d1 6denton PDF

EUROCODES
Bridges: Background and applications
St Petersburg April 2011 1
Introduction to The Design Example

and EN 1990 - Basis of Design
Professor Steve Denton

Engineering Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Visiting Professor, University of Bath
Convenor, CEN/TC250 Horizontal Group - Bridges
Agenda
• Introduction
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction to the design example
• Overview of EN 1990, Basis of Design
Agenda
• Introduction
Approach and Structure
EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design

EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4: Design of composite structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design for earthquake resistance
EN 1999 Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures
Eurocodes used in Vienna Workshop

Eurocodes considered here

Agenda
• Introduction
Acknowledgements
• European Commission and JRC

• Members of HG-Bridges
• Session presenters
• Vienna workshop report authors:
• Y. Bouassida, E. Bouchon, P. Crespo, P. Croce, L. Davaine,
S. Denton, M. Feldmann, R. Frank, G. Hanswille, W. Hensen,
B. Kolias, N. Malakatas, G. Mancini, M. Ortega, J. Raoul,
G. Sedlacek, G. Tsionis
Agenda
• Introduction
Introduction to design examples
Main example
Main example
EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC7 EC8

Main example
EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC7 EC8

Partial alternative examples
EC2 EC4
EC1 EC2
EC8
Introduction to the design example
1. Geometry of the deck
2. Geometry of the substructure
3. Design specifications
4. Materials
5. Structural details
6. Construction process
Geometry of the deck
Main example
60 m 80 m 60 m
200 m
- Continuous three span

- Composite steel-concrete deck
- Constant depth
- Longitudinal axis: straight and horizontal
Main example
3.3 m
12 m
Two girder composite deck

Main example
Two girder composite deck

Geometry of the substructure
Piers
H = 10 m
Squat pier case
H = 40 m
High pier case

Piers (I)
10,0 m
Squat pier case

Piers (II)
0.40 m
Section A-A
A A
High pier case

Abutments
Design specifications
- Design working life: 100 years

· Assessment of some actions (wind, temperature)
· Minimum cover requirements for durability
· Fatigue verifications
- Non-structural elements
· Parapets + cornices
· Waterproofing layer (3cm)
· Asphalt layer (8cm)
- Non-structural elements
- Traffic data
· Two traffic lanes (3.5m)
· Two hard strips (2.0m)
· LM1: Qi = qi = qr = 1.0
· No abnormal vehicles
For fatigue verifications:

· Two slow lanes (same position as actual lanes) For assessment of
general action effects
· Vehicle centrally placed on the lane
· Slow lane close to the parapet For assessment of
transverse reinforcement
· Medium flow rate of lorries
- Shade air temperature: Tmin = -20ºC Tmax = 40ºC

Selection of steel quality
- Humidity: RH = 80%
- Wind: Flat valley with little isolated obstacles

Fundamental value of basic wind velocity vb,0 = 26 m/s
Maximum wind for launching v = 50 km/h = 14 m/s
- Exposure Class: XC3 (top face of concrete slab)

XC4 (bottom face of concrete slab)
cmin,dur
Limiting crack width
- Soil conditions: No deep foundation is needed

Settlement P1: 30 mm
Materials
a) Structural steel Thickness Subgrade

t  30 mm S 355 K2
30  t  80 mm S 355 N
80  t  135 mm S 355 NL
b) Concrete C35/45
c) Reinforcing steel Class B high bond bars fsk=500 MPa
d) Shear connectors S235J2G3 fu=450 MPa

Construction process
- Launching of the steel girders

- Cast in-place slab

(a segment every three days)
- (a segment every three days)




Agenda
• Introduction
• Overview of EN 1990 - Basis of Design
Overview of EN 1990 – Basis of Design
1. General overview of EN 1990
2. Verification of limit states and

the combinations of actions

EN1990 – Basis of Design: Contents
1 General
2 Requirements
3 Principles of Limit State Design
4 Basic Variables
5 Structural Analysis and Design Assisted
by Testing
6 Verifications by the Partial Factor Method
Annexes
EN1990 – Basis of Design Contents
Annex A1 Application for Buildings

Annex A2 Application for Bridges
Annex An Application for other structure types
Annex B Management of Structural Reliability
for Construction Works
Annex C Basis for Partial Factor Design and
Reliability Analysis
Annex D Design Assisted by Testing
Role of EN1990
• Provides principles and requirements for designers

• Establishes overall framework, tools and principles used by
drafters of the other Eurocode parts
Some of the EN1990 requirements are very general – specific

approaches to satisfying them are often contained in other Eurocode
parts, e.g.
EN1990: Section 1 - General
• Scope [1.1]
• Assumptions [1.3]
• Terms and definitions [1.5]
• Symbols [1.6]
Scope
Some Important Assumptions
EN1990: Section 2 - Requirements
• Basic requirements [2.1]

• Design working life [2.3]
EN1990: Section 2 - Requirements
EN1990: Section 3 – Principles of limit state design
• General [3.1]
• Design situation [3.2]
• Ultimate limit states [3.3]
• Serviceability limit states [3.4]
• Limit state design [3.5]
Key Concept 1
Key Concept 1 – Design Situations
• Design situations are categorised as persistent, transient,

accidental or seismic.
• These categorisations draw together families of circumstances or

conditions that the structure might experience during its life:
• Persistent design situations refer to conditions of normal use. As such, for
a highway bridge, they will include the passage of heavy vehicles since the
ability to carry heavy vehicles is a key functional requirement.
• Transient design situations refer to circumstances when the structure is
itself in some temporary configuration, such as during execution or repair.
• Accidental design situations refer to exceptional circumstances when a
structure is experiencing an extreme accidental event.
• Seismic design situations concern conditions applicable to the structure
when subjected to seismic events
Key Concept 2
Key Concept 2 – Reversible and
Irreversible Serviceability Limit States
• The Eurocodes differentiate between reversible and irreversible

serviceability limit states.
• Irreversible serviceability limit states are of greater concern than
reversible serviceability limit states.
• The acceptable probability of an irreversible serviceability limit state being
exceeded is lower than that for a reversible serviceability limit state.
• As will be seen later, a more onerous combination of actions is used for

irreversible serviceability limit states than reversible serviceability limit
states.
EN1990: Section 4 – Basic variables
• Actions and environmental influences [4.1]

• Material and product properties [4.2]
• Geometric data [4.3]
EN1990: Section 4 – Basic variables
Representative values of variable actions
• EN1990 established four representative values of a

variable action
 Characteristic Value (Qk) [1.5.3.14]
 Combinations Value of a Variable Action (0Qk) [1.5.3.16]
 Frequent Value of a Variable Action (1Qk) [1.5.3.17]
 Quasi-permanent Value of a Variable Action (2Qk) [1.5.3.18]
Key Concept 3
Representative Values of a Variable Action
Instantaneous value of Q
Characteristic value Qk
t1 t2 t3
Combination value oQk
Frequent value 1Qk
Quasi-permanent value 2Qk
Time
Key Concept 3 – Representative values of variable actions
• There are four different representative values of a Variable Action.

• The characteristic value is a statistically extreme value. It is the main
representative value, and the value generally defined in EN1991.
• The other representative values are called the combination value,
frequent value and quasi-permanent value. They are determined by
multiplying the characteristic value by 0 ,1 and 2 respectively.
• The combination, frequent and quasi-permanent values are less
statistically extreme than the characteristic value, so 0 ,1 and 2 are
always less than 1.
Material Properties
EN1990: Section 5 – Structural analysis and
design assisted by testing
EN1990: Section 6 – Verification by the partial factor method
• Key section – will return to it further later
• Design values [6.3]

 Actions, materials, geometric data, (effects of actions, resistances)
• Ultimate limit states [6.4]

 ULS’s to be verified, verification rules, combination rules
• Serviceability limit states [6.5]

 Verification rules, combinations of actions
Ultimate Limit States
• Ultimate Limit States

 EQU – Equilibrium
 STR – Structural
 GEO – Geotechnical
 FAT - Fatigue
 UPL – Uplift
 HYD – Hydraulic heave

Key Concept 4
 FAT - Fatigue
 UPL – Uplift

Resistance
 FAT - Fatigue
 UPL – Uplift

Resistance
 FAT - Fatigue Stability
 UPL – Uplift

Resistance
 FAT - Fatigue Stability
 UPL – Uplift
EN1997
Key Concept 4 – Six different Ultimate Limit States
• The Eurocodes explicitly establish six different ultimate limit states.

• Two of these, UPL and HYD, are specific to EN1997.
• Two are concerned with resistances: STR when verifying structural
resistance and GEO when verifying the resistance of the ground.
• FAT is concerned with fatigue.
• EQU is principally concerned with ultimate limit states involving a loss of
overall equilibrium. However, it has an important relationship with the
single source principle (see Key Concept 5)
• Different partial factors on actions and geotechnical material
properties are used for different ultimate limit states
EN1990: Annex A2 – Application for bridges
• Another key section for bridge design

• Combinations of action [A2.2]
General, rules for different bridge types, values of  factors
• Ultimate limit states [A2.3]

Design values, design approaches, partial factors on actions
• Serviceability limit states [A2.4]

Design values, deformation, vibrations
Partial factors on actions
ULS Partial Factors – Set A - Bridges
ULS Partial Factors – Set B - Bridges
Design situations – cases where
geotechnical actions or resistance present
ULS Partial Factors – Set C - Bridges
Single Source Principle
EN 1990, Annex A2:
Key Concept 5
Single Source Principle
Key Concept 5
NOTE 3 The characteristic values of all permanent actions from one

source are multiplied by gG,sup if the total resulting action effect is
unfavourable and gG,inf if the total resulting action effect is favourable. For
example, all actions originating from the self weight of the structure may
be considered as coming from one source; this also applies if different
materials are involved. See however A2.3.1(2)
Key Concept 5 – Single Source Principle
• Application of the single source principle allows a single partial factor to

be applied to the whole of an action arising from a single source.
• The value of the partial factor used depends on whether the resulting
action effect is favourable or unfavourable.
• EN1990 allows the single source principle to be used for STR and GEO
verifications.
• EQU addresses cases when minor variations in the magnitude or
spatial distribution of a permanent action from a single source is
significant.
Illustration of STR and EQU:
Verification of launched structure
gG,sup Gk,sup
STR Verification : Moment over central support

Single source principle can be applied
EN1990 Set B Partial Factors used
gG,inf Gk,inf gG,sup Gk,sup
EQU Verification
Single source principle not applied
EN1990 Set A Partial Factors used


Key Concept 6
Verification (ULS)
ULS Verification
(Persistent and Transient Design Situation)
Ed ≤ Rd
ULS Verification
Ed ≤ Rd
Applying Equation 6.10 from EN1990:

ULS Verification
ULS Verification
Ed ≤ Rd
Applying Equation 6.10 from EN1990:
Ed = E { Sj≥1gG,jGk,j “+” gpP “+” gQ,1Qk,1 “+” Si>1gQ,i 0,i Qk,i }

ULS Verification

ULS Verification
Design
effect

ULS Verification
Design
effect
Effect of
ULS Verification
Design
effect Permanent
actions
Effect of
ULS Verification
Design
effect Permanent
actions
Effect of
Combined
with
ULS Verification
Design
effect Permanent
actions
Effect of Prestress
Combined
with
ULS Verification
Design Leading
effect Permanent variable
actions action
Effect of Prestress
Combined
with
ULS Verification
Design Leading
effect Permanent variable
actions action
Effect of Prestress Accompanying

variable
Combined actions
with
 factors for highway bridges
Combinations of Actions – Treatment of variable actions
Leading Accompanying
gQ (1)  gQ (1) 
ULS Persistent and Transient Design
Situations gQ 1.0 gQ 0
Combination
ULS Accidental Design Situation 1.0 1 or 2
(2)
1.0 2 also includes
Ad
(SLS) Characteristic Combination 1.0 1.0 1.0 0
(SLS) Frequent combination 1.0 1 1.0 2
(SLS) Quasi permanent Combination
(also used for long term effects)
1.0 2 1.0 2
Notes:
(1) Values of gQ are obtained from tables A2.4(A) – (C) of EN 1990.
(2) Expression 6.11 allows the use of either or 1 or 2
(3) Guidance on which combination should be used for specific verifications is given in the relevant Parts of
EN 1992 to EN 1999 for SLS, and is dependent upon the design situation at ULS.
ULS Verification (Accidental Design Situation)
Ed = E { Sj≥1Gk,j “+” P “+” Ad “+” (1,1 or 2,1) Qk,1

“+” Si>12,i Qk,i }
gQ (1)  gQ (1) 
Combination
(2)
Ad
1.0 2 1.0 2
Notes:
Serviceability Limit States
SLS Verification Combinations of Actions
Characteristic Combination
– Normally used for irreversible limit states
Ed = E { Sj≥1Gk,j “+” P “+” Qk,1 “+” Si>10,i Qk,i }

Example from EN1992-1-1
gQ (1)  gQ (1) 
Combination
(2)
Ad
1.0 2 1.0 2
Notes:
Frequent Combination
– Normally used for reversible limit states
Ed = E { Sj≥1Gk,j “+” P “+” 1,1 Qk,1 “+” Si>12,i Qk,i }

Quasi-Permanent Combination
– Normally used for long term effects
Ed = E { Sj≥1Gk,j “+” P “+” Si≥12,i Qk,i }

Example from EN1992-1-1
gQ (1)  gQ (1) 
Combination
(2)
Ad
1.0 2 1.0 2
Notes:
Key Concept 6 – Five Combinations of Actions
• EN1990 establishes five different combinations of actions.

• Different combinations of actions are used for verifying different
limit states. They have different statistical likelihoods of
occurring.
• The quasi-permanent combination is also used when analysing
long-term effects.
• The differences between the combinations of actions concern:
whether partial factors are applied; which representative values of
variable actions are used; and, whether there is an accidental
action included.
• The different combinations of actions are used in conjunction with
the Eurocode ‘material parts’. The Eurocode part generally states
explicitly which combination is to be used in each SLS verification.
Six key concepts of EN 1990 - summary
• Design situations
• Reversible and irreversible serviceability limit states
• Representative values of variable actions
• Six ultimate limit states
• Single source principle
• Five combinations of actions

d1 6denton PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

d1 6denton PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

d1 6denton PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROCODES

Bridges: Background and applications

St Petersburg April 2011 1

Introduction to The Design Example

Professor Steve Denton

EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design

EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design

EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design

• European Commission and JRC

Introduction to design examples

Introduction to design examples

EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC7 EC8

Introduction to design examples

EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC7 EC8

Introduction to design examples

Partial alternative examples

Introduction to design examples

Partial alternative examples

Introduction to design examples

Partial alternative examples

1. Geometry of the deck

2. Geometry of the substructure

- Continuous three span

Two girder composite deck

Two girder composite deck

Squat pier case

High pier case

Squat pier case

High pier case

- Design working life: 100 years

- Design working life: 100 years

- Design working life: 100 years

For fatigue verifications:

- Shade air temperature: Tmin = -20ºC Tmax = 40ºC

- Wind: Flat valley with little isolated obstacles

- Exposure Class: XC3 (top face of concrete slab)

- Soil conditions: No deep foundation is needed

a) Structural steel Thickness Subgrade

c) Reinforcing steel Class B high bond bars fsk=500 MPa

d) Shear connectors S235J2G3 fu=450 MPa

- Launching of the steel girders

- Cast in-place slab

- Cast in-place slab

- Cast in-place slab

- Cast in-place slab

- Cast in-place slab

1. General overview of EN 1990

2. Verification of limit states and

1. General overview of EN 1990

2. Verification of limit states and

Annex A1 Application for Buildings

• Provides principles and requirements for designers

Some of the EN1990 requirements are very general – specific

• Basic requirements [2.1]

• Design situations are categorised as persistent, transient,

• These categorisations draw together families of circumstances or

• The Eurocodes differentiate between reversible and irreversible

• As will be seen later, a more onerous combination of actions is used for