You are on page 1of 28

Corus Construction Centre

Composite steel highway bridges

Contents

Contents
Acknowledgement of author
Advantages of steel bridges
1
2

Design standards
Conceptual design
2.1 Spans and component lengths
2.2 Cross sections
2.3 Intermediate supports
2.4 Bracings
2.5 Steel grades
2.6 Further guidance

Initial sizes and overall unit weight


3.1 Introduction
3.2 Use of charts

3.2.1

Plate girder flange sizes

3.2.2

Plate girder web sizes

3.2.3

Overall unit weight

3.2.4

Universal beams

3.2.5

List of symbols

Worked examples use of charts


4.1 Continuous plate girder bridge
4.2 Simply supported universal beam bridge

References

Figures
Figure 4 Simply supported bridges
Figure 5 Continuous bridges
Figure 6 Continuous bridges
Figure 7 Girder spacing factors
Figure 8 Overall unit weights plate girder bridges
Figure 9 Universal beams elastic stress analysis
Figure 10 Universal beams plastic stress analysis

1. Left: Waterside Bridge


Newburgh, Scotland
2. Right: A1(M)
Yorkshire, England

Composite steel highway bridges

Advantages of Steel Bridges

Composite steel highway bridges


The Author

Alan Hayward is continuously involved with the

Alan C. G. Hayward FREng CEng FICE FIStructE

development of bridge codes including BS 5400 and

Alan Hayward was a founding Partner of bridge

Eurocodes and has been National Technical Contact for

specialists Cass Hayward & Partners of Chepstow who

the composite bridge code EC4-2. He contributes to the

design and evolve construction methodology for all

education of engineers by lecturing at Universities on

types of bridges, particularly steel highway, railway,

behalf of industry, and has written numerous papers on

footbridges, movable bridges and Roll-On/Roll-Off

steel bridge construction. He is a long-standing member

linkspans in the UK and overseas. He remains active in

of the Steel Bridge Group who disseminate best practice

the firm as the Principal Consultant.

through their published Guidance Notes.

Advantages of steel bridges


Feature

Leading to

Advantages

Low weight of
superstructure.

Fewer piles and smaller sizes of pile caps/foundations.


Typical 30 50% reduction over concrete decks.
Composite bridges 6.0 8.0kN/m2 typical.

Cheaper foundations.

Light units for erection.

Erection by smaller cranes. Delivery of long pieces.


Launch erection with light equipment (skates or rollers).

Cheaper site costs.

Simple site joints.

Bolted joints: easy to form larger pieces from small


transported components taken to remote sites.

Flexible site planning.

Maximum
pre-fabrication in
factory.

Quality control in good factory conditions avoiding outdoor


site affected by weather and difficult access.

More reliable product.

Predictable
maintenance costs.

Commuted painting costs can be calculated. If easy repainting


is made possible by access and good design then no other
maintenance necessary.

Total life cost known.

Low construction
depth.

Depth/span ratio 1/20 to 1/30 typically.


Lower depth achieved with half-through girders.

Slender appearance.
Reduces costs of earthworks
in approaches.

Self supporting
during construction.

Falsework eliminated.
Slab formwork and falsework also avoided using permanent formwork.

Falsework costs eliminated.


Significant if more than 8m
above ground.

Continuous and
integral spans.

Continuity easy with bolted or welded joints. Most expansion


joints eliminated. Number of bearings reduced.
Compliance with BD57.

Better appearance.
Improved durability.
Improved running surface.

Adaptable details.

Pleasing appearance taking advantage of curves and colour.

Aesthetic gain.

Re-usable product.

Demountable structures and re-cyclable components which


reduce manufacturing energy input.

Sustainable product.

Composite steel highway bridges

Design standards

1. M4/M25 Poyle Interchange

1. Design standards
The current bridge code BS 5400 (Ref. 1) was conceived
in 1967. Its ten parts cover the more common structural
media. The 1980 conference in Cardiff introduced the
Code relating to steel and made use of research carried
out since 1970.

(ii)

Design clauses are easier to use than


previous Codes.

(iii) Workmanship requirements, including tolerances,


are rationalised.
(iv) Longitudinal web stiffeners to girders are
rarely needed.

Part 3 (Design of Steel Bridges) is compatible with the


workmanship standards and tolerances defined in Part

Use of the plastic modulus is permitted for stress

6, drawn up jointly with industry.

analysis of compact sections and where the slenderness


is controlled by sufficient restraints, the effects of

The Code uses limit state principles. The ultimate

shrinkage and differential temperature can be neglected.

limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS) must


be satisfied.

For compact sections, the entire load can also be


assumed to act on the composite section even if the

In practice the ULS generally governs, exceptions being

steelwork is unpropped, provided that SLS checks

the checking at SLS for slip of HSFG bolts and the

are made.

design of shear connectors.


While most rolled universal beams, columns and
BS 5400 encourages the use of steel for a number

channels will be compact, plate girders will often be

of reasons:

non-compact and must be stressed elastically. (See also


Section 3.2.4.)

(i)

Plastic stress analysis option offers the use of


lighter members and extends the span range of

For structural analysis, elastic methods are utilised

rolled sections.

using gross sections (i.e. not allowing for shear lag or


effective width).

Composite steel highway bridges

Design standards

Redistribution of moments arising from the formation of

For example:

plastic hinges is not permitted, but redistribution due to


cracking of concrete over intermediate supports may be

(i)

assumed using Part 5.

Do not locate welded attachments close to or on


flange edges (class 'G').

(ii)

Re-entrant corners should be radiused.

Combined bending and shear is dealt with using

(iii) Use HSFG bolts for permanent bolted connections.

interaction formulae. This is sometimes critical at

(iv) Restrict doubler flange ends to areas of low stress

intermediate supports.

(class 'G').
(v)

The Code contains no specific limits on slenderness of


members or proportion of plate panels. Longitudinal web

Avoid single sided partial penetration butt welded


joints which are subject to tensile stress.

(vi) Avoid welded cruciform joints, which are subject to

stiffeners are usually only necessary for very deep

significant tensile stresses. An example is when

girders or those with curved soffits.

using integral crossheads (see Figs. 1B & 1F)


where fillet welds should be used in preference to

For rolled sections the full shear yield stress can

full penetration butt welds. If butt welds are

generally be used without the need for intermediate

necessary, the use of steel with through-thickness

stiffeners. Bearing stiffeners are virtually mandatory at

quality (Z-grades to BS EN 10164 ref 14) may be

supports, together with lateral bracing or a system of

considered in view of the strains which will be

bracing to maintain verticality.

caused during welding.

Fatigue is checked to Part 10, although for highway


bridges this rarely demands a reduction in working
stresses provided good detailing practice is used.

Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

1. This page: A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct*


Cumbria, England
2. Right: Festival Park Flyover
Stoke, England
3. Far right: Simon De Montford Bridge
Evesham, England
*Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.

Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

2. Conceptual design
2.1 Spans and component lengths

Curved bridges

Spans are usually fixed by site restrictions and

Curved bridges in plan may readily be formed using

clearances. Where freedom exists, budget costing

straight fabricated girders, with direction changes

including foundations is desirable to determine the

introduced at each site splice. If required however, steel

economic span. A range of 25m to 50m is likely.

girders can also be curved in plan. An example is the

Where deep piled foundations are needed, cost will

A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct (radius 540m)

encourage the use of longer spans, thus keeping


foundations to a minimum.

For smaller radii, curved girders are necessary to avoid


the effects of long cantilevers. Skew and plan tapered

Multiple spans

bridges may also be built in steel. Ideally, plan layout

Multiple spans of approximately 24m suit universal

should be as simple as possible (Ref. Documents in

beams, this being the longest readily available length and

Section 2.6).

because continuous spans are convenient and economic.


Site splices may be bolted with HSFG bolts or welded

Integral bridges

near points of contraflexure. The length of end spans

The Highways Agency requires consideration of integral

should ideally be about 0.8 of the penultimate span.

bridge forms for spans up to 60m with the objective of


improved durability by elimination of bridge deck

Continuous spans

movement joints (Ref. 4 & 5). Girders may then be

The optimum for using plate or box girders for

required to develop a degree of continuity with

continuous spans is about 45m, because 27m long

substructures at end supports such that axial forces and

span girders can be spliced with pier girders of a

reverse moment effects need to be considered in the

single plate 18m long. For longer spans, more shop or

design of the composite deck. Design principles remain

site splices are needed. Component lengths for shop

the same but girder sizes and bracing provision may be

fabrication should be the maximum possible consistent

influenced. Further guidance is available from the Steel

with delivery and site restrictions to reduce the amount

Construction Institute (Ref. 8, 9 & 10).

of on-site assembly. The maximum length for road


delivery without restrictions is normally 27.4m although

2.2 Cross sections

longer lengths can readily be transported by

Deck type construction

arrangement. A minimum number of shop butt welds

Deck type construction is common and is suitable for

should be used consistent with plate sizes available. The

highway bridges as shown in Fig. 1. A span-to-girder

decision whether to introduce thickness changes within

depth ratio of 20 is economic although 30 or more can

a fabricated length should take account of the cost of

be achieved. A half-through bridge (U frame) can be

butt welds compared with the potential for material

appropriate in cases of severely limited depth, such as

saving (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6).

where approach lengths are restricted. Footbridges and


rail under-bridges are common examples.

Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

Where permanent formwork is envisaged, the slab

Box girders

should be made sufficiently thick to accommodate the

Where spans exceed 100m box girders are likely to be

details taking account of reinforcement cover and

more economic than plate girders with which flange sizes

practical tolerances (Ref. 7). When using composite part

would be excessive. Other reasons for using box girders

depth planks such as Omnia then a minimum thickness

include aesthetics (where justifiable), aerodynamic

of 250mm may be needed.

stability, severe plan curvature, the need for single column


supports or very limited depth. Other than in the cases

Universal beams and plate girders

noted, box girders being heavier than plate girders are

Universal beams may be appropriate for bridges up to

more expensive because although less flange material

25m span and above when continuous, or when use can

may be demanded due to inherent torsional properties,

be made of the plastic modulus. For spans above 22m,

this is usually more than offset by the amount of internal

plate girders, especially if continuous, can be economic

stiffening and extra costs for workmanship. Fabrication

because lighter sections can be inserted in mid-span

costs are higher because the assembly/welding

regions. Costs per tonne of painted and erected

processes take longer and more shop space is needed.

universal beams were traditionally lower but, more

However, erection work is often reduced because box

recently, automated fabrication and less expensive plate

girders require little or no external bracing.

material has allowed economic supply of plate girders


for the shorter spans.

Multiple box girders have proved to be economic for


spans of around 50m in particular situations. Using

A girder spacing of 2.5m to 3.5m is usual with a deck

narrow cross sections eliminates the need for longitudinal

slab of about 230mm 250mm thick (see Figs. 1A and

stiffeners (see Fig. 1F). An example of which is the

1B). Edge cantilevers should not exceed half the beam

M25/M4 Poyle Interchange.

spacing and to simplify falsework should, where


possible be less than 1.5m. Shorter cantilevers are

For box girders, consideration of the safety of personnel in

usually necessary with a locally thickened slab where

confined spaces is essential during fabrication, erection and

high containment (P6) parapets are specified, e.g. over

for maintenance. Detailing must recognise the need to avoid

rail tracks. An even number of girders achieves better

internal welding as far as possible and to allow sufficient

optimisation of material (ordering) and allows bracing in

ventilation and openings for access and recovery in

pairs. For wide girder spacings, the slab may be

emergency situations.

haunched, but use of standardised permanent formwork


is unlikely to be possible and construction depth is

Open-topped trapezoidal and rectangular shaped box

increased (see Fig. 1C). Where spans exceed 40m, twin

girders have been used efficiently, but provisions are

plate girders with a central stringer may be suitable for

needed to preserve stability during erection, for example the

single carriageway decks up to about 13m wide, giving

Forrest Way Bridge, Warrington.

economies in material and erection work (see Fig. 1D).


Twin girders and cross beams have similar advantages

Plate girder flanges

and are appropriate where girders have a curved soffit.

Plate girder flanges should be as wide as possible but

This becomes viable for spans greater than 45m (see

consistent with outstand limitations in BS 5400 (i.e. 12t in

Fig. 1E) and has been used for wider decks supporting

compression if fully stressed and up to the 20t robustness

more lanes.

Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

limit), to give the best achievable stability during erection

Intermediate bracings require to be spaced at about

and to reduce the number of bracings. For practical

20 x top flange width and need to be adequate to

reasons a desirable minimum width is about 400mm to

prevent lateral torsional buckling. Bracing is necessary

accommodate detailing for certain types of permanent

at supports if only to prevent overturning during

formwork, especially precast concrete. A maximum flange

erection. At abutments this can be a channel trimmer

thickness of 63mm is recommended to avoid heavy welds,

composite with the slab and supporting its free end. Over

minimise pre-heating requirements and also limit the

piers a channel section can be used between each pair

reduction in design yield strength. Limiting the thickness

of girders of up to about 1.2m deep. For deeper girders

also has benefits in terms of notch toughness specification.

triangulated angle bracings are usual (see Fig. 1B).

2.3 Intermediate supports

Intermediate lateral bracings are usually necessary in

Piers can take the form of reinforced concrete, leaf,

hogging regions with a maximum spacing of about

column or portal. Steel columns are also used. For

12 x bottom flange width. If the bridge is curved they

example, tubular steel columns (concrete filled

should be close to the site splices where curvature

composite), were used in the M5 Almondsbury

induces torsion. Bracings may be of a triangulated form

Interchange and deserve consideration. Leaf piers or

or of single channel sections between each pair of

multiple columns supporting every girder are convenient

girders of up to 1.2m deep (see Fig. 1A). Alternatively,

but where fewer columns are demanded for aesthetic

bracings can take the form of inverted 'U' frames, but

reasons, integral steel crossheads provide a solution. The

for spans exceeding, say, 35m it may be necessary to

popularity of these crossheads has recently increased

interconnect all the girders by bracings during erection

following earlier examples on M25 bridges including

so that transverse flexure from wind is adequately

Brook Street Viaduct, Mar Dyke Viaduct and South

shared. Although plan bracing systems are uneconomic

Mimms Interchange Bridges (see Figs.1B and 1F). They

and should be avoided, they may be required for spans

were extensively used for the Second Severn crossing

exceeding 55m for temporary stability, especially if

approach roads and for the new Thelwall Viaduct.

launch erection is used (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6).

It should, however, be recognised that the introduction

Use may be made of bracings in distributing live loads

of these additional members is only likely to be

between girders. This may offer reduced flange sizes

economic where the use of fewer supports is essential.

under HB loading but the uniformity of current loading to

Costs can increase especially if column spacing is not

BD37 across the carriageway (HB + 2 lanes HA + 0.6 HA

arranged to allow balanced erection and temporary

other lanes) tends to discourage this. An optimum design

trestles become necessary. Care is also needed detailing

is likely to include bracings only between pairs of girders,

cruciform welded joints at the crosshead/main girder

such discontinuous bracings attracting minimal effects

connection (Ref. Section 1 (vi)).

under deck loading except in cases of heavy skew or


curvature where a different system may be appropriate.

2.4 Bracings

Bracings should be included in the global analysis to

For most universal beam or plate girder bridges, lateral

check for possible overload or fatigue effects.

bracings are needed for erection stability and during


deck concreting.

1. Far Left: Nene Bridge


Peterborough, England
2. Left: Forrest Way Bridge
Warrington, England
3. Right: M20 Road Bridge
Folkstone, England

Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

DECK WIDTH W

230 TO
1A
Multiple U.B.
(N=4)

250 mm
D

2.5 TO 3.5

230 TO
1B
Multiple P.G.
(N=4)

250 mm
D
1.0 TO 1.75
TYPICAL

300 TO 350 mm
1C
Twin P.G.
Haunch Slab
(N=2)
D

1.0 TO 3.3

4.0 TO 5.5

Figures 1A 1F
Typical deck type cross-sections

1. Left: Humber Road Bridge


Immingham, England
2. Right: Thelwall Viaduct
M6, Warrington, England

10 Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

230 TO 320 mm
1D
Twin P.G.
& Stinger
(N=2)
D

6.0 TO 7.0

1.0 TO 3.3

230 TO
1E
Twin P.G.
& Cross Girders
(N=2)

250 mm

3.0 TO 3.5 c/c

>7.0

230 TO
1F
Multiple Box
(N=6)

250 mm

0.9 TO 1.2

2.5 TO 3.5
AT MID-SPAN

AT PIER

Composite steel highway bridges 11

Conceptual design

2.5 Steel grades

temperatures to be determined from isotherms of

BS EN 10025 1993 Grade S355 steels (Ref. 12) are usual

minimum and maximum shade air temperature for a

for bridges as they offer a lower cost-to-strength ratio

particular site location. Limiting thicknesses for steel

than Grade S275. BS 5400 requires all steel parts to

parts are prescribed in BS 5400: Part 3, as implemented

achieve a specified notch toughness, depending upon

by BD13 (Ref. 3), as appropriate to these effective bridge

design minimum temperature, stress level and

temperatures, and the other factors mentioned above.

construction features (e.g. welding details). Subgrades J2


and K2 will be most common.

Weather resistant steel


To eliminate the need for painting, weather resistant

Composite bridge decks are specifically categorised in

steels to BS EN 10155 1993 (Ref. 13) should be

the composite version of BS 5400: Part 2 (implemented

considered. Although it can be shown that the commuted

by BD37), to allow a range of effective bridge

costs of repainting are less than 1% of the initial bridge


cost, weather resistant steel bridges can be more

1. Above: Findhorn Viaduct


Inverness, Scotland
2. Left: Westgate Bridge
Gloucester, England
3. Right: Slochd Beag Bridge
Inverness, Scotland

12 Composite steel highway bridges

Conceptual design

economical on a first cost basis and are particularly useful

design standard BD 7 (Ref. 6) and Corus Publication

in eliminating maintenance where access is difficult over

Weathering Steel Bridges (Ref. 11).

a railway, for example.

2.6 Further guidance


Weather resistant steel is not suitable at or near the coast,

Particularly relevant information for initial (and detailed)

(i.e. within about 2km from the sea) due to the chloride

design is included within two publications:

laden environment or in areas of severe pollution.


BCSA Publication Steel Bridges D. Tordoff 1985
The Highways Agency requires sacrificial thickness to be
added to all exposed surfaces for possible long term
corrosion (1.5mm per face in a severe marine or industrial

1st revision due 2002.


SCI-P-185, Steel Bridge Group: Guidance notes on
Best Practice in Steel Bridge Construction.

environment, 1mm in mild environments and 0.5mm


inside box girders) and detailed guidance is given in

Composite steel highway bridges 13

Initial sizes and overall unit weight

3. Initial sizes and overall


unit weight

(viii) Steelwork is unpropped and therefore not acting


compositely under its own weight and that of the
concrete slab. The steel is however composite for
all superimposed loads after the concrete has cured.

3.1 Introduction

(ix)

due to buckling criteria.

area (A f) web thickness (t w) and overall unit weight of


steelwork (kg/m2) for typical composite bridge cross

Sufficient transverse bracings are included such


that bending stresses are not significantly reduced

Charts are given to provide initial estimates of flange


(x)

Top flanges in sagging regions are dictated by the


maximum stress during concreting allowing for

sections as shown in Fig. 1.

formwork and live load to BS 5975 (Ref. 15).


Continuous or simply supported span plate girders and

Continuous bridge mid-span regions are concreted

simply supported universal beams are included. The

in turn followed by portions over the piers.

charts were derived from approximate BS 5400 designs

(xi)

HA loading (BD37).

distribution and to achieve correlation with modern


bridges. The charts take account of the latest highway

Live loading HA (assuming 3.5m wide lanes), or


alternatively 45 units of HB loading with co-existent

using simplifying assumptions for loads, transverse

(xii) Continuous spans are approximately equal.

loading requirements in BD37.

3.2 Use of charts


It is emphasised that the sizes obtained do not represent
final designs, which must always be executed to take

3.2.1 Plate girder flange sizes

account of all factors, such as bridge configuration and

Flange areas (Af in m2) are read against the span L.

loading. Adjustments will need to be made to take


account of the likely effects of end continuity if integral

(a)

For simply supported bridges (refer Fig. 4)

construction is intended.

(b)

For continuous bridges


Size of span girder (refer Fig. 5)

The charts are based on the following assumptions:


(i)
(ii)
(iii)

Deck slab 250mm average thickness (6.25kN/m2).

Figures 4, 5 and 6 are applicable to an average girder

Superimposed dead loads equivalent to 100mm of

spacing s of 3.5m. Fig. 7 gives a girder spacing factor

surfacing (2.40 kN/m2).

K af which is multiplied by the flange areas, obtained

Permanent formwork weight 0.50 kN/m of slab

above, to give values appropriate to the actual average

soffit area.

girder spacing.

(iv)

Steel grade S355.

(v)

Span to depth ratios L/D of 20 & 30.

(vi)

Size of pier girder (refer Fig. 6)

i.e. Top Flange A ft = A ft (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x K af (Fig. 7)

Plate girder webs have vertical stiffeners at approx.


2.0m centres where such stiffening is required.

i.e. Bottom Flange A fb = A fb (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x K af ( Fig. 7)

(vii) Elastic stress analysis is used for plate girders. If


however the plastic modulus is used for compact

Two different span-to-depth ratios, L/D = 20 and L/D =

cross sections, then economies may be possible.

30, are included for either HB or alternatively HA loading.


Values for intermediate L/D ratios can be read
by interpolation.

14 Composite steel highway bridges

Initial sizes and overall unit weight

The charts also show actual flange sizes using

depth (L/D) ratio for each span based upon the average

400mm x 15mm to 1000mm x 75mm.

girder depth (D) within that span.

Flange area of pier girders of continuous unequal spans

For box girder bridges a rough estimate may be

can be estimated by taking the greater of the two

obtained assuming that N = 2 x number of box girders in

adjacent spans.

the cross section (see Fig. 1F where N = 2 x 3 = 6).

End spans of continuous bridges may be estimated

For continuous bridges the end spans should be assumed

using L = 1.25 x actual span.

as 1.25 x actual span, following which the mean span for


use in Fig. 8 may be determined as follows:

3.2.2 Plate girder web sizes


Web thicknesses are similarly obtained using Figs. 4, 5
and 6 applicable to 's' = 3.5m. Adjustment for the actual

Mean span L =

L14 + L24...Ln4
n

average girder spacing 's' is obtainable from Fig. 7 using


girder spacing factor k tw.
i.e. Web thickness t w = t w (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x k tw (Fig. 7).
The thickness obtained may be regarded as reasonably
typical. However, designers may prefer to opt for thicker
webs to reduce the number of web stiffeners.

3.2.3 Overall unit weight


Overall unit weight (kg/m2 of gross deck area) for plate
girders is read against the span L from Fig. 8 for simply
supported or continuous bridges with L/D ratios of 20 or
30, under HB or alternatively HA loading and applicable
to s = 3.5m.
Adjustment for average girder spacing 's' other than
3.5m is obtainable from Fig. 7 using girder spacing
factor k w.
i.e. Unit weight kg/m2 = kg/m2 (Fig. 8) x k w (Fig. 7).
The unit weight provides an approximate first
estimate of steelwork tonnage allowing for all stiffeners
and bracings.
For continuous bridges with variable depth, Fig. 8 may
be used to provide a rough guide, assuming a span-to-

where n = number of spans.

3.2.4 Universal beams


An indication of beam size for simply supported spans
may be obtained from Figs. 9 and 10 for elastic or
plastic stress analysis respectively. BS 5400 permits the
use of either option, provided that the cross section is
compact; this condition being satisfied for all sections
shown in Fig. 10. Sufficient ductility is also required. It is
apparent that plastic stress analysis can achieve
significant economy in extending the span range of
universal beams. In practice, a serviceability stress
check (SLS) must be made including the effects of shear
lag. There is advantage also in using the plastic design
option for continuous spans but some universal beams
may need to be classed as 'non-compact', requiring
elastic analysis in hogging regions because the web
depth between the (elastic) neutral axis and its
compressive edge may exceed 28t w, depending upon
the amount of longitudinal slab reinforcement.
An overall unit weight for universal beam bridges may be
estimated at the conceptual stage by adding an
allowance of approximately 8% to the weight of the
main beams to allow for any bracings and stiffeners etc.
Figs. 9 and 10 refer to mass per metre of universal beams.

1. Left: Milton Bridge


Lesmahagow, Scotland
2. Right: Fossdyke Bridge*
Lincoln, England

*Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.

Composite steel highway bridges 15

Initial sizes and overall unit weight

Reference
figures 9 & 10

Universal beam size

Actual depth (mm)

3.2.5 List of symbols

Serial
size (mm)

Mass per
metre (kg/m)

914 x 419

388

921.0

343

911.8

289

926.6

253

253

918.4

224

224

910.4

HA

Standard highway loading defined in BD37

201

903.0

HB

Abnormal highway loading defined in BD37,

226

850.9

388
343
289

914 x 305

201
226

838 x 292

194

194

840.7

176

176

834.9

197

769.8

173

173

762.2

147

147

754.0

197

170

762 x 267

686 x 254

170

692.9

152

152

687.5

140

140

683.5

125

125

677.9

238

179
149

Af

Flange area (m2)

A fb

Bottom flange area (m2)

A ft

Top flange area (m2)

Girder or beam overall depth excluding slab


or finishes (m)

45 units assumed
K af

Girder spacing factor for flange area

K tw

Girder spacing factor for web thickness

Kw

Girder spacing factor for unit weight

Span centre to centre of bearings


(taken as 1.25 x span for end span of
continuous bridges)

kg/m2

Unit weight of steelwork in bridge expressed as:


total steelwork weight (kg)
W x overall bridge length

Average girder spacing defined as W/N (m)

tw

Web thickness (mm)

635.8

Overall deck width including parapets (m)

179

620.2

Number of spans

149

612.4

Number of girders (refer to Section 3.2.3 for

140

617.2

125

125

612.2

113

113

607.6

101

101

602.6

238

140

610 x 305

610 x 229

box girders)
Notes
(i) Where relevant, symbols correspond with
BS 5400 Part 3.
(ii) Units where relevant are shown in parentheses.

Table 1 (with reference to sizes in Figs. 9 and 10)

Table 1 above defines the referencing system for the


serial sizes in Figs.7 and 8, which is based on the mass
per metre of universal beams. Larger sizes are available
(e.g. 1016), but are unlikely to be economic compared to
fabricated plate girders.

16 Composite steel highway bridges

Worked examples - use of charts

4. Worked examples - use of charts


4.1 Continuous plate girder bridge

Flange and web sizes

A composite highway bridge has 3 continuous spans

Girder spacing factors: for 'S' = 3.0m

A, B and C of 24, 40 and 32m.

From Fig. 7: K af = 0.87, Kaf = 0.85*, K tw = 0.95

Overall deck width is 12m and it carries 45 units of HB

(*top flange span girders only).

loading (as shown in figure 2).


There are 4 plate girders in the cross section of
1.75m depth.
Estimate the main girder sizes and the total weight of
structural steel.
Average girder spacing 's' = W/N =12m/4 No. = 3.0m

W = 12m

D = 1.75m

Span girder

Pier girder

24m
Span A

Span girder

40m
Span B

Pier girder

Span girder

32m
Span C

Figure 2
Worked example

1. Left: Trent Viaduct


Newark, England
2. Right: A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct*
Cumbria, England

*Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.

Composite steel highway bridges 17

Worked examples - use of charts

Span A: 24m

Pier girders

This is an end span so take L = 1.25 x 24m = 30m

Take L as the greater of the two adjacent spans, i.e.

Therefore L/D = 30m/1.75m = 17, so assume L/D = 20

assume L = 40m at both supports, hence, L/D =


40m/1.75m = 22.9

Top flange A ft

= A ft (from Fig. 5) x K af
= 0.006 x 0.85 = 0.0051m2

Top flange A ft

= A ft (from Fig. 6) x K af
= 0.017 x 0.87 = 0.015m2

400 x 15 top flange

400 x 40 top flange


Bottom flange A fb

= A fb(from Fig. 5) x K af
Bottom flange A fb

= 0.014 x 0.87 = 0.012m 2

= A fb(from Fig. 6) x K af
= 0.033 x 0.87 = 0.029m 2

500 x 25 bottom flange

500 x 60 bottom flange


Web t w

= t w (from Fig. 5) x K tw
Web t w

= 10 x 0.95 = 9.5mm

= t w (from Fig. 6) x K tw
= 16.8 x 0.95 = 16mm

Use 10mm web

Therefore use 18mm web

Span B: 40m
Span girder

Steel tonnage

L/D = 40m/1.75m = 22.9

Girder spacing
for end span A:

Top flange A ft

= A ft (from Fig. 5) x K af
= 0.009 x 0.85 = 0.0077m

= 3.0m
L = 1.25 x 24m = 30m

for centre span B:

L = 40m

for end span C:

L = 1.25 x 32m = 40m

400 x 20 top flange


Therefore mean span
Bottom flange A fb

= A fb (from Fig. 5) x K af

L14 + L24...Ln4

= 0.020 x 0.87 = 0.017m 2

500 x 35 bottom flange


4

Web t w

= t w (from Fig. 5) x K tw
= 10 x 0.95 = 9.5mm

304 + 404 + 404 = 37.5m


3

Use 10mm web


L/D = 37.5m/1.75m = 21

Span C: 32m

= kg/m2 (from Fig. 8) x Kw (from Fig. 7)

This is an end span so take L = 1.25 x 32m = 40m

= 145kg/m2 x 1.04 = 151kg/m2

therefore sizes as 40m span.


Hence, steel weight
= 151 kg/m2/1000 x (24m + 40m + 32m) x 12m wide
= 174 tonnes

18 Composite steel highway bridges

Worked examples - use of charts

4.2 Simply supported universal


beam bridge
A composite bridge has a simply supported span of
24m. (as shown in figure 3). Overall deck width is 9.6m
and it carries HA loading only. Estimate the beam size
and total weight of structural steel assuming there are 4
beams in the cross section.

W = 9.6m

24m

Figure 3
Worked example

(a) For an elastic stress analysis refer to Fig. 9

(b) For a plastic stress analysis refer to Fig. 10

For 4 beams

For 'S' = 2.4m. Use 289

'S' = 9.6m/4No. = 2.4m. Use 388

i.e. 914 x 305 x 289kg/m universal beam

i.e. 914 x 419 x 388kg/m Universal Beam


Total weight approx.

(289kg/m /1000) x 4No. x 24m x 1.08

Total weight approx.


(388kg/m/1000) x 4No. x 24m x 1.08

= 30 tonnes (i.e. 130kg/m )


(the 1.08 factor allows for 8% bracing + stiffener
Thus, plastic stress analysis offers a significant

allowance)
2

reduction in beam size but SLS checks must be made.

= 40.2 tonnes (i.e. 174kg/m )

1. Left: A9 Bridge
Pitlochry, Scotland
2. Right: A1(M)
Yorkshire, England

Composite steel highway bridges 19

References

5. References
1. BS5400, Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. British Standards Institution.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB):
2. DMRB 1.3 BD37 Loads for Highway Bridges.
3. DMRB 1.3 BD13 Codes of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges.
4. DMRB 1.3 BD & BA 57 Design for Durability.
5. DMRB 1.3 BA 42 Design of Integral Bridges.
6. DMRB 2.3 BD7 Weathering Steel for Highway Structures.
7. DMRB 2.3 BA36 The Use of Permanent Formwork.
Steel Construction Institute Publications
8. P163: Integral Steel Bridges Design Guidance.
9. P180: Integral Steel Bridges Design of a Single Span Bridge.
10. P250: Integral Steel Bridges Design of a Multi Span Bridge.
11. Corus Publication Weathering Steel Bridges.
Material Standards (EN)
12. BS EN 10025 Hot Rolled Products of non-alloy structural steels.
13. BS EN 10155 Structural Steels with improved atmospheric corrosion resistance.
14. BS EN 10164 Steel products with improved deformation properties perpendicular
to the surface of the product.
Other Standards (BS)
15. BS 5975 Code of Practice for Falsework.

BS 5400

Title

Part

DMRB

MCDHW

Document*

Document**

General Statement

BD15

Specification for Loads

BD37

Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges

BD13

Code of Practice for Design of Concrete Bridges

BD 24

Code of Practice for Design of Composite Bridges

BD16

Specification for Materials & Workmanship, Steel

Volume 1 Series 1800

Specification for Materials & Workmanship, Concrete,


Reinforcement & Prestressing Tendons

Recommendations for Materials & Workmanship, Concrete,


Reinforcement & Prestressing Tendons

Bridge Bearings

BD20

10

Code of Practice for Fatigue

BD9

Volume 1 Series 1700


Volume 2 Series NG1700

* Design Manual for Roads and Bridges published by the Stationery Office for the Overseeing Organisations.
** Manual of Contract Document for Highway Work published by the Stationery Office for the Overseeing Organisations.

20 Composite steel highway bridges

45

50

55

75

60

50

45

35

25

30

35

25

30

35

40

45

55

50

40

60

55

45

40

65

70

75

600
x

60

65

70

75

650
x

75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20

500
x

Flange size (mm)

50

55

60

65

70

800
x

65

70

75

1000
x

S = 3.5m

400
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

(m2)

Af

20

25

30

Figure 4: Simply supported bridges - flange (at mid-span) and web (at support)

6. Figures

35

Afb

40

Afb

Afb

Span (m)

45

Aft

50

Afb

HA

HB

HA

55

/HB

tw

tw

HB
HA/

HB
HA

Aft

60

30

30

30

30

L/

20

20

20

20

10

11

12

13

14

15

tw (mm)

Figures

Composite steel highway bridges 21

22 Composite steel highway bridges

70

65

65

60

25

30

35

40

45

50

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

75

70

55

600
x

650
x

75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20

500
x

400
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15

Flange size (mm)

S = 3.5m

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Af
(m2)

25

30

Figure 5: Continuous bridges - flange and web sizes of span girders

35

Aft

40
Span (m)

Aft

tw

HA/HB

Afb
HA/HB

Afb

45

tw

HA

Afb

50

Afb

HA

HB

HB

55

60

30

30

30

L/

30

20
20

20

20

10

11

12

13

14

15

tw (mm)

Figures

45

50

55

60

1000
x

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

800
x

25

30

35

40

45

50

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

55

70

70

65

75

75

60

600
x

650
x

75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20

500
x

Flange size (mm)

S = 3.5

400
x
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Af
(m2)

20
25

Figure 6: Continuous bridges - flange and web sizes of pier girders

30

35

Span (m)

40

HA/HB

HA/H

B
A/H

45

HB
HA/

Afb

50

Aft

Aft

Afb

55

tw

tw

L / 30
D

60

30

30

20

20

20

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

tw (mm)

Figures

Composite steel highway bridges 23

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

Kw

f
Ka

5
Haunch
slab

Girder spacing - S (m)

Girders & slab

f
Ka

1.9
no

nly

Stringer

f
Ka

2.0

Fla
n
To

-sp
a
d
mi

24 Composite steel highway bridges


ge

Figure 7: Girder spacing factors

Cross girders

L=60

L=40

Ktw

Figures

Kt

Kaf, Ktw, Kw

Kg/m2

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

20

al
b

ea

400

25

30

35

HB

40
Span (m)

45

HA

50

HA

HB

55

HB

HA

HA

HB

60

30

30

30
L /
D

20
20

20

20

Simply supported
Continuous

Un
iv

er
s

Figure 8: Overall unit weights plate girder bridges (S = 3.5)

Figures

Composite steel highway bridges 25

26 Composite steel highway bridges

7
19

1
20

17

12

13

14

15

28
9

17

17

79

14

2.2

4
19

2.3

38

2.4

4/2

2.5

19

2.6

2.7

/23

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

22
4
16

17

34

Beam spacing - S (m)

Figure 9: Universal beams elastic stress analysis

18

28
9
Span (m)

19

20

21

22

23

24

HB

HA

25

Figures

8
38

3
34

38
8

3
25

22
6

253

224

201

173

28
26

27

HA

HB

29

Figures

8
25

38

23

24

34

28

21

34

22

38

22

20

18

53

Span (m)

19

28

20

25

38

7/2

19
4

22

16

20

17

17
38

15

4/2

19

79
0/1

197
176

12

2.2

2.5

2.6

2.7

3.1

125
113 101

125
2.8

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

0)

(61

140

2.3

86)

2.9

3.0

15

/14

14
40/

13

7
14

15

9(6

179

)
86
0(6
14
9
14
0)
(61
140

2.4

173
170

14

17

Beam spacing - S (m)

Figure 10: Universal beams plastic stress analysis

19

6
22

17

22

Composite steel highway bridges 27

www.corusgroup.com
Care has been taken to ensure that the
contents of this publication are accurate, but
Corus UK Ltd and its subsidiary companies
do not accept responsibility for errors or for
information which is found to be misleading.
Suggestions for or descriptions of the end
use or application of products or methods of
working are for information only and Corus
UK Ltd and its subsidiaries accept no liability
in respect thereof. Before using products
supplied or manufactured by Corus UK Ltd
and its subsidiaries the customer should
satisfy himself of their suitability.

Copyright 2002
Corus
Designed and produced by
Orchard Corporate.

Corus Construction Centre


PO Box 1
Brigg Road
Scunthorpe
North Lincolnshire
DN16 1BP
Tel +44 (0) 1724 405 060
Fax +44 (0) 1724 404 224
Email corusconstruction@corusgroup.com
www.corusconstruction.com
English language version

CL&I:SML:3000:UK:02/2002