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

EUROCODES
Bridges: Background and applications
1
Composite bridge design (EN1994-2)
Bridge modelling and structural analysis
Laurence DAVAINE
French Railways (SNCF) y ( )
Bridge Engineering Department (IGOA)
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 2
Contents
1. Bridge modelling
Geometry
Effective width (shear lag effect)
Modular ratios (concrete creep)
}

Cross-sectional
Modular ratios (concrete creep)
Transversal distribution
}
mechanical properties
2. The global cracked analysis according to EN 1994-2
Determination of the cracked zones on internal supports Determination of the cracked zones on internal supports
Results from the global analysis
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 3
Twin-girder bridge modelling
C3
G
P2
z
P1
x
z
y
simply supported bar model (dz=0 for every support)
half-bridge cross-section represented by its centre of gravity G
(neutral fibre)
C0
structural steel alone, or composite, mechanical properties
according to the construction phases of the bridge slab
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 4
Concrete slab thickness
Actual slab
Computed slab
S
actual
= S
computed
(same area)

actual
=
computed
(same location of the slab gravity centre G
c
)
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 5
Shear lag in the concrete slab according to EN 1994-2
eff
b
,max xx
o
xx
o
Non-uniform transverse
distribution of the
longitudinal stresses
0
750 mm b =
1 1 e
b |
2 2 e
b |
1
3.125 m b =
2
2.125 m b = 0
b
0
0 eff i ei
i
b b b | = +

min ;
8
e
ei i
L
b b
| |
=
|
\ .
1
i
| = except for end supports where 1
i
| except for end supports where
0.55 0.025 1.0
e
i
ei
L
b
| = + s
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 6
Shear lag in the concrete slab according to EN 1994-2
Equivalent span length L
e
Global analysis (calculation of internal forces and moments) : constant
along each span (equal to the value at mid-span)
Section analysis (calculation of stresses) : linearly variable along L
i
/4
surrounding the internal supports
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 7
Application to the twin-girder bridge example
C0
P1 C3
P2
60 m 80 m 60 m
L
e
(m)
0.85x60 = 51 0.7x80 = 56 0.85x60 = 51
e
( )
0.25 x (60+80) = 35 0.25 x (60+80) = 35
L (m) b
1
(m) b
2
(m) | | b
ff
(m) L
e
(m) b
e1
(m) b
e2
(m) |
1
|
2
b
eff
(m)
In-span 1 and 3 48 3.125 2.125 1 1 6.0
In-span 2 56 3.125 2.125 1 1 6.0
Internal supports P1 and P2 35 3 125 2 125 1 1 6 0 Internal supports P1 and P2 35 3.125 2.125 1 1 6.0
End supports C0 and C3 48 3.125 2.125 0.958 1.15 but < 1.0 5.869 < 6.0
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 8
Application to the twin-girder bridge example
3
P1
P2
C3
C0
2
3
L /2
L /2
L /2
0
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
L
1
/2
L
1
/2
L
2
/2
L
2
/4 L
2
/4 L
1
/4
L
1
/4
L
1
/4
L
1
/4
-2
-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
-3
-4
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 9
Composite cross-sections mechanical properties
eff
b
G
Un-cracked behaviour (mid-span regions, M
c,Ed
> 0)
R i f t l t d (i i )
c
a
A A
n
A
= +
elastic
neutral axis
c
G
G
G
y
Gc
y
Reinforcement neglected (in compression)
c
G a Ga Gc
A
Ay A y
n
y = +
( )
2
2
1
( )
a a G Ga c c G Gc
I I A y y I A y
n
y
(
= + + +

a
G
Ga
y
Cracked behaviour (support regions, M
c,Ed
< 0)
eff
b
G
E
a
= E
s
= 210 000 N/mm (n= 1)
elastic
neutral axis
s
G
G
G
y
Gs
y
a s
A A A = +
G a Ga s Gs
Ay A y A y = +
( )
2
2
a
G
Ga
y
G
y
( )
2
2
( )
a a G Ga s s G Gs
I I A y y I A y y = + + +
( )
0
s
I
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 10
Modular ratios (creep effect)
a
0
cm
E
n
E
= Short-term modular ratio:
L t d l ti
0.3
cm
cm
f
E 22000
10
| |
=
|
\ .
( )
L 0 L t
n n . 1 = + |
( )
t 0
t t | = |
Long-term modular ratio:
Creep coefficient according to EN 1992-1-1 with :
t = age of concrete at the considered time during the bridge life
t
0
= age of concrete when the considered loading is applied to the bridge
{
t
0
= 1 day for shrinkage
t
0
= mean value of age of concrete segments, in case of composites structures
cast in several stages (permanent load) g (p )
L

depends on the
load case :
Permanent loads
Shrinkage
1.1
0.55 Shrinkage
Imposed deformations
0.55
1.5
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 11
Creep coefficient according to Annex B in EN 1992-1-1
( )
0
0
0
0.3
t 0 c 0 0
H
t
t
. t .
t
t
t
t
+
| |

| = | | = | |
|
| +
\ .
(end of bridge life)
0 H \ .
( )
18
H 0 3 3
1.5. 1 0.012 RH .h 250. 1500.
(
| = + + o s o

(
( ) ( )
0
0
0 RH cm 1 2
0.2
3
0 cm
RH
1
16.8 1
100
. f . 1 . . . .
0.1
1
t
f
t
0. 0 h
(

(
( (
| = | | | = + o o
(
( (
+
(
(


with : RH = 80 % (relative humidity in the bridge area)
2A
c
0
2A
h
u
=
notional size (u is the concrete slab
perimeter exposed to drying)
0.7
1
cm
35
0.8658
f
| |
o = =
|
\ .
0.2
2
cm
35
0.9597
f
| |
o = =
|
\ .
0.5
3
cm
35
0.9022
f
| |
o = =
|
\ .
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 12
Application to the twin-girder bridge example
1 16
t =0
... ...
time (in day)
t=66 t=80 t=110
Slab segments
Beginning of concreting
Composite behaviour or
not, according to the
segment concreting order
End of
concreting
Meanvalue of concrete age :
J acking
Bridge equipments
Mean value of concrete age :
t
0
= 35.25 days
14 days
For shrinkage :
( )
1 0
,t | = |
t
0
= 49.25 days
30 days
t
0
= 1 day
n
L,1
( )
2 0
,t | = |
t
0
= 79.25 days
n
L 2
( )
3 0
,t | = |
0
y
( )
4 0
,t | = |
n
L,2
n
L,3
n
L,4
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 13
Application to the twin-girder bridge example
Short-term modular ratio
For all load cases :
a
6
E
n 1625 = =
Long-term modular ratio
For all load cases :
0
cm
6. n
E
1625 = =
Load case
L
t
0
(days) |
t
= |
0
n
L
Concrete slab segment (selfweight)
Settlement
Shrinkage
1.10
1.50
0.55
35.25
49.25
1
1.394
1.291
2.677
15.61
18.09
15.24 g
Bridge equipments 1.10 79.25 1.179 14.15
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 14
Transversal distribution between the two girders
1
F
a e a
Influence line
of the support
reaction on
i d 1
0
girder no. 1
Bridge axle
girder no. 2 Girder no.1
(modeled)
e / 2 e / 2
Bridge axle
| |
|
1
a
R F
e / 2 e / 2
a
R F
| |
=
|
\ .
1
1 R F
e
=
2
R F
e
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 15
Application to the traffic load model LM1
1. Conventional traffic lanes positioning
Lane no 1 Lane no 2 Lane no 3 Remaining area
0.5 m 1 m
3 m 3 m 3 m 2 m
Lane no.1 Lane no.2 Lane no.3 Remaining area
Bridge axle
girder no. 2 Girder no.1
(modeled)
3.5 m 3.5 m
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 16
Application to the traffic load model LM1
2. Tandem TS
Bridge axle
TS 1 per axle :
1 0 x 300 =300 kN
TS 2 per axle :
1.0 x 200 = 200 kN
TS 3 per axle :
1
R1
1.0 x 300 300 kN
1.0 x 100 = 100 kN
0
R2 R1
Influence line of the
support reaction on
girder no. 1
0.5 m
R2
1 m 2 m
Support reaction on each main girder : R
1
= 471.4 kN
128 6 R
2
= 128.6 kN
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 17
Application to the traffic load model LM1
3. Uniform Design Load UDL
Bridge axle
Load on lane no.1 :
1.0 x 9 x 3 = 27 kN/ml
Load on lane no.2 :
1.0 x 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 kN/ml
1
Load on lane no.3 :
1.0 x 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 kN/ml
LANE 1
LANE 2 LANE 3
R1
0
Influence Line
R2
0.5 m 1 m 2 m
Support reaction for each main girder : R
1
= 35.36 kN/ml
R
2
= 6.64 kN/ml
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 18
Application to the traffic load model LM1
4. Bending Moment (MN.m) for UDL and TS
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 19
Contents
1. Bridge modelling
Geometry
Effective width (shear lag effect)
Modular ratios (concrete creep)
}

Cross-sectional
Modular ratios (concrete creep)
Transversal distribution
}
mechanical properties
2. The global cracked analysis according to EN 1994-2
Determination of the cracked zones on internal supports Determination of the cracked zones on internal supports
Results from the global analysis
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 20
Structural analysis of a composite bridge girder
Uniform load q (N/m)
Concrete cracking
Static system
P
u
1
Deformed shape
Steel yielding
M
2
M
M
pl,Rd
M at mid-span with P
increasing
Class 1
Linear elastic global analysis (except for accidental
loads)
No bending redistribution is allowed
M
el,Rd
u
Class 1
Concrete cracking near internal support and steel
yielding near mid-span are taken into account through
simplified methods
Plate bucklingis neglected in the global analysis except u Plate buckling is neglected in the global analysis except
if the effective
p
area of one of the panel is lower than half
its gross area (A
eff
< 0.5 A
gross
)
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 21
1 Global cracked analysis
Stress distribution o
c
in the concrete slab for the characteristic SLS
combination of actions assuming the concrete resists in every cross
section (EI ) section (EI
1
)
In the zones where o
c
< - 2 f
ctm
, the concrete is assumed to be cracked
(and then neglected) for the bending stiffness distribution (EI
2
)
EI
EI
1
EI
1
EI
2
1
EI
1
= un-cracked composite second moment of area
(structural steel + concrete slab in compression) (structural steel + concrete slab in compression)
EI
2
= cracked composite second moment of area
(structural steel + reinforcement in tension)
This approach is not iterative (the cracked zones are
determined only once).
!
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 22
Global cracked analysis 1
Simplified method is possible if :
- no pre-stress
A
EI
2
0.15 (L
1
+ L
2
)
p
- L
min
/L
max
> 0.6
A
s
EI
1
L
1
L
2
A
c
=0
In the stiffness zones EI
2
: In the stiffness zones EI
2
:
concrete in tension is neglected
reinforcement are included
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 23
In-span steel yielding 2
Mid-span eventual yielding is taken into account if :
Class 1 or 2 at mid span (and M
Ed
> M
el,Rd
)
Class 3 or 4 on internal support Class 3 or 4 on internal support
L
min
/L
max
< 0.6
L L L
max
L
min
Class 1 or 2 Class 3 or 4
As L
min
/L
max
> 0.6 in the example, the redistribution due to
yielding near mid-span is not taken into account.
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 24
Application to the twin-girder bridge example
10
1 2 3 16 15 14 4 5 6 7 13 12 11 10 9 8
Concreting phases, Slab segments order:
5
10
(
N
/
m
m

)
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

s
l
a
b

(
i
c

S
L
S

c
o
m
b
-10
-5
2
ctm
2f 6.4 N/mm =
S
t
r
e
s
s
e
s

i
n

c
o
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
-15
x = 35.0 m x = 76.0 m
x = 124.0 m x = 152.0 m
S
Cracked zone for P1
41.0 % 19.5 %
Cracked zone for P2
19.5 % 20.0 %
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 25
Application to the twin-girder bridge example
80
100
Characteristic SLS
SLS and ULS bending moment distribution M
Ed
(= M
a,Ed
+ M
c,Ed
)
42.58 41.01
47.18
57.59
55.42
63.90
40
60
80
Fundamental ULS
0
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 m
e
n
t

(
M
N
.
m
)
-40
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
-84.56
-81.67
-80
-60
-112.72
-109.35
-120
-100
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 26
Application to the twin-girder bridge example
SLS and ULS shear force distribution V
Ed
8 12 7 47
10
6.02
5.98
8.12
4.83
7.47
6
8
Characteristic SLS
Fundamental ULS
2.78
2
4
e
s

(
M
N
)
-1.90
-2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
S
h
e
a
r

f
o
r
c
e
-6.04
-5.74
8
-6
-4
-8.14
-8.01
-10
-8
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 27
Application to the twin-girder bridge example
400
ULS stresses (N/mm) along the steel flanges, calculated without concrete resistance
272.6
277.5
200
300
100
-100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
-287.1
292 6
-300
-200
-292.6
-400
Dissemination of information for training Vienna, 4-6 October 2010 28
Thank you for your kind attention !