are running simultaneously on the bridge, on the
same lane or on several lanes, can be found theoretically in the framework of the queuing
theory.
The bridge can be assimilated to a service system, with or without waiting queue, and
the stochastic processes can be modelled as Markov processes. This allows to arrive to a
suitably modified load spectrum, composed by single vehicles or vehicle convoys travelling
alone on the bridge so that the complete stress history results a random assembly of their
individual stress histories.
A.2.1 Basic assumptions
Let the load spectrum consisting in a set of q types of lorries and be Nij the number of
i-th vehicle per year (annual flow) on the j-th lane. The total flow on the j-th lane is then
q
N j = N ij .
(A.1)
i =1
Obviously, the probability that several lorries are simultaneously travelling on the
bridges, which is negligible for L<40 m, becomes more and more relevant as the characteristic
length L of the influence line increases.
Basic hypotheses of the theory are that the vehicle arrivals are distributed according a
Poisson law and that the transit time on L is exponentially distributed.
A.2.2 Interaction between lorries simultaneously travelling on one lane
The probability Pn that n lorries are simultaneously travelling on L can be calculated
considering the bridge as a single channel system with a waiting queue, in which the waiting
time, depending on the number of requests in the queue, and the number of the request in the
queue itself are limited.
In fact, as there is a minimum value for the time interval Ts between two consecutive
lorries, the waiting time for the i-th vehicle in the queue is given by Ti = i Ts and the
99
w
Pn = 1 + + i
i=2
i 1
s
+ j
s =1
j =1
(A.2)
n=0, 1,
and by
1
1
n n1
s
w i 1
s
i
Pn = + j 1 + + + j
j =1
j =1
s =1
i = 2 s =1
2nw,
(A.3)
where represents the lorry flow density and = 1 . The annual number of interactions
between n vehicles i1, .., in on the j-th lane can be then obtained substituting these formulae in
the general equation,
n
N (i1 , i 2 , ...., i n ), j
Nj
P
= n
1 P0 n
Ni
N i
qn
where
k =1
n
ts
s =1
(A.4)
j
indicates the sum over all the possible choices with repetitions of n elements
among q.
In the practice, the problem is reduced to consider the simultaneous presence of two
lorries r and t only, so that it results
P0 = 1 +
2
, P2 =
1 +
1 +
( + 1 )
+ 1
1 +
+ 1
(A.5)
N rj N tj
2
( + + 1 ) N its j
q 2 s =1
Nj
2
(A.6)
When a single vehicle model is given, equation (A.6) simplifies further into
N (1, 1), j =
N j
2 ( + + 1 )
(A.7)
100
m i
Pk = k
k! i = 0 i i!
0km.
(A.8)
N i1 h1 , i 2 h2 , ...., i k h k
P
= k
1 P0
k N i jhj
j =1 N h
j
N hj
N*
j =1
k
k
N hts
m s =1
(A.9)
where
represents the sum over all the possible choices of k elements among m, it is
m
k
possible to derive the annual number of interactions of k lorries, i1 on the h1-th lane,....., ik on
the hk-th lane,
k
N i jhj
k
= m kj!
j =1 N h
j
j j!
j =1
N i1 h1 , i 2 h2 , ...., i k h k
N hj
N*
j =1
k
k
N hts
m s =1
(A.10)
As said before, usually only the case in which two lorries r and t are simultaneously
present on the h-th and the j-th lane is relevant, so that it results
2
P2 =
2 2
N r h, t j
N rh N tj
2 i
i
i = 0 i!
2
=
N h N j 2 2
and
1
Nh + N j
2 i
i
,
2
i =1 i!
(A.11)
2
=
2 2
2 i
i
i =1 i!
Nh + N j
2
(A.12)
101
(A.13)
(A.14)
or
If the couples of interacting histories are sorted in such a way that the corresponding
max are in descending order, the number of the combined stress histories as well as the
residual numbers of each individual stress history can be computed in a very simple recursive
way, as follows.
In general, an individual stress history can interact with several others; therefore the
number of combined stress histories Ncij, obtained as h-th combination of the stress history
Ai and as k-th combination of the stress history A j is given by
( h 1)
N cij =
where
( h 1)
N i and
( k 1)
( h 1)
N i ( k 1) N j
N i + ( k 1)N j
(A.15)
(0)
N i = N Ai and
(0)
N j = N A j the number of
N i = ( 0) N i ( N ik + N ki ) ,
k i
(A.16)
being the sum extended to all the stress histories Ak , which combine with Ai itself.
In conclusion, a new modified load spectrum is obtained, whose members, represented
by the lonely individual vehicles and convoys and by their time independent combinations,
are interaction free, so that it can be defined as interaction-free vehicle spectrum.
A.6
Concluding remarks
The above mentioned methods allow the derivation of some important general results.
102
The methods can be used to tackle relevant questions concerning the calculation of the
maximum length of the influence line for which lorry interaction on the same lane can be
disregarded or with the calibration of damage equivalent 4-factor accounting for multilane
effect in -coefficient method.
The analysis, shortly illustrated below, can be performed taking into account:
- S-N curve in characterised by on slope m=5;
- four different annual lorry flow rates, N1=2.5105; N2=5.0105; N3=1.0106;
N4=2.0106, distributed over 280 working days;
- constant lorry speed v=13.89 m/sec.
Assuming an inter-vehicle interval Ts=1.5 s, application of (A.7) allows to calculate,
for example, how many vehicles per years are travelling simultaneously on the same lane, in
function of the annual vehicle flow and on the considered length L, as summarised in table
A.1.
N1
N2
N3
N4
40
1190
4729
18566
71605
50
1690
6670
25987
98813
60
2165
8515
32940
123618
75
2858
11177
42796
157689
100
3978
15423
58110
208240
These theoretical results, which are in good agreement with numerical simulations,
confirm that simultaneous presence of several lorries on the same lane is generally not
relevant for spans below 75 m. On the contrary, when bending moment on support of two
span continuous beams is considered under high traffic flows, simultaneity results significant
starting from 30 m span.
Closed form expression for calculation of 4 coefficients can be obtained resorting to
equation (A.12) referring to two lanes carrying equal lorry flows per year, which is the most
relevant case for practical applications. The results are summarized in table A.2 for different
traffic flows and span length.
Table A.2. Number of yearly interacting vehicles on two lanes carrying equal lorry flows
L (m)
N1
N2
N3
N4
10
1846
7331
28901
112358
20
3666
14450
56179
212764
30
5458
21367
81966
303028
50
8967
34626
129532
458712
75
13213
50200
182480
617280
100
17312
64766
229356
746264
150
25100
91240
308640
943390
200
32383
114678
373132
1086953
103
Taking into account lorry interactions in all possible relative positions of the two
lorries, equivalent stress ranges eq, can be easily evaluated from table A.2, provided that
influence coefficient pertaining to each lane is known.
Obviously, said 1 the equivalent stress range corresponding to one lane flow only,
the required 4 coefficient is simply given
4 =
eq
(A.17)
If the two lanes have the same influence coefficient, i.e. the influence surface is
cylindrical, 4 values result those indicated in table A.3, being 1.149 5 2 (m=5) the 4 basic
value, corresponding to zero interactions.
Table A.3. 4-factors for two lanes carrying lanes carrying equal lorry flows
L (m)
N1
N2
N3
N4
10
1.156
1.162
1.174
1.197
20
1.162
1.174
1.197
1.234
30
1.168
1.186
1.217
1.264
50
1.180
1.207
1.250
1.310
75
1.194
1.230
1.283
1.351
100
1.207
1.250
1.310
1.381
150
1.230
1.283
1.351
1.423
200
1.250
1.310
1.381
1.450
These results demonstrate that 4, which takes into account globally vehicle
interactions, is a quasi-linear function of N , which can be expressed in closed form as
4 = 5
1 + 2
1
LN
1.03 + 0.01
v 10 6
(A.18)
where L is in m and v in m/s, being 1 and 2, 12, the influence coefficients related to the
two interacting lanes.
104
Summary
In bridge design, climatic, geotechnical and environmental actions should be
considered, like wind, snow, temperature, earth pressure, water actions, uneven settlements
and so on. Variable climatic actions for bridges are discussed, stressing the peculiarities of the
relevant load models.
INTRODUCTION
Besides dead loads and imposed loads, other climatic, geotechnical and environmental
actions should be considered in bridge design, like wind, snow, temperature, earth pressure,
water actions, uneven settlements and so on.
In this chapter, the climatic actions are discussed, devoting special attention to
peculiarities of the relevant load models for bridges.
WIND ACTIONS
Wind actions on bridges are specified in EN1991-1-4 [1]; here only peculiarities
concerning bridges themselves will be taken into account, as general information are just
given in the chapter 4 of Guidebook 1 [2].
Strictly speaking, EN1991-1-4 specifications are applicable only to girder bridges
spanning up to 200 m with a constant cross section and one or more spans . Cross section can
be boxed, mono or multi-cell, or open with two or more longitudinal beams, which can be
made, in turn, by open or box sections or by truss, with a single deck (upper or lower).
In any case, it must be stressed that EN1991-1-4 rules can be easily extended to
variable cross sections, to double deck bridges as well as to other bridge types, provided that
wind-structure interactions are not relevant.
Bridges characterised by multiple or significantly curved decks, roofed bridges and
movable bridges could require some additional studies.
Lower or intermediate deck arch bridges or suspended and cable stayed bridges call
for specific studies, since for them wind-structure interactions cannot be disregarded.
In general, wind is considered blowing in two horizontal directions, x and y, being y
the longitudinal axis of the bridge and x the transversal axis (figure 1), originating forces in x,
y and z direction. Forces induced by wind blowing in direction x can be considered not
simultaneous with forces induced by wind blowing in direction y and vice versa; on the
contrary, wind forces acting in z direction should be considered acting simultaneously with
the corresponding x or y force. In some of particular orography, it could be necessary to
consider some inclination of the wind directions, out of the horizontal plane.
105
B
z
y
(1)
vb**, 0 = 25 m/s ,
(2)
(3)
for road bridges, where 0=0.6 for persistent design situations and 0=0.8 for actions during
execution,
Fwk'' = 0 Fwk ,
(4)
(5)
( )
(6)
( )
(7)
106
for railway bridges, while for footbridges no additional limitation is necessary as 0 is low
enough.
If dynamic analysis is not required, as it happens in normal bridges, for example
bridge spanning up to 40 m, whatever the construction material used, the structural factor
cscd, can be assumed cscd=1.0, being cs the size factor and cd the dynamic factor.
2.1.1 Wind forces on the deck in the x-direction
Wind forces in the x-direction can be evaluated using the expression
Fwk =
1
vb2 C Aref , x ,
2
(8)
where =1.25 kg/m3 is the air density, vb is the basic wind speed for the site under
consideration, Aref,x is the reference area and C is the wind load factor for bridges.
In absence of traffic, reference area Aref,x should be evaluated taking into account:
- in case of plain (web) beams, the total height d of the projection on a vertical plane
of all the main beams, including the part of one cornice or footway or ballasted
track projecting over the front main girder, (see figure 2), plus the sum d1 of the
heights of solid parapets, noise barriers, wind shields and open safety barriers
installed on the bridge;
- in case of truss beams, the total height d of the projection on a vertical plane of all
the trusses, including the part of one cornice or footway or ballasted track
projecting over the front main girder, or the projection of the contour of the solid
section, whichever is less, plus the sum d1 of the heights of solid parapets, noise
barriers, wind shields, and open safety barriers installed on the bridge.
d1
0.3
Open safety
barrier
Open parapet
The height of open safety barrier is set to 0.3 m, so that the reference heights to be
considered in same relevant case can be derived from table 1.
On one side
On both sides
d+0.3 m
d+0.6 m
d+d1
d+2 d1
d+0.6 m
d+1.2 m
107
During execution, finishing can be disregarded in the evaluation of Aref,x and, prior of
the placement of the carriageway, the surface of two main beams should be considered.
In presence of traffic, reference area Aref,x should be assumed as the larger between the
area evaluated considering absence of traffic and the area obtained taking into account the
presence of traffic. Lateral surface of vehicles exposed to wind is represented
- in road bridges, with a rectangular area, 2 m in height, starting from the
carriageway level, on the most unfavourable position, independently of the location
of the vertical traffic loads;
- in railway bridges, with a rectangular area, 4 m in height, starting from the top of
the rail, on the whole length of the bridge.
Calculation of wind load factor C
The wind load factor C is given by
C = ce c f , x ,
(9)
where ce is the exposure coefficient for kinetic pressure and cf,x is the force coefficient, which
is equal to cf,x0, being cf,x0 the force coefficient or drag coefficient without free end flow.
The exposure coefficient could be evaluated considering a reference height ze given by
the distance from the lowest point of the ground and the centre of the bridge beck,
disregarding additional parts, parapets, barriers and so on, included in the reference area.
The force coefficient cf,x can be assumed equal to 1.30 for normal bridges, or can be
determined using the expression
b
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 0.3
; 1 ,
d tot
(10)
for bridge with solid parapets and/or solid barriers and/or traffic, and using the expression
b
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 0.3
; 1.3 ,
d tot
(11)
(12)
108
(13)
Provided that dynamic analysis is not necessary, the wind load factor C can be also
evaluated in a more simple way using table 2. In the table the force factors C refer to terrain
category II, Area with low vegetation such as grass and isolated obstacles (trees, buildings)
with separations of at least 20 obstacle height. For intermediate values of ze and/or b/dtot,
linear interpolation is permitted.
ze20 m
ze=50 m
0.5
6.7
8.3
4.0
3.6
4.5
Fz
Aref,z=bL
dtot
=+
on
i
t
c
re
=superelevation
d di
win
=angle of the wind with the horizontal
Figure 3. Transversal slope and wind inclination for z-direction wind forces
For hilly terrain, when the bridge deck is at least 30 m above ground, and in every case
for flat and horizontal terrain, the angle of the wind with the horizontal, due to turbulence,
may be taken as 5.
109
Figure 4. Force coefficients cf,z for bridges with transversal slope and wind nclination
The reference area Aref,z should be set equal to the planar area of the bridge, Aref,z=bL,
being b the total width and L the length of the bridge.
The vertical force Fz, which is relevant only if it is of the same order of magnitude of
the dead load, can be considered applied with an eccentricity e=b/4, if not otherwise specified.
2.2
110
SNOW LOADS
THERMAL ACTIONS
4.1
Steel bridge:
2.
3.
Composite bridge
Concrete bridge:
111
40
Te,max
3
30
20
10
Te,min
0
-10
3
-20
2
-30
-40
-50
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Tmin
10
20
30
40
50
Tmax
Figure 6. Correlation between shade air temperature (Tmin, Tmax) and uniform
components of the bridge temperature (Te,min, Te,max)
If T0 is the initial bridge temperature, i.e. the temperature of the bridge at the time
when it is restrained, the variation of the uniform bridge temperature Tu is given by
Tu = Te,max - Te,min = TN ,esp + TN ,con ,
(14)
where
TN,exp=Te,max-T0
and TN,con=T0-Te,min
(15)
are the temperature variations to be considered when the bridge expands or contracts,
respectively.
Assessing bearing displacements it can be assumed TN,exp=Te,max-T0+20C and
TN,con=T0-Te,min+20C.
112
Type 1:
Steel deck
18
13
Type 2:
Composite deck
15
18
Type 3:
Concrete deck
- concrete box girder
- concrete beam
- concrete slab
10
15
15
5
8
8
Table 4. Adjustment factors ksur for road, foot and railway bridges
Type 1
Surface thickness
[mm]
Type 2
Type 3
Top
warmer
than bottom
Bottom
warmer
than top
Top
warmer
than bottom
Bottom
warmer
than top
Top
warmer
than bottom
Bottom
warmer
than top
insurfaced
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.1
water-proofed
1.6
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.5
1.0
50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
150
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.6
1.4
0.8
1.2
0.6
1.0
113
Type of construction
Cooling
24 C
14 C
8 C
4 C
-6 C
0.5 m
0.1 m
-5 C
0.5 m
21 C
0.3 m
0.2 m
0.1 m
Heating
114
Heating
Cooling
100 mm surfacing
Concrete slab
100 mm surfacing
Concrete beam
100 mm surfacing
Table 7.a. Non linear vertical temperature differences for composite bridges, normal
profile
Temperature difference (T)
Type of construction
Heating
Cooling
100 mm surfacing
115
Table 7.b. Non linear vertical temperature differences for composite bridges, simplified
profile
Temperature difference (T)
Type of construction
Heating
Cooling
100 mm surfacing
On the contrary, special attention should be paid for concrete multicell box girder
where temperature of the inner webs can differ significantly (around 15C) from the
temperature of the outer ones.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
Effects of variable climatic actions, wind, snow and temperature given in Eurocodes
EN 1991-1-x have been illustrated, with special emphasis on their application on bridges,
discussing peculiarities, application rules and possible simplification of the relevant load
models.
Wind specifications are applicable only to girder bridges spanning up to 200 m with a
constant cross section and one or more spans, but they can be extended variable cross
sections, to double deck bridges as well as to other bridge types, provided that wind-structure
interactions are not relevant.
Bridge types which are sensitive to wind-structure interactions, like lower or
intermediate deck arch bridges or suspended and cable stayed bridges, call for specific
studies, duly supported by wind tunnel tests.
Simultaneity of snow loads with traffic actions is generally not significant, except in
very particular cases, as roofed bridge, and can be disregarded.
Air shade temperature variations and solar radiation result in temperature fields in the
bridge, depending on the bridge location and on the structural material. These temperature
fields are typically non linear and have been described in detail, but often it is possible to refer
to simplified and safe-sided linear distributions.
Seismic actions have been not considered here, as their illustration is beyond the scope
of the present Guidebook.
6.
REFERENCES
[1] EN1991-1-4, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions Wind
actions. Brussels: CEN, 2005
116
[2] Holicky, M et al., GB1: Basis of design and actions on structures, Leonardo Project
number: CZ/08/LLP-LdV/TOI/134020, Prague, CTU, 2010
[3] EN1991-1-3, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions Snow
loads. Brussels: CEN, 2004
[4] EN1991-1-5, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-5: General actions Thermal
actions. Brussels: CEN, 2004
117
118
Summary
The accidental actions covered by Part 1.7 of EN 1991 are discussed and guidance for
their application in design calculations is given. A short summary is presented of the main clauses
in the code for collisions due to trucks. After the presentation of the clauses an example is given
in order to get some idea of the design procedure and the design consequences.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
General principles for classification of actions on structures, including accidental
actions and their modelling in verification of structural reliability, are introduced in EN 1990
Basis of Design. In particular EN 1990 defines the various design values and combination rules to
be used in the design calculations. A detailed description of individual actions is then given in
various parts of Eurocode 1, EN 1991 [2]. Part 1.7 of EN 1991 covers accidental actions and
gives rules and values for the following topics:
- -impact loads due to road traffic
- -impact loads due to train traffic
- -impact loads due to ships
It should be kept in mind that the loads in the main text are rather conventional. More
advanced models are presented in annex C of EN 1991-1-7. Apart from design values and other
detailed information for the loads mentioned above, the document EN 1991, Part 1-7 also gives
guidelines how to handle accidental loads in general. In many cases structural measures alone
cannot be considered as very efficient.
1.2
Background Documents
Part 1.7 of EN 1991 is partly based on the requirements put forward in the Eurocode on
traffic loads (ENV 1991-3) and some ISO-documents. For the more theoretical parts use has been
made of prenormative work performed in IABSE [5] and CIB [6]. Specific backgrounds
information can be found in [7] and [8].
119
BASIC FRAMEWORK
In order to reduce the risk involved in accidental type of load one might, as basic
strategies, consider probability reducing as well as consequence reducing measures, including
contingency plans in the event of an accident. Risk reducing measures should be given high
priority in design for accidental actions, and also be taken into account in design. Design with
respect to accidental actions may therefore pursue one or more as appropriate of the following
strategies, which may be mixed in the same design:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
preventing the action occurring or reducing the probability and/or magnitude of the
action to a reasonable level. (The limited effect of this strategy must be recognised; it
depends on factors which, over the life span of the structure, are normally outside the
control of the structural design process)
protecting the structure against the action (e.g. by traffic bollards)
designing in such a way that neither the whole structure nor an important part thereof
will collapse if a local failure (single element failure) should occur
designing key elements, on which the structure would be particularly reliant, with
special care, and in relevant cases for appropriate accidental actions
applying prescriptive design/detailing rules which provide in normal circumstances
an acceptably robust structure (e. g. tri-orthogonal tying for resistance to explosions,
or minimum level of ductility of structural elements subject to impact). For
prescriptive rules Part 1.7 refers to the relevant ENV 1992 to ENV 1999.
The design philosophy necessitates that accidental actions are treated in a special manner
with respect to load factors and load combinations. Partial load factors to be applied in analysis
according to strategy no. 3 are defined in Eurocode, Basis of Design, to be 1.0 for all loads
(permanent, variable and accidental) with the following qualification in: "Combinations for
accidental design situations either involve an explicit accidental action A (e.g. fire or impact) or
refer to a situation after an accidental event (A = 0)". After an accidental event the structure will
normally not have the required strength in persistent and transient design situations and will have
to be strengthened for a possible continued application. In temporary phases there may be reasons
for a relaxation of the requirements e.g. by allowing wind or wave loads for shorter return periods
to be applied in the analysis after an accidental event. As an example Norwegian rules for
offshore structures are referred to.
The typical difference between permanent, variable and accidental loads is shown in
Figure 1 depending on time. Permanent loads are always present (e.g permanent weight of the
construction). Variable loads are nearly always present even its value may be small for a
considerable part of time. However values which are nonzero will occur many times during the
design life of the structure (traffic, snow, wind). Accidental loads, on the contrary, usually never
occur during the lifetime of a structure. But if they are present, it takes only a short time. The
duration depends on the manner of load. For example: Explosions take a shorter time (seconds)
than floods (some days).
120
Force
(a)
time
Force
(b)
time
Force
(c)
time
Figure 1. Typical time characteristics of (a) accidental, (b) variable and (c) permanent loads
3.1
Impact on substructure
Impacts on the substructure of bridges by road vehicles are a relatively frequent
occurrence and may have considerable consequences. Specific provisions are consequently
specified in EN 1991 Part 1-7. In the case of soft impact, design values for the horizontal actions
due to impact on vertical structural elements (e.g. columns, walls) in the vicinity of various types
of internal or external roads may be obtained from Table 1. Soft impact means that the impacting
body consumes most of the available kinetic energy. The forces Fdx and Fdy denote respectively
the forces in the driving direction and perpendicular to it. There is no need to consider them
simultaneously. The collision forces are supposed to act at 1.25 m above the level of the driving
surface (0.5 m for cars). The force application area may be taken as 0.25 m (height) by 1.50 m
(width) or the member width, whichever is the smallest.
In addition to the values in this Table 1 the code specifies more advanced models for
nonlinear and dynamic analysis in an informative annex. The values of design impact forces
given in Table 1 are left open for the national choice as Nationally Determined Parameters.
121
Type of vehicle
Motorway
Country road
Urban area
Courtyards/garages
Courtyards/garages
Truck
Truck
Truck
Passengers cars only
Trucks
1000
750
500
50
150
500
375
250
25
75
The probabilistic methods of the reliability theory have been used in [9] to determine the
impact forces due to vehicle impact. Two alternative procedures given in EN 1991-1-7 [1],
Annexes B and C have been analysed. The following assumptions have been taken:
1.
2.
3.
The probability of a structural member being impacted by a lorry leaving its traffic
lane is 0.01 per year.
The target failure probability for a structural member, given a lorry hits the
substructure of the bridge is 10-4/10-2 = 0.01 [3, 4].
The probabilistic models given by the working documents of JCSS [10] have been
implemented
The values of accidental impact forces have been computed in [9] and are shown here in
Table 5 for the three assumed distances d of the substructure from the road. The resulting impact
forces determined on the basis of above introduced alternative probabilistic procedures (see Table
2) are considerably higher than the minimum (indicative) requirement for impact forces given
Section 4 of EN 1991-1-7 [1] (see Table 1). This is mainly due to the rather high probability of a
structural member being impacted by a lorry leaving its traffic lane, i.e. 0.01 per annum, which
represents a conservative assumption. For roadways, the impact forces are in a range from 2.9 to
2.8 MN, for roads in urban areas, the impact forces are in a broader range from 1.9 to 1.4 MN
(depending on the applied probabilistic approach) for three study cases of distances d from 3 to 9
m. The study [9] indicates that for the design of structural members located nearby the traffic
routes the upper bound of the accidental impact forces should be recommended in the National
annex of EN 1991-1-7 [1] provided that no other safety measures are implemented. However it is
stated here that the values of Table 2 are relatively high and that they may be recomputed based
on recorded statistics in a certain region or for certain road types.
Table 2: Design values of impact forces based on the probabilistic approach.
Type of road
Roadways
Urban areas
Design Example
Consider the reinforced concrete bridge pier of Figure 2. The cross sectional dimensions
are b = 0.50 m and h = 1.00 m. The column height h = 5 m and it is assumed to be hinged to both
the bridge deck as to the foundation structure. The reinforcement ratio is 0.01 for all four
122
groups of bars as indicated in figure 4.1, right hand side. Let the steel yield stress be equal to 300
MPa and the concrete strength 50 MPa. The column will be checked for impact by a truck under
motorway conditions.
h
y
Fdy
a
b
a( H a )
1.25(5.00 1.25)
Fdx =
1000 = 940 kNm
H
5.00
Qdx =
H a
Fdx
H
5.00 1.25
1000
5.00
= 750 kN
a( H a )
1.25(5.00 1.25)
Fdy =
500
H
5.00
= 470 kNm
Qxy =
H a
Fdy
H
= 375 kN
5.00 1.25
500
5.00
Other loads are not relevant in this case. The self-weight of the bridge deck and traffic
loads on the bridge only lead to a normal force in the column. Normally this will increase the load
bearing capacity of the column. So we may confine ourselves to the accidental load only.
Using a simplified model, the bending moment capacity can conservatively be estimated
from:
MRdx = 0.8 h2 b fy = 0.8 0.01 1.002 0.50 300 000 = 1200 kNm
123
MRdy = 0.8 h b2 fy = 0.8 0.01 1.00 0.502 300 000 = 600 kNm
As no partial factor on the resistance need to be used in the case of accidental loading, the
bending moment capacities can be considered as sufficient. The shear capacity of the column,
based on the concrete tensile part (say fctk = 1200 kN/m2) only is approximately equal to:
QRd = .0.3 bh fctk = 0.3 1.00 0.50 1200 = 360 kN.
This is almost sufficient for the loading in y-direction, but not for the x-direction.
Additional shear force reinforcement is necessary.
3.2
Impact on superstructure
Design values for actions due to impact from lorries and/or loads carried by the lorries on
members of the superstructure should be defined unless adequate clearances or suitable protection
measures to avoid impact are provided. The recommended value for adequate clearance,
excluding future re-surfacing of the roadway under the bridge, to avoid impact is in the range 5.0
m to 6.0 m. The following scenarios are considered:
a)
124
500
375
250
75
b)
F(h')
F(h)
F(h)
10
10
h'
h
drivig
direction
EN 1991 1-7 classifies structures that maybe subject to impact from derailed railway
traffic according to Table 4. Bridges belong consequently to class B. For that class each
requirement should be specified. To some extent it is questionable whether an analysis for
horizontal impact should be made at all since the probability of such an event is very small. The
probability depends on:
- Likelihood of train derailment
- Likelihood of train colliding with the bridge given train derailment
The likelihood of train derailment depends on the derailment rate, the number of trains per
day and the critical distance. The likelihood of collision depends on the lateral distance from the
structure and on the train velocity [11]. A risk analysis approach can be found in [12].
125
Class B
Structures that span across or near to the operational railway that are either permanently
occupied or serve as a temporary gathering place for people or consist of more than one
storey.
Massive structures that span across or near the operational railway such as bridges carrying
vehicular traffic or single storey buildings that are not permanently occupied or do not
serve as a temporary gathering place for people.
Recent studies in Switzerland have investigated the impact force on bridges after train
derailment. The impact force is a function of the speed and direction of impact, which depends
mainly on the train velocity vE and the distance from the point of derailment to the point of
impact, as well as on the dynamic friction coefficients. Before the engine or the rest of the train
impacts on a structure after derailment, the train, or a part of it, travels a certain distance across
the ballast and the platform. Thus, part of the kinetic energy is dissipated before impact. Thereby
a number of different cases have been treated. Some of the more important ones are shown in
Figure 5 and are:
1.
2.
3.
1)
derailed vehicle
vehicle on the railway track
y
vE
w
L
2)
derailed vehicle
vE
3)
0 0
x
L = engine
w = carriage
v = velocity at moment
of derailment
derailed vehicles
Cases of derailment
engine Re 6/6:
length=19.3 m; width=3.0 m;
height=4.5 m; mass=120 t
carriage EW IV:
length=26.4 m; width=2.8 m;
height=4.1 m; mass=41/50 t
126
The results of the studies have shown that the impact forces depend on the scenario and
can reach values up to 30 MN. Impact functions of train engines on stiff structures are reported in
Figure 6 as function of the engine velocity at moment of derailment.
It is recommended here to perform a risk analysis to define the impact forces in case that
this accidental load is considered, i.e. has an annual probability of occurrence greater than 10-6.
Protection measures are also recommended to reduce the risk.
F [MN]
F [MN]
v 8 m/s
F [MN]
8 m/s<v 12 m/s
v >12 m/s
30
30
30
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
t [s/100]
t [s/100]
t [s/100]
Ship impact accidents (see Figure 7) have occurred several times in the past with
considerable consequences. Table 5 shows the most important casualties of accidents involving
ships and bridges, [13].
127
together with the mass and dimensions of the ship should be considered as random. Given these
data, it is possible to set up a calculation model from which the course of the ship can be
estimated and the probability of a collision can be found. Such models have been applied several
times in ship collision specific studies for important bridges.
Figure 9. Frequent types of ship bridge accidents: A) bow collision with bridge pillar; B)
side collision with bridge pillar; C) deckhouse (superstructure) collision with bridge span
The most important and frequent in scope of energy distributed during collision are bow
collisions.
The occurrence of a mechanical or navigation error, leading to a possible collision with a
structural object, can be modelled as an (inhomogeneous) Poison process. Given this Poison
129
failure process with intensity (x), the probability that the structure is hit at least once in a period
T can be expressed as:
(1)
For the evaluation in practical cases, it may be necessary to evaluate Pc for various
individual object types and traffic lanes, and add the results in a proper way at the end of the
analysis. To give some indication for , in the Nieuwe Waterweg near Rotterdam in the
Netherlands, 28 ships were observed to hit the river bank in a period of 8 years and over a
distance of 10 km. Per year 80 000 ships pass this point, leading to =28/(10880000) = 10-6 per
ship per km.
For practical applications mechanical models rules have been developed to calculate the
part of the total energy that is transferred into the structure. Some of these rules are based on
empirical models, others on a static approximation, starting from so-called load indentation
curves (F-u diagrams) for both the object and the structure. According to this model the
interaction force during collapse is assumed to raise form zero up to the value where the sum of
the energy absorption of both ship and structure equal the available kinetic energy at the
beginning of the impact.
Design values can be then defined then from the collision model. The occurrence of a
mechanical or a navigation error, leading to a possible collision with a structural object, can be
modelled as a Poisson process. If data about types of ships, traffic intensities, error probability
rates and sailing velocities are known, a design force could be found from:
(2)
Given target reliability and estimates for the various parameters in (2) design values for
impact forces may be derived. The values in Tables 4.5 and 4.6 of EN 1991 Part 1.7, however,
have not been derived on the basis of explicit target reliability.
For inland ships the values in Table 4.5 in [2] have been chosen in accordance with ISO
DIS 10252. For a particular design it should be estimated which size of ships on the average
might be expected, and on the basis of those estimates, design values for the impact forces can be
found. Table 6 shows a comparison between:
- the values in Table 4.5 of EN 1991-1-7;
- the values based on Annex C of EN 1991-1-7, equation (C1);
- the values based on Annex C of EN 1991-1-7, equation (C9).
The masses for the inland waterways ships should been taken in the middle of the class.
The velocity used is 3 m/s and the equivalent stiffness k = 5 MN/m.
130
v
k
[m/s] [MN/m]
300
1250
4500
20000
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
Fd
Fd
[MN]
Fd [MN]
[MN]
Table 4.5 of eq (C.1) of EN eq (C.9) of EN
EN 1991-1-7
1991-1-7
1991-1-7
2
4
5
5
8
7
10
14
9
20
30
18
For sea going vessels values in Table 7 are based on equation (2), with v=3 m/s and
k0=15 MN/m for the smallest ship category and 60 MN/m for the heaviest category.
Table 7. Design forces Fd for seagoing vessels
m
k
[ton] v [m/s] [MN/m]
3000
10000
40000
100000
5
5
5
5
15
30
45
60
Fd
[MN]
Table 4.6 of
EN 1991-1-7
50
80
240
460
Fd
Fd
[MN]
[MN]
eq(C.1) of EN eq (C.11) of
1991-1-7
EN 1991-1-7
34
33
87
84
212
238
387
460
DISCUSSION ON ANNEX C
The informative Annex C of EN 1991 Part 1-7 gives the designer information on
background information for dynamic calculations in the case of impact loading.
A correct impact assessment s requires a nonlinear dynamic analysis of a model that
comprises both the structure as the impacting body.
The annex demonstrates the principles of such an analysis using simple empirical
models. It should be noted that more advanced models might be appropriate in special cases or
background studies.
In the assumption that the structure is rigid and immovable and the colliding object
deforms linearly during the impact phase and remains rigid during unloading, the maximum
resulting dynamic interaction force is given by:
F = vr k m
(3)
where vr is the object velocity at impact; k is the equivalent elastic stiffness of the object (i.e. the
ratio between force F and total deformation); m is the mass of the colliding object. The stiffness,
of course, is some kind of an averaged equivalent value, incorporating all kind of geometrical and
physical nonlinearities in the mechanics of the collision process.
Some reasonable estimates for these quantities are shown in Table 8:
131
m
v
k
mean
value
20 ton
80 km/hr
300 kN/m
mass
velocity
equivalent stiffness
standard
deviation
12 ton
10 km/hr
(4)
In the given example the duration would be 0.3 s. Another point is that the vehicle
usually looses speed between the point where it leaves the track and the point where it hits the
structure (see Figure 10).
d
d
structure
structure
road
v0
road
road
structure
d
road
structure
Figure 10. Situation sketch for impact by vehicles (top view and cross sections for upward
slope, flat terrain and downward slope)
For a given deceleration a, the velocity vr after a distance s from the critical point is:
vr = (v02 2 a s )0.5
132
(5)
Using a = 4 m/s2 we arrive at a distance s = 80 m. This means that the force will be zero if
the distance between the centre line of the track and the structural element is about 20 m. Here it has
been assumed that the angle = 15o. For intermediate distances one may use the expression:
F = Fo 1 d / d b (for d < db).
(6)
Note that the value of db may be adjusted because of the terrain characteristics.
The force of eq. (3) is the force at the impact surface between the structure and the
impacting vehicle. Inside the structure this load will lead to dynamic effects. As long as the
structure behaves elastically there may be some the dynamic amplification (one may think of 40
percent). However, due to elastic-plastic effects stresses may be reduced.
RISK ANALYSIS
For important bridges risk analyses are performed in order to compute the risk associated
to impact forces and especially due to ship collision. Site specific data of the type of traffic are
combined with probabilistic analyses as mentioned above in order to define:
- Design impact force associated to a target probability level
- Protection measures
- Robustness measures to avoid global failure (see for example [14])
The risk analysis scheme given in the Eurocodes 1991 Part 1.7 can be useful in order to
analyse the aforementioned aspects. It is reported here in Figure 11. Decision measures are taken
based on such a procedure.
133
CONCLUSIONS
Accidental actions on bridges as specified in the Eurocode 1991 Part 1.7 have been
reviewed in this chapter. The following topics have been covered:
- -impact loads due to road traffic
- -impact loads due to train traffic
- -impact loads due to ships
The models presented in Annex C of EN 1991-1-7 have been discussed. Apart from
design values and other detailed information for the loads mentioned above, the document EN
1991, Part 1-7 also gives guidelines how to handle accidental loads in general. In many cases
structural measures alone cannot be considered as very efficient.
REFERENCES
[1] EN 1990 Eurocode - Basis of structural design. European Comittee for Standardisation,
04/2002.
[2] EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-1: General actions Densities, self
weight, imposed loads for buildings. European Comittee for Standardisation, 04/2002.
[3] ISO 2394, General principles on reliability for structures. 1998.
[4] I SO 3898, Bases for design of structures Notations - General Symbols, 1997.
[5] Larsen, O.D.: Structural Engineering Documents Ship Collision with bridges, The
interaction between Vessel traffic and Bridge structures
[6] CIB: Actions on structures impact, CIB Report, Publication 167, CIB, Rotterdam 1992
[7] Vrouwenvelder, T.: Stochastic modelling of extreme action events in structural engineering,
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 15 (2000) 109-117
[8] Vrouwenvelder, T.:Design for ship impact according to Eurocode 1, Part 2.7, Ship
collision analysis, Gluver and Olson, 1998 Balkema, ISBN 9054109629
[9] Markova, J. and K. Jung: Alternative procedures for impact forces in Eurocodes Journal of
KONBIN, In: Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Safety and Reliability,
Wydawnictwo Instytutu Technicznego Wojsk Lotniczych, 30 May-2 June 2006, ISSN
18958281, pp 175-182
[10] Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS), Probabilistic Model Code, www.jcss.ethz.ch
[11] UIC Code 777-2: Structures Built over Railway lines, Paris, 2003.
[12] Jung, K. and J. Markova: Risk assessment of structures exposed to impact by trains" In:
Walraven, Blaauwendraad, Scarpas & Snijder (eds.), Proceedings of 5th International PhD
Symposium in Civil Engineering; 16-19 June 2004, Delft, The Netherlands, A.A. Balkema
Publishers, ISBN 90 5809 676 9; pp. 1057-1063
[13] Proske,D.:Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung von alten Brcken unter Schiffsanprall,
Dissertation, TU Dresden, 2003.
[14] Starossek, U., Progressive Collapse of Structures: Nomenclature and Procedure, Structural
Engineering International Vol. 2, 2006.
134
Summary
The combination rules for bridges introduced in this Chapter are based on Eurocode
EN 1990/A1. The combinations of traffic loads with non-traffic actions and alternative
procedures for load combinations are presented here. An example of verification of the bridge
cantilever for the limit state of static equilibrium is included. Furthermore, selected results of
application of alternative combination rules for the design of prestressed concrete highway
bridge in the Bohemia are presented. Comparison of obtained action effects indicates that
alternative combination rules may lead to considerably diverse load effects. Further
harmonisation based on calibrations of partial factors and other safety elements is needed.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background documents
EN 1990/A1 [2] provides basis for determination of combinations of actions for
ultimate and serviceability limit state verifications of bridges. The aim of this Chapter is to
describe principles of load combinations. Permanent actions, traffic loads and climatic actions
due to wind, snow and temperature are considered in accordance with relevant Parts of EN
1991. Supplementary information on the traffic load models provided in EN 1991-2 [3] is
given in the Background document [4] which is expected to be available on the JRC web site.
1.2
General principles
EN 1990/A1 [2] gives rules focused on the application of basis provided in EN 1990
[1] for the bridge design. The critical load cases should be determined for the selected design
situations and identified limit states.
Similarly as for buildings (see Annex A1 in [1]) the alternative combination rules for
the ultimate limit states provided in EN 1990/A1 [2] may lead to significantly diverse load
effects as illustrated in Section 5.
COMBINATION OF ACTIONS
2.1
General
The effects of actions that cannot occur simultaneously due to physical or functional
reasons should not be considered together in combinations of actions. In case when specific
measures are provided preventing some actions to act simultaneously, these combinations
need not be considered in analysis (e.g. when it is assured that some construction loads are not
simultaneously acting during a specific construction phase).
The expressions 6.9a to 6.12b in EN 1990 [1] are applied for the verification of
ultimate limit states and the expressions 6.14a to 6.16b are applied for the verification of the
135
(1)
(2)
j 1
i >1
j 1
j 1
where the less favourable expression needs to be considered. Where relevant, the favourable
or unfavourable design values of permanent actions Gd,sup or Gd,inf should be considered.
The application of the combination of actions according to the twin expressions
(6.10a), (6.10b) gives in common cases more uniform reliability level of bridges for various
ratios of the characteristic values of variable loads and permanent loads. Furthermore, it was
also decided in the Czech Republic to allow application of the unique expression (6.10)
G , j Gk , j " +" P P " +" Q ,1 Qk ,1" +" Q ,i 0 ,i Qk ,i
j 1
j 1
(3)
Main load
model LM1
Special
vehicles LM3
Horizontal loads
Crowd
loading LM4
Characteristic
values
Frequent
values
gr3
Characteristic
values
gr4
gr5
See EN 19912
Braking,
acceleration
forces
Centrifugal.
transverse
force
Characteristic
values
Characteristic
values
Footways and
cycle tracks
Vertical loads
only
Uniformly
distributed loads
Characteristic
values
Characteristic
values
Characteristic
values
The rules for combinations of construction loads during execution for bridges were
transferred from EN 1991-1-6 [6] to EN 1990/A1 [2]. However, some rules for the
136
verification of ultimate and serviceability limit states during execution and for combination of
construction loads with other variable loads remain till now in Annex A2 of EN 1991-1-6 [5].
It should be taken into account in appropriate cases that construction loads Qc act
simultaneously with other types of actions. Different construction loads (Qca to Qce) should be
considered according to the project conditions as one single action, or also as several
individual construction loads that are combined with other variable actions. In some cases it
need not be considered in one combination some variable actions. For example, it is rather
unlikely the simultaneous occurrence of construction load Qca due to working personnel with
small site equipment together with maximum wind or snow actions. For individual project
however, it may need be considered in combination snow and wind simultaneously with other
types of construction loads, e.g. with cranes. The characteristic values of climatic actions may
be reduced for short-time construction periods on the basis of EN 1991-1-6 [6].
Where relevant, the thermal actions and water loads should be considered
simultaneously with construction loads. The various parameters governing water actions and
components of thermal actions should be taken into account when identifying appropriate
combinations with construction loads. The selection of actions to load combinations need to
be considered according to the conditions of individual project.
2.3
E d = E G k , j ; P; 1,infq Qk ,1 ; 1,i Qk ,i
j 1; i > 1
(4)
(5)
i >1
The infrequent value of the traffic load corresponds to the mean return period of one
year which is based on the product of the characteristic value of variable load and factor
1,infq. The recommended value of the factor for traffic loads 1,infq = 0.8.
2.4
137
Snow loads need not be combined with groups of loads gr1 and gr2 for footbridges
unless otherwise specified for particular geographical areas and certain types of footbridges.
In case that fotbridges provide protection of the pedestrians and cyclists against all kinds of
unfavourable weather, the specific load combinations may be determined. The combination
similar to actions on buildings may be applied in which instead of relevant category of
imposed load the specific group of traffic loads is applied.
2.5
2.6
1,infq
TS (tandem system)
0.75
0.8
0.75
UDL (uniform)
0.40
0.8
0.40
0.40
0.8
0.40
0.8
0.75
0.8
0.40
0.8
0.75
0.6
0.8
0.6
-
0.2
-
0
0
Fw*
1.0
Thermal actions
Tk
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.5
Snow loads
0.8
Construction loads
Qc
1.0
1.0
Traffic loads
Wind actions
138
Fw
The recommended values of 0, 1 and 2 for gr1a and gr1b are given for road traffic
corresponding to adjusting factors Qi, qi, qr and Q equal to 1. Those relating to UDL
correspond to common traffic scenarios, in which a rare accumulation of lorries can occur.
Other values may be expected for other classes of routes, or expected traffic, related to the
choice of the corresponding factors.
Recommended factors for footbridges are given in Table 3. The combination value
of the pedestrian and cycle-track load, mentioned in Table 4.4a of EN 1991-2 [3] is a reduced
value to which the factors 0 and 1 may be used.
The recommended 0 value for thermal actions may in most cases be reduced to 0 for
ultimate limit states EQU, STR and GEO.
Table 3. Recommended values of factors for footbridges.
0
gr1
0.40
0.40
Qfw
gr2
Wind forces
Fw
0.3
0.2
Thermal actions
0.6
0.6
0.5
Snow loads
0.8
Construction loads
Qc
1.0
1.0
Action
Traffic loads
3.1
139
Permanent actions
Prestress
Leading
variable
action
Accompanying variable
actions
main
others
(if any)
P P
Q,1 Qk,1
Q,i0,iQk,i
unfavourable favourable
Gj,sup Gkj,sup
Gj,inf Gkj,inf
Permanent actions
Prestress
Leading
variable
action
Accompanying variable
actions
main
others
(if any)
Q,1 Qk,1
Q,i0,iQk,i
unfavourable favourable
Exp. (6.10)
Gj,supGkj,sup
Gj,infGkj,inf
PP
Exp. (6.10a)
Gj,supGkj,sup
Gj,infGkj,inf
PP
Exp. (6.10b)
Gj,supGkj,sup
Gj,infGkj,inf
PP
Q,10,1Qk,1
Q,1 Qk,1
Q,i0,iQk,i
Q,i0,iQk,i
The choice between exp. 6.10, or 6.10a and 6.10b may be decided in the National Annex.
Recommended values:
Gj,sup = 1.35 for unfavourable and Gj,inf = 1.0 for favourable permanent actions;
Q = 1.35 for unfavourable actions due to road or pedestrian traffic;
Q = 1.45 for unfavourable actions due to railway traffic, reduced to Q=1.20 for load models SW/2
and unloaded train;
For favourable variable actions, Q = 0.
The characteristic values of all permanent actions from one source may be multiplied by G,sup if
the total resulting action effect is unfavourable and G,inf if the total resulting action effect is
favourable.
For particular verifications, the values for G and Q may be subdivided into g and q and the
model uncertainty factor Sd (a value of Sd in recommended in the range 1.0 to 1.15).
140
Permanent actions
Prestress
Leading
variable
action
P P
Q,1 Qk,1
unfavourable favourable
Gj,supGkj,sup
Gj,infGkj,inf
Q,i0,iQk,i
The selection of the geotechnical approach is a NDP which may be given the National
Annex. For example it was decided in the Czech Republic to recommend the Approach 2 for
footings, piles, anchors, underground walls etc., and the Approach 3 is recommended to be
applied for the stability of the slopes.
The design values of actions for the ultimate limit states in the accidental and seismic
design situations are given in Table 7.
Table 7. Design values of actions for use in accidental and seismic combinations
Persistent and
transient
design
situation
Permanent actions
unfavourable favourable
Prestress
Accidental
or seismic
action
Accidental
exp. (6.11a/b)
Gkj,sup
Gkj,inf
Ad
Seismic
Exp. (6.12a/b)
Gkj,sup
Gkj,inf
IAEk or
Accompanying variable
actions
main
others
(if any)
11 Qk1 or 21Qk1
2,i Qk,i
2,i Qk,i
AEd
In the case of accidental design situations, the main variable action may be taken with its
frequent or quasi-permanent values. The choice is given in the National Annex depending on the
accidental action under consideration.
For execution phases during which there is a risk of loss of static equilibrium, the
combination of actions is given as
G
j 1
kj, sup
(6)
j 1
where Qc , k is the characteristic value of construction loads as defined in EN 1991-1-6 [6], i.e.
the characteristic value of the relevant combination of groups Qca, Qcb, Qcc, Qcd, Qce and Qcf.
4.1
141
Permanent actions Gd
Unfavourable
Favourable
Gk,j,sup
Gk,j,inf
Prestress
P
Variable actions Qd
Leading
Others
Qk,1
0,iQk,i
Frequent
Gk,j,sup
Gk,j,inf
1,1Qk,1
2,iQk,i
Quasi-permanent
Gk,j,sup
Gk,j,inf
2,1Qk,1
2,iQk,i
EXAMPLES
Example 5.1 Verification of the ultimate limit states (EQU) during execution
The stability of a bridge cantilever during execution should be verified. The self-weight
G, construction loads Qc and wind actions W are acting on a bridge cantilever. The scheme is
illustrated in Figure 1.
gd,sup
wd
qcb,d
qca,d
Qcc,d
gd,inf
wd
b
142
(7)
where the lengths of bridge cantilevers are a = 24 m and b = 27 m. The self-weight of the
prestressed concrete cantilever is determined on the basis of nominal dimensions of the box
girder cross-section considering the mean value of density. The bridge cross-sectional area is
A = 7.6 m2 and the density of prestressed concrete c = 25 kN/m3. The self-weight is
determined as
gk = Ac c = 7.6 25 = 190 kN/m
The heavy construction device Qk,cc (50 kN), construction loads due to working
personnel qca (1 kN/m2) and movable storage of material qcb (0.2 kN/m2) are applied
considering the recommended values given in SN EN 1991-1-6 [6].
The wind action per 1 metre of bridge length is determined as wk = 6.9 kN/m (the
procedure for specification of wind actions is not included here).
The destabilising effects in case that the leading construction load (dominant) is present
may be determined
Ed,dst=1.05190272/2+1.35(50272+1272/2+0.2272/2)+1.50.86.9272/2=117.4 MNm
The condition given by expression (7) is not satisfied and therefore, for assurance of the
cantilever stability it is necessary to accept additional measures. In case that the contra-weight
is applied, the uncertainties in the position of the contra-weight need to be considered or the
recommended partial factor g,inf = 0.8 applied according to Table 4.
Example 5.2 Selected results of application of alternative combination rules
Selected results of the application of alternative load combinations given by expressions
(6.10) or twin expressions (6.10a), (6.10b) for the analysis of internal forces of the highway
prestressed concrete bridge in ekanice are presented here. The bridge is a 13 span
continuous beam, length of spans from 22 m to 40.5 m. The first part of bridge is built of
beams (3 spans above the railway), characterised by the cross sections reported in Figure 2.a,
the second part is built of box girder, see Figure 2.b.
The self-weight, permanent loads, the group of traffic loads gr1 and thermal actions are
taken into account.
The two alternative approaches for the vertical difference component of thermal actions
provided in EN 1991-1-5[5] are also considered here (linear approach 1 and non-linear
approach 2). The approach 2 is selected in the National Annex of the Czech Republic.
143
Figure 2.b. Box girder of the ekanice bridge on highway D3 (Prague - Tbor).
Selected results of comparative studies of the highway bridge in ekanice are given in
Tables 9 to 12.
Table 9. Moments based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1[2] and EN
1991-1-5 [5], hogging cross-sections.
Type of crosssection, EN 19911-5 approach No.
Beam - 2
Box girder - 1
Box girder - 2
Moments in MNm
(6.10) Q1
-12.47
-36.26
-31.39
(6.10) T1
-9.15
-32.67
-24.55
(6.10a)
-7.68
-27.88
-23.01
(6.10b) Q1
-8.67
-28.92
-24.05
(6.10b) T1
-5.36
-25.32
-17.20
Table 10. Moments based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1 [2] and EN
1991-1-5 [5], sagging cross-sections.
Type of crossMoments in MNm
section,
EN 1991-1-5
approach No.
Beam - 2
Box girder - 1
Box girder - 2
(6.10) Q1
14.48
34.97
31.99
(6.10) T1
13.42
34.65
29.69
(6.10a)
10.83
27.61
24.64
(6.10b) Q1
12.59
30.60
27.63
(6.10b) T1
11.54
30.28
25.32
Table 11. Upper stresses based on alternative procedures given in EN 1990/A1 [2] and
EN 1991-1-5 [5], hogging cross-sections
Type of crosssection, EN
1991-1-5
approach No.
Beam - 2
Box girder - 1
Box girder - 2
144
Stresses in MPa
(6.10) Q1
1.20
1.23
2.85
(6.10) T1
1.08
0.85
3.55
(6.10a)
-0.51
0.34
1.96
(6.10b) Q1
-0.16
0.45
2.07
(6.10b) T1
-0.28
0.07
2.77
REFERENCES
145
146
Summary
In this chapter an example of a simply supported prestressed concrete road bridge with
open cross section. The load analysis is performed according to the provisions of EN 1990
and EN 1991, with special emphasis on traffic loads given in EN 1991-2. Aim of the case
study is to clarify load application and load combinations, taking into account their influence
on the local and global behaviour of the bridge members. Static and fatigue assessments are
out of the scope of the present paper and are not considered here.
INTRODUCTION
In the present case study, the design of a prestressed concrete road bridge is discussed,
with special emphasis on loads and load combinations.
Loads are determined according to EN 1991-1-1 [1], EN 1991-1-4 [2], EN 1991-1-5
[3], EN 1991-2 [4], and load combinations are derived from EN 1990 [5].
The simply supported bridge, which covers an effective span of 45.0 m (figure 1), is
located in a urban area and it is characterised by an open cross section composed by four
precast pre-stressed concrete longitudinal beams set at constant spacing of 2.95 m (figure 2),
connected by four stiff transverse beams. The transverse beam spacing is 15.0 m.
The upper flanges of the precast longitudinal beams are duly connected to a 0.30 mthick concrete slab, cast in situ in a second phase. The concrete slab is not prestressed.
Only end transverse beams (diaphragms) are connected to the concrete slab.
End transverse beam
15
Transverse beams
15
15
45
2.1
General
The total width of the bridge is 11.8 m. The carriageway, 7.50 m wide, is separated
from the two walkways, each one 1.50 m wide, by means of two fixed safety barriers.
The height of the longitudinal beams, whose geometry is represented in figure 3, is
2.76 m; therefore the total height of the cross section is 3.06 m.
The distance between the bridges intrados and an underlying roadway is 6.0 m.
The surfacing is made by a 60 mm thick asphalt layer.
147
11.8
1.5
0.5
7.5
0.5
1.5
3.06
0.35
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.98
0.3
1.81
0.82
0.9
0.6
2.76
2.95
0.35
2.95
0.3
2.95
148
Structural materials
Materials are chosen according to EN 1992-1-1 [6] and EN 1992-2 [7]
The strength class of structural normal weight concrete is C50/60.
Reinforcing steel is B450C.
Prestress is obtained using post-tensioned prestressing tendons.
LOAD ANALYSIS
3.1
Structural self-weight
Considering a density =25.0 kN/m3 for reinforced concrete, the nominal self-weight
of each precast beam is:
g k ,1b = A = 25.0 kN/m 3 1.24 m 2 = 31.0 kN/m .
(1)
The self-weight of the cast-in-situ r.c. slab pertaining to each longitudinal beam is
g k ,1s = A = 25.0 kN/m 3 0.3 m 2.95 m = 22.13 kN/m .
(2)
(3)
(4)
3.3
Traffic loads
According to EN 1991-2 [4], traffic loads should be applied on the carriageway,
longitudinally and transversally, in the most adverse position, according to the shape of the
influence surface, in order to maximize or minimize the considered load effects.
The first operation to be performed consists of determining the width w of the
carriageway and the number of notional lanes.
The carriageway width w depends, first of all, on whether the walkways are accessible
to vehicular traffic or not. In the present case, as walkways are protected by fixed safety
barriers, only crowd loading needs to be considered on them.
The carriageway width w is given by the clear distance between the safety barriers,
therefore w=7.50 m.
As w>6.0 m, each notional lane is 3.0 m wide and the maximum number of notional
lanes nl which can be considered is given by
w
7.50
nl = Int
= Int
=2,
3 m
3
(5)
(6)
As known, EN 1991-2 calls for four separate static load models, being the single axle
load model n. 2 (LM2) devoted only to local verifications.
149
3.0
notional lane n. 1
1.5
notional lane n. 2
7.5
3.0
remaining area
Wind actions
Wind actions can be represented by vertical and horizontal equivalent static forces.
Vertical force is orthogonal to the roadway plane, while horizontal forces are
represented by two components, parallel and orthogonal to the bridges longitudinal axis,
respectively.
The equivalent pressure exerted by the wind can be calculated through the expression
q p (z e ) = c e ( z e )
vb2 ,
(7)
in which is the air density, which is assumed to be constant and equal to 1.25 kg/m3, vb is
the basic wind velocity and ce(ze) is the so-called exposure coefficient, given by
ce ( ze ) = cr2 (ze ) c02 ( ze ) [1 + 7 I v (ze )] ,
(8)
150
variations in the sites orography, can usually be assumed equal to 1.0. Iv and cr are defined by
the following expressions
ki
I v ( z e ) = c0 ( z e ) ln
z0
I v ( z min )
z
k r (z e ) ln
cr ( z e ) =
z0
cr ( z min )
if z min z
(10)
if z min z
ze = 7.53
1.53
3.06
where ki is the turbulence factor, usually set to 1.0. In formulae (9) and (10), the terrain factor
kr, the roughness length z0 and the minimum height zmin depend on the terrain category.
As said, the bridge in question is located in an urban area which can be classified in
terrain category IV, that is an area in which at least 15 % of the surface is covered with
buildings whose average height exceeds 15 m. For terrain category IV it results z0=1.0 m,
zmin=10.0 m, kr=0.234.
The reference height ze represents the distance between the lowest ground level to the
centre of the bridge deck structure, disregarding other parts (e.g. parapets) of the reference
areas Recalling that the intrados of the structure is 6.0 m above ground level, it is
ze=(6.0+0.53.06) m=7.53 m (figure 5).
151
As ze <zmin, it holds
I v ( ze ) = I v ( z min ) =
1
= 0.434 ,
10 m
1.0 ln
1.0 m
(11)
10 m
cr (ze ) = cr (z min ) = 0.234 ln
= 0.539 ,
1.0 m
(12)
(13)
so that
Basic wind velocity vb is function of geographic site. Here we assume vb=27 m/s,
obtaining an equivalent static pressure
q p (z e ) = 1.176
1.25
27.0 2 = 535.9 N/m 2 0.54 kN/m 2 .
2
(14)
Said x the horizontal direction orthogonal to the bridges axis, the force Fwk,x is
Fwk , x = q p ( z e ) c f , x Aref , x ,
(15)
where the coefficient cf,x depends on the ratio between the decks width b and the total decks
height dtot exposed to wind.
When the bridge is unloaded the exposed height is 4.26 m, as the presence of two open
safety barriers and two open parapets is equivalent to an increase of 1.2 m in the exposed
height.
For unloaded bridge, the coefficient cf,x is
b
11.8
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 0.3
; 1.3 = 2.5 0.3
= 1.669 .
d
4
.
26
tot
(16)
If must be noted that the simplified approach proposed in EN1991-1-4 [2] allowing to
set cf,x=1.3 is generally unsafe-sided.
Using (16), the force Fwk,x for unloaded bridge is then (figure 6)
1.2
Fwk,x
(17)
When the bridge is loaded, the exposed height increases by 2.0 m (3.0 m in the Italian
National Annex), so it becomes 5.06 m (6.06 m).
In that case the coefficient cf,x is then
b
11.8
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 0.3
; 1.0 = 2.5 0.3
= 1.80 ,
d tot
5.06
(18)
11.8
b
; 1.0 = 2.5 0.3
= 1.916 ,
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 0.3
6
.
06
d
tot
(19)
and also for loaded bridge the simplification cf,x=1.3 results unsafe-sided.
Since 0w=0.6, the combination values 0wFwk,x for the equivalent wind force for
loaded bridge result (figure 7)
(20)
(21)
respectively.
2 m EN 1991-1-4
3 m Italian National Annex
(22)
where the sign is determined by the most unfavourable situation. As in that case the reference
area is the horizontal projection of the bridge deck, Fwk,z is
(23)
applied with an eccentricity, e, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the bridge
e=
d 11.80 m
=
= 2.95 m .
4
4
(24)
153
The vertical force Fwk,z is much smaller than the permanent loads, therefore, according
to EN 1991-1-4, it could be disregarded.
Finally, in the longitudinal direction y, the action to be considered is 25% of that for
the direction orthogonal to the axis, but it is not relevant in this case.
3.5
Thermal actions
As we are dealing with a statically determined structure, uniform and linear thermal
variations should be taken into account only to calculate deformations of the structure and, if
relevant, effects of friction forces in bearings.
Non linear thermal variations cause stresses, but they are not particularly relevant in
the present example.
Assuming that in the site under consideration the maximum and minimum air shade
temperatures with an annual probability of being exceeded of 0.02 are Tmax=40 C and Tmin=10 C, respectively, the uniform bridge temperature components for a concrete bridge result
Te,max=41.7 C and Te,min=-1.8 C (figure 8).
70
60
1
50
2
40
Te,max
3
30
20
10
Te,min
0
-10
3
-20
2
-30
-40
-50
-50
-40
-30
-20
Tmin
-10
10
20
30
40
50
Tmax
(25)
(26)
154
15 C
8 C
Figure 9. Simplified temperature distributions along the height of the cross section
STRESS CALCULATION
4.1
d i e1
1
,
+ n
Ri = P J i
2
n J
j =1 J j d j
j =1 j
(27)
where di is the distance of the i-th longitudinal beam from the vertical centroidal axis and Ji is
the moment of inertia of the i-th longitudinal beam.
If the n longitudinal beams are identical, expression (27) simplifies in
d i e1
1
Ri = P + n
,
2
n
d
j =1
(28)
that clearly indicates that the most heavily stressed beams are the external ones.
When, as in the present example, the longitudinal beams are also equally spaced,
expression (28) can be further simplified and for the external beams it becomes
1
6 e1
R1 = P +
,
n n (n + 1)
(29)
155
-0.35
0.1
-0.2
0.4
0.7
0.85
Figure 10. Influence line for load on the external longitudinal beam (n. 1)
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.45
0.4
Figure 11. Influence line for load on the internal longitudinal beam (n. 2)
4.2
156
-0.20
0.4
0.1
-0.35
-0.65
-0.30
Figure 12. Influence line for bending moment in section A-A of the transverse beam
600
300
300
60
60
400
45
45
820
1020
150
= 233.1 kN/m 2 ,
0.82 0.82
(30)
200
= 254.6 kN/m 2 ,
1.02 0.77
(31)
157
4.3
4.3.1
(32)
while the effect of the weight of each transverse beam on each longitudinal beam is a
concentrated load of 2.93 kN, placed 15.0 m away from the support.
From expression (4) the dead load of non structural parts pertaining to each
longitudinal beam is 6.49 kN/m.
Under permanent loads, the maximum bending moment occurs at midspan (cross
section C) and it is given
Gk1,t L 1
1
M g (C )k = Gk L2 +
= 59.62 45.0 2 + 2.93 15.0 kNm = 15135.3 kNm (33)
8
4 3 8
,
while the maximum shear force occurs at support (cross section A) and it results
V g ( A )k =
Gk1,t 1
1
Gk L +
= 59.62 45.0 + 2.93 kN = 1344.4 kN .
2
4
2
(34)
4.3.2
Q1k=300 kN
Q1k=300 kN
Q2k=200 kN
Q2k=200 kN
2
2
q1k =9 kN/m
2
q fk =3.0 kN/m
q 2k=2.5 kN/m
-0.35
-0.2
0.01
0.1
0.17
0.4
0.48
0.7
0.76
0.85
q fk =5.0 kN/m
q fk =5.0 kN/m
-0.35
-0.2
0.31
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.85
0.76
Figure 16. Most unfavourable LM4 (crowd loading) arrangement for beam n. 1
When traffic loads are taken into account (figure 15), to beam n. 1 pertain a
concentrated load
Qk = 2 300 0.48 + 2 200 0.17 = 356 kN ,
(35)
(36)
Q L 1
1
45.0
M q (C )k max = q k L2 + k = 17.66 45.0 2 + 356
= 8475.2 kNm ,
8
4
4
8
(37)
and
Vq ( A)k max =
1
1
(38)
When crowd loading (LM4) is considered instead (figure 16), to beam n. 1 pertains
only a uniformly distributed load
q k = 1.5 5.0 0.76 + 6.2 5.0 0.31 = 15.31 kN/m ,
(39)
whose effects are, in the present example, less severe than those caused by lorry traffic.
4.3.3
15
200
0
.
07
2
.
5
15
3
0
.
07
0
.
89
0
.
11
159
Q1k=300 kN
Q2k=200 kN
2
2
2
2
q 2k=2.5 kN/m
0.02
0.1
0.18
0.23
0.33
0.21
0.11
0.4
-0.35
-0.20
-0.30
Q2k=200 kN
q1k =9 kN/m
-0.65
(41)
q fk =5.0 kN/m
q fk =5.0 kN/m
-0.20
0.1
0.4
-0.07
-0.35
-0.30
-0.43
q fk =5.0 kN/m
-0.06
-0.65
-0.26
q fk =5.0 kN/m
4.3.4
(42)
(43)
and
Design value of braking or acceleration forces depends on the vertical loads applied on
notional lane n. 1 and it results
Qld max = 1.35 (0.6 2 Q1k + 0.1 q1k w1 L) = 1.35 ( 360 + 2.7 45) = 650.0 kN .
(44)
This value must be combined with an appropriate combination value of vertical traffic
load, corresponding to its frequent value. Recalling that 1=0.75 for the tandem systems of
LM1 and 1=0.4 for the uniformly distributed load component of LM1, loads pertaining to
beam n. 1 (see expressions (35) and (36)) become
Qk = 0.75 (2 300 0.48 + 2 200 0.17 ) = 267 kN ,
(45)
q k = 0.4 (1.5 3 0.76 + 3.0 9.0 0.48 + 3 2.5 0.17 + 0.21 2.5 0.01) = 7.06 kN/m ,
(46)
and
7.06 45 2 276 45
Q L
1
= 6469.0 kNm
M q (C )d max = 1.35 q k L2 + k = 1.35
+
4
8
4
8
(47)
and
7.06 45.0
(48)
When the leading traffic loads are vertical ones, the accompanying value of the
braking and acceleration forces are to be defined in National Annex and can be set to zero.
4.3.5
161
tandem systems of LM1, for the isolated single axle (LM2) and for crowd loading (LM4),
while 1=0.40 for the uniformly distributed load component of LM1.
4.4
Wind effects
Partial factor Q for wind actions in ULS combinations is Q=1.50 if unfavourable and
Q=0 if favourable.
Design effects of vertical wind actions
The vertical component of the pressure exerted by the wind, as discussed in 3.4, is a
uniformly distributed load acting on the entire length of the bridge with an eccentricity e=2.95
m.
For unloaded bridge it results
4.4.1
(49)
(50)
For loaded bridge, the combination value 0wqwk =2.84 kN/m should be considered,
in place of qwd.
4.4.2
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
6 0.5 Fwk , x L e z
Rd , z =
20 2.95
4.5
6 0.5 0 w Fwk , x L e z
or Rd , z =
20 2.95
(55)
162
considering that the coefficient of thermal expansion for prestressed concrete is T=1010-6
C.
FINAL REMARKS
In the present chapter, effects of loads and load combinations on a simply supported
concrete bridge with open cross section are discussed.
The road bridge is located in an urban area, so that also crowd loading needs to be
explicitly taken into account.
Application of permanent, climatic and traffic actions, derived from the relevant parts
of Eurocode 1, is illustrated in detail, paying special attention to traffic loads.
As the transverse beams are much stiffer than the longitudinal beams, transverse load
distribution has been studied resorting to the Courbon-Engesser theory.
Load combinations for ultimate and serviceability limit state assessments are
determined according to EN 1990 rules, highlighting specific features of local or global
behaviour and their consequences as well as possible simplifications.
The example confirms that Eurocodes are very appropriate for bridge design.
REFERENCES
[1] EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-1 General actions. Densities, selfweight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-4 General actions. Wind actions,
CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 1991-1-5 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-5 General actions. Thermal
actions, CEN, Brussels 2004.
[4] EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 2 Traffic loads on bridges, CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[5] EN 1990 Eurocode - Basis of structural design. CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[6] EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1 General rules and rules
for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[7] EN 1992-2 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures. Part 2 Concrete bridges. Design
and detailing rule, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
163
164
Summary
In the present chapter it is discussed the design of an orthotropic steel deck bridge
according to Eurocodes EN 1990 and EN 1991, in particular referring to traffic loads given in
EN 1991-2. The case study refers to a three span continuous bridge with box cross section.
Aim of the case study is to clarify the influence of load application and load combinations on
the local and global behaviour of bridge members.
INTRODUCTION
In the present case study, the design of an orthotropic steel deck bridge is discussed,
with special emphasis on loads and load combinations.
The steel bridge considered here is a three span continuous bridge on four supports.
The clear length of each span is 120 m, so that the length of the bridge is 360 m (figure 1).
Loads are determined according to EN 1991-1-1 [1], EN 1991-1-4 [2], EN 1991-1-5
[3], EN 1991-2 [4], and load combinations are derived from EN 1990 [5].
Fatigue aspects are out of the scope of the present paper; therefore they are not
discussed here.
2.1
General
The bridges structure is made up of an orthotropic steel deck, with closed trapezoidal
longitudinal stiffeners, sustained by a box girder, 3800 mm height (figure 2), whose current
geometry is described below.
The deck is made up by an 18 mm upper flange stiffened by 8 mm thick trapezoidal
stiffeners.
The trapezoidal stiffeners, which have a lower flange 200 mm wide and are 270 mm in
height, are characterised by a spacing of 600 mm (300+300 mm) and are continuous through
I-shaped transverse beams, 750 mm height. The span of the longitudinal stiffeners is 3000
mm, i.e. the transverse beams spacing.
The webs of the box girder are 12 mm thick, while the lower flange is 34 mm thick.
The webs and the lower flange are stiffened by L-shaped 200x100x14 longitudinal stiffeners.
The carriageway is composed by two physical lanes, each one 3.75 m wide, and by
two walkways, each one 1.50 m wide, so that the total width of the carriageway between the
safety barriers is 10.50 m and the overall width of the bridge is 11.60 m. The walkways are at
the same level of the physical lanes, from which they are separated only by the road signs.
The bridge is located in an extra-urban area and the distance between the bridge
intrados and the underlying ground is 20.0 m.
165
120
120
120
Material
Materials are chosen according to EN 1993-1-1 [6] and EN 1993-2 [7]
The structural steel is S355J2 grade.
LOAD ANALYSIS
3.1
Structural self-weight
Since the steel density is =78.5 kN/m3, the nominal self-weight of the bridge is:
g k ,1b = A = 78.5 kN/m 3 0.584 m 2 = 45.84 kN/m .
(1)
To take into account the weight of other structural parts (transverse beams, bracings
and so on), the value of gk,1b, is increased of about 6%, so that the self-weight gk,1 results
g k ,1 = 1.06 g k ,1b 48.6 kN/m .
166
(2)
3.2
(3)
3.3
Traffic loads
According to EN 1991-2 [1], traffic loads should be applied on the carriageway,
longitudinally and transversally, in the most adverse position according to the shape of the
influence surface, in order to maximize or minimize the considered load effect.
For example, to determine the maximum sag moments in the spans and the hog
moment at the supports, the relevant influence surfaces, illustrated in figures 3, 4 and 5, must
be considered.
According to EN 1991-2, it is necessary first to determine the total width of the
carriageway w and the number of conventional lanes. The width w depends on whether the
walkways are isolated from vehicular traffic by fixed safety barriers or by kerbs of sufficient
height (>100 mm) or not. In the present case, walkways are potentially interested by vehicle
traffic, as they are separated from the physical lanes only by road signs. For this reason, the
width w is represented by the inner distance between the safety barriers, and therefore
w=10.50 m.
5
0
-5 0
51.36
60
120
180
240
300
360
-10
-15
-20
-25
-24.5898
180
0
-5 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
-10
-15
-20
-21
-25
167
15
12.3168
10
5
69.24
0
-5
60
120
180
240
300
360
w
10.50
nl = Int
= Int
= 3,
3 m
3
(4)
(5)
notional lane n. 3
3.0
remaining area
1.5
10.5
notional lane n. 2
3.0
notional lane n. 1
3.0
Obviously, to maximize the torque coexisting with the maximum bending moment, it
is necessary to maximize the load eccentricity, so obtaining the notional lane arrangement
illustrated in figure 6.
Clearly, when load conditions maximizing the torque are explored, load eccentricities
should be maximized and different lane arrangement should be considered, like the one
illustrated in figure 7, where only two notional lanes need to be loaded.
3.0
notional lane n. 2
10.5
notional lane n. 1
3.0
As known, EN 1991-2 calls for four separate static load models, being the single axle
load model n. 2 (LM2) devoted only to local verifications.
For global verifications of the bridge in question, only load model n. 1 (LM1) is
relevant.
In fact, load model n. 3 corresponding to special vehicles (LM3) and load model n. 4,
crowd loading (LM4), are not accounted for, as the bridge is not interested by special vehicle
transit and it is located in an extra-urban area. In this regard, it must be recalled that load
models LM4 and LM3 need to be considered only when expressly required.
On the i th notional lane, the main load model LM1 provides for a tandem system of
axles weighing Qi Qik, accompanied by a uniformly distributed load qi qik, being Qi and qi
the adjustment factors. In the present work it has been assumed Qi=qi =1.0 for each lane,
while the values Qik and qik are summarized in table 1. Only one tandem system should be
considered per lane, placed in the most unfavourable position.
Table 1. Characteristic values for load model n. 1 (LM1)
Notional lane
Qk [kN]
qk [kN/m2]
Lane 1
300
9.0
Lane 2
200
2.5
Lane 3
100
2.5
Remaining area
0
2.5
As said, when seeking a determined effect on the bridge, the LM1 must obviously be
arranged in the most unfavourable position and the tandem systems, when present, need to be
considered in full, that is, with all their four wheels.
By way of example, possible arrangements of the static traffic loads are represented in
figures 8 and 9, corresponding to notional lane numberings discussed below and illustrated in
figures 6 and 7, respectively.
Q1k=300 kN
Q1k=300 kN
2000
Q2k=200 kN
Q2k=200 kN
Q3k=100 kN
2000
Q3k=100 kN
2000
q1k =9 kN/m
q2k=2.5 kN/m
qrk=2.5 kN/m
169
Q1k=300 kN
Q1k=300 kN
2000
Q2k=200 kN
Q2k=200 kN
2000
q1k =9 kN/m
q2k=2.5 kN/m
Wind actions
Wind actions can be represented by vertical and horizontal equivalent static forces.
Vertical force is orthogonal to the roadway plane, while the horizontal forces can be
represented by two components, parallel and orthogonal to the bridges longitudinal axis,
respectively.
The equivalent pressure exerted by the wind can be calculated through the expression
q p (z e ) = c e ( z e )
(6)
vb2 ,
in which is the air density, which is assumed to be constant and equal to 1.25 kg/m3, vb is
the basic wind velocity and ce(ze) is the so-called exposure coefficient, depending on the
reference altitude over the ground, ze, and given by
ce ( ze ) = cr2 (ze ) c02 ( ze ) [1 + 7 I v (ze )] .
(7)
Expression (7) depends on the roughness coefficient cr, on the orography factor c0 and
on the turbulence intensity Iv. The orography factor, taking into account any significant local
variations in the sites orography, can usually be assumed equal to 1.0. Iv and cr, instead, are
defined by the following expressions
ki
I v ( z e ) = c0 ( z e ) ln
z0
I v ( z min )
z
k r (z e ) ln
cr ( z e ) =
z0
cr ( z min )
170
if z min z
(9)
where ki is the turbulence factor, usually set to 1.0. The terrain factor kr, the roughness length
z0 and the minimum height zmin depend on the terrain category.
As said, the bridge in question is located in an extra-urban area which can be classified
in terrain category II, i.e. an area with low vegetation, such as grass, and isolated obstacles
(trees, buildings) with separations of at least 20 obstacle heights. For terrain category II it
results z0=0.050 m, zmin=2.0 m, kr=0.19.
The reference height ze represents the distance between the lowest ground level to the
centre of the bridge deck structure, disregarding other parts (e.g. parapets) of the reference
areas Recalling that the intrados of the structure is 20.0 m above ground level, it is
ze=20.0+(3.80/2) m= 21.90 (figure 10).
1
= 0.164 ,
21.90 m
1.0 ln
0.05 m
(10)
21.90 m
cr ( z e ) = 0.19 ln
= 1.156 ,
0.05 m
(11)
(12)
whence
Considering for the site a basic wind velocity vb=27 m/s, qp(ze) results
q p ( z e ) = 2.869
1.25
27.0 2 = 1307 N/m 2 .
2
(13)
171
According to EN 1991-2, the y-axis is assumed parallel to the bridge axis, x-axis is
assumed horizontal and perpendicular to the y-axis, while the z-axis lies in the vertical plane
containing the y-axis.
The equivalent static force Fwk,x in the x direction is given by
Fwk , x = q p ( z e ) c f , x Aref , x ,
(14)
where the coefficient cf,x is a function of the ratio between the total decks width b and the
total decks height dtot exposed to wind.
When the bridge is unloaded the exposed height is 4.4 m, as the presence of two open
safety barriers determines an increase of 0.6 m in the exposed height.
When the bridge is loaded the exposed height increases by 2.0 m, so becoming 5.8 m.
For unloaded bridge, the coefficient cf,x is
b
11.6
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 0.3
; 1.3 = 2.5 0.3
= 1.709 .
d tot
4.4
(15)
(16)
(17)
b
11.6
c f , x = min 2.4; max 2.5 0.3
; 1.0 = 2.5 0.3
= 1.90 ,
d tot
5.8
(18)
and also for loaded bridge the simplification cf,x=1.3 proposed in EN1991-1-4 is unsafe-sided.
Considering the reduction factor 1 calculated before, the combination value 0wFwk,x
for the equivalent wind force for loaded bridge results (figure 18)
172
(19)
being 0w=0.6.
It is interesting to note that in the Italian National Annex the exposed height of lorries
it has been set equal to 3.0 m, instead of 2.0 m. In this case, as dtot=6.8 m, cf,x=1.988 and
(20)
(21)
to be applied with eccentricity e=0.25 b=0.2511.6 m=2.9 m with respect to the longitudinal
axis of the bridge.
According to EN1991-2, as Fwk,z is much lower than the permanent load (65.52 kN/m),
it could be disregarded.
Finally, when relevant, equivalent static forces in the longitudinal y-direction (the
bridges longitudinal axis) should be considered, which can be set equal to 25% of the forces
in the x-direction.
173
3.5
Thermal actions
As the structure under consideration is a continuous beam resting on four supports,
thermal actions induce displacements and stresses.
In order to account for thermal variations, two different contributions must be
distinguished. A uniform thermal variation along the cross section and a non-uniform
temperature variation along the sections height, corresponding to situations where the top and
the bottom of the bridge are at different temperatures, due to differential heating or cooling
effects.
The former contribution does not provoke any stresses as long as the bridge can slide
horizontally in correspondence to its supports and it will cause only a shortening or elongation
of the structures line of axis (i.e. it is relevant only for design of bearings and expansion
joints).
A typical uniform temperature variation TU can be derived from EN 1991-1-5.
Assuming that in the site under consideration the maximum and minimum air shade
temperatures with an annual probability of being exceeded of 0.02 are Tmax=40 C and Tmin=10 C, respectively, the uniform bridge temperature components for a steel bridge result
Te,max=56.6 C and Te,min=-13.3 C (figure 14).
Setting the initial bridge temperature T0 to 20 C, the characteristic values of the
maximum expansion and contraction ranges, TN,exp and TN,con, result so
(22)
(23)
70
60
1
50
40
Te,max
3
30
20
10
Te,min
0
-10
3
-20
2
-30
-40
-50
-50
-40
-30
-20
Tmin
-10
10
20
30
Tmax
40
50
The second non uniform contribution is clearly very significant for the bridge under
consideration. EN 1991-1-5 offers two possible procedures to deal with it, provided that the
surfacing thickness is not less than 40 mm.
The first, more accurate one, calls for applying rather complex thermal variation laws
along the cross sections height (figure 15), while the second instead makes use of simpler
linear variations. Consequently, while the first variation laws require employing dedicated
software for the structural analysis, simplified linear variations enable even manual
calculations, at least up to a certain degree. In case of steel deck structures, simplified linear
variations correspond to a raise in temperature of 18 C for top warmer than bottom,
TM,heat=+18 C, and to an increase of 13 C for bottom warmer than top, TM,cool=+13 C,
(figure 16).
Figure 15. Accurate temperature distributions along the height of the cross section
Figure 16. Simplified temperature distributions along the height of the cross section
STRESS CALCULATION
4.1
175
Finally, in the global resisting system, the stiffened plate represents the upper flange of
the main girders.
The resultant stress pattern in the deck plate can be so obtained by the superposition of
the individual stress patterns induced by each one of the three above mentioned static systems.
4.2
Thus, the relative contact pressure for a single wheel of the heaviest tandem system of
LM1 is
pQ1k =
150
= 522.1 kN/m 2
0.536 0.536
(24)
200
= 523.6 kN/m 2 .
0.736 0.486
(25)
Local stresses are very important when fatigue assessments are concerned. As known,
fatigue assessments can be determinant in designing deck plates, ribs and transverse beams
details, but they are outside the scope of the present example.
176
4.4
(26)
Said A the cross section of the first span where bending moment attains its local
maximum, and denoted with B and C the intermediate supports, Gk yields the symmetrical
diagram of bending moments shown in figure 21, where
M g ( A)k =
M g (B )k =
2
2
Gk L2 = 74.12 120.0 2 kNm = 85381.8 kNm ,
25
25
(27)
1
1
Gk L2 = 74.12 120.0 2 kNm = 106727.4 kNm ,
10
10
(28)
M g (C )k =
Sec. B
1
1
Gk L2 = 74.12 120.0 2 kNm = 26681.8 kNm .
40
40
(29)
Sec. C
Sec. A
(30)
while the global effects of the tandem systems of LM 1 can be determined considering in the
worst longitudinal position a single concentrated load (knife load)
Qtk = 2Q1k + 2Q2 k + 2Q3k = (600 + 400 + 200) kN = 1200 kN ;
(31)
this is the sum of the axle loads of the three tandem systems applied on the three notional
lanes.
Referring to the bending moment in the side spans, in the central span and at the
intermediate supports, the most unfavourable load arrangements should be determined
according to the influence lines illustrated in figures 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
For example, to maximize the bending moment in the first span due to traffic loads
MQ(A)kmax, the uniformly distributed load should be applied on the first and on the third span
as indicated in figure 22, while the concentrated load should be applied on the section A,
located around 51.4 m from the first support, so that
M Q ( A')k max = M q ( A')k max + M Qt ( A')k max = 66548.9 + 29507.7 = 96056.6 kNm .
178
(32)
(33)
Figure 23. Arrangement of UDL to maximize bending moment in the central span
To minimize the bending moment MQ(B)kmin due to traffic loads on cross section B,
corresponding to the second support, the first and the second span should be loaded with
uniformly distributed load (figure 24), while the concentrated load should be placed 69.24 m
away from the first support
(34)
Figure 24. Arrangement of UDL to minimize bending moment on the second support
When minimum traffic load effects are investigated, different load conditions are to be
considered, as indicated in the following.
The minimum bending moment in the section A of the first span, MQ(A)kmin, is
obtained applying the uniformly distributed load on the central span, as just indicated in
figure 22, and the concentrated load around 49.9 m away from the second support, so that
M Q ( A')k min = M q ( A')k min + M Qt ( A')k min = 14109.3 + 4915.3 = 19024.6 kNm . (35)
The minimum bending moment at midspan (section C), MQ(C)kmin, is obtained
applying the uniformly distributed load on the lateral spans, as indicated in figure 22, and the
concentrated load around 70.7 m away from the first or the last support, so that
179
(36)
(37)
(38)
The corresponding bending moment and shear force diagrams are illustrated in figures
25 and 26, respectively.
Figure 25. Bending moment diagram corresponding to M(A)dmax in the first span
Even if, in general, cross section A differs from A, in the present example the
difference is so little that it could be disregarded. In fact, considering A, it would result
M ( A')d max = 244364.0 kNm .
Figure 26. Shear force diagram corresponding to Mdmax in the first span
180
(39)
(40)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 27 and 28, respectively.
(41)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 29 and 30, respectively.
Figure 29. Bending moment diagram corresponding to Mdmin on the second support
181
Figure 30. Shear force diagram corresponding to Mdmin on the second support
The minimum bending moment in the first span M(A)dmin is obtained applying the
permanent design load Gd=1.0 Gk =74.12 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the central span and the design concentrated
traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN on the second span, approximately around 49.9 m away
from the second support, so that
M ( A')d min = 59275.4 kNm .
(42)
The corresponding bending moment and shear force diagrams are illustrated in figures
31 and 32, respectively.
The minimum bending moment at midspan M (C)dmin is obtained applying the
permanent design load Gd=1.0 Gk =74.12 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the lateral spans and the design concentrated
traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN approximately 70.7 m away from the first or the last
support, so
M (C )d min = 25261.7 kNm .
182
(43)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 33 and 34, respectively.
(44)
The corresponding bending moment and shear forces diagrams are illustrated in
figures 35 and 36, respectively.
183
load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the first and the third span and the design concentrated
traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN immediately left hand of section B-, obtaining the shear
force diagram illustrated in figure 37, where
( )
V B
d min
= 12890.0 kN .
(45)
Figure 37. Shear force diagram corresponding to Vdmin in section BMaximum design shear force in section B+ V(B+)dmax is obtained applying the
permanent design load Gd=1.35 Gk =100.06 kN/m on each span, the uniformly distributed
design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the central span and the design concentrated
traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN immediately right hand of section B+, obtaining the shear
force diagram illustrated in figure 38, where
( )
V B+
d max
= 11329.2 kN .
(46)
184
( )
V C
d min
= 2276.0 kN .
(47)
5
4
V [MN]
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0
120
x [m]
240
360
Figure 39. Shear force diagram corresponding to Vdmin in section CFinally, maximum design shear force in section C-, V(C-)dmax is obtained applying the
uniformly distributed design traffic load qd=1.35 qk =61.76 kN/m on the right hand half of the
central span and the design concentrated traffic load Qd=1.35 Qk =1620 kN immediately right
hand of section C-, obtaining the shear force diagram illustrated in figure 40, where
( )
V C
d max
= 2276.0 kN .
(48)
Figure 40. Shear force diagram corresponding to Vdmax in section C4.4.4 SLS combinations for permanent and traffic loads
Concerning SLS verifications, combinations of permanent and traffic load are
generally relevant only for characteristic and frequent load combinations, as quasi-permanent
values of traffic loads are zero, except in very particular cases.
Significant load arrangements to be considered look very similar to those illustrated
before regarding ULS verifications, so they will not be discussed in detail.
It is just necessary to recall that frequent values of traffic loads are obtained via the 1
factors, which depend on the nature of the load: in fact, 1=0.75 for the tandem systems of
LM1, for the isolated single axle of LM2 and for crowd loading (LM4), while 1=0.40 for the
uniformly distributed loads of LM1.
4.4.5
Wind effects
When relevant, the vertical component of the pressure exerted by the wind should be
considered as uniformly distributed load acting on the entire length of the bridge.
The bending moment diagram is then analogous to that due to dead loads and
therefore, recalling expression (21), for unloaded bridge it results
185
M wz ( A)k =
2
2
Fwk , z L2 = 13.64 120.0 2 kNm = 15713.3 kNm ,
25
25
(49)
M wz (B )k =
1
1
Fwk , z L2 = m 13.64 120.0 2 kNm = m19641.6 kNm ,
10
10
(50)
M wz (C )k =
1
1
Fwk , z L2 = 13.64 120.0 2 kNm = 4910.4 kNm ,
40
40
(51)
while for loaded bridge, the combination value 0wFwk,z=8.18 kN/m, 0w=0.6, should be
considered, in place of Fwk,z.
Partial factor Q for wind actions in ULS combinations is Q=1.50 if unfavourable and
Q=0 if favourable.
4.5
(52)
(53)
The vertical temperature differences, assumed to be linear through the cross sections
height, produce a bending moment diagram that is linear in the two side spans and constant in
the central one. In figure 41 is reported the bending moment diagram for heating (top warmer
then bottom).
120
120
120
Figure 41. Bending moment diagram for vertical temperature differences (heating)
Recalling that, for the continuous beams considered in the present example, the
extreme values of bending moments are given by
T
6
M T = EJ T
,
5
h
it results
186
(54)
6
12 10 6 18
= 23849.8 kNm ,
M T = 2.1108 1.665
5
3.8
(55)
6
12 10 6 ( 13)
8
= 2.1 10 1.665
= 17224.9 kNm .
5
3.8
(56)
4.7
M1
R1
M2
R2
M2
M1
R1
R2
Figure 42. Structural systems for assessment of cross section members (ref. figure 8)
187
M1
R1
M2
R2
M2
M1
R1
R2
Figure 43. Structural systems for assessment of cross section members (ref. figure 9)
FINAL REMARKS
REFERENCES
[1] EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-1 General actions. Densities, selfweight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[2] EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-4 General actions. Wind actions,
CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 1991-1-5 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 1-5 General actions. Thermal
actions, CEN, Brussels 2004.
[4] EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures. Part 2 Traffic loads on bridges, CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
188
189
190
Summary
The identification of all the actions and action effects likely to arise during
construction and future use is a crucial step in bridge design. Actions and effects that go
unrecognised in this stage and are consequently ignored in further analyses may result in
structural designs with an unacceptably low level of reliability. With proper detection, on the
contrary, suitable safety measures can be readily adopted to ensure the required levels of
reliability are reached. This chapter deals with the application of the structural Eurocodes,
particularly EN-1991, Actions on Structures, to the analysis of composite decks on road
bridges. The effects of actions and combinations of actions relevant to the verification of the
ultimate and serviceability limit states in bridge decks are also studied.
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of the present chapter is to illustrate how Eurocode EN 1991,
Actions on Structures and other structural Eurocodes can be applied to the analysis of
composite steel and concrete decks on road bridges. The specific aims sought are:
1.
2.
Scope
Although bridge deck design normally covers serviceability, structural safety, fatigue
resistance and durability of all structural members, i.e., the bridge deck, piers, abutments and
foundations, the present chapter deals with the structural safety and serviceability of the
bridge deck only. The verification of ultimate, serviceability and fatigue limit states is not
explicitly covered. The example used illustrates only the questions relating to overall
structural analysis for determining the relevant action effects.
191
In the example introduced in this chapter, adapted from [1], the bridge deck consists of
two steel girders and a concrete slab. This example was chosen because as a result of the
ample coverage of this type of deck in Eurocode 4, Part 2 on the design of composite steel
and concrete bridges [2], Eurocode provisions can be applied rather straightforwardly.
For the intents and purposes of this example, certain simplifying assumptions have
been made, particularly respecting construction stages (2.4) and the design situations
considered in the verification of ultimate limit states (3.1). Nonetheless, the deck
dimensions, materials used and assumptions hereunder are realistic and the deck in the
example meets all the applicable structural safety, serviceability, fatigue and durability
requirements laid down in the relevant structural Eurocodes.
1.2
Chapter organisation
The introduction, the first of this chapter, describes the aims and scope of the example.
It is followed by a review of the bridge deck, including geometric characteristics, material
properties and the construction sequence.
Section 3 identifies all the actions and their effects likely to arise during bridge deck
construction and future use, along with the specific load models for the actions that should be
considered in analysis and design calculations.
A number of the features of the structural model used for the analysis of the composite
bridge deck are described in Section 4.
The values to be used for internal forces and moments and the displacements found
with bridge deck analysis are summarised in section 5.
Section 6 reviews the partial factors used to calculate the design values of the effects
of actions and resistance thereto, while Section 7 discusses the combinations of actions
applied to verify structural conformity to safety and serviceability standards.
The chapter concludes with an eighth section containing general remarks on
composite bridge deck analysis as stipulated in structural Eurocodes.
2
2.1
Geometry
The solution adopted is a continuous composite bridge deck carrying three lanes of
road traffic, with a constant cross-sectional height of 2,15 m and a total width of 10 m. The
deck cross-section comprises an in situ concrete slab 0,25 m deep and two 1,9-m deep welded
steel girders, set at a distance of 5,0 m (Figure 1). The bridge has a total length of 103,5 m
and three spans: 30,0 +43,5+30,0 m (Figure 2).
10,0 m
0,5 m
1,90 m
0,25 m
0,5 m
2,5 m
5,0 m
2,5 m
192
30,0 m
43,5 m
30,0 m
103,5 m
Material properties
Structural steel:
As per EN 1993-1-1 [3], 3.2:
Steel grade
Nominal thickness
t [mm]
Yield strength
fy [N/mm2]
S355
t 40 mm
355
S460
40 < t 80 mm
430
Modulus of
elasticity Ea
[kN/mm2]
210
Concrete:
As per EN 1992-1-1 [4], 3.1:
Strength class
Characteristic cylinder strength
Secant modulus of elasticity
C30
fck = 30 N/mm2
Ecm = 33 kN/mm2
Reinforcing steel 1:
As per EN 1992-1-1 [4], 3.2 and Annex C:
Steel grade
B 500
Specified yield strength
fsk = 500 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity
Es = 200 kN/mm2
In composite structures, the design value of the modulus of elasticity may be taken to
be equal to the value for structural steel: Es = 210 kN/mm2 ([2], 3.2.2).
Stud connectors 2:
Nominal ultimate strength
Diameter
Height
fu = 450 N/mm2
= 19 mm
h = 125 mm.
While in EN 1992-1-1 [4] the yield strength of reinforcing steel is symbolized as fyk,, in EN 1994-1-1 [5] it is
shown fsk to distinguish it from structural steel.
In the context of the material recommended for stud connectors, reference is made in [2], 3.4.2.1, to EN13918.
193
2.3
ST
DI
ST
ST
DI
ST
DI
SL
DB
ST
DI
ST
DI
ST
3,125
6,25
3,125
6,25
3,125
6,25
DI
21,75 m
30,00 m
2,08 2,08 2,08 3,125
ST
DI
3,00
3,00
2,50
6,25
2,50
5,00
2,50
2,50
5,00
3,35
3,35
6,70
3,35
3,35
6,70
3,35
3,35
450x25
TOP FLANGE
tw = 12 mm
600x25
tw = 15 mm
600x40
WEB
600x60 (S460M)
BOTTOM FLANGE
tw = 12 mm
600x40
ST: TRANSVERSE STIFFENER; DI: INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM; DB: BEARING DIAPHRAGM; SL: LONGITUDINAL STIFFENER
Construction
For the purpose of structural analysis, bridge construction is assumed to be divided
into the following stages:
- Erection of the steel structure.
- Casting of the in situ concrete in a single lift across the entire length of the bridge
without temporary supports.
- Simultaneous application of all dead loads, in particular the vehicle restraint system
and the asphalt layer, two weeks after the in situ concrete is poured.
ACTIONS
3.1
Introduction
Structural reliability is closely related to the recognition of the actions and effects to
which the structure may be exposed during construction and use. The goal is to identify all
actions and effects likely to arise. Only then can a solution be found that meets the basic
requirements laid down in EN 1990 [6], 2.1. In light of the importance of this step, the
actions and action effects that might be relevant to the bridge deck in the example are
described below. Only persistent and transient design situations are considered for ultimate
limit state verification. In other words, the analysis does not address the effects of either
accidental or seismic actions. Loads affecting only one half of the bridge deck are considered,
however.
3.2
Permanent actions
194
Dead loads
The dead loads consist primarily of the vehicle restraint system and the asphalt layer
and are borne by the composite structure.
g dl = 1, 6 kN/m 2 5, 0 m = 8, 0 kN/m
3.2
Shrinkage
Pursuant to EN 1994-2 [2] 3.1(3) and EN 1992-1-1 [4] 3.1.4 and Annex B, total
shrinkage strain has two components, drying and autogenous shrinkage strain. Taking
ambient relative humidity to be 70 % and assuming that the concrete is manufactured with
Class N cement:
70
100
70% = 1,55 1
= 1, 018 .
38
2 Ac 2 2,5
=
= 0, 244 m
u
20,5
where Ac is the cross-sectional area and u the perimeter of the member in contact with the
atmosphere.
The notional height is:
h0 =
ds (t , ts ) =
10000
10000 + 0, 04 2443
= 0,985
as (t ) = 1 exp ( 0, 2 100000.5 ) = 1, 0
ca () = 2,5 (30 10) 106 = 50 106
The autogenus shrinkage strain is:
ca () = 1, 0 50 106 = 50 106
and the total shrinkage strain at t = is:
195
70% = 1 +
( f cm ) =
(t0 ) =
1 70 /100
= 1, 48
0,1 3 244
16,8
16,8
=
= 2, 73
f cm
30 + 8
1
1
=
= 0,55
0,2
0,1 + t0
0,1 + 150,2
0 = 1, 48 2, 73 0, 55 = 2, 22
18
H = 1,5 244 1 + ( 0, 012 70 ) + 250 = 632 1500
10000
c ( , t 0 ) =
632 + 10000
0.3
= 0,982
( , t0 ) = 0 ( , t0 ) = 2, 22 0,982 = 2,18
3.3
Variable actions
Traffic loads.
Further to EN 1991-2 [8], 4.3.2, only Load Model 1 is applied. In this model, used
for general verification calculations, both concentrated two-axle tandem loading and
uniformly distributed loads are considered.
The carriageway width w is assumed to be equal to the distance between the inner
limits of the vehicle restraint system, therefore w=9,0 m. As w>6,0 m, the number of
conventional lanes, each of which is wl=3,0 m wide, is afforded by the relation (Figure 4):
w
9, 0
nl = int = int
= 3.
3
3
Since the span length is greater than 10 m, each of the three tandem load systems may
be replaced by a one-axle load equal to the total load exerted by the two axles constituting the
system [8], 4.3.2 (6).
Uniformly distributed loads:
196
Lane 1
q1k = 9,0 kN/m2
other notional lanes
qi,k = 2,5 kN/m2
remaining area
Lane 1
Lane 2
Lane 3
other notional lanes
Tandem system
wl = 3,0 m
Lane 1
Q1k = 300 kN
wl = 3,0 m
Lane 2
Q1k = 300 kN
Q2k = 200 kN
Q2k = 200 kN
Q3k = 100 kN Q3k = 100 kN
2,0 m
2,0 m
2,0 m
q1k = 9,0 kN/m2
w = 9,0 m
T = +15 C (7 C/m)
T = 18 C (-8,4 C/m)
The same linear thermal expansion coefficient is assumed for the steel and the
concrete, namely = 1010-6 C-1 ([2], 3.1(1) and 5.4.2.5(3); [4], 3.1.3(5)).
The value specified in EN 1991-2 [8], section 5, for uniform thermal variation is
disregarded because it is irrelevant to the present study.
Construction loads during the casting of concrete
Pursuant to EN 1991-1-6 [10], 4.11.2, the following construction loads are taken into
account simultaneously in the calculations to verify steel structure conformity. These loads
are intended to be positioned to cause the maximum effects, which may be symmetrical or
not.
- Actual area:
Self-weight of the formwork:
197
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
4.1
Effective width
b eff
b e1
where: bei = Le / 8 bi
bo
be2
where:
198
The resulting distribution of equivalent spans and effective widths is shown in Figure
5.
Le = 18,4 m
Le = 18,4 m
Le = 25,5 m
Le = 30,5 m
30,0 m
b eff
7,5 m
15,0 m
4,3 m
5,0 m
Le = 25,5 m
43,5 m
7,5 m 10,9 m
21,7 m
4,8 m
30,0 m
10,9 m 7,5 m
5,0 m
4,8 m
15,0 m
7,5 m
5,0m
4,3 m
n0
L
t
Ecm
The modular ratio n0 for analysing the structure when exposed to traffic loads and
temperature (and dead loads, where the analysis is performed for t = 0) is:
n0 = Ea / Ecm = 210 / 33 = 6, 4
The ratio for permanent loads3 is:
In this case, the dead load only, because the construction entails no shoring.
199
4.2
Concrete cracking
Given that the ratio between lengths of adjacent continuous spans is
30, 0 / 43, 5 = 0, 7 > 0, 6 , the effect of cracking is calculated by applying the flexural stiffness
of the cracked section to 15% of the span on both sides of each internal support ([2],
5.4.2.3). This simplification is acceptable for all calculations with the exception of
connection design, where the result might err on the unsafe side.
Further to the previous assumption, the length affected by cracking is 0,1530,0 = 4,5
m in the lateral spans and 0,1543,5=6.5 m in the central span, both adjacent to each support.
Since the thickness of the web and the bottom flange is designed to change at a
distance of 5,0 m from the support on each side, for the sake of simplification, this is the
distance used as the region subject to cracking in the three spans.
4.3
5,0 m
1,90 m
= 450 x 25
20 a 20 (s)
16 a 20 (i)
= 1815 x 15
= 600 x 60 (S 460)
Transformed section
n = 6.4
n = 14
n = 21,7
Cracked Section
Area [m2]
0,074
0,270
0,164
0,132
0,087
Inertia [m4]
0,041
0,143
0,118
0,102
0,063
v [m]
1,247
0,504
0,749
0,898
1,291
0,653
1,646
1,401
1,252
0,859
v [m]
NOTE 1:
NOTE 2:
200
v is the distance between the uppermost fibre in the section and the centroid.
v is the distance between the centroid and the lowermost fibre in the section.
In the cracked section, the upper face of the concrete slab is regarded to be the uppermost
fibre.
The contribution of the reinforcing steel is disregarded in the calculations to determine the
characteristics of the transformed section.
0,25 m
5,0 m
1,90 m
= 450 x 25
= 1850 x 12
= 600 x 25
Transformed section
n = 6.4
n = 14
n = 21,7
Area [m2]
0,048
0,244
0,138
0,106
Inertia [m ]
0,029
0,082
0,071
0,065
v [m]
1,023
0,353
0,529
0,649
v [m]
0,877
1,797
1,621
1,501
5,0 m
1,90 m
= 450 x 25
= 1835 x 12
= 600 x 40
Transformed section
n = 6.4
n = 14
n = 21,7
Area [m2]
0,057
0,253
0,147
0,115
Inertia [m ]
0,034
0,108
0,092
0,082
v [m]
1,153
0,415
0,624
0,762
v [m]
0,747
1,735
1,526
1,388
201
4.4
Structural model
The structural model is a continuous beam whose characteristics are shown in Figure
9.
5,0 m
Type of section
20,0 m
10,0 m
33,5 m
10,0 m
20,0 m
30,0 m
43,5 m
5,0 m
2
30,0 m
103,5 m
TYPE 2 SECTION
TYPE 3 SECTION
Structural steel
Structural steel
Structural steel
Structural steel
Structural steel
Structural steel
t=0
Cracked section
Transformed n=6,4
Transformed n=6,4
t=
Cracked section
Transformed n=21,7
Transformed n=21,7
Traffic load
Cracked section
Transformed n=6,4
Transformed n=6,4
Temperature
Cracked section
Transformed n=6,4
Transformed n=6,4
Shrinkage
Cracked section
Transformed n=14,0
Transformed n=14,0
Dead load
ACTION EFFECTS
5.1
6 33 10
N = Ac cs
=
5
0.25
353
10
= 6649 kN
1 + 0.55 2.18
2.19
0.25
M = N v
= 6649 ( 0.529 0.125 ) = 2686 kN m *
2
202
where the value of v is that pertaining to the section over the abutment;
- in addition to the effects discussed above, tensile stresses equal to N/Ac (using the
aforementioned values of N and Ac) must be considered to estimate the shrinkageinduced stress in the slab.
At mid-span
M (kNm)
V (kN)
M (kNm)
V (kN)
-744
+109
+439
-4648
+680
+2744
-1011
-1087
+174
+174
+881
+805
0
0
-4214
+707
+4380
Mmax = -2760
Mconc = 0
Vconc = +519
Vmax = +800
+5938
+400
-1709
+1424
0
0
-1709
+1424
0
0
-394
-394
t=0
t=
Dead load
Temperature
Shrinkage
N
M
30,0 m
43,5 m
30,0 m
103,5 m
Vertical displacements
The following mid-span displacements in the intermediate bay are obtained from the
model using the properties of the transformed sections where the effective width of the
concrete is reduced, according to the modular ratio related with the type of loading.
The mechanical property values used to calculate the deflection induced by distributed
traffic loads and tandem system are the values for the short-term loads at t = 0 and t = .
f [mm] (t = )
Self-weight of concrete
51
51
Dead load
Shrinkage
22
22
34
34
Tandem system
33
33
Load state
203
DESIGN VALUES
6.1
Effects of actions
In serviceability limit state verifications, the partial factors for the actions are assumed
to be equal to 1,0 ([6], A1.4.1 (1)).
In ultimate limit state verifications, the partial factors used are given in [12] (A.2.3)
and listed in Table 7 below:
Partial factor
Permanent loads
G = 1,35
Traffic loads
Q = 1,35
Thermal action
Q = 1,5
Shrinkage
6.2
Material properties
In serviceability limit state verifications, the partial factors for material properties are
assumed to be 1,0 ([6], section 6.5.4(1)).
In ultimate limit state verifications, the partial factors used are given in [2] (2.4) and
listed in Table 8 below:
Table 8. Partial factors for material properties, ultimate limit state calculations
Material
Structural steel
Partial factor
M0 = 1,0
M1 = 1,1
Concrete
c = 1,5
Reinforcing steel
s = 1,15
The values used for partial factors M0 and M1 are as recommended in EN 1993-2
[13].
COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS
7.1
factor values
The factors for the action combinations considered in this study, given in the
following table 9, are the factors recommended in EN 1990/A1 (Annex A2, on application to
bridges) [12].
7.2
204
1,infq
0,4
0,8
0,4
0,0
Tandem system
0,75
0,8
0,75
0,0
Thermal action
0,0 (ULS)
0,6 (SLS)
0,8
0,6
0,5
a)
b)
where:
0 = 0,75
0 = 0,40
Gp
Gsc
Q
QTS
QUDL
T
MEd , max = 1.35 ( 439 + 2744 + 805 ) 394 + 1.35 (4380 + 5938) = 18919 kN m
VEd = 1.35 400 = 540 kN
M Ed,max = 1.35 (439 + 2744 + 805) 394 + 1.5 1424 + 1.35 (0.4 4380 + 0.75 5938)
= 15503 kN m
VEd = 1.35 0.75 400 = 405 kN
205
M Ed,min = 1.35 (-744 4648 1087) 394 + 1.35 (-4214 2760) = 18556 kN m
VEd ,conc = 1.35 (109 + 680 + 174) + 1.35 (707 + 519) = 2955 kN
M Ed,min = 1.35 (-744 4648 1087) 394 + 1.5 (-1709) + 1.35 (0.4 (-4214) + 0.75 (-2760))
= -16774 kN m
VEd ,conc = 1.35 (109 + 680 + 174) + 1.35 (0.4 707 + 0.75 519) = 2207 kN .
Table 10. Moments and shear forces acting on the mid-span and support sections
Type of section
Mid-span
Action effects
M [kNm]
V [kN]
MEd,max - VEd,con
18919
540
MEd,min - VEd,con
-18556
2955
MEd,conc VEd,max
-14829
3334
Support
7.3
[13]):
-
Characteristic combination:
Frequent combination:
(a)
G p + Gsc + Q + 0.6 T
(b)
(a)
(b)
G p + Gsc + 0.6 T
Quasi-permanent combination:
where:
206
0 = 1 = 0,75
0 = 1 = 0,40
G p + Gsc + 0.5 T
FINAL REMARKS
9
REFERENCES
[1] Monografa M-10. Comprobacin de un Tablero Mixto. Comisin 5, Grupo de Trabajo
5/3 Puentes Mixtos, Asociacin Cientfico-tcnica del Hormign Estructural, Madrid,
2006, ISBN 84-89670-47-1.
[2] EN 1994-2 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 2: Rules
for bridges. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[3] EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[4] EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[5] EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[6] EN 1990 Eurocode - Basis of structural design, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[7] EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures. Part 1-1: General actions Densities,
self-weight, imposed loads for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2002.
[8] EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN,
Brussels, 2003.
[9] EN 1991-1-5 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-5: General actions Thermal
actions. CEN, Brussels, 2003.
[10] EN 1991-1-6 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-6: General actions Actions
during execution. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[11] EN 1993-1-5 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-5: Plated structural
elements. CEN, Brussels, 2006.
[12] EN 1990:2002/A1:2005 Eurocode - Basis of structural design. Annex A2: Application for
bridges. CEN, Brussels, 2005.
[13] EN 1993-2 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 2: Steel bridges. CEN, Brussels,
2006.
207
208
Summary
To improve the European transportation network, the European Commission issued the
96/53/EC directive, that besides limiting the total mass of Heavy Good Vehicles (HGV) to 44 t,
allowed, on a parity basis, the possibility to permit the circulation of Long and Heavy Vehicles
(LHV), with total mass up to 60 t and length till 25 m. Northern European countries took
advantage of this possibility, experiencing a significant increase of LHVs on long distance traffic.
Since the static and fatigue models for road bridges of EN1991-2 have been calibrated on the
traffic recorded in Auxerre (F) in 1986, where LHVs were not included, the effect of the
introduction of LHVs could be excessively demanding, with disproportionate increase of costs.
Recent studies concerning this relevant question are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
209
As just said, at present the results of a wide campaign of in-situ measurements concerning
typical LHV traffic in the Netherlands are available, which have been used in the present study.
The above mentioned measurements have been performed in the first week of April 2007
in Moerdijk (NL), using a state of art weighing in motion (WIM) device, in the framework of the
studies concerning the assessment of equivalent fatigue loads for bridge decks, made by van
Bentum and Dijkstra [3].
In the records vehicles travelling with speed greater than 33 m/s were disregarded,
considering that in this case the reliability is not granted.
2.1
Length
[m]
Weight
[kN]
30.6
3.3
3.3
27.2
21.02
13.05
62.02
11.32
707
613
684
689
1st axle
Load
[kN]
398
208
318
353
2nd axle
load
[kN]
309
405
366
336
Disregarding wrong data, the maximum recorded axle load results about 292 kN,
pertaining to the 3rd axle of a T12O3 lorry, whose total weight is 636 kN, while the maximum
uniformly distributed load is about 63 kN/m, pertaining to a T12O21 silhouette weighing 813 kN
in total.
Moerdijk traffic measurements, amended according to the aforesaid considerations, were
taken into account for the evaluation of static and fatigue effects on reference bridge schemes and
spans, to be compared with those induced by the Auxerre traffic, as well as with those induced by
EN1991-2 load models, as described in the following.
3
3.1
211
Figure 2. Comparison of single axle load spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics.
Figure 3. Comparison of tandem axle load spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics
Figure 4. Comparison of tridem axle load spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics
212
Figure 5. Comparison of total lorry weight spectra for Auxerre and Moerdijk traffics.
3.2
FATIGUE DAMAGE
4.1
213
through a Monte Carlo simulation, differ on the inter-vehicle distances, that in the former case
are as simulated, in order to consider also interaction between vehicles simultaneously present
on the bridge, and in the latter case they are suitably increased in such a way that only isolated
lorries can cross the bridge, so avoiding interaction. It must be also stressed that EN 1991-2
states that, as rule, fatigue load models cannot be used directly when vehicle interactions
become significant, unless adequate additional ad hoc studies are performed.
The choice of these four reference traffics is particularly appropriate, because it allows
to compare the fatigue damage induced by the Auxerre traffic not only with the damage
induced by Moerdijk one, but also with those induced by the equivalent load spectra of EN
1991-2.
4.2
0.5
Figure 6. Influence line for bending moment M0 at midspan of simply supported bridge
Figure 7. Influence line for hog moment M1 at intermediate support of two span
continuous bridge
0.432
Figure 8. Influence line for max sag moment M2 in the section located 0.432L from the
support in two span continuous bridge
214
Figure 9. Influence line for hog moment M3 at the third support of five span continuous
bridge
Figure 10. Influence line for max sag moment M4 at midspan of five span continuous
beam bridge
4.3
K eq ,t
Dt
=
D Aux
eq t
m
=
eqAux
(1)
where Dt is the fatigue damage induced by the actual traffic, DAux is the fatigue damage
induced by the Auxerre traffic, m is the slope of the S-N curve adopted for the evaluation of
Dt and DAux, eq,t is the equivalent value of the stress range for the actual traffic and eq,Aux
is the equivalent value of the stress range for the Auxerre traffic. Obviously, higher values of
Keq,t correspond to more aggressive traffics.
Keq,t is a characteristic traffic parameter and it represents a concise way to compare
different traffics: in fact, it can be interpreted as an adjustment factor for which the axle load
215
values of Auxerre traffic must be multiplied to reproduce the fatigue damage induced by the
actual traffic.
The Keq,t curves, pertaining to Moerdijk traffic as well as to conventional traffics
derived from fatigue load model LM4 of EN 1991-2, with and without vehicle interaction, are
plotted for each relevant influence line, in terms of span length, in figures 11 to 15 for m=3
and in figures 16 to 20 for m=5. More precisely figures 11 and 16 refer to M0, figures 12 and
17 to M1, figures 13 and 18 to M2, figures 14 and 19 to M3 and figures 15 and 20 to M4.
216
217
218
CONCLUSIONS
The impact of LHVs on design of bridges in terms of static and fatigue assessments
has been discussed, comparing the effects induced by the Moerdijk (NL) traffic, characterized
by high percentage of LHVs, with those induced by the Auxerre traffic, used as reference
traffic in background of EN1991-2. The fatigue assessments have been supplemented also
considering two conventional traffics, deduced by the fatigue load model 4 of EN1991-2,
constituted by equivalent lorries.
219
Results of the study demonstrate that EN 1991-2 load models adequately cover the
effect induced by the LHVs, as included in Moerdijk measurements. This can be explained
considering, on the one hand, that overloads of single axles of LHVs are usually not so
relevant as for HGVs, on the other hand, that Auxerre data, obtained in 1986 with a less
refined WIM device, could be affected by some systematic overestimate.
Clearly, these results need to be supplemented and improved as they concern specific
traffic measurement; therefore further studies are necessary enlarging the field of
investigation and considering various traffic measurements.
6.
REFERENCES
220
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
Summary
Relevant loads due to cranes and machinery need to be considered in the design of
towers, masts and pipelines. For the selected design situations and identified limit states, the
critical load cases should be assessed. The combination rules for actions, partial factors and
other reliability elements provided in EN 1990 are supplemented for the purposes of cranes
and machinery in EN 1991-3, for towers and masts in EN 1993-3-1 and for pipelines in EN
1993-4-3. It is foreseen that during the planned revision of EN 1990 the basis of design for
these structures will be transferred to a new Annexes of EN 1990.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background documents
The aim of this Chapter is to introduce an overview of actions and supplementary
rules for their combinations needed for the design of masts, towers, pipelines and crane
supporting structures. The basic procedures for the determination of characteristic and design
values of actions are given in EN 1990 [1] and in various Parts of EN 1991. Some Parts of
EN 1993 provide rules for specification of actions and their combinations for masts, towers
and pipelines.
1.2
Basic principles
EN 1990 [1] gives basic principles for the design of construction works. EN 1991-3
[6] provides supplementary rules for the design of cranes and machinery, EN 1993-3-1 [7] for
masts and towers and EN 1993-4-3 [8] for pipelines.
2.1
General
EN 1991-3 [6] give guidance for specification of actions induced by cranes on runway
beams and by rotating machines on supporting structures.
2.2
221
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
(1)
Where F,k is the characteristic value of a crane action, i is the dynamic factor and Fk is the
characteristic static component of a crane action. The various dynamic factors and their
application are listed in Table 2.1 of EN 1991-3 [6].
The simultaneity of crane load components may be taken into account by considering
groups of loads. Each of these groups should be considered as defining one characteristic
crane action for the combination with non-crane loads.
Cranes can also evoke accidental actions due to collision with buffers or collision of
lifting attachments with obstacles. These actions should be considered for the structural
design where appropriate protection is not provided. They are represented by various load
models defining design values in the form of equivalent static loads.
2.3
Combinations of actions
Effects of actions that cannot exist simultaneously due to physical or functional
reasons should not be considered together in combination of actions.
When combining a group of crane loads together with other actions, the group of crane
loads should be considered as one action. For runways outside buildings the wind actions,
snow and temperature should be considered. The maximum wind force FW* compatible with
crane operations need to be considered (the recommended value is FW* = 20 m/s).
The combination of actions for ultimate limit states is based on expressions (6.9a) to
(6.12b) and for serviceability limit states on expressions (6.14a) to (6.16b) according to EN
1990 [1].
222
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
Where an accidental action is to be considered, no other accidental action nor wind nor
snow actions need be considered to occur simultaneously.
Recommended values of -factors are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Recommended values of -factors
Action
0
Single crane or groups of loads
induced by cranes
1,0
0,9
(*)
(*) The recommended value is the ratio between the permanent crane action and the
total crane action.
2.5
Eq. (6.10)
Permanent actions
Unfavourable
Gj,supGkj,sup
Favourable
Gj,infGkj,inf
Leading
variable
action (*)
Q,1 Qk,1
Others
Q,i0,iQk,i
223
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
The design values of actions and recommended partial factors based on EN 1990 [1]
and EN 1991-3 [6] for the ultimate limit states (STR) in the persistent and transient design
situations are given in Table 2.3.
Table 3. Design values of actions (STR) (Set B)
P/T
situations
Permanent actions
Prestress
Leading
variable
action
Accompanying variable
actions
Main (if any)
others
Q,1 Qk,1
Q,i0,iQk,i
unfavourable favourable
Exp. (6.10)
Gj,supGkj,sup
Gj,infGkj,inf
P Pk
Exp. (6.10a)
Gj,supGkj,sup
Gj,infGkj,inf
P Pk
Exp. (6.10b)
Gj,supGkj,sup
Gj,infGkj,inf
P Pk
Q,10,1Qk,1
Q,1 Qk,1
Q,i0,iQk,i
Q,i0,iQk,i
Recommended values:
Gj,sup = 1,35 for unfavourable and Gj,inf = 1,0 for favourable permanent actions
Q = 1,35 for unfavourable crane actions, Q = 1,00 for favourable crane actions, where crane is
present, Q = 0 for favourable crane actions, where crane is not present.
Q = 1,5 for other unfavourable variable actions, Q = 0 for favourable variable actions where
crane is not present
= 0,85 (so that Gj,sup = 0,851,35 = 1,15)
P = recommended values are specified in the relevant design Eurocode.
The characteristic values of all permanent actions from one source may be multiplied by G,sup if
the total resulting action effect is unfavourable and G,inf if the total action effect is favourable.
For particular verifications, the values for G and Q may be subdivided into g and q and the
model uncertainty factor Sd (a value of Sd in recommended in the range 1,0 to 1,15).
The design values of actions for the ultimate limit states in the accidental and seismic
design situations are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Design values of actions for use in accidental and seismic combinations
P/T situations
Permanent actions
unfavourable favourable
Prestress
Accidental
or seismic
action
Accidental
Exp.
(6.11a/b)
Gkj,sup
Gkj,inf
Pk
Ad
Seismic
Exp.
(6.12a/b)
Gkj,sup
Gkj,inf
Pk
IAEk or
Accompanying variable
actions
main (if any)
others
11 Qk1 or 21Qk1
2,i Qk,i
2,i Qk,i
AEd
In case of accidental design situations, the main variable action may be taken with its frequent or
quasi-permanent values. The choice is given in the National Annex depending on the accidental
action under consideration.
2.6
224
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
actions according to expressions (6.14a) to (6.16b) taking into account the serviceability
requirements and the distinction between reversible and irreversible limit states.
Table 5. Design values of actions for use in serviceability limit states
Combination
Characteristic
Frequent
Quasi-permanent
Permanent actions Gd
Unfavourable
Favourable
Gk,j,sup
Gk,j,inf
Gk,j,sup
Gk,j,inf
Gk,j,sup
Gk,j,inf
Prestress
Pk
Pk
Pk
Variable actions Qd
Leading
Others
Qk,1
0,iQk,i
1,1Qk,1
2,iQk,i
2,1Qk,1
2,iQk,i
3.1
General
The lattice towers and guyed masts which are within the scope of EN 1993-3-1 [8]
should be designed in accordance with general rules of EN 1990 [1] for the basis of design
and EN 1993-1-1 [7] for design of steel structures.
Three reliability levels are distinguished for the ultimate limit state verifications of
structures, depending on the possible economic and social consequences of their collapse.
3.2
Reliability differentiation
Three reliability classes 1 to 3 are distinguished in EN 1993-3-1 [8] related to the
consequences of structural failure as illustrated in Table 6.
The values of partial factors G and Q recommended in EN 1993-3-1 [8] for the
ultimate limit state verifications considering three reliability classes are introduced in Table 7.
225
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
2
1
Examples of structures
towers and masts erected in urban locations, or where their failure is likely to cause
injury or loss of life; towers and masts used for vital telecommunication facilities;
other major structures where the consequences of failure would be likely to be very
high
all towers and masts that cannot be defined as class 1 or 3
towers and masts built on unmanned sites in open countryside; towers and masts,
the failure of which would not be likely to cause injury to people
Reliability Class
G for permanent
Q for variable
actions
1,2
1,1
1,0
1,0
actions
1,6
1,4
1,2
0,0
3
2
1
all classes
However, the values of partial factors of actions appear to be considerably lower than
those recommended for structures in the basic Eurocode EN 1990 [1], Annex A1. Presently,
the target values of reliability index t are not recommended in EN 1993-3-1 [8].
3.6
(2)
(3)
where k is given in ISO 12494 [10] dependent on Ice Class and the values of reduction
coefficients I = W = 0,5 are recommended in EN 1993-3-1 [8].
4
4.1
General
EN 1993-4-3 [9] provides principles and application rules for the structural design of
buried cylindrical steel pipelines for the transport of liquids or gases or mixtures of liquids
and gases at ambient temperatures. The design of pipelines should be in accordance with
provisions of EN 1990 [1] for the basis of design and EN 1991 for actions.
226
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
4.3
4.5
Reliability differentiation
Pipelines usually comprise several associated facilities such as pumping stations,
operation centres, maintenance stations, etc., each of them housing different sorts of
mechanical and electrical equipment. Since these facilities have a considerable influence on
227
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
the continued operation of the system, it is necessary to give them adequate consideration in
the design process aimed at satisfying the overall reliability requirements.
Different levels of reliability may be adopted for different types of pipelines,
depending on possible economic and social consequences of their collapse. The choice of the
target reliability should be agreed between the designer, the client and the relevant authority.
w
g
L=3m
Figure 1. Scheme of a structural member and its loading.
The fundamental combination and reliability elements given in EN 1990 [1] is
considered for a common structural reliability class RC2. The maximum moment for the
simple beam is determined for an icing considered as a leading action
M = 1/8 L2 (1,35 g + 1,5 i + 1,5 W k w)
M = 1/832 (1,353,1 + 1,50,5 + 1,50,60,60,6) = 5,9 kNm
where W = 0,6, k = 0,6 [10], and for the wind considered as a leading action
M = 1/8 L2 (1,35g + 1,5 w + 1,5 I i)
M = 1/832 (1,353,1 + 1,50,6 + 1,50,50,5) = 6,1 kNm
where I = 0,5. The values of reliability elements (partial factors and reduction factors) are
based on EN 1990 [1].
However, when the values of reliability elements given in EN 1993-3-1 [8] are
considered then the following result will be obtained if icing is a leading action
M = 1/832 (1,13,1 + 1,40,5 + 1,40,60,60,6) = 5 kNm
and for the wind considered as a leading action
M = 1/832 (1,13,1 + 1,40,6 + 1,40,50,5) = 5,2 kNm
228
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
Thus, the application of the reliability elements given in EN 1993-3-1 [8] leads to
about 15 % reduction of internal moment.
In case that the reliability elements recommended in the CENELEC standard EN
50341-1 [11] should be applied then the resulting moments decrease about 30 % in
comparison with results based on EN 1990 [1]. The reliability of structural members designed
considering reliability elements according to EN 50341-1 [11] appears to be significantly low.
8
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The design of structures supporting cranes and machinery, towers and masts and
pipelines are based on the load combinations provided in EN 1990 [1]. Supplementary rules
for the specification of loads and load effects are given in relevant Parts of EN 1991 and EN
1993.
It is expected that within the revision of EN 1990 similar Annexes A for cranes and
machinery, masts and towers and pipelines will be further developed. However, proposed
values of partial factors and other reliability elements should be further calibrated and
harmonised.
REFERENCES
229
Annex B: Actions and combination rules for cranes, masts, towers and pipelines
230