Proceedings of Bridge Engineering 2 Conference 2009

April 2009, University of Bath, Bath, UK

Critical analysis of the Flisa Bridge

Henry Tung

Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath

Abstract: This paper describes the design, construction process and aesthetic evaluation of the Flisa Bridge in
Hedmark, Norway. References are made to the Eurocode for timber bridge construction in assessing designed
loadings of the bridge; details of the connections, other elements of the bridge and the construction process are
assessed in the paper. A comparison of timber bridges with steel and other construction materials for bridge
construction is also included.

Keywords: Timber, cantilever truss, stress plate, dressed stone piers

sawn timber. Over 200 tonnes of steel is used in

1.1 Introduction:
The Flisa Bridge is located at Flisa, Hedmark
County. It was designed by Norconsult International
and PLAN architects, wood construction was carried
out by Moelven Limtre. It crosses the River Glomma
(aka Glama) from Flisa to Snalroa. The old Flisa
Bridge at the same location was built with steel trusses
in 1912, towards the millennium the steel bridge was in
poor condition; hence the new bridge was built to
replace the old one. The new timber bridge which
opened on 5th June 2003 is 196m long, with the
worlds longest timber span of 70.34m designed to
carry full traffic loads. It carries two lanes and a
footway and is mainly constructed of glulam and sawn
timber with steel connections. Timber used came from
over 7000 trees and the bridge cost 30 million
Norwegian Kroner (~2.4 million).
making the joints, the reason for using a timber bridge
instead of a concrete or steel girder is that previous
restriction has been made and the bridge deck cannot
be elevated because of the adjacent road links; the
superstructure of the bridge cannot be lowered in case
of flooding, these two reasons made a concrete or steel
girder bridge inappropriate. A steel truss was also an
option but timber had been the more cost effective
material and was chosen instead.
The trusses members are made from glulam and the
deck is stress laminated deck plate from sawn timber;
topeka and asphalt membrane are laid on top of the
deck plate. The new deck contains two traffic lanes,
each of width 3.25 and a pavement of 2.5m, giving the
deck 9 metres total width.

Figure 1: the old Flisa Bridge Figure 2: Location of the Flisa Bridge

Choice of Material: The bridge dimensions:

The trusses and parapets are made from glue The cantilever truss bridge is of a similar design to
laminated timber; the bridge deck is stress laminated the old bridge. It is divided into three sections; two
 Figure 3: Dimensions of the Flisa Bridge
simply supported end spans of lengths 55.2m and
70.3m and a cantilever truss centre span of 56m. The
centre span extends further away from the piers about
17m to meet up and support the end spans.
1.2 The loading strategy:
The end spans are made up of truss girders with
arched upper chords simply supported at the abutments
and at the cantilever centre span; the maximum height
of the arches are 8m and 9m respectively. Lateral
stability is accounted for by the timber trusses between
the upper chords, steel columns are located at the end
of the span rigidly fixed to the cross beams. The centre
span is a cantilever truss section with a curved upper
chord where the two highest points are 9.5m high at
the piers. Lateral stability against wind loads is
achieved similarly through the wind truss connected
horizontally across the upper chords. Above the piers,
vertical steel columns are installed outside the timber
trusses to take the lateral loads to the cross beam below
the deck.
2 Aesthetics:
The aesthetic assessment is carried out using the
method in the University of Bath bridge engineering
class notes by criterions suggested by bridge engineer
Fritz Leonhardt.
Figure 4: View of the bridge from the South
Fulfilment of function the Flisa is a bridge of
simple function, the trusses which bear the main
loading is the most prominent feature of the bridge.
Proportions the span/depth ratio looks correct,
there isnt an impression of overly deep/ shallow deck
and the two piers look strong and sturdy as it is made
of dressed stones providing a sense of strong support
for the long spans. Although the piers create an opaque
barrier when looked at from certain angles; however
since the deck spans a long distance between the
supports and there are only two piers, it doesnt have
the problem of the piers looking too substantial.
Theres also the contrast of proportion between a fairly
dense space between the truss members and the rather
free space below the deck between the supports, which
is fairly aesthetically pleasing.
Order The trusses are well ordered and neat,
there is the same repetitive pattern of diagonal
members above the deck which provides a view of
simplicity and good order. The crossbeams underneath
the deck however does seem to violate the visual sense
of order as there are many of them creating many lines
below the deck.
Luckily the bridge isnt at a great height above the
river and the colour of the crossbeams is fairly dark,
similar to the trusses above the deck, so this feature
doesnt look too obvious. Besides the crossbeams have
been set to aligned underneath where the vertical steel
cables and the diagonal glulam members are connected
to the deck; so the order for visual aesthetic is
maintained.
Integration A timber truss bridge has merged
with the environment rather nicely in this particular
case, with the main mass of the bridge above the deck
leaving a good proportion of space between the deck
and the water surface. The maximum height is roughly
9m high at the piers. And since there are rather many
trees in the area, this doesnt make the height of the
trusses particularly protuberant comparing to the
surroundings.
Texture and colour the stone piers of dress stone
provides the contrasts between a rough finish for the
piers and the smooth finish for the timber members.
The steel columns which sits outside the trusses
however does separate from the rest of the structure,
with it being a different colour, perhaps it could be a
less obvious feature if it is painted to a colour similar to
the glulam trusses. As to the colour of the bridge, dark
timber in comparison to light coloured dressed stones
piers provide a fairly simple and yet pleasant colour
scheme. An obvious bit of disturb from the rest is
again the steel cables and vertical columns above the
piers which remains in the colour of the metal.
Character the bridges character is mainly shown
through the material which it is built in. The timber
and dressed stones are provided from local areas. The
truss bridge is of a similar structure to the old Flisa
Bridge at its location and serves as a reminder of the
old bridge but modernised and rebuilt in local
materials. The bridge would appear to be a more
complex feature than its surroundings with its trusses,
and would naturally attract attention. The centre span
being different to the end spans creates more
complexity than if the truss components are all three
arches.
Merging with nature Although the bridge is
made from timber, its shape may not strike people as
being particularly natural.
The curve trusses are elegant but also a rather
artificial design, so apart from the large amount of
timber used for the trusses and the deck; the overall
shape of the bridge is too organised and ordered to
provide a natural appearance to the bridge.
Summary of aesthetic analysis:
The Flisa Bridge is simple, looks strong and safe.
It also possesses a similar form to the previous steel
truss bridge. Its proportion looks appropriate and well
ordered, which makes it an elegant timber truss bridge.
However the steel columns above the piers are slightly
too obvious and breaks the pattern of timber and
dressed stone piers.
From the side, the Flisa looks rather artificial and
too well arranged to be part of the nature. But this flaw
is minimised for vehicles and pedestrians travelling
into the bridge. From the view of travelling onto the
bridge; the truss arches and curves are seen from a
different angle and the bridge looks to be a strong and
organised bridge with the trusses from either side and
the wind trusses at the top.
Figure 5: Drive through view of the bridge
3 Loadings:
This section analyses the self-weight, the
superimposed dead load, live loading and other types
of loading such as breaking and acceleration forces
which the bridge may be subjected to. The assessment
is done according to Eurocode EN 1991-2; traffic load
on bridges.
3.1 Dead load:
The main self-loads of the bridge are the weight of
the glulam members, the stress laminates sawn planks
and the steel used in cross beams and connections.
Density of the glulam is assumed to be 440Kg/m3;
roughly 600m3 of glulam timbre is used for the bridge,
which gives a total weight of 2,640KN of glulam.
Density of stress laminated sawn plates is
approximately 500Kg/m3, there are about 300m3 of
sawn timber used. Over 200 tonnes of steel is used on
the bridge, which in here is assumed to weight about
2,000KN. And so the total dead load of the bridge is
roughly 34 KN/m.
3.1.1 Super-imposed dead load:
This includes loading which may change over time
in the events such as maintenance; the super-imposed
dead load includes weight of the asphalt, membrane
and copper plates on the surface of exposed timber
members. The density of asphalt is taken here as
700Kg/m3; assume 50mm thick over the road gives a
uniform distributed load of 2.3 KN/m. And the weight
of the copper is modelled as a uniform distributed load
of 1.2KN/m since copper is used on the surface of the
upper chord and lower chord glulam beams.
3.2 Live loading:
The Flisa Bridge is designed in accordance with
the Norwegian national traffic regulation and satisfies
the requirement to carry a uniformly distributed load of
9KN/m and a 60 tonne lorry per lane. With the 60
tonne lorry is modelled as 3 equivalent axle loadings of
210KN each.
The Eurocode approaches the loading assessment
of a bridge by first dividing the carriageway into
number of notional lanes, then create live load models
to simulate different loading situation on the bridge,
Ref [3].
Table 1: Number and width of notional lanes
(extracted from EN 1991-2)
Carriageway No. of Width of Width of
width (w) lanes lanes remaining
area
w < 5.4m n1=1 3m w-3m
5.4 <w< 6m n1=2 w/2 0
6m <w n1=Int(w/3) 3m w-3n1
The width of the carriageway is 6.5m, and so the
number of notional lanes is 2, with the width of each
lane being 3m and the remaining width being 0.5m.
(According to EN 1991-2, if a carriage way is divided
into two parts, then only one numbering should be used
for the two lanes.) There is also a 2.5 metres wide
pedestrian footway next to the road.
Figure 6: Dimensions of the notional lanes
3.2.1 Vertical loadings:
Live load model 1:
Model 1 consists of two partial systems; a double
axle concentrated load, each axle of QQk where Q is
an adjustment factor, Ref [3]. And a uniformly
distributed load of 9KN/m; which is expressed as qqk,
again with q being an adjustment factor, in the case of
no specification for the type of vehicles travelling on
the bridge, we will take Q on each notional lane to be
0.8 and q to be 1. The remaining area is subjected to a
UDL of qrqrk, Fig. 7.
Figure 7: Traffic loading from load model 1
Loading values:
Axle loads (QQk) = 0.8 x 300KN = 240 KN
UDL (qqk) = 1 x 9 KN/m = 9 KN/m
udl (qrqrk)= 1 x 2.5 KN/m = 2.5 KN/m
Live load model 2:
Model 2 consists of a single axle load QQak with
Qak equals to 400KN. The value of Q = Q. Which
gives a single axle load of 0.8 x 400 = 320 KN. The
contact surface of each wheel should be modelled as a
rectangle of dimensions of 0.6m x 0.35m. This load
could be applied to any place on the carriageway.
Live load model 3:
LM 3 takes into account the unusual heavy
vehicles which may, on rare occasions be present on
the bridge. The type of special vehicle allowed in
particular routes depends on authorisation of the
European highway network or the nature of the
individual project defined by the client; and since the
details are unknown, the heaviest loading according to
the Eurocode will be included in this report. Special
vehicles are modelled as high axle loads of magnitudes
ranging from 150 to 240KN; the heaviest vehicle
specified in the standards weights 3600KN and is
represented by 15 axle loads, each of 240KN
magnitude. Contact area of the wheels is taken as
1.20m by 0.15m and there is 0.3 m space within each
wheel. The influence area of the special vehicle is
represented by the green rectangle on the lanes, this
area is specified by giving 25m before and after the
vehicle; the area outside the influence is subjected to
loadings defined in load model 1, Fig. 9.
Live load model 4:
The model for crowd loading is taken as a
uniformly distributed load of 5 KN/m2. For a bridge
deck of width 9m, this would be a value of 45 KN/m
that would be applied to the entire bridge deck
including the pedestrian pavement.
3.2.2 Pedestrian loading
The load on the pavement is modelled as three
scenarios; a UDL (qfk) of 5KN/m2 and since the width
of the pavement is 2.5m, this gives a UDL of
12.5KN/m. There is also a concentrated load (Qfwk) of
10KN that acts on a square surface of 100mm by
100mm, and an accidental load (Qserv) for service
vehicles, Fig.8. Since there is no specification on the
type of vehicles that may drive onto the bridge in the
case of an emergency and there are no permanent
obstacles to prevent a vehicle being driven onto the
bridge, Qserv is treated as an accidental presence of
vehicle on the pavement.
This is modelled as two axle loads of magnitude
40 KN and 80 KN, one axle load being 3 m behind the
other with a distance of 1.3 m between each wheel of
the axle; the contact area is taken as 200mm x 200mm.
Figure 8: Vertical loading on the pavement
 Figure 9: Diagram or live load model 3
3.3 Horizontal loading:
3.3.1 Breaking and acceleration forces:
Breaking forces (Q1k) acts as a longitudinal force
at the surface level which is estimated to be greater
than 180Q but less than 900KN; and should be
calculated by the equation:
Q1k = 0.6Q1(2Q1k)+0.1q1q1kw1L (1)
Which gives Q1k to be 828 KN; between 180Q
and 900KN.
3.3.2 Parapet loading:
This accounts for the horizontal and vertical forces
transferred to the bridge deck by vehicle restraint
members. Since the parapets are rigidly bolted to the
crossbeams beneath the deck, they would be designed
to carry heavy horizontal load in the case of collision.
According to Eurocode, collision forces are
expected to act either 1 m above the level of the
carriage way or 0.1 m below the top of the parapets,
which ever one to be lower and on a line of length
0.5m. The height of the parapet is approximately 1.2m;
hence take the height of collision to act at 1m height.
3.3.3 Collision forces on the curb:
There are no barriers between the road and the
pavement, so it is quite possible that a vehicle may
collide with the curb. In such case, the collision force
would be transferred from the curb to the structural
members which for the Flisa Bridge, this would be
glulam beams underneath the pavement and the steel I
beam directly next to the curb. According to Eurocode
a horizontal force of 100 KN would act at 0.05m below
the top of the curb; a vertical force of 0.75Q1Qk = 180
KN acts simultaneously at the top of the curb.
3.4 Wind loading:
According to EN 1991-1-4; wind forces are treated
as forces from three major directions, annotated as axis
x, y, and z. Wind forces from the x-direction
(perpendicular to direction of bridge span) can be
calculated by the equation:
Fw = 0.5 x x Vb2 x C x Aref,x (2)
Where the density of air () is taken as 1.25 Kg/m3
according to the national annex; basic wind speed (Vb)
is calculated to be 11.7ms-1; wind load factor (C) is 2.6
and the reference area is taken as the area of the
footway, which is 452.5m2. This gives s total wind
force perpendicular to the bridge span to be 100 KN,
0.55 KN/m.
Wind forces exerted in the y-direction (along the
bridge span) is usually the less problematic component
due to the much higher bending capacity at this axis.
For a truss bridge, the wind load is taken as 50% wind
force in the x-direction, giving a total wind force of
50KN in the y-direction.
Wind forces in the z-direction could also be
estimated using equation 2; using the coefficient of lift
(Cf,x) and new reference area (Aref,z). This gives a wind
load in the z-axis to be 0.69 KN/m. it is stated that the
forces of is only significant if it is of the same order as
he dead load of the bridge (34 KN/m), hence uplift is
insignificant.
Wind loading in the x-direction is resisted by the
wind trusses at the top of the truss girders, which
braced the structure but still provided a minimum head
room of 5.99m according to highway regulations.
During designing, issues were raised as to decide what
the best way of transferring the lateral loads to the piers
would be, the two options were either increase the
thickness of all the truss components or add lateral steel
supports; the latter was chosen to maintain the slender
appearance of the trusses and U-shaped steel supports
area installed at the piers.
4 Strength analysis of the bridge
The strength analysis in the paper is done
according to Eurocode EN1995-1-1, Ref [5] (Design of
timber structures) and EN 1995-2, Ref [4] (Design of
timber structures- bridges).
The deck plate is sawn laminated timber made
from Norwegian pine; according to ultimate limit state
design, the entire system strength of the laminated deck
as a result of the combination of laminations should be
assessed. The system bending strength is given by:
Fm,d,deck = ksys x fm,d,lam (3)
Similarly the system shear strength is:
Fv,d,deck = ksys x fv,d,lam (4)
 To calculate the system strength factor (ksys), the
number of lamination needs to be specified, this is
given by the equation:
n = bef / blam (5)
The width of the individual lamination (blam) is
48mm; while the value of bef is calculated to be 0.81m.
This gives n a value of ~17. The value of Ksys is then
taken from a chart in EN 1995-1-1; for n > 10, Ksys =
1.2 for pre-stressed laminated timber. If the ultimate
bending strength of pine is taken as roughly 123
N/mm2, then applying the system factor gives the
system bending strength (Fm,d,deck) 147.6 N/mm2.
Similarly applying Ksys to the shear strength of the
individual laminations perpendicular to the grains,
which is estimated to be about 690 N/mm2, then the
system shear strength is about 828 N/mm2.
Timber decks takes into account a dispersion of
concentrated loads according to EN 1995-2, Fig. 10.
The stress at the middle of the deck is calculated by
applying dispersion angles () for different layers of
the deck. The value of in the pavement is taken as
45o and that of the timber perpendicular to the grain is
15o. Using load model 2 from the loading section bw
would be 0.6m; after dispersion bw,middle is 0.76m.
Apply similar concept to the other side gives bw,middle a
depth of 0.67m. So the stressed area under a single
wheel becomes 0.67 x 0.76m2 = 0.5m2. Load model 2
specifies an axle load of 320KN, 160KN per wheel, so
the stress half way down the deck is 160 / 0.5 =
320KN/m2 (0.32N/mm2). The compressive strength of
pine (European Scots pine) perpendicular to grains
could be taken as 7.5 N/mm2, so this compressive
stress from Load model 2 is acceptable.
Figure 10: The dispersion of concentrated loads
Stress laminated decks need to be checked for the
possibility of slippage between the laminations. To
show that no inter-laminar slip occurs; this relation
should be satisfied:
Fv,ed < D x p,min x h (6)
Coefficient of friction (D) is given as 0.23 in the
Eurocode for sawn timber to sawn timber interfaces
below 12% moisture content in the direction parallel to
grains. Minimum long term compressive stress (p,min)
from pre-stressing should be no less than 0.35N/mm2
for areas subjected to concentrated loads; pre-stressed
steel bars are located at 600mm intervals and stressed
up to 140KN, thus giving p,min a value of 1.05N/mm2.
The thickness of laminations (h) is 48mm; the design
shear force (Fv,ed) is taken to be 9N/mm. The term on
the right hand side of the equation becomes 11.6N/mm,
and the relation stated above is satisfied.
5 Vibration
Vibration caused by pedestrian loading
Acceleration due to pedestrian loadings could be
calculated providing the fundamental natural frequency
of the bridge is known. The value of vertical natural
frequency (fvert) should be 5 Hz < fvert < 75 Hz. The
natural frequency of the bridge could be estimated by
the equation:
Wn = (nl)2 x (EI/ml4)1/2 (7)
Where Wn is the fundamental natural frequency, E
is the youngs modulus of the deck, I is the second
moment of area, l being the length of the span, m is the
bridge mass per unit length and (nl)2 is a boundary
condition factor. As the bridge deck is supported every
5.6 m, the connection could be treated as one end
pinned and one end fixed, the value of (nl)2 is thus
15.42, which gives a natural frequency of:
Wn = 15.42 x (13.5 x 109 x 6 x 10-5/ 3400 x 5.64)1/2
= 7.6 Hz
A rough estimated value of 7.6 Hz for natural
frequency is within the comfort zone for occupants
stated above. As stated in Eurocode, acceleration due to
pedestrian loading does not require checking if the
fundamental frequency is above 5 Hz. However since
this is a very rough estimation and the value obtained is
fairly close to the limit, we shall assume the natural
frequency as 5 Hz to calculate the associate vertical
acceleration.
avert,1 = 100 x M x (8)
M is the product of the mass per unit length of the
bridge and the length of the used span (as the deck is
supported every 5.6m). is the damping ratio, for a
structure with mechanical joints, its value is taken as
0.015. Which gives avert a magnitude of 0.35ms-2. If
there are several people on the bridge, the associated
acceleration is given by:
avert = 0.23 x avert,1 x n x kvert (9)
n is taken as 13 for a distinct group of pedestrians
and kvert from the code is 0.33; thus giving the
acceleration to be 0.35ms-2.
6 Construction process, prefabrication
The bridge was constructed in a relatively short
period of time; the old bridge was closed to traffic and
construction began on Nov 2002, the new bridge was
opened to traffic on 5th June 2003.
 The superstructure of the bridge such as the timber
truss girders and cross beams were new and mainly
prefabricated; the existing dressed stone piers were in
good conditions, they were kept and new concrete tops
ware cast on top of the piers. The prefabricated parts
had to be lifted into place from positions in the river;
and so a temporary embankment was made at places
where the water level was the shallowest; for this
reason construction of the bridge had to be carried out
during the winter when the water level was at its
lowest. The embankment extended 120m from the west
and only 50m from the right side of the embankment
was opened to allow the flow of the river.
The prefabrication process involves:
1. Glulam timber beams made
2. Members are jointed by bolting with dowels,
timber to timber joints usually involves two
steel plates embedded in the timber and also
outside the member with steel bolts inserted
to hold the joint in place
3. Parts are assembled together to see if they fit
and if the total length of the bridge is correct
4. The components are taken apart and then
impregnated with creosote, Figs. 11, 15
5. Transportation of timber girders to site
Figure 11: Preliminary assembly after prefabrication
at Moelven Limtre factory
The maximum length of the member sizes are
restricted by the sizes of the creosote impregnation
tanks, the upper and lower chord of the truss girders
are divided into several parts of maximum length 28m.
The bridge deck was composed of stress laminated
timber; planks of sawn timber of dimension 48 x
223mm are clamped together at their wide surface and
pre-stressed with high strength steel rods of 15mm
diameter stressed up to 140KN, Fig 12. During
construction, the beams are placed side by side with
each other, then holes are drilled on the wide faces of
the joists; once they are put together in place steel rods
are pushed through the holes and tensioned. The steel
rods are spaced 600mm to give better sharing of the
load and the timber spans between the crossbeams to
give a span of 5.6m; 5.6m is the maximum length of
available sawn timber in Norway.
Figure 12: Pre-stressed bars (at 140KN) in the deck
So in November 2002, traffic of the old bridge was
closed and work was done to strengthen the existing
piers; new steel piles are installed to carry the increased
design load for the new bridge, the reason steel piles
are used was because they do not require the use of a
large pile rig, which might have been too heavy for the
deck of the old bridge. Strengthening of the piers had to
be done on the old bridge because it would have been
easier to insert the piles before the temporary
embankment is in place. When the piles are installed,
demolition of the steel truss structure began;
prefabrication of the new timber superstructure also
started. When the old bridge was removed, work on the
substructure began; concrete abutments were poured,
the concrete top of the piers were removed with care so
to not damage the stone piers, new concrete was poured
on top of the piers for the bearings to sit on.
Assembly of the first section began on February
2003; the order of assembly was:
1. Prefabricated parts transported to the site, the
truss walls are connected to the wind trusses,
the steel cross beams are connected to the
truss girders by cables
2. The connected bridge sections are craned into
position; first the central section, then the end
section on the west side is lifted to join the
abutments and the centre span; and the arch
section on the east craned into position last,
Fig 13,14
3. Once the truss walls are in place, the stress
laminated sawn timber are laid to create the
bridge deck. Then parapets are installed
4. Finally the copper cladding on the top surface
of glulam trusses, asphalt and Topeka are laid
on top of the sawn timber deck
Assembly of the bridge finished on early spring of
2003, and the bridge was opened to traffic on 5th June
2003. Removal of the temporary embankment began
once the truss walls were assembled, as work began on
the deck, the embankment were being gradually lifted
up and transported away; so at the time the bridge was
opened in spring and the water level raised, the
embankment was below water level.

Figure 13: Assembly of the trusses walls
Figure 14: Lowering of the section on the west end
7 Durability aspects
Timber is a naturally durable material and timber
bridges are better at resisting certain attacks from
chemicals such as de-icing salts used in the winter than
steel or concrete bridges; whilst salt causes a major
problem with corrosion in steel bridges, it actually
helps preserving timber. In Norway, road bridges
including timber bridges are required to be designed to
last 100 years with minimal maintenance work. Every
component in the structure from steel plates, bolts to
the timber deck needs to be considered to achieve a
long design lifespan for the bridge; embedded steel
plates were galvanised and spray painted, some other
exposed steel parts are spray painted simply for
aesthetics and not to look too obviously different from
the timber; dowels are made from stainless steel to
achieve the required long durability.
The key to maintaining timber structures in good
condition is to control its moisture content; it is known
that timber would not deteriorate significantly if the
moisture content is kept below 20%. This would also
depend upon the weather at the site and the exposure
type of the structure; for a river crossing bridge, the
bridge is exposed to a moist environment permanently
so the timber needs to be treated to prevent from
rotting.
The exposed glulam members of the Flisa Bridge
were doubly impregnated in chemicals because it is not
possible to replace these members when the bridge is in
service and so they must be designed to last the
expected lifespan. It is quite difficult for glulam
members to achieve a full impregnation with only one
treatment. Sapwood is first treated with chrome, copper
and arsenic (CCA) salt solution before it is flattened
and glued, after the glulam members are made and
preliminary assembly is carried out; the parts are then
taken to an impregnation cell and treated with creosote
to reduce cracking and make the glulam water
repellent.
Figure 15: Creosote impregnation tanks
All the end grains are carefully detailed to avoid
direct exposure to collected water; the ends are usually
encased in copper plates. All upper sides of timber are
cladded with copper plates; copper plates maintain the
moisture content of the timber to within 8-12%. The
copper plates are placed on the top of the member so
that any moisture which makes its way to underneath
the copper cladding would react with the metal to form
copper salts, which is a preservative for timber. It is
important that the copper cladding is done properly so
that the metal plates do not collect water, especially at
the centre section where the top member is a concave
shape.
The bridge deck is protected by a membrane on
top of the deck which reduced its degree of exposure,
so the stress laminated deck was only impregnated with
creosote oil.
The condition of the different components of the
bridge is frequently monitored to see if the design
measures are performing as they were expected to.
Parameters frequently monitored include air
temperature and relative humidity, bridge deck wood
moisture content and the tension force in three pre-
stress steel bars inside the deck. An instrument is
inserted into the bridge deck to measure air temperature
and relative humidity in small voids inside the deck; by
doing so derive the moisture content in the wood as the
RH in the voids and the MC should be in equilibrium.
Load cells are installed to measure the force in the
pre-stressed steel rods in the deck, the load cells in the
Flisa Bridge was installed shortly after construction to
get a more complete idea of the behaviour of the
stresses in the steel.
The installed sensors record the required data once
every two hours and then transferred to from the data-
logger to an in house PC using an inbuilt cellular
phone.

7.1 Vandalism
The problem with vandalism of a timber bridge is
one of the more common maintenance required issues.
This usually happens to the railings of the bridge
which could be resolved by wither repainting or
replacing parts of the railings. There had been no
reports showing graffiti or other forms of vandalism at
the Flisa Bridge. The timber used in the bridge are
mostly impregnated with creosote and possess a dark Figure 16: The use of piles to provide lateral stability
colour, so minor damages on the parapets or railings to stone piers
are less obvious; and being a truss bridge, there are no
The original abutments were too small and had to
large continuous surfaces which makes it less likely to
be rebuilt; a new, larger concrete abutment was cast in
be the target of graffiti painters. Most components on
situ. The abutments are designed to carry vertical loads;
the bridge except for the glulam trusses are replaceable
the horizontal loads from the bridge deck are carried by
during the service life of the bridge; so the parts such
concrete friction plates behind the abutments at both
as the sawn deck of the pavement or parapets could be
ends, Fig 17. The concrete friction plates slope at a
quite easily maintained if damaged.
gradient of 1 in 8 and of a total area of 115.1m2.
7.2 Creep
Creep is observed in timber bridges as a result of
sustained loading and cyclic moisture change in the
timber which can cause sagging in the deck. Creep and
shrinkage of the wood from drying out can cause the
pre-stress steel bars inside the deck to reduce in its pre-
stress forces. Because of initial creep, the pre-
tensioned steel bars needed further tightening a year
after construction.

8 Foundation:
Using timber as the main construction material for
the bridge reduces the dead load of the new structure
which allows re-use of some of the old foundations;
avoided some expensive and time consuming
foundation work. The abutments and piers built for the
old bridge were made of high quality dressed stones on
pile foundations and are still in good conditions after
100 years. The old bridge was only held one lane so Figure 17: Plan and elevation of friction plate
the new bridge which is designed to carry full traffic
loads would exert larger loads to the foundations; extra 9 Temperature
steel piles were bored into the bedrock to strengthen
the piers. Thermal expansion of the bridge deck could be
The old piers were strong in the vertical direction, roughly estimated by the equation:
but weak in the lateral direction; using steel piles of L = L x x T (10)
diameter 120mm at the side of the piers increases its
resistance to lateral load, Fig 16. Similar methods of Where the linear thermal expansion coefficient
using piles bored into soil to provide stability and along the grain () is taken to be 3.5 x 10-6 /K, Ref. [2];
cradle the stone structure is used for the building of the change in temperature (T) is taken as the
wharfs. The steel piles provide extra lateral stability maximum temperature difference between summer and
and increase the bearing capacities of the piers. winter in 2008 and 2009, which is about 57.4 K. This
gives an associated expansion of 25mm. This can then
be converted into resulting strain by dividing the
expansion by total length of the bridge, which gives
and equivalent strain of 2 x 10-4. If the abutments were detailing and preserving timber; such as the Evenstad
to resist horizontal movements and the restrained strain Bridge in Hedmark, Norway.
induces stress, with the youngs modulus of pine being
13.5 x 104 N/mm2, this would increase the compressive
stress of the entire deck by 2.7 N/mm2, which is an
increase of 4 % of the ultimate compressive stress of
timber. In comparison to steel which would have
expanded 131 mm under the same condition and
temperature change.
The low coefficient of expansion of timber is
generally regarded as an advantage because it is
possible to omit the need for expansion joints if used in
the right orientation. As the linear coefficient of
thermal expansion perpendicular to the grain is roughly
40 x 10-6 /K, almost eleven times than that parallel to
Figure 18: The Evenstad Bridge in Hedmark, Norway;
the grain.
Built using similar techniques.
10 The use of timber
10.1 Environmental issues
Timber has recently come back in fashion as a
Timber is considered to be a more environmentally
building material; in countries such as Norway and
friendly material in comparison to steel or concrete; as
Sweden, timber is becoming a more competitive
the production of both materials produces a large
construction material comparing to steel and concrete.
amount of CO2; 1000 Kg of cement is said to produce
This is due to the better understanding of the material
approximately 800CO2; while the same amount of
property to produce better design parameters and
timber would have absorbed 1100 Kg of CO2.
joining techniques, and thus removing some of the
The main environmental issue with using timber as
negative myths about timber such as poor durability
a construction material is the creosote used in
issues.
reservation; creosote is a toxic material and is banned
For the Flisa Bridge, timber had allowed certain
from countries such s Sweden. At the Flisa Bridge,
options to be achieved such as the reuse of existing
excess creosote is believed to slowly drip into the river
stone piers even with increased number of lanes;
Glomma and the surround area on a warm day, but it is
concrete with heavier self-weight was unlikely to
argued that the negative impact is minor if the timber
provide the same result; by reusing the existing piers,
members last its design life of over 100 years.
approximately 1 million was saved from the final bill.
Steel was the alternative option but the use of de-icing
References:
salts in the winter presents severe corrosion problems,
and to achieve the 100 years design lifespan for [1] Ekeberg, PK. and Soyland, K., 2003. Flisa Bridge
structures in Norway it would have raised the cost a record-breaking timber bridge [online]
higher; timber on the other hand could use salt residues Available at:
as preservatives. http://www.thomastelford.com/journals [Accessed
Advantages of using timber as a construction February 2009]
material includes its more positive reaction to the
[2] Dinwoodie, JM., 1999. Timber: Its nature and
encounter of de-icing salts, which can be inevitable for
behaviour, second edition, pp 66.
certain locations; the possibility of avoiding the use of
expansion joints because of the lower thermal [3] BS EN1991-2, 2003. Eurocode 1: Action on
coefficient in comparison to steel; and increased structures Part 2: Traffic load on bridges. BSI
construction ease, instead of requiring a large amount
of formwork or centring, the timber trusses of the Flisa [4] BS EN1995-2, 2004. Eurocode 5: Design of timber
Bridge was simply craned into position. Most of the structures Part 2: Bridges. BSI
structural components could be pre-fabricated which [5] BS EN1995-1-1, 2004. Eurocode 5: Design of
decreased the construction time. timber structures Part 1-1: General Common rules
There are many examples of old timber bridges in and rules for buildings. BSI
poor conditions and hardly shows the possible
durability qualities. But recently developed knowledge [6] BS EN1991-1-4, 2005. Eurocode 1: Action on
and techniques provides better design standards structures Part 1-4: General actions Wind actions.
criteria, this includes better treatment to the timber, BSI
better detailing on joints, better grading of the timber [7] Nordic Road Association., 2005. NVF conference
and more advanced monitoring techniques and on timber bridges, Hamar, Norway.
equipments. These new developed techniques allow
timber to be used in more projects; other timber [8] GATE., 2006. Timber bridges new alternative
bridges had been built using similar methods for spanning, Ljubljana, Slovenia.