Box Girder - Bridge - Sci PDF

A single copy of this
Steel Construction Institute

Licensed copy:wyg, WHITE YOUNG GREEN, 16/02/2006, Uncontrolled Copy, © SCI
publication is licensed to
wyg
on
16/02/2006
This is an uncontrolled copy

WHITE YOUNG GREEN
This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the most current version of this document
by searching the Construction Information Service at www.tionestop.com
. .
..
. .
.. . _ ..
. I .
. .. ~ .
..
. -
.L% ..A
...
. .- .- . .- _.
.
... - .... - __.
. . .. .
-___ __
_ _-
- __
The Steel Construction Institute
. -.
, .
. ..
Design Guid
I
*' AIL
The Steel Construction Institute
The Steel Construction Institute develops and promotes the effective use of steel in construction
It is an independent, membership based organisation.
. . , .
SCI's research . . and development activities cover many aspects of .steel construction including
multi-storey construction, industrial buildings, I.ight steel framing -systems and modular
. constniction,'developmentof design guidance on the use of stainless steel, fire engineering, bridge
and civil engineering, offshore engineering, environmental studies, value engineering, and
development
. . . . . . _. - of structural analysis systems and information technology..
. . . . . . . . . -
.. . . .
Membership is open to all organisations and individuals that are concemed with the use of steel in
construction. Members include designers, contractors, suppliers, fabricators, academics and
government-departmentsin the United Kingdom, elsewhere in Europe and in countries around the
.world:- ..~~e'SCI."is.-~nanced
by subscriptions from its members, revenue 'from research contracts
ancy,services,
-- - .... publication sales and course
,.- -.. . _
. . '.*__ -.-
. ----._ -
-.
. . - __efitsrofxorporate
-
...... membership include access to an independent.specialist advisory service
and-freeissue-of-.SCIpublications as soon as they are produced: -A.-MembershipInformation Pack
is available.on
. . . . .request
.. from the Membership Manager. .....
. __ . .-
. .
~ .. .
- . . -. -- -
- .
- .-
. .
FnslctioKK-s tute;. ilw-ood.P~k,-Asco t;-B.erkshire;-SL5..jQN;.
Telephone: +44 (0) 1344 623345
.... ~~s-~44-(0~-1-a44-6229
-. - - . .
. . -. -. ~ . ... .._. - . . . . . . . . . . .. -..... --. . . . .
Em-&l.7m-e-mb-e6hip @.S t-e-el-sci.
....- ............. . _.
. . . . .
. .
. .
For inform-ation:on publications, telephone direct: +44 (0) 13
blications@steel-sci.com
. . . . . . .
~
urses, telephone direct: +44 (0) 13

.......
or Email: education@steel-sci.com , _
.. . .-. ..
i....'L
World Wide Web site: http://www.steel-sci.org
Visit www.steelbiz.org the 24x7 online technical information system for steel design and
construction
. . .
APPENDIX D Worked examples
Selected example calculations are included in this appendix to illustrate aspects

of the design process for composite box girder bridges. Two examples are
provided, one for a bridge using closed rectangular steel boxes with a reinforced
concrete slab on top, and the other using open trapezoidal steel boxes which are
closed by a concrete slab across the top.
The calculations illustrate the initial design and aspects of the detailed design
which are particular to box girders. It is assumed that the reader will already
be familiar with detailed calculations for composite I-beam bridges, and
examples of such matters as the calculation of section properties, wind and
differential temperature loads, design of intermediate web stiffeners, shear
connection, and slab design; these topics are therefore not included. If
examples of such matters are needed, reference can be made to the other SCI
bridge design guides.
The two examples are:

Page No.
Example 1 - Closed rectangular boxes, 75 m span 63
Example 2 - Open trapezoidal boxes, 46 m span 117
61
Example 1 - Closed rectangular boxes, 75 m span
Calculation
Sheet No.
Design data 1
Initial design 2
Make-up 7
Global analysis 8
Design of beams a t piers 9

Summary of load effects - pier 1 11
Distortional effects 12
Bending stresses a t piers 15
Webs a t piers 16
Diaphragms 19
Diaphragm bearing stiffeners 21
Web/diaphragm junction 24
63
64
I
I
Tt
Commentary to calculation sheet
UJ
E
IE
E
E
(D
b
n
In
In
V
A
x
x
x
I-
z
w
-
>
d
<
U
0
1
Job No. BCR 433 Sheet 1 of 26 Rev.
Subject Design Data

Silwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
Telephone: (01344)623345
Fax: (01344)622944
CALCULATION SHEET
Client
SCI
I Made by
Checked by:
DCI
KB
113:: Mar 1994
Mar 1994
DESIGN DATA
General
Spans: 55 m, 75 m, 60 m, 45 m (Total 235 m)
Carriageway: Dual 7.3 m carriageway with 1 m verges cycle/footway on one side

Surfacing: 100 mm including waterproofing
Location: South-East England
Design Life: 120 years
Loading
Unit Weights: Steel 77 kN/m3

Concrete 25 kN/m3
Surfacing 22 1<N/m3
Parapets 0.5 kN/m
Live Loads: HA 4 notional lanes (to BD 37/01)

HB 45 Units
Cycletrack (Clause 6.5 of BD 37/01)
Temperature: Minimum effective bridge temperature - 14°C

Maximum effective bridge temperature +40°C
Wind: Mean hourly windspeed 26 m/sec
Design Parameters
Steel = 355 N/mm2 (up to 16 mm thick)

E - 205 kN/mm2
Concrete f," - 40 N/mm2

-
- 31 kN/mm2
ECS
- 15.5 kN/mm2
Eci
-
- 460 N/mm2
Reinforcement f,Y
EY - 200 kN/mm2
65
Maximum spacing is that which is considered to be a reasonable limit for shear considerations in
the slab.
Rectangular box sections without any bracing between them were chosen to suit the installation
and maintenance of various service pipes and cables. Non-structural pla@orms were fitted between
the boxes, for maintenance staff, as well as pipes and cable trays.
A haunched configuration, with a curved sofit is generally regarded as pleasing in appearance in

river crossings. The cantilever provides some degree of shelter for the outer face and creates a
shaded area which contrasts with the lighter edge beam.
66
Job No. BCR 433 I Sheet 2 of 26 1 Rev A
Construction
Job Title Box Girder Design Guide - Example 1
Subject Initial Design
jilwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
-elephone: (01344) 623345
:ax: (01344) 622944
Client (Made by DCI IDate Mar 1994
ZALCULATION SHEET SCI I Checked by: KB I Date Mar 1994
INITIAL DESIGN
Overall width of deck - 23.75 m

Assume max spacing between boxes = 4.0 m (for 300 mm slab)
Choose 4 rectangular closed boxes, 1.6 m wide

Choose cantilevers 2.9 m each side
Hence spacing between boxes -

- 3.85 m
Reduce the slab thickness to 230 mm between the boxes (i.e. haunched transversely)
Girder Depth
Use a haunched configuration over piers 1 and 2, constant depth over pier 3.
Mid main span: use spaddepth ratio approx 35 : 1

Say, D = 2.1 m (i.e. 1800 mm box, 300 mm slab)
Haunch over piers 1 and 2: use span/depth ratio approx 20 : 1

i.e. D = 75.0/20 -
- 3.75
But limit box depth to twice its width
i.e. D = 3.5 m (3200 mm box, 300 mm slab)
Side spans (including pier 3): use D = 2.1 m, as mid main span
Cross Section
The chosen cross section for analysis and detailed design is thus:
5450
i /Surfacing 1 AI 230
I
. .. . . . .. . . . .. . -.-
A- 'O
I
k- 925
A-* 900
k 1600
I'
I
67
~~~ ~~

A haunched configuration attracts more moment to the support regions and reduces midspan
moments. A simple line beam model is used; an approximate variation of sectional inertia will
give a better distribution of moments than uniform properties. Here the designer used a model
with nodes at 5 m centres and an inertia which was proportional to the square of the depth of the
section (absolute values are not important for longitudinal distribution, only relative values). The
distribution of live load between boxes was simply to share the load on one carriageway between
two boxes. For torsionally stifs sections and long spans this is better than simple ‘static’
distribution, which would have put about I ‘/2 loaded lanes on one box.
In the event, the initial estimates gave plate thicknesses fairly close to the Bnal design values.
68
Job No. BCR 433 Sheet 3 of 26 Rev A
-ax: (01344) 622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
I
I
CALCULATION SHEET SCI Checked by: KB Date Mar 1994
Initial Design Loads
The loading on the beam section on the previous page is given by:
Steel Weight say 12 kN/m
Concrete Weight (5450x300 + 1800 x 70 + 900 x 70) x 10- x 25 = 36 kN/m

say 40 kN/m for outer box
Surfacing Weight (5.450 x 0.100) x 22 = 12 kN/m
Parapets, barriers, etc. - say 10 kN/m
Live Loading
HB will be critical, but for initial design use 120% X HA loading
There are two notional lanes per carriageway
Maximum load effects will occur in an outer box
Assume that the outer box carries 1 lane of loading
Calculation of Load Effects
For distributions of moment and shears, consider a simple line beam model
A A A A A
East Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 3 Wes
abutment abutment
k 55
span 1 + span 2
75
*
1 60
span 3 * I 45
span 4 I '
I
From a commter analvsis of this model. under UDL's of 1 kN/m. the moments are:
250 125 I -89 I
69
Maximum moments for udl based on results from line beam analysis.
Worst moment over main piers, with all spans loaded, is -545 kNm at pier I , for IkN/m.
Worst moment with spans 1 +- 2 loaded (live load) is 6 1 4 kNm at pier 1.

The contribution from webs is ignored in this initial design.

The bottom flange is unstiffened and yM = I . 05 for design strength at extreme fibres
(Clause 3/9.10.I )
Yield strength is for material over 40 mm thick
70
Construction

;ilwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
-elephone: (01344)623345
:ax: (01344)622944
2ALCULATION SHEET
Client
SCI
IMade by
Checked by:
DCI
KB
:;I Mar 1994
Mar 1994
Section at Pier
The design moment at ULS are:
Dead load:
Steel Weight 1.05 X 12 X -545 - 6 870 kNm

Concrete Weight 1.15 X 40 X -545 -25 070 kNm
Surfacing 1.75 X 12 X -545 -11 450 kNm
Furniture 1.2 x 10 x -545 - 6 540 kNm
Live Load:
Loaded length = +
55 75 = 130 m (spans 1 & 2)
HA UDL = 22.1 kN/m (BD 37/01)
Load -
- 22.1 x 120% = 290 kN/m
MUDL 1.5 X 26.6 X - 614 = -24500 kNm
KEL -
- 120kN X 120% = 144kN
%EL 1.5 X - 0 . 1 WL
- 1.5 X - 0 . 1 X 144 X 75 = -1 620 kNm
Total Moment = -76 050 kNm
(M on bare steel = 31 940 M on composite section = 44 110)
Bottom Flange
Force in bottom flange - 76050 x 103 - 23 770 kN

3200
-
- 335
ULS strength - 290 N/mm2
1.1 x 1.05
-
- 23770 X 103
Required thickness = 51.2mm Say60mm
1600 X 290
71
A conservative assumption of the share of moment carried by the reinforcement.

The values for shear due to unit udl are taken from the same analysis as that which gave the
bending moments on Sheet 3.
An approximation to the shear capacity is obtained by determining the limiting shear stress with
the web treated as though it were part of an unstiffened beam (Clause 3/9.9.2 and Figure 1I)
Yield strength is for material between 16 mm and 40 mm thick
72

iilwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
-elephone: (01344)623345
:ax: (01344)622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
ZALCULATION SHEET SCI Checked by: KB Date Mar 1994
Top Flange
335 -
ULS Strength = 290 N/mm2
1.1 x 1.05
Assume reinforcement takes 10% of moment on composite section
Hence steel top flange has to resist 31 940 + 0.9 x 44 120 = 71 650 kNm
71650 X 106
Required thickness = = 42.9 mm - say 45 mm
3200 X 290 X 1800
Webs
Based on values from line beam model with 1 kN/m, the design shears at ULS are:
Steel Weight 1.05 X 12 X 38.0 = 479

Concrete Weight 1.15 x 40 X 38.0 = 1748
Surfacing 1.75 x 12 X 38.0 = 798
Furniture 1.2 x 10 x 38.0 -
- 456
HA UDL 1.5 x 26.6 X 37.7 = 1504
HA KEL 1.5 X 144 -
- 216
Total shear -
- 5201 kN
i.e. 2600 kN per web
Assume dwelt = 150, 4= 1
Then z, = 0.55 X zy =
0*55 345 = 95 N/mm2
1.05 X 1.1 X 0
To allow for interaction, utilise only half of z, - say 50 N/mm2
2600 x 103 16.8 mm - say 20 mm

Required thickness = =
(3200 - 45 - 60) X 50
73
See sheet 3 for moments due to unit udl.

Again the contribution to moment capacity from the webs is neglected.
Yield strength is for material bemeen 16 mm and 40 mm thick
The large area of the concrete slab will carry most of the compressionforce due to the bending
moments.
74
~~
Job No. BCR 433 I Sheet 6 of 26 I Rev A
Construction
ilwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
elephone: (01344) 623345
ax: (01344) 622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
:ALCULATION SHEET SCI Checked by: KB Date Mar 1994
Section at Midspan
Using output from line beam model, as before, design moments at ULS are:
Dead load:
Steel Weight 1.05 X 12 X 185 - 2 330 kNm
Concrete Weight 1.15 x 40 x 185 - 8 510 kNm
Surfacing 1.75 x 12 x 185 - 3 890 kNm
Furniture 1.2 x 10 x 185 -
- 2 220 kNm
Live Load:
Loaded length = 75 m (span 2)
HA UDL - 23.4 kN/m
Load -
- 23.4 x 120% = 28.1 kN/m
MUDL 1.5 X 28.1 X 309 = 13 020 kNm
MKEL 1.5 x 0.167 WL = 1.5 x 0.167 x 144 x 75 = 2 710 kNm
Moment on bare steel 10 840

Moment on long-term section 6 110
Moment on short-term section 15 730
Total Moment = 32 680 kNm
Bottom Flange
-
- 345
Strength = 299 N/mm2
1.1 X1.05
-
- 32680 X 106
Required thickness = 38.0 mm - say 40 mm
1800 x 299 x 1600
Top Flange
Moments carried by the steel flange
load on bare steel 10 840

load on long-term section: say 20% x 6110 = 1220
load on short-term section: say 10% x 15730 1570
Total = 13 630 kNm
13630 x 106
Required thickness = = 14.1 mm - say 20 mm to allow for the
1800 x 299 x 1800
reduced effective area of the bare flange in midspan.
Webs
Use 15 mm for rigidity during transport/erection.
75
~~~
Erection considerations led to the positioning of splices to suit erection of girder sections up to
70 m long. These were assembled on the ground from shorter sections which were fully welded
together before erection.
The dry land below spans 3 and 4 enabled them to be concreted whilst propped. This avoided the
need for heavy flanges or haunching at Pier 3.
76
The Steel
Construction
Institute
Subject Make-up
Silwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 70N
relephone: (01344) 623345
'ax: (01344) 622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
2ALCULATION SHEET SCI Checked by: KB Date Mar 1994
MAKE-UP
A similar procedure is adopted to choose preliminary material section size throughout all the
spans.
Splice positions are chosen with regard to available plate length and to keep transport lengths
within the limit of 27 m for unescorted transport by road.
Top 15 15 25 45 25 20 15 25 15 15 20-45-20 15 15
Web 15 15 15 20 15 15 15 20 15 15 15-20-15 15 15
Bot 25 40 50 60 50 40 50 60 50 50 35-60-35 40 25
Material
All material to be grade S355
Notch ductility to suit the minimum effective bridge temperature of -14°C
Grade designations to BS 10 025: 1993 will be:
Material up to 55 mm thick: S355 52 (G3 or G4)

Material over 55 mm thick: S355 K2 (G3 or G4)
77
~ ~~ ~
All global analysis was carried out using a grillage model. The effects of dead and live loads,
erection sequence and concreting sequence were all evaluated.
The model was essentially comprised of two layers, referred to as the upper and lower layers.
The lower layer modelled the behaviour of the box sections. A single line of members along each
box centreline were assigned the stiffness properties of the box (bare steel or composite, according
to the stage considered) in bending, torsion and shear.
From each line, short very stiff ‘dummy’ members extended laterally to the two web lines.
The upper layer modelled only the slab properties of bending and torsional stiffness. The edge
beams were modelled with the deck slab, to facilitate application of loads.
The two layers were connected at common nodes on the web lines. These connections were only
pin connections, no moment was transferred.
A representative portion of the grillage model is shown opposite.
Note: There is no bracing between any of the boxes, except for shallow cross beams at the piers.
78
Job No. BCR 433 I Sheet 8 of 26 Rev A

Subject Global analysis
-elephone: (01344)623345
:ax: (01344)622944
Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
DETAILED DESIGN - GLOBAL ANALYSIS

U
w
>
a
-I
CT
w
a
a
3
79
The section make-up is slightly diflerent to that on sheet 7, as a result of intermediate calculations
not included here.
The section is of variable depth and with longitudinal stcreners. The section properties for stress
analysis may therefore use the full thickness of the web. There was no redistribution of stresses in
the lower web panel, as will be seen later.
If there were a need to redistribute stresses, a reduced thickness of web (in the panel concerned)
would be used in calculating the section properties, subject to the limitation of Clause 3/9.5.4.
The bottom flange is fully eflective in compression (b/t = 1560/65 = 24 .: K, = 1.0).
80
I Job No. BCR 433 I Sheet 9 of 26 I Rev A I
I Job Title Box Girder Design Guide - Example 1 I
Subject Design of beams at piers
Telephone: (01344)623345
Fax: (01344)622944 Client
I Made by DCI I Date Mar 1994 1
CALCULATION SHEET SCI I Checked by: I Date Mar 1994 I
DESIGN OF BEAMS A T PIERS
Section Properties
5450
0 . .
11 -V- 300
- 0 . .
\
A-
3200
-I I-
- 146x127
Y x16 k g -A[8oo
4
tees
I- -1- I450
I
V- -V- V-
3
I65
1600
k 4
The top and bottom reinforcement is T25 @ 150 crs (positioned inside the transverse bars)
The calculated section properties are:
Bare Steel Cracked Composite
316 600 351 950 m2

1475 1667 m
556 x 109 672 x 109 m 4
322 x 106 438 x 106 m3

376 x 106 403 x 106 m3
Section Class Non-compact Non-compact

Y
IY 124.9 x 109 m4
384 x 106 m4
81
Slenderness of uniform rectangular or trapezoidal box sections, Clause 3/9.7.3.1. This is strictly
only applicable when the section is uniform along the length of the beam, but as noted opposite it
can be used to give an upper bound to the effective slenderness of a non-uniform section.
Limiting compressive stress is given by Clause 3/9.10, which refers to Clause 3/9.8 and Figure 11.
The ‘plateau’ in Figure 11 extends as far as an effective slenderness of 30 for @dow= 1)
Note that even though the section is torsionally stiff, it may need positive restraint at piers 1 and 2
during construction, since the boxes are each on a single bearing. A cross-beam is provided at
these positions for that purpose. Cross-bracing was provided and removed afer concreting.
82
I Job No. BCR 433 I Sheet 10 of 26 I Rev A
I Job Title Box Girder Design Guide - Example 1

Subject Design of beams at piers
Telephone: (01344) 623345
Fax: (01344) 622944
Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
LTB Slenderness
Since the box is relatively slender and may not be braced to other boxes during construction,
check the LTB slenderness of the bare steel section.
I
For a box section A,= 2.25 77 4
Using section properties from sheet 9:

rY
-
-
= 628 mm
\1
Torsional Inertia
= 4 124.9 X 109
316 600
4Ai - 4 x (1580 x 3145)2

J = ~-
( 45+65
1580 1580
20
= 264 x 109 mm4
d =
- oe3854]011
(1, - $)(Ix
= [
(556 - 125)(556 - 0.385 x 264)
556* I 0'25
Take 7 = 1
a, = 75 m
Take as an upper bound to the slenderness of the whole span (which is of variable section) the
slenderness calculated on the basis of the deepest section.
Then
ALT = 2.25 x 1.0 x 0.892 x

384 X 106X 75000
1628 x d316600 x 264 x io9
1"J "
The parameter for Figure 11 = 25 x 1/(335/355) (376/384)= 24
Which is less than 30
Hence the section can be fully stressed during concreting without the need for any intermediate
or plan bracing.
(Also, line beam analysis of the concreting indicates that relative deflections between boxes will
be small, so transverse bracing is not needed for load distribution.)
a3
Similar tables of load effects can be compiled for Pier 2 and for the midspan region. Only the
Pier 1 section is examined in the worked example; only the table of effects for Pier 1 is presented.
84
Construction

relephone: (01344)623345
'ax: (01344)622944 Client I M a d e by DCI IDate Mar 1994
I I
I I
SUMMARY OF LOAD EFFECTS A T PIER 1
LOAD CASE ULS MT ULS

A MT
Steel Weight 1.05 -7,625 -8 011
zoncrete 1.15 -18 99f
- -21 811
3are Steel Total -29 822
Zoncrete Long Term 1.15 -5 195 -5 977

Surfacing 1.75 -10 811 -18 920
Super Imposed 1.2 -3 092 -3 712
shrinkage (Secondary M) 1.2 -6 615 -7 938
settlement 1.2 -53f -643
Long Term) - -37 190
HA 1.5 -12 236 -18 354
X HA+HB 1.3 -16 325 -21 225
3 Footway 1.5 - 192 -290
Total -21 515
e: HA 1.5 -10 99c -16 485
4 1.3 -12 56C -16 328
5 HA+HB
' Footway
Total
1.5
-
- 192 -290
-16 618
HA 1.5 -5 595 -8 393
3 HA+HB 1.3 -10 861 -14 128
E Footway 1.5 - 192 -296
2 Total -14 418
-
HA 1.25 -12 23f -15 295
HA+HB 1.1 -16 325 -17 960
Footway 1.25 - 192 -241
Diff Temp 1.o -2 851 -2 851
-21 052
85
Torsional warping is neglected at ULS, in accordance with Clause 3/9.2.1.3.Distortional

warping is not neglected, for reasons discussed in the main text (Section 5.3.5).
Annex B to Part 3: Distortion and warping stresses in box girders.
Clause 3/B.3.2,corner stresses.

Similar considerations should be made for the distortional stifSness at midspan, where the box
depth is less and the plate thicknesses are different.
The inverse of the O, value opposite (13.1 m) represents the rate at which distortional effects reduce
in a section comprising composite top flange, two webs and a bottom flange. This length is quite
long; to be able to confine a 'panel length' to the much shorter length between cross-frames
formed at each web stiffener position (every 1667 mm) would require very stiff cross-frames. For
the initial evaluation shown opposite, cross-frames at 5 m centres are considered, to see what the
distortional effects would be and how stiff the frames would need to be.
86
Construction
Subject Distortional effects
-elephone: (01344) 623345
:ax: (01344) 622944
Client IMade by DCI I Date Mar 1994
DISTORTIONAL EFFECTS
Distortion of the Box
Consider first the basic section, comprising webs and flanges. Calculate the short-term
composite properties.
DYB =
EtB3
_ _ -- 205000 x 653 -
- 4.69 x 109 mm
12 12
Similarly D,, = 0.1367 X 109(20 mm web)

and D,, = 209 x 109Nmm (45 mm flange and 300 mm slab)
Consider the stiffness of a section close to the pier, where depth = 2900 mm
D~~
- - d -
- 209 X 109X (2900 - 110) = 2730
DYC B 0.1367 X 109X 1560
From Figure B.2(a) RD = 0.0029
Hence K = 24% ~
RD
- 24 X 209 X 109x 0.0029 = 3.69 ~
- / ~ ~ 2
B,3 15803
If cross-frames are provided at 5 m centres
AD = 0.0756 X 5 = 0.38
87
In accordance with Clause 3/9.16.4. I , the effective widths offlange acting with these transverse
stiffeners is given by Clause 3/9.15.2.1 and in this case are % of the clear width. The effective
width of web is given by Clause 3/9.13.2 and here is 32tw.
1800x45 plt.
2770x20 \
webs
305x305~75’
tee
1600x65 Dlt.
The stimess of a efective ring-frame is given in Clause 3/B.3.4.3, as -

K R , where KR is a
n,
stimess per frame calculated in the same manner as for the box section. Values of less than unity
are quite possible, they merely show that the stimess of an individual frame is less than that of the
box section summed over the length of one panel.
The letter R is added to the sufixes of the variables D, , etc., to show that they relate to ring
frame stiffeners, not to the stiffness per unit length of box.
Job No. BCR 433
~~
I Sheet 13 of 26 I Rev A

ilwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
elephone: (01344)623345
ax: (01344)622944
:ALCULATION SHEET
Client
SCI
Made by
Checked by:
DCI
KB
I
::IX; Mar 1994
Mar 1994
Effective ring frames
Each ring frame is formed by Tee stiffeners welded on the webs and flats welded on the
flanges.
From section property calculations the bending 390

stiffnesses are: F r--1
4
I I
I I
Top Flange I
I
II
I
I
Inertia - 422 x 106 mm4 U

Bottom Flange
Inertia -
- 14.7 x 106 mm4
n
k
390
Webs T
Inertia -
- 413 x 106 mm4
k 640 I
;)i
To calculate the effective stiffness of the ring
frame, determine stiffnesses of flanges in web in a similar manner to that of the box section.
DRY,= 86.5 x 10l2Nmm2 (NB not per unit width)

= 3.02 x 10l2Nmm2
DRYC 84.6 x 10l2Nmm2
D~~~ -
Hence - = 0.035 and - d = 1.83
DRY,
From Figure B.2(a) R, = 1.10
Hence KR =
24DRY,R,
- 24 x 86.5 x 10'* x 1.10 = 579
- 103 N / ~ ~
4 3 15803
KR - 579 x 103 = 31
And thus S = --
KLD 3.69 x 5000
The ring frames are therefore not stiff enough to be fully effective over a panel length of
5000 mm. See the limiting value of S in Table B.l of Part 3, with a value of = 0.38. mD
89
The effective stiffness of the web stiffeners is ‘smeared’ along the box by dividing their stiffness by
their spacing. The effective distortional stiffness of the section is thus increased signijicantly. If
flange stiffeners were also provided, the stiffness would increase further, slightly.
The ring frames now add very little to the resistance to distortion; the distortional warping and
bending stresses depend only on the stiffness of the box section (including the effect of the smeared
stiffeners).
Note that the web stiffeners must be connected to the top flange, so that they can transfer the
distortional transverse bending moments (Clause 3/9.16.2.3).
90

-elephone: (01344)623345
:ax: (01344)622944
Client IMade by DCI IDate Mar 1994
2ALCULATION SHEET SCI I Checked by: KB I Date Mar 1994
Consider the situation if the webs are stiffened at 1667 mm centres by Tee sections. The box
section stiffness is increased; determine what effect this has on the effectiveness of the frames.
The D,, parameter is increased to 84.6 x 1OI2 = 50.8 x 109 Nmm
1667
and thus D~~

- - d = 7.36
DYC
0.41 from Figure B.2(a)

RD =
K = 520 Nmm
PLD = 1.30(p = 0.260 m-')
S = 0.22
Since the cross-frames are too weak (relatively), consider the maximum values of distortional
warping and bending stresses.
When a, > 1.0, warping stresses due to concentrated loads are limited to the value given by
Clause 3/B.3.2(b).
The warping stress due to distributed torque is limited to the value given by Clause 3/B.3.2(a)
when AD= 1.6, that is:
Similarly, the distortional bending stresses due to concentrated loads are limited to the value
given by Clause 3/B.3.4.2(a) when /3, = 2.0; the stresses due to distributed load are limited to
the values given by B.4.2(b) when AD = 2.65, that is:
For the present section:
VD = 0.129 (Figure B.3(a)) and Z = 2.01 x 106/1667 = 1206 mm2
B
At the top flange FD = - (0.5 - V,) 1580 x
= - 0.371= 293 mm
2 2
91
Stresses are calculated for the cracked section. Stresses in the reinforcement and crack widths can
be calculated from the load effects. Only the stresses in the steel section are presented in this
example.
The connection of the Tee web stiffeners to the bottom flange creates a class G fatigue details.
Separate calculations for fatigue considerations showed a worst stress range of 13 N/mm2 in the
bottom flange in span I , compared with a limit of 16 N/mm2 derived from Figure 8 of Part 10 for
a dual 2-lane all purpose road and for a span of 55 m.
Note that if the cross-frames had been eflective, the distortional warping stress would have been,
from Clause -3/B.3.2(a):
uDW = Tu, yLD2 - 920 X 106/5000X 1510 X 50002 -
- I . 8 N/mm2
4 S B , I, 4.5 X 1580 X 552 x log
Bending resistance is not limited by LTB, so MR = M,,,t and thus the limiting stress given by
Clause 3/9.10.1.1 may be based simply on the yield stress. Note that yM = 1.05 for this clause.
92
Construction
Subject Bending stresses at piers
relephone: (01344)623345
:ax: (01344)
622944
Client I Made by DCI I Date Mar 1994
The most severe bending stresses occur with HB loading, combination 1 . Then, the total
stresses are:
Top flange -29822
+ 37 190 + 21515 = 227 Nlmm2
322 438
29822
-+ (37 190 + 21515) = 225 Nlmm2
Bottom flange
376 403
Consider distortional warping stresses and interaction with shear stresses.

From the grillage analysis, the maximum torque increment over a 5 m length is 920 kNm.
Consider this as a udl torque.
For a udl torque of this value, the warping stress would not be greater than that given by:
flange and a similar value at the top flange.
The total longitudinal stresses at the extreme fibres of the steel box are:
Top flange 227 +3 = 230 N/mm2 < 33Y1.1 x 1.05 = 290 N/mm2 OK
Bottom flange 225 +3 = 228 N/mm2 < 290 N/mm2 OK
The distortional bending stress at the top flange is given by:
93
r
V
Bending shear stress z = where d, is measured vertically
2dwtw
1
Torsional shear stress z= ~
2A t ,
The inclined bottom flange will carry part of the bending shear in most of the web panel but this
has been neglected. The bottom flange changes direction close to the diaphragm (see sectional
elevation facing Commentary to Sheet 18) and the web adjacent to the diaphragm has to carry the
full shear without contribution from the flange.
Yielding of web panels, Clause 3/9.I I . 3.
94
Job No. BCR 433
~~
I Sheet
~
16 of 26 1 Rev A

Subject Webs at piers
Ywood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
relephone: (01344) 623345
:ax: (01344) 622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
WEB PANELS AT PIER 1
The coexistent load effects, for the maximum bending shear loading condition are:
Shear (kN) Torsion Moment Bending Stress

(Wm) kNm Top Bottom
Dead Load 4050 1950 67 012 -178 172
Live Load (HB + F’way) 1468 3570 16 618 -38 41
Warping -3 3
5518 5520 83 630 -219 216
The shear stresses in the web are:
5518 x 103 - 45 N/mm2

Due to bending :
2 x 3090 x 20
5520 x 106 -
Due to torsion: 28 N/mm2
2 x (1580 x 3145) x 20
Beam is longitudinally stiffened.

Consider the individual web panels
The first vertical stiffener is 1667 mm from the.diaphragm
Lower web panel

219
U = 1667, b = 450, t = 20
1
U, = - (207 + 146) = 177 N/mm’ 1840
2
1
U, = - (207 - 146) = 31 N/mm’
2
t 37
Check for yielding
u,,= 177 + 0.77 x 31 = 201 N/mm* t 146
-
- 207
z = 45 + 28 = 73 N/mm’
(q: +3 8)’ = (201’ + 3 X 73’)Ih = 237 < 345
1.05 x 1 . 1
= 299 N/mm2
95
Buckling of web panels, Clause 3B.11.4.

Since A < 24, use the formula in 3/9.11.4.3.2 for K,.

Similarly, use the formula in 3/9.11.4.3.3 for K,.
The upper web panel is deemed to be satisfactory by inspection.
96

jilwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7 0 N
relephone: (01344)623345
:ax: (01344)622944 Client IMade by DCI I Date Mar 1994
ZALCULATION SHEET SCI I Checked by: F I Date Mar 1994
Check for buckling

a = 450 = 22.5 < 24 :. panel may be treated as restrained
20
1667
4 = - = 3.7
450
Hence K , = (20/450)2 X 204500/355 = 1.14

K, =(20/450)2 X 435000(1 +(450/1667)2/355 = 2.60
Kb = 1.26 (Figure 23(c))
m, = 177 '.05 = 0.52 (p = 0 for restrained panel)

345 x 1.14 x 1.0
31 x 1.05 x 1.1 2
rnb = = 0.01
345 x 1.26 x 1.0
7 3 x 1 . 0 5 ~1.1
m,
-
- ( 345 x 2.60
m, + mb + 3 m, = 0.52 + 0.01 + 3 X 0.01 = 0.56 < 1 OK

Middle panel
Buckling check
a = 1667 b = 800
800 - 1667
a = - = 40
20 4 - - = 2.1
800
U, = 'h (146 + 37) = 92 N / m 2

Ob = 'h (146 - 37) = 55 N/IIUII~
Kl = 0.77 (Figure 23(a))
K, = 0.98 (Figure 23(b))
Kh
m, =
= 1.22 (Figure 23(c))
92 x 1.05 x 1.1 = o.40
345 x 0.77
mb =
( 55 x 1.05 x 1.1
345 x 1.22
) = o.02
mq = ( 345 ~ 0 . 9 8
m,+m,+3 mq = 0.40+0.02+3X0.06 = 0.60 < 1 OK
97
- Commentary to calculation sheet
Longitudinal web stiffeners, Clause 3/9.11.5.
The longitudinal Tee stiffeners are continuous through the intermediate transverse stiffeners on the
web.
Note that yM = 1.2 for this clause
98
Job No. BCR 433 ISheet 18 of 26 IRevA
-elephone: (01344) 623345
Longitudinal Web Stiffeners
Stiffener is a 146 x 127 X 16 kg Tee

320
16 t, = 16 X 20 = 320 ~ll~ll
I
b/2 = 225 mm below, 400 mm above 1-
Effective stiffener section properties 225
As, = 128 cm2 -V-

Z,, = 2270 cm4
rse = 4.21 cm
0.158
0.775 (Figure 24)
0.775 x 345 = 267 N/mm2

U, + [ ",: ] b2,".
2.5t+-ua;! -
(450 + 800)/2 x 20 x 0.158

149 + (2.5 X 73 + 0) 12800
177 N/mm2
275 = 208 N/mm2

1.2 x 1.1
99
*
_rr
i
I
I
Hqle
_i
=i==
!
I
I
!
I
In practice, step irons were fixed up both sides of the diaphragm, for access, and grab rails at the
top. These are not shown here.
Design of stiffened diaphragm, Clause 3/9.17.6. Stresses are calculated at the corners of the plate
panels in accordance with 3/9.17.6.2. I . It is generally presumed by the code that there will be
two bearing stiffeners over each bearing in a stiffened diaphragm; the reaction is taken to be on
the lines of the two stireners, for the purpose of calculating shear (or at j/4from the inner edge
for calculating moments between twin bearings).
The moment on the diaphragm specified by Clause 3/9.17.6.2.3(a) is intended to be used in

deriving stresses at the corners of the plate panels. It is not the same as a simple ‘static’ moment:
note in particular that Kd is “to allow for the effects of boundary shears and should be taken as
2.0 ...... ”. The moment from the cross-beam is implicitly taken into account by the inclusion of QT
in the expression for M .
The expression for shear flow between bearings was introduced to allow for error in
planarity/alignment of bearings and is more appropriate to the situation where there is a stiff
bearing below the diaphragm - the load could be shared unevenly between the two stiffeners.
There is a good case for taking a much lesser value where an elastomeric pot bearing is used since
there will be no moment transmitted through the bearing itself].the only transverse moment on the
diaphragm would be that due to any eccentricity.
The horizontal shear, Q,,, is that due to skidding forces - strictly that is a Combination 4 load but
it has been included here
100
Job No. BCR 433 Sheet 19 of 26
The Steel
Construction
Institute
Subject Diaphragms
hlwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
'elephone: (01344) 623345
ax: (01344) 622944 Client I M a d e by DCI (Date Mar 1994
I
ZALCULATION SHEET SCI IChecked by: IDate Mar 1994
DIAPHRAGM AT PIER 1
Maximum reaction at ULS = 13 136 kN

Maximum eccentricity longitudinally = 50 mm
t
m
Forces on diaphragm from grillage analysis

River Side Shear = 6620 kN
Land Side Shear = 6194 kN
Cross Beam Shear = 322 kN
Single bearing offers zero torsional restraint. QV

Some torque is transferred to the composite cross-beam:
from global analysis T = 490 kNm
(which means that M = 490-322~0.8= 232 kNm at the
connection to the web).
490 = 155 kN
QT = 2 X 1.58
Qv = '/2 (6620 +
6194) = 6407 kN
Stresses are to be calculated at the edge of the outer and

inner panels along the connection line. Moment on diaphragm is:
M = (Kd Qv 2Q~)xw Kd Q, X, + (Pi Xi) - R,Xb [ y] (CI 3/9.17.6.2.3(a))
No wheel loads over diaphragm :. 27 Pi xi term = 0; x, = 0 for single bearing

No change in flange slope :. Q, term = 0
For Kd = 2
M = (2 x 6407 - 2 x 155) X, +
2 x 322 X X, = 13148 X, (x, = x,)
Shear flow between box web and bearing stiffener

4 = (Qv QT Q,+ +
Q, +
27Pi)/D,+ +
Q,/B, (Clause 3/9.17.6.2.4(a))
6407- 155+ 322
=( 3090
+
1560
z)
x103 = 2370 N/mm at inner web (Q, & Pi= 0)
Shear flow between bearing stiffeners
4 = [ 4 QI) + - /De + Q,/j (Clause 3/9.17.6.2.4(d))
i - 1000 + 3 x 50 - 1150 mm
6407 490
4 =
4 0.68
-155
) X-+
103 3 7 5 x 1 0 ~= 1027 NImm
3090 1150
101
Stresses in diaphragm plates, Clause 3/9. I 7.6.2.
Effective section, Clause 3/9.17.4.2.
The transverse reinforcement is T25 at 150mm centres. This was shown in separate calculations to
be adequate for transverse moments in the deck slab (hogging over the box webs).
In accordance with Clause 3/9.I 7.6.2.2, vertical stress in the panel, a d , , is neglected, since the
bottom flange is parallel to the top at the diaphragm position and stresses due to local wheel loads
are small, but a d ] due to action as part of the bearing stiffener will have to be taken into account
later.
102
Construction
Subject Diaphragms
Telephone: (01344) 623345
Fax: (01344) 622944
Client IMade by DCI )Date Mar 1994
CALCULATION SHEET SCI I Checked by: KB I Date Mar 1994
Stresses in outer panels

w
<A
X, = X, = 790 - 340 = 450 ~ l l ~ ~ l , T25@150
We = % x 450 = 112mm
A, = ~ '12 x491 x 2 = 1466 mm2 310
150
Properties of effective section are:

3200
Area = 180 700mm2 y = 1585 mm
I = 188.7 x log ITIIII~ 2180 1
Section moduli: z, = 120.2 x 106mm
-+I-
--I
Z, = 124.2 X 106m3
,,,,,,,,,iiL
Moment 13148 x 0.45 = 5 920 kNm 65t-
Horizontal stress U& = 5920 lo6 = 49 N/mm2 (tension) at top of diaphragm

120.2 x 106
U& = 5920 lo6 = 48 N / m 2 (compression) at bottom

124.2 X 106
Shear stress r= -
2370 = 47 N/mm2
50
Stresses in inner panels
The effective widths are the same, but deduct the manhole.
Properties of effective section are:
Area = 150 700 mm2 y = 1394,Z = 154.7 x log m4

Section moduli: 2, = 87.8 X 106mm3 Z, = 116.4 X 106mm3
Horizontal stress = 5920 lo6 = 67 N/mm2 (tension) at top

87.8 X 106
= 5920 lo6 = 51 N/mm2 (compression) at bottom

116.4 X 106
1027
Shear stress r = - = 21 N / m 2
50
103
~
The articulation arrangements for the bridge are as shown below.

The maximum eccentricity at Pier I is calculated on the basis of thermal expansion @om the fixed
point at Pier 2), rotation of the beams in their planes (load on the span will result in a
displacements at bottom flange level) and allowances for setting etc. A ‘rounded’ value of 50 mm
was derived on this basis.
An alternative arrangement with bearings fixed longitudinally at both Pier 1 and Pier 2 was
considered in the actual design. In that case the piers were considered to flex slightly as a result
of the relative displacements resulting from applied and thermal loads.
Stress in bearing stiffeners, Clauses 3/9.17.6.6 and 3/9.14.4.2.
Note that in calculating the bearing stress, account is taken of the eccentricity of the reaction
relative to the centroid of the bearing area.
Effective stiffener section, Clause 3/9.17.4.4.
Note that, strictly, the opening in the diaphragm does not comply with 3/9.17.2.8(a), since it is
closer than 12t to the connection line of the bearing stigeners. Only the actual width is included
in the effective section at the opening. Arguably, the variation of load in the stiffener section (to
zero at the top) should be modijied (as required by Clause 3/9.17.6.3.2 when there are openings
between the stiffener and the web).
104

Subject Diaphragm bearing stiffeners
relephone: (01344)623345
zax: (01344) 622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
BEARING STIFFENERS
P, = 13 136 kN
e, = 20 mm
ey = 50 mm
Bearing stress at bottom of diaphragm

Pot bearing diameter = 650 mm
Dispersal through plates and bottom flange = 2 x (65 + 85) tan 60" -
- 520 mm
Bearing area = (650 + 520) X 50 + 4 (220 x 30 + 250 x 30)

- 114.9 x 103mm2
Modulus for longitudinal bending = 9.6 x 106 mm2
13136~10~ 13136 X 103X50 = 114 + 68 -

Stress =
+
182 N/mm2
114.9 X 103 9.6 x 106
1 . 3 3YS~ = 1'33
Limiting stress = ~
345 = 397 N/mm2 > 182 N/mm2 OK
ym yf3 1.05 x 1.1
Stress on effective stiffener section
Section for calculation of vertical stresses
Full Section
A,, = 112 400 mm2

I,, = 2.63 x 109
Zyy = 13.06 X log
Section at Opening
A,, = 82 400 mm2

I,, = 2.62 x 109
Zyy = 12.16 X log
105
~~ ~ ~
Vertical stresses in bearing stiffeners, Clause 3/9.17.6.3.2.
Bending stresses in bearing stiffeners, Clause 3/9.17.6.3.3.

The loads and stresses vary linearly to zero at the top of the diaphragm. To check stresses in the
upper panels, where there is a hole, the stress gradient is the slightly higher value calculated on
the basis of the properties at opening.
Yielding of diaphragm stiffeners, Clause 3/9.17.6.6.
Note that Q , is~ taken

~ on the connection line, as shown in Figure 32 of Part 3, which is referred to
from Clause 3/9.17.6.3.2.
Equivalent stress for buckling check, Clause 3/9.17.6.3.4.
Using section properties for the diaphragm in the middle panels, the stress U,, varies from
+51 N/mm2 at the bottom to -67 N/mm2 at the top, i.e. from +I2 N/mm2 at the lower %point to
-28 N/mm2 at the upper % point (compression positive).
106
Job No. BCR 433 Sheet 22 of 26

Telephone: (01344) 623345
Fax: (01344) 622944 Client I M a d e by DCI IDate Mar 1994
CALCULATION SHEET SCI IChecked by: KB IDate Mar 1994
Bearing Stiffener Stresses
T, = 13 136 x 0.020 = 263 kNm

M , = 13 136 x 0.050 = 657 kNm
Vertical Stress
At the bottom of the diaphragm:
T
s' - l 3 136
U,, = - - lo3 = 117 N/mm2
'se 112 000

TsX - 263 x 106 x 340 =
UIsT = - - N/mm2
Iyse 13.06 X 109 II
Along the connection line:

U,, = U,, +
U,,, = 117 +
7 = 124 N/mm2
(Using section properties at opening, U, = 160 N/mm2, U,,, = 8 N/mm2)
Out-of-plane bending stress ab,
Stiffener Yielding
U,, + oIsT+ ab,= 117 + 7 + 69 = 193 N/mm2 I 5 s ~

-
-
345
1 . 1 X 1.05
ym Yf3
= 299 N/mm2 OK
Stiffener Buckling
U,,
Ua
=
=
2
U,
01s
+
+
-
s'e
UIST
I at the third point (A, = 0)
U, = - x 124 = 83 N/mm
3
aq = U,, = Average horizontal stress at centreline bearing stiffener within middle third.
oq= lh (12-28) = -8 N/mm2
107
% Commentary to calculation sheet
Buckling of diaphragm stiffeners, Clause 3/9.17.6.7. Note that y,,, = I.2 for this clause.
Yielding of diaphragm plate, Clause 3/9.17.6.4.
Checks are shown opposite for four panel corners. Generally all panel corners should be checked;
here the remainder are deemed satisfactory by inspection. Clause 3/9.17.6.4 actually calls for
adequacy “at all points in every panel”, whereas Clause 3/9.17.6.2.1 calls for stresses to be
calculated at the corners of each plate panel. Checks at the corners are suficient.
108
Construction
relephone: (01344)623345
-ax: (01344) 622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
2.63 x 109
Stiffener r,, = = 153 mm
112400
a =Half of panel widths on either side = 1120/2 = 560 mm
“I
From Figure 24 K, = 0.044

8 X 30902 X 50 X 0.045
:. U,, = 83 + ~
112400
-
5 60
= 83 - 2 = 81 N/mm2
Limiting stress From Figure 24 for A = 20

00s = 0.955 X 345 = 339 N/mm’
-Ose
+ - = -Obs 81
,
+ - 69 = 0.44 < = 0.76 OK
339 355 1.1 x 1.2
O
PS OYs
:. Diaphragm stiffeners safe in Buckling
Yielding of diaphragm plate

Outer panels:
Top of diaphragm
= 0, ad, = 49, r = 47
335
(492 + 3 X 47’)“ = 95 N/mm’<
-
--
yln Yf3 1.1 X 1.05
290 N/mm’ OK
Bottom of diaphragm
= 124, 0, = 48, rdl = 47
(124’ + 48’ - 48 x 124 3 x 47’)“ + = 135 N/mm2 I 290 N/mm’ OK
Inner panels:
Top of diaphragm
= 0, 0,’ = 67, r = 21
(67’ + 3 X 21’)“ = 76 N/mm2 < 290 OK
Bottom of diaphragm
= 124 ,U& = 51, rdl 21
+
(124’ + 51’ - 124 x 51 3 x 21’)” = 114 N/mm’ 5 290 N/mm’ OK
109
The effective section given in Clause 3/9.17.4.5 is not appropriate; the bearing stiffener and half of
the plate have already been taken in the effective section of bearing stiffener.
The web panel dimensions are given on Sheet 16.

Axial force due to tension field action, Clause 3/9.13.3.2. Here z,is shown to be in excess of zy,
so there will be no tension field action.
110
Construction
Subject Web / diaphragm junction
I
I
relephone: (01344)623345
Iax: (01344)622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994
EALCULATION SHEET
I SCI Checked by: KB I Date Mar 1994
WEB I DIAPHRAGM JUNCTION AT PIER

Effective section:
Web: 16 x t, = 320 each side

Diaphragm: half of plate between web and stiffener =
780- 340 = 220
2
Section properties are:
Area = 23 800 mm2

= 439 x 106 mm4 zx, = 1.37 x 106mm3
= 129 x 106 mm4 Web Zy = 1.98 x 106 Diaphragm Zy = 0.738 X 106
= 4 129x lo6
23800
= 74mm 1, = 3090 A = 42
From Figure 24 k, = 0.17 a,, = 0.77 X 335 = 258 N/mm2
Consider max shear case
Stresses as sheet 16. Loads are:
1. From cross beam:
P = 322 kN (From grillage analysis)
2. From tension field action:

In bottom panel a = 1667 b = 450 t, = 20 U, = 177
,.,E(
2
= 2.9 x 205 x 103 x ( g)2 >= 1174 U,
To
-
-
=
3.6 x 205 x 103 [1
1667 450
+ (=)'I
1174
738 x 103 x 1.073 x 0.001975 x 0.922 = 1440 N/mm2

(z ) 2 J z
z, > z :. No tension field action
In middle panel a = 1667b = 800 U, = 92
2.9~( b) 2
= 372 > U~
To = 3.6 X 205 X 103 1 +I (x12()7:

- %)2d l-%
= 738 x 103 x 1.230 x 6.25 x - ~ O -x~ 0.868 = 492 N/mm2
z, > z :. No tension field action
111
' Commentary to calculation sheet
Axial force representing the destabilising effect of the web, Clause 3/9.14.3.2
112

Subject Web / diaphragm junction
-elephone: (01344) 623345
;ALCULATION SHEET SCI Checked by: KB Date Mar 1994
In upper panel a = 1667 b = 1840 U, = 91 tension
2.9E [ 21 2
= 70 > U,
TO
-
-
3.6 X 205 X 103 [l+(
E ) 2 ] X ( &)2iq
- 738 x 103 x 2.22 x 1.18 x 10-4 x 1.52 = 294 N/mm2
zo > z N o tension field action
3. Web destablilising force

0, - ‘h (207 - 213) = -3 b‘ - ‘/2 (207 + 213) = 210
ZAc = 2 x 20 = 40 cm2 = 4000 111111’
4 -
(’+ x2000)
3090x20
( ’y)
-3 +- = 34 N / m 2
Fwi = 30902 x 20 x 0.17 x 34 x 10-3 = 662 kN

1667
Inertia for two effective stiffener sections, each made up of 146 x 127 X 16 kg Tee and
640 x 2 0 mm plate = 4680 cm4
- 1
:. 77, - = 0.464
0.5 x 4680 x 104x 30903
1 +
129 x 106x 16673
(contribution from stiffness of web plate neglected in the above expression)
Take Fwi= 0.464 662 =307 kN

X
20
Eccentricity of Fwi= 65 - - = 55 mm
2
Total load in web/diaphragm junction
+
P = 307 322 = 629 kN
Axial stress = 629 lo3= 26 Nlmm2
23800
Bending moment
MT = 307 x 0.055 = 16.9 kNm
16 9
Bending stress in web = - = 9 N/mm
1.98
- 16.9
Bending stress in diaphragm = = -23 N/mm
~
0.738
Maximum stress = 26 + 9 = 35 N/mm2 < 290 N/mm2 OK
113
Limiting stress
U,, from
-
Sheet 24.
114
Iax: (01344)622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994

CALCULATION SHEET I SCI Checked by: KB I Date Mar 1994
Check buckling strength
Assume cross beam load reduces linearly to zero at bottom. Within middle third of junction:
2
P = 307 +- X 322 = 522 kN
3
1 1 -
- 0.757 > 0.110 OK
ym yt3 1.2 x 1.1
115
II
.7 L
.
.
P I 40
Second Edition
Design Guide for Composite Box Girder Bridges

Box Girder - Bridge - Sci PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Box Girder - Bridge - Sci PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Box Girder - Bridge - Sci PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A single copy of this

Steel Construction Institute

This is an uncontrolled copy

urses, telephone direct: +44 (0) 13

World Wide Web site: http://www.steel-sci.org

Selected example calculations are included in this appendix to illustrate aspects

bridge design guides.

The two examples are:

Example 2 - Open trapezoidal boxes, 46 m span 117

Design of beams a t piers 9

Summary of load effects - pier 1 11

Bending stresses a t piers 15

Diaphragm bearing stiffeners 21

Subject Design Data

Spans: 55 m, 75 m, 60 m, 45 m (Total 235 m)

Carriageway: Dual 7.3 m carriageway with 1 m verges cycle/footway on one side

Surfacing: 100 mm including waterproofing

Location: South-East England

Design Life: 120 years

Unit Weights: Steel 77 kN/m3

Live Loads: HA 4 notional lanes (to BD 37/01)

Temperature: Minimum effective bridge temperature - 14°C

Wind: Mean hourly windspeed 26 m/sec

Steel = 355 N/mm2 (up to 16 mm thick)

Concrete f," - 40 N/mm2

A haunched configuration, with a curved sofit is generally regarded as pleasing in appearance in

Overall width of deck - 23.75 m

Choose 4 rectangular closed boxes, 1.6 m wide

Hence spacing between boxes -

Mid main span: use spaddepth ratio approx 35 : 1

Haunch over piers 1 and 2: use span/depth ratio approx 20 : 1

Commentary to calculation sheet

-ax: (01344) 622944 Client Made by DCI Date Mar 1994

CALCULATION SHEET SCI Checked by: KB Date Mar 1994

Initial Design Loads

Steel Weight say 12 kN/m

Concrete Weight (5450x300 + 1800 x 70 + 900 x 70) x 10- x 25 = 36 kN/m

Surfacing Weight (5.450 x 0.100) x 22 = 12 kN/m

Parapets, barriers, etc. - say 10 kN/m

Calculation of Load Effects

250 125 I -89 I

Worst moment with spans 1 +- 2 loaded (live load) is 6 1 4 kNm at pier 1.

The contribution from webs is ignored in this initial design.

Subject Initial Design

The design moment at ULS are:

Steel Weight 1.05 X 12 X -545 - 6 870 kNm

Concrete Weight 1.15 X 40 X -545 -25 070 kNm

Surfacing 1.75 X 12 X -545 -11 450 kNm

Furniture 1.2 x 10 x -545 - 6 540 kNm

Total Moment = -76 050 kNm

(M on bare steel = 31 940 M on composite section = 44 110)

Force in bottom flange - 76050 x 103 - 23 770 kN

A conservative assumption of the share of moment carried by the reinforcement.

Subject Initial Design

Assume reinforcement takes 10% of moment on composite section

Steel Weight 1.05 X 12 X 38.0 = 479

i.e. 2600 kN per web

Assume dwelt = 150, 4= 1

2600 x 103 16.8 mm - say 20 mm