2010 Bridges EN1993 GSedlacek

Dissemination of information for training – Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 1
Design of steel-bridges
Overview of key content of EN 1993-Eurocode 3
Illustration of basic element design
g
G. Hanswille, W. Hensen, M. Feldmann, G. Sedlacek

LIST OF CONTENTS
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 D
6. Design
i off b
bridge
id elements
l t
6.1. Stability rules
6 2 Fatigue rules
6.2.
6.3. Rope structures
CROSS SECTION OF A BOX GIRDER BRIDGE WITH AN
ORTHOTROPIC DECK
HASELTALBRÜCKE SUHL
NAVIGATION THROUGH STANDARDS
Load combination Self-weight EN 1991-1-1

EN 1990
Safetyy aspects
p Traffic actions EN 1991-2
actions
Wind actions EN 1991-1-4
EN 1990-A2 G/Q-values
Thermal actions EN 1991-1-5
EN 1993
1993-1-1
11 Imperfections
f General EN 1993-2
EN 1993-1-5
EN 1993-1-5 Connections EN 1993-1-8
Stability of plates
design Ropes
p EN 1993-1-11
EN 1993
1993-1-9
19 Fatigue
EN 1998-3 Seismic design Bearings EN 1337
EN 10025 Materials Prefabrication EN 1090-2

EN 1090-2 Welding execution Site work EN 1337
EN 1090-2 Corrosion protection Tolerances EN 1090-2
EN 1090
1090-2
2 CE-marking
CE marking product Inspection EN 1090
1090-2
2
EN 1337-6 Traceability conformity Maintenance EN 1337-10
SURVEY OF THE EUROCODES
EN 1990
Eurocode: Basis of Design
EN 1991 EN 1992 to EN 1996

Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Eurocode 2: Concrete structures
1-1
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
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
1. THE EUROPEAN STANDARD FAMILY AND STEEL BRIDGES
EN 1090 – Part 1 „Delivery Conditions for prefabricated steel components“
hEN Eurocode: EN 1990 – „Basis of structural design“

product standards EN 1090 – Part 2
for steel materials, Eurocode 1: EN 1991 – „Actions on structures“ „Execution of
semi- finished steel structures “
products etc.
Eurocode 3: EN 1993 – „Design rules for steel structures“
em for
HSS up to
steel structures
S700
1.12
ard syste
Standa
Load combination Self-weight
Safety aspects Traffic actions

actions
Wind actions
G/Q-values
Thermal actions
designer
Imperfections G
General
l
Connections
Stability of plates
design Ropes
Fatigue
Seismic design Bearings
Materials Prefabrication
Welding execution
ti Site work
Corrosion protection Tolerances contractor
CE-marking
g product Inspection
p
Traceability conformity Maintenance
Tasks for designer and contractor

EN 1993-Part 1-1 General rules
1-5 Plate buckling
1-8 Connections
1-9 Fatigue
1-10 Choice of material
1-11 Rope structures
EN 1993-Part 2 Steel bridges
Annex A Requirements for bearings
Annex B Requirements for expansion joints
A
Annex C R
Recommendations
d ti for
f orthotropic
th t i plates
l t
Design rules for steel bridges in Eurocode 3

Limit State Concept

ULS Ed  Rd
SLS Ed  Cd
Fatigue E  c
Choice of material
b
basedd on fracture
f t mechanics
h i
(EN 1993-1-10)
Stability of members and plates

Si l -value
Single  l for f combined
bi d
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)
Basic features of design rules for bridges

2. LOAD ASSUMPTIONS FOR STEEL BRIDGES
900 kN
500 kN
2 kN
275
11,0 m
Load-model LM1
1000 kN
12
600 kN
6
300 kN
3
11,0 m
Load-model LM1 (draft German NA)

Statistical distribution of characteristics of vehicle

Modelling of vehicles and surfaces

Modelling of bridges
Load-model and simulations

Dynamic effects
K 210 K 138
Reference bridges for reliability analysis

Definition of target -value

P r o b a b ilis t ic d e s ig n EC 1 - P art 2 L o ad M o d el
LM
W re q u ire d
M Q
f y W
M  req u
 M 
Qd
 G G
M
w h e re M   M LM
Qd Q Q
  1 ,1 0
M
  1, 3 5
G
M
  Qd
Q LM
M Q
Definition of Q-value
Q-values from LM1

Effect of modification: aQ1q1K = 9  8 kN/m²

Effect of modification: aQ2q2K = 2,5  5 kN/m²
Forecast of freight-volume
Development of permits for heavy vehicles

Results of WIM-measurements in NL
Fatigue load model specified in EN 1991

480 kN
Number of expected trucks

Traffic Category Number of heavy vehicles N
per year for a single lane
1: 2-Lane Highways with a high rate of
2 • 106 / a
heavy vehicles
2: Highways and roads with a medium
0,5 • 106 / a
rate of heavy vehicles
3: Main roads with a low rate of heavy
0,125 • 106 / a
vehicles
4: Country roads with a low rate of
0,05 • 106 / a
heavy vehicles
Fatigue loading model FLM 3

 Ff   fa t      m ax  c /  Mf
es
ess range
s a fe ty fa c to r
fo r fa tig u e s tr e n g th
r e fe re n c e fa tig u e s tre n g th
a t 2 1 0 6 c y c le s
with
equivallent consttant ampllitude stre
ssment w
m a x im u m s tr e s s r a n g e fr o m
E C 1 - 2 lo a d m o d e l
critical
crack size a
d a m a g e e q u iv a le n c e fa c to r
re p re s e n tin g th e s p e c tr u m
crack
size acrit
gue asses
d a m a g e e q u iv a le n t
im p a c t fa c to r
s a fe ty fa c to r detectable
fo r fa tig u e lo a d
crack
pt for fatig
size a0
Ff = 1,00
time
Mf = 1,00 – 1,15 for damage tolerance
Mf = 1,25 – 1,35 for safe life method
Inspection interval
Concep
Assessment method for FLM 3

Fatigue details – welded attachments and stiffeners
EN 1993-1-9 - Fatigue resistance

Required moment of inertia from ULS and fatigue design for detail
category 71
α = 1 ,0
Moment of Resiistance W/L [cm2m/m]
ULS
α = 0 ,8
F a tig u e
S pa n L [m ]
Span limits for fatigue design

Joint for hanger

Alternatives for joints of hangers:
optimised
ti i d jjoint:
i t
• continuously increasing stiffness (K90)
 low curvature from bending
• end of hanger with hole and inclined cut
 low
l stresses
t att end
d off hanger
h for
f
K50
• ratio of inclined cut and connecting plate
 avoiding of stress peak at end of
hanger
Recommendations for durable detailing

Hanger connection for arch bridges
Substitution of fatigue checks for critical details

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
Structural detailing for deck plate

connection of deck p
plate to troughs
g
75
12
14
HV HV HV
300 300 300
design life load model 4

without layer < 10 years
asphaltic
für t = 12 mm
sealing 30 - 50 years
PmB 45
thermosetting
resin 70 - 90 years
PmB 25
Recommended details of orthotropic deck

Structural detailing for cross beams
75
12
hT
> 0,15 h T
25 hQTr
t Steg
tLtrough = 6 mm
tweb = 10 - 16 mm; verification of net web section required
hcrossbeam  700 mm
Potential positions of cracks in the asphalt layer
Durability of asphalt layer

Steel bridges – serviceability limit state

Requirements
q for the minimum stiffness of stringers
g
depending on the distance between crossbeams
girders
5
between cross g
A
B
4
a [m]
distance b
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
Plate buckling
Verification to
web breathing
longitudinal edge x
Definition of a plated
element
b21
stiffened paneel width

transversee edge
sub-
bG
panel
a1 a2 a3 a4
aG
stiffened panel length
y
3. MODELLING OF STEEL BRIDGES
Shear lag effect

b
+ = =
GS
Subdivision of a moment-distribution to elements with standard shape

-factor for shear lag

Differences in modelling
Modelling for ULS Modelling for fatigue

Modelling for ULS Fatigue effects on web stiffeners

Modelling for ULS Frame and distorsional effects

4. SPECIFICATION FOR BEARINGS
Design principles for individual bearings
- Permission of movements minimizing the reaction forces

- No tensile forces
- No
N significant
i ifi t redistribution
di t ib ti off fforces tto other
th b bearings
i
from accomodation to installation tolerances
p
- Specification of installation conditions with details
of construction sequence and time variable conditions
- Measure to avoid unforeseen deformation of the bearings
(non uniform contact)
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)
sliding rolling deforming
displace-
ment
rotation
Functional principles of bearings

Actions for permanent and transient design situations

No. Action Eurocode
R f
Reference tto ttemperature
t T0 DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07
1991 1 5 2004 07
1.1 Self-weight DIN EN 1991-1-7:2007-02
1.2 Dead loads DIN EN 1991-1-7:2007-02
1.3 Prestressing DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10 and
DIN EN 1994-2:2006-07
1.4 Creep concrete DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10
1.5 Shrinkage of concrete DIN EN 1992-1:2005-10
2.1 Traffic loads DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05
2.2 Special vehicles DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05
2.3 Centrifugal forces DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05
2.4 Nosing forces DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05
2.5 Brake and acceleration forces DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05
2.6 Footpath loading DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05
2.7 Wind on structure without traffic DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07
2.8 Wind on structure with traffic DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07
2.9 Range uniform temperature DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.3 and 6.1.5
2.10 Vertical temperature difference DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5
2.11 Horizontal temperature difference DIN EN 1991-1-5:2004-07, 6.1.4 and 6.2
2 12
2.12 Soil Settlements DIN EN 1997-1:2009-09
1997 1:2009 09
2.13 Bearing resistance/friction forces DIN EN 1337, Part 2 to 8
2.14 Replacement of bearing DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05
2.15 Pressure and suction from traffic DIN EN 1991-2:2004-05
2.16 Wind during erection DIN EN 1991-4:2005-07 and
DIN EN 1991-1-6:2005-09
2.17 Construction loads DIN EN 1991-1-6:2005-09
2.18 Accidental actions 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.
Actions in accidental design situations
• Specifications according to EN 1991-2
• Limitation of bridge movements by structural measures

measures,
e.g. stop devices at abutments
Actions in seismic design situations
Specifications according to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-2

Determination of design values of movements and bearing forces

Principles
 C
Combination
bi i according
di to EN 19901990, 66.5.3.2
5 3 2 (2) with
i h partial
i l ffactors according
di 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 l i  0.05
b applying 0 05 GK spanwise i
 Consideration of deformations of foundation, piers and bearings in the

modelling
g 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 = 00,5
5 may be applied to geometric
member imperfections in EN 1992-1-1, 5.2.
Determination of design values of movements and bearing forces

Climatic temperature effects
Maximum and minimum constant temperature component:
ed min = T0 - F  TN,con
Ted, N 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. +10°C
Table E.4: Recommended values for T0

T0 [°C]
Case Installation of bearing
steel bridges composite bridges concrete bridges
Installation with measured Temperature and with correction
1 0 0 0
Resetting with bridge set at T0
Installation with estimated T0 and without correction by
2 10 10 10
resetting with bridge set T0
Installation with estimated temperature T0 and without
3 correction by resetting and also one ore more changes in 25 20 20
position of the fixed bearing
Td = Ted,max
ed max - Ted,min
ed min
For non-linear behaviour stepwise determination
Td = F  TN
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 
  Q  Q1k  
FH d
   r   G , inf  Gk  
 other variable actions
vertical actions of traffic load
Forces from
self weight, dead loads
acceleration
l ti andd
coefficient of friction according EN 1337-1, 62.
braking
For PTFE sliding bearings max = 0,03
For elastomeric bearings

 Gsup  Asup q ,d ,sup 
FH d   Q  Qk1   
 G
 inf  A 
inf q , d ,inf 
Shear deformations of the bearings

forces from according EN 1337-3
acceleration
and braking plan shear area of bearings
nominal
i l values
l off shear
h modulus
d l
Gsup = 1,05 N/mm 2
Ginf = 0,75 N/mm2

Choice of material
5. CHOICE OF MATERIAL
Assumption for a0
   c 3  2  10 6 
a d  a0  f  
 4 
ad fatigue loading
a0
initial crack
design crack
Safety assessment based on fracture mechanics
appl d  Kmat,d
Kappl,d mat d
Kmat,d (T27J, TEd)
Kappl,d (member shape, ad, 1·Ed)

Toughness-temperature - Load-strain-diagram
Design situations in the upper-shelf region B and the transition region A of the
toughness-temperature diagram
Safety assessment based on temperature

K*appl,d  Kmat,d Transformation TEd  TRd
Assessment scheme
TEd  TRd
Action side Resistance
TEd = Tmin + Tr + T + TR [[T + Tpl ] TRd = T100
• lowest air temperature in combination • Influence of material toughness

with Ed: T100 = T27J – 18 [°C]
Tmin = -25 °C
• radiation loss:
Tr = - 5 °C
• influence of stress, crack imperfection
and member shape and dimension:
 K  b 
14

 appl  20 eff  10
 k  
T  52ln R6  25 
 [C]
70
 
 
 
• additive safety element:

TR = +7 °C (with  = 3,8)
Choice of material to EN 1993-1-10

National quality tests
AUBI-test according to SEP 1390 (1996)

trend analysis for the AUBI correlation

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

Example: Thick plates for the composite “Elbebridge Vockerode“ (EN 1993-1-10)
Bridge system and construction
Cross section
Plate thickness for S355 J2G3
Support Span Support
Upper chord
75 75 115 135 115 85 85 60 60 60 115 140 145 145 140 115 60 60 60 85 85 115 135 115 75 75
Bottom pplates
30 70 70 95 45 50 70 70 50 70 95 45 30 70
40 40 40 40
125,28
Construction at supports
Bridge St. Kilian

Bridge St. Kilian

Cast node for the bridge St. Kilian

Cast node for the bridge St. Kilian

6. DESIGN OF BRIDGE-ELEMENTS
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Common design rules for column, lateral torsional, plate and shell buckling
Ed
Ed Ed b r
Ed sk Ed lk Ed t Ed
a
E d /2
column buckling lat. tors. buckl. plate buckling shell buckling
 ult , k E d  R k  ult , k
 crit E d  R crit

Rk
R crit

 crit
   
1,20 1,2 1,2
EN 1993-1-1 EN 1993-1-1 EN 1993-1-5 EN 1993-1-6

1,20
1,00 1,0 1,0

a0 1,00
a
a
0,80
b b
0,80 0,8 0,8
c c a0
d χ
d
0,60
p [-]
0,60
0 60 0 6
0,6 06
0,6
b
0,40 0,40
0,4 0,4
0,20 0,20
0,2 0,2
0,00 0,00
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,0 _
_ _ 0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0  p [-] 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
 
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5
λ 2,0 2,5 3,0
R k  ult ,k
Ed  1
M M
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Column buckling
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Column buckling curves

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Selection of buckling curves

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Test evaluation – weak axis buckling

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Test evaluation – weak axis buckling

6.1 STABILITY RULES
M-values according to EN 1990 – Annex D

6.1 STABILITY RULES
European buckling curve 2nd order theory with imperfection

! !
E d  Rk Ed  Rd
N pll N
 d  pl , d
N crit N crit
   ,  
 d   ,  d 
Rk   , N pl
Rk d N
Rd 
pl
Rd 
M M
Consequences:
Option 1: Ed   M .Ed
N crit
Option 2: N crit ,d 
M
Option 3:  M  1,0
2

1
M
Option 4: ed  e0
1   2
d
Option 5:  M*   M

Equivalence of buckling curves and 2nd order theory

6.1 STABILITY RULES
M-values for 2nd order analysis

  d
 d d d g

0,5 0,685 0,870 0,477 0,661 0,895 1,03
1,0 1,136 0,597 0,953 1,082 0,627 1,05
15
1,5 1 846
1,846 0 342
0,342 1 43
1,43 1 734
1,734 0 369
0,369 1 08
1,08
2,0 2,806 0,209 1,906 2,605 0,228 1,09
3,0 5,476 0,10 2,859 5,039 0,109 1,09

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Imperfections for members with various boundary conditions
NEd NEd NEd EI NEd

a1
C
x  
x
x  crit
2
ini  e0 d sin ini  e0 d 
 crit
 ,max crit
1 x NEd crit

Me  e0 dNEd sin Me  e0 d
N  
1  Ed2 crit,max
1  Ed N
Ncrit EI crit
Use of buckling mode as imperfection

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example for a column on elastic supports

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Column buckling Lateral torsional buckling

Fl
NEd M NFlEd My ,Ed
 Ed  1  1
Npl,Rk My ,Rk NFlpl,Rk MFly ,Rk
NEd NEde * 1 Mz ,Ed Mz ,Ed NFlcrit * 1
 1  e 1
Npl,Rk My,Rk NEd Mz ,Rk Mz ,crit MFly ,Rk Mz ,Ed
1 1
Ncrit Mz ,crit
Fl
My,Rk M
e    N  0,2  e    M  0,2  Fl
* * y,Rk
  Npl,Rk   Npl,Rk
 *
 
N  N    N  0,2 
1
1
 1  1 
2
  1    N2 M
M  M  2 M  0,2 2
1

N
Fl M M
1
 2
  2 
  0,5 1    0,2   
2
Equivalence of flexural and lateral torsional buckling

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Comparison of LTB-curves
LT
Lateral torsional buckling
1,0 for GIT=oo
Lateral torsional
buckling for a beam
HEB 200
Bc a
B b
Bc
00
0,0
0,0 1,0 2,0
LT
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Procedure for lateral torsional buckling assessments using the buckling curves:
1. Input parameters: Rk
 ult , k 
Ed
R crit
 crit 
Ed
 ult ,k

 critt
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

4.
 ult ,k
1
M
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Comparison of laterial torsional buckling curves

6.1 STABILITY RULES
check:
 ult ,k
 
 crit

    *,  
   ult ,k
1
M
Determination of design point xd

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: Portal frame
Lateral support knee‐point

1068
3 4
240∙12
2 5
556∙5
8000
240∙15 240∙12
1 550∙5
0 6
S 355 J2 G3
240∙15
0 7
24420
6.1 STABILITY RULES
ult,k,min=1,55
1 55
Moment distribution [kNm]
ult,k (xd)=1,94
Distribution of compression forces [kN]

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: Modal out-of-plane deformation crit=1.85
xd
6.1 STABILITY RULES
1. Calculation with extreme value ult,k,min 2. Calculation design point xd
 ult ,k  1.55  ult ,k  1.94

 crit  1.85
 crit
*
 1.84
1.55 1.94
  0.915   1.05
1.85 1.85
 crit
*
1.54
 
*
  0.49  0.408
 crit 1.85
LT  0.51   *   0.2   2   1.064 LT  1.225

1
  0.622  0.50   0.59  0.50
   2  2
contact splice sufficient contact splice sufficient
   ult 0.622 1,55    ult ,k 0.59 1.94

  0.88  1.00   1.04  1.00
M 1.10 M 1.10
Check of out-of-plane stability

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: Composite bridge

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: Cross-section of the composite bridge

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

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: cross-beam at supports

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: intermediate cross-beam all 7,50 m

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: crit-values and modal out-of-plane deformations
critical area
critical area
critical area
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: Input for ult,k-values
330
295
250
180
critical areas
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Checks for lateral-torsional buckling

in field at point P1 at support (point P1)
330 295
 ult ,k   1,83  ult ,k   1,184
180 250
 crit  8 ,8576  crit  17 ,489

1,83
  0 ,45 
1,184
 0 ,26
8 ,8576 17 ,489
 crit
*
 8 ,37  crit
*
 15,20
8 ,37
*   0 ,76  0 ,72 * 
15 ,20
 0 ,76  0 ,66
8 ,86 17 ,49
  0 ,69   0,554
  0 ,82   0 ,96
   ult ,k 0 ,82  1,89    ult ,k 0 ,96  1,184
  1,37  1,00   1,03  1,00
M 1,10 M 1,10
6.1 STABILITY RULES
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
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: Torsional buckling according to EN 1993-1-1


b3  t 3
CM 
9
b3
IM  4 t
3
  A  sin
x
;G 
E y x
Column: Plate: w  A  sin
e 21    b 
2
 
ECM    G  I M  i   a  0
N cr  
iM2 N crit
 cr 
N A
 cr  crit
A
   
E  t 2  2  b  
2  2
E t 
2
 6

1   2    2 1   
2
b 6
  2 1  
 2  
 
2

2 
12 1    b       

 

12 1  b 
2

   
   
   
 2
  b  2 
b   e     0,429 
 e   0,9   0, 429    
     
 
k
k
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Torsional buckling column-like behaviour plate-like behaviour
compression compression
stress strain
N
N 
N N 
A A E
response response
strain  stress 
bending
geometric strain effect:
2
N 
2
 2 
N 
  M  1    f y
 e    s  N crit 
2
 geom s    o 
N crit 
  2
 l  4 b  N 
1  
 N crit 
6.1 STABILITY RULES
column buckling plate buckling

1 f y 1 f y
1 
k  fy k ~ 
bending 2
bending
  fy   fy

compression compression

   *   0  1
2
1 
   *   0  1
2
 
1   1 
assumption: sd  b assumption: sd  b
0  0.2 0  0.7
1


     *   0.2 1  1    1
   *   0.2  1
2
1  *   * *   0.2 1  1 *

1
1  
1 1
 * 
2
  2    2 
 
  0.5 1   *   0.2    2
  
  0 .5 1   *   0 .2    
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Column buckling curve and plate buckling curve
,  *, 
1 Euler
2   0. 22
 Winter   2

 * 0  0.7 
Column buckling 

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Stress- and strain-controlled plate buckling

x
x
imperfect
perfect  x  x  E  x
imperfect x
 x  E  x
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Modification of imperfection factor

4
b
  1
 crit
*
  
a
 crit  b  2 
2
   1
 a  
 crit
*
 crit
a
b
column plate
6.1 STABILITY RULES

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
 cr , p  crit
 *
 cr ,c  crit
6.1 STABILITY RULES
“Hybrid cross-section” due to different stress-limits
resulting force
yield plateau
6.1 STABILITY RULES
”Yielding effect” in hybrid cross-sections
Method 1
Method 2
6.1 STABILITY RULES
”Yielding effect” in bending

Method 1
Method 2
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Extension of method 2
Choice of material
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Methods in bridge design
Method 1 Method 2
Use of effective cross-section Use of stress-limit

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Method 1 Method 2
plate
l t buckling
b kli ffor stress
t components
t global
l b l plate
l t bbuckling
kli
Ed  x , Ed ,  z , Ed ,  Ed  ,  crit
 x
 crit , x
 glob

 crit , z
z

 crit ,
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Plate-buckling coefficients
Method 1 Method 2
, 
w  *   0.13
for rigid
end post

p p
 ultl ,  ultl ,k
x  x
 glob 
 crit , x
 crit , global
 ult ,
z  z
 crit , z
 ult ,
 
 crit , x
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Method 1: Effective cross-section for x

Cross-section assessment
 xEd
1   1,0
f yd
f yk
f yd   Rd  1,1
 Rd
Reduction factor
Effective web  p  0 ,5533   
  1,0
b  p2
beff   bc   w (for   0 )
1 
Slenderness
beff ,1  0,4 beff beff , 2  0,6 beff
f yk
p 
Effective flange  x ,Pi
16
k 
bt ,eff  b f 1     0 ,112 1   2  1   
Critical stress
k  0,43 für   1 für 1    1  2 E st t 2
 x ,Pi  k  e e 

12b 2 1   2 
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Method 1: Resistance to shear 

rigid end flexible end
post postt
f yk
w  flexible end post
3 cr
rigid end post
reduction factor  w f yd
Vbw ,Rd   w  hw  t w
 w  0 ,83 1.0 1.0 3
0 ,83   w  1,08 0 ,83 /  w 0 ,83 /  w V Ed

3 
Vbw ,Rd
 w  1,08 
1,37 0 ,7   w  0 ,83 /  w
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Assessment for plate buckling
Method 1 Method 2
Interaction
 gglob   ult ,k
1
M
interaction
 Ed 
1   1
  M 
1  1  f , Rd  23  1  1
fy 2
V 
3  Ed  1  M pl , Rd 
VRd 
6.1 STABILITY RULES
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
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Example: cross-section check for a composite bridge
Cross-section at support Cross-section at midspan
stresses 
hw
M Ed  107 ,25 MNm tw
 98 ,5  109 stresses 
M Ed  56 ,1 MNm hw
 151  192
V Ed  7 ,47 MN V Ed  1,0 MN tw
< 345 MPa
< 295 MPa
stresses : stresses :
k  5 ,78
k  5 ,80
hw
M f ,Rd  117 ,31 MNm  98,5  51
MN tw M pl ,Rd  135 ,6 MNm hw
 151  51,4
Vbw ,Rd  8 ,14 MN  cr  112 ,6 MPa Vbw ,Rd  4 ,44 MN tw
 w  48 ,2 MPa
 w  1,33
 w  0 ,675 3 
1,0
 0,5  w  2 ,03
4,44
 w  0 ,50
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Panel plate buckling check with method 2

=83 Mpa
 176 8000
  0,94   3,13  e  19.6 MPa
 187.3 2560
k  23   cr  23 19.6  450.8 MPa   crit  2,55 
k  6   cr  6 19.6  117 .6 MPa   crit  1,42

1
1    1    1 
2 2
1 1 
       0.888
 crit 4  cr  4  crit ,   crit
2
 2
crit ,  
 ,

 crit  1.127
fy
 ult ,k   1.56
 E2  3 E
k
2
k
 ult ,k
  1,18
 crit
1
  0.51  0.13  0.80     1.15 w   0.73
  2 
 w   ult ,k 0.73 1.56
  1.03  1.00
M 1.10
6.1 STABILITY RULES
Verification of stiffened web plate for launching, Bridge Oehde

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Stiffened web panel and loading

6.1 STABILITY RULES
Use of method 2 for stress-assessment
Stiffener : max M  44,3 kNm    152  68  220  240 MPa

Webplate: max M  2,83 kNm    64  176  240  240 MPa
6.1 STABILITY RULES
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Standardized Wöhler- curve for welded details

6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Damage equivalence
nEi
D  Di   N Ri
  3EI n Ei
    3C  2  10 6
Damage equivalence:
 e3   nEi    Ei3  nEi
1

 e  
 Ei  nEi
 3
3

 n Ei 
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Reservoir-counting method
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Various design situations

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Modified
M difi d
Wöhler curve
for using the
Miner-rule
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Representations of fatigue spectrum
cut off spectrum for design
after vibrations
cut off
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Distribution of weights of heavy vehicles
total weight type 1 total weight type 2
total weight type 3 total weight type 4

6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Load-models for fatigue checks of road bridges
FLM 3
Detailed FLM 4
Main structure
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Safety-plan for damage tolerant design
D
 Ff  Ei  nEi
3

 Ff  Ej  nEj
5

1
3 3
 c    D  4
   
    2  10     5  10
6 6
inspection intervals
 Mf   Mf 
5
   
 1  1 1 n
4  1
    5 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
   1 n 4
 Fff Mff   Ff Mf 
 Fff   Mff  1.0 n  4 1  3

4
 Ff   Mf  1.15 n 1  1
1.155
4
 Ff   Mf  1.35 n 1  0
1.355
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Mean value m
1 645 
Characteristic value: m – 1,645
Design value:
C t l off actions
Control ti  N  2   Mf  5 2  1,15
No control of actions  N  4,5   Mf  5 4,50  1,35
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Assessment procedures
 c
 Ff  E 2 
 Mf
Use of -values
Crossing
g of FLM3
 E 2       max   min 
stress history
  1   2   3   4
counting
ti method
th d
Miner-rule
effects of
other lanes
 E 2
design life
traffic composition
span length
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
1 value from simulations with Auxerre traffic

6.2 FATIGUE RULES
Example: Fatigue assessment for a composite bridge

 = 1.947  = 1.947
 = 1.90  = 1.715  = 1.90
31.3
1
23.6
2
stress
st a ges (max – min) at lower
ess ranges o e flange
a ge
1 Transverse weld from stiffener:  E 2  1.9  31.3  59.5  80 MPa

2 Butt weld of flange:  E 2  1.9  26.6  44.8  77 MPa
6.2 FATIGUE RULES
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
Rope-structures - Stayed cable bridges
Definition
• Anyy prestress
p is g
generated by
yppreloading
g
• Preloading is a process to impose

• forces or
• deformations
• The effects of preloading may be

• variations
i ti off stresses
t (prestress)
( t )
• variations of deformations
• other variations of permanent stage
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
Examples for preloading processes

1a) Prestressing by internal 1b) Prestressing of trusses by
tendons cables in hollow sections


1c) Prestressing by external 1d) Prestressing of joints

tendons subjected to tension or friction

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

2) Prestressing by propping 4) Prestressing by imposed deformation
steel steel
d d
cast of concrete cast of concrete
composite composite
3) Prestressing by sequence of casting concrete

phase 1 phase 2 phase 1
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

5a)) Prestressingg of 5b)) Prestressing
g of
cable structures arches by string-elements

 


b ow -st rin g
5c) Prestressing of guyed 5d) Prestressing of cable

masts stayed structures

 
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
Principles
• It is possible to define
f 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
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
Example for the applicability of “prestress”
stress before prestresses:  q 0,l 0
stress immediately after prestressing:  q 0 , l

prestress:
p es ess  q 0 ,  l  0 ,  l   q 0 , l   q 0 , l  0
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
of
n-appliccability o
mple forr the non
“presstress”
Exam
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
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

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
Treatment of preloading and prestressing processes in the

construction phase
Target: attainment of the required structural form

and distribution of effects of (G+P)
Conclusion: calculation with characteristic values, linear

material law:
stress limitations and prestressing of cables.
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

construction phase
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

service phase
Target: ULS verification on the basis of:

• pe
permanent
a e ac o s G(G
actions (G+P))
• permanent from resulting from (G+P)
• imperfections of the form
• variable actions Q{QK1 + 0QQ2}
C
Conclusion:
l i C
Calculation
l l ti with ith th
the permanentt fform associated
i t d
with the effect from G(G+P)
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES

service phase
6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
Treatment at counterflexure points
Treatment at counterflexure points, or where the action

effects from (G+P) are limited (e.g.
(e g by decompression):
G = G, where 0,05    0,10
applied to influence surfaces.

6.3 ROPE STRUCTURES
7. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING STEEL BRIDGES

2010 Bridges EN1993 GSedlacek

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2010 Bridges EN1993 GSedlacek

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dissemination of information for training – Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 1

G. Hanswille, W. Hensen, M. Feldmann, G. Sedlacek

1. The European Standard Family and Steel bridges

Load combination Self-weight EN 1991-1-1

EN 10025 Materials Prefabrication EN 1090-2

EN 1991 EN 1992 to EN 1996

EN 1090 – Part 1 „Delivery Conditions for prefabricated steel components“

hEN Eurocode: EN 1990 – „Basis of structural design“

Load combination Self-weight

Safety aspects Traffic actions

Tasks for designer and contractor

EN 1993-Part 1-1 General rules

1-5 Plate buckling

1-10 Choice of material

1-11 Rope structures

EN 1993-Part 2 Steel bridges

Annex A Requirements for bearings

Annex B Requirements for expansion joints

Design rules for steel bridges in Eurocode 3

Limit State Concept

Stability of members and plates

Fatigue assessments unless

Basic features of design rules for bridges

Load-model LM1 (draft German NA)

Statistical distribution of characteristics of vehicle

Modelling of vehicles and surfaces

Load-model and simulations

Reference bridges for reliability analysis

Definition of target -value

Q-values from LM1

Effect of modification: aQ1q1K = 9  8 kN/m²

Development of permits for heavy vehicles

Fatigue load model specified in EN 1991

Number of expected trucks

Fatigue loading model FLM 3

Assessment method for FLM 3

Fatigue details – welded attachments and stiffeners

EN 1993-1-9 - Fatigue resistance

Span limits for fatigue design

Joint for hanger

Recommendations for durable detailing

Hanger connection for arch bridges

Substitution of fatigue checks for critical details

Standard orthotropic steel deck with continuous stringers with

Substitution of fatigue checks by structural detailing

Structural detailing for deck plate

300 300 300

design life load model 4

Recommended details of orthotropic deck

Structural detailing for cross beams

Potential positions of cracks in the asphalt layer

Durability of asphalt layer

Steel bridges – serviceability limit state

Condition for curve A

stiffened paneel width

Shear lag effect

Subdivision of a moment-distribution to elements with standard shape

-factor for shear lag

Modelling for ULS Modelling for fatigue

Modelling for ULS Fatigue effects on web stiffeners

Modelling for ULS Frame and distorsional effects

Design principles for individual bearings

- Permission of movements minimizing the reaction forces

 Bearing plan (drawing of the bearing system)