Anda di halaman 1dari 118

Eurocodesforthedesignofbridges

TheEuropeanStandardFamily Trafficactionsonbridge Illustrationofbasicelementdesign W.Hensen,M.Feldmann,G.Hanswille,G.Sedlacek 1. (1) Sustainabilityisakeyissueforthedesignofbridgesincludingsteelbridges.Themost importantsustainabilityindicatorforbridgesisdurabilitywithitseffectonlifecycle costsforanintendedservicelifeofabout100years. Durabilityisproducedbyvariouselementsincluding (3) Therefore this report does not focus only on design rules in Eurocode 3, but also comprisestheotherelementsoftheEuropeanStandardFamilyaffectingdurability, amongstwhichEurocode3playsanimportantrole. AccordingtothegeneralconceptoftheEurocodesthesecodesconsistofaEuropean part (the ENcodes) and National Annexes to the ENcodes, that complement the harmonizedEuropeanENcodesbyNationalchoices. In conclusion the practical design of a bridge on a certain territory is not possible withouttheuseoftheNationalAnnexvalidforthatterritory. ThechoicesthatarecontainedintheEurocodescomprisethefollowing: 1. NationalresponsestoopeningnotestoEurocoderulesthatincludetechnical classes or factors related to safety, climatic, cultural and other aspects (see GuidancePaperLUseandapplicationofEurocodes). Responsetoinformativeannexeswithtechnicalrulesandsetsofalternative technical rules in the main codetext for which no agreement could be achieved during the codewriting phase and from which CEN/TC250 expects eitherNationalacceptanceorbetterfoundedNationalAlternativesthatcould 1 asustainabledefinitionoftheserviceconditionincludingthebridgeloading, choiceofthebridgesystem,itsstructuralandnonstructuralcomponentsand productsandappropriatedetailingalsoconsideringfatigue, designandexecutionforaqualityofstructurethateffectsdurability. Introduction

(2)

(4)

(5) (6)

2.

be used by CEN/TC250 for further harmonisation of the rules and the reductionofcomplexityandvolume. 3. Non conflicting complementary informations, (NCCIs) that comprise Nationalchoicesofadditionaltechnicalrulesnecessaryforfillinggapsinthe Eurocodes and to make them fully operable. From these NCCIs CEN/TC250 expectsimportantimpulsesforthefurtherdevelopmentoftheEurocodes.

(7) Therefore in this report reference is made to the Nationally Determined Parameters, which are recommended in the Eurocodes for the design of Steel bridges and in some cases to the draft German National Annex, that may be considered as an example for the variations that may be induced by the many NationalAnnexesintheEU. Contentsofthereport Figure1givesthestructureofthereportwithashortintroductiontotheEuropean StandardFamily,theaspectofdurableloadassumptioninparticularfromtrafficon road bridges, an example how to overcome shortcomings in the Eurocoderules for the technical specifications for the delivery of bearings, the background and use of EN 1993110 for the choice of steel to avoid brittle fracture and the core of the designofsteelelementsinbridges,thatencompassesthestabilityrules,thefatigue rulesandrulesfortensionelements,e.g.forstayedcablebridge.

2. (1)

LIST OF CONTENTS
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 2

1. The European Standard Family and Steel bridges 2. Load assumptions for steel bridges 3. Modelling of steel bridges 4. Specification of bearings 5. Choice of steel 6. Design of bridge elements 6.1. Stability rules 6.2. Fatigue rules 6.3. Rope structures

Figure1:

3. (1)

GeneralremarkstotheEuropeanStandardFamilyforthedesignofsteelbridges Steel bridges for roads comprise full steel bridges with steel decks (orthotropic plates)andsteelconcretecompositebridgeswithaconcretedeck,seeFigure2and Figure3.
CROSS SECTION OF A BOX GIRDER BRIDGE WITH AN ORTHOTROPIC DECK
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 3


HASELTALBRCKE SUHL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 4

Figure2

Figure3

(2)

Inbothexamplesthemainstructureisastiffenedboxgirderwithcantileveringplates withtheassemblyofsectionsprefabricatedintheworkshopononeshoreonsiteand erectionbylaunching. There is a criticism that the design of bridges would become more and more complicatedbecauseofthelargeamountandlargevolumesofthestandardsmaking theuserslifedifficult. Asthedetailingofrulesthatproducesthevolumesishoweverrequiredbytheusers therearetwopossibilitiestocreateabettersurvey:

(3)

1. 2. to develop appropriate navigation systems through the standards (as practicede.g.fortheENstandardsforenergyefficiency), to develop consolidated handbooks from the standards for particular applicationfields ase.g. bridges, in which the technical rules and references from the Eurocodes are assembled in a way suitable for watertight contracting and security of use. Examples for such handbooks in bridge designare No.1:Basisanddesignofactionsforbridges No.2:Designofconcretebridges No.3:Designofsteelbridges No.4: Designofcompositebridges aspracticedinAustriaandGermany.
NAVIGATION THROUGH STANDARDS
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 5

Load combination EN 1990 Safety aspects G/Q-values Imperfections Stability of plates Fatigue Seismic design Materials Welding

Self-weight

EN 1991-1-1 EN 1991-2 EN 1991-1-4 EN 1991-1-5 EN 1993-2 EN 1993-1-8 EN 1993-1-11 EN 1337 EN 1090-2 EN 1337 EN 1090-2 EN 1090-2 EN 1337-10

actions

Traffic actions Wind actions Thermal actions General

EN 1990-A2 EN 1993-1-1 EN 1993-1-5 EN 1993-1-5 EN 1993-1-9 EN 1998-3 EN 10025 EN 1090-2

design

Connections Ropes Bearings Prefabrication

execution
product conformity

Site work Tolerances Inspection Maintenance

EN 1090-2 Corrosion protection EN 1090-2 EN 1337-6 CE-marking Traceability

Figure4 4

(4) Figure 4 shows a shortened example for a navigation system related to actions, design,executionandproductconformitythatallowstheusertogoogletherulehe needs.

SURVEY OF THE EUROCODES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 6

EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Design EN 1992 to EN 1996 EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Eurocode 2: Concrete structures 1-1 Self weight Eurocode 3: Steel structures 1-2 Fire Actions Eurocode 4: Composite structures 1-3 Snow Eurocode 5: Timber structure 1-4 Wind Eurocode 6: Masonry structures 1-5 Thermal Actions 1-6 Construction Loads 1-7 Accidential Actions 2 Traffic on bridges 3 Loads from cranes EN 1997 and EN 1998 4 Silo loads Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design Eurocode 8: Design in seismic areas EN 1999 Eurocode 9: Aluminium structures

(5)

Figure5 Figure5givesasurveyonallEurocodesfromwhichtheusershouldselectthoserules relevanttohisdesignworks: UnderthegeneralprinciplesinEN1990BasisofDesignthereareononesidethe variousgenericrulesforactions(assnowandwind)andthespecificactionrulesas e.g. traffic loads on bridges and on the otherside the materialdependant rules for various materials and types of structures. EN 1997 Geotechnical Design and EN 1998Designinseismicareascomprisebothgenericrulesforactionsandspecific rulesforresistancesandmaterials.

1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 7

EN 1090 Part 1 Delivery Conditions for prefabricated steel components hEN product standards for steel materials, semi- finished products etc. Eurocode: EN 1990 Basis of structural design Eurocode 1: EN 1991 Actions on structures Eurocode 3: EN 1993 Design rules for steel structures EN 1090 Part 2 Execution of steel structures

Standard system for steel structures

HSS up to S700 1.12

Figure6: (6) TheumbrellastandardforDeliveryConditionsforprefabricatedsteelcomponents ontheglobalmarketwithapartfortheconformityassessmentisEN1090Part1. (7) Eurocode3comprisesinasimilarwayastheactioncodegenericdesignrulesinits centralpart1addressinge.g.platebucklingandfatigue,andspecificadditionalrules inperiphericapplicationpartsasforbridges(Eurocode3Part2),thattakereference tothegenericrulesinPart1. hEN product standards that give product properties from testing methods definedbystatisticalcharacteristicsthataresuitableforareliabledesign, theEurocodesthatgivedesignrulesbothforprefabricatedcomponentsand forstructuralworks, EN10902thatcontainstherulesforexecutionintheworkshopandonsite withrulesforgoodworkmanship,tolerancesetc. Thisparttakesreferenceto Figure 6 shows the organisation of the family of standards for the design of steel bridges.

1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 8

Load combination Safety aspects G/Q-values Imperfections Stability of plates Fatigue Seismic design Materials Welding Corrosion protection CE-marking Traceability

Self-weight

actions

Traffic actions Wind actions Thermal actions

designer
General

design

Connections Ropes Bearings Prefabrication

execution
product conformity

Site work Tolerances Inspection Maintenance

contractor

(8)

Tasks for designer and contractor

Figure7: Inthisreportonlyrulesforactionsandfordesignareaddressedasdemonstratedin Figure7,whereasrulesforexecutionandproductconformitythataremainlyusedby thecontractorsarenotdealtwith.

1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 9

(9)

Design rules for steel bridges in Eurocode 3

Figure8 Figure 8 gives the design rules in Eurocode 3 which are relevant for the design of steelbridges. 7

ThecontrollingpartfordesignisEurocode3Part2,withreferencetoEurocode3 Part 11, in particular to general rules for structural analysis, crosssectional verifications, use of imperfections for stability checks e.g. flexural buckling, and lateral torsional buckling, to Part 15 for plate buckling, to Part 18 covering connections,toPart19forfatigue,toPart110forchoiceofmaterialandtoPart1 11forropestructures. (10) EN19932hasanAnnexCwithrecommendationsforthedesignandtheexecutionof orthotropicsteelbridgedeckscoveringnow50yearsofexperiencewithdurabledeck plates,thatmaymakespecificnumericalfatiguechecksunnecessary. EN19932containsalsotheannexesAandBforthepreparationofspecificationsfor thedeliveryofbearingsandtransitionjoints,forwhichEN1990AnnexA2didnot give specific rules. These annexes are material independent so that they are applicable to concrete, steel and compositebridges. Therefore in the future they will be transferred to EN 1990, and the tentative titles Annex E1 and E2 have been agreed. These new Annexes should in particular contain appropriate rules for the representative values of actions and their combinations to give design values of forcesandmovementsthatareincompliancewiththeevaluationsofmeasurements as obtained from many decades of use; the values now recommended in the Eurocodeswouldproducemovementsthatareintherangeof1.52.0ofthevalues experienced in the past and also would not be suitable for the specification of bearingcharacteristicsfromanintegralanalysisofthetotalsystemofsuperstructure, bearings,piersandfoundations. (13) ThereforethedraftofGermanNationalAnnexrelatedtoRequirementsforbearings and transition joints is related to the future Annexes E1 and E2 and contains a proposalthatpreventstheproblemsasdescribedabove.

(11)

(12)

1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 10

Limit State Concept ULS Ed Rd SLS Ed Cd Fatigue E c Choice of material based on fracture mechanics (EN 1993-1-10) Stability of members and plates Single -value for combined actions, FEM-methods (EN 1993-1-1) (EN 1993-1-5) Fatigue assessments unless recommended details are used (EN 1993-2) (EN 1993-1-9)

(14)

Basic features of design rules for bridges

Figure9 ThebasicassessmentsthatabridgedesignerhastoaccomplisharelistedinFigure9: CheckscomprisetheLimitStatesULS,SLSandFatigue. A particularity of steel structures exposed to external climate actions and fatiguefromtraffic,windandrainisthechoiceofsteeltoavoidbrittlefailure. Another particularity is the use of thinwalled slender components, which needstabilitychecksforoutofplanestabilityaslateraltorsionalbucklingand platebuckling,suitableforcomputeraideddesign. Fatigue assessments are necessary because of the fatigue effects of traffic actions, unless structural details successfully timetested are used that need nofurthernumericalfatiguecheck.

4. 4.1 (1) The loading model LM1 as specified in EN 1991Part 2 gives a European uniform geometric pattern of concentrated loads and uniformly distributed loads the magnitudesofwhichhavebeendecidedtoleavethemtothechoiceofeachMember Statetoobtainasustainableloadingmodel,seeFigure10. Howtogetasustainableloadingmodel Loadingmodeland100yearsofservicelife

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 11

900 kN

500 kN 275 kN

11,0 m

Load-model LM1
(2) Theloadingpatternaswellastherecommendedvaluesfortheloadsoriginatefrom a common European study made under the chairmanship of H. Mathieu in the 1st phaseandProf.J.A.Calgarointhefinalphase,thatwascarriedoutbyspecialistsof various EUmembers on the basis of measurements in the various countries undertakeninthelate1980ths. The composition of the road traffic in the Highway ParisLyon at Auxerre has been decided to be the statistical basis for defining recommendations for characteristic values,asthiscompositionseemedtoberepresentativeforfuturedevelopmentsin allEurope. Thecharacteristicvaluesweredefinedwithareturnperiodof1000yearsinsteadof theusualvaluesof50yearsbecauseoftheprevailingrequirementofserviceability onthislevelandsustainabilityofdecision. Whereas a 50 yearsreturn period would have meant a 98%fractile of the annual distributionofextremevaluesinthemean(i.e.for50%ofthebridgepopulation),the 1000yearsreturnperiodmeansa98%fractileoftheannualdistributionofextreme valuesfor95%ofthebridgepopulation. TheresponsesofMemberStatesintheirNAsareexpectednottobehomogeneous, because Figure10

(3)

(4)

(5)

10


2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 12

trafficconditionsareveryregional, some countries use extraordinary loads in addition to the standard load model, somecountriesuseloadclassesfortheirroadnetwork.

1000 kN
12

600 kN
6

300 kN
3

11,0 m

Load-model LM1 (draft German NA)


(6) 1. All values are equal or above 1.0 because the future trends in traffic developments must be taken into account. In comparing the characteristic vehicleweightsforalengthof11mtheincreaseisabout10%. Thevaluesoftheuniformlydistributedloadsareincreasedby1.30except forthesecondheavylanewheretheincreaseisby2.40. This is due to the results of evaluations of traffic measurements performed duringthedraftingworksandexplainedhereafter. The increase of about 1.30 is justified by simulations of future traffic compositions (including 60 t modular heavy vehicles) taking account of rubbertrainswithafreightvolumesubstantiallylargerthanusedtodayand withasmarterfreightmanagement. AnexampleforaresponseisthedraftloadingmodelintheGermanNAasgivenin Figure11.Itreflectsthefollowingconditions: Figure11

2. 3.

(7) ThisexampleisspecificforGermanybeingthelargesttransitcountryatthecrossing pointofNorthSouthandEastWesttrafficandwithlimitedcontrolsontheroads. 11

4.2. (1) (2) Ithasbeenusedwithotherstatisticaldatatoperformdynamicnumericalsimulations withbridgesofvariousinfluencesurfacestoobtainarealisticviewonthestatisticsof actioneffectsinthebridges.Tothisendthedynamicbehaviourofvehicleshasbeen modelledbyrigidbodieswithnonlinearsprings,dampersandfrictionelementsand the surface roughness of the asphalt was artificially generated with Power Spectral DensityclassificationsaccordingtoISOTC108,seeFigure13. The statistical background of traffic measurements on the highway in Auxerre has beendocumentedasgiveninFigure12. Background of the load model LM1 and of the recommended characteristic load values

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 13

Statistical distribution of characteristics of vehicles


Figure12

12

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 14

Modelling of vehicles and surfaces



2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 15

Figure13

Modelling of bridges
(3) Bridges were modelled as elasticmasssystems with an eigenfrequencyspan characteristicgiveninFigure14.ThisFigurealsogivestheresultsofmodelcalibration withtestscarriedoutatEMPAZrich. The results of the simulations are given in Figure 15 for the case of midspan moments of a three span continuous bridge. Apparently the effects of load model 13 Figure14

(4)

LM1aresafesidedinthiscasetocopeforotherrequirementsfromotherinfluence lines.
2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 16

Load-model and simulations



2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 17

Figure15

Dynamic effects
(5) A byproduct of the simulations is a comparison of static and dynamic action effectsasgiveninFigure16.Thedistributionlinesshowthatdynamiceffectscause Figure16

14

an additional M value (constant shift) rather than an amplification by a dynamic factor.ThatisthereasonwhydynamicfactorsareincludedinloadmodelLM1. 4.3 (1) Reliability analysis of load model LM1 was performed with two medium spanned steel bridges with orthotropic decks that were built in Germany with the National LoadingCodeDIN1072,seeFigure17.
2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 18

Reliabilityanalysisandpartialfactors

K 210

K 138

Reference bridges for reliability analysis


Figure17

15

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 19

Definition of target -value


(2) A reliability analysis on the basis of the statistics of the traffic in Auxerre and the statistics of largescale tests used to define characteristic values of resistancies in Eurocode3givesthe values(reliabilityindices)asplottedinFigure18. TheFigureshowsthattheminimum valuefoundis =6.00.Thiswasthenused asthetargetvalueforaprobabilisticdesignofbridgeswithvariousinfluencelinesto identifyapartialfactor G fortheloadmodelLM1.
2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 20

Figure18

(3)

P r o b a b ilis t ic d e s ig n

E C 1 - P art 2 L o ad M o d el

r e q u ire d

LM Q

Qd

f y W

req u

w h e re

Qd

LM Q

= 1 .1 0 = 1.3 5

=
Q

M M

Qd LM Q

Definition of Q-value
Figure19 16

(4) Theprobabilisticdesigngivesforvariousshapesofinfluencelinesandspans theresistances Wrequired ofthemaingirdersthatcomplywith =6.00. Inusingthedefinitions: Figure19givesthemethodforidentifying Q [Bez]:

fy

yieldstrength momentforpermanentweightsasdefinedintheEurocodes 1.35 1.10

M G =

G
M

= =

adesignvalue M Qd canbedefinedfromtheprobabilisticdesignononehand. In using on the other hand load model LM1 the moment caused by traffic
LM loads M Q can be determined and the design value is defined by LM M Qd = Q M Q .

Fromacomparisonof M Qd fromthetworoutesthevalue Q isobtained.

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 21

Q-values from LM1


Figure20

17

(5) Figure21 Figure 20 gives the distributions of Q values obtained in this way for various influencelines,spansandroadwidths.Itshowsthelargescatterofvaluesandalso that Q =1.35isthemaximum. (6) (7) 4.4 (1) Figure 22 gives a forecast of the year 2000 for the future development of freight volumeofterrestictrafficthathasbeenexceededin2010byfar. Tendencyoftrafficdevelopment This effect was one of the reasons for the choice of values in the draft German NA. Thescatterof Q issmallerandthemaximumvaluesareintherangeof1.25,sothat Figure 21 demonstrates what happens if in the load model LM1 the uniformly distributedloadinlane1isslightlyreducedandinlane2enhancedbyafactorof2:

M couldbereducedto M =1.00.

18

(2)

Figure23givesthedevelopmentofrequestsforpermanenttravellingpermissionsfor heavyvehiclesexceedingthelegalweightlimits,resultinginabout100requestsper day.

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 23

Forecast of freight-volume

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 24

Figure22

Development of permits for heavy vehicles


Figure23

19

(3)

Figure 24 gives the vehicle and axle loads and accumulated number of vehicles as measuredbyweighinmotion(WIM)methodsinanaccesshighwaytoRotterdamin theNetherlandsfor1year.

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 25

Results of WIM-measurements in NL
(4) 1. 2. 3. therecommendationsforLM1arenotovercautious, therearetendanciestoincreasethetrafficloadsbydevelopinglargervehicles toreduceCO2emissions, a clear picture of a future loadmodel can only be obtained where clear decisionsfromtransportpoliticsaremade.Suchdecisionsshouldnotignore thelargeimpactofsuchdecisionsonthesustainabilityoftheloadingmodel fortheexistinginfrastructure. Allthesemeasurementsshowthat Figure24

4.5 (1) the fatigue load, in general given with a frequency distribution or as a constantdamageequivalentload, henumberofloadreversalsintherequiredservicetime. t 20 A numerical means to assess durability is the fatigue assessment, that requires the definitionofthetwodimensionalfatigueactionsintermsofapairofvalues: TheloadmodelFLM3forfatigueverifications 4.5.1 General

(2)

EN19912specifiesadamageequivalentvehicleFLM3withasymmetricgeometric loadingpattern,thatcontainstwotandemaxleloadswithanaxleloadof120kNand avehicleloadof480kN. EN19912alsogivestheannualnumberofheavyvehiclesdependingonthecategory ofhighway,Figure25.


2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 26

Fatigue load model specified in EN 1991


480 kN

Number of expected trucks per year for a single lane

Traffic Category
1: 2-Lane Highways with a high rate of heavy vehicles 2: Highways and roads with a medium rate of heavy vehicles 3: Main roads with a low rate of heavy vehicles 4: Country roads with a low rate of heavy vehicles

Number of heavy vehicles N


2 106 / a 0,5 106 / a 0,125 106 / a 0,05 106 / a

Fatigue loading model FLM 3


(3) Thisdamageequivalentvehiclerepresentsacertainfrequencydistributionofvarious heavy vehicles in the traffic spectrum, evaluated with the slope m=5 of the fatigue resistance lines. For application in numerical fatigue assessments, which are not based on fatigue damage (two dimensional), but on stressranges only (one dimensional),themodelisusedinthefollowingway: The stress range max = max min is determined from the extreme positionsofthevehiclesonthestaticinfluencesurface, the values max are modified with equivalent factors fat and to take account of dynamic effects and the specific characteristics of the spectrum consideredintheproject. (4) Figure 26 gives the concept for this fatigue assessment, that usually works with partial factors Ff and Mf , depending on the safety concept applied. Usually the conceptofDamagetoleranceisused,whichrequires,thatanyfatiguedamage,i.e. the formation and growth of cracks, can be detected in regular inspections of the 21 Figure25

structure,beforethedamageattainsasizecriticalfortheultimateresistanceofthe structure.
2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 27

Ff

fa t

m ax

Mf

Concept for fatigue assessment with equivalent constant amplitude stress ranges

s a fe ty fa c to r f o r f a t ig u e s tr e n g th

r e fe r e n c e f a t ig u e s t re n g th a t 2 1 0 6 c y c le s

m a x im u m s tr e s s r a n g e f r o m E C 1 -2 lo a d m o d e l

d a m a g e e q u iv a le n c e fa c t o r r e p r e s e n t in g t h e s p e c t ru m

crack size a

critical crack size acrit

d a m a g e e q u iv a le n t im p a c t f a c t o r

s a f e ty fa c t o r f o r fa tig u e lo a d

Ff = 1.00 Mf = 1.00 1.15 for damage tolerance Mf = 1.25 1.35 for safe life method

detectable crack size a0 time Inspection interval

Assessment method for FLM 3

(5)

Figure26 Thefatigueresistances c arebasedonconstantamplitudetestswithlargescale specimens,thatcontainallfeaturesofweldedstructures(discontinuitiesandresidual stresses). Figure 27 gives an example for detail categories c as specified in EN 199319andevaluationsoftestresultsthatsupportthechoiceof c madeinEN 199319.

The comparison shows that for some details there may be a large scatter of tests, fromwhichthechoiceshavebeenmadeandthatforotherdetailsthebasisoftestsis rathersmall. Theremaybealsotheproblem,thatfordetailschoseninaprojecteitherthefatigue loading or the fatigue resistance may only be roughly estimated, so that ways of fatigueassessmentotherthanbythenumericalwayarepreferred,e.g.prescriptive rulesforfatigueorsubstitutiverulesforserviceability.

22

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 28

Fatigue details welded attachments and stiffeners

EN 1993-1-9 - Fatigue resistance


4.5.2. Examplefordescriptiverulesforsufficientfatigueresistance (1) An example for the derivation of a descriptive rule for achieving sufficient fatigue resistanceisgiveninFigure28.Incomparingthemomentresistancesofmaingirders resultingfromULSverificationswithLoadmodelLM1andfromfatigueassessments with Loadmodel FLM3 all for a certain minimum fatigue resistance, e.g. c = 71MPa,acertainmaximumspanlengthcanbedeterminedwherefatigueisnomore relevant. Figure27

23

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 29

Required moment of inertia from ULS and fatigue design for detail category 71

Moment of Resistance W/L [cm2m/m]

= 1 ,0
ULS

= 0 ,8
F a tig u e

S pa n L [m ]

Span limits for fatigue design

(2) (3)

Figure28 Soadescriptiverulecouldbe tospecifyaminimumrequirementforthefatigueresistanceofalldetails,e.g.

c =71MPa,
to define a minimum span length from which on numerical assessments are necessary.

Figure29givesanotherexamplefordescriptiverulesforcertaindetails.Inthiscase theconnectionofhangersoftiedarchbridges,forwhichvariousdetailsarecommon couldbestandardisedinsuchaway,thatfatiguefrom: vortexinducedvibrations rainwindinducedvibrations fatiguefromimposeddeformationsfromthepassingoffatiguevehicleonthe bridge

aretakenintoaccount.

24

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 30

Joint for hanger


Alternatives for joints of hangers: optimised joint: continuously increasing stiffness (K90) low curvature from bending end of hanger with hole and inclined cut low stresses at end of hanger for K50 ratio of inclined cut and connecting plate avoiding of stress peak at end of hanger

Recommendations for durable detailing



2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 31

Figure29

Hanger connection for arch bridges

2 3 4

Substitution of fatigue checks for critical details


(4) Figure30givessuchanexampleforastandardizedsolutionthatmaybedefinedby geometric descriptions only. The background of these geometric descriptions are fatigue assessments for the critical hot spots , , , that have been undertakenforalargevarietyofbridgestoprovetheirsafety. Figure30

25

(5)

Aparticularcasefordescriptiverulesistheorthotropicsteeldeckofbridges,see Figure31.Themostcriticalhotspotforsuchplatesistheweldedconnectionofthe deckplatetothetroughsortothewebsofthecrossbeams.

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 32

Standard orthotropic steel deck with continuous stringers with cope holes in the web of the cross beam

Substitution of fatigue checks by structural detailing rules



2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 33

Figure31

Structural detailing for deck plate


connection of deck plate to troughs
75 HV HV HV 12 14

300

300

300

design life load model 4 without layer < 10 years asphaltic 30 - 50 years sealing PmB 45 thermosetting 70 - 90 years resin PmB 25

fr t = 6 mm

Recommended details of orthotropic deck


(6) The fatigue loading model FLM3 is not applicable for verifying these hot spots, becauseitdoesnotsufficientlymodeltheeffectsofthetyrepressureofthewheels. 26 Figure32

Alsotheanalysismodelforfatigueisnotsufficient,ifitisrestrictedtomodellingthe steelstructureonly. (7) Figure 32 demonstrates in what way the steeldeck adhesively connected with the asphaltlayerisaffectedbythestiffnessofthelayeranditssensitivitytotemperature andloadingfrequency. TakingPolymermodifiedBitumenPmB45intoaccountproducesanenhancementof servicelifebyafactorof3to5andPmB25generatesanenhancementbyafactorof 7to9. ThereforeAnnexCtoEN19932givesprescriptiverulesforthemostcriticaldetailsof orthotropicplates,e.g.deckplatethickness,distanceoftroughs,weldpreparations forweldedjointsofstiffenersetc.tosecureasufficientfatiguelife.

(8)

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 34

Structural detailing for cross beams


75 12 hT > 0,15 h T 25 t Steg hQTr

tLtrough = 6 mm tweb = 10 - 16 mm; verification of net web section required hcrossbeam 700 mm

(9)

Figure33 AnexampleforthestructuraldetailsdealtwithinAnnexCistheinterconnectionof troughs and webs of crossbeams according to Figure 33 and the definition of a minimum depth of crossbeams and minimum thickness of webplate to avoid the formation of cracks at the cutout for which a toothassessment in the critical horizontalsectionbetweenthecutoutsisnecessary.

27

4.5.3 Examplesforindirectfatigueassessments (1) A particular protection aim for orthotropic steel decks is to avoid cracks in the asphaltlayer that could lead to corrosion of the deckplate and in case of disintegrationofthelayertosecurityproblemsoftheroadusers. Thecausesofsuchcracksare
2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 35

(2) insufficientstrainabilityoftheasphaltinparticularduringwinter, xcessive flexibility of the deckplate in particular due to differential e deflectionsofthetroughs,seeFigure34.

Potential positions of cracks in the asphalt layer

Durability of asphalt layer


(3) From an evaluation of the ratio of the frequency of occurrence of cracks in the asphaltversusthemaximumstrainexertedfromdifferentialdeflectionsoftheribsa minimum requirement of the stiffness of troughs has been derived that is given in Figure35. Figure34

28

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 36

Steel bridges serviceability limit state


Requirements for the minimum stiffness of stringers depending on the distance between crossbeams
distance between cross girders a [m]

5 A 4

3 0 1000 5000 10000 15000 20000

second moment of area IB of the stringers including deckplate [m4] Condition for curve A
1,20m 1

IB 2

1 heavy traffic lane 2 web of main girder or longitudinal girder

(4) (5)

Figure35 Thisminimumstiffnessrequirement,specifiedinEN19932,alsoprotectsthedeck platefromexcessivefatiguestresses. Another indirect fatigue assessment given in EN 19932 is the verification to excessivewebbreathing,thatmayleadtocrackingattheweldededgesoftheweb plateandalsoavoidsthehungryhorseappearance. Figure 36 shows the relevant platebucklingformula applied for stresses on the servicelevel.

(6)

29

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 37

Plate buckling
Verification to web breathing
x ,Ed ,ser k E
2

Ed ,ser + 1 .1 1.15 k E

b21

subpanel

a1

a2 aG

a3

a4

stiffened panel length y

stiffened panel width

Definition of a plated element


transverse edge

longitudinal edge

bG

Figure36

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 38

Figure37

4.5.4 BackgroundinformationtotheEurocodespecificationsfortrafficloads (1) TheJRChaspreparedabackgrounddocumenttoEN1991Part2Trafficloadsfor roadbridgesandconsequencesforthedesign,seeFigure37,thatiscurrentlybeing extendedtoincludealsothebackgroundofthetrafficloadsforrailwaybridges.

30

(2)

Thatbackgrounddocumentgivestheorigineoftheloadspecificationsandcouldbe usedasasourcefordeterminingtendenciesfrommorerecenttrafficmeasurements orfromstudiesthatincludefurtherdevelopmentsofheavyvehicles. Modellingofsteelbridgesfortheanalysis General Twoexamplesformodelsusedforthedesignofsteelbridgesarepresentedinthis report,thatareconnectedwithdurabilitychecks: Modelforshearlagforwideflangese.g.thebridgedeckcooperatingwiththe maingirdersastopflange, Modelforfatiguedesign.

5. 5.1 (1)

5.2 (1) (2) thebendingtheoryofbeamswithloads Pz andbendingmoments M z apply to the full crosssection with the full geometric flange width b . It gives the warpingdistribution z , anadditionalwarpingdistribution w forlongitudinalstresses x isfound,the distributionofwhichcomplieswithalinearsheardistribution flangeandhasthefollowingproperties: it is orthogonal to the warping distributions w1 = 1 for normal forces andforbending w2 = z ,inthattheequations: Figure38showstheprinciple: The basis for the model of shear lag in EN 199315, to which EN 19932 makes reference,isthebeamtheoryextendedtocoversheardeformations. Modelforshearlag

w inthewide s

w dA = w dA + k A = 0 w z dA = w z dA + k A
0 1w 0 zw

zz

=0

apply, it gives a vertical deformation v that can be determined from the second order analysis model of a beam with the bending stiffness

E Aww where

Aww = w 2 dA
31

and the tension force G S , representing the shear stiffness of the wideflange. this analysis model also gives warping moments M w that may be usedtodeterminetheselfequilibratingstresspattern

w =

Mw w Aww
Mz z Azz

thesumof
z =

and

w =

Mw w Aww

gives the final stress distribution in equilibrium with external forces takingaccountofthenonlinearstressdistributioninthewideflange, the equivalence to this nonlinear stress distribution is a constant stressdistributioninthewideflangehoweverreducedtotheeffective width beff = b

3. MODELLING OF STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 39

Shear lag effect

GS

Figure38

32

3. MODELLING OF STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 40

Subdivision of a moment-distribution to elements with standard shape

Figure39 (3) (4) For the ease for use however the moment distribution of the continuous beam is divided into various unit distributions, each of which can be modelled by a simply supportedbeamwithacombinationofuniformlydistributedloadandconcentrated load,where istherelevantshapeparameterforthemomentshape. Figure 39 shows a moment distribution for a continuous beam where this model couldbeapplied:

iscalculatedonthebasisof M z fromabeamanalysis is calculated from M w determined from 2nd order theory for a continuousbeamwiththetensionforce G S .

33

3. MODELLING OF STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 41

-factor for shear lag

(5)

Figure40 Figure40givesthealgebraicsolutionfor forvariousshapes takingaccountof thepossibleorthotrophyofthewideflangeby 0 b ,where 0 =1 forisotropicflangeplates fororthotropicflangeplates,wherethelongitudinalstiffnessislarger thantheshearstiffness forcrackedconcreteslabs,wherethelongitudinalstiffnessfortension issmallerthantheshearstiffness

0 >1 0 <1
(6)

Figure 40 also shows the formulae for specified in EN 199315 for the extreme valueenvelopesofbendingmoments,forwhichareferencelengthofbeamanda valuehasbeenchosen.

5.3 (1) Whereasthemodellingofthestructuresforultimatelimitstateverificationsmaybe simplified, e.g. by hinged connections at the junction of deckplate and vertical stiffeners of crossframe, fatigue assessments need a modelling of the monocoque structuretakingintoaccountthecontinuityofdeformationsofthedeckplateandof thetransverseframetotaketherestrainingmomentsintoaccount,seeFigure41. Modellingforultimatelimitstateverificationsandforfatigueassessments

34

3. MODELLING OF STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 42

Differences in modelling
Modelling for ULS Modelling for fatigue

(2)

Figure41 Alsosmallcurvaturesofabridgeinplanviewnormallyneglectedintheanalysisfor ULS may induce lateral forces in the hogging and sagging moment regions of the maingirdersthatmayenhancetherestrainingmomentsinthetransverseframe. Fatigue damages have also been observed at the connections of longitudinal stiffeners in webs of maingirders, that normally are designed for plate buckling underperfectloadingconditionsforULS,howeverincaseofflexibledeckplatesmay receive lateral imposed deformations from deflections of the crossbeams under trafficloads,seeFigure42.

(3)

35

3. MODELLING OF STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 43

Differences in modelling
Modelling for ULS Fatigue effects on web stiffeners

Figure42

3. MODELLING OF STEEL BRIDGES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 44

Differences in modelling
Modelling for ULS Frame and distorsional effects

(4)

Figure43 A typical difference in modelling for ULS and fatigue is given in Figure 43 for box girderbridges, where transverse frames are usually designed for load distributing forces calculated on the basis of rigid crosssection shapes, whereas for fatigue the distortionofthecrosssectionandsecondarymomentsinducedbythecontinuityof deformationsofthedeckplateandthetransverseframemayberelevant.

36

6. 6.1 (1)

Specificationsforbearings General EN 1990 Annex A2 does not give rules for the determination of action effects as forces,momentsandmovementsforspecifyingtheperformanceconditionsforthe deliveryofbearings. Therefore the preparation of such rules is a first priority task for Nonconflicting complementaryinformationtoEN1990A2tomaketheEurocodesfullyoperablefor thedesignofbridges. EN1993Part2givesinitsAnnexARequirementsforbearingsthataremeantto beindependentondifferentmaterialsandwaysofconstruction. ThisAnnexneedshoweverfurtherdevelopmenttoachievethefollowinggoals: therulesshouldgiverealisticresultsinthattheycomplywithmeasurements offorcesandmovementsfrommanydecades, the rules should be applicable for all types of fixed, sliding, rolling and deformingbearings, therulesshouldallowtoderivethespecificationsforbearingsfromaglobal analysis of the bridge for ULS comprising the interaction of superstructure, bearings,piers,foundationandthesoil.Thisspecificationshouldbeconsistent with the design of the support area of the superstructure (e.g. for eccentricities),thedesignofthepiers(e.g.loadingandexcentricities)andof thefoundations.

(2)

(3) (4)

(5) (6) 6.2 (1) Figure44givesthedesignprinciplesforthepreparationofconstructiondocuments neededtoorderthedeliveryofbearingsaccordingtoEN1337. Designprinciplesforthepreparationofconstructiondocuments InthefollowingthemaincontentsofsuchafutureAnnexEtoEN1990,thatwould substitutethenowAnnexAtoEN19932ispresented. Therulesshouldalsobeconsistentwiththepropertiesofbearings,asspecifiedinthe productstandardforbearings,i.e.EN1337.

37

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 45

Design principles for individual bearings - Permission of movements minimizing the reaction forces - No tensile forces - No significant redistribution of forces to other bearings from accomodation to installation tolerances - Specification of installation conditions with details of construction sequence and time variable conditions - Measure to avoid unforeseen deformation of the bearings (non uniform contact)

Figure44

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 46

Construction documents

Bearing plan (drawing of the bearing system) Bearing installation drawing (structural details) Bearing schedule (characteristic values from each action, design values from combination of action)

(2)

Figure45 Theconstructiondocuments,seeFigure45,are thebearingplan,thatshowsthebearingsystem, thebearinginstallationdrawing, thebearingschedule. 38

6.3 (1)

Preparationofbearingschedules Afterthechoiceofthebearingplanwithselectionofthetypesofbearing,seeFigure 46, bearing schedules need to be prepared, for which Figure 47 and Figure 48 give models.

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 47

sliding displacement

rolling

deforming

rotation

Functional principles of bearings

(2)

Figure46 In Figure 47 the characteristic values of actioneffects (forces, moments and movements) are given for each individual action, so that load combinations can be performed that allow to define either extreme values together with simultaneous accompanyingactionsorconservativecombinationsofextremevaluesonly.

39

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 48

Figure47
4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 49

(3) (4)

Figure48 Figure48givesanexamplefortheindicationofdesignvaluesfromthecombination ofextremecharacteristicvalues. Thebearingschedulesarethenusedbythebearingproducerstodesignthebearings accordingtotherulesinEN1337.

40

(5)

The reference standards for the preparation of the bearing schedules are given in Figure 49 and Figure 50. For accidental design situations also EN 19912 should be taken into account with particular rules for the impact scenarios for bridges to be considered. The National Annex may give descriptive rules (e.g. limitation of bridge movementsbystructuralmeasures)thatapplyinsteadofnumericalassessments.

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 50

Actions for permanent and transient design situations


No. Action Reference to temperature T0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 Self-weight Dead loads Prestressing Creep concrete Shrinkage of concrete Traffic loads Special vehicles Centrifugal forces Nosing forces Brake and acceleration forces Footpath loading Wind on structure without traffic Wind on structure with traffic Range uniform temperature Vertical temperature difference Horizontal temperature difference Soil Settlements Bearing resistance/friction forces Replacement of bearing Pressure and suction from traffic Wind during erection Construction loads Accidental actions Eurocode DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07 DIN EN 1991-1-7:2007-02 DIN EN 1991-1-7:2007-02 DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10 and DIN EN 1994-2:2006-07 DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10 DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07 DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07 DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.3 and 6.1.5 DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.4 and 6.2 DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09 DIN EN 1337, Part 2 to 8 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05 DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07 and DIN EN 1991-1-6:2005-09 DIN EN 1991-1-6:2005-09 DIN EN 1991-1-7:2007-02

For transient design situations reduction of variable actions due to limited duration EN 1991-2, 4.5.3. For steel bridges also actions from installation of hot asphalt according to technical project specifications.

Figure49

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 51

Actions in accidental design situations Specifications according to EN 1991-2 Limitation of bridge movements by structural measures, e.g. stop devices at abutments

Actions in seismic design situations Specifications according to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-2

Figure50

41

6.4 (1)

Particularitiesofcombinationrules Figure51givestheprinciplesforthedeterminationofdesignvaluesofmovements andbearingforceswhenusingthecombinationrules.

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 52

Determination of design values of movements and bearing forces Principles Combination according to EN 1990, 6.5.3.2 (2) with partial factors according to EN 1990, A.2 and particular rules for climatic temperature effects Movements due to creep and shrinkage by multiplying mean values in EN 1992-2 and EN 1994-2 by a factor of 1.35 Verification of static equilibrium (uplift of bearings) and anchoring devices by applying 0.05 GK spanwise Consideration of deformations of foundation, piers and bearings in the modelling of the structure, see EN 1991-2, 6.5.4.2 Use of 2nd order theory for accounting for deformations of piers after installation of bearings if required by EN 1992-1-1, 5.8.2 (6). For calculation of pier deformations ky = 0,5 may be applied to geometric member imperfections in EN 1992-1-1, 5.2.

(2)

Figure51 In order to comply with the requirement of realistic behaviour the following particularitiesshouldbetakenintoaccount: the F value for climatic temperature effects cannot exceed the value
F = 1.35 , so that this value should be chosen instead of the recommended

value F = 1.5 . (3) Fordeterminingthedesignvaluesofmovementsfromthedesignvaluesofextreme temperatures TEd ,min and TEd ,max the safety system in Figure 52 should be used. It comprisestwoelements thedesignvalues F TN with F = 1.35 42 Creep and shrinkage should be taken into account by using mean values multipliedwithafactorof1.35. Non uniform distribution of permanent loads should be considered by applying 0.05 Gk ontheinfluencelineforupliftandforanchoring. Equivalentgeometricimperfectionswithonly50%ofthegeometricmember imperfectionsspecifiedinEN199211,5.2shouldbeapplied.

the reference temperature T0 T with T from uncertainties of the temperatureofthestructureduringinstallation,where TN dependsontype ofconstructionandthetypicalhourofmeasurement(e.g.earlymorningfor steelstructures,afternoonforcompositestructures).

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 53

Determination of design values of movements and bearing forces Climatic temperature effects Maximum and minimum constant temperature component: Ted, min = T0 - F TN,con - T0 Ted, max = T0 + F TN,exp + T0
additional safety element charact. Values EN 1991-1-5, 6.1.3.3 partial factor F = 1.35 reference temperature during installation of the bearings, e.g. +10C

Table E.4: Recommended values for T0


Case Installation of bearing steel bridges 1 2 Installation with measured Temperature and with correction by Resetting with bridge set at T0 Installation with estimated T0 and without correction by resetting with bridge set T0 Installation with estimated temperature T0 and without correction by resetting and also one ore more changes in position of the fixed bearing 0 10 T0 [C] composite bridges 0 10 concrete bridges 0 10

25

20

20

Td = Ted,max - Ted,min For non-linear behaviour stepwise determination Td = F TN

Figure52
4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 54

Reaction forces at fixed points resulting form resistance of the bearing system For sliding bearings:

a ( G ,sup Gk + Q 1 Qki + Qi 0i Qki ) FH d = Q Q1k + other variable actions r [ G ,inf Gk ]


vertical actions of traffic load self weight, dead loads coefficient of friction according EN 1337-1, 6.2. For PTFE sliding bearings max = 0.03

Forces from acceleration and braking

For elastomeric bearings

Gsup Asup q ,d ,sup FH d = Q Qk1 + Ginf Ainf q ,d ,inf


forces from acceleration and braking Shear deformations of the bearings according to EN 1337-3 plan shear area of bearings nominal values of shear modulus Gsup = 1.05 N/mm2 Ginf = 0.75 N/mm2

igure53 F 43

(4) (5) (6) 7. 7.1 (1) (2)

For continuous bridges over deep valleys with tall piers the fixed bearings may be installedononeortwoofthetallpiersinthemiddleofthebridge. In this case the horizontal forces from braking and friction in the bearings to be appliedtothesefixedbearingsmaybetakenfromFigure53. This Figure also gives the horizontal forces for the case that bearing may not be causedbyfrictionbutbyelasticrestraints(elastomericbearings). Choiceofmaterialtoavoidbrittlefracture General All design rules for steelstructures are based on the evaluation of large scale tests thathavebeenperformedatroomtemperature. Atthistemperature(~20C)steelnormallyexhibitsaductileplasticbehaviour,sothat largeplasticstrainsoccurattheultimatelimitstate,thatcausestressredistributions inthecrosssectionandmaketheuseofnominalstresseswithoutgeometricand metallurgicnotcheffectsandwithoutconsiderationofsecondarymomentspossible andhencemakethedesignrulessimple. Notsointhelowtemperatureregionwhereferriticsteelsmayshowindependancy of their toughness properties a fracture mechanism under tension loads that macroscopically may be classified as brittle, because plastic deformations are small andfailureoccurswithoutsignificantplasticdeformations. Thechoiceofmaterialtoavoidbrittlefracturethereforemainlyaimsatchoosingthe toughnesspropertiesofsteelsuch,thatonlyULSverificationsintheductiledomain are necessary and other failure mechanisms in the low temperature region can be ignored. Tomeetthisgoalthetoughnessofsteelthatisrequired,needstobedeterminedby afracturemechanicsassessmentofthecomponent,takingaccountof thegeometricshapeanddimensionsofthecomponent, thestressesinthecomponent, thehypotheticalpresenceofacrackatthehotspotwherethegeometrical metallurgical and stress situation gives the highest probability for the formationofacrack, 44

(3)

(4)

(5)

ashapeandsizeofthecrackthatcomplieswithoberservationsintestingand with the accuracy of the testing method as it should be at the limit of detectability, thefatigueloadingandinspectionmanagementtoaccountforpossiblecrack growthinserviceuntilthecrackisdetected, thelowesttemperatureinthecomponent.

(6)

This fracture mechanics assessment is not a fitness for purpose check, as the assumptionse.g.thepresenceofcracksareonlyhypothetical.Ithasthecharacterof acheckforanaccidentaldesignsituationandhenceproducesrobustnessforthe unprobablecasethatoneormoreofthehypotheticalassumptionswouldholdtrue. Whereastherequirementofrobustnessisoftendescribedinqualitativeterms,e.g. by the requirement to avoid progressive collaps, the robustness from the choiceof materialtoavoidbrittlefractureisexpressedquantitatively. Inputforthechoiceofmaterialforsteelbridges Aparticularityofthechoiceofmaterialforsteelbridgesisthatthedesignvalueof crack a d assumedatthehotspotofastructuralcomponentisverymuchaffectedby fatigue,seeFigure54.

(7)

7.2 (1)

(2) Hencetheinitialcracksize a0 overlookedintestingafterfabricationisassumedtobe enhanced by crack growth due to fatigue actions. The fatigue action taken into accountisonequarterofthefullfatiguedamage
3 D = c 2 10 3

45

Choice of material

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
55

Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010

Assumption for a0

c 3 2 10 6 a d = a0 f 4
a0 ad

fatigue loading initial crack design crack

Safety assessment based on fracture mechanics Kappl,d Kmat,d

Kmat,d (T27J, TEd) Kappl,d (member shape, ad, 1Ed)

(3)

Figure54 Thefracturemechanicsassessmentisperformedwithstressintensityfactors K ,one fortheactionside


K appl ,d

whichisinfluencedbythemembershape,thecracksizeandthefrequentstresses
Ed = 1 E ,ULS

according to the combination rules for accidental design situations, and on the resistanceside whichincludesthetemperatureT27JfromCharpyVnotchimpactteststhatproduce animpactenergyof27Joule. Thisassumptionmakesitpossibletoestablishalinkbetweenthefracturemechanics assessment and the necessary number of inspections during the service life of the structure. (5) It also produces structures that are damage tolerant, because the crack growth fromhypotheticalcracksissufficientlyslow,toprovidelonginspectionintervals,and 46
K mat ,d

the inspections create a prewarning system, so that in case unforeseen damages are detected, there is sufficient time to intervene before damages attain a critical size. 7.3 (1) (2) ThisFigureshowsthetoughnesstemperaturecurvewiththeuppershelfdomain B1 andthetransitiontemperaturedomain A1 withlowtoughnessvalues.Italsoshows the loaddeformation characteristic from large scale tests to determine design resistancesintheductiledomain B3 andintheelasticdomain A2 . (3) For persistent and transient design situations the load level B2 applies for normaltemperaturesresultinginuppershelfbehaviourandductilestructural responsesintests. For the accidental design situation at extremely low temperatures the load levelisatfrequentloads, A2 ,withtoughnesspropertiesinthelowerpartof the toughnesstemperaturetransition domain, A1 , and elastic structural responseintests, A3 ,compatiblewiththeuseofstressintensityfactors K .
5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 56

Basicfracturemechanicsprocedure Thesafetyapproachthatlinksthefracturemechanicsassessmentforductilematerial behaviourinthevarioustemperaturedomainsmaybetakenfromFigure55.

ThethirdgraphinFigure55givesthelinesofequalprobabilityofactioneffectsfrom combinationsofactionsforbridges:

Toughness-temperature - Load-strain-diagram

Design situations in the upper-shelf region B and the transition region A of the toughness-temperature diagram

Figure55 47

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 57

Safety assessment based on temperature


K*appl,d Kmat,d Transformation
TEd TRd

TEd TRd

Assessment scheme
Action side
TEd = Tmin + Tr + T + TR + [T + Tpl ]
lowest air temperature in combination with Ed: Tmin = -25 C radiation loss: Tr = - 5 C influence of stress, crack imperfection and member shape and dimension:
14 K b appl 20 eff 10 kR6 25 T = 52ln [C] 70

Resistance
TRd = T100
Influence of material toughness T100 = T27J 18 [C]

additive safety element: TR = +7 C (with = 3.8)

Figure56 (4) Figure56showsthebasicformulaforthedeterminationoftheminimumtoughness properties in EN 1993110 which results from the transformation of the equation withstressitensityfactors K totemperatures T . Thistemperatureorientedequationallowstotakeadditionalstrainrateeffectsand coldformingeffectsintoaccountbysimpletemperatureshifts T . (5) The basic formula with temperatures has been used to calculate the maximum thicknessvaluesofsteelproductsdependingonthegradeandsubgradeofsteel.,the referencetemperature TEd andthenominalfrequentstress Ed ,seeFigure57.

48

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 58

Choice of material to EN 1993-1-10

(6)

Figure57 At present this table with maximum thickness values is extended to make it applicabletocoldformedhollowsectionsstructures,stainlesssteelandalsoforthe choiceofmaterialforplasticdesign(uppershelfbehaviour). Requirementsforuppershelfbehaviour Sofarafracturemechanicsproceduretoidentifythenecessarytoughnessproperties intheuppershelfbehaviourisnotyetavailable. Therefore EN 1993Part 2 contains an opening for National decisions with a recommendationthatmaybeattributedtothefollowingprocedure. Figure 58 shows the characteristic of a nonharmonized threepointbending test withamaterialsamplethathasgotaweldseamonthesurfaceintension.Thisseam madewithanonductileelectrodeisintendedtoinitiateacrackduringbending. Featuresofthecrackgrowthuptoaplasticangle arethenusedtoclassifythetest resultaspassedorfailed.

7.4 (1) (2) (3)

(4)

49

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 59

National quality tests

AUBI-test according to SEP 1390 (1996)

Figure58

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 60

trend analysis for the AUBI correlation

(5)

Figure59 Figure59givestheresultsofsuchtestsfromqualitytestsofsteelproducersrelated to the CharpyVnotch impact energy and the thickness of the product from which thesamplesweretaken.

50

(6)

The conclusion from Figure 59 is the recommendation in Figure 60, according to whichthechoiceoffinegrainsteelsisnecessaryforproductthicknessesgreaterthan 30mm. ThischoicesupersedesthechoiceaccordingtothetableinFigure57.
5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 61

(7)

Choice of material given in Table 3.1 of EN 1993-2

7.5 (1)

Figure60 ExamplesforuseofEN1993110forchoiceofmaterialinsteelbridges Aconventionalsteelbridge,withcompositeboxgirdersectionisgiveninFigure61. Theplatethicknessoftheupperflangeandthebottomplateoftheboxgirderthat attainvaluesupto135mmhavebeenchosentoEN1993110.

51

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 62

Example: Thick plates for the composite Elbebridge Vockerode (EN 1993-1-10)

Bridge system and construction

Cross section

Plate thickness for S355 J2G3


Support
75 75 115 135 115 85 85 60 60 60 115 140 145

Span
145

Support Upper chord


140 115 60 60 60 85 85 115 135 115 75 75

Bottom plates
30 70 70 95 45 40 40 50 70 70 50 40 70 95 45 30 40 70

125,28
Construction at supports

Figure61
5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 63

Bridge St. Kilian

(2)

Figure62 Anonconventionalcompositebridgeconsistingoftwoseparatebridgepartswitha trianglecrosssection(andanopenjointbetweenthedecksinthemiddle)istheSt. KilianbridgeinFigure62. The bottom chord of this truss bridge with circular hollow sections is a single tube withnodesmadeofcaststeel.

(3) 52

(4)

The robustness of this structural concept is assured by the choice of material according to EN 1993110 that produces damage tolerance together with the usualinspectionregimeforbridges. In conclusion the crosssection with a single bottom chord made of steel with sufficient toughness is robustnessequivalent with other crosssections with more than 1 bottom chord or bottom chords made of steel lamellas (because of redundancies) that have low toughness values (as experienced for existing riveted bridges).

(5) (6) Figure 63 gives an impression of the erection work, Figure 64 shows the weld preparationbetweenthecaststeelnodesandthetubes(withsmalltolerances)and Figure65givesanimpressionofthecastnodes. A particular feature of this robustness concept is the appropriate choice of the fatigueclass,whichismainlyinfluencedbytheexecutionquality.

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 64

Bridge St. Kilian

Figure63

53

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 65

Cast node for the bridge St. Kilian

Figure64

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 66

Cast node for the bridge St. Kilian

7.6 (1)

Figure65 Furtherinformation More details of the background of the choice of material for bridges may be taken fromtheJRCreportCommentaryandWorkedexamplestoEN1993110Material toughness and through thickness properties and other toughness oriented rules in EN1993,seeFigure66. 54

5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 67

8. 8.1 (1) (2)

Figure66 Stabilityrules General ThestabilityrulesdealtwithinEurocode3relateto columnbuckling,seeEN199311 lateraltorsionalbuckling,seeEN199311 platebuckling,seeEN199315 shellbuckling,seeEn199316.

Forthesebucklingphenomenaingeneraltwoassessmentapproachesareapplicable: 1. 2nd order assessment with initial equivalent imperfections, that cover the various structural and geometric imperfections a structural member may have, useofbucklingformulasforuniformstructuralmemberwithdefinedloading andboundaryconditionswhichshouldhavebeenderivedfrom1.

2. (3)

Forpracticalusebucklingformulasforstandardcasesareveryimportant.Figure67 gives the common verification concept applicable to the various buckling phenomena,wherethedefinitionsare:

55

ult ,k =

magnification factor to design action effects to obtain the characteristic resistance Rk without considering outofplane imperfectionsandoutofplanebuckling.

crit = = =

magnification factor to design action effects to obtain elastic critical resistances Rcrit globalslenderness reduction coefficient for buckling, depending on the buckling phenomenon,theimperfectionfactor andtheslenderness .

6. DESIGN OF BRIDGE-ELEMENTS 6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 68

Common design rules for column, lateral torsional, plate and shell buckling
Ed
Ed
Ed sk Ed

Ed lk

b E d /2 a
Ed

r t

Ed

column buckling ult , k E d = R k crit E d = R crit


1 ,2 0 1 ,0 0

lat. tors. buckl.

plate buckling

shell buckling

=
1,20

Rk = R crit
1,2 1,0

ult , k crit
EN 1993-1-5
a0 b

=
1,2 1,0

()

EN 1993-1-1
a0 a b c d

EN 1993-1-1
a b c
p [-]

EN 1993-1-6

1,00

0 ,8 0

0,80

0,8

0,8

0 ,6 0

d
0,60

0,6

0,6

0 ,4 0

0,40

0,4

0,4

0 ,2 0

0,20

0,2

0,2

0 ,0 0 0 0,5 1 1 ,5

0,00

2,5

0,5

1,5

2,5

0,0 0,0 0 ,5 1,0

_ p [-] 1 ,5

0,0

2,0

2 ,5

3,0

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3 ,0

R k Ed M

ult ,k M

Figure67 (4) (5) (6) Therefore this report gives the background of the imperfections to be used in 2nd order analysis and a simplified 2nd order analysis which includes the application of such imperfections in the socalled General method that allows to use reduction 56 aretherelevantphenomena,andshellbucklingdoesingeneralnotoccur. columnbucklingandlateraltorsionalbucklingononesideand platebucklingontheotherside Forsteelbridgesalso Forsteelbridgestheconditionsfortheapplicationofstandardformulasarerare,so thata2ndorderassessmentorasimplified2ndorderassessmentsarepreferred.

coefficientsforbucklingalsoincaseswhereloadingandboundaryconditionsarenot standardized. 8.2 (1) The uniform column with hinged ends loaded in compression is the reference component for the definition of equivalent geometric imperfections and simplified procedures with reduction formula as it is also used for resistance tests to column bucklingtowhichthemethodsarecalibrated. Figure 68 gives the principles for the derivation of the European flexural buckling curve: 1. Itisassumedthatthebucklingresistanceofthecolumncanbeexpressedin terms of the crosssectional resistance to compression and to bending that resultsfromequivalentgeometricimperfectionsandsecondordereffects. Thecriticalcrosssectionisinthemiddleofthecolumn. The shape of the equivalent geometric imperfection is taken equal to the elastic critical buckling mode, that corresponds to the elastic critical eigenvalue (Eulercritical load), to establish a link to boundary and loading conditionsotherthanthoseofthereferencecomponent. Theamplitudeoftheimperfectionfactor e* iscomposedofthreefactors theimperfectionfactor theslenderness thecrosssectionalvalue
M Rk N Rk

Theuniformcolumnwithhingedends

(2)

2.

3. 4. inwhich N Rk and M Rk arethecharacteristicvaluesofresistances,thatmay beeitherelasticorplastic. 57 5. Theverificationformatallowsatwostepassessment:


N Ed M Ed + = 1 N Rk M Rk

The imperfection factor is the open parameter determined from test evaluation;thisparameterisassociatedwithalinearresistancemodel

1.

AunifiedEuropeancharacteristicresistance:
Rk = N pl ,k

2.

Anationaldesignvalue:
Rd = Rk

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 69

Column buckling

Figure68 (3)

AsaresultofthederivationinFigure68,Figure69givestheshapesofthereduction factors forvariouscrosssectionalshapes,towhichvarious valuesbelong,see Figure70.

58

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 70

Column buckling curves



6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 71

igure69 F

(4)

Selection of buckling curves

Figure70 Theratiosofexperimentalresults re andresultscalculatedwiththeformulaforthe reductioncoefficient aregiveninFigure71forweakaxisbuckling.Figure72shows thepartialfactors M thatresultfromtestevaluationaccordingtoEN1990Annex D,toobtainthedesignvalues ( R = 0.8 3.8 = 3.03) .

59


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 73

Test evaluation weak axis buckling



6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 74

Figure71

M-values according to EN 1990 Annex D


Figure72

60

8.3 (1) (2)

Conclusionsforsecondorderanalysis Thederivationofthecharacteristicvalue Rk ofcolumnresistancetocompressionvia areductionvalue includesa2ndorderapproachforthebalance E d Rk see Figure 73. The usual 2nd order approach with imperfections is based on the balance
E d Rd .

Inconclusiontheresultsforthetwodifferentbalancescanbeonlymadeconsistent, ifforthenormal2ndorderapproachwithimperfectionsoneofthefollowingoptions isapplied: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 75

thepartialfactorontheactionsideis F M a M factorisappliedtothemodulusofelasticity
M istakenasequal1.0

theamplitudeofimperfection e0 isfactoredbyafunctionof M toobtain ed for normal 2nd order theory the partial factor * is larger than M for the M bucklingcurve.

European buckling curve


E d = Rk
!

2nd order theory with imperfection


Ed = Rd
d =
N N
pl , d crit

N pl N crit

= ( , )
Rk = , N pl

d = ( , d
Rd =

)
pl

Rd =

Rk

d N M

Consequences:
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:

Ed = M .Ed
N crit ,d =
M = 1 .0

N crit

Option 4:

M ed = e0 1 2
1
* M =

Option 5:

d M

Equivalence of buckling curves and 2nd order theory

Figure73 61

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 76

M-values for 2nd order analysis

g=

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0

0.685 1.136 1.846 2.806 5.476

0.870 0.597 0.342 0.209 0.10

0.477 0.953 1.43 1.906 2.859

0.661 1.082 1.734 2.605 5.039

0.895 0.627 0.369 0.228 0.109

1.03 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.09

(3) (4)

Figure74 Figure74givesthemodificationofthepartialfactortoobtain
* = g M . M

InconclusiontherearetwopossibilitiesdependingonNationalChoice: 1. 2.
M ischosenequalto1,00andconsistencyisautomaticallyachieved,

incaseof M > 1.00 ,e.g. M = 1.10 ,thedifferencebetweenthefunctions M and * totheconstantvalue M issosmallthatbothfortheuseofbuckling M curves andfor2ndorderanalysiswithimperfections e0 thesame M factor canbeused(withaslightadvantagesfor2ndorderanalysisinrelationtothe useof values).

8.4 (1) Theuseoftheelasticcriticalbucklingmode crit allowstoextendtheapplicabilityof thecrosssectionalcheckinFigure68andhencethereductionfactor toanyother boundaryconditionsasgiveninFigure75,e.g.bymodifyingthebucklinglength. Extensiontootherboundaryconditions

62


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 77

Imperfections for members with various boundary conditions


EI

NEd

NEd

NEd

a1

NEd

ini = e 0 d sin Me = e 0 dNEd

x 1 sin NEd l 1 Ncrit

x l

ini = e0 d Me = e0 d

2 crit crit ,max crit

NEd crit NEd ,max crit 1 2 EI crit

Use of buckling mode as imperfection



6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 78

Figure75

Example for a column on elastic supports


(2) theinitialequivalentgeometricimperfectionisnotreferredtomax. crit ,but
// // to max. crit , and the shape of crit is the shape of bending moment from

Figure76 ThecomparisoninFigure75showsthat

imperfections.Thereforetheequivalentgeometricimperfectionisnotanout 63

of straightness imperfection in terms of displacement but a curvature imperfection. The advantage of taking the buckling mode crit as shape of imperfection is thatwith crit alsothebendingmoment M e accordingto2ndordertheorycan beeasilydetermined. Theextensionoftheapplicationoftheflexuralbucklingcurveisnotlimitedto onedimensionalstructuresascolumns,barsetc.,butalsototwodimensional structuresasgrids,seeFigure76,forwhichtheconditionappliesthatexternal forces do not change their value in dependance of buckling deformations (conservativeloading).

8.5 (1) A beam with equal endmoments, which effects compression in one flange can be assessedinasimilarwayasacolumn,iftheassessmentisperformedfortheflangein compressionforoutofplanebuckling,seeFigure77. Lateraltorsionalbuckling

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 79

Column buckling
NEd M + Ed = 1 Npl,Rk My ,Rk

Lateral torsional buckling


MFl,Ed NFl y Ed + Fl = 1 Fl Npl,Rk My ,Rk
Mz ,Ed Mz,Rk + Mz ,Ed NFl * crit e Mz ,crit MFl,Rk y 1 =1 Mz ,Ed 1 Mz ,crit

NEd NEde * + Npl,Rk My,Rk

1 =1 N 1 Ed Ncrit

M y ,Rk e* = N 0.2 N pl ,Rk

Fl M y ,Rk e* = M 0.2 Fl N pl ,Rk

N + N

= }

1 N 0 .2 =1 1 2 N N

=7* 68
2

M + M

M 1 0.2 =1 2 M 1 2 Fl M M

+ 2

2 = 0 ,5 1 + 0.2 +

(2)

Equivalence of flexural and lateral torsional buckling


Figure77

The hypothesis used in the derivation in Figure 77 is that the equivalent geometric imperfection e* fortheflangeisthesameasforacolumnwithflexuraloutofplane buckling.

(3)

The derivation shows that for lateral torsional buckling the same expression as for flexural buckling is obtained, however with the difference, that the imperfection 64

factor isreducedto * bytheeffectoftheSt.Venanttorsionalrigidity,whichis determinedbytheratio where


M istheslendernessforthelateraltorsionalbucklingproblembasedon crit
Fl
2

M Fl
2

* crit = crit

is the slenderness of the isolated flange in compression; that can also be


* expressedby crit calculatedwithoutSt.Venanttorsionalrigidity.

(4) (5) Testevaluationswithallavailabletestreportsforlateraltorsionalbucklingtestshave proventhatthelateraltorsionalbucklingcurveasgiveninFigure77givesthebestfit with M valuesintherangeof1.05. Figure78givesthedifferencebetweentheflexuralbucklingcurvebandthelateral torsionalbucklingcurvewithreducedimperfectionfactor * foraHEB200beam.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 80

Comparison of LTB-curves
LT
1,0
Lateral torsional buckling for GIT=oo Lateral torsional buckling for a beam HEB 200

Bc a Bc b

0,0 0,0 1,0

LT 2,0

(6)

Figure78

AgeneralisationoftheprocedureinFigure77leadstotherulefordeterminingthe reductionfactor foranyoutofplanestabilityproblem,thatmaybecomposedof 65

mixedflexuralandlateraltorsionalbucklingandincludesanyoutofplaneboundary condition,seeFigure79.
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 81

Procedure for lateral torsional buckling assessments using the buckling curves:
1. Input parameters:
ult , k =
Rk Ed

crit =

ult ,k critt

R crit Ed

2. Modification of imperfection factor:


* =
* crit crit

where

* crit is determined without effect of G I D

3. Use of flexural buckling curve:

= 0 ,5 1 + * ( 0.2 ) + 2
=
1

2 2

4. Assessment for design point xd

(7)

ult ,k 1 M

Figure79 Ifthedesignpoint x d isknown,wherethesumofinplanestressesandoutofplane stressesfromimperfectionsgivetherelevantmaximumvalue,theinputparameters canbecalculated.

(8)

Inthiscase ult ,k isdeterminedatthepoint x d . Ifthedesignpoint x d isnotknown, ult ,k canbeconservativelyestimatedas ult ,k ,min .


* Ifthetwoelasticcriticalvalues crit withtorsionalrigidityand crit withouttorsional

rigidityareavailablethemodified * valuecanbedetermined. (9) Figure 80 shows an example for a beam with unequal endmoments, where the designpointisatadistance xd = 0.155 l fromthemaximumloadedend.
* =

Aconservativeapproachis

66

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 82

Comparison of laterial torsional buckling curves


(10) If for convenience the assessment is carried out with ult ,k at the maximum loaded end x = 0 , the results are either conservative or a modified buckling curve mod is used,thatincludesacorrectionwith onthebasisofknowledgewherethedesign point xd is. 8.6 (1) Thelocationofthedesignpoint x d forlateraltorsionalbucklingwhereinplaneand outofplaneeffectssumuptoamaximumcanbedeterminedwiththeknowledgeof thedistributionofinplaneeffectsandoutofplaneeffects. (2) Figure 81 shows for a two span beam, the loaded top flange of which is to be checked,thedistributionofinplanemomentsandinplanestressesintheflangeand the modal outofplane displacements crit and modal outofplane flange
moments E I (x ) crit , that are produced together with the elastic critical eigenvalue

Figure80

Determinationofthedesignpoint x d forlateraltorsionalbuckling

crit .

(3) eithertodeterminetheoutofplane2ndordermomentsfromthemodalout
// ofplaneflangemoments E I (x ) crit andtoperformacrosssectionalcheck,at

Therearetwopossibilitiesforthelateraltorsionalbucklingcheck:

x d ,

67

or to apply a check, where the distributions of the inplane and outof planestressessuggesttobethecriticalpoints x d .

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 83

check:
=

= *,

ult ,k crit

ult , k 1 M

Figure81 8.7 (1)

Determination of design point xd

Examplesforlateraltorsionalbucklingverificationatthedesignpoint x d For a welded portal frame of an industrial hall with the dimensions and support conditions for outofplane movements as given in Figure 82 the distribution of in planeactioneffectsaccordingtoFigure83apply.

68


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 84

Example: Portal frame

Lateralsupport 3 2 24015 1 0 24420 5505 24015 24012 5565 24012 S355J2G3 4

kneepoint 1068 5 8000 6 7

Figure82

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 85

ult.k.min=1.55
Moment distribution [kNm]

ult.k (xd)=1.94

Distribution of compression forces [kN]

Figure83

69

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 86

Example: Modal out-of-plane deformation crit=1.85

xd

(2) ThedistributionofbendingmomentsinFigure83givesthelocationfor ult ,k ,min = 1.55 and the maximum curvature in Figure 84 gives the design point x d , for which
ult ,k (xd ) = 1.94 applies.

Figure84

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 87

1. Calculation with extreme value ult,k,min

2. Calculation design point xd

ult ,k = 1.55
crit = 1.85
* crit = 1.84

ult ,k = 1.94

1.55 = 0.915 1.85 * 1.54 * = crit = 0.49 = 0.408 crit 1.85

1.94 = 1.05 1.85

LT = 0.5[1 + * ( 0.2 ) + 2 ] = 1.064


=
1

LT = 1.225
= 0.59 > 0.50
contact splice sufficient

+ 2 2

= 0.622 > 0.50


contact splice sufficient

ult 0.622 1,55 = = 0.88 < 1.00 M 1.10

ult ,k 0.59 1.94 = = 1.04 > 1.00 M 1.10

Check of out-of-plane stability

(3)

Figure85 InFigure85twocalculationsarecarriedout:

70

(4)

1. 2.

aconservativecalculationforthepointwith ult ,k ,min , acalculationatthedesignpoint x d .

A byeffect of the calculation is that takes values 0.5 , so that in the bolted endplateconnectionatthekneepointsoftheframeoutofplanebendingmoments canberesistedbyfullcontactandnoadditionalloadstoboltshavetobeconsidered.

(5) Figure86andFigure87givetheexampleofacompositebridgewithanopencross section, for which the outofplane stability of the bottom chord in compression in thehoggingmomentregionofthecontinuousbeamisofconcern.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 88

Example: Composite bridge

Figure86

71

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 89

Example: Cross-section of the composite bridge

(6)

Figure87 The moment distribution for girder no. 1 for which the outofplane stability check hastobecarriedoutisgiveninFigure88.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 90

Example: Moment distribution critical for out-of-plane stability of main girders

(7)

Figure88 orthelateraltorsionalbucklingcheckthebottomchordcanbeeitherregardedasa F continuous column, laterally supported by the elastic transverse frames at the support,seeFigure89,andall7.50m,seeFigure90. 72


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 91

Example: cross-beam at supports

Figure89

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 92

Example: intermediate cross-beam all 7,50 m

(8) (9)

Figure90 Inthiscase1/3ofthewebshouldbetakenintoaccount. TheotherpossibilityistomodelthecrosssectionfullyorpartlywithFEM,toconsider theeffectsoftorsionanddistorsionofthesteelcrosssection.

73

(10)

In Figure 91 modal transverse displacements of the bottom flange of the critical girder are given for the first 3 eigenvalues. The area where the modal transverse momentsattaintheirmaximumvaluesaremarked.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 93

Example: crit-values and modal out-of-plane deformations

critical area

critical area

critical area

Figure91

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 94

Example: Input for ult,k-values


330 295 250 180

critical areas

Figure92

74

(11)

Figure92givestheinplanestressesinthecentrelineofthebottomflangeaswellas the yield stresses from which ult ,k values can be determined, that are possible choicesforthedesignpoint x d .

(12)
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 95

InFigure93twocalculationsarecarriedout 1. 2. atthedesignpoint x d forthefirstmodaldisplacement(infield) atthedesignpoint xd forthethirdmodaldisplacement(atthesupport).

In these calculations also the modification of the imperfection factor by torsion hasbeentakenintoaccount.

Checks for lateral-torsional buckling


in field at point P1
ult ,k =
330 = 1.83 180

at support (point P1)


ult ,k =
295 = 1.184 250

crit = 8.8576

crit = 17.489
=
1.184 = 0.26 17.489

1.83 = 0.45 8.8576

* crit = 8.37

* crit = 15.20

* =

8.37 0.76 = 0.72 8.86

* =

= 0.69
= 0.82

15.20 0.76 = 0.66 17.49 = 0.554

= 0.96

ult ,k 0.82 1.89 = = 1.37 > 1.00 1.10 M

ult ,k 0.96 1.184 = = 1.03 > 1.00 M 1.10

9. 9.1 (1)

Figure93 Platebucklingeffects General Itisacommonfeatureofcolumnbucklingandlateraltorsionalbuckling,thatinplane stresses that initiate outof plane buckling are not affected by outof plane deformations; i.e. the normal compression force in a column does not vary with imperfectionsorbucklingdisplacementsandtheinplanestresssituationsinabeam column does not vary if lateral deformations in terms of lateral displacements and torsiontakeplace.

75

(2)

The only differences between flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is the effect of torsional rigidity that isexpressed bythe modification of the imperfection factor intheformulaforthereductionfactor . ForplatestructuresasgiveninFigure94anadditionalphenomenonmayoccur: columnlike behaviour without any overcritical resistance however with theeffectoftorsionalrigidityoccursiftheedgeloadsareimposedanddonot vary with the displacements under these loads. In consequence the displacementsoftheloadededgesarenonlinear. platelikebehaviourwithovercriticalresistanceandalsowiththeeffectof torsionalrigidityoccursifundertheeffectofimperfectionstheedgeloadsare applied as a group of loads, that cause a linear displacement of the loaded edge. In this case the individual loads of the group may vary with the displacement and cause a nonlinear distribution with a load shedding from thecentretotheedges.

(3)

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 96

Column buckling and plate buckling


Column-like behaviour:
imposed loads on loaded edge

resulting displacements i at loaded edge

Plate-like behaviour:

resulting loads on loaded edge imposed displacement on loaded edge

Figure94 (4) Ingeneralplatebucklingverificationsaremadeforplatedelementsofgirders,beams and columns under action effects as bending moments, normal forces and shear forces. For these structures the axiom of Navier applies, i.e. linear distributions of strainsandnotofstressesmaybeassumed.

76

(5)

Atpointsoflocalloadintroductionsaspatchloadsontheflangesofgirders,beams and columns however the loads are normally controlled by mechanisms that limit theirvariationwithdisplacements(e.g.byintroductionbyrollersonsprings).Inthis case the behaviour is more columnlike or in between columnlike and platelike behaviour. Effectsofcolumnlikeandplatelikebehaviour Figure95givestheexampleofacolumnwithacrosssectionintheformofacross, forwhichaccordingtoEN199311atorsionalbucklingcheckmaybeperformed.

9.2 (1)
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 97

Example: Torsional buckling according to EN 1993-1-1

CM = b3 t 3 9
b3 t 3

IM = 4

Column:
2

= A sin

x
e

;G =

E 2(1 + )

Plate:

y x w = A sin b l

ECM + G I M l N cr = 2 iM N crit cr = A 2 E t2 2 6 2 b = (1 ) + 2 (1 ) 12 (1 2 ) b 2 142 l 424 3 43 1 14 244 4 3

i a = 0

cr =

N crit A
2 E t 2 2 b 6 + 2 (1 ) 12 1 2 b 2 l 4 4 14243 { 1 2 3 4 4 2 b = e + 0,429 l44 44 1 2 3 k

(2)

2 b + 0,429 0,9 l4 2 4 4 44444 144 3 k

igure95 F Using the column approach for torsional buckling a critical stress cr may be determined with the crosssectional data C M and I M , from which a buckling coefficient k maybederived.

(3) Using the plate theory a buckling coefficient k may also be determined using the energymethod with a modal buckling deformation that corresponds to the assumptionsmodefortorsioninthecolumncheck. (4) (5) ThedifferencesresultfromthetypeofloadingasgiveninFigure96. 77 Apparentlythetworesultsarealmostidentical.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 98

Torsional buckling

column-like behaviour

plate-like behaviour

compression stress

compression strain

N =

N A

N =

N A E

response strain

response stress

bending geometric strain effect:


geom (s ) =
N N 2 2 2 2 N crit eo s N crit 2 l 4 b N 1 N crit

M = (1 ) f y

(6)

Figure96 In torsional buckling a geometric strain effect occurs due to the torsional deformations,that incaseofloadingbyuniformlydistributedcompressionstresswouldcausea parabolicdistributionofstrainsoverthecrosssectionand incaseofloadingbyauniformlydistributedcompressionstrainwouldcausea parabolicdistributionofstressoverthecrosssection.

(7)

These different distributions of stress N from compression, either constant or parabolic, are superimposed with linear distribution of stresses M in the plated elementsfromplatebending.

78

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 99

column buckling
1 f y
bending

plate buckling
1 f y k fy
k=
bending

1+ ~ 2

fy
compression

fy

compression

+ * 0
assumption:

1
2

=1
assumption:

+ * 0

1
2

sd = b 0 = 0.2

sd < b

0 = 0.7 1 =

+ * 0.7

)1 1 = 1
1 )1
*

+ * 0.2
=
1

1
2

1
2

=1

* + * * 0 .7

=1

= 0.5 1 + * 0.2 +

+ 2

* =
2

+ 2

= 0.5 1 + * 0.7 +

) ]

(8)

Figure97 Figure 97 shows the effects of the assumptions of a constant or parabolic distributionsofthecompressionstress: Theconclusionofaconstantstressdistributionisthecolumnbucklingformula withthemodifiedimperfectionvalue * theconclusionoftheconstantstraindistributionisthemodifiedimperfection value * andthat

thebasicequationofthecolumnbucklingformuladoesnotattainthe value1.0(fortheyieldstress)butonlyameanvaluebetween and 1.0,bestrepresentedby ,

thedesignpointinthecrosssection s d movesfromtheedgestothe centre of the crosssection which causes a effect as for lateral torsionalbuckling.

(9) Asaresult 0 movesform0.2to0.7and ontherightsideoftheformulamaybe approximatelyexpressedby ,sothat 79 for constant stress distributions the lateral torsional buckling formula is obtainedwiththeuseof ,whereas
2

forconstantstraindistributionanewplatebucklingformulaisobtained,that differsfromthelateraltorsionalbucklingformulabytheuseof insteadof


andthevalue 0 = 0.7 insteadof 0 = 0.2 .
2

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 100

Column buckling curve and plate buckling curve


, *,

1 Euler 2

Winter =

0.22
2

* (0 = 0.7 )

Column buckling

Figure98 (10) Figure 98 gives a comparison between the column buckling curve and the plate bucklingcurve * fromFigure97andalsotheWinterformula,whichisquitecloseto thenewplatebucklingformula.Boththenewplatebucklingformulaandthewinter formulaarespecifiedinEN199315. 9.3 (1) Figure 99 shows the differences between the effects of constant stress distribution and constant strain distribution resulting from imperfections for a plate without stiffenersandwithconstantstressloadingincasenoimperfectionswouldoccur: asinusoidaldisplacementofedgesincaseofimposedconstantstresses, Interpolationbetweencolumnlikeandplatelikebehaviour

a sinusoidal stress distribution at the edges in case of imposed constant strains.

80

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 101

Stress- and strain-controlled plate buckling


x

imperfect perfect
x x = E x

imperfect

x
x E x

(2)

Figure99 The different effects of constant imposed stresses and constant imposed strains dependontheaspectratio = effect
* crit crit
* where crit isdeterminedwithouttorsionalrigidity,

a oftheplateandcanbecorrelatedwiththetorsion b

crit isdeterminedwithtorsionalrigidity,

seeFigure100.

81

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 102

Modification of imperfection factor


* crit a = crit b 2

b +1
2

+ 1 a

* crit crit

column

plate

a b

(3)

Figure100 Hencethetorsionaleffectcouldbeusedasparameterforthedistinctionofcolumn likebehaviourandplatelikebehaviourforplatesinasimilarwayasitisusedfor flexuralbucklingandlateraltorsionalbucklingforgirders,beamsandcolumns. Figure 101 shows the column curve and the Winter curve for plates in monoaxial compressionversustheaspectratio . It also shows the interpolation according to FEMcalculations and to the procedure giveninEN199315. Ageneralapproachcouldbetheuseoftheformula:
* = 0.5 1 + * 1.2 + crit crit
* 2 crit + crit

(4) (5) whichgivesfor


* crit = 1 crit

+ 2

* crit crit

thecolumnformulaandfor theplateformula. 82

* crit = 0.5 crit


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 103

Interaction between column buckling and plate buckling =


*
* crit crit

column plate

Winter

column buckling

c = ( c ) (2 ) + c

cr , p 1; 0 1 cr ,c

(6) 9.4 (1)

cr , p crit = * cr ,c crit

Figure101 Thisbucklingcurveisapplicabletoalltypesofplatefield(unstiffenedandstiffened) andallfieldsofstresses(combined x , z and ). Resistancesofhybridcrosssections CrosssectionsasgiveninFigure102mayconsistofplates,whichundercompression exhibit different ultimate buckling strengths, expressed by different limit stresses Limit ,h and Limit ,b . Inassumingayieldplateauatthevariouslevelsof Limit thecrosssectionreactsto an increasing compression force like a crosssection with plates with different yield strengthsandthereforecanbeclassifiedashybrid.

(2)

83

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 104

Hybrid cross-section due to different stress-limits

resulting force

yield plateau

igure102 F

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 105

Yielding effect in hybrid cross-sections


Method 1 Method 2

(3)

Figure103 The ultimate resistance of such a hybrid crosssection can be determined by summinguptheresistancesoftheindividualplates.

84

(4)

Figure103showsthestrengthstrainlineforsuchahybridcrosssection: 1. In the first phase (until the weakest plate has reached its buckling resistance Limit ,h )thefullelasticgrosscrosssectionapplies. Thisisthefield,wheretheelasticcriticalbucklingloadcoefficient crit canbe calculated from the stress fields of the individual plates or the full cross sectionwithgrosscrosssectionalproperties. The method in EN 199315 that usually limits the resistances of the cross section to the limit of the weakest plate field is Method 2 (section 10 in EN 199315). Inthesecondphasefurtherstrainingactionsgivefurtherelasticreactionsof the stronger plate field only, until Limit ,b is reached in this field, whilst the weakestplateyieldswiththeresistance Limit ,h beingconstant. 1. 2. Theresistances Ah Limit ,h and Ab Limit ,b aresummedup. Aneffectivethicknessoftheweakestplate t eff = t Limit ,h Limit ,b is chosen and the resistance is determined with the unique strength Limit ,b andaneffectivecrosssectionwith t eff fortheweakestplate. When reaching Limit ,h the resistance of the full cross section can be determinedinthreeequivalentways:

2.

3.

Aneffectivewidthoftheweakestplate beff = b Limit ,h Limit ,b is chosen and the resistance is determined with the unique strength Limit ,b andoneffectivecrosssectionwith beff fortheweakestplate.

3. In a third phase further straining actions can be applied to reach the yield strain y correspondingto f y . This third phase does not rouse any further resistances because the two platesyieldontheirresistancelevels Limit ,h and Limit ,b . However,thecalculationfortheresistancesonthebasisofeffectivethickness oreffectivewidthcanbereferredtotheyieldstrength f y :
t eff h = t

Limit ,h
fy

85

t effb = t

Limit ,b
fy

(5)

or
beff h = b beffb = b

Limit ,h
fy

Limit ,b
fy

andthecrosssectionalresistancebedeterminedwith
R = Aeff f y

ThismethodinEN199315iscalledMethod1.

Figure104demonstratesthedifferencesbetweenthephase1procedure(Method2) andamultiphaseprocedure(Method1)forthecaseofbending.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 106

Yielding effect in bending


Method 1 Method 2

(6)

Figure104 Itisevident,thatthebendingresistancemaybealsodeterminedfordifferentlevels of curvature (straining Limit ) either by integration of the distribution of limiting stresses Limit or from effective crosssections using either effective thicknesses or effectivewidths.

(7) Theuseofeffectivecrosssectionispreferredbecauseoftheiterativecalculationof the neutral axis (eM ) which can be carried out more easily with effective cross sectionaldata. 86

(8)

IngeneralMethod2givesmoreconservativeresistancesthanMethod1duetothe plasticreservesofthehybridcrosssection. ThereishoweverapossibilitytotakeplasticreservesfromLoadsheddingalsointo accountinMethod2,asillustratedinFigure105.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 107

Extension of method 2

(9)

Figure105 This requires a further step in method 2, where the increase of the moment resistances M R + M R by exploiting the yield strength of the stronger flange is accompaniedbyanincreaseoftheshearresistanceoftheweb R R byreducing thelimitstressoftheweb R R .Thisincrease R andreduction R intheweb causesanonlinearinteraction.

9.5 (1) Figure 106 shows the principles of Method 1 (use of effective crosssection) and Method2(useofstresslimit)asspecifiedinEN199315andusedindesignofsteel bridges. Method1andMethod2inEN199315

87

Choice of material

6.1 STABILITY RULES


108

Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010

Methods in bridge design


Method 1 Use of effective cross-section Method 2 Use of stress-limit

Figure106

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 109

Method 1 plate buckling for stress components

Method 2 global plate buckling

crit ,

Ed ( x , Ed , z , Ed , Ed ) , crit
x

crit ,
crit ,
(2)

glob
z

Figure107 TheproceduresfortheuseofthesemethodsaredifferentasdemonstratedinFigure 107: InMethod1thestressfieldofaplateissubdividedinto3simplifiedstandard fields,forwhichdesignaidsareavailable:

forlongitudinalstress x 88

fortransversestresses(patchloading) z forshearstresses z .

Averificationisundertakenforeachstandardstressfieldcomponentandthe verification for the combined stress field is carried out by an interaction formula. In Method 2 the combined stress field is used to determine a global stress field amplification factor crit , to perform the stress field verification in a singlestep. ThismethodisapplicabletoFEMcalculations.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 110

Plate-buckling coefficients
Method 1
,

Method 2

for rigid end post

* ( = 0.13)

x =

ult , crit ,

glob =

ult ,k crit , global

z =

ult , crit ,

ult , = crit ,

(3)

Figure108

Figure108givestheplatebucklingreductionfactorsforMethod1andMethod2: Whereas in Method 1 each standard stress field component yields a particular slenderness and a particular buckling curve, Method 2 only uses a single global slendernessvalueandasingleglobalbucklingcurve * .

9.6 (1) Figure 109 shows the various steps for the verification of an effective composite crosssectionforthestandard x fieldcomponent. ApplicationofMethod1tocompositecrosssections

89

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 111

Method 1: Effective cross-section for x


Cross-section assessment
xEd 1 .0 f yd 1 =

f yd =

f yk

Rd

Rd = 1.1

Reduction factor Effective web


beff = bc = bw 1

p 0.553(3 + )
2 p

1 .0

(for < 0 )

beff ,1 = 0.4 beff

beff ,2 = 0.6 beff

Slenderness
p =
f yk

Effective flange

x ,Pi

bt ,eff = b f
k = 0.43 fr = 1

k =

16

(1 + ) + 0.112 (1 + )2 + (1 + )

Critical stress
x ,Pi = k e
e = 2 E st t 2
12b 2 1 2

fr 1 1

(2)

Figure109 Thestepsarethefollowing: 1. 2. 3. 4. Fromthestressdistributionofthegrosscrosssectionthecriticalstressesare determined,thatgive theslendernessofthewebandofthebottomflange. Withthereductionfactor usingtheWintercurvetheeffectivewebandthe effectiveflangeusingeffectivewidthsarecalculated. Usingtheeffectivecrosssectionaldatathecrosssectioncheckisperformed resultingintheutilisationrate 1 forthe x component.

90


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 112

Method 1: Resistance to shear


rigid end post flexible end post
w = f yk 3 cr
flexible end post

rigid end post

reduction factor w
w < 0.83
0.83 w < 1.08

Vbw ,Rd = w hw t w
1.0
0.83 / w

f yd 3

1.0
0.83 / w 1.37 0.7 + w

3 =

w 1.08

0.83 / w

V Ed Vbw ,Rd

Figure110 (3) 1. From the critical stresses cr for the web the slenderness is determined, for which the structural detailing of the endpost gives different shear buckling curves w . 2. (4) Theinteractionformulatoverifythecombinedstressfieldisbasedontheutilisation rates 1 and 3 and also uses parameters of the steel crosssection that describe fictitiousextremesituationsofexploitationofweb,seeFigure111. With w theshearresistance VRd ofthewebcanbecalculatedthatpermitsto determinetheutilisationrate 3 forthe component. Figure 110 demonstrates the check for the standard shear stress field component withthefollowingsteps:

91

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 113

Assessment for plate buckling Method 1


Interaction

Method 2
glob ult ,k M
1

interaction

1 =

Ed 1 M f , Rd fy 2 [23 1] 1 1 + 1 V M pl , Rd 3 = Ed 1 VRd

(5)

Figure111 Method2usesaglobalcheckinsteadoftheinteractionformula. AnexamplefortheNationalChoiceofMethod1andMethod2isgiveninFigure112:

Method 1 is preferred for bridges with webs without any stiffeners or with verticalstiffenersonly,whereasMethod2appliestomultistiffenedwebsand bottomplatesofboxsections. Method 1 is clearly related to ULSverifications, which has an advantage where the Limit stresses for webs and flanges differ significantly. Method 2 also limits straining to the elastic range and can therefore also be used for serviceabilitylimitchecks. In particular in cases, where the elastic stress distributions at the characteristic load level and the stressblocdistribution assumed at the UltimateLimitState,givesignificantdifferencesofcompressionstressinthe web,aserviceabilitylimitcheckwithMethod2shouldbeapplied.

92

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 114

German National Annex

Method 1 only applicable to girders without longitudinal stiffners The use of Method 1 should be supplemented by checking global buckling with Method 2 for characteristic load level E k and M = 1.10

Figure112 9.7 (1)


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 115

Designexample Figure113givesforthedesignexampleofacompositebridgetheultimatelimitstate assessmentsofthecrosssectionsatthesupportP1andatmidspan,usingMethod1.

Example: cross-section check for a composite bridge

Cross-section at support
stresses :
M Ed = 107.25 MNm
VEd = 7.47 MN
hw = 98.5 < 109 tw

Cross-section at midspan

stresses :
M Ed = 56.1 MNm VEd = 1.0 MN
< 345 MPa

hw = 151 < 192 tw

< 295 MPa

stresses :
k = 5.78

stresses :
k = 5.80
M pl ,Rd = 135.6 MNm
Vbw ,Rd = 4.44 MN
1,0 < 0.5 4.44

M f ,Rd = 117.31 MNm


Vbw,Rd = 8.14 MN

hw = 98.5 > 51 tw

cr = 112.6 MPa

w = 1.33
w = 0.675
3 =

w = 48.2 MPa

hw = 151 > 51.4 tw

w = 2.03 w = 0.50

Figure113

93

(2)

Forthe x stressfieldcomponentthecrosssectionscomplywithClass3limits sothattheelasticstressdistributionfor M Ed satisfiestheyieldstrength.

hw , tw

(3) (4) Interactionchecksarenomoreneeded,asforthecrosssectionatsupporttheweb could be fully used for shear, because the extreme resistancevalue M f ,Rd satisfies
M Ed , and as for the crosssection at midspan the shear utilisation rate is below

For the stress fieldcomponent the Class 3 limits are exceeded, sothat a shear platebucklingassessmentusing w isnecessary,thatgivesresistancessatisfying VEd .

3 = 0 ,5 ,sothattheinteractionisanywaysatisfied.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 116

Panel plate buckling check with method 2


=83 Mpa

176 = 0.94 + 187.3

8000 = 3.13 2560


crit = 2.55

e = 19.6 MPa
crit = 1.42
1 2

k = 23 k = 6

cr = 23 19.6 = 450.8 MPa cr = 6 19.6 = 117.6 MPa

2 1 1 + 1 + + 1 + 1 = + 2 2 crit 4 cr 4 crit , crit , crit , crit = 1.127 fy = 1.56 ult ,k = 2 Ek + 3 E 2


k

= 0.888

ult ,k = = 1.18 crit

= 0.5[1 + 0.13( 0.80) + ] = 1.15


w ult ,k 0.73 1.56 = = 1.03 > 1.00 M 1.10

w =

+ 2

= 0.73

(5)

Figure114 Figure114givesanexamplefortheserviceabilitycheckwithMethod2atthesupport P1usingextremevaluesofactioneffectsatoneedge.Foramoreaccuratecheckthe designlocation xd couldbeused. Thecriticalvalue crit forthecombinedvalues x and couldbecalculateddirectly with the Programme EBPlate (CTICM); however a conservative approach is used in Figure114.

(6)

94

9.8 (1)

Webplateassessmentforlaunchingthebridge Figure 115 shows an example of a composite bridge erected by launching with a launchingnose.

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 117

Verification of stiffened web plate for launching, Bridge Oehde

Figure115

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 118

Stiffened web panel and loading

Figure116

95

(2)

Figure 116 gives the dimensions and edge loading of the stiffened web, that was verified on the basis of a 2nd order analysis of a grid of longitudinal stiffeners and transversestripsoftheplate.
* crit 1 andgivesthemomentdistributionsofthestiffenersas crit

(3) Thismodelproduces giveninFigure117.


6.1 STABILITY RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 119

Use of method 2 for stress-assessment

Stiffener :

max M = 44,3 kNm max M = 2,83 kNm

= 152 68 = 220 240 MPa


= 64 176 = 240 = 240 MPa

(4) 9.9 (1)

Webplate:

Figure117 Theadditionoftheeffectsofnormalforcesandbendingmomentsforthestiffeners andtheplatestripssatisfiestheyieldstrength. Furtherinformationstoplatebuckling Further informations to the background and the application of the platebuckling rules in EN 199315 may be taken from the JRC report Commentary and worked examples to EN 199315 Plated structural elements, see Figure 118, as well as from the DAStReport Entwicklung und Aufbereitung wirtschaftlicher BemessungsregelnfrStahlundVerbundtrgermitschlankenStegblechenimHoch undBrckenbau(Developmentandpreparationofeconomicdesignrulesforsteel andcompositegirderswithslenderwebplateinbuildingsandbridges).

96

6.1 STABILITY RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 120

10. (1)

Figure118 Fatiguerules

10.1 General Fatigue is a typical technical area, where the large number of test results and the varietyoftestinterpretationsrequirestheuseofagreedtechnicalclassesandagreed verificationproceduresforthestandardizationofthenumericalfatigueassessment, sothatinparticularcasesdiscrepanciesbetweenthestandardmodelandindividual testsforacertainproductmayoccur. EN 199319 gives such a classification model which is based on the following agreements: 1. Thebasisoffatigueassessmentsisafatigueresistancefunctionapplicableto alargevarietyofweldedstructuraldetailsasgiveninFigure119. Thisresistancefunction
3 R N R = c3 2 10 6

(2)

isbilinearindoublelogarithmicscaleandrepresentsthecharacteristicvalues (~95%fractiles) of large scale fatigue tests with constant amplitude stress ranges that include all features of design and execution (scale effect, notches,imperfectionsanddiscontinuitiesintheframeoftolerances,residual stresses)relevantforfatiguebehaviour. The reference point c is the classification number of a detail. The classificationsystemincludesstepsof c withafactor R20 = 20 10 = 1.122 . 97

The value c at 2 10 6 cycles has been chosen in appreciation of Whler. The constant amplitude endurance limit D at 5 10 6 cycles has been chosenasaconstantvalueforeaseofuse.

6. DESIGN OF BRIDGE-ELEMENTS 6.2 FATIGUE RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 121

Standardized Whler- curve for welded details

Figure119

6.2 FATIGUE RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 122

Damage equivalence
D=

D = N
i

nEi
Ri
3 EI

n Ei 3 2 10 C

Damageequivalence:
3 3 e nEi = Ei nEi

e =

3 Ei nEi 3

Ei

Figure120

98

2.

Thefatigueresistancecurve
3 R N R = c3 2 10 6

representsthedamage D = 1 . Fatigueloadsrepresentedbyaspectrumofvariouspairsofdata
3 Ei nEi

giveapartialdamage
D=

n Ei = N Ri

3 Ei n Ei c3 2 10 6

fromalineardamageaccumulationandallowtocalculateforthespectrumof stressrangesadamageequivalentconstantstressrange
e = 3
3 Ei n Ei

3.

Ei

Astresstimehistorycanbeevaluatedbyanagreedcountingmethodasthe rainflowmethodorthereservoirmethod,seeFigure121,whichgivesan array of ranges that can be ordered in a spectrum or a frequency distribution.
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 123

Reservoir-counting method

Figure121

99

6.2 FATIGUE RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 124

Various design situations


Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Modified Whler curve for using the Miner-rule

4.

Figure122 For the fatigue assessment using damage equivalent stress ranges e the position of the frequency distributions in relation to the endurance limit D forconstantamplitudestressrangesisrelevant,seeFigure122.

Case 1 applies where all stress ranges of the distribution are larger thantheendurancelimit D fromconstantamplitudetests. In this case a damageequivalent factor can be applied to e to compareitdirectlywith c . Case 2 applies where all stress ranges of the distribution are smaller thantheendurancelimit D fromconstantamplitudetests. In this case the comparison of e determined with the slope m requirestheuseofadamageequivalentfactor max . Case3applieswhereapartofthedistributionofstressrangesislarger and a part is smaller than the endurance limit D from constant amplitudetests. Inthiscaseitmustbeconsideredthatanydamagefromstressranges above D reducesthevalueof D . ThiscanbeapproximativellytakenintoaccountbyusingtheHaibach linewithaslopem=5below D andacutofflimit L at108cycles. Thedamageequivalentfactor istheninfluencedbythedomainwith m=3andthedomainwithm=5.

100

Ingeneralfrequencydistributionsforbridgesarelocatedintheareaof m=5,sothatafictionsWhlerlinewithm=5coveringthefullrange of Ei , nEi hasbeenappliedfortheevaluationoffatigueequivalent traffic loads. By this procedure any complication by the relationship betweenthe valueandthelevelof c couldbeavoided.

5.

The spectrum of stress ranges used for the fatigue assessment can either be expressed by the damage equivalent load model from standards or from numerical simulations of traffic effects or measurementsoftrafficeffects. Suchspectraingeneralhavepeaksfromrareheavyloadsandfroma largenumberofsmallaftervibrations. Whereas the cutofflimit at 108 cycles cares for ignoring the after vibrations,thepeakeffectsfromheavyvehiclesarenormallycutoffby a limit of 1% damage, that corresponds approximately to the definitionoffrequentloadsor~100loadcycles.
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 125

Representations of fatigue spectrum

cut off

spectrum for design after vibrations

cut off

Figure123 10.2 FatigueloadingmodelsforbridgesinEN19912 (1) ThefrequencydistributionsforheavyvehiclesandaxledistancesaccordingtoFigure 124 are suitable to develop a singular loading pattern for a damageequivalent vehicleandtodeterminethedamageequivalentvaluesofaxleloadandvehicleloads asgivenbythefatigueloadingmodelFLM3inFigure125.

101


6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 126

Distribution of weights of heavy vehicles

total weight type 1

total weight type 2

total weight type 3

total weight type 4

Figure124

6.2 FATIGUE RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 127

Load-models for fatigue checks of road bridges


FLM 3 Main structure Detailed FLM 4

(2)

Figure125 EN 19912 also gives a set of silhouettes of damageequivalent vehicles defined as FatigueloadingmodelFLM4,thatmaybeusedtoestimatethefatigueloadingofan existingbridgefromcountingthetypesofsilhouettes.Itis howeverrarelyusedfor fatigue design, because for the design of bridge structures in combination with descriptiverulesfordetailsthemodelFLM3isnormallysufficient. 102

(3) FLM3isingeneralusedtogetherwithdamageequivalentfactors describingthe effectsofvariousparametersofthebridgeandcompositionoftraffic,whichcontrol therelevantfatigueassessment.

10.3 Safetysystemforfatigueassessment (1)


6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 128

The partial factors Ff and Mf for the fatigue assessment as recommended in EN 199319dependonthefatiguesafetyconcept,seeFigure126.

Safety-plan for damage tolerant design


D=
inspection intervals

Ff

Ei ) nEi
3 3

c 6 2 10 Mf

Ff

Ej ) nEj
5 3

D 6 5 10 Mf

1 4

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 Ff Mf

1 1 = 1+ n 4

4 1 n= ( )5 Ff Mf

Ff Mf = 1.0
Ff Mf = 1.15 Ff Mf = 1.35

n = 4 1 = 3
n= 4 1 1 1.155 4 n= 1 0 1.355

(2)

Figure126 Therearetwofatiguesafetyconcepts,thatmaybeapplied: 1. Thedamagetoleranceconcept,whichisthestandardconceptaimedatin design, where failure by fatigue is excluded by sufficiently early prewarning by visible damages like cracks so that the serviceability of the structure is infringedbeforecriticalsituationsthatcouldleadtofailuremayoccur. Thisconceptrequiresregularinspectionsinservice;ithastheadvantage,that partial factors may be low and the service life of an existing bridge can be extendedfromitstargetdesignlifeaslongastheinspectionsdonotproduce criticaladversesignals.

103

Figure126showsawayhowthepartialfactors Ff Mf chosenforfatiguecan beassociatedwithasafeserviceperiod


T ,definedbythetotalservicelife n+1

T andthenumbern ofinspectionsinthistotalservicelife.
UsingthesteelmaterialaccordingtoEN1993110whereaquarterofthefull damage c3 2 10 6 has been used as safe service period, the choice of
Mf Ff = 1,00 would lead to a number of inspection of 3 (corresponding to
T T = ). Other choices of Mf Ff would lead to a smaller number of n+1 4

inspections,and Mf Ff = 1,35 wouldresultinasafeserviceperiodequalto thefullservicelifeT. 2. Thesafelifeconcept,whichrequiresthatfatigueistreatedasanultimate limitstate,asprewarningsignalsmaynotbedetectedsufficientlyearly(e.g. becauseofdisproportionatequickcrackgrowthasforboltsorbecauseaccess for inspection is not possible as for tension ties buried in the soil or underwaterstructures).

6.2 FATIGUE RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna. 4-6 October 2010 129

Mean value m Characteristic value: m 1.645

Design value:

Control of actions No control of actions

N = 2 Mf = 5 2 = 1.15
N = 4.5 Mf = 5 4 ,50 = 1.35

Figure127 Figure 127 shows the characteristic fatigue strength function (m 1.645 ) which for attaining the design function (m 3.30 ) needs about a partial factor N = 2 indesignlife,whichgivesapartialfactor Mf = 1.15 for m = 5 .

AccordingtotheTrilateralDesignandAnalysisCodefortemporarybridges therequirementsforsafelifedesignisalso N = 2 incasethetrafficloadsare regularlycontrolledinviewofthefatigueloadassumed,butitis N = 4.5 in 104

casetrafficloadsmaydevelopwiththetimewithoutcontrol.Inthatcasethe partialfactorwouldbe Mf = 1.35 . In case the safelifeconcept is chosen, the structure has to be taken out of service independently on whether inspections reveal damages or not, when thetargetdesignlifehasbeenreached.

10.4 TheuseofFatigueloadingmodelFLM3 (1) 1. Use as a damage equivalent vehicle togetherwith influence surfacesfor the various lanes to determine the stresshistory form the crossing over the bridge and to calculate E 2 by using the counting method, the Miner rule andinformationsontrafficdistributionsonlanesanddesignlife. In this case a single FLM 3 underestimates the fatigue effects for influence lines for hogging moments of continuous bridges so that it should be supplementedbyasecondvehicle. Useofthedamageequivalentvehicletodetermine E 2 fromthedifferences of max and min fromextremepositionsofFLM3ontheinfluencelinefora singlelane,thatismultipliedwiththedamageequivalentfactor = 1 2 3 4 whichincludeallnecessaryinformations. 1 isthespanlengthfactorthathas been determined from numerical simulations with the Auxerretraffic and constitutesanenvelopingfunctionversusthespanlength,seeFigure129. ThefatigueloadingmodelFLM3maybeusedintwoways,seeFigure128.

2.

105

6.2 FATIGUE RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 131

1 value from simulations with Auxerre traffic

Figure129

10.5 Designexample
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 132

Example: Fatigue assessment for a composite bridge


= 1.947 = 1.90 = 1.715 = 1.947 = 1.90

31.3

1
23.6

stress ranges (max min) at lower flange

Transverse weld from stiffener: E 2 = 1.9 31.3 = 59.5 < 80 MPa Butt weld of flange:

(1)

E 2 = 1.9 26.6 = 44.8 < 77 MPa

Figure130 ForthedesignexampleinFigure130thestressranges = ( max min ) causedby FLM3onextremepositionsoftheinfluencelinearegiven.

106

(2)

Thedistributionofthesestressrangesshowsthatatthemidspansthestressranges fromtrafficactionattainthelargestvalues,whereasatthesupport,thestressranges arelow. Thisindicatesthatatthesupports,wherethickflangesareneeded,theuseofhigh strengthsteelscouldbeappropriate,thatgivessmallplatethicknessesandtherefore economicadvantagesinweldvolume. The values for midspan and at the supports differ a bit and vary between 1,715 and1,947. The fatigue assessment is carried out at two locations of the bottom flange in the fieldofthesidespan: 1. 2. Itsatisfiestherequirementevenforsafelifedesign. Transverseweldfromstiffener Buttweldofflange.

(3)

(4) (5)

10.6 Furtherinformations (1) FurtherinformationsonthebackgroundofthefatiguerulesinEN199319andon designexamplesisgivenintheJRCReportCommentarytoEurocode3EN1993 Part1.9Fatigue),seeFigure131.

6.2 FATIGUE RULES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 133

Figure131 107

11. 11.1 General (1) ThereisnocommondefinitionofPreloadingorPrestress P inEN1990;itleaves such definitions and also the choice of partial factors to be applied to P to the Eurocodesfordifferentmaterialsandwaysofconstruction. Itisthereforeapurposeofthisreporttogivethisdefinitionforsteelbridges,in particularforbridgeswithropes,asstayedcablebridges. (3) Thisreportalsoexplainshowthepermanentaction G andpreloading P aretreated in combinations of actions and how 2nd order theory shall by applied, so that the designofe.g.ropesandpylonsinacablestayedbridgeisconsistent. Useofpreloadinginbridges

(2)

11.2 Definitions (1) Preloadingissystematicallyusedincablestayedbridgestooptimizethedistribution ofactioneffectsforserviceabilityandultimatecriteria.


6. DESIGN OF BRIDGE-ELEMENTS 6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 134

ThedefinitionofprestressandpreloadingmaybetakenfromFigure132.

Rope-structures - Stayed cable bridges Definition


Any prestress is generated by preloading Preloading is a process to impose forces or deformations The effects of preloading may be variations of stresses (prestress) variations of deformations other variations of permanent stage

Figure132

108

11.3 (1)

Examplesforpreloadingprocesses Figure 133, Figure 134 and Figure 135 give examples for different preloading processesindifferentapplicationfields

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 135

Examples for preloading processes


1a) Prestressing by internal tendons 1b) Prestressing of trusses by cables in hollow sections

1c) Prestressing by external tendons

1d) Prestressing of joints subjected to tension or friction

Figure133

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 136

Examples for preloading processes


2) Prestressing by propping
steel d

4) Prestressing by imposed deformation


steel d

cast of concrete

cast of concrete

composite

composite

3) Prestressing by sequence of casting concrete


phase 1 phase 2 phase 1

Figure134

109

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 137

Examples for preloading processes


5a) Prestressing of cable structures 5b) Prestressing of arches by string-elements

b ow -st rin g

5c) Prestressing of guyed masts

5d) Prestressing of cable stayed structures

Figure135

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 138

Principles

It is possible to define the preloading or prestressing

process by all necessary steps including controls


It is not possible to define prestress as an effect of prestressing

or preloading in a general way, that covers all cases

(2) (3)

Figure136 Duetothedifferentaimsofpreloadingorprestressinthevariousapplicationfieldsit isnotpossibletodefinepreloadingorprestressinginacommonway. Figure 137 and Figure 138 give examples for such different ways, prestress and preloadingaretreated:

110

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 139

Example for the applicability of prestress

stress before prestresses:

q 0,l = 0

stress immediately after prestressing:

q 0 , l

prestress:

q 0 , l = 0 , l = q 0 , l q 0 , l = 0

(4)

Figure137 Figure137showstheeffectofprestressingofaconcretebeambyapplyingimposed displacements l to a tendon. Prestress is defined by the difference between the stressbeforetheimposeddisplacementandafter. Figure 138 shows the effect of the same displacement to a catenarian rope. The effectsarenonlinearanddonotpermittodefinetheeffectsasadifferenceofstress intheropeonly.

(5)

111


6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 140

(6)

Example for the non-applicability of prestress

Figure138 Therfore the action P in EN 1990 is defined as a process aiming at a particular structuralshapeorbehaviour,seeFigure139.

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 141

Conclusion

P in EN 1990 a) preloading or prestressing process leading to a structural shape or behaviour as required b) prestress in specific cases where defined

Figure139

112

11.4 (1) Thetargetofthepreloadingandprestressingprocessintheconstructionphaseisto attaintherequiredstructuralformanddistributionofeffectsofpermanentactions andpreloadingprocess (G + P ) ,seeFigure140. Treatmentofpreloadingandprestressingprocessesintheconstructionphase

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 142

Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the construction phase

Target:

attainment of the required structural form and distribution of permanent effects of (G+P)

Conclusion: calculation with characteristic values, linear material law: stress limitations and prestressing of cables.

(2)

Figure140 Thereforecalculationsarecarriedoutwithcharacteristicvalues(meanvalues),linear materiallawandstresslimitationsinthecables.

113

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 143

Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the construction phase

(3)

Figure141 Figure141shows: in the first line the shape of a stayed structure after execution under the actions (G + P ) in the second line the action effects in the various components of the structurewithashapeasindicatedinthefirstlineunderthegravityloads G andthepreloading P in the third line the stressfree shape of the structural components (rope andbeam)whentheyarereleasedfromallactionsandgivetheirlengthsand curvedformasgeometricalrequirementsforfabrication

11.5 Treatmentofpreloadingandprestressingintheservicephase (1) The taking in service of the structure starts with the initial geometry and initial distribution of action effect from the actions (G + P ) achieved after execution, that mayhavecertainimperfections,seefigure142.

114

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 144

Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the service phase Target: ULS verification on the basis of: permanent actions G(G+P) permanent form resulting from (G+P) imperfections of the form variable actions Q{Qk1 + 0Qk2} Conclusion: Calculation with the permanent form associated with the effect from G(G+P)

(2)

Figure142 For the ultimate limit state verification the various components of the structure all withastructuralshapeafterexecutionresultingfrom (G + P ) shouldbeassumedto beloadedbythedesignvaluesofactioneffects

(3)

G (G + P )

Designvaluesofvariableactions
Q (Qk 1 + 0 Qk 2 )

areassumedtoactonthestructurewiththeshaperesultingfrom (G + P ) andwith aninitialload (G + P ) .

115

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 145

Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the service phase

(4)

Figure143 Figure143illustratestheprocedure: the first line gives the structural shape resulting from (G + P ) with an initial loadingofcomponentsfrom (G + P ) thesecondlinegivesthedesignvaluesoftheadditionalimperfections w0 that giveafictitiousloadingfrom
G (G + P ) + Q (Qk 1 + 0 + Qk 2 ) .

(5) should represent an action from a single process and therefore have common partialfactors
(G + P ) = 1,35 or

Thisprocedureexplainswhy

(G + P )

(G + P ) = 1,00 dependingonunfavourableorfavourableeffectsincombinationwithexternalloads Qk .

116

(6)

Wherehowevereffectsof G from P arecounteractingsothat (G + P ) issmall,e.g. at the limit state of decompression, either G and P should be modified by
G = G and P = P where takesvalues0.05,seeFigure144.

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 146

Treatment at counterflexure points

Treatment at counterflexure points, or where the action effects from (G+P) are limited (e.g. by decompression):

G = G, where 0.05 0.10


applied to influence surfaces.

12. (1) (2)

Figure144 Furtherinformationstodesignrulesforsteelbridges GapsintheEurocodesidentifiedduringusearebeingsubjectofthedevelopmentof Nonconflictingcomplementaryinformations(NCCI). Apartfromtheitemsmentionedinthisreportas rules for actions on bridges, e.g. treatment of combined wind, rain and trafficinducedvibrations extensionofrulesforchoiceofmaterial stabilityrulesforlateraltorsionalandplatebuckling fatiguerules

therearefurtheritems,forsomeofwhichJRCreporthavealreadybeenpublished. (3) The JRCreports Design of lightweight footbridges for human induced vibrations, see Figure 145 and Assessment of existing steel structures: Recommendations for Estimation of Remaining Fatigue life, see Figure 146, are examples of such publications.

117

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES


Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 147

Figure145
7. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING STEEL BRIDGES
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 148

Figure146

118