Sie sind auf Seite 1von 93

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE

FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Introduction to composite bridges

Conceptual design of composite

Conceptual design of composite bridges in Europe

bridges in Europe

Erection of composite bridges


Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet
Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet


Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

EPFL

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

Content

Two beams bridges

Box section bridges


Truss bridges
Arch bridges
Cable stayed bridges

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

10

Bridge over la Chandelard, 1973


Switzerland
Span length: 50 m
Bridge length: 245 m

Pont sur la baie de


Montreux, 1968
Switzerland
Span length: 60 m
Bridge length: 275 m
FKA UTM 2012

11

FKA UTM 2012

12


FKA UTM 2012

13

FKA UTM 2012

14

Weathering steel

FKA UTM 2012

15

FKA UTM 2012

16

Weathering steel

FKA UTM 2012

17

FKA UTM 2012

Pont Napolon, 1980


Span length: 60 - 83 m
Switzerland
Bridge length: 330 m
Curvature in plan: R = 600 m

FKA UTM 2012

18

Pont Napolon, 1980


Span length: 60 - 83 m
Switzerland
Bridge length: 330 m
Curvature in plan: R = 600 m

19

FKA UTM 2012

20

Viaduc de Monestier, F (2007)


Pont de Chtillon, F, 1988
Span length: 50 m
Bridge length: 240 m
Curvature in plan:
R = 320 m

FKA UTM 2012

21

FKA UTM 2012

Viaduc de Monestier, F (2007)

FKA UTM 2012

22

Viaduc de Monestier, F (2007)

23

FKA UTM 2012

24

Viaduc de lElle, F (2008)

Viaduc de Monestier, F (2007)

Launching procedure
FKA UTM 2012

25

FKA UTM 2012

Viaduc de lElle, F (2008)

FKA UTM 2012

26

Viaduc de lElle, F (2008)

27

FKA UTM 2012

28

Pont sur la Losentze


Switzerland, 1985

Pont sur la Losentze


Switzerland, 1985

Two closed small boxes

FKA UTM 2012

29

FKA UTM 2012

30

31

FKA UTM 2012

32

Pont sur la Losentze


Switzerland, 1985

FKA UTM 2012

The Dala Bridge,


Switzerland 1989

FKA UTM 2012

33

The Dala Bridge,


Switzerland 1989

North
American Steel
FKA UTM
2012
Construction conference April 6

Legs
erected
vertically,
then
inclined,
pulling the
main girders

North
American Steel
FKA UTM
2012
Construction conference April 6

34

34

The Dala Bridge,


Switzerland 1989

35

35

North
American Steel
FKA UTM
2012
Construction conference April 6

36

36

Content

Usual sizes
For continuous beams
With a span length : 30 80 m

slab

[mm]

Stud
connector
main beam

wind

support
cross
bracing
pile

Span

Support

width

300 700

300 1200

depth

15 40

20 100

10 18

12 22

depth
plan bracing
for erection

width
depth

Two beams bridges

Box section bridges


Truss bridges
Arch bridges
Cablestay bridges

400 1200 500 1400


20 70

40 120

FKA UTM 2012

37

FKA UTM 2012

38

FKA UTM 2012

39

FKA UTM 2012

40

10

Bois de rosset bridge,


Switzerland 1990

FKA UTM 2012

Bois de rosset bridge,


Switzerland 1990

41

FKA UTM 2012

42

Bois de rosset bridge,


Switzerland 1990
Bois de rosset
bridge,
Switzerland
1990

FKA UTM 2012

43

FKA UTM 2012

44

11

The Vaux viaduct,


Switzerland 1999

Veveyse, Switzerland, 1969 (129 m)

Total length:
945 m
Two long 130 m
main spans
Height of the
central piers:
100 m
FKA UTM 2012

45

FKA UTM 2012

Description of the Viaduct

Description of the Viaduct


Section for the 130 m
main spans

N
R=1000 m
Crane

46

R=1000 m Launching
Crane

Launching

3.73 m

945 m

56

56

56

56

56

62

62

62

130

16

130

3.73 m

62 45

4.28-6.40 m

40 56

13.46 m
6.00 m

longitudinal
and transverse
stiffeners
diaphragms

FKA UTM 2012

47

FKA UTM 2012

48

12

Description of the Viaduct

Erection Procedure

Section for the


shorter spans

0.25 m

3.73 m

0.40 m

13.46 m
6.00 m

3.40 m

3.73 m

FKA UTM 2012

49

FKA UTM 2012

Verrires F (144 m), 2002

50

Content

Span length: 80 144 m


Bridge length: 720 m
Two beams bridges

Piles height: 141 m

Box section bridges


Truss bridges
Arch bridges
Cablestay bridges

FKA UTM 2012

51

FKA UTM 2012

52

13

Tubular trusses

Tubular trusses

Railbridge Olten,
Switzerland 2003
Span Length: 44 m

Hagneck Bridge, Switzerland 2004


FKA UTM 2012

53

FKA UTM 2012

54

Tubular trusses

Lully Bridge, Switzerland 1999

Hagneck Bridge,
Switzerland 2004
FKA UTM 2012

55

FKA UTM 2012

56

14

Lully Bridge, Switzerland 1999

FKA UTM 2012

57

FKA UTM 2012

58

Lully Bridge, Switzerland 1999

Three roses bridge, Basel,


2004

77m

FKA UTM 2012

59

FKA UTM 2012

105m

84m

60

15

Three roses bridge, Basel,


2004

Tubular trusses

Pont dAntrenas, France 1994

FKA UTM 2012

61

FKA UTM 2012

Tubular trusses

62

Tubular trusses

Sindelfingen
Footbridge,
Germany 1989

Traun Bridge,
Germany 2000
FKA UTM 2012

63

FKA UTM 2012

64

16

Tubular trusses

Tubular trusses
Bern

26m

39m

39m

39m

39m

26m

Zurich

215m

Dttwil Bridge
2001
Construction duration
8 month

Nesenbachtal Bridge,
Germany 2000
FKA UTM 2012

65

FKA UTM 2012

Dttwil Bridge 2001

FKA UTM 2012

section en trave

66

Dttwil Bridge 2001

67

FKA UTM 2012

68

17

Branson Bridge,
Switzerland 2006

FKA UTM 2012

Branson, Fully, (60 m)

69

FKA UTM 2012

Branson Bridge,
Switzerland 2006

70

Content

Two beams bridges

Box section bridges


Truss bridges
Arch bridges
Cablestay bridges

FKA UTM 2012

71

FKA UTM 2012

72

18

St Triphon (90 m),


Landquartbrcke, Switzerland, 1990 (123 m)

Switzerland, 1980
FKA UTM 2012

73

FKA UTM 2012

74

Mornas, TGV French, 1999 (121 m)


Garde Adhmar, French, 1999 (135 m)
FKA UTM 2012

75

FKA UTM 2012

76

19

Pont
de lEurope, F, Orlans, 2000,(202 m)
FKA UTM 2012

77

Pont
de lEurope, Orlans (202 m)
FKA UTM 2012

78

Reggio Emilia,
Italia
Calatrava, 2008
221 m

Reggio Emilia,
Calatrava, 2008
179 m
FKA UTM 2012

79

FKA UTM 2012

80

20

The Gateshead Millennium Bridge, England, (105 m)


The Gateshead Millennium Bridge, England, 2001 (105 m)
FKA UTM 2012

81

FKA UTM 2012

82

Cable stayed bridges

Content

Two beams bridges

Box section bridges


Truss bridges
Arch bridges
Cable stayed bridges
St-Maurice, Switzerland, 1986 (110 m)
FKA UTM 2012

83

FKA UTM 2012

84

21

Pont sur la Poya

Cable stayed bridges


Pont sur la Poya, Fribourg Switzerland, 2013
Span length: 196 m
Bridge length: 851 m

FKA UTM 2012

85

FKA UTM 2012

86

Pont sur la Poya

Normandie, F (856 m), 1995


FKA UTM 2012

87

FKA UTM 2012

88

22

The Millau viaduct

The Millau viaduct 2004


FKA UTM 2012

89

FKA UTM 2012

The Millau viaduct

FKA UTM 2012

90

The Millau viaduct

91

FKA UTM 2012

92

23

The Millau viaduct


COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Erection of composite bridges

Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet


Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

FKA UTM 2012

93

FKA UTM 2012

From the ground by crane

Content

MONTAGE A LA GRUE DEPUIS LE SOL

Steel structure
From the ground by crane
Launching
Cantilever

Concrete slab
Slab cast in-situ,
Slab launched in stages,
Precast slab.
FKA UTM 2012

95

FKA UTM 2012

96

24

From the ground by crane

FKA UTM 2012

From the ground by crane

97

FKA UTM 2012

98

By launching
LANCEMENT

FKA UTM 2012

99

FKA UTM 2012

100

25

By launching

FKA UTM 2012

By launching

101

FKA UTM 2012

102

By launching

FKA UTM 2012

103

FKA UTM 2012

104

26

By launching

FKA UTM 2012

By launching

105

FKA UTM 2012

By launching

FKA UTM 2012

106

By launching

107

FKA UTM 2012

108

27

Cantilever erection
ENCORBELLEMENT

FKA UTM 2012

109

FKA UTM 2012

Cantilever erection

FKA UTM 2012

110

Cantilever erection

111

FKA UTM 2012

112

28

Lifting of a span

Content

Steel structure
From the ground by crane
Launching
Cantilever

Concrete slab
Slab cast in-situ,
Slab launched in stages,
Precast slab.
FKA UTM 2012

113

FKA UTM 2012

Slab cast in-situ

114

Slab cast in-situ

DALLE COULEE SUR PLACE AVEC


COFFRAGE MOBILE

Slab cast in-situ

FKA UTM 2012

115

FKA UTM 2012

116

29

Slab cast in-situ

FKA UTM 2012

Slab cast in-situ

117

FKA UTM 2012

Slab cast in-situ

FKA UTM 2012

118

Slab cast in-situ

119

FKA UTM 2012

120

30

Slab cast in-situ

FKA UTM 2012

Slab cast in-situ

121

FKA UTM 2012

Slab cast in-situ

FKA UTM 2012

122

Prefabricated slab elements

123

FKA UTM 2012

124

31

Prefabricated slab elements

FKA UTM 2012

Prefabricated slab elements

125

FKA UTM 2012

Prefabricated slab elements

FKA UTM 2012

126

Prefabricated slab elements

127

FKA UTM 2012

128

32

Prefabricated slab elements

FKA UTM 2012

Prefabricated slab elements

129

FKA UTM 2012

Prefabricated slab elements

FKA UTM 2012

130

Prefabricated slab elements

131

FKA UTM 2012

132

33

Prefabricated slab elements

FKA UTM 2012

Prefabricated slab elements

133

FKA UTM 2012

Prefabricated slab elements

FKA UTM 2012

134

Prefabricated slab elements

135

FKA UTM 2012

136

34

Prefabricated slab elements

FKA UTM 2012

Prefabricated slab elements

137

FKA UTM 2012

Prefabricated slab elements

FKA UTM 2012

138

Prefabricated slab elements

139

FKA UTM 2012

140

35

Prefabricated slab elements

Dttwil

FKA UTM 2012

141

FKA UTM 2012

Lanching of the slab

FKA UTM 2012

142

Lanching of the slab

143

FKA UTM 2012

144

36

Lanching of the slab

FKA UTM 2012

Lanching of the slab

145

FKA UTM 2012

Lanching of the slab

FKA UTM 2012

146

Lanching of the slab

147

FKA UTM 2012

148

37

Lanching of the slab

FKA UTM 2012

149

FKA UTM 2012

150

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

FKA UTM 2012

151

FKA UTM 2012

38

04/09/2012

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Design of composite bridges


Behaviour of composite bridges

Behaviour of composite bridges

Design of composite bridges according EC 4

Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet


Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet


Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

Shrinkage effect

Transverse distribution line


of loads

According to the traditionnal design, normal stresses in the


steel girders can be as high as 60 80 N/mm2 in
compression in cross sections over intermediate supports !
connected

0.1

Free
shrinkage

N corresponding

Measured according strain


For practical design

0.9
FKA UTM 2012

calculated
Measured according vertical
deformation
3

FKA UTM 2012

04/09/2012

Shrinkage effect

Shrinkage effect

More elaborate calculation of shrinkage effects taking into account of te


concrete behaviour (cracks, creep)

Shrinkage effect compression stresses in the lower flange


contraintes over intermediate support
cs, inf [N/mm2]

-25 N/mm2
Design value

Calculation for twenty existing composite bridges


With span length between 30 and 120 m (cs = 0.25 )
FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

Temperature effect
measurements

Temperature effect
temprature [C]

calculation according code

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

400

2850

hauteur [m] [m]

2
0h
3

Tamb = 16C

2h

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

04/09/2012

Temperature effect

Temperature effect

temprature [C]
15

20

25

30

35

temprature [C]
40

45

15

400

0h

Tamb = 22C

2h
3

2850

4h

hauteur [m] [m]

hauteur [m] [m]

0h
2h
6h

FKA UTM 2012

10

Temperature effect

20

25

30

35

temprature [C]
40

45

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

400

0h
2h

Tamb = 29C

4h

2850

6h
8h

hauteur [m] [m]

hauteur [m] [m]

Tamb = 26C

4h

temprature [C]
15

0h
2h
4h

Tamb = 34C

6h
8h
10h

FKA UTM 2012

45

Temperature effect

40

FKA UTM 2012

2850

35

30

400

25

400

2850

20

5
11

FKA UTM 2012

12

04/09/2012

Temperature effect

Temperature effect

temprature [C]
15

20

25

30

35

temprature [C]
40

45

15

400

20

25

30

35

40

45

400

1
0h

2h
4h

Tamb = 35C

6h
3

2850

8h
10h

hauteur [m] [m]

2850

hauteur [m] [m]

0h

2h

4h
6h
10h
12h

12h
4

14h

FKA UTM 2012

13

FKA UTM 2012

14

Temperature effect

Temperature effect

temprature [C]
15

20

25

30

35

temprature [C]
40

45

15

400

1
0h
4h

Tamb = 26C

8h
3

2850

10h
12h

hauteur [m] [m]

hauteur [m] [m]

2850

35

40

45

0h
4h
6h

Tamb = 21C

10h
12h
14h

16h

16h
18h

FKA UTM 2012

30

8h

14h
4

25

2h

2h
6h

20

400

Tamb = 33C

8h

5
15

FKA UTM 2012

16

04/09/2012

Temperature effect

Temperature effect

temprature [C]
15

20

25

30

35

temprature [C]
40

45

15

400

25

30

35

40

45

400
0h

20

0h

2h

2h

4h

2850

hauteur [m] [m]

hauteur [m] [m]

4h
6h
8h

Tamb = 19C

10h
3

2850

12h
14h

6h

8h
10h
14h
16h

16h
4

18h

18h

20h

20h

22h

FKA UTM 2012

17

FKA UTM 2012

18

Temperature effect

Temperature effect
Max compression stresses in the steel girder

Max tension stresses in the concrete slab

contraintes [N/mm2]

-30

-20

-10

10

20

Web
max -20 N/mm2

contraintes [N/mm2]

hauteur [m] [m]

0
0.1
0.2
0.3

-2

span

portes
42
m 1
section
128
m4
section
42
m 5
section

2
hauteur [m]

-4

128 m4
section

max = 1.7 N/mm2

span
portes
42 m 1
section

130
m7
section

0.4

FKA UTM 2012

Tamb = 18C

12h

42 m 5
section

Lower flange
max - 5 N/mm2

130 m7
section

Upper flange
max - 20 N/mm2

5
19

FKA UTM 2012

20

04/09/2012

Measurements

Measurements during Erection

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Example of vertical
reaction results

Reaction [MN]

level adjustments

6
5
4
3

measured values
calculated values

tolerance
zone: 15 %

Movement of
the bridge

0
0

FKA UTM 2012

10

20

30

[m]

21

Measurements

22

Measurements
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

0
-10

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Web lateral deformation

Example of
vertical stress
results

10

South bridge stage 8


South bridge
Stage 5

-20

-30
-40

1
2
3
4

-50
-60
-70
20

25
Bridge position [m]

4
2

1000 mm

Vertical stresses [N/mm2]

40

16 mm

30
2354 kN
23

max =
1.5 mm

max =
2.0 mm

21 mm

4114 kN
24

04/09/2012

Measurements

Slab cracking

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Temperature during concrete hydration


28C

40

25.5 h

Temperature [C]

35

Durability

Concrete slab
Steel girder
Tamb

30
25

<70 cm

8C

20

Origin of tensile stresses


What to do

15
10
55
0
24.02

25.02

26.02

27.02

28.02

1.03

2.03

3.03

4.03

Date

25

Slab cracking

After demolition, however no corrosion


of the stud shear connectors

26

Slab cracking

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

27

FKA UTM 2012

28

04/09/2012

Durability of the slab

Origin of tensile stresses

Slab transverse cracking tolerated if:


- Good etancheity well put in place

Hydratation effects of the concrete


slab

- Good detailing of the slab well constructed


- crack opening lower than 0.4 mm
Longitudinal reinforcement: about 1,5% on
intermediate support (conceptual design)
about 0.7% in span
(minimum reinforcement)

Construction of the slab


Direct actions (traffic,)
Indirect actions (shrinkage,)

But over all: compact concrete


Take measures to avoid cracking if they are simple
need to know the orign of cracking
Very very good durability need to introduce
longitudinal prestressing in the concrete slab
FKA UTM 2012

29

Origin of tensile stresses


Tensile

Span 30.0 m

Span 80.0 m

Hydratation effects

0.6

1.8

Concreting end to end


Surfacing
Traffic
Shrinkage

1.8
0.8
0.3
0.8

2.7
1.3
0.1
1.4

30

Hydration effects

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

stresses in the slab [N/mm2]

Origin

FKA UTM 2012

Stresses due to hydratation

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

[ N/mm2
stresses
In section 2 :

t = 0.9 N/mm2

1.3
19.6

Systme statique
= +25
E c = 8 kN/mm2

19.6
Moments dus T

34.2

1.3

Tensile stresse are the highest during the


construction of the slab (hydration and
concreting) 60%

= -25
E c = 25 kN/mm2
31

2.2
2.2

34.2

32

04/09/2012

Measurements

Construction of the slab

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Temperature during concrete hydration

Steps

of concreting (slab cast in-situ)

28C

40

25.5 h

35

Temperature [C]

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Concrete slab
Steel girder
Tamb

30
25

<70 cm

Concreting end to end

direction of concreting

8C

20

15
10
55
0
24.02

25.02

26.02

27.02

28.02

1.03

2.03

3.03

Concreting piano

direction de concreting

4.03

Date

33

Construction of the slab


Steps
1

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Construction of the slab

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Tensile stresses in the slab

of concreting end to end

34

Span 30.0 m

Span 80.0 m

12500

13000

TRANSVERSE
CRACKING

1900

Span: 80 m

4500

End to end

4500

c = 2. 7 N /mm2

Piano

Piano

c = - 0.2 N /mm2

t=2.7 N/mm2
35

End to end

2
c = 1.8 N /mm

c = - 0. 5N /mm2
36

04/09/2012

Main selected features


COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

General presentation and scope of ECs


related to steel and composite bridges
Structural analysis
Cross-section analysis at ULS and SLS
Fatigue

Design of composite bridges


according EC 4
Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet
Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

FKA UTM 2012

FKA UTM 2012

Eurocodes (EN)
EN 1990
EN 1991
EN 1992
EN 1993
EN 1994
EN 1995
EN 1996
EN 1997
EN 1998
EN 1999

FKA UTM 2012

38

EN 1991 : actions

basis of design
actions
concrete
steel
composite
timber
masonry
geotechnic
seismic
aluminium

EN1991-1-1
EN1991-1-3
EN1991-1-4
EN1991-1-5
EN1991-1-6
EN1991-1-7
EN1991-2

densities
snow
wind
thermal actions
execution
accidental actions
traffic

39

10

04/09/2012

Eurocode 3 : steel structures

EN 1992 : concrete
applications

EN 1992-1-1 general rules


EN 1992-2 bridges

Partie
4.1

Silos
Partie
2

bridges
Partie
7.1

pylons

Partie
7.2

chimneys

Partie 6

Partie
4.2

tanks

Partie
4.3

Partie 5

Pipelines

piling

Partie
1.1

General rules
building

Partie
1.7

Plated elements
loaded transv.

Partie
1.2

fire

Partie
1.8

joints

sheetings

Partie
1.9

Fatigue

Partie
1.4

Stainless steel

Partie
1.10

Brittle
fracture

Partie
1.5

Plated elements

Partie
1.11

cables

Partie
1.6

shells

Partie
1.12

Partie
1.3

S500 to S690

Cranes

FKA UTM 2012

42

Structural analysis

EN 1994 : composite structures


linear

EN 1994-2

general rules and bridges

Based on EN 1994-1 and EN 1993 - 2

(material)
non linear

steel

concrete
FKA UTM 2012

44

11

04/09/2012

Structural analysis

Classes of steel cross-sections

Elastic

Cl.1
Cl.2

Mpl

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Plastic (buildings, bridges in span)

Cl.3

Mel
Cl.4

FKA UTM 2012

Classes of steel cross-sections

45

46

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

All the sections class 1 : plastic analysis (not for bridges)

Class of
webs

Some sections class 2 : elastic analysis up to Mpl,Rd

Some sections class 3 : elastic analysis up to Mel,Rd

Large composite bridges (in general)

Cl.1

Cl.3 / 4

47

48

12

04/09/2012

Class of a cross section

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Corresponds to the largest class of all the


elements
A composite section is generally class 1
under positive moment due to the location
of the PNA (the web is in tension)

Class
of
flanges

49

Structural Analysis

Actual design

50

Structural Analysis

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Cracking of concrete in a composite bridge

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Example of cracked zones in a composite bridge 60-80-60 m


8

If under characteristic combination 2fctm c


cracked global analysis

6
4
2

60

140
200

0
0

20

40

80

100

120

160

180

-2
-4

EI1

EI1

2f ctm 6, 4MPa

-6

EI2

-8
-10
-12

Cracked zone

17 %15,6 %
51

23 % 17,7 %
52

13

04/09/2012

Structural Analysis

Actual design - ULS

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Cracking of concrete in a composite bridge

Elastic calculation of bending moments

Elastic verification of sections


Over support (local buckling of compressed web)
In span

Plastic verifications of sections also possible


In span

Alternative if
No prestressing (tendons or jacking on supports)
lmin/lmax>0.6
Imin

Imax
EI1

EI1
EI2

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

0.15Imax
53

Linear elastic analysis of a composite


bridge and plastic strength in span

Actual design

54

Elastic calculation of bending


moments

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Redistribution due to plastification at mid-span is


neglected except if :
Class 1 or 2 at mid-span (if MEd > Mel,Rd )
Class 3 or 4 on support
Cl.1/2
Lmin/Lmax < 0.6
Cl.3 / 4

Non-linear elastic analysis or


Linear elastic analysis with MEd < 0.9 Mpl,Rd in
sagging moment regions

Max bending in span


55

Actual design

Max bending over support


56

14

04/09/2012

Load Model (road)

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Transverse distribution line of loads

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Design Load Model (SIA 261 <> Eurocode 1)

SIA 261 10.3.1

Qi, qi et qr = 0.9

Transverse distribution
line of loads
57

Effectives width
O

Effectives width

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Equivalent spans Le for slab effectives width

58

beff

bv

Deformation due to shear

59

Actual design

60

15

04/09/2012

Effectives width of concrete slab

beff b0 ibei with

Check - ULS

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Le
; bi )
8
L
i 0,55 0,025 e 1 end supports
bei
elsewhere
1
bei min(

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Elastic calculation of bending moments


Elastic verification of sections

partial
factor
= 1,15

Over support (local buckling of compressed web)

fy/a

s fys/s

beff
be1

b0

be2

Local
buckling

b1

b1

Steel section
Load during erection

b2

Steel + reinforcement section


Load on composite sections

Elastic design procedure over support


61

Check ULS in span


Perm. load
Dead load
Steel concrete Surfacing

Modular ratio used in a


composite section

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

n0

Ea
E cm

62

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

and t t t 0 creep coefficient given by EC2 :

Value of t0 :

~ 6 = Ea/Ec

L is given by :

propped during erection

partial
factor
= 1,05

n L n 0 . 1 L t

traffic

Resisting
Resisting
composite
Steel alone ~ 18
unpropped during erection

fy/a

63

t0 = 1 day for shrinkage


t0 = a mean value in case of concrete cast in several stages
Permanent loads
shrinkage

1,1
0,55

Imposed
deformations

1,5

64

16

04/09/2012

Check - ULS

Elastic calculation of bending moments


Elastic verification of sections
In span

Check - ULS

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

fck/c

compression

partial
factor
= 1,5

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Elastic calculation of bending moments


Plastic verifications of sections

partial
factor
= 1,5

In span

PNA

beff

ENA

a y 0,85 fck/a

c = cu
-

Taking into account


The load history
and duration

partial
factor
= 1,05

a Mpl,Rd

h
+

fy/a

traction

Shrinkage and load history are neglected

Elastic resistance (for class 1, 2, 3)


65

Actual design - ULS

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Plastic verifications of sections in span?

xp

Design of the connexion

fyd = fy/a

partial
factor
= 1,05

66

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Longitudinal shear v

Q
q
L1

Applicable only if L1/L2 0.6

L2

Verification:

Mpl
Without load on
steel section alone
With load on
steel section alone

Mg
el

MEd red Mpl,Rd


red = 0.95
red = 0.90

pl= 5 el
67

68

17

04/09/2012

Design of the connexion

Design of the connexion in the elasto-plastic region of the span


Longitudinal
shear in
elasto-plastic
region

Design of the connexion

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Design of the connexion in the elasto-plastic region of the span

Elasto-plastic region
FA

FB

Bending
moment
Shear
force
FB

longitudinal
shear
69

Design of the connexion

70

Design of the connexion


COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

2 )
PRk min(P1Rk ;PRk

Design of the connexion in the elasto-plastic region of the span

P1Rk 0,8 f u d
4

and

2 0,29d2 f E
PRk
ck cm

0,2. h 1 if
d

Elasto-plastic
region

If not

bending
At U.L.S.

Longitudinal
shear

Stud
resistance

At S.L.S.

PRd

3 h 4
d

PRk
1.25

0.75 PRd

Resistance of stud shear connectors


71

72

18

04/09/2012

Verification at SLS

Fatigue verification in EC3

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Limitation of stresses

As in EN1992-2 and EN1993-2 (fy in the steel


part)

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Calculation of E,2 under a fatigue


loading

Limitation of crack widths


As in EN1992-2 with tension stiffening
(wk=0.3mm in general)
Using a simplified method

Influence of the type of influence line


Influence of the type of traffic
Influence of the number of lanes

73

Fatigue verification in EC3

Fatigue verification in EC3

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

partial factor
for loading =
1,0

verification

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Category
of detail

Actual design

74

Fatigue SN
curves in EC3

75

Actual design

76

19

04/09/2012

Fatigue verification in EC3


C

Actual design

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

for each detail

77

FKA UTM 2012

20

04/09/2012

Innovative design method for steel-concrete composite


plate girder bridges
COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Innovative design of steel-concrete


composite bridges

Introduction, context
Basis of the new design method

Innovative design method

Step by step procedure

Innovative connection

Conclusion, exemple

LTB
Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet
Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

FKA UTM 2012

UTM 2012

Introduction, context

Introduction, context
Under negative bending moment, slender composite beams show
some deformation capacity

Current analysis of steel-concrete composite


bridges:
EER and EE or EP

Deformation
capacity
F [kN]

400
300
Cl.1

Cl.3 / 4

Cl.1

200

Need to consider:

100

Loading history
Shrinkage and creep of concrete

Long and tiresome calculations for an


illusory precision
UTM 2012

FB1 [mm]

0
25

50

75

100

This deformation capacity is called


Available rotation capacity av
of the composite beam in the support region
3

UTM 2012

04/09/2012

Basis of the new design method

Basis of the new design method


Available rotation capacity av

How to use the available rotation capacity


over support ?

o To redistribute bending moments from supports

to span

Mref

av

o When span region in elasto-plastique domain, to

Mel,Rd

redistribute bending moments from span to


supports

Requiers some rotation capacity from


cross-sections over supports
Required rotation capacity req

Verification:

req av

M ref 0.9Mel ,Rd

0.9 takes into account of the load history

over support

UTM 2012

UTM 2012

Basis of the new design method

Basis of the new design method

Available rotation capacity av

Available rotation capacity av

70 av [mrad]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0
0.5
1.0

63 mrad

Slendernesses of the web and


of the compressed flange

Position of the neutral axis

Steel grade

p
'

UTM 2012

Class 1

Shear force if VEd > 0.8 VRd

4 mrad <

av < 24 mrad

av is a function of:

UTM 2012

cv

15 .75

'2

FEM results

p'
1.5

2.0

Existing composite bridges

fy

0.5 cr

bw 1.05
0.5 tw
k

fy

si

0.5 0.5

E
8

04/09/2012

Basis of the new design method

Basis of the new design method


Required rotation capacity req,1

Required rotation capacity req

req = req,1 + req,2

req,1 [mrad]
M -Ed

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

req,1: redistribution of bending moments from


intermediate supports to the span

req,2 : use of elasto-plastique domain


req,1

M
M Ed

Ed

r ,Ed

10

Basis of the new design method


Required rotation capacity req

Required rotation capacity req,2

req,2 [mrad]

UTM 2012

UTM 2012

Basis of the new design method

pl,span

= 0.3

l [m]

UTM 2012

req,2

= 0.2

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

in span

M +r,Ed

= 0.1

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

0.95= 0.95
0.85= 0.85

0.75= 0.75

=
0.9
0.8
=
0.7
=

0.90
0.80
0.70

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

l [m]

70 req [mrad]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.70
0.80

M r ,Ed

M pl

M r ,Ed
M pl

0.90

= 0.3
= 0.2
= 0.1
= 0.0

M Ed M r ,Ed
M Ed

1.00

req = req,1 + req,2


11

UTM 2012

12

04/09/2012

Existing bridges

Basis of the new design method

Influence of a longitudinal stiffener

80 av [mrad]
80 av [mrad]
15.75
c
60

60
40
Without stiffener
40
20
20
p'
0
0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0= 40 0.5
av,sup
46 VEd1.0
/ VRd si1.5
h1 = 0.22.0
hw

Existing bridges
Allow to find hidden bearing capacity
(evolution of the traffic loading)

Design method applicable with other


assumptions
o Larger deflection
o Use of updated load models

Allow to take into account of longitudinal


stiffeners on the web

'2

stiffener

av,sup = 28 31 VEd / VRd si h1 = 0.3 hw


UTM 2012

13

UTM 2012

Step by step procedure to apply the new design


method

14

Step by step procedure

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

5. BENDING MOMENTS

5. BENDING MOMENTS

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

8. VERIFICATIONS

8. VERIFICATIONS

UTM 2012

15

UTM 2012

16

04/09/2012

Step by step procedure

Step by step procedure

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Shear force:

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

5. BENDING MOMENTS

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

Distance between lateral supports of


the compressed flange
(lateral torsional buckling):
LD 0.225

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

bfc

5. BENDING MOMENTS

E
fy

Mref 0.9Mel

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

17

UTM 2012

Step by step procedure

18

Step by step procedure

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

In span:
2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

Mpl

5. BENDING MOMENTS

UTM 2012

av

8. VERIFICATIONS

UTM 2012

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

Mref

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

8. VERIFICATIONS

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

VEd 0.80VRd

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

Over support:

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

5. BENDING MOMENTS

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

8. VERIFICATIONS

8. VERIFICATIONS

19

UTM 2012

70
60
50
40
30
av20
10
0

av [mrad]
cv

15 .75

'2

Class 1

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

0.0

p'

0.5
p
'

1.0

fy

0.5 cr

1.5

2.0

bw 1.05
0 .5 t w
k

fy
E

si 0.5 0.5
20

04/09/2012

Step by step procedure

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Step by step procedure

Max. bending moment over the support:

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

M -Ed

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

M -Ed
M -r,Ed

5. BENDING MOMENTS

5. BENDING MOMENTS

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

M +r,Ed

8. VERIFICATIONS

M
M Ed

Ed

r ,Ed

21

UTM 2012

Step by step procedure

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

5. BENDING MOMENTS

req,1 [mrad]
70
60
50
40
30
20
req,1
10
0

= 0.1

22

Step by step procedure

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

= 0.2

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

M Ed M r ,Ed
M Ed

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

= 0.3
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS
4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

l [m]

5. BENDING MOMENTS

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

8. VERIFICATIONS

UTM 2012

M +Ed

8. VERIFICATIONS

UTM 2012

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS

Max. bending moment in the span:

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY

av req req,1 req,2 req,2


req,2 < 0 (req,1 too large) step 1
req,2 0 following step

av

70 req [mrad]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.70
0.80

0.90

1.00

7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

8. VERIFICATIONS

23

UTM 2012

= 0.3 M r ,Ed = 0.2


M pl
= 0.1
= 0.0

24

04/09/2012

Conclusion

Step by step procedure

1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Verification over the support (indirect):

2. PRELIMINARY
CONDITIONS
3. RESISTANCE OF CROSSSECTIONS

M r ,Ed M pl ,Rd

4. AVAILABLE ROTATION
CAPACITY

req

av

Appui

Trave

5. BENDING MOMENTS

Verification in the span:

Example

6. REQUIRED ROTATION
CAPACITY
7. PLASTIC MOMENT
UTILIZATION RATIO

Ed

M pl ,Rd

8. VERIFICATIONS

UTM 2012

25

UTM 2012

Conclusion

Analysis

Element

Conclusion

Cross-sections
support

Cross-sections
in span

Cross-sections
area [%]

The new design method makes it possible to carry out a


calculation of structural safety nearer to the behaviour of
the structure and more precise

Benefit

EER, EE
Support,span

Upper fl.
web
Lower fl.

1000 120 700 40


22 2560 14 2700
1200 120 800 60

Support : 100
Span : 100

EER, support
EP, span

Upper fl.
web
Lower fl.

1000 120 700 40


22 2560 14 2720
1200 120 800 40

Support : 100
Span : 86

14 %
span

New
method

Upper fl.
web
Lower fl.

1000 100 700 40


22 2600 14 2720
1250 100 800 40

Support : 88
Span : 86

12 %
support
14 %
span

UTM 2012

26

The advantages which result from this are numerous


and are related to the plastic design of the structures:

27

The history of the loading and the visco-elastic


behaviour of the concrete can be neglected at ULS
Better optimization of the cross-sections of the
beams
Very interesting Method for the verification of the
safety of existing bridges
UTM 2012

28

04/09/2012

Contents

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Introduction

New connection

Innovative Steel Concrete Connection


for Composite Bridges

Resistance of the connection


Design model

Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet, ICOM


Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

Fatigue
Conclusions

TUM 2012

30

TUM 2012

Context

Context

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Rapid and durable


connection with
prefabricated slab

Needs: durability, short duration of on-site work

Joints

Steel concrete composite solutions with concrete precast elements


1.TUM
Introduction
2012

31

TUM 2012

32

04/09/2012

Context

Context

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Needs: durability, short duration of on-site work

Joints ?
Connexion ?
33

TUM 2012

Context

34

TUM 2012

Context

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Prcontrainte

Joints

Glued joints

Connection
Welding on site

TUM 2012

35

TUM 2012

36

04/09/2012

New steel-concrete connection

New steel-concrete connection

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Preliminary push-out
tests with cement
paste on different
connection types

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

push-out tests

Load [kN]

HR
HR

HP

HH

Precast concrete slab

Cement paste
Steel beam

Slip [mm]
Embossed steel plate and bonding layer HR
Perfobond and bonding layer HP
Bonding layer HH
Stud connectors D
Embossed steel plate R
Perfobond P

connection
types
37

TUM 2012

New connection definition


Precast concrete slab

38

TUM 2012

New connection definition

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Longitudinal rib (rough concrete)

Cement paste
Bonding layer
Embossed steel plate

Steel beam
TUM 2012

39

TUM 2012

40

10

04/09/2012

Connection behaviour - Confinement

Connection behaviour - Confinement

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Slip s Force v

ec-4

Opening of
cracks

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Slip s Uplift u
Uplift u Normal stresses
Normal stresses Shear sresses
v=bx

Uplift 2u [mm]

ec-6

Cement paste
s, v

Embossed steel plate


Concrete slab
Uplift u perpendicular to sheared interfaces
41

TUM 2012

Connection behaviour - Confinement

Connection behaviour - Confinement

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Effet of the uplift u1

42

TUM 2012

Slab rigidity

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

crack
deformed
position

,2

Internal stresses

Deformed position

conf,1 ( s ) conf,3 ( s ) kslab (u1 u3 ) imp,2


TUM 2012

b2
b1
43

TUM 2012

44

11

04/09/2012

Connection behaviour - Confinement

Numerical model

Interface behaviour

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Numerical model
confinement effect
-modelling of the relationship between the confinement stress, and
the uplift, u

Direct shearInterfaces
tests

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

behaviour

nofurtherincrease

yieldingofmiddlereinforcement

crackingofconcrete

45

TUM 2012

Interface behaviour

Ribbed steel

Concrete

Interface behaviour

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Failure criteria max -

Interfaces behaviour

TUM 2012

46

TUM 2012

UHPFRC
47

TUM 2012

48

12

04/09/2012

Interface behaviour

Interface behaviour

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Failure criteria

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Kinematic law u - s

u c (N/mm2 )

Failurecriteriaforthethreeinterfaces

independent of the
normal stress,
49

TUM 2012

Interface behaviour

2
uSu ( s su )
u
( s su ) sa
)
uSu umax uSu (1 e

50

TUM 2012

Interface behaviour

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

s su

s su

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Experimental investigation and modelisation


direct shear tests on small scale specimens
static loading

Constitutive law - s

kel s

s u k pl s sel
s su / sa

fr u fr e

s sel

sel s su

s su

s C1+C2

TUM 2012

k pl

kel

du s
ds

Embossed steel-cement grout


interface
51

TUM 2012

52

13

04/09/2012

Interface behaviour
Failure criteria
max,2
max,1
3
2

2 1

u
s
confinement

=
= 1 2
s2 s3

Interface 1

Interface 3

Interface 2

Interface 4

u2
u3

conf

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Constitutive law - s

s1

Mechanical Model of the connexion

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

s s
= 2
= 1

Kinematical law s - u
53

TUM 2012

Connection behaviour

54

TUM 2012

Connection behaviour
model validation

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Experimental work with large scale specimens and analytical study


static push-out tests on large scale speciments

TUM 2012

55

55

TUM 2012

56

14

04/09/2012

Connection behaviour
Fatigue

Connection behaviour
Fatigue

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Cyclic loading of interfaces final results


embossed steel-cement grout interface

Longitudinal shear force versus slip, comparison


between a fatigue and static test (push-out)

57

TUM 2012

Connection behaviour
Fatigue

5
9

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

cyclic loading

58

TUM 2012

Composite beams behaviour

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Connections by adherence exhibit a limited ductility !

Safe fatigue failure criterion for the new connection:

Beam behaviour ?, elastic, plastic, connection failure ?

sVmax,N su

No failure due to cyclic loading occurs in the connection as long as the


accumulated slip under maximum applied longitudinal shear force is
inferior to the slip which corresponds to failure for static loading.
1b
s conn
N f u
sVmax,1

3 x 1000 kN

4 to 8 metres

The resistance of the connection to longitudinal shear under cyclic loading


can be assessed by the structural performance for static loading !
TUM 2012

59

4. Comportement des poutres mixtes Institute of Steel Structures - Xian University of Architecture & Technology 60

15

04/09/2012

Composite beams
behaviour

Composite beams
behaviour

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Test of a composite beam under fatigue load and ultimate

Connections by adherence exhibit a limited ductility !


However full plastic resistance of the cross-section can be reached

P=275 (1-sin3.14t) KN

Pmax = 550 KN
Pmin = 140 KN
vmax= 537 KN/m
vmin = 137 KN/m
P/3
2P/3
61

TUM 2012

Composite beams
behaviour

62

TUM 2012

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Test of a composite beam


major results

50 m long injection test of the connection


TUM 2012

63

TUM 2012

64

16

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)

Lateral torsional buckling in bridge design


Design according european normalisation
New research

UTM 2012

65

66

UTM 2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)

66

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications


The method for instability problem
Simplified method
Theory
Critical stress for the first mode
corresponding to the studied
instability

cr

Yield strength

fy

Reduced slenderness

fy

cr

Theory / Tests
a) Canal bridge Mitelland.
(Germany, 1982)

Verification

c) Saint-Ilpize bridge.
(France 2004)
b) Highway bridge Kaiserslautern.
(Germany, 1954)

UTM 2012

Partial factor :

67

UTM 2012

Ed

fy
M1

M1 1,1

Reduction
curve

f 1,0

Statistical analysis / Tests

68

17

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications

Particularities of bridge girders


Critical load for column buckling
NEd

deformable section (because of a very slender web)

1 2EI

cr
L2
Ncr

variation of the flange thicknesses

(Eulers formula)

variation of the bending moment My


transverse distribution of the traffic loads, so benefit effet of the less loaded
girders
the transverse frames introduce discrete lateral elastic support

NEd

(Engessers formula)

NEd

N
1 2EI
1
1 2EI
cr cr 2 EIc 2
l
L2

l
l

Consequences
typical method LT -

with c = Cd / l
(springs supposed to be uniformly
distributed)

NEd

LT

rarely usable

3D model would be necessary (2 girders + transverse frames)


second order elastic analysis for better taking into account the imperfections
(equivalent geometric, or geometric + residual stresses)

Note : These formulae assume that I and are constant over the whole length L.
UTM 2012

69

UTM 2012

70

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications


The bridge

General method from EN1993-2, 6.3.4.1

60,00 m

fyf
ultimate amplification factor ult,k min

Ed

80,00 m

60,00 m

Ed is the ULS stress in the mid-plane of the flange in compression.


a = 7,5 m

Transverse frames in spans

600
C

IPE 600

7000

op

reduction factor

Verification:
UTM 2012

op

2 op

ult,k
1,0
M1

with

1,0

2
1
with 1 op 0,2 op

Elastic lateral support with a rigidity of


the transverse frame Cd = 20,3 MN/m
calculated by assuming:
hinges at the interface steel/concrete
extensibility of the slab neglected

M1 1,1
71

UTM 2012

1500

1100

C
A

ult,k
cr,op

op

slenderness

Transverse frames on supports

2800

is the stress in the mid-plane of the flange in compression,


corresponding to the first mode for LTB.

a = 7,5 m

a=8m

2800

cr

cr
Ed

1100

cr,op

critical amplification factor

B
7000

Fixe lateral support


(by comparison with transverse
frames in the spans)

72

18

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications


C0

P1

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications

P2

60,00 m

C3

80,00 m

60,00 m

LTB during service life on support P1 (lower flange in compression)


TS = 409,3 kN/axle

Traffic loads (udl and TS with


unfavourable transverse
distribution for the girder n1)

udl = 26,7 kN/m

40

80

bfi = 1200 mm

120

80

55

55

40

80

120

80

2720

2690

2640

2560

2640

2690

2720

2690

2640

2560

2640

55

40

55

Moment ELU dversement (MN.m)

tfi (mm) =

2690

2720

2800

Dead loads (construction


phases, cracked elastic analysis,
shrinkage)
60

40

20
0
-20

50

100

150

-40
-60
-80
-100

poutre n1 - la plus sollicite


poutre n2

-120

Acier S355

200

Abscisse x (m)

UTM 2012

73

UTM 2012

74

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications


sup

isolated central span (L=80m) considered on


an elastic soil with uniform rigidity c = Cd /a
use of the maximum thickness on support

Norm

use of the maximum normal force on support

hw,c 3

LT

Use of Engessers formula with:

ANE
hw,c

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications

50

hw,c t w

Poutre n1 la plus sollicite


40

t f bf 3
12

Ncrit 2 EIc

Effort normal (MN)

30

20
10
0
0

Ncrit 191,9 MN

-10

crit 1154,8 MPa

-20

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0,505 0,4

Fasc. 61 titre V
1978

160

180

200

Rd

Ed 249,25 MPa

SIA 161
1990

(first order on support P1)

SIA 263
2003
Welded section

Conditions
for the
function LT

inf

Aeff bf t f

fy

crit

n = 2,25
=> Curve c

EN 1993-2, 6.3.4.2
2007
Welded section
h/bf = 2800/1200 > 2
=> Curve d

LT

0,904

0,980

0,840

0,776

M1

1,0

1,1

1,05

1,1

266,7 MPa

262,8 MPa

236 MPa

208,1 MPa

-9,6 %

-10,9 %

-20,0 %

-29,5 %

YES

YES

NO

NO

LTfy
M1

Ok?
Abscisses (m)

UTM 2012

75

UTM 2012

76

19

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications

EN 1993-2, 6.3.4.1

a = 7,5 m

discrete elastic lateral support, with rigidity Cd

cr,op

a=8m

Contraintes dans le plan moyen de la semelle inf (MPa)

variable inertia and normal force

Mode

a = 7,5 m

Description of the observed deformed shape


Anti symmetric waves with a buckling length Lf = 20 m around P1

8,86

uy
x

Anti symmetric waves with a buckling length Lf = 20 m around P2


2

10,26

300
200

80 m

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

LT

op

-200
-300

op

the section where cr,op is maximum can be


located in another place in comparison with
the section where ult,k is minimum.

17,49

2
1
1 LT op 0,2 op 0,63

-100

60 m

Quasi symmetric waves with a buckling length Lf = 20 m around P1

ult,k
1,18

0,365 0,2
cr,op
8,86

op

100

-400

60 m

fyf
295
118
,

f 249, 25

ult,k min

400

bar model with a unique girder (Af + Aw,c/3)

LT LT 2 op

0,875 1,0

ult,k 1,036

0,94 1,0
1,1
M1

NO

ult,k can be minimum in the section where


the flange thickness changes.
UTM 2012

77

UTM 2012

78

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications


Second order elastic analysis

Different curves for LTB in bridges

definition of the equivalent geometric imperfection (shape + amplitude e0 = L/150)


calculation by EF with an elastic analysis
zoom on the area of P1
300
250

Stresses (MPa)

200

First order stresses


Second order stresses - mode 1
Total stresses - mode 1

First order stresses


Second order stresses - mode 3
Total stresses - mode 3

150
100
50
0
-50 0

20

40

60

80

1000

20

40

60

80

10

-100
-150
-200

Field of bridges
UTM 2012

C0
79

UTM 2012

P1

C0

P1
80

20

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design - usual verifications


Second order elastic analysis
Mode

e0

Lf/150

Lf/300

Lf/150

Lf/300

max (MPa)

74,58

37,57

50,44

25,41

in the section x (m)

64,5

64,5

50

50

total max (MPa)

271,00

247,76

278,81

262,52

in the section x (m)

62,5

60 (P1)

60 (P1)

60 (P1)

Always verified :

max fyf 295 MPa

There is a need for a simplified


more accurate design method for
bridge design

YES

II is mainly due to the first iteration of the second order analysis (quasi
proportional to the value of e0).
e0 should be defined following the value of the reduced slenderness
parameter.
Wel
e0 0,76 0,2
use
(so 25 mm instead of L/150 = 133 mm)

UTM 2012

81

UTM 2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)

82

LTB in bridge design (new research)


Residual stresses

Methodology

Longitudinal residual stresses at a macroscopic scale in thick


steel plates
Origin: rolling, cutting and welding process
Self-equilibrated system (M = 0 and F = 0)
Several models already exist but not for bridge sections

(ECCS, n22, 1976) (Flame-cutting,


Welding)
UTM 2012

83

UTM 2012

ECCS, n33,
1984
84

21

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)

LTB in bridge design (new research)

Principle of the sectioning method

Specimens fabrication
Flame-cutting set up and temperature measurements

Initials
measurements Li

1
2

Finals
measurements Lf

Strain:

Stresses:

UTM 2012

85

UTM 2012

86

LTB in bridge design (new research)

Exprimentaux sur contraintes


rsiduelles
Fabrication des prouvettes doxycoupage

Specimens fabrication
Geometry of welding and pass sequencing
Plan view
Flange PL60mm, S355N
2600 x 730 x 60 mm

A
FC

Submerge
d Arc
Welding
process
(SAW)

T2b
Web PL20mm, S355J2
2600 x 180 x 20 mm
730

Rolling direction

Weld direction,

Temperature
measuring zones

Speed 6.66 mm/s

FC

A
2600

Section View A-A

180

20

3
3
22 11

web

33
2
11 2

60

flange

1. Introduction

UTM 2012

2. Le projet

3. Travaux
raliss

4. Suite des travaux87 5. Finances


87

UTM 2012

730

88

22

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)


Specimens fabrication
Welding set up and temperature measurements

90
UTM 2012

89

UTM 2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)

LTB in bridge design (new research)

Preparation of the specimens

Preparation of the specimens

Cutting steps

1@15mm

6@10mm

9@20mm

6@10mm

200

70

6@10mm

1@15mm
9@20mm

1@15mm
6@10mm

70

200

70

60

5@10mm

6@10mm

2. Band saw

6@10mm

2@17.5mm

Design of sectioning

Welding
Specimens
1@15mm

90

5
70

50
730

Flame-cutting Specimens
1@15mm

2@25mm
13@20mm

13@20mm

1@15mm
6@10mm

280

70

60

5@10mm

6@10mm

1. Circular saw

5
70

280

30
730

UTM 2012

91

UTM 2012

92

23

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)

LTB in bridge design (new research)


Measuring techniques

Preparation of the specimens


Specimens after cutting

a) Longitudinal deformation

b) Curvature deformation

250 mm
Deformeter
UTM 2012

93

Needle comparator

UTM 2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)

94

LTB in bridge design (new research)


Temperature measurements

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

UTM 2012

95

UTM 2012

96

24

04/09/2012

LTB in bridge design (new research)

LTB in bridge design (new research)

Flame-cutting residual stresses distribution for the 615 mm width


plates

UTM 2012

Flame-cutting residual stresses distribution for the 730 mm width


plate

97

UTM 2012

98

LTB in bridge design (new research)


COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

Flame-cutting residual stresses distribution resume

UTM 2012

99

FKA UTM 2012

25

04/09/2012

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FDRALE DE LAUSANNE

THE VIADUCT DE MILLAU

Prof., Dr, Jean-Paul Lebet


Swiss Federale Institute of Technology, Lausanne

The Millau viaduct


FKA UTM 2012

North American Steel Construction conference, April

04/09/2012

The Millau viaduct

Viaduc de Millau

Narrow and
winding access
roads
Height above
ground
Long and
innovative
bridge

The Millau viaduct

The Millau viaduct

04/09/2012

The Millau viaduct

The Millau viaduct


Launching principle

From North,
717 m

From south (descending),


1743 m

10

11

12

The Millau viaduct

04/09/2012

The Millau viaduct

Translators used
for the launching

13

The Millau viaduct

14

Principe of the launching


Avant-bec
Tablier du pont

Systmes de lanage

Pale
provisoire T1

Pile
P1

15

04/09/2012

Cinematic of the launching

Step 0 Initial position

Cinematic of the launching

Step 2 Translation

Cinematic of the launching

Step 1 up

Cinematic of the launching

Step 3 Down

04/09/2012

Cinematic of the launching

Step 4 Back to initial position

04/09/2012

The Millau viaduct

28

04/09/2012

The Millau viaduct

29

30

31

32

04/09/2012

33

34

35

36

The Millau viaduct

04/09/2012

Thank you for your attention


37

10

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen