You are on page 1of 185

Plastic Design of Steel-Concrete

Composite Girder Bridges

by Supervisors:

Árpád Rózsás Dr. Nauzika Kovács


Dr. László Dunai
Dr. Theodore V. Galambos

Master of Science Thesis


Budapest, Hungary, 2011
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering

Plastic Design of Steel-Concrete


Composite Girder Bridges
Master of Science Thesis

by

Árpád Rózsás

Supervisors:

Dr. Nauzika Kovács


Dr. László Dunai
Dr. Theodore V. Galambos

Budapest, Hungary, 2011

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.

2.1. Brief Review of the Theorems of Plasticity

2.1.1. Plastic Collapse Theorems/ Theorems of Plastic Limit Analysis


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.

- the deformations are relatively small (small deformation theory is valid).

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

- the collapse load is not affected by the previous load history.

Figure 2.1: Global and local collapse mechanisms of a frame.


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

s internal forces in the cross-sections;

s0 the plastic resistance of the cross-sections;

f external force vector;

BT static matrix2, transpose of the kinematic matrix (B);

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.

Kinematic (Upper Bound) Theorem

Under a load (f), computed on the basis of an arbitrary kinematically admissible and unstable
displacement field ( d ), the structure will collapse.

The kinematically admissible condition expresses the continuity requirement (geometric


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)

Wext  Dint (2.7)

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

Figure 2.2: One possible collapse mechanism of a continuous beam.


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

Figure 2.3: Symbolical interpretation of the uniqueness of collapse load.


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.

2.1.2. Shakedown Theorems


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 

s emax  s emin  2  s y (2.14)

BT  sr  0 (2.15)

7
Theoretical Background

where:

sr represents the residual forces;

semax , semin the maximum and minimum values of the force envelopes at given points,
determined on a ideally elastic structure;

sy the elastic resistance of the cross-sections.

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

Figure 2.5: Illustration of various structural behaviors and failures.


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

Figure 2.6: Shakedown of a two-span-beam.


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.

Melan’s (Lower Bound) Shakedown Theorem

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.

sh  max(s ) (2.16)

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].

Koiter’s (Upper Bound) Shakedown Theorem

If there is an admissible plastic deformation cycle ek (t) such that

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].

With using the load multiplier:

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

sh  min(k ) (2.20)

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:

sT0  (ek  ek )


k  (2.23)
(semax )T  ek  (semin )T  ek

where:

e k the total positive plastic strain increment;

e k the total negative plastic strain increment.

10
Theoretical Background

These are defined the following way:


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

These are illustrated on a simple beam example in Figure 2.7.



 A B
Me,min
B

Me,max
A

Figure 2.7: Upper bound load factor calculation of a continuous beam.


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

M pl     M pl   
k 
M Ae ,max     M Be ,min   

Based on geometric considerations, knowing the locations of plastic hinges, + can be


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

Figure 2.8: Symbolical interpretation of the theories for structural analysis.


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.

2.2. 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.

2.2.1. Measures of Reliability


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:

RE (2.26)

where:

R resistance (more generally: capacity), random variable;

E effect (more generally: demand), random variable.

Rearranging it the performance or limit state function:

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.

The failure probability can be calculated the following way:

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

Figure 2.11: Probability density of the limit state function.


g 0 safe region,
g 0 border between safe and unsafe domains,
g0 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

Reliability index (

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)

Whereis 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.

Table 2.1: Relation between Pf and 

Pf [-] 1,0E-01 1,0E-02 1,0E-03 1,0E-04 1,0E-05 1,0E-06 1,0E-07


 [-] 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

Figure 2.14:Joint PDF transformed to the U space [Du, 2005].


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.

2.2.2. Methods to Evaluate the Reliability Index (


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.

FORM (First Order Reliability Method)

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*

Writing in a shorter form with vectors:

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

6) Calculate the vector containing the sensitivity factors ():

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.

The geometric interpretation of this process is shown in Figure 2.16.

E
g=0

2
3
  
1 
uR

Figure 2.16: Geometric interpretation of the FORM iteration process.

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)

Figure 2.17: The equivalent normal distribution [Choi et al., 2007].


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.

Figure 2.18: The meaning of the Pearson correlation coefficient [Wikipedia01].

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.

SORM (Second Order Reliability Method)

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].

Simulation methods - Monte Carlo method

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

Figure 2.19: Illustration of the Monte Carlo method in reliability analysis.

23
Review of Previous Investigations

3. 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.

This chapter is focusing on the practical application of plasticity to engineering structures.

3.1. Historical Overview

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].

Figure 3.1: Galileo’s cantilever beam [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.

Figure 3.3: Kazinczy’s test beam [Kurrer, 2008].


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:

“A statically indeterminate structure remains statically indeterminate also if the limit of


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

3.2. State of the Art in Plastic Design of Bridges

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.

3.2.1. Ultimate Limit States


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.

C) First plastic hinge concept

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.

3.2.2. Safety Concern, the Reliability of Plastic Design


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].

Increase over guide


Limit state Rating factor (RF)
spec first hinge [%]

Guide spec first hinge 0,944 -


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.

3.2.4. Experimental Verification


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.

3.2.5. Rotational Capacity of the Cross-section


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.

Figure 3.6: Available rotation [McConelli et al., 2010].


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.

Figure 3.8: Cross-section classes [Gupta, 2006].


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].

3.3. Worked-out Design Methods

3.3.1. United States


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].

Rotation compatibility approach

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

Scope of application:

- straight, continuous steel or composite girder bridges with I-section;


- 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.

These 6.10.2 requirements are as follows [AASHTO, 2010]:

– for the web

D
 150 (3.2)
tw

where D is the depth and tw is the thickness of the web, respectively.

36
Review of Previous Investigations

– for the compression and tension flanges:

bf
 12, 0 (3.3)
2t 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.

Check the applicability conditions.

No All fulfilled?

Yes

- Perform an elastic analysis of the structure to Conventional linear elastic analysis,


determine the maximal internal forces (Mu,). Mu and Mn determined in the same manner as
- Determine section properties, resistances (Mn). for elastic design.

Calculate RL using Eq.(3.7). RL available rotation capacity,


Determine CR using Eq.(3.9) or Eq.(3.10) CR necessary to determine the required
rotation.

Negative bending region check


No M u  (1   RL C R )  M n
 RL C R redistributed moment ratio.

Check this section for the other


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

All fulfilled?
No

Yes

No M u  M rdL  ( x L)  (M rdR  M rdL )  M n Positive bending region check (Figure 3.11).

Yes

Check this section for the other


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

No All fulfilled? Yes End

Figure 3.10: Flowchart of the rotation compatibility approach.

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.

Explanation of the symbols used in negative bending moment check:

Mu moment due to factored load (based on elastic analysis);


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;

The calculation of Mn can be found in AASHTO 6.10.7.1.2 and detailed below.

These variables are illustrated in Figure 3.11.

u

L
rdR

rdR
rdL

rdL
x
rd

rdL rdR
x
rd(x) = rdL+(rdR -rdL)·L

-n

urd

+n

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

39
Review of Previous Investigations

The available plastic rotation:

 RL  128  143  (b fc t fc )  Fyc E  43.2  Dcp b fc  48.2  (b fc t fc ) 


(3.7)
D cp b fc   Fyc E  max  0, 0.5  Lb rt   30    5

where:

bfc, tfc width and thickness of compression flange, respectively;


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.

The required rotation capacity calculated the following way:

 pR  C R  ( M rd / M u ) (3.8)

C R  80  20  n  mrads for homogenous pier sections (3.9)

C R  90  22,5  n  mrads  for hybrid pier sections 6 (3.10)

where n   0 1 2 is the number of adjacent interior piers to the examined pier where
moment redistribution is used.

The nominal moment capacity for compact sections is as follows:

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.

3.3.2. Contributions From Outside of the US


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);

 p' modified relative plate slenderness;

p relative plate slenderness;

k local buckling coefficient;

fy yield strength of the structural steel;

E modulus of elasticity of the steel;

hw, tw height thickness of the web, respectively.

 1,3 if VEd VRd  0, 7



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.

- Perform an elastic analysis of the structure to


determine the maximal internal forces (MEd,).
- Determine section properties, resistances (MRd).

Check the applicability conditions for max shear


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

No All fulfilled?

Yes

Calculate the reference bending moment, M ref  0, 9  M el , Rd For the pier-section.

Check the maximum



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

Calculate the modified plate Determine the redistribution ratio in the


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

Increase Mel,Rd or decrease 


 req ,1   av No

Yes

Plastic moment utilization θreq→


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

Check the positive region Eq.(3.17) and Eq.(3.18)

All fulfilled? Increase Mpl,Rd or decrease 


End Yes No

Figure 3.12: Flowchart of the Swiss method.

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)

M ar , Ed  M el , Ed  M r    M pl , Rd (3.17)

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 r residual moment at midspan.


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

 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,1mrad  req,2mrad
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 .

Figure 3.14: Location of the additional longitudinal stiffener [Lebet, 2011].

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

4. Bridge Design Problem

4.1. Problem Statement

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.

4.2. Introduction of the Bridge to be Studied

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.

Figure 4.1: Elevation of the 142/k bridge.

Figure 4.2: Cross-section at region of the internal supports.

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:

– structural steel: S355


– concrete: C30/37
– reinforcement: S500B

Figure 4.3: Layout of the bare steel girder.

4.3. Solution Strategy, Extent of the Thesis

The following tasks were proposed to complete:

– 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

5. 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.

5.1. Elastic Check According to Eurocode

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.

5.1.1. Finite Element Model


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.

About the 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 grillage model is illustrated in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Illustration of the grillage model.


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.

5.1.2. Loads and Load Combinations


Actions taken into account:

– Dead loads (G);


– 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 following considerations are taken:

– 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

Table 5.1: Combination factors.

  


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.

The load combinations contemplated in the design presented in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Post-construction stage load combinations.

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

5.2. Investigation of Plastic Reserves

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:

Wpl plastic section modulus;

Wel elastic section modulus.

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

12023 11778 [kNm]

G

8095

7325 7236

Lt

9609

T

2571 2601 2616

1837 1853 1867

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

4276 4310 4337

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;

UF - utilization factor, the ratio of the demand and capacity;

The next subsections give details about the particular calculations, the final section
summarizes and compares the results.

55
Global Structural Analysis

5.2.1. First-Hinge Limit 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):

36401 1, 0  1,148  8095  1,0  (1853)  0, 6 1,5  2601


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.

5.2.2. Shakedown Limit Analysis


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
 
 

·

Figure 5.5: The assumed critical mechanism.


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.

5.2.3. Single-Girder Plastic Collapse Limit 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):

1 1, 0   46423  (1)  36401  (2)  46112  (1)   1,148   201 2  1  40 2  40 2  


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.

Comments on the mechanism for plastic collapse:

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

Figure 5.6: General collapse mechanism.


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.

5.2.4. System Plastic Collapse Limit Analysis


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:

2  1 1, 0   46423  (1)  36401  (2)  46112  (1)   1,148   201  1  40 2  40 2  


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.

5.3. Summarization of the Rating Factors

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.

RF UF 1/UF RF UF RF


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.

RF UF 1/UF RF UF RF


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.

5.4. The Effect of Shear Force

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

Consequences of the application of plastic principles in ULS:

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.

Comments on the data illustrated in the table:

step-by-step (accurate) - with subsequent elastic analyses and summing the moments acting
on the steel and composite sections;

cracked comp. - ignoring the concrete in the 15% regions;

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;

M1, M2 - the total maximum negative and positive moments, 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

Table 5.7: The effect of omitting the construction stages

Ma+Mc M1 M1 Ma+Mc M2 M2


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

6. 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.

6.1. Concrete Filled Closed and Open Sections

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.

6.1.1. Concrete Filled Tubular (CFT) Girder


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.

6.1.2. Concrete Filled Narrow-width Steel Box-girder


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.

6.1.3. Partially Encased Rolled and Welded Sections


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).

Figure 6.6: Illustration of a partially concrete-encased composite plate girder bridge


[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.

6.2. Double Composite Action

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].

The advantageous properties of the double composite action are:


– 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

Figure 6.8: Dimensions of the single and double composite sections.


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.

Table 6.2: Comparison of the single and double composite sections.

Composite sectional properties, single comp. double comp.



resistances action action

Area [cm2] 1510,2 2566,5 69,94%


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].

6.3. Reinforcing the Web

6.3.1. Bolted Longitudinal Plate or Stiffener


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.

6.3.2. Welded Longitudinal Stiffeners


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

7. 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.

7.1. Principles, Methods

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].

7.1.1. Eurocode Recommendations


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

Table 7.1: Consequence and reliability classes according to EN 1990:2001.

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

Moderate consequence for loss of human life; economic,


CC2 RC2
social, or environmental consequences considerable

Serious consequences for loss of human life or for


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:

n is the reliability index for a reference period of n years;

1 is the reliability index for one year.

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].

Reference Period [Years]


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.

7.1.2. Reliability Analysis


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;

max( Ei ) maximum value of the ith action;

Ej the value of the accompanying action at arbitrary-point-of-time, in practical


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).

According to these considerations and recommendations, the chosen distributions, mean


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

Table 7.3: Statistical properties of the input variables to reliability analysis.

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

Standard deviation [kNm]


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

Scaling the live load to reach the particular limit state

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.

Scaling the resistances to reach the particular limit state

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)

For single-girder shakedown the limit state function is as follows:

g (...)   R   R1,m    R2,m    R3,m    


(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.

7.2. Results of the Analysis on the Studied Bridge

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.

Comments on the reduced live load:

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

8. 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.

8.1. Considerations, Eurocode Principles

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.

About the adopted methods and considerations:

– 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:

(1)P Non-linear analysis may be used. No application rules are given.

(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.

8.2. Proposed Method for Plastic Design

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.

- Perform an elastic analysis of the structure to


maxim
determine the maximal internal forces ( M el , Ed ).
- Determine section properties, resistances (MRd).

Check the applicability conditions for max shear


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

Determine the rotation capacity,

 
 ar  p Eq.(3.13) Figure 3.9
'

max   Negative bending region check


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

The same procedures as in the


Check other limit states and criteria
elastic design.

All fulfilled? Yes End


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.

The symbols used in the flowchart illustrated in Figure 8.2.

-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

Figure 8.2: Concept of moment redistribution and illustration of the symbols.


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.

8.3. Introduction of the Proposed Method through a Trial Design

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.

8.3.1. The Redesigned Structure


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.

2 layers; O25/100 2 layers; O20/110


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

2 layers; O16/200 2 layers; O16/200


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;

8.3.2. Verification of the Trial Plastic Design


Hereinafter, I will go through the steps of the verification procedure presented in Figure 8.1.

8.3.2.1. Available Rotation

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.

Determination of the relative slenderness

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·

Figure 8.6: The original (left) and simplified (right) arrangements.


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
1.510 0

3
1.210 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.

Figure 8.8: The first eigenshape of the stiffened web (EBPlate).


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).

8.3.2.2. Required Rotation

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.

8.3.2.3. Incremental Collapse Check

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 .

 ar  63 mrad  29, 2 mrad    rr  14, 6 mrad

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

At this point the positive moment:

 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.

30000 40000 30000

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.

8.3.2.4. Stress and Crack Control at SLS

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

Verification of crack control at SLS (EN 1994-2:2005 7.4 Simplified method)

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:

 qpmax,s  221, 4MPa

The applied reinforcement as illustrated in Figure 8.4 is Ø20/110 in two layers.

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

2) Control of cracking due to direct loading

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 ).

smax  250mm  sapplied  110mm

Limiting stresses at SLS

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

The limitation of maximum compression stresses in concrete should be fulfilled to avoid


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)):

 qpmax,c  6,1MPa  k2  f ck  0, 45  30  13,5MPa

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.

8.3.3. Comparison of the Findings to the American Results


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:

– bracings are rearranged in favor of the internal pier zone;


– 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. 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 the plastic reserves of girder bridges:

– 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.

On the plastic design:

– 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.

About ensuring the ductility of the cross-sections:

– 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.

9.3. Further Research/ Future Work

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

Du, X. (2005). Probabilistic Engineering Design. Rolla: Universtiy of Missouri.


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

Leon, R.T. and Flemming, D.J. (1997). Experimental Verification of Shakedown


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

Annex A - Design Check to Eurocode

Three-span, composite, plate girder, highway bridge check

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.

[A2] Hendy, C.R.J., R. P. (2006). Designers' Guide to EN 1994-2. Eurocode 4: Design of


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

I. Elastic design according to the Eurocodes

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 Actions on the bridge


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

4 The sequence of the construction

5 Girder make up and slab reinforcement


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

I. Design according to the Eurocodes

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

Cross section (at a cross girder in the range of internal support)

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.

During the calculation the following differences have found:

- significant difference in the live load;


- 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

Ultimate limit state (ULS)

Ultimate limit state other than fatigue

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)

non-cyclic combination - in bracket - combined with the cyclic load

Serviceability limit state (SLS)

Characteristic combination
EN-1990:2002
(6.14b)

For verification of stresses in concrete, structural steel and reinforcement. To


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.

2.1 Partial factors on actions

Permanent actions
EN-1990:2005
self weight of materials γG.sup  1.35 Annex A2
Table A2.4(B)

sufficient to consider only the upper bound value


EN-1992-1-1:2004
shrinkage γsh  1.0 2.4.2.1

creep γcr  1.0

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

2.2 Factors for combination values

Traffic loads: EN-1990:2005


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

persistent design situationΨ0.w.p  0.6 Ψ 1.w.p  0.2 Ψ 1.w.p  0

execution Ψ 0.w.p  0.8 - Ψ 1.w.p  0

F*W Ψ 0.w.p  1.0 - -

Thermal actions: Ψ 0.th  0.6 Ψ 1.th  0.6 Ψ 2.th  0.5

Construction loads: Ψ 0.con  1.0 - Ψ 2.con  1.0

Where FWk is the characteristic wind force and F *W is the wind force compatible with
the road traffic.

2.3 Factors on materials

structural steel γa  1.0 EN-1993-1-1:2005


2.4.1 (1)P
reinforcing steel γs  1.15
EN-1992-1-1:2004
reinforced concrete γc  1.5 Table 2.1N

2.4 Factors on resistances

for resistance of cross-sections γM0  1.0


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

for fatigue strength γMf

A-6
Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

for fatigue strength of studs in shear γMf.s

for design shear resistance of a


γv  1.25 EN-1994-2:2005
headed stud 2.4.1.2 (5)

2.5 Structural material properties

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

Poisson coefficient νc  0.18

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

structural steel - S355 to EN 10025-2


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

modulus of elasticity Ea  210GPa

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

reinforcing steel S500B


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)

3 Actions on the bridge

3.1 Permanent actions

3.1.1 Self weight of structural and non structural elements

The self weights are based on nominal dimensions.

Calculation for a half-section.


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

tf.t  20mm b f.t  600mm tf.t


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

g a.girder  Aa γav  5.515 


kN tf.b
m

ag  7500mm distance between the main girders bf.b

am  5m distance between two adjacent cross-bracings

The section of the cross bracing is HEA200, the area of this cross-section is:
2
AHEA200  53.83cm

Cross-bracings are smeared on the a m length:

A-8
Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

GcrossB  3  ag  AHEA200  γav  9.508  kN

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

With a safe-side approximation the weight of the temporary, top cross-bracing is


considered during the whole lifespan of the structure.

b) Reinforced concrete (RC) deck:

equivalent thickness of the deck v c.eq  29.233cm

total width of the deck b deck  13470mm


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

average length of one surfacing layer lsurf  11013mm

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

d) Raised sidewalk, kerb

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

These loads are placed with eccentricity to the main girders.

To be on the safe-side the heavier kerb is placed on both side.

e) Parapet:
kN
g p  1.0
m

f) other (cables, lighting, etc.):


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

3.1.2 Creep and shrinkage

The necessary properties to determine the shrinkage and creep:

N - normal type cement


70% - relative ambient humidity
h0=280 mm - notional size (h0=2*Ac/u); Ac-area; u- perimeter exposed to air

u - the perimeter of that part which is exposed to drying

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:

Creep induced by permanent load t = 100 years based on:


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%

Creep induced by shrinkage t = 100 years


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.

3.1.4 Support lifting

With the removal of the shoring the reaction forces in opposite direction are loading
the structure.

3.1.5 Uneven settlement

Since it was not considered in the original design, I neglect it.

A-12
Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

3.2 Variable loads and actions


3.2.1 Traffic loads

Number and width of notional lanes

Carriageway Number of Width of a notional Width of the


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:

αQ.i  1.0 αq.i  1.0 αq.r  1.0

Vertical loads

1. Load Model 1 (LM1):

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)

For global and local analysis.

TS (Q) UDL (q ) EN-1991-2:2003


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

The details of LM1 are illustrated on the following figure.

EN-1991-2:2003
Figure 4.2a

2. Load Model 2 (LM2):

For local verification.


αQ.1 Qa.k

Qa.k  400kN

EN-1991-2:2003
Figure 4.2b

Where relevant only one wheel may be taken into account.


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

combination value for the gr1a load group:


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

3.2.2 Traffic load groups

Only gr1a and gr1b are considered.

3.2.3 Thermal actions

3.2.3.1 Uniform temperature component

Temperature during the construction => T0  20 °C

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

Top surface warmer:

ΔTM.cool  18 °C

EN 1991-1-5:2003
Bottom surface warmer: Table 6.1

ΔTM.heat  15 °C

In case of composite superstructures these values should be modified with a factor


(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.

3.2.4 Wind actions

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

a) without live load:


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

b/dtot ze < 20m ze = 50m


< 0,5 5,7 7,1
> 4,0 3,1 3,8

b  b deck  2  0.205 m  13.88 m

d tot  2.71m  2.0m  4.71 m EN 1991-1-4:2004


8.3.1 (5a)
b
 2.947
d tot

ze  10m height above the ground level

From the above table with linear interpolation:


c  3.882

With this the wind pressure on the structure and vehicles:


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.

3.2.5 Construction loads

a) Personnel and hand tools:


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

4 The sequence of the construction

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

5 Girder make-up and slab reinforcement

5.1 Main girders

The numbers in the plates are representing the thicknesses and the numbers before
the girder are the widths.

5.2 Bracing arrangements


The bracings are placed in equal distance of 5.0 m in all three of spans.

5.3 Slab reinforcement

The longitudinal reinforcement in regions where the concrete is sound:


D16/200 in two layers
in the cracked zone:
D25 /100 in two layers

6 Beam cross-sections

6.1 Section properties - main girders


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'.

4,50 6,00 6,00 4,50

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.

Effect of the shear lag, calculation of the effective s cross-section properties

at midspan or internal support:

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 
 βibei 5.4.1.2 (5.4)
i 1

b 0  440mm distance between the centerline of the outer studs

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:

4,00 20,00 6,00 8,00 24,00 8,00 6,00 20,00 4,00


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

2765 440 3530

a) End span (l = 30,0 m), b'eff.1:

Le  0.85 30m  25.5 m


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  0.85 30m  25.5 m

 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

b eff.0  b 0  b e.1  b e.2  4988.9 mm

- beff.2:

Le  0.25 ( 30m  40m)  17.5 m

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

b) Midspan (l = 40m), b''eff.1:

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)

b´´eff.1  b 0  b e.1  b e.2  6735 mm

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.

The section properties calculated by homogenization of the composite section to


steel.

t=0 open to the traffic


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.

6.1.1. Section properites and resistances; sagging

a) Cross-section #1 (middle of the center-span)


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

aa) Bare steel:

section dimensions:
tw  15 mm h w  1750 mm

tf.t  20 mm b f.t  600  mm

tf.b  40 mm b f.b  800  mm

area:
2
Aa.s  h w tw  b f.t tf.t  b f.b tf.b  702.5  cm

first moment of area about the bottom surface line

 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

height of centroid from the bottom surface


Sa.s
za.s   658.49 mm
Aa.s

moment of inertia about the neutral axis:


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 

elastic modulus to the top flange:


Ia.s 3
Wel.tf.s   32230  cm
h w  tf.b  tf.t  za.s

elastic modulus to the bottom flange:


Ia.s 3
Wel.bf.s   56361  cm
za.s

Plastic sectional properties:

Determination of the height of the plastic neutral axis from the bottom surface with a
horizontal equilibrium equation:

Fx b f.t tf.t   h w  x   tw = bf.b tf.b  x  tw


solving it the place of neutral axis (z pl):

x  208.3  mm

zpl  x  tf.b  248.3  mm

A-24
Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

arms of the tension and compression forces

 zpl  tf.b 

2

b f.b tf.b zpl  tw 


d1 
 2   235.507  mm
A a.s
2

 h w  tf.b  zpl 

2

b f.t tf.t  h w  tf.b  tf.t  zpl  tw 


d2 
 2   1041.011 mm
A a.s
2

d  d 1  d 2  1.277 m

plastic sectional modulus:


Aa.s 3
Wpl.s  d   44838  cm
2

plastic reserve of the cross-section, shape factor:


Wpl.s
cs   1  39.1 %

min Wel.bf.s Wel.tf.s 

ab) effective rc deck:

equivalent thickness of the deck v c.eq  292.33 mm

effective width b´´eff.1  6.735 m

h h  100mm
height of haunch

2
area Ac.s  v c.eq b´´eff.1  19688.4  cm

height of centroid from the bottom v c.eq


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

reinforcement: Φ16/200 in two layers

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

ac) homogenized section properties:

The composite section is converted to a homogenous steel cross-section.

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

 Ic.s  Ac.s zc.s  zi.s.0 2   1.5179  107 cm4


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

These properties are summarized in the following table:

Sectional properties, n0 bare steel composite


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

For the check of midas calculated stresses it is necessary to determine the


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:

Sectional properties, nL.sh composite


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

stresses induced in the steel girder:

M a.s M a.s
σa.1.tf   15.64  MPa σa.1.bf    8.942  MPa
Wel.tf.s Wel.bf.s

shrinkage primary effect:

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

σc.t.sh  σc.t.sh.1  σc.t.sh.2  0.194  MPa

σc.b.sh  σc.b.sh.1  σc.b.sh.2  0.505  MPa

Moment acting on the composite section:

M c.1  24060kN m  M a.s

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

multipliers (k) required to reach the yield stress in particular points:

fy.1  σa.1.tf  σa.t.sh fy.1  σa.1.bf  σa.b.sh


k a.t   347.4 k a.b   1.223
σa.2.tf σa.2.bf

fyd
ks   11.115
σs

fcd  σc.t.sh fcd  σc.b.sh


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  295.3 MPa

σa.bf.midas  σa.bf
 0.904  %
σa.bf

The reason of difference is already mentioned in Section 3.1.2 Creep and


Shrinkage.
M el.Rd.s  M c.el.Rd.s  M a.s  29306  kN m

Plastic resistance:

plastic resistance of the web Rw  h w tw fy.1  9319 kN

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

plastic resistance of the concrete  


Rc  0.85 fcd Ac.s  as.s b´´eff.1  33240  kN

plastic resistance of the reinforcement Rs.s  as.s b´´eff.1 fyd  5888 kN

Rw  Rf.t  Rf.b  24939  kN < Rc  Rs.s  39128  kN

the plastic neutral axis is in the concrete slab


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  0.748 concrete under compression

< bottom layer of reinforcement is


ξ  v c.eq  218.567  mm v c.eq  40mm  252.33 mm
under tension

zpl.c.s  tf.b  h w  tf.t  h h  ( 1  ξ )  v c.eq  1984 mm

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

shear buckling resistance:

Contribution from the web:

235
ε   0.814
fy.1 EN 1993-1-5:2006
5.3 (3)
MPa

a  2500mm distance between the transverse stiffeners


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

minimum shear buckling coefficient:

5.34
kτ  4 if α  1.0  6.073
2
α
4
5.34  if α  1.0
2
α

relative web slenderness:


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

shear buckling factor:


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

Vb.Rd  Vbw.Rd  Vbf.Rd  2970.4 kN

 
VRd  min Vpl.a.Rd Vb.Rd  2970.42  kN

reduction due to the shear force

ρ  0 if VEd  0.5 VRd 0

2
 VEd 
 2  1 otherwise
 VRd 
1 ρ 1

M c.pl.Rd.s  36401  kN m

A-31
Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

6.1.2 Section properties and resistances; hogging

b) Cross-section #2 (over the internal support)


b eff
z

Ss

hc
yi Si yi
s

ya Sa ya
zi
za

tw  25mm h w  1750 mm

tf.t  20 mm b f.t  600  mm

tf.b  60mm b f.b  800  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

neutral axis (NA) form the very bottom surface:

Sa.h
za.h   618.66 mm
Aa.h

Inertia about the NA:


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

plastic modulus of the section

determination of the location of the plastic neutral axis (PNA)

 
b f.t tf.t  h w  x  tw = b f.b tf.b  x  tw

solving:

x  155  mm

zpl.h  x  tf.b  215  mm


from the very bottom surface

Aa.h 2
 518.75 cm
2

 zpl.h  tf.b2
b f.b tf.b zpl.h  tw 
d1 
 2   204.729  mm
A a.h
2
 hw  tf.b  zpl.h2
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

M pl.a.h  Wpl.h fy.1  21939  kN m

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

effective width b eff.2  4.815 m

height of haunch h h  100mm

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

reinforcement: Φ25/100 two layers

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

Summation of the values:

Sectional properties bare steel composite


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

stresses locked into the bare steel, during construction:

M a.h M a.h
σa.1.tf   80.23  MPa σa.1.bf    40.974 MPa
Wel.tf.h Wel.bf.h

determination of the bending resistance of the composite section:

M c.1  32922 kN m  M a.h  29643  kN m

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

fy.1  σa.1.tf fy.2  σa.1.bf


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

M el.Rd.h  M c.el.Rd.h  M a.h  35693  kN m

Plastic resistance:

plastic resistance of the web Rw  h w tw fy.1  15531  kN

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

plastic resistance of the reinforcement Rs.h  as.h b eff.2 fyd  20553  kN

Rw  Rf.b  31611  kN > Rs.h  Rf.t  24813  kN

the plastic neutral axis is in the web

ξ  Rw  Rf.b = Rs.h  Rf.t  ( 1  ξ )  Rw

ξ  0.781 web portion under compression


Cross section classification for bending:
235
ε   0.814
fy.1

MPa

Flanges:

The top flange is under tension -> Class1.

topFlange  1

The bottom flange:

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

"Class 3 or 4; check the elastic stress distribution" otherwise

web  "Class 3 or 4; check the elastic stress distribution"

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

tf.b  h w  tf.t  zi.h.0


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.

In the given load combination with the particular 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

crossSection  2 if web = 3  bottomFlange  2  topFlange  2


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

shear buckling resistance:

Contribution from the web:

235
ε   0.814
fy.1

MPa

a  2500mm distance between the transverse stiffeners


a
α   2.336
h wi

minimum shear buckling coefficient:

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

relative web slenderness:


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

shear buckling factor:


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

Vb.Rd  Vbw.Rd  Vbf.Rd  9782.2 kN

 
VRd  min Vpl.Rd Vb.Rd  9782.151 kN

A-40
Design Check to Eurocodes Annex A

reduction due to the shear force

ρ  0 if VEd  0.5 VRd 0 VEd


 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

M c.pl.Rd.h  46423  kN m

Composite sectional properties,


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

plastic reserve of the examined cross-sections, in case of the particular construction


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

Annex B - Limit State Analysis


Evaluation of the rating and utilization factors for different ultimate limit states. This Annex
uses the results of Annex A.

Resistances:

Summarization of the section resistances determined in Annex A:

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

plastic reserve of the examined cross-sections, in case of the particular construction


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.

Considering only the three assumed critical cross-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.

max positive moment with tension stiffening effect


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

max negative moment


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):

max positive moment with tension stiffening effect


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

max negative moment


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

Decomposition of the maximal moments:

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 - - -

sum: 22747 nontraffic: 9776 trafic: 12971

The composition of the maxium negative bending moment (t = 100 years)


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 - -

sum: -30789 nontraffic: -20901 taffic: -9889

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 Ed.s.0  22747  kN m

M el.Rd.s  M nontraffic.s 1
 1.288
RFel.s   1.506 UF el.s
M traffic.s

M Ed.h.t  30789  kN m

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

M dead.s  9289 kN m M dead.h  13797  kN m

B-3
Limit State Analysis Annex B

M traffic.s  M dead.s M traffic.h  M dead.h


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

2 First Plastic Hinge

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

without the secondary (global) effects:

M traffic.s  M dead.s M traffic.h  M dead.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

3 Single girder shakedown

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:

Mc.pl.Rd.s ( 2 )  Mc.pl.Rd.h  ( 1  1 ) 


 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 ) ]

[ 36401kN m ( 2 )  46423  ( 1  1 )  ( kN m) ] 


 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

RFsi.sh.s.1  RFsi.sh.k.1 RFsi.sh.s.1  RFsi.sh.k.1


 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.

5 System Plastic Collapse

live load:

concentrated load:
 
Qtot  2 Q1.k  Q2.k  Q3.k  1200 kN

deck width for traffic: w  11.0m

uniformly distributed load:

 
kN
q tot  q 1.k  q 2.k  q 3.k  3.0m  q r.k 2.0m  47.00 
m

Comparison to the MSZ ÚT standard:

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

μ  1.161 dynamic factor

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

RFpc.s.1  4.052 matlab

RFpc.s.1  RFpc.k.1 RFpc.s.1  RFpc.k.1


 2.108  %  4.095
RFpc.s.1 2

6 Single Girder Plastic Collapse:

Loads on one girder:


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

Qsingle   7.875  Q  4.875  Q  1.875  Q   2  940  kN


 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

Comparison to the MSZ ÚT standard


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:

 g tot 40m 20m 


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

RFspc.s.1  2.939 matlab

RFspc.s.1  RFspc.k.1 RFspc.s.1  RFspc.k.1


 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

Annex C - Reliability Analysis

First-hinge reliability analysis

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.

1 Basic statistical variables

R - resistance; LN log normal


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

mean values and standard deviations:

R  37847 νR  0.02461 σR  R νR  931.415

D  7029.7 νD  0.08 σD  D νD  562.376

L  5888.2 νL  0.20 σL  L νL  1177.64

Ta  1300.5 νT.a  0.5 σT.a  Ta νT.a  650.25

S  1896 νS  0 σS  S νS  0

θR  1 νθ.R  0.04 σθ.R  θR νθ.R  0.04

θE  1 νθ.E  0.05 σθ.E  θE νθ.E  0.05

2 Reliability analysis

The algorithm follows the steps introduced in Section 2.2.2.

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

2.1 Formulation of the limit state function

   
g R D L Ta S θR θE  θR R  θE D  L  Ta  S

2.2 Initial design point

Rˇ  37439.644

Dˇ  7187.337

Tˇa  1395.762

θˇR  0.971

θˇE  1.043

Sˇ  S

Lˇ determined to be on the failure line


θˇR Rˇ  θˇE Dˇ  Tˇa  Sˇ
Lˇ   13720.4
RF θˇE

2.3 Equivalent normal means and standard deviations

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

lognormal CDF and PDF evaluated at point Rˇ:

C-2
Reliability analysis Annex C


FR( x )  plnorm x μLN.R σLN.R 


fR( x )  dlnorm x μLN.R σLN.R 

the equivalent normal distribution parameters:


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

Resistance model uncertainty; lognormal

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

lognormal CDF and PDF :


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 

Action model uncertainty; lognormal

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

lognormal CDF and PDF:


Fθ.E( x )  plnorm x μLN.θ.E σLN.θ.E 


fθ.E( x )  dlnorm x μLN.θ.E σLN.θ.E 

the equivalent normal distribution parameters:


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

no need for transformation

μDˇ.eq  D  7029.7

σDˇ.eq  σD  562.376

Live load; Gumbel

Gumbel parameters:

π
a   0.00109
6  σL

γ
u  L  5358
a

Gumbel CDF and PDF:

 ( x u)  a
e
FL( x )  e

 ( x u)  a
 ( x u)  a e
fL( x )  a e

the equivalent normal distribution parameters:

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

Gumbel CDF and PDF:

 ( x u)  a
e
FT( x )  e
 ( x u)  a
 ( x u)  a e
fT( x )  a e

the equivalent normal distribution parameters:

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 

Eq. normal CDF and PDF:


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

Shrinkage, creep; normal

no need for equivalent normal distribution

μSˇ.eq  S

σSˇ.eq  σS

2.4 Transformation to U space


Lˇ  μLˇ.eq
Rˇ  μRˇ.eq ULˇ   3.693
URˇ   0.427 σLˇ.eq
σRˇ.eq

Dˇ  μDˇ.eq Tˇa  μTˇ.a.eq


UDˇ   0.28 UTˇ.a   0.326
σDˇ.eq σTˇ.a.eq

Sˇ  μSˇ.eq θˇE  μθˇ.E.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

Uˇ  URˇ Uˇ  UDˇ Uˇ  ULˇ Uˇ  UTˇ.a


0 1 2 3

Uˇ  USˇ Uˇ  Uθˇ.R Uˇ  Uθˇ.E


4 5 6

 0.4275 
 
 0.2803 
 3.6929 
Uˇ   0.3264 
 
 0.0000 
 0.7160 
 0.8675 
 

2.5 Partial derivatives of the limit state function

 
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 
 

2.6 Estimation of the reliability index (β)

G Uˇ
β   3.9077
T
G G

C-7
Reliability analysis Annex C

2.7 Sensitivity factors (α)

 0.109 
 
 0.072 
 0.946 
  0.084 
G
α 
T  
G G  0 
 0.178 
 0.222 
 

2.8 New design point

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

2.9 Determination of the new design point in the original space

Rˇ  Uˇ  σRˇ.eq  μRˇ.eq  37439.603


0

Dˇ  Uˇ  σDˇ.eq  μDˇ.eq  7187.355


1

Tˇa  Uˇ  σTˇ.a.eq  μTˇ.a.eq  1396.24


3

Sˇ  Uˇ  σSˇ.eq  μSˇ.eq  1896


4

θˇR  Uˇ  σθˇ.R.eq  μθˇ.E.eq  0.971


5

θˇE  Uˇ  σθˇ.E.eq  μθˇ.E.eq  1.043


6

Lˇ is determined in order to be on the failure line

 
θˇR Rˇ  θˇE Dˇ  Tˇa  Sˇ
Lˇ   13716.348
RF θˇE

C-8
Reliability analysis Annex C

Repeat the iteration until the convergence of the design point or β!

The iterations are summarized in the following table:

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

After refinement with SORM analysis, the reliability index:

βSORM  3.8887

C-9
Used Programs Annex D

Annex D - Used Programs

Used applications, only the engineering, scientific ones are listed:

- AutoCAD 2009 C.56.0


- 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