Bracing systems

A bracing system is a secondary but essential part of a bridge structure. A bracing system serves
to stabilize the main girders during construction, to contribute to the distribution of load effects
and to provide restraint to compression flanges or chords where they would otherwise be free
to buckle laterally. This article provides guidance on the design of bracing systems; additional
guidance is available in Guidance Note 1.03 and Section 8.2 of SCI P356.

Contents
Typical bracing
systems

What does bracing

do?
Cont rol of
buckling of
t he main
beams
Load
dist ribut ion
Typical bracing of a multi-girder bridge
Dimensional
cont rol

Bracing types
Plan bracing
Torsional
bracing
U frame
bracing

Design of bracing
systems
Making t he
main beams
work
Design
of plan
bracing
 Design of t orsional bracing
Design of U frame bracing
Design of int ermediat e bracing
Design of support bracing

Bracing detailing
Choice of bracing
Dealing wit h skew
Temporary or permanent bracing?
Bracing connect ions

References

Resources

See also

External links

Typical bracing systems

The figure below illustrates the general arrangement of a typical torsional bracing system for a
multi-girder deck. The intermediate bracing can be triangulated as shown or a stiff beam with
moment-resisting connections to the main girders. There are alternative bracing types for
multi-girder decks, and these are discussed later.
 Typical bracing over one span of a multi-girder bridge (slab not shown)

What does bracing do?

Bracing provides one or more of the following functions:

Cont rol buckling of t he main beams

Load dist ribut ion
Dimensional cont rol.

Control of buckling of the main beams

The most common reason for providing bracing on a steel-concrete composite bridge is for the
control of buckling in the main beams during construction. In composite bridges, the weight of
wet concrete imposes significant bending of the bare steel beams and the compression flange
needs to be restrained against buckling (in the direction of the minor axis). When completed, the
concrete deck provides lateral restraint to the top flanges along the full length of the bridge and
then the only portions of the beams that tend to buckle are the bottom flanges in the hogging
regions adjacent to intermediate supports.

In an unrestrained beam, the compression flanges of the main beams tend to buckle
horizontally, causing the beam to twist – so called lateral torsional buckling. This can be resisted
by bracing that provides either direct lateral restraint to the compression flanges or torsional
restraint to the whole beam.
A small tonnage of steel bracing can be used to provide huge increases in the bending resistance
of the main beams.

Load distribution

Since bracing connects beams, it can be used to distribute the vertical bending effects between
the main beams, and to ensure that lateral effects such as wind loading and collision loading are
shared between all the beams. This sharing is particularly important at lines of support, where
the effects of the lateral loads are often resisted at one fixed or guided bearing (depending on
the chosen articulation system).

In steel composite bridges during the "steel only" condition during construction, the main beams
are particularly susceptible to wind loading. Bracing can be used to share loading between the
beams so that the windward beam is not carrying the entire wind load.

In bridges curved in plan, bracing can provide the ‘radial’ component of force that is
consequence of the changing direction of the curved flange. The effective couple of the forces at
tension and compression flanges is resisted by additional vertical bending effects in the
connected beams.

Bridges over highways or waterways may need to be designed for collision loads on the soffit.
Over highways a soffit collision loading applies when the clearance is less than 5.7m (see the
accidental actions in EN 1991-1-7[1], and its UK National Annex[2]). It is unlikely that a single
main girder can resist the substantial loads without a bracing system to transfer forces to the
remainder of the structure.

Load transfer may not always be desirable. The existence of bracing can affect the load
distribution in a structure and the bracing itself can attract significant forces, particularly when
a bridge deck is not equally loaded across its width. Bracing is usually much less substantial than
the main girders and care is needed to ensure the bracing is not overloaded, and is not
vulnerable to fatigue effects.

Dimensional control

Partly as a result of deviation from exact geometry (within the usual tolerances) and partly as a
result of unequal loading, the horizontal distances between the flanges of adjacent girders will
vary, if not constrained. Such variation can cause problems during construction, particularly if
permanent formwork is used, because this may result in an unacceptable reduction in the
length of the formwork sitting on the beam flanges. Control bracing, often just one or two single
angles, can be introduced to tie the beams together and thus limit the deviation.

It is also good practice to locate bracing systems close to one side of main beam site splice
positions, for dimensional control (but the bracing should not be so close as to conflict with splice
plates).

Bracing types

Bracing can be classified into three types:

 Plan bracing
Torsional bracing
U-frame bracing

Plan bracing

Plan bracing is perhaps the most

obvious way to prevent lateral
buckling of a compression flange.
This is because plan bracing
provides lateral restraint, i.e. it
stops the compression flanges of
beams from moving sideways.

Plan bracing takes the form of

diagonal members, usually angle
sections, connecting the
compression flanges of the main
beams, to form a truss when
viewed in plan. This makes a
structure that is very stiff in
response to lateral movement.
With lateral movement of the
compression flanges thus
resisted, the half wave length for
buckling is reduced to the length
between bracings.

Most plan bracing will be at top

flange level. For steel composite
bridges, this allows plan bracing Plan bracing systems
to be cast within the deck slab, so
it does not need to be painted and
the underside of the bridge will have a clean, bracing-free appearance. However, where there
are hogging moments in the main girders, there may need to be bracing on the bottom flange.

Plan bracing is not common in modern steel composite bridges. The main reason it is not used is
because the plan bracing above the top flange conflicts with deck permanent formwork. It is,
however, possible to position the plan bracing below the deck slab.

If plan bracing is not cast within the deck and is going to remain in the structure on completion,
the performance of the bracing in service needs to be verified. Because the bracing is spanning
partly in the longitudinal direction, longitudinal stresses will be induced in the bracing. Stresses
can be determined by calculating the global displacements of the structure and imposing them
on the bracing, or by adding the bracing to a comprehensive 3D structural model. No checks are
needed for bracing within the deck slab, because the extra stiffness of the steel will be
insignificant and concrete restrains the bracing against buckling.
Plan bracing can be used to form a "virtual box" girder. This is an alternative to the box girder
which avoids the health and safety risks associated with the confined space interiors of box
girders . The virtual box uses the deck slab or deck plate and plan bracing between the bottom
flanges of two adjacent I girders to form a shape with torsional stiffness which can be used
instead of a box girder.

Torsional bracing

Torsional bracing takes the form of a plane of bracing between a pair of beams. The principal
advantage of this type of bracing is that a pair of beams is a stable unit. Beams can be braced in
pairs in the fabrication shop prior to transportation to site, which means that pairs can be
craned into place very quickly with the minimum of site connections.

The bracing can take the form of a truss spanning laterally between the top and bottom flanges
of the beams or can be a channel or I girder connecting the webs. In the case of ladder deck
bridges, the bracing is provided by the transverse beams.
Torsional bracing syst ems
 St ruct ural act ion of t orsional bracing

The bracing does not provide any lateral restraint to the compression flange, as one beam will
simply use the bracing to push the other beam sideways. However the stiffness of the bracing
will mean that both beams have to twist as a single unit, meaning that one beam is pushed up
and one beam is pushed down, and their resistance to being pushed up and down is what
provides resistance to buckling. For long transverse beams there is the possibility that the
beams can twist in opposite directions, in which case the buckling mode is the same as that for
U-frame action.

The effect of torsional bracing is to increase the elastic critical moment for each beam, although
it will not increase it to the value for buckling over a half wave length equal to the spacing of the
bracing. It is not ‘fully effective’ in the way that plan bracing is.

Torsional bracing is usually left in place permanently even if it is only needed for the temporary
condition. If beams are only braced in pairs, the bracing does not have much effect on global
load distribution, although checks need to be made that it is not overloaded by traffic loads. This
can be by done by determining the global displacements of the structure and imposing them on
the bracing, or by adding the bracing to a comprehensive 3D structural model.
Other advantages of this type of bracing over plan bracing are that it is located below the deck
slab and therefore does not interfere with the construction of the concrete deck, and it can
serve to distribute collision and wind loads more effectively.

U frame bracing

Where compression
flanges are remote from a
direct lateral restraint,
such as a deck, and are
restrained laterally by
flexible frames comprising
a transverse beam in a
deck and stiffened webs of
the main beam, this is said
to be a U frame, and the
restraint is given by U Structural action of U frame bracing
frame action. The stiffness
of the frame is what
provides resistance to buckling.

U frame action is generally used to resist buckling in half-through girders, as is often the case in
railway bridges. (Half-through girders are not often used for highway bridges because of the
risk of collapse due to traffic collision with the main girders.)

In hogging zones of composite slab-on-beam bridges, U frame action may be used to restrain
beams in the completed condition. This is particularly the case with ladder decks.

U frame action can only occur if there is a deck at or near tension flange level. The deck plate or
slab will be very stiff in plan and will effectively prevent any lateral movement of the tension
flanges. If this deck is not present, the frame will be a torsional restraint.

Guidance on determining the buckling resistance of a U frame bridge is given in a separate

article on Design for half-through construction

Design of bracing systems

There are three stages in the design of bracing:

Ident ify suit able int ermediat e bracing posit ions (and t heir st iffness) for t he adequacy of t he main
beams
Design t he int ermediat e bracing
Design t he support bracing.

Making the main beams work

To calculate the buckling
resistance of the beams,
one method is to carry out
an elastic critical buckling
analysis. This will model
the beams, usually
representing each beam
with fine meshes of finite
elements representing the
flanges and the web with
3-D grillages representing
the bracing. This model is
then analysed to
determine the critical
bending moment Mcr at Beam on springs analogy
which the main beam
buckles. The result of this
analysis can be used to determine the design bending resistance using EN 1993-2[3] clauses
6.3.2.2(1) and 6.3.2.1(3). The advantage of this method is that it can be applied to any situation
and will give the optimum result for the strength of the beam. However, to suit most common
situations a number of approximate methods are available which avoid the need for
sophisticated analysis.

There are several simplified methods of determining the design bending resistance of main
beams with bracing which use the analogy of a beam on springs. If the bracing is stiff enough the
springs can be taken as rigid, and deflections from lateral or lateral torsional buckling can only
occur between bracing positions. If the bracing is not stiff enough there could be deflections at
the positions of bracing and the main beams will have lower bending resistance as a result.

To use these simplified methods it is necessary to calculate the spring stiffness of equivalent
sprung supports. Sometimes it will be possible to show that the spring stiffness is so high that the
supports can be taken as rigid.

Design of plan bracing

Since plan bracing is provided to restrain the beams in the wet concrete condition, the
calculations will be done for the bare steel structure.

The method of PD 6695-2[4] clause 5 applies to the case of rigid lateral restraints. The method is
to calculate the non-dimensional slenderness λLT from which the design bending resistance can
be determined using EN 1993-2[3] clauses 6.3.2.2(1) and 6.3.2.1(3). To see if the restraints can be
assumed to be rigid, the requirement given in PD 6695-2[4] clause 5.3 may be used. This requires
determination of the stiffness of the plan bracing system.

The stiffness of the plan bracing system is the stiffness of the whole structure. The suggested
method is to use a 2-D structural model, representing the bridge steelwork in plan, and applying
unit loads to all bracing positions, acting in the same direction, so as to give the worst case
lateral deflection. If the plan bracing is only on the top flange, then in the model take the second
moment of area as that of the compression flange only, bending laterally.
If the bracing system is not found to be rigid, there is no other simplified method available, and
unless the design is changed to make the bracing stiffer, an elastic critical buckling analysis will
be the only way to determine the design bending resistance.

Loading a plane frame to determine plan bracing stiffness

Design of torsional bracing

Torsional bracing is usually provided to restrain the beams in the wet concrete condition, so the
calculations will be done for the bare steel structure.

The method of PD 6695-2[4] clause 8 applies to the case of torsional restraints. The method is to
calculate the non-dimensional slenderness λLT from which the design bending resistance can be
determined using EN 1993-2[3] clauses 6.3.2.2(1) and 6.3.2.1(3). The method introduces the
concept of the half wavelength of buckling. As explained in PD 6695-2[4] clause 8.3 this could be
the full span or some fraction of the span, but in most cases the half wavelength will equal the
span.

A number of parameters need to be calculated using this method, starting with θR. A formula for
determining one element of θR is given in PD 6695-2[4] clause 8, note 4. However θR can be
determined relatively easily using a grillage model, representing the bridge steelwork, and
applying several load cases as shown in the figure below.
 Loading a grillage to determine torsional bracing stiffness

In each of the cases above, a moment is applied to each end of each torsional bracing,
representing a unit force at the level of the top and bottom flanges. The moments are applied in
different ways to reflect the different modes of buckling and the different half wavelengths of
buckling that could occur. The above set is normally sufficient to cover all cases, but if either of
the last two cases leads to a lower buckling resistance than the first two, it may be necessary to
go on to consider the half wavelength of buckling equal to a third of the span, or a quarter etc.
The outcome of these analyses will be to directly give θR. This result is combined with a number
of section properties to eventually give the non-dimensional slenderness.

Design of U frame bracing

U frame bracing is usually provided to restrain the beams in the completed condition, so the
calculations will be done for the completed structure, not the bare steel structure.

The method of PD PD 6695-2[4] clause 9 applies to the case of U frame restraints and is based on
the method given in EN 1993-2[3] clause 6.3.4.2. The stiffness of a U frame to lateral loading is
referenced by the notes in EN 1993-2[3] clause 6.3.4.2 (2) and a formula is given in the second
row of EN 1993-2[3] Table D.3. This formula can be derived quite easily from first principles as
the deflection caused by a unit force applied at the top of each flange. However the formula
given does not account for the flexibility of the joint itself, which will reduce the stiffness value
and hence reduces the effectiveness of the restraint. Values for the flexibility are given in PD
6695-2[4] clause 9. Alternatively, a plane frame model of the cross section could be used to
determine the stiffness of a U frame directly.
Using the stiffness calculate the limiting
stiffness based on N E for the
compression flange of each main beam.
For this exercise take I to be second
moment of area of the compression
flange only bending laterally. Note that
N E is the classic Euler buckling value
(not to be confused with N Ed which
would be the design value of applied
axial force) and is determined as if no
restraint was provided. This value is
then increased by the factor m which
reflects the restraint offered by the U
frames to give N crit which can then be U-frame stiffness
used to determine the non-dimensional
slenderness λLT from which the design
bending resistance can be determined using EN 1993-2[3] clauses 6.3.2.2(1) and 6.3.2.1(3).

Design of intermediate bracing

For the design of the bracing for strength, including connection strengths, the design forces need
to be determined. The lateral forces can be determined using equation 6.11 in EN 1993-2[3]
clause 6.3.4.2 (5) for plan bracing or the equations in PD 6695-2[4] clause 11 for torsional bracing
and for U frames.

Add to this the direct forces on the bracing caused by lateral loads, for example by wind loading.
If plane frame or grillage models have been used to determine the bracing stiffnesses they could
also be loaded with wind load on the windward face to determine the distribution of forces from
wind loading.

Bracing which remains in the structure permanently will also be affected by traffic loads and
other variable actions, even if it is only required for temporary loads. To determine the effect
from live loads two options are available. The easiest option is to extract the worst case
distortions from the global grillage analysis and impose these results onto a plane frame local
model of the intermediate bracing. However this is very conservative and it may be difficult to
achieve a satisfactory design using this method. Alternatively, the actual bracing can be input
into a comprehensive 3-D model of the structure. The latter method has the advantage that the
loading on the bracing will be less than for the first method, the disadvantage is that a 3-D model
takes longer to set up.

When designing the bracing members, do not forget that bracing members are generally
slender and members that are subject to compression should be checked for buckling
resistance.

Design of support bracing

Support bracing has a different set of loads to resist. These are forces due to non-verticality of
webs at the support, due to distortion introduced at skew supports, due to eccentricity of
bearing reactions, and due to imperfection in alignment of compression flanges of the main
girders.

The method of PD 6695-2[4] clause 10 can be used to determine all four of the above effects. The
equations are used to determine a force FS . The most complicated part of the force FS4 is only
applicable to skew supports. These forces are applied at the level of beam flanges to produce a
torque. The forces are applied to a maximum of two beams, so for the case of a multi-girder
bridge a variety of load cases may need to be considered.

Application of FS forces to support bracing

The above figure indicates that the support bracing should be designed for the wet concrete
condition. This is often critical, but the design should also consider the finished condition. In the
finished structure the loads will be greater but the loads will be shared between the concrete
deck and the steel bracing, so this condition may be less critical.

Bracing detailing

Choice of bracing

There are many types of bracing arrangement possible. As noted previously the general
preference is for torsional bracing rather than lateral bracing.

For torsional bracing in multi-girder bridges, the K type bracing is usually preferred, rather
than X bracing for tall main beams, but if main girders are shallow, relative to spacing, channel
bracing would be better.
For ladder deck bridges, the bracing will be formed by transverse beams. A constant depth
transverse beam is preferred, and if possible knee braces should be avoided.

Dealing with skew

In skew bridges it is best to keep intermediate bracing normal to the main beams.

Support bracing in bridges with up to 20° skew can follow the lines of supports, i.e. being skew
to the main beams. However if skew exceeds this value it is best to keep support bracing normal
to the main beams and double up the support bracing as shown below.

Bracing arrangements in skew bridges

More detailed guidance on arrangement of bracing is given in a separate article on skew bridges
.

Temporary or permanent bracing?

Most bracing is required only for the "wet concrete" construction condition. Once the concrete
has hardened, the bracing is redundant. Bracing may even be a nuisance in the finished
condition because it can attract large effects due to traffic loads and it can be difficult to make
the bracing work. The question is therefore why not remove the bracing?

In general it is considered best to leave bracing in place. Although the weight of bracing is not
much as a proportion of the overall tonnage, it is likely to be too heavy for manual handling and
it can be quite difficult to manoeuvre the bracing out from under a completed bridge deck. The
bracing may have taken up load and it may not be easy to remove bolts. Also leaving the bracing
in place means that should the bridge need to be demolished in the future, the bracing could be
used to stabilise the steelwork while the deck is broken out.

Bracing connections

Bracing is almost always connected with bolts rather than welds. This allows the bracing to be
easily assembled on site although in many cases beams are delivered to site already braced in
pairs ready for lifting. Slip resistant connections are normally used. Guidance on slip resistant
connections generally is given in a separate article on connections for bridge steelwork, and
Guidance Note 2.03 specifically covers bracing and cross girder connections.

References

1. BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, Eurocode 1. Act ions on st ruct ures. General act ions. Accident al
act ions, BSI
2. NA+A1:2014 t o BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, UK Nat ional Annex t o Eurocode 1. Act ions on
st ruct ures. General act ions. Accident al act ions, BSI
3. BS EN 1993-2:2006, Eurocode 3. Design of st eel st ruct ures. St eel bridges, BSI
4. PD 6695-2:2008+A1:2012 Recommendat ions for t he design of bridges t o BS EN 1993, BSI
Resources

Iles, D.C. (2010) Composit e highway bridge design. (P356 including corrigendum, 2014). SCI
Hendy, C.R.; Iles, D.C. (2015) St eel Bridge Group: Guidance Not es on best pract ice in st eel bridge
const ruct ion (6t h Issue). (P185). SCI
Guidance Not e 1.03 Bracing syst ems
Guidance Not e 2.03 Bracing and cross girder connect ions

See also

Mult i-girder composit e bridges

Ladder deck composit e bridges
Int egral bridges
Half-t hrough bridges
Box girder bridges
Bridges - init ial design
Modelling and analysis of beam bridges
Design of beams in composit e bridges
Fat igue design of bridges
St iffeners
Connect ions in bridges
Bridge art iculat ion and bearing specificat ion
Plan curvat ure in bridges
 Skew bridges
Design for st eel bridge const ruct ion
External links

Highways England DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) (ht t ps://www.st andardsforhighways.
co.uk/dmrb/)
Highways England MCDHW (Manual of Cont ract Document s for Highway Works) (ht t ps://www.st andar
dsforhighways.co.uk/mchw)
The St eel Bridge Group (SBG) (ht t p://www.st eel-sci.com/t he-st eel-bridge-group.ht ml)

Retrieved from ‘https://steelconstruction.info/index.php?title=Bracing_systems&oldid=14981’

About Sit emap Cont act Privacy Not ice Cookies Disclaimer