22 - 23 November, 2010

Institution of Civil Engineers

Bridge Design to Eurocodes

- UK Implementation

Design illustration steel-concrete

composite bridge design
David Iles
The Steel Construction Institute

SCI Bridge Design Guides

Succession of guides over 20
years
Capture best practice advice
Complemented by worked
examples
Now includes guidance on
use of the Eurocodes
Examples in separate book

SCI Bridge Design Guides

Worked examples P357
Same format as previous
examples to BS 5400
Covers the major stages of
detailed design
This paper presents an
overview of some aspects
revealed during preparation

Scope of the paper

The examples
Preamble to design verification
Design effects
Global analysis
Design verification of beams
Design of connections

The examples 1: Multi-girder bridge

2-span bridge (28 m + 28 m) carrying 2-lane road
With integral abutments

The examples 1: Multi-girder bridge

28000

500

2000

1000
marg inal
strip

28000

7300

1000
marginal
strip

2000

500

1100
3700

3700

3700

The examples 2: Ladder deck bridge

3-span bridge (24.5 m + 42 m + 24.5 m)

The examples 2: Ladder deck bridge

24500

500

2500

24500

42000

1000
marginal
strip

7300

1000
marginal
strip

2500

500

varies
1200 to 2200

11700

Preamble to design verification

Documentation
The Eurocodes at least 14 Parts needed!
EN 1990
Eurocode 1 (4 Parts)
Eurocode 2 (2 Parts)
Eurocode 3 (6 Parts)
Eurocode 4 (1 Part)
Eurocode 7 (1 Part) (for integral bridges)
National Annexes (NAs)
One for each Part

Preamble to design verification

Documentation
Published Documents (PDs)
Non-contradictory complementary information (NCCI)
Not forgetting
Execution standards and product standards
(notably EN 1090-2 for steel)

Preamble to design verification

Design basis
EN 1990
Sets out basis for limit state design
Defines design situations & combinations of actions
Similar in principle to BS 5400-1 but much more
extensive
Terminology - Eurospeak
Actions, Effects, Verification, Execution
Symbols
Such as: Q,10Qk ; NEd ; Mb,Rd
Clear differentiation - avoids confusion and error

Preamble to design verification

Material properties
Material properties defined in:
EN 1992-1-1 for concrete
EN 1993-1-1 for steel
Eurocode 4 refers back to Eurocodes 2 and 3 for
properties but:
potential confusion over design value of concrete
strength
shrinkage and creep depend on age at first loading

Design effects
Actions
Self-weight dimensional variability
Traffic loads
lanes
UDL
Tandem system
Fatigue vehicle
Thermal actions
large F on thermal effects
care needed in design effects for integral bridges and
expansion joints

Design effects
Global analysis
Elastic global analysis for bridges
Analysis should take account of shear lag
Effective widths given in Eurocodes 3 and 4
Not needed if using FE model with shell elements
First order analysis for effects in members
Consideration of LTB may require elastic buckling
analysis

Design effects
Global analysis - example 1
3D FE model (beam and shell elements) gave:
Effects during construction stages
Effects due to gr1 and gr5 combinations of traffic loads
Effects due to soil pressures on endscreen walls

Design effects
Global analysis - example 2
3D FE model (beam and shell elements) gave effects:
On main girders and cross girders
Due to construction and traffic loads

Design verification of beams

Eurocode 3 sets out separate verifications for:
Cross sections
Buckling resistance of members
Eurocode 4 refers back to Eurocodes 2 and 3
Adds assessment of stage construction
Gives rules for shear connection

Design verification of beams

Resistance of cross sections
Eurocode 3 defines 4 classes of cross section in
bending and under axial compression
1 & 2 similar to compact
3 similar to non-compact
4 non-compact with web not fully effective
Shear resistance of slender web defined in EN 1993-1-5
Uses a different partial factor for design strength
Bending-shear interaction only considered for the cross
section

Design verification of beams

Resistance of cross sections
M-V interaction on cross sections
3500
V b,Rd

M el,Rd

3000

Shear (kN)

V pl,Rd

V bw,Rd

2500
2000
1500
1000
500

M pl,Rd

M f,Rd

0
0

5000

10000
Moment (kNm)

15000

20000

Design verification of beams

Buckling resistance

Reduction factor applied to cross section resistance

Requires non-dimensional slenderness LT
Value of LT only given in relation to Mcr
Options are:
elastic buckling analysis
simple rules derived from effective length

Design verification of beams

Buckling resistance
Common set of buckling curves
1.2

Reduction factor

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

0.5

1.5
Slenderness

2.5

Design verification of beams

Buckling resistance
Verification during construction
Buckling mode for paired girders

Design verification of beams

Buckling resistance
Verification for in-service stage
Consider bottom flange adjacent to support

General method in EN 1993-2:

Treat bottom flange and part of web as a strut
can allow for variation of M and V
and for flexible lateral restraint

Design verification of beams

Restraint of slab in ladder decks
In mid-span region, slab in compression susceptible to
buckling
Cross girders must provide stiff restraint
Slab must be checked as strut
No explicit rules in Eurocodes
Guidance is available

Design verification of beams

Longitudinal shear connection
Rules given in EN 1994-2
Studs to EN ISO 13918 are 10% less strong than
BS_5400 studs but design resistance is similar
The SLS requirement is almost always automatically
satisfied when ULS is OK
When using 3D modelling, take care in evaluation of
shear flow, because axial force varies along span

Design of connections
Bolted connections
Now using preloaded bolts to EN 14399
Similar properties and preload
Connection of cross girders
Difficult to determine forces on individual bolts
250 mm
(notch ignored)
725 mm

Design of connections
Welded connections
Procedures similar to those for design to BS 5400
Directional method looks complex
can be rationalized
then as easy as the simple method
Weld sizes expressed in terms of throat thickness rather
than leg length
be careful when specifying

Conclusion
Preparation of the examples revealed no major difference
(from those to BS 5400)
Terminology is slightly different but rather more precise
The Eurocodes are comprehensive but this means
extensive documentation
There are no simple rules for effective length of buckling
There is no indication that the structure need be any
heavier (than if designed to BS 5400)

Thank you for listening