CE5510 Advanced Structural

Concrete Design

12. Concrete Bridges

Professor Tan Kiang Hwee

Dept of Civil & Environmental Engrg
National University of Singapore

Contents
12.1 Types of concrete bridges 3
12.2 Introduction to bridge analysis 6
12.3 Design standards 9
12.4 Actions on bridges 10
12.5 Traffic loads on bridges 13
12.5.1 Division of carriageway 14
12.5.2 Four load models for vertical loads 16
12.5.3 Horizontal forces 24
12.5.4 Groups of traffic loads 26
12.5.5 Combination rules for road bridges 31
12.6 Fatigue load models 37
12.7 Actions for accidental design situations 38

© Tan K H, NUS 2
12.1 Types of concrete bridges
 One-way slab bridges – spans: 3 ~ 7.5 m
 Voided slab (precast) bridges – spans up to 15 m
Structural concrete is
particularly well suited for
use in bridges because of
its durability, rigidity, &
economy, as well as the
comparative ease with
which a pleasing appear-
ance can be achieved.

© Tan K H, NUS 3

 Cast-in-place concrete
girder bridge – spans:
up to 30 m; not so
common nowadays

 Composite prestressed
concrete bridges –
spans: 20 to 40 m
 precast beams
 cast-in-place deck
slabs

© Tan K H, NUS 4
 Segmentally cast post-
tensioned prestressed
concrete box-girder
bridges – spans: more
than 30 m.

 Others – arch bridges

© Tan K H, NUS 5

12.2 Introduction to Bridge Analysis

 Bridge Responses
1. longitudinal bending moment
4
2. longitudinal shear
3. longitudinal twisting moment 1
5 6
4. transverse bending moment
5. transverse shear 2
6. transverse twisting moment
3

- for nearly all bridges, 1, 2 and 4 are required

- for multi-beam types, 5 also needs to be determined
- 3 & 6 need to be calculated when heavy skew are present

© Tan K H, NUS 6
 Method of analysis

1. Grillage analogy method

o suitable for bridges where load distribution takes place
through flexure & torsion, e.g., solid slab, voided slab, slab-
on-girder types

2. Orthotropic plate method

o Same as 1.

3. Shear-weak orthotropic plate method

o Suitable for multicellular type of bridges where significant
deformation due to shear is accompanied by bending of
flanges

© Tan K H, NUS 7

4. FEM, including finite strip formulation

o Capable of representing all types if properly handled

5. Folded plate method

o Suitable for cellular slab, discrete boxes or box girders

6. Simplified methods
o Influence surfaces
o Distribution coefficient methods

7. Plastic methods
o Hillerborg strip method
o Yield line method

© Tan K H, NUS 8
12.3 Design Standards

 Eurocode 0 : Basis of design

 Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures
– Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges
 Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete
structures – Part 2: Concrete
bridges – Design & detailing rules

Indicative design
working life for C30/37 ~ C70/85
bridges = 120 yrs

© Tan K H, NUS 9

12.4 Actions on bridges

Permanent Actions
 Dead loads
 Superimposed dead loads
 Loads due to filling materials
 Differential settlement
 Loads derived from the nature of the structural
material (e.g., shrinkage and creep of concrete)

© Tan K H, NUS 10
Variable Actions
Traffic loads (multi-component)
 Gravitational loads (including overloaded vehicles)
 Horizontal loads
Braking / Acceleration forces Includes dynamic
Centrifugal forces effects
Traction (for railway bridges)

Other variable actions

 Actions during execution
 Thermal actions
 Wind actions

© Tan K H, NUS 11

Accidental Actions
 Impact (collision) from vehicles
 Fire
 Explosions

Other Actions
 Seismic actions (covered in EC8)

© Tan K H, NUS 12
 12.5 Traffic loads on bridges
(EC1 Pt 2)
 Road bridges
 Main vertical loads (4 Load Models)
 from traffic representing different types of traffic or
different design situations
 Secondary live loads (horizontal loads)
 e.g., due to acceleration & braking & centrifugal effects
 Accidental loading
 collisions with bridge supports
 effects of errant vehicles on areas such as footways and
cycle tracks
Applicable for spans of 5 ~ 200 m,
& carriageway widths ≤ 42 m
© Tan K H, NUS 13

12.5.1 Division of carriageway

Carriageway width, w
raised central
parapet

kerb reserve
hard
hard
shoulder
strip

Min. height of the kerbs to be taken into

© Tan K H, NUS account is 100 mm. SS NA adopts 75 mm. 14
 Example 1

 Unique deck & temporary central road restraint system:

w = 24.50 m, n1= 8 lanes + remaining area 0.50 m
 Unique deck & permanent central road restraint system:
w= 2 x 11.00 m, n1= 3 lanes + remaining area 2 m on each side
Total: 6 lanes + remaining area 4 m (but only one Lane #1)
 Two independent decks supported by same piers/abutments
w= 2 x 11.00 m, n1= 3 lanes + remaining area 2 m on each side
Two separate lane numberings for decks (2 Lanes #1)
A unique lane numbering for design of substructure (1 Lane #1)
© Tan K H, NUS 15

12.5.2 Four Load Models for Vertical Loads

 Load Model 1 (Main Traffic Loading System)
Tandem system (TS) + UDL system
• intended to cover flowing,
congested or traffic jam
1.2 m situations with a high %age of
heavy lorries
• used for general (and local)
verifications

Remaining area : qrk = 2.5 kN/m2

Qi and qi :

other lanes
0.4 m x 0.4 m adjustment factors
© Tan K H, NUS 16
- Adjustment factors (SS NA)

Location Q for tandem axle loads q for UDL loading

Lane 1 Q1 = 1.0 (1.25*) q1 = 0.61**
Lane 2 Q2 = 1.0 (1.25*) q2 = 2.2
Lane 3 Q3 = 1.0 (1.25*) q3 = 2.2
Other lanes - qn = 2.2
Remaining area - qr = 2.2
NOTE:
* Values in parenthesis are according to SS NA
** q1 should be taken as 1.0 for 4.4.1(2) of SS EN 1991-2 (braking forces)

© Tan K H, NUS 17

 Load Model 2 (Local effects)

Qak = 400 kN
Single axle load: Q Qak

- intended to cover effects of normal

traffic on very short (3~7 m) structural
elements
- to be used on its own to determine
purely local effects

SS NA: Q = 1.0
Contact surface = 0.33 m x 0.33 m

© Tan K H, NUS 18
  Load Model 3 (Special Vehicles)
3 Basic Models for STGO Vehicles (SS NA)
SV80/100 Special Types General Order (STGO)
130 / 130 / 130 / 130 / 130 / 130 /
SV80 vehicle – intended to model
effects of STGO Cat 2 vehicles
with a max. gross weight of 80
tonnes and a max. basic axle
load of 12.5 tonnes.
SV100 vehicle – intended to
model effects of STGO Cat 3
vehicles with a max. gross weight
of 100 tonnes and a max. basic
axle load of 16.5 tonnes.
(Note: The SV 80 and SV100 are
similar to HB30.)

© Tan K H, NUS 19

SV196
SV196 vehicle –
intended to model
effects of a single
locomotive pulling a
STGO Cat 3 load with
a max. gross wt. of
150 tonnes & a max.
basic axle load of
16.5 tonnes with the
gross wt. of the
vehicle train not
exceeding 196
The wheel loads of all
tonnes.
three SV model
vehicles should be
(Note: The SV196 is uniformly distributed
similar to HB45.) over a square
contact area of 0.35
m x 0.35 m.
© Tan K H, NUS 20
Application of SV models on carriageway

•Only one SV model vehicle

should be considered with
Load Model 1 at ‘frequent’
values

•SV vehicle can be placed

at any transverse position,
within one lane or straddl-
ing two adjacent lanes

•Should be placed to
produce the most severe
load effect
Movement of SV196 is separately
indicated in Annex NA.A (SS EN)
SV lies within a notional lane
© Tan K H, NUS 21

(a) Dist. to far edge < 2.5 m (b) Dist. to far edge  2.5 m

SV straddling two lanes

© Tan K H, NUS 22
 Load Model 4 (Crowd Loading)

UDL = 5 kN/m2

- includes dynamic amplification and is only

applied when requested by the client.
- considered for checking transient design
situations only

© Tan K H, NUS 23

12.5.3 Horizontal Forces

Braking and Acceleration Forces
 longitudinal force acting at
surface level of carriageway
 characteristic value Q1k
(associated with Load Model 1)
Qlk = 0.6Q1(2Q1k) + 0.1q1q1kw1L
180Q1(kN) ≤ Q1k ≤ 900 (kN)
where w1 = width of lane; and L =
length of deck or of part of it under
consideration
 located along axis of any lane; or
along carriage-way axis if
eccentricity effects are small
© Tan K H, NUS
Notes:
1 For example, for a 3 m
wide lane and for a loaded
length L > 1.2 m,
Q1k =
0.6Q1(2x300)+0.1q1(9x3)L
= 450+ 2.7L ≤ 900 kN. 
(SS NA: Q1 = 1.25; q1 = 1)
2 Acceleration forces have
the same magnitude as
braking forces, but in
opposite direction.
3 For
horizontal forces
associated with Load
Model 3 (SV), see SS NA.
24
 Centrifugal & other transverse forces
 Centrifugal force Qtk is taken as a Notes:
transverse force acting at the finished
carriageway level and radially to axis of
carriageway Qv : total maximum
weight of vertical
 Characteristic value (dynamic effects concentrated loads of
included), assumed as a point load at tandem systems of LM1
any deck cross-section
Qv  Qi (2Qik )
i
Qtk = 0.2Qv (kN) if r < 200 m
r : horizontal radius
Qtk = 40Qv/r (kN) If 200 ≤ r ≤ 1500 m of carriageway
centreline
Qtk = 0 if r > 1500 m
*SS NA – Nominal skidding
load shall be taken as 300
 Where relevant, lateral forces from kN (to be consistent with
skew braking or skidding should be “current” bridge design
considered* load)

© Tan K H, NUS 25

12.5.4 Groups of Traffic Loads

Each group of loads defines a characteristic action to be
combined with non-traffic loads.

SS NA SS NA and UK NA: gr3 is irrelevant for highway bridges

*Eq. (5.1): q1k = 2.0 + 120 / (L+ 30) kN/m2
where 2.5 kN/m2 ≤ q1k ≤ 5.0 kN/m2 and L loaded length (m)
© Tan K H, NUS 26
© Tan K H, NUS 27

© Tan K H, NUS 28
© Tan K H, NUS 29

Partial Safety (Load) Factors ()

for Traffic Loads

Design
Situation
Persistent Transient Accidental
Limit
State

ULS 1.35 1.35 1.0

SLS 1.0 1.0 n.a.

© Tan K H, NUS 30
12.5.5 Combination Rules for Road Bridges

 Infrequent combinations of actions need not be

used
 Wind and thermal actions are not taken into
account simultaneously with any group of traffic
loads
 Wind actions need only be taken into account
simultaneously with load group gr1a
 No variable non-traffic action is taken into account
simultaneously with load group gr1b

© Tan K H, NUS 31

Example 2

 Persistent design situations for STR/GEO limit states

5  gr1a

0.75  0 gr1a

qfk* : ‘combination value’ of vertical loads on

footways & cycle tracks of gr1 (3 kN/m2 )

© Tan K H, NUS 32
Example 3
Figure below shows the influence lines for bending at pier
location and in midspan for a three-span bridge deck
supported on abutments A0 and A3, and piers P1 and P2. Show
the arrangement of Load Model 1 (LM1) for the determination
of maximum bending moments at pier P1 and at midspan
between the piers.

© Tan K H, NUS 33

Solution

© Tan K H, NUS 34
Exercise 1

Figure E-1(a) shows a road bridge spanning 12 m between abutments.

The bridge deck has a total width of 6 m with a 200 mm raised kerb
on each side, as shown in Fig. (b).

(a)Determine the number and width of notional lanes for the

carriageway.

(b) Determine the design loads and hence the maximum longitudinal
bending moment for the bridge deck due to dead loads in
combination with Group 1a traffic loads.

Given: Self-weight of deck = 5 kN/m2; Unit weight of asphalt = 23 kN/m3

and partial safety factor for asphalt, f = 1.2. Neglect the weight of
kerb and any fixtures on the kerb.

© Tan K H, NUS 35

12 m

200

6m

Fig. E-1
© Tan K H, NUS 36
12.6 Fatigue load models

 Traffic load may produce a stress spectrum which

causes fatigue
 Depends on geometry of vehicles, axle loads,
vehicle spacing, composition of traffic and
dynamic effects
 Five fatigue load models
Fatigue LM1 (similar to LM1)
Fatigue LM2 (set of “frequent” lorries)
Fatigue LM3 (single vehicle model)
Fatigue LM4 (set of “standard” lorries)
Fatigue LM5 (based on recorded road traffic data)

© Tan K H, NUS 37

12.7 Actions for accidental design

situations
 Collision forces from vehicles under the bridge
Collision forces on piers and other supporting
members
Collision forces on decks

 Actions from vehicles on the bridge

Vehicles on footways and cycle tracks
Collision forces on kerbs
Collision forces on vehicle restraint systems
Collision forces on structural members

© Tan K H, NUS 38
Further Exercises
1. Fig. Q-1 shows a 2-span road bridge with a centre median
and two carriageways. Determine the number of notional lanes
for each carriageway and show the arrangement of a SV80
vehicle with Load Model 1 (LM1) for the determination of
maximum bending moment at pier P1.

Fig. Q‐1

©Tan K H, NUS 39

Further reading:

 O’Brien, E.J. And Keogh, D. L., “Bridge Deck Analysis”, E & FN

Spon, 1999.
 Calgaro, J.A., Tschumi, M. and Gulvanessian, H., “Designers’
Guide to Eurocode 1: Actions on Bridges”, Thomas Telford,
2010.
 Dave, P., “Traffic loading on highway bridges”, Thomas Telford,
2003.
 Bhatt, P., “Prestressed Concrete Design to Eurocodes”, Spon
Press, 2011, Ch. 15 & 16.

© Tan K H, NUS 40
Test Your Understanding –
Concrete Bridges
1. What are notional lanes for? (a) guiding flow of traffic: (b) purpose
of applying design loads; (c) determining carriageway width
Ans:

2. What are the four load models for gravitational traffic loads?
Ans:

3. What are the horizontal loads due to traffic?

Ans:

4. What are the 3 factors associated with traffic actions?

Ans:

© Tan K H, NUS 41