You are on page 1of 8

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A STEEL ARCH BRIDGE

IN VILNIUS OVER THE NERIS

Darius Žickis, Head of Bridge Department, Igoris Cypinas, Consulting Engineer,


JSC Kelprojektas

The bridge was conceived as a link between the old town as a historical center of Vilnius and
speedily developing right-bank part of the Lithuanian capital. Constructional height of the bridge
superstructure was restricted by shipping clearance under the bridge by the altitudes of the adjacent
streets. Additionally, high demands on the aesthetic appearance of the structure were made by the
Vilnius city municipality as an investor of a project.

The bridge had to be harmoniously inscribed into the river landscape and surrounding architectural
environment of great historical value. It was decided that the half-through arch meets all these
requirements and is the best solution from both the aesthetic and structural points of view. Moderate
height of the arch does not disturb the silhouette of the historical centre of the city.

Fig. 1. The main view of the bridge.

1
The superstructure of the main span of the bridge consists of two free-standing arches strengthened
by the auxiliary half-arches on both sides of the bridge. These additional elements are used to
support the stairs that lead to the lower right bank of the river, in front of the Sport Palace. Besides,
these elements ensure the lateral stability of the main free-standing arches. At last, these structural
members give the bridge architectural expressiveness and combine the functionality of usage with
structural expediency.

The span length of the main arches is 75.5 m and the arch rise is 9.5 m. The deck of the bridge
accommodates three traffic lanes, 3.25 m each, and two 4.0 m wide sidewalks. The dimensions of
the box–shaped cross–section of the main arch are 1500×800×40 mm at the crown and
1900×800×40 mm at the support. The steel with the design yield strength 350 MPa and elastic
modulus 206 000 MPa was used for the structure. The bridge deck is constructed of steel beam
grillage and 150 mm thick concrete plate. The deck is connected to the arch by flexible hangers.
The main view of the bridge is shown in Fig. 1.

The bridge abutments rest on the pile foundations. The abutments are subjected to intensive
horizontal thrust force, and the pile design is controlled by horizontal bearing capacity of the piles.
The use of battered piles was unavoidable for this reason.

The bridge is designed in conformance with Soviet bridge design code [1], with the exception of
traffic loads, that are accepted according to Eurocode 1, Part 3 (see Lithuanian National Application
Document [2]). Two main features of the project are described in this paper: the non-linear analysis
of ultimate bearing capacity of the arch structure, and assemblage of the bridge superstructure.

The bridge was designed by AB “Kelprojektas”. The designer also provided erection stage analysis
and construction engineering services. Main participants of design team were architect Vladas
Treinys and structural engineers Gintaras Bajoras and Arvydas Čibirka. The bridge was erected by
the Lithuanian TILSTA company. The structural steel components of the bridge have been
fabricated in factory VILMETA, Vilnius.

1. Strength and stability analysis of the spatial arch structure

There is no bracing between the two main arches. Flexible hangers carry the bridge floor system,
and it is structurally independent of the main arches. A major concern of designer was to ensure
sufficient safety margin with regard to out-of-plane stability of the arch structure.

2
The load-carrying system comprises main arches and the auxiliary half-arches interconnected by the
cross bars. These elements, attached to the both sides of the bridge, significantly enhance the lateral
stiffness of the whole structure. Stability of such a structure cannot be checked by simple analytical
formulas. Moreover, existing code-type methods do not allow consistent verifying of arch stability
beyond the elastic range.

Residual stresses from welding and initial out-of-plane curvatures have a considerable influence on
the ultimate strength and inelastic lateral stability of arches. Suggestions for arch stability check up
based on analytical and experimental results of Sakimoto, Yamao and Komatsu can be found in
Guide [3]. Practical design tools, presented therein, utilize the analogy between the elastic critical
loads in a column and in an arch. The renowned effective length procedure is used to evaluate the
inelastic effects by means of code-type beam-column design formulas. Pi and Trahair [4], [5]
proposed design formulas based on inelastic finite element results for lateral buckling of steel
arches. The authors argue that arch rise-to-span ratio and load distribution factors must be included
in design formulas. All these formulas can be applied only to conventional arch types.

Inelastic stability and ultimate strength of the arch bridges are more rigorously treated in reference
[6]. The authors use inelastic finite element model. Geometric nonlinearity is accounted for by
beam-column stability functions. The transition from elastic to fully plastic behaviour of arch cross-
sections is approximately represented by an appropriately adjusted parabolic moment-curvature
function. This design procedure overcomes incompatibility between the elastic design analysis and
limit state member design in conventional code-type methods.

Behaviour based ultimate load design approach can be achieved by plastic-zone analysis. Finite
element implementation and experimental verification of such design analysis for spatial steel
frames is presented in reference [7].

In this paper, direct materially and geometrically nonlinear finite element analysis of arched bridge
superstructure is presented. Three-dimensional curved beam finite element [8] was used in the
analysis. Material is assumed as perfect elastoplastic with von Mises yield criterion. Residual
welding stresses are also taken into account. According to reference [9], it is assumed that at the
box section edges residual stresses are equal to the yield stress σ y = 350 MPa, and in the rest of the

section acts equally distributed compression stress equilibrating tension in the edge welds. Initial
lateral crookedness of the arches is also accounted for. It is assumed that the line of crookedness
coincide with the lowest buckling mode. The maximum value of deflection from the vertical plane
is taken equal to u 0 = L 500 = 0.151 m. The bridge was loaded with the main loading (load model

3
1) according to PNT-T 97 [2]. Double-axle concentrated loads were placed on the quarter of the
arch span. ANSYS finite element method software [10] was used for numerical calculations.

First, a linear buckling analysis was performed. As a result of linear analysis the lowest critical
loading parameter η = 5.923 was obtained. Corresponding buckling mode is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. First buckling mode in horizontal plane

Linear analysis gives unrealistically high safety margin for overall stability of the structure. Design
code SNiP [1] prescribes more realistic effective length procedure. Using the analogy with beam-
column the effective length is determined as an arc-length of the arch portion between the inflection
points of the buckling mode. The left half-wave in the Fig. 2, l ef = 28.72 m, was taken as effective

length of an equivalent beam-column. Design code gives semi-empirical formula for slenderness
ratio. After some algebra this formula reads as

l ef σ0
λ= (1.1)
iy σ max

where i y — radius of inertia about the vertical axis, σ 0 — stress at the centroid, σ max — maximum

stress in the cross-section. There are two ways to use this formula. One can directly insert the
effective length l ef = 28.72 into the formula. The result is λ = 70.9 and according to SNiP [1]

buckling parameter is equal to ϕ = 0.58 .

By another way one determines l ef from Euler’s formula:

l ef = π EI y N cr (1.2)

4
N cr value in this expression is somewhat arbitrary because the axial force of the arch in the pre-

buckling state is variable. We take the value of N cr = 81.87 MN at the right quarter of the span

where the buckling mode reaches its maximum (see Fig. 2). Resulting length is l ef = 18.30 m, and

corresponding slenderness ratio is λ = 54.78 . Buckling parameter is ϕ = 0.74 .

Maximum stress due to design load is equal to σ max = 114.1 MPa. So one obtains the safety limit

against buckling ϕR y σ max , where Ry = 350 MPa. It equals to ϕR y σ max = 1.77 for the first

method and ϕR y σ max = 2.26 for the second one.

Fig. 3. Displacements at the connection between the main and auxiliary arches

Fig. 4. The longitudinal stress MPa of the arch structure at the ultimate state

5
Nonlinear performance-based finite element numerical analysis by means of ANSYS finite element
program revealed the realistic value of safety margin against ultimate load of the structure. The
maximum lateral displacements were observed at the connection point of the main and auxiliary
arches. Displacement versus load parameter curve is showed in Fig.3.

The maximum attained nonlinear load parameter is η = 3.41 . It is significantly larger than the
safety margin calculated by means of the code formulas based on linear calculations. That indicates
the conservative character of these formulas.

The stress state of the structure is shown in Fig. 4. One can see that the points of maximum lateral
displacement and of maximum compressive stress coincide. The values of the indicated
compressive stresses are presented less the initial stress due to welding. For this reason, they do not
reach in the plastic region the real yield limit σ y = 350 MPa.

The discrepancy between the effective-length-based and numerically computed safety margins can
be explained by the additional safety coefficients accounting for loss of stability. These additional
coefficients are included in code-type beam-column formulas. Additional research is needed to
determine appropriate safety factors for the performance-based stability check up.

2. Production of steel arch segments and assemblage of the arches

Box-type segments of the main arches are made of 40 mm thick steel sheets. Computer-controlled
flame-cutting unit was used for preparation of sheet elements of arch segments and bridge floor
beams. Owing to that the high accuracy of fabricated elements was achieved. Moreover, computer
program ensures the optimal cut out of sheet material. In order to secure the high precision of
fabricated segments they were joined up for trial in an erecting shop at the factory.

The main contractor, TILSTA company, utilized an unconventional method of bridge launching.
The segments of the arches, up to 10 meters long, were assembled on the falsework on the right
riverside. Butt straps with high-strength bolts were used for in-place connections. The main arches
and auxiliary half-arches were tied by the temporary strings (see Fig. 5) and the whole arch
structure was connected by the erection ties. One end of the structure was put on the rail bogies and
another end was placed on a pontoon. The arches were conveyed to design position in this manner.

During the construction stage, the main arches were erected as three-hinged. But in the presence of
the auxiliary half-arches the system remained redundant. This circumstance complicated removing
the falsework. In order to keep the stress in safe limits during the launching the strings were

6
gradually pre-tensioned and the ends of arches were successively lifted. There were three
successive stages of the pre-tension and lifting.

Fig. 5. Assemblage of the arch structure. Temporary strings are shown

The process had been simulated analytically by means of ANSYS finite element program [10]. To
model the consecutive lifting process compression-only contact elements were used to represent the
falsework supports. Owing to careful selection of strings pre-tension forces additional stresses
during the arch lifting not exceeded 50 MPa.

The Satellite Navigation System with electronic theodolite LEICA TCR-705 was used to ensure the
accurate position of the bridge superstructure. After positioning, the arch bearings were concreted,
and temporary hinges at the arch crowns were closed. High accuracy of the arches was achieved:
the lateral deflection of the arches from the vertical plane did not exceed 10 mm.

3. Final remarks and conclusions

The project displayed a combination of architect’s aesthetic idea with creative thought of structural
engineer. Successful completion of the project mostly depended on close co-operation between
designer, factory and builder. The whole process, from the initial design to the completion of
works, took no more than 20 months. 715 reinforced concrete piles, 4120 cubic meters of cast-in-
place concrete, 675 cubic meters of pre-fabricated reinforced concrete bridge floor slabs and 970
tons of steel were used for construction works. The whole project cost totaled to 5640000 EUR.

1. The structural solution without the lateral bracing proved to be sufficiently stable in regard
of out-of-plane buckling.
2. Performance based plastic zone analysis of spatial arch structure needs additional
investigation of reliability, but the conventional code-type calculation guaranty the
necessary safety margin.

7
3. Owing to precise fabrication of steel elements the trial assemblage in an erecting shop is
unnecessary.
4. In order to avoid overstress of the arch structure in the process of launching careful
calculation of pre-stress forces and lifting stages is required.

References

1. СНиП 2.05.03-84. Мосты и трубы. Москва, 1988.


SNiP 2.05.03-84. Bridges and Culverts. Moscow, 1988. (In Russian).
2. PNT-T 97. Automobilių kelių tiltų projektavimo normos ir taisyklės. (Bendroji dalis,
gabaritai, apkrovos). Lietuvos automobilių kelių direkcija. 1998.
PNT-T 97. Design Standard and Regulation for Highway Bridges. (General, Clearances,
Loads). Lithuanian Road Administration. 1998. (In Lithuanian).
3. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures. Fifth Edition. T. V. Galambos, ed.
Wiley, New York, 1998, 911 p.
4. Y.-L. Pi, N. S. Trahair. Out-of-Plane Buckling and Strength of Steel Arches. Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol.124, No. 2, Feb. 1998, p.p. 174 – 183.
5. Y.-L. Pi, N. S. Trahair. Inelastic Lateral Buckling Strength and Design of Steel Arches.
Engineering Structures, vol. 22, 2000, p.p. 993–1005.
6. S.-E. Kim, S.-H. Choi, S.-S. Ma. Performance based design of steel arch using practical
inelastic nonlinear analysis. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 59, No. 1, Jan.
2003, p.p. 91 -108.
7. L. H. Teh, M. J. Clarke. Plastic Zone Analysis of 3D Steel Frames Using Beam Elements.
Journal of Structural Engineering, vol.125, No. 11, Nov. 1999, p.p. 1328 – 1337.
8. A. Ibrahimbegovič. On finite element representation of geometrically nonlinear Reissner’s
beam theory: three-dimensional beam elements. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, vol 122, 1995, p.p. 11-26.
9. N. E. Shanmugam, J. Y. R. Liew, S. L. Lee. Thin-Walled Steel Box Columns under Biaxial
Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol.115, No. 11, Nov. 1989, p.p. 2706 – 2726.
10. ANSYS, Inc. Theory. P. Kohnke, ed. Cononsburg, PA, 2001.

You might also like