Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Apostolidis Bridge Critical
Apostolidis Bridge Critical
Apostolidis Bridge Critical
Abstract: This paper is a study of the Clyde Arc Bridge in Glasgow and is focused on the aesthetics, structural
design, construction processes and maintenance requirements. Also, an assessment of the bridge and its major
constitutive elements is carried out, following the Loading Code BD21/01 and an indicative strength capacity is
provided.
3 Structural design
The Clyde Arc Bridge consists of a main 96m
deck, which is suspended by bars hanging from the
single arch, and two approaching spans of 36.5m each.
The total width of the deck is 21.3m and the clear
carriageway width is 16.3m, which accommodates two
lanes for private traffic and two lanes for public and
cycle traffic [3]
The arch spans the deck at a skew angle and it is
Figure 2: Southern end piers [7] supported by two main piers, while the approaching
spans are supported by the abutments, on one side, and
Additionally, the colour combination of the by the major and a minor pier, on the other side [4].
several structural elements is in a good agreement with Judging from the available elevation in Fig.4, it is
the surrounding. Materials are not obscured by their estimated that the height of the arch is 30.3m and its
colour and present to match harmonically within the circumferential length is about 130m. Also, the
environment. The white colour of both the steel arch rhombic shape of the arch is assumed to have equal
and the hanger bars is in accordance with the white sides of 2400mm length and wall thickness of 50mm.
prevailing colour of the existing buildings. Although,
the unpainted apparent concrete of the piers fit with
both the deck and the springing arch, it is prone to the
high and low tide river conditions and thus stains on
the lower part of the piers undermine the appearance
when looking at from the embankment side (Fig. 2).
Both the main and the minor piers are supported purpose of this study, each cable is assumed to be of
on six and two steel driven piles respectively. These grade St 110/225, with 7 bars of nominal diameter of
have dimensions of 1067mm diameter, 28.6mm 32mm and ultimate strength of 1230 N/mm2 [10]. The
thickness and their length reaches 33m depth. As it can lower hanger connections are attached to the outriggers
be seen in Fig.4, both abutments were constructed at at different angles, and the upper connections are
the banks, at the rear side of the existing quay walls located at the lower sides of the diamond-shaped arch.
and their foundations consist of reinforced concrete
piles, of 276mm diameter [4].
4 Loadings
The deck consists a conventional composite steel
girder ladder beam design, with two main longitudinal The Clyde Arc Bridge was constructed in 2005
plate girders and cross girders at 4m centres. The depth and thus it is assumed that the design was based on BS
of the plate girders of the central span varies from 5400 standards.
1750mm to 1400mm, in order to facilitate the river During the design process, various combinations
navigation. Most of the cross girders have a depth of of loading cases are examined in order to define the
1250mm, apart from those at the bar connection points worst one. Loads are classified as permanent and
and at the main piers, having depths of 1400mm and variable.
2150mm respectively. However, the assessment of an existing bridge is
This steel deck frame supports pre-cast reinforced based on the Highways Agency Document BD 21/01
concrete deck panels, which are connected together [11], which examines the permanent loads (i.e dead
through insitu concrete at stitching joints [2, 4]. On the and superimposed loads) and from the variable loads
top of the reinforced concrete deck there is a surfacing only the HA and Knife Edge Load (KEL) traffic
layer of 230mm thickness. Such a thickness was loading [6].
necessary in order to provide future track installation
without damaging the structural concrete deck [4, 9].
4.1 Permanent loads
Outriggers are installed along the length of the
longitudinal girders, at the central span at 12m centres, Permanent loads include the dead and
in order to accommodate the connections of the hanger superimposed loads.
bars. Furthermore, the outriggers are connected
together with longitudinal tubular members. These
4.1.1 Dead load
tubular members, along with the steel deck itself, act as
tension members, taking the thrust from the arch. The Steel:
tubular members are assumed to be of grade S355, Total steel tonnage = 1470ts [12]
600mm diameter, with wall thickness of 40mm. Steel arch tonnage = 60x9 = 540ts [4], thus the steel
The arch is a steel rhombic-shaped box arch with tonnage onto the deck is 930ts, which is translated to
doubly curved plates. Its shape is considered to be of a 2.55kN/m2
pioneering design as it was the first bridge in the UK of (930*9.81) / (168.2*21.3) = 2.55kN/m2 (1)
such a type [9]. The arch was manufactured in nine
certain pieces, which were welded together on site. Concrete:
Due to the orientation of the arch relative to the Deck thickness = 300mm, thus the loading due to the
deck, the hangers are under inclination. There are 14 concrete deck is:
hanger bars in total, of 110mm diameter [4]. For the
(ρc * Vc ) / A = 7.20kN/m2 (2)
Thus the factored HA loading per notional lane
where, ρc = 24kN/m3, Vc = A*0.30 and A = 21.3*168.2 becomes:
Thus, the factored Dead load is: HA1 = HA2 = 7.62*1.0 = 7.62kN/m2
Fs*γfl,s*γf3 + Fc* γfl,c*γf3 = 2.55*1.05*1.15 +
7.20*1.15*1.15 = 12.60kN/m2 HA3 = 7.62*0.5 = 3.81kN/m2
4.2.1 HA Loading
Figure 6: Plan- arrangement of HA and KEL
The clear carriageway is 16.3m, which according to loading.
BS5400 it can be divided into 5 notional lanes of
3.26m each.
The unfactored HA UDL is given by Eq.3 below:
M = wL2 / 10 (5)
Vertical equilibrium:
VA + VB = 542.68*108.31 = 58777.67kN
T’1 *sin55° = 4274.93kN → T’1 = 5218.73kN The thrust Carch = H*√ (1+16*(h/L)2) →
and T’1, x = T’1 * cos55° = 2993.34kN Carch = 26263.24*√ (1+16*(30.3/108.31)2 →
Carch = 39413.97kN
σ = 340N/mm2 < 355N/mm2, so it is safe.
This load might cause buckling to the arch, as it is
drawn with a green line in Fig.11. 5.4 Torsion
According to Verstappen [15], the critical buckling An asymmetrical loading could induce torsional
load is calculated by the Eq.8: moments about the centroid of the deck, as it is shown
in Fig.13.
Pcr = (π2EI) / Lcr (8)
7 Ground conditions
The results of the ground investigation, which was
carried out before the commence of the construction
works, dictate the foundation approach that had to be
followed.
More specifically, the area underneath the piers
was found to comprise a limestone and a sandstone
Figure 15: Installation of the lower skirt [4]
The following concrete part, which is between the
connecting arch and the upper skirt of the pier, is
carefully tapered, starting with a square section and
ending up to an eccentrically rhombic section in order
to ensure a smooth transition from the circular shape of
the base of the piers to the diamond shape of the steel
arch [Fig.2]. This part is connected to the arch through
a system of prestressing bars that are anchored to the
concrete [4]
The abutments were constructed behind the
existing quay walls and they were supported on precast
reinforced concrete piles of 276mm in diameter. Due to
ground instabilities that arose in the north side (running
sands), a rotary drilling system was implemented in
order to avoid further deterioration during construction
[4].
In order to facilitate the construction of the deck,
temporary trestles were set up within the river [12]. Figure 17: Arch installation [4].
These were supported by similar steel piles as those in
piers, but were of smaller diameter and thickness 9 Serviceability and Maintenance
(Fig.16).
The bridge was designed following the Highway
Works (Department for Transport) specifications for 20
years maintenance-free as far as the anti-corrosion
coating of the deck steel elements is concerned [4].
Thus, these elements were factory painted according to
type II system, which is for exterior surfaces with
difficult access.
The same coating protection system applied to the
arch on site, once the welding works were completed.
The connections of the arch segments were carefully
sealed in order to ensure that the inner sides of the
section would not corrode and thus eliminate the need
for maintenance [4].
Furthermore, for the maintenance and potential
Figure 16: First steps of deck construction [18] replacement of the hanger bars to take place, the bridge
was designed to operate as normal even with one cable
Moreover, large floating barges were used as less. Nevertheless, in January 2008 a cable snapped
cranes in order to erect the steel and the precast unexpectedly, without fortunately causing any damage
elements of the deck at the appropriate positions [12]. to the road users (Fig.18).
After the completion of the deck, the installation
of the arch was followed. This process involved the
setting up of two temporary trestles onto the deck in
order to sustain the arch elements during its installation
(Fig.16).
The arch was constructed and transported in nine
segments. Every three of these segments were welded
together on the deck before they were erected in place
and formed three larger segments of 180ts each. Thus,
the first two segments were erected and installed at the
springing points of the piers and then the last segment
of the arch was erected and welded in place (Fig.17).
Once the arch was completed, the temporary Figure 18: The snapped connector [20]
towers that were supporting the arch were removed and
the installation of the bars was followed. This process People heard a loud snapping noise and witnessed
involved stressing of the hanging bars and releasing the whole structure shaking [19]. The bridge closed
from the temporary trestles that supported the deck at immediately to the traffic as a precautionary measure
the same time. and a first investigation showed stress fracture in a
connector unit of another cable. A further investigation
from both Halcrow and Nuttall revealed that the weight
distribution was not as it had been designed due to a [5] The Saltire Society, Scotland,
misalignment between the cast steel connectors and the http://www.saltiresociety.org.uk/3831 [accessed
cables [20]. Thus, it was decided to replace each 15/03/11]
connector with new ones made of milled steel. Since
[6] Ibell T., Bridge Engineering, Department of
then, no other structural damage has been reported.
Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of
Bath.
10 Future changes
[7] Panoramio, Photo of the Clyde Arc Bridge,
Following demands of the Glasgow City Council, http://v3.cache6.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.
the bridge is specially designed to incorporate a Light panoramio.com/photos/original/3307192.jpg?redir
Rapid Transit system in future. This explains the high ect_counter=1 [accessed 05/04/11]
steel tonnage of the whole structure (1470ts) due to
[8] Flickr, Photo of the Clyde Arc Bridge,
greater loads from the tram vehicles and the relatively
thick surfacing layer of the deck [4]. The latter has a http://www.flickr.com/photos/keep_your_bunnet_
oon/3988732166/#/photos/keep_your_bunnet_oon/
thickness of 230mm and allows to be removed in order
to accommodate the rail tracks without interfering with 3988732166/lightbox [accessed 05/04/11]
the structural elements of the bridge. [9] SteelConstruction,
http://www.steelconstruction.org/resources/design-
11 Conclusion awards/2007/award/clyde-arc-bridge-glasgow-
.html [accessed 06/04/11]
The Clyde Arc Bridge, due to its pioneering
design and strategic location, plays undoubtedly a [10] Walther et al. (1999), Cable Stayed Bridges,
crucial role to the general social and economic growth Second Edition, Thomas Telford, London 1999
of this area of Glasgow at either side of the river. [11] BD 21/01, The assessment of Highway bridges and
This paper attempted to perform a strength structures, Vol.3, Section 4, Part 3, HA
assessment, according to the Highways Agency
Loading Code BD21/01, which was based on [12] Severfield - Rowen Plc,
assumptions about the dimensions and properties of the http://www.sfrplc.com/project_details_1.aspx?proj
structural elements, since the real data could not be ectID=357 [accessed 06/04/11]
accessed. Findings showed that the bridge perform well [13] BS5400-2:2006, Steel concrete and composite
under the mentioned loading cases. bridges, Part 2: Specifications for loads, BSi
However, just after two years from its completion,
a structural damage on two connector units occurred. A [14] BD 50/92, Technical Requirements for the
further investigation revealed that a combination of assessment and strengthening programme for
mistakes, such as misalignment of the installed cables Highway structures, Stage 3: Long span Bridges,
and inappropriate material choice led to this incident. Vol.3, Section 4, Part 2, HA
The faulty parts were replaced and nothing else has [15] Dagowin la Poutre (2001), Stability of Steel
been reported ever since. Arches,
Nevertheless, this unfortunate event at the http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/bcoreports/BCO01-
beginning of bridge’s service life can be regarded as an 02.pdf [accessed 07/04/11]
invaluable lesson towards understanding of structures
of such a type. [16] Mosley et.al (2007), Reinforced Concrete Design
to Eurocode 2,Macmillan, London
[17] British Geological Survey,
References http://www.bgs.ac.uk/products/geosure/running_sa
nd.html [accessed 08/04/11]
[1] Halcrow Group, http://www.halcrow.com/Our-
projects/Project-details/Clyde-Arc-Bridge- [18] Photo by McAteer, Clyde Waterfront,
Scotland/ [accessed 15/03/11] http://www.clydewaterfront.com/about-clyde-
waterfront/image-galleries/building-of-the-clyde-
[2] ICE-Scotland, arc [accessed 08/04/11]
http://www.clydewaterfrontheritage.com/FileAcce
ss.aspx?id=2155 [accessed 15/03/11] [19] BBC,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_
and_west/7188577.stm [accessed 08/04/11]
[3] Roadtraffic-technology, http://www.roadtraffic-
technology.com/projects/finnieston/ [accessed [20] BBC,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_
15/03/11] and_west/7208575.stm [accessed 09/04/11]
[4] Walker et al. (2009), Procurement, design and
construction of the Clyde Arc, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Bridge Engineering,
Issue BE I, Vol.1, pp.3-14.