Design of Bearing Replacement Scheme on Forth Road Bridge

Chris Hendy, Head of Bridge Design and Technology                             Atkins 
Forth Road Bridge
Bearing Replacement – Use of
Eurocodes
Chris Hendy – Head of Bridge Design and Technology
Forth Road Bridge Bearing
Replacement
• Need for bearing replacement
• Use of Eurocodes for assessment
• Bearing replacement scheme
• Use of Eurocodes for strengthening and
jacking
Introduction and Bearing replacement
Forth Road Bridge Bearing
Replacements
Existing structure:
• Three span suspension bridge
with a central span of 1005 m and
side spans of 408 m
North viaduct
• On both approaches to the bridge
there are multi-span viaducts
• The south viaduct consists of 11
spans and the north viaduct
consists of 6 spans. These spans
vary between 33 m and 39 m.

South viaduct
Forth Road Bridge Bearing
Replacements

Existing viaduct structure:

• Box girders connected by transversely spanning cross girders at
approximately 3m spacings
• Roller or rocker bearings on reinforced concrete portal piers

Typical cross section at pier

Bearing condition

Existing structure:

Typical Steel Roller Bearing Typical Steel Rocker Bearing

Bearing condition
Existing structure - South Viaduct:
• Roller Bearings at shared pier S3 and piers S4-S10
• Rocker Bearings at south side tower / pier S0 and piers S1-S3

= rocker
= roller
Bearing condition
Existing structure - North Viaduct
• Roller Bearing at North side tower
• Rocker Bearing at north abutment and piers N1-N5

= rocker
= roller
Bearing condition

Roller Bearings:
• Not free to roll – uneven wear due to
stress and/or corrosion
• Higher stresses in pier than considered
in original design
• Justified by use of cracked section
properties but box stresses too high
• Bearings assessed according to
BS5400-9-1:1983 and BS EN 1337-4
• Modern geometrical limits not met
• Significant codified overstress
• Roller bearing at end of North viaduct Roller bearing at north side tower
near the side tower is near limit of
movement range limit
 Bearing condition

Rocker Bearings:
• Bearing corrosion
• Generally compliant with BS EN
1337-6:2004
• Concrete delamination – (and at
rollers)
Options for replacement schemes?
Options for replacement schemes?
Bearing type for replacement:
Roller replacement options
• Pot bearings:
- Insufficient room on piers without significant widening
- Single pot overstresses diaphragm in hogging bending
- Twin pots – insufficient room to get adequate lever arm between
them
- Friction greater than rollers
• Rollers:
- No modifications to diaphragms
- No change to designed articulation
but concern over materials and space
• Sliding rockers:
- No modifications to diaphragms
- No change to designed articulation
Roller/Slider Pot
As built assessment of box girder –
Use of Eurocodes
 As built assessment of box girder
• Box girder assessed initially
before jacking design started
• Significant overstresses
found to BS 5400 Part 3 but
not to BS EN 1993-1-5
• New BD 100 requires
strengthening to Eurocodes,
but designers need to justify
this
• Challenges are knowing
assumptions in Eurocodes;
for Forth, some relevant
considerations were:
- Steel ductility
- Torsional buckling of stiffeners
 As built assessment of box girder
Bending - Eurocodes
• Effective section used for all
components in section properties
• Result is redistribution occurs
from heavily loaded parts

Usage factor
Check BS 5400 Part 3 Eurocode 3

Bending 0.95 0.90

Shear 0.85 0.75

Shear-moment 1.25 0.90

 As built assessment of box girder
Bending – BS5400
• Gross section used for all
components except compression
flange
• Individual buckling checks on
components – weakest governs
Usage factor
Check BS 5400 Part 3 Eurocode 3

Bending 0.95 0.90

Check
Shear 0.85 0.75 Check panels
as strut for
buckling
Shear-moment 1.25 0.90

Check
as strut
 As built assessment of box girder
Shear - Eurocodes
• Same approach to design used as for
beams without longitudinal stiffeners
• Slenderness however comes from
weaker of sub-panels or overall web
buckling
Usage factor
Overall slenderness
Check BS 5400 Part 3 Eurocode 3 based on lowest cr
from:

Bending 0.95 0.90 y or:

w 
Shear 0.85 0.75
 cr

Shear-moment 1.25 0.90

 As built assessment of box girder
Shear – BS5400
• Different and typically more
cautious approach used for
beams with longitudinal stiffeners

Usage factor
Check BS 5400 Part 3 Eurocode 3 Resistance based on
lowest strength of:
Bending 0.95 0.90

Shear 0.85 0.75

Shear-moment 1.25 0.90

 As built assessment of box girder
Shear – Moment : Eurocodes
• Beams with longitudinal stiffeners
treated same way as beams
without i.e. interaction diagram
• Interaction weak in Eurocodes

Usage factor
Check BS 5400 Part 3 Eurocode 3

Bending 0.95 0.90

Shear 0.85 0.75

Shear-moment 1.25 0.90

 As built assessment of box girder
Shear – Moment : BS5400
• Immediate reduction in bending
with shear and vice versa
• Eurocode benefit due to steel
ductility and recent testing – not
all steel would comply
Usage factor
Check BS 5400 Part 3 Eurocode 3

Bending 0.95 0.90

Shear 0.85 0.75

BS 5400
Shear-moment 1.25 0.90
As built assessment of box girder
Transverse stiffeners

• Transverse stiffener design to

BS5400 Part 3 very conservative –
based on Rockey’s theory
• True behaviour is that stiffeners
attract negligible force – Hoglund’s
theory
• EN 1993 somewhere in between
• BS 5400 typical usage = 1.5
• EN 1993-1-5 typical usage = 0.9
• Benefit due to better understanding
of behaviour
As built assessment of box girder
Caveats for use of Eurocodes –
Torsional buckling
1   2 EC w 
• BD 100 requires Eurocodes to be  cr  GI T  
Ip  L2 
used for strengthening but requires
designers to justify this
• Eurocode result and method not
valid if torsional buckling can occur
below fy
- Shape limits not met to BS 5400 Part
3, but allowable to work to a reduced
stress
- Reassessed to EN 1993-1-5 but still
fails so need to strengthen stiffeners
As built assessment of piers
• Pier assessment – central point load
• Rebar is mild steel and lightly reinforced
• Only works if Eurocode strut and tie invoked with tensile strength
• Not long term solution due to deterioration
a

0.5b b

0.25b to
0.30b

b
As built assessment of piers
• Pier assessment – central point load
• Rebar is mild steel and lightly reinforced
• Only works if Eurocode strut and tie invoked with tensile strength
• Not long term solution due to deterioration
a

30

25
Bearing pressure (MPa)

20
0.5b b
15

10
0.25b to
0.30b
5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
b/a
b
As built assessment of piers
• Two point loads at shared pier
• Same conclusions

~0.125b

0.5b
b

b
Replacement Solution
Replacement Solution
Design Concept
• Work part of FRB 15 year capital programme of works
• No provision for replacement in the original design
• Box girders need to be jacked up to allow removal of
bearings from the piers
• Piers must be widened to allow correct positioning of
jacks and pier tops also need to be strengthened
- Add corbels to edges of the piers
- Reinforce pier tops and make necessary concrete/reinforcement
repairs
• Box girders require strengthening for jacking
- Bolt external bearing stiffeners to outside of web directly above
jacks
- Some web strengthening to allow holes to be drilled
- Some box strengthening required independent of bearing
replacement scheme
Replacement Solution
Design Concept

• Strengthen/recast concrete
pier tops and widen pier edges
with addition of corbels to
allow correct positioning of the
jacks
• Bearing stiffeners installed on
outside of box webs near
diaphragm regions
• Jacks positioned directly
below bearing stiffeners

Typical section through box girder

at pier locations
Replacement Solution
Jacking Stiffener Details
• Four jacks per box at intermediate supports
• Two jacks per box at end supports
• Box section jacking stiffeners
• Stiffener size and connection details varied according to girder
geometry
Replacement Solution
Jacking Stiffener Details
• Four jacks per box at intermediate supports
• Two jacks per box at end supports
• Box section jacking stiffeners
• Stiffener size and connection details varied according to girder
geometry
Replacement Solution
Corbels

Ac0
b1

d1
Limiting
line of action
area for Ac1

Ac0
h d2 3d1

Load near an
Dispersal edge (plan)
b2 3b1 at 1H : 2V
Ac1
max

FRdu  A c 0 f cd A c1 / A c 0  3.0f cd A c 0
• Bearing stresses used
Eurocode partially loaded area
rules to increase resistance
Replacement Solution

Construction sequence
for corbels
• Drill in bars
• Cast corbels
• Install temporary
restraints
• Jack up deck
• Remove bearing
• Break out concrete
• Recast top of Pier
• Replace bearing
Replacement Solution

Construction sequence
for corbels
• Drill in bars
• Cast corbels
• Install temporary
restraints
• Jack up deck
• Remove bearing
• Break out concrete
• Recast top of Pier
• Replace bearing
Replacement Solution

Construction sequence
for corbels
• Drill in bars
• Cast corbels
• Install temporary
restraints
• Jack up deck
• Remove bearing
• Break out concrete
• Recast top of Pier
• Replace bearing
Replacement Solution

Construction sequence
for corbels
• Drill in bars
• Cast corbels
• Install temporary
restraints
• Jack up deck
• Remove bearing
• Break out concrete
• Recast top of Pier
• Replace bearing
Replacement Solution

Construction sequence
for corbels
• Drill in bars
• Cast corbels
• Install temporary
restraints
• Jack up deck
• Remove bearing
• Break out concrete
• Recast top of Pier
• Replace bearing
Replacement Solution

Construction sequence
for corbels
• Drill in bars
• Cast corbels
• Install temporary
restraints
• Jack up deck
• Remove bearing
• Break out concrete
• Recast top of Pier
• Replace bearing
Replacement Solution

Before corbelling +
external stiffening:
Replacement Solution

After corbelling +
external stiffening:
Replacement Solution
Features of Scheme

• Minimal work inside the box

for H&S – external stiffeners
• Stiffeners bolted to minimise
reduction to box strength
during construction
• Only internal work is some
additional bolted longitudinal
stiffeners (to strengthen
webs before drilling) and
bolted flanges to existing
stiffeners
Replacement Solution
Features of Scheme

• Minimal work inside the box

for H&S – external stiffeners
• Stiffeners bolted to minimise
reduction to box strength
during construction
• Only internal work is some
additional bolted longitudinal
stiffeners (to strengthen
webs before drilling) and
bolted flanges to existing
stiffeners
Replacement Solution
Role of Virtual Reality Model
• To convey scheme to third parties
• To visualise complex construction sequence
- Construction sequence drawings very complicated
- DRA raised concerns over misunderstanding sequence on drgs
• For detailed visualisation of strengthening and planning
• To monitor progress
• To ease referencing of components between site and
design office
• As a learning aid for site operatives
• To allow rapid re-detailing when components don’t fit
• As-built virtual reality record
Conclusion

• BD 100 invokes Eurocodes for modification

• Use of Eurocodes significantly reduced strengthening
needed for in service
• Use of Eurocodes significantly reduced strengthening
needed for bearing replacement
• Eurocode rules will not always apply for assessment /
strengthening – care and understanding needed