Gangway Strength Calculation Report PDF

Strength Calculation Report
GangWay Construction 20x3m
Midcon Designer Sp. z o.o.

ul Gdanska 36 ph. +48 91 814 50 21
70-660 Szczecin, Poland www.midcon.pl
PROJECT/VESSEL CONTRACT No. PREPARED BY PREPARED DATE

40x10n STEEL PONTOON - Team 25.11.2013
TITLE CHECKED BY CHECK DATE
AJa 25.11.2013
Strength Calculation of GangWay 20x3m
APPROVED BY APP. DATE
MNO 25.11.2013
REPORT No. REVISION FORMAT PAGES ISSUED BY ISSUE DATE
MD362-2510-2-1 1 A4 46 PŻE 25.11.2013
This document is the property of Westcon Design Poland and cannot be made public, copied or otherwise used without Westcon Design Poland written permission
Strength Calculation Report Page
GangWay Construction 20x3m MD362-2510-2-1
2 of 46
MODIFICATION TABLE
Modif. Date
Valid from Worked out by
symbol Description vessel No Signature
PREPARED BY DATE SIGN.
1. Alfred Jazukiewicz 25Nov2013
25Nov2013
2 Janusz Kaup
This document is the property of Westcon Design Poland and cannot be made public, copied or otherwise used without Westcon Design Poland written permission.
3 of 46
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
1. GENERAL INFORMATION. .................................................................................................. 4
1.1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4
1.2. COORDINATE SYSTEM, UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................... 5
2. PARAMETERS OF FOOTBRIDGE ........................................................................................... 7
3. LOADS DEFINITION .......................................................................................................... 8
3.1. SNOW LOADS ........................................................................................................... 8
3.2. WIND LOADS ......................................................................................................... 10
3.3. TRAFFIC LOADS ...................................................................................................... 13
3.4. COMBINATION OF ACTIONS ...................................................................................... 14
3.4.1. Combination of action for the ultimate limit state verification ...................................... 14
3.4.2. Combination of actions for the serviceability limit state verification ............................. 15
3.4.3. Load cases ............................................................................................................. 16
4. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 17
4.1. MATERIALS............................................................................................................ 17
4.2. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ULS AND ALS................................................................ 18
4.2.1. Permissible stresses according to EN 1993-2 ............................................................. 18
4.3. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ULS AND ALS................................................................ 19
4.3.1. Permissible stresses ................................................................................................. 19
4.3.2. Vertical deflections ................................................................................................. 19
4.3.3. Natural frequency ................................................................................................... 19
5. FE MODEL, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND LOADS................................................................ 20
5.1. FE MODEL .............................................................................................................. 20
5.2. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 21
5.3. LOADS .................................................................................................................. 22
6. RESULTS OF RULE ACCELERATION CALCULATION ............................................................. 25
6.1. RESULTS OF ULS 1.2 (LEADING ACTION - WIND) ......................................................... 25
6.2. RESULTS OF ULS 1.3 (LEADING ACTION - TRAFFIC LOAD) ............................................ 28
6.3. RESULTS OF ULS 1.4 (LEADING ACTION - CONCENTRATED LOAD) ................................. 32
6.4. RESULTS OF SLS 3.2 (LEADING ACTION - WIND LOAD) ................................................. 35
6.5. RESULTS OF SLS 3.3 (LEADING ACTION - TRAFFIC LOAD) ............................................. 36
6.6. RESULTS OF SLS 3.4 (LEADING ACTION - CONCENTRATED LOAD) .................................. 37
6.7. RESULTS OF NATURAL FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 38
6.8. CALCULATIONS OF RESISTANCE OF PIN CONNECTING FOOTBRIDGE STRUCTURE WITH QUAY
FOUNDATION..................................................................................................................... 44
7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 46
4 of 46
1. GENERAL INFORMATION.
1.1. INTRODUCTION
Drawings and documentation:
1. Platform Structure. MD362-2510-2

2.
Recommendations and regulations:
20. EN 1991-2 (2003): Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges.
21. EN 1993-2 (2006): Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 2: Steel bridges
22. EN 1990 (2002) Appendix A1. Servisability limit states.
23. Design of Bridges. Guides to basis of bridge design related to Eurocodes supplemented by
practical examples. Leonardo da Vinci pilot project CZ/02/B/F/PP-134007.
Used software:
30. ANSYS, Inc. Southpointe 275 Technology Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA.
5 of 46
1.2. COORDINATE SYSTEM, UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
The units are based on the SI-system (m/kg/s) and metric tonnes (see below).
The units generally used in the prepared data set and throughout the report are in compliance with the SI
standard where the basic quantities are the Metre [m], Kilogram [kg] and Second [s] (exception being
made for angular measurements in Degrees [deg] and vessel speed in Knots [kn]). Stress units Newton
per square millimetre [N/mm2 ] and deflection units millimetres [mm] are also used in the report.
In the ANSYS models of the bridge is represented using a right handed Cartesian co-ordinate system
shown on Fig.1.2.1, i.e.:
X-axis positive forward and measured in the longitudinal direction,
Y-axis positive to port from the centerline and measured in the transverse direction,
Z-axis positive upwards from the baseline and measured in the vertical direction.
Fig. 1.2.1 Cartesian Co-ordinate System adopted in report.

6 of 46
The abbreviations used in Report are presented in the Table 1.2.1.
Table 1.2.1. The abbreviations used in Report.
WDP Westcon Design Poland

Sp. z o.o.
SOW Scope of Work
SI International System of Units
ANSYS Finite Element software
DOF Degree of Freedom in FE node
CoG Centre of Gravity
CL/PS/SB Centre Line / Port Side / Star
Board
LC, LCs Load Case, LoadCases
Tx Translation in x-axis
Ty Translation in y-axis
Tz Translation in z-axis
FE Finite Element (methods)
E Young’s modulus
 Poisson’s ratio
ULS Ultimate Limit State
ALS Accidental Limit State
SLS Servisability Limit State
7 of 46
2. PARAMETERS OF FOOTBRIDGE
Principal dimensions of footbridge are:
Length = 20.0m
Breadth (clear) = 3.00m
Fig. 2.1. General view footbridge
8 of 46
3. LOADS DEFINITION
Loads acting on footbridge can be divided into following kinds:
- Snow loads,
- Wind loads,
- Traffic loads.
3.1. SNOW LOADS
According to EN 1991-1-3 [3], the snow loads are classified as a variable fixed action.
The Norway national annex to EN 1991-1-3 [3] gives the map of characteristic values of the
ground snow load sk for the load zone.
Fig. 3.1. Snow load on the ground in Norway
Because of calculated footbridge will be situated near the sea value of the ground snow load
sk= 1.75 kN/m2 has been assumed (more precisely location is not known).
The exposure coefficient Ce is normally taken equal to 1.0, but in our case of a footbridge
over the river exposed on all sides, we choose the value 0.8 for this coefficient. This is the recommended
value for “windswept” conditions, according to table 5.1 of EN 1991-1-3 (see fig. 3.2.).
The normal value of the thermal coefficient Ct equal to 1,0 is assumed.

The snow load shape coefficients μ are dependent on the shape of the roof, or the bridge
deck in our case. For a horizontal deck, α = 0º, this coefficient is equal to 0.8. The snow load on the
footbridge deck is obtained from the formula:
sdeck = μ · Ce · Ct · sk = 0.8 · 0.8 · 1.0 ·1.75 = 1,12kN/m2
9 of 46
Fig. 3.2. Table 5.1 of EN 1991-1-3
And the snow load per unit length of the transverse beams of footbridge is:
s = sdeck · W = 1.12 · 1.05 = 1.176kN/m
10 of 46
3.2. WIND LOADS
According to EN 1991-1-4 (Eurocode on wind actions) for footbridges up to 30 m of span the wind loads
can be calculated using the simpler, quasi-static procedure. The first step in this procedure is to determine
the basic wind velocity vb. Because of the location of footbridge is not known, wind velocity vb,0= 29 m/s
has been assumed.
Fig. 3.3. Basic wind velocity in Norway.
Using the usual value 1,0 for the directional factor cdir and seasonal factor csea, the basic wind velocity is
vb = vb,0·cdir ·csea =29 m/s
The mean wind velocity vm(z) at the height z is calculated from the base wind velocity and two factors
co(z) and cr(z). The orography factor co(z) takes into account the changes in terrain. Because of
footbridge is situated in smooth flat country (assumption), we choose the value 1,0. The roughness factor
cr(z) accounts for height of the structure and roughness of the terrain and is calculated by
cr(z) = kr ln(z / z0), zmin< z <200 m
where kr =0.19(z0 / z0,II)0.07 = kr =0.19(0.003 / 0.05)0.07=0.156

11 of 46
Fig. 3.2. Table 4.1 of EN 1991-1-4
Assuming the height of the midline of the footbridge above the terrain, z = 4 m, we
obtain the mean wind velocity
vmin(z) = cr(z) co(z) vb = 0.156 ln(4/0,003) · 1.0 · 29 = 32.6m/s
Next we determine the peak velocity pressure qp(z) from the equation
qp(z) = [1+7(kI/ln(z / z0)c0] ½ ρvm2(z) = 0.765kN/m2
In the above equation ρ is the air density (in most regions ρ = 1.25kg/m3) and kI is the turbulence
factor, which is in general equal to 1.0.
According to EN 1991-1-4 [4] the wind load on bridges is divided in three components:
wind forces in the direction perpendicular to the bridge axis (“x-direction”), parallel to the bridge
axis (“y direction”) and in the vertical direction (“z-direction”).
The wind force acting on the bridge in x-direction is given by:
Fw,x = qp(z) · Cf,x ·Aref,x (12)
where Cf,x is the force coefficient and Aref,x is reference area on which the wind in the x-direction
is acting. For open-type or trussed girders with the parapets on both sides the reference area is
the height of the bridge deck with the addition of 600 mm for the influence of open parapets.
With reference to the cross section of the bridge deck in figure, this reference area is given by
Aref,x = (d+600 mm) ·L = 0.84 m ·20m=16.8m2
where:
L is the length of the bridge/GangWay.
d-reference height
12 of 46
The coefficient Cf,x is dependent of the ratio d/b between the width and height of the
bridge deck. For the ratio b/d = 3200/840 = 3.81 this coefficient is Cf,x = 1.35.
The wind force acting on the bridge in x-direction is then by equation given by:
Fw,x = 0,765 · 1.35 · 16.8 = 17.35kN (0.87kN/m)
The wind force in the z-direction (vertical force) is obtained using the force coefficient
Cf,z = 0,6 for the inclination angle of the bridge deck equal to 0.
The reference area for this direction is

Aref,z = b· L=3.2·20=64m2
Fw,z = 0.755 · 0.6 · 64 = 29kN (0.51kN/m on each bottom transverse beam)
The wind force in the y-direction (longitudinally) is taken as 25 % of the wind force in x-direction.
Fw,y = 0.25· 17.35kN = 4.35kN (0.076 kN/m on each bottom transverse beam)
13 of 46
3.3. TRAFFIC LOADS
According to EN 1991-2 [5] the traffic loads are considered as imposed loads and are classified as
variable or accidental actions. For normal use the traffic and pedestrian loads are considered as variable
loads.
Imposed loads on footbridges due to traffic are the actions caused by pedestrian and cycle traffic, minor
constructional loads, possibly a load due to specific vehicle (e.g. maintenance vehicle) and accidental
actions. The load models defined in EN 1991-2 include dynamic amplification factors.
Vertical loads on footbridges include three types of loads which are mutually exclusive, i.e. only one of
them is considered in a certain combination of loads. These types are:
(a) uniformly distributed loads;
(b) concentrated load; and
(c) load representing service vehicle (due to service of bridge will be done on ground/quay by lifting it
with crane, this load has not be taken into consideration).
The characteristic value of the uniformly distributed load is in general defined as qfk = 5kN/m2.
The distributed load per unit length (on each bottom transverse beam) for the footbridge in question is
qw = 5 · 1,05 = 5.25 kN/m
The characteristic value of the concentrated load is equal Qfwk = 10kN and is acting on the square surface
with sides 0,1 m. It can be taken into account only for the local verification if this can be distinguished
from the global verification.
The accidental presence of the vehicle on the footbridge is considered as the accidental
action if the access of such a vehicle on the footbridge is not restricted by a permanent device. If
not specified otherwise the accidental load QA of this vehicle is represented by two-axial loading pattern
with axle loads 80kN and 40kN (see figure below).
Note:
Accidental load with vehicle on footbridge has not been taken into consideration. Step on the
beginning of footbridge (from quay side) has been considered as permanent device preventing access
of such vehicle on footbridge.
14 of 46
Horizontal force acting on the footbridge is either 10 % of the total load corresponding to the distributed
force qw or 60% of the total weight of the service vehicle QA and is acting simultaneously with the
corresponding vertical load.
The horizontal force is considered as acting simultaneously with the corresponding vertical load, and in
no case with the concentrated load Q
3.4. COMBINATION OF ACTIONS

The individual permanent, variable and accidental loads are used in a number of combinations in order to
verify that the ultimate limit states and ultimate serviceability limit states are fulfilled. The separate
actions with their symbols and types are summarized in the table.
Symbol Description of the action Type of action

G Self weight of the structure permanent
P Deck cover permanent
S Snow load variable
W Wind load variable
q Uniform traffic load variable
Q Concentrated traffic load variable
QA Load due to accidental presence of a vehicle on the footbridge accidental
Note: Thermal loads have been neglected (because of no influence on results)
3.4.1. Combination of action for the ultimate limit state verification

The verification of the ultimate limit state is carried out according to equation 6.8 of the Eurocode EN
1990 :
Ed≤ Rd
where Ed is the design value of the effects of actions, such as internal force or a moment, and Rd
is the design value of the corresponding resistance. Following the guidance of EN 1990 we will
distinguish two types of load combinations for the ultimate limit states: fundamental combination and the
combination for accidental design situation. For the fundamental combination case, the design value of
the effects of actions Ed is calculated from the combination of actions according to the equation (6.10) of
the Eurocode EN1990:
where Gk,j are characteristic values of permanent loads with corresponding partial factors γG,j (equal to
1,35 for unfavourable effect and 1,0 for favourable effect), Qk,i are characteristic values
of variable loads with corresponding partial factors γQ,j (1,35 for traffic loads and 1,5 for other
unfavourable variable loads and 0 for favourable), and ψ0,i are combination factors (0,4 for traffic loads,
0 for wind, 0 for temperature, and 0 for snow – see table D.2 in EN 1991-2).
15 of 46
Qk,1 is the leading variable action.

Additionally, for unprotected footbridges (as this is the case) the traffic load is not considered together
with wind or snow load. Also the concentrated traffic load should not be considered together with other
variable loads.
According to the requirements stated above, we can construct a number of combinations of actions, taking
in turn each variable load as a leading variable action. These combinations are the following:
ULS Leading load factor of load factor of load factor of load factor of load factor of
LC action G S W q Q
1.1 S 1.35 1.5 0 0 0
1.2 W 1.35 0 1.5 0 0
1.3 q 1.35 0 0 1.35 0
1.4 Q 1.35 0 0 0 1.35
In the case of accidental combination of actions, we have the following equation

(equation (6.11b) of the Eurocode EN 1990 [1]):
where Ad is the design value of accidental action and and ψ1,I (0,4 for traffic load, 0,5 for wind
load, 0,6 for temperature effect and 0 for other variable actions) and ψ2,i (0,5 for temperature
effect and 0 for other variable actions) are the combination factors for the accidental situation.
Again, Qk,1 is the leading variable action. Wind and snow are not considered with accidental
actions. So we have the following combinations:
ALS Leading load factor of load factor of load factor of load factor of load factor of
LC action G S W q QA
2.1 q 1 0 0 0.4 1
2.2 Q 1 0 0 0 1
Because of LC 2.2 will gives always lower stresses than LC 2.1, only LC 2.1 has been taken into
consideration.
3.4.2. Combination of actions for the serviceability limit state verification

The verification of the serviceability limit state is carried out with the combination of actions following
the equation 6.15b of the Eurocode EN 1990 [1]:
The same rules considering the simultaneity of variable actions as for the fundamental
combinations of actions apply also in this case. The combination factors ψ1,I and ψ2,i are the
same as above. We have the following combinations:
16 of 46
SLS Leading load factor of load factor of load factor of load factor of load factor of
action
LC G S W q Q
3.1 S 1 0.5 0 0 0
3.2 W 1 0 0.5 0 0
3.3 q 1 0 0 0.4 0
3.4 Q 1 0 0 0 0.5
3.4.3. Load cases

Load factors
LC Leading
No. action G S W q Q QA
1.1 S 1.35 1.50 0 0 0 0
1.2 W 1.35 0 1.50 0 0 0
ULS
1.3 q 1.35 0 0 1.35 0 0
1.4 Q 1.35 0 0 0 1.35 0
ALS 2.1 q 1.00 0 0 0.40 0 1.00
3.1 S 1.00 0.50 0 0 0 0
3.2 W 1.00 0 0.50 0 0 0
SLS
3.3 q 1.00 0 0 0.40 0 0
3.4 Q 1.00 0 0 0 0.50 0
G S_z W_y W_x W_z qx qz Q_z

LC Leading QA_x [kN] QA_z [kN]
[m/s^2] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m] [kN] [kN]
No. action
1.1 S* 13.24 1.76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.2 W 13.24 0 1.31 0.33 0.77 0 0 0 0 0

ULS
1.3 q 13.24 0 0 0 0 0.71 7.09 0 0 0
1.4 Q 13.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.50 0 0
ALS** 2.1 q 9.81 0 0 0 0 0.21 2.10 0 2x24+2x14 2*40+2*20
3.1 S* 9.81 0.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.2 W 9.81 0 0.44 0.11 0.26 0 0 0 0 0

SLS
3.3 q 9.81 0 0 0 0 0.21 2.10 0 0 0
3.4 Q 9.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 0 0
* Because of loads from snow don't occur with uniform traffic loads and in each case snow loads are
lower than uniform traffic load, load cases with snow will not be taken into consideration.
** Because of there is permanent device (high step) preventing enter of a car on the footbridge this load
case will not be taken into consideration.
Note: directions of loads "x" and "y" in table above has been changed from used in Eurocode into used in
FE-model.
17 of 46
4. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
4.1. MATERIALS
According to EN 1993-1-1 table 3.1.
For material with thickness less than 40mm

S 235
fy = 235 [N/mm2]
fu=360 [N/mm2]
S 355
fy = 355 [N/mm2]
fu=510 [N/mm2]
According to EN 1993-1-1 (3.2.6)
modulus of elasticity E=21000N/mm2

shear modulus G=81000 N/mm2
Poisson's ratio in elastic stage  =0.3
18 of 46
4.2. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ULS AND ALS
4.2.1. Permissible stresses according to EN 1993-2
According to EN 1993-1-1 (6.2.1) and EN following equation have to be fulfilled:
after develop above equation one can receive following equation for permissible equivalent stresses of
members:
δeqv_perm=fy/γm0
where:
fy- yield stress of material
γm0 - material factor
Consequently basing on equations 6.6; 6.9; 6.13 and 6.18 of EN 1993-1-1 for normal and shear stresses,
equations for permissible stresses are following:
-permissible tension, compression and bending of members:

δxx_perm= fy/γm0
-shear stresses:
δxx_perm= fy/(γm0 )
Note:
In all ULS and ALS load cases plastic analysis can be used
Permissible stresses are following:
Material Permissible normal stresses Permissible shear stresses

[MPa] [MPa]
S 235 235 136
S 355 355 205
According to EN1993-2 material factor for calculation of resistance of members to instability assessed by
member check equals γm1=1.1.
Minimum load multiplier in linear buckling analysis equals 1.1.
19 of 46
4.3. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ULS AND ALS
4.3.1. Permissible stresses
Permissible stresses for SLS according to EN 1993-2 are the same as for ULS and ALS (material
factor γm0=1). Due to that loads combinations in SLS and ULS are the same, but in SLS loads values are
lower, Stresses in SLS will not be checked (ULS and ALS will gives higher stresses). Stresses checking
will be only for ULS and ALS load cases.
Note:
In SLS load cases elastic analysis have to be used.
4.3.2. Vertical deflections
With reference to EN 1990 – Annex A1.4 limits for vertical deflections according to Figure A1.1 should
be specified for each project and agreed with the client.
Due to no specified maximum vertical deflection by client, maximum vertical deflection in SLS cases
in the middle of bridge span has been assumed as L/250 = 20000mm/250=80mm.
4.3.3. Natural frequency

Depending on the dynamic characteristics of structure, the relevant natural frequencies (corresponding to
vertical, horizontal and torsion vibrations) of the main structure of bridge deck should be determined from
an appropriate structural design.
Vibrations of footbridges may have various origins, e.g. pedestrians, who can walk, run, jump or dance,
wind, vandals, etc.
Forces exerted by pedestrians with a frequency identical to one of the natural frequencies of the bridge
can result into resonance and need to be taken into account for limit state verifications in relation with
vibrations.
Effects of pedestrian traffic on footbridge depend on various factors as, for example, the number and
location of people likely to be simultaneously on the bridge, and also on external circumstances, more or
less linked to the location of the bridge. In the absence of significant response of the bridge, a pedestrian
normally walking exerts on it the following simultaneous periodic forces:
- in the vertical direction, with frequency range of between 1 and 3Hz,
- in the horizontal direction, with a frequency range of between 0.5 and 1.5 Hz.
Minimum vertical natural frequency of bridge 5Hz has been assumed (due to no detailed requirements
from the client).
Minimum horizontal natural frequency of bridge 3Hz has been assumed (due to no detailed
requirements from the client).
20 of 46
5. FE MODEL, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND LOADS
5.1. FE MODEL
3D - FE beam model has been performed with ANSYS software. Beam properties have been modeled by
sections and beam_188 elements.
Fig. 5.1. 3D-FE beam model (sections have been shown).
21 of 46
5.2. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Two different Boundary condition have been used in analysis. First one for dynamic model only (modal
analysis). Second one is for all other load cases.
Fig. 5.2. Boundary condition for dynamic model.
Fig. 5.3. Boundary condition for static model.
22 of 46
5.3. LOADS
Following types of loads have been acting on FE model.
Fig. 5.4. Gravity acceleration (example only for SLS cases)

Note: mass of gratings have been taken into account by increase density of transverse beams.
Fig. 5.5. Total distributed load on deck in longitudinal and vertical direction (total of snow, wind or
traffic loads)
23 of 46
Fig. 5.6. Distributed load of wind (only horizontal direction).
Fig. 5.7. Concentrated load.
24 of 46
Footbridge is intended to connect quay with floating barge where people wait for ship/boat. Barge is
connected to quay (steel pipes are provided to keep constant distance barge from quay) to prevent large
moves, but smaller moves are possible. Footbridge is connected to barge by rollers. Maximum
transverse force (to the footbridge) on end is the fractional force.
Assuming frictional factor steel-steel 0.3 and knowing vertical force in each load case, horizontal,
transverse friction forces have been calculated, see below table.
LCs Leading load Horizontal forces [kN]

1.2 W 2x8.9
ULS 1.3 q 2x39.7
1.4 Q 2x6.1
3.2 W 2x5.0
SLS 3.3 q 2x14.1
3.4 Q 2x4.2
Above forces have been added simultaneously with other loads.
Fig. 5.8. Additional horizontal load from moves of barge (frictional force).
25 of 46
6. RESULTS OF RULE ACCELERATION CALCULATION
6.1. RESULTS OF ULS LC1.2 (LEADING ACTION - WIND)
Fig. 6.1.1. ULS LC1.2. Direct stress [MPa]
Fig. 6.1.2. ULS LC1.2. Minimum bending stress [MPa]

26 of 46
Fig. 6.1.3. ULS LC1.2. Maximum bending stress [MPa]
Fig. 6.1.4. ULS LC1.2. Minimum combined stress [MPa]
27 of 46
Fig. 6.1.5. ULS LC1.2. Maximum combined stress [MPa]
Fig. 6.1.6. ULS LC1.2. Buckling check. 1st mode (load multiplier 4.62)
28 of 46
6.2. RESULTS OF ULS LC1.3 (LEADING ACTION - TRAFFIC LOAD)

29 of 46
30 of 46
Fig. 6.2.6. ULS LC1.3. Buckling check. 1st mode (load multiplier 1.59).
31 of 46
Fig. 6.2.7. ULS LC1.3. Buckling check. 2nd mode (load multiplier 2.00).
32 of 46
6.3. RESULTS OF ULS LC1.4 (LEADING ACTION - CONCENTRATED LOAD)
33 of 46
34 of 46
35 of 46
6.4. RESULTS OF SLS LC3.2 (LEADING ACTION - WIND LOAD)
Fig. 6.4.1. SLS LC3.2. Directional Z-deformation [mm]
Fig. 6.4.2. SLS LC3.2. Directional Y-deformation [mm]

36 of 46
6.5. RESULTS OF SLS 3.3 (LEADING ACTION - TRAFFIC LOAD)

37 of 46
6.6. RESULTS OF SLS LC3.4 (LEADING ACTION - CONCENTRATED LOAD)

38 of 46
6.7. RESULTS OF NATURAL FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
Natural frequency analysis has been performed. Following results have been obtained (first 20 modes).
Mode Frequency [Hz]

1 6.28
2 7.27
3 8.46
4 9.07
5 10.72
6 10.76
7 11.21
8 13.36
9 13.41
10 14.24
11 16.49
12 16.64
13 19.20
14 20.29
15 20.83
16 22.16
17 23.14
18 24.50
19 24.71
20 25.45
39 of 46
Fig. 6.7.1. Natural frequencies (mode 1).
40 of 46
41 of 46
42 of 46
43 of 46
44 of 46
6.8. CALCULATIONS OF RESISTANCE OF PIN CONNECTING FOOTBRIDGE STRUCTURE WITH QUAY

FOUNDATION
Following forces have been obtained from FE analysis:
LC Leading Shear
load forces [kN]
1.2 W 213.3
ULS 1.3 q 555.1
1.4 Q 82.4
3.2 W 99.2
SLS 3.3 q 195.1
3.4 Q 56.0
Calculations of pin has been performed using beam model in ANSYS software.
Following boundary conditions and loads have been applied:
Fig. 6.8.1. Boundary condition and loads in analysis of pin
45 of 46
Fig. 6.8.2. Maximum combined stresses on pin [MPa]
Material factor according to EN 1993-2 for pins is equal 1.25.

Permissible stresses for steel with yield point 800MPa equals 800/1.25=640MPa
Maximum combined stresses 632MPa are lower than permissible 640MPa.
46 of 46
7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of strength of footbridge has been performed.

Following results have been obtained:
Stresses analysis
Maximum combined stresses 290MPa have been found in ULS LC1.3 (leading action - traffic load) on
transverse deck beam and are lower than permissible 355MPa. Stresses in rest of structure are below 200
MPa (where permissible are equal to 235MPa).
Buckling analysis
Minimum load multiplier 1.59 has been found in ULS LC1.3 (leading action - traffic load) and is higher
than minimum permissible 1.1.
Deflection analysis
Maximum vertical deflection (from SLS LCs) 30.7mm has been found in SLS LC3.3 (leading action -
traffic load) and is lower than permissible equal to 80mm.
Natural Frequency analysis

Minimum natural frequency analysis 6.28Hz is higher than assumed minimum 5Hz.
Calculation of pins connecting footbridge with quay.

Maximum combined stresses 632MPa are lower than permissible 640MPa.
ALL acceptance criteria have been fulfilled.
Note:
Accidental load with vehicle on footbridge has not been taken into consideration. Step on the
beginning of footbridge (from quay side) has been considered as permanent device preventing access
of such vehicle on footbridge.

Gangway Strength Calculation Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gangway Strength Calculation Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strength Calculation Report

GangWay Construction 20x3m

Midcon Designer Sp. z o.o.

PROJECT/VESSEL CONTRACT No. PREPARED BY PREPARED DATE

PREPARED BY DATE SIGN.

1. Alfred Jazukiewicz 25Nov2013

Drawings and documentation:

1. Platform Structure. MD362-2510-2

Recommendations and regulations:

1.2. COORDINATE SYSTEM, UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Fig. 1.2.1 Cartesian Co-ordinate System adopted in report.

The abbreviations used in Report are presented in the Table 1.2.1.

Table 1.2.1. The abbreviations used in Report.

WDP Westcon Design Poland

Fig. 2.1. General view footbridge

3.1. SNOW LOADS

Fig. 3.1. Snow load on the ground in Norway

The normal value of the thermal coefficient Ct equal to 1,0 is assumed.

Fig. 3.2. Table 5.1 of EN 1991-1-3

3.2. WIND LOADS

Fig. 3.3. Basic wind velocity in Norway.

where kr =0.19(z0 / z0,II)0.07 = kr =0.19(0.003 / 0.05)0.07=0.156

Fig. 3.2. Table 4.1 of EN 1991-1-4

vmin(z) = cr(z) co(z) vb = 0.156 ln(4/0,003) · 1.0 · 29 = 32.6m/s

The reference area for this direction is

3.3. TRAFFIC LOADS

3.4. COMBINATION OF ACTIONS

Symbol Description of the action Type of action

3.4.1. Combination of action for the ultimate limit state verification

Qk,1 is the leading variable action.

In the case of accidental combination of actions, we have the following equation

3.4.2. Combination of actions for the serviceability limit state verification

3.4.3. Load cases

G S_z W_y W_x W_z qx qz Q_z

1.2 W 13.24 0 1.31 0.33 0.77 0 0 0 0 0

1.4 Q 13.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.50 0 0

ALS** 2.1 q 9.81 0 0 0 0 0.21 2.10 0 2x24+2x14 2*40+2*20

3.1 S* 9.81 0.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2 W 9.81 0 0.44 0.11 0.26 0 0 0 0 0

3.4 Q 9.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 0 0

According to EN 1993-1-1 table 3.1.

For material with thickness less than 40mm

According to EN 1993-1-1 (3.2.6)

modulus of elasticity E=21000N/mm2

4.2. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ULS AND ALS

4.2.1. Permissible stresses according to EN 1993-2

According to EN 1993-1-1 (6.2.1) and EN following equation have to be fulfilled:

-permissible tension, compression and bending of members:

Permissible stresses are following:

Material Permissible normal stresses Permissible shear stresses

Minimum load multiplier in linear buckling analysis equals 1.1.

4.3. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ULS AND ALS

4.3.1. Permissible stresses

4.3.2. Vertical deflections

4.3.3. Natural frequency

5. FE MODEL, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND LOADS

Fig. 5.1. 3D-FE beam model (sections have been shown).

5.2. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Fig. 5.2. Boundary condition for dynamic model.

Fig. 5.3. Boundary condition for static model.

Following types of loads have been acting on FE model.

Fig. 5.4. Gravity acceleration (example only for SLS cases)

Fig. 5.6. Distributed load of wind (only horizontal direction).

ALS** 2.1 q 9.81 0 0 0 0 0.21 2.10 0 2x24+2x14 240+220