Corus Construction & Industrial

Composite steel highway bridges

Contents

Contents
Acknowledgement of author This guide is an update of a publication originally
Advantages of steel bridges prepared by A.C.G. Hayward. Corus gratefully
acknowledges the work of Mr Hayward and the
1 Design standards contribution made by D.C. Iles, The Steel Construction
Institute, during this update.
2 Conceptual design
2.1 Spans and component lengths
2.2 Cross sections
2.3 Intermediate supports
2.4 Bracings
2.5 Steel grades
2.6 Further guidance

3 Initial sizes and overall unit weight

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Use of charts
3.2.1 Plate girder flange sizes
3.2.2 Plate girder web sizes
3.2.3 Overall unit weight
3.2.4 Universal beams
3.2.5 List of symbols

4 Worked examples – use of charts

4.1 Continuous plate girder bridge
4.2 Simply supported universal beam bridge

5 References

6 Figures
Figure 4 – Simply supported bridges
Figure 5 – Continuous bridges – span girders
Figure 6 – Continuous bridges – pier girders
Figure 7 – Girder spacing factors
Figure 8 – Overall unit weights – plate girder bridges
Figure 9 – Universal beams – elastic stress analysis
Figure 10 – Universal beams – plastic stress analysis

1. Left: Waterside Bridge

Newburgh, Scotland
2. Right: A1(M)
Yorkshire, England

2 Composite steel highway bridges

 Advantages of steel bridges

Composite steel highway bridges

The Author
Alan C. G. Hayward FREng CEng FICE FIStructE
Alan Hayward was a founding Partner of bridge
specialists Cass Hayward & Partners of Chepstow who
design and evolve construction methodology for all
types of bridges, particularly steel highway, railway,
footbridges, movable bridges and Roll-On/Roll-Off
linkspans in the UK and overseas. He remains active in
the firm as a Consultant.
Alan Hayward was continuously involved with the
development of bridge codes including BS 5400 and
Eurocodes and has been National Technical Contact for
the composite bridge code EC4-2. He contributes to the
education of engineers by lecturing at Universities on
behalf of industry, and has written numerous papers on
steel bridge construction. He was a long-standing
member of the Steel Bridge Group who disseminate best
practice through their published Guidance Notes.

Advantages of steel bridges

Feature Leading to Advantages

Low weight of Fewer piles and smaller sizes of pile caps/foundations. Cheaper foundations.
superstructure. Typical 30 – 50% reduction over concrete decks.
Composite bridges 6.0 – 8.0kN/m2 typical.

Light units for erection. Erection by smaller cranes. Delivery of long pieces. Cheaper site costs.
Launch erection with light equipment (skates or rollers).

Simple site joints. Bolted joints: easy to form larger pieces from small Flexible site planning.
transported components taken to remote sites.

Maximum Quality control in good factory conditions avoiding outdoor More reliable product.
pre-fabrication in site affected by weather and difficult access.
factory.

Predictable Commuted painting costs can be calculated. If easy repainting Total life cost known.
maintenance costs. is made possible by access and good design then no other
maintenance necessary.

Low construction Depth/span ratio 1/20 to 1/30 typically. Slender appearance.

depth. Lower depth achieved with half-through girders. Reduces costs of earthworks
in approaches.

Self supporting Falsework eliminated. Falsework costs eliminated.

during construction. Slab formwork and falsework also avoided using permanent formwork. Significant if more than 8m
above ground.

Continuous and Continuity easy with bolted or welded joints. Most expansion Better appearance.
integral spans. joints eliminated. Number of bearings reduced. Improved durability.
Compliance with BD57. Improved running surface.

Adaptable details. Pleasing appearance taking advantage of curves and colour. Aesthetic gain.

Re-usable product. Demountable structures and recyclable components which Sustainable product.
reduce manufacturing energy input.

Composite steel highway bridges 3

1. M4/M25 Poyle Interchange
1. Design standards
The current bridge code BS 5400 (Ref. 1) was conceived
in 1967. Its ten parts cover the more common structural
media. The 1980 conference in Cardiff introduced the
Code relating to steel and made use of research carried
out since 1970.
Part 3 (Design of Steel Bridges) is compatible with the
workmanship standards and tolerances defined in Part
6, drawn up jointly with industry.
The Code uses limit state principles. The ultimate
limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS) must
be satisfied.
In practice the ULS generally governs, exceptions being
the checking at SLS for slip of HSFG bolts and the
design of shear connectors.
BS 5400 encourages the use of steel for a number
of reasons:
(i) Plastic stress analysis option offers the use of
lighter members and extends the span range of
rolled sections.
4 Composite steel highway bridges
(ii) Design clauses are easier to use than
previous Codes.
(iii) Workmanship requirements, including tolerances,
are rationalised.
(iv) Longitudinal web stiffeners to girders are
rarely needed.
Use of the plastic modulus is permitted for stress
analysis of compact sections and where the slenderness
is controlled by sufficient restraints, the effects of
shrinkage and differential temperature can be neglected.
For ‘compact’ sections, the entire load can also be
assumed to act on the composite section even if the
steelwork is unpropped, provided that SLS checks
are made.
While most rolled universal beams, columns and
channels will be compact, plate girders will often be
non-compact and must be stressed elastically. (See also
Section 3.2.4.)
For structural analysis, elastic methods are utilised
using gross sections (i.e. not allowing for shear lag or
effective width).
Redistribution of moments arising from the formation of
plastic hinges is not permitted, but redistribution due to
cracking of concrete over intermediate supports may be
assumed using Part 5.
Combined bending and shear is dealt with using
interaction formulae. This is sometimes critical at
intermediate supports.
The Code contains no specific limits on slenderness of
members or proportion of plate panels. Longitudinal web
stiffeners are usually only necessary for very deep
girders or those with curved soffits.
For rolled sections the full shear yield stress can
generally be used without the need for intermediate
stiffeners. Bearing stiffeners are virtually mandatory at
supports, together with lateral bracing or a system of
bracing to maintain verticality.
Fatigue is checked to Part 10, although for highway
bridges this rarely demands a reduction in working
stresses provided good detailing practice is used.
For example:
(i) Do not locate welded attachments close to or on
flange edges (class 'G').
(ii) Re-entrant corners should be radiused.
(iii) Use HSFG bolts for permanent bolted connections.
(iv) Restrict doubler flange ends to areas of low stress
(class 'G').
(v) Avoid single sided partial penetration butt welded
joints which are subject to tensile stress.
(vi) Avoid welded cruciform joints, which are subject to
significant tensile stresses. An example is when
using integral crossheads (see Figs. 1B & 1F)
where fillet welds should be used in preference to
full penetration butt welds. If butt welds are
necessary, the use of steel with through-thickness
quality (Z-grades to BS EN 10164 – Ref 14) may be
considered in view of the strains which will be
caused during welding.
Composite steel highway bridges 5
1. This page: A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct
(Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.)
Northumberland, England
2. Right: Festival Park Flyover
Stoke, England
3. Far right: Simon De Montford Bridge
Evesham, England

2. Conceptual design
2.1 Spans and component lengths
Spans are usually fixed by site restrictions and
clearances. Where freedom exists, budget costing –
including foundations – is desirable to determine the
economic span. A range of 25m to 50m is likely.
Where deep piled foundations are needed, cost will
encourage the use of longer spans, thus keeping
foundations to a minimum.
Multiple spans
Multiple spans of approximately 24m suit universal
beams, this being the longest readily available length and
because continuous spans are convenient and economic.
Site splices may be bolted with HSFG bolts or welded
near points of contraflexure. The length of end spans
should ideally be about 0.8 of the penultimate span.
Continuous spans
The optimum for using plate or box girders for
continuous spans is about 45m, because 27m long
‘span girders’ can be spliced with ‘pier girders’ of a
single plate 18m long. For longer spans, more shop or
site splices are needed. Component lengths for shop
fabrication should be the maximum possible consistent
with delivery and site restrictions to reduce the amount
of on-site assembly. The maximum length for road
delivery without restrictions is normally 27.4m although
longer lengths can readily be transported by
arrangement. A minimum number of shop butt welds
should be used consistent with plate sizes available. The
decision whether to introduce thickness changes within
a fabricated length should take account of the cost of
butt welds compared with the potential for material
saving (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6).
Conceptual design
Curved bridges
Curved bridges in plan may be formed using straight
fabricated girders, with direction changes introduced at
each site splice. However, steel girders can be curved in
plan which simplifies the cantilever formwork and
permits the use of standard systems. An example is the
A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct (radius 540m)
Skew and plan tapered bridges may also be built in
steel. Ideally, plan layout should be as simple as
possible (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6).
Integral bridges
The Highways Agency requires consideration of integral
bridge forms for spans up to 60m with the objective of
improved durability by elimination of bridge deck
movement joints (Ref. 4 & 5). Girders may then be
required to develop a degree of continuity with
substructures at end supports such that axial forces and
reverse moment effects need to be considered in the
design of the composite deck. Design principles remain
the same but girder sizes and bracing provision may be
influenced. Further guidance is available from the Steel
Construction Institute (Ref. 8, 9, 10 & 10a).
2.2 Cross sections
Deck type construction
Deck type construction is common and is suitable for
highway bridges as shown in Fig. 1. A span-to-girder
depth ratio of 20 is economic although 30 or more can
be achieved. A half-through bridge (‘U’ frame) can be
appropriate in cases of severely limited depth, such as
where approach lengths are restricted. Footbridges and
rail under-bridges are common examples.
Composite steel highway bridges 7
Conceptual design
Where permanent formwork is envisaged, the slab
should be made sufficiently thick to accommodate the
details taking account of reinforcement cover and
practical tolerances (Ref. 7). When using composite part
depth planks such as Omnia then a minimum thickness
of 250mm may be needed.
Universal beams and plate girders
Universal beams may be appropriate for bridges up to
25m span and above when continuous, or when use can
be made of the plastic modulus. For spans above 22m,
plate girders, especially if continuous, can be economic
because lighter sections can be inserted in mid-span
regions. Costs per tonne of painted and erected
universal beams were traditionally lower but, more
recently, automated fabrication and less expensive plate
material has allowed economic supply of plate girders
for the shorter spans.
A girder spacing of 3.0m to 3.5m is usual with a deck
slab of about 250mm thick (see Figs. 1A and 1B). Edge
cantilevers should not exceed half the beam spacing
and to simplify falsework should, where possible be less
than 1.5m. Shorter cantilevers are usually necessary
with a locally thickened slab where very high
containment parapets are specified, e.g. over rail tracks.
An even number of girders achieves better optimisation
of material (ordering) and allows bracing in pairs. For
wide girder spacings, the slab may be haunched, but
use of standardised permanent formwork is unlikely to
be possible and construction depth is increased (see
Fig. 1C). Where spans exceed 40m, twin plate girders
with a central stringer have been used on some single
carriageway decks up to about 13m wide (see Fig. 1D).
Twin girders and cross beams (often referred to as
ladder decks) have proved economic for a wide range of
spans (Ref. 10b). They can be used for single
carriageway decks (see Fig. 1E) and for wider decks
supporting more lanes.
8 Composite steel highway bridges
Box girders
Where spans exceed 100m box girders are likely to be
more economic than plate girders with which flange sizes
would be excessive. Other reasons for using box girders
include aesthetics (where justifiable), aerodynamic
stability, severe plan curvature, the need for single column
supports or very limited depth. Other than in the cases
noted, box girders – being heavier than plate girders – are
more expensive because although less flange material
may be demanded due to inherent torsional properties,
this is usually more than offset by the amount of internal
stiffening and extra costs for workmanship. Fabrication
costs are higher because the assembly/welding
processes take longer and more shop space is needed.
However, erection work is often reduced because box
girders require little or no external bracing.
Multiple box girders have in the past proved to be
economic for spans of around 50m in particular
situations. Using narrow cross sections eliminates the
need for longitudinal stiffeners (see Fig. 1F). An example
of which is the M25/M4 Poyle Interchange.
For box girders, consideration of the safety of personnel in
confined spaces is essential during fabrication, erection and
for maintenance. Detailing must recognise the need to avoid
internal welding as far as possible and to allow sufficient
ventilation and openings for access and recovery in
emergency situations.
Open-topped trapezoidal and rectangular shaped box
girders have been used efficiently, but provisions are
needed to preserve stability during erection, for example the
Forrest Way Bridge, Warrington.
Plate girder flanges
Plate girder flanges should be as wide as possible but
consistent with outstand limitations in BS 5400 (i.e. 12t in
compression if fully stressed and up to the 20t robustness

limit), to give the best achievable stability during erection
and to reduce the number of bracings. For practical
reasons a desirable minimum width is about 400mm to
accommodate detailing for certain types of permanent
formwork, especially precast concrete. A maximum flange
thickness of 63mm is recommended to avoid heavy welds,
minimise pre-heating requirements and also limit the
reduction in design yield strength. Limiting the thickness
also has benefits in terms of notch toughness specification.
2.3 Intermediate supports
Piers can take the form of reinforced concrete, leaf,
column or portal. Steel columns are also used. For
example, tubular steel columns (concrete filled
composite), were used in the M5 Almondsbury
Interchange and deserve consideration. Leaf piers or
multiple columns supporting every girder are convenient
but where fewer columns are demanded for aesthetic
reasons, integral steel crossheads provide a solution. The
popularity of these crossheads has recently increased
following earlier examples on M25 bridges including
Brook Street Viaduct, Mar Dyke Viaduct and South
Mimms Interchange Bridges (see Figs. 1B and 1F). They
were extensively used for the Second Severn crossing
approach roads and for the new Thelwall Viaduct.
It should, however, be recognised that the introduction
of these additional members is only likely to be
economic where the use of fewer supports is essential.
Costs can increase especially if column spacing is not
arranged to allow balanced erection and temporary
trestles become necessary. Care is also needed detailing
cruciform welded joints at the crosshead/main girder
connection (Ref. Section 1 (vi)).
2.4 Bracings
For most universal beam or plate girder bridges, lateral
bracings are needed for erection stability and during
deck concreting.
1. Far Left: Nene Bridge
Peterborough, England
2. Left: Forrest Way Bridge
Warrington, England
3. Right: M20 Road Bridge
Folkstone, England
Conceptual design
Intermediate bracings require to be spaced at about
20 x top flange width and need to be adequate to
prevent lateral torsional buckling. Bracing is necessary
at supports if only to prevent overturning during
erection. At abutments this can be a channel trimmer
composite with the slab and supporting its free end. Over
piers a channel section can be used between each pair
of girders of up to about 1.2m deep. For deeper girders
triangulated angle bracings are usual (see Fig. 1B).
Intermediate lateral bracings are usually necessary in
hogging regions with a maximum spacing of about
12 x bottom flange width. If the bridge is curved they
should be close to the site splices where curvature
induces torsion. Bracings may be of a triangulated form
or of single channel sections between each pair of
girders of up to 1.2m deep (see Fig. 1A). Alternatively,
bracings can take the form of inverted 'U' frames, but
for spans exceeding around 35m it may be necessary to
interconnect all the girders by bracings during erection
so that transverse flexure from wind is adequately
shared. Although plan bracing systems are uneconomic
and should be avoided, they may be required for spans
exceeding 55m for temporary stability, especially if
launch erection is used (Ref. Documents in Section 2.6).
Use may be made of bracings in distributing live loads
between girders. This may offer reduced flange sizes
under HB loading but the uniformity of current loading to
BD37 across the carriageway (HB + 2 lanes HA + 0.6 HA
other lanes) tends to discourage this. An optimum design
is likely to include bracings only between pairs of girders,
such discontinuous bracings attracting minimal effects
under deck loading except in cases of heavy skew or
curvature where a different system may be appropriate.
Bracings should be included in the global analysis to
check for possible overload or fatigue effects.
Composite steel highway bridges 9
Conceptual design

DECK WIDTH W

230 TO
250 mm 1A
Multiple U.B.
(N=4)
D

2.5 TO 3.5

230 TO
250 mm 1B
Multiple P.G.
(N=4)
D

1.0 TO 1.75
TYPICAL

300 TO 350 mm
1C
Twin P.G.
Haunch Slab
(N=2)
D

1.0 TO 3.3 4.0 TO 5.5

AT MID-SPAN AT PIER
Figures 1A – 1F
Typical deck type cross-sections

1. Left: Humber Road Bridge

Immingham, England
2. Right: Thelwall Viaduct
M6, Warrington, England

10 Composite steel highway bridges

 Conceptual design

230 TO 320 mm

1D
Twin P.G.
& Stringer
(N=2)
D

1.0 TO 3.3 6.0 TO 7.0

230 TO
250 mm 1E
Twin P.G.
& Cross Girders
(N=2)
D 3.0 TO 3.5 c/c

>7.0

230 TO
250 mm 1F
Multiple Box
(N=6)

0.9 TO 1.2 2.5 TO 3.5

AT MID-SPAN AT PIER

Composite steel highway bridges 11

2.5 Steel grades
BS EN 10025-2: 2004 Grade S355 steels (Ref. 12) are
usual for bridges as they offer a lower cost-to-strength
ratio than Grade S275. BS 5400 requires all steel parts to
achieve a specified notch toughness, depending upon
design minimum temperature, stress level and
construction features (e.g. welding details). Subgrades J2
and K2 will be most common.
Composite bridge decks are specifically categorised in
the composite version of BS 5400: Part 2 (implemented
by BD37), to allow a range of effective bridge
12 Composite steel highway bridges
temperatures to be determined from isotherms of
minimum and maximum shade air temperature for a
particular site location. Limiting thicknesses for steel
parts are prescribed in BS 5400: Part 3, as implemented
by BD13 (Ref. 3), as appropriate to these effective bridge
temperatures, and the other factors mentioned above.
Weathering steel
To eliminate the need for painting, weathering steels to
BS EN 10025-5: 2004 (Ref. 13) should be considered.
Although it can be shown that the commuted costs of
repainting are less than 1% of the initial bridge cost,
weathering steel bridges can be more economical on a
1. Above: Findhorn Viaduct
Inverness, Scotland
2. Left: Westgate Bridge
Gloucester, England
3. Right: Slochd Beag Bridge
Inverness, Scotland
first cost basis and are particularly useful in eliminating
maintenance where access is difficult – over a railway,
for example.
Weathering steel is not suitable at or near the coast, (i.e.
within about 2km from the sea) due to the chloride laden
environment or in areas of severe pollution.
The Highways Agency requires sacrificial thickness to be
added to all exposed surfaces for possible long term
corrosion (1.5mm per face in a severe marine or industrial
environment, 1mm in mild environments and 0.5mm
inside box girders) and detailed guidance is given in
design standard BD 7 (Ref. 6) and Corus Publication
‘Weathering steel bridges’ (Ref. 11).
2.6 Further guidance
Particularly relevant information for initial (and detailed)
design is included within two publications:
• BCSA Publication No. 34/02 ‘Steel Bridges’
Alan Hayward, Neil Sadler and Derek Tordoff, 2002.
• SCI-P-185, Steel Bridge Group: Guidance notes on
Best Practice in Steel Bridge Construction.
Composite steel highway bridges 13
Initial sizes and overall unit weight
3. Initial sizes and overall
unit weight
3.1 Introduction
Charts are given to provide initial estimates of flange
area (A f) web thickness (t w) and overall unit weight of
steelwork (kg/m2) for typical composite bridge cross
sections as shown in Fig. 1.
Continuous or simply supported span plate girders and
simply supported universal beams are included. The
charts were derived from approximate BS 5400 designs
using simplifying assumptions for loads, transverse
distribution and to achieve correlation with modern
bridges. The charts take account of the latest highway
loading requirements in BD37.
It is emphasised that the sizes obtained do not represent
final designs, which must always be executed to take
account of all factors, such as bridge configuration and
loading. Adjustments will need to be made to take
account of the likely effects of end continuity if integral
construction is intended.
The charts are based on the following assumptions:
(i) Deck slab 250mm average thickness (6.25kN/m2).
(ii) Superimposed dead loads equivalent to 100mm of
surfacing (2.40 kN/m2).
(iii) Permanent formwork weight 0.50 kN/m of slab
2
soffit area.
(iv) Steel grade S355.
(v) Span to depth ratios L/D of 20 & 30.
(vi) Plate girder webs have vertical stiffeners at approx.
2.0m centres where such stiffening is required.
(vii) Elastic stress analysis is used for plate girders. If
however the plastic modulus is used for compact
cross sections, then economies may be possible.
14 Composite steel highway bridges
(viii) Steelwork is unpropped and therefore not acting
compositely under its own weight and that of the
concrete slab. The steel is however composite for
all superimposed loads after the concrete has cured.
(ix) Sufficient transverse bracings are included such
that bending stresses are not significantly reduced
due to buckling criteria.
(x) Top flanges in sagging regions are dictated by the
maximum stress during concreting allowing for
formwork and live load – to BS 5975 (Ref. 15).
Continuous bridge mid-span regions are concreted
in turn followed by portions over the piers.
(xi) Live loading HA (assuming 3.5m wide lanes), or
alternatively 45 units of HB loading with co-existent
HA loading (BD37).
(xii) Continuous spans are approximately equal.
3.2 Use of charts
3.2.1 Plate girder flange sizes
Flange areas (Af in m2) are read against the span L.
(a) For simply supported bridges – (refer Fig. 4)
(b) For continuous bridges –
Size of span girder (refer Fig. 5)
Size of pier girder (refer Fig. 6)
Figures 4, 5 and 6 are applicable to an average girder
spacing ‘s’ of 3.5m. Fig. 7 gives a girder spacing factor
K af which is multiplied by the flange areas, obtained
above, to give values appropriate to the actual average
girder spacing.
i.e. Top Flange A ft = A ft (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x K af (Fig. 7)
i.e. Bottom Flange A fb = A fb (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x K af ( Fig. 7)
Two different span-to-depth ratios, L/D = 20 and L/D =
30, are included for either HB or alternatively HA loading.
Values for intermediate L/D ratios can be read
by interpolation.
 Initial sizes and overall unit weight

The charts also show actual flange sizes using depth (L/D) ratio for each span based upon the average
400mm x 15mm to 1000mm x 75mm. girder depth (D) within that span.

Flange area of pier girders of continuous unequal spans For box girder bridges a rough estimate may be
can be estimated by taking the greater of the two obtained assuming that N = 2 x number of box girders in
adjacent spans. the cross section (see Fig. 1F where N = 2 x 3 = 6).

End spans of continuous bridges may be estimated For continuous bridges the end spans should be assumed
using L = 1.25 x actual span. as 1.25 x actual span, following which the mean span for
use in Fig. 8 may be determined as follows:
3.2.2 Plate girder web sizes 4

Web thicknesses are similarly obtained using Figs. 4, 5 Mean span L = L14 + L24...Ln4
and 6 applicable to 's' = 3.5m. Adjustment for the actual n
average girder spacing 's' is obtainable from Fig. 7 using
girder spacing factor k tw. where n = number of spans.

i.e. Web thickness t w = t w (Figs. 4, 5 or 6) x k tw (Fig. 7).

3.2.4 Universal beams
An indication of beam size for simply supported spans
The thickness obtained may be regarded as reasonably
may be obtained from Figs. 9 and 10 for elastic or
typical. However, designers may prefer to opt for thicker
plastic stress analysis respectively. BS 5400 permits the
webs to reduce the number of web stiffeners.
use of either option, provided that the cross section is
‘compact’; this condition being satisfied for all sections
3.2.3 Overall unit weight
shown in Fig. 10. Sufficient ductility is also required. It is
Overall unit weight (kg/m2 of gross deck area) for plate
apparent that plastic stress analysis can achieve
girders is read against the span L from Fig. 8 for simply
significant economy in extending the span range of
supported or continuous bridges with L/D ratios of 20 or
universal beams. In practice, a serviceability stress
30, under HB or alternatively HA loading and applicable
check (SLS) must be made including the effects of shear
to ‘s’ = 3.5m.
lag. There is advantage also in using the plastic design
option for continuous spans but some universal beams
Adjustment for average girder spacing 's' other than
may need to be classed as 'non-compact', requiring
3.5m is obtainable from Fig. 7 using girder spacing
elastic analysis in hogging regions because the web
factor k w.
depth between the (elastic) neutral axis and its
compressive edge may exceed 28t w, depending upon
i.e. Unit weight kg/m2 = kg/m2 (Fig. 8) x k w (Fig. 7).
the amount of longitudinal slab reinforcement.

The unit weight provides an approximate first

An overall unit weight for universal beam bridges may be
estimate of steelwork tonnage allowing for all stiffeners
estimated at the conceptual stage by adding an
and bracings.
allowance of approximately 8% to the weight of the
main beams to allow for any bracings and stiffeners etc.
For continuous bridges with variable depth, Fig. 8 may
Figs. 9 and 10 refer to mass per metre of universal beams.
be used to provide a rough guide, assuming a span-to-

1. Left: Milton Bridge

Lesmahagow, Scotland
2. Right: Fossdyke Bridge
(Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.)
Lincoln, England

Composite steel highway bridges 15

Initial sizes and overall unit weight

Reference Universal beam size Actual depth (mm) 3.2.5 List of symbols
figures 9 & 10
Serial Mass per Af Flange area (m2)
size (mm) metre (kg/m)
A fb Bottom flange area (m2)
388 914 x 419 388 921.0
A ft Top flange area (m 2)
343 343 911.8
D Girder or beam overall depth excluding slab
289 914 x 305 289 926.6 or finishes (m)
253 253 918.4 HA Standard highway loading defined in BD37
224 224 910.4 HB Abnormal highway loading defined in BD37,
201 201 903.0 45 units assumed
K af Girder spacing factor for flange area
226 838 x 292 226 850.9
K tw Girder spacing factor for web thickness
194 194 840.7
Kw Girder spacing factor for unit weight
176 176 834.9
L Span centre to centre of bearings
197 762 x 267 197 769.8 (taken as 1.25 x span for end span of
173 173 762.2 continuous bridges)
147 147 754.0 kg/m 2
Unit weight of steelwork in bridge expressed as:
170 686 x 254 170 692.9 total steelwork weight (kg)
W x overall bridge length
152 152 687.5
s Average girder spacing defined as W/N (m)
140 140 683.5
tw Web thickness (mm)
125 125 677.9
W Overall deck width including parapets (m)
238 610 x 305 238 635.8 n Number of spans
179 179 620.2 N Number of girders (refer to Section 3.2.3 for
149 149 612.4 box girders)
140 610 x 229 140 617.2
Notes
125 125 612.2
(i) Where relevant, symbols correspond with
113 113 607.6
BS 5400 Part 3.
101 101 602.6
(ii) Units where relevant are shown in parentheses.

Table 1 (with reference to sizes in Figs. 9 and 10)

Table 1 above defines the referencing system for the

serial sizes in Figs. 9 and 10, which is based on the
mass per metre of universal beams. Larger sizes are
available (e.g. 1016), but are unlikely to be economic
compared to fabricated plate girders.

16 Composite steel highway bridges

 Worked examples – use of charts

4. Worked examples – use of charts

4.1 Continuous plate girder bridge
A composite highway bridge has 3 continuous spans –
A, B and C of 24, 40 and 32m.
Overall deck width is 12m and it carries 45 units of HB
loading (as shown in figure 2).
Flange and web sizes
Girder spacing factors: for 'S' = 3.0m
From Fig. 7: K af = 0.87, Kaf = 0.85*, K tw = 0.95
(*top flange span girders only).

There are 4 plate girders in the cross section of

1.75m depth.

Estimate the main girder sizes and the total weight of

structural steel.

Average girder spacing 's' = W/N =12m/4 No. = 3.0m

W = 12m

D = 1.75m

Span girder Pier girder Span girder Pier girder Span girder

24m 40m 32m

Span A Span B Span C

Figure 2
Worked example

1. Left: Trent Viaduct

Newark, England
2. Right: A69 Haltwhistle Viaduct
(Photo courtesy of Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd.)
Northumberland, England

Composite steel highway bridges 17

Worked examples – use of charts
Span A: 24m
This is an end span so take L = 1.25 x 24m = 30m
Therefore L/D = 30m/1.75m = 17, so assume L/D = 20
Top flange A ft = A ft (from Fig. 5) x K af
= 0.006 x 0.85 = 0.0051m2
400 x 15 top flange
Bottom flange A fb = A fb(from Fig. 5) x K af
= 0.014 x 0.87 = 0.012m2
500 x 25 bottom flange
Web t w = t w (from Fig. 5) x K tw
= 10 x 0.95 = 9.5mm
Use 10mm web
Span B: 40m
Span girder
L/D = 40m/1.75m = 22.9
Top flange A ft = A ft (from Fig. 5) x K af
= 0.009 x 0.85 = 0.0077m
400 x 20 top flange
Bottom flange A fb = A fb (from Fig. 5) x K af
= 0.020 x 0.87 = 0.017m2
500 x 35 bottom flange
Web t w = t w (from Fig. 5) x K tw
= 10 x 0.95 = 9.5mm
Use 10mm web
Span C: 32m
This is an end span so take L = 1.25 x 32m = 40m
therefore sizes as 40m span.
18 Composite steel highway bridges
Pier girders
Take L as the greater of the two adjacent spans, i.e.
assume L = 40m at both supports, hence, L/D =
40m/1.75m = 22.9
Top flange A ft = A ft (from Fig. 6) x K af
= 0.017 x 0.87 = 0.015m2
400 x 40 top flange
Bottom flange A fb = A fb(from Fig. 6) x K af
= 0.033 x 0.87 = 0.029m2
500 x 60 bottom flange
Web t w = t w (from Fig. 6) x K tw
= 16.8 x 0.95 = 16mm
Therefore use 18mm web
Steel tonnage
Girder spacing = 3.0m
for end span A: L = 1.25 x 24m = 30m
for centre span B: L = 40m
2 for end span C: L = 1.25 x 32m = 40m
Therefore mean span
4
L14 + L24...Ln4
n
304 + 404 + 404 = 37.5m
3
L/D = 37.5m/1.75m = 21
= kg/m2 (from Fig. 8) x Kw (from Fig. 7)
= 145kg/m2 x 1.04 = 151kg/m2
Hence, steel weight
= 151 kg/m2/1000 x (24m + 40m + 32m) x 12m wide
= 174 tonnes
 Worked examples – use of charts

4.2 Simply supported universal

beam bridge
A composite bridge has a simply supported span of
24m. (as shown in figure 3). Overall deck width is 9.6m
and it carries HA loading only. Estimate the beam size
and total weight of structural steel assuming there are 4
beams in the cross section.

W = 9.6m

24m

Figure 3
Worked example

(a) For an elastic stress analysis refer to Fig. 9 (b) For a plastic stress analysis refer to Fig. 10

For 4 beams For 'S' = 2.4m. Use 289

'S' = 9.6m/4No. = 2.4m. Use 388 i.e. 914 x 305 x 289kg/m universal beam
i.e. 914 x 419 x 388kg/m Universal Beam
Total weight approx.
Total weight approx. (289kg/m /1000) x 4No. x 24m x 1.08
(388kg/m/1000) x 4No. x 24m x 1.08
= 30 tonnes (i.e. 130kg/m 2)
(the 1.08 factor allows for 8% bracing + stiffener
allowance) Thus, plastic stress analysis offers a significant
reduction in beam size but SLS checks must be made.
2
= 40.2 tonnes (i.e. 174kg/m )

1. Left: A9 Bridge
Pitlochry, Scotland
2. Right: A1(M)
Yorkshire, England

Composite steel highway bridges 19

References

5. References
1. BS5400, Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. British Standards Institution.

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB):

2. DMRB 1.3 BD37 Loads for Highway Bridges.
3. DMRB 1.3 BD13 Codes of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges.
4. DMRB 1.3 BD & BA 57 Design for Durability.
5. DMRB 1.3 BA 42 Design of Integral Bridges.
6. DMRB 2.3 BD7 Weathering Steel for Highway Structures.
7. DMRB 2.3 BA36 The Use of Permanent Formwork.

Steel Construction Institute Publications

8. P163: Integral Steel Bridges – Design Guidance.
9. P180: Integral Steel Bridges – Design of a Single Span Bridge.
10. P250: Integral Steel Bridges – Design of a Multi Span Bridge.
10a. P340: Technical Report on Integral Steel Bridges.
10b. P339: Design Guide for Ladder Deck Bridges.

11. Corus Publication – Weathering steel bridges.

Material Standards (EN)

12. BS EN 10025-2 – Non-alloy structural steels.
13. BS EN 10025-5 – Structural Steels with improved atmospheric corrosion resistance.
14. BS EN 10164 – Steel products with improved deformation properties perpendicular
to the surface of the product.

Other Standards (BS)

15. BS 5975 Code of Practice for Falsework.

BS 5400 Title DMRB MCDHW

Part Document* Document**

1 General Statement BD15 –

2 Specification for Loads BD37 –

3 Code of Practice for Design of Steel Bridges BD13 –

4 Code of Practice for Design of Concrete Bridges BD 24 –

5 Code of Practice for Design of Composite Bridges BD16 –

6 Specification for Materials & Workmanship, Steel – Volume 1 Series 1800

7 Specification for Materials & Workmanship, Concrete, Volume 1 Series 1700

Reinforcement & Prestressing Tendons –

8 Recommendations for Materials & Workmanship, Concrete, Volume 2 Series NG1700

Reinforcement & Prestressing Tendons –

9 Bridge Bearings BD20 –

10 Code of Practice for Fatigue BD9 –

* Design Manual for Roads and Bridges published by the Stationery Office for the Overseeing Organisations.
** Manual of Contract Document for Highway Work published by the Stationery Office for the Overseeing Organisations.

20 Composite steel highway bridges

 6. Figures
Figure 4: Simply supported bridges – flange (at mid-span) and web (at support)

S = 3.5m

1000 Af
x
(m2)
30
75 L/
Flange size (mm) 0.07 D

70

800 HB 30
65 x 0.06

60 75
HA
70 Afb 30
55 650 Aft
x 0.05
65
600 20
50 75 /HB HB
60 x HA
70 75 Afb 20
45 55 HA
65 70 500 0.04
x
50 60 65 Afb
75 Afb 20
45 55 60 70 HB
400 HA/
50 55 65 x 0.03
40 tw (mm)
50 60 75
45
35 55 70 Aft
40 45 65 15
50
40 60
35 45 55 0.02 tw
35 40 14
30 50 30
30 35 45
25 30 40 13
25 35
25 30 0.01
20 12
25
20 tw
15 11
20
0
10
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Composite steel highway bridges 21

Figures

Span (m)
 Figure 5: Continuous bridges – flange and web sizes of span girders
Figures

22 Composite steel highway bridges

S = 3.5m
650 600 Af
x x Flange size (mm) (m2)
70 75
65 70 500 0.04
x
60 65
75
55 60 70 L/ 30
400 D
50 55 65 x 0.03 HB
tw (mm)
50 60 75
45 70 30
55 Afb 20
45 65 HA 15
40 50
40 60 Afb
35 45 55 0.02 HB 20
Afb 14
35 40 50 30
30 20
30 35 45 HA
25 40 Afb 13
25 30 20
35 HA/HB
25 30 0.01 Aft
12
20 25 HA/HB
20 Aft
15 11
tw
0 tw 30
10
0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Span (m)
 Figure 6: Continuous bridges – flange and web sizes of pier girders

S = 3.5
1000 800 Af
x x (m2)
Flange size (mm) L / 30
D tw (mm)
75
60
70 21
55 650 Afb
x 0.05
65 20
600 B
50 75 x A/H tw
60 H 30 20 19
70 75
45 55 500 0.04
65 70 x 18
50 60 65 Afb
75 tw
HB 20 17
45 55 60 70 HA/
400 30
50 55 65 x 0.03
40 16
50 60 75 Aft
45
35 55 70
45 65 B 15
40 50 HA/H
40 60 20
35 45 55 0.02
35 40 Aft 14
30 50
30 35 45 HA/HB
25 30 40 13
25 35
25 30 0.01
20 12
25
20
15 11
0
10
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Span (m)

Composite steel highway bridges 23

Figures
 Figure 7: Girder spacing factors
Figures

2.0
Kw
1.9

ly
on

24 Composite steel highway bridges

1.8

an
-sp
d
f
1.7

mi
Ka

ge
n
1.6

Fla
p
To
1.5
Ktw
1.4

1.3

f
Ka
1.2

1.1

Kaf, Ktw, Kw
1.0
L=40

0.9 L=60

0.8

0.7

w
Kt
0.6

f
Ka
0.5

0.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Haunch
Girders & slab slab Stringer Cross girders

Girder spacing - S (m)

 Figure 8: Overall unit weights – plate girder bridges (S = 3.5)

400

380 30
L /
D
360
30
HB
340

HA
320
Simply supported

20
300
20
280 HB

260 HA

Kg/m2
240
20
30 20
220
HB
200

s
m
bea
180

al
HA HA

rs
ive
Un
160
Continuous

140 HB

120

100

80
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Composite steel highway bridges 25

Figures

Span (m)
 Figure 9: Universal beams – elastic stress analysis
Figures

34

28
38

20
224
3

253
8

1
3.5

26 Composite steel highway bridges

3.4 HA

3.3
HB

3.2

3.1

19
7
3.0

19
4
/23
8
2.9

19
4/2
38
2.8

201

17
6
2.7

Beam spacing - S (m)

17
3
2.6

1 79
2.5

2.4

17
6

173
2.3
38

22
25
28
34
8

14
4
3
9
3

22

7
6
2.2
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Span (m)
 Figures

29
HB
HA

28
27
26
8
38

25
3
34

24
23
8
38

9
28

22
3
34

21
3
25

20
9
28

Span (m)
6 19
22
2 53 1
20
18

4
22
4
19
17

38
22
6 7/2
19
Figure 10: Universal beams – plastic stress analysis

1
20 4
22
16

6
17
3
17
38
4/2
15

19
79
197 0/1
17
176
14

)
86
0(6
14
173 14
7 14
9
170 2 0)
15 (61
13

140
86) 0)
14 9(6 (61
40/ 140 125
2 1
7 15 125 113 101
12

/14
179
3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

Beam spacing - S (m)

Composite steel highway bridges 27

www.corusgroup.com

Care has been taken to ensure that this

information is accurate, but Corus Group
plc, including its subsidiaries, does not
accept responsibility or liability for errors or
information which is found to be misleading.

Copyright 2005
Corus

Designed and produced by

Orchard Corporate Ltd.

Corus Construction & Industrial

Technical Sales & Marketing
PO Box 1
Brigg Road
Scunthorpe
North Lincolnshire
DN16 1BP
T +44 (0) 1724 405060
F +44 (0) 1724 404224
E tsm@corusgroup.com
www.corusconstruction.com

English language version CC&I:CD:3000:UK:04/2005/r