Surrey ENGM030 Unit 9 Presentation

hewson consulting engineers
civil, structural and bridge engineering
Bridge deck loading and analysis

Skew, curved and integral bridges
Presented by Nigel Hewson

hewson consulting engineers ltd.
December 2009
Contents of lecture
SKEW & CURVED BRIDGES
 Description of skew & curved decks
 Plate analysis
 Use of influence surfaces
 Grillage analysis
 Reinforcement design
 Reactions
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
 Description of integral bridges
 Loading on integral bridges
 Analysis

1
Introduction
• A skew bridge is one whose longitudinal axis is
not perpendicular to the line of support
(abutments, pier caps or both).
• The angle of skew is normally measured between
the longitudinal centre-line of the deck (ie, the
direction of the carriageway) and line drawn
perpendicular to the support. Direction of
• Skew distorts the load-transfer mechanism or traffic flow
“load path” in a decks.
Angle of
skew

Introduction
Curved bridge are also common and have become

standard features of highway interchanges
Characterised by curved horizontal alignment and are used
to allow for:
smooth bridge alignment for road / rail traffic
avoid obstructions
optimising bridge arrangement over local topography
optimising foundation conditions
aesthetics
Curves introduce considerable complexity into bridge
analysis and large torsional stresses.
Can be analysed by grillage analysis or finite element
analysis using straight grillage members.
2
Introduction
• A curved bridge is one whose alignment in plan is curved
• The curvature is normally noted as horizontal radius
• Radius down to 40m common on highways and down to
200m on railways
• May have square or skew piers and abutments

Skew and Curved decks

In determining the bridge geometry and layout, the following characteristics
need to be considered:
Longer spans – increased cost of deck and supports
Increased deck area will increase cost of deck
Complicated behaviour and analysis
Hazard to drivers / users
Choice of geometry will take account of these on a site specific basis.
A bridge with 0o skew is called a “right” or “square” span.

A bridge with horizontal curvature > 2000m can usually be treated as a
straight deck

3
Bridge geometry
river
Square bridge
Square bridge
Skew bridges can be simply

Skew bridge supported or continuous

Bridge geometry
Line of supports
Direction of
traffic flow
Longitudinal direction:
Span
 parallel to traffic
Transverse direction:
 perpendicular to traffic

4
Bridge geometry
Direction of
traffic flow
Angle of
skew Skew Right
span span
Transverse
direction

Bridge geometry
Standard skew
Half skew
Trapezoidal skew

5
Bridge geometry
Curved span
Angle of
curvature
per span
Curved deck

Effects of skew
θ
The most obvious effect of
X
skew is to change the
required span of the bridge.
Width of obstacle = X
w For a skew bridge: skew span = X / cosθ
For a square bridge: square span = X / cosθ+ w tanθ
For a river width 20m, 35o skew and deck width 10.0m
Skew span = X / cos35 = 24.4m
Square span = 24.4 + 10.0 tan35 = 31.4m
(40% increase in the length of beams required)
6
Effects of skew
Skew distorts the load-transfer mechanism or “load
path” in a deck. It is therefore a very important
parameter which affects the analysis.
With torsionally stiff girders (eg, closed “box”

sections), skew can have a considerable effect
on the bending moments and shear forces.
For significant skew angles the torsion or

“twisting” moments induced in the girders can be
large and will invalidate the results from a
simplified analysis where the skew is ignored.
Many simplified analysis methods (including

computer methods) have limitations with regard
the skew angle for which they are applicable.

Effects of curvature
Lengthens effective span of deck
Curvature causes twisting and

torsion within the deck
Curvature redistributes loads in

Bearings
Causes uneven loading on

substructure

7
Representing skew deck as plates -
Plate theory
A slab may be considered as a plate, or a
continuum, capable of resisting lateral load mainly
through bending (also shear and torsion).
Plate theory was established by Lagrange in 1811.
Assumptions:
 Deflections are small

 Thickness of plate is small (not so thin that
membrane forces control, not so thick that shear
forces control)
 Plate is homogeneous, elastic and isotropic

Plate theory
Right slabs
A right slab under the action of a UDL behaves essentially as a wide
beam with high bending moments in the longitudinal direction (Mx).
Transverse moments (My) and twisting moments (M xy) are virtually
zero.
Analysis can be carried out using a unit strip.
With concentrated loads (point loads) the load is distributed
transversely through the slab so that transverse moments (My) and
twisting moments (Mxy) become significant. It is possible to use
influence surfaces which have been produced for particular
conditions, eg, Westergaad, Pucher, Rusch and Hergenroder, etc.
Skew and curved slabs

With skew slabs behaviour under load is completely different, with
significant longitudinal, transverse twisting moments generated
throughout.

8
Plate theory
Following much research, various tables and influence lines have

been produced which can be used to determine bending
moments, twisting moments, shears and deflections at a number
of critical points under the action of UDLs and point loads.
The table of influence surfaces produced by Rusch and
Hergenroder were based on the results of laboratory tests on
models made from gypsum plaster.
Influence surfaces are available for both square and skew slabs.
Further work included the effects of bearing stiffness and number
of bearings.
H Rű sch and A Hergenrőder. “Influence surfaces for moments in skew slabs”.

(Translated from German). Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1961 (21
pages + 174 charts).

Behaviour of skew slabs

Under a UDL, load trajectories tend to be aligned:
 Perpendicular to the support in the middle region, and
 Parallel to the free edges at these positions.
Load therefore tends to be concentrated in the obtuse corners.

9
Skew slabs
X
0
X
A
This leads to negative transverse bending moments and high

twisting moments in the obtuse corner.

Skew slabs
Along the free edge O-A, the distribution of moment due to a
UDL (dead load) is similar to that shown.
X
0
X
A
0 A
Mx
For live loads loads, the distribution of moments can be much

more complicated.

10
Skew slabs
Usually it is sufficient for design to investigate the moments
at a few critical points and provide reinforcement
accordingly.
C
B
A D
These are the critical points investigated by Rusch and

Hergenroder for various skew angles and aspect ratios.
They produced influence surfaces for determining the
“moment triad” (M x, M y, Mxy ) and (M u , Mv , Muv ) at each point
A, B, C and D under the action of a UDL and a point or patch
load.
Skew slabs
Parameters and co-ordinate notation used
by Rusch and Hergenroder
Angle  Aspect ratio b/l

x u 0.4
15 1.0
1.6
y lФ lx
v 0.4
Ф
30 1.0
1.6
0.4
b 45 1.0
1.6
Normal sign convention: 0.4
y: parallel to line of support 60 1.0
1.6
u: parallel to centre-line of bridge
(direction of carriageway)
11
Influence surface for skew slabs
(from Rusch and Hergenroder)
Kx Ky K xy
b / l

Moments at point B due to a UDL of g:
Mx  K x g lx
My  K y g lx
Direction of traffic
M xy  K xy g l x hewson consulting engineers
Influence surface for skew slabs

(from Rusch and Hergenroder)
Ku Kuv lc / l
b / l
Moments at point C due to UDL of g: 

 Ku g lx
2
Mu
Mv  0
Exact position of C given by lc / lФ
M uv  K uv g l x 2 hewson consulting engineers
Point C is point
civil, structural of max.
and bridge moment
engineering
12
Example A skew slab has aspect ratio 1.55 and skew 35 o. Determine the
moment triad (Mu , M v, M uv) at point C under the action of a
uniformly distributed load g.
Ф= 35o
b/l Ф = 1.55
Ku K uv lc / l
b / l

 Ku g lx
2
Mu
Mv  0
 K uv g l x
2 Exact position of C given by lc / lФ
M uv hewson consulting engineers
Example
From chart
Ku = +0.100
Kuv = +0.095
Therefore M u = 0.1 (g lx2 )

Mv = 0
M uv = 0.095 (g l x2 )
The charts also give the location of local maximum:

lc / lФ = 0.26

13
Point loads
Because of the complexity of the load distribution, influence
lines for point loads are invaluable for determining the
moments due to live loading, eg, HB vehicle.
Generally, the contact area for “patch” loads has a negligible
effect and they can be considered to be point loads.
Contact area is only significant when the width of the patch is
greater than 0.15 times the span.
Influence surfaces can be used

to determine the load effects for
patch loads. The patch is
sketched to scale on the
influence surface and the
influence ordinate determined by
“integration”.

Point loads
General procedure:
 Chose the correct influence surface (point load, aspect ratio,
skew) for the critical point being considered.
 Determine the scale of the slab in relation to the influence
surface. Sketch the kerb lines of the deck.
 Draw the HB vehicle to the same scale on a transparent sheet.
 Position the transparent sheet on the influence surface and read
off the ordinates.
 Form a table of the results.
 Using trial and error, position the sheet to maximise the sum of
the ordinates.
 Determine the total moment from:
M  Pi X i / 8

14
Point loads
Wheel X i for Mx X i for My Xi for Mxy
1 1.09
2 1.15
3 1.25
4 1.50
5 0.97
6 1.12
7 1.25
8 1.41
9 0.33
10 0.49
11 0.67
12 0.75
13 0.11
14 0.24
15 0.39
16 0.48
TOTAL 13.20

Grillage analysis
The grillage analogy can be used to analysis skew and
curved decks. It is very convenient even for curved decks.
Some thought must be given to mesh layout.
The orientation of the longitudinal members should always
be parallel to the free edges.
Note that, for very wide decks, longitudinal members
can be orthogonal to the supports.
The positioning of the transverse members can be either:
 Parallel to the supports, with structural parameters

calculated using the orthogonal distance between the
grillage members
 Orthogonal to the longitudinal beams
The grillage analogy can be used to analysis skew decks. It
is very convenient even for curved decks.
COVERED IN OTHER LECTURE

15
Slab reinforcement design
Where no skew is present, reinforcement need only be
designed to resist the maximum M x and My moments, as
M xy is small.
This is not sufficient for skew slabs (>~15o ) or cueved
slabs because of the large M xy moments.
In beams, the twisting moments are resisted by additional
shear links and longitudinal reinforcement.
In slabs, the most efficient solution would be to place the
reinforcement in the direction of the two principle
bending moment directions. This is clearly impractical as
it would require bars curved in plan.
In practice, additional reinforcement is provided to resist
the twisting moments:
the so-called “Wood Armer” equations are used.


The Wood Armer equations were developed in 1968 and
adopted the “normal moment criterion”:
The moment of resistance provided by the
reinforcement in any direction at a point should not
be less than the applied bending moment in that
direction at that point.
In other words, the reinforcement should cater for all
possible loading cases and should, if possible, be placed
in the principle moment directions (ie, where M xy = 0).
Wood and Armer devised simple rules to accomplish this.
These rules enable the calculation of the moments to be
used in the design of the reinforcement which take into
account the moment triad [M x, M y ,M xy] or [M u, M v ,M uv ].

16
Commonly used reinforcement patterns:
X-Y U-V U-Y
X-Y is most efficient for “wide” skew slabs (b/lФ > ~1.0).
U-V is most efficient for narrow skew slabs (b/l Ф < ~0.5).
Otherwise U-Y is generally the most efficient pattern.

Wood Armer equations

Positive reinforcement (sagging or M *x  M x M xy
bottom) in X-Y directions:
M *y  M y M xy
If M *x  0 then
M *
x  0 and
2
M xy
M *y  My 
Mx
If M *y  0 then
M *
y  0 and
2
M xy
M *
x  Mx 
My

17
M *x  M x M xy
Negative reinforcement (hogging
or top) in X-Y directions: M *y  M y M xy
If M *x  0 then
M *
x  0 and
2
M xy
M *y  My 
Mx
If M *y  0 then
M *
y  0 and
M xy 2
M *
x  Mx 
My

X
M x reinforcement
My reinforcement
Y
Similar equations are also available for reinforcement
in skew direction and for in-plane forces: see Clark
(1986) “Concrete bridge design to BS 5400”.
18
Example application
The moment triad at a point on a 450 skew slab were determined as:
M x = 2,500 kNm/m
M y = -1,000 kNm/m
M xy = -900 kNm/m
Determine the design moments to be used in and X-Y reinforcement
pattern.
Bottom (+) steel:

M*x = 2,500 + |-900| = 3,400 kNm/m
M*y = -1,000 + |-900| = -100 kNm/m
As M*y < 0, then the following values are taken:
M*y = 0
M*x = 2,500 + |-900 2/1,000| = 3,310 kNm/m

Example application
The moment triad at a point on a 45 0 skew slab were determined as:
M x = 2,500 kNm/m
M y = -1,000 kNm/m
M xy = -900 kNm/m
Determine the design moments to be used in and X-Y reinforcement
pattern.
Top (-) steel:

M* x = 2,500 - |-900| = 1,600 kNm/m
M* y = -1,000 - |-900| = -1,900 kNm/m
As M* x >0, then the following values are taken:
M* x = 0
M* y = -1,000 - |-9002/2,500| = -1,324 kNm/m

19
Practical details
As dead load is very often the most significant load, it is reasonable
to consider the trajectory as a guide to final reinforcement
placement.
Orthogonal patterns will inevitably mean that, at the free edges and
on the support lines, the reinforcement is not always at its most
efficient. For this reason, an additional band of reinforcement, over a
width of about 2h, should be added.
free edge
2h
Y Abutment line
Top reinforcement should reflect bottom reinforcement.
Care should be taken to avoid congestion of steel.

Practical details
Typical reinforcement details:
or
bottom
In general, either X-Y or U-V with edge reinforcement will
be efficient.
If b/l  < 0.5, use U-V
If b/l  > 1.5, use X-Y
If 0.5 < b/l< 1.5, then either can be used.

20
Practical details
At the free edges, at least one set of orthogonal bars should

continue from the top to the bottom surface of the slab in a hairpin
shape.
This will prevent diagonal shear cracks occurring due to the twisting
moments.
M xy

Reactions
In skew slabs, the distribution of the reaction forces along the
support line varies from a maximum at the obtuse corner to a
minimum at the acute corner.
this distribution depends on:
the angle of skew

the aspect ratio
the number and stiffness of the bearings
the type of loading.

21
Reactions
Where flexible bearings are used (rubber, elastomeric bearings)
the distribution is usually linear (determined from analysis, eg,
grillage).
For rigid bearings (eg, metal cylindrical or spherical bearings)
the distribution is more complex (curved).
Obtuse Acute
flexible
rigid

Reactions
Before the analysis is performed, the mode of support should be
carefully considered.
While it is not possible to design the bearings at this stage, it will
be possible to estimate the elasticity of the bearings.
The values of the reactions and moments in the region of the
supports are critically dependent on the stiffnesses of the
supports.
While exact values are not important, the difference between a
rigid bearing, a rubber bearing and a long column will cause
considerable differences in the final results.
If the values of the reactions are required accurately, the
supports should be placed in the analysis in the same position as
they will occur in the final deck. This is particularly important for
skew slabs.

22
Reactions
In certain instances, reactions can be negative. These usually

occur at the second bearing in from the obtuse corner. The
distribution of the reactions tends to even out along the internal
supports of a continuous skew deck.
Mehmel and Weise showed that for a slab with 60o skew subjected
to a UDL, substituting flexible bearing for rigid ones:
 Increases the sagging moment at the centre of the slab by 20%
 Reduces the hogging moment on the obtuse corner by up to
47%
These figures become 7% and 38% for a 30 o skew.
They also showed that a few widely-spaced bearings reduces the
hogging moments in the obtuse corners with only a slight
increase in central sagging moments.

Reactions
A small number of bearings also reduces the
chances of negative reactions (uplift) in the
acute corners but the design loads will be
higher.

23
General design procedure for skew slabs
The procedure consists of analysing the deck for the
maximum moments and sizing the section (concrete
and reinforcing steel) accordingly.
Analysis can be carried out using an appropriate
method such as grillage, finite element or influence
surfaces.
The moment triad [M x, M y ,M xy] is determined for the
critical points in the deck.
The design moments M*x and M* y are determined
using the Wood Armer equations.
The top and bottom reinforcement is determined
using conventional reinforced concrete design
methods.
Edge details are determined.

General design procedure for simply supported skew slabs
If influence surfaces are used:

 The actual deck is idealised to fit in plan as closely as possible to the shapes
considered in the available by Rusch and Hergenroder. The appropriate
influence surfaces are identified based on the span, skew and aspect ratio.
 The depth of the slab is assumed. As a first estimate, take l /h = 20.
 Determine the loads due to dead load and normal HA loading over the entire
span. This is generally the governing case for spans in the range 8 – 20m and
will cover most practical cases.
 Assume a number of flexible, evenly spaced bearings.
 Determine the bending moments at the free edge, the mid-point and the
obtuse corner using the influence surfaces of Rusch and Hergenroder.
 Chose the appropriate reinforcement layout (X-Y, U-V, U-Y) using engineering
judgement and experience.
 Carry out checks for the actual normal HA (UDL and KEL) and abnormal HB
loading in the appropriate lanes to verify that the design is sufficient.
 Determine the reactions, check for punching shear at the bearing in the obtuse
corners.

24
Example: Q4-2001
CV/CM54/Autumn 2001: Question 4
4. Using the influence surfaces for a skew deck provided, determine the
triad of moments Mu, Mv, and Muv at point C for the skew slab shown
in Figure 4 under the action of:
(i) the self weight of the slab 750mm thick with a unit weight of
25kN/m3,
(ii) 45 units of HB placed in lane 1,
(iii) HA in lane 2
(NOTE: Lane 1 used in the following example)
Assume that HA loading = 30kN/ m / lane

The aspect ratio b/lФ = 1.0
NB: u – axis is parallel to the free edge and the v – axis is perpendicular to
the free edge.
Pucher Charts provided

Students own copies of BD 37 can be used

Example: Q4-2001
7m
C
12m
1
2
b
0
e
r
ne
Ke
45
b
La
er
La
Figure 4
25
b / l
Ku K uv lc /l

u K
2 2
Mu M g Klux g l x
u
Mv v 0  0
M
uv KgKluv g l x
2
M uv M 2
uv x hewson consulting engineers
Example: Q4-2001
(i) Dead load of 25 kN/m3: Use UDL chart
For aspect ratio 1.0 and skew 45o, moments due to UDL:
From chart
Ku = +0.1178
KV = 0
Kuv = +0.07
Therefore M u = 0.1178 x 25 x 122 = 426.6 kNm / m
Mv = 0
M uv = 0.07 x 25 x 122 = 252.0 kNm / m
The charts also give the location of local maximum:
lc / lФ = 0.34
lc = 0.34 x 12 x cos 45 = 5.77 m

26
Example: Q4-2001
(ii) For HB load, use point load chart.
For aspect ratio 1.0 and skew 45o, moments due to HB load:
From BD 37: Axle load = 45 x 10 = 450kN

Wheel load = 450/4 = 112.5kN.
HB vehicle configuration:
1.8m 6.0m 1.8m
3 @ 1.0m

Example: Q4-2001
For aspect ratio 1.0 and skew 45 o, moments due to HB load:
Skew span = 12/cos45 = 16.97 m
Bridge width = 12 m
7m
Kerb width = (12-7)/2 = 2.5 m
2.5 m
16.97 m C
12m
1
2
rb
0
ne
ne
Ke
45
b
La
r
La
Ke
16.97 m

27
Example: Q4-2001
Procedure for HB loads:
Sketch bridge to scale on the appropriate influence surface.
Sketch HB vehicle to same scale.
Read off the influence co-ordinates and complete table.
The moment is given by:
Mu  Pi  X i / 8
Use trial and error (and judgement) to chose critical position.

Position A
Kerb

28
Position B
Kerb

Position C
Kerb

29
Example: Q4-2001: HB loading
Wheel Pos A Pos B Pos C
X i for Mu: X i for Mu: X i for Mu:
1 8.9 7.6 9.7
2 6.9 6.2 7.2
3 5.3 4.9 5.5
4 4.0 3.7 4.1
5 9.0 9.7 7.3
6 7.0 7.2 6.0
7 5.4 5.5 4.9
8 4.1 4.1 3.9
9 0.7 1.2 0.4
10 1.1 1.4 0.5
11 1.3 1.6 0.8
12 1.4 1.7 0.9
13 0.0 0.4 0.0
14 0.4 0.5 0.1
15 0.6 0.8 0.4
16 0.8 0.9 0.5
TOTAL 56.9 57.4 52.2

Example: Q4-2001: HB loading

Procedure:
Sketch bridge to scale on the appropriate influence surface.
Sketch HB vehicle to same scale.
Read off the influence co-ordinates and complete table.
For worst position:

X i  57.4
The moment is given by:
Mu  Pi  X i / 8
 112.5 57.4 / 8
 256.9 kNm / m
30
Example: Q4-2001
(iii) HA loading: UDL but in one lane only.
Procedure: Split HA load into series of point loads and use point load
chart.
(Detail of how this is done does not matter – but the more refined the
distribution of load, the more accurate the result)
HA loading of 30 kN/ m / lane, ie, 30/3.5 = 8.57 kN/m 2.
Determine contributory areas for each point load.

Total moment is given by:
Mu  Pi X i / 8
 8.57 Ai X i / 8
Tabulate values and evaluate moment.
Kerb

31
Kerb

Example: Q4-2001: HA loading

Load No Width Breadth Area Load Co-ord Moment
1 4.950 2.4 11.88 101.8 1.2 4.86
2 4.950 1.2 5.94 50.9 2.8 5.67
3 1.556 1.2 1.87 16.0 5.5 3.50
4 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 5.5 3.82
5 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 4.1 2.85
6 1.556 1.2 1.87 16.0 7.9 5.03
7 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 6.0 4.17
8 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 3.8 2.64
9 1.556 1.2 1.87 16.0 7.1 4.52
10 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 4.7 3.26
11 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 2.9 2.01
12 1.556 1.2 1.87 16.0 4.5 2.87
13 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 3.1 2.15
14 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 2.0 1.39
15 4.950 1.2 5.94 50.9 1.8 3.65
16 4.950 2.4 11.88 101.8 0.4 1.62
TOTAL 59.40 509.1 Mu = 54.02

32
Kerb

Example: Q4-2001: HA loading

Load No Width Breadth Area Load Co-ord Moment
1 4.950 2.4 11.88 101.8 0.5 2.03
2 4.950 1.2 5.94 50.9 1.2 2.43
3 1.556 1.2 1.87 16.0 1.4 0.89
4 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 1.7 1.18
5 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 1.9 1.32
6 1.556 1.2 1.87 16.0 1.7 1.08
7 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 2.2 1.53
8 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 2.7 1.88
9 1.556 1.2 1.87 16.0 1.9 1.21
10 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 2.4 1.67
11 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 2.9 2.01
12 1.556 1.2 1.87 16.0 1.9 1.21
13 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 2.4 1.67
14 1.697 1.2 2.04 17.5 2.9 2.01
15 4.950 1.2 5.94 50.9 2.0 4.05
16 4.950 2.4 11.88 101.8 1.1 4.46
TOTAL 59.40 509.1 Muv = 30.62

33
Example: Q4-2001
Answers: (i) Dead load Mu  426.6 kNm / m
Mv  0
M uv  252.0 kNm / m
(ii) HB load M u  256.9 kNm / m

Mv  0
M uv  121.3 kNm / m
(iii) HA load Mu  54. 0 kNm / m

Mv  0
M uv  30 .6 kNm / m
Shear in slab decks

(applicable to skew or square slabs)
45º spread of load

towards support
For maximum shear, consider

loads a minimum of d from the
support

34
Shear in slab decks 1.8m
example
45º spread of load

towards support
Wheel load = 112.5kN
1.0m
For maximum shear, consider

loads a minimum of d from the
support
D = 800mm
A B
19.2m 0.8m
For wheels nearest support B, load transferred to B = 112.5 x (2 0 – 0.8) / 20 1 = 108 kN

For 2nd row of wheel, load transfer to B = 112.5 x (20 – 2.6)/20 = 97.9 kN
Maximum Shear at support B = 4 x 108 / (3 + 2 x 0.8) + 4 x 97.9 / (3 + 2 x 2.6) = 141.6 kN / m width


15 Minute Break
After the break …

integral bridges
35
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
 Description of integral bridges
 Analysis
 Loading on integral bridges

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
What is an integral bridge?
A bridge where the deck is built integral with

the abutments and / or piers

1
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Features of an integral bridge?
• No Bearings
• No Expansion Joints

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Why integral bridges?
Problems with expansion joints and bearings
Improvements in durability
Savings in maintenance costs

2
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Many ‘older’ bridges were ‘integral’
M1 – Sir Owen Williams bridges – 1960’s
St James’ Park footbridge - 1957
and still performing well…

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Use of bearings and expansion joints became commonplace
• Simple for design
• Simple for construction (particularly with precast beams)
• Easily caters for high settlements
• Longer bridge lengths being constructed

3
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Integral bridges now the ‘norm’

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Full height abutment
Bankseat
abutment

4
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Integral supports
culverts

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Some more examples

5
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Integral piers
Lai Chi Kok, Hong Kong hewson consulting engineers

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Piers at expansion joints
T3 viaduct, Sha Tin, Hong Kong

6
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Courtesy of Tiefbauamt Graubunden)

Sunniberg Bridge, Switzerland
140m spans
Continuous for complete length and built into abutments

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Full-height Bank Seat Abutments

or Frame Abutment

7
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Piled Abutments
casing
Mini-piles Piled wall Pile support with-

or in reinforced earth
Embedded abutment
Abutment

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Semi-Integral bridges
Deck continuous without movement joints, but

with bearings and not built into abutment.

8
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Analysis
Bank seat fairly straight Full height, or Frame abutments

forward, and relies on sliding rely on bending within the wall and
of the abutment ‘rocking’ of the footings

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Embedded Abutments rely on flexure within

the piles

9
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Soil Loading behind abutments
CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS
BD 57/01 & BA 57/01 – Design for Durability

Required bridges < 60m long and skew < 30 o to be integral bridges
BA 42/96 (with amendment No.1 – May 2003) – The Design of Integral Bridges
BD 30/87 - Backfilled retaining walls and bridge abutments
BD 31/01 – Buried Concrete Box and Portal Frame Structures

Used for integral bridges < 15m long and cover > 200mm

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Soil Loading behind abutments
MI-AI Link Road Bridge

monitoring by TRL
(see report – available on TI website)

10
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Some problems encountered
The biggest problems for the designer has been over the soil
pressure to be applied to the back of the wall.
Also high bending in the abutment walls and the connection

with the deck
Detailing and behaviour of the ‘sliding’ surface under a bank

seat type abutment. Repetitive movements or ‘rocking’?

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Loading on different types of abutments

Bank seat abutment
Loading as defined in BA 42/96
Movement
K* = Ko + (d / 0.025H)0.4 Kp
Usually
< 3 or 4m
For
d = 0.020m
Back fill material usually 6N H = 3m
• Granular K* = K o + 0.59 Kp
• Ø = 35º to 45º
• Density = 20 kN/m 3 (can vary 18 ~ 22 and should be checked)

11
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Kp values from Eurocode 7 part 1

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Frame or full height abutment
Movement
H/2 K* = (d / 0.05 H)0.4 Kp

Typically
7 ~ 12m
range
Ko
For
d = 0.020m
H = 10m
Back fill material usually 6N K* = 0.28 Kp
• Granular
• Ø = 35º to 45º (higher than 45º can be difficult to source)
• Density = 20 kN/m 3 (can vary 18 ~ 22 and should be checked)

12
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Embedded or piled wall abutments

Movement
H/2 K* = (d / 0.05 H)0.4 Kp

Typically
7 ~ 12m
range
Ko
Better to seek a ‘departure’

and carryout a more
rigorous assessment of the
loading
Soil behind the abutment is usually ‘natural ground ’
i.e. sands, silts, clay or somewhere in -between!
All of testing done to-date has been on granular soils

and less is known about the behaviour of cohesive
soils under cyclic loading

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Should high soil pressures apply with thermal

contraction?
Reduction in soil pressure with sloping back face?

BA 42/96 states “back faces inclined forward mobile
much lower passive earth pressures than vertical
walls during displacements”
Increase in soil pressures if walls slope backward?

13
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Loading
Frame action
Dead Load
Applied load – SIDL & LL
Longitudinal braking / traction loads
Soil Loading
Temperature Loading
- ambient change
- differential
Differential settlement
Creep & Shrinkage of the concrete

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Load combinations
BD 37 /01
Note relieving effects
BA42/96

14
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
BA 42/96
• Live load surcharge ignored when calculating the

passive earth pressure mobilised by thermal
expansion of the deck
• Live load surcharge checked with earth pressures

‘at rest’ (K o)
• Active earth pressures during thermal contraction

are very small as compared to passive pressures and
may be ignored.

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Load combinations
Other considerations
Are the other loading effects, (e.g. braking / traction,

differential settlement, etc) added to ‘passive’ pressure
from thermal expansion?
Much will depend on how the structure is modelled,

the behaviour of the structure and the opinions of the
approving authority

15
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Analysis of different types of abutments

Bank seat abutment
Slid surface
to reduce
friction
Springs under abutment footing
vertical
horizontal – elastic/plastic to model ‘sliding’
rotational – to model stiffness of ground
Usually upper and lower bound stiffness considered

INTEGRAL BRIDGES

Frame or ‘full- height’ abutment
Springs under abutment footing
vertical
horizontal – usually ‘fixed’
rotational – to model stiffness of ground

16
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
• Example of analysis model for full height

abutment
See MIDAS model

INTEGRAL BRIDGES

Embedded abutment
Springs to model soil stiffness
vertical
horizontal – to model stiffness of ground

17
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
• Example of analysis model for piled abutment
See MIDAS model

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Embedded abutment
Alternative model for some load cases
Springs to model soil stiffness
vertical
horizontal – to model stiffness of ground

18
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Skew bridges
3D action from loads and thermal effects

Plan view
Requires 3D structural analysis
Follow similar approach as described previously
Take care in modelling to represent twisting and

torsion set up in the frame
Design reinforcement for moments / shears / torsion

derived from model

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Innovative back fill to reduce pressures on abutments
Rubber?
Expanded polystyrene?
Foam?
etc
See TRL Report 290 – Innovative structural

backfills to integral bridge abutments

19
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
END

20

Surrey ENGM030 Unit 9 Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surrey ENGM030 Unit 9 Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Surrey ENGM030 Unit 9 Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

hewson consulting engineers

civil, structural and bridge engineering

Bridge deck loading and analysis

Presented by Nigel Hewson

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

Curved bridge are also common and have become

• May have square or skew piers and abutments

hewson consulting engineers

Skew and Curved decks

Longer spans – increased cost of deck and supports

Increased deck area will increase cost of deck

Complicated behaviour and analysis

Hazard to drivers / users

Choice of geometry will take account of these on a site specific basis.

A bridge with 0o skew is called a “right” or “square” span.

hewson consulting engineers

Skew bridges can be simply

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

With torsionally stiff girders (eg, closed “box”

For significant skew angles the torsion or

Many simplified analysis methods (including

hewson consulting engineers

Lengthens effective span of deck

Curvature causes twisting and

Curvature redistributes loads in

Causes uneven loading on

hewson consulting engineers

 Deflections are small

hewson consulting engineers

Skew and curved slabs

hewson consulting engineers

Following much research, various tables and influence lines have

H Rű sch and A Hergenrőder. “Influence surfaces for moments in skew slabs”.

hewson consulting engineers

Behaviour of skew slabs

Load therefore tends to be concentrated in the obtuse corners.

hewson consulting engineers

This leads to negative transverse bending moments and high

hewson consulting engineers

For live loads loads, the distribution of moments can be much

hewson consulting engineers

These are the critical points investigated by Rusch and

Angle  Aspect ratio b/l

Influence surface for skew slabs

Moments at point C due to UDL of g: 

Moments at point C due to UDL of g: 

Therefore M u = 0.1 (g lx2 )

The charts also give the location of local maximum:

hewson consulting engineers

Influence surfaces can be used

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

hewson consulting engineers

 Parallel to the supports, with structural parameters