Eurocodes For The Design of Bridges PDF

Eurocodesforthedesignofbridges
TheEuropeanStandardFamily Trafficactionsonbridge Illustrationofbasicelementdesign W.Hensen,M.Feldmann,G.Hanswille,G.Sedlacek 1. (1) Sustainabilityisakeyissueforthedesignofbridgesincludingsteelbridges.Themost important sustainability indicator for bridges is durability with its effect on life cycle costsforanintendedservicelifeofabout100years. Durabilityisproducedbyvariouselementsincluding (3) Therefore this report does not focus only on design rules in Eurocode 3, but also comprises the other elements of the European Standard Family affecting durability, amongstwhichEurocode3playsanimportantrole. AccordingtothegeneralconceptoftheEurocodesthesecodesconsistofaEuropean part (the ENcodes) and National Annexes to the ENcodes, that complement the harmonizedEuropeanENcodesbyNationalchoices. In conclusion the practical design of a bridge on a certain territory is not possible withouttheuseoftheNationalAnnexvalidforthatterritory. ThechoicesthatarecontainedintheEurocodescomprisethefollowing: 1. National responses to opening notes to Eurocode rules that include technical classes or factors related to safety, climatic, cultural and other aspects (see GuidancePaperLUseandapplicationofEurocodes). Responsetoinformativeannexeswithtechnicalrulesandsetsofalternative technical rules in the main codetext for which no agreement could be achieved during the codewriting phase and from which CEN/TC250 expects either National acceptance or better founded National Alternatives thatcould 1 asustainabledefinitionoftheserviceconditionincludingthebridgeloading, choiceofthebridgesystem,itsstructuralandnonstructuralcomponentsand productsandappropriatedetailingalsoconsideringfatigue, designandexecutionforaqualityofstructurethateffectsdurability. Introduction
(2)
(4)
(5) (6)
2.
be used by CEN/TC250 for further harmonisation of the rules and the reductionofcomplexityandvolume. 3. Non conflicting complementary informations, (NCCIs) that comprise National choices of additional technical rules necessary for filling gaps in the Eurocodes and to make them fully operable. From these NCCIs CEN/TC250 expectsimportantimpulsesforthefurtherdevelopmentoftheEurocodes.
(7) Therefore in this report reference is made to the Nationally Determined Parameters, which are recommended in the Eurocodes for the design of Steel bridges and in some cases to the draft German National Annex, that may be considered as an example for the variations that may be induced by the many NationalAnnexesintheEU. Contentsofthereport Figure 1 gives the structure of the report with a short introduction to the European Standard Family, the aspect of durable load assumption in particular from traffic on road bridges, an example how to overcome shortcomings in the Eurocoderules for the technical specifications for the delivery of bearings, the background and use of EN 1993110 for the choice of steel to avoid brittle fracture and the core of the design of steel elements in bridges, that encompasses the stability rules, the fatigue rulesandrulesfortensionelements,e.g.forstayedcablebridge.
2. (1)
LIST OF CONTENTS
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 2
1. The European Standard Family and Steel bridges 2. Load assumptions for steel bridges 3. Modelling of steel bridges 4. Specification of bearings 5. Choice of steel 6. Design of bridge elements 6.1. Stability rules 6.2. Fatigue rules 6.3. Rope structures
Figure1:
3. (1)
GeneralremarkstotheEuropeanStandardFamilyforthedesignofsteelbridges Steel bridges for roads comprise full steel bridges with steel decks (orthotropic plates) and steelconcretecomposite bridges with a concrete deck, see Figure 2 and Figure3.
CROSS SECTION OF A BOX GIRDER BRIDGE WITH AN ORTHOTROPIC DECK

HASELTALBRCKE SUHL
Figure2
Figure3
(2)
Inbothexamplesthemainstructureisastiffenedboxgirderwithcantileveringplates withtheassemblyofsectionsprefabricatedintheworkshopononeshoreonsiteand erectionbylaunching. There is a criticism that the design of bridges would become more and more complicatedbecauseofthelargeamountandlargevolumesofthestandardsmaking theuserslifedifficult. As the detailing of rules that produces the volumes is however required by the users therearetwopossibilitiestocreateabettersurvey:
(3)
1. 2. to develop appropriate navigation systems through the standards (as practicede.g.fortheENstandardsforenergyefficiency), to develop consolidated handbooks from the standards for particular application fields as e.g. bridges, in which the technical rules and references from the Eurocodes are assembled in a way suitable for watertight contracting and security of use. Examples for such handbooks in bridge designare No.1: Basisanddesignofactionsforbridges No.2: Designofconcretebridges No.3: Designofsteelbridges No.4: Designofcompositebridges aspracticedinAustriaandGermany.
NAVIGATION THROUGH STANDARDS
Load combination EN 1990 Safety aspects G/Q-values Imperfections Stability of plates Fatigue Seismic design Materials Welding
Self-weight
EN 1991-1-1 EN 1991-2 EN 1991-1-4 EN 1991-1-5 EN 1993-2 EN 1993-1-8 EN 1993-1-11 EN 1337 EN 1090-2 EN 1337 EN 1090-2 EN 1090-2 EN 1337-10
actions
Traffic actions Wind actions Thermal actions General
EN 1990-A2 EN 1993-1-1 EN 1993-1-5 EN 1993-1-5 EN 1993-1-9 EN 1998-3 EN 10025 EN 1090-2
design
Connections Ropes Bearings Prefabrication
execution
product conformity
Site work Tolerances Inspection Maintenance
EN 1090-2 Corrosion protection EN 1090-2 EN 1337-6 CE-marking Traceability
Figure4 4
(4) Figure 4 shows a shortened example for a navigation system related to actions, design,executionandproductconformitythatallowstheusertogoogletherulehe needs.
SURVEY OF THE EUROCODES

EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Design EN 1992 to EN 1996 EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Eurocode 2: Concrete structures 1-1 Self weight Eurocode 3: Steel structures 1-2 Fire Actions Eurocode 4: Composite structures 1-3 Snow Eurocode 5: Timber structure 1-4 Wind Eurocode 6: Masonry structures 1-5 Thermal Actions 1-6 Construction Loads 1-7 Accidential Actions 2 Traffic on bridges 3 Loads from cranes EN 1997 and EN 1998 4 Silo loads Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design Eurocode 8: Design in seismic areas EN 1999 Eurocode 9: Aluminium structures
(5)
Figure5 Figure5givesasurveyonallEurocodesfromwhichtheusershouldselectthoserules relevanttohisdesignworks: Under the general principles in EN 1990 Basis of Design there are on one side the various generic rules for actions (as snow and wind) and the specific action rules as e.g. traffic loads on bridges and on the other side the materialdependant rules for various materials and types of structures. EN 1997 Geotechnical Design and EN 1998 Design in seismic areas comprise both generic rules for actions and specific rulesforresistancesandmaterials.
1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES

EN 1090 Part 1 Delivery Conditions for prefabricated steel components hEN product standards for steel materials, semi- finished products etc. Eurocode: EN 1990 Basis of structural design Eurocode 1: EN 1991 Actions on structures Eurocode 3: EN 1993 Design rules for steel structures EN 1090 Part 2 Execution of steel structures
Standard system for steel structures
HSS up to S700 1.12
Figure6: (6) The umbrella standard for Delivery Conditions for prefabricated steel components ontheglobalmarketwithapartfortheconformityassessmentisEN1090Part1. (7) Eurocode 3 comprises in a similar way as the actioncode generic design rules in its central part 1 addressing e.g. plate buckling and fatigue, and specific additional rules inperiphericapplicationpartsasforbridges(Eurocode3Part2),thattakereference tothegenericrulesinPart1. hEN product standards that give product properties from testing methods definedbystatisticalcharacteristicsthataresuitableforareliabledesign, the Eurocodes that give design rules both for prefabricated components and forstructuralworks, EN 10902 that contains the rules for execution in the workshop and on site withrulesforgoodworkmanship,tolerancesetc. Thisparttakesreferenceto Figure 6 shows the organisation of the family of standards for the design of steel bridges.

Load combination Safety aspects G/Q-values Imperfections Stability of plates Fatigue Seismic design Materials Welding Corrosion protection CE-marking Traceability
Self-weight
actions
Traffic actions Wind actions Thermal actions
designer
General
design
Connections Ropes Bearings Prefabrication
execution
product conformity
Site work Tolerances Inspection Maintenance
contractor
(8)
Tasks for designer and contractor
Figure7: In this report only rules for actions and for design are addressed as demonstrated in Figure7,whereasrulesforexecutionandproductconformitythataremainlyusedby thecontractorsarenotdealtwith.

(9)
Design rules for steel bridges in Eurocode 3
Figure8 Figure 8 gives the design rules in Eurocode 3 which are relevant for the design of steelbridges. 7
The controlling part for design is Eurocode 3 Part 2, with reference to Eurocode 3 Part 11, in particular to general rules for structural analysis, crosssectional verifications, use of imperfections for stability checks e.g. flexural buckling, and lateral torsional buckling, to Part 15 for plate buckling, to Part 18 covering connections, to Part 19 for fatigue, to Part 110 for choice of material and to Part 1 11forropestructures. (10) EN19932hasanAnnexCwithrecommendationsforthedesignandtheexecutionof orthotropicsteelbridgedeckscoveringnow50yearsofexperiencewithdurabledeck plates,thatmaymakespecificnumericalfatiguechecksunnecessary. EN19932containsalsotheannexesAandBforthepreparationofspecificationsfor the delivery of bearings and transition joints, for which EN 1990 Annex A 2 did not give specific rules. These annexes are material independent so that they are applicable to concrete, steel and compositebridges. Therefore in the future they will be transferred to EN 1990, and the tentative titles Annex E1 and E2 have been agreed. These new Annexes should in particular contain appropriate rules for the representative values of actions and their combinations to give design values of forces andmovementsthat are in compliancewith the evaluations of measurements as obtained from many decades of use; the values now recommended in the Eurocodeswouldproducemovementsthatareintherangeof1.52.0ofthevalues experienced in the past and also would not be suitable for the specification of bearingcharacteristicsfromanintegralanalysisofthetotalsystemofsuperstructure, bearings,piersandfoundations. (13) Therefore the draft of German National Annex related to Requirements for bearings and transition joints is related to the future Annexes E1 and E2 and contains a proposalthatpreventstheproblemsasdescribedabove.
(11)
(12)

Limit State Concept ULS Ed Rd SLS Ed Cd Fatigue E c Choice of material based on fracture mechanics (EN 1993-1-10) Stability of members and plates Single -value for combined actions, FEM-methods (EN 1993-1-1) (EN 1993-1-5) Fatigue assessments unless recommended details are used (EN 1993-2) (EN 1993-1-9)
(14)
Basic features of design rules for bridges
Figure9 ThebasicassessmentsthatabridgedesignerhastoaccomplisharelistedinFigure9: CheckscomprisetheLimitStatesULS,SLSandFatigue. A particularity of steel structures exposed to external climate actions and fatiguefromtraffic,windandrainisthechoiceofsteeltoavoidbrittlefailure. Another particularity is the use of thinwalled slender components, which needstabilitychecksforoutofplanestabilityaslateraltorsionalbucklingand platebuckling,suitableforcomputeraideddesign. Fatigue assessments are necessary because of the fatigue effects of traffic actions, unless structural details successfully timetested are used that need nofurthernumericalfatiguecheck.
4. 4.1 (1) The loading model LM1 as specified in EN 1991Part 2 gives a European uniform geometric pattern of concentrated loads and uniformly distributed loads the magnitudesofwhichhavebeendecidedtoleavethemtothechoiceofeachMember Statetoobtainasustainableloadingmodel,seeFigure10. Howtogetasustainableloadingmodel Loadingmodeland100yearsofservicelife
2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

900 kN
500 kN 275 kN
11,0 m
Load-model LM1
(2) The loading pattern as well as the recommended values for the loads originate from a common European study made under the chairmanship of H. Mathieu in the 1st phase and Prof. J.A. Calgaro in the final phase, that was carried out by specialists of various EUmembers on the basis of measurements in the various countries undertakeninthelate1980ths. The composition of the road traffic in the Highway ParisLyon at Auxerre has been decided to be the statistical basis for defining recommendations for characteristic values, as this composition seemed to be representative for future developments in allEurope. The characteristic values were defined with a return period of 1000 years instead of the usual values of 50 years because of the prevailing requirement of serviceability onthislevelandsustainabilityofdecision. Whereas a 50 yearsreturn period would have meant a 98%fractile of the annual distributionofextremevaluesinthemean(i.e.for50%ofthebridgepopulation),the 1000 yearsreturn period means a 98%fractile of the annual distribution of extreme valuesfor95%ofthebridgepopulation. The responses of Member States intheir NAs are expectednot to be homogeneous, because Figure10
(3)
(4)
(5)
10

trafficconditionsareveryregional, some countries use extraordinary loads in addition to the standard load model, somecountriesuseloadclassesfortheirroadnetwork.
1000 kN
12
600 kN
6
300 kN
3
11,0 m
Load-model LM1 (draft German NA)

(6) 1. All values are equal or above 1.0 because the future trends in traffic developments must be taken into account. In comparing the characteristic vehicleweightsforalengthof11mtheincreaseisabout10%. Thevaluesoftheuniformlydistributedloadsareincreasedby1.30except forthesecondheavylanewheretheincreaseisby2.40. This is due to the results of evaluations of traffic measurements performed duringthedraftingworksandexplainedhereafter. The increase of about 1.30 is justified by simulations of future traffic compositions (including 60 t modular heavy vehicles) taking account of rubbertrainswithafreightvolumesubstantiallylargerthanusedtodayand withasmarterfreightmanagement. An example for a response is the draft loading model in the German NA as given in Figure11.Itreflectsthefollowingconditions: Figure11
2. 3.
(7) This example is specific for Germany being the largest transit country at the crossing pointofNorthSouthandEastWesttrafficandwithlimitedcontrolsontheroads. 11
4.2. (1) (2) Ithasbeenusedwithotherstatisticaldatatoperformdynamicnumericalsimulations withbridgesofvariousinfluencesurfacestoobtainarealisticviewonthestatisticsof action effects in the bridges. To this end the dynamic behaviour of vehicles has been modelled by rigid bodies with non linear springs, dampers and friction elements and the surface roughness of the asphalt was artificially generated with Power Spectral DensityclassificationsaccordingtoISOTC108,seeFigure13. The statistical background of traffic measurements on the highway in Auxerre has beendocumentedasgiveninFigure12. Background of the load model LM1 and of the recommended characteristic load values

Statistical distribution of characteristics of vehicles

Figure12
12

Modelling of vehicles and surfaces

Figure13
Modelling of bridges
(3) Bridges were modelled as elasticmasssystems with an eigenfrequencyspan characteristicgiveninFigure14.ThisFigurealsogivestheresultsofmodelcalibration withtestscarriedoutatEMPAZrich. The results of the simulations are given in Figure 15 for the case of midspan moments of a three span continuous bridge. Apparently the effects of load model 13 Figure14
(4)
LM1 are safesided in this case to cope for other requirements from other influence lines.
Load-model and simulations

Figure15
Dynamic effects
(5) A byproduct of the simulations is a comparison of static and dynamic action effects as given in Figure 16. The distribution lines show that dynamic effects cause Figure16
14
an additional M value (constant shift) rather than an amplification by a dynamic factor.ThatisthereasonwhydynamicfactorsareincludedinloadmodelLM1. 4.3 (1) Reliability analysis of load model LM1 was performed with two medium spanned steel bridges with orthotropic decks that were built in Germany with the National LoadingCodeDIN1072,seeFigure17.
Reliabilityanalysisandpartialfactors
K 210
K 138
Reference bridges for reliability analysis

Figure17
15

Definition of target -value

(2) A reliability analysis on the basis of the statistics of the traffic in Auxerre and the statistics of largescale tests used to define characteristic values of resistancies in Eurocode3givesthe values(reliabilityindices)asplottedinFigure18. The Figure shows that the minimum value found is = 6.00. This was then used asthetargetvalueforaprobabilisticdesignofbridgeswithvariousinfluencelinesto identifyapartialfactor G fortheloadmodelLM1.
Figure18
(3)
P r o b a b ilis t ic d e s ig n
E C 1 - P art 2 L o ad M o d el
r e q u ire d
LM Q
Qd
f y W
req u
w h e re
Qd
LM Q
= 1 .1 0 = 1.3 5
=
Q
M M
Qd LM Q
Definition of Q-value
Figure19 16
(4) The probabilistic design gives for various shapes of influence lines and spans theresistances Wrequired ofthemaingirdersthatcomplywith =6.00. Inusingthedefinitions: Figure19givesthemethodforidentifying Q [Bez]:
fy
yieldstrength momentforpermanentweightsasdefinedintheEurocodes 1.35 1.10
M G =
G
M
= =
adesignvalue M Qd canbedefinedfromtheprobabilisticdesignononehand. In using on the other hand load model LM1 the moment caused by traffic
LM loads M Q can be determined and the design value is defined by LM M Qd = Q M Q .
Fromacomparisonof M Qd fromthetworoutesthevalue Q isobtained.

Q-values from LM1

Figure20
17
(5) Figure21 Figure 20 gives the distributions of Q values obtained in this way for various influence lines, spans and road widths. It shows the large scatter of values and also that Q =1.35isthemaximum. (6) (7) 4.4 (1) Figure 22 gives a forecast of the year 2000 for the future development of freight volumeofterrestictrafficthathasbeenexceededin2010byfar. Tendencyoftrafficdevelopment This effect was one of the reasons for the choice of values in the draft German NA. Thescatterof Q issmallerandthemaximumvaluesareintherangeof1.25,sothat Figure 21 demonstrates what happens if in the load model LM1 the uniformly distributedloadinlane1isslightlyreducedandinlane2enhancedbyafactorof2:
M couldbereducedto M =1.00.
18
(2)
Figure23givesthedevelopmentofrequestsforpermanenttravellingpermissionsfor heavy vehicles exceeding the legal weight limits, resulting in about 100 requests per day.

Forecast of freight-volume

Figure22
Development of permits for heavy vehicles

Figure23
19
(3)
Figure 24 gives the vehicle and axle loads and accumulated number of vehicles as measured by weighinmotion (WIM) methods in an access highway to Rotterdam in theNetherlandsfor1year.

Results of WIM-measurements in NL
(4) 1. 2. 3. therecommendationsforLM1arenotovercautious, therearetendanciestoincreasethetrafficloadsbydevelopinglargervehicles toreduceCO2emissions, a clear picture of a future loadmodel can only be obtained where clear decisions from transportpolitics are made. Such decisions should not ignore the large impact of such decisions on the sustainability of the loading model fortheexistinginfrastructure. Allthesemeasurementsshowthat Figure24
4.5 (1) the fatigue load, in general given with a frequency distribution or as a constantdamageequivalentload, thenumberofloadreversalsintherequiredservicetime. 20 A numerical means to assess durability is the fatigue assessment, that requires the definitionofthetwodimensionalfatigueactionsintermsofapairofvalues: TheloadmodelFLM3forfatigueverifications 4.5.1 General
(2)
EN 19912 specifies a damageequivalent vehicle FLM3 with a symmetric geometric loadingpattern,thatcontainstwotandemaxleloadswithanaxleloadof120kNand avehicleloadof480kN. EN19912alsogivestheannualnumberofheavyvehiclesdependingonthecategory ofhighway,Figure25.

Fatigue load model specified in EN 1991

480 kN
Number of expected trucks per year for a single lane
Traffic Category
1: 2-Lane Highways with a high rate of heavy vehicles 2: Highways and roads with a medium rate of heavy vehicles 3: Main roads with a low rate of heavy vehicles 4: Country roads with a low rate of heavy vehicles
Number of heavy vehicles N

2 106 / a 0,5 106 / a 0,125 106 / a 0,05 106 / a
Fatigue loading model FLM 3

(3) Thisdamageequivalentvehiclerepresentsacertainfrequencydistributionofvarious heavy vehicles in the traffic spectrum, evaluated with the slope m=5 of the fatigue resistance lines. For application in numerical fatigue assessments, which are not based on fatigue damage (two dimensional), but on stressranges only (one dimensional),themodelisusedinthefollowingway: The stress range max = max min is determined from the extreme positionsofthevehiclesonthestaticinfluencesurface, the values max are modified with equivalent factors fat and to take account of dynamic effects and the specific characteristics of the spectrum consideredintheproject. (4) Figure 26 gives the concept for this fatigue assessment, that usually works with partial factors Ff and Mf , depending on the safety concept applied. Usually the concept of Damage tolerance is used, which requires, that any fatigue damage, i.e. the formation and growth of cracks, can be detected in regular inspections of the 21 Figure25
structure, before the damage attains a size critical for the ultimate resistance of the structure.
Ff
fa t
m ax
Mf
Concept for fatigue assessment with equivalent constant amplitude stress ranges
s a fe ty fa c to r f o r f a t ig u e s tr e n g th
r e fe r e n c e f a t ig u e s t re n g th a t 2 1 0 6 c y c le s
m a x im u m s tr e s s r a n g e f r o m E C 1 -2 lo a d m o d e l
d a m a g e e q u iv a le n c e fa c t o r r e p r e s e n t in g t h e s p e c t ru m
crack size a
critical crack size acrit
d a m a g e e q u iv a le n t im p a c t f a c t o r
s a f e ty fa c t o r f o r fa tig u e lo a d
Ff = 1.00 Mf = 1.00 1.15 for damage tolerance Mf = 1.25 1.35 for safe life method
detectable crack size a0 time Inspection interval
Assessment method for FLM 3
(5)
Figure26 The fatigue resistances c are based on constant amplitude tests with large scale specimens,thatcontainallfeaturesofweldedstructures(discontinuitiesandresidual stresses). Figure 27 gives an example for detail categories c as specified in EN 199319 and evaluations of test results that support the choice of c made in EN 199319.
The comparison shows that for some details there may be a large scatter of tests, fromwhichthechoiceshavebeenmadeandthatforotherdetailsthebasisoftestsis rathersmall. Theremaybealsotheproblem,thatfordetailschoseninaprojecteitherthefatigue loading or the fatigue resistance may only be roughly estimated, so that ways of fatigue assessment other than by the numerical way are preferred, e.g. prescriptive rulesforfatigueorsubstitutiverulesforserviceability.
22

Fatigue details welded attachments and stiffeners
EN 1993-1-9 - Fatigue resistance

4.5.2. Examplefordescriptiverulesforsufficientfatigueresistance (1) An example for the derivation of a descriptive rule for achieving sufficient fatigue resistanceisgiveninFigure28.Incomparingthemomentresistancesofmaingirders resulting from ULSverifications with Loadmodel LM1 and from fatigue assessments with Loadmodel FLM3 all for a certain minimum fatigue resistance, e.g. c = 71MPa,acertainmaximumspanlengthcanbedeterminedwherefatigueisnomore relevant. Figure27
23

Required moment of inertia from ULS and fatigue design for detail category 71
Moment of Resistance W/L [cm2m/m]
= 1 ,0
ULS
= 0 ,8
F a tig u e
S pa n L [m ]
Span limits for fatigue design
(2) (3)
Figure28 Soadescriptiverulecouldbe tospecifyaminimumrequirementforthefatigueresistanceofalldetails,e.g.
c =71MPa,
to define a minimum span length from which on numerical assessments are necessary.
Figure 29 gives another example for descriptive rules for certain details. In this case theconnectionofhangersoftiedarchbridges,forwhichvariousdetailsarecommon couldbestandardisedinsuchaway,thatfatiguefrom: vortexinducedvibrations rainwindinducedvibrations fatiguefromimposeddeformationsfromthepassingoffatiguevehicleonthe bridge
aretakenintoaccount.
24

Joint for hanger

Alternatives for joints of hangers: optimised joint: continuously increasing stiffness (K90) low curvature from bending end of hanger with hole and inclined cut low stresses at end of hanger for K50 ratio of inclined cut and connecting plate avoiding of stress peak at end of hanger
Recommendations for durable detailing

Figure29
Hanger connection for arch bridges
2 3 4
Substitution of fatigue checks for critical details

(4) Figure 30 gives such an example for a standardized solution that may be defined by geometric descriptions only. The background of these geometric descriptions are fatigue assessments for the critical hot spots , , , that have been undertakenforalargevarietyofbridgestoprovetheirsafety. Figure30
25
(5)
A particular case for descriptive rules is the orthotropic steel deck of bridges, see Figure 31. The most critical hot spot for such plates is the welded connection of the deckplatetothetroughsortothewebsofthecrossbeams.

Standard orthotropic steel deck with continuous stringers with cope holes in the web of the cross beam
Substitution of fatigue checks by structural detailing rules

Figure31
Structural detailing for deck plate

connection of deck plate to troughs
75 HV HV HV 12 14
300
300
300
design life load model 4 without layer < 10 years asphaltic 30 - 50 years sealing PmB 45 thermosetting 70 - 90 years resin PmB 25
fr t = 6 mm
Recommended details of orthotropic deck

(6) The fatigue loading model FLM3 is not applicable for verifying these hot spots, because it does not sufficiently model the effects of the tyrepressure of the wheels. 26 Figure32
Also the analysis model for fatigue is not sufficient, if it is restricted to modelling the steelstructureonly. (7) Figure 32 demonstrates in what way the steeldeck adhesively connected with the asphaltlayerisaffectedbythestiffnessofthelayeranditssensitivitytotemperature andloadingfrequency. Taking Polymer modified Bitumen PmB45 into account produces an enhancement of servicelifebyafactorof3to5andPmB25generatesanenhancementbyafactorof 7to9. ThereforeAnnexCtoEN19932givesprescriptiverulesforthemostcriticaldetailsof orthotropic plates, e.g. deckplate thickness, distance of troughs, weld preparations forweldedjointsofstiffenersetc.tosecureasufficientfatiguelife.
(8)

Structural detailing for cross beams

75 12 hT > 0,15 h T 25 t Steg hQTr
tLtrough = 6 mm tweb = 10 - 16 mm; verification of net web section required hcrossbeam 700 mm
(9)
Figure33 An example for the structural details dealt with in Annex C is the interconnection of troughs and webs of crossbeams according to Figure 33 and the definition of a minimum depth of crossbeams and minimum thickness of webplate to avoid the formation of cracks at the cutout for which a toothassessment in the critical horizontalsectionbetweenthecutoutsisnecessary.
27
4.5.3 Examplesforindirectfatigueassessments (1) A particular protection aim for orthotropic steel decks is to avoid cracks in the asphaltlayer that could lead to corrosion of the deckplate and in case of disintegrationofthelayertosecurityproblemsoftheroadusers. Thecausesofsuchcracksare
(2) insufficientstrainabilityoftheasphaltinparticularduringwinter, excessive flexibility of the deckplate in particular due to differential deflectionsofthetroughs,seeFigure34.
Potential positions of cracks in the asphalt layer
Durability of asphalt layer

(3) From an evaluation of the ratio of the frequency of occurrence of cracks in the asphalt versus the maximum strain exerted from differential deflections of the ribs a minimum requirement of the stiffness of troughs has been derived that is given in Figure35. Figure34
28

Steel bridges serviceability limit state

Requirements for the minimum stiffness of stringers depending on the distance between crossbeams
distance between cross girders a [m]
5 A 4
3 0 1000 5000 10000 15000 20000
second moment of area IB of the stringers including deckplate [m4] Condition for curve A
1,20m 1
IB 2
1 heavy traffic lane 2 web of main girder or longitudinal girder
(4) (5)
Figure35 This minimum stiffness requirement, specified in EN 19932, also protects the deck platefromexcessivefatiguestresses. Another indirect fatigue assessment given in EN 19932 is the verification to excessive webbreathing, that may lead to cracking at the welded edges of the web plateandalsoavoidsthehungryhorseappearance. Figure 36 shows the relevant platebucklingformula applied for stresses on the servicelevel.
(6)
29

Plate buckling
Verification to web breathing
x ,Ed ,ser k E
2
Ed ,ser + 1 .1 1.15 k E
b21
subpanel
a1
a2 aG
a3
a4
stiffened panel length y
stiffened panel width
Definition of a plated element

transverse edge
longitudinal edge
bG
Figure36

Figure37
4.5.4 BackgroundinformationtotheEurocodespecificationsfortrafficloads (1) The JRC has prepared a background document to EN 1991Part 2 Traffic loads for roadbridgesandconsequencesforthedesign,seeFigure37,thatiscurrentlybeing extendedtoincludealsothebackgroundofthetrafficloadsforrailwaybridges.
30
(2)
That background document gives the origine of the load specifications and could be used as a source for determining tendencies from more recent traffic measurements orfromstudiesthatincludefurtherdevelopmentsofheavyvehicles. Modellingofsteelbridgesfortheanalysis General Two examples for models used for the design of steel bridges are presented in this report,thatareconnectedwithdurabilitychecks: Modelforshearlagforwideflangese.g.thebridgedeckcooperatingwiththe maingirdersastopflange, Modelforfatiguedesign.
5. 5.1 (1)
5.2 (1) (2) the bending theory of beams with loads Pz and bending moments M z apply to the full crosssection with the full geometric flange width b . It gives the warpingdistribution z , an additional warping distribution w for longitudinal stresses x is found, the distribution of which complies witha linear shear distribution flangeandhasthefollowingproperties: it is orthogonal to the warping distributions w1 = 1 for normal forces andforbending w2 = z ,inthattheequations: Figure38showstheprinciple: The basis for the model of shear lag in EN 199315, to which EN 19932 makes reference,isthebeamtheoryextendedtocoversheardeformations. Modelforshearlag
w in the wide s
w dA = w dA + k A = 0 w z dA = w z dA + k A
0 1w 0 zw
zz
=0
apply, it gives a vertical deformation v that can be determined from the second order analysis model of a beam with the bending stiffness
E Aww where

Aww = w 2 dA
31
and the tension force G S , representing the shear stiffness of the wideflange. this analysis model also gives warping moments M w that may be usedtodeterminetheselfequilibratingstresspattern
w =
Mw w Aww
Mz z Azz
thesumof
z =
and
w =
Mw w Aww
gives the final stress distribution in equilibrium with external forces takingaccountofthenonlinearstressdistributioninthewideflange, the equivalence to this nonlinear stress distribution is a constant stress distribution in the wide flange however reduced to the effective width beff = b
3. MODELLING OF STEEL BRIDGES

Shear lag effect
GS
Figure38
32

Subdivision of a moment-distribution to elements with standard shape
Figure39 (3) (4) For the ease for use however the moment distribution of the continuous beam is divided into various unit distributions, each of which can be modelled by a simply supported beam with a combination of uniformly distributed load and concentrated load,where istherelevantshapeparameterforthemomentshape. Figure 39 shows a moment distribution for a continuous beam where this model couldbeapplied:
iscalculatedonthebasisof M z fromabeamanalysis is calculated from M w determined from 2nd order theory for a continuousbeamwiththetensionforce G S .
33

-factor for shear lag
(5)
Figure40 Figure 40 gives the algebraic solution for for various shapes taking account of thepossibleorthotrophyofthewideflangeby 0 b ,where 0 =1 forisotropicflangeplates for orthotropic flange plates, where the longitudinal stiffness is larger thantheshearstiffness forcrackedconcreteslabs,wherethelongitudinalstiffnessfortension issmallerthantheshearstiffness
0 >1 0 <1
(6)
Figure 40 also shows the formulae for specified in EN 199315 for the extreme valueenvelopesofbendingmoments,forwhichareferencelengthofbeamanda valuehasbeenchosen.
5.3 (1) Whereas the modelling of the structures for ultimate limit state verifications may be simplified, e.g. by hinged connections at the junction of deckplate and vertical stiffeners of crossframe, fatigue assessments need a modelling of the monocoque structure taking into account the continuity of deformations of the deckplate and of thetransverseframetotaketherestrainingmomentsintoaccount,seeFigure41. Modellingforultimatelimitstateverificationsandforfatigueassessments
34

Differences in modelling
Modelling for ULS Modelling for fatigue
(2)
Figure41 Also small curvatures of a bridge in plan view normally neglected in the analysis for ULS may induce lateral forces in the hogging and sagging moment regions of the maingirdersthatmayenhancetherestrainingmomentsinthetransverseframe. Fatigue damages have also been observed at the connections of longitudinal stiffeners in webs of maingirders, that normally are designed for plate buckling underperfectloadingconditionsforULS,howeverincaseofflexibledeckplatesmay receive lateral imposed deformations from deflections of the crossbeams under trafficloads,seeFigure42.
(3)
35

Modelling for ULS Fatigue effects on web stiffeners
Figure42

Modelling for ULS Frame and distorsional effects
(4)
Figure43 A typical difference in modelling for ULS and fatigue is given in Figure 43 for box girderbridges, where transverse frames are usually designed for load distributing forces calculated on the basis of rigid crosssection shapes, whereas for fatigue the distortion of the crosssection and secondary moments induced by the continuity of deformationsofthedeckplateandthetransverseframemayberelevant.
36
6. 6.1 (1)
Specificationsforbearings General EN 1990 Annex A2 does not give rules for the determination of action effects as forces, moments and movements for specifying the performance conditions for the deliveryofbearings. Therefore the preparation of such rules is a first priority task for Nonconflicting complementaryinformationtoEN1990A2tomaketheEurocodesfullyoperablefor thedesignofbridges. EN 1993 Part 2 gives in its Annex A Requirements for bearings that are meant to beindependentondifferentmaterialsandwaysofconstruction. ThisAnnexneedshoweverfurtherdevelopmenttoachievethefollowinggoals: the rules should give realistic results in that they comply with measurements offorcesandmovementsfrommanydecades, the rules should be applicable for all types of fixed, sliding, rolling and deformingbearings, the rules should allow to derive the specifications for bearings from a global analysis of the bridge for ULS comprising the interaction of superstructure, bearings,piers,foundationandthesoil.Thisspecificationshouldbeconsistent with the design of the support area of the superstructure (e.g. for eccentricities), the design of the piers (e.g. loading and excentricities) and of thefoundations.
(2)
(3) (4)
(5) (6) 6.2 (1) Figure 44 gives the design principles for the preparation of construction documents neededtoorderthedeliveryofbearingsaccordingtoEN1337. Designprinciplesforthepreparationofconstructiondocuments In the following the main contents of such a future Annex E to EN 1990, that would substitutethenowAnnexAtoEN19932ispresented. Therulesshouldalsobeconsistentwiththepropertiesofbearings,asspecifiedinthe productstandardforbearings,i.e.EN1337.
37
4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS

Design principles for individual bearings - Permission of movements minimizing the reaction forces - No tensile forces - No significant redistribution of forces to other bearings from accomodation to installation tolerances - Specification of installation conditions with details of construction sequence and time variable conditions - Measure to avoid unforeseen deformation of the bearings (non uniform contact)
Figure44

Construction documents
Bearing plan (drawing of the bearing system) Bearing installation drawing (structural details) Bearing schedule (characteristic values from each action, design values from combination of action)
(2)
Figure45 Theconstructiondocuments,seeFigure45,are thebearingplan,thatshowsthebearingsystem, thebearinginstallationdrawing, thebearingschedule. 38
6.3 (1)
Preparationofbearingschedules Afterthechoiceofthe bearingplanwithselectionofthetypesofbearing,seeFigure 46, bearing schedules need to be prepared, for which Figure 47 and Figure 48 give models.

sliding displacement
rolling
deforming
rotation
Functional principles of bearings
(2)
Figure46 In Figure 47 the characteristic values of actioneffects (forces, moments and movements) are given for each individual action, so that load combinations can be performed that allow to define either extreme values together with simultaneous accompanyingactionsorconservativecombinationsofextremevaluesonly.
39

Figure47
(3) (4)
Figure48 Figure 48 gives an example for the indication of design values from the combination ofextremecharacteristicvalues. Thebearingschedulesarethenusedbythebearingproducerstodesignthebearings accordingtotherulesinEN1337.
40
(5)
The reference standards for the preparation of the bearing schedules are given in Figure 49 and Figure 50. For accidental design situations also EN 19912 should be taken into account with particular rules for the impact scenarios for bridges to be considered. The National Annex may give descriptive rules (e.g. limitation of bridge movementsbystructuralmeasures)thatapplyinsteadofnumericalassessments.

Actions for permanent and transient design situations

No. Action Reference to temperature T0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 Self-weight Dead loads Prestressing Creep concrete Shrinkage of concrete Traffic loads Special vehicles Centrifugal forces Nosing forces Brake and acceleration forces Footpath loading Wind on structure without traffic Wind on structure with traffic Range uniform temperature Vertical temperature difference Horizontal temperature difference Soil Settlements Bearing resistance/friction forces Replacement of bearing Pressure and suction from traffic Wind during erection Construction loads Accidental actions Eurocode DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07 DIN EN 1991-1-7:2007-02 DIN EN 1991-1-7:2007-02 DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10 and DIN EN 1994-2:2006-07 DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10 DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07 DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07 DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.3 and 6.1.5 DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.4 and 6.2 DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09 DIN EN 1337, Part 2 to 8 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07 and DIN EN 1991-1-6:2005-09 DIN EN 1991-1-6:2005-09 DIN EN 1991-1-7:2007-02
For transient design situations reduction of variable actions due to limited duration EN 1991-2, 4.5.3. For steel bridges also actions from installation of hot asphalt according to technical project specifications.
Figure49

Actions in accidental design situations Specifications according to EN 1991-2 Limitation of bridge movements by structural measures, e.g. stop devices at abutments
Actions in seismic design situations Specifications according to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-2
Figure50
41
6.4 (1)
Particularitiesofcombinationrules Figure 51 gives the principles for the determination of design values of movements andbearingforceswhenusingthecombinationrules.

Determination of design values of movements and bearing forces Principles Combination according to EN 1990, 6.5.3.2 (2) with partial factors according to EN 1990, A.2 and particular rules for climatic temperature effects Movements due to creep and shrinkage by multiplying mean values in EN 1992-2 and EN 1994-2 by a factor of 1.35 Verification of static equilibrium (uplift of bearings) and anchoring devices by applying 0.05 GK spanwise Consideration of deformations of foundation, piers and bearings in the modelling of the structure, see EN 1991-2, 6.5.4.2 Use of 2nd order theory for accounting for deformations of piers after installation of bearings if required by EN 1992-1-1, 5.8.2 (6). For calculation of pier deformations ky = 0,5 may be applied to geometric member imperfections in EN 1992-1-1, 5.2.
(2)
Figure51 In order to comply with the requirement of realistic behaviour the following particularitiesshouldbetakenintoaccount: the F value for climatic temperature effects cannot exceed the value
F = 1.35 , so that this value should be chosen instead of the recommended
value F = 1.5 . (3) For determining the design values of movements from the design values of extreme temperatures TEd ,min and TEd ,max the safety system in Figure 52 should be used. It comprisestwoelements thedesignvalues F TN with F = 1.35 42 Creep and shrinkage should be taken into account by using mean values multipliedwithafactorof1.35. Non uniform distribution of permanent loads should be considered by applying 0.05 Gk ontheinfluencelineforupliftandforanchoring. Equivalent geometric imperfections with only 50 % of the geometric member imperfectionsspecifiedinEN199211,5.2shouldbeapplied.
the reference temperature T0 T with T from uncertainties of the temperature of the structure during installation, where TN depends on type of construction and the typical hour of measurement (e.g. early morning for steelstructures,afternoonforcompositestructures).

Determination of design values of movements and bearing forces Climatic temperature effects Maximum and minimum constant temperature component: Ted, min = T0 - F TN,con - T0 Ted, max = T0 + F TN,exp + T0
additional safety element charact. Values EN 1991-1-5, 6.1.3.3 partial factor F = 1.35 reference temperature during installation of the bearings, e.g. +10C
Table E.4: Recommended values for T0

Case Installation of bearing steel bridges 1 2 Installation with measured Temperature and with correction by Resetting with bridge set at T0 Installation with estimated T0 and without correction by resetting with bridge set T0 Installation with estimated temperature T0 and without correction by resetting and also one ore more changes in position of the fixed bearing 0 10 T0 [C] composite bridges 0 10 concrete bridges 0 10
25
20
20
Td = Ted,max - Ted,min For non-linear behaviour stepwise determination Td = F TN
Figure52
Reaction forces at fixed points resulting form resistance of the bearing system For sliding bearings:
a ( G ,sup Gk + Q 1 Qki + Qi 0i Qki ) FH d = Q Q1k + other variable actions r [ G ,inf Gk ]

vertical actions of traffic load self weight, dead loads coefficient of friction according EN 1337-1, 6.2. For PTFE sliding bearings max = 0.03
Forces from acceleration and braking
For elastomeric bearings
Gsup Asup q ,d ,sup FH d = Q Qk1 + Ginf Ainf q ,d ,inf

forces from acceleration and braking Shear deformations of the bearings according to EN 1337-3 plan shear area of bearings nominal values of shear modulus Gsup = 1.05 N/mm2 Ginf = 0.75 N/mm2
Figure53 43
(4) (5) (6) 7. 7.1 (1) (2)
For continuous bridges over deep valleys with tall piers the fixed bearings may be installedononeortwoofthetallpiersinthemiddleofthebridge. In this case the horizontal forces from braking and friction in the bearings to be appliedtothesefixedbearingsmaybetakenfromFigure53. This Figure also gives the horizontal forces for the case that bearing may not be causedbyfrictionbutbyelasticrestraints(elastomericbearings). Choiceofmaterialtoavoidbrittlefracture General All design rules for steelstructures are based on the evaluation of large scale tests thathavebeenperformedatroomtemperature. Atthistemperature(~20C)steelnormallyexhibitsaductileplasticbehaviour,sothat large plastic strains occur at the ultimate limit state, that cause stressredistributions in the crosssection and make the use of nominal stresses without geometric and metallurgic notch effects and without consideration of secondary moments possible andhencemakethedesignrulessimple. Not so in the low temperature region where ferritic steels may show in dependancy of their toughness properties a fracture mechanism under tension loads that macroscopically may be classified as brittle, because plastic deformations are small andfailureoccurswithoutsignificantplasticdeformations. The choiceof material to avoid brittle fracture therefore mainly aims atchoosing the toughness properties of steel such, that only ULSverifications in the ductile domain are necessary and other failure mechanisms in the low temperature region can be ignored. To meet this goal the toughness of steel that is required, needs to be determined by afracturemechanicsassessmentofthecomponent,takingaccountof thegeometricshapeanddimensionsofthecomponent, thestressesinthecomponent, the hypothetical presence of a crack at the hot spot where the geometrical metallurgical and stress situation gives the highest probability for the formationofacrack, 44
(3)
(4)
(5)
a shape and size of the crack that complies with oberservations in testing and with the accuracy of the testing method as it should be at the limit of detectability, thefatigueloadingandinspectionmanagementtoaccountforpossible crack growthinserviceuntilthecrackisdetected, thelowesttemperatureinthecomponent.
(6)
This fracture mechanics assessment is not a fitness for purpose check, as the assumptions e.g. the presence of cracks are only hypothetical. It has the character of acheckforanaccidentaldesignsituationand henceproducesrobustnessforthe unprobablecasethatoneormoreofthehypotheticalassumptionswouldholdtrue. Whereastherequirementofrobustnessisoftendescribedinqualitativeterms,e.g. by the requirement to avoid progressive collaps, the robustness from the choice of materialtoavoidbrittlefractureisexpressedquantitatively. Inputforthechoiceofmaterialforsteelbridges A particularity of the choice of material for steelbridges is that the design value of crack a d assumedatthehotspotofastructuralcomponentisverymuchaffectedby fatigue,seeFigure54.
(7)
7.2 (1)
(2) Hencetheinitialcracksize a0 overlookedintestingafterfabricationisassumedtobe enhanced by crack growth due to fatigue actions. The fatigue action taken into accountisonequarterofthefullfatiguedamage
3 D = c 2 10 3
45
Choice of material
5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
55
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010
Assumption for a0
c 3 2 10 6 a d = a0 f 4
a0 ad
fatigue loading initial crack design crack
Safety assessment based on fracture mechanics Kappl,d Kmat,d
Kmat,d (T27J, TEd) Kappl,d (member shape, ad, 1Ed)
(3)
Figure54 Thefracturemechanicsassessmentisperformedwithstressintensityfactors K ,one fortheactionside

K appl ,d
whichisinfluencedbythemembershape,thecracksizeandthefrequentstresses
Ed = 1 E ,ULS
according to the combination rules for accidental design situations, and on the resistanceside which includes the temperature T27J from CharpyVnotch impact tests that produce animpactenergyof27Joule. This assumption makes it possible to establish a link between the fracture mechanics assessment and the necessary number of inspections during the service life of the structure. (5) It also produces structures that are damage tolerant, because the crack growth from hypothetical cracks is sufficiently slow, to provide long inspection intervals, and 46
K mat ,d
the inspections create a prewarning system, so that in case unforeseen damages are detected, there is sufficient time to intervene before damages attain a critical size. 7.3 (1) (2) This Figure shows the toughnesstemperature curve with the upper shelf domain B1 and the transition temperature domain A1 with low toughness values. It also shows the loaddeformation characteristic from large scale tests to determine design resistancesintheductiledomain B3 andintheelasticdomain A2 . (3) For persistent and transient design situations the load level B2 applies for normal temperatures resulting in upper shelf behaviour and ductile structural responsesintests. For the accidental design situation at extremely low temperatures the load levelisatfrequentloads, A2 ,withtoughnesspropertiesinthelowerpartof the toughnesstemperaturetransition domain, A1 , and elastic structural responseintests, A3 ,compatiblewiththeuseofstressintensityfactors K .
Basicfracturemechanicsprocedure Thesafetyapproachthatlinksthefracturemechanicsassessmentforductilematerial behaviourinthevarioustemperaturedomainsmaybetakenfromFigure55.
The third graph in Figure 55 gives the lines of equal probability of action effects from combinationsofactionsforbridges:
Toughness-temperature - Load-strain-diagram
Design situations in the upper-shelf region B and the transition region A of the toughness-temperature diagram
Figure55 47
Safety assessment based on temperature

K*appl,d Kmat,d Transformation
TEd TRd
TEd TRd
Assessment scheme
Action side
TEd = Tmin + Tr + T + TR + [T + Tpl ]
lowest air temperature in combination with Ed: Tmin = -25 C radiation loss: Tr = - 5 C influence of stress, crack imperfection and member shape and dimension:
14 K beff appl 20 10 25 kR6 T = 52ln [C] 70
Resistance
TRd = T100
Influence of material toughness T100 = T27J 18 [C]
additive safety element: TR = +7 C (with = 3.8)
Figure56 (4) Figure 56 shows the basic formula for the determination of the minimum toughness properties in EN 1993110 which results from the transformation of the equation withstressitensityfactors K totemperatures T . This temperature oriented equation allows to take additional strain rate effects and coldformingeffectsintoaccountbysimpletemperatureshifts T . (5) The basic formula with temperatures has been used to calculate the maximum thicknessvaluesofsteelproductsdependingonthegradeandsubgradeofsteel.,the referencetemperature TEd andthenominalfrequentstress Ed ,seeFigure57.
48
Choice of material to EN 1993-1-10
(6)
Figure57 At present this table with maximum thickness values is extended to make it applicable to coldformed hollow sections structures, stainless steel and also for the choiceofmaterialforplasticdesign(uppershelfbehaviour). Requirementsforuppershelfbehaviour Sofarafracturemechanicsproceduretoidentifythenecessarytoughnessproperties intheuppershelfbehaviourisnotyetavailable. Therefore EN 1993Part 2 contains an opening for National decisions with a recommendationthatmaybeattributedtothefollowingprocedure. Figure 58 shows the characteristic of a nonharmonized threepointbending test withamaterialsamplethathasgotaweldseamonthesurfaceintension.Thisseam madewithanonductileelectrodeisintendedtoinitiateacrackduringbending. Featuresofthecrackgrowthuptoaplasticangle arethenusedtoclassifythetest resultaspassedorfailed.
7.4 (1) (2) (3)
(4)
49
National quality tests
AUBI-test according to SEP 1390 (1996)
Figure58
trend analysis for the AUBI correlation
(5)
Figure59 Figure 59 gives the results of such tests from quality tests of steel producers related to the CharpyVnotch impact energy and the thickness of the product from which thesamplesweretaken.
50
(6)
The conclusion from Figure 59 is the recommendation in Figure 60, according to whichthechoiceoffinegrainsteelsisnecessaryforproductthicknessesgreaterthan 30mm. ThischoicesupersedesthechoiceaccordingtothetableinFigure57.
(7)
Choice of material given in Table 3.1 of EN 1993-2
7.5 (1)
Figure60 ExamplesforuseofEN1993110forchoiceofmaterialinsteelbridges Aconventionalsteelbridge,withcompositeboxgirdersectionisgiveninFigure61. The plate thickness of the upper flange and the bottom plate of the box girder that attainvaluesupto135mmhavebeenchosentoEN1993110.
51
Example: Thick plates for the composite Elbebridge Vockerode (EN 1993-1-10)
Bridge system and construction
Cross section
Plate thickness for S355 J2G3

Support
75 75 115 135 115 85 85 60 60 60 115 140 145
Span
145
Support Upper chord

140 115 60 60 60 85 85 115 135 115 75 75
Bottom plates
30 70 70 95 45 40 40 50 70 70 50 40 70 95 45 30 40 70
125,28
Construction at supports
Figure61
Bridge St. Kilian
(2)
Figure62 A nonconventional composite bridge consisting of two separate bridge parts with a triangle crosssection (and an open joint between the decks in the middle) is the St. KilianbridgeinFigure62. The bottom chord of this truss bridge with circular hollow sections is a single tube withnodesmadeofcaststeel.
(3) 52
(4)
The robustness of this structural concept is assured by the choice of material according to EN 1993110 that produces damage tolerance together with the usualinspectionregimeforbridges. In conclusion the crosssection with a single bottom chord made of steel with sufficient toughness is robustnessequivalent with other crosssections with more than 1 bottom chord or bottom chords made of steel lamellas (because of redundancies) that have low toughness values (as experienced for existing riveted bridges).
(5) (6) Figure 63 gives an impression of the erection work, Figure 64 shows the weld preparation between the cast steel nodes and the tubes (with small tolerances) and Figure65givesanimpressionofthecastnodes. A particular feature of this robustness concept is the appropriate choice of the fatigueclass,whichismainlyinfluencedbytheexecutionquality.
Bridge St. Kilian
Figure63
53
Cast node for the bridge St. Kilian
Figure64
Cast node for the bridge St. Kilian
7.6 (1)
Figure65 Furtherinformation More details of the background of the choice of material for bridges may be taken from the JRC report Commentary and Worked examples to EN 1993110 Material toughness and through thickness properties and other toughness oriented rules in EN1993,seeFigure66. 54
8. 8.1 (1) (2)
Figure66 Stabilityrules General ThestabilityrulesdealtwithinEurocode3relateto columnbuckling,seeEN199311 lateraltorsionalbuckling,seeEN199311 platebuckling,seeEN199315 shellbuckling,seeEn199316.
Forthesebucklingphenomenaingeneraltwoassessmentapproachesareapplicable: 1. 2nd order assessment with initial equivalent imperfections, that cover the various structural and geometric imperfections a structural member may have, use of buckling formulas for uniform structural member with defined loading andboundaryconditionswhichshouldhavebeenderivedfrom1.
2. (3)
For practical use buckling formulas for standard cases are very important. Figure 67 gives the common verification concept applicable to the various buckling phenomena,wherethedefinitionsare:
55
ult ,k =
magnification factor to design action effects to obtain the characteristic resistance Rk without considering outofplane imperfectionsandoutofplanebuckling.
crit = = =
magnification factor to design action effects to obtain elastic critical resistances Rcrit globalslenderness reduction coefficient for buckling, depending on the buckling phenomenon,theimperfectionfactor andtheslenderness .
6. DESIGN OF BRIDGE-ELEMENTS 6.1 STABILITY RULES

Common design rules for column, lateral torsional, plate and shell buckling
Ed
Ed
Ed sk Ed
Ed lk
b E d /2 a
Ed
r t
Ed
column buckling ult , k E d = R k crit E d = R crit

1 ,2 0 1 ,0 0
lat. tors. buckl.
plate buckling
shell buckling
=
1,20
Rk = R crit
1,2 1,0
ult , k crit
EN 1993-1-5
a0 b
=
1,2 1,0
()
EN 1993-1-1
a0 a b c d
EN 1993-1-1
a b c
p [-]
EN 1993-1-6
1,00
0 ,8 0
0,80
0,8
0,8
0 ,6 0
0,60
0,6
0,6
0 ,4 0
0,40
0,4
0,4
0 ,2 0
0,20
0,2
0,2
0 ,0 0 0 0,5 1 1 ,5
0,00
2,5
0,5
1,5
2,5
0,0 0,0 0 ,5 1,0
_ p [-] 1 ,5
0,0
2,0
2 ,5
3,0
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3 ,0
R k Ed M
ult ,k M
Figure67 (4) (5) (6) Therefore this report gives the background of the imperfections to be used in 2nd order analysis and a simplified 2nd order analysis which includes the application of such imperfections in the socalled General method that allows to use reduction 56 aretherelevantphenomena,andshellbucklingdoesingeneralnotoccur. columnbucklingandlateraltorsionalbucklingononesideand platebucklingontheotherside Forsteelbridgesalso For steel bridges the conditions for the application of standard formulas are rare, so thata2ndorderassessmentorasimplified2ndorderassessmentsarepreferred.
coefficientsforbuckling alsoincaseswhereloadingandboundaryconditionsarenot standardized. 8.2 (1) The uniform column with hinged ends loaded in compression is the reference component for the definition of equivalent geometric imperfections and simplified procedures with reduction formula as it is also used for resistance tests to column bucklingtowhichthemethodsarecalibrated. Figure 68 gives the principles for the derivation of the European flexural buckling curve: 1. It is assumed that the buckling resistance of the column can be expressed in terms of the crosssectional resistance to compression and to bending that resultsfromequivalentgeometricimperfectionsandsecondordereffects. Thecriticalcrosssectionisinthemiddleofthecolumn. The shape of the equivalent geometric imperfection is taken equal to the elastic critical buckling mode, that corresponds to the elastic critical eigenvalue (Eulercritical load), to establish a link to boundary and loading conditionsotherthanthoseofthereferencecomponent. Theamplitudeoftheimperfectionfactor e* iscomposedofthreefactors theimperfectionfactor theslenderness thecrosssectionalvalue
M Rk N Rk
Theuniformcolumnwithhingedends
(2)
2.
3. 4. in which N Rk and M Rk are the characteristic values of resistances, that may beeitherelasticorplastic. 57 5. Theverificationformatallowsatwostepassessment:
N Ed M Ed + = 1 N Rk M Rk
The imperfection factor is the open parameter determined from test evaluation;thisparameterisassociatedwithalinearresistancemodel
1.
AunifiedEuropeancharacteristicresistance:
Rk = N pl ,k
2.
Anationaldesignvalue:
Rd = Rk
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Column buckling
Figure68 (3)
As a result of the derivation in Figure 68, Figure 69 gives the shapes of the reduction factors for various cross sectional shapes, to which various values belong, see Figure70.
58
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Column buckling curves

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Figure69
(4)
Selection of buckling curves
Figure70 The ratios of experimental results re and results calculated with the formula for the reductioncoefficient aregiveninFigure71forweakaxisbuckling.Figure72shows the partial factors M that result from testevaluation according to EN 1990 Annex D,toobtainthedesignvalues ( R = 0.8 3.8 = 3.03) .
59

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Test evaluation weak axis buckling

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Figure71
M-values according to EN 1990 Annex D

Figure72
60
8.3 (1) (2)
Conclusionsforsecondorderanalysis Thederivationofthecharacteristicvalue Rk ofcolumnresistancetocompressionvia areductionvalue includesa2ndorderapproachforthebalance E d Rk see Figure 73. The usual 2nd order approach with imperfections is based on the balance
E d Rd .
In conclusion the results for the two different balances can be only made consistent, if for the normal 2nd order approach with imperfections one of the following options isapplied: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 75
thepartialfactorontheactionsideis F M a M factorisappliedtothemodulusofelasticity
M istakenasequal1.0
theamplitudeofimperfection e0 isfactoredbyafunctionof M toobtain ed for normal 2nd order theory the partial factor * M is larger than M for the bucklingcurve.
European buckling curve

E d = Rk
!
2nd order theory with imperfection

Ed = Rd
d =
N N
pl , d crit
N pl N crit
= ( , )
Rk = , N pl
d = ( , d
Rd =
)
pl
Rd =
Rk
d N M
Consequences:
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Ed = M .Ed
N crit ,d =
M = 1 .0
N crit
Option 4:
M ed = e0 1 2
1
* M =
Option 5:
d M
Equivalence of buckling curves and 2nd order theory
Figure73 61
6.1 STABILITY RULES

M-values for 2nd order analysis
g=
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0
0.685 1.136 1.846 2.806 5.476
0.870 0.597 0.342 0.209 0.10
0.477 0.953 1.43 1.906 2.859
0.661 1.082 1.734 2.605 5.039
0.895 0.627 0.369 0.228 0.109
1.03 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.09
(3) (4)
Figure74 Figure74givesthemodificationofthepartialfactortoobtain
* M = g M .
InconclusiontherearetwopossibilitiesdependingonNationalChoice: 1. 2.
M ischosenequalto1,00andconsistencyisautomaticallyachieved,
in case of M > 1.00 , e.g. M = 1.10 , the difference between the functions M and * M to the constant value M is so small that both for the use of buckling curves andfor2ndorderanalysiswithimperfections e0 thesame M factor can be used (with a slight advantages for 2nd order analysis in relation to the useof values).
8.4 (1) The use of the elastic critical buckling mode crit allows to extend the applicability of the crosssectional check in Figure 68 and hence the reduction factor to any other boundaryconditionsasgiveninFigure75,e.g.bymodifyingthebucklinglength. Extensiontootherboundaryconditions
62

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Imperfections for members with various boundary conditions

EI
NEd
NEd
NEd
a1 x
NEd
ini = e 0 d sin Me = e 0 dNEd
x 1 sin NEd l 1 Ncrit
x l
ini = e0 d Me = e0 d
2 crit crit crit,max
NEd crit NEd crit ,max 1 2 EI crit
Use of buckling mode as imperfection

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Figure75
Example for a column on elastic supports

(2) the initial equivalent geometric imperfection is not referred to max. crit , but
// // to max. crit , and the shape of crit is the shape of bending moment from
Figure76 ThecomparisoninFigure75showsthat
imperfections.Thereforetheequivalentgeometricimperfectionisnotanout 63
of straightness imperfection in terms of displacement but a curvature imperfection. The advantage of taking the buckling mode crit as shape of imperfection is thatwith crit alsothebendingmoment M e accordingto2ndordertheorycan beeasilydetermined. Theextensionoftheapplicationoftheflexuralbucklingcurveisnotlimitedto onedimensionalstructuresascolumns,barsetc.,butalsototwodimensional structuresasgrids,seeFigure76,forwhichtheconditionappliesthatexternal forces do not change their value in dependance of buckling deformations (conservativeloading).
8.5 (1) A beam with equal endmoments, which effects compression in one flange can be assessedinasimilarwayasacolumn,iftheassessmentisperformedfortheflangein compressionforoutofplanebuckling,seeFigure77. Lateraltorsionalbuckling
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Column buckling
NEd M + Ed = 1 Npl,Rk My ,Rk
Lateral torsional buckling

MFl NFl y ,Ed Ed + Fl = 1 Fl Npl,Rk My ,Rk
Mz ,Ed Mz,Rk + Mz ,Ed NFl crit e* Mz ,crit MFl y ,Rk 1 =1 Mz ,Ed 1 Mz ,crit
NEd NEde * + Npl,Rk My,Rk
1 =1 N 1 Ed Ncrit
M y ,Rk e* = N 0.2 N pl ,Rk
Fl My ,Rk e* = Fl M 0 .2 N pl ,Rk
N + N
= }
1 =1 N 0 .2 1 2 N N
* =7 8 6
2
M + M
M 1 0.2 =1 2 M 1 2 Fl M M
+ 2
2 = 0 ,5 1 + 0.2 +
(2)
Equivalence of flexural and lateral torsional buckling

Figure77
The hypothesis used in the derivation in Figure 77 is that the equivalent geometric imperfection e* for the flange is the same as for a column with flexural outofplane buckling.
(3)
The derivation shows that for lateral torsional buckling the same expression as for flexural buckling is obtained, however with the difference, that the imperfection 64
factor is reduced to * by the effect of the St. Venanttorsional rigidity, which is determinedbytheratio where
M istheslendernessforthelateraltorsionalbucklingproblembasedon crit
Fl
2
M Fl
2
* crit = crit
is the slenderness of the isolated flange in compression; that can also be

* expressedby crit calculatedwithoutSt.Venanttorsionalrigidity.
(4) (5) Testevaluationswithallavailabletestreportsforlateraltorsionalbucklingtestshave proventhatthelateraltorsionalbucklingcurveasgiveninFigure77givesthebestfit with M valuesintherangeof1.05. Figure 78 gives the difference between the flexural buckling curve b and the lateral torsionalbucklingcurvewithreducedimperfectionfactor * foraHEB200beam.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Comparison of LTB-curves
LT
1,0
Lateral torsional buckling for GIT=oo Lateral torsional buckling for a beam HEB 200
Bc a Bc b
0,0 0,0 1,0
2,0 LT
(6)
Figure78
A generalisation of the procedure in Figure 77 leads to the rule for determining the reduction factor for any outofplane stability problem, that may be composed of 65
mixed flexural and lateral torsional buckling and includes any outofplane boundary condition,seeFigure79.
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Procedure for lateral torsional buckling assessments using the buckling curves:
1. Input parameters:
ult , k =
Rk Ed
crit =
ult ,k critt
R crit Ed
2. Modification of imperfection factor:

* =
* crit crit
where
* crit is determined without effect of G I D
3. Use of flexural buckling curve:
= 0 ,5 1 + * ( 0.2 ) + 2
=
1
2 2
4. Assessment for design point xd
(7)
ult ,k 1 M
Figure79 If the design point x d is known, where the sum of inplane stresses and outofplane stresses from imperfections give the relevant maximum value, the input parameters canbecalculated.
(8)
Inthiscase ult ,k isdeterminedatthepoint x d . Ifthedesignpoint x d isnotknown, ult ,k canbeconservativelyestimatedas ult ,k ,min .

* If the two elastic critical values crit with torsional rigidity and crit without torsional
rigidityareavailablethemodified * valuecanbedetermined. (9) Figure 80 shows an example for a beam with unequal endmoments, where the designpointisatadistance xd = 0.155 l fromthemaximumloadedend.
* =
Aconservativeapproachis
66
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Comparison of laterial torsional buckling curves

(10) If for convenience the assessment is carried out with ult ,k at the maximum loaded end x = 0 , the results are either conservative or a modified buckling curve mod is used, that includes a correction with on the basis of knowledge where the design point xd is. 8.6 (1) The location of the design point x d for lateral torsional buckling where inplane and outofplaneeffectssumuptoamaximumcanbedeterminedwiththeknowledgeof thedistributionofinplaneeffectsandoutofplaneeffects. (2) Figure 81 shows for a two span beam, the loaded top flange of which is to be checked,thedistributionofinplanemomentsandinplanestressesintheflangeand the modal outofplane displacements crit and modal outofplane flange
, that are produced together with the elastic critical eigenvalue moments E I (x ) crit
Figure80
Determinationofthedesignpoint x d forlateraltorsionalbuckling
crit .
(3) either to determine the outofplane 2nd order moments from the modal out
// ofplaneflangemoments E I (x ) crit andtoperformacrosssectionalcheck,at
Therearetwopossibilitiesforthelateraltorsionalbucklingcheck:
x d ,
67
or to apply a check, where the distributions of the inplane and outof planestressessuggesttobethecriticalpoints x d .
6.1 STABILITY RULES

check:
=
= *,
ult ,k crit
ult , k 1 M
Figure81 8.7 (1)
Determination of design point xd
Examplesforlateraltorsionalbucklingverificationatthedesignpoint x d For a welded portal frame of an industrial hall with the dimensions and support conditions for outofplane movements as given in Figure 82 the distribution of in planeactioneffectsaccordingtoFigure83apply.
68

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: Portal frame
Lateralsupport 3 2 24015 1 0 24420 5505 24015 24012 5565 24012 S355J2G3 4
kneepoint 1068 5 8000 6 7
Figure82
6.1 STABILITY RULES

ult.k.min=1.55
Moment distribution [kNm]
ult.k (xd)=1.94
Distribution of compression forces [kN]
Figure83
69
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Example: Modal out-of-plane deformation crit=1.85
xd
(2) ThedistributionofbendingmomentsinFigure83givesthelocationfor ult ,k ,min = 1.55 and the maximum curvature in Figure 84 gives the design point x d , for which
ult ,k (xd ) = 1.94 applies.
Figure84
6.1 STABILITY RULES

1. Calculation with extreme value ult,k,min
2. Calculation design point xd
ult ,k = 1.55
crit = 1.85
* crit = 1.84
ult ,k = 1.94
1.55 = 0.915 1.85 * 1.54 * = crit = 0.49 = 0.408 crit 1.85
1.94 = 1.05 1.85
LT = 0.5[1 + * ( 0.2 ) + 2 ] = 1.064

=
1
LT = 1.225
= 0.59 > 0.50
contact splice sufficient
+ 2 2
= 0.622 > 0.50

contact splice sufficient
ult 0.622 1,55 = = 0.88 < 1.00 M 1.10
ult ,k 0.59 1.94 = = 1.04 > 1.00 M 1.10
Check of out-of-plane stability
(3)
Figure85 InFigure85twocalculationsarecarriedout:
70
(4)
1. 2.
aconservativecalculationforthepointwith ult ,k ,min , acalculationatthedesignpoint x d .
A byeffect of the calculation is that takes values 0.5 , so that in the bolted endplateconnection at the knee points of the frame outofplane bending moments canberesistedbyfullcontactandnoadditionalloadstoboltshavetobeconsidered.
(5) Figure 86 and Figure 87 give the example of a composite bridge with an open cross section, for which the outofplane stability of the bottom chord in compression in thehoggingmomentregionofthecontinuousbeamisofconcern.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Example: Composite bridge
Figure86
71
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Example: Cross-section of the composite bridge
(6)
Figure87 The moment distribution for girder no. 1 for which the outofplane stability check hastobecarriedoutisgiveninFigure88.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Example: Moment distribution critical for out-of-plane stability of main girders
(7)
Figure88 Forthelateraltorsionalbucklingcheckthebottomchordcanbeeitherregardedasa continuous column, laterally supported by the elastic transverse frames at the support,seeFigure89,andall7.50m,seeFigure90. 72

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: cross-beam at supports
Figure89
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Example: intermediate cross-beam all 7,50 m
(8) (9)
Figure90 Inthiscase1/3ofthewebshouldbetakenintoaccount. TheotherpossibilityistomodelthecrosssectionfullyorpartlywithFEM,toconsider theeffectsoftorsionanddistorsionofthesteelcrosssection.
73
(10)
In Figure 91 modal transverse displacements of the bottom flange of the critical girder are given for the first 3 eigenvalues. The area where the modal transverse momentsattaintheirmaximumvaluesaremarked.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Example: crit-values and modal out-of-plane deformations
critical area
critical area
critical area
Figure91
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Example: Input for ult,k-values

330 295 250 180
critical areas
Figure92
74
(11)
Figure 92 gives the inplane stresses in the centre line of the bottom flange as well as the yield stresses from which ult ,k values can be determined, that are possible choicesforthedesignpoint x d .
(12)
6.1 STABILITY RULES
InFigure93twocalculationsarecarriedout 1. 2. atthedesignpoint x d forthefirstmodaldisplacement(infield) atthedesignpoint xd forthethirdmodaldisplacement(atthesupport).
In these calculations also the modification of the imperfection factor by torsion hasbeentakenintoaccount.
Checks for lateral-torsional buckling

in field at point P1
ult ,k =
330 = 1.83 180
at support (point P1)

ult ,k =
295 = 1.184 250
crit = 8.8576
crit = 17.489
=
1.184 = 0.26 17.489
1.83 = 0.45 8.8576
* crit = 8.37
* crit = 15.20
* =
8.37 0.76 = 0.72 8.86
* =
= 0.69
= 0.82
15.20 0.76 = 0.66 17.49 = 0.554
= 0.96
ult ,k 0.82 1.89 = = 1.37 > 1.00 1.10 M
ult ,k 0.96 1.184 = = 1.03 > 1.00 M 1.10
9. 9.1 (1)
Figure93 Platebucklingeffects General Itisacommonfeatureofcolumnbucklingandlateraltorsionalbuckling,thatinplane stresses that initiate outof plane buckling are not affected by outof plane deformations; i.e. the normal compression force in a column does not vary with imperfectionsorbucklingdisplacementsandtheinplanestresssituationsinabeam column does not vary if lateral deformations in terms of lateral displacements and torsiontakeplace.
75
(2)
The only differences between flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is the effect of torsional rigidity that is expressed by the modification of the imperfection factor intheformulaforthereductionfactor . ForplatestructuresasgiveninFigure94anadditionalphenomenonmayoccur: columnlike behaviour without any overcritical resistance however with theeffectoftorsionalrigidityoccursiftheedgeloadsareimposedanddonot vary with the displacements under these loads. In consequence the displacementsoftheloadededgesarenonlinear. platelikebehaviourwithovercriticalresistanceandalsowiththeeffectof torsionalrigidityoccursifundertheeffectofimperfectionstheedgeloadsare applied as a group of loads, that cause a linear displacement of the loaded edge. In this case the individual loads of the group may vary with the displacement and cause a nonlinear distribution with a load shedding from thecentretotheedges.
(3)
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Column buckling and plate buckling

Column-like behaviour:
imposed loads on loaded edge
resulting displacements i at loaded edge
Plate-like behaviour:
resulting loads on loaded edge imposed displacement on loaded edge
Figure94 (4) Ingeneralplatebucklingverificationsaremadeforplatedelementsofgirders,beams and columns under action effects as bending moments, normal forces and shear forces. For these structures the axiom of Navier applies, i.e. linear distributions of strainsandnotofstressesmaybeassumed.
76
(5)
At points of local load introductions as patch loads on the flanges of girders, beams and columns however the loads are normally controlled by mechanisms that limit their variation with displacements (e.g. by introduction by rollers on springs). In this case the behaviour is more columnlike or in between columnlike and platelike behaviour. Effectsofcolumnlikeandplatelikebehaviour Figure 95 gives the example of a column with a crosssection in the form of a cross, forwhichaccordingtoEN199311atorsionalbucklingcheckmaybeperformed.
9.2 (1)
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: Torsional buckling according to EN 1993-1-1
CM = b3 t 3 9
b3 t 3
IM = 4
Column:
2
= A sin
x
e
;G =
E 2(1 + )
Plate:
y x w = A sin b l
ECM + G I M l N cr = 2 iM N crit cr = A 2 E t2 2 6 2 b = (1 ) + 2 (1 ) l 12 (1 2 ) b 2 142 1 424 3 43 14 4244 3
i a = 0
cr =
N crit A
2 E t 2 2 b 6 + 2 (1 ) 12 1 2 b 2 l 1 4 24 3 142 4 43 4 { 2 b = e + 0,429 l4 4 1 244 3 k
(2)
2 b + 0,429 0,9 l 14444 4 244444 3 k
Figure95 Using the column approach for torsional buckling a critical stress cr may be determined with the crosssectional data C M and I M , from which a buckling coefficient k maybederived.
(3) Using the plate theory a buckling coefficient k may also be determined using the energymethod with a modal buckling deformation that corresponds to the assumptionsmodefortorsioninthecolumncheck. (4) (5) ThedifferencesresultfromthetypeofloadingasgiveninFigure96. 77 Apparentlythetworesultsarealmostidentical.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Torsional buckling
column-like behaviour
plate-like behaviour
compression stress
compression strain
N =
N A
N =
N A E
response strain
response stress
bending geometric strain effect:

geom (s ) =
N N 2 2 2 N 2 eo s N crit crit 2 l 4 b N 1 N crit
M = (1 ) f y
(6)
Figure96 In torsional buckling a geometric strain effect occurs due to the torsional deformations,that in case of loading by uniformly distributed compression stress would cause a parabolicdistributionofstrainsoverthecrosssectionand incaseofloadingbyauniformlydistributedcompressionstrainwouldcausea parabolicdistributionofstressoverthecrosssection.
(7)
These different distributions of stress N from compression, either constant or parabolic, are superimposed with linear distribution of stresses M in the plated elementsfromplatebending.
78
6.1 STABILITY RULES

column buckling
1 f y
bending
plate buckling
1 f y k fy
k=
bending
1+ ~ 2
fy
compression
fy
compression
+ * 0
assumption:
1
2
=1
assumption:
+ * 0
1
2
sd = b 0 = 0.2
sd < b
0 = 0.7 1 =
+ * 0.7
)1 1 = 1
1 )1
*
+ * 0.2
=
1
1
2
1
2
=1
* + * * 0 .7
=1
= 0.5 1 + * 0.2 +
+ 2
* =
2
+ 2
= 0.5 1 + * 0.7 +
) ]
(8)
Figure97 Figure 97 shows the effects of the assumptions of a constant or parabolic distributionsofthecompressionstress: Theconclusionofaconstantstressdistributionisthecolumnbucklingformula withthemodifiedimperfectionvalue * the conclusion of the constant strain distribution is the modified imperfection value * andthat
the basic equation of the column buckling formula does not attain the value 1.0 (for the yield stress) but only a mean value between and 1.0,bestrepresentedby ,
the design point in the crosssection s d moves from the edges to the centre of the crosssection which causes a effect as for lateral torsionalbuckling.
(9) Asaresult 0 movesform0.2to0.7and ontherightsideoftheformulamaybe approximatelyexpressedby ,sothat 79 for constant stress distributions the lateral torsional buckling formula is obtainedwiththeuseof ,whereas
2
for constant strain distribution a new platebuckling formula is obtained, that differs from the lateral torsional buckling formula by the use of instead of
andthevalue 0 = 0.7 insteadof 0 = 0.2 .
2
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Column buckling curve and plate buckling curve

, *,
1 Euler 2
Winter =
0.22
2
* (0 = 0.7 )
Column buckling
Figure98 (10) Figure 98 gives a comparison between the column buckling curve and the plate bucklingcurve * fromFigure97andalsotheWinterformula,whichisquitecloseto the new plate buckling formula. Both the new plate buckling formula and the winter formulaarespecifiedinEN199315. 9.3 (1) Figure 99 shows the differences between the effects of constant stress distribution and constant strain distribution resulting from imperfections for a plate without stiffenersandwithconstantstressloadingincasenoimperfectionswouldoccur: asinusoidaldisplacementofedgesincaseofimposedconstantstresses, Interpolationbetweencolumnlikeandplatelikebehaviour
a sinusoidal stress distribution at the edges in case of imposed constant strains.
80
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Stress- and strain-controlled plate buckling

x
imperfect perfect
x x = E x
imperfect
x
x E x
(2)
Figure99 The different effects of constant imposed stresses and constant imposed strains depend on the aspect ratio = effect
* crit crit
* where crit isdeterminedwithouttorsionalrigidity,
a of the plate and can be correlated with the torsion b
crit isdeterminedwithtorsionalrigidity,
seeFigure100.
81
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Modification of imperfection factor

* crit a = crit b 2
b +1
2
+ 1 a
* crit crit
column
plate
a b
(3)
Figure100 Hencethetorsionaleffectcouldbeusedasparameterforthedistinctionofcolumn likebehaviour and platelikebehaviour for plates in a similar way as it is used for flexuralbucklingandlateraltorsionalbucklingforgirders,beamsandcolumns. Figure 101 shows the column curve and the Winter curve for plates in monoaxial compressionversustheaspectratio . It also shows the interpolation according to FEMcalculations and to the procedure giveninEN199315. Ageneralapproachcouldbetheuseoftheformula:
* crit = 0.5 1 + * 1 . 2 + crit
(4) (5) whichgivesfor

* crit = 1 crit
* 2 crit + crit
+ 2
* crit crit
thecolumnformulaandfor theplateformula. 82
* crit = 0.5 crit

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Interaction between column buckling and plate buckling =

*
* crit crit
column plate
Winter
column buckling
c = ( c ) (2 ) + c
cr , p 1; 0 1 cr ,c
(6) 9.4 (1)
cr , p crit = * cr ,c crit
Figure101 This buckling curve is applicable to all types of plate field (unstiffened and stiffened) andallfieldsofstresses(combined x , z and ). Resistancesofhybridcrosssections CrosssectionsasgiveninFigure102mayconsistofplates,whichundercompression exhibit different ultimate buckling strengths, expressed by different limit stresses Limit ,h and Limit ,b . Inassumingayieldplateauatthevariouslevelsof Limit thecrosssectionreactsto an increasing compression force like a crosssection with plates with different yield strengthsandthereforecanbeclassifiedashybrid.
(2)
83
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Hybrid cross-section due to different stress-limits
resulting force
yield plateau
Figure102
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Yielding effect in hybrid cross-sections

Method 1 Method 2
(3)
Figure103 The ultimate resistance of such a hybrid crosssection can be determined by summinguptheresistancesoftheindividualplates.
84
(4)
Figure103showsthestrengthstrainlineforsuchahybridcrosssection: 1. In the first phase (until the weakest plate has reached its buckling resistance Limit ,h )thefullelasticgrosscrosssectionapplies. This is the field, where the elasticcritical buckling load coefficient crit can be calculated from the stress fields of the individual plates or the full cross sectionwithgrosscrosssectionalproperties. The method in EN 199315 that usually limits the resistances of the cross section to the limit of the weakest plate field is Method 2 (section 10 in EN 199315). In the second phase further straining actions give further elastic reactions of the stronger plate field only, until Limit ,b is reached in this field, whilst the weakestplateyieldswiththeresistance Limit ,h beingconstant. 1. 2. Theresistances Ah Limit ,h and Ab Limit ,b aresummedup. Aneffectivethicknessoftheweakestplate t eff = t Limit ,h Limit ,b is chosen and the resistance is determined with the unique strength Limit ,b andaneffectivecrosssectionwith t eff fortheweakestplate. When reaching Limit ,h the resistance of the full cross section can be determinedinthreeequivalentways:
2.
3.
Aneffectivewidthoftheweakestplate beff = b Limit ,h Limit ,b is chosen and the resistance is determined with the unique strength Limit ,b andoneffectivecrosssectionwith beff fortheweakestplate.
3. In a third phase further straining actions can be applied to reach the yield strain y correspondingto f y . This third phase does not rouse any further resistances because the two platesyieldontheirresistancelevels Limit ,h and Limit ,b . However,thecalculationfortheresistancesonthebasisofeffectivethickness oreffectivewidthcanbereferredtotheyieldstrength f y :
t eff h = t
Limit ,h
fy
85
t effb = t
Limit ,b
fy
(5)
or
beff h = b beffb = b
Limit ,h
fy
Limit ,b
fy
andthecrosssectionalresistancebedeterminedwith
R = Aeff f y
ThismethodinEN199315iscalledMethod1.
Figure104demonstratesthedifferencesbetweenthephase1procedure(Method2) andamultiphaseprocedure(Method1)forthecaseofbending.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Yielding effect in bending

Method 1 Method 2
(6)
Figure104 It is evident, that the bending resistance may be also determined for different levels of curvature (straining Limit ) either by integration of the distribution of limiting stresses Limit or from effective crosssections using either effective thicknesses or effectivewidths.
(7) The use of effective crosssection is preferred because of the iterative calculation of the neutral axis (eM ) which can be carried out more easily with effective cross sectionaldata. 86
(8)
In general Method 2 gives more conservative resistances than Method 1 due to the plasticreservesofthehybridcrosssection. There is however a possibility to take plastic reserves fromLoadshedding also into accountinMethod2,asillustratedinFigure105.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Extension of method 2
(9)
Figure105 This requires a further step in method 2, where the increase of the moment resistances M R + M R by exploiting the yield strength of the stronger flange is accompanied by an increase of the shear resistance of the web R R by reducing thelimitstressoftheweb R R .Thisincrease R andreduction R intheweb causesanonlinearinteraction.
9.5 (1) Figure 106 shows the principles of Method 1 (use of effective crosssection) and Method 2 (use of stresslimit) as specified in EN 199315 and used in design of steel bridges. Method1andMethod2inEN199315
87
Choice of material
6.1 STABILITY RULES

108
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010
Methods in bridge design

Method 1 Use of effective cross-section Method 2 Use of stress-limit
Figure106
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Method 1 plate buckling for stress components
Method 2 global plate buckling
crit ,
Ed ( x , Ed , z , Ed , Ed ) , crit
x
crit ,
crit ,
(2)
glob
z
Figure107 TheproceduresfortheuseofthesemethodsaredifferentasdemonstratedinFigure 107: In Method 1 the stress field of a plate is subdivided into 3 simplified standard fields,forwhichdesignaidsareavailable:
forlongitudinalstress x 88
fortransversestresses(patchloading) z forshearstresses z .
A verification is undertaken for each standard stress field component and the verification for the combined stress field is carried out by an interaction formula. In Method 2 the combined stress field is used to determine a global stress field amplification factor crit , to perform the stress field verification in a singlestep. ThismethodisapplicabletoFEMcalculations.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Plate-buckling coefficients
Method 1
,
Method 2
for rigid end post
* ( = 0.13)
x =
ult , crit ,
glob =
ult ,k crit , global
z =
ult , crit ,
ult , = crit ,
(3)
Figure108
Figure108givestheplatebucklingreductionfactorsforMethod1andMethod2: Whereas in Method 1 each standard stress field component yields a particular slenderness and a particular buckling curve, Method 2 only uses a single global slendernessvalueandasingleglobalbucklingcurve * .
9.6 (1) Figure 109 shows the various steps for the verification of an effective composite crosssectionforthestandard x fieldcomponent. ApplicationofMethod1tocompositecrosssections
89
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Method 1: Effective cross-section for x

Cross-section assessment
xEd 1 .0 f yd 1 =
f yd =
f yk
Rd
Rd = 1.1
Reduction factor Effective web

beff = bc = bw 1
p 0.553(3 + )
2 p
1 .0
(for < 0 )
beff ,1 = 0.4 beff
beff ,2 = 0.6 beff
Slenderness
p =
f yk
Effective flange
x ,Pi
bt ,eff = b f
k = 0.43 fr = 1
k =
16
(1 + ) + 0.112 (1 + )2 + (1 + )
Critical stress
x ,Pi = k e
e = 2 E st t 2
12b 2 1 2
fr 1 1
(2)
Figure109 Thestepsarethefollowing: 1. 2. 3. 4. From the stressdistribution of the gross cross section the critical stresses are determined,thatgive theslendernessofthewebandofthebottomflange. Withthereductionfactor usingtheWintercurvetheeffectivewebandthe effectiveflangeusingeffectivewidthsarecalculated. Using the effective crosssectional data the crosssection check is performed resultingintheutilisationrate 1 forthe x component.
90

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Method 1: Resistance to shear

rigid end post flexible end post
w = f yk 3 cr
flexible end post
rigid end post
reduction factor w
w < 0.83
0.83 w < 1.08
Vbw ,Rd = w hw t w
1.0
0.83 / w
f yd 3
1.0
0.83 / w 1.37 0.7 + w
3 =
w 1.08
0.83 / w
V Ed Vbw ,Rd
Figure110 (3) 1. From the critical stresses cr for the web the slenderness is determined, for which the structural detailing of the endpost gives different shear buckling curves w . 2. (4) The interaction formula to verify the combined stress field is based on the utilisation rates 1 and 3 and also uses parameters of the steel crosssection that describe fictitiousextremesituationsofexploitationofweb,seeFigure111. With w the shearresistance VRd of the web can be calculated that permits to determinetheutilisationrate 3 forthe component. Figure 110 demonstrates the check for the standard shear stress field component withthefollowingsteps:
91
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Assessment for plate buckling Method 1

Interaction
Method 2
glob ult ,k M
1
interaction
1 =
Ed 1 M f , Rd fy 2 [23 1] 1 1 + 1 V M pl , Rd 3 = Ed 1 VRd
(5)
Figure111 Method2usesaglobalcheckinsteadoftheinteractionformula. AnexamplefortheNationalChoiceofMethod1andMethod2isgiveninFigure112:
Method 1 is preferred for bridges with webs without any stiffeners or with verticalstiffenersonly,whereasMethod2appliestomultistiffenedwebsand bottomplatesofboxsections. Method 1 is clearly related to ULSverifications, which has an advantage where the Limit stresses for webs and flanges differ significantly. Method 2 also limits straining to the elastic range and can therefore also be used for serviceabilitylimitchecks. In particular in cases, where the elastic stress distributions at the characteristic load level and the stressblocdistribution assumed at the Ultimate Limit State, give significant differences of compression stress in the web,aserviceabilitylimitcheckwithMethod2shouldbeapplied.
92
6.1 STABILITY RULES

German National Annex
Method 1 only applicable to girders without longitudinal stiffners The use of Method 1 should be supplemented by checking global buckling with Method 2 for characteristic load level E k and M = 1.10
Figure112 9.7 (1)

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Designexample Figure113givesforthedesignexampleofacompositebridgetheultimatelimitstate assessmentsofthecrosssectionsatthesupportP1andatmidspan,usingMethod1.
Example: cross-section check for a composite bridge
Cross-section at support
stresses :
M Ed = 107.25 MNm
VEd = 7.47 MN
hw = 98.5 < 109 tw
Cross-section at midspan
stresses :
M Ed = 56.1 MNm VEd = 1.0 MN
< 345 MPa
hw = 151 < 192 tw
< 295 MPa
stresses :
k = 5.78
stresses :
k = 5.80
M pl ,Rd = 135.6 MNm
Vbw ,Rd = 4.44 MN
1,0 < 0.5 4.44
M f ,Rd = 117.31 MNm

Vbw,Rd = 8.14 MN
hw = 98.5 > 51 tw
cr = 112.6 MPa
w = 1.33
w = 0.675
3 =
w = 48.2 MPa
hw = 151 > 51.4 tw
w = 2.03 w = 0.50
Figure113
93
(2)
For the x stress field component the crosssections comply with Class 3 limits sothattheelasticstressdistributionfor M Ed satisfiestheyieldstrength.
hw , tw
(3) (4) Interaction checks are no more needed, as for the crosssection at support the web could be fully used for shear, because the extreme resistancevalue M f ,Rd satisfies
M Ed , and as for the crosssection at midspan the shear utilisation rate is below
For the stress fieldcomponent the Class 3 limits are exceeded, so that a shear platebucklingassessmentusing w isnecessary,thatgivesresistancessatisfying VEd .
3 = 0 ,5 ,sothattheinteractionisanywaysatisfied.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Panel plate buckling check with method 2

=83 Mpa
176 = 0.94 + 187.3
8000 = 3.13 2560

crit = 2.55
e = 19.6 MPa
crit = 1.42
1 2
k = 23 k = 6
cr = 23 19.6 = 450.8 MPa cr = 6 19.6 = 117.6 MPa
2 1 1 + 1+ 1 + 1 = + + 2 2 crit 4 cr crit crit , 4 crit , , crit = 1.127 fy = 1.56 ult ,k = 2 + 3 E 2 E k

k
= 0.888
ult ,k = = 1.18 crit
= 0.5[1 + 0.13( 0.80) + ] = 1.15

w ult ,k 0.73 1.56 = = 1.03 > 1.00 M 1.10
w =
+ 2
= 0.73
(5)
Figure114 Figure114givesanexamplefortheserviceabilitycheckwithMethod2atthesupport P1usingextremevaluesofactioneffectsatoneedge.Foramoreaccuratecheckthe designlocation xd couldbeused. The critical value crit for the combined values x and could be calculated directly with the Programme EBPlate (CTICM); however a conservative approach is used in Figure114.
(6)
94
9.8 (1)
Webplateassessmentforlaunchingthebridge Figure 115 shows an example of a composite bridge erected by launching with a launchingnose.
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Verification of stiffened web plate for launching, Bridge Oehde
Figure115
6.1 STABILITY RULES

Stiffened web panel and loading
Figure116
95
(2)
Figure 116 gives the dimensions and edge loading of the stiffened web, that was verified on the basis of a 2nd order analysis of a grid of longitudinal stiffeners and transversestripsoftheplate.
* crit 1 and gives the moment distributions of the stiffeners as crit
(3) This model produces giveninFigure117.

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Use of method 2 for stress-assessment
Stiffener :
max M = 44,3 kNm max M = 2,83 kNm
= 152 68 = 220 240 MPa

= 64 176 = 240 = 240 MPa
(4) 9.9 (1)
Webplate:
Figure117 The addition of the effects of normal forces and bending moments for the stiffeners andtheplatestripssatisfiestheyieldstrength. Furtherinformationstoplatebuckling Further informations to the background and the application of the platebuckling rules in EN 199315 may be taken from the JRC report Commentary and worked examples to EN 199315 Plated structural elements, see Figure 118, as well as from the DAStReport Entwicklung und Aufbereitung wirtschaftlicher Bemessungsregeln fr Stahl und Verbundtrgermit schlanken Stegblechen im Hoch und Brckenbau (Development and preparation of economic design rules for steel andcompositegirderswithslenderwebplateinbuildingsandbridges).
96
6.1 STABILITY RULES

10. (1)
Figure118 Fatiguerules
10.1 General Fatigue is a typical technical area, where the large number of test results and the varietyoftestinterpretationsrequirestheuseofagreedtechnicalclassesandagreed verification procedures for the standardization of the numerical fatigue assessment, so that in particular cases discrepancies between the standard model and individual testsforacertainproductmayoccur. EN 199319 gives such a classification model which is based on the following agreements: 1. The basis of fatigue assessments is a fatigue resistance function applicable to alargevarietyofweldedstructuraldetailsasgiveninFigure119. Thisresistancefunction
3 3 R N R = c 2 10 6
(2)
is bilinear in doublelogarithmic scale and represents the characteristic values (~95%fractiles) of large scale fatigue tests with constant amplitude stress ranges that include all features of design and execution (scale effect, notches,imperfectionsanddiscontinuitiesintheframeoftolerances,residual stresses)relevantforfatiguebehaviour. The reference point c is the classification number of a detail. The classificationsystemincludesstepsof c withafactor R20 = 20 10 = 1.122 . 97
The value c at 2 10 6 cycles has been chosen in appreciation of Whler. The constant amplitude endurance limit D at 5 10 6 cycles has been chosenasaconstantvalueforeaseofuse.
6. DESIGN OF BRIDGE-ELEMENTS 6.2 FATIGUE RULES

Standardized Whler- curve for welded details
Figure119
6.2 FATIGUE RULES

Damage equivalence
D=
D = N
i
nEi
Ri
3 EI
n Ei 3 C 2 10
Damageequivalence:
3 3 e nEi = Ei nEi
e =
3 nEi 3 Ei
Ei
Figure120
98
2.
Thefatigueresistancecurve
3 3 R N R = c 2 10 6
representsthedamage D = 1 . Fatigueloadsrepresentedbyaspectrumofvariouspairsofdata
3 Ei nEi
giveapartialdamage
D=
n Ei = N Ri
3 n Ei Ei c3 2 10 6
fromalineardamageaccumulationandallowtocalculateforthespectrumof stressrangesadamageequivalentconstantstressrange
e = 3
3 Ei n Ei
3.
Ei
A stresstime history can be evaluated by an agreed counting method as the rainflow method or the reservoirmethod, see Figure 121, which gives an array of ranges that can be ordered in a spectrum or a frequency distribution.
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Reservoir-counting method
Figure121
99
6.2 FATIGUE RULES

Various design situations

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Modified Whler curve for using the Miner-rule
4.
Figure122 For the fatigue assessment using damage equivalent stress ranges e the position of the frequency distributions in relation to the endurance limit D forconstantamplitudestressrangesisrelevant,seeFigure122.
Case 1 applies where all stress ranges of the distribution are larger thantheendurancelimit D fromconstantamplitudetests. In this case a damageequivalent factor can be applied to e to compareitdirectlywith c . Case 2 applies where all stress ranges of the distribution are smaller thantheendurancelimit D fromconstantamplitudetests. In this case the comparison of e determined with the slope m requirestheuseofadamageequivalentfactor max . Case3applieswhereapartofthedistributionofstressrangesislarger and a part is smaller than the endurance limit D from constant amplitudetests. In this case it must be considered that any damage from stress ranges above D reducesthevalueof D . This can be approximativelly taken into account by using the Haibach linewithaslopem=5below D andacutofflimit L at108cycles. Thedamageequivalentfactor istheninfluencedbythedomainwith m=3andthedomainwithm=5.
100
Ingeneralfrequencydistributionsforbridgesarelocatedintheareaof m = 5, so that a fictions Whlerline with m = 5 covering the full range of Ei , nEi has been applied for the evaluation of fatigue equivalent traffic loads. By this procedure any complication by the relationship betweenthe valueandthelevelof c couldbeavoided.
5.
The spectrum of stress ranges used for the fatigue assessment can either be expressed by the damage equivalent load model from standards or from numerical simulations of traffic effects or measurementsoftrafficeffects. Such spectra in general have peaks from rare heavy loads and from a largenumberofsmallaftervibrations. Whereas the cutofflimit at 108 cycles cares for ignoring the after vibrations,thepeakeffectsfromheavyvehiclesarenormallycutoffby a limit of 1% damage, that corresponds approximately to the definitionoffrequentloadsor~100loadcycles.
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Representations of fatigue spectrum
cut off
spectrum for design after vibrations
cut off
Figure123 10.2 FatigueloadingmodelsforbridgesinEN19912 (1) The frequencydistributions for heavy vehicles and axle distances according to Figure 124 are suitable to develop a singular loading pattern for a damageequivalent vehicleandtodeterminethedamageequivalentvaluesofaxleloadandvehicleloads asgivenbythefatigueloadingmodelFLM3inFigure125.
101

6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Distribution of weights of heavy vehicles
total weight type 1
total weight type 2
total weight type 3
total weight type 4
Figure124
6.2 FATIGUE RULES

Load-models for fatigue checks of road bridges

FLM 3 Main structure Detailed FLM 4
(2)
Figure125 EN 19912 also gives a set of silhouettes of damageequivalent vehicles defined as Fatigue loading model FLM 4, that may be used to estimate the fatigue loading of an existing bridge from counting the types of silhouettes. It is however rarely used for fatigue design, because for the design of bridge structures in combination with descriptiverulesfordetailsthemodelFLM3isnormallysufficient. 102
(3) FLM 3 is in general used together with damageequivalent factors describing the effects of various parameters of the bridge and composition of traffic, which control therelevantfatigueassessment.
10.3 Safetysystemforfatigueassessment (1)

6.2 FATIGUE RULES
The partial factors Ff and Mf for the fatigue assessment as recommended in EN 199319dependonthefatiguesafetyconcept,seeFigure126.
Safety-plan for damage tolerant design

D=
inspection intervals
Ff
Ei ) nEi
3 3
c 6 2 10 Mf
Ff
Ej ) nEj
5 3
D 6 5 10 Mf
1 4
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1 Ff Mf
1 1 = 1+ n 4
4 1 n= ( )5 Ff Mf
Ff Mf = 1.0
Ff Mf = 1.15 Ff Mf = 1.35
n = 4 1 = 3
n= 4 1 1 1.155 4 n= 1 0 1.355
(2)
Figure126 Therearetwofatiguesafetyconcepts,thatmaybeapplied: 1. The damage tolerance concept, which is the standard concept aimed at in design, where failure by fatigue is excluded by sufficiently early prewarning by visible damages like cracks so that the serviceability of the structure is infringedbeforecriticalsituationsthatcouldleadtofailuremayoccur. Thisconceptrequiresregularinspectionsin service;ithastheadvantage,that partial factors may be low and the service life of an existing bridge can be extended from its target design life as long as the inspections do not produce criticaladversesignals.
103
Figure126showsawayhowthepartialfactors Ff Mf chosenforfatiguecan beassociatedwithasafeserviceperiod

T ,definedbythetotalservicelife n+1
T andthenumbern ofinspectionsinthistotalservicelife.
UsingthesteelmaterialaccordingtoEN1993110whereaquarterofthefull damage c3 2 10 6 has been used as safe service period, the choice of
Mf Ff = 1,00 would lead to a number of inspection of 3 (corresponding to
T T = ). Other choices of Mf Ff would lead to a smaller number of n+1 4
inspections, and Mf Ff = 1,35 would result in a safe service period equal to thefullservicelifeT. 2. The safelife concept, which requires that fatigue is treated as an ultimate limit state, as prewarning signals may not be detected sufficiently early (e.g. becauseofdisproportionatequickcrackgrowthasforboltsorbecauseaccess for inspection is not possible as for tension ties buried in the soil or underwaterstructures).
6.2 FATIGUE RULES

Mean value m Characteristic value: m 1.645
Design value:
Control of actions No control of actions
N = 2 Mf = 5 2 = 1.15
N = 4.5 Mf = 5 4 ,50 = 1.35
Figure127 Figure 127 shows the characteristic fatigue strength function (m 1.645 ) which for attaining the design function (m 3.30 ) needs about a partial factor N = 2 indesignlife,whichgivesapartialfactor Mf = 1.15 for m = 5 .
According to the Trilateral Design and Analysis Code for temporary bridges therequirementsforsafelifedesignisalso N = 2 incasethetrafficloadsare regularly controlled in view of the fatigue load assumed, but it is N = 4.5 in 104
case traffic loads may develop with the time without control. In that case the partialfactorwouldbe Mf = 1.35 . In case the safelifeconcept is chosen, the structure has to be taken out of service independently on whether inspections reveal damages or not, when thetargetdesignlifehasbeenreached.
10.4 TheuseofFatigueloadingmodelFLM3 (1) 1. Use as a damage equivalent vehicle together with influence surfaces for the various lanes to determine the stresshistory form the crossing over the bridge and to calculate E 2 by using the counting method, the Miner rule andinformationsontrafficdistributionsonlanesanddesignlife. In this case a single FLM 3 underestimates the fatigue effects for influence lines for hogging moments of continuous bridges so that it should be supplementedbyasecondvehicle. Useofthedamageequivalentvehicletodetermine E 2 fromthedifferences of max and min from extreme positions of FLM 3 on the influence line for a singlelane,thatismultipliedwiththedamageequivalentfactor = 1 2 3 4 whichincludeallnecessaryinformations. 1 isthespanlengthfactorthathas been determined from numerical simulations with the Auxerretraffic and constitutesanenvelopingfunctionversusthespanlength,seeFigure129. ThefatigueloadingmodelFLM3maybeusedintwoways,seeFigure128.
2.
105
6.2 FATIGUE RULES

1 value from simulations with Auxerre traffic
Figure129
10.5 Designexample
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Example: Fatigue assessment for a composite bridge

= 1.947 = 1.90 = 1.715 = 1.947 = 1.90
31.3
1
23.6
stress ranges (max min) at lower flange
Transverse weld from stiffener: E 2 = 1.9 31.3 = 59.5 < 80 MPa Butt weld of flange:
(1)
E 2 = 1.9 26.6 = 44.8 < 77 MPa
Figure130 For the design example in Figure 130 the stress ranges = ( max min ) caused by FLM3onextremepositionsoftheinfluencelinearegiven.
106
(2)
The distribution of these stress ranges shows that at the midspans the stress ranges fromtrafficactionattainthelargestvalues,whereasatthesupport,thestressranges arelow. This indicates that at the supports, where thick flanges are needed, the use of high strengthsteelscouldbeappropriate,thatgivessmallplatethicknessesandtherefore economicadvantagesinweldvolume. The values for midspan and at the supports differ a bit and vary between 1,715 and1,947. The fatigue assessment is carried out at two locations of the bottom flange in the fieldofthesidespan: 1. 2. Itsatisfiestherequirementevenforsafelifedesign. Transverseweldfromstiffener Buttweldofflange.
(3)
(4) (5)
10.6 Furtherinformations (1) Further informations on the background of the fatigue rules in EN 199319 and on design examples is given in the JRCReport Commentary to Eurocode 3 EN 1993 Part1.9Fatigue),seeFigure131.
6.2 FATIGUE RULES

Figure131 107
11. 11.1 General (1) There is no common definition of Preloading or Prestress P in EN 1990; it leaves such definitions and also the choice of partial factors to be applied to P to the Eurocodesfordifferentmaterialsandwaysofconstruction. Itisthereforeapurposeofthisreporttogivethisdefinitionforsteelbridges,in particularforbridgeswithropes,asstayedcablebridges. (3) This report also explains how the permanent action G and preloading P are treated in combinations of actions and how 2nd order theory shall by applied, so that the designofe.g.ropesandpylonsinacablestayedbridgeisconsistent. Useofpreloadinginbridges
(2)
11.2 Definitions (1) Preloading is systematically used in cablestayed bridges to optimize the distribution ofactioneffectsforserviceabilityandultimatecriteria.
6. DESIGN OF BRIDGE-ELEMENTS 6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
ThedefinitionofprestressandpreloadingmaybetakenfromFigure132.
Rope-structures - Stayed cable bridges Definition

Any prestress is generated by preloading Preloading is a process to impose forces or deformations The effects of preloading may be variations of stresses (prestress) variations of deformations other variations of permanent stage
Figure132
108
11.3 (1)
Examplesforpreloadingprocesses Figure 133, Figure 134 and Figure 135 give examples for different preloading processesindifferentapplicationfields
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Examples for preloading processes

1a) Prestressing by internal tendons

1b) Prestressing of trusses by cables in hollow sections

1c) Prestressing by external tendons

1d) Prestressing of joints subjected to tension or friction
Figure133
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


2) Prestressing by propping
steel d
4) Prestressing by imposed deformation

steel d
cast of concrete
cast of concrete
composite
composite
3) Prestressing by sequence of casting concrete

phase 1 phase 2 phase 1
Figure134
109
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


5a) Prestressing of cable structures 5b) Prestressing of arches by string-elements

b ow -st rin g
5c) Prestressing of guyed masts
5d) Prestressing of cable stayed structures

Figure135
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Principles
It is possible to define the preloading or prestressing
process by all necessary steps including controls

It is not possible to define prestress as an effect of prestressing
or preloading in a general way, that covers all cases
(2) (3)
Figure136 Duetothedifferentaimsofpreloadingorprestressinthevariousapplicationfieldsit isnotpossibletodefinepreloadingorprestressinginacommonway. Figure 137 and Figure 138 give examples for such different ways, prestress and preloadingaretreated:
110
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Example for the applicability of prestress
stress before prestresses:
q 0 , l = 0
stress immediately after prestressing:
q 0 , l
prestress:
q 0 , l = 0 , l = q 0 , l q 0 , l = 0
(4)
Figure137 Figure 137 shows the effect of prestressing of a concrete beam by applying imposed displacements l to a tendon. Prestress is defined by the difference between the stressbeforetheimposeddisplacementandafter. Figure 138 shows the effect of the same displacement to a catenarian rope. The effectsarenonlinearanddonotpermittodefinetheeffectsasadifferenceofstress intheropeonly.
(5)
111

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
(6)
Example for the non-applicability of prestress
Figure138 Therfore the action P in EN 1990 is defined as a process aiming at a particular structuralshapeorbehaviour,seeFigure139.
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Conclusion
P in EN 1990 a) preloading or prestressing process leading to a structural shape or behaviour as required b) prestress in specific cases where defined
Figure139
112
11.4 (1) The target of the preloading and prestressing process in the construction phase is to attain the required structural form and distribution of effects of permanent actions andpreloadingprocess (G + P ) ,seeFigure140. Treatmentofpreloadingandprestressingprocessesintheconstructionphase
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the construction phase
Target:
attainment of the required structural form and distribution of permanent effects of (G+P)
Conclusion: calculation with characteristic values, linear material law: stress limitations and prestressing of cables.
(2)
Figure140 Thereforecalculations arecarried out with characteristic values (mean values), linear materiallawandstresslimitationsinthecables.
113
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the construction phase
(3)
Figure141 Figure141shows: in the first line the shape of a stayed structure after execution under the actions (G + P ) in the second line the action effects in the various components of the structure with a shape as indicated in the first line under the gravity loads G andthepreloading P in the third line the stressfree shape of the structural components (rope andbeam)whentheyarereleasedfromallactionsandgivetheirlengthsand curvedformasgeometricalrequirementsforfabrication
11.5 Treatmentofpreloadingandprestressingintheservicephase (1) The taking in service of the structure starts with the initial geometry and initial distribution of action effect from the actions (G + P ) achieved after execution, that mayhavecertainimperfections,seefigure142.
114
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the service phase Target: ULS verification on the basis of: permanent actions G(G+P) permanent form resulting from (G+P) imperfections of the form variable actions Q{Qk1 + 0Qk2} Conclusion: Calculation with the permanent form associated with the effect from G(G+P)
(2)
Figure142 For the ultimate limit state verification the various components of the structure all with a structural shape after execution resulting from (G + P ) should be assumed to beloadedbythedesignvaluesofactioneffects
(3)
G (G + P )
Designvaluesofvariableactions
Q (Qk 1 + 0 Qk 2 )
are assumed to act on the structure with the shape resulting from (G + P ) and with aninitialload (G + P ) .
115
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the service phase
(4)
Figure143 Figure143illustratestheprocedure: the first line gives the structural shape resulting from (G + P ) with an initial loadingofcomponentsfrom (G + P ) thesecondlinegivesthedesignvaluesoftheadditionalimperfections w0 that giveafictitiousloadingfrom
G (G + P ) + Q (Qk 1 + 0 + Qk 2 ) .
(5) should represent an action from a single process and therefore have common partialfactors
(G + P ) = 1,35 or
Thisprocedureexplainswhy
(G + P )
(G + P ) = 1,00 depending on unfavourable or favourable effects in combination with external loads Qk .
116
(6)
Where however effects of G from P are counteracting so that (G + P ) is small, e.g. at the limit state of decompression, either G and P should be modified by
G = G and P = P where takesvalues0.05,seeFigure144.
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Treatment at counterflexure points
Treatment at counterflexure points, or where the action effects from (G+P) are limited (e.g. by decompression):
G = G, where 0.05 0.10

applied to influence surfaces.
12. (1) (2)
Figure144 Furtherinformationstodesignrulesforsteelbridges Gaps in the Eurocodes identified during use are being subject of the development of Nonconflictingcomplementaryinformations(NCCI). Apartfromtheitemsmentionedinthisreportas rules for actions on bridges, e.g. treatment of combined wind, rain and trafficinducedvibrations extensionofrulesforchoiceofmaterial stabilityrulesforlateraltorsionalandplatebuckling fatiguerules
therearefurtheritems,forsomeofwhichJRCreporthavealreadybeenpublished. (3) The JRCreports Design of lightweight footbridges for human induced vibrations, see Figure 145 and Assessment of existing steel structures: Recommendations for Estimation of Remaining Fatigue life, see Figure 146, are examples of such publications.
117
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

Figure145
7. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING STEEL BRIDGES
Figure146
118

Eurocodes For The Design of Bridges PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocodes For The Design of Bridges PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocodes For The Design of Bridges PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocodesforthedesignofbridges

Traffic actions Wind actions Thermal actions General

EN 1990-A2 EN 1993-1-1 EN 1993-1-5 EN 1993-1-5 EN 1993-1-9 EN 1998-3 EN 10025 EN 1090-2

Connections Ropes Bearings Prefabrication

Site work Tolerances Inspection Maintenance

EN 1090-2 Corrosion protection EN 1090-2 EN 1337-6 CE-marking Traceability

SURVEY OF THE EUROCODES

1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES

Standard system for steel structures

HSS up to S700 1.12

1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES

Traffic actions Wind actions Thermal actions

Connections Ropes Bearings Prefabrication

Site work Tolerances Inspection Maintenance

Tasks for designer and contractor

1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES

Design rules for steel bridges in Eurocode 3

1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES

Basic features of design rules for bridges

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Load-model LM1 (draft German NA)

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Statistical distribution of characteristics of vehicles

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Modelling of vehicles and surfaces

Load-model and simulations

Reference bridges for reliability analysis

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Definition of target -value

yieldstrength momentforpermanentweightsasdefinedintheEurocodes 1.35 1.10

Fromacomparisonof M Qd fromthetworoutesthevalue Q isobtained.

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Q-values from LM1

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Development of permits for heavy vehicles

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Fatigue load model specified in EN 1991

Number of expected trucks per year for a single lane

Number of heavy vehicles N

Fatigue loading model FLM 3

critical crack size acrit

detectable crack size a0 time Inspection interval

Assessment method for FLM 3

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Fatigue details welded attachments and stiffeners

EN 1993-1-9 - Fatigue resistance

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Moment of Resistance W/L [cm2m/m]

Span limits for fatigue design

Figure28 Soadescriptiverulecouldbe tospecifyaminimumrequirementforthefatigueresistanceofalldetails,e.g.

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Joint for hanger

Recommendations for durable detailing

Hanger connection for arch bridges

Substitution of fatigue checks for critical details

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES

Substitution of fatigue checks by structural detailing rules

Structural detailing for deck plate

Recommended details of orthotropic deck