Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final

Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

Network Rail Investment

Eastern Region
Report No. B0395A/TM/67341 Network Rail PLC (in Railway Administration)
August 19 Bridgeguard 3
Prudential House
28-40 Blossom Street
York
Y024 1GJ

BRIDGEGUARD 3

CURRENT INFORMATION SHEET NO 33

CON-ARCHES
Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

Commercial-in-Confidence

BRIDGEGUARD 3

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT

Gifford and Partners Document No: B0395A/TM/67341

Status: Final Copy No:

Name Signature Date

Prepared by: P R Bartlett

Checked: P A Jackson

Gifford Approved: T P Holmes

Revision Record

Rev. Date By Summary of Changes Chkd Aprvd

Network Rail Investment Gifford and Partners

Eastern Region Carlton House
Network Rail PLC (in Railway Administration) Ringwood Road
Bridgeguard 3 Woodlands
Prudential House Southampton
28-40 Blossom Street SO40 7HT
York
Y024 1GJ
Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

BRIDGEGUARD 3

CURRENT INFORMATION SHEET NO 33

CON-ARCHES

CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Implications Arising from the Construction Sequence ............................................... 1
3. Effects of Temperature, Creep and Shrinkage ............................................................. 1
4. Effects of Soil Pressure ................................................................................................ 1
5. Possible Implications of a ‘Serviceability’ Failure ....................................................... 1

6. Shear Capacity of the Top Member of a Con-Arch ...................................................... 1

7. Potential Implications of Buckling given the Slender Nature of a Con-Arch .............. 2

8. The Effects of Axle and Wheel Loading ....................................................................... 2

9. Approval In Principle (Form AA)................................................................................... 3

Report No. B0395A/TM/67341 Page i Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

NETWORK RAIL
BRIDGEGUARD 3

CURRENT INFORMATION SHEET NO 33

SUBJECT: CON-ARCHES
DATE: June 2003
STATUS: Final

1. Prepared by Gifford and Partners

i) Author, Name:

Signature: Date

ii) Checker, Name:

Signature: Date

2. Endorsed by Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd

i) Endorsed by Senior Reviewing Engineer for Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Name

Signature: Date

3. Approved for issue by Network Rail

i) Approved by Network Rail (Eastern Region) for Bridgeguard 3

Name

Signature: Date

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 1 (E) Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

NETWORK RAIL
BRIDGEGUARD 3

CURRENT INFORMATION SHEET NO 33

SUBJECT: CON-ARCHES
DATE: June 2003
STATUS: Final

1. Prepared by Gifford and Partners

i) Author, Name:

Signature: Date

ii) Checker, Name:

Signature: Date

2. Endorsed by Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd

i) Endorsed by Senior Reviewing Engineer for Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Name

Signature: Date

3. Approved for issue by Network Rail

i) Approved by Network Rail (Great Western Region) for Bridgeguard 3

Name

Signature: Date

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 1 (GW) Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

NETWORK RAIL
BRIDGEGUARD 3

CURRENT INFORMATION SHEET NO 33

SUBJECT: CON-ARCHES
DATE: June 2003
STATUS: Final

1. Prepared by Gifford and Partners

i) Author, Name:

Signature: Date

ii) Checker, Name:

Signature: Date

2. Endorsed by Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd

i) Endorsed by Senior Reviewing Engineer for Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Name

Signature: Date

3. Approved for issue by Network Rail

i) Approved by Network Rail (Scotland Region) for Bridgeguard 3

Name

Signature: Date

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 1 (Scotland) Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

CURRENT INFORMATION SHEET NO 33

SUBJECT: CON-ARCHES

This Current Information Sheet is issued for guidance purposes only: It is not mandatory. The
assessor must be satisfied that the advice given in this Information Sheet is appropriate to the
structure in question.

1. Introduction

A number of technical issues have arisen concerning the assessment of Con-Arch Bridges. These
bridges are formed from precast portal frame units with sloping side members, which were placed side
by side on bearings and made monolithic by cast in situ reinforced concrete infill (shear keys).

This Current Information Sheet details the actions to be taken with respect to a Bridgeguard 3
assessment of a Con-Arch structure.

2. Implications Arising from the Construction Sequence

An elastic analysis using bases which are fixed in position but free to rotate will produce a safe
capacity. In such an analysis, the effects of the construction sequence on the ultimate capacity can
be ignored.

The effects of axial loading on flexural strength should be considered in the assessment.

3. Effects of Temperature, Creep and Shrinkage

The effects of temperature, creep and shrinkage can be ignored in the determination of the ultimate
capacity of this form of structure.

4. Effects of Soil Pressure

The capacity of the Con-Arch should be tested against an appropriate range of soil pressures. In
general, equal soil pressures should be utilised on both sides of the portal. The range of soil
pressures should be stated in the Approval in Principle (Form AA).

5. Possible Implications of a Serviceability Failure

No serviceability calculations need to be undertaken.

The possibility of progressive collapse due to yielding of reinforcement and cracking of concrete can
be ignored.

Where cracking is present, at mid span it can be considered purely as a Serviceability issue, i.e. it
should be reported on as part of an inspection, and does not need to be considered in the quantitative
assessment.

6. Shear Capacity of the Top Member of a Con-Arch

The shear link spacing in the top member of a Con-Arch is often too great for them to be taken into
account according to BD 44 so theso the shear capacity is likely to be restricted. It should be noted
that the shear capacity at the root of the haunch is unlikely to be the critical section for shear in this

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 1 Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

member.

As a result of the above, an alternative form of analysis can be utilised which is based on BS 8110
which allows an enhancement in shear capacity by considering the coexistent axial load. The shear
capacity can be determined from the following formula: -

Vu = bwd [xsv c + 0.6(N/Ac) (Vh/M)]

Where:

V = shear force
M = coexistent moment, not to be taken as less than Vh
N = coexistent axial force
Ac = area of concrete
= bh for a rectangular section

All other variables are as in BD 44 clause 5.3.3 except that the enhancement contained in 5.3.3.3 may
not be used in combination with the above.

The assessor should investigate which combinations of axial load and bending moment give the
critical case for shear. A conservative approach which could be used initially would be to consider the
maximum moment in combination with the maximum shear force and the minimum axial force from the
corresponding load cases.

7. Potential Implications of Buckling given the Slender Nature of a Con-Arch

Con-Arch structures are comparatively slender and if treated as slender columns to BD 44, this could
result in a possible failure mode.

For the legs of Con-Arches with standard rail headroom, it is considered implausible that buckling
could be a significant factor.

Where a conventional elastic analysis is used in the assessment with no redistribution, top member
buckling can also be ignored where the ratio of the effective length (0.7 x length of top member
between the legs) to the minimum thickness of the member is less than or equal to 19. Where it is
greater than 19, the procedure to be adopted should be agreed with the Technical Approval Authority.

For a Con-Arch with distinct legs and top members with an angle between their outside faces greater
than 45°, the length of the top member for this purpose may be taken as the distance between the
nodes corresponding to the intersection of the medians of the two members.

8. The Effects of Axle and Wheel Loading

Simple calculations have shown that for Con-Arches with shallow fill depth the single wheel, or more
correctly two adjacent single axle loads can be the critical load case, rather than HA UDL and KEL,
when it is assumed that there is no distribution between the precast units.

However, transverse distribution of load would make it unlikely that wheel loading would be critical.
Where necessary the assessor should give due consideration to making a realistic allowance for
transverse distribution of loading through the shear keys. The assessor should substantiate the
capacity of the shear key to sustain the required load distribution. This should avoid the need for a
computer aided 3-D distribution analysis in most cases.

Where necessary, the assessor should also give due consideration to making a realistic allowance for

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 2 Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

distribution of the effects of Accidental Wheel Loading and parapet self weight loading.

9. Approval In Principle (Form AA)

The Approval in Principle document (or the Form BA where the Form AA has already been approved)
should make reference to this Current Information Sheet.

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 3 Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

CURRENT INFORMATION SHEET NO 33

SUBJECT: CON-ARCHES
DATE: June 2003
STATUS: Final

Part 1: Originator Organisation: Gifford and Partners

I certify that reasonable professional skill and care has been used in the compilation of this document.

Signed: Title:

Name: P R Bartlett Date:

To be signed by the document author.

I certify that the staff who have prepared the above documents are competent to carry out their duties
and that (so far as I can reasonably ascertain) they have used reasonable professional skill and care.

Signed: Title: Technical Director

Name: T P Holmes Date:

To be signed by the Director (or equivalent) to whom author is responsible.

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 4 Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

CURRENT INFORMATION SHEET NO 33

SUBJECT: CON-ARCHES
DATE: June 2003
STATUS: Final

Part 2: Endorsement Organisation: Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd.

I certify that reasonable professional skill and care has been used in endorsing this document.

Signed: Title:

Name: Date:

To be signed by the Technical Director.

Part 3: Acceptance on behalf of Network Rail

I approve the implementation of this Current Information Sheet with respect to the Bridgeguard 3
programme only.

Signed: Title:

Name: I Bucknall Date:

On behalf of Professional Head of Structures – Network Rail

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 5 Gifford and Partners

Bridgeguard 3 Status; Final
Current Information Sheet No 33 June 03

APPENDIX A

AUDIT TRAIL

Report No B0395A/TM/67341 6 Gifford and Partners