M54 Unit 9 Local Effects

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey
Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis
UNIT 9: Local Effects
(Study time allocation = 10 hours)
9.1. INTRODUCTION
With grillage analysis, loads can only be applied at the node points. In reality, loads can be
applied at any point on the structure, and the effects of locally applied loads are ignored. As a
result grillage analysis can only provide information on the global behaviour of a bridge deck.
For information regarding local effects such as bending of the deck slab or punching shear it
is necessary to resort to a localised analysis using either a 2D finite element analysis or
influence surfaces.
9.2. WESTERGAARD
Professor H M Westergaard of the University of Illinois, USA, published a paper dealing with
the computation of the stresses in bridge slabs due to local wheel loads as early as 1930. Since
most smaller bridges built at that time had little or no transverse continuity, his analysis was
confined to the study of sagging and twisting moments in infinitely wide, simply supported
slabs. He proposed a simple modification to deal with fixed supports and cantilever slabs and
provided guidance on the calculation of shear forces and reactions.
For beam and slab bridges, the method is still applicable for determining the sagging bending
moments in the deck slab spanning between beams even though they may have substantial
transverse continuity. This is because under the HB (or NB) loading, the beams and slab local
to the load deflect in such a way that the continuity moment over the beams could effectively
be reduced to zero. This is illustrated in Figure 9.1 where M1 and M2 could equal zero, and
where the BM over beam 2 could be zero or sagging. This is a good reason why the transverse
bottom reinforcement should always be continuous.
M1 M2
4 5
1 2 3
Figure 9.1: Reduction of continuity moment due to local loads.
PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.1

For a wheel load acting at any point (x,y) in plan as in Figure 9.2, the moments at the centre
(0,0) are given by the following equations:
A Py ⎛ πy ⎡ 1 1 ⎤ ⎞
M x = 0.10536 P log + 0.10625 sinh ⎜⎜ ⎢ − ⎥ ⎟⎟
B s ⎝ s ⎣ B A⎦ ⎠
A Py ⎛ πy ⎡ 1 1 ⎤ ⎞
M y = 0.10536 P log − 0.10625 sinh ⎜⎜ ⎢ − ⎥ ⎟⎟
B s ⎝ s ⎣ B A⎦ ⎠
⎡ πx πx ⎤
sin sin ⎥
Py ⎢ s + s
M xy = −0.10625 ⎢ ⎥
s ⎢ B A ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
⎡ πx πx ⎤
sin sin ⎥
Py ⎢ s − s
M yx = −0.10625 ⎢ ⎥
s ⎢ B A ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
πy πx
where A = cosh + cos and
s s
πy πx
B = cosh − cos
s s
Y Centre lines of beams
wheel load
y
X
x
Figure 9.2: Part plan on bridge deck.
The effects of the contact area of the patch load on the moments due to loads remote from the
centre of the slab (0,0) are negligible and the above equations are sufficient.
For the particular case of a wheel load of diameter ‘c’ acting at (0,0) the bending moments at
(0,0) are given by:

⎡ ⎛s⎞ ⎛ c2 ⎞ ⎤
M 0 x = 0.21072 ⎢log10 ⎜ ⎟ − log10 ⎜ 0.4 2 + 1 − 0.675 ⎟ + 0.1815⎥ P
⎢⎣ ⎝h⎠ ⎜ h ⎟ ⎥⎦
⎝ ⎠
M0y = M0x - 0.0676P, and Mxy = Myx = 0.
where
P = wheel load in kN
s = beam spacing
h = depth of slab.
The total moment Mx due to ‘n’ wheel loads is given by superposition:
Mx = M0x + ∑Mx
A simplified expression for M0x is given by Westergaard on the basis of the effective width
concept depicted in Figure 9.3.
?
s
P
s be
Figure 9.3: Effective width concept.
If a unit strip under the point load was considered, then the bending moment would be Ps/4.
But the properties of a slab are such that the load is distributed and so the actual BM will be
less. The question to be asked is “what width of slab is effective in distributing the load so
that the correct BM is established by the formula: M0x = Ps 1 where b e is the
effective width?” 4 be
Westergaard derived the effective width be = 0.58s + 2c
The units in all cases are kN, m and kNm/m.

EXAMPLE
Find the maximum bending moment due to a wheel load of 112.5kN acting on a circular area
of 300mm diameter at the centre of a slab 200mm thick spanning 2500mm between beams
by:
1. Assuming a 1m wide strip

2. Westergaard’s exact equation
3. Assuming an effective width
(i) For a unit strip M = 112.5x2.5/4 = 70.31 kNm/m.
⎡ ⎛ 2 .5 ⎞ ⎛ 0 .3 2 ⎞ ⎤
(ii) M 0 x = 0.21072 ⎢log10 ⎜ ⎟ − log10 ⎜ 0.4 + 1 − 0 . 675 ⎟ + 0.1815⎥112.5
⎢⎣ ⎝ 0 .2 ⎠ ⎜ 0 .2 2 ⎟ ⎥⎦
⎝ ⎠
Moo = 33.93 kNm/m.
(iii) Effective width be = 0.58 x 2.5 + 2 x 0.3 = 2.05m.
M00 = Ps 1 = 70.31/2.05 = 34.30 kNm/m.

4 be
9.2.1. Influence surfaces

In order to remove the need for tedious calculations, Westergaard produced a group of
influence surfaces in the form of a single chart for determining the values of bending and
twisting moments at the centre of the slab between beams. (The chart can also be used to
determine the moments at any point (x,y) by utilising the reciprocal theorem). The chart is
easy to use and ideal for studying the effect of two axles of the abnormal vehicle.
A copy of Westergaard’s chart is reproduced in Figure 9.4.
The wheel loads remote from the centre are positioned on the relevant surface and the total
bending moment at the centre of the slab is calculated by summing the product of the wheel
load x the influence coefficients Xi . Thus M00 = ∑ P Xi.
For the special case of a wheel load acting at the centre, then either the ‘effective width’
concept or the equation for M0x can be used and added to M00.

y P=1
x,y
x
0
-s/2 s/2
1.1s
0.02
1.0s
0.9s
0.04
0.8s
-0.01 -0.0313
0.7s
Bending moments Bending moments
(M ) produced at x ) produced at
(M
y 0 0.06
point x, y by load 0 point x, y by load
0.6s
P = 1 at 0, or at 0 P = 1 at 0, or at 0
by load P = 1 by load P = 1
at point x, y 0.08 at point x, y
0.5s
0
0.10
0.4s
0.12
0.3s 0.02 0.14
0.16
0.2s 0.04
0.18
0.06 0.20
0.1s 0.08
0.10
0 x
0.20
-0.01
-0.1s -0.02
-0.03
0.030
-0.2s 0.025
-0.04 0.020
-0.3s
0.015
-0.0483
-0.4s
Twisting moments Twisting moments
(M
xy ) produced at (M' ) produced at
0.010 xy
point x, y by load -0.5s point 0 by load
P = 1 at 0 P = 1, at point x, y
-0.6s 0.005
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0 0

-0.7s
-0.8s
-0.9s
-1.0s HW
-0.5s -0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s 0.5s
Figure 9.4: Westergaard chart.

9.2.2. Cantilever slabs

Where a carriageway extends beyond the external beam in a beam-and-slab deck (see
Figure 9.5), the transverse bending moment due to the abnormal vehicle can be considerable.
Assuming that the cantilever slab is fully fixed along the centre-line of the exterior beam and
that it is isotropic, then the general expression given by Westergaard for the distribution of the
transverse moment along the root of the cantilever due to a point load acting at (x,y) is given
as:
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
P⎢ 1 ⎥
M oc =−
π ⎢⎡ y2 ⎤⎥
⎢ ⎢1 + 2 ⎥ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎣ x ⎦ ⎦⎥
Centre line of
yi
exterior beam
y
xi
1 3
2 4
Free edge of
Figure 9.5: Plan on cantilever slab.
For wheel loads at any position on the x-axis, y = 0. Thus Moc = -P/π ie, a constant. This is
because the spread of load to the y-axis is assumed constant at 45o and the moment of the
point load about the y-axis (Pxi ) spread over the length 2yi is constant. For the particular case
3P
of a wheel load acting on the y-axis on a circle of diameter ‘c’, then Moc = .
4π
9.3. PUCHER
In 1964 (revised 1977) A. Pucher published a book of influence surfaces for determining the
longitudinal and transverse bending moments at critical locations due to point and patch loads
in plates with various boundary conditions. The surfaces are much more comprehensive than
Westergaard’s, but the moments are calculated in the same way. As for Westergaard, the
wheel loads remote from the centre are positioned on the relevant surface and the moment at
the critical location for each load is given by:
M = Wheel load x influence ordinate / 8π = P Xi / 8π

The total moment for all wheel loads is given by:
M = P ∑ Xi / 8π
For a wheel load acting at the location being considered it is usual to spread the load over a
finite area obtained by distributing the wheel load through the surfacing and the concrete
down to the neutral axis. For a square wheel load of side ‘c’ the equivalent patch load is of
side ‘b’ as shown in Figure 9.6.
2:1 c
1:1
surfacing (t)
Concrete slab (h)
b=c+h+t
Figure 9.6: Distribution of wheel load.
This finite area is placed on the influence surface. The moment due to the load is then given
by the product of the given load intensity ‘q’ (=P/b2) and the volume ‘V’ of the influence
surface above the effective wheel footprint. The bending moment due to a load ‘q’ (kN/m2),
uniformly distributed over an area ‘A’ (m2) is given by:
m = qV = ∫ X i ( x, y )dA
A
The influence surfaces are calculated using linear elastic theory which results in a singularity
at the point (0,0) ie, an ordinate with a magnitude of infinity. When the area of integration
(under the distributed wheel area) contains the point (0,0), the singularity can be truncated at
the highest given contour and the error involved is negligible.
The volume V can be evaluated numerically by:
(i) Simpson’s rule using an uneven number of equally spaced, parallel vertical planes;
(ii) Simpson’s rule using horizontal planes cutting through the surface at contour lines;
(iii) Subdividing the loaded area into segments Δai , determining the average ordinate for
each segment xi and summing the products Δai xi.
Method (iii) is the most commonly used one. When concentrated loads are given instead of
uniform loads, the summation ∑Δai xi is replaced by ∑Δ Qi xi where Δai is the portion of the
concentrated load applied to area segment Δai .
A selection of Pucher Charts are provided at the end of this unit.

9.4. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Finite element analysis was discussed in detail within Unit 7. The method is finding
increasing use amongst bridge designers for the analysis of local effects in bridge elements.
The following are examples of the local analyses commonly undertaken using finite element
techniques:
¾ Forces in deck slabs under concentrated loads such HB wheel load, parapet impact etc.
¾ Examination of the magnitude of shear lag in deck sections
¾ Consideration of stress flow adjacent to bearings, prestress anchorages etc.
¾ Design of stiffeners around openings in steel beams.
Figure 9.7 shows examples of finite element analysis for local effects.
(a) Reinforcement of large opening in

web of steel girder (plate
elements)
(b) Transverse design of deck slab for

beam and slab type deck (plate
elements)

(c) Analysis of the effects of temporary

prestressing at the segment joint in a
precast segmental deck during erection
(solid elements)
(d) Analysis of the stress distribution -2.29

-2.3 -1.04
around the launch bearings of an

-1.9 0.1
-2.43 -1.04
-2.47 0.263
-2.59 -2.03
-2.77 -1.05
incrementally launched box girder

-2.71 -2. 27 0.367
-3.45 -1.06
-3.28 -2. 56 0.467
-5.07 -1.02
-8.73 0.584
bridge deck (solid elements)

-2.87
-5.27 -0.892
-10.6 -2.61 0.629
-4.92 -0.652
-8.58
0.732
-8. 48 -3.96 -2.11
-8.13 -4.94 -0.073 0.6

-1.17
-7.98 -5.61 -1. 84 0.588
-8.03 -2.81 -0. 0272
-6.42 -3.7 -0.871 0.551
-8.06 -1.59
-4.65 -2.19 -0.962 -0.4030.198 0.317
-14.3 -7.89 -5.65
-12.9 -6.95 -2.72 -1.04 -0.2550.158 0.212
-3.29
-13.9 -0.804 -0.1620.112 0. 124
-4.39
9.15 11.4 9.42 12.5 7.09 -4. 67 -1.51 -0.74
-0.995 1. 08 4.88 7.45 8.5 -1.63 -0.118 0.0265 0.0219
5.59 -0.338
1.57 4.27 0.554
1.1 1.63 3.3 3. 64 -3.56 -0.986 4.24 1.13 -0.0174
2.85 0.924 2.54 3.69 -0.0878 -0.0466
-0.0341-0.213 -0.111
0.282 -0.272 3.91 0.839 -2.4 -0. 658
-1.23 0.158-0.016 0.5560.535 1.04 -0.895 1.37 -3.46 -1.56
-8.52 0.0157
1.34 -1.26 -1.76 0.137 0.188 0.629 3.61 -1.68 -4.66 -4.96 -3.03
-2.18 -3.45 -6.44
1.47
-0.586-0.523 -0.37 -0. 136
-4. 95 -4.89 -2.78 -1.22 -5.44
-2.87 -4.45 -4.25 -5.41 -9.06 -5.22 -0. 656
-4.96 -3.68 -2.96 - 9. 44 -12.7 -14.1 -15.8 -0.36 0.0197
-9.6
-9.74 -7.95 -8.51 -5.74 0.882 1.33 2.34 1.86 -2.89 -1.71 -1.04 -0.837
1.59 2.07 0.393 3.24 -0.511 -0.894 -5.31
4.24 1. 77 2.73 0.99 1.85 1. 34 1.71 1.35 1.01 3.09 2.1 -12.6 -5.15 -9.61 -8.94 -4. 64
-22.8 -9.68 -21.7 -2.34-0.585 -0.41 0.016
-15.8 -8.87 -17.5 -10.6- 19.6 -10.7 -20.6 -11.7 -9.16-5.77
-5.67 -15.1-7.62 -14.8 -8.75 -12.5 -12.4 -9.33
-1.19
-15.2 -19 -27.5 -12.8 -9.99 -9.24 -4.99 -2.35 0.1520.255
-15.4 -14 -17.2 -18.6 -17.6 -3.61
-11 -9.06 -14 0.0604
10.5 -16.2 -22 -21.4 -20.7 -14.7 -9.8 -3.25 -0.602 -1.97 1.52 2.99 0.0543
Figure 9.7: Local analysis using finite element methods
The finite element method is both a powerful and flexible tool for the determination of local
effects in bridges. The designer must however take care in the definition of mesh
discretisation and boundary conditions in order that the analysis is sufficiently representative
of the prototype.

EXAMPLE 1
The edge region of beam-and slab deck is shown in Figure 9.7. The deck is subject to 45 units
of an HB vehicle whose wheels can travel to within 0.5m of the free edge.
Using both the Westergaard and Pucher methods, determine:
(i) The maximum transverse BM in the slab between beams,
(ii) The maximum transverse BM in the slab over the beams,
(iii) The maximum transverse BM in the cantilever.
(i) Westergard
SECTION
1.5m 2.5m
PLAN
1.8m
1m 1m
Figure 9.7: Bridge section and HB wheel loads.
The position of the vehicle wheels of one double axle which will result in the maximum mid-
span moment is shown in Figure 9.8. (Assume that c=300mm).
In order to use the influence surface the dimensions between wheels have to converted to
fractions of the span ‘s’. Thus:
s = span = 2.5m
1m = s/2.5 = 0.4s
1.8m = 1.8s/2.5 = 0.72s
The wheel positions are then marked on the chart (and, apart from position (0,0)) the ordinates
are recorded.
Ps ⎛ 1 ⎞
At position (0,0) use the effective width concept M 00 = ⎜ ⎟
4 ⎜⎝ be ⎟⎠
where be = 0.58s + 2c = 0.58x2.5 + 2x0.3 = 2.05m.
M(0,0) = 112.5x2.5 /4x2.05 = 34.30 kNm/m

M(0,1.8) = 112.5 x 0.054 = 6.08 kNm/m
M(1,0) = 112.5 x 0.03 = 3.38 kNm/m
M(-1,0) = ditto = 3.38 kNm/m
M(1,1.8) = 112.5 x 0.018 = 2.025 kNm/m
M(-1,1.8) = ditto = 2.25 kNm/m
TOTAL = 51.64 kNm/m
It is clear from the contour values that the influence of the second pair of axles is negligible.
(ii) Westergaard does not consider this case - solution not possible.
(iii) Westergaard - the active wheel positions are shown in Figure 9.8.
C e n tr e lin e o f
e x te r io r b e a m 1 .8 m
y
1 .0 m
1 2
x F re e e d g e o f
c a n tile v e r
Figure 9.8: Active wheels on cantilever.
The two wheels on the centre line of the exterior beam have no effect.
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
112.5 ⎜ 1 ⎟
M (1,0 ) =− ⎜ ⎟ = 35.81 kNm/m
π ⎜ ⎛ 0 ⎞2 ⎟
⎜1+ ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
112.5 ⎜ 1 ⎟
M (1,0 ) =− ⎜ ⎟ = 8.45 kNm/m
π ⎜ ⎛ 1.8 ⎞ 2 ⎟
⎜1+ ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠
TOTAL = 44.26 kNm/m
(i) Pucher
Span = 2.5m

Using Chart 1 100mm = 2500mm or 1mm = 25mm
Thus 1m = 1000/25 = 40mm

1.8m = 1800/25 = 72mm
0.3m = 300/25 = 12mm
The positions of the wheel loads are marked on the influence surface. The wheel at (0,0) is
indicated as a patch load (in this example the load will not be dispersed through to the centre
of the slab). Patch load is spread over an area of 300x300 or 12x12 to scale and divided into
four quarters.
Load to each quarter = 112.5/4 = 28.125 kN.
Average influence ordinate in each quarter = 6.5 (that is the average between 5 and 8).
M(0,0) = 4 x 28.125 x 6.5 / 8 π = 29.10 kNm/m
M(1,0) = 0.6 x 112.5 / 8 π = 2.69 kNm/m
M(-1,0) = 0.6 x 112.5 / 8 π = 2.69 kNm/m
M(0,1.8) = 1.45 x 112.5 / 8 π = 6.49 kNm/m
M(1,1.8) = 0.4 x 112.5 / 8 π = 1.79 kNm/m
M(-1,1.8) = ditto = 1.79 kNm/m
TOTAL = 44.55 kNm/m
(ii) Pucher
In order to assume the condition of full fixity, the wheels of the HB vehicle have to straddle a
beam as shown in Figure 9.9. (0.75m ≡ 30mm, 1.8m ≡ 72mm and 0.25m ≡ 10mm).

SECTION
1.5m 2.5m
PLAN
1.8m 0.75m
1m 0.5m
Figure 9.9: Placement of axles to simulate full fixity
Since all wheel loads are remote from the singularity all loads will be considered as point
loads. The maximum moment will occur over the centre-line of the beam.
M(0.75,0) = -7.2 x 112.5 / 8 π = -32.23
M(0.75,1.8) = -0.15 x 112.5 / 8 π = - 0.67
M(-0.25,0) = -3.0 x 112.5 / 8 π = -13.43
M(-0.25,1.8) = -0.26 x 112.5 / 8 π = - 1.16
TOTAL = -47.49 kNm/m
(iii) Pucher. The arrangement of wheel loads is shown in Figure 9.10.

Centre line of x
exterior beam 1.8m
y
1.0m
1 2
Free edge of
cantilever
Figure 9.10: Active wheel loads on cantilever.
100mm = 1500mm or 1mm = 15mm. Thus 1m = 1000/15 = 67mm

1.8m = 1800/15 = 120mm
M(-1,0) = -9.85 x 112.5 / 8 π = -42.52 kNm/m

M(-1,1.8) = -2.20 x 112.5 / 8 π = -9.85 kNm/m
TOTAL = -52.37 kNm/m
9.5. TASKS
Figure 9.11 shows the part cross-section of a beam and slab bridge. A 45 unit HB vehicle is to
cross the bridge. Using:
(i) Westergaard’s ‘effective width’ principle

(ii) Westergaard charts
(iii) Pucher charts
determine the maximum sagging moment under the HB wheel loads at mid-span of the slab
(between beams 1 and 2) and the maximum hogging moment in the cantilever slab over
beam 1. (The outside wheel of the HB vehicle is limited to a distance of 1.2m from beam 1).
1 2 SECTION
1.5m 2.5m
Figure 9. 11: Task 1.










M54 Unit 9 Local Effects

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

M54 Unit 9 Local Effects

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis

UNIT 9: Local Effects

(Study time allocation = 10 hours)

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.1

Figure 9.2: Part plan on bridge deck.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.2

The total moment Mx due to ‘n’ wheel loads is given by superposition:

Figure 9.3: Effective width concept.

Westergaard derived the effective width be = 0.58s + 2c

The units in all cases are kN, m and kNm/m.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.3

1. Assuming a 1m wide strip

(i) For a unit strip M = 112.5x2.5/4 = 70.31 kNm/m.

Moo = 33.93 kNm/m.

(iii) Effective width be = 0.58 x 2.5 + 2 x 0.3 = 2.05m.

M00 = Ps 1 = 70.31/2.05 = 34.30 kNm/m.

9.2.1. Influence surfaces

A copy of Westergaard’s chart is reproduced in Figure 9.4.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.4

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0 0

Figure 9.4: Westergaard chart.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.5

9.2.2. Cantilever slabs

M = Wheel load x influence ordinate / 8π = P Xi / 8π

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.6

The total moment for all wheel loads is given by:

Concrete slab (h)

Figure 9.6: Distribution of wheel load.

The volume V can be evaluated numerically by:

A selection of Pucher Charts are provided at the end of this unit.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.7

9.4. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

(a) Reinforcement of large opening in

(b) Transverse design of deck slab for

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.8

(c) Analysis of the effects of temporary

(d) Analysis of the stress distribution -2.29

around the launch bearings of an

incrementally launched box girder

bridge deck (solid elements)

-8.13 -4.94 -0.073 0.6

Figure 9.7: Local analysis using finite element methods

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.9

Using both the Westergaard and Pucher methods, determine:

(i) The maximum transverse BM in the slab between beams,

(ii) The maximum transverse BM in the slab over the beams,

(iii) The maximum transverse BM in the cantilever.

Figure 9.7: Bridge section and HB wheel loads.

M(0,0) = 112.5x2.5 /4x2.05 = 34.30 kNm/m

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.10

M(0,1.8) = 112.5 x 0.054 = 6.08 kNm/m

M(1,0) = 112.5 x 0.03 = 3.38 kNm/m

M(-1,0) = ditto = 3.38 kNm/m

M(1,1.8) = 112.5 x 0.018 = 2.025 kNm/m

M(-1,1.8) = ditto = 2.25 kNm/m

TOTAL = 51.64 kNm/m

TOTAL = 44.26 kNm/m

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge, Civil and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.9.11

Using Chart 1 100mm = 2500mm or 1mm = 25mm

Thus 1m = 1000/25 = 40mm

Load to each quarter = 112.5/4 = 28.125 kN.

M(0,0) = 4 x 28.125 x 6.5 / 8 π = 29.10 kNm/m

M(1,0) = 0.6 x 112.5 / 8 π = 2.69 kNm/m