Possible solution to past CM examination question

Question 3 - April 2011

Farm Access Bridge

by Saprava Bhattacharya

The information provided should be seen as an interpretation of the brief and a possible solution to a past question offered by
an experienced engineer with knowledge of the examiners’ expectations (i.e. it's an individual's interpretation of the brief
leading to one of a number of possible solutions rather than the definitive "correct" or "model" answer).
Farm access-bridge question
Client’s requirements

1. A private access bridge across a canal from a newly built road along the canal
embankment to farm land on the opposite side. See Fig. Q3
2. The farm access-bridge is to cross the busy navigational canal at an inclination of 3 in 25,
while the cross fall in the deck can be ignored.
3. Navigational clearance as shown in Fig.Q3 must be maintained at all times.
4. Unobstructed views along the canal are required from the bridge.
5. No new temporary or permanent works are permitted within 3.0m from the canal wall on
the farm land side.
6. The existing concrete canal walls can be used for intermediate support up to a maximum
safe vertical working load capacity of 100kN/m along its length.
7. The road and canal may not be closed for more than one weekend over a period of six
months.

Imposed loading

8. Farm vehicle load 260kN as detailed in Fig.Q3.

9. Uniformly distributed load 5.0kN/m2

10. The above loads do not occur simultaneously.

Site conditions

11. The site is located in open countryside. Basic wind speed is 46m/s based on a 3 second
gust; the equivalent mean hourly wind speed is 23m/s.
12. Ground conditions:
o Road embankment Granular fill, N=15
o Farmland Clay, C=40kN/m2
o Sandstone Allowable bearing capacity 1000kN/m2
o No groundwater was encountered during ground investigation works.

Omit from consideration

13. Longitudinal imposed loading.

SECTION 1 (50 marks)

a. Prepare a design appraisal with appropriate sketches indicating two distinct and viable
solutions for the bridge including its foundations. Indicate clearly the functional framing, load
transfer and stability aspects of each scheme. Identify the solution you recommend, giving
reasons for your choice. (40 marks)
b. During design the client informs you that the water level in the canal can sometimes rise to
300mm below the top of the canal wall. Write a letter to the client advising him of the
implications. (10 marks)

SECTION 2 (50 marks)

For the solution recommended in Section 1(a):

c. Prepare sufficient design calculations to establish the form and size of all the principal
structural elements including the foundations. (20 marks)
d. Prepare general arrangement plans, sections and elevations to show the dimensions, layout and
disposition of the structural elements and critical details for estimating purposes. (20 marks)
e. Prepare a detailed method statement for the safe construction of the bridge and an outline
construction programme. (10marks)

Figure A: Photographic view of the site described in the question.

Introduction:
Initial response to this question reminds many bridges in UK and Europe over similar canal of
same width. These bridges were built over the last few centuries’ mostly in masonry and in
arched shape. For this particular case there could be number of solutions, however few of them
shown in coloured outline on one of the similar site’s photograph.

Figure B: Photographic view of a similar canal described in the question with single line
diagrams of various possible options in colour.

Chief Examiner’s views on the question:

2011 CM – Bridge question was intended to the accurate manual application of influence line for
train of loads on bridges in this advance age of highly sophisticated structural analysis software.
Such a close to real life problem could have been addressed by numerous options. A simply
supported 25 m span bridge in UK is very common.

The given problem was even had the option for multiple spans to eliminate the depth restriction
and above IL complexity. Hence as shown above a steel arch or a portal supporting deck could
be aesthetically more pleasing solution than a simply supported solution of Reinforced Concrete
slab on top of a pair of steel Plate Girders. Open top Steel Box girder composite with concrete
deck slab on top may be even eye pleasing simply supported but relatively less economic.

Vierendeel / Warren Truss, Deep Half through Plate Girders etc was undesirable because they
are obstruction to the views over the canal. However tied Arch with few hangers of high tensile
steel may be acceptable too as it is much less visually intrusive to the onlookers from the bridge.
Key observations from Client’s requirement => constraints

• A private access bridge across a canal from a newly built road along the canal
embankment to farm land on the opposite side:
o Farm land owner would prefer the direct & indirect cost to minimum:

Traffic management on newly built road

Preventive measure against the instability of the newly built embankment

Get the major erection work done within one weekend closure of the canal

Cost effective lightweight construction so that best use of the existing site.

Avoid big abutments as well as ramp at the farm side even if the bridge is
to be built in slope along its length.
o Construction over water: Cast in situ deck needs permanent formwork.
• 3 in 25 Inclined Alignment:
o Horizontal component of the vertical loads to be taken by the fixed bearings in
longitudinal direction and need to be placed at farm side.
o Maximum allowed depth for the superstructure is governed at the point where the
clearance envelop is nearest to the desired top profile of the proposed bridge.
o No cross fall needed but adequate drainage provision at farm land side required.
• Navigational clearance as shown in Fig.Q3 must be maintained at all times:
o Single span Superstructure must be checked for deflected shape due to the
vehicular load because its maximum effect is not at the centre of span rather it
may coincide with the location of the minimum clearance above the envelop.
o To overcome above constraint multiple span may be suitable but:

For a reasonable multi-span structure canal wall supporting capacity may
need to be considered which are capable of carrying vertical loads only.

Use of Inclined pier must not encroach clearance envelop and the effect of
horizontal component from support reaction must be checked.
• Unobstructed views along the canal are required from the bridge:
o Any superstructure obstructing the view along the canal is not acceptable.
o Even if any half through structure is proposed it shouldn’t be high enough to
obstruct the views of the children.
• No new temporary or permanent works are permitted within 3.0m from the canal wall on
the farm land side:
 o Presence of gas main is a considerable hazard hence any temporary or
permanent structure is not only unacceptable but also construction work within
close distance should not have any effect on the gas main and its operation:

Large abutment with pad foundation or reducing the bridge length may
need extra verification of existing structure / site’s integrity.
o Even the space might be allowed for access the depth of the gas main is not
provided, hence heavy load on top of this portion of land is also not desirable.
• The existing concrete canal walls can be used for intermediate support up to a maximum
safe vertical working load capacity of 100kN/m along its length:
o The wall may offer vertical support but the top width is only 500mm, hence any
intermediate pier must fit within as well as imposing any horizontal load must be
verified.
o The connection with existing concrete wall should not cause any detrimental
effect on it as well as the soil next to it.
• The road and canal may not be closed for more than one weekend over a period of six
months:
o It is desirable to do the erection of superstructure or intermediate pier structure
(if required) on top of the canal wall during this particular period.
o It may be a good idea to erect a temporary enclosure of the canal outside the
required clearance envelop so that H&S requirement as well as no disruption to
the canal traffic can be attained.

The most appropriate two distinct viable solutions possible for this problem:
For the two distinct and viable solutions there are many examples for the structural forms in the
common design offices. Cast in situ deck slab (using pre-cast formwork) on top of simply
supported steel girder or continuous beams over intermediate support on top of the canal wall are
the simplest solution any one can think of. However both the solutions shall be designed and
detailed keeping all the above constraints in consideration.
Solution 1:
Cast in situ deck slab on top of simply supported single span steel beams as shown in Figure C
below:

3000
Surfacing over concrete deck

Precast Formwork
Shear Studs on 750
deep Steel Beams

Bearings on bank seat

Bored cast in situ Piles

Figure C: Typical cross section of the solution 1 with load & load path
This is the simplest possible solution for the given problem. In the table below it is shown how it
overcomes the above mentioned constrains

List of Constraints Ways to overcome them

Farm land owner would prefer the direct &
indirect cost to minimum
Construction over water: Cast in situ deck
needs permanent formwork.
3 in 25 Inclined Alignment
Navigational clearance as shown in Fig.Q3
must be maintained at all times
Bank seats on Bored Cast in Situ piles will
need least traffic management on new road and
the embankment stability will be least affected.
Erection of pair of pre fabricated girders and
casting of slab on top of the pre-cast formwork
will minimise disruption.
Fixed bearing at lower / Farm end is adequate.
Clearance could be critical at the envelop
corner, detailed analysis and design will ensure
Unobstructed views along the canal are
required from the bridge
No new temporary or permanent works are
permitted within 3.0m from the canal wall on
the farm land side
The existing concrete canal walls can be used
for intermediate support up to a maximum safe
vertical working load capacity of 100kN/m
along its length.
The road and canal may not be closed for more
than one weekend over a period of six months
Superstructure underside of the deck will be
sufficient to overcome the constraint.
Bank seats on Bored Cast in Situ piles for 25m
long span will not encroach within restricted
zone near canal.
Not applicable as the span is 25 m long and
simply supported.
Erection of Pair of plate girders can easily be
done within the time limit.

Solution 2:
Cast in situ deck slab on a pair of RHS supported on top of a steel arch in the middle as shown in
Superstructure Cross Section in the Figure D below:

Shear Studs on
Steel Box beams

3000

Precast Formwork

Bearings on bank seat

Bored cast in situ Piles

Steel Arch with supporting brackets

Figure D: Typical cross section of the solution 2 with load & load path
This is another simple possible solution for the given problem. In the table below it is shown
how it overcomes the above mentioned constrains:

List of Constraints Ways to overcome them

Farm land owner would prefer the direct &
indirect cost to minimum
Construction over water: Cast in situ deck
needs permanent formwork.
3 in 25 Inclined Alignment
Navigational clearance as shown in Fig.Q3
must be maintained at all times
Unobstructed views along the canal are
required from the bridge
No new temporary or permanent works are
permitted within 3.0m from the canal wall on
the farm land side
The existing concrete canal walls can be used
for intermediate support up to a maximum safe
vertical working load capacity of 100kN/m
along its length.
The road and canal may not be closed for more
than one weekend over a period of six months
Bank seats on Bored Cast in Situ piles will
need least traffic management on new road and
the embankment stability will be least affected.
Erection of steel box arch and pair of SHS and
casting of slab on top of the pre-cast formwork
will minimise disruption.
Fixed bearing at lower / Farm end is adequate.
Clearance could be critical with Arch at the
envelop corner, careful profile geometry and
appropriate design is required.
Superstructure underside of the deck will be
sufficient to overcome the constraint.
Bank seats on Bored Cast in Situ piles for 25m
long bridge with two continuous spans won’t
encroach within restricted zone near canal. The
pinned supports for steel arch on the canal wall
fixing weekend closure should be sufficient.
Detailed analysis and design will ensure the
vertical reaction not to exceed 100kN/m.
Erection of steel Arch and a pair of SHS can
easily be done within the time limit.

Comparison and selection of the more appropriate solution

Three important points stand out for option 1 over 2:
• Least disruption to the new road and the canal under.
• Less fabrication cost and easier to transport and erect in place
• Much simpler detailing compared to the complicated curved geometry.
• No need to make any new fixing to the existing structure like canal wall.
Important points for the letter to client:
Rise of canal water level of 300mm will:
• Reduce the freeboard from 600mm to 300mm
• Reduce the available depth of 1m superstructure to 700 mm
• 700mm superstructure which may need more girders.
• May be the proposed option need revisiting
The letter should discuss the impact of these important points to the design and nothing else.

Calculation:
For the chosen option calculation is required for principal structural elements;
Standard 250mm thick deck slab with B20 -150c/c T&B both direction can easily be considered
for this particular case based on minor calculation or even engineering judgement is acceptable.
Standard plate girders or even rolled sections at high end of the steel section table can easily be
demonstrated as capable of carrying quarter of entire load with little amount of calculation (using
appropriate references to the available information from various guidance notes etc). Since the
structure is simply supported 25 m span, so the sagging moment will govern the section design.
Therefore consideration of composite action for total load and steel only for green concrete need
to be demonstrated in calculation or at least a conservative approach for sizing is required.
Though wind may not be governing but minimum calculation is needed in line with the question.
Load on bank seats and pile should also be straight forward too. Calculation for the sizing of
substructure and foundation are also equally important, which are often forgotten.

Drawings:
As mentioned in the question the answer script must include general arrangement plans, sections
and elevations to show the dimensions, layout and disposition of the structural elements and
critical details for estimation purpose. For this extremely simple solution other than plan,
elevation and section, it is desirable that relevant standard details from Bridge Detailing Guide
are also necessary.
Method of Statement and outline construction programme:
The detailed method statement for the safe construction of the farm access bridge and an outline
construction programme should include various stages of construction and the anticipated time
required for each of them. This can be done by putting bullet points accompanied with free hand
sketches and a bar chart, but health and safety aspect of each activity and reasonable
understanding of the time involved for respective activity has to be well demonstrated.
For example in this chosen solution:
• Approval in Principle & designers risk assessment followed by the detailed design and
preparation of fabrication / construction drawings should be an activity in the beginning
of the project, which is often forgotten.
• Prior to any construction activity the site preparation and enabling works (e.g., traffic
management on the new road in this case) along with the site mobilisation with adequate
fence to the construction area for safe construction is equally important.
• On completion of the project hand over of the structure with as built drawings and Health
& Safety file to the owner client should not be ignored in the method of statement.
SOLUTION1

SOLUTION2