‘DR. ISMAIL BIN. OTHMAN Universiti Molaye Koaly Lumose: 22-11, Concrete bridge design to BS 5400 L. A. Clark Construction Press London and New YorkAcknowledgements J thank many of my former colleagues at the Cement and Concrete Association for the contributions which they have indirectly made to this book through the discussions which I had with them, 1 am particularly indebted to George Somerville and Gordon Elliott who, each in his ‘own particular way, encouraged my interest in concrete bridges. In addition, it would not have been possible for ‘me to write this book without the benefit of the numerous discussions which I have had with bridge engineers throughout the United Kingdom — I am grateful to each of, them, My thanks are due to Peter Thorogood and Jim Church Publisher's acknowledgements Figures 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4,8, 8.4 and 10.8 were originally. prepared by the author for the Bridge Engineering Stan- ards Division of the Department of Transport under con- tract. These figures, together with references to the requirements of the Department of Transport’s Design ‘who read parts of the manuscript and made many construe: tive criticisms: also 10 Julie Hill who, with a small con- twibution from Christine Cope, carefully and efficiently typed the manuscript. Finally. prior to writing this book. I had wondered why itis usual for an author to thank his wife and family ~ now I know! Thus. 1 wish to thank my wife and daughters for their patience and understanding during the past three L. A. Clark June, 1981 Standards, are reproduced with the permission of the Con- toler of Her Majesty's Stationery Dffice. Extracts from British Standards are included by permission of the British Standards Institute, 2 Park Street, London WIA 2BS, from whom complete copies can be obtained.Contents Preface Notation Chapter 1. Introduction ‘The New Code Development of design standards for concrete structures Philosophy of limit state design ‘Summary Chapter 2. Analysis General requirements ‘Types of bridge deck Elastic methods of analysis Elastic stfnesses Plastic methods of analysis ‘Model analysis and testing Examples Chapter 3. Loadings General Loads to be considered Load combinations Partial safety factors Application of loads Permanent loads Transient loads Example Chapter 4. Material properties and design criteria Material properties Material partial safety factors Design criteria Yn Values Summary oT 2B 16 19 27 7 32 32 32 32 33 35 45 45 46 48, 52 54 Chapter 5. Ultimate limit state - flexure and in-plane forces Reinforced concrete beams Prestressed concrete beams Reinforced concrete plates Prestressed concrete slabs Examples Chapter 6. Ultimate limit state - shear and torsion Introduction Shear in reinforced concrete Shear in prestressed concrete Torsion — general Torsion of reinforced concrete Torsion of prestressed concrete Examples Chapter 7. Introduction Reinforced concrete stress limitations Crack control in reinforced concrete Prestressed concrete stress limitations Deflections Examples Serviceability limit state Chapter 8. Precast concrete and composite construction Precast concrete ‘Composite construction Example ~ Shear in composite construction Chapter 9. Substructures and foundations Introduction Columns Reinforced concrete walls Plain concrete walls Bridge piers and columns 55 55 87 58 61 61 65 6 65 72 18 76 81 83 86 86 88 94 96 98 102 102 105 115 18 118 18 125 126 128Bridge abutments and wing walls Foundations Examples Chapter 10. Detailing Introduction Reinforced concrete Prestressed concrete Chapter 11. concrete Lightweight aggregate Introduction Durability Strength Movements Chapter 12. Vibration and fatigue Introduction Vibration Fatigue 129 130 133 137 137 137 142 147 147 147 148 143 151 151 151 154 Chapter 13. Temperature loading Introduction Serviceability limit state Ultimate fimit state Design procedure Examples Appendix A. Equations for plate design Sign conventions Bending In-plane forces Appendix B. Transverse shear in cellular and voided slabs Introduction Cellular slabs Voided slabs References. Index. 158 158 158 162 163 164 169 169 169 170 71 im m1 m1 176 183Preface Dring the last decade, limit state design has been into- duced, both nationally and internationally, into codes of practice for the design of concrete structures. Limit state design in British codes of practice first appeared in 1972 in the building code (CP 110), Since then it has been used in the water retaining structures code (BS $337) in 1976. the masonry code (BS 5628) in 1978 and, finally, the bridge ‘code (BS 5400) in 1978, The introduction of limit state design to the design of concrete bridges constitutes a radi cal change in design philosophy because the existing design documents are writen, principally, in terms of 1 working load and permissible stress design philosophy. ‘Thus, the use of BS $400 may change design procedures, although itis unlikely to change significantly the final sec- tion sizes adopted for concrete bridges. This is due 10 the fact that the loadings and design criteria were chosen so that, in general, bridges designed to BS 5400 would be similar 10 bridges designed to the then existing design documents. In view of the different design methods used in BBS 5400, a number of bridge engineers have expressed the need for a document which gives guidance in the use of this code of practice. The present book is an attempt to meet this need: its aim is to give the background to the various clauses of BS $400, which are concemed with concrete bridges, and to compare them with the corres: ponding clauses in the existing design documents. After tracing the history of limit state design and explaining its terminology, the analysis, loading and \esign aspects of BS 5400 are discussed BS 5400 permits the use of plastic methods of analysis. However, bridge engineers have complained that there i a lack of guidance in BS $400 on the use of plastic methods. ‘Therefore, applications of plastic methods are discussed in Chapter 2. In contrast, the reader is assumed to be familiar ‘with current methods of elastic analysis and so these methods are discussed only briefly. However, the evalu- ation of clastic stiffnesses for various types of bridge deck, is discussed in some detail The loadings in BS 5400 differ from those in the exist ing design documents. The two sets of loadings are com- pared in Chapter 3, where it can be seen that some load ings differ only slightly whereas others differ significantly Compared with those of existing documents. the design criteria of BS $400, and the methods of satisfying them, are very different for reinforced concrete, but very similar for prestressed concrete. These differences are discussed in, Chapters 4 10 12. Worked examples are given at the ends of most chap- ters, These examples illustrate the applications of various clauses of BS 5400. Many bridge engineers have expressed the view that BS 5400 does not deal adequately with certain aspects of concrete bridge design. Thus, in addition to giving the background to the BS 5400 clauses and suggesting Interpretations of them in ambiguous situations, this book, suggests procedures for those aspects of design which are not covered adequately: e.g. shear in composite construc tion, transverse shear in voided slabs, and the incorpor- ation of temperature loading into the design procedure. It is hoped that this book will assist practising concrete bridge engineers in interpreting and applying BS $400. ‘Also it is hoped that it will be of use to undergraduate and postgraduate students taking courses in bridge engineering. L.A. Clark June 1981Notation ‘The principal symbols used in this book are as follows, Other symbols ate defined in the text. Dy, Dy Dy area of concrete are of ange of composite beam se of tendon ae of tension reinforcement trea of compression reinforcement in eam sed of reinforcement in column are of longitudinal tion reinforcement auca of shea enforcement ee of tans tenfocemen! in lange teu within median ine of ox span: aceleration distance measured from compression face of beam ar spacing distance between cetois of compressive Range und of compost section perpendicular distance from erck shear span breadth width of interface in composite section torsional nena: compressive free coefficient drag coefiien: li coeffesen ‘mera dissipation of energy density of concrete plate bending stiffneses per nit ength effective depth; void diameter depth to compression reinforcement in beam depth of concrete in compression fective depth in shear ive depth of half end elastic modulus, work done hy exersl ads ces clastic modulus of conerete elastic modus of flange of composite beam elastic modulus of steel init column escentcty citional column eccentiity force bursting foree tensile free in barat ultimate limit state cometete force: centrifugal force stel force fowce in compression reinforcement te force average compressive ses in end block hearing stress average anchorage bond sess Toca bond sess ‘concrete strength a wansfer average concrete tensile stress berween compressive sess due to resess characteristic strength of concrete cylinder compressive strength of concrete hypothetical tensile tress character strength tendon sess at failure design stress of tendon when wsed as torsion rein forcement effective press tensile ses due to presress at an extreme concrete fie chazacteriie strength of tendon fexuralsength miadulus of rupture) of concrete shear sess steel tessa cack at cracking Toad 0.48 fy cps As above, but m= 15 190 in tension (1948) 140 in compression 10.50 fy cris Either elastic analysis 210 in tension (1989) fr load factor method 160 in compression £0.50 fy cpus Both elastic and ultimate Cracking avoided by (1989) Toad methods required limiting concrete tension cps Ether elastic analysis 230 in tension (as amended or load factor method 170 in compression 1965) £0.55 fy cr to Limit state design No direct limit 972) rethods ‘nd deflection requirements that the ratio of permissible steel stress to steel yield strength has gradually increased over the years (i.e. the safety factor hay decreased). This. combined with the introduction of high-strength reinforcement, has meant that permissible stee! stresses have risen to a level at which the serviceability aspects of design have now to be considered specifically, Table 1.2 shows that, as permissible steel stresses have increased, more attention fas been given in building codes to deflection and cracking. In_bridee design. the consideration of the serviceability aspects of design was reflected in the introduction of specific crack control requirements. inthe Department of Transport documents, It can thus be seen that the original simplicity fof the permissible working stress design philosophy has been lost by the necessity to carry out further calculations at the working load, Moreover. and of more concern. the working stress designer is now in a position in which he is using a design process in which the purposes of the various criteria are far from self evident. Elastic material behaviour It has long been recognised that steel and concrete exhibit behaviour of a plastic nature at high stresses. Such behaviour exposes undesirable features of working stress design: beams designed on a working stress basis with identical factors of safety applied to the stresses, but with different steel percentages, have different factors of safety against failure, and the capacity of an indeterminate struc- ture to redistribute moments cannot be utilised if its plastic properties are ignored. However. it was not until 1957, \with the introduction of the load factor method of design in, CP 114, that the plastic properties of materials were recognised, for all structural members, slbeit disguised in & working stress format. The concept of considering the elas: tic response of a structure at its working load and its plas- tic response at the ultimate load was first codified in the set, except by cracking For column: 2.0 for steel 2.6 for concrete Waring against excessive deflections 2.0 for steel 2.6 for concrete Span‘depth ratios sven for beams and slabs. ‘Warming against cracking Lb + 2.5L. or24 LD) ‘Warming against excessive deflections 1.8 for steel More detailed span’epth 2°3 for concrete tatios for deflection Warning against cracking 1.8 for steet 2.4 For concrete Detailed span‘depths oF calculations for defection Specific calculations for crack width required prestressed conerete code (CP 115) of 1959; and this code may be regarded as the first British Limit state design code Deterministic design ‘The existing design procedure is deterministic in that itis implicitly assumed that i is possi that, under s specified loading condition, the stresses in the materials, at certain points of the structure, will be of uniquely calculable values. It is obvious that. due to the inherent variabilities of both Joads and material propertis. itis not possible to be deterministic and that a probabilistic approach to design is necessary. Statistical methods were introduced into CP 115 in 1959 1 deal with the control of ‘concrete quality. but were not directly involved in the design process. to categorically state Li state design ‘The implication of the above developments is that it has been necessary 1. To consider more than one aspect of design (e.g strength, deflections and cracking) 2. To treat each of these aspects separately 3. To consider the variable nature of loads and material properties. ‘The latest building code, CP 110 [15]. which introduced limit state design in combination with characteristic values and partial trends and developments. CP 110 made it possible to treat each aspect of design separately and logically, and 10 recognise the inherent variability of both loads and material properties in a more formal way. Although, with its intro- duction into British design practice in CP 110 in. 19° limit state design was considered as a revolutionary desi ety factors, was the culmination of theseConcrete bridge design 10 BS 5400 approach, it could also be regarded as the formal recog- nition of trends which have been developing since the first national code was written, Generally, design standards for concrete bridges have tended to follow, either explicitly or with a slightly con- servative approach, the trends in the building codes. This is also the case with BS 5400 Part 4 which, while written in terms of limit state design and based substantially on CP 110, exhibits some modifications introduced to meet the particular requirements of bridge structures. Philosophy of limit state design What is limit state design? Limit state design is «design process which aims to ensure that the structure being designed will ot become unfit for the use for which itis required during is design lite “The structure may reach a conition at which it becomes unfit for use for one of many reasons (e.g. collapse oF excessive cracking) and each of these conditions is referred {0 as a limit state. tn Himit state design each fit state is examined separately in order © check that it is not attained, Assessment of whether a limit state could be made on « deterministic ora probabilistic b In CP 110 and the Code, a probabilistic basis is adopted and, thus, each limit state is examined in onder to check whether there is an acceptable probability of it not being achieved. Different acceptable probabilities’ are associated, With the different limit states, but no attempt is made to quantify these in the Code: in fact the pari safety factors and design criteria, which are discussed later, are chosen to give similar levels of safety and serviceability 10 those obtained at present, However. typical levels of risk inthe design life of structure ate taken tobe 10°" against collapse and 10 against unserviceabilty occurring. Thus the chance of collapse occurring is made remote and much tess than the chance of the serviceability limit state being reached Limit state desfgn principles have been agreed intema- tionally snd set out in International Standard ISO 2394 {16}; this document forms the basis of the limit state design philosophy of BS $400 which is presented in Part 1 of the Code and is now explained. attained Limit states As implied previously, a limit state is a condition beyond which a structure, or a part of a structure, would become less than completely fit for its intended use. Two limit states are considered in the Code. Ultimate limit state This corresponds to the maximum load-carrying capacity of the structure or a section of the structure, and could be attained by: 1. Loss of equilibrium when a part or the whole of the structure is considered as a rigid body 2. A section of the structure or the whole of the structure reaching its ultimate strength in terms of post-elastic or post-buckling behaviour. 3. Fatigue failure. However, in Chapter 12, it can be seen that fatigue is considered not under ultimate loads but under a loading similar to that at the ser- viceability limit state Serviceability limit state This denotes a condition beyond which a loss of utility or cause for public concen may be expected, and remedial action required. For concrete bridges the serviceability limit state i, essentially, concerned with crack control and stress limitations. In addition, the serviceability limit state is concemed with the vibrations of footbridges; this aspect is discussed in Chapter 12. Design life This is defined in Part | of the Code as 120 years. How’ ever, the Code emphasises that this does not necessarily mean that a bridge designed in accordance with it will no longer be fit for its purpose after 120 years. nor that it will continue to be serviceable for that length of time, without adequate and regular inspection and maintenance Characteristic and nominal loads 11s usual in limit state design 10 define loads in terms of their characteristic values, which are defined as those loads with 2 5% chance of being exceeded. as illustrated in Fig. I.la). However. for bridges, the statistical data required to derive the characteristic Values are not avail- able for all loads: thus. the loads are defined in terms of nominal values. These have been selected on the basis of the existing data and are, in fact, very similar, to the loads in use at the time of writing the Code. For certain bridge Toads, such as wind loads. statistical distributions are available: for these a retum period of 120 years has been adopted in deriving the nominal loads, since 120 years is the design life specified in the Code. 1 is emphasised that the term ‘nominal load’ is used in the Code for all loads whether they are derived from statis- tical distributions or based on experience. Values of the nominal loads are assigned the general symbol Oy, They are given in Part 2 of the Code because they are appro priate 10 all types of bridges. Characteristic strengths ‘The characteristic strength of a material is defined as that strength with a 95% chance of being exceeded (see Fig. 1.1(b)). Since statistical date concerning material properties are generally available, characteristic strengthsFrequency Frequency Characteristic load O, ‘can be obtained and this term is thus adopted in the Code Characteristic strengths are assigned the general symbol fi and are given, for concrete bridges. in Part 4 of the Code. Design loads [At each limit state, a design load is obtained from each nominal load by multiplying the later by a partial safety factor (y,)- The design load (Q*) is thus obtained from O* = vu Qe an ‘The partial safety factor. Yr pantal safety factors ‘yne Which takes account of the possibilty of unfavourable deviation of the loads from their nominal values ‘Yes Which takes account of the reduced probability that various loadings acting together will all atain their nominal Values simultaneously nis emphasised that values of yp and yj are not given in the Code, but values of yy are given in Part 2 ofthe Code. They appear in Part 2 because they are applicable to all bridges: they are discussed in Chapter 3. It should be stated here that the value of yi dependent upon a number of factors is a function of 1wo other 1. Type of loading: it is obviously greater for a highly variable loading such as vehicle loading than for a reasonably well controlled loading such as dead load This is because in the former case there is a greater chance of an unfavourable deviation from the nominal value Number of loadings acting together: the value for 3 particular load decreases as the number of other loads acting with the load under consideration increases. This is because of the reduced probability of all of the Joads attaining their nominal values simul taneously Importance of the limit state: the value for 2 par- ticular load is greater when considering the ultimate limit state than when considering the serviceability: limit state because it is necessary to have a smaller proba- bility of the former being reached. Iniroduetion Characteristic strength f. ' {b) Strength Design load effects ‘The design load effects are the moments. shears. etc... which must be resisted at a particular limit state. They are ‘obtained from the effects of the design loads by multiply~ ing by a partial safety factor Ys. The design load effects (S*) are thus obtained from St = yp (effects of O*) Yn leffects oF yp. Qs) aa If linear relationships can be assumed between load and load effects. the design load effects can be determined from * (effects of yp %y2 Oa) aay It can be seen from Fig. 1.2 that equations (1.2) and (1.3) give the same value of $* when the relationship be- tween load and load effect is linear, but not when itis non- linear. In the Tatter case. the point in the design process. at which Yq is introduced, influences the fina] value of S* [As is discussed in Chapter 3, elastic analysis will gener: ally continue to be used for concrete bridge design. and thus equation (1.3) will very often be the one used. ‘The partial safety factor, Yq. takes account of any in- ‘accurate assessment of the effects of loading, unforeseen stress distribution in the structure and variations in dimen- sional accuracy achieved in construction. Values of Yq are dependent upon the material of the bridge and, for concrete bridges, are given in Part 4 of the Code. The numerical values are discussed in Chapter 4. In ‘addition 10 the material of the bridge, values of Yo are dependent upon: . 1. Type of loading: a lower value is used for an essen- tially uniformly distributed type of loading (such as dead load) than for a concentrated loading because the effects of the Tatter can be analysed less accurately Method of analysis: it is logical to adopt a larger value for an analysis which is known to be inaccurate or unsafe, than for an analysis which is known to be highly accurate or conservative 3. Importance of the limit state: the consequences of the effects for which jn is intended to allow are moreConcrete bridge design 10 BS 5400 Load + effect Effect of yar Qs | yrs etc of yu Q,) Effect of ye Yu Or ye, Load (a) Linear Fig. 1.2(a)s(b) Loads and load effects important at the ultimate than the serviceability limit state and thus « larger value should be adopted for the former. It should be stated that the concept of using yan create problems in design, The use of yp. applied as a general multiplier to load effects to allow for analysis accuracy, hits been criticised by Beeby and Taylor [17] They argue. from considerations of framed structures, that this concept is not defensible on logical grounds. since: 1. For determinate structures there is no inaccuracy. 2. For many indeterminate structures, errors in analysis are adequately covered by the capability of the struc: lure to redistribute moment by virtue of its ductility and hence +i. should be unity 3. Pans of certain indeterminate structures (e.g. columns in frames) have limited ductility and thus limited scope for redistribution. This meuns large errors in analysis can arise, and ‘jp should be much larger than the suggested value of about 1.15 discussed in Chap- ter 4 4, Thew are structures where errors in analysis will lead to moment requirements in an opposite sense 10 that indicated in analysis. For example, consider the beam of Fig. 1.3: at the support section itis logical to apply ‘ip (0 the calculated bending moment, but at section X-X the calculated moment is zero and ‘, will have zero effect. In addition, at section Y-Y,, where a pro- vision for a hogging moment is required, the appli- cation of Yq will merely increase the calculated sag- ‘ging moment. The above points were derived from considerations of framed building structures, but are equally applicable to bridge structures. In bridge design, the problems are further complicated by the fact that, whereas in building design complete spans are loaded, in bridge design posi tive or negative parts of influence lines ate loaded: thus if the influence line is not the ‘true’ line then the problem discussed in paragraph 4 above is exacerbated, because the designer is not even sure that he has the correct amount of load on the bridge. In view of these problems it seems sensible, in practice, to look upon Yj, merely as 4 means of raising the global oad factor from 1 %m 10 an acceptably higher value of Load $ effect, “wa effect of ye Qe! — Effect of Yo Ye Os Effect of 1 0, yds Load (} Non-linear yn Oe — True’ bending moments = Calculated bending moments += Ya x caleulated bending moments 3 Influence of Y# on continuous beams Yr Ya. Ym (Ym is defined in the next section). Indeed, in carly drafts of the Code, Yq was called yg (the gap factor) and Henderson, Burt and Goodearl [18] have stated that the latter was “not statistical but intended to give a margin of safety for the extreme circumstances where the lowest Strength may coincide with the most unlikely severity of loading’. However. it could be argued that -Y, was also required for another reason. The yj values are the same for all bridges. and the 7» values for a particular material, which are discussed in the next section, are the same, inmespective of whether that material is used in a bridge of steel. concrete or composite construction. An additional requirement is that, for each type of construction. designs in accordance with the Code and in accordance with the existing documents should be similar, Hence. it is neces- sary to introduce an additional partial safety factor (7p oF ‘Yp) which is a function of the type of construction (steel, concrete or composite) Thus yp has had a rather confusing and debatable his- tory! Design strength of a material At each limit state, design strengths are obtained from the characteristic strengths by dividing by a partial safety fac- tor (oy: desig strength = fim a4) The partial safety factor, ym. is a function of two other partial safety factors: Ynts Which covers the possible reductions in the strength of the materials in the structure as a whole as com=pared with the characteristic value deduced from the control test specimens; Yas Which covers possible weaknesses of the structure arising from any cause other than the reduction in the strength of the materials allowed for in yj. includ ing manufacturing tolerances. It is emphasised that individual values of Yq) and ‘ns are not given in the Code but that values of Yq. for con- crete bridges, are given in Part 4 of the Code: they are discussed in Chapter 4. The values of Ym ate dependent upon: 1. Material: conerete is a more variable material than steel and thus has a greater % value 2. Importance of limit state: greater values ate used at the ultimate than at the serviceability limit state because it is necessary to have a smaller probability of the former being reached Design resistance of a structure or a structural element The design resistance of 2 structure at a particular limit state is the maximum load that the structure can resist, ‘without exceeding the design criteria appropriate to that limit state. For example, the design resistance of a struc ture could be the load to cause collapse of the structure, oF to cause a crack width in excess of the allowable value at a point on the structure: Similarly. the design resistance of a structural element is the miximum effect that the element can resist without exceeding the design criteria, In the case of a beam, for example, it could be the ultimate moment of resistance. of ‘the moment which causes a stress in excess of that allowed. ‘The design resistance (R*) is obviously a function of the characteristic strengths(f,) of the materials and of the par I safety Factors Yn) RY = function (f, as) ‘AS an example, when consideri resistance (M,) of « beam R the ultimate moment of My a6 and (see Chapter 5) funetion (fe'Ym) = (ilvwlA, (a 7) mnction (fain) = (h was Bett | 17) where fi. fu = feof steel and concrete. respectively “hw Tne = Yo OF steel and concrete, respectively 4, feel area > eam breadth 4d =beam effective depth « ‘oncrete stress block parameter However, in some situations the design resistance is caleulated from Re = [function (f:)} tm a8) Where +, is now a partial safety factor applied to the resis. lance (e.g. shear strength) appropriate 10 characteristic, Introduction strengths. In such situations either values of R* or values of the function off, are given in the Code, An example is the treatment of shear, which is discussed fully in Chapter 6: Re values for various values of f, are tabulated as allow able shear stresses. Consequence factor In addition to the partial safety factors Yr. Ye and %q. which are applied to the loads, load effects and material properties, there is another partial safety factor (7) which is mentioned in Part 1 of the Code. ‘Ya is a function of two other partial safety factors: - which allows for the nature of the structure and its behaviour: ‘Yess Which allows for the social and economic con: sequences of failure Logically. Yq1 should be greater when failure occurs suddenly, such as by shear or by buckling. than when it occurs gradually, such as in a ductile flexural failure However. itis not necessary for 2 designer to consider when using the Code because. when necessary. it has been included in the derivation of the ‘values of of the func tions of f, used to obtain the design resistances R* Regarding Yns. the consequence of failure of one larye bridge would be greater than that of one small bridge and hhence +: should be larger for the former. However. the Code does nor require a designer to apply yz values: it argues that the total consequences of failure are the sume whether the bri number of smaller bridges are constructed. Thus. it is assumed that. for the Sum of the consequences. the risks are broudly the same Hence. to summarise, neither sidered when using the Code, is lar for small, because greater 1 ROT yg eed be con: Verification of structural adequacy For a satisfactory design itis necessary t0 check that the design resistance exceeds the design load effects: Rees 19 or function (fy. Ys) # function (Qe. Yn. Ya} 10) This inequality simply means that adequate load- carrying capacity must be ensured at the ultimate limit state and that the various design criteria at the service- ability limit state must be satisfied, Summary The main difference in the approach 10 concrete bridge design in the Code and in the current design documents is the concept of the partial safety factors applied to the loads. load effects aiid material properties. In addition. as is shown in Chapter 4, some of the design criteria are dif: ferent. However. concrete bridges designed to the CodeConcrete bridge design to BS 5400 should be very similar in proportions to those designed in recent years because the design criteria and partial safety factors have been chosen to ensure that ‘on average’ th will occur, ‘There is thus no short-term advantage to be gained from using the Code and, indeed, initially there will be the dis- advantage of an increase in design time due to unfamili- arity. Hopefully, the design time will decrease as designers become familiar with the Code and can recognise the critical limit state for a particular design situation. ‘The advantage of the limit state format, as presented in the Code, is that it does make it easier to incorporate new data on loads, materials, methods of analysis and structural behaviour as they become available. It is thus eminently suitable for future development based on the results. of experience and researchChapter 2 Analysis General requirements ‘The general requirements concerning methods of analysis are set out in Part | of the Code. and more specific requirements for concrete bridges are given in Part 4. Serviceability limit state Part | permits the use of linear elastic methods or non. linear methods with appropriate allowances for loss of stiffness due to cracking. creep. etc. The latter methods of analysis must be used where geometric changes signifi- cantly modify .the load effects; but such behaviour is, unlikely to occur at the serviceability limit state in a con- crete bridge ‘Although non-linear methods of analysis are available for concrete bridge structures [19]. they are more suited to checking an existing structure, rather than to direct design: this is because prior knowledge of the reinforcement at each section is required in order to determine the stiff nesses, Thus the most likely application of such analyses is that of checking a structure at the serviceability limit state when it has already been designed by another method at the ultimate limit state, Hence, it is anticipated that analysis at the serviceability limit state, in accordance with the Code, will be identical to current working load linear clastic analysis. Part 4 of the Code gives the following guidance on the stiffnesses to be used in the analysis at the serviceability limit state. The flexural stiffness may be based upon: 1, The concrete section ignoring the presence of re- inforcement. 2. The gross section including the reinforcement on @ modular ratio basis. 3. The transformed section consisting of the concrete in compression combined with the reinforcement on modular ratio basis However, whichever option is chosen, it should be used consistently throughout the structure. Axial, torsional and shearing stiffnesses may be based upon the concrete section ignoring the presence of the re- inforcement. The reinforcement can be ignored because it's difficult to allow for it in a simple manner. and itis con- sidered to be unlikely that severe cracking will occur due to these effects at the serviceability limit state Strictly. the moduli of elasticity and shear moduli to be used in determining any of the stiffnesses should be those ‘appropriate to the mean strengths of the materials. because when analysing a structure it is the overall response which, is of interest, If there is a linear relationship between loads, ‘and their effects. the values of the latter are determined by the relative and not the absolute values of the stiffnesses. Consequently. the same effects are calculated whether the material properties are appropriate to the mean or charac: teristic strengths of materials. Since the latter are used throughout the Code, and not the mean strengths. the Code permits them to be used for analysis. Values for the short term elastic modulus of normal weight concrete are given in a table in Part 4 of the Code, and Appendix A of Part 4 of the Code states that half of these values should be adopted for analysis purposes at the serviceability limit state, The tabulated values have been shown [20] to give good agreement with experimental data, Poisson's ratio for concrete is given as 0.2, The elastic modulus for rein- forcement and prestressing stee! is given as 200 kN/mm*, except for alloy bars to BS 4486 [21] and 19-wire strand t0 BS 4757 section 3 (221, in which case it is 175 kNimm* It is also stated in Part 4 that shear lag effects may be fof importance in box sections and beam and slab decks having large flange width-to-length ratios. In such cases the designer is referred to the specialist literature, such as Roik, and Sedlacek (23], or to Part 5 of the Code. which dals, ‘with steel-concrete composite bridges. Part 5 treats the shear lag problem in terms of effective breadths, and gives tables of an effective breadth parameter as 2 function of the breadth-to-length ratio of the flange, the longitudinal location of the section of interest, the type of loading (dis. tributed or concentrated) and the support conditions. The tables were based [24] on a parametric study of shear lag in steel box girder bridges [25]. However. they are con- sidered t0 be applicable to concrete flanges of composite bridges (26] and, within the limitations of the effective 9Concrete bridge design 10 BS 5400 breadth concept, they should also be applicable to concrete bridges. Ultimate limit state |At the ultimate limit state, Part 1 of the Code permits the ‘adoption of either elastic or plastic methods of analysis. Plastic methods are inferred to be those based upon con: siderations of collapse mechanisms, or upon non-elastic dis tributions of stresses or of stress resultants. Although such methods exist for certain types of concrete bridge structure (e.g. yield line theory and the Hillerborg strip method for slabs), it is envisaged that the vast majority of structures will continue to be analysed elastically at the ultimate limit state, However. a simple plastic method could be used for checking a structure at the ultimate limit state when it has already been designed at the serviceability limit state. Such tan approach would be most appropriate to prestressed con- crete structures. A design approach which is permitted in Part 4 of the Code. and which is new to bridge design. although it is well established in building codes, is redistribution of elas tic moments. This method is discussed later in this chap- The stiffnesses to be adopted at the ultimate limit state may be based upon nominal dimensions of the cross: sections. and on the elastic moduli: or the stiffnesses may be modified to allow for shear lag and cracking. As for the serviceability limit state, whichever altemative is selected, it should be used consistently: throughout the structure: Part 4 of the Code also permits the designer to modify clastic methods of analysis: where experiment and experi ence have indicated that simplifications in the simulation ff the structure are possible. An example of such a sim- plification would be an elastic analysis of a deck in which the torsional stiffnesses ure put equal t0 zero. although they would be known to have definite values. Such a sim- plification would result in a safe lower bound design, as explained later in this chapter. and would avoid the com ‘mon problems of interpreting and designing against the torques and twisting moments output by the analysis. However. the author is not aware of any experimental data which, al present, justify such simplifications. Elastic analysis at the ultimate limit state ‘The validity of basing a design against collapse upon an clastic analysis has been questioned by a number of de- signers, it being thought that this constitutes an anomaly. In particular, for concrete structures, it is claimed that such ‘an approach cannot be correct because the elastic analysis inerally he based upon stiffnesses calculated from the uneracked section, whereas it is known that. at eo: lapse, the structure would be cracked. Although it is an- ticipsted that uncracked stiffnesses will usually be adopted for analysis, it is emphasised that the use of cracked trans: Tormed section stiffinesses are permitted. In spite of the doubts that have been expressed. one would 10 should note that it is perfectly acceptable to use an elastic analysis at the ultimate limit state and an anomaly does not arise, even if uncracked stiffnesses are used. The basic reason for this is that an elastic solution t0 a problem satisfies equilibrium everwhere and, if a structure is designed in accordance with a set of stresses (or stress resultants) which are in equilibrium and the yield stresses (or stress resultants) are not exceeded anywhere, then a safe lower bound design results. Clark has given a detailed ‘explanation of this elsewhere [27]. It is emphasised that the elastic solution is merely one of fan infinity of possible equilibrium solutions. Reasons for adopting the elastic so;..’on based ., m uncracked stiff- nesses, rather than an inelastic solution, are: 1. Elastic solutions are readily available for most struc 2 of the reinforcement is not required 3, Problems associated with the limited ductility of struc- tural concrete are mitigated by the fact that all critical sections tend to reach yield simultaneously: thus stress redistribution, which is dependent upon ductility. is minimised, 4. Reasonable service load behaviour is assured Local effects When designing a bridge deck of box beam or beam and Slab construction. itis necessary to consider. in addition to obal effects. the local effects induced in the top slab by wheel loads. Part 4 states that the local effets may be calculated elastically, with due account taken of any fixity existing between the slabs and webs. This conforms with the current practice of assuming full fixity at the slat tnd web junctions and using either Pucher’s influen« faces [28] or Westergaard’s equations [29] ‘As an alternative to an elastic method at the ultimate limit state, yield line theory, which is explained later. or another plastic analysis may be used, The reference to tnother plastic analysis was intended by the drafters to permit the use of the Hillerborg strip method. which is also explained later. However, this method is not readily ap- plicable to modem practice, which tends to omit transverse diaphragms, except at supports, with the result that top slabs are, effectively. infinitely wide and supported on two sides only. In order to reduce the number of load positions 10 be considered when combining global and local effects, it is permitted to assume that the worst loading case for this particular aspect of design occurs in the regions of saemg moments of the structure as a whole. When making this suggestion, the drafters had transverse sagging effects primarily in mind because these are the dominant structural effects in design terms. However. the worst loadin overall tur in regions of global ‘uch as over webs or beams in regions whereas the worse loading cease for longitudinal effects could be in regions of either global compression or tension in the flange. in comb nation with the local longitudinal bend