3 views

Uploaded by Marco Figueiredo

- MATERIAL TECHNOLOGY
- Fatigue Life Assessment of Bridge Details Using Finite Element Method.pdf
- fops_E
- Paper FragBlast Granada 2009
- Associated Flow Rules
- ME526 Lecture Note 1 Students
- 321OUTLN-2011
- IPC2012-90504
- NCAT High RAP Content.pdf
- Deformation (Engineering) - Wikipedia
- Mastering Endodontic Instrumentation
- SOM_MCQ UNIT_1-2
- ch06.ppt
- Basement SEFI
- Van Mier, Vonk - Fracture of Concrete Under Multiaxial Stress - Recent Developsments - 1991
- Partition of Plastic Work into Heat and Stored.pdf
- Ch09
- 21_mechanical deformation of ceramics.pptx
- Week 3_Mechanical Properties of Materials
- On the Road to Improved Scratch Resistance Engl

You are on page 1of 185

by Supervisors:

Dr. László Dunai

Dr. Theodore V. Galambos

Budapest, Hungary, 2011

Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Department of Structural Engineering

Composite Girder Bridges

Master of Science Thesis

by

Árpád Rózsás

Supervisors:

Dr. László Dunai

Dr. Theodore V. Galambos

i

Abstract

The primary purpose of this thesis is to investigate the plastic reserve of composite plate

girder bridges. These structures are suitable for this due to the synergetic combination of the

concrete and steel. The former provides the “cheap” stiffness and strength in compression

while the steel in tension ensures the ductility. However, the theoretical and experimental

aspects of plastic design are well established only in the US provisions are available for the

designers.

The aim was to inquiry the plastic design in the framework of the Eurocode through an

existing elastically designed bridge. In the first part of the study the necessary theoretical

background is overviewed, the related literature is examined. The main emphasis is placed on

the ultimate load bearing capacity, which is determined using various limit states, such as first

hinge, incremental collapse and plastic collapse. The safety levels of these limit states were

also investigated. To ensure the ductility of the pier-sections innovative structural solutions

gathered and evaluated. The selected bridge is a composite, plate girder, continuous structure

formed by three spans (30,0-40,0-30,0m). This was redesigned following plastic principles,

the relevant provisions and the findings of the researchers.

The calculations showed that − for the original structure − the traffic load could be increased

by ~30 and ~60% over the first yield in case of using first hinge and shakedown limit states,

respectively. It was found that the safety levels of these limit states at least reach or exceed

that of the first yield or first hinge. It should be noted that these results reflect only one

example; nevertheless, they are in good agreement with the American results. The redesign

yielded to a structure with cleaner lines with considerably less section transition and about

25% structural steel saving. Based on the calculations and international data the plastic design

of girder bridges appears to be a promising way, at the same time more research required.

iii

Összefoglalás

Jelen diplomamunka fő célja az öszvér szerkezetű gerendahidak képlékeny tartalékainak

vizsgálata. Ezen szerkezetek a beton és acél szinergikus kapcsolata miatt különösen

alkalmasak erre. Az előbbi viszonylag alacsony költséggel biztosítja a szükséges merevséget

és teherbírást a nyomott, míg az acél a szükséges duktilitást a húzott zónákban. Habár a

képlékeny tervezés elméleti és gyakorlati vonatkozásai jól kidolgozattak, tervezési előírások

kizárólag az Egyesült Államokban állnak a mérnökök rendelkezésére.

A vizsgálódás arra irányult, hogy egy megépült, rugalmasan méretezett hídon keresztül

elemezzük a képlékeny tervezést az Eurocode keretein belül. A tanulmány első fele a

szükséges elméleti hátteret és a kapcsolódó irodalmat tekinti át. A hangsúly a tartó különféle

teherbírásainak meghatározásán volt, mint a(z): első folyás, első képlékeny csukló,

halmozódó képlékeny alakváltozások, képlékeny törés. Szintén megvizsgáltuk az ezen

határállapotokhoz tartozó biztonsági szinteket. A közbenső támasz környéki szelvények

duktilitásának biztosítása érdekében újító megoldásokat is összegyűjtöttünk és elemeztünk. A

kiválasztott szerkezet egy háromtámaszú (30,0-40,0-30,0m), öszvér szerkezetű, folytatólagos

gerendahíd. Ezt a képlékenységtani elvek, szabványos elírások és kutatási eredmények

alapján átterveztük.

A számítások azt mutatták (az eredeti hídra vonatkozóan), hogy a forgalmi teher az első

képlékeny csukló, mint határállapot választásakor ~30%-kal, míg a beállási határállapot

esetén ~60%-kal növelhető az első folyáshoz viszonyítva. A megbízhatósági analízis

megmutatta, hogy a fenti határállapotokhoz tartozó biztonsági szintek legalább elérik vagy

meghaladják az első folyáshoz vagy első képlékeny csuklóhoz tartozó értéket. Ugyanakkor

meg kell jegyezni, hogy ezek az eredmények egyetlen példára vonatkoznak; mindazonáltal jól

egyeznek az amerikai eredményekkel. Az áttervezés egy tisztább vonalú, jelentősen kevesebb

keresztmetszetváltást tartalmazó szerkezetet eredményezett, ~25% szerkezeti acél

megtakarítással. Az elvégzett számítások és nemzetközi eredmények tükrében a gerendahidak

képlékeny méretezése egy ígéretes módszernek tűnik, ugyanakkor még további kutatást

igényel.

iv

Acknowledgement

I owe my deepest gratitude to Associate Professor Nauzika Kovács and to Professor László

Dunai for their guidance and hints throughout the numerous consultations during the

semester. I highly appreciate their effort reading, correcting and commenting on the raw

material amid their various occupations. I am also grateful for the assistance and advices of

Professor Theodore V. Galambos; for helping outline the subject of the project, reading and

amending the study and for answering the emerged questions even via email. Furthermore, I

would like to thank the useful comments and consultations on the reliability of structures, to

Assistant Professor Tamás Kovács. Finally yet importantly, I would like to thank the valuable

conversations for István Hegedűs structural engineer, the designer of the 142/k bridge and

Gábor Pál structural engineer for let at my disposal the static calculation and drawings of the

structure.

v

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii

ÖSSZEFOGLALÁS ................................................................................................................ iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... v

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 2

2.1. Brief Review of the Theorems of Plasticity ................................................................ 2

2.1.1. Plastic Collapse Theorems/ Theorems of Plastic Limit Analysis ........................ 2

2.1.2. Shakedown Theorems .......................................................................................... 7

2.2. Reliability Analysis of Structures .............................................................................. 13

2.2.1. Measures of Reliability ...................................................................................... 14

2.2.2. Methods to Evaluate the Reliability Index ( ................................................... 18

3. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................... 24

3.1. Historical Overview ................................................................................................... 24

3.2. State of the Art in Plastic Design of Bridges ............................................................. 27

3.2.1. Ultimate Limit States ......................................................................................... 27

3.2.2. Safety Concern, the Reliability of Plastic Design .............................................. 29

3.2.3. Cost-Saving ........................................................................................................ 30

3.2.4. Experimental Verification .................................................................................. 32

3.2.5. Rotational Capacity of the Cross-section ........................................................... 33

3.3. Worked-out Design Methods..................................................................................... 35

3.3.1. United States ...................................................................................................... 35

3.3.2. Contributions From Outside of the US .............................................................. 41

4. BRIDGE DESIGN PROBLEM..................................................................................... 47

4.1. Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 47

4.2. Introduction of the Bridge to be Studied ................................................................... 47

4.3. Solution Strategy, Extent of the Thesis ..................................................................... 48

5. GLOBAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 49

5.1. Elastic Check According to Eurocode ....................................................................... 49

5.1.1. Finite Element Model ......................................................................................... 49

5.1.2. Loads and Load Combinations ........................................................................... 51

5.2. Investigation of Plastic Reserves ............................................................................... 53

5.2.1. First-Hinge Limit Analysis................................................................................. 56

5.2.2. Shakedown Limit Analysis ................................................................................ 56

vi

5.2.3. Single-Girder Plastic Collapse Limit Analysis .................................................. 58

5.2.4. System Plastic Collapse Limit Analysis............................................................. 59

5.3. Summarization of the Rating Factors ........................................................................ 60

5.4. The Effect of Shear Force .......................................................................................... 61

5.5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 64

6. STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS TO MEET THE DUCTILITY DEMAND .............. 66

6.1. Concrete Filled Closed and Open Sections ............................................................... 67

6.1.1. Concrete Filled Tubular (CFT) Girder ............................................................... 67

6.1.2. Concrete Filled Narrow-width Steel Box-girder ................................................ 68

6.1.3. Partially Encased Rolled and Welded Sections.................................................. 69

6.2. Double Composite Action ......................................................................................... 72

6.3. Reinforcing the Web .................................................................................................. 75

6.3.1. Bolted Longitudinal Plate or Stiffener ............................................................... 75

6.3.2. Welded Longitudinal Stiffeners ......................................................................... 78

6.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 79

7. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO EUROCODE ................................. 80

7.1. Principles, Methods ................................................................................................... 80

7.1.1. Eurocode Recommendations .............................................................................. 80

7.1.2. Reliability Analysis ............................................................................................ 82

7.2. Results of the Analysis on the Studied Bridge .......................................................... 87

7.3. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 90

8. REDESIGN OF THE BRIDGE BASED ON PLASTIC PRINCIPLES ................... 91

8.1. Considerations, Eurocode Principles ......................................................................... 91

8.2. Proposed Method for Plastic Design ......................................................................... 92

8.3. Introduction of the Proposed Method through a Trial Design................................... 94

8.3.1. The Redesigned Structure .................................................................................. 94

8.3.2. Verification of the Trial Plastic Design.............................................................. 96

8.3.3. Comparison of the Findings to the American Results...................................... 104

8.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 106

9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................... 107

9.1. Summary .................................................................................................................. 107

9.2. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 107

9.3. Further Research/ Future Work ............................................................................... 110

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 111

vii

ANNEX A – DESIGN CHECK TO EUROCODE ..................................................................

ANNEX B – LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS ................................................................................

ANNEX C – RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................

ANNEX D − USED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................

viii

Abbreviations and acronyms:

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AR available rotation

CC consequence class

CDF cumulative distribution function

CF concrete filled

CFT concrete filled tube

EN European Norm

FEM finite element analysis

FORM first order reliability method

FOSM first order second moment method

GMNIA geometric and material nonlinear analysis with imperfections

GU Gumbel distribution

LM load model

LN lognormal distribution

LRFD load and resistance factor design

LRFR load and resistance factor rating

LSF limit state function

LTB lateral torsional buckling

MPP most probable point

MSZ Hungarian Standard (Magyar Szabvány)

NA National Annex

ND normal distribution

PDF probability density function

PF probability of failure

PNA plastic neutral axis

RC reliability class/ reinforced concrete

RCA rotation compatibility approach (AASHTO)

RF rating factor

RR required rotation

SLS serviceability limit state

SND standard normal distribution

SORM second order reliability method

SRC steel and reinforced concrete

UF utilization factor

ULS ultimate limit state

Symbols

relative slenderness

g(.) limit state function

ν coefficient of variation

cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution

ix

reliability index

standard normal density function

mean value/ load factor

Pearson correlation

standard deviation

x

Introduction

1. Introduction

The current structural design is prevalently based on the theory of elasticity. However, the

plastic capacity of the materials and structures are extensively investigated and verified long

time ago. Typically, the plastic reserve is used only indirectly, for example, through the

moment redistribution in structural engineering. The bridge engineers all around the world

advocate a much more conservative principle, they consider solely the elasticity. Even in the

US which is currently the only country in the world where standards, guides in the topic of

plastic design are accessible for bridge designers, the engineers follow the conservative elastic

methods [Haiyan and Fangfang, 2010]. Barker and his fellow researchers mention four main

reasons for this: (1) perceived difficulty of application compared to elastic design provisions,

(2) lack of training, (3) safety concern with the inelastic limit states, and (4) insufficient

experimental verification [Barker et al., 2000]. Later, I will show that all of these concerns

have been resolved, still the inelastic design concepts are not widely accepted. In the US since

1973, the researchers are working out improved design procedures. In particular cases −

compared to the typically used elastic methods − around 20% load-bearing capacity increase

can be achieved with the proposed provisions [Barker and Galambos, 1992; Barker and

Zacher, 1997]. These methods cannot only be used for the design of new cost-efficient,

competitive structures, but for the revision of old deficient bridges as well. In many European

countries, like in Hungary the national standards did not allow the exploitation of the plastic

reserve of structures. However, the new European normative permits it, solely a method how

to determine the plastic resistance of the cross-section is provided, but it does not give in the

designers' hand an applicable tool how to carry out the global structural analysis. The aim of

this study is to investigate the possibility of inelastic design of bridge structures in the frame

of Eurocode, using the available provisions and research data. Furthermore, to compare the

design procedure to the conventional elastic methods, and to assess the accessible cost-saving.

I restrict my attention exclusively to steel-concrete composite1 girder bridges. Since, if one

would like to study and apply the plasticity theory to bridge design, some in the

conventionally curriculum not fully covered fields have to be acquired, the next chapter will

sum up this necessary knowledge.

1

Thereinafter composite will refer to the steel-concrete composite.

1

Theoretical Background

2. Theoretical Background

If we allow a structure to overpass the elastic limit, new failure modes will occur, such as the

plastic collapse or deflection instability. These ultimate limits are presented here with the

conventional modes, according to [Halász and Platthy, 1989]:

a) loss of equilibrium of the structure or any part of it, considered as a rigid body;

b) rupture:

- plastic rupture;

- brittle rupture;

- high-cycle fatigue;

- low-cycle (plastic) fatigue;

c) plastic collapse (transformation of the structure or any part of it into a mechanism);

d) unrestrained accumulation of the plastic strains;

e) yield of material (first yield), failure by excessive deformation of the structure or the

connections;

f) failure by loss of stability of the structure or any part of it.

The next section will summarize the basic theorems, which are required to evaluate the

ultimate load to the b), c) and d) failure modes.

Assumptions:

- the load is proportional, that means it can be described by one parameter: (load factor);

f f0 (2.1)

The entire load history can be represented by the f0 basic load, which is stationary, and by the

load factor (), which is monotonically increasing during the loading process.

One important theorem should be highlighted before the main extremum theorems, the

constancy of curvatures during plastic collapse (constant stress) theorem. This states that

during the plastic collapse, when the structure cannot bear more loads and turns into a

mechanism, the stresses and elastic strains are stationary. The mechanism means that the

whole structure or part of it undergoes increasing displacements while the load is unchanging

(Figure 2.1). For a global mechanism, on a structure with statically indeterminacy to nth

degree, the formulations of n+1 plastic hinges are required. During the proportional increase

of the displacements and plastic strains, the other variables are constant. This theorem has

some very important consequences such as:

- the true collapse load can be determined considering a rigid-ideally plastic material law;

2

Theoretical Background

Static (Lower Bound) Theorem

Under a load (f), computed on the basis of an arbitrary statically admissible and stable

internal force field (s), the structure will not collapse.

The s internal force field should be statically admissible, which means that it satisfies the

equilibrium equations (2.4). Stable means that s obeys to the yield criteria (2.5). From the

theorem it can be seen that the only requirements are to be satisfied the equilibrium and

constitutive equations.

With using the load factor the theorem can be rewritten as:

Any statically admissible and stable load factor (s) is less than or equal to the true collapse

load factor (p).

s p (2.2)

Mathematically speaking the determination of the collapse load factor can be formulated as an

optimization problem:

p max(s ) (2.3)

BT s s f (2.4)

s0 s s0 (2.5)

Where s is the independent variable (for example si describes one possible (statically

admissible) internal force field), if sj maximizes the load factor we have found the true

internal force distribution at collapse.

The s vectors are containing internal forces and resistances. Each element corresponds to a

cross-section.

3

Theoretical Background

In finite element analysis (FEM) the matrix with the same meaning denoted with the same

letter ( K e B D B d ), called strain-displacement matrix.

T

e

As it used to be in the science of mechanics, with the swap of the force and displacement

variables, the pair of one theorem can be attained. This static-kinematic duality exists in the

case of plastic extremum theorems as well.

Under a load (f), computed on the basis of an arbitrary kinematically admissible and unstable

displacement field ( d ), the structure will collapse.

equations) (2.6). The vectors d and e denote the displacement velocity and plastic strain rate

respectively. The unstable means that while a collapse mechanism formulate, the power of

external loads ( W ) should be greater than or equal to the rate of dissipation (Dint) (2.7),

ext

which is given by the sum of the product of the stresses and corresponding plastic strain rates.

W is the power of external loads on the displacement velocity field. During the plastic

ext

collapse the power of external loads is dissipated by irreversible plastic process in material,

mainly as heat.

B d e (2.6)

It is necessary to deal with velocities and power, since there is no unique correspondence

between the stresses and strains, solely between the increments of these variables. The time is

simply chosen as a monotonic increasing parameter to form these.

From the theorem it can be seen that the only requirements are to be satisfied the kinematic

and constitutive equations. With using the load factor the theorem can be rewritten as:

Any kinematcally admissible and unstable load factor (k) is greater than or equal to the true

collapse load factor (p).

p k (2.8)

2

Describes the connection between the internal forces and external loads, equilibrium matrix.

4

Theoretical Background

The kinematically admissible unstable load factor means, that it is obtained by equating the

power of external forces on kinematically possible displacement velocities ( d ) with the

corresponding rate of work (power) of stresses on the plastic strain rates ( e ).

f(x)

· d(x)

L/2 L/2

In simple cases it is sufficient to deal only with the internal and external works. Figure 2.2

and the following equations show the calculation of the kinematic load factor for a given

collapse mechanism.

l

k f ( x) d ( x) dx M pl 2 M pl

M pl 2 M pl

k

f ( x) d ( x) dx

l

In the same manner as the static theorem, here is the extremum formulation of the upper

bound theorem:

p min( k ) (2.9)

B d e (2.10)

k f T d sT0 e (2.11)

In this case, d is the independent variable (for example d i describes the the i-th possible

(kinematically admissible) mechanism), if d j minimizes the load factor we call this j-th

mechanism as the true collapse mechanism.

These theorems were first proved by Gvozdev (1897-1986) in 1936 for beams, frames and

plates. However, his works were published in Russian, therefore were unnoticed in the West

until 1960. Independently from Gvozdev the theorems were discovered in 1949 by Horne and

in 1951 by Greenberg and Prager (1903-1980). In 1952 Drucker (1918-2001), Greenberg and

Prager have generalized the theorems for bodies with arbitrary triaxial stresses [Kaliszky,

1975; Bažant and Jirásek, 2001].

5

Theoretical Background

Unicity

Since the collapse load is the result of a global maximum and global minimum search, it has

to be unique (Figure 2.3).

s p k (2.12)

k s

min k

max s

sij

ijk

If, both statically and kinematically admissible mechanism has found, it means that the

corresponding load factor is the true collapse factor.

If we have two or more proportional loads, which can act together, the problem can be

1

handled in the following way. For example, with two loads, after we choose a ratio m

2

the problem is reduced to a one-load case. For this particular instance, the collapse load factor

can be determined. With more ratio and load factor, the collapse surface can be approximated

with a desired accuracy (Figure 2.4).

1 1

PC PC

EP EP approximation

from 3 points

E E

1,0 p

m

2 2

Figure 2.4: Interpretation of the collapse load factor and the load-bearing domains.

6

Theoretical Background

With relatively low loads, the response of the structure is purely elastic (E). With the increase

of the load one or more points of the structure will yield. This is represented by the yield

surface (E-EP). This separates the elastic and elasto-plastic (EP) domains. In the latter region

the structure is partially in a plastic state, however it is still able to carry the loads. Moreover,

any loads lower than the before-applied maximum are carried in an elastic manner. With

further raising of the load, the structure will reach the surface of plastic collapse (PC). Inside

this surface, any design points considered safe. Points outside the surface represent the loads

under which the structure will collapse. The one parametric case in Figure 2.4 is represented

by a straight line and the collapse surface is shrunk to a point. It can be seen from Figure 2.4

that the collapse load factor (p) can be considered as the measure of safety against the plastic

collapse.

In the field of buildings, the loads can be considered non-variable, in contrast to bridge’s live

load. This is an important distinction because in the presence of variable load, a “new” failure

mode can occur, namely the shakedown, or to be more precise the absence of shakedown.

This phenomenon can happen under loads lower than the plastic collapse load, in the elasto-

plastic (EP) region. Shakedown consists of two failure modes (Figure 2.5):

A) If we consider the successive application, for example, two loads. Supposing that one

load always destroys the residual force field developed by the previous load, in every

cycle it has to be restored and consequently new residual rotations and deflections occur.

In this way the displacements will accumulate to an unacceptable range or even the

material will fail, due to the reach of the ultimate strain. This failure mode is called

incremental collapse (deflection instability, elastic shakedown, ratcheting).

B) If a point of a cross-section, due to a variable load, undergoes yielding in both directions

(tension and compression as well), the material will fail after relatively small number of

cycles in a brittle way. This failure mode is called alternating plasticity (low-cycle

fatigue, plastic shakedown).

If a structure subjected to cyclic load, which generates stresses beyond the elastic limit, and

after successive cycles it withstands any subsequent loads in a purely elastic manner, then the

structure has shaken down. The word was introduced by Prager. This elastic response can

only be achieved with the development of a favorable self-equilibrated residual force field.

Two criteria have to be fulfilled to reach the purely elastic load bearing.

s r semax s0

(2.13)

s r semin s0

BT sr 0 (2.15)

7

Theoretical Background

where:

semax , semin the maximum and minimum values of the force envelopes at given points,

determined on a ideally elastic structure;

The first condition (2.13) has to be hold to prevent the unrestrained accumulation of plastic

strains (incremental collapse). The second one (2.14) expresses the alternating plasticity

criteria. At typical engineering structures the latter one is usually not governing. According to

experiment’s results the material will fail by alternating plasticity, after relatively few number

of load cycles (never more than about 100) [Bažant and Jirásek, 2001]. Eq.(2.15) simply

represents the requirement that the residual stresses should be self-equilibrated.

max max

max

max

·y

min

min min

min

Purely elastic Shakedown Plastic fatigue Incremental collapse

The illustration of the shakedown can be seen in Figure 2.6 (considering only the incremental

collapse), neglecting the effect of the shear forces. Figure a) represents the elastic maximal

moment diagram from the external loads ( semax , semin ). Figure b) shows the distribution of the

residual moments which develop after the unloading of the structure which was subjected to a

load over its elastic capacity. After the formulation of the first hinge over the internal support,

the structure carries its loads as two simply supported beams. Since the unloading process is

taken place in a purely elastic manner, during the removal of loads the structure acts as the

original continuous beam. This leads to the development of a self-equilibrated residual forces.

If there exists a residual internal force filed in which presence the loads are carried elastically

the structure has shaken down (Figure c). Some general comments can be added, which are

well illustrated on the figures as well. It can be seen from Figure c) that after the favorable

residual moment develops, any subsequent loads are carried elastically. The post-shakedown

envelopes are more uniformly distributed. On the place of the first hinge a residual rotation

takes place (d). Typically, this kink and the residual deflections are not significant.

8

Theoretical Background

a e

b r

pl

c e+r

pl

d wr

About the shakedown of a structure, two questions arise. First, does the required residual

stress exist? Moreover, if there is a residual stress field, which fulfils the shakedown

conditions, will this even develop in the structure? The first question can be answered

relatively easily by calculation. The second is a tougher one. The first time Melan (1890-

1963) answered it in 1936 for beams and frames. He proved that if the needed residual

moment exists, that will develop in the structure after a certain number of load cycles.

Melan’s theorem is also called the lower bound theorem of shakedown analysis.

If, for a given load history, there exist shakedown forces sr such that the conditions of plastic

admissibility (2.13) are satisfied as strict inequality at any time t, then the structure shakes

down [Bažant and Jirásek, 2001].

The incremental collapse condition can be rephrased with the load factor, applied to the

maximum and minimum forces generated by the variable load, in the following way:

The safety factor is the largest statically admissible and stable multiplier.

s r s s emax s 0

(2.17)

s r s s emin s 0

BT sr 0 (2.18)

9

Theoretical Background

The geometric interpretation of this and the load-bearing regions can be seen in Figure 2.9. It

should be noted that this theorem was stated before the static theorem of plastic collapse

(1938, Gvozdev). It was recognized later, that Melan’s theorem comprises the latter.

Therefore the shakedown theory is more general and includes the elastic and plastic collapse

theories as well [Bažant and Jirásek, 2001].

T T

f (t ) d k (t ) dt Dint (e k (t )) dt

T

(2.19)

0 0

Then the structure cannot shake down under the cyclic loading history f(t) [Bažant and

Jirásek, 2001].

The safety factor is the smallest kinematically admissible and unstable multiplier.

B d k e k (2.21)

D int (e k (t )) dt

k T

0

(2.22)

f

T

(t ) d k (t ) dt

0

In the above form Eq.(2.22) cannot really used to determine the load factor. Since it contains

the loading history (f(t)) and the evolution of plastic strain rate in time. With some

considerations, like the maximization of the denominator, the best upper bound of the safety

factor can be derived, for details see [Bažant and Jirásek, 2001]. In this way, the practical

reformulation of the general expression:

k (2.23)

(semax )T ek (semin )T ek

where:

10

Theoretical Background

T T

e e (t ) dt

k

k e e k (t ) dt

k

0 0

e k and e k are the negative and positive part of the e k plastic strain rate respectively.

e k e k e k 2 e k e k e k 2 e k e k e k

A B

Me,min

B

Me,max

A

Substituting the moments and rotations into Eq.(2.23) we get:

M pl M pl

k

M Ae ,max M Be ,min

expressed by - and after that the equation can be simplified with the rotation.

As mentioned before, the shakedown theory is more general than the plastic collapse theory.

If we look Eq.(2.13)-(2.15) and consider a non-variable, proportional loading the residual

force field (sr) will became zero, and thus the equations are simplified to the static limit

analysis conditions (2.4)-(2.5). Furthermore, in plastic collapse equations setting the cross-

section capacities to the elastic resistance, the load factor corresponding to elastic load-

bearing can be calculated.

11

Theoretical Background

Shakedown

theory

Limit analysis

Elastic theory theory

Of course the shakedown theory has to be applied only if we dealing with variable loads and

would like to exploit the plastic reserves.

Unicity

The same can be told about the uniqueness of the shakedown limit load as about the plastic

collapse load.

s sh k

(2.24)

sh max(s ) min(k )

In the space spanned by the load factors (Figure 2.9) region S means the domain where the

structure will shake down. The shakedown and incremental collapse, alternating plasticity

(IC, A) regions are separated by the shakedown limit surface. The shakedown load factor

(safety factor) can be achieved with the radial scaling of load point to the shakedown limit

surface. The points outside this surface represent loading under which the structure will

collapse.

1 1

PC PC

IC, A IC, A

S S

E E

1, 0

2 sh 2

Figure 2.9: Interpretation of the shakedown load factor and the load-bearing domains.

12

Theoretical Background

As mentioned before the shakedown limit load is between the elastic and the plastic collapse

loads. Therefore, the safe region is reduced compared to the non-variable loading case (Figure

2.4). Nevertheless, the domain bounded by the shakedown limit surface is larger than the

conservative elastic regime. One important difference should be emphasized that in the case

of variable loading to make the structure collapse certain number of load cycles are required,

while for the plastic collapse one load is sufficient.

1 1

PC

p IC, A

sh S L

e

E

2 2

Figure 2.10:Limit load factors and the illustration of the loading region (L).

In Figure 2.10 the blue region illustrates the load domain (L), the linear combination of

possible loadings. During design it should be verified that all possible loading points are

inside the safe domain.

To obtain the limit load factors an extreme value search has to be carried out (see e.g.,

Eq.(2.20)-(2.22)) To solve the general case with arbitrary nonlinear constraints advanced

mathematical methods are required. However, analytical solution still can be achieved only in

very limited cases. With discrete variables, such as the available sections, the optimization

became more complex, in these cases usually metaheuristics are applied (e.g. evolutionary

strategies) [Rizzo et al., 2000]. The advantage of these methods is that they provide rather

good solutions when the analytical methods are not applicable. Even if the best solution

cannot be guaranteed, they usually give considerably good candidates. The optimization

problem without additional constraints can be simplified with a linearized yield criterion to a

linear programming problem.

If one would like to use this knowledge to design of bridges, he or she has to apply it on such

a way that it yields to a safe structure. Since there is no standardized method in Eurocode for

inelastic design of bridges, to carry out this, it is requisite to overview the basics of the

reliability analysis of structures.

Since engineering structures are serving many people, represent a high value and the

consequences of collapse are significant, they must be designed to satisfy a prescribed

13

Theoretical Background

reliability. This can be achieved by using the methods, rules and partial factors provided by

the standards or by direct reliability analysis to verify that the structure meets the safety

criterion.

Survival probability (Ps)

To be able to judge the adequacy of reliability, a numerical value is necessary to measure it.

The most obvious choice is the survival probability (Ps). This can be expressed with the

probability of its complement event, the failure probability (Pf):

Ps 1 Pf (2.25)

To calculate this probability, a function, which determines the failure criteria, is required.

Corresponding to the examined phenomena a limit state function (LSF) has to be formulated.

This function can be created from the basic design inequality:

RE (2.26)

where:

g ( R, E ) R E (2.27)

Both abovementioned variables can contain many random variables, for the sake of simplicity

a limit state function with only two variables will be used herein.

Pf P ( R E ) 0 P g 0 f X ( X ) dX (2.28)

g ( X )0

where f X (X) is the joint probability density function (joint PDF) of the elements of the X

vector, which are random variables. Joint probability expresses the probability that two or

more random events will happen simultaneously. In this case X R E . These variables

are called the state variables, which are used to formulate the limit-state function. The

geometric explanation of the failure probability is shown in Figure 2.11.

14

Theoretical Background

g<0

failure region f (g)

g=0

g>0

probability of safe region

failure

g 0 safe region,

g 0 border between safe and unsafe domains,

g0 failure region.

These regions are illustrated in Figure 2.11 and in Figure 2.12 as well.

Figure 2.12: Joint probability density function and regions [Du, 2005].

Although Eq.(2.28) is a straightforward definition of the failure probability, apart from very

simple cases, the integral cannot be calculated or it requires special numerical techniques

which accuracy may not be adequate [Nowak and Collins, 2000]. Therefore, in practice, the

reliability is expressed by other measures.

15

Theoretical Background

he reliability index multiplied by the standard deviation (g) shows the distance from the

mean value (g) to the most probable failure point (MPP). Thus in a space of variables

normalized with standard deviation, expresses the distance to the MPP, this way the

reliability is a unitless quantity, which can be used to describe the reliability.

g

(2.29)

g

Based on this definition it can be considered as the inverse of the coefficient of variation

( Vg g ).

g

(g)

g=0

·g

g<0 g>0

failure region safe region

g

Figure 2.13: Explanation of the geometrical meaning of the reliability index for normal

distribution.

In case of normally distributed variables a direct relation can be found between and Pf

(probability of failure):

Pf ( ) (2.30)

Whereis the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the standard normal distribution

(SND). SND is a special normal distribution where the mean value (g) is zero and the

standard deviation (g) is unit. Table 2.1 shows some calculated values.

[-] 1,282 2,326 3,090 3,719 4,265 4,753 5,199

Generally there is no explicit relation between and Pf. In a special case, if we have normally

distributed uncorrelated variables then with Eq.(2.30) we would get the true failure

probability [Nowak and Collins, 2000]. In every other case the obtained probabilities cannot

16

Theoretical Background

considered as true values, rather appropriate measures to compare the reliability levels of

structures.

It is convenient to transform the joint PDF to the space spanned by the reduced state variables

(Ui), Eq.(2.31). This means that the variables are converted to standard normal distribution

(SND). The transformation equations:

R R

UR

R

(2.31)

E E

UE

E

The result of the conversation is illustrated in Figure 2.14 and in Figure 2.15. In the space of

reduced variables, because the standard variation is unit, the reliability index is simply the

distance to the MPP. Moreover, if we take into account the rotational symmetry of the SND,

the reliability index can be defined as the shortest distance from origin to the limit-state

function (g=0). This definition, which was introduced by Hasofer and Lind (1974), is

illustrated in Figure 2.14 and in Figure 2.15. The is often called Hasofer-Lind reliability

index as well. The advantage of this conversation is that the search for the distance to the

most probable failure point on g=0 is reduced to the search of shortest distance to the failure

limit (g=0) in U space.

17

Theoretical Background

E-

u E= E

E

g=0

MPP

E·

R-

u R= R

R

R·

Figure 2.15: Top view of a normal distribution transformed into the U space.

As stated in the previous section, in practice, the index is used to measure the reliability,

thus in this section I will show how to determine it. There are many methods to accomplish

this; however, only the method recommended by the Eurocode 0 and used in this study will be

presented in details.

Its name is from the order of approximation of the limit-state function. It approximates the

LSF in points of the g=0 hyperline, the points of this line are called limit points. From these

points we have to find the most probable, which is simultaneously the closest to the origin.

The basic formulation of it only applicable to normally distributed uncorrelated variables.

Later it will be shown how can it be expanded to general cases.

It can be shown that in case of linear limit-state function the reliability index can be obtained

by the following equation:

n

g ( X 1 , X 2 ,..., X n ) a0 ai X i (2.32)

i 1

n

a0 ai X i

i 1

(2.33)

n

a

i 1

i

2

Xi 2

18

Theoretical Background

If the LSF is nonlinear we can still apply this method to get an approximate value by

linearizing the function using Taylor series expansion at point X*i :

n

g

g ( X 1 , X 2 ,..., X n ) g ( X 1 , X 2 ,..., X n ) g ( X *1 , X 2* ,..., X n* ) X i X i* (2.34)

i 1 X i evaluated at X i*

Now applying the derived expression for linear case, the approximate reliability index:

n

g n

g

g ( X *1 , X 2* ,..., X n* ) X i* Xi

i 1 X i X i* i 1 X i X i*

(2.35)

2

n

g

X

i 1

Xi 2

i X i*

g ( X * ) g ( X * )T X * g ( X * )T μ X

(2.36)

g ( X* ) g ( X* ))T (σ X σ X )

If the limit-state function is nonlinear, an iterative process has to be carried out. The so called

matrix procedure, to calculate , according to [Nowak and Collins, 2000], consists the

following steps:

1) Formulate the limit state function and appropriate parameters for all random variables Xi

(1=1,2,…,n) involved.

2) Obtain an initial design point X i* by assuming values for n-1 of the random variables Xi.

(Mean values are often reasonable choice.) Solve the limit-state equation g=0 for the

remaining variable. This ensures that the design point is on the failure boundary line.

3) Determination of the reduced values ( Ui* ) for the corresponding design point ( X i* ), using

Eq.(2.31).

4) Determine the partial derivatives of the limit-state function respect to the reduced

variables (Ui). Because the LSF is expressed as the function of the original variables (Xi)

to obtain the aforementioned derivatives the chain rule has to be applied:

g g X i

(2.37)

U i X i U i

The second multiplier can be derived from the connection of the original and reduced

variables (2.31). Using that, the partial derivatives are the following:

g g

Xi (2.38)

U i X i

19

Theoretical Background

For convenience, define a column vector G, containing the partial derivatives, by the

following way:

g

Gi (2.39)

X i evaluated at X i*

5) Calculate the reliability index using the following formula, based on (2.36):

GT U*

(2.40)

GT G

GT

α (2.41)

GT G

If we consider a vector showing from the origin to the design point, the length of this

vector is the . The sensitivity factors are representing the direction cosines of this vector

respectively to the reduced variables.

7) Obtain the new design point Ui* by calculating values with using the following equation:

U* α (2.42)

8) Determine the corresponding design values in the original space for n-1 of the variables,

using Eq.(2.31). Solve the limit-state equation g=0 for the remaining variable.

9) Repeat steps 3 to 8 until and the design point (Xi) converge.

E

g=0

2

3

1

uR

20

Theoretical Background

Since this method uses the assumption that the random variables are normally distributed,

some modification is required to apply it to other distributions. The expansion to non-normal

distributions can be done by the Rackwitz-Fiessler procedure. The basic idea behind it is the

calculation of equivalent normal distribution values (mean and standard coefficient) for every

variables. To obtain these equivalent normal mean ( Xe ) and standard deviation ( Xe ), we

require that the original variable’s CDF and PDF be equal to the normal distribution CDF and

PDF values respectively, at the design point ( X* ). With the addition of this step to matrix

procedure the value can be determined. From the definition of equivalency, it can be seen

that it is necessary in every iteration cycle to calculate the equivalent values.

f xi(xi)

non-normal

distribution

f xi(x*i)=f exi(x*i)

equivalent

normal

distribution

exi xi xi

F xi(x*i)=F exi(x*i)

The method can be extended to correlated random variables as well. The Pearson correlation

coefficient3 () describes the degree of linear dependency between two variables. It can take

values from -1 to 1. Figure 2.18 shows the meaning of the coefficient.

If two variables are independent, than = 0, but if = 0 it does not indicate that the variables

are independent, it solely means that there is no linear relation at all between those variables,

other relations are possible.

3

Thereinafter the correlation will refer to the Pearson correlation.

21

Theoretical Background

If the variables are correlated the steps to calculate the reliability index essentially remain the

same. The only difference is that the correlation matrix () will appear in Eq.(2.40) and in

Eq.(2.41). This changes these equations in the following way:

G T U*

(2.43)

GT ρ G

GT

α (2.44)

GT ρ G

The Eurocode considers the FORM method sufficiently accurate. However, since the program

being used has more advanced capabilities, these are also being briefly introduced in the

following.

In some cases e.g., with highly nonlinear failure surface (g=0), the failure probability

estimated by FORM is inaccurate. In these cases the SORM can be used which applies

second-order Taylor series approximation of the limit-state function [Choi et al., 2007].

Any method which solves a problem by generating suitable random numbers and observing

that fraction of the numbers obeying some property or properties is called Monte Carlo

method. The method is useful for obtaining numerical solutions to problems which are too

complicated to solve analytically. It was coined in the 1940s by John von Neumann (1903-

1957), Stanislaw Ulam (1909-1984) and Nicholas Metropolis (1915-1999), while they were

working on nuclear weapon projects in Los Alamos [Wikipedia02; WolframMathworld].

In this thesis, I will apply only the crude Monte Carlo method where the distribution-based

samples are generated without any special selection rule, simply by random process. In

reliability analysis, the method is used to calculate the integral which expresses the failure

probability, Eq.(2.28). The calculation starts with the generation of values of basic variables

following their distribution. These are used to obtain the values of compound variables, which

compose the limit state function (g). The failure probability is calculated as the ratio of the

number of points violate the limit state function and the total number of points. The concept

of the Monte Carlo method is illustrated in Figure 2.19.

22

Theoretical Background

g=0

23

Review of Previous Investigations

After going through the fundamental necessary knowledge, the brief overview of the

historical development and the state of the art in plastic design follows, to show the place of

the current study in their context.

The roots of the plasticity can be traced back to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). In his work

Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences (1638) in the

discourse about the load-bearing capacity of a cantilever beam (Figure 3.1) one can identify

the basic concept of kinetic approach of limit analysis [Kaliszky, 1975; Bažant and Jirásek,

2001; Kurrer, 2008]. It should be mentioned, that notwithstanding Galileo has made a

prominent contribution to the science, apparently he has made some mistakes as well. For

example, in the case of the cantilever beam, he considered only the rotational (moment)

equation, which led him to a wrong result. Now this can be construed, that Galileo assumed

that in cross-section A uniform tensile stress field would develop (albeit he never did this

explicitly) [Kurrer, 2008].

The theories of limit analysis can be rephrased in a much simple form than as stated in section

2.1.2, in which they seem to be intuitively obvious:

“A body will not collapse under a given loading if a possible stress field can be found that is

in equilibrium with a loading greater than the given loading.

24

Review of Previous Investigations

A body will collapse under a given loading if a velocity field obeying the constraints (or a

mechanism) can be found that so that the internal dissipation is less than the rate of work of

the given loading.” [Lubliner, 2008]

After Galileo, great architects4 are intuitively applied the principle − which now we call the

static approach to limit analysis − to carry out the calculation of some big domes, arches and

vaults. De La Hire in his book − first published in 1695 − deals with the design of vaults,

applies this approach. About a century after Galileo in 1742, three mathematicians examined

the safety of the dome of Saint Peter’s cathedral in a manner which can remind us of the

upper bound theorem of limit analysis. Based on their analysis they recommended installing a

second tension ring [Kurrer, 2008; Lubliner, 2008]. Figure 3.2 shows the drawing of the

dome with the observed damages from the report of the mathematicians.

Figure 3.2: The dome of Saint Peter’s in Rome with the observed cracks in 1742 [Kurrer,

2008].

The first realistic and almost complete static analysis of failure, along with the concept of the

plastic slip and yield condition, is found in Coulomb’s (1776) study of earth retaining walls

for military fortifications [Bažant and Jirásek, 2001]. In the next decades many researchers

contributed to the theory of plasticity in the field of structural mechanics and geotechnics as

well.

It was an outstanding step forward when Gábor von Kazinczy (1889-1964) in 1914 conducted

his experiments with clamped steel beams encased in concrete [Kazinczy, 1914]. Based on

4

Refers to the meaning used before the modern times

25

Review of Previous Investigations

that research he pointed out that the ultimate bearing capacity of a statically indeterminate

structure cannot be determined with the theory of elasticity.

Another probably more influential contribution of Kazinczy was the introduction of the

concept of plastic hinge. In 1917, N. C. Kist proposed the ideal-elastic and ideal plastic

material law for mild steel, which is still applied in steel design to determine the collapse

load. Soon after many scientists and engineers accepted the plastic design, which was being

spread widely across Europe [Kurrer, 2008]. In spite of the theoretical and experimental

results numerous scientists were against the plastic theory. Sharp debate has started between

the two opposite groups, which finally led to a paradigm shift. To picture the atmosphere, a

piece one of these acrimonious discussions is presented here:

proportionality or the yield stress of the material is exceeded in particular cross-sections.

This means that besides the equilibrium conditions, the deformation conditions also remain

valid even in the post-elastic loading range. The inadequacy of the ultimate load method is

based on the fact that it treats this fundamental fact wrongly and upon closer inspection its

‘simplicity’ is revealed as unacceptable primitiveness. … If, however, favouring the ultimate

load method is intended to placate those people who cannot master, and given normal talents

cannot learn, the normal methods of calculating statically indeterminate structures, then the

introduction of such a ‘theory of structures for idiots’ should certainly be rejected.”[Stüssi,

1962]

It should be noted that the quoted opinion belongs to Fritz Stüssi (1901-1981) who was an

outstanding professor of his century. The focal point of the debates was the paradox of the

plastic hinge, which was resolved by Neal and Symonds in 1952 [Kurrer, 2008]. Since the

theoretical, experimental and practical (standards) conditions are satisfied in the US, maybe

“only” a paradigm shift is required amongst the designers. In other countries the practical part

is missing as well.

In the next decades, the basic extremum theorems of plasticity have been formulated and

proved as mentioned in Section 2.1. In the following section the state of the art practical side

of the plastic design of bridges is summarized.

26

Review of Previous Investigations

Even in the building construction where it is allowed to overpass the elastic limit, typically,

like in Hungary, only the first-plastic-hinge method is applied. The bridge engineering

community is even more conservative. Standards for plastic design of bridges are only

available in the US, nevertheless, not widely applied. When we are dealing with bridges, as

mentioned in Section 2.1.2, due to the relatively high live to dead load ratio and to the

variable loading, the phenomenon of shakedown has to be considered. This has a crucial

importance in the formulation of the design procedures.

In the following section I will go through the problems arise on the plastic design of bridge

structures and show some possible answers. At the end, the most recent design procedures

from the US (AASHTO) and Europe will be reviewed in details.

The first step in a design procedure is to choose an appropriate failure mode for the ultimate

limit state (not considering now the stability and fatigue problems).

A) Elastic limit

Traditional ultimate limit state, related to the first yield of the material.

B) Moment redistribution

Indirect consideration of partially or fully formed plastic hinges, many of the following more

complex methods are simplified to an easy-to-apply moment redistribution approach. The

limitation is the ratio of redistribution, which is derived from the assumed failure mode and

other limitations.

The bridge is loaded until the formulation of first plastic hinge, this state is considered as the

ultimate limit. The basic procedure is that we allow to formulate a plastic hinge in the most

loaded cross-section and the redistribution of the moment towards the less loaded regions,

until the formulation of the next hinge. The methods differ in that manner how accurately they

determine the maximum applicable moment redistribution, this depends mainly on the

rotation capacity of the section.

D) Single-girder shakedown

Only the most loaded girder is examined. The load on this beam is determined through the

lateral load distribution. This way only the longitudinal structural reserve is taken into

account.

If the shakedown is chosen as ultimate limit, it has a great importance to know the number of

load cycles required to failure. Since it determines the probability of failure for a given load

distribution.

27

Review of Previous Investigations

How many successive cycles are required to reach the stability of deflection? Based on the

experimental research of Barker and his fellow researchers with a third-scale steel-concrete

composite bridge, the needed cycles are around twenty to thirty [Barker et al., 1996]. Neal

suggests 10 successive load cycles to be chosen as appropriate failure criterion for design

[Neal, 1977].

Buildings are also subjected to variable loads. However, it is very unlikely to have the

shakedown as the governing failure mode, because rather high live load to dead load ratio is

necessary to experience the deflection instability. Typically live load higher than two-thirds to

three-fourth of dead load is requisite to get this problem [Bruneau et al., 1998].

Neal also suggests that for typical buildings the plastic collapse is the governing. In other

cases if the ratio of live load to dead load is high, the decision should be based on the

comparison of the probability of the occurrence of incremental and plastic collapse [Neal,

1977]. In AASHTO for inelastic design methods of bridges, the shakedown is applied as

ultimate limit state.

E) System shakedown

The entire bridge system is modeled, the first plastic hinge will form in the most loaded

girder. After that the reserve, both in longitudinal and in transverse directions are mobilized as

well. This can be reduced to an equivalent single girder shakedown analysis (in case of global

mechanism, which is typical), where the equivalent elastic-moment envelopes and resistances

are the sum of corresponding the individual girders’ values. Compared to the single girder

shakedown analysis the load capacity is increased about 15%, due to the transverse

redundancy [Barker and Zacher, 1997]. The rating factors can be seen in Table 3.1 and in

Table 3.3. The rating factor (RF) is used in the US to classify the performance of bridges.

R D D

RF (3.1)

( L I ) L( L I )

n

where:

resistance factor;

R resistance (capacity);

load factor;

D dead load coefficient;

D dead load effect in member;

( L I ) n

live load coefficient;

L( L I ) live load effect in member including impact.

RF is a scale factor of the live load effect required to reach the failure limit. According to this

RF ≥ 1 means that the structure fulfils the requirements. The theorems of shakedown analysis

can directly applied to determine the shakedown load, nevertheless the rotation capacity of

28

Review of Previous Investigations

cross-sections with plastic hinges and the permanent deflections should be checked

supplementary.

For normal two way bridges, Grundy showed that the global mechanisms govern the plastic

collapse, the local mechanisms − which are convenient to avoid − can become ruling only in

case of rather wide bridges [Grundy, 1987].

F) Plastic collapse

Only one high load is sufficient to reach this limit state, under which a mechanism forms and

the structure collapses. Since for a structure statically indeterminate to nth degree, to fail with

a global mechanism, n+1 plastic hinges are required, we can conclude that higher redundancy

yield to higher load capacity. It is valid for the incremental collapse as well. The order of

ultimate limit states represents the order of accessible load capacity as well.

Another important question to be answered is the reliability of the aforementioned methods.

Table 3.1 summarizes the results of calculations based on different limit states for a simply

supported (13,4m) and a three-span (12,5 x 16,2 x 12,5m) composite bridges. The value

represents the correlations between the corresponding probability variables e.g., R is the

correlation of the cross-section resistances in the plastic hinge locations.

Table 3.1: Reliability indices () and rating factors (RF) for first-hinge RF=1 [Barker and

Zacher, 1997].

One-span Three-span

bridge bridge

Limit state

RF RF

First-hinge 1,00 3,09 1,00 2,76

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 0% 1,00 3,09 1,20 5,34

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 50% 1,00 3,09 1,20 4,17

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 100% 1,00 3,09 1,20 3,50

Single-girder shakedown: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 1,00 3,09 1,20 3,83

System shakedown: R = D = L = 0% 1,16 6,91 1,36 12,00

System shakedown: R = D = L = 50% 1,16 4,37 1,36 5,18

System shakedown: R = D = L = 100% 1,16 3,46 1,36 3,84

System shakedown: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 1,16 3,88 1,36 4,47

The reliability indices determined for the load level corresponds to the single girder

shakedown, presented in Table 3.2.

29

Review of Previous Investigations

Table 3.2: Reliability indices () and rating factors (RF) for single-girder shakedown RF=1

[Barker and Zacher, 1997].

Three-span

Limit state bridge

RF

First-hinge 0,83 2,07

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 0% 1,00 4,42

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 50% 1,00 3,41

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 100% 1,00 2,86

Single-girder shakedown: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 1,00 3,13

System shakedown: R = D = L = 0% 1,13 9,88

System shakedown: R = D = L = 50% 1,13 4,24

System shakedown: R = D = L = 100% 1,13 3,14

System shakedown: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 1,13 3,66

It is important to emphasize that the values are determined for particular composite girder

bridges, as suggested by the authors more calculations are required to generalize the results.

The target reliability index is for the redundant three-span structure is 2,5 according to the

applied standard (AASHTO). It can be seen from the data that every case at least reach or

exceed the level of reliability of the reference first hinge method.

In Table 3.3 one can see the rating factors of a steel, two-span (2x16,75m), girder bridge with

the achieved increase in load bearing capacity over the AASHTO Guide Specification for

Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges, thereinafter called the “guide

spec”, first hinge method.

Table 3.3: Rating factors for different limit states [Barker and Galambos, 1992].

Limit state Rating factor (RF)

spec first hinge [%]

System model first hinge 1,013 7,3%

System model shakedown 1,127 19,4%

System model collapse 1,631 72,8%

3.2.3. Cost-Saving

As demonstrated in previous sections, with the application of inelastic design procedures

significant load capacity increase can be achieved. In new designs, it results reduced amount

of material and minimizes the number of section transitions, compared to the elastic method.

It has been shown that savings are mainly manifested due to the reduction of fabrication cost

and not due to the material savings. On the other hand, the costly reinforcement of existing

30

Review of Previous Investigations

bridges, which are classified as deficient by traditional methods, can be avoided [Barth et al.,

2004]. This second advantage of plastic design methods is really significant. According to a

survey (1987) involving all highway bridges in the US, more than 40% of the existing bridges

were either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete using the contemporary (1987)

design-based rating procedures [Barker and Galambos, 1992]. In the previously referred

paper, Barker and Galambos showed that with allowing the structure to enter the plastic

regime and with shakedown as the ultimate limit state, many of these deficient bridges could

be qualified as adequate. The aging of bridges is a universal problem in every country, e.g., in

China nearly 80% of railway steel bridges have served for more than 40 years. Due to the

general increase in traffic weights and traffic densities, the loads those old bridges received

are greater than they were designed for [Haiyan and Fangfang, 2010]. Leon and Flemming

also mention the poor maintenance and increased traffic over the expectations as reasons for

the high percentage of deficient bridges [Leon and Flemming, 1997]. The costly reinforcing or

reconstruction could be avoided by plastic design methods.

Because the allowance to overpass the elastic limits yields to a more uniformly distributed

moment through the girders (Figure 2.6), application of rolled girders could be considered.

Since the contribution of the fabrication and welding cost to the entire cost is significant

(Figure 3.4), it may lead to a more economic design.

Erection

Material

11-25%

24-50%

Transportation

3-7%

Paint

11-18%

Fabrication

19-29%

Figure 3.4: Distribution of total cost for a bare steel girder of a conventional composite plate

girder bridge [Collings, 2005].

From the above figure it can be seen that the savings in the fabrication plus erection side has

almost the same weight as the material saving, respect to the total cost. To make a more

accurate assessment, life-cycle cost comparison should be carried out.

It should be mentioned that due to the reduced sectional dimensions and consequently the

diminished flexural stiffness the serviceability limit states might governing. The American

results showed that the utilization of SLS are slightly increased compared to the elastic design

but still far from being governing [Barth and White, 2000]. The before-mentioned publication

31

Review of Previous Investigations

does not check the crack widths; however, it can be found for example in AASHTO 2010,

Section 5.7.3.4. Nevertheless, there is no indication in the standard whether the proposed

method is applicable to plastic design.

Experimental verifications of the analytical and developed numerical methods were

conducted [Flemming, 1994; Barker et al., 1996; Leon and Flemming, 1997; Grundy, 2004].

For low load levels the results were in good agreement with measured values, nevertheless, in

the regime of loads close to the theoretical shakedown limit, some discrepancies were found.

It should be noted that there is a still unsolved problem about the shakedown of steel-concrete

composite beams constructed with shear studs. Many experiments show that under a cyclic

load, close to the shakedown limit, the structure tends to behave like a steel structure. The

measured deflections converge to the values calculated considering solely the bare steel

(Figure 3.5). The suspected reason was the degradation of the concrete slab and the

deterioration of the studs due to concentrated applied force by the hydraulic jacks [Galambos,

2007]. However, the same phenomenon was observed by Flemming who conducted the

shakedown test of a composite bridge using trucks for loading [Flemming, 1994]; Grundy also

experienced the same [Grundy, 2004].

Figure 3.5: Experimental and analytical shakedown residual deflections [Barker et al., 1996].

The problem was partially answered by Leon and Flemming in 1997. They carried out an

experimental research with a half-scale, two-span, two-girder composite bridge subjected to

actual moving load. The aforementioned strength reduction was observed, notwithstanding

they pointed out that, with composite action5 80% or higher the structure is able to reach the

theoretically calculated shakedown limit, due to the strain hardening and the redistribution of

forces. They observed 30% load capacity reduction with 50% composite action. They also

pointed out that even with 80% composite action the section capacity cannot be maintained

5

The ratio of normal force that can be transmitted by the studs and the normal force required to reach the full

plastic resistance in the concrete flange; denoted by in Eurocode.

32

Review of Previous Investigations

for large number of loading cycles in the inelastic range [Leon and Flemming, 1997]. This

question still requires further research to get fully resolved.

As mentioned before, in some cross-sections increased rotations occur due to the

plastification. These rotations are necessary to reach the desired internal force distribution and

load capacity. Therefore, it is very important to know the capacity and demand of rotations. A

moment−rotation curve is shown in Figure 3.6 with the illustration of available rotation at

certain moment levels. This determined as the difference between the rotation on descending

part of the curve and the elastic rotation at the same moment level. These curves are required

solely for composite sections under negative bending, since in the sagging region almost the

whole steel section is under tension.

Researchers derived moment−rotation (M−θ) characteristic curves based on experimental

results. Then FEM models calibrated with the measured data were used to extend the

application limits. This way the rotation capacity of plate girders’ cross-sections have been

determined. In Figure 3.7 a standardized M−θ curve can be seen, θRL and Mn are the rotation

capacity and nominal resistance of the cross section, for the determination of these values see

the detailed introduction of the rotation compatibility approach in the next section.

Figure 3.7: Moment versus plastic rotation model [McConelli et al., 2010].

33

Review of Previous Investigations

Two M−θ models are presented herein, both can be used to determine the rotation capacity of

cross-sections in any class with some limitations.

Since in this thesis results obtained by using the philosophy of the US and European standards

will be used as well, it is necessary to compare some part of it. The cross-section classes

according to the AASHTO and Eurocode are illustrated in Figure 3.8.

The resistances Mp, My, Mr are the plastic, elastic and reduced elastic − due to the local

stability loss − cross-section resistances, respectively.

The M−θ curves applied in the rotational compatibility approach, presented at the end of the

chapter, proposed by Righman and Barth (2005) are applicable for rather wide range of

sections including slender ones as well. In case of non-compact and slender sections the

nominal moment capacity (Figure 3.7) is the elastic resistance.

[Lääne and Lebet, 2005] investigated the rotation capacity of slender composite plate girders

under negative moment. They derived a rotation capacity−plate slenderness curve (Figure

3.9) based on experimental and FEM models with cross-sections in Class 4. Considering 63

mrad required rotation as sufficient amount for plastic design and as the limit for Class 1, the

authors extrapolated the data for the other section classes. Experiments with sections in Class

3 and 2 were verified this extension. θav and p' are the rotation capacity and modified plate

slenderness, for the determination of these values see the detailed introduction of Lebet’s

method in the next section. It is important to note that in case of slender (Class 4 and 3)

sections the reference moment which can be maintained during the development of plastic

rotations is 0,9 M el , Rd , 0,9 takes into account the effect of the sequence of the construction in

a simplified manner.

34

Review of Previous Investigations

Figure 3.9: The minimum available rotation capacity (Eq.(3.13)) vs. modified plate

slenderness (Eq.(3.14)) [Lääne and Lebet, 2005].

The first standard, which allowed the yield of the material of bridge structures was the

AASHTO 1973. It contained two provisions to take into account the plastic reserve. First, the

moment resistance of the compact cross-sections was increased to the plastic strength.

Second, a limited 10% redistribution of hogging moment to the sagging region was allowed.

1986 is the year of the introduction of the first comprehensive inelastic design procedures,

called autostress design. This is utilizing enhanced limit states which allow for inelastic load

distribution for continuous structures. Under the autostress approach, the bridge is overloaded

by an initial live loading of the structure. This overload has a prestressing effect on the bridge

inducing stresses over the yield point in the negative moment region and relieving some

residual stresses. The name autostress is derived from automatic load redistribution which

occurs. This was applicable only for highway bridges constructed with compact sections. It

was primary intended to eliminate the need for: (1) additional cover plates on rolled beam

sections and (2) multiple flange thickness transitions in welded beams. Inelastic rating

procedures were proposed in 1993 by Galambos et al. (Inelastic rating procedures for steel

beam and girder bridges), this defines the strength limit state either as the incremental

collapse or as the specified maximum permanent deflection. Shilling et al. (1996) recognized

that this approach is too complicated to apply in everyday design and did not apply to all

possible cross-section configurations. Therefore, they developed a simplified inelastic design

procedure based on the shakedown limit state. Later essentially the main direction of the

research was to provide the engineers an accurate and easy-to-use method. Thanks to this

process the methods are more accurate and the limitations are reduced, the field of

applicability is significantly extended [Barth and White, 2000].

35

Review of Previous Investigations

The most recent design procedure is the rotational compatibility approach [McConelli et al.,

2010], which can be found in the current AASHTO appendix as an alternative inelastic design

method for steel and composite bridges. Basically, this and other standardized methods are

simplified shakedown approaches, which based on the shakedown as ultimate limit state

reduce the design to a moment redistribution. The differences are lying in the accuracy, the

number of assumptions and consequently the limitations. In the following this new rotation

compatibility approach for inelastic design of steel girder bridges is introduced based on the

work of [McConelli et al., 2010].

The basic idea behind it is that the available rotation must be greater than the required one.

Scope of application:

- the moment is redistributed from the interior-pier section;

- not skewed more than 10 degrees from radial;

- cross-sections throughout the unbraced lengths immediately adjacent to interior-pier

sections from which moments are redistributed shall have a specified minimum yield

strength not exceeding 480 MPa (70ksi);

- holes or staggered cross-frames shall not be placed within the tension flange over a

distance of two times the web depth on either side of the interior-pier sections from which

moments are redistributed;

- rule for holes in tension flange of other sections can be found in AASHTO 2010. Article

6.10.1.8;

- the length over which the girder is exempt from satisfying the elastic strength

requirements equals to one unbraced length on each side of the pier;

- there are no section transitions or longitudinal stiffeners within this exempt region;

- shear and bearing stiffness requirements, these are applicable to all I-girders.

The main improvement of this new rotation compatibility approach compared to the previous

methods that it contains no limitations to the cross-section or compression flange bracing

outside the requirements for cross-section without longitudinal stiffeners (6.10.2 section in

AASHTO). Thus, this method is applicable for wider range of bridges.

D

150 (3.2)

tw

36

Review of Previous Investigations

bf

12, 0 (3.3)

2t f

D

bf (3.4)

6

t f 1,1 tw (3.5)

I yc

0,1 10 (3.6)

I yt

Where bf and tf are the width and thickness of the flange, respectively, and Iyc and Iyt are the

moment of inertia of the compression and tension flanges about the vertical axis in the plane

of the web, respectively.

The following flowchart (Figure 3.10) shows the design procedure of a continuous bridge

using the rotation compatibility specifications. The explanation of the variables can be found

after the flowchart and in Figure 3.11.

37

Review of Previous Investigations

Preliminary design or

existing structure.

No All fulfilled?

Yes

determine the maximal internal forces (Mu,). Mu and Mn determined in the same manner as

- Determine section properties, resistances (Mn). for elastic design.

Determine CR using Eq.(3.9) or Eq.(3.10) CR necessary to determine the required

rotation.

No M u (1 RL C R ) M n

RL C R redistributed moment ratio.

requirements (service, fatigue, The same procedures as in the elastic design.

constructibility).

All fulfilled?

No

Yes

Yes

requirements (service, fatigue, The same procedures as in the elastic design.

constructibility).

38

Review of Previous Investigations

As appears from the flowchart this method applies the lower bound (Melan’s) theorem of

shakedown. The applied loads are identical to those used in elastic methods. This method

does not take into account transverse redundancy.

Mn nominal moment capacity;

Mrd redistribution moment, M rd Mu M n ;

MrdL redistribution moment at left end of a span;

MrdR redistribution moment at right end of a span;

u

L

rdR

rdR

rdL

rdL

x

rd

rdL rdR

x

rd(x) = rdL+(rdR -rdL)·L

-n

urd

+n

Figure 3.11: Illustration of the rotation capacity method in respect to internal forces.

39

Review of Previous Investigations

(3.7)

D cp b fc Fyc E max 0, 0.5 Lb rt 30 5

where:

Fyc compression flange yield strength;

E modulus of elasticity;

Dcp web depth in compression when the moment is equal to the plastic moment

capacity;

Lb distance between compression flange bracing locations;

rt radius of gyration of the portion of the cross-section in compression about the

vertical axis.

In new design, it is convenient to take the last term in the equation equal to zero. Since that

term takes into account the effect of the bracing distance. This way it can be seen if it is

possible to redistribute the required amount of moment with the given cross-section.

pR C R ( M rd / M u ) (3.8)

where n 0 1 2 is the number of adjacent interior piers to the examined pier where

moment redistribution is used.

If Dp 0,1 Dt

Mn M p (3.11)

otherwise:

Dp

M n M p 1, 07 0, 7 (3.12)

Dt

6

Hybrid means that the steel section is made up from different class of steels, e.g., S355 flange, S275 web.

40

Review of Previous Investigations

where:

Dp distance from the top of the concrete deck to the neutral axis of the composite section

at the plastic moment;

Dt total depth of the composite section;

Mp plastic moment capacity of the cross-section.

Other specifications for various cases can be found in the standard, but essentially it can be

seen that in case of compact sections the section capacity should be taken as the plastic

resistance.

Noncompact sections

In case of noncompact sections since stress verification is prescribed the capacity can be taken

as the elastic resistance.

It is interesting that a method with very similar concept as the rotational capacity approach

was developed independently by Lebet [Lebet, 2011]. Both based on the comparison of the

required and available rotation of the cross-sections. The main difference is that this based on

the plastic collapse limit state, considering the limited rotation capacity of the section. Since it

uses the default live load level with 1000-year7 return period [EN 1991-2 Table 2.1] it seems

to be reasonable. Nevertheless, the reliability of this method should be verified pondering

subsequent loadings as well. In Lebet’s method, span sections can be loaded up to the plastic

bending resistance and the intermediate support regions up to the limit of the rotation

capacity, θav, that they can offer. This rotation yields to a moment redistribution. The method

is worked-out for slender (Class 3 and 4) sections which are typical in case of composite plate

girder bridges.

The available rotation as mentioned above in Section 3.2.5 was derived based on experimental

and FEM models by Lääne and Lebet (2005). The curve presented in Figure 3.9 can be

described by the following formula:

15, 75

cv

av min p'

2

(3.13)

63 mrad

h 1, 05 f y

2 w 2 p if 0,5

t k E

with p'

w

(3.14)

hw 1, 05 f y

t p if 0,5

w k E

7

Corresponds to ~10% probability of exceedence in 100 years, using extreme distribution. “Briefly, the value of

the return period has been selected in order to limit the probability for any irreversible limit state to be exceeded

during the period of reference and it is rational to think that the loads will increase in the future.” [Calgaro et al.,

2010]

41

Review of Previous Investigations

where:

relative position of the plastic neutral axis, zpl to the bottom flange, to the web height,

z pl hw ;

cv coefficient to take into account the effect of shear force according to Eq.(3.15);

cv 1, 0 if 0, 7 VEd VRd 0,8 (3.15)

method not applicable if VEd VRd 0,8

Another applicability condition beside the maximum shear force is the maximum compression

flange bracing distance in the negative hinge region, expressed by Eq.(3.16), where ic denotes

the radius of gyration.

E

LD 0, 2 ic (3.16)

fy

The overview of the method can be seen in the following flowchart (Figure 3.12). The

flowchart shows solely the check when the traffic load in a position to induce maximum

negative moments. The loading corresponding to the maximum positive moment should be

checked conventionally, using the plastic resistance.

42

Review of Previous Investigations

Preliminary design or

existing structure.

determine the maximal internal forces (MEd,).

- Determine section properties, resistances (MRd).

Eq.(3.15) and for bracing Eq.(3.16)

No All fulfilled?

Yes

No M ref (1, 0 max ) M Ed moment redistribution

max=0,3

Yes

M ar , Ed - moment after

Capacity Demand redistribution, Figure 3.11

Decrease

p

slenderness,

'

Eq.(3.14) M Ed M ar , Ed

hogging area:

M Ed

→θreq,1

No

Determine the rotation capacity, θav av req ,1

req , 2 max

Eq.(3.13) Figure 3.9 Figure 3.13 left chart 0

based on θav=θreq

pier-section ‘plastification’ midspan-section plastification

req ,1 av No

Yes

from charts, θav = θreq = θreq,1+ θreq,2

End Yes No

43

Review of Previous Investigations

The mentioned charts to determine the required rotation and plastification factor for various

spans are available in [Lebet and Nissile, 2010]. It is the designer’s choice whether he or she

wants to utilize the negative or positive rotation capacity (plastic reserve) or both of them.

The flowchart presented in Figure 3.12 shows the design process when the moment is

redistributed form the interior support to span. Moreover, the plastification of the span-section

generates additional rotation demand at the pier-section (θreq,2). The positive bending check

contains the check of the cross-section to Eq.(3.17) and for the maximal moment Eq.(3.18)

where:

M ar , Ed the bending moment at midspan after redistribution for the max negative

loading;

M el , Ed bending moment determined by elastic analysis at midspan for the max negative

loading;

M Ed M pl , Rd (3.18)

The 0,9 multiplier approximately takes into account the effect of the construction method;

applicable when the designer would like to avoid the tedious calculation related to the

accurate consideration of it. The maximum moment redistribution ratio (max) is limited to

0,3, this ensures that the structure remain elastic under the service load (characteristic

combination). In comparison, the AASHTO procedure does not contain such a limitation.

req,1 is the required rotation for the redistribution of the moment from support to span, and

req,2 is the required rotation due the plasticization in span. These values are illustrated in

Figure 3.13 as the function of the span and the amount of redistribution.

44

Review of Previous Investigations

Q·Q·qk Q·Q·qk

G·gc,k G·gc,k

G·ga,k G·ga,k

M -Ed

M -Ed M -r,Ed

M ref M ref

M el,Rd

M pl,Rd

M+r,Ed

req,1 req,2

pl,span

req,1mrad req,2mrad

Plastification ratio

= 0.95 = 0.90

Two-span Continuous = 0.85 = 0.80

bridge bridge

= 0.75 = 0.70

= 0.3

= 0.2

= 0.1

lspan [m] lspan [m]

Figure 3.13: Rotation requirements of the interior pier cross-section [Lebet, 2011].

Lebet (2011) also provides a formula to take into account the contribution of an appropriately

placed longitudinal stiffener to the rotation capacity of the cross-section. In contrast, the

rotation compatibility approach in AASHTO is applicable only for sections without

longitudinal stiffeners.

The stiffener should be placed in an optimal distance, as illustrated in Figure 3.14, from the

bottom flange, h1 0,1 0,3 hw .

45

Review of Previous Investigations

With the application of the stiffener the available rotation can be increased with the following

term:

VEd

av,sup 40 45,5 mrad (3.19)

VRd

It appears to be rather arbitrary since does not contain any information about the stiffener.

46

Bridge Design Problem

As illustrated in previous sections the plastic reserve of bridges is exploitable and significant

compared to the elastic limit. Nevertheless, standards for plastic design of bridges are solely

available in the US. In Europe some progress can be seen in this field, however still not on a

standardized level. Among the Hungarian bridge engineers the elastic methods are solely

applied as well. Based on the American and European results the aim of this thesis is to

investigate the possibility of the inelastic design of bridge structures in the philosophy of

Eurocode. For this purpose, a typical three-span composite plate girder bridge is chosen to be

studied. This highway bridge is located on the M6-M0 motorways in Hungary and designed

by Speciálterv Ltd. according to the Hungarian standard (MSZ Út), following elastic methods.

The bridge is located on the M0-M6 highways in Hungary, denoted as 142/k. The flyover

carries a 3-lane single carriageway highway road over another road. It is a continuous steel-

concrete composite bridge formed by three spans of 30,0 - 40,0 - 30,0 m (Figure 4.1) and with

a 13,47 m wide deck. The cross-section is composed of two constant depth I-girders with a

reinforced concrete slab on top of them, in total about 1,85 m height, illustrated in Figure 4.2.

The distance between the main girders is 7,5 m, they connected in a 5,0 m raster with a cross-

bracing formed of rolled HEA200 sections. The deck is haunched at the top of the girders, its

average thickness is around 28 cm.

47

Bridge Design Problem

The bridge is designed to MSZ Út Hungarian pre-Eurocode national standard. The steel

girders are symmetrical; their geometry is presented in Figure 4.3; the length and color of

each plate are proportional to their real length and thickness, respectively. The asymmetry is

coming from the construction process. The temporary supports were placed asymmetrically

due to geometric restrictions. The strength class of the materials:

– concrete: C30/37

– reinforcement: S500B

– Calculation and comparison of the ultimate load level − assuming sufficient rotation

capacity in the plastic hinge region to reach the desired moment redistribution − for:

– first yield;

– first plastic hinge;

– single girder shakedown;

– system shakedown;

– single girder plastic collapse;

– system plastic collapse.

– Study the effect of the shear force on the above-mentioned ULSs.

– Evaluation the reliability of the examined ultimate limit states.

– Investigation the rotation capacity of the critical cross-sections, structural solutions to

increase the ductility.

– Redesign of the structure and investigation of the economic aspects of it.

Based on the American results presented in Chapter 3 the plastic capacity of composite plate

girders appears an interesting and promising way to obtain structures that are more

economical. Due to the limited available time, this thesis lays emphasis mainly on the

investigation of the theoretically available reserve of a composite girder bridge. I am aware

that there are plenty of other questions to answer, like the residual deflections, possible

mechanisms, limited rotation capacity, etc. These will be mentioned briefly in the related

sections and summarized in the further work chapter. Since the topic is currently an

intensively researched area some of these questions are still not yet fully answered.

48

Global Structural Analysis

The aim of this chapter is to perform the global structural analysis and check the selected

bridge using the Eurocodes and to investigate its plastic capacities. It was designed according

to the Hungarian standard (MSZ); the details of the bridge are given in Section 4.2.

The most important difference between the MSZ and EC standard is that the former adopts

the allowable stress method and limit state concept as well, while the European Norm solely

applies the limit state concept. For this particular bridge the source of the difference is that the

structure was designed by the allowable stress method. Another important dissimilarity is the

level of traffic load, which is about 15% lower for this road line in MSZ (load class “A”).

The following considerations were taken into account during the analysis:

– Where the standard offers the designer options (like how accurately consider the

effective widths for shear-lag), I always chose the possibility which was closer to the

original design, to establish a more or less solid base to the comparison. Nevertheless,

even keeping this in mind due to the sometimes significant differences, the results are

representing rather a qualitative than quantitative comparison.

– Where the Eurocode is used the relevant values are taken as the default recommended

ones (not considering the NAs).

– Since our bridge is a flyover (overpass) which does not serve for pedestrian traffic and

in the original design it was also neglected the pedestrian, cycle load on the sidewalks

not considered to occur simultaneously with the governing traffic load. Moreover,

with disregarding the abnormal loads which require permission, only LM1 load is

considered. Solely the gr1a load group is taken into account in the calculation as

traffic action.

The detailed calculation can be found in Annex A. The documentation is organized in such a

way that it can be read independently from this chapter, this eventuates some redundancy.

The analysis was carried out in a FEM program called midas Civil8. The aim was to choose a

similar modeling level to the original design, to establish a profound base of comparison.

Single-girder beam model was used in the original calculation, since it is a relatively simple

system which does not demand higher modeling level. According to this a grillage model is

used to perform the verification. It can be considered equivalent to the simple, single beam

model applied by the designer. The only difference is the lateral load distribution, which is an

inherent property of the grillage model and can take into account automatically the

8

South-Korean developed FEM software, part of the midas IT’s software package with various analysis and

design features mainly for bridge engineering purposes.

49

Global Structural Analysis

longitudinal change of that function. By the way, this does not make too much difference

since the grillage model verified the lateral distribution used in the simple model.

– Grillage model was chosen, which build up from the main girders, concrete deck, and

cross bracings.

– Every structural element is modeled as beam element following the Bernoulli-Navier

beam theory9.

– The elements are inserted with eccentricity in respect to their centroid, in order to

reach the same level for the top surface of the concrete slab.

– The main girders are beam elements composed of a steel and concrete part, the latter

modeled with its effective width.

– The shear studs are modeled as perfectly rigid connections.

– The fix supports are rigid restraints in respect of the “fixed” degrees of freedom, the

hinges are perfect hinges without rotational stiffness.

– The beams representing the deck are placed at 2,5m distance in longitudinal direction.

The slab’s reinforcement is considered for the calculation of element’s stiffness. Due to the

chosen modeling level the shear lag is taken into account “manually”. The cracking of the

concrete is contemplated in a simplified manner, by neglecting it at both sides of internal piers

in 15% of each span’s length.

The smoothness of the finite element mesh is adequate by inspection, there is a beam element

between every deck-beam element. Therefore, no needs for convergence check. The global

model was verified against various partial models, like simple hand-calculations of a

continuous beam with constant flexural stiffness and other FEM-model, using a single beam

model for particular stages of construction. The results are in good agreement.

9

The analysis was performed by using Timoshenko elements as well, which takes into account the work done by

the shear forces. The results differed less than 0,1%, hence the simpler element was used for the further analyses.

50

Global Structural Analysis

Further details about the calculations can be found on the attached disc storage, it contains the

model files and matlab m-files (executable, input files) as well.

Actions taken into account:

– Shrinkage (S);

– Creep (S);

– Traffic loads (Lt);

– Wind load, with and without traffic;

– Thermal actions (T);

– Construction loads.

The live load’s adjustment factor: qi Qi 1, 0 , this corresponds to a road for which a

heavy industrial international traffic is expected. The traffic load is placed in the most

unfavorable positions using the Moving Load Analysis feature of the software, which loads

the structure based on its influence lines. The consideration of time-dependent effect such as

shrinkage and creep are essential for composite structures and also complicates the analysis.

The software is capable of contemplate the course of time as an additional dimension. These

effects were taken into account by using the software’s special feature, which divides the

design life into time intervals and calculating the time-dependent kinematic loads in every

step and adding to the previous ones while reflecting the effect of boundary, element and/or

load changes. The convergence check of the time-dependent effect calculation was carried out

by modifying the internal step size and convergence limit. The time-course of shrinkage and

creep are taken as recommended in EN 1992-1:2004. These functions depend on many factors

like the type of cement, age at first loading, relative humidity, etc.

– The loads from shrinkage are calculated with using the concrete area of the composite

section. Since the area of the slab is reduced to take into account the effect of shear-

lag, the internal forces from the shrinkage are multiplied by 1,15 to approximate its

real effect. The value was determined to get an upper bound on the primary and

secondary effects in every section. The construction stages were also considered in the

same model. During the construction the structure was propped by one shoring at each

span. The additional dimension is great help, since there is no need to build numerous

models for different construction stages and the effect of varying boundary conditions

and loads can hardly be followed by “hand” using the common Fritz-method.

More comments and details on these loads can be found in the documentation of the static

calculation, Annex A.

Combination factors are summarized in Table 5.1. They highlighted here because they will be

used in the reliability analysis as well.

51

Global Structural Analysis

traffic loads TS 0,75 0,75 0

ULS 0,4 0,4 0

wind forces Fwk

persistent design situation 0,6 0,2 -

execution 0,8 - 0

*

Fw 1,0 0 0

thermal actions Tk 0,63) 0,6 0,5

3)

in most cases it may be reduced to 0 in ultimate limit states EQU, STR and GEO

According to EN 1994-2:2005 5.4.2.5 (2)

Temperature effects may normally be neglected in analysis for the ultimate limit states other

than fatigue, for composite members where all cross-sections are in Class 1 or Class 2 and in

which no allowance for lateral-torsional buckling is necessary.

Permanent Variable

Traffic Thermal Wind

Dead 1 1

Shrinkage Creep Top Bottom With Without

load TS UDL

warmer warmer traffic2 traffic2

LC1 1,1475 1,150 1,000 1,350 1,350 0,900 - - -

LC2 1,350 1,150 1,000 1,013 0,540 0,900 - - -

LC3 1,1475 1,150 1,000 1,350 1,350 - 0,900 - -

LC4 1,350 1,150 1,000 1,013 0,540 - 0,900 - -

LC5 1,1475 1,150 1,000 1,013 0,540 1,500 - - -

LC6 1,1475 1,150 1,000 1,013 0,540 - 1,500 - -

LC7 1,1475 1,150 1,000 1,350 1,350 - - 1,500 -

LC8 1,350 1,150 1,000 - - - - - 1,500

1

contains the primary and secondary effects as well

2

contains the left and right side winds as well in separate combinations

The shrinkage’s partial factor is 1,0; the 1,15 multiplier compensates the reduced concrete

flange due to shear-lag. The governing combination for maximum positive bending is LC1

and for maximum negative bending is LC3. The verification is focused on the ultimate limit

states. As in the original design, for the elastic check to EC also the first yield was used as the

limit state. The corresponding rating and utilization factors are presented in Table 5.3, with

the plastic limit states’ values.

52

Global Structural Analysis

The source of the plastic reserve is in one hand the plastic capacity of the cross-section over

the elastic resistance and on the other hand, the plastic reserve of the structure due to its

redundancy. Every structure has the first type cross-sectional reserve, which can be described

with the shape factor (c) Eq.(5.1).

Wpl

c (5.1)

Wel

where:

The second type of reserve is only exploitable in case of globally statically indeterminate

structures. In most cases the higher degree of redundancy yields to higher reserve.

The restrain of the steel by the concrete and vice versa is established by mechanical

connections, this can be considered as the source of local statically indeterminacy. The strains

cannot develop freely in the concrete part. This induces self-equilibrated stresses at the level

of cross-section. The Eurocode calls this effect primary, and the internal forces form the

statically indeterminacy (global) are called secondary effect. This classification is not

universally accepted, in South Korea − where the midas Civil was developed − both, the

cross-section level and global effects are called secondary, and the fictitious axial force is the

primary. In my judgment, the local and global denotations are more convenient, firstly

because these words contain more information about the actual effects, secondary due to that

the words also refer to the way how to relieve these effects. Reduction of local indeterminacy

for example by plastification leads to the relieve of the self-equilibrated stresses locked into

the structure by the particular restrain. The same is true for the global properties, the release

of the global statically indeterminacy relieves the global residual forces. These are summed

up in Figure 5.2.

53

Global Structural Analysis

Shakedown,

Elastic First hinge

plastic collapse

static static static

plastification plastification plastification

indeterminacy indeterminacy indeterminacy

local

global

self-equilibrated

forces

local

relieved relieved

relieved

global

Figure 5.2: Static indeterminacy and self-equilibrated forces induced by shrinkage, creep

and/or nonlinear temperature difference in respect of various limit states.

The nonlinear temperature difference induces primary (local) stresses due to the difference of

the heat-transfer coefficient and/or thermal inertia of the build-up materials.

The moment diagrams necessary to evaluate the limit-states in the following sections are

presented in Figure 5.3 for t=100 day at the opening time to traffic and in Figure 5.4 for

t=100 years at the end of the design life. The G, Lt, T and S letter indicates the effect of dead

loads, traffic loads, thermal actions and shrinkage and creep, respectively. The maximum

positive bending moment occurs at the opening to the traffic, when the global internal forces

from shrinkage are lower. According to this, the maximal negative bending moment develops

at the end of the design life.

54

Global Structural Analysis

G

8095

7325 7236

Lt

9609

T

S

Figure 5.3: Moment diagrams for one girder at the day of opening to traffic (t=100 days); for

maximal positive moment.

3142 3135 3124 [kNm]

T

S

Figure 5.4: Moment diagrams for one girder (t=100 years), the MG and MLt diagrams are

identical; for maximal negative moment.

In the following, the term of rating factor (RF) and utilization factor (UF) will be used

frequently to measure the performance of the bridge.

RF - rating factor, the multiplier applied to the live load to reach the particular limit state;

The next subsections give details about the particular calculations, the final section

summarizes and compares the results.

55

Global Structural Analysis

The first hinge resistance is obtained by increasing the live load till the formulation of the first

plastic hinge, till reaching the plastic resistance of one section. The basic design inequality

Eq.(2.26) for this particular limit state as follows:

R pl

G G S S Qt Lt 0 Q T (5.2)

R

E E

From this, the multiplier of the traffic load to reach the particular limit state:

R pl R G G S S 0 Q T

RF (5.3)

Qt Lt

The variable S consists of the effect of shrinkage and creep. For this limit state this variable

contains only the global (secondary) effect of these phenomena, because simultaneously with

the plastification of the cross-section the local residual stresses vanish (Figure 5.2).

The critical section for this limit state is the middle point of the internal span, at t=100 days.

Using Eq.(5.3) the rating factor is the following (Annex A):

RF 2, 053

1,35 9609

The utilization factor is critical in section over the pier under negative moment. This is due to

that the traffic and dead load induces maximum moments in different sections.

As mentioned earlier (Section 2.1.2) in case of typical bridges the incremental collapse failure

mode is governing, since the alternating plasticity can be verified by inspection its numerical

check is omitted. The simplified formula derived from Koiter’s theorem (Section 2.1.2) is

used to calculate the rating factor (RF). It should be noted that the obtained load factor is

always greater than or equal to the true load factor. Only if the true collapse mechanism has

found − where the static admissibility is fulfilled and the internal forces do not violate the

plastic criterion − provides the formula the true value. In every other case we are not on the

safe side.

For this bridge there is no difference in the ultimate load capacity between the single-girder

and system shakedown limit states. Because the bridge’s girders are symmetrical and their

moment envelopes are identical. It can be seen from the rating factor formula too, where the

nominator and denominator are increased by two, Eq.(5.6). If we rigorously examine the

question there is a difference, since the same loading is necessary on both girders to induce

their incremental collapse. This requires let’s say 10 subsequent loading cycles on each girder.

This means that for the system incremental collapse twice as many load crossings are

requisite, which has lower probability of occurrence. Therefore, there is a difference on the

56

Global Structural Analysis

ultimate load if we compare their values corresponding to the same failure probability. This is

neglected in this study.

In this case the critical mechanism is likely to be the one illustrated in Figure 5.5. Since the

hinges assumed at locations where most utilized cross-sections are and the structure is more

or less symmetrical, so it is quite safe to take that mechanism as critical. If the side span

sections are more exploited, for example we have a two span bridge, the choose of the correct

mechanism is not so straightforward. The positive hinge is expected to being formed close to

the corresponding plastic collapse hinge (see in the next section).

1 2 3

·

In case of global plastification the stresses from time-dependent actions are relieved. This

considerably simplifies the calculation. It should be noted that this is valid only for the

calculation of ultimate load. The basic design equation for this limit state using Koiter’s

theorem as follows:

G G1 G2 G3 Qt Lmax

t ,1 Lt ,2 Lt ,3

max max

1 (5.4)

R pl ,1 R pl ,2 R pl ,3

R

1 R R pl ,1 R pl ,2 R pl ,3 G G1 G2 G3

RF (5.5)

Qt Lmax

t ,1 Lt ,2 Lt ,3

max max

Substituting the values into the formula (5.5), the rating factor:

1 1, 0 46423 (1) 36401 (2) 46112 (1) 1,148 12023 (1) 8095 (2) 11778 (1)

RF 2, 626

1, 35 7325 (1) 9609 (2) 7236 (1)

The rating factor was determined by Melan’s theorem as well (Section 2.1.2). The basic

concept is that according to the lower bound theorem we are searching for the largest load

factor for which a favorable residual force field still can be found. The favorable means that

adding the residual force field to the maximal forces from external loads − determined on the

elastic structure − the plastic limits are not violated. This is an optimization problem which in

this case with the particular assumptions shrinks to a linear programming problem. It can be

solved by any computational software or even by hand for small tasks. For this example the

Matlab program was used, as expected it yielded to the same result as the kinematic theorem.

57

Global Structural Analysis

For the system shakedown limit the rating factor can be calculated the following way:

girders girders

1 R R i

pl ,1

i i R pl ,2 i i R pl ,3 i G G i

1

i

i G2 i i G3 i

RF i 1

girders

i 1

(5.6)

Qt L i max

t ,1

L

i i max

t ,2

L

i i max

t ,3

i

i 1

The summations to the number of girders are partitioned in such a way to show that the

calculation is equivalent to a single-girder analysis where the corresponding resistances and

effects are summed up. As has already mentioned this gives the same rating factor as the

single-girder incremental collapse analysis.

The following two limit states (single girder and system plastic collapses) are calculated

solely to grasp the ultimate capacity of the structure. As mentioned in Section 2.1.2 and

illustrated in Figure 2.10, since the moving load is significant, the incremental collapse failure

would occur before the plastic collapse. The same collapse mechanism is assumed as in case

of the shakedown analysis.

G gtot 2 lm 2 lm 2 Qt Qsingle lm 2 qsingle lm 2 lm 2

1 (5.7)

R pl ,1 R pl ,2 R pl ,3

R

RF

1 R R pl ,1 R pl ,2 R pl ,3 G gtot 2 lm 2 lm 2 (5.8)

Qt Qsingle lm 2 qsingle lm 2 lm 2

With the actual values the rating factor (see Annex A):

RF 2, 900

1, 35 873, 3 1 40 2 32, 66 1 40 2 40 2

This value was also checked with its dual theorem, the results are in good agreement. There is

about 2% difference between the values. It is addressed to the facts that in the kinematic

theorem the loads were calculated by simply using the midspan lateral load distribution value

and it cannot reflect the effect of construction sequence. The latter is detailed in Section 5.5.

For beams with constant negative and positive ultimate resistance along their length and

loaded with a concentrated force (Q) and with uniformly distributed load (q) the critical

mechanism can be determined by applying the kinematic theorem for a general mechanism

and searching the maxim value of the load.

58

Global Structural Analysis

l

·( l l ·l

Using the kinematic theorem:

(l ) 1 (l ) (l )

l q Q M R M R M R

l 2 l l l

With introducing the ratio of the total distributed load and concentrated force (rq) and the ratio

of negative and positive resistances (rR), moreover with isolation of the expression for q, the

following function can be obtained:

Q M

rq ; rR R

q l MR

M R 1 rR

l

q ( )

l 1 rq

This q() function takes its minimum value at point:

1 rR 1

l (5.9)

rR

With a similar calculation it can be shown that for an internal span the critical positive hinge-

location is in midspan, as expected. This is not only independent of the load ratio but of the

resistance ratio as well. For shakedown the same principle could be applied, however since

that requires the elastic moment envelopes, the calculation is more complicated.

The global mechanism corresponding to the system plastic collapse is illustrated in Figure

5.7.

32

22

12 31

21

11

·

Figure 5.7: System collapse mechanism.

59

Global Structural Analysis

The rating factor can be determined by applying the kinematic theorem to every girder

participates in the mechanism.

RF

1 R R pl ,1 R pl ,2 R pl ,3 G gtot lm 2 lm 2 (5.10)

Qt Qtot lm 2 qtot lm 2 lm 2

With the actual load values:

RF 4,137

1, 35 1200 1 40 2 47 1 40 2 40 2

For this limit state the ~2% difference also observed between the static and kinematic

theorem, the summarizing tables in Section 5.5 contain the lower values, which is in this case

the 4,052 obtained by using the static method.

The results of the previous sections’ calculation are summed up in Table 5.3. The rating

factors denote the multiplier of the traffic load required to reach the particular limit states. It

can be seen from the table that with allowing the formulation of the first plastic hinge ~37%

traffic load increase can be achieved over the first yield. By adopting the incremental collapse

limit state further ~28% increase can be mobilized over the first plastic hinge. The table also

comprises the plastic collapse limit states; these correspond to one load application and

advantageous to access the true capacity of the structure. The utilization factor denotes the

ratio of the effect and resistance at the most loaded section; therefore, calculated only in cases

where the ultimate limit state corresponds to one cross-section. The inverse of the UF for the

first plastic hinge expresses the shape factor. These values are determined considering the

effect of creep, shrinkage and thermal actions as well, where relevant.

Table 5.3: Rating and utilization factors for various limit states.

1

MSZ Út - 0,926 h 1,080

Eurocode elastic 1,496 h 0,863 h 1,159 base base

EN first plastic hinge 2,053 s 0,663 h 1,508 37,21% 30,17% base

EN single girder shakedown 2,626 - - 75,53% - 27,94%

EN system shakedown 2,626 - - 75,53% - 27,94%

EN single girder collapse 2,900 - - 93,85% - 41,28%

EN system collapse 4,052 - - 170,9% - 97,41%

1

the letters 'h' and 's' indicates the critical sections − where the particular limit state and

corresponding measure is governing − hogging and sagging area, respectively

In order to solely show the amount of the plastic reserve the self-equilibrated stresses from

shrinkage, creep and thermal action are detached from the other effects. This way the results

60

Global Structural Analysis

also better comparable to the American results (Table 3.1 and Table 3.2). The results are

presented in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Rating and utilization factors for various limit states without the effect of

shrinkage, creep and thermal action.

MSZ Út - n/a - - -

Eurocode elastic 1,567 s 0,752 s 1,330 base base

EN first plastic hinge 2,090 s 0,612 s 1,634 33,38% 22,88% base

EN single girder shakedown 2,626 67,58% 25,65%

EN system shakedown 2,626 - - 67,58% - 25,65%

EN single girder collapse 2,900 - - 85,07% - 38,76%

EN system collapse 4,052 - - 158,6% - 93,88%

The system collapse ultimate load is rather high. Its rating factor can be regarded as a

theoretical value for two reasons. Firstly, the shakedown limit state will occur before this

could happen in case of moving loads. Secondly, if we assume a static (not moving) load the

rating factor is still unrealistic, since the global mechanism requires so big lateral load

distribution demand that is not likely to have the structure.

In the above calculations the effect of increased shear force due to raised traffic load is not

considered. The bending resistances are calculated with the basic load level corresponding to

RF=1,0.

Since the shear force−moment interaction diagram is not linear it requires an iterative process

to obtain the true rating factor, if one would like to take it into account. In case of global

plastification the shear forces corresponding to the residual moments also should be

considered if they significant. For this particular case the shear forces due to the residual

moment field is negligible. Their magnitude is relatively small compared to the governing

shear force. On the other hand, the bigger value is added to the shear forces from the side span

directions, which are the smaller ones at the pier from the external loads (Figure 5.8).

61

Global Structural Analysis

Vext

r

Vr

Figure 5.8: Illustration of the internal forces from residual moments and external loads.

With the above considerations determined rating factors are presented in Table 5.5. In the

calculation, the actions were taken into account as illustrated in Figure 5.2; therefore, it

should be compared to the values of Table 5.3. In the shear buckling resistance the

contribution of the flanges is neglected (typically relatively small).

Table 5.5: Rating factors determined by considering the effect of increased shear force.

Table

5.3

RF UF 1/UF RF UF RF

- MSZ Út - - h -

- Eurocode elastic 1,496 h 0,863 h 1,159 base base

0,00% EN first plastic hinge 2,053 s 0,709 h 1,410 37,21% 21,72% base

-6,82% EN single girder shakedown 2,447 - - - - 23,71%

-6,82% EN system shakedown 2,447 - - 63,56% - 23,71%

EN single girder

-9,34% 2,629 - - 75,75% - 32,93%

collapse

2

-19,92% EN system collapse 3,245 - - 116,9% - 64,07%

2

the "hinge" is formed when the shear force reached the shear resistance of the pier-section, the load level

corresponds to the shear buckling failure of the web.

The characteristic line of the plastic resistance for the pier-section is illustrated in Figure 5.9.

The blue marks representing the plastic bending resistances at the first-hinge, incremental

collapse, single-girder collapse and system collapse limit states, the grow of the shear force

follows the list. Mpl,Rd,0 represents the plastic resistance without any reduction due to shear

force.

62

Global Structural Analysis

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

M pl . Rd 0.7

M pl . Rd .0 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

VEd VRd

Figure 5.9: The shear−moment interaction curve with the resistances corresponding to

particular limit states.

The value at 1,0 corresponds to the residual resistance of the section without the web (only the

flanges carrying the bending moment), which is fully utilized for shear.

In this case the longitudinal stiffener has a significant role to ensure the shear resistance of the

web. To illustrate this, the rating factors were determined without the stiffeners as well. It is

only an approximate comparison since the lack of the stiffener was taken into account only in

the shear resistance. The results of the calculations presented in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Rating factors determined by considering the effect of increased shear force

without longitudinal stiffener.

Table

5.3

RF UF 1/UF RF UF RF

- MSZ Út - 0,926 h 1,080 - -

- Eurocode elastic 1,496 h 0,863 h 1,159 base base

-23,37% EN first plastic hinge 1,978 h1 0,761 h 1,314 32,21% 13,40% base

-15,21% EN single girder shakedown 2,227 12,57%

-15,21% EN system shakedown 2,227 - - 48,83% - 12,57%

EN single girder

-18,55% 2,362 - - 57,89% 19,43%

collapse

2

-39,66% EN system collapse 2,445 - - 63,44% - 23,62%

1

due to the increased shear force the pier-section became the critical section

2

the "hinge" is formed when the shear force reached the shear resistance of the pier-section the load

level is correspond to the shear buckling failure of the web

From the tables it can be concluded that the effect of shear force should be considered and its

effect greatly depend on the particular structural solution.

63

Global Structural Analysis

5.5. Conclusions

Advantages/ Pros

In many aspects the analysis is considerably simplified. Since for the limit states involve

global plastification the shrinkage, creep and non-uniform thermal actions do not influence

the ultimate load value. Of course, in other limit states they should be considered, but for

dimensioning the sections based on ULS it is a major simplification.

Allowing the formulation of the first plastic hinge the rating factor increased about 30% and

with permitting more hinges and choosing the shakedown as the ultimate limit state,

additionally around 25% increase can be achieved. The American results are in a similar

range. More examples would require to generalize the founding.

The consideration of the sequence of the construction could be neglected also, since the

stresses locked into the steel section can equalize during the plastification process.

Nevertheless, due to the fact that the relative inertia ratios are changing during the

construction and therefore, some loads applied to a “different” structure, there is some effect

of the stages.

The magnitude of this effect was investigated by a simple calculation using the 142/k bridge.

The stages taken into account: the loading of the propped steel girders and the removing of

the shorings after the composite action established. The results are presented in Table 5.7.

step-by-step (accurate) - with subsequent elastic analyses and summing the moments acting

on the steel and composite sections;

uncracked comp. - assuming that the concrete is sound at the given moment level;

Ma, Mc - moments acting on the bare steel and on the composite sections, respectively;

On the left and right part of the table, the maximal negative and positive bending moments are

presented, respectively. In the first rows, the accurate values with direct consideration of the

sequence of the construction can be seen. While in the second rows, the numbers are

determined using only the final, composite structural model considering cracked and sound

concrete deck at the pier region.

64

Global Structural Analysis

step-by-step cracked -3273,8 - 5052,5 -8326 - 558,5 + 4856,3 5415 -

cracked comp. - -8080 -2,96% - 5585 3,13%

step-by-step uncracked -3273,8 - 5721,0 -8995 - 558,5 + 4086,7 4645 -

uncracked comp. - -9042 0,53% - 4631 -0,32%

At the highest negative moment the tensile stress in the concrete is about 32% higher than the

mean value of the tensile strength. Based only on this one example it seems to be reasonable

to apply a 1,05 amplification factor to the moments calculated ignoring the construction

sequence and considering only the composite section. This multiplier should be applied to the

moments carried by the bare steel girders. It can be approximated or without any a priori

knowledge of the construction sequence, the relevant loads could be multiplied with this

factor. As suggested by the results, the multiplier actual value depends on the degree of

relative inertia change, more examples would be needed to generalize the results.

Disadvantages/ Contras

The increased deflections due to the residual forces may govern the design, but certainly

demand more calculation. The rotation at the hinge locations could induce serviceability

problems, like extensive crack width.

There is not too much existing structure designed applying plastic principles, no real full-scale

real life verification.

The principles of plasticity of bars have to be acquired, which requires additional time and

work. This point can be counted as an advantage as well, since this knowledge places in wider

perspective the behavior of the structures. Moreover, even if it does not applied in the design

the engineer can fully aware and asses the ultimate capacity of the structure.

In this chapter, based on an example, it was illustrated that with plastic design principles

significant, hitherto ignored reserves are mobilizable. The source of this reserve on one hand

is that with allowing local and global plastification some internal forces − to which the

elastically designed structures are subjected − relieve. The more significant contributor

however, is simply the local and global plastic reserve. For this particular structure the former

yields to 33% rating factor increase over the elastic, first yield limit. Furthermore, the RF

corresponding to the incremental collapse limit-state is 25% higher than that of the first hinge.

It was also shown that the shear forces could have considerable effect on the ultimate capacity

of the structure. The structural solutions introduced in Chapter 6 offer some alternative ways

to increase the shear resistance of the web or even fully restrain the buckling of it in order to

reduce this effect.

65

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

In the previous section it is assumed that the sections have the required rotation capacity to

shake down or to maintain plastic moment till the formulation of all hinges. In reality, the

sections’ rotation capacity is limited by stability loss of its various parts. This chapter deals

with solutions to issues which are restricting the global plastic performance of bridges.

Generally, the bridges, which are allowed to enter the inelastic range do not differ

significantly from the elastically designed ones. The main distinctness is in the hogging

moment area. Structures with elastically designed sections also have some reserves over the

first yield. Moreover, with relative minor reinforcing it can be made adequate to exploit more

plastic resources.

The global stability problem − lateral torsional buckling − can be prevented by sufficient

bracing. In most cases the plastically designed bridges do not require more cross-bracing than

the conventionally designed ones, only the rearrangement of them [Barth and White, 2000].

To avoid this failure mode the American and Swiss methods also contain provisions, these are

expounded in Section 3.3. The other issue is the local ductility. This cannot be solved as easily

as the global stability question. This chapter focuses on the local, cross-sectional level

problem: how to ensure the section to be able to undergo plastic rotations. One approach is to

“upgrade” the conventional sections by applying more stocky plates or the second one is to

somehow increase the ductility of the sections by changing their build-up. The first approach

would require considerable increase of the plates’ thickness in order to reach the 2nd or 1st

Class. Based on many research the second approach seems to be more practical and feasible.

As mentioned before the sections in sagging zone are not susceptible to local buckling, since

typically almost the entire steel section is under tension due to the large concrete flange.

Nevertheless, there is one problem related to the positive moment region which should be

examined. Namely, the locked-in stresses of the steel member due to the construction process.

The neutral axis of the before-composite section is somewhere in the mid of the web and the

composite plastic neutral axis (PNA) is typically in the concrete or in the upper flange of the

steel section. During the plastification of the section the neutral axis (NA) converges to the

PNA. Before reaching the “safe” PNA the steel web should be checked against plate buckling.

Austrian researchers have studied this for slender plate girders reinforced by longitudinal

stiffeners using GMNI analysis. They found that the utilization of nearly the full plastic

moment capacity of the composite section is possible, also for composite sections with

slender webs and slender longitudinal stiffener that are highly stressed and susceptible to local

buckling due to preloads acting on the structural steel section [Unterweger et al., 2011].

The rotation capacity of sections in hogging area is the key question, since this determines the

amount of redistribution in plastic design. In the following some ingenious solutions are being

presented, how to economically solve this ductility problem without significantly increase the

amount of structural steel. These solutions can be used during either the design of new

structures or reinforcing existing ones. The used publications are dealing with innovative

solutions and dominantly applying the concept of elastic design. Herein the ones which are

66

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

relevant to plastic design are introduced; emphasizing the parts which are important to this

study.

The strength of the steel compared to the concrete’s compression strength is high. Therefore,

it is applied with relatively small sectional dimensions. Under tension this can be fully

utilized, however in compression these slender parts are susceptible to buckling. By filling or

encasing the steel its stability loss is prevented and can be considered automatically as Class 1

section. Moreover, there is no need for additional stiffeners and the costly and labor-intensive

weldings can be avoided. Considering the distribution of the costs of typical composite plate

girders (Figure 2.1) this has a significant economic impact.

The CFT girder bridges are great examples how to reduce the fabrication costs. There is fewer

welding required to assembly the section and the stiffeners can be entirely avoided. Currently,

the advantages of this structure type are mainly utilized/mobilized in the field of railway

bridges, where the stiffness requirements are stricter. One built railway bridge from Japan is

illustrated in Figure 6.1 and in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.1: Illustration of the bullet train bridge [Nakamura et al., 2002].

Albeit the tubular form does not follow the mechanical demand as the I-shape, it is superior in

many aspects. In the following, based on [Nakamura et al., 2002] research, the benefits of the

structure are presented.

Figure 6.2: Concrete filled tubular girder bridge on the Japanese Shinkansen railway line,

finished in 2000 [Nakamura et al., 2002].

67

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

The resistance of a particular zone can be increased with higher strength filler material as in

case of the hogging region (Figure 6.1). In order to reduce the self-weight, air mortar filling

was used in the sagging region. One important finding was that the concrete filling and steel

tube are acting as an integral section without any additional mechanical connector. Hence, the

cost of welding shear connectors can be avoided as well (inside the tube).

In respect to plastic design probably the most important results are presented in Figure 6.3.

The researchers studied only the filled tubular sections without the concrete flange. The

strength and ductility10 of the sections are increased significantly due to the filling.

Figure 6.3: Test specimens and load−deflection curves [Nakamura et al., 2002].

Moreover, the researchers have found that the noise and vibration generated by the filled

tubes are considerably favorable than that of the conventional I-girders. In the particular

project steel fibers were mixed to the concrete slab in the negative moment region to

minimize the cracks and to increase ductility. The area of fiber-reinforced concretes (FRC) is

extensively researched and its superior properties are well-proven. It should be considered to

apply in the hogging region in case of plastic design as well, where the additional rotations

demand more ductility.

Another possible solution − similar to the CFT girder − is the concrete filled box birder

illustrated in Figure 6.4.

10

Herein the term ductility refers to the area under the M−θ curve.

68

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

Figure 6.4: Illustration of a CF steel box-girder bridge [Nakamura and Morishita, 2008]

The arrangement was studied by Nakamura and Moroshita for fully, partially filled and void

box girders. The main conclusions relevant to plastic design are as follow:

– the steel plates and the filler concrete behave as one piece, and no shear connector is

necessary at the interface;

– the ultimate bending moment of the fully concrete-filled girder was 40% larger than

that of the steel girder model; the ductility11 also increased about 8 times;

– the half concrete-filled model showed that the ultimate bending strength was 25%

larger than the steel box girder and the ductility was over 6,5 times larger;

– the half concrete-filled model without vertical stiffeners had the same ultimate

bending strength as that of the model with vertical stiffeners, but its ductility was

about half;

– the authors worked out a simple calculation method, which was in good agreement

with the test results [Nakamura and Morishita, 2008].

ே

*to the experiments, mortar with compression strength 30 was used.

మ

Moreover, trial designs were conducted on a three-span girder bridge with spans 65 x 85 x

65m. These showed that the estimated construction cost of the narrow-width partially concrete

filled steel box girder is 10% lower than that of narrow-width steel box-girder and 19% lower

than that of normal-width box girder bridge. The calculation covers only the cost of the

superstructure. Additionally, in case of concrete filled sections the stress concentrations are

decreased therefore the risk of fatigue is reduced. Special attention should be paid to avoid the

corrosion and fatigue cracks inside the tube, since they cannot be discovered by inspection

and can be repaired only by removing the filling.

In this chapter the properties of partially concrete encased rolled and welded girders are

introduced (Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6).

11

The ductility now - according to the authors - measured by the ratio of the ultimate- and yield curvatures.

69

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

Figure 6.5: Partially encased rolled H-girder bridge [Nakamura et al., 2002].

Japanese researchers examined the potential of this structural solution by using rolled H-

girders with tensile strength 500MPa and 900mm maximum height, illustrated in Figure 6.5.

The hogging area is strengthened by steel and reinforced concrete (SRC). They concluded the

following:

– bridges composed of rolled girder require minimal amount of welding;

– the web is compact, not susceptible to plate buckling, thus there is no need for

expensive welding of stiffeners;

– the sections available from a discrete range, with more limitations than the welded

ones;

– in the zone with concrete encasement the ductility of the section is significantly

increases, due to the confinement of the web;

– the ultimate resistance of the SRC section is 1,5 times higher than that of the bare H-

girder, due to the additional concrete and the restrained web;

– the feasible span with the maximum height girder, concrete filling, continuous global

structural model and using the plastic sectional resistance12 can remarkably extended

up to 50 m over the previously typical simply supported, elastically designed 25 m;

– structures with rolled girders can be built with very low structural depth (~ L/35);

– the bridges are considerably stiff, the maximum deflection from the live load is only

the half of the limit value;

– since the H-girder has a low web height and the slab is relatively stiff, steel cross-

beams are eliminated by assuming that the concrete slab could contribute as cross-

beams;

– due to there is no cross-bracing, a potentially fatigue hot spot is removed from the

structure [Nakamura et al., 2002].

The same principles could be applied to welded sections. The plate girder bridges are

typically heavily stiffened in the internal pier location due to the concentrate force application

from the bearing and the high internal forces. The required horizontal and longitudinal

12

The Japanese standard does not allow the plastification of the section, in the framework of Eurocodes this

reserve is exploitable.

70

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

stiffeners can be avoided by the concrete filling. Steel bars are welded vertically to connect

both flanges and steel bars are also set horizontally to restrain the filled concrete from falling

off (Figure 6.6).

[Nakamura et al., 2002].

In this case experiments were also carried out with encased and void steel girders. The

arrangement and results are summarized in Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7: Experimental arrangements and results of the bending (top) and shear (bottom)

tests [Nakamura et al., 2002].

The increase of the moment and shear capacity is remarkable. This is because the filled

concrete not only contributing to the bending strength but preventing local buckling of

compressive flanges as well. The ductility increases considerably too, moreover the flexural

stiffness is also higher in case of the encased specimens.

These tests showed that the partially concrete filled I-girder has superb bending and shear

strength. As the structural detail is simple and the erection procedure is easy, this seems to be

71

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

feasible and practical. This method is useful not only for newly constructed bridges but also

for strengthening and repairing the existing plate girders.

Double composite sections are composed with an additional bottom concrete flange. The idea

is not new, nevertheless it is not widely used in practice, albeit it has numerous advantages.

The first such structure the Ciérvana bridge was built in Basque Country, Spain in 1978 [Sen

and Stroh, 2010].

– increases span lengths to values which were previously the domain of steel bridges

with orthotropic plates, arch bridges or cable-stayed bridges;

– lower costs deriving from the use of concrete instead of steel and reinforcement

instead of prestressing, which may be a decisive factor in favor of construct a steel

composite bridge, especially in developing countries (Table 6.1);

– due to the closed section the torsional stiffness is significantly increased, it yields to

favorable lateral load distribution;

– enables acceptable deformation in railway bridges to be achieved economically with

the concrete bottom slab;

– it fits well to the advance of the rapid trains and the increased stiffness requirements,

also could be used to reinforce existing structures;

– thick on-site welds are avoided, with their corresponding residual stresses and

deformations;

– instability problems in the ultimate limit state are avoided, not only the bottom flanges

but the webs are compact as well due to the low position of neutral axis at the ultimate

limit state [Brozetti, 2000; Saul, 2000; Kim and Shim, 2009].

Table 6.1: Stiffness and costs compared for steel and concrete for an arbitrary normal

force of 100 MN [Saul, 2000].

72

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

In order to show the effect of the additional bottom concrete flange, the sectional properties of

the hogging zone of the 142/k bridge were calculated with and without the second flange.

1,5% rebar ratio was assumed in the bottom concrete slab, which width is also reduced due to

shear lag. The sections are illustrated in Figure 6.8.

4815 4815

2407,5 2407,5 2407,5 2407,5

292,3

100

100

1830

1830

250

2500

The results of the calculation are summarized in Table 6.2. One important advantage of the

bottom flange that it lowers the neutral axis in such extent that the web falls into Class 1, thus

the composite section is in Class 1 and fulfills the plastic design criteria. Therefore, no

additional longitudinal stiffener is required like in case of the single flange section.

resistances action action

1

Height of elastic NA [mm] 1074,9 708,6 -34,08%

Height of plastic NA1 [mm] 1444,6 605,3 -58,10%

Inertia about NA [cm4] 1,185E+07 1,682E+07 41,97%

Elastic modulus, top flange [cm3] 1,569E+05 1,500E+05 -4,40%

Elastic modulus, bottom flange [cm3] 1,102E+05 2,374E+05 115,34%

Elastic resistance2 [MNm] 35,693 44,500 24,67%

Plastic resistance [MNm] 46,112 58,192 26,20%

1

from the very bottom surface, for the composite section

2

depends on the sequence of construction

It should be noted that solely the single flange girder without the stiffener would have smaller

plastic resistance, due to the reduced web. These results are showing the same trend as

Cornejo and Raoul’s calculation. They also investigated the effect of the second concrete

flange for a particular girder bridge. They have found that even with halving the thickness of

the bottom flange and applying a 50 cm thick concrete bottom flange the plastic resistance is

increased by 30,6% over the conventional one’s. They concluded that significant strength and

73

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

stiffness increase can be achieved while reducing the amount of structural steel [Cornejo and

Raoul, 2010].

In my B.Sc. final project, I compared double and single composite alternatives for a railway

bridge formed by three spans 45,0−45,0−22,9 m. Around 7,5% structural steel saving could

be materialized over the conventional plate girder solution while providing the same

maximum deflection [Rózsás, 2010].

A twin girder double composite bridge’s cross-sections are illustrated in Figure 6.9. The shear

connection is solved with standing and laying studs. Kim and Shim Korean researchers

investigated its ultimate behavior with advanced FEM analysis. For the particular

arrangement they did not observe any local buckling They also stated that the flexural

strength of the double composite section can be evaluated by rigid-plastic analysis when the

full shear connection and the compact section requirements are achieved [Kim and Shim,

2009].

Figure 6.9: Cross-sections of the double composite bridge; a) sagging region; b) hogging

region [Kim and Shim, 2009].

The solution is advantageous for bridges in middle and longer span range as well. For the

former constant structural depth with twin plate girder is typical while for the latter, due to

economic reasons, tapered sections are applied. One long-span example with varying

structural depth is presented in Figure 6.10. The increased stiffness and load bearing capacity

are mainly utilized for railway bridges.

74

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

Figure 6.10: Double composite railway bridge in Nantenbach over the river Maine, Germany

[Saul, 2000].

Iranian researcher Vasseghi proposed and investigated two arrangements to enhance slender

(for the classification see Figure 3.8) sections with plastic capacity. These are illustrated in

Figure 6.11. He examined these reinforcing methods especially to improve the performance

of continuous composite plate girder bridges. His advocated aim was to enhance the

noncompact, slender sections with ductility while sustaining the maximum moment level.

This goal was achieved by a daedal solution: bolting plates to the compressed part of the web.

These elements are providing elastic support and bracing the web against local buckling, thus

changing the failure mechanism and allows the section to formulate a plastic hinge in it.

Figure 6.11: Bracing of the web with bolted plate (left) and with bolted stiffeners (right)

[Vasseghi, 2009].

75

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

The main advantage of the bolted reinforcement over welded stiffeners is coming from the

fact that the plates are not rigidly connected to the web. Therefore, when the structure

undergoes deformations there are reduced/limited stresses developing in the plates. Due to the

manner of the connection the bolted bracing does not yield while the main-section already

reached the plastic state. This way the plates provide more effective restrains of the web than

the welded stiffeners. This connection can be achieved by oversized holes for bolts,

nevertheless some axial force will develop in the elements due to the friction between the

interfaces (this can be reduced by treating the surfaces) and to the limited size of the holes.

Actually, the design formulas are constructed in order to ensure the adequate bracing of the

web while taking into account the axial force and therefore the buckling of the plates. One

interesting consequence of this bracing method is that the reinforcing element may be made of

any kind of engineering material, e.g., timber, steel. To investigate the behavior of the

bracings nonlinear finite element analyses were carried out. The basic model and section

dimensions are illustrated in Figure 6.12.

Figure 6.12: The FEM model arrangement and geometry [Vasseghi, 2009].

The performances of various bracings based on FEM analyses compared to the unbraced,

slender section are presented in Figure 6.13. The numbers after the material are the thickness

and length of the element, respectively.

76

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

Figure 6.13:Moment−deflection curves for various reinforcing and the behavior of the

slender section with (left) and without (right) additional bracing [Vasseghi, 2009].

As can be seen in Figure 6.13, the plates raised the performance of the section to the level of

the compact section, sometimes even increased over that. The bottom images of Figure 6.13

also illustrate how the structural behavior has changed. Without bracing the local buckling of

the web was followed by the crippling of the flange into the web, since it has lost its support.

With bracing, because the web-buckling is prevented, the section can develop higher

resistance and more importantly can sustain it in the realm of bigger deformations. Thus

allowing the second hinge to form in midspan. The optimal location of the bracing is 0,2∙hw

from the compression flange [Vasseghi, 2009].

Vasseghi also proposed formulas to design and verify the bracing, derived from basic

mechanical considerations. These equations for bolted plates and bolted stiffeners can be

found in the following publication [Vasseghi, 2009].

The advantages of the proposed method over applying compact sections or welded stiffeners

according to Vasseghi are the following:

– it does not require any welding and could be used for improving existing structures as

well;

– it does not change the inertia ratios along the structure like the welded stiffener,

therefore the moment distribution is the same as without the bracing;

77

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

– the reinforcement is localized near the interior supports and the associated fabrication

work is not very costly;

– the proposed method improves the fatigue performance of girders near interior

supports because the bracing elements greatly reduce web out of plane deflection at

service load. This reduces the possibility of fatigue cracking due to oil canning of the

web. The bolted connections of the bracing elements also have a better fatigue

performance than the welded ones mainly because they do not contain problematic

weld details. The bolt holes in the web are in the compression zone and are generally

at locations where stress due to service load is not very high. These holes are not

expected to cause significant fatigue problem [Vasseghi, 2009].

The reinforcing plates are placed in the compression zone, where no additional requirements

for the holes prescribed by the AASHTO rotation compatibility method.

Based on the presented results it can be concluded that with using bolted bracing the strength

and ductility of slender sections can be significantly increased. With relatively minor

additional cost the cross-section can be upgraded to compact class which plastic reserves are

exploitable.

By welding longitudinal stiffeners − with appropriate stiffness − to the web it can be divided

into smaller panels, which have higher resistance against local buckling. Therefore, the class

of the section can be raised. Vasseghi’s research has shown that in many cases the bolted

plates are superior to the welded stiffeners. Unlike the bolted bracing the welded stiffeners are

rigidly working together with the section, hence they go under plastic strains as well. The

global buckling (Figure 6.14) of the stiffened plate also should be considered. This solution is

more susceptible to this failure more than the bolted bracing since the stiffeners are subjected

to the same loading as the section.

Figure 6.14: Global (left) and local (right) buckling of the stiffened web, the two thicker lines

represent the webs of the trapezoidal stiffener (EBPlate13).

The EN 1993-5 contains comprehensive provisions and methods how to handle these kinds of

structures. Lääne and Lebet (2005) not only showed that the welded longitudinal stiffener can

13

Freeware software developed by CTICM with partial funding from the European Research Fund for Coal and

Steel (RFCS). It assesses the critical stresses associated to the elastic buckling of plates loaded in their plan.

78

Structural Solutions to Meet the Ductility Demand

increase the section’s rotational capacity but also proposed a formula to determine it,

Eq.(3.19).

6.4. Conclusions

This chapter introduced some conventional and innovative solutions, which can enhance the

composite sections in the negative bending region with significant ductility. This increased

rotational capacity is essential for plastic design, since it increases the ultimate load of the

structure. Nevertheless, many methods are available only for the welded longitudinal

stiffeners are formulas attainable to assess its contribution to the rotational capacity. The

performance of these solutions in respect to rotation capacity-increase requires further

research.

79

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

The reliability analysis of the same structure was also carried out in order to investigate

whether the particular limit states with the default partial factors fulfill the prescribed safety

level or not. Herein, only the principles, main results and conclusions are presented. For

further details, see Annex C – Reliability Analysis.

The reliability analysis was elaborated in conformity with Eurocodes. FORM and SORM

methods were used to obtain the reliability indices, and then they were compared to the target

value prescribed by the standard.

Basic variables:

- Actions (E)

- Resistances (R)

- Geometric properties (a)

By way of introduction, it should be noted that there are no clear, solid guidelines how to

perform reliability analysis and assume some basic input variables. It appears that the results

of any reliability study depend significantly on the assumed theoretical models used to

describe the basic variables. Moreover, these models are not yet unified and have not been

used systematically [Gulvanessian et al., 2002].

One of the fundamental questions in reliability analysis is the appropriate choice of the

probability distribution function (PDF). Many recommendations can be found in the literature

and in standards as well. Recommendations by EN 1990:2001 Annex C6:

– Lognormal or Weibull distributions have usually been used for material and structural

resistance parameters and model uncertainties;

– Normal distributions have usually been used for self-weight;

– For simplicity, when considering non-fatigue verifications, Normal distributions have

been used for variable actions. Extreme value distributions would be more appropriate.

These provisions were adopted in the current reliability analysis. The target reliability of a

structure depends on their importance and on the consequences of its failure. Reliability

classes in the European Norm are presented in Table 7.1.

80

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

Consequence Reliability

Description Related to Consequence

Class Class

Low consequence for loss of human life; economic,

CC1 RC1

social, or environmental consequences small or negligible

CC2 RC2

social, or environmental consequences considerable

CC3 RC3

economic, social, or environmental concerns

The base of the Eurocode reliability management is that it prescribes a yearly safety level for

every consequence class. Regardless of the design life, this annual probability of failure

should be ensured. This required safety is expressed by the reliability index. This is 4,70 for

buildings and 4,75 for bridges in CC2 class in respect to one year, according to the standard

and the corresponding literature. This 0,05 difference means that the probability of failure is

1,30 times higher in case of buildings. Handling the yearly failures as independent events the

reliability index for arbitrary design life can be determined by the following equation:

n 1

n

(7.1)

where:

Using Eq.(7.1) the reliability index for a bridge with 100-year design life is:

100 1 4, 75

100

3, 715 .

Hereinafter, this will be used as the target value in the reliability analysis.

The reliability indices to Eurocode and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification are

summarized in Table 7.2 for different design lives and consequence classes.

81

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

Table 7.2: Inherent probabilities of failure (PF) and corresponding reliability indices

(ß).[Hida et al., 2010].

Code

1 50 75 100 120

1,00E-06 5,00E-05 7,50E-05 1,00E-04 1,20E-04

CC2

4,75 3,89 3,79 3,72 3,67

Eurocode

1,00E-07 5,00E-06 7,50E-06 1,00E-05 1,20E-05

CC3

5,20 4,42 4,33 4,26 4,22

Typical 2,67E-06 1,33E-04 2,00E-04 2,67E-04 3,20E-04

bridges 4,55 3,65 3,50 3,46 3,41

LRFD

Important 9,60E-06 4,80E-05 7,20E-05 9,60E-05 1,15E-04

bridges 4,76 3,90 3,80 3,73 3,68

The typical design life for bridges in Hungary, USA and UK are 100, 75 and 120 years

respectively. From Table 7.2 it can be seen that the CC2 consequence class can be classified

as an important bridge according to LRFD.

The reliability analysis is elaborated in a simplified manner. The first major simplification is

that the time is taken into account indirectly, by using combination factors to model the

simultaneous occurrence of actions. The second is that the variation of the geometry is

considered only on the resistance side, or it can be interpreted that its effect on the global

behavior is assumed negligible. In order to take into account this effect a global Monte Carlo

simulation would have had to be carried out and connect the finite element analysis with the

reliability calculation. By neglecting the geometry’s variation on the effect side and taking

into account the time indirectly the complexity of the model is reducing substantially.

Because the effect of shear force significantly complicates the calculation, the reliability

indices determined assuming the same plastic moment resistance regardless of the level of

shear force.

If we have the input variables − means () and standard deviations () − the calculation is

rather straightforward, as presented in Section 2.2.2. Unfortunately, no unambiguous

recommendations can be found in the literature (according to my knowledge) how to assume

these values. This seems to be reasonable since plenty of factors influence these actions.

Based on some publications related to buildings (50 years design life) [Gulvanessian and

Holický, 2005; Honfi and Mårtensson, 2009] and comparing the values to the American

reliability analysis conducted by Barker and Zacher (1997), moreover, with basic assumptions

the coefficient of variations and mean values were determined. The values are slightly

modified in order to reach the Eurocode prescribed safety level (= 3,715). In my judgment,

this has no significant effect and the main emphasis is on the comparison of different limit

82

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

states not on the actual absolute numeric values14. In my view for this purpose, assumptions

close to literature values are satisfactory, and the results should be handled as qualitative

rather than quantitative measures.

The coefficient of variations for variables are taken from numerous publications [Sedlacek;

Sørensen; Gulvanessian and Holický, 2005; Honfi and Mårtensson, 2009].

The variables in the reliability analysis are inherently time-dependent. It was transformed to a

time-invariant problem by using Turkstra’s rule.

max( E1 ) E2

Emax,T max (7.2)

E1 max( E2 )

where:

Emax,T the maximum value of the combined effect in the reference period T;

situations taken as the mean value of the action [Ghosn et al., 2003].

The Eurocode uses the same combination rule for design situations. Since the above definition

refers to the accompanying action as mean value, and the EN forms this with the

combination factor, the actions’ mean values are determined using this multiplier. The

mean values approximated this way are in good agreement with numbers found in the

literature.

It should be noted that this rule is considered over-simplification by some authors and often

yields to unconservative result [Melchers, 1999]. Nevertheless, in this study this method is

applied since in many papers, dealing with reliability analysis this method can be found and

the following publications are also recommending to EC reliability analysis [ISO 2394, 1998;

JCSS Probabilistic Model Code, 2000].

The effect of traffic load is significantly higher than the thermal effect; therefore, only the

preceding will be used as a leading action (corresponds to the partial factor based design).

values and coefficient of variations are summarized in Table 7.3.

14

EN 1990:2001 Annex B6: The ‘probability of failure’ and its corresponding reliability index are only notional

values that do not necessarily represent the actual failure rates but are used as operational values for code

calibration purposes and comparison of reliability levels of structures.

83

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

coefficient

partial distribution of

mean () variation

factor type

(ν)

Resistance/material

Concrete (fc) 1,50 LN 15,00%

Reinforcing steel (fs) 1,15 LN 8,00%

1

Resistance (R) 1,00 2,48%2

Uncertainty (ΘR) ‐ LN 1,00 4,00%

Geometry3

Concrete (ac) - N 5,00%

Reinforcement (as) - N 5,00%

Structural steel (aa) ‐ N 3,00%

Effect/action

Permanent actions

Dead load (D) 1,1475 N (1-1,645∙D)·Dk 8,00%

Shrinkage, creep (S) 1,00 N 1,0∙Sk 0,00%

Variable actions

Traffic 100-year (L) 1,35 GU 0,75∙Qk 0,4∙qk 20,00%

Thermal 100-year (T) 1,50 GU 0,6∙Tk 30,00%

Thermal 1-2-year (Ta) - GU 0,5∙Tk 50,00%

Uncertainty (ΘE) - LN 1,00 5,00%

LN - lognormal; N - normal; GU - Gumbel distribution

The variation of the structural steel strength (fa) is taken as 0, since its partial factor is 1,0.

1

the distribution is generated by Monte Carlo simulation thus the distribution cannot be classified

as a pure type (approximately lognormal)

2

the result of the input variables uncertainty, therefore slightly differs from section to section

3

the uncertainties from geometry are taken into account only on the resistance's side

The mean value of the thermal action for the shorter reference period is used as an

accompanying action.

In conformity with Eurocode, the partial factors comprise two sources of uncertainty. For

instance, the variation of the action itself and the uncertainty of the model established to

represent the action. The unified partial factor is actually a simplification, in a more

sophisticated calculation the particular partial factors should be applied separately. These

uncertainties on both the resistance (ΘR) and effect side (ΘE) are also indicated in Table 7.3.

In case of many variables, non-normal distributions and correlation between these variables

the “hand-calculation” becomes tedious and time consuming. Therefore, an open-source

84

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

Matlab toolbox called FERUM15 was used to carry out the analysis. It has many options such

as FORM, SORM and simulation techniques.

The program was tested with basic two-variable problems and with the results found in the

literature from [Barker and Zacher, 1997]. In Annex C, for the first hinge limit state the “hand-

calculated” values are compared to ones provided by FERUM. The results are in excellent

agreement. For first approximation, FORM method was used, and then SORM was applied to

obtain a more accurate result.

The geometry and material properties are considered solely as elementary variables, which

used to produce compound variables like the cross-section resistance. The variation of the

elastic modulus is taken into account through the variation of the mean value of the concrete’s

compression strength, this affects only the elastic resistance.

The resistances are determined by Monte Carlo simulation, with geometry and strength as

elementary variables. In geometrical deviation of plates only the variations of the thicknesses

are considered. The result one of the Monte Carlo simulations for the plastic resistance of

midspan section is presented in Figure 7.1. With increasing the “population size” the

histogram approaches to a lognormal distribution.

0.0005

0.0004

frequency [-]

0.0003

0.0002

0.0001

0

36000 38000 40000

resistance [kNm]

Figure 7.1: The distribution of the plastic moment resistance of the midspan section with a

10’000 elements sample.

The mean values and standard deviations obtained from the simulations were used as input

data for the reliability analysis.

To get authentic values for further calculation an approximate convergence analysis was

carried out. In Figure 7.2 the results of one simulation for each sample size are presented, this

makes possible a rough estimation of the effect of the number of generated elements.

15

The development of FERUM (Finite Element Reliability Using Matlab®) as an open-source Matlab® toolbox

was initiated in 1999 under Armen Der Kiureghian’s leadership at the University of California at Berkeley

(UCB). This general-purpose structural reliability code was developed and maintained by Terje Haukaas until

2003, with the contributions of many researchers at UCB [FERUM].

85

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

38000 950

standard deviation 945

37950

mean 940

37900

MplRd,neg [kNm]

935

37850 930

925

37800 920

37750 915

910

37700

905

37650 900

10 100 1000 10000 100000

log(n) - sample size

Figure 7.2: Convergence of the Monte Carlo method with various “population sizes”.

The coefficient of variation of the mean and standard deviation was estimated with a 10-

element sample for each “population size”. This is still an approximate check but more

sophisticated than the previous one. The results presented in Figure 7.3.

18,0%

16,0% standard deviation

Coefficient of variation

14,0% mean

12,0%

10,0%

8,0%

6,0%

4,0%

2,0%

0,0%

10 100 1000 10000 100000

log(n) - sample size

Figure 7.3: Coefficient of variation of the mean and standard deviation of the positive plastic

resistance.

For the hogging area and elastic resistances the same trend was observed as illustrated above.

Based on the results population size 10’000 was chosen for the further calculations.

The reliability of a particular limit state is worth examining only if we are on the failure line

with factored variables (Rd=Ed). This can be achieved by scaling the live load by rating

factors determined in Section 5.2 or by scaling the resistances to get RF=1,0 while keeping

the live load at the same level.

86

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

It can be considered as the deficient bridge subjected to an increased traffic load scenario. The

multiplier applied to the live load to reach the failure point is the rating factor.

It can be considered as the new bridge design scenario. It assumed that the scaling is done

such a way that the inertia ratios do not change. Therefore, the moment envelopes determined

on the original structure can be used. The decrease of the dead load due to section’s

dimension change is estimated as minor and neglected. Nevertheless, it is a safe side

approximation. If two or more sections involved in the limit state equation their resistances

scaled keeping their original ratio.

The same equations are used as limit state functions (g) which were used for the calculation of

ultimate load capacity (design equations) in Section 5.2. The only difference that the variables

are represented with their mean values and therefore, they are not multiplied by partial

factors. The general form of this expression illustrated by Eq.(7.3).

g X R X E ( X) R R0 X R E0 ( X) (7.3)

(7.4)

E G1,m G2,m G3,m L1,max

m L2, m L3, m

max max

Different limit-states may have different governing load combination than that of the elastic,

it should be checked every time. In this particular case, the load combination with reduced

dead load and leading traffic accompanied with thermal action was the governing load

combination in every case.

This section summarizes the safety level of the studied 142/k bridge. The reliability indices

corresponding to different limit states with live load scaling are presented in Table 7.4.

represents the difference between the reliability indexes of a particular limit state and of the

lowest value of the first yield or first hinge. The values are expressing the degree of

correlation between the variables. For instance R is the correlation between the resistances at

location 1,2 and 3, see Figure 5.5. R=1,0 means that the three variables taking the same

values, and R=0 means that their values are changing completely (linearly) independently

from each other. The correlation between the dead load effect and section resistance is

neglected. As mentioned in Section 7.1.1 the target reliability level is 3,715 for the 100-year

design life. However, it gives more information if we compare the safety levels to the limit

states for which the standard gives methods and applied in practical design; these are the first

yield and first hinge limit states. It is interesting that the correlations have such a significant

87

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

effect on the safety levels; nevertheless, the same trend was observed by the American

researchers, Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 [Barker and Zacher, 1997]. They recommend the 70-50-

80% correlation combination to be accepted as representing the real cases.

Table 7.4: Reliability indices () for various limit states with live load scaling ( -

correlation).

bridge 142/k

Limit state

First yield 4,163 7,06%

First-hinge 3,889 0,00%

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 0% 5,212 34,02%

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 50% 4,577 17,71%

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 100% 4,029 3,61%

Single-girder shakedown: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 4,231 8,80%

System shakedown: R = D = L = 0% 5,790 48,89%

System shakedown: R = D = L = 50% 4,589 18,00%

System shakedown: R = D = L = 100% 3,860 -0,75%

System shakedown: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 4,110 5,69%

Single-girder plastic collapse: R = D = L = 0% 4,678 20,30%

Single-girder plastic collapse: R = D = L = 50% 4,283 10,14%

Single-girder plastic collapse: R = D = L = 100% 3,926 0,95%

Single-girder plastic collapse: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 4,062 4,46%

System plastic collapse: R = D = L = 0% 4,779 22,89%

System plastic collapse: R = D = L = 50% 4,405 13,27%

System plastic collapse: R = D = L = 100% 4,025 3,49%

System plastic collapse: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 4,170 7,22%

1

every value corresponds to the load level required to reach the particular limit

state

The reliability indices were determined for the resistance scaling as well, the results are

summarized in Table 7.5.

88

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

Table 7.5: Reliability indices () for various limit states with resistance scaling ( -

correlation).

bridge 142/k

Limit state

First yield 3,950 0,00%

First-hinge 4,471 13,20%

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 0% 5,543 40,34%

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 50% 4,899 24,02%

Single-girder shakedown: R = D = L = 100% 4,029 2,00%

Single-girder shakedown: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 4,569 15,66%

System shakedown: R = D = L = 0% 6,098 54,37%

System shakedown: R = D = L = 50% 4,921 24,59%

System shakedown: R = D = L = 100% 4,183 5,90%

System shakedown: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 4,464 13,02%

Single-girder plastic collapse: R = D = L = 0% 4,961 25,60%

Single-girder plastic collapse: R = D = L = 50% 4,624 17,06%

Single-girder plastic collapse: R = D = L = 100% 4,285 8,47%

Single-girder plastic collapse: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 4,418 11,86%

System plastic collapse: R = D = L = 0% 5,140 30,12%

System plastic collapse: R = D = L = 50% 4,814 21,88%

System plastic collapse: R = D = L = 100% 4,489 13,66%

System plastic collapse: R = 70%; D = 50%; L = 80% 4,622 18,85%

1

every value corresponds to the same load level, the difference lays in the

resistances, which are scaled to reach the particular limit states

Albeit, the ultimate load is identical to single and system shakedown limit states, their

reliability indices differ, since the system incremental collapse failure mode involves more

hinges. This way, the comparison is a bit distorted, because as mentioned before the number

of required load passing is not contemplated in the calculation, which strongly influences the

reliability. Actually, the same is true for the single girder shakedown as well with a lower

degree. However, it should be noted that although the values for shakedown limit states do not

represent a “real” value, they are on the safe side. This distortion could be eliminated from the

system by determining a load level with the same occurrence probability as the “basic” load to

the let’s say 10 passing number.

The possibility to reduce the characteristic value of the standardized load model was also

numerically investigated. Based on the fact that many subsequent load applications are

necessary to experience the incremental collapse failure, an approximate calculation was

carried out using the scant data available in the following EN background publication

89

Reliability Analysis According to Eurocode

[Sedlacek et al., 2008]. The same method was applied as in the mentioned reference to obtain

the value corresponding to the same reliability level as the LM1 load model has. A load value

was determined to shakedown whereat greater than or equal to load occurrence probability in

10 or more times is 10% in a 100-year reference period. This value is ~86% of the

characteristic value of the basic load model LM1. This number is obtained after applying a

reduction to take into account the effect of the dynamic factor in a same manner as used in the

referred publication.

Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that in case of using the reduced load to shakedown

limit, the check of the plastic collapse of the structure subjected to the basic standardized load

level is not negligible. If in case of plastic collapse the rating factor increase over the

shakedown limit is greater than 1/0,86 = 1,163 then the shakedown is governing. Otherwise,

the possibility to reach the plastic collapse is higher. Based on the one available example on

steel bridges and the one composite bridge examined herein this is not likely to have the

plastic collapse as the governing limit state. However, it should be kept in mind that this

reserve is currently not exploitable due to shear connection degradation mentioned in Section

3.2.4.

This effect was taken into account in one of the AASHTO inelastic procedure with a 1,10

multiplier applied to the moment resistance [Barth et al., 2004]. This is not part of the most-

recent rotation compatibility approach.

7.3. Conclusions

In this chapter, the safety level of a particular bridge (142/k) was examined. Through a

reliability analysis it has been found that the safety of the structure at least fulfills or even

exceeds that of the first hinge or first yield limit state, in case of every plastic limit state. From

a standardized reliability viewpoint, the safety levels related to the plastic limit states are

typically higher than that of the conventional first hinge or first yield. Of course, the

elastically designed structures have the plastic reserve over the first yield, but it currently

ignored in design.

The American results are showing very similar trend; the researchers also concluded that

plastic limit states provide the prescribed safety level [Barker and Zacher, 1997]. As they

pointed out more analytical studies on a range of bridge types need to be executed to

generalize the findings.

90

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

In order to show the economic aspect of the plastic design the 142/k bridge was redesigned

and compared to the elastic results. This chapter introduces the Eurocode based calculation

and the American results as well.

Since the 142/k bridge is not fully utilized under the default level of loads, it should be

modified to reach the yield stress at the most loaded point. This achieved by scaling the dead

and traffic loads by the same value in order to reach the first yield while keeping their original

ratio. It should be kept in mind that this way the ratios of different load types are broken. To

get a more reliable comparison the bridge firstly should be redesigned following elastic

principles. Nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity the original arrangement with

proportionally increased loads was considered as the basis for the further calculations. The

scaling factor applied to the traffic and dead loads was 1,1580 to reach the first yield.

Since this thesis is mainly focusing on the ultimate load bearing capacity of plate girder

bridges, the redesign will be performed in that philosophy and only a few other serviceability

limit states will be checked.

– The only provisions that can be found in the Eurocode in respect of non-linear global

analysis (EN 1994-2 2006 5.4.3) are the following:

(2)P The behavior of the shear connection shall be taken into account.

(3)P Effects of the deformed geometry of the structure shall be taken into account.

These are principles (P) and must be followed; nevertheless, these would significantly

complicate the analysis. Therefore, the principles and provisions of the American standard

and literature were adopted, the fact that they working on this topic for a couple of decades

also supports this. It would be interesting to check the effect of the above-mentioned

Eurocode principles, but this is not part of this study.

– One role of the rotations is to redistribute the moments towards the elastic regions. The

other role is to relieve the residual stresses; these can happen simultaneously. The question

is that whether these rotations sufficient to relieve the residual forces. Moreover, if for

instance the global (secondary) effect of thermal actions relieved it can occur another time

and “destroy” the favorable residual moment field, consequently, induces more rotation to

reach the shaken down state again. Precisely, it should be examined from a reliability

aspect, what is the probability that the thermal action with its characteristic value will

happen again? Based on the above considerations it was decided to use the total moment

envelope comprising all effects, as a conservative approximation. It should be noted that

91

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

applying the total elastic envelop with the default traffic load level is the worst-case

scenario. In respect of the residual displacements, it can be considered as an upper bound.

The American methods neglect these (creep, shrinkage, nonlinear temperature difference)

actions even in the first plastic-hinge limit state.

– The most-recent AASHTO method appears to handle only the cases where the first hinge

formulates in the negative zone. Nevertheless, it seems to be reasonable to have higher

plastic resistance in the positive region where the “cheap stiffness” of the concrete can be

mobilized. Moreover, the moment−rotation curves are developed for sections without

longitudinal stiffeners. It could be neglected; however, the section would become very

slender (Class 4) and the resistance would decrease significantly. In my judgment, in this

level the mixture of standards also can lead to errors; therefore it is not used. The

composite plate girder bridges in Hungary typically build up from two main girders or

more but with relatively high girder distance. On the contrary, in the US the multiple main

girders with smaller distances are typical. This could be the answer why the stiffened

sections are not considered.

– The Swiss method uses the plastic collapse with the rotation limit as the ultimate limit

state. In my view, the shakedown approach is more promising. If the degradation problem

of the shear connectors was solved, the live load level could be reduced and structures that

are more economical could be designed. Therefore, I decided to adopt the shakedown

concept. If data on real traffic flow were available, it could be calculated which limit state

has higher probability of failure.

– Since the mixture of different standards should be avoided, I will use the American results,

principles solely where they represent clear mechanical considerations and independent of

the philosophy of the norm. The adopted step is the calculation of the required plastic

rotations to redistribution, presented in Section 3.3.1.

The following flowchart (Figure 8.1) is derived from the methods and considerations can be

found in the literature and mentioned above and would require more study to fully verify it.

However, this exceeds the range of this study. Nevertheless, the assumptions and

approximations will be summarized. It should be noted that this chart describes only the first-

negative-hinge scenario. The method is being introduced is mainly based on the newest

inelastic AASHTO method [McConelli et al., 2010] and the Swiss method [Lebet, 2011].

92

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

Preliminary design or

existing structure.

maxim

determine the maximal internal forces ( M el , Ed ).

- Determine section properties, resistances (MRd).

Eq.(3.15) and for bracing Eq.(3.16)

No All fulfilled?

Yes

Capacity Demand

Calculate the modified plate slenderness: Determine the total rotation required to

redistribute the full elastic moment:

Eq.(3.14),

f θtot Eq.(3.9) or Eq.(3.10)

'

y

p p p

cr

ar p Eq.(3.13) Figure 3.9

'

No M (1 ar tot ) M

el , Ed Rd av tot redistributed moment ratio.

Yes

max

No M x M x M Rd x Positive bending region check

el , Ed resi , Ed

(Figure 8.2).

Yes

Check other limit states and criteria

elastic design.

No

Figure 8.1: Flowchart to the shakedown design, derived from the AASHTO and Swiss

methods.

93

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

Actually, the most time-consuming and complicated part of the calculation is still the elastic

analysis. The redistribution ratio is the following: ar tot ; of course if we have high

rotation capacity ( ar ) the ratio can be lower than the maximum, in order to fulfill other

requirements.

-pl,Rd

maxim

el,Ed

+pl,Rd

L

x

resi,Ed

Lresi,Ed Rresi,Ed

x

resi,Ed(x) = Lresi,Ed+(Rresi,Ed-Lresi,Ed)·L

-pl,Rd

maxim

pl,Ed

maxim

el,Ed resi,Ed

+pl,Rd

The applicability conditions are identical as in the Swiss method, since the same M−θ curve is

applied and the criteria are related to that.

The aim of the redesign was not to utilize every bit of the material, rather to get clean lines for

the structure. More material could be removed from the region of end-supports, sidespan and

even from pier-sections by reducing the length where the thicker web is applied (Figure 8.3).

In this case, the sections were modified in order to have the first plastic hinges over the piers.

This is a reasonable decision since it is easier and cheaper to provide relatively high resistance

in the sagging zone. The proposed method also follows this logic; however the first positive

plastic hinge scenario should be additionally included. This could be part of the further

research.

The design was performed using the above-mentioned method. To obtain the elastic internal

force envelopes midas Civil was used. The finite element model has the same properties as

94

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

the model introduced in Section 5.1.1; moreover, the same considerations were taken into

account both on resistance and load side as well.

The outlines of the bridges after redesign are illustrated in Figure 8.3. The colors and section

lengths are proportional with the actual plate thickness and length, respectively. The numbers

in the plates representing their thicknesses and the values before the girders are the widths.

Figure 8.3: The build-up of steel girders following elastic (top) and plastic (bottom)

principles.

The plastic resistances of the redesigned sections are 30484, 24005 and 25971 kNm in the

positive center-span, positive side-span and negative region, respectively. The effect of shear

force is taken into account in the negative plastic resistance. These sections with the original

elastically designed ones are presented in Figure 8.4 and in Figure 8.5.

4815 4815

600-20 400-20

292,3

100

100

1225

1225

1750-25 1750-20

525

525

800-60 600-40

Figure 8.4: Cross-sections at pier, designed following elastic (left) and plastic (right)

principles.

95

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

6735 6735

600-20 400-20

292,3

100

100

1750-15 1750-15

800-40 600-40

Figure 8.5: Cross-sections at the middle of the center-span, designed following elastic (left)

and plastic (right) principles.

The thicker web is provided in the length of the cracked concrete. This means 15% of the adjacent

spans at each side of the pier.

The consequences of the redesign are listed here; they will be recapitulated in the last section with

additional comments:

– cleaner outline of the structure, the number of section transitions reduced from 10 to 4,

not counting the on-site weldings;

– the steel girder is symmetric; the asymmetry of the temporary support placing does not

break the symmetry. As illustrated in Section 5.5 it has minor effect on the internal

force distribution and could be neglected; nevertheless, the sequence of construction is

taken into account in the calculation;

– 4 different plate thicknesses instead of 8;

– 25% structural steel saving in respect of the bare steel girders;

– 41% reinforcement saving in the pier region;

– the bracings rearranged, they placed with higher density in the region of negative

plastic hinge, while keeping their original number;

– more uniform moment distribution;

Hereinafter, I will go through the steps of the verification procedure presented in Figure 8.1.

The M−curves proposed by Lebet and Lääne is used. It is derived for very slender plate

girders without any longitudinal stiffeners. The results were extrapolated and checked in the

realm of more stocky plates as well. Lebet (2011) suggests a formula to take into account the

effect of a longitudinal stiffener in the compression zone, Eq.(3.19) and Figure 3.14. This

way, the method is extended to girders with one stiffener in a specified location.

Unfortunately, this still covers only limited type of plate girders. Lääne and Lebet (2005) also

mention that the contribution of the stiffener is materializing in the increase of critical elastic

stress. Following this idea it seems to be more reasonable to use the general expression for the

calculation of the relative plate slenderness (EN 1993-1-5:2006 10 (10.2)), Eq.(8.1).

96

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

ult ,k fy

p (8.1)

cr cr

This way, the relative slenderness of plates with arbitrary stiffness configuration can be

determined calculation of the critical elastic stress in case of orthotropic plates can be

complicated. However, using the provisions of EN 1993-1-5 and for example a FEM program

to determine the critical stresses it can be done easily.

The modified plate slenderness then can be calculated by Eq.(8.2). The 2∙ multiplier takes

into account the favorable effect of the plastification of the tension zone, where relevant.

2 p if 0, 5

p' (8.2)

p if 0,5

With the actual section build-up in the negative zone (Figure 8.4) the subpanels of the web

are in at least Class 2 according to EN 1993-1-1. The “global” buckling of the stiffened web

was checked in EBPlate, this predicted the local buckling of the subpanels as first eigenshape.

According to this, the buckling of the orthotropic plate is not governing.

Since the EBPlate cannot handle that type of loading when the PNA is located in the

examined plate, it was assumed that the subpanel under uniform compression with hinged

supports at the PNA has the same slenderness as the whole arrangement (Figure 8.6).

hw

hw·

This assumption was checked for the case of unstiffened plate, where the formulas are

available and easier to handle. Using the Class 1 limits for unstiffened plate under uniform

compression (f1()) and under compression and bending (f2()) the Class limits are the

following, in respect of the place of PNA:

396

33 13 1 if 0,5

f1 ( ) f 2 ( )

36 if 0,5

97

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

Figure 8.7 illustrates the functions and their difference in respect of the compressed part ()

ratio.

3

1.510 0

3

1.210 2

900 4 5%

f

600 6

300 8

0 10

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Figure 8.7: Comparison of the simplified (f1(), red) and accurate slenderness limits (f2(),

blue, left) and their difference in percentage (right).

The very same trend was observed for other Class limits. Identical behavior was assumed for

the stiffened plate. The compressed portion of the web in this particular case is = 0,772. The

critical elastic stress of the partially compressed panel was determined by EBPlate; the

corresponding first eigenshape is presented in Figure 8.8.

The related relative plate slenderness:

355

p ,1 ar ,1 63 mrad

0,527

847,1

It also expected to have rotation capacity corresponding to Class 1 since the compressed

subpanels are in Class 1 according to EC and the EBPlate predicts the local subpanel buckling

as first eigenshape.

98

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

The calculation was done for the fully compressed web, to measure the effect of this

approximation.

355

p ,2 ar ,2 29, 2 mrad

0,527

334,8

As later turned out, even this lower rotation capacity − determined by rough estimation − is

sufficient to redistribute the desired amount of moment towards the sagging regions. These

rotation capacities with their slenderness are illustrated in Figure 8.9.

70

52.5

ar mrad

35

17.5

0

0 0.33 0.67 1 1.33 1.67 2

p'

Figure 8.9: p' ar curve with the partially (blue) and fully compressed web (green).

The value of required rotation is taken from the AASHTO rotation compatibility approach,

Eq.(3.9) and Eq.(3.10). Since only basic mechanical considerations were used to derive them,

they can be applied here as well.

For the verification against incremental collapse Melan’s theorem is adopted. This ensures

that if the maximal moment envelope added to an arbitrary statically admissible self-

equilibrated moment field does not violate the plastic resistances at any point than the true

incremental collapse load is greater than or equal to the actual loads. The check of the plastic

fatigue limit state is not necessary, can be verified by inspection.

With the actual values, for the particular 142/k bridge the moment envelopes are presented in

Figure 8.10.

99

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

kNm

30426 30270

maxim

el,Ed

20710 25997

resi,Ed

4455 4299

25971 25971

maxim

pl,Ed

maxim

el,Ed resi,Ed

30374

Figure 8.10: Various moment envelopes for one girder of the examined bridge (t=100 years).

The above reduction corresponds to a 14,6 % moment redistribution ratio. Higher

redistribution would demand higher resistance in the positive zone. The residual moment

equals to M elmax

, Ed . Using the formula (Eq.(3.9)) from AASHTO rotation compatibility

approach to determine the required rotation at the pier we get: 80 20 1 0,146 14, 6mrad .

The negative section has the required rotation capacity to redistribute 15% of its moments.

The verification of the section in the center span under maximum positive moment as follows:

, Ed

M elmax

l 2 M resi

L

, Ed

M resi

R

, Ed 2 25997 4455 4299 2 30374 kNm M pl , Rd 30484kNm

The verification of the sidespan-section under sagging moment was performed assuming that

the positive hinge will form at the most unfavorable location corresponding to plastic

collapse. This section is at the following distance from the abutment, using Eq.(5.9):

25971

11

1 rR 1 30484

l 30m 12, 71m

rR 25971 30484

100

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

12, 71

, Ed , Ed

M elmax

M resi

L

20270 4455 22157 kNm M pl , Rd 24005kNm

l 30, 0

With this we verified that the structure can shake down under the particular loads.

The residual displacements and moments developed in the structure in order to shake down

are presented in Figure 8.11. The maximum deflection is about 1/1000 of the corresponding

span. This is close to the deflection form the characteristic value of the traffic load, which is

48,9 mm.

resi,Ed

5300 5072

[kNm]

4,25+2,59=6,84 mrad 4,19+2,42=6,61 mrad

eresi

13,4 35,9 12,7

[mm]

Figure 8.11: The maximum residual moment and displacement field after shakedown.

After the favorable residual moment field has developed the structure carries its loads in a

purely elastic manner. This means that the deflections can be determined by adding the

elastically calculated deflections to the residual ones.

The deformation is an interesting issue since due to the shrinkage and creep it is a challenge to

“set” the shape of composite structures even without plastic deformations. This about 1/1000

residual deflections could be eliminated by pre-cambering the deck. It should be noted that

probably the structure would get lower loads than those considered in the design. Therefore,

the actual residual moments and deflections will be lower or even zero. This makes more

complicated to obtain the desired shape of the structure.

It should be pointed out that the main problem with the negative moment is the plate

buckling; this has a quite significant effect. Since the PNA is close to the top flange a

considerable part of the web is under compression. The solutions introduced in Chapter 6 can

effectively tackle this problem, for example, as supported by calculation, the double

composite section would significantly reduce the compressed portion of the web, susceptible

to buckling. It is vital to provide the ductility of the sections in the hogging area.

Since the cracks and stresses suspected to govern the design, these were checked. It should be

noted that these methods are not able to contemplate the effect of plastic rotations, which may

significantly increase the crack widths. The stresses are not influenced by this effect, since

where it seemed to be more unfavorable the residual moments were taken into account.

101

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

0,4mm crack width limit was chosen, keeping the total area of the reinforcement and reducing

its diameter; stricter limits could be verified as well.

The maximum tension stress in the reinforcement in quasi-permanent load combination (the

thermal action is accompanied in it) immediately after cracking, considering the effect of

tension stiffening as well:

1) Minimum reinforcement

This minimum reinforcement requirement ensures that the rebars will be able to take the

tension forces relieved form the concrete after its cracking.

mm2 mm2

as ,min 2758 as ,applied 5712

m m

This criterion ensures that the crack width does not exceed the limit. Prescribes a maximum

bar spacing distance to diameters and reinforcement stresses ( qp

max

, s ).

1) Characteristic combination

Structural steel

Criterion: The maximum stress in the structural steel should not exceed its yield strength (EN

1993-2:2006 7.3 (1)).

In characteristic combination the maximum stresses over the pier from elastic calculation well

exceeds the yield stress.

It does not seem to be a problem since the steel will not yield every time the characteristic

load combination occurs. It will yields once and then carries every further load less than or

equal to that in a purely elastic manner; the structure has shaken down in a lower load level.

Moreover, the section was designed to able undergo large plastic deformations. Furthermore,

with the plastification and small additional rotations some self-equilibrated forces would be

relieved. Actually, due to the construction sequence this yielding seems to be inevitable, since

one of our aims is to equate, smear and relieve these very inefficiently developed stresses.

102

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

Since this stress limit does not related to cracking and prescribed to elastic design, it appears

to me that it is not applicable to plastic design. It should be noted that the characteristic value

of the traffic load corresponds to a heavy load with 1000-year return period.

Reinforcement

The reinforcement is in a “better situation” than the structural steel, since it has higher yield

limit and gets stresses only after the establishment of the connection between the concrete and

steel. Unacceptable cracking or deformation may be assumed to be avoided if, under the

characteristic combination of loads, the tensile stress in the reinforcement does not exceed the

following value (EN 1992-1-1:2004 7.2 (5)), without taking into account the favorable effect

of the residual field due to shakedown:

char

max

, s 354 MPa k3 f yk 0,8 500 400 MPa

Without taking into account the favorable effect of the residual field due to shakedown.

Concrete

Compression stress limitation to avoid longitudinal cracks and consequently the reduction of

durability (EN 1992-1-1:2004 7.2 (2)):

char

max

, c 12,3MPa k1 f ck 0, 6 30 18MPa

2) Quasi-permanent combination

microcracks and nonlinear creep. If the stresses do not exceed the 45% of the characteristic

value of compressive strength (cylinder) the linear creep model is valid. It is the verification

of the assumption made at the beginning of the analysis (EN 1992-1-1:2004 7.2 (3)):

According to the Eurocode the thermal action should be considered as quasi-permanent load

as well, with 2=0,5. The more unfavorable thermal action was taken into account every

location.

During the determination of the stresses some safe-side approximations have been made in

order to simplify the calculation, even with these the previous limits are not violated.

The calculation above is only a rough estimation, since the method cannot contemplate the

effect of plastic rotations. It should be noted that there are other SLS limits which should be

satisfied to avoid extensive cracking, like the maximum tension stress in the reinforcement or

concrete in characteristic load combination.

As expected, the verification with methods developed for elastic analysis (do not take into

account the plastic rotations) all criteria are fulfilled. Due to the reduced section dimensions

the stresses are slightly increasing. As it has already mentioned only the stress limits can be

103

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

considered valid; the crack widths due to the plastic deformations are certainly higher.

However, no procedure exists to check it, requires further research.

American researchers, Barth and White investigated the effect of inelastic design methods to

different limit states compared to elastic design. Albeit these calculations follow the

AASHTO provisions, the results can be used to assess and approximately judge the effect of

inelastic design.

The plastic design is based on a previous inelastic provision, not on the rotation compatibility

approach. This method involves the calculation of the inelastic rotation capacity of the section

and based on this the amount of redistribution is determined. The examined structure was a

tangent, three-span, continuous composite, I-girder bridge with spans of 43,0 x 53,0 x 43,0m.

A typical cross-section of it presented in Figure 8.12.

Figure 8.12: Typical cross-section of the examined bridge [Barth and White, 2000].

Comparison of different limit states for elastic (first yield, based on AASHTO LRFD) and

inelastic design are presented in Table 8.1. The performance ratios mean the ratio of the

particular capacities and demands. The highlighted entries are the ratios which are influenced

by the inelastic design. Differences to elastic design:

– only three plate thicknesses are used (14, 20, 30 mm) versus the five plate thicknesses

for elastic design (14, 20, 25, 30, 45 mm);

– structural steel saving in favor of inelastic design (133 → 128 kg/m2) [Barth and

White, 2000].

As can be seen from the values, in this particular case, the amount of structural steel is not

reduced considerably (~4%), conversely the fabrication cost, due to the less section-transition-

section, may reduced significantly. The researchers performed serviceability check as well,

however no crack width verification; probably this SLS limit was added later to the

AASHTO. Based on data summarized in Table 8.1 it can be concluded that the application of

inelastic principles does not change the performance notably, and the critical limit states are

identical in both cases.

104

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

Table 8.1: Performance ratios for elastic and inelastic designs [Barth and White, 2000].

Elastic Inelastic

POSITIVE MOMENT SECTIONS

STRENGTH I Limit States

Flexure, end spans, compact section (1996 0,779 0,943

Iterims, 1,1My limit)

Flexure, interior span, compact section 0,721 1,038

(1996 Iterims, 1,1My limit)

Ductility (1996 Interims) 0,274 0,274

Shear, stiffened web end bearing 0,890 0,873

Fatigue and Fracture Limit States

Base metal at connection-plate weld to 0,968 0,980

bottom flange (at cross-frame closest to 1

mid-span) (1,108) (1,083)1

Maximum concrete tensile stress/cracking 0,162 0,068

stress (at above location)

Web requirements, flexure 0,337 0,422

Web requirements, shear and bearing 0,492 0,479

Service Limit States

Live-load deflection, end span 0,328 0,351

Live-load deflection, center span 0,345 0,359

Permanent deflection, tension flange 0,746 0,794

(SERVICE II)

Constructability

Web slenderness 0,692 0,657

Compression flange slenderness 0,698 0,730

Compression flange bracing 0,815 0,760

Shear in second panel from end bearing 0,274 0,267

INTERIOR PIER SECTION

STRENGTH I Limit States, noncompact

section

Web slenderness 0,924 0,871

Compression flange slenderness 0,544 0,952

Compression flange bracing 0,924 0,930

Flexure, compression flange 0,912 NA

Flexure tension flange 0,953 NA

Fatigue and Fracture Limit States

Shear conn. weld to top flange 0,607 0,805

Bearing stiffener/connection weld plate to 0,485 0,659

top flange

Web requirements, flexure 0,626 0,720

Web requirements, shear 0,888 0,590

Service Limit States

θp/θRL NA 0,547

Elastic reinforceing steel stress NA 0,445

Constructability

Flexure, tension

− 0,661

flange

1

Values in parentheses are based on the steel section only for

calculation of stresses due to negative moment.

105

Redesign of the Bridge Based on Plastic Principles

8.4. Conclusions

In case of the Eurocode plastic design, the structural steel saving, due to choosing the

incremental collapse as the ultimate limit instead of first yield, is about 25%. The number of

the section transitions is reduced significantly as well, not counting the on-site weldings, the

transitions changed from 10 to 4 and the applied plate thicknesses from 8 to 4. If we consider

the composition of the total cost of a steel girder (Figure 3.4) it can be seen that the

fabrication costs are in the same magnitude as the material costs. Another important

consequence is the much cleaner outline of the structure. The steel girder is symmetric; the

asymmetry of the temporary support placing does not break the symmetry. As illustrated in

Section 5.5 it has minor effect on the internal force distribution and could be neglected;

nevertheless, the sequence of construction was taken into account in the calculation. The

material saving corresponds to the stiffness reduction and consequently the slight increase of

the deflections. The redistribution yielded to a more uniform moment distribution. The

bracings were rearranged; they placed with higher density in the region of negative plastic

hinge, while keeping their original number. The utilization of the most loaded cross-section is

1,0 in case of the original structure for first yield; due to the scaled loads. The same, full

utilization was achieved in case of the redesigned structure for the most critical collapse

mechanism. Albeit these utilizations are identical, the other sections are not fully exploited in

both cases.

Still considerable amount of material is in the webs especially in hogging region. The bigger

thickness is required to avoid the plate buckling not for the higher resistance, this could be

lowered by using one of the solutions presented in Chapter 6.

The amount of reinforcement in the negative zone was also reduced to avoid a highly

asymmetrical cross-section, this lowered the PNA and therefore, the web could be classified

as Class 2. This reduction is yielded to ~41% saving in the negative region. Although the

sections obtained by inelastic design are not optimal solutions it does not yield to any problem

since in the original design for example the sections in sagging region are not fully utilized.

In serviceability limit states the stresses and crack width were checked by using the methods

proposed to elastic design, since no other available. These calculations showed that the

redesigned structure fulfills every relevant condition. However, because the methods cannot

take into account the effect of plastic rotations, it requires further investigation.

106

Summary and Conclusions

9.1. Summary

This thesis investigated the plastic capacities of composite plate girder bridges in the

philosophy of Eurocodes. Its goal was to determine the magnitude of reserves currently

ignored in the design and to examine the safety level related to them.

In order achieve to this goal the theoretical background and related literature was overviewed

(Chapter 2-3). The latter comprises the only available AASHTO procedures and the reports of

completed and ongoing researches on the topic. Moreover, since there is no standardized

method exists in the Eurocode for plastic design, the reliability analysis of structures was

reviewed as well, in order to establish a sound base to conduct the reliability analysis.

To study the consequences of plastic design an existing structure was chosen. It is a three-

span continuous composite plate girder bridge, introduced in Chapter 4. To this, the rating

factors of various limit states such as: first yield, first plastic hinge, incremental collapse,

single girder and system plastic collapse − assuming sufficient cross-sectional rotation

capacity − were determined in Chapter 5. All of the calculations were conducted in the

framework of Eurocode. The rating factors were evaluated with the upper and lower bound

theorems as well. Furthermore, the effect of the shear force was also investigated.

Innovative structural solutions were introduced in Chapter 6 to show some possibilities how

to enhance the ductility of the sections. These also increase the shear resistance; therefore, the

reduction of moment resistance due to the interaction may be lowered or even neglected.

The safety levels of the before-mentioned limit states were evaluated in Chapter 7 using

FORM and SORM methods. These calculations are based on publications available on the

topic and compatible with the Eurocodes.

In Chapter 8, based on the American and Swiss methods, the redesign of the structure was

performed following plastic principles. The incremental collapse limit state was adopted

incorporating the limited rotation capacity of the sections. The cost savings and consequences

of the new design were also investigated.

9.2. Conclusions

During the recent decades intensive research have been performed on the plastic design

concepts of steel and composite bridges. Researchers from the United States played and still

playing leading role in this topic. They adopted the incremental collapse as ultimate limit state

and worked out design provisions to support the practical application. Few other researchers

are also contributed to the topic from all over the world; maybe the results of Swiss

researchers should be highlighted. They accepted the plastic collapse ULS and, as the

Americans considered as well, the limited rotation capacity of the sections. Based on these

researches some fundamental methods and considerations are adopted to evaluate the ultimate

107

Summary and Conclusions

capacity of an existing bridge (142/k), a typical two-girder, composite highway overpass with

three spans. Since the Eurocodes does not contain method for global plastic analysis and

design of bridge structures, an EC based method is developed to evaluate the ultimate load-

bearing limit of the bridge using the incremental collapse ULS. This procedure is applied to

redesign the selected structure.

The conclusions and finding of this thesis are partitioned into two portions. The first one

could be referred as general and the second as special conclusions. The former contains the

generic findings while the latter summarizes the numerical results corresponding to the

particular bridge. These are not entirely separable, so some overlappings are inevitable.

After reviewing the relevant literature and completing this study the following general

conclusions are deducted:

– On one hand, every structure has the cross-sectional reserve; this can be described by the

shape factor and depends on the particular build-up. The other source is coming from the

global redundancy. Independently from the actual structure, it can be said that these

reserves are worth to exploit. Due to the high live to dead load ratio and moving load, the

application of the shakedown limit state seems to be reasonable.

– If we neglect the stresses induced by shrinkage, creep and thermal actions − since they are

relieved during the successive reduction of the degree of redundancy − the global structural

analysis becomes considerably simpler. Moreover, the effect of the sequence of the

construction may be neglected as well. The American methods do not take into account

these global (secondary) effects even in the first plastic limit state.

– Based on the data available in the literature, a method compatible with Eurocode was

suggested to perform the incremental collapse verification. This is mainly based on the

rotation compatibility method (AASHTO) and on the Swiss method [Lebet, 2011].

– The formulations of plastic hinges are allowed and desirable in ULS for buildings and

under seismic loads for any structures. Therefore, these provisions should be checked and

try to implement where it is relevant and possible to bridge structures for shakedown limit

state. In seismic design the capacity design is widely accepted and used. This states that the

intended plastic hinge locations should be designed to be able to form the hinge. Moreover,

the structure should be designed in such a way to ensure the formulation of plastic hinges

in the planned locations. This achieved by applying overstrength factors. Due to economic

reasons the girder bridges are constructed with many section-transitions, hence it often

requires tedious work to check every possible mechanism and hinge-locations in case of

plastic design. This could be simplified by applying of the overstrength principle of

capacity design. Furthermore, this would ensure that the plastic hinges formulate at the

locations where the designer imagined.

108

Summary and Conclusions

– During the plastic design the limited rotational capacity of the cross-section should be

taken into account. This available rotation determines the amount of maximum

redistributable moment.

– It is expected that the plastic design yield to a structure with considerably less section

transitions and structural steel saving over the elastic design. Moreover, due to the plastic

rotations the moment envelope becomes more uniformly distributed.

– The structural solutions introduced in Chapter 6 showed that the performance of the

sections could be significantly increased. Their resistance and ductility, both under bending

and shear, are superior over the conventional solutions. Therefore, they seem to be an

appropriate choice for plastic design.

Among the still unsolved problems the degradation of the shear connectors and the

verification of serviceability limit states should be highlighted. To prevent the former issue it

appears to be sufficient to use the default, standardized traffic load level. The SLS limit states,

especially the crack control would require more research, since only methods related to elastic

design are available.

On the bases of the evaluated results on the selected bridge the following main conclusions

are deducted:

– The ultimate load levels corresponding to various ULS showed that there are significant

reserves in the composite plate girder bridges. The rating factors increased over the first

yield with 37% and 75% using the first plastic hinge and incremental collapse limits,

respectively.

– The results related to plastic collapse show even higher capacities. With the single-girder

and system collapse over the incremental limit state additional 10% and 40% reserves can

be achieved respectively. These are not exploitable; however, give an idea about the true

strength of our structures.

– The calculations contemplating the shear force showed that it has significant influence on

the ultimate load level. For the particular bridge about 6-18% reduction was experienced

compared to the case where it was neglected. The amount of reduction significantly

depends on the structural arrangement.

– The reliability analysis showed that the safety levels of the above-mentioned limit states

are at least reach or exceed that of the first yield or first hinge. It should be noted that these

contain many safe side approximations, and the actual values of the reliability indices are

considerably higher in case of shakedown limit states.

– The redesign of the structure − based on suggested method − yielded to the following:

– 25% structural steel saving in respect of the steel girders;

– 41% reinforcement saving at the pier region;

– cleaner outline; 4 different cross-sections instead of 10, and 4 different plate

thicknesses instead of 8.

– The relevant serviceability states were verified with the methods prescribed for elastic

design in EC. It should be noted that albeit these do no predict extensive cracking of the

109

Summary and Conclusions

negative zone, it is likely to occur due to the plastic rotations in ULS. No provisions or

research papers are available on this topic.

On the grounds of the results, it can be concluded that the plastic methods are a promising

way to design structures that are more economical and to extend the range of applicability of

composite bridges. The plastic principles are also utilizable to verify the load bearing

capacities of structurally deficient bridges and thus extend their working life. The knowledge

of the inelastic capacity of our bridges could be advantageous in case of catastrophic or war

events as well. When − for the move of heavy equipments − the quick estimation of the true

load bearing capacity of the structures is vital. Nevertheless, many other aspects of it still

should be cleared; the last chapter summarizing some of these and pointing out the problems

which demand further research.

This section summarizes the issues and questions raised during the completion of this thesis;

to these I did not find any research data or solution. The following list contains the problems

that are in judgment worth or should be examined:

– Extension of the reliability analysis to a higher modeling level, with direct consideration

of the time and involving every relevant variable and their correlation.

– More calculated examples would require to generalize the findings of this study.

Furthermore, the study should be extended to every EC prescribed limit states and to life-

cycle cost assessment, taking into account the cost of fabrication, erection, demolition,

etc. through the entire life of the structure as well.

– Checking other global structural concepts or bridge types such as reinforced concrete or

integral bridges. Since the latter own higher degree of redundancy their plastic reserve

worth investigating.

– Investigation of the phenomenon of shear connection degradation, and as related to this

the applicability of a reduced live load level or increased resistance.

– Because the theorems of shakedown analysis lead to an optimization problem,

metaheuristic algorithms could be applied to find quasi-optimal solutions to the highly

complex design problems.

– Detailed, deep investigation of the deflections, plastification taking into account the

nonlinear behavior of the shear studs as well.

– Extension of the moment−rotation curves; investigation of the effect of special structural

solutions, introduced in Chapter 6, on the available rotation.

– A design procedure to incremental collapse in the philosophy of Eurocodes should be

worked out involving the first-positive-hinge scenario as well; verification of the method.

– Investigation of the possibility to apply fiber reinforced concrete in the negative hinge

region to increase the ductility, to involve the concrete to the load bearing and to reduce

the crack widths. Moreover, the effect of plastic rotations on the cracking of the negative

zone should be studied.

110

References

References

AASHTO. (2010). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Ed. Washington, D.C.

AASHTO. 978-1-56051-451-0

Barker, M.G., Bergson, P.M., French, C.M., Galambos, T.V. and Klaiber, F.W. (1996).

Shakedown Test of One-Third-Scale Composite Bridge. Journal of Bridge

Engineering. Vol. 1. No. 1. February. 1996.

Barker, M.G. and Galambos, T.V. (1992). Shakedown Limit State of Compact Steel Girder

Bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 118. No. 4. April. 1992.

Barker, M.G., Hartnagel, B.A., Schilling, C.G. and Dishong, B.E. (2000). Simplified

Inelastic Design of Steel Girder Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 5. No. 1.

February. 2000.

Barker, M.G. and Zacher, J.A. (1997). Reliability of Inelastic Load Capacity Rating Limits

for Steel Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 2. No. 2. May. 1997.

Barth, K.E., Hartnagel, B.A. and White, D.W. (2004). Recommended Procedures for

Simpliefied Inelastic Design of Steel I-girder Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering.

Vol. 9. No. 3. May. 2004.

Barth, K.E. and White, D.W. (2000). Inelastic Desing of Steel I-girder Bridges. Journal of

Bridge Engineering. Vol. 5. No. 3. August. 2000.

Bažant, Z.P. and Jirásek, M. (2001). Inealistic Analysis of Structures. Chichester: John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 0-471-98716-6.

Brozetti, J. (2000). Design Development of Steel-concrete Composite Bridges in France.

Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Vol. 55. No. 2000. 229-243.

Bruneau, M., Uang, C.-M. and Whittaker, A. (1998). Ductile Design of Steel Structures.

USA: McGraw-Hill Comp. 0-07-008580-3.

Choi, S.-K., Grandhi, R.V. and Canfield, R.A. (2007). Reliability-based Structural

Engineering. London: Springer-Verlag. 978-1-84628-444-1.

Collings, D. (2005). Steel-concrete Composite Bridges. London: Thomas Telford. 0-7277-

3342-7.

Cornejo, M.O. and Raoul, J. (2010). Composite Bridge Design (EN1994-2) - illustration of

Basic Element Design. Workshop on "Bridge Design to Eurocodes" with worked

examples. Vienna, Austria.

Davies, J.M. and Brown, B.A. (1996). Plastic Design to BS 5950. Bodmin: Blackwell

Science Ltd. 0-632-04088-2.

111

References

EN 1990. (2002). Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design.

EN 1991. (2003). Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures.

EN 1992. (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures.

EN 1993. (2005). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures.

EN 1994. (2005). Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures.

Ferum. (02 October, 2011). FERUM homepage [online].

http://www.ifma.fr/Recherche/Labos/FERUM [Accessed: 02 October, 2011].

Flemming, D.J. (1994). Experimental Verification of Shakedown Loads for Composite

Bridges. Minneapolis: MSc thesis, University of Minnesota.

Galambos, T.V. (2007). Introduction to the Shakedown Behavior of Steel Frame Srtuctures.

North American Steel Construction Conference, AISC, 2007. New Orleans.

Galambos, T.V., Leon, R.T., French, C.M., Barker, M.G. and Dishong, B.E. (1993).

Inelastic Rating Procedures for Steel Beam and Girder Bridges. Washington, D.C.:

Transportation Research Board.

ISO 2394. (1998). General Principles on Reliability for Structures.

Ghosn, M., Moses, F. and Wang, J. (2003). NCHRP Report 489. Design of Highway

Bridges for Extreme Events. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 0-309-

08750-3.

Grundy, P. (1987). Shakedown Design of Bridges. 1st Nat. Struct. Engrg. Conf. Australia.

Grundy, P. (2004). Incremental Collapse of Continuous Composite Beams under Moving

Load. 7th Pacific Steel Structures Conference. Long Beach, California.

Gulvanessian, H., Calgaro, J.-A. and Holický, M. (2002). Designer's Guide to EN 1990,

Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. London: Thomas Telford. 0 7277 3011 8.

Gulvanessian, H. and Holický, M. (2005). Eurocodes: Using Reliability Analysis to

Combine Action Effects. Structures & Buildings. Vol. No. SB4. 2005. 243-252.

Gupta, V.K. (2006). Development of Section Classification Criterion and Ultimate Flexural

Equation for Composite I-girders. Saitama, Japan. Doctoral thesis.

Haiyan, Y. and Fangfang, L. (2010). Inelastic Load Capacity Analyzing of Steel I-Girder

Bridges with Shakedown Method. Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering

(MACE), International Conference 2010. Wuhan, PRC. 946-949.

10.1109/MACE.2010.5536250

Halász, O. and Platthy, P. (1989). Acélszerkezetek. Budapest, Hungary: Tankönyvkiadó. 963

18 2268 0.

112

References

Hida, S., Ibrahim, F.I.S., Capers, H.A., Bailey, G.L., Friedland, I.M., Kapur, J., Martin,

B.T., Mertz, J., Dennis R., Perfetti, G.R., Saad, T. and Sivakumar, B., (2010).

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe. FHWA-PL-10-014.

Honfi, D. and Mårtensson, A. (2009). Reliability of Steel Flexural Members According to

EC in Serviceability Limit State. NSCC2009.

Iles, D.C. (2011). Composite Highway Bridge Design: Worked Examples. In Accordance with

Eurocodes and UK National Annexes. Berkshire. UK: The Steel Construction

Institute. 978-1-85942-195-6.

Georgia Institute of Technology. (2006). Inelastic Design. Lecture notes by Leon R.T.

JCSS Probabilistic Model Code. (2000).

Jones, R.M. (2009). Deformation Theory of Plasticity. Blacksburg: Bull Ridge Corporation.

9780978722319.

Kachanov, L.M. (1971). Foundations of the Theory of Plasticity. Amsterdam: North-Holland

Publishing Comp. 0-7204-2363-5.

Kaliszky, S. (1975). Képlékenységtan. Elmélet és Mérnöki Alkalmazások. Budapest:

Akadémiai Kiadó. 963-05-0652-1.

Kaliszky, S. (2007). Képlékenységtani Kutatások Magyarországon a Tartószerkezetek

Mechanikája Területén. Építés – Építészettudomány. Vol. 35. No. 2. 2007. 141-158.

Kaliszky, S., Lógó, J. and Nédli, P. (1998). Rúdszerkezetek Teherbírásának Számítása és

Optimális Tervezése.

Kazinczy von, G. (1914). Kisérletek Befalazott Tartókkal. Betonszemle. Vol. 2. No. 1914.

68-71, 83-87 & 101-104.

Kim, H.-H. and Shim, C.-S. (2009). Experimental Investigation of Double Composite Twin-

girder Railway Bridges. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Vol. 65. No. 2009.

1355-1365.

Kurrer, K.-E. (2008). The History of the Theory of Structures. From Arch Analysis to

Computational Mechanics. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn. 9783433018389.

Lääne, A. and Lebet, J.-P. (2005). Available Rotation Capacity of Composite Bridge Plate

Girders Under Negative Moment and Shear. Journal of Constructional Steel Research.

Vol. 61. No. 3. 2005. 305-327.

Lebet, J.-P. (2011). Innovative Design Method, Steel-Concrete Composite Girder Bridges.

Eurosteel 2011. Budapest, Hungary. 1275-1280.

Lebet, J.-P. and Nissile, R. (2010). New Method for Design of Concrete-Steel Composite

Plate Girder Bridges. Bern, Switzerland. Publication VSS 640. In French.

113

References

Approaches for Bridge Design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the

Transportation Research Board. Vol. 1597 / 1997. No. January. 1997. 50-56.

Lubliner, J. (2008). Theory of Plasticity. USA: Dover Publications. 9780486462905.

McConelli, J.R., Barth, K.E. and Barker, M.G. (2010). Rotation Compatibility Approach

to Moment Redistribution for Design and Rating of Steel I-Girder Bridges. Journal of

Bridge Engineering. Vol. 15. No. 1. January. 2010.

Melchers, R.E. (1999). Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction. Chichester, UK: John

Wiley and Sons Ltd. 0471987719.

Mitsuro, I. and Galambos, T.V. (1993). Minimum Weight Design of Continuos Composite

Girders. Journal of Strucural Engineering. Vol. 119. No. 4. April. 1993.

Nakamura, S.-I., Momiyama, Y., Hosaka, T. and Homma, K. (2002). New Technologies of

Steel/concrete Composite Bridges. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Vol. 58.

No. 2002. 99-130.

Nakamura, S.-I. and Morishita, H. (2008). Bending Strength of Concrete-filled Narrow-

width Steel Box Girder. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Vol. 64. No. 2008.

128-133.

Neal, B.G. (1977). The Plastic Methods in Structural Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall.

0412214504.

Nowak, A.S. and Collins, K.R. (2000). Reliability of Structures. USA: The McGraw-Hill

Companies, Inc. 0-07-048163-6.

Rizzo, S., Spallino, R. and Giambanco, G. (2000). Shakedown Optimal Design of

Reinforced Concrete Structures by Evolution Strategies. Engineering Computations.

Vol. 17. No. 4. 2000. 440-458.

Rózsás, Á. (2010). Design of a Steel-concrete Composite Railway Bridge According to

Eurocodes: B.Sc. Thesis. In Hungarian.

Saul, R. (2000). Cost Efficient Design and Construction of Major Steel Composite Bridges.

ATS International Steelmaking Conference. Paris, France.

Schilling, C.G., Barker, M.G. and Dishong, B.E. (1996). Simplified Inelastic Design of

Steel Girder Bridges. Final Rep., Nat. Sci. Found. Study on Devel. and Experimental

Verification of Inelastic Des. Procedures for Steel Bridges Comprising Noncompact

Girder Sections. University of Missuri, Columbia, Mo.

Sedlacek, G. Traffic Loads on Road Bridges. European Development of EN 1991 – Eurocode

1 – Part 2.

114

References

Sedlacek, G., Merzenich, G., Paschen, M., Bruls, A., Sanpaolesi, L., Croce, P., Calgaro,

J.-A., Pratt, M., Jacob, Leendertz, M., V. De Boer, Vrouwenfelder, A. and

Hanswille, G. (2008). Background Document to EN 1991 - Part 2 - Traffic Loads for

Road Bridges - and Consequences for the Design: JRC European Commission.

Sen, R. and Stroh, S. (2010). Design and Evaluation of Steel Bridges Double Composite

Action. Final Report: University of South Florida. Contract No. # BD544-18.

Sørensen, J.D. Calibration of Partial Safety Factors in Danish Structural Codes. JCSS

Workshop on Reliability Based Code Calibration.

Stüssi, F. (1962). Gegen das Traglastverfahren. Schweizerische Bauzeitung. Vol. 80. No. 4.

1962. 53-57.

Unterweger, H., Lechner, A. and Greiner, R. (2011). Plastic Load Bearing Capacity of

Multispan Composite Highway Bridges with Longitudinally Stiffened Webs. Steel and

Composite Structures. Vol. 11. No. 1. January. 2011.

Vasseghi, A. (2009). Improving Strength and Ductility of Continuous Composite Plate Girder

Bridges. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Vol. 65. No. 2009. 479-488.

Wikipedia01. (02 October, 2011). Correlation and Dependence [online].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence [Accessed: 02 October,

2011].

Wikipedia02. (14 November, 2011). Monte Carlo Method [online].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method [Accessed: 14 November, 2011].

WolframMathworld. (14 November, 2011). Monte Carlo Method [online].

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MonteCarloMethod.html [Accessed: 14 November,

2011].

Wong, M.B. (2001). Plastic Analysis and Design of Steel Structures. Burlington: Elsevier

Ltd. 978-0-7506-8298-5.

115

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

The following publications are frequently used in the calculation, they also highlighted among

the main references:

[A1] Iles, D.C. (2011). Composite highway bridge design: Worked examples. In accordance

with Eurocodes and UK National Annexes. Berkshire. UK: The Steel Construction Institute.

978-1-85942-195-6.

Steel and Composite Structures. Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges. London. UK:

Thomas Telford Ltd. 0-7277-3161-0.

A-1

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

Contents

1 Structural arrangement

2 Design basis

2.1 Partial factors on actions

2.2 Factors for combination values

2.3 Factors on materials

2.4 Factors on resistances

2.5 Structural material properties

3.1 Permanent actions

3.1.1 Self weight of structural and non-structural elements

3.1.2 Creep

3.1.3 Shrinkage

3.1.4 Support lifting

3.1.5 Uneven settlement

3.2 Variable loads and actions

3.2.1 Traffic loads

3.2.2 Traffic load groups

3.2.3 Thermal actions

3.2.4 Wind actions

3.2.5 Construction loads

3.3 Accidental loads

5.1 Main girders

5.2 Cross-bracing

5.3 Reinforcement

6 Beam cross-sections

6.1 Section properties - main girders

6.1.1 Section properties and resistances; sagging

6.1.2 Section properties and resistances; hogging

A-2

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

1 Structural arrangement

The bridge is located on the M0-M6 motorways in Hungary. The flyover carries a

3-lane single carriageway highway road over another road. Its a continuous

steel-concrete composite bridge formed by three spans of 30,0 - 40,0 - 30,0 m and

with a 13,47 m wide deck. The cross-section is composed of two constant depth

I-girders with a reinforced concrete slab on top of them, in total about 1,85 m height.

The main girders distance is 7,5 m, they connected in a 5,0 m raster with a

cross-bracing formed of rolled HEA sections. The deck is haunched at the top of the

girders, its average thickness is around 28 cm.

Elevation

2 Design basis

The bridge is checked in accordance with the Eurocodes, applying the generally

recommended values for partial factors and other variables where relevant.

The basis of design set out in EN 1990 is verification by partial safety factor method.

Where the standard offers the designer options (like how accurately consider the

effective widths) I always chose the possibility which was closer to the original design,

to establish a more or less solid base to the comparison. Nevertheless, even keeping

this in mind due to the sometimes significant differences, the results are representing

rather a qualitative than quantitative comparison.

A-3

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

The most prominent difference is that the MSZ ÚT standard applies the allowable

stress method (the safety is lumped into one safety factor which is applied to the yield

stress) while the Eurocodes adopts the partial safety factor method (the safety factors

are distributed to various effects and resistances). The EC is based on the concept of

limit state design.

- small differences in the dead and construction loads;

- creep and shrinkage, the standardized model seems to be very similar, however the;

approach applied in the finite element model is slightly overestimates the stresses from

these effects;

- the lateral load distributions slightly differs, the single beam model of the original

design with the simply supported lateral load distribution overestimates the loads on

one girder.

The design check is carried out in a simplified manner, since the inelastic design is

emphasized; some local checks are ignored and simply accepted the results of the

original as adequate.

Load combinations

The ultimate limit state STR is verified for persistent and transient design situation

with the following combination formula:

EN-1990:2002

(6.10a and b)

Fatigue

EN-1992:2004

6.8.3 (6.14b)

Characteristic combination

EN-1990:2002

(6.14b)

verify the deflections due to the live-load.

A-4

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

Frequent combination

EN-1990:2002

(6.15b)

Quasi-permanent combination

EN-1990:2002

(6.16b)

For the verification of crack widths in the deck. To verify the applicability of linear

creep to the concrete.

Comments to the combinations:

Wind actions and thermal actions need not be taken into account simultaneously unless EN-1990:2005

otherwise specified for local climatic conditions. A2.2.2 (6)

The effects of creep and shrinkage of concrete, temperature, uneven settlement effects EN-1994-2:2004

and the effect of sequence of construction may be neglected in analysis for 5.4.2.2 (7)

5.4.2.5 (2)

verifications of ultimate limit states other than fatigue, for composite members with all 5.1.3 (2)

cross-sections in Class 1 or 2 and in which no allowance for lateral-torsional buckling 5.4.2.4 (2)

is necessary.

There is no reasoning for this in the standard, but probably it is due to the

plastification.

Permanent actions

EN-1990:2005

self weight of materials γG.sup 1.35 Annex A2

Table A2.4(B)

EN-1992-1-1:2004

shrinkage γsh 1.0 2.4.2.1

EN-1990:2005

uneven settlement γGset 1.2 in case of elastic analysis Annex A2

Table A2.4(B)

If non-linear analysis is carried out γ Gset=1,35 should be applied.

Variable actions

γQ.t 1.35 EN-1990:2005

road traffic actions Annex A2

Table A2.4(B)

other variable actions

γQ 1.5

(wind actions, thermal actions)

partial factor for equivalent

γF.f 1.0

constant amplitude stress range

No values are given for transient situations (such as during construction) but it is

assumed that the above factors for permanent actions may be used.

A-5

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

Ψ 0.LM1.ts 0.75 Ψ 1.LM1.ts 0.75 Ψ 2.LM71.ts 0

gr1a, LM1-TS Annex A2

Table A2.1

Ψ 0.LM1.udl 0.4 Ψ 1.LM1.udl 0.4 Ψ 2.LM1.udl 0

gr1a, LM1-UDL

Ψ 0.ped 0.4 Ψ 1.ped 0.4 Ψ 2.ped 0

gr1a, pedestrian+cycle

Wind forces:

FWk

Where FWk is the characteristic wind force and F *W is the wind force compatible with

the road traffic.

2.4.1 (1)P

reinforcing steel γs 1.15

EN-1992-1-1:2004

reinforced concrete γc 1.5 Table 2.1N

whatever the class is

for resistance of members to

instability assessed by member γM1 1.10

checks

for resistance of cross-sections in

γM2 1.25

tension to fracture

A-6

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

γv 1.25 EN-1994-2:2005

headed stud 2.4.1.2 (5)

concrete - C30/37

N

characteristic value of the fck 30.00

2

compression strength mm

fck N

design value of the compression fcd 20.00

γc 2

strength mm

2

3

mm2 N N EN-1992-1-1:2004

fctm 0.3 fck 2.896

mean value of the tensile strength N 2 2 Table 3.1

mm mm

0.3

mm

2

fck 8

N kN kN EN-1992-1-1:2004

mean value of the elastic modulus Ecm 22 32.84 Table 3.1

10 2

mm

2

mm

Ecm

mean value of the shear modulus Gc 13.91 GPa

2 1 νc

strain at crushing

ε cu 3.5‰

(in bending)

stress reduction factor α 0.85

kN kN kN EN 1991-1-1:2002

volumetric weight of the reinforced γrc 24 1 25 Table A.1

3 3 3

concrete m m m

N

design value of the yield stress fy.1 355

2

(t<40mm) mm

N

design value of the yield stress fy.2 335

2

(80mm<t<40mm) mm

νa 0.3

Poisson coefficient

Ea

shear modulus Ga 80.77 GPa

2 1 νa

A-7

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

kN

volumetric weight γav 78.5

3

m

5

coefficient of thermal expansion αT 1.2 10 1 /°C

N

characteristic value of the yield fyk 500

2

stress mm

fyk N

design value of the yield stress fyd 434.8

γs 2

mm

EN 1994-2:2005

modulus of elasticity Es 210GPa 3.2 (2)

a) structural steel:

The software automatically calculates the weight of the girders, for the verification

and comparison to other loads for one selected section the self weight is calculated.

f.t

tf.b 40mm b f.b 800mm

tw 15mm h w 1750mm

tw

hw

2

Aa tw h w tf.t b f.t tf.b b f.b 702.5 cm

kN tf.b

m

The section of the cross bracing is HEA200, the area of this cross-section is:

2

AHEA200 53.83cm

A-8

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

GcrossB kN

g crossB 1.902

am m

Weight of other steel elements such as the inspection footway and studs:

kN

g a.other 1

m

considered during the whole lifespan of the structure.

b deck 2

Ac v c.eq 19688.4 cm

area of the half of it 2

kN

load on one girder g rc Ac γrc 49.22

m

c) Surfacing

3

Layers Volume weight [kN/m ]

4 cm wearing course 24,0

7 cm binder course 24,0

4 cm protection coating 24,0

0,2 cm waterproofing 10,0

lsurf kN

g surf γaszf ( 4cm 7cm 4cm) γszig 0.2cm 20.088

2 m

According to the EN 1991-1-1 the characteristic value of the surfacing weight EN-1991-1-1:2001

should be calculated by multiplying the value - obtained by the nominal dimensions 5.2.3 (3)

of the layers- by 1,2. It takes into account the uncertainties of the thickness of the

pavement.

kN

g surf 1.2 g surf 24.11

m

On the two sides of the cross-section slightly different sidewalks are applied.

2

cross-sectional area of sidewalk 1 As.1 6621.8cm

A-9

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

2

cross-sectional area of sidewalk 2 As.2 5662.2cm

kN

g s.1 As.1 γrc 16.55

m

kN

g s.2 As.2 γrc 14.16

m

e) Parapet:

kN

g p 1.0

m

kN

g other 1.0

m

The permanent loads on one girder are summarized in the following table.

line load

loads on one girder

[kN/m]

girder's self weight 5,51

cross-bracing 1,90

other steel elements 1,00

RC deck 49,22

surfacing 24,11

sidewalk 16,55

parapet 1,00

other 1,00

sum 100,30

70% - relative ambient humidity

h0=280 mm - notional size (h0=2*Ac/u); Ac-area; u- perimeter exposed to air

A-10

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

It should be noted that the moisture loss is sealed with the application of

waterproofing, therefore the notional thickness doubles. However, until the placing of

waterproofing the notional thickness can be considered as the nominal thickness of

the slab. Also pondering that significant part of the creep is taken place at the first

months, it is a safe side approximation to use the smaller value [A2].

Moreover the effect of this notional thickness doubling is investigated calculating the

modular ratios for this particular case, the results are summarized in the following table:

t0 day at first h0 = 280 mm h0 = 560 mm EN 1992-1:2004

Annex B

loading fi nLp fi nLp dnLp and

EN 1994-2:2004

7 2,424 23,45 2,265 22,33 4,78%

28 1,866 19,52 1,744 18,66 4,41%

t0 day at first h0 = 280 mm h0 = 560 mm

-4 -4

loading eps x10 nLsh eps x10 nLsh dnLsh

1 3,274 18,61 2,945 17,81 4,30%

From the table above it can be seen that the notional thickness has no significant effect

on the modular ratios, to be on the safe side I will calculate with the thinner one. In the

worked example in [A1] (with waterproofing) also the smaller value were applied.

For the easier calculation the time-dependent phenomena of concrete are taken

into account by using the special capability of midas Civil. It can model the time

course of the creep and shrinkage.

For the concrete the age at the beginning of shrinkage, 1 day is used. EN 1994-2:2004

5.4.2.2 (4)

Consequently, to consider in an appropriate way the creep induced by the

shrinkage, the concrete elements are activated at age 1 day.

Additional comparison was carried out to check results provided by the

software, and to verify them. Since the program using the user specified creep

and shrinkage functions which are in this case the ones provided by the

Eurocode, it is not surprising that the end values of creep coefficient shrinkage

strains and the corresponding loads are equal. It is more interesting the compare

the actual results of the calculations in respect of stresses and deflections

considering the composite section. The Eurocode takes into account the effect of

the creep by a modified modular ratio, where the modification depends on the

type of the action. For example in case of shrinkage ψsh 0.55 should be

applied. The standard distinguishes three long-term actions based on their

effects on the creep. These are illustrated in the following figure:

A-11

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

The figure illustrates well why a reduced modular ratio should be applied for

the shrinkage induced creep. The shrinkage reaches its final value many years

after the pouring, therefore the creep induced by it should be less than that of

the permanent load. Less creep corresponds to a lower modular ratio.

Of course the software takes these effects automatically into consideration.

For the comparison a simple composite column (solely considering axial loads)

and plate girder (axial load and bending) were used. In case of creep induced

by permanent (long-term in time unchanging) load the difference between the

deflections and stresses are around 6-7% compared to the standardized method

using ψp 1.1, The software provides higher values. A possible reason of this

difference can be that the software applies infinitely rigid connection between

the steel and concrete parts. This stiffer connection means more restrain and so

more stress in the concrete and consequently more creep.

In case of creep induced by shrinkage ( ψsh 0.55 for the standardized method)

the same trend was experienced, the stresses provided by the software are

about 5-6% higher than the values determined by the standardized method.

This again probably can be explained by the flexibility of real shear

connections.

For the sake of simplicity in the global analysis the composite beam element

with rigid shear connection were used. Based on the abovementioned results

this assumptions have not too much effect, moreover we are on the safe side

with it.

The primary effect of the shrinkage should not be taken into account in the cracked EN-1994-2:2004

sections. 6.2.1.5 (5)

The limit of linear creep limit should be checked in SLS quasi-permanent combination.

With the removal of the shoring the reaction forces in opposite direction are loading

the structure.

A-12

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

3.2.1 Traffic loads

width w [m] notional lanes lane w l [m] remaining area [m]

7,00 2 3,00 1,00

The bridge belongs to the I. traffic class, the adjustment factors related to

this class are the following:

Vertical loads

Its characteristic value corresponds to a traffic load 1000 year return period - it means EN-1991-2:2003

a probability of exceedance 10% in 100 years - it describes the main roads in Europe. Table 2.1

These values are mainly determined from traffic-measurements in Auxerre.

The frequent value corresponds to a traffic load with 1 week return period on the main EN-1991-2:2003

roads of Europe. The dynamic amplification is included in the models. 4.2 (1)

Location 2

Table 4.2

Q ik axle loads [kN] q ik (or q rk ) [kN/m ]

Lane 1 300 9,0

Lane 2 200 2,5

Lane 3 100 2,5

Other lanes 0 2,5

remaining area (q rk ) 0 2,5

A-13

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

EN-1991-2:2003

Figure 4.2a

αQ.1 Qa.k

Qa.k 400kN

EN-1991-2:2003

Figure 4.2b

Vertical loads on footways and cycle tracks

characteristic value:

kN

q k 5.0

2 EN-1991-2:2003

m 5.3.2.1 (1)

A-14

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

kN

q k.comb 3.0 EN-1991-2:2003

2 Table 4.4a

m

In this particular case due to the location of the structure the footway loads are not

combined with carriageway loads in the load groups. This also corresponds to the

consideration applied through the original design.

Fatigue load

Fatigue Load Model 3 (FLM3) is used to carry out the fatigue verification.

Horizontal loads

Due to the boundary conditions the uniform temperature load does not induce

stresses in the structure.

3.2.3.2 Temperature difference component

To take into account the effect of the temperature difference the Approach 1 method

is used. Linear temperature distribution in the whole depth of the section. EN 1991-1-5:2003

6.1.4.1

The temperature difference between the top and bottom surfaces:

A-15

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

ΔTM.cool 18 °C

EN 1991-1-5:2003

Bottom surface warmer: Table 6.1

ΔTM.heat 15 °C

(ksur) which takes into account the effect of the surfacing thickness.

EN 1991-1-5:2003

In current case this value for both cases (top- and bottom surface warmer) is equal to Table 6.2

1,0.

Assuming the same heat transfer coefficient for the steel and concrete, there will not

develop primary stresses from this effect.

Dynamic response procedure is not needed for the current bridge, since the longest EN 1991-1-4:2004

span less than or equal to 40 m and can be considered as a normal bridge. 8.2 (1)

The wind force in x direction (parallel to the deck width, perpendicular to the span) is EN 1991-1-4:2004

taken into account by the simplified method. 8.3.2

m

fundamental value of basic velocity v b0 40

s

This action may be governing for the transverse bending or horizontal reactions, in this

case is not considered in the global analysis.

b) simultaneously with live load:

m

fundamental value of basic velocity v b0 23 EN 1991-1-4:2004

s 8.1 (4)

Basic wind velocity: EN 1991-1-4:2004

4.2 (2)P

v b = cd cs v b0

where:

cd directional factor cd 1.0

cs season factor cs 1.0

Wind pressure:

1 2

fw = ρ v b c

2

where: kg

ρ air density ρ 1.25

3

c wind load factor (from the table below) m

A-16

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

< 0,5 5,7 7,1

> 4,0 3,1 3,8

8.3.1 (5a)

b

2.947

d tot

c 3.882

1 2 kN

fw ρ v b c 1.284

2 2

m

The reference area subjected to the wind pressure is determined by its height: d tot and

its length which corresponds to the loaded length

The software is able to apply this pressure load to a beam element and takes into

account its eccentricity.

The wind load is not likely to be the governing action in case of small and medium

span bridges, moreover it should not be combined with the thermal effects as pointed

out in Section 2. Nevertheless, it is considered in the global analysis and turned out

that is not governing.

Working personnel, staff and visitors, possibly with hand tools or

other small site equipment

kN

q ca 0.7 EN 1991-1-6:2005

2 Table 4.1

m

b) storage of movable items:

e.g.: equipment, building and construction materials

kN

q cb 0.1 Fcb.k 100kN EN 1991-1-6:2005

2 Table 4.1

m

A-17

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

c) nonpermanent equipments:

e.g.: formwork panels, scaffolding, falsework,...

kN EN 1991-1-6:2005

q cc 0.5 Table 4.1

2

m

d) additional weight of the unhardened concrete

kN kN

q c.add 1 v c.eq 0.292 EN 1991-1-1:2002

3 2 Table A.1

m m

The additional load on one girders due to the water inside the unhardened concrete

and formwork:

b deck kN

qc.add qcc 2

5.336

m

The load on one girder due to the construction loads, without the formwork.

b deck kN

q cs q ca q cb 2

5.388

m

A-18

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

In the original design the construction sequence was assumed in a simplified manner,

in respect to no detailed information was a priori available about the construction.

This makes an approximation that the whole deck is concreted in one step and their

weight is carried by the bare steel girders.

Based on the assumptions applied in the original design the following construction

sequence was adopted in the FEM model:

A-19

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

The numbers in the plates are representing the thicknesses and the numbers before

the girder are the widths.

The bracings are placed in equal distance of 5.0 m in all three of spans.

D16/200 in two layers

in the cracked zone:

D25 /100 in two layers

6 Beam cross-sections

Since the geometry of the bridge is rather simple a grillage model is adequate for

global analysis. Because in grillage analysis the girders and deck are modeled as

beams the shear lag effect is not an inherent property of the system; it has to be taken

into account 'manually'.

When elastic global analysis is used, a constant effective width may be assumed over EN 1994-2:2005

the whole of each span. This value may be taken as the value beff,1 at mid-span for a 5.4.1.2 (4)

span supported at both ends, or the value b eff,2 at the support for a cantilever. Since in

the original design the change of effective width was considered in the region of

supports, I take it into account as well.

A-20

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

2

b eff = b 0

b ei EN 1994-2:2005

5.4.1.2 (5.3)

i 1

at end support:

2

EN 1994-2:2005

b eff = b 0

βibei 5.4.1.2 (5.4)

i 1

The illustration of the regions with different effective widths can be seen in the EN 1994-2:2005

following figure. Le is the approximate distance between points of zero bending 5.4.1.2 (5)

moments, which can be assumed as illustrated on the figure in case of typical

continuous composite beams.

For the ease of modeling the linear change in the effective width is not considered,

rather only the constant values are used with sudden change in the midpoint of linear

sections. The sections with different effective width are presented in the following

figure:

beff.0 b'eff.1 beff.2 beff.2 b''eff.1 beff.2 beff.2 b'eff.1 beff.0

The geometrically available concrete flange, this is the same all over the entire structure:

A-21

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

2985 3750

Le 2765 mm (geometrically

b e.1 3.188 m > → b e.1 2765mm

8 possible)

Le 3530 mm (geometrically

b e.2 3.188 m < → b e.2 3187.5 mm

8 possible)

b´eff.1 b 0 b e.1 b e.2 6392.5 mm

- beff.0:

Le Le

β1 min 0.55 0.025 1.0 0.781 β2 min 0.55 0.025 1.0 0.75

b e.1 b e.2

b e.1 β1 b e.1 2158.25 mm b e.2 β2 b e.2 2390.6 mm

- beff.2:

Le 2765 mm (geometrically

b e.1 2.188 m < → b e.1 2187.5 mm

8 possible)

Le 3530 mm (geometrically

b e.2 2.188 m < → b e.2 2187.5 mm

8 possible)

b eff.2 b 0 b e.1 b e.2 4815 mm

Le 0.7 40m 28 m

A-22

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

Le

b e.1 3.5 m > 2765 mm (geometrically → b e.1 2765mm

8

possible)

Le

b e.2 3.5 m > 3530 mm (geometrically → b e.2 3530mm

8

possible)

The structure is symmetric in respect of spans and the concrete slab, thus there is

no need to determine the remaining effective widths.

The effect of cracking of concrete is taken into account in a simplified manner, EN 1994-2:2005

neglecting the concrete in 15% of the span on each side of each internal support. A 5.4.2.3 (3)

similar method with fully neglecting of concrete in pier region was used in the original

design. Just to investigate the effect of tension stiffening global analysis was

performed with 1/10 modulus of elasticity for concrete in the cracked region.

steel.

t=∞ 100 years, end of design life

Only the two sections' properties with the highest negative and positive moment are

calculated, to verify the software results.

b eff

z

Sc

hc

yi Si yi

zc

ya Sa ya

zi

za

z

Ea

n0 6.395

Ecm

A-23

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

section dimensions:

tw 15 mm h w 1750 mm

area:

2

Aa.s h w tw b f.t tf.t b f.b tf.b 702.5 cm

hw tf.t tf.b 3

Sa.s tw h w tf.b tf.t b f.t h w tf.b tf.b b f.b 46259 cm

2 2 2

Sa.s

za.s 658.49 mm

Aa.s

3 2 3

b f.t tf.t tf.t tw h w 6 4

Ia.s b f.t tf.t tf.b h w za.s 3.711 10 cm

12 2 12

2

tf.b

3 2

hw tf.b bf.b

tw h w tf.b za.s tf.b b f.b za.s

2 12 2

Ia.s 3

Wel.tf.s 32230 cm

h w tf.b tf.t za.s

Ia.s 3

Wel.bf.s 56361 cm

za.s

Determination of the height of the plastic neutral axis from the bottom surface with a

horizontal equilibrium equation:

solving it the place of neutral axis (z pl):

x 208.3 mm

A-24

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

zpl tf.b

2

d1

2 235.507 mm

A a.s

2

h w tf.b zpl

2

d2

2 1041.011 mm

A a.s

2

d d 1 d 2 1.277 m

Aa.s 3

Wpl.s d 44838 cm

2

Wpl.s

cs 1 39.1 %

min Wel.bf.s Wel.tf.s

h h 100mm

height of haunch

2

area Ac.s v c.eq b´´eff.1 19688.4 cm

zc.s tf.b h w tf.t h h 205.6 cm

surface 2

3

moment of inertia about the neutral b´´eff.1 v c.eq 6 4

Ic.s 1.402 10 cm

axis of the deck 12

2

( 16mm)

π 2 2

4 mm

as.s 2011

200mm m

Its centroid coincidences with the centroid of the the concrete slab.

A-25

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

A 1

1 1 2

Ai.s.0 Aa.s a b´´ 3895 cm

n 0 c.s n 0 s.s eff.1

A z 1

1 1 5 3

Si.s.0 Aa.s za.s a b´´ z 7.028 10 cm

n 0 c.s c.s n 0 s.s eff.1 c.s

Si.s.0

zi.s.0 1804.1 mm tf.b h w tf.t 1810 mm

Ai.s.0

1

Ii.s.0 Ia.s Aa.s zi.s.0 za.s 2 n0

1 a b´´ z z

1

n0 s.s eff.1 c.s i.s.0 2

increase over neglecting the reinforcement under compression:

7 4

Ii.s.0.2 1.510362 10 cm

Ii.s.0 Ii.s.0.2

0.496 %

Ii.s.0

Ii.s.0 7 3

Wi.el.tf.s 2.573 10 cm

h w tf.b tf.t zi.s.0

Ii.s.0 3

Wi.el.bf.s 84136 cm

zi.s.0

2

Area [cm ] 702,5 3895,3

*

Height of NA [mm] 658,5 1804,1

4

Inertia about NA [cm ] 3,711E+06 1,518E+07

3

Elastic modulus, top flange [cm ] 3,223E+04 2,573E+07

3

Elastic modulus, bottom flange [cm ] 5,636E+04 8,414E+04

*

from the very bottom surface

cross-sectional properties for shrinkage induced creep, since the software cannot

separate the primary and secondary effects.

A-26

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

Repeating the above calculation with modified modulus ratio the results:

2

Area [cm ] 2336,2

*

Height of NA [mm] 1635,9

4

Inertia about NA [cm ] 1,342E+07

3

Elastic modulus, top flange [cm ] 7,705E+05

3

Elastic modulus, bottom flange [cm ] 8,201E+04

*

from the very bottom surface

Cross-section resistance

elastic resistance

EN 1994-2:2005

M el.Rd = M a k M c.Ed 6.2.1.4 Eq. (6.4)

As it can be seen from the expression it depends on the moment locked-in the bare

steel due to the construction sequences. It also depends on the time, since the

primary effect of shrinkage and creep varies in time.

t = 100 days

moment in the steel, determined from the global analysis:

M a.s 504kN m the reason for such a low value is the favorable position of the

section and temporary supports

M a.s M a.s

σa.1.tf 15.64 MPa σa.1.bf 8.942 MPa

Wel.tf.s Wel.bf.s

6

n L.sh.o 13.05 ε sh.o 139.610 10

n0

Nsh Ecm A ε 4423.0 kN

n L.sh.o c.s sh.o

M sh Nsh zc.s zi.s.L.sh 1858.9 kN m

Nsh Nsh

σc.t.sh.1 2.246 MPa σc.b.sh.1 2.246 MPa

Ac.s Ac.s

Nsh M sh v c.eq 1

σc.t.sh.2 zc.s zi.s.L.sh 2.052 MPa

Ai.s.L.sh Ii.s.L.sh 2 n L.sh.o

A-27

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

Nsh M sh v c.eq 1

σc.b.sh.2

Ai.s.L.sh

Ii.s.L.sh

zc.s zi.s.L.sh

2 n L.sh.o

1.742 MPa

Nsh M sh

σa.t.sh 21.34 MPa

Ai.s.L.sh Wi.el.tf.s.L.sh

Nsh M sh

σa.b.sh 3.74 MPa

Ai.s.L.sh Wi.el.bf.s.L.sh

M c.1 M c.1

σa.2.tf 0.915 MPa σa.2.bf 280 MPa

Wi.el.tf.s Wi.el.bf.s

M c.1

σs

z zi.s.0 39.12 MPa

Ii.s.0 c.s

M c.1 v c.eq 1

σc.t zc.s zi.s.0 9.664 MPa

Ii.s.0 2 n0

M c.1 v c.eq 1

σc.b zc.s zi.s.0 2.57 MPa

Ii.s.0 2 n0

k a.t 347.4 k a.b 1.223

σa.2.tf σa.2.bf

fyd

ks 11.115

σs

k c.t 2.09 k c.b 7.979

σc.t σc.b

k ss min k a.t k a.b k s k c.t k c.b 1.223

A-28

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

k ss M c.1

M c.el.Rd.s 28802 kN m

γM0

highest stress:

at the bottom flange of the steel

σa.bf σa.1.bf σa.b.sh σa.2.bf 292.7 MPa

girder

the value obtained from midas:

σa.bf.midas σa.bf

0.904 %

σa.bf

Shrinkage.

M el.Rd.s M c.el.Rd.s M a.s 29306 kN m

Plastic resistance:

plastic resistance of the top flange Rf.t b f.t tf.t fy.1 4260 kN

plastic resistance of the bottom flange Rf.b b f.b tf.b fy.1 11360 kN

Rc 0.85 fcd Ac.s as.s b´´eff.1 33240 kN

The whole steel section is under tension, therefore it belongs to Class 1.

as.s b´´eff.1

Rc 0.85 fcd Ac.s 33355 kN

2

Rw Rf.t Rf.b = ξ Rc

ξ v c.eq 218.567 mm v c.eq 40mm 252.33 mm

under tension

A-29

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

ξ v c.eq

M c.pl.Rk.s Rw Rf.t Rf.b zpl.c.s za.s 2

ξ Rc 36401 kN m

Rs.s Rs.s

ξ v c.eq 40mm

2

( 1 ξ ) v c.eq 40mm

2

M c.pl.Rk.s

M c.pl.Rd.s 36401 kN m

γM0

shear resistance:

VEd 903kN

from midas analysis

η 1.20 EN 1993-1-5:2006

5.1 (2)

fy.1

h w tw

3 EN 1993-1-1:2005

Vpl.a.Rd η 6456.2 kN 6.2.6 (2) (3)

γM0

235

ε 0.814

fy.1 EN 1993-1-5:2006

5.3 (3)

MPa

In order to take into account the contribution of the stiffener it is assumed that the

bigger subpanel shear buckling is governing.

h wi 1070mm

a

α 2.336

h wi

5.34

kτ 4 if α 1.0 6.073

2

α

4

5.34 if α 1.0

2

α

hw

λ´w 1.556 EN 1993-1-5:2006

37.4 tw ε k τ 5.3 (5.6)

A-30

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

with rigid end post

0.83

χw η if λ´w 0.607 EN 1993-1-5:2006

η 5.3 Table 5.1

0.83 0.83

if λ´w 1.08

λ´w η

1.37

if 1.08 λ´w

0.7 λ´w

χw fy.1 h w tw

Vbw.Rd 2970.4 kN

3 γM1 EN 1993-1-5:2006

5.3 (5.2)

Contribution from flanges:

neglected

Vbf.Rd 0kN

VRd min Vpl.a.Rd Vb.Rd 2970.42 kN

2

VEd

2 1 otherwise

VRd

1 ρ 1

A-31

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

b eff

z

Ss

hc

yi Si yi

s

ya Sa ya

zi

za

tw 25mm h w 1750 mm

2

Aa.h h w tw tf.t b f.t tf.b b f.b 1037.5 cm

hw tf.t tf.b 3

Sa.h tw h w tf.b tf.t b f.t h w tf.b tf.b b f.b 64186.25 cm

2 2 2

Sa.h

za.h 618.66 mm

Aa.h

3 2 3

b f.t tf.t tf.t tw h w 6 4

Ia.h b f.t tf.t tf.b h w za.h 4.951 10 cm

12 2 12

2 3 2

hw tf.b b f.b tf.b

tw h w tf.b za.h tf.b b f.b za.h

2 12 2

Ia.h 3

Ia.h 3

Wel.tf.h 40872 cm Wel.bf.h 80027 cm

h w tf.b tf.t za.h za.h

M a.el.h min Wel.tf.h Wel.bf.h fy.1 14510 kN m

A-32

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

b f.t tf.t h w x tw = b f.b tf.b x tw

solving:

x 155 mm

from the very bottom surface

Aa.h 2

518.75 cm

2

zpl.h tf.b2

b f.b tf.b zpl.h tw

d1

2 204.729 mm

A a.h

2

hw tf.b zpl.h2

b f.t tf.t h w tf.b tf.t zpl.h tw

d2

2 986.608 mm

A a.h

2

d d 1 d 2 1.191 m

Aa.h 3

Wpl.h d 61800.625 cm

2

shape factor

Wpl.h

ch 1 51.2 % cs 39.119 %

min Wel.bf.h Wel.tf.h

bb) reinforced concrete deck:

The contribution of the concrete to the flexural stiffness through the tension stiffening

is neglected.

equivalent thickness of the deck v c.eq 292.33 mm

A-33

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

2

area Ac.h v c.eq b eff.2 14075.7 cm

v c.eq

height of centroid from the bottom zc.h tf.b hw tf.t h h 207.6 cm

2

surface

3

moment of inertia about the neutral b eff.2 v c.eq 6 4

Ic.h 1.002 10 cm

axis of the deck 12

2

( 25mm)

π 2 2

4 mm

as.h 9817

100mm m

2

Ai.h.0 Aa.h as.h b eff.2 1510 cm

5 3

Si.h.0 Aa.h za.h as.h b eff.2 zc.h 1.623 10 cm

composite NA:

Si.h.0

zi.h.0 1074.9 mm

Ai.h.0

Ii.h.0 Ia.h Aa.h zi.h.0 za.h 2 1.18497 107 cm4

as.h b eff.2 zc.h zi.h.0

2

Ii.h.0 5 3

Wi.el.tf.h 1.569 10 cm

h w tf.b tf.t zi.h.0

Ii.h.0 5 3

Wi.el.bf.h 1.102 10 cm M el.appr Wi.el.bf.h fy.2 36931.094 kN m

zi.h.0

2

Area [cm ] 1037,5 1510,2

*

Height of NA [mm] 618,7 1074,9

4

Inertia about NA [cm ] 4,951E+06 1,185E+07

3

Elastic modulus, top flange [cm ] 4,087E+04 1,569E+05

3

Elastic modulus, bottom flange [cm ] 8,003E+04 1,102E+05

*

from the very bottom surface

A-34

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

Cross-section resistance

elastic resistance

M el.Rd = M a k M c.Ed

as it can be seen from the expression it depends on the moment locked-in the

bare steel due to the construction sequences

with the use of the value determined from the global analysis:

t = 100 years

M a.h 3279kN m

M a.h M a.h

σa.1.tf 80.23 MPa σa.1.bf 40.974 MPa

Wel.tf.h Wel.bf.h

M c.1 M c.1

σa.2.tf 188.901 MPa σa.2.bf 268.9 MPa

Wi.el.tf.h Wi.el.bf.h

M c.1

σs z

Ii.h.0 c.h

zi.h.0 250.48 MPa

k a.t 1.5 k a.b 1.093

σa.2.tf σa.2.bf

fyd

ks 1.736

σs

k h min k a.t k a.b k s 1.093

k h M c.1

M c.el.Rd.h 32414 kN m

γM0

Plastic resistance:

A-35

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

plastic resistance of the top flange Rf.t b f.t tf.t fy.1 4260 kN

plastic resistance of the bottom flange Rf.b b f.b tf.b fy.2 16080 kN

Cross section classification for bending:

235

ε 0.814

fy.1

MPa

Flanges:

topFlange 1

b f.b tw

6.458

2 tf.b

b f.b tw

bottomFlange 3 if 14 ε EN 1993-1-1:2005

2 tf.b Table 5.2 sheet 2

b f.b tw

2 if 10 ε

2 tf.b

b f.b tw

1 if 9 ε

2 tf.b

4 otherwise

bottomFlange 1

Web:

hw

70

tw

A-36

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

hw 456 ε EN 1993-1-1:2005

web 2 if ξ 0.5 Table 5.2 sheet 1

tw 13 ξ 1

hw 41.5 ε

2 if ξ 0.5

tw ξ

hw 396 ε

1 if ξ 0.5

tw 13 ξ 1

hw 36 ε

1 if ξ 0.5

tw ξ

The elastic stress distribution is required to classify the web, these stresses depend

on the construction sequence, they induced by the Ma and Mc moments. Therefore,

for the classification the sequence of the construction should be known a priori,

which is not typical. In this particular case the primary effects are not effecting the

stress distribution.

The following way the classification can be done without knowing the actual Ma and

Mc moments. The neutral axis for arbitrary Ma-Mc pair is between the following

values:

tf.b h w tf.t za.h

za.h 618.7 mm ψ1 1.958

za.h

zi.h.0 1075 mm ψ2 0.703

zi.h.0

hw 42 ε

web1 3 if ψ1 1 hw 42 ε

tw 0.67 0.33 ψ1 web2 3 if ψ2 1

tw 0.67 0.33 ψ2

hw

3 if ψ1 1

tw

62 ε 1 ψ1 ψ1 3 if ψ2 1

hw

ψ2

62 ε 1 ψ2

tw

web otherwise

web otherwise

web1 3 web2 3

From the above web classification it can be seen that the web is in Class 3

regardless of the moment locked-in by the construction sequence.

σa.1.tf σa.2.tf

ψ 0.869

σa.1.bf σa.2.bf

A-37

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

hw 42 ε

web 3 if ψ 1

tw 0.67 0.33 ψ

hw

3 if ψ 1 62 ε ( 1 ψ) ( ψ)

tw

web otherwise

web 3

max( web topFlange bottomFlange) otherwise

crossSection 2 Class

If the web is in class 3 and the flanges at least in class 2, the section may be treated

as class 2 where the web is taken into account with its effective dimensions in EN 1994-2:2004

5.5.2 (3)

accordance with EN 1993-1-1:2005 6.2.2.4.

It means that in the elastic regime the whole section is working, while for plastic

resistance a reduced web should be considered.

Considering the robust, longitudinal trapezoidal stiffener in the compressed web-zone

it can be seen by inspection that the web is at least in section class 2. Therefore no

reduction is adopted for the web (also checked with EBPlate).

The plastic reserves of the cross-section can be exploited, however the rotation is

limited.

zpl.c.h tf.b ξ h w 1427 mm

tf.b

d f.b zpl.c.h 1.397 m

2

tf.t

d f.t tf.b h w zpl.c.h 0.393 m

2

tf.t v c.eq

d s.h d f.t hh 0.649 m

2 2

ξ hw ( 1 ξ) hw

M c.pl.Rk.h Rf.b d f.b ξ Rw ( 1 ξ) Rw 46423 kN m

2 2

Rf.t d f.t Rs.h d s.h

M c.pl.Rk.h

M c.pl.Rd.h 46423 kN m

γM0

A-38

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

shear resistance:

VEd 4629kN

η 1.20

fy.1

h w tw

3

Vpl.a.Rd η 10760.4 kN

γM0

235

ε 0.814

fy.1

MPa

a

α 2.336

h wi

5.34 EN 1993-1-5:2006

kτ 4 if α 1.0 6.073 5.3 (3)

2

α

4

5.34 if α 1.0

2

α

h wi

λ´w 0.571 EN 1993-1-5:2006

37.4 tw ε k τ 5.3 (5.6)

The stiffener is rather robust, it is not expected to get a "global" ortotrop plate

buckling as first eigenshape, by the way it was checked with EBPlate.

the relative slenderness for the longitudinally stiffened web:

by using the general formula for stability problems

fy.1

3

λ´w.int 0.532

722.91 MPa

A-39

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

the critical stress is determined with EBPlate using hinged supports at every edge

It is slightly lower than the stability loss of the upper subpanel, but it is also predict the

buckling of the bigger subpanel. The reason of the difference that in the standardized

calculation the bottom restrain of the plate is assumed to be hinged, while in EBPlate its

connected to the next subpanel

with rigid end post

0.83

χw η if λ´w 1.2 EN 1993-1-5:2006

η 5.3 Table 5.1

0.83 0.83

if λ´w 1.08

λ´w η

1.37

if 1.08 λ´w

0.7 λ´w

χw fy.1 h w tw

Vbw.Rd 9782.2 kN

3 γM1 EN 1993-1-5:2006

5.3 (5.2)

Contribution from flanges:

neglected

Vbf.Rd 0kN

VRd min Vpl.Rd Vb.Rd 9782.151 kN

A-40

Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

0.473

2 VRd

VEd

2 1 otherwise

VRd

1 ρ 1

M c.pl.Rk.h

M c.pl.Rd.h 46423 kN m

γM0

internal pier midspan

resistances

2

Area [cm ] 3895,3 1510,2

*

Height of NA [mm] 1804,1 1074,9

4

Inertia about NA [cm ] 1,518E+07 1,185E+07

3

Elastic modulus, top flange [cm ] 2,573E+07 1,569E+05

3

Elastic modulus, bottom flange [cm ] 8,414E+04 1,102E+05

Plastic resistance [kNm] 36401 46423

*

from the very bottom surface

Resistances:

plastic elastic

Sagging: only composite total

M c.pl.Rd.s 36401 kN m M c.el.Rd.s 28802 kN m M el.Rd.s 29306 kN m t = 100 days

Hogging:

M c.pl.Rd.h 46423 kN m M c.el.Rd.h 32414 kN m M el.Rd.h 35693 kN m t = 100 years

sequence:

M c.pl.Rd.s M c.pl.Rd.h

cc.s 1 26.39 % cc.h 1 43.22 %

M c.el.Rd.s M c.el.Rd.h

These high values are the result of the very asymmetrical sections.

A-41

Limit State Analysis Annex B

Evaluation of the rating and utilization factors for different ultimate limit states. This Annex

uses the results of Annex A.

Resistances:

plastic elastic

M c.pl.Rd.s 36401 kN m M c.el.Rd.s 28802 kN m M el.Rd.s 29306 kN m t = 100 days

Hogging:

M c.pl.Rd.h 46423 kN m M c.el.Rd.h 32414 kN m M el.Rd.h 35693 kN m t = 100 years

sequence:

M c.pl.Rd.s M c.pl.Rd.h

cc.s 1 26.39 % cc.h 1 43.22 %

M c.el.Rd.s M c.el.Rd.h

These high values are the result of the very asymmetric sections.

1 First Yield

Since the superstructure contains various sections and with taking into account the

cracking and shear lag this number at least doubles - based on the original elastic

calculation - in case of the check of the ULS of main girders only the critical, most

exploited cross sections will be checked.

The maximal internal forces at the application of the first life load (day 100,

the concrete is 94 days old):

These values are obtained by summing the forces locked-in the bare steel and forces

acting on the composite section e.g. Ma,Ed + Mc,Ed.

M´Ed.s.0 M Ed.s.0

M Ed.s.0 22747kN m M´Ed.s.0 22117kN m 2.77 %

M Ed.s.0

B-1

Limit State Analysis Annex B

M´Ed.h.0 29365 kN m M´Ed.h.0 M Ed.h.0

M Ed.h.0 28350.5 kN m 3.578 %

M Ed.h.0

The maximal internal forces at the end of the design life (100 years):

M´Ed.s.t M Ed.s.t

M Ed.s.t 20291kN m M´Ed.s.t 19560kN m 3.603 %

M Ed.s.t

M´Ed.h.t M Ed.h.t

M Ed.h.t 30789 kN m M´Ed.h.t 31906 kN m 3.628 %

M Ed.h.t

As it expected the maximum positive bending moment appears at the opening of the

structure to traffic due to the secondary effect of shrinkage which induces negative

moments in the entire structure. According to this the maximum negative moment

develops at the end of the design life.

UF - utilization factor

RF - rating factor, is the multiplier applied to the live load to reach the particular limit

state

M Ed.s.0 M Ed.h.t

UF el.s 0.776 UF el.h 0.863

M el.Rd.s M el.Rd.h

B-2

Limit State Analysis Annex B

The numbers in the tables are multiplied with the relevant partial factors.

Permanent Variable

M [kNm] Traffic Thermal Wind

Dead load Shrinkage1 Creep 1 Top Bottom With Without

TS UDL 2 2

warmer warmer traffic traffic

LC1 9289 -1765 -89 12971 2340 - - -

Permanent Variable

M [kNm] Traffic Thermal Wind

1 1

Dead load Shrinkage Creep Top Bottom With Without

TS UDL

warmer warmer traffic2 traffic2

LC3 -13797 -4404 129 -9889 - -2828 - -

1

implicitly these moments are only from the secondary (global) effect of the shrinkage and

creep, since only these effects induce internal forces

the values are multiplied with the partial factors

M el.Rd.s M nontraffic.s 1

1.288

RFel.s 1.506 UF el.s

M traffic.s

M el.Rd.h M nontraffic.h 1

1.159

RFel.h 1.496 UF el.h

M traffic.h

To make more realistic comparison to the incremental and plastic collapse limits the

rating factors and utilization ratios are calculated with only considering the dead and

traffic loads as well.

Without the primary (local) and secondary (global) effect of shrinkage and creep the

elastic resistance in sagging:

M el.Rd.s.2 29620kN m

M el.Rd.h 35693.1 kN m

B-3

Limit State Analysis Annex B

UF el.s.2 0.752 UF el.h.2 0.664

M el.Rd.s.2 M el.Rd.h

M el.Rd.s.2 M dead.s 1

RFel.s.2 1.567 1.331

M traffic.s UF el.s.2

M el.Rd.h M dead.h 1

1.507

RFel.h.2 2.214 UF el.h.2

M traffic.h

It is assumed that the plastic hinge formulates when the moment reaches the plastic

resistance in a particular cross-section. This means that the analysis is identical to the

first yield check with the only difference, that the plastic resistance is used.

Redistribution is not considered due to the partial plastification of the cross sections.

The primary (local) effect of the shrinkage, creep, thermal actions can be neglected

since they are equilibrated during the plastification of the cross section.

M Ed.s.0 M Ed.h.t

UF pl.s 0.625 UF pl.h 0.663

M c.pl.Rd.s M c.pl.Rd.h

M c.pl.Rd.s M nontraffic.s

RFpl.s 2.0526 1

1.6

M traffic.s UF pl.s

M c.pl.Rd.h M nontraffic.h 1

RFpl.h 2.581 1.508

M traffic.h UF pl.h

UF pl.s.2 0.612 UF pl.h.2 0.51

M c.pl.Rd.s M c.pl.Rd.h

M c.pl.Rd.s M dead.s 1

RFpl.s.2 2.090 1.635

M traffic.s UF pl.s.2

M c.pl.Rd.h M dead.h 1

1.96

RFpl.h.2 3.299 UF pl.h.2

M traffic.h

If the shakedown or plastic collapse limit states are applied then there is no effect to

the load bearing capacity of the following actions: thermal actions, shrinkage, creep,

uneven settlement

B-4

Limit State Analysis Annex B

The dead load and traffic load moment envelopes (without partial factors):

‐15000

‐12023 ‐11778

‐10000

‐5000

0 50 100

0

5000

8095

10000

‐15000

‐10000

‐7325 ‐7235,7

‐5000

0 50 100

0

5000

10000 9609,4

Assuming a collapse mechanism with hinges over the internal supports and in the

middle of midspan:

kinematic method:

γG.sup ξ [ 8095kN m ( 2 ) 12023kN m ( 1 ) 11778kN m ( 1 ) ]

RFsi.sh.k.1 2.626

γQ.t [ 9609kN m ( 2 ) 7325kN m ( 1 ) 7236kN m ( 1 ) ]

1.1475 [ 8095kN m ( 2 ) 12023kN m ( 1 ) 11778kN m ( 1 ) ]

RFsi.sh.k.1 2.626

1.35 [ 9609kN m ( 2 ) 7325kN m ( 1 ) 7236kN m ( 1 ) ]

static method:

The rating factor was determined by linear programing. The calculation is performed in

Matlab, the m-files to this and other limit states can be found on attached storage disc.

B-5

Limit State Analysis Annex B

RFsi.sh.s.1 2.6262

matlab

0.001 % 2.626

RFsi.sh.s.1 2

4 System Shakedown

Since this particular bridge consists only two girders which are assumed to be equally

loaded, their maximal moment envelopes are identical; there is no difference compared

to the system shakedown.

live load:

concentrated load:

Qtot 2 Q1.k Q2.k Q3.k 1200 kN

kN

q tot q 1.k q 2.k q 3.k 3.0m q r.k 2.0m 47.00

m

This standard adopts one uniformly distributed load all over the lanes and only one ÚT 2-3-401:2004

concentrated load with maximum value: 800 kN and axle distance 2,70 m. Moreover 2.2.1.

the dynamic factor is not included in the load model. This traffic load represents the

heaviest traffic and it should be applied to the busiest roads.

kN

p 3.525

2

m

kN p tot

p tot μ p 11.0m 45 95.8 %

m q tot

Ptot

Ptot μ 0.91 100 kN 8 845.2 kN 70.4 %

Qtot

dead load:

kN

g tot 2 g gir.tot g crossB g a.other g rc g surf g p g other g s.1 201

m

ξ 0.85

B-6

Limit State Analysis Annex B

Assuming a collapse mechanism with hinges over the internal supports and in the

middle of midspan:

kinematic method:

40m 20m

2 M c.pl.Rd.s 2 M c.pl.Rd.h ( 1 1 ) γG.sup ξ g tot

2 4.137

RFpc.k.1

40m 20m

γQ.t 20m Qtot q tot

2

static method:

Using the results of the elastic analysis

2.108 % 4.095

RFpc.s.1 2

7.875 4.875 1.875 0.1875 kN

q single q 1.k 3 m q 2.k 3 m q 3.k 3 m q r.k ( 0.25m 0.621m) 35.154

7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 m

kN

q tot 47

m

7.5 1.k 2.k 3.k

7.5 7.5

considering that the lateral distribution is slightly differs from the simply

supported beam influence line, the 0,947 multiplier takes into account this effect.

kN

q single 0.929 q single 32.658 neglecting the increased loaded area under in

m

the remaining area lane.

Qsingle 0.929 Qsingle 873.26 kN

kN p single

p single ( μ 11.0m p ) 0.5 0.929 20.91 64 %

m q single

According to the ÚT standard the tandem load should be placed in a way that the ÚT 2-3-401:2004

outer surface of the wheel is 50cm from the safety barrier (in sum from the tire 2.2.1.1

centerline 90cm). This is the bigger distance than implemented by the Eurocode using

the 3,0 m width nominal lanes and 2,0 m axle distance.

B-7

Limit State Analysis Annex B

7.125 Psingle

Psingle ( μ 0.91 100 kN 8 ) 0.929 745.9 kN 85.4 %

7.5 Qsingle

It is interesting that there is a significant difference in either the total and in the

to-girder-reduced traffic loads. Since the concentrated load induce higher positive

bending moments this increase the exploitage of sections in the sagging region against

the original design.

Determination of the rating factor assuming a collapse mechanism with hinges over the

internal supports and in the middle of midspan:

kinematic method:

Mc.pl.Rd.s 2 Mc.pl.Rd.h ( 1 1 ) γG.sup ξ 2 2

RFspc.k.1

2.900

γQ.t 20m Qsingle q single

40m 20m

2

RFspc.k.1 2.900

static method:

Using the results of the elastic analysis

1.318 % 2.92

RFspc.s.1 2

It should be noted that the increased shear force and its effect on the plastic resistance is

omitted in the above calculations. Therefore the actual values are smaller than the

determined ones. Since the M-V interaction curve is not linear it requires some advanced

method or an iterative procedure to obtain these values.

The iteration process was used to determine the rating factors reflecting the effect of shear

force. The calculations are basically identical, hence not repeated in the documentation.

B-8

Reliability analysis Annex C

The critical section is the one loaded with the highest positive moment, t=100 days.

The reliability analysis conducted by using the First Order Reliability Method,

considering the model uncertainties as well. The limit state has reached by scaling the

live load.

D - dead load; N normal

L - livel load; EN-1990:2001

GU Gumbel

Annex C6

T - thermal action; GU Gumbel

S - shrinkage, creep;N normal

θR- res. model unc. LN lognormal

θE- act. model unc. LN lognormal

Rating factor:

RF 2.053

S 1896 νS 0 σS S νS 0

2 Reliability analysis

The numbers herein correspond to the last iteration. The results of the iterations are

summarized in a table at the end of the calculation.

C-1

Reliability analysis Annex C

g R D L Ta S θR θE θR R θE D L Ta S

Rˇ 37439.644

Dˇ 7187.337

Tˇa 1395.762

θˇR 0.971

θˇE 1.043

Sˇ S

θˇR Rˇ θˇE Dˇ Tˇa Sˇ

Lˇ 13720.4

RF θˇE

Resistance; lognormal

lognormal parameters:

σR

2

σLN.R ln 1 0.0246

2

R

2

μLN.R ln( R) 0.5 σLN.R 10.541

C-2

Reliability analysis Annex C

FR( x ) plnorm x μLN.R σLN.R

fR( x ) dlnorm x μLN.R σLN.R

1

σRˇ.eq

fR( Rˇ)

dnorm qnorm FR( Rˇ) 0 1 0 1 921.3

μRˇ.eq Rˇ σRˇ.eq qnorm FR( Rˇ) 0 1 37833

lognormal parameters:

σθ.R

2

σLN.θ.R ln 1 0.04

2

θR

2

μLN.θ.R ln θR 0.5 σLN.θ.R 0.001

Fθ.R( x ) plnorm x μLN.θ.R σLN.θ.R

fθ.R( x ) dlnorm x μLN.θ.R σLN.θ.R

the equivalent normal distribution parameters:

1

σθˇ.R.eq

fθ.R θˇR

dnorm qnorm Fθ.R θˇR 0 1 0 1 0.039

μθˇ.R.eq θˇR σθˇ.R.eq qnorm Fθ.R θˇR 0 1 0.999

lognormal parameters:

σθ.E

2

σLN.θ.E ln 1 0.05

2

θE

2

μLN.θ.E ln θE 0.5 σLN.θ.E 0.001

C-3

Reliability analysis Annex C

Fθ.E( x ) plnorm x μLN.θ.E σLN.θ.E

fθ.E( x ) dlnorm x μLN.θ.E σLN.θ.E

1

σθˇ.E.eq

dnorm qnorm Fθ.E θˇE 0 1 0 1 0.052

fθ.E θˇE

μθˇ.E.eq θˇE σθˇ.E.eq qnorm Fθ.E θˇE 0 1 0.998

Dead load; normal

μDˇ.eq D 7029.7

σDˇ.eq σD 562.376

Gumbel parameters:

π

a 0.00109

6 σL

γ

u L 5358

a

( x u) a

e

FL( x ) e

( x u) a

( x u) a e

fL( x ) a e

1

σLˇ.eq

fL( Lˇ)

dnorm qnorm FL( Lˇ) 0 1 0 1 3612.147

μLˇ.eq Lˇ σLˇ.eq qnorm FL( Lˇ) 0 1 381.175

C-4

Reliability analysis Annex C

Thermal; Gumbel

Gumbel parameters:

π

a 0.00197

6 σT.a

γ

u Ta 1008

a

( x u) a

e

FT( x ) e

( x u) a

( x u) a e

fT( x ) a e

1

σTˇ.a.eq

dnorm qnorm FT Tˇa 0 1 0 1 656.338

fT Tˇa

μTˇ.a.eq Tˇa σTˇ.a.eq qnorm FT Tˇa 0 1 1181.501

n T( x ) dnorm x μTˇ.a.eq σTˇ.a.eq PDF

NT( x ) pnorm x μTˇ.a.eq σTˇ.a.eq CDF

C-5

Reliability analysis Annex C

Illustration of the PDF and CDF of Gumbel and equivalent normal distributions.

pdf

4

8 10

4

6.4 10

4

4.8 10

4

3.2 10

4

1.6 10

0

3 3 3 3 3

650.25 975.375 1.3 10 1.626 10 1.951 10 2.276 10 2.601 10

cdf

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

3 3 3 3

130.05 541.875 953.7 1.366 10 1.777 10 2.189 10 2.601 10

μSˇ.eq S

σSˇ.eq σS

Lˇ μLˇ.eq

Rˇ μRˇ.eq ULˇ 3.693

URˇ 0.427 σLˇ.eq

σRˇ.eq

UDˇ 0.28 UTˇ.a 0.326

σDˇ.eq σTˇ.a.eq

USˇ 0 Uθˇ.E 0.868

σSˇ.eq σθˇ.E.eq

C-6

Reliability analysis Annex C

θˇR μθˇ.R.eq

Uθˇ.R 0.716

σθˇ.R.eq

0 1 2 3

4 5 6

0.4275

0.2803

3.6929

Uˇ 0.3264

0.0000

0.7160

0.8675

G θˇR σRˇ.eq

0

G 1 θˇE σSˇ.eq 0

4

1

G θˇE σDˇ.eq G ( Rˇ) σθˇ.R.eq

5

G RF θˇE σLˇ.eq

2 6

G Dˇ RF Lˇ Tˇa Sˇ σθˇ.E.eq

G 1 θˇE σTˇ.a.eq

3

894.534

586.558

7734.615

G 684.561

0

1453.575

1816.56

G Uˇ

β 3.9077

T

G G

C-7

Reliability analysis Annex C

0.109

0.072

0.946

0.084

G

α

T

G G 0

0.178

0.222

Uˇ α β 0.428

0 0

Uˇ α β 0.28

1 1

Uˇ α β 0.327

3 3

Uˇ α β 0

4 4

Uˇ α β 0.695

5 5

Uˇ α β 0.868

6 6

0

1

3

4

5

6

θˇR Rˇ θˇE Dˇ Tˇa Sˇ

Lˇ 13716.348

RF θˇE

C-8

Reliability analysis Annex C

iteration

beta L

number

The value provided by the FORM analysis

1 - 15300,9

of FERUM:

2 3,9112 13768,2

βFERUM 3.9077

3 3,9077 13721,1

4 3,9077 13716,7

5 3,9077 13716,3

βSORM 3.8887

C-9

Used Programs Annex D

- Axis VM10 rls.3j.

- EBPlate 2.01

- FERUM 4.1 Matlab toolbox

- Mathcad v.14.0.0.163

- MATLAB 7.1 v.7.1.0.246 (R14) Service Pack 3

- midas Civil 2011 v.2.1

D-1

- MATERIAL TECHNOLOGYUploaded byVarun
- Fatigue Life Assessment of Bridge Details Using Finite Element Method.pdfUploaded byAdam Tri Ramdani
- fops_EUploaded byDiego Javier Marambio Sanchez
- Paper FragBlast Granada 2009Uploaded byMiguel Cruzado Chávez
- Associated Flow RulesUploaded byShahram Abbasnejad
- ME526 Lecture Note 1 StudentsUploaded byMike Smyth
- 321OUTLN-2011Uploaded bysa_saini
- IPC2012-90504Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- NCAT High RAP Content.pdfUploaded bySinan İcik
- Deformation (Engineering) - WikipediaUploaded bynitharsun
- Mastering Endodontic InstrumentationUploaded byKishendran R Ganandran
- SOM_MCQ UNIT_1-2Uploaded byAnand Kesarkar
- ch06.pptUploaded byزهديابوانس
- Basement SEFIUploaded bysabareesan09
- Van Mier, Vonk - Fracture of Concrete Under Multiaxial Stress - Recent Developsments - 1991Uploaded byMaurício Prado Martins
- Partition of Plastic Work into Heat and Stored.pdfUploaded byAsad Maqsood
- Ch09Uploaded byJulian Riveros
- 21_mechanical deformation of ceramics.pptxUploaded byMd. Rafiqul Islam
- Week 3_Mechanical Properties of MaterialsUploaded bymohdiqbal93
- On the Road to Improved Scratch Resistance EnglUploaded byEmilio Hipola
- Chapter 1 Bonding 9-8-11Uploaded byJonathan Jon Chia
- IRJET-Design & Development of Bending Fatigue Testing Machine for Composite MaterialsUploaded byIRJET Journal
- FM-6Uploaded byJatin Khurana
- Chapter 24Uploaded byengrfarhanAAA
- 1-s2.0-S0167663604000055-main.pdfUploaded byhasib_07
- Engineering journal ; Thermo-mechanical fatigue behavior of a copper-alumina metal matrix composite with interpenetrating network structureUploaded byEngineering Journal
- A Three-dimensional Model of Non-slipping Stress Corrosion Cracking Under Low LoadsUploaded byAvim Wira Ragenda
- Chapter 5 TestUploaded byMorena Abayon
- 1.AEP Intro.pdfUploaded byanon_999896239
- Alshibli and Sture - Strain Localization in Sand.pdfUploaded byRameez Ali

- Nonlinear Response of a Post-Tensioned Concrete Structure to Static and Dynamic Internal Pressure LoadsUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- fulltext.pdfUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Effect of heat generation from cement hydration on mass concrete.pdfUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Art_D of Long-Span Bridges.pdfUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Equipment for Cleaning or Preparing Concrete SurfacesUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Bursting Forces in Anchorage ZonesUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Fatigue Behaviour of Precast Bridge BeamsUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Thermal Analysis of Thick Concrete SectionsUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Optimization of PT in Cantilever Construction of Prestressed Concrete BridgesUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- 6-Vietnam Joint Seminar(Yoshioka)Uploaded byJan Gnat
- Park13PhD.pdfUploaded byJavierJM
- EN1992_1_WalravenUploaded byLuigiForgerone
- Metalica International N 05Uploaded bymasterum
- Assesment of Concrete Members Using MC2010Uploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Wood - ArmerUploaded byNovak Novaković
- Ductility of Structural ConcreteUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- LRFD Composite Beam Design With Metal DeckUploaded byJajun Ichrom
- Simplified Assessment of CSB Buckling StabilityUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Asymmetric and Curved CSBUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- 1E5 Glass Structures L9 MEUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Shear Design of a Hollow Core SlabUploaded byjrandeep
- 1e5 Glass Structures l5 Me Glued ConnectionUploaded byPaul
- Watawa Brigde Composite.pdfUploaded byAmato Ryuga
- Structural Assessment of Bridge Girders in ShearUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Some Considerations in the Design of Long Span Bridges Against Progressive CollapseUploaded byleodegarioporral
- Recommendations on imperfections in the design of plated structural elements of bridgesUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Design of Main Girder [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byMohamed Azazy
- COMPOSITE BRIDGES CONSTRUCTED WITH CORRUGATED STEEL WEB BOX GIRDERSUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Art_Seismic Behavior of Steel Girder Bridge Superstructures.pdfUploaded byMarco Figueiredo

- 40_TestBank06Uploaded byKhairani Juliannisa
- Esr FundamentalUploaded byrameshamruthaluri
- Set 10 QuestionUploaded bysapientaqqq
- Universality of the Physics LawsUploaded byEmil Marinchev
- Printed Motor Works Overview 090806Uploaded byjimvidi
- Anti Pumping and Lockout Relays _ EEPUploaded bycatalincc
- Sample Smart Ground ReportUploaded byamer_arauf
- Thermal ConductivityUploaded byheshanw_1
- cmbr is a rydberg photon precessionUploaded byapi-227293354
- Applications of Optimization in BiomechanicsUploaded byAnonymous XMXwpprMWr
- 1SBL387001R1300-af65-30-00-13-100-250v50-60hz-dc-contactorUploaded bylucas
- 2010 NJC Prelim Physic H2.Paper 3.Suggested SolutionUploaded bycjcsucks
- UPSC SCRA General Ability Test SyllabusUploaded byYASH
- Chapter 31 CapacitorsUploaded bySuraj Krishnan
- Half Wave Rectifiers With Resistive and Inductive LoadUploaded byluqman059
- PhysicsBowl-2008.pdfUploaded byengrroy
- Advanced Character PhysicsUploaded bycnbarbosa
- Physical Science Sept2016 KeyUploaded byjennifer sumbeling
- ap physicsUploaded byapi-295869808
- Flyback Transformer SPW 054Uploaded bynadeem hameed
- Young's modulusUploaded byAhad Lillah Mimmuhammd Alfatih
- Motivation Lineas y antenasUploaded byOscar Becerra
- NICE 1000 Elevator Integrated Controller User ManualUploaded byhmbx
- DPP#25 to 31 Electrostatics 7 Capacitance 15.06.2013 HOMEWORKUploaded byJustin Willis
- 14Uploaded byphysicsdocs
- P3 Checklist Forces and MotionUploaded byDiana Murphy
- LONCAT HIDROLIKUploaded byTeddy King
- Physical Sciences P1 Feb-March 2011 Eng(1)Uploaded bynaidoowendy
- Earth Sun MoonUploaded byImam A. Ramadhan
- Pierre Re Thor e 2006Uploaded byBaalaji Ravichandran