Professional Documents
Culture Documents
P R O J E C T
P R O J E C T O
E R A S M U S
An
DEJONGH
June
2014
E R A S M U S
P R O J E C T
P R O J E C T O
E R A S M U S
S u p e r v i s o r
Ir.
Ricardo
Santos
Co-supervisor
Ir.
Stef
Pillaert
An
DEJONGH
June
2014
Preface
When
the
opportunity
of
studying
abroad
was
offered
by
the
Catholic
University
of
Leuven,
I
didnt
hesitate
for
a
moment,
I
needed
to
do
this.
The
opportunity
of
discover
a
new
country,
city,
culture
and
language
and
this
all
combined
with
an
educational
enrichment
was
too
good
to
refuse.
Arriving
all
alone
in
Porto,
I
had
no
idea
what
to
expect
from
the
school,
neither
of
the
city
itself
and
his
inhabitants.
Luckily
for
me
I
had
a
warm
welcoming
from
the
school.
I
quickly
started
to
discover
the
city
with
all
its
beauty
and
hidden
places.
I
was
impressed
by
the
friendliness
of
the
Portuguese
people
and
the
pleasant
atmosphere
of
the
city.
Being
taking
out
of
my
comfort
zone,
had
a
big
impact
on
my
live
and
it
was
not
always
easy.
Although
the
experience
I
got
in
replace
is
indescribable.
What
I
learned
here
on
this
short
period
of
time
I
would
never
been
able
to
learn
if
I
had
stayed
at
home.
This
experience
taught
me
thinks
that
will
have
an
influence
on
the
rest
of
my
live.
I
was
very
honored
to
do
a
project
about
the
Ponte
D.
Luis
I,
the
symbol
of
Porto
and
at
the
same
time
a
connection
with
my
Belgian
roots,
since
it
was
engineered
by
the
Belgian
engineer
Thophile
Seyrig.
The
structure
is
impressive
and
a
real
master
piece.
The
fact
that
it
is
situated
in
the
middle
of
the
city
center
gave
me
the
opportunity
to
make
multiple
visits
which
only
increased
my
admiration
and
interested
for
this
structure.
To
realize
this
project
I
got
the
great
help
of
some
people
which
I
would
sincerely
like
to
thank
for
that.
First
of
all
a
special
thank
you
to
professor
Ricardo
Santos,
to
be
my
supervisor
and
helping
me
realize
this
project.
It
was
not
always
easy
and
a
lot
of
struggling
came
together
with
creating
the
3D-
model.
I
was
always
welcome
in
his
office
and
a
lot
of
hours
were
spend
on
realizing
the
correct
model
and
solving
my
problems
and
questions.
Thank
you
a
lot
professor
Santos
for
all
these
hours
of
great
help,
sharing
your
interested
and
knowledge
about
bridges
with
me
and
teaching
me
about
the
Portuguese
culture
and
traditions.
Secondly
a
big
thank
you
to
professor
Stef
Pillaert
to
be
my
co-supervisor
in
Belgium
and
for
helping
me
with
my
questions
regarding
the
Scia
Engineering
software.
I
could
always
count
on
a
quick,
structured
and
comprehensive
answer.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
both
schools,
the
catholic
university
of
Leuven
campus
Ghent
and
Instituito
Superior
de
Engenharia
do
Porto,
for
making
this
exchange
possible.
A
special
thank
you
to
Guido
Kips,
Barbara
Wauman,
Ilse
Roelands
and
Gudrun
Van
den
Abeele
for
taking
care
of
the
paper
work
and
maintained
the
international
relations.
Also
Goreti
Arajo
,
head
of
international
office
at
ISEP,
for
the
warm
welcoming
and
guiding
me
through
the
school.
Last
but
not
least
I
would
like
to
thank
Pedro
Ribeiro
da
Silva,
for
offering
me
a
work
spot
in
his
architect
office,
Anarchlab.
Roisin
Slattery
and
Jan
Reynders
for
correcting
the
grammatical
English.
A
special
thank
you
to
engineer
Thomas
Alaert
for
the
help
that
he
offered
me
and
Hctor
Termenon
Lopez
for
borrowing
me
his
computer,
when
mine
was
broken
and
of
course
my
parents
and
boyfriend
for
the
emotional
support.
Copyright
The
authors
give
permission
to
make
this
Master's
thesis
available,
on
paper
and
digital,
for
consultation
and
to
copy
parts
of
the
Master's
thesis
for
personal
use.
Any
other
use
falls
under
the
limitations
of
the
copyright,
especially
with
regard
to
the
obligation
of
mentioning
the
source
explicitly
on
quoting
the
results
of
this
Master's
thesis.
Direitos
de
autor
Os
autores
do
autorizao
para
consultar
esta
tesenas
verses
impressa
e
digital,
e
para
copiar
partes
para
uso
prprio.
Qualquer
outro
uso
est
sujeito
aos
limites
estritos
dos
direitos
de
autor;
em
partucular,
feita
referncia
obrigao
de
indicar
a
fonte
explicitamente
ao
citar
os
resultados
desta
tese.
Toelating
tot
bruikleen
De
auteurs
geven
de
toelating
deze
masterproef
op
papier
en
digitaal
voor
consultatie
beschikbaar
te
stellen
en
delen
ervan
te
kopiren
voor
eigen
gebruik.
Elk
ander
gebruik
valt
onder
de
strikte
beperkingen
van
het
auteursrecht;
in
het
bijzonder
wordt
er
gewezen
op
de
verplichting
de
bron
uitdrukkelijk
te
vermelden
bij
het
aanhalen
van
de
resultaten
van
deze
masterproef.
Abstract
This
work
is
in
sequel
to
the
thesis
Modelling
and
structural
analysis
of
Ponte
D.
Luis
I
written
by
my
colleagues
Jan
Danils
and
Sara
Pieters
in
the
academic
year
2012-2013.
In
this
dissertation
the
lower
deck
of
the
Ponte
D.
Luiz
I
bridge
is
modelled
and
structurally
analyzed.
A
full
3D
model
is
created,
based
on
the
original
survey
conducted
in
1954
and
local
observations
made
on
visits
to
the
site.
The
calculations
were
performed
using
a
finite
element
model
and
the
software
Scia
Engineering,
with
the
loads
defined
on
Eurocode
1,
Parts
1
and
2.
Stresses
and
deformations
considering
second
order
effectswere
calculated
in
order
to
check
the
safety
of
this
sub-structure
to
the
loads
defined
on
the
Eurocodes.
These
values
are
closer
to
the
loads
the
bridge
has
to
endure
nowadays
than
the
loads
it
had
to
bear
at
the
time
of
its
construction.
keywords:
Porto;
Ponte
D.
Luis
I;
Theophile
Seyrig;
Iron
arch
bridge;
finite
element
method
Abstrato
Este
trabalho,
que
surge
na
sequncia
da
tese
Modelling
and
Structural
analysis
of
Ponte
D.
Lus
I
realizado
pelos
meus
colegas
Jan
Daniels
and
Sara
Pieters
durante
o
ano
lectivo
2012-
2013.
Nesta
dissertao,
o
tabuleiro
inferior
da
Ponte
D.
Luis
I
modelado
e
analisado
estruturalmente.
Foi
criado
um
modelo
3D
baseado
no
projecto
original
levado
a
cabo
em
1954
e
em
observaes
efectuadas
ao
local.
Os
clculos
foram
realizados
utilizando
o
Mtodo
de
Elementos
Finitos
e
o
software
de
Engenharia
SCIA,
com
as
cargas
definidas
no
Eurocdigo
1,
Partes
1
e
2.
O
stress
e
as
deformaes
considerando
os
efeitos
de
segunda
ordem
foram
calculados
de
forma
a
verificar
a
segurana
desta
sub-estrutura
em
relao
s
cargas
definidas
no
Eurocdigo.
Estes
valores
esto
mais
prximos
das
cargas
que
a
ponte
tem
de
suportar
hoje
em
dia,
do
que
as
cargas
que
teve
de
suportar
na
altura
da
sua
construco.
Palavras-chave:
Porto;
Ponte
D.
Lus
I;
Theophile
Seyrig;
Ponte
em
arco
de
ferro;
Mtodo
dos
Elementos
Finitos
Abstract
Dit
werk
is
een
vervolg
op
de
thesis
Modeling
and
structural
analysis
of
Ponte
D.
Luis
I
geschreven
door
mijn
collegas
Jan
Danils
en
Sara
Pieters
in
het
academiejaar
2012-2013.
In
dit
werk
wordt
het
onderdek
van
de,
Ponte
D.
Luiz
I-brug
gemodeleerd
en
structureel
geanalyseerd.
Een
volledig
3D
model
werd
gemaakt,
gebaseerd
op
originele
plannen
uit
1954
en
locale
observatie
gedaan
ter
plaatsen.
De
berekeningen
worden
uitgevoerd
gebruikmakend
van
de
eindige
elementen
methode
and
de
software
Scia
Engineering,
met
de
ladingen
gedefineerd
volgens
Eurocode
1,
deel
1
en
2.
Spanningen
en
vervorming
-
2de
orde
effecten
in
rekening
gebracht
-
zijn
berekend
in
functie
van
het
controleren
van
de
veiligheid
van
deze
onderbouw
met
de
belastingen
erop,
gedefinieerd
volgens
de
Eurocodes.
De
waarden
hiervan
leunen
meer
aan
tegen
de
ladingen
die
de
brug
hedendaags
moet
aankunnen
dan
de
ladingen
waarvoor
ze
oorspronkelijk
ontworpen
was.
Sleutelwoorden:
Porto;
Ponte
D.
Luis
I;
Theophile
Seyrig;
Iron
arche
bridge;
EEM
Table of Contents
Preface
..........................................................................................................................................
3
Abstract
.........................................................................................................................................
5
Abstrato
........................................................................................................................................
6
Abstract
.........................................................................................................................................
7
List
of
illustrations
.......................................................................................................................
10
List
of
tables
................................................................................................................................
11
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.
Modeling ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.
2.1.
Description .................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.
Measurements ............................................................................................................ 14
2.3.
Sections ....................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.
2.5.
Properties .................................................................................................................... 17
Loads
...................................................................................................................................
20
3.1.
3.2.
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
3.3.
3.4.
Wind ............................................................................................................................ 25
3.4.1.
3.4.2.
3.5.
4.
5.
6.
5.1.
Classification ............................................................................................................... 36
5.2.
Buckling ....................................................................................................................... 39
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
Model 0 ....................................................................................................................... 46
Calculations
.........................................................................................................................
49
6.1.
6.2.
6.2.1.
6.2.2.
6.2.3.
General ................................................................................................................ 59
6.3.
7.
6.3.1.
6.3.2.
General ................................................................................................................ 66
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 67
Bibliography
................................................................................................................................
68
Annexes
.......................................................................................................................................
69
List of illustrations
Figuur
1:
measurement
of
tietruss
.............................................................................................
14
Figuur
2:
arch
formed
deck,
picture
(left)
flat
formed
deck,
3D
model
(right)
........................
15
Figuur
3:
section
of
the
deck
by
the
original
plans
(left)
photo
of
the
deck
from
bottom
view
(right)
..........................................................................................................................................
16
Figuur
4:
bottom
view
deck,
3D
model
.......................................................................................
16
Figuur
5:
bridge
picture
(up)
model
(down)
..........................................................................
18
Figuur
6:
detail
pillar
bottom
view
picture
(left)
model
(right)
.............................................
18
Figuur
7:
structural
reinforcement-
picture
(left)
model
(right)
..............................................
19
Figuur
8:
pillar,
bottom
view
picture
(left)
model
(right)
.......................................................
19
Figuur
9
Application
of
TS
and
UDL
along
the
longitudinal
axis
-Application
of
LM1
on
the
notional
lanes-
Location
of
tandem
system
for
the
verification
of
short
structural
members
...
21
Figuur
10
directions
of
the
axes
of
the
wind
on
bridges
.............................................................
25
Figuur
11:
solidity
ratio
...............................................................................................................
29
Figuur
12
terrain
category
and
terrain
parameters
...................................................................
29
Figuur
13:
diagrammatic
representation
of
constituent
components
of
a
temperature
profile
30
Figuur
14:
Thermal
map
of
Portugal
for
Tmin
(left)
and
Tmax
(right)
.............................................
31
Figuur
15:
effective
mimimum
and
maximum
temperature
......................................................
31
Figuur
16:
possibility
too
expand
................................................................................................
32
Figuur
17:
classification
of
the
web
............................................................................................
38
Figuur
18:
classification
of
the
flanges
........................................................................................
38
Figuur
19:
bridge,
buckling
control
.............................................................................................
39
Figuur
20:
cross
section
T1
..........................................................................................................
39
Figuur
21:
buckling
curves
..........................................................................................................
41
Figuur
22:
cross
section,
T2
.........................................................................................................
42
Figuur
23:
Von
Mises
stress,
self
weight
.....................................................................................
48
Figuur
24:
differences
between
the
bridge
and
the
2D/3D
model
.............................................
49
Figuur
25:
maximum
internal
forces
on
beams,
LM1
.................................................................
52
Figuur
26:
combination
key
........................................................................................................
53
Figuur
27:
representation
of
beam
s14367
.................................................................................
54
Figuur
28:
Stress
in
beam
s14367,
model1
.................................................................................
54
Figuur
29:
Stress
in
beam
s16149
...............................................................................................
55
Figuur
30:
representation
of
beam
s16149
.................................................................................
55
10
List of tables
Tabel
1:
projcet
data
(left)
wrought
iron
properties
(right)
.....................................................
17
Tabel
2:
number
and
width
of
notional
lanes
.............................................................................
22
Tabel
3:
load
model1,
characteristic
values
................................................................................
22
Tabel
4:
load
classes
for
road
bridges
.........................................................................................
23
Tabel
5:
uniform
linear
gradient
over
a
vertical
direction
..........................................................
33
Tabel
6:
desing
valeus
of
actions
(STR/GEO)
(Set
B)
...................................................................
34
Tabel
7:
recommended
values
of
factor
for
road
bridges
.......................................................
35
Tabel
8:
selection
of
buckling
curve
for
a
cross-section
.............................................................
41
Tabel
9:
Reaction
forces
of
the
deck
subjected
to
dead
loads
....................................................
47
Tabel
10:
dead
load
of
the
suspension
trusses
...........................................................................
48
Tabel
11:
description
of
the
different
loadcases,
LM1
................................................................
51
Tabel
12:
description
of
the
different
load
cases,
LM4
...............................................................
60
Tabel
13:
Reaction
forces
LM4
....................................................................................................
65
11
1. Introduction
This
assignment
is
a
sequence
to
Modeling
and
structural
analysis
of
Ponte
D.
Luis
I,
written
by
my
colleagues
Jan
Danils
and
Sara
Pieters.
In
this
sequel
on
their
work
the
lower
deck
of
Ponte
D.
Luis
I
is
modeled
and
analyzed.
For
the
first
part
of
this
work,
a
model
was
created
in
scia
engineer.
A
lot
of
time
was
needed
to
obtain
the
right
skills
to
tune
the
model
into
a
very
detailed
model.
Secondly
,
the
determination
of
the
different
loads
and
description
of
the
different
load
models
was
done
according
to
Eurocode
1.
For
the
third
part
classifications
and
other
general
controls
are
done
by
hand.
The
loads
described
in
the
second
part
are
now
put
together
on
different
models
were
their
effect
is
generated
and
analyzed.
In
the
last
part,
the
model
is
fully
discussed
and
a
final
conclusion
together
with
suggestion
for
the
structure
is
given.
12
2. Modeling
2.1.
Description
The
bridge
Pond
D.
Luis
I.
is
the
biggest
tourist
attraction
of
Porto,
located
in
the
middle
of
the
centre
connecting
the
city
centre
of
Porto
and
Vila
Nova
de
Gaia.
The
bridge
was
realized
from
1881
to
1886
and
became
famous
with
the
name
Eiffel
Bridge,
meanwhile
the
bridge
was
designed
by
the
Belgian
engineer
Thophile
Seyrig.
The
bridge
consist
out
of
3
parts,
the
upper
deck,
the
arch
and
the
lower
deck.
On
the
upper
part
a
metro-connection
between
the
two
cities
is
realized,
as
well
as
a
relatively
safe
sidewalk
for
pedestriants
to
cross
from
one
city
to
the
other.
The
lower
part
is
designed
for
the
traffic
of
motor
vehicles
to
pass
between
the
two
cities.
Also
a
narrow
footpath
is
provided
which
enables
the
pedestrians
to
cross
the
bridge
by
the
bottom
deck.
Eventhough
this
facility
for
pedestriants
is
less
safe,
in
comparison
to
the
option
on
the
upper
deck,
it
is
frequently
used,
especially
by
tourists.
The
structural
part
of
the
lower
deck
amounts
174m
in
length
and
8.4m
in
wide.
The
deck
is
provided
with
two
car-lanes
(8.14m),
each
with
a
different
direction,
and
on
each
side
of
the
deck
a
sidewalk
(1.2m).
The
structure
is
suspended
from
4
tie-trusses,
which
are
each
connected
to
the
arch.
The
two
outer
tie-trusses
have
a
height
of
25.5
m.
The
two
in
the
middle
have
a
height
of
41.3m.
The
bridge
is
a
pony
truss
bridge,
symmetrical
around
its
middle.
To
invert
this
structure
into
a
model
several
sources
are
used.
The
basic
model
is
created
from
the
original
plans.
The
plans
are
old,
hard
to
read
and
are
missing
essential
dimensions.
In
order
to
complete
and
define
the
model,
extra
dimensions
were
necessary.
These
dimensions
were
obtained
by
measurements,
done
by
professor
Santos
and
student
An
Dejongh.
Multiple
visits
to
the
bridge
were
necessary
in
order
to
check
the
dimensions,
define
the
orientations
and
the
composition
of
sections,
establish
the
types
of
connections
and
supports
and
to
eliminate
doubts
and
contradiction
between
the
different
plans.
13
2.2.
Measurements
The
extra
measurements
done
by
professor
Santos
and
An
Dejongh,
with
HILTI
PD32
laser
range
meter,
are
mostly
related
to
the
tie-trusses.
The
plans
give
no
specification
of
them,
assign
were
only
related
to
the
dimensions
of
the
autoCAD-file
PONTE001.DWG.
The
autoCAD-file
on
the
other
hand
had
no
information
about
the
chord
truss
at
the
bottom
of
the
tie-trusses.
This
elements
contributes
to
the
stiffness
of
the
structure
and
also
prevents
the
pillars
from
buckling,
they
are
seen
as
important
structural
elements,
which
need
to
be
taken
into
account.
The
method
applied
for
these
measurements
is
based
on
simple
trigonometry,
as
shown
in
figure
1.
Figuur
1:
measurement
of
tietruss
The
unknown
dimension
d,
is
calculated
out
of
the
other
measured
dimension
by
applying
the
Pythagorean
triple.
The
measurements
can
be
found
in
the
annex
1.
The
general
height
of
the
first
element
is
also
measured
in
order
to
compare
with
the
dimension
given
in
autoCAD-file
PONTE001.DWG.
This
measurement
was
very
close
to
the
dimension
given
in
the
autoCAD
file.
The
other
dimensions
for
the
tie-trusses,
are
also
taken
out
of
this
file,
since
it
was
not
possible
to
do
this
measurements
our
self,
with
the
available
material.
14
2.3.
Sections
The
model
is
a
simplified
version
of
the
reality,
which
only
contains
structural
elements
and
pinned
and
rigid
connections.
The
simplifications
are
made
in
such
a
way
that
the
reality
is
approached
as
accurate
as
possible.
The
following
important
specifications
are
made
regarding
the
sections
and
connections.
Where
possible
the
sections
are
substitute
by
commercial
sections.
This
choice
is
based
on
common
area
and
moments
of
inertia,
taken
into
account
is
the
formula
for
tension:
! !! ! !! !
= +
+
!
!!
!!
There
were
the
construction
is
mostly
subjected
to
deflection,
the
moment
of
inertia
is
the
most
important
parameter
to
admit.
The
deck
is
designed
in
a
way
that
the
beams
are
principally
burdened
on
their
strongest
axis.
For
finding
a
suitable
commercial
section,
the
moment
of
inertia
of
the
strongest
axis
needed
to
be
correct.
The
diagonals
on
the
side
of
the
bridge,
are
mostly
subjected
to
axial
forces
and
buckling.
Therefore
the
area
is
the
most
important
parameter.
When
choosing
a
replaceable
profile,
the
area
must
be
identical.
About
the
tie-trusses
no
information
was
available,
the
cross-sections
are
defined
based
on
the
pictures.
2.4.
The
deck
is
modeled
flat,
in
reality
it
has
an
arch
form,
see
figure
2.
This
simplification
has
affects
on
the
load
transmission.
Under
the
arch
form
a
small
part
of
the
transversal
load
will
be
transferred
to
an
axial
load.
The
arch
is
orientated
in
a
way
that
it
will
reduce
the
deflection.
Due
to
this
signification
in
the
SCIA
model
the
value
of
axial
forces
will
be
a
little
bit
too
low
and
the
deformation
of
the
deck
will
be
higher
than
in
reality.
Figuur 2: arch formed deck, picture (left) flat formed d eck, 3D model (right)
15
Sometimes
there
were
contradictions
between
the
plans
and
reality.
For
example
an
important
error
on
the
plans,
is
the
cross
section
of
the
beams,
indicated
by
the
red
arrow,
on
figure
3.
In
reality
this
is
no
I
beam,
see
figure
3
and
4.
Figuur
3:
section
of
the
d eck
by
the
original
plans
(left)
photo
of
the
deck
from
bottom
view
(right)
16
2.5.
Properties
The
model
is
very
detailed,
and
consist
out
of
an
wrought
iron
structure
with
concrete
slabs.
An
overview
of
the
properties
of
the
project
data
is
given
in
table
2
,
the
material
properties
of
wrought
iron
are
given
in
table
1
1.
Wrought
iron
N
mm!
!!"
157,5
!!"
105
192,7
N
mm!
!"
!!!
0,2554
7700 kg/m!
8400 kg/m
!2
0,00001 m/C
To
obtain
the
design
yield
stress
the
following
formula
is
applied:
f!" =
!!"
!
with
s:
reduction
factor
for
materials
As
reduction
factor
for
materials,
s
=
1,5
is
used
instead
of
the
normal
s
=
1,15.
This
is
done
in
order
to
take
into
account
the
not
as
homogeneous
structure
of
wrought
iron.
,
s
=
1,15
The
big
amount
of
nodes
and
beams
indicates
the
complexity
of
the
model.
The
following
figures
5,6,7
and
8
compare
the
structure
with
the
model.
1
Jan
Danils,
Sara
Pieters,
Modeling
and
structural
analysis
of
Ponte
D.
Luis
I,
2013
17
18
19
3. Loads
3.1.
Self weight
Dead
loads
of
the
structure
and
the
deck
are
the
same
as
applied
in
the
previous
model.
Gk
=5,15
kN/m.
Total
permanent
dead
load:
2,02
+
3,13
=
5,15kN/m
3.2.
Vertical loads
For
the
vertical
loads,
4
different
load
models
are
defined
in
EN
1991-23:
A
main
load
model
(LM1),
including
concentrated
loads
(tandem
systems,
called
TS)
and
uniformly
distributed
loads
(called
UDS)
and
applicable
to
all
bridges
A
model
consisting
of
a
single
axle
with
two
wheels
(LM2),
in
addition
to
the
previous
one
(LM1)
for
the
verification
of
short
structural
members
(3-7m)
A
model
made
up
by
a
set
of
special
vehicles
intended
to
take
into
account
the
effects
of
exceptional
convoys
(LM3)
A
model
corresponding
to
the
loading
of
the
surface
of
the
bridge
with
a
uniformly
distributed
load
of
5
kN/m,
corresponding
to
the
effects
(dynamic
amplification
included)
of
a
crowd
(LM4).
For
this
study
load
model
1
and
4
are
taken
into
account.
Load
model
1
is
the
most
general
model,
the
model
mimics
the
common
traffic
effects.
It
takes
in
account
the
uniformly
distributed
loads
and
the
point
forces
caused
by
the
vehicles.
The
model
gives
information
about
local
and
general
effects.
Load
model
4,
the
model
that
generates
the
effect
of
a
crowd
has
to
be
checked
since
the
bridge
is
used
for
events,
such
as
sport
events.
Load
model
3
doesnt
need
to
be
generated,
since
the
bridge
is
limited
for
vehicles
up
till
30
ton,
special
vehicles
are
redirected
through
another
route.
3
J.
Calgaro,
M.
Tschumi,
H
Gulvanessian,
Designers
guide
to
Eurocode
1:
Actions
on
bridges:
EN
1991-2,
EN
1991-
1-1,-1-3
to
-1-7
and
EN
1990
Annex
A2,
Thomas
Telford,
London,
UK,
2010,
ISBN
978-0-7277-3158-6,
p.
84
97;
p.
216
-
221
20
3.2.1.
Load model 1
This
model
is
based
on
the
guidelines
given
in
NBN
EN
1991-2,
version
of
2013,
in
combination
with
the
national
annex
and
the
book
Designers
guide
to
Eurocode
1:
Actions
on
bridges
EN1991-2,
EN1991-1-1,
-1-3
to
-1-7
and
EN1990
Annex
A2.
Figuur
9
Application
of
TS
and
UDL
along
the
longitudinal
axis
-Application
of
LM1
on
the
notional
lanes-
Location
of
tandem
system
for
the
verification
of
short
structural
members
To
use
a
various
load
model,
the
carriageway
needs
to
be
divided
into
notional
lanes.
Depending
on
the
width
w,
the
carriageway
has
to
be
divided
into
the
greatest
possible
integer
number
of
notional
lanes,
n1.
The
width
w,
is
measured
between
the
kerbs,
situation
(b)
on
figure
10.
Table
2
is
used
to
find
the
number
of
notional
lanes.
Figuur
10:
carriageway
widths
21
w
=
5,79
m
5,4 m w < 6m
nl
=
2
w! =
!
5,79 !
=
= 2, 895 !
2
2
with
w
:
width
of
the
deck
measured
between
kerbs
n1
:
greatest
number
of
notional
lanes
w1
:
width
of
a
notional
lane
The
lanes
are
numbered
in
a
way
that
the
lane
with
the
most
negative
effect
gets
the
lowest
number.
Taken
into
account
rule
5
of
4.2.4
Location
and
numbering
of
the
lanes
for
design,
NBN
EN
1991-24
:
Where
the
carriageway
consists
of
two
separate
parts
on
the
same
deck,
only
one
numbering
should
be
used
for
the
whole
carriageway.
So
both
lanes
are
considered
as
one
single
lane
with
lane
number
1.
The
vertical
loads
on
the
lane
can
be
divided
in
2
different
categories.
The
loads
due
to
a
tandem
system
including
two
axles
TS
and
the
uniformly
distributed
loads
(UDL).
For
TS
only
complete
tandem
systems
are
taken
into
account.
The
UDL
is
only
placed
when
it
generates
a
global
unfavorable
effect.
The
characteristic
values
are
found
back
in
table3.
Tabel
3:
load
model1,
characteristic
values
4
NBN
EN
1991-2,
p
33
22
The
adjustment
factors
take
into
account
the
various
types
of
traffic,
are
given
by
table
4.
The
Luis
I
bridge
is
considered
as
a
2nd
class
road
bridges.
This
gives
the
following
results:
TS:
Q
x
Q1k
=
0,9
x
300
kN
=270
kN
Wheel
load:
UDL:
120 !"
! + 30 ! !
= 2 +
= 2,6
120 !"
174 + 30 ! !
!"
!!
with
qfk
must
be
2,5 !"/! !!" 5 !"/!,
so
the
value
2,6 !"/!
is
accepted.
23
3.2.2.
Load model 4
The
distributed
load
that
represents
the
effect
of
a
crowd
is
5
kN/m.
3.3.
Horizontal loads
Longitudinal
forces
due
to
breaking
and
acceleration,
take
on
the
surfacing
level
of
the
carriageway.
The
characteristic
value
is
limited
to
900
kN
and
is
calculated
as
a
fraction
of
the
total
maximum
vertical
loads
due
to
LM1
and
applied
on
lane
number
1.
!!" = 0,6 !!! 2!!! + 0,1 !!! !!! !! !
180 !!! !" !!" 900 (!")
with
L:
2!!! :
!!! :
!! :
!!! :
!!! :
For
the
bridge,
the
following
values
are
applied;
L
=
174
m
2!!! =
2*300
=
600
kN
!!! = 9
kN/m
!! =
2, 895 !
!!! =
0,9
!!! =
0.7
!!" = 0,6 0,9 600 + 0,1 0,7 9 2.895 174 = 641.35 !"
!!"
is
accepted
162 !" 641.35 900 !"
This
load
is
distributed
over
the
deck
as
a
surface
load
!"#.!"
!"#!,!"
= 0,45 kN/m! .
24
3.4.
Wind
3.4.1.
The
calculation
of
the
wind
load
is
based
on
EN
1991-1-4
in
combination
with
the
Portuguese
national
annex.
For
the
wind
only
1
of
the
4
wind
directions
is
calculated.
In
the
most
common
situations
the
wind
blows
over
the
bridge
originating
from
the
west
or
the
east.
Which
corresponds
with
wind
coming
from
the
ocean
towards
the
land
or
the
other
way
around,
from
the
land
towards
the
ocean.
More
unusual
situations
when
the
wind
is
blowing
from
the
north
or
the
south
are
not
taken
into
account.
The
stiffness
of
the
bridge
along
with
the
longitudinal
length
is
high
enough
to
carry
this
force.
The
western
wind
comes
in
from
the
Atlantic
Ocean
and
is
stronger
than
the
eastern
wind.
Therefore
only
the
wind
originated
in
the
west
is
calculated.
In
the
situation
where
the
wind
comes
from
the
west,
the
wind
loads
will
be
attached
on
the
x-direction
of
the
deck,
see
fig11
.
This
x-direction
corresponds
with
the
width
of
the
deck,
perpendicular
to
the
span.
Figuur
10
directions
of
the
axes
of
the
wind
on
bridges
25
There
is
no
dynamic
response
calculation
required,
this
allows
the
use
of
a
simplified
method
with
the
following
formula:
!
!! = ! !! ! ! ! !"#,!
!
!!
!
= ! !! ! !
! !"#,!
!
With:
:
air
density
vb
:
basic
wind
speed
C
:
global
wind
factor
Aref,x
:
reference
area
in
the
x
direction
(
=
A1)
sum
of
the
projected
surfaces
of
the
profiles
perpendicular
to
the
most
unfavourable
wind
direction.
Important
remark:
1) when
the
reference
area
is
used
in
combination
with
traffic
loads,
in
the
case
where
traffic
loads
are
the
leading
action
an
additional
height
d*
should
be
taken
into
account.
For
road
bridges
d*=
2
m
from
the
level
of
the
carriageway
to
the
most
unfavourable
length
on
the
deck,
independently
from
the
position
of
the
vertical
components
of
the
traffic
load.
Since
this
bridge
is
one
of
the
rare
cases
where
the
fences
are
higher
than
the
actual
vehicles
riding
on
the
bridge,
d*
will
be
smaller
than
d.
For
this
reason
no
distinction
is
made
between
traffic
loads
as
leading
or
non-leading
action,
and
height
d
is
applied
in
both
cases.
vb
The
basic
wind
value
vb
is
calculated
using
the
following
formula;
cdir
=
1
cseason
=
1
vb,0
depends
on
the
zone
in
which
the
construction
is
situated.
Zone
A:
the
majority
of
territories,
except
for
those
who
belong
to
zone
B.
Zone
B:
the
Azores,
Madeira
and
mainland
regions
located
in
a
coastal
zone
off
5
km
wide
or
at
altitudes
above
600
m.
The
bridge
is
situated
in
zone
B,
which
corresponds
to
a
value
vb,0
=
30
m/s.
26
ce
:
exposure
factor
cf,x
:
drag
coefficient
for
wind
actions
c!,! = c!,!" =
1.30
with
!! (!)
!! ! =
with
!! = ! !! ! = 1,25 30 !
!!
!"#$.!"
!"#.!
=
1.95
q
p(z)
:
extreme
thrust
on
high
z
q
b:
basic
thrush
= 562.5
!!
!"
!!
!
with
! =
density
!! =
basic
wind
speed
! = 1,25
!! = 30
q !(!) = 1 + 7 I! z
= 1097.14
!
!!
= 1,25
!"
!!
v! z = c! z c! z v! = 0.929 1 30
!
=
27.87
with
c! z = 1
c! z = k ! ln
= 0.929
c! z :
roughness
factor
c! z :
orography
factor
v! : basic
wind
speed
z
11.8
= 0,170 ln
z!
0,05
with
!,!"
= 0,19
0,01
0,05
!,!"
= 0,170
I! z =
!
4.68
=
= 0,18
v! (z)
25.57
with
turbulence
! = k ! v! k !
= 0.156 30 1
!
= 4.68
!
with
k ! :
roughness
factor
v! : basic
wind
speed
k ! :
turbulence
factor
k ! = 0.156
!
vb
=
30
!
k ! = 1
28
=>
F!
1
N
!"
= 1,25 30! 2.536 = 1426.5 ! = !. !"# !
A !"#,!
2
m
!
Aref,x
=
322.78
m
A2
=
563.76
m2
with
Since
Aref,x
is
not
practical
to
work
with
in
the
SCIA
model,
the
loads
will
be
put
on
A2.
With
A2
:
sum
of
the
whole
projected
surface
of
the
profiles
perpendicular
to
the
most
unfavourable
wind
direction.
F!
F!
A !"#,!
322.78
!"
=
= 1.427
= !. !"# !
A!
A !"#,!
A!
563.76
!
This
force
is
put
on
the
first
side
of
the
bridge.
For
the
second
side
of
the
solidity
ratio
is
taken
into
account.
The
solidity
ratio
is
described
in
the
following
expression:
=
!!
!"".!" !!
!"#.!" !!
= 0,57
with
A
=
322.78
m2
Ac
=
563.76
m2
!!
!!
!"
!!
29
3.4.2.
In
normal
circumstances
the
pillars
are
subjected
to
tensile
as
an
effect
of
the
self-weight
of
the
bridge.
When
the
pillars
are
also
subjected
to
wind,
the
situation
of
complete
tensile
will
shift
to
a
situation
of
tensile
and
pressure.
For
the
stability
the
maximal
pressure
allowed
within
the
pillars
should
be
checked,
along
with
the
different
buckling-controls.
In
order
to
do
this
a
separate
study
should
be
done.
An
option
for
this
would
be
to
do
a
simulation
on
the
model
in
a
wind
tunnel.
Another
option
could
be
a
separate
study
of
the
deck,
where
the
effect
of
the
wind,
only
on
the
deck
is
visualized.
Therefore
the
forces
on
the
deck,
due
to
the
wind,
can
be
placed
on
the
pillars.
Both
of
these
options,
are
left
aside
for
this
study.
3.5.
Thermal actions
The
deck
of
the
bridge,
corresponds
to
type
II:
composed
deck,
given
in
EN
199-1-5.
The
thermal
effects
in
the
bridge
decks
are
represented
by
4
different
terms
all
resulting
from
the
sun.
Figure
13
gives
an
overview
of
the
4
terms.
With
30
uniform component
The
extreme
values
of
the
uniform
temperature
components
are
taken
out
of
the
national
temperature
map,
figure
15.
Figuur
14:
Thermal
map
of
Portugal
for
Tmin
(left)
and
Tmax
(right)
For
the
minimum
and
maximum
temperature
Porto
is
situated
in
zone
B,
this
gives
Tmin
=
0C
and
Tmax
=
40C.
These
values
are
based
on
a
return
period
of
50
years,
derived
from
a
Gumbel
law.
The
effective
minimum
and
maximum
temperature
is
taken
out
of
figure
16
and
is
in
function
of
the
shade
air
temperature
Tmin
,
Tmax
and
the
type
of
deck.
Figuur
15:
effective
mimimum
and
maximum
temperature
31
Te,max = 56 C
The
variation
of
temperature
is
considered
around
an
average
effective
value,
T0.
For
the
design
of
expansion
joints
and
bearings
the
following
formula
is
applied:
Te,max
Te,min
+
2S
Since
no
information
is
available
over
T0,
the
value
of
S
can
be
set
on
20C.
This
gives
the
following
value
for
the
total
opening
for
expansions
joint,
or
total
movement
for
bearings:
56
-
(-3)
+
2*20
=
96
The
average
value
T
of
the
temperature
difference
in
case
of
contraction
and
expansion,
TN,con
and
TN,exp
is
found
with
the
following
formula:
!!!,!"# + !!!,!"#
2
with
TN,con
=
T0
Te,min
TN,exp
=
Te,max
T0
=
T!,!"# T!,!"#
2
56 (3)
2
= 29.5
Thermal gradient
The
uniform
linear
gradient
over
the
vertical
direction
is
given
in
table
5.
For
type
II
this
corresponds
with
!!,!!"#
=
15C
for
when
the
top
is
warmer
than
the
bottom.
In
the
other
case
were
the
bottom
is
warmer
than
the
top
!!,!""#
=
18C.
33
4. Combination of action
The
fundamental
combination
of
actions
for
ultimate
limit
states,
is
applied
as
prescribed
in
the
Eurocode:
+ !!,! !!,! +
For
permanent
actions
a
partial
factor
is
used
depending
on
the
effect;
favourable
or
unfavourable.
Also
for
the
characteristic
value
of
the
leading
variable
the
partial
factor
depends
on
the
effect
it
generates.
For
the
other
variable
actions
an
extra
combination
factor
is
used,
depending
on
the
type
of
load.
For
bridges
different
partial
factors
are
used,
for
example
some
variable
actions
have
a
partial
factor
of
1.35.
The
design
values
of
actions
are
given
in
table
6.
34
For
further
calculations
every
combination
should
be
taken
into
account,
every
load
should
be
checked
on
his
effect,
favourable
or
unfavourable.
When
more
variable
loads
take
place
at
the
same
time,
a
combination
factor
is
applied.
A
separate
set
of
combination
factors
for
bridges
is
found
in
the
Eurocode,
see
table
7.
Tabel
7:
recommended
values
of
factor
for
road
bridges
For
the
models
in
SCIA,
the
partial
and
combination
factors
are
automatically
generated
with
the
combination
settings
set
on
eurocode-ultimate
limit
state.
35
Classification
Local
buckling
within
profiles
is
even
possible
before
the
stress
reaches
the
level
of
yield
stress.
In
order
to
determine
how
much
the
resistance
and
the
rotationcapacity
of
the
profile
has
diminished,due
to
local
buckling,
a
classificationsystem
is
developed.
The
classification
is
based
on
2
aspects
the
whidth-tickhness
proportion
and
the
development
of
the
stress
in
the
different
elements.
Four
different
classes
are
defined
according
to
EN
1993-1-15:
Class
1:
cross-sections
are
those
which
can
form
a
plastic
hinge
with
the
rotation
capacity
required
from
plastic
analysis
without
reduction
of
the
resistance.
Class
2
:cross-sections
are
those
which
can
develop
their
plastic
moment
resistance,
but
have
limited
rotation
capacity
because
of
local
buckling.
Class
3:
cross-sections
are
those
in
which
the
stress
in
the
extreme
compression
fibre
of
the
steel
member
assuming
an
elastic
distribution
of
stresses
can
reach
the
yield
strength,
but
local
buckling
is
liable
to
prevent
development
of
the
plastic
moment
resistance.
Class
4
:
cross-sections
are
those
in
which
local
buckling
will
occur
before
the
attainment
of
yield
stress
in
one
or
more
parts
of
the
cross-section.
A
classification
is
done
for
the
cross
bars
and
beams
in
the
deck,
since
these
are
the
elements
under
the
highest
compression.
Compression
created
the
most
unfavourable
effect,
so
the
profiles
are
only
checked
under
pure
compression.
The
small
bending
moment
that
takes
place
is
not
taken
into
account.
Figure
17
and
18
are
applied
for
the
classification.
Web
Class
1:
!
!
< 33
!"#.!
!.!
with ! =
< 33 1.22
!"#
= 1.22
!"#.!
Flange
Class
1:
!
!
< 9
with ! =
!"#
!"#.!
= 1.22
!".!"
!".!
< 9 1.22
Class
1:
!
!
< 33
!"#.!
!".!
with ! =
< 33 1.22
!"#
= 1.22
= 1.22
!"#.!
Flange
Class
1:
!
!
< 9
!".!
!".!
with ! =
!"#
!"#.!
< 9 1.22
Figuur
18:
classification
of
the
flanges
38
5.2.
Buckling
While
setting
the
buckling
settings
some
problems
were
found
in
SCIA.
Therefore
a
manual
buckling
control
is
done
based
on
EN
1993-1-1.
The
controlling
is
done
for
the
element
with
the
highest
chance
of
buckling.
Extra
buckling
control
is
not
done
on
the
pillars,
which
also
have
a
big
critical
length
for
buckling
out
of
plane,
since
they
are
mostly
under
tension
and
not
under
compression.
The
controlled
beam
is
an
alleged
T-shape,
on
the
side,
where
the
diagonals
come
to
getter,
shown
on
figure
19
and
20.
The
shape
of
the
flanges
changes
over
distance.
Reinforcements
are
done,
which
corresponds
to
5
different
T-beams
in
the
model.
The
height
increase
when
approaching
the
pillars
while
the
width
remains
the
same.
The
control
is
done
on
the
T
member
with
the
smallest
dimensions,
because
this
is
the
least
safe.
In
order
not
to
acquire
the
chance
of
buckling
the
following
criteria
should
be
respected:
!!"
!!,!"
with
!!,!" =
!" !!
!!!
with
39
The
value
of
the
reduction
factor
!
can
be
in
the
buckling
curves,
figure
21,
and
is
in
function
of
the
non-dimensional
slenderness
.
! !!
!!"
A :
area
f! :
yield
strength
N!" :
the
elastic
critical
force
for
the
relevant
buckling
mode
based
on
the
gross
cross
sectional
properties
fy : 105
!!" =
!!!
!! !"
!!!"
Buckling
in
plane:
!!" =
Buckling
out
plane:
!!" =
!! !"
!!!"
!! !"
!!!"
!! !"#.!!"! !,!"#$!"!!
!!
!! !"#.!!"! !.!"#$!"!!
!!
= 22598.5 kN
= 22598.5 *103 N
= 20292,6 kN
= 20292,6 *103 N
!.!"!"! !"#
!!"#$.!!"!
= 0.22
!.!"!"! !"#
!"!#!,! !"!
=0.23
The buckling curve that must be applied depend on the shape of the element. Table 8 gives an
overview.
40
Tabel
8:
selection
of
buckling
curve
for
a
cross-section
41
In
plane
:
1 1.06 10! 105
= 1113000 !
1
=1113
kN
!!,!" =
Out
plane
:
!!,!" =
The
values
for
NEd
are
calculated
in
SCIA.
For
the
design
value
of
compression
force
in
plane,
a
combination
of
all
possible
load
cases
is
made.
For
the
one
out
of
plane
only
the
wind
is
considered,
because
this
is
the
only
force
that
will
make
buckling
out
of
plane
possible.
This
gives
the
following
results:
In plane:
NEd
=-1603,21
kN
Nb,Rd
=
1113
kN
!!"
!!,!"
!"#$,!"
!!!"
= 1.44 > 1
The
compression
force
which
takes
place
in
the
beam
is
higher
than
the
buckling
resistance
compression
force.
If
we
check
the
member
we
see
that
it
is
a
reinforced
T-beam,
see
figure
4.
A
new
calculation
for
this
cross
section
will
be
done.
Out plane:
NEd
=-1603,21
kN
Nb,Rd
=
1090.74
kN
!!"
!!,!"
!"#.!"
!"#".!"
= 1.47 > 1
This
doesnt
correspond
with
the
buckling
criteria.
A
check
of
the
beam
is
done
within
the
construction,
the
beam
corresponds
with
a
reinforced
T-
beam,
see
figure
22.
42
Figuur
22:
cross
section,
T2
fy : 105
!!" =
!!"
!!!
!
! !"
!!!"
with
E
=
192,7*106
kN/m!
Iy
=
1.1915*10-4
m4
for
buckling
in
plane
Iz
=
1.387*10-4
m4
for
buckling
out
of
plane
Lcr
=
3m
for
buckling
out
of
plane
In
plane:
!!" =
Out
plane:
!!" =
!! !"
!!!"
!! !"
!!!"
!! !"#.!!"! !,!"#!"!!
!!
= 25178.7 kN
= 25178.7 *103 N
= 29304kN
= 29304 *103 N
This gives the following non-dimensional
slenderness
:
in plane:
!.!"!"! !"#
!"#$%.! !"!
= 0.24
out plane:
!.!"!"! !"#
!"#$%!"!
= 0.22
43
In
figure
21
we
find
that
this
corresponds
with
! =0.98
for
buckling
in
plane
and
! =
1
for
buckling
out
plane.
This
following
design
buckling
resistance
are
found:
in plane:
!!,!" =
out plane:
!!,!" =
The
buckling
check
gives
the
following
result:
in
plane
NEd
=-1603.21
kN
Nb,Rd
=1420.02
kN
!!"
!!,!"
!"#$.!"
!"#$.!"
= 1.13 > 1
The
axial
force
in
the
beam
is
higher
than
the
maximum
allowed
axial
forces,
so
buckling
in
plane
is
possible.
The
too
high
forces
in
the
construction
will
cause
deformation
of
the
construction,
and
generate
second-
order-
effects
.
These
are
effects
due
to
the
fact
that
the
axis
can
be
out
of
its
original
position.
Since
the
construction
is
considered
non-sway
the
second-order-effects
should
not
be
taken
into
account.
out
plane
NEd
=
135.56
kN
Nb,Rd
=
1449
kN
!!"
!!,!"
!"#.!"
!""!
= 0.094 1
44
5.3.
A
lot
of
beams
are
only
subjected
to
axial
forces,
for
those
beams
no
lateral
torsional
buckling
controle
is
needed.
The
beams
under
bending
moment
should
be
taken
into
account
for
lateral
torsional
buckling
check.
No
seperate
manual
control
is
done.
5.4.
Relative deformation
The
deck
is
submitted
to
a
maximum
relative
deformation
of
356.5mm
in
the
middle
of
the
bridge.
This
effect
is
in
reality
reduced
because
of
the
slightly
curved
shape
of
the
deck.
No
information
is
available
over
the
exact
bend
degree,
so
the
effect
is
not
taking
into
account
for
the
calculations.
The
slightly
curved
shape
will
generate
a
higher
axial
force
in
the
deck
because
a
part
of
the
transversal
forces
taking
place
on
the
deck
are
converted
to
axial
forces.
The
bending
moment
will
be
reduced
by
the
arch
shape
of
the
bridge.
45
5.5.
Model 0
The
controlling
of
the
model
is
done
with
the
structure
subjected
only
to
the
dead
loads.
These
values
are
taken
out
of
the
study
'Estudo
da
viabilidade
de
utilizao
da
Pont
Luiz
I
pelo
Metro
ligeiro
do
Porto,
chapter
2.1.1.
These
study
gives
the
values
for
the
dead
loads
of
the
deck
itself
but
not
for
the
tie-trusses.
A
different
model
with
only
the
suspension
tie-trusses
in
it
is
made
in
SCIA,
the
self-weight
is
automatically
generated
by
SCIA.
For
the
dead
load
of
the
structure6
17kN/m
is
found,
divided
over
a
structural
wide
of
8.4m,
gives
2.02
kN/m.
The
deck
itself
has
a
dead
load
of
3,13
kN/m,
so
the
total
permanent
dead
load
is
:
2,02
+
3,13
=
5,15kN/m
This
simplified
model
with
only
dead
and
live
loads
on
it
gives
the
following
reaction
forces;
First
outer
tie-trusses:
left
node
:
821.63
kN
A.
G.
Coelho,
J.
A.
M.
Freitas,
M.de
Azeredo,
A.
Costa,
J
.S.
Cruz,
N.
E.
Santos,
D.
B.
Lopes,
Estudo
da
viabilidade
de
utilizao
da
Pont
Luiz
I
pelo
Metro
ligeiro
do
Porto,
Revista
Portuguesa
de
Engenharia
de
Estruturas
(RPEE)
N.
43,
Porto,
Portugal,
1997,
p
2.1.1
46
!"#.!"
!"#.!!
!"#.!"
!"#.!"
47
The
following
results
of
reaction
forces
due
to
the
self-weight
of
the
tie-trusses
were
obtained.
Two
outer
tie-trusses:
These
reaction
forces
are
put
as
forces
on
the
supports
of
the
tie-trusses
of
the
global
model,
like
this
the
self-weight
of
the
tie-trusses
is
taken
into
account
in
the
following
calculations.
A
general
check
of
the
model,
only
subjected
to
its
self-weight,
is
done
by
controling
the
maximum
tension
in
all
the
beams.
Here
for
the
Von
Mises
criteria
is
applied.
The
criteria
states
that
the
Von-Mises-stress
must
be
lower
than
the
yield
stress,
with
f!"
105
N/mm
for
wrought
iron.
Members
with
a
Von
Mises
stress
higher
than
105
N/mm
are
found
in
and
around
the
tie-trusses,
see
fig
23.
Figuur
23:
Von
Mises
stress,
self
weight
48
Around
the
pillars
the
dimension
of
the
diagonals
changes,
they
becomes
bigger
when
approaching
them.
Although
there
are
bigger
dimensions,
it
is
not
enough
for
all
of
these
elements.
Local
reinforcements
are
done
but
not
taken
into
account
in
this
model
,
since
there
was
no
clear
pattern.
Having
to
control
every
single
beam
to
determine
whether
it
is
reinforced
or
not,
would
take
up
too
much
time
and
would
make
the
model
very
complex.
Also
in
the
wind
bracing,
the
maximum
allowed
tension
is
also
sometimes
exceeded
.
There
was
a
lack
of
information
regarding
the
pillars,
they
werent
described
in
the
original
plan.
The
profile
of
wind
bracing
might
be
slightly
different.
Also
local
reinforcement
is
not
taken
into
account
in
the
model,
because
there
was
no
information
on
this
topic
available.
A
detailed
analysis
should
be
made
on
this
reinforcement
since
it
affects
the
way
of
force
distribution,
which
also
has
an
effect
on
the
stress.
Figure
24
shows
the
difference
between
the
bridge
itself
and
the
model.
6.
C
alc
ula
tio
ns
6.1.
General simplifications
For
the
models
the
following
simplifications
are
made:
1) Snow
is
not
generated
in
the
models,
this
simplification
is
made
in
consultation
with
Prof.
Santos.
This
decision
is
based
on
the
following
facts;
the
chance
of
having
a
big
snow
load
in
the
South
is
very
low
and
the
Eurocode
provides
a
rule
which
says
that
snow
loads
should
not
be
combined
with
any
group
of
traffic
loads.
49
2)
3) Rainwater
is
not
calculated
in
as
a
load.
The
structure
of
the
bridge
is
open
enough
to
let
the
water
flow
away,
there
isnt
any
chance
that
the
water
will
collect
on
top
of
the
deck.
4) Seismic
actions
are
not
taken
into
account
for
the
reason
that
its
effects
and
corresponding
calculation
methods
are
not
taught
to
Belgian
engineering
students.
The
author
strongly
recommends
for
further
study
addressing
this
matter.
6.2.
The
different
loads
placed
on
the
first
model
in
SCIA,
are
given
in
table
11
For
a
description
of
the
loads
and
how
the
values
were
obtained
see
chapter
3.
An
overview
from
the
settings
in
SCIA
;
load
cases
and
load
groups
can
be
find
in
annex
2.
Load
case
Description
Dead load
Dead load
Wind
Terminal
linear
heating
of
the
deck,
with
the
top
warmer
than
the
bottom
Thermal down - up
Terminal
linear
heating
of
the
deck,
with
the
bottom
warmer
than
the
top
Traffic UDL
Horizontal
Horizontal forces
TS0
TS16
TS33
TS51
TS69
TS87
TS105
TS123
TS141
TS157
50
TS174
TS0 A
TS16 A
TS33 A
TS51 A
TS69 A
TS87 A
TS105 A
TS123 A
TS141 A
TS157 A
TS174 A
Tabel
11:
description
of
the
different
loadcases,
LM1
51
6.2.1.
The
different
positions
for
the
tandem
system,
as
shown
in
table
12,
they
are
chosen
in
a
way
that
they
will
generate
the
most
unfavorable
effect.
The
bridge
therefore
is
divided
into
5
parts,
two
parts
of
33m
from
the
beginning
and
ending
at
the
outer
tie-trusses,
and
3
parts
of
36
m
from
tie-trusses
to
tie-trusses.
The
tandem
systems
are
placed
in
the
beginning,
middle
and
end
of
every
part.
For
the
beginning
and
the
end
a
maximal
transversal
force
is
expected
in
the
supports
and
in
the
tie-trusses.
For
the
middle
a
maximal
bending
moment
is
expected.
The
maximum
internal
forces
on
beams,
are
displayed
in
figure
25.
Figure
26
shows
the
most
important
combinations,
out
of
more
than
1000
combinations.
52
The
two
maximal
axial
forces
are
found
in
beam
s14367
and
s16149.
The
maximal
values
for
the
bending
moments
around
the
y-axes
are
found
in
beam
s10783
and
s15017.
These
four
beams
are
explored
into
further
detail.
This
corresponds
with
the
most
unfavourable
effect
for
the
tandem
system
on
positioned
on
16.5m
and
157.5m.
53
Beam
s14367
Beam
s14367
is
located
on
the
outer
side
of
the
deck,
right
under
the
outer
tie-truss
as
shown
in
figure
27.
Figuur
27:
representation
of
beam
s14367
!
!!!
and
mostly
comes
from
the
axial
stress,
this
is
logical
since
it
is
kind
of
a
truss
structure.
This
value
is
greater
than
the
critical
value
of
105
!
!!!
.
Reinforcement
is
needed.
Figuur
28:
Stress
in
beam
s14367,
model1
54
Beam
s16149
Beam
s16149
is
located
on
the
outer
side
of
the
deck,
in
the
middle
of
the
last
slab
as
shown
in
figure
29.
Figuur
29:
Stress
in
beam
s16149
!
!!!
!
!!!
coming solely
55
Beam
s10783
Beam
s10783
is
located
in
the
first
span,
on
the
outer
side
of
the
deck
,
as
shown
in
figure
31.
Figuur
31:
representation
of
beam
s
10783
The
moment
is
-3329.07
kNm
for
combination
7
:
1.35*dead
loads
+
0.9*thermal
down-up
+
1.35
*traffic
UDL+
1.35*TS16
+1.35*TS16
A
The
Von
Mises
stress
is
given
in
figure
32,
with
a
maximum
value
of
369,6
!
!!!
from the axial tension. This value is greater than the acceptable stress of 105
coming
solely
!
!!!
Figuur
32:
Stres
in
beam
s10783
56
Beam
s15017
Beam
s15017
is
located
at
the
on
the
outer
side
of
the
deck,
right
under
the
outer
tie-truss
as
shown
in
figure
33.
!
!!!
from the axial tension. This value is greater than the acceptable stress of 105
coming
solely
!
!!!
Figuur
34:
stress
in
beam
s15017
Since
all
these
beams
have
a
stress
greater
than
the
design
yield
stress,
reinforcement
for
these
beams
is
definitely
recommended.
A
lot
of
local
reinforcements
have
been
done,
so
there
is
the
probability
that
the
beams
are
already
reinforced.
The
dimensions
of
the
reinforcement
necessary
to
obtain
a
safe
situation,
are
highly
related
to
used
steal
quality.
57
6.2.2.
Comparing
the
reaction
forces
due
to
the
dead
load
and
the
reaction
forces
obtained
out
of
the
combination,
gives
an
idea
about
the
importance
of
the
dead
loads
in
the
total
structure.
The
reaction
forces
for
the
combinations,
can
be
found
in
figure
20.
Reaction
forces
for
the
dead
load
are
given
in
figure
35.
58
Figuur
35:
Reactionforces
If
we
compare
the
reaction
forces
in
the
z
direction,
a
total
reaction
force
of
30374.69
kN
is
found
as
maximum
value
for
the
combination.
The
bridge
only
subjected
to
dead
loads
gives
a
reaction
force
of
7453.2
kN.
The
dead
load
represent
the
following
percentage:
!"#$.!
!"!#$.!"
100 = 24.54 %
Only
24.54
%
of
the
reaction
force
is
due
to
the
self-weight
of
the
structure.
This
value
is
very
low
for
such
a
large
bridge.
The
light
structure
is
a
truly
good
design
of
structure,
where
the
material
is
used
at
its
best.
Since
the
percentage
of
dead
loads
is
low
other
loads
will
have
a
bigger
influence
on
the
structure.
6.2.3.
General
A
general
Von
Misses
check
is
done
on
the
construction.
Figure
36
illustrates
the
values
higher
or
equal
to
the
design
yield
stress
fyd=105
kN/mm
in
blue.
For
the
tie-trusses
no
fixed
conclusion
can
be
made,
since
the
dimensions
of
the
profiles
were
assumed
due
to
a
lack
of
information
about
them.
A
large
amount
of
elements
does
not
confirm
the
design
yield
stress.
The
loads
where
the
bridge
originally
was
designed
for
are
lower
than
these
to
which
it
is
submitted
today.
The
loads
nowadays
are
multiplied
with
a
partial
factor
so
their
influence
increases
.
Reinforcement
is
recommended,
in
order
to
find
out
which
element
should
be
reinforced,
a
local
study
should
be
done.
59
6.3.
The effect of the crowd is generated on the bridge as a uniform divided load of 5
!"
!!
An
overview
of
the
different
loads
placed
on
the
model
is
given
in
table
12.
The
different
load
cases
with
their
corresponding
load
groups
can
be
find
in
the
annex
3.
Load
case
Description
Dead load
Dead load
Wind
Thermal down - up
Crowd
The
maximum
internal
forces
on
beams,
are
shown
in
figure
37,
figure
38
shows
combination
key.
60
Figuur
38:
Combinationkey,
LM4
For
the
two
maximal
axial
forces
and
the
two
maximal
bending
moments
around
the
y-axes
an
individual
stress
control
is
done.
The
two
maximal
axial
forces
are
found
in
beam
s15017
and
s10783.
The
maximal
values
for
the
bending
moments
around
the
y-axes
are
found
in
beam
s15017
and
s10783.
A
closer
look
is
taken
to
these
2
beams.
61
Beam
s15017
Beam
s15017
is
located
at
the
on
the
outer
side
of
the
deck,
right
under
the
outer
tie-truss
as
shown
in
figure
39.
The
bending
moment
of
2973.32
kNm
is
found
in
beam
s15017
for
combination
7:
The Von Mises stress is given in figure 40, with a maximum value of 380,6
!
!!!
coming
completely from the axial tension. This value is higher than the acceptable stress of 105
!
!!!
Figuur
40:
representation
of
beam
s15017
62
Beam
s10783
The
second
highest
axial
force
is
located
in
beam
s10783
and
is
located
on
the
outer
side
of
the
deck,
right
under
the
outer
tie-truss
as
shown
in
figure
26.
The
axial
force
reaches
a
maximum
value
of
3169.23
kN
for
combination
1:
1.35*dead
loads
+
0.9*thermal
down-up
+
1.35*crowd
The
bending
moment
reaches
a
value
of
-1542.28
kNm
for
combination
2:
The Von Mises stress is given in figure 42. The highest value found in the beam is 198.3
!
!!!
and
comes
completely
from
the
axial
stress.
This
value
is
bigger
than
the
allowed
value
of
105
!
!!!
.
Reinforcement
is
needed.
63
Since
all
these
beams
have
a
stress
higher
than
the
yield
stress,
reinforcement
of
this
beam
is
definitely
recommended.
A
lot
of
local
reinforcements
have
already
been
done,
so
there
is
the
probably
that
the
beam
has
also
been
already
reinforced.
The
steel
quality
used
for
the
reinforcement
has
a
big
impact
on
the
dimensions
necessary
to
obtain
a
save
situation.
6.3.1.
The
total
reaction
force
in
the
z
direction,
found
due
to
the
self-weight
of
the
structure
is
7453.2
kN.
The
total
reaction
forces
of
load
model4
in
the
z
direction
is
18416.7
kN
and
is
given
in
table
13.
The
dead
load
represent
the
following
percentage:
!"#$.!
!"#!$.!
100 = 40.46 %
Only
40,46%
of
the
reaction
forces
in
the
z-direction
are
due
to
the
dead
loads,
the
position
and
value
of
the
other
loads
putted
on
the
model
still
has
a
big
influence.
64
Tabel
13:
Reaction
forces
LM4
65
6.3.2.
General
A
general
Von
Mises
check
is
done.
Figure
44
gives
an
illustration
of
this,
the
tensions
higher
or
equal
to
design
yield
value
fyd=105
kN/mm
are
marked
in
blue.
We
see
a
concentration
of
high
values
in
and
around
the
tie-trusses.
About
the
tie-trusses
no
information
was
available,
so
the
choice
for
the
profiles
is
based
on
pictures.
Since
the
profiles
are
determinative
for
the
stress
development,
more
information
about
them
is
necessary
in
order
to
have
a
correct
view
of
the
stress
in
the
tie-trusses
themselves.
A
lot
of
the
elements
that
transcend
the
design
value
are
still
below
the
characteristic
value
of
the
yield
stress.
For
this
calculation
a
very
high
material
reduction
factor
of
s
=
1,5
is
taken
into
account
to
cover
the
possible
heterogeneity
that
might
be
in
the
old
wrought
iron.
The
loads
on
the
bridge
are
also
subjected
to
high
partial
factors
imposed
by
the
Eurocode.
All
these
factors
together
lead
to
a
big
amount
of
bars
that
exceed
the
design
yield
factor.
In
reality
this
does
not
mean
that
all
these
elements
will
yield
,
although
reinforcement
is
recommended.
66
7. Conclusion
The
structure
of
the
bridge
itself
is
designed
in
a
way
that
the
material
is
used
at
its
best.
The
self-weight
is
very
low
compared
with
the
size
of
the
bridge.
This
makes
the
design
of
the
structure
a
engineering
masterpiece.
For
the
resistance
checks
several
problems
are
obtained.
First
of
all
the
buckling
conditions
are
not
fulfilled.
The
axial
forces
are
too
high
on
certain
places
and
buckling
can
occur
according
to
the
calculation
rules
of
the
Eurocode.
Originally
the
structure
was
not
designed
for
such
a
high
axial
forces
and
less
margin
was
taken
on
the
calculations.
The
model
used
for
the
calculations
is
very
accurate
and
the
loads
are
higher.
Different
explanations
can
be
given
to
this
higher
load.
Firstly
the
traffic
volumes
and
density
increased
greatly
over
the
past
century,
which
automatically
goes
together
with
a
change
of
loads.
Secondly
the
Eurocode
is
very
strict
and
provides
high
partial
factors
on
the
loads.
The
Von
Mises-criterium
is
not
fulfilled
either.
Already
problems
occur
when
the
bridge
is
submitted
only
to
its
self-weight.
The
design
yield
stress
is
exceeded
in
several
elements
in-
and
around
the
tie-trusses.
The
highest
tensions
take
place
in
the
tie-trusses
since
they
are
responsible
for
the
force
transmission
between
the
supports
and
the
deck.
The
cross-sections
of
the
tie-trusses
was
not
known
and
the
choice
of
these
profiles
is
based
on
pictures.
An
under
sizing
of
the
profiles
can
be
a
cause
of
the
too
high
stress
values.
For
model
1
more
than
half
of
the
bars
exceeds
the
design
yield
stress,
for
model
2
this
is
less
than
half.
Frequently
the
stress
in
the
bars
is
still
under
the
characteristic
yield
factor.
A
very
high
reduction
factor
of
material
is
applied
on
the
construction.
The
reduction
factor
reduces
the
design
yield
factor
to
2/3
of
the
characteristic
yield
factor,
in
order
to
take
into
account
the
less
homogeneous
of
wrought
iron,
compared
to
modern
steel.
This
very
strict
reduction
factor
is
another
cause
of
the
high
amount
of
bars,
exceeding
the
design
yield
stress.
On
the
other
hand
the
loads
are
again
multiplied
with
the
partial
factor,
as
provided
by
the
Eurocode,
which
will
also
increase
the
stress
in
the
structure.
Another
cause
is
that
a
lot
of
local
reinforcements
were
done,
but
not
taking
into
account
in
the
model.
These
local
reinforcements
have
an
influence
on
the
load
transmission
and
stress
development
in
the
beams.
In
general
the
structure
is
not
in
conformity
with
the
current
standard
of
the
Eurocode.
This
does
not
automatically
means
that
the
structure
is
unstable,
since
the
requirements
of
the
Eurocode
are
very
high.
There
are
some
local
problems
and
reinforcement
is
sincerely
recommended.
A
more
detailed
study
on
these
local
elements
is
also
recommended.
67
Bibliography
Eurocode
0:
Eurocode
1:
Eurocode
3:
Eurocode
4:
EN
1994-2:2005
Ontwerp
en
berekening
van
staal-betonconstructies
-
Deel
2:
Bruggen
(+
AC:2008)
(april
2011)
Jean-Armand
Calgaro,
Marcel
Tschumi
and
Haig
Gulvanessian,
Designers
guid
to
Eurocode
1:
Actions
on
bridges,
E,1991-2,
EN,1991-1-1,-1-3
to
-1-7
and
EN
1990
Annex
A2,
Thomas
Telford,2010
Gerard
Parker,
Nigel
Hewson,
ICE
manual
of
bridge
engineering,
Thomas
Telford,2008
Jan
Danils,
Sara
Pieters,
Modeling
and
structural
analysis
of
Ponte
D.
Luis
I,
2013
Luc
Vanhooymissen,
Marc
Spegelaere,
Ann
Van
Gysel,
Willy
De
Vylder,
Gewapend
beton,
Berekening
volgens
NBN
15-002
(
1999),Academia
Press,
2002
Stef
Pillaert,
Staalbouw
deel
I
en
II,
leidraad
bij
EC2,
2009
68
Annexes
69