A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE MAGDEBURG CANAL BRIDGE,

MAGDEBURG, GERMANY

Christos Ellinas
1


1
MEng Undergraduate Student, University of Bath


Abstract: This paper introduces Europes largest Canal Bridge found in Magdeburg, Germany. The
uncommon nature of the bridge is established through its history and its function. Various relative checks
are then applied on critical aspects under its Ultimate Limit State. A structural analysis of critical
members, according to BS5400, is also undertaken.

Keywords: Magdeburg, Elbe River, Canal Bridge, Steel Girder, P-Truss


1 Introduction
1


The Magdeburg Canal Bridge is currently the
largest water viaduct in Europe, connecting the Elbe-
Haval Canal with the Mittelland Canal over the Elbe
River.


The concept of connecting the two canals was first
conceived in 1919 and by 1938 the Rothensee lock and
the abutment of the bridge were in place. However, the
works were put on hold due to the World War II. After
the end of it which found Germany divided East
Germany postponed the works indefinitely. In 1991,
and after Germany was reunited, the Government
proposed 17 transport projects which aimed to recover
the communication links. Part of the Project 17 was
the Magdeburg Canal Bridge. [1]

The purpose of the project is two-fold:
I. To provide a reliable route for the barges to use. Due to
the fact that the water level of the Elbe River
undergoes great fluctuations, it provides an unreliable
passage for cargo with inherent costs and high risks.
II. The initial route first required the use of the Rothensee
Lock to lower the barge to the Elbe River; then to
undergo a 12 km detour to reach the Niegripp Lock
which then lifted the barge to the level of the Elbe-
Haval Canal. This was a time consuming process. The
Magdeburg Canal Bridge provides a much more direct
route by providing a more direct route incorporating
only one lock the Hohenwarthe Lock.

Project 17 required the extension of the Elbe-Haval
Canal in order to reduce the length of the required
bridge-, the construction of the Hohenwarthe Lock and
the Canal Bridge- which is divided in two parts, the
Main Bridge and the Approach Bridge.

1
Christos Ellinas [ce229@bath.ac.uk]























Figure 1: Location of bridge with before and after
routes [2]


The Canal Bridge is an all-steel construction with a
total length of 918.2m and a longest span of 106.2m.
Both of the sub-divided bridges follow a beam design.
The bridges construction began in 1998 and was
finished in October 2003 with an overall cost of 500
million . The design was done by Igenieurbro Grassl
Gmbh and the main contractors were Belfinger Berger
and Dillinger Stahlbau. [3]

2 Aesthetics

Fritz Leonharts 10 Rules of Aesthetics will be used
in an attempt to divide and analyse the subjective
matter of aesthetics. It should be noted that a bridge
Rothensee
Lock
Niegripp
Lock
Hohenwarthe
Lock


can still be aesthetically unpleasant even following the
ten rules; however it is unlikely to be pleasing without
following them.
The Main Bridge follows a different design
approach than the Approach Bridge, although both
follow a similar structural design. This transition in the
design is illustrated by the tall, prismatic, concrete
towers located on the three abutments.


Figure 2: Aerial view of approach and main bridge [4]

The bridge has a very clear form the
incorporation of the truss achieves a sense of stability
and safety since its a familiar structural system to the
general public. The inherent rigidity in a truss and its
rather stocky appearance also enhances the apparent
security of the structure.


Figure 3: Aerial photo of the main bridge [5]

The span/depth ratio of the main bridge is 39 - the
recommended for a truss bridge is 30. However, due to
the implications resulting from the purpose of the
bridge minimum clearance for barges the increased
depth was unavoidable. Furthermore, due to the
excessive depth of the deck, the piers appear to be out
of proportion. However, this was again an inevitable
implication; incorporation of stockier piers would
provide better proportions but a less efficient and
significantly more expensive design. The proportions
between the abutments, the piers and the main span
appear to be logical since the piers are closer to the
abutments, resulting to a larger main span in the
middle.


Figure 5: South elevation [6]

The repetitive natures of the truss seems to work
very well in providing a pleasing geometric repetition
while the nature of the piers and the four rising towers
provide the variety. Similar prismatic shape is followed
by both the piers and the towers thus variety is
provided without any exaggeration or excessive use of
features. It should be noted that the prismatic shape of
the Piers also has a practical function since it reduces
the resistance to the rivers flow thus reducing scour.
The bridge illustrates extensive refinement
throughout its structure. The joints between the struts
inside the Pratt Truss showcase a smooth and elegant
joint by avoiding hard lines and edges. The piers
showcase further elements of refinement by using a
smooth prismatic shape; reducing the opaque effect
resulting from viewing the piers at an oblique angle.
Additionally, they are tapered in order for the bottom
to appear thicker than the top part.


Figure 6: Pier elevation [8]

Interestingly, there is no sign of refinement in the
pedestrian walkway showing that this capacity was
added as a rather insignificant feature or at a later stage
of the design.
The significance of the bridge as an engineering
achievement imposes great character on the structure-
the simple, clear and effective structure illustrates
maturity and effortlessly implies a degree of status.
The bridges strong character is further enhanced by
the simplistic nature of the surrounding environment
making it a symbol for the whole area. Although the
structure doesnt compliment the environment in any
way, its heavy structure and character illustrate that
this may be the perfect environment for such a heavy
structure since its character and power comes from the
contradiction of the simplicity in the surrounding.
Figure 5: Detail of joint in
P-Truss [7]


Conclusively, although the bridge fails to satisfy all
10 rules, there is a need to understand the limitations
imposed by the purpose of the Bridge. By
acknowledging the overall design; the extensive
refinement and the heavy character of the structure, it
can be easily deduced that the design is successful.

3 Structure and Section definition

The Approach Bridge is a multi-span steel beam
bridge. It is made of 16 sections with a section length
of 42.85m and a total length of 685.6m. It is supported
by 15 cast-concrete piers and two abutments. [9] No
further analysis of the Approach Bridge will take place
since the Main Bridge is the main subject of this
analysis.
The Main Bridge is a 3-span continuous steel beam
bridge with two exterior steel girders. Each exterior
steel girder forms a hollow box-section at the Piers in
order to accommodate for torsion effects triggered by
wind loading, impact loading and HB loading. The
flanges of the 6 longitudinal beams of each exterior
girder are used to provide support for the wielded steel
sheets which in turn provide the trough wall structure.
The outer side of the steel girder is open and
incorporates a Pratt-Type truss. The bridge is broken
into 3 spans 57.1m/106.2m/57.1m with a total of
220.4m. It also has a height clearance of 6.4m above
the river Elbe to accommodate for traffic going under
the bridge. It is supported by four concrete Piers and
two Abutments. The vertical loads are transferred to
the substructure by Spherical PTFE Bearings and the
horizontal loads by Elastomeric Bearings one of each
kind on each pier and three on each abutment. [10] The
substructure is expressed in the form of raft
foundations.
























3.1 Calculations about the geometric properties of
the transverse section

Figure 7: Transverse section with centroid


3.1.1 Calculation to determine the centroid

Table 1: Section data 1
Object Area/m
2
y
n
/m Ay
n
/m
3

1 (3.75x8.39)-
(2.27x6.91)=15.78
8.39/2=4.195 66.20
2 (3.75x8.39)-
(2.27x6.91)=15.78
8.39/2=4.195 66.20
3 (1.9x34)=64.6 1.9/2=0.95 61.37

3.1.2. Parallel Axis Theorem to calculate Second
Moment of Area along the x-x axis

Table 2: Section data 2
Object y/m Ay
2
/m
3
I
n
/m
4

1 4.195-
2.015=2.18
15.78 x
2.18
2
=74.99

2 4.195-
2.015=2.18
15.78 x
2.18
2
=74.99

3 2.015-
0.95=1.065
64.6 x
1.065
2
=73.27

Figure 7:
Transverse
section [11]


4 Loading

Generally, the nature of the loads experienced by a
bridge can be divided in two permanent and transient
loading. As bridge designs have evolved, the general
trend has been for the permanent loading to decrease
and the transient to increase. However, this is not the
case here since the transient loading present is
insignificant compared to the enormous permanent
loads.
The Permanent Loading is made of the Self-Weight
of the structure and the water volume present which
is considered as a Super-Imposed Load. The transient
load is made of pedestrian traffic and HB loading in
the form of a 16 tonne fire truck which may be
present under maintenance conditions. The presence of
barges in the bridge does not cause any change in the
loading since as the barge enters the bridge, the same
volume of water is displaced. Since water is denser, the
load actually decreases rather than to increase.
The following calculations have been done
according to BS5400, through the design of the bridge
has been done under DIN Standards.

4.1 Unfactored Load Calculation

4.1.1Water Load
Max. Height of Water=4.25m
of Water @ 4 C = 1000 kg/m
3
Load

Table 3: Unfactored Steel Dead Load
Trough Side Girders
Mass 3650 tones 5850 tones
Acting
Area

( )

Load/m
2

4.1.2 Unfactored Pedestrian Load
Nominal HA UDL for 220m span = 11.7 kN/m

Live pedestrian load =

4.1.2 Unfactored HB Loading
A 16 tonne fire-truck is considered, simplified as a
point load

The minimum longitudinal length required is 59.6m
while the minimum transverse length is 4m.

4.2 Safety Factors

Safety factors
f3
and
fl
were taken into account in the
calculation, with values according to BS5400. It should
be noted that the safety factor for a super-imposed load
was lowered from 1.75 to 1.5. This was done in order
to provide a more realistic approach to this specific
example. This factor is usually applied to loading
caused by surfacing material and thus takes into
account any resurfacing that may take place during the
design life and any alterations of the weight due to
moisture absorption. However, these factors do not
come into play when water is considered as a super-
imposed load; thus the lower chosen value.

5 Primary Beam Design

All the loads are transferred along the transverse
direction to the two side girders via a 34m long, 3.8m
wide and 1.9 tall S355G2J3 I-beam, with a stated dead
load of 60 tonnes









Figure 8: Plan showing location of the primary beam

The required Second Moment of Area for the beam is
calculated by taking into account the loads
experienced, which in this case is the stated dead load
of the beam and the water load.

Dead Load UDL =

Factored Dead Load =

Super-Imposed Load =

Factored Super-Imposed Load =

()

6 Longitudinal Steel Girder

The steel girders receive the load from the
transverse beam and carry it to the piers through the
bearings. Since they are the critical structural
components of the superstructure, two loading cases
were established and tested in order to determine the
maximum bending moment. Initially, the Side Steel
Girder was designed in ROBOT and its geometric data
were derived. Afterwards, the section was loaded in
various ways and using various safety factors in order
to establish the worst case scenario.

Figure 9: Longitudinal Elevation [12]







Figure 10 illustrates the real section while Figure 11
illustrates the assumed design in ROBOT. It should be
noted that only the top and bottom chord carrying
compression and tension respectively are represented
in the design since the struts are assumed to carry only
shear and thus have no effect on the bending capacity
of the section. Various assumptions had to be taken due
to insufficient data. The steel thickness was assumed to
be 80 mm the maximum delivered to the project [14]
of S355G2J3 quality.


Table 4: Obtained properties


Figure 12: Longitudinal beam dimensions

Table 4 shows the geometric properties obtained.
Figure 12 illustrates the estimated dimensions of the 6
longitudinal beams.

6.1. Loading Configurations and Section Check

Initially, safety factors were applied uniformly in order
to establish the reaction forces and compare them to
known data. The results are shown in Figure 13.Then,
the safety factors were altered in order to establish the
ULS note that different safety factors were applied
on the significant loads, depending on their position, in
order to either enhance or minimise their effect.

Loading Configuration 1 was established with the
loading combination shown in Figure 14 and resulted
to a moment distribution shown in Figure 15. In a
similar fashion, Loading Configuration 2 is shown in
Figure 16 and the resulting moment distribution in
Figure 17.


Figure 13: Deflection shape and support forces

Max Reaction Force = 135.36 MN, matching the actual
design data. [15]

The loads used in both configurations are shown
below. Note that HB loading differs depending on the
Load Configuration; in one case it acts alone and in the
other case it acts in combination with HA loading thus
different safety factors are used.

Table 5: Load types and values
Load Type Value
Water Load Unfactored

Water Load with F3


Water Load with F3 and
FL


HA Load Unfactored 11.7 kN/m
HA Factored 16.73 kN/m
HB - Unfactored 156.96 kN
HB Factored,
Configuration 1
258.98 kN
HB Factored,
Configuration 2
224.45 kN
Dead Load Unfactored
(

)+
(

)
Dead Load with F3 232.61 kN/m
Dead Load with F3 and
FL
244.24 kN/m

Configuration 1 was set to induce the maximum
hogging bending momment by introducing HB loading
to the two shortest spans and by using a F3 of 1 to the
loads in the main span.




Figure 14: Load combination and values for case 1


Figure 15: BMD for loading case 1
4007mm
I
YY

I
XX
5.40650

Figure 111:
Assumed girder
section with
centroid
Figure 10: Actual
girder section [13]



On the other hand, Configuration 2 was set to induce
the maximum sagging moment by incorporating HB
loading, accompanied by HA loading, in the main span
and using F3 of 1 to the loads in the shortest spans.





Figure 16: Load combination and values for case 2







Figure 17: BMD for loading case 2

Principally, the method was justified by the Sagging
and Hogging moment ratio; however, numerically the
highest hogging moments was established in
Configuration 2, due to the large reduction of the load
by reducing the safety factors in Configuration 1.

Table 6: Global max. moment values
Configuration 1 Configuration 2
Max. Sagging 572.71 MNm 910.18 MNm
Max. Hogging 856.44 MNm 1 095.64 MNm

Max. Design Moment = 1 095.64 MNm

) ()

Thus the section is safe, though optimization of the
estimated section probably took place to achieve a
more efficient design.

7 Ship Impact Load

The case of a barge hitting the bridge should be
examined in order to determine if the horizontal force
and the torsional effect associated with it are
significant. Table 7 indicates the maximum vessel
dimensions and capacities allowed in the bridge.

Table 7: Allowable vessel characteristics [16]
Max Barge, length & loaded weight 110m,
2000 tones
Max Convoy, length & loaded weight 185m,
3500 tones
Max Allowable Width 11.4 m
Max Allowable Draft 2.8 m
Max Allowable Speed 2.4 m/s
Pneumitaic fenders are present to the inner sides of the
bridge in order to protect the structure from any
significant damage. They are assumed to have a
displacement limit of 100 mm and to provide an extra
second to the duration of the impact.















Figures 18 and 19: Vessel geometry in bridge trough

7.1 Impact Load Calculation

Figure 18 and 19 illustrate the worst case geometry that
a 185m, 3500 tones convoy can have. Its calculated
lateral velocity assuming a maximum longitudinal
velocity of 2.4 m/s is 0.442 m/s. Applying dynamics
and solving simultaneously, the required time for a
fender to reach its maximum allowable deflection is
0.452 seconds.

+ 1s by the pneumatic fender = 1.452s

Applying Conversation of Momentum and assuming
15% of the energy is lost in crumpling [17],

( )

Further checks should be performed, since this
horizontal force will need to be transferred by the
elastomeric bearings to the piers both of them will
need to be able to resist the induced moments and
stresses.

8 Wind Load

A simplified approach is followed in order to
calculate the wind load experienced at the centroid of
the steel girders. This method does not take into
account the energy dissipated when wind first hits the
outer part of the steel girder the P truss -, it is
assumed that all the energy is experienced on the steel
trough wall. It should be noted that the effect of the
wind load will be relatively small due to the rigidity of
the structure and the damping effects of the water
however it may play an important load in the torsion
experienced by the section


Magdeburg belongs in zone II and is characterized
by reference wind speeds of 27.6 m/s. When the water
level in the river is at its lowest (MW at 39.18m) the
centroid of the bridge is at 14.71m above ground level.







Figure 20: Critical area under wind load

Since the calculated load is going to be used for torsion
effects, and since the torsional resistance of the section
comes from the hollow boxes located only at the piers,
it is sensible to assume that the critical area where the
load acts on is the one shown in Figure 20.

8.1 Wind Load Calculations

Area supported by each pier = (

Critical velocity is given by

and is found
to be

Assuming that the area experiencing the wind load has
a solid elevation made of the trough wall, the resultant
force, acting at the centroid of the Hollow Box, is
given by =

Where

thus C
D
=1.3.

Finally, the Horizontal Force on each Hollow Box =


9 Torsion

The transverse section of the bridge has one hollow
box at each Pier to account for any torsional effects.
The ULS is examined made of torsional effects caused
by a ship impact, wind loading and HB loading, as
shown in Figure 21. Hydrostatic forces resulting from
the containment of water are not taken into account
since they are assumed to be uniformly distributed
thus having no overall torsional effect.








9.1 Torsion Resistance of Section

The torsional resistance of the transverse section
needs to be calculated in order to illustrate that it is
sufficient. It is assumed that the torsional resistance
results from the presence of the two Hollow Boxes
any torsional resistance from the 34m transverse beam
is ignored. A uniform effective thickness of 740mm is
assumed for the Hollow Box and the established von
Misses criterion is assumed to apply.

Figure 22: Box geometry

Total Torsion Resistance of Transverse Section =

9.2 Torsion Experienced Calculation

Torsion experienced by wind is equal to the factored
wind load multiplied by the eccentricity to the centroid
of the transverse section. The same principle is
followed for both HB and ship impact loading.

Factored Wind load =

Eccentricity = 2180 mm
Induced Torque=

Factored Impact Load=

Eccentricity = 6375mm
Induced Torque=

Factored HB Load=

Eccentricity =18875mm
Induced Torque=

Total induced Torque=

Thus the transverse section is sufficient

under ULS conditions.
B
m
3010 mm
D
m
7650 mm
t 740 mm

Figure 21: ULS for torsion
Table 7: Box
geometric data


10 Temperature

Temperature effects during the operation of the
bridge are insignificant due to the vast volume of water
and its large heat capacity which provide a damping
effect and maintain a relatively constant temperature
under both diurnal and annual conditions.
However, the temperature effects need to be
considered during the construction phase of the bridge,
when this damping effect is absent.

Largest Span = 106.2 m, for steel =

( () ) ()
()
(

The elastomeric bearings responsible for the
horizontal loads need to be able to accommodate for
this temperature-induced stresses and for any induced
moments caused by the thermal difference.
As the spans expand and contract, a continuum
between the spans is essential in order to avoid any
water leakage from the trough. This is done by
incorporating a metal polymer between the spans. It is
waterproof, with a great resistance to large temperature
changes, corrosion and to high compressive loads. Its
main purpose is to act as an expansion joint but also
provide a continuum of material this is done through
the high strain capacity of the material [18]. It also
provides a damping effect between the 3 spans,
reducing any stresses than may be caused by the
longitudinal flow of the water.

11 Natural Frequency

The natural frequency of the bridge needs to be
calculated in order to establish any interaction with the
wind. Again, the ULS is during the construction phase,
when water is absent and thus its advantageous extra
mass and damping effects are not present.

Natural frequency is given by:

,

Worst case is at the shortest span and when mass is
minimum.

E=216 MPa = 216000 kN/m
2

I=486.98 m
4
L
1
=L
2
=57.1m
L=106.2m

and

, thus k=3.55
Total mass per unit meter = m
trough
+ m
side
=

()

thus the bridge is safe.

12 Geotechnics

The ground conditions below the Main Bridge are
relatively uniform and are defined as silty clay,
otherwise known as Marlstone. [19] The foundation
system used is shallow footings, transferring the load
directly to the Marlstone layer.

12.1 Local Scour Depth calculation

Any scour attack experienced - due to the river flow -
will result to differential settlement, which will induce
significant moments - due to the high rigidity and
stiffness of the superstructure. Thus, Sheet Piling was
used to protect from Local Scour. Furthermore,
settlement monitoring was installed in each Pier in
order to monitor any differential settlement that takes
place. Due to the importance of the Local Depth of
Scour, it is calculated assuming flow is parallel to the
Pier and using the Hanco method [20] with a Safety
Factor of 1.6. The result is compared to the Sheet
Piling Depth.

Figure 23: Foundation section with level heights,

Table 8: Data required

Since d
90
> 0.7mm, =1,

)

(

Data Used
Width of Pier, H
12.00 m
Length of Pier, G
21.80 m
Ground Level,Z
0

35.78 m
High Tide Level, Z
D

43.19 m
Marlstone Density,
s

2800 kg/m
3

Grain Diameter, d
90

13.80 mm [21]
Velocity of Water, U


1.38 m/s [22]

Safety Factor, S
f
1.6


Shape Factor,
shape
1.05

) (

angle
=1 and
velocity
=0

depth
, for

, (

Converting to Datum Level,

Sheet piling is 1.5m below the foundation at 26.5m
Datum (=28-1.5m), thus the Pier is safe from Local
Scour.

13 Durability

Durability is a significant issue due to the intense
environmental conditions. Corrosion can significantly
affect the structural integrity of the bridge, thus
measures need to be taken into account. Other than the
protective coating applied to the structure, the main
defense mechanism is an active cathodic protection
system with the method of an impressed current.
External current is supplied both to the Steel Trough,
converting it to a cathode, and to an inert, Titanium
anode located to the side of the bridge. This is a very
efficient way to protect the structure, though costs arise
through the replacement of the used anodes.
Another significant issue is the case of water
freezing, since this would cause serviceability issues to
the Bridge and cause additional stresses on the
superstructure. An air system was installed to the
bridge in order to prevent ice formation. Air bubbles
are produced in the bottom of the trough through
pumps. The bubbles promote longitudinal flow of the
water even in freezing temperatures, thus limiting the
formation of ice. Furthermore, a gentle slope of 1:2 is
given to the edges of the transverse beam at the point
where it is joined with the steel girders in order to
reduce the stresses caused by any changes in the water
temperature. [23]

14 Serviceability

Pipes are located longitudinally across the
bridge in order to accommodate for the drainage of the
bridge when a serviceability check needs to take place.
[24]
Monitoring is a key issue. Due to the likelihood of
great moments being introduced after any amount of
differential settlement, several methods have been
applied in order to monitor it. Vertical Displacement
monitoring has been installed under each pier [25] and
each spherical PTFE bearing, thus providing real-time
updates on the situation of the bridge. [26]
Inspection halls are located at each pier, where
maintenance staff can examine the state of the
bearings. Furthermore, they can enter the side girder
and walk along the longitudinal axis and inspect the
interior of the side girder and the trough wall.

15 Construction Procedure

15.1 Construction Sequence for the Substructure

Sheet piling was first installed to define and protect the
excavation area. After the excavation was completed, a
thin prefabricated layer of concrete was set in place,
which contained provisions for settlement monitoring.
Then a boat-crane was used to set the prefabricated
reinforcement cage in place. Finally, the water was
pumped out and the rest of the pier was cast in situ.
The process is illustrated in Figure 24 - 28.








15.2 Construction Sequence for the Main Bridge

The construction method for the main bridge was
incremental launching. This was achieved due to the
large available space and due to the development of a
custom designed machine in order to achieve the great
amount of wielding with the required accuracy. All the
beams were delivered on site, positioned along with the
steel sheets and wielded together. The side truss was
made in a similar way. Temporary supports (Fig.30)
were set between the piers in order to avoid designing
the section for the increased construction loads.


Figure 29: Construction Sequence of the bridge [28]


Figure 30: Temporary piers for construction [29]


Figures 24 28: Pier
construction sequence [27]



16 Suggested Improvements

An improvement could be made regarding the
structural stability of the Hollow Box during a bearing
replacement process. The most widespread method of
replacing a bearing is by using a hydraulic jack to lift
the section and then replace the bearing. However the
high point loads introduced by the jacks would cause
the hollow box to shear. Thus, it could be suggested
that the side girder is stiffened by diaphragms or k-
bracing across its longitudinal axis in order to avoid
shearing of the section.
The current structural system suggests that the truss
only receives a part of the load and thus, not efficiently
used the main structural components of the side
girder are the 6 longitudinal beams. It would be
suggested to remove the truss and enhance the strength
of the beams thus achieving a more economical and
sufficient design. If the aesthetical appeal of the truss
was a vital design parameter, then a truss bridge
where the vertical load was carried wholly by a truss
structure underneath the trough would be again a
more efficient design.

17 Impact on transportation and future impact

Once the canal bridge was completed in the end of
2003, a significant increase was observed in the
number of cargo being transported; illustrated
graphically in Chart 1. The number of barges is
expected to increase even further estimation indicate
up to 200% increase after the completion of Haval-
Oder canal in Berlin, which will enlarge the route
incorporated in the bridge.
As barge traffic increases, the adequacy of the
bridge will be tested to the limit, since its geometry is
set and any required change would result to an
extremely large cost. Furthermore, a larger draft would
be required in order to accommodate larger future
barges thus higher amount of water required which
the structure may not be designed to resist.

Chart 1: Cargo transportation [30]

References

[4-8] Janberg, N., 2009, Photographs of the Magdeburg
Canal Bridge, Available from:
http://en.structurae.de/photos/index.cfm?JS=146769
[Accessed 14 March 2011]

[1-3, 9, 10, 14, 25, 27] - Wasserstraen-Neubauamt
Magdeburg, 2002, Magdeburg Canal Bridge, Magdeburg:
RGE Kanalbrcke Magdeburg andWasserstraen-Neubauamt
Magdeburg, Available from: http://www.wsv.de/wna-
md/service/Doku/DSD.pdf [Accessed 04 April 2011]

[26] - Maurer Shne, 2001, Bridge Bearings with Load
Measuring Capability, Munich: Maurer Sohne, Available
from http://www.maurer-
soehne.com/files/bauwerkschutzsysteme/pdf/en/productinfo/
Bridge_bearings_with_Load_Measuring_Capacity.pdf
[Accessed 18 March 2011]

[11] WNA Magdeburg, 2003, Connecting River Elbe,
Magdeburg: WNA, Available from
http://www.wsv.de/aktuelles/projekte/wstr_kreuz_md/pdfs/ka
nalbruecke_bau.pdf [Accessed 04 April 2011]

[12] Saul, R., 2005, Double Deck Steel Bridges, Stuttgart:
Arcelor, Available from http://www.lap-consult.com/pdf-
files/deutsch/sonderdrucke/sdr473.pdf [Accessed 03 March
2011]

[13, 28, 29] - Hanswille, G. and Sedlacek, G., 2007, Steel
and Composite Steel Bridges in Germany State of the Art,
Oslo: Norwegian Steel Association, Available from
http://www.stalforbund.com/Staldag2007/Steel_composite_b
ridges_Germany.pdf [Accessed on 06 March 2011]

[15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 30] Roskoden, M.,
(Marlies.Roskoden@wsv.bund.de), 11 April 2011,
Regarding the Magdeburg Canal Bridge, E-mail to C.Ellinas
(ce229@bath.ac.uk)

[17] University of Kentucky, 2003, Multi-Barge Flotilla
Impact Forces on Bridge, Lexington: Kentucky
Transportation Centre, Available from
http://www.ktc.uky.edu/Reports/KTC_08_13_SPR_261_03_
2F.pdf [Accessed on 11 April 2011]

[18] - Diamant Metallplastic GmbH, 2011, Pressure-
Resistant Gap Balancing Systems, Mnchengladbach:
Diamant Metallplastic GmbH, Available from
http://diamant.ph/dia-downloads/10-TD-MM1018-GB.pdf
[Accessed on 03 March 2011]

[20] May, R. et al, 2002, Manual on scour at bridges and
other hydraulic structures, Westminster: CIRIA, pp. 76 80

[21, 22]- Ritzert, F. and Nestmann, F., 1997, Influence Of
Silted Groynefields on Waterlevel, Kaiserallee: University of
Karlsruhe, Available from
http://www.iahr.org/membersonly/grazproceedings99/pdf/B0
63.pdf [Accessed on 28 March 2011]

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Mark Evernden and Dr. Tim
Ibell for providing vital notes about understanding the
art behind bridge design. I would also like to thank
Marlies Roskoden for the valuable help he provided me
through e-mails.
C
a
r
g
o

T
o
n
n
a
g
e