7KP2M0

Design project large span structures

Quartile 1& 2 - 2022-2023

Full Name Student ID

J. Lin 1718452

Eindhoven, January 27, 2023

Contents
1 Concept Design 3
1.1 Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Different Variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Dimension of the Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.1 The geometry scheme of the Deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.2 The Cross-section of the Deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.3 The Cross-section of the Pylon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.4 The arrangement of the cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Model Structure in SCIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.1 General Information of the SCIA Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.2 Result of the Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2 Final Design 17
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Material Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3 Optimization of the deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 The strength of the cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5 Load Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.6 Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7 Approach spans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3 SCIA Model of the Final design of the bridge 22

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2 Load Combination(ULS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.1 Wind Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.2 Distributed Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.3 Service Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.4 Load Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Model Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4 Load Combination(SLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.5 Non-linear Result of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4 Reinforcement in the deck and pier 28

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Design of the longitudinal reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3 Design of the transverse reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.4 Design of the Stirrups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.5 Design of the Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5 Design of the connections 30

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Connection between the cable and pylon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.1 Bolt Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.2 Weld Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 Connection between cable and deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.4 Connection between pylon and Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6 Detail 36
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.2 General Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.3 Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

7 Construction of the bridge 39

1
 7.1 Construction Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.2 Prefabricate all the decks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

8 Conclusion 41
8.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

9 Annex A: Moon-Viewing Bridge 1

9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
9.2 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
9.2.1 Introduction of bridge structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
9.2.2 Mechanical scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9.2.3 Load Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9.3 Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

References 6
1 Concept Design
1.1 Requirement
The main span of 150m must be crossed directly. Intermediate spans are not allowed. The maximum
structural height of the bridge is 30m. For determining the deck height, use a distance of 7.5m with respect
to the governing water level of the Maas and the bottom face of the bridge deck. The bridge deck needs to
accommodate a cycling path and a pedestrian path.
1.2 Different Variant
Following are the three variant in the concept design. Variant 1: Suspension Bridge

Figure 1: Variant 1: Suspension Bridge

Variant 2: Cable-Stayed Bridge

3
 Figure 2: Variant 2: Cable-Stayed Bridge

Variant 3: Arch and Suspension Bridge

4
 Figure 3: Variant 3: Arch and Suspension Bridge

Following are the multi Criteria Analysis, focusing on the design difficulty, the cost of the structure, and the
sustainability.
First, the design difficulty consider the difficulty of the design, including the stability of the bridge, the
stiffness of the bridge and the complexity of the structure. The complexity of the structure is depend on
the difficulty of the calculation procedure and programming difficulty. The cost include 2 aspect, the first
is the time cost, including the time in design and construction. The second one is the material cost. And
the sustainability including the material choice, less concrete has higher grade. And also the trees to be cut
down show be considered.
As we can see in the table, the variant 2, the cable-stayed bridge has the highest scores. In this project, I
choose the variant 2 as my bridge design.

5
 Figure 4: Multi Criteria Analysis

1.3 Dimension of the Structure

1.3.1 The geometry scheme of the Deck

Figure 5: Geometry scheme of the bridge

This is the first idea of the design. The vertical load transfer from deck to the cable and then to the pylon.
And pylon transfer the load to the foundation.
1.3.2 The Cross-section of the Deck
According to the Brief Dutch Design Manual For Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridges, the width for the pedes-
trians should larger than 1.8m, width for the bicycle should larger than 2.2m. The design width of the deck

6
is 6m.

Figure 6: Pedestrian Width [2] Figure 7: Cycle Width [2]

The Width of the Deck: 6m The Concrete Class is C35. The Modulus of the Concrete: E = 3.41 × 104 M P a
The Estimate Area of the Cross-section A = 3.2m2
The Self-Weight of the Structure: qs = 2500kg/m3 × 3.2m2 × 9.81m/s2 = 77kN/m
Because this structure is a statically indeterminate structure, the force in the cable is transferred into the
equally distributed load on the bridge. Assumed that the vertical point load caused by the cable in every
cable is 1000kN , the distributed load caused by the cable can be calculated:
qc = 8 × 1000kN ÷ 140m = 57kN/m
The bending moment caused by the catilever: M = 21 ql2 = 15400kN m

Figure 8: Geometry Scheme of the main span

The whole geometry scheme can be simplified into a simple supported beam, as presented in the figure. The
M in the figure represent the effect of the cantilever on the main beam. Therefore, the maximum deflection
can be calculated in the following formula.

5 (qs − qc ) × l4 1 M l2
d= × − ×
384 EI 24 EI
1
The maximum allowable deflection of the beam dmax = 250 lspan = 0.56m

− I > 0.52m4
d > dmax →

The section is given in the following figure.

7
 Figure 9: The cross-section of the deck

1.3.3 The Cross-section of the Pylon

The local tension might occur in the pylon, therefore, the pylon is design in steel. Considering the relatively
large density of the pylon, the cross-section should in hollow section. According to the simple model in
SCIA, the compression force in pylon: N = 23425.7kN
The Geometry Scheme of the pylon is in the following figure.

8
 Figure 10: Geometry Scheme of the Pylon

The Buckling length of the pylon: lbuc = 0.5L = 10m

π 2 EI
Fcr = 2 >N
lbuc

The Modulus of the Steel: E = 2.1 × 108 kN/m2

The modulus of the cross section: I > 1.13 × 10−3 m4 The section is given in the following figure.

9
 Figure 11: The cross-section of the deck

1.3.4 The arrangement of the cable

In this section, I analysed 2 kind of cable arrangement to decide which kind of cable arrangement should be
used in the bridge design.

10
 Figure 12: Type 1

Figure 13: Type 2

Figure 14: Type 1: Tension Force in the cable

Figure 15: Type 2: Tension Force in the cable

The maximum tension force in the type 1 is 8326kN, the maximum tension force in the type 2 is 10135kN,
which is larger than type 1. Therefore, the first type of the cable arrangement is chosen in this design.
1.4 Model Structure in SCIA
1.4.1 General Information of the SCIA Model
Load Combination
In this model, only distributed load is considered.
120
qf k = 2.0 + = 2.57kN/m2
L + 30

11
 Structure Element Cross Section
Deck 68 Twin Box Girder
Cable 24 RD 100
Pylon 7m CHS 800 100
Piers 3m REC 2000 2000

Figure 16: SCIA Model

1.4.2 Result of the Structure

1. Deflection

Figure 17: Vertical Deflection of the Deck

12
 Figure 18: Horizontal Deflection of the Pylon

2. Internal Forces

13
Figure 19: Bending Moment of the Deck

14
Figure 20: Tension Force in the Cable

15
Figure 21: Bending Moment in the Pylon

16
2 Final Design
2.1 Introduction
In the concept design, the bridge is a cable-stayed bridge. However, because the pylon is not in the middle of
the bridge, the bending moment of the bridge near the pylon is extremely big compared with the the bending
moment in the middle. The reason of this big bending moment can be concluded into several reason:
1. The deck of the bridge is to stiff so that the deflection of the deck is too small. Therefore, the bending
moment is too big.
2. The angle of the cables in the side is bigger than the cables in the middle which cause a larger vertical
tensile forces in the side deck compared to the middle part.

Therefore, after considering these problems, a new design of the bridge is in the following figure.
First, the stiffness of the deck is reduced so that the bending moment in the bridge is smaller than the
previous concept design. Second, the self-anchored cable in the side is change into the cables that anchored
to the ground.
The final design of the bridge can be seen in the following figure.

Figure 22: Final Design of the bridge

17
 Figure 23: Final Design of the bridge

All the detail of the bridge including the span of the deck, the width of the deck and the connection detail
will be in the chapter detail.
2.2 Material Choice
The material for the deck, and foundation is concrete. There are several reasons to use the concrete deck.
First is the convenience. The concrete deck is the most common deck in the bridge design. The second
reason is that the cost of the concrete is much cheaper than steel.
The material for the pylon is steel. The reason to use the steel pylon is that, although pylon suffer compression
in general, local tension might occurs. Therefore, using a isotropic material will be better in design.
2.3 Optimization of the deck
The reason to choose the box girder, can be concluded into two reason. The first reason is that after analysis
a lot of bridge deck with cable, the box girder is the most widely used section. The second reason is that
in this girder, I don’t have to consider the stability problem of deck. Because the stability of this deck is
extremely high.
The bridge is self is complex, so that it is not possible to calculated the bending moment by hand calculation.
Therefore, the design of the deck is done by an iterative optimization. The procedure of this iteration is
that first choose a possible section of the deck and check the deflection and the bending moment in SCIA. If
the deflection reach the requirement(1/250L), then calculate all the reinforcement that needed in the deck.
And then check the reinforcement ratio of the deck, if the reinforcement ration not meet the requirement in
EUROCODE 3, then change a new cross section until the deflection and the reinforcement ratio reach the
requirement.
2.4 The strength of the cable
Second, the strength of the cable. I was not able to find an exact strength of the cable. However, the cable
strength is all larger than 1000MPa. The stress in cable is far less than the strength. In another words,
the unity check of cable is quite low. The reason that I didn’t optimize the stress in the cable is that, if I
reduced the number of the cable to increase the stress in the cable, the bending moment of the deck and

18
the deformation of the deck will increased as well. Then the height of the deck will also increased. It is
not possible to optimize the deck and the cable at the same time. And I think optimized decks are more
cost-effective than optimized cables.
2.5 Load Transfer
The vertical load is transfer from the deck to the cable. And the cable will transfer the load to the pylon,
then the pylon will transfer the load to the foundation.

The horizontal load is transfer from the the deck directly to the pier and then to the foundation. As illus-
trated in the following figure, There are 8 supports and only 2 supports cannot move in y direction. So that
the horizontal load (typically wind load) can be transfer from the deck to the pier.

Figure 24: Direction of freedom

The horizontal load transfer in the pylon will be directly transfer to the pier. This part of transfer will be
discussed in the chapter of the connection.

2.6 Foundation
According to the data about the location, the load bearing capacity of the soil might not enough for the
foundation. Therefore, CFG pile composite foundation will be used to enhance the load bearing capacity of
the soil. The Cement fly-ash gravel (CFG) pile is a widely used ground reinforcement technique. This soil
reinforcement is especially useful in the soil which has high moisture content. The details of the foundation
will be shown in the details.

Figure 25: Soil Data

19
 Figure 26: Concept of the CFG pile foundation

2.7 Approach spans

The exact location of the bridge is shown in the following figure, and the approach spans can be design as
indicated in the figure. Due to the height of the deck, the approach spans should also be designed as the
viaduct.

20
Figure 27: The idea of approach span

21
3 SCIA Model of the Final design of the bridge
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the final design of the bridge will model in the program SCIA and result can be found in
this chapter for further calculation.
3.2 Load Combination(ULS)
In the model, I consider 3 different load cases which will appear in the bridge. Self weight is included in the
calculation of the bending moment and the other internal force. However, the self weight is neglected in the
calculation of the deformation of the deck because the deformation of the deck can be reduced by applying
a initial curve.
3.2.1 Wind Load
The wind load in y-direction(Longitudinal direction)
z0 = 7.50 + 0.73 = 8.23m vb = 20m/s kr = 0.24 cr = 0.24ln(8.23/0.003) = 1.91 Vm (8.23m) = cr c0 (z)Vb =
38.2m/s Iv (8.23m) = 1/(1ln(8.4/0.003)) = 0.12 qp (8.23m) = 1678.126 = 1.7kN/m2
The wind load in x-direction
Eurocode1 suggests to approximate the value of the wind load in y-direction by taking 25 % of the force in
x-direction for plated bridges (Eurocode1-1-4). In discussion, wind load in this direction can be neglected.
The wind load in z-direction
The EC1 recommends the same formula (8.2) in the x-direction to be applied but recommends using the
value of the lift coefficient as cf,z = ±0.9 otherwise the diagram 8.6 in EC1 may be used. (Eurocode1-1-4)
The wind load in z-direction take in this simulation is 4.5kN/m2 .
3.2.2 Distributed Load
The distributed Load can be calculated in the following formula.
120
qf k = 2.0 + = 2.57kN/m2
L + 30

3.2.3 Service Vehicle

The service vehicle is following the detail of Eurocode-1. The place of the service vehicle load is in the middle
of the deck which is the most unfavorable place.
3.2.4 Load Combination
In both linear and non-linear case, the factor of the self weight is 1.35. The factor of the main variable load
is 1.5 and the other variable load factor is 0.5. And the load factor can be seen in the following Table.

22
 Figure 28: Three different load combinations in design

3.3 Model Detail

The cross section of the deck is shown in the following detail. This cross section is the final cross section
and the size was already been optimized.
The diameter of the cables in the middle part is 100mm and the diameter of the cables in the side which
anchored to the ground is 200mm. The cross-section of the cable is solid circle.
The cross section of the pylon is shown in the following detail. The reason to choose this pylon has already
been discussed in the previous chapter.

Figure 29: Cross section of: a) Pier b) Pylon c) deck

The cross section of the pier is shown in the following figure.

3.4 Load Combination(SLS)
For the calculation of the deflection, SLS load combination is used where all load factor is in 1.
3.5 Non-linear Result of the model
The bending moment in the deck: As illustrated in the figure, the maximum positive bending moment in the
deck is 3708kN m, which is at the middle of the deck. The maximum negative bending moment is 7724kN m,

23
which is near the pylon.

Figure 30: Bending moment of the deck

The maximum tensile stress in the cable can be seen in the following figure. The maximum tensile force is
336.2MPa.

Figure 31: Tensile force in the cable

24
 Figure 32: Stress in the cable

The compression force in the pylon can be seen in the figure.

Figure 33: The compression force in the pylon

The reaction force can be seen in the figure. In case of the reaction force overlap in the figure, all the number

25
will present here. The reaction force in the foundation is 26055.13kN and the reaction force at the end of
the bridge is 618.64kN. The Tension reaction force in the anchored place is 7859.88kN.

Figure 34: Reaction force

The Deformation of the deck is present in the following figure.

26
 Figure 35: Deformation of the deck

The maximum deformation of the deck is 60mm, the maximum allowable deformation according to Brief
Dutch Design Manual for bicycle and pedestrian bridges [2] is 1/250L, which is 60mm.
However, this deformation is take into account of the self weight. In the building stage, the initial curvature
can be used to reduced the deformation of the deck.

27
4 Reinforcement in the deck and pier
4.1 Introduction
According to the bending moment and shear force in the deck, the reinforcement can be design. This chapter
will discuss the idea of the reinforcement design.
The general idea of the design of the reinforcement in the deck can be separated into 3 different stages. 1.
According to the maximum positive bending moment and maximum negative bending moment to design
the longitudinal reinforcement in the deck. 2. According to the maximum bending moment in transverse
direction to design the transverse reinforcement in the deck. 3. According to the maximum shear force in
the deck to design the stirrups
The concrete is C35 and the reinforcement is B500.
Maximum reinforcement ratio A = 2.4 × 106 mm2 As,max = 0.04Ac = 0.096 × 106 mm2
Minimum Concrete Cover
Cnom = cmin + δcdev = 35mm
cm in is equal to the diameter of the reinforcement and the cd ev usually takes as 10mm.
4.2 Design of the longitudinal reinforcement
Positive bending moment:Mp,Ed = 3708kN m
M √ Mp,Ed
K = bd2p,Ed
×fck = 0.059 z = d/2 × [1 + 1 − 3.53K = 708.67mm As,p = fyd ×z = 11353.6mm2
Negative Bending Moment:Mn,Ed = 7724kN m
M √ Mn,Ed
K = bd2n,Ed
×fck = 0.053 z = d/2 × [1 + 1 − 3.53K = 713.10mm As,n = fyd ×z = 20084mm2
Therefore take the 48 H25 in the top area and 24 H25 in the bottom area, the total amount of of the
reinforcement ratio: As,total = 35280mm2 < As,max
4.3 Design of the transverse reinforcement
The transverse reinforcement can be design by taking 10m as 1 unit and calculate the reinforcement needed
in one unit. The unit can be seen in the following figure.

Figure 36: Transverse Reinforcement design

Transverse Bending Moment per 10 meter: MT,Ed = 400kN m/10m

M ,Ed √ M 2
K = bd2T×fck
= 0.285 z = d/2 × [1 + 1 − 3.53K = 154mm As,T = fydn,Ed
×z = 5971mm /10m

4.4 Design of the Stirrups

The design shear force: VEd = 1145.3kN vEd = VEd /(bw × 0.9d) = 0.58M P a vRd,cotθ=2.5 = 0.138fck × (1 −
fck /250) = 4.15M P a > 0.58M P a Therefore, concrete is not able to withstand the shear force. The stirrups

28
are needed.
vEd ×bw
fywd = fyk /1.15 Asw /s = fywd ×cotθ = 1.6mm
√
ρw,min = (0.08 fck )/fyk = 0.001 < Asw /s
lsp,max = 0.75d = 548mm
H8 =⇒ Asw = 201mm2 s = 125.6mm
Therefore, the stirrups is designed as H8 and 125mm spacing.
The figure of the cross section is in the chapter of the detail and will not present here to avoid the repetition.
4.5 Design of the Pier
The reinforcement design of the pier and foundation is not the part of the assignment. Therefore, a concept
of the foundation is discussed in the chapter of final design. The reinforcement of the piers and foundations
will use the common reinforcement settings.

29
5 Design of the connections
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will discuss the connection between the cable, pylon and decks.
5.2 Connection between the cable and pylon
According to the EUROCODE 3, there are 3 different types of failure mode for this connection. The first
failure is the failure of the cable itself which has already discuss in the chapter about the SCIA model. The
second failure is the failure in the Heated affected zone. Therefore, the weld length will be calculated. The
third failure mode is failure at the connector. Therefore, the dimension of the bolt will be discuss and the
strength of the connection will be calculated.

5.2.1 Bolt Connection

Figure 37: Bolt Connection

The bolt class is 10.9. And according to the figure, there are 2 shear plane. VEd = 1584kN in the left side
VRd = 2 × αv × fub × A/γm2 where, αv = 0.5 for class 10.9 and fub = 1000M P a, γm2 = 1.25 For Bolt M100,
VRd = 2713kN > VEd
VEd = 6116kN in the right side
For Bolt M120, VRd = 6282kN > VEd

30
5.2.2 Weld Connection

Figure 38: Weld Connection

Fw,Rd = fvw,d
√
× a (EC 1993-1-8 4.3)
fu / 3
fvw,d = βw γm2

For S235, βw = 0.8

Fw,Ed = 1584kN/0.3m × 1/2 in left side

Fw,Ed = 6116.7kN/0.6m × 1/2 in right side

Therefore, the weld length in left side is 19mm, and the weld length in right side is 38mm.
5.3 Connection between cable and deck
A connector is design to connect the cable and deck, which can be seen in the following figure. The bottom
of the connector is design to connect the deck, and the top part is to connect the cable. The top part of the
connector has the same failure mode as the bolt connection in the connection of the pylon and the cable.
Therefore, the dimension of the bolt remain the same as M100. However, the bottom bolt will be calculated
in the following text.

31
 Figure 39: Connector

The maximum tensile force in the cable is discuss in the previous design, T = VEd = 1584kN , the bolt
number is 4. Therefore, the Design tensile force in the bolt TEd = 396kN . And for M30, bolt grade 10.9,
the tensile strength is 403.9kN.
5.4 Connection between pylon and Pier
The following figure illustrates the connection between the pylon and pier.

32
 Figure 40: The section of the connection between pylon and deck

Generally, the pylon only suffer compression. However, the horizontal wind load should be consider. There-
fore, the design of the bolt connection between the pier and pylon should be considered under the load
combination where the wind load domain. Following is the figure of bending moment in transverse direction.

33
 Figure 41: Bending Moment under wind load(Load Combination 3)

As illustrated in the figure, the maximum bending moment in the pylon is 151.7kNm, which means the
maximum tensile force in the bolts of one side is 151.7kN. To prevent the failure of the bolt, I consider only
one bolt in one side work as the extreme situation. M100 is taken as the bolt size to connect the pylon and
pier.

34
Figure 42: Bolt Connection for Pylon

35
6 Detail
6.1 Introduction
This chapter include all the drawings of the bridge.
6.2 General Drawing

Figure 43: General Drawings of the bridge

6.3 Details

Figure 44: Cross section of the bridge deck

Figure 45: Connection of the pylon and cable

36
Figure 46: Connection between the pylon and Pier

Figure 47: Foundation

37
Figure 48: Cable Connector

38
7 Construction of the bridge
7.1 Construction Stages
The construction of the whole bridge will be separated into several stages. The first stage is to prefabricate
all the decks and pylons which are needed. The second stage is to build the foundation and pier in site. The
third stage is to transport all the pylon and deck to the site. The Forth stage is to set up the cable and
start to connect the pylons to the pier. The fifth stage is to connect the decks and connect the decks with
the cable.
The following figure will illustrate all the stages.

Figure 49: Construction stages

7.2 Prefabricate all the decks

The cross-section of the deck can be seen in the following figure. The reason to choose prefabrication is that
is not possible to build the box girder in site.

39
The prefabrication of the deck can be divided into 2 different procedures. The first procedure is to make the
model of the deck. An example of the prefab box girder model can be seen in the following figure.

Figure 50: Prefabricated model

The model is separated into three different parts, the side part, the section part and the core part. The size
of these three part can be design and made as a template. Then three parts can become a model for pouring.
The length of one part is 10 meter and the amount of the concrete needed is calculated in the following
formula.
V = Asection × L = 2.3 × 10m = 23m3
Therefore, 23m3 concrete in one unit is needed. 18 prefab deck is needed.

40
8 Conclusion
8.1 Conclusion
This report first show the initial concept design, then according to the feedback of the tutor and colleague,
the concept design was modified and the final design came out. Then the report illustrate all the SCIA
model detail and the the calculation of the connection. In details chapter, all the drawings are present and
shown. Also the construction of the bridge is discuss in the final chapter.
In this study, I have some insights:The design of a bridge is divided into several stages. In first stage, a lot
of information should be read and on site investigation is necessary. Then in the design stage, all aspect
should be considered for example the material choice, cross section choice, mechanics scheme etc. Different
part has different influence, and the final design is always no the final. In the model stage, many problems
might comes due to the limitation of the software and my narrow scope knowledge. Learning to solve the
problem and try to get in touch with the program company become important.

41
9 Annex A: Moon-Viewing Bridge
9.1 Introduction
The bridge, ”Moon-Viewing Bridge”, analysed in this annex is located at the widening of the river channel
in the centre of the Zhuxi River Park in Taiwan. The bridge consists of a steel chord structure and cross-
laminated timber (CLT) timber beams on the upper level and a steel chord structure and stainless steel
secondary support structure on the lower level. The total span of the bridge is about 80 meters. Due to the
requirements for the waterway under the bridge, no pillars are allowed under the bridge.

Figure 51: Moon-Viewing Bridge [1]

9.2 Structure
9.2.1 Introduction of bridge structure
The structure of this bridge is a combination of truss bridge and arch bridge. The truss structure uses the
most common truss structure in bridge design, warren truss. As mentioned above, the bridge is a curved
bridge at the same time, the bridge body is curved in the southwest direction.

Figure 52: Bridge: Top view [1] Figure 53: Bridge: Side View [1]

1
9.2.2 Mechanical scheme
The bridge is hinged in top and bottom both side. The Mechanical scheme is presented in the figure below.
The connection in the truss are hinge connection as well.

Figure 54: Hinge Connection [1] Figure 55: Hinge Supports [1]

Figure 56: Mechanical Scheme

9.2.3 Load Transfer

Truss Structure
The Bridge is in warren truss, consists of longitudinal members joined only by angled cross-members. These
members are only in compression and tension. Since this structure is a statically determinate structure, all
the forces in these members can be obtained by simple calculation.
The figure below shows, the inertial forces in the diagonal chords, top and bottom beams, when distributed
load is on the bridge. The truss structure behaves like a stiff beam.

2
 Figure 57: Truss Structure

Arch Structure
The bridge is an arch structure as well, though is not an ideal arch line. The ideal arch axis under distributed
load is quadratic parabola. Therefore, the load in the bridge is not ideally pure compression, bending
moments still exist in the bridge. However, compared with the truss structure indicated above, the tension
force in the bottom beam decrease due to the arch shape.

Figure 58: Truss Structure

Combination of arch and truss structure

In order to analysis every design detail in these bridge, the assumption is made that only bottom support
works and the calculation is in simple mechanics. The figure below shows the load and reaction force in the
support when only two supports work at the bottom. The top beams are not fully used due to the lack of
supports on top. Therefore, a huge vertical and horizontal reaction forces occur in the bottom supports.

3
 Figure 59: only support at bottom

The actual supports of this bridge is show in below figure, hinged in both end. Load transfer via top and
bottom beams to this four supports. The load will also be transferred to the top support. [1]

Figure 60: support at top and bottom

9.3 Connection
The The cross section of the bridge is also a triangle, shown as below.

Figure 61: Cross Section [1] Figure 62: Connection [1]

4
When the horizontal load is applied, the load was transferred via top chord, as indicated in pink dash
rectangle, to the other beam.

Figure 63: Load Transfer in cross section

5
References
[1] HWCA Huai-Wen Chang Architect, May 2022.
[2] Van den Berg Christa and Joost Vreugdenhil. Brief Dutch Design Manual for bicycle and pedestrian
bridges: English summary of the Crow Design Guide. ipv Delft, 2015.