BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Department of Structural Engineering

R i f
Reinforced
d concrete
t bbridges
id (BMEEOHSA
(BMEEOHSA-B2)
B2)

Timber bridges practical lecture

Dr Kálmán Koris
Dr.
BME Department of Structural Engineering

Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways

Static models for vertical loads (EN 1991-2)
Three models,, mutuallyy exclusive,, can be taken into account for footbridges,
g , for
both persistent and transient design situations, as relevant:
• a uniformly distributed load, qfk
• a concentrated
t t d load,
l d Qfwk
• loads representing service vehicles, Qserv
The uniformly distributed qfk load and the Qfwk concentrated load should be also
used for the footways of road and railway bridges as well. The load models
defined by EN 1991-2 do not describe actual loads. They have been selected so
th t their
that th i effects
ff t (including
(i l di d
dynamici amplification
lifi ti where
h mentioned)
ti d) representt the
th
effects of actual traffic.
Loads due to bicycle y traffic are ggenerallyy much lower than those due to
pedestrian traffic, and the values of vertical loads given in EN 1991-2 are based on
the frequent or occasional presence of pedestrians on bicycle lanes. Special
consideration may need to be given to other types of loads (e.g.
(e g horses,
horses cattle,
cattle etc.)
etc )
for individual projects.
For large footbridges (for example more than 6 m width) load models defined by
EN 1991-2 may not be appropriate and then complementary load models, with
associated combination rules, may have to be defined for the individual project.
2
 Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways
Uniformly distributed load

Crowd loading (Load Model 4, LM4) 3

Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways

Uniformly distributed load
• For the design
g of footbridges,
g , a uniformly
y distributed load qfk ((crowd loading,
g,
Load Model 4, LM4) should be defined, to represent the static effects of a
continuous dense crowd.
• The recommended value of uniformly distributed load: qfk = 5 kN/m2
• The above load includes dynamic amplification and must be applied only in the
unfavorable
f bl parts t off the
th influence
i fl surface,
f l
longitudinally
it di ll and
d transversally.
t ll
Different qfk values may be defined for individual projects.
• If the application of Load Model 4 is not required for the design of a given
footbridge, the recommended value for qfk is:

where L is the loaded length in [m]

[m].

• The above qfk uniformly distributed load can also be

applied for road or railway bridges supporting footways or
cycle tracks.
4
 Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways
Concentrated load
• The recommended characteristic value of the concentrated load: Qfwk = 10 kN
• The Qfwk load is acting on a square surface of sides 0,10×0,10 m.
• If general and local effects can be distinguished in a verification,
verification the
concentrated load should be taken into account only for local effects.
• If there is a service vehicle specified for the footbridge, the Qfwk concentrated
load should not be considered.
Service vehicle
• When service vehicles are to be carried on a footbridge or footway, one service
vehicle Qserv shall be taken into account.
• Service vehicle may be a vehicle for maintenance, emergencies ambulance, or
other services. The characteristics of this vehicle, the dynamic amplification and
all other appropriate loading rules may be defined for the individual project (or in
the National Annex).
• Service vehicle needs not be considered if p permanent p
provisions are made to
prevent access of all vehicles to the footbridge.
5

Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways

Service vehicle (continued)
• If no information is available and if no p
permanent obstacle p
prevents a vehicle
being driven onto the bridge deck, the following vehicle can be defined as the
service vehicle:

Two axle load g groupp of 80 and 40 kN,

separated by a wheel base of 3 m, with a
track (wheel-center to wheel-center) of
1,3 m and square contact areas of side
0,20×0,20 m at coating level.
The braking force associated with the
load model should be 60% of the vertical
load.

b id axis
bridge i di
direction
ti

• No other variable action should be taken into account simultaneously

y with the
above load model.
6
 Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways
Static model for horizontal forces
• For footbridges
g only,
y, a horizontal force Qflk should be taken into account,, acting
g
along the bridge deck axis at the pavement level.
• The characteristic value of the horizontal force should be taken equal to the greater of
the following two values:
• 10% of the total load corresponding to the uniformly distributed load (qfk)
g of the service vehicle ((Qserv), if relevant
• 60% of the total weight
• The horizontal force is considered as acting simultaneously with the corresponding
vertical load, and in no case with the concentrated load Qfwk.
Groups of traffic loads on footbridges
• When relevant, the vertical loads and horizontal forces due to traffic should be taken into
account by considering groups of loads as defined below.
below These load groups should be
considered as defining a characteristic action for combination with non-traffic loads.

Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways

Actions for accidental design situations for footbridges
• Collision forces from road vehicles under the bridge
g
Footbridges (piers and decks) are generally much more sensitive to collision forces than road bridges.
Designing them for the same collision load may be unrealistic. The most effective way to take collision
into account generally consists of protecting the footbridges:
 by road restraint systems at appropriate distances before piers,
 by a higher clearance than for neighboring road or railway bridges over the same road in the
absence of intermediate access to the road.
• Collision forces on piers
Forces due to the collision of abnormal height or aberrant road vehicles with piers or with the
supporting members of a footbridge or ramps or stairs should be taken into account. In case of stiff
piers
i th following
the f ll i minimum
i i values
l are recommended d d for
f the
th magnitude
it d andd location
l ti off vehicular
hi l
collision forces:
 Impact force: 1000 kN in the direction of vehicle travel or 500 kN perpendicular to that direction
 Height of impact force above the level of adjacent ground surface: 1,25
1 25 m.
m
• Collision forces on decks
An adequate vertical clearance between the ground surface and the soffit of the deck above should be
ensuredd in
i the
th design,
d i when
h relevant.
l t The
Th National
N ti l Annex
A or the
th individual
i di id l project
j t may define
d fi collision
lli i
forces depending on the vertical clearance.
• Accidental presence of vehicles on the bridge
If no permanentt obstacle
b t l prevents t a vehicle
hi l from
f b i
being di
driven onto
t the
th bridge
b id d k the
deck, th accidental
id t l
presence of a vehicle on the bridge deck shall be taken into account. For such a situation, the load
model introduced for service vehicle can be applied. 8
 Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways
Accidental presence of vehicles on the bridge

An overweight tractor-trailer, hauling several tons of dry beans, caused the collapse of a 100-year-old historic bridge in North Dakota 9

Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways

Combination rules for footbridges
• The concentrated load Qfwk need not be combined with any other
variable actions that are not due to traffic.
• Wind actions and thermal actions need not be taken into account
simultaneously unless otherwise specified for local climatic conditions.
• Snow loads need not be combined with groups of loads gr1 and gr2 for
footbridges unless otherwise specified for particular geographical areas
and certain types of footbridges.
• For footbridges on which pedestrian and cycle traffic is fully protected
from all types of bad weather, specific combinations of actions should be
defined.

10
Covered timber bridge in the town of Gúta (Csallóköz, Slovakia)
 Actions on footbridges, bicycle tracks and footways
Combination rules for footbridges

Recommended values of combination factors for footbridges

Action Symbol
y

Traffic loads

Wind forces
Thermal actions
Snow load
Construction loads
The recommended 0 value for thermal actions may in most cases be reduced to 0 for ultimate limit
states EQU, STR and GEO. See also the design Eurocodes.

11

Laminated deck plate bridges

Transverse nail laminated deck Longitudinal stress laminated deck

A) B)

Load distribution in case of untensioned (A) and 12

cross-tensioned laminations (B)
 Laminated deck plate bridges
Possible problems with un-tensioned or improperly tensioned deck plates

A) Gaps forming due to transverse bending

B) Vertical slip between beams due to transverse vertical shear
C) Horizontal slip between beams due to transverse horizontal shear
D) Combination of vertical and horizontal slip due to deck twisting 13

Typical configurations

b)

a))

c) d)

a) Nail-laminated or screw-laminated 1 - Nail or screw

b) Pre-stressed, but not glued 2 - Pre-stressing bar or tendon
c)) Glued
Gl d andd pre-stressed
t d glued
l d llaminated
i t d bbeams positioned
iti d flflatwise
t i 3 - Glue-line
Glue line between glued laminated members
d) Glued and pre-stressed glued laminated beams positioned edgewise 4 - Glue-line between laminations in glued laminated
members 14
Design details of stress-laminated decks

Typical bridge configuration

Deck

Direction of traffic

Anchorage of pre-stressing bar

15

Design details of stress-laminated decks

Additional anchoring options

16
 Design details of stress-laminated decks

Method of tensioning Coupling of tensioning bars

17

Design details of stress-laminated decks

Application
pp of p
protective tubing
g
18
 Design details of stress-laminated decks

Key:
Not more than one butt joint should 1 Lamination
occur i
in any f
four adjacent
dj t 2 Butt joint
laminations within a distance ℓ1 3 Axis of pre-stressing element
according to :

2 d

l1  min 30t
1,2m

where:
d - is the distance between the pre-
stressing elements
t - is the thickness of the laminations
in the direction of pre-stressing

Location of butt
b tt joints:
joints it can be done at the
same location at every 8th lamination
19

Dumfries and Galloway (UK) Glen Prosen (UK)

Anchorage of tensioning bar, Decatur (USA) Far Moor bridleway arch bridge, Pennine Way, Yorkshire 20
 Distribution of concentrated deck loads

In case of concentrated loads the deck can be replaced by an equalent beam

having bef effective width.

21

Distribution of concentrated deck loads

“Exact” calculation:

Effective width:

22
 Distribution of concentrated deck loads

Simplified analysis:

bef = bw,middle + a

where:
bw,middle is the width of the loaded area at the
reference plane in the middle of the
deck plate (see figure on the right)
a width required for determination of
effective width of beam,
beam according to
the table below: The angle of dispersion () in case of
different materials

Cross-laminated deck bridge numerical example

Timber material: C30 sawn timber

24
 Maximum moment in the deck
calculated by plate analysis

mx [kNm/m]

z
x

y
25

The system strength factor (ksys)

The number of loaded laminations for the calculation of system strength factor, in
case of laminated deck bridges:

bef
n where: bef is the effective width
blam blam is the width of the laminations 26
Distribution of maximum longitudinal
shear force at the support, calculated
by plate analysis

v xz [kN/m]

z
x

27

Maximum transversal shear force in the

deck calculated by plate analysis

v yz [kN/m]

z
x

28
 Verification of inter-laminar slip
p

The following equation must be satisfied:

Fv ,Ed   d  p ,min h
where:
Fv,Ed is the design shear force per unit length,
length caused by
vertical and horizontal actions,
d is the design value of friction coefficient,
h
p,min
p min g
is the minimum long-term p
residual compressive stress due
to pre-stressing,
h is the thickness of the plate.

Design values of coefficient of friction d (unless other values have been verified)

29

Tensioning force
 The tensioning force must be centric to the timber cross-section
cross section
 The initial pre-stress is at least 1,0 N/mm 2

 The minimum long-term residual compressive stress should be not

less than 0,35
0 35 N/mm2 (at least this value can be supposed if the initial pre-stress
pre stress is
at least 1,0 N/mm2, the moisture content of the laminations at the time of pre-stressing is
not more than 16% and the variation of in-service moisture content in the deck plate is
limited byy adequate
q protection,, e.g.
p g a sealing y )
g layer

Change of tensioning force in time

 Multiple tensioning
 Slow deformations of timber
 Different elastic modulus
 Variation of moisture content
 Change of tensioning force due to multiple tensioning

31

Verification of compression perpendicular to grain

The compressive stress perpendicular to the grain (c,90,d) during pre-
stressing in the contact area of the anchorage plate shall be verified:

The factor kc,90 according to EN 1995-1-1 may be taken as 1,25 if the tensioning
b
bars are applied
li d iin a sufficiently
ffi i tl llarge di
distance
t ffrom each
h other.
th

Local crushing of the timber perpendicular to the fibre direction of the 32

edge beam (Pousette and Fjellström 2004)
 Compression
p p
perpendicular
p to the ggrain
The effective contact (bearing) area perpendicular to the grain: Aef = b·ℓef
The effective contact length parallel to the grain: the actual contact length, ℓ at each
side is increased by 30 mm, but not more than a, ℓ or ℓ1/2.
ℓ ℓ1 ℓ1 ℓ
a

ℓef ℓef h h

b ℓ b
a
The values of kc,90 coefficient:
Glued
Solid softwood laminated
Support conditions If the above conditions are not
timber
b softwood
timber fulfilled, or in case of other wood
Members on ℓ1 < 2·h 1.0 1.0 products, the value of kc,90 should be
continuous
ℓ1 ≥ 2·h 1.25 1.5
taken as 1.0
10
supports (a)
Members on ℓ1 < 2·h 1.0 1.0
discrete
supports (b) ℓ1 ≥ 2·h 1.5 1.75* * if ℓ ≤ 400 mm

33

Pedestrian comfort criteria for serviceability

y ((EN 1990))

The comfort criteria should be defined in terms of maximum acceptable

acceleration of any part of the deck.
deck

Recommended maximum acceleration values for any part of the deck in case of
average comfort criteria:
 0,7 m/s2 for vertical vibrations
 0,2 m/s2 for horizontal vibrations due to normal use
 0,4 m/s2 for exceptional crowd conditions

A verification of the comfort criteria should be performed only if the fundamental

frequency of the deck is less than:
 5 Hz for vertical vibrations
 2,5
2 5 Hz
H for
f horizontal
h i t l (lateral)
(l t l) and
d torsional
t i l vibrations
ib ti

Remark: The data used in the calculations, and therefore the results, are subjected
to very high uncertainties. When the comfort criteria are not satisfied with a
significant margin, it may be necessary to make provision in the design for the
possible installation of dampers
p p in the structure after its completion.
p
34
 Typical step frequencies of pedestrians

Step frequency Speed Step length

fs [Hz] vs [m/s] ls [m]

Slow walking
Sl lki 1,7
1 7 1 0,6
0 6
Normal walking 2 1,5 0,75
Fast walking 23
2,3 23
2,3 1
Normal running 2,5 3,1 1,25
Fast running >3,2 5,5 1,75

The bridge can be considered dynamically sensitive in terms of pedestrian excitation if the
typical vertical natural frequencies are in the range of fv = 1,3 – 2,3 Hz, and horizontal
natural frequencies are in the range fh = 0,5 – 1,2 Hz. Lightweight timber structures with
large span usually fall into this range. Since the self weight of these structures is low, the
weight of pedestrians on the bridge cannot be neglected.

35

Maximum acceptable accelerations belonging to

the individual comfort levels

Vertical Horizontal
Comfort category Comfort level acceleration acceleration
2 2
[m/s ] [m/s ]
CL1 Maximum < 0,5 < 0,1
CL2 Average 0,5 – 1,0 0,1 – 0,3
CL3 Minimum 1,0 – 2,5 0,3 – 0,8
CL4 Unacceptable > 2,5 > 0,8

The comfort classification of the bridge is usually the subject of a joint assessment with the
builder. The classification is influenced by the function of the bridge, the expected traffic, the
“demand” regarding the bridge and the customer's wishes as well. The determination of a desired
comfort level – since it may have aesthetic, structural and economical effects – the builder is usually
involved as well. The comfort feeling is also influenced by psychological aspects, such as the
number of people on the bridge,
bridge the value of frequency,
frequency the height above the ground,
ground the human
body position (walking, standing, sitting), length of stay on the bridge that is exposed to vibrations,
transparency of the railing and deck and also the expected level of sway due to the appearance of
tthe
ebbridge.
dge
36
 Natural vibrations of the structure
• Normal modes
– Bending (vertical – horizontal)
– Torsion
– Longitudinal
g
• Harmonics

Determination of natural frequencies

• Analytical solutions
• Approximate
A i t fformulas
l
• Numerical analysis

37

Approximate fundamental natural frequencies of a structure

in vertical and horizontal directions:

Vertical:

where r is the number of vibration mode shape p for which the natural
frequency is calculated, l is the span, E is the elastic modulus of the
material of the structure, I is the inertia of the cross-section,  is the density
of the material of the structure and A is the cross
cross-sectional
sectional area.
area

Horizontal:

where g is the gravitational acceleration, zmax is the static deformation of the

structure that can be calculated from the self weight acting as horizontal
l d
load.
38
 Verification of the bridge for resonant vibrations
• “Tuning” of the structure
– Vertical direction: first two natural frequency > 4
4,5
5 Hz
– Horizontal direction: first two natural frequency > 2,4 Hz
• Detailed analysis
• Decrease of the response
– Limitation of use
– Application of passive or active damping systems

39

Damping
p g

Damping is the dissipation of vibratory energy in structures over

time and distance. Damping is a way to limit vibrations and is
essential for protecting the system in which it operates.
cement

Without damping
Displac

Max With damping

p g

f1 f [Hz]

40
 Damping
p g ratio
The damping ratio is a measure
describing
g how rapidly
p y the oscillations
decay from one bounce to the next.
The damping ratio () is a system
parameter
parameter, that can vary from
undamped (=0), underdamped (<1)
through critically damped (=1) to
overdamped ( >1).
>1)
The damping ratio mainly depents on
the geometry and material of the
structure.

If no other value can be justified, the dumping ratio can be taken as

(EN 1995-2):

 = 0,010 for structures without mechanical joints,

=0 0,015
015 for structures with mechanical joints
joints.
41

Simplified dynamic analysis of a timber bridge numerical example

Leff
hd

Main girder: Deck: hg

bg bg
bd

42
 Vertical vibrations
(EN 1995-2 Annex B)

43

Vertical fundamental natural frequency in case of one person crossing the bridge

Approximate
pp analysis
y FEM analysis
y of the
for one main girder whole bridge structure
Determination of the vertical fundamental natural frequency for one main girder:

3
bg hg
3 4
Ix   2.927  10  m inertia for the horizontal axis
12
2
Ag  bg hg  0.112 m cross-sectional area of one main girder

2
Ad  0 5bd hd  0.2
0.5b 0 2m cross-sectional
cross sectional area of half deck

kg kg
m r  0.5 120  60 weight of the railing on one side
m m

- Vertical fundamental natural frequency:

g  Ix
2 E0.g.m
r π
r  1 fvert    4.53
4 53 Hz
H fvert,FEM = 8,58
8 58 Hz
2 Leff
2 ρm.g Ag  ρm  Ad  m r

44
 Vertical vibrations
((EN 1995-2 Annex B))

(factor of synchronization)

45

Relationship between the vertical fundamental natural

frequency fvert and the coefficient kvert

46
 Horizontal vibrations
((EN 1995-2 Annex B))

47

Relationshipp between the horizontal fundamental natural

frequency fhor and the coefficient khor

48
 References
[1] Pálossy Miklós, Szecsányi László: A szolnoki gyalogos-kerékpáros Tisza-híd dinamikai
viselkedése gyalogos gerjesztés hatására, Pont-Terv Zrt.
[2] Emil Andersson, Johan Bergendahl: Experimental and Numerical Investigations on Stress
Laminated Timber Bridges, Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg,
Sweden 2009.
[3] EN 1990 Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design
[4] EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges
[5] EN 1995-1-1 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures - Part 1-1: General - Common rules and
rules for buildings
[6] EN 1995-2 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures - Part 2: Bridges
[7] Kristoffer Ekholm: Performance of Stress-Laminated-Timber Bridge Decks, PhD Thesis, Chalmers
Universityy of Technology,
gy Göteborg, g Sweden 2013.
[8] Agnieszka Gilun, Julia Meronk: Stress-laminated timber T-beam and box-beam bridges, Master’s
Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden 2006.
[9] United States Forest Service: Timber Bridge Manual. Chapter 9: Design of Longitudinal Stress-
L i t d Deck
Laminated D k Superstructures,
S t t Mi
Minnesota
t Department
D t t off Transportation,
T t ti 1992
1992.
[10] Paula D. Hilbrich Lee, Michael A. Ritter, Steve Golston, Keith Hinds: Field Performance of Timber
Bridges, 14. Dean, Hibbsville, and Decatur Stress-Laminated Deck Bridges, United States
Department
p of Agriculture,
g , Forest Service,, Forest Products Laboratory, y, National Wood in
Transportation Information Center Research Paper FPL–RP–564, 1997.
[11] Habib J. Dagher, Frank M. Altimore, Vincent Caccese, Michael A. Ritter: Field Performance of
Timber Bridges, 18. Byron Stress-Laminated Truss Bridge, United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service,
Agriculture, Service Forest Products Laboratory,
Laboratory National Wood in Transportation
Information Center Research Paper FPL–RP–588, 2000.
[12] fib Bulletin No. 32: Guidelines for the design of footbridges, 2005. 49