2010 Bridges AnalysisandModelling LDavaine

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
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
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
Concrete slab thickness
Actual slab
Computed slab
S
actual
= S
computed
(same area)
actual
=
computed
(same location of the slab gravity centre G
c
)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 = =
|
\ .
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
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
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
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
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
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
4. Bending Moment (MN.m) for UDL and TS
Contents
1. Bridge modelling
Geometry
Effective width (shear lag effect)
}
Cross-sectional
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
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
)
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).
!
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
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.
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 %
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
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
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
Thank you for your kind attention !

2010 Bridges AnalysisandModelling LDavaine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Bridges AnalysisandModelling LDavaine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Composite bridge design (EN1994-2)

You might also like