Previous | Next | Contents

ESDEP WG 15B

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS: BRIDGES

Lecture 15B.1: Conceptual Choice

OBJECTIVE/SCOPE

To introduce the designer to the principal conceptual choices that have to be

addressed for the design of successful, economic steel and composite bridges.

PREREQUISITES

None

RELATED LECTURES

Lecture 1B.6.1: Introduction to Design of Steel and Composite Bridges Part 1.

Lecture 1B.6.2: Introduction to Design of Steel and Composite Bridges Part 2.

SUMMARY

This lecture emphasises the importance of the correct conceptual design of bridges.
After a brief introduction on the different types of bridge, it highlights the
influences that the bridge function and other factors may have on the selection of
correct structural form. It also addresses the more detailed choices that have to be
made as the design is developed.

1. INTRODUCTION
"If you get the concept right, the design will be right". A trite statement, but one
which contains a considerable element of truth (provided, of course, that the
development of the concept is carried out correctly). If the concept is wrong, it will
lead at best to a less than optimum design, or at worst to much abortive work or a
design quite unsuited to its location. Conceptual design does not involve detailed
calculations; indeed, in most circumstances, an experienced designer would
probably be able to produce a safe and economic design from previous experience
and would only use detailed calculations as a final check or for "fine tuning".

The purpose of this lecture is to give an inexperienced designer some guidance on

the conceptual choices which have to be made. It is deliberately couched in general
terms and makes no specific use of particular national or international standards for
bridge design. In addition, many of the concepts described could be designed in
either steel or concrete; in such cases, the emphasis is placed on steel construction.

2. FUNDAMENTAL BRIDGE FORMS

2.1 Introduction

Before attempting to describe how a designer approaches his task, it is useful to

distinguish in very broad terms between a number of bridge types. (A more
detailed catalogue of the types of bridges is given in Lecture 1B.6.1: Introduction to
the Design of Steel and Composite Bridges Part 1. Their design is discussed in the
remaining Lectures 15B.

2.2 Bridges which Carry Loads Mainly in Flexure

By far the majority of bridges are of this type. The loads are transferred to the
bearings and piers and hence to the ground by slabs or beams acting in flexure, i.e.
the bridges obtain their load-carrying resistance from the ability of the slabs and
beams to resist bending moments and shear forces. Only for the very shortest spans
is it possible to adopt a slab without any form of beam. This type of bridge will
thus be referred to generally as a girder bridge. As can be seen in Lecture 1B.6.1, a
wide range of structural forms is possible. Figure 1 indicates a typical elevation of
a girder bridge with a number of terms being defined.

2.3 Bridges which Carry their Loads Mainly as Axial Forces

This type can be further subdivided into those bridges in which the primary axial
forces are compressive (arches) and those in which these forces are tensile
(suspension bridges and cable-stayed bridges). Such forces normally have to be
resisted by members carrying forces of the opposite sense. Figures 2a to 2d show
the basic structural systems for some typical layouts.
It must not be thought that flexure is immaterial in such structures. Certainly, in
most suspension bridges, flexure of the stiffening girder (see Figure 2c) is not a
primary loading in that overstress is unlikely to cause overall failure; however, in
cable stayed bridges (particularly if the stays are widely spaced) flexure of the
girder is a primary loading. Similarly, in arch bridges, non-uniform loading of the
rib can cause primary bending moments to be developed in it and may well govern
the arch design.

2.4 Truss Bridges

Truss bridges are not specific bridge forms in themselves - rather trusses are used
to perform the functions of specific members in one of the types above. For
example, a girder in flexure or an arch rib in axial compression may be designed as
a truss rather than as a solid web plate girder. A truss used as a girder in flexure
carries its bending moments by developing axial loads in its chords, and its shears
by developing axial loads in its web members. Definitions can become somewhat
blurred, e.g, a tied arch (see Figure 2b) can sometimes be considered to act as a
truss girder, particularly if the hangers are inclined to form a triangulated system.

3. THE PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF A BRIDGE

3.1 Introduction

A bridge has to carry a service (which may be highway or railway traffic, a

footpath, public utilities, etc.) over an obstacle (which may be another road or
railway, a river, a valley, etc.) and to transfer the loads from the service to the
foundations at ground level. The functional considerations that have greatest
influence on conceptual choice are:

 The clearance requirements (both vertically and horizontally) and avoidance

of impact
 The type and magnitude of the loading to be carried
 The topography and geology of the site

It is not possible to place these considerations in any particular order of

importance; the relative importance is likely to vary from project to project and
each must be considered on its merits.

3.2 Clearance Requirements

All bridges must be designed to ensure, as far as is possible, that they are not
struck by vehicles, vessels or trains which may pass below them. This requirement
is normally met by specifying minimum clearances. It must be remembered that
designed values must take into account deflections due to any loading that may
occur on the bridge structure. Clearance requirements may thus determine the span
of a bridge and also have a significant bearing on the construction depth. Whilst
the requirements will not normally determine precisely the type of bridge, it may
well eliminate some possibilities.
Typically, for example, a bridge over a major highway would be expected to have
a minimum vertical clearance of about 5,3 metres; even this may not protect it
from accidental impact (e.g. cases have occurred of the jibs of cranes being moved
on transporters becoming free and rising). In addition, pier positions must be such
that the likelihood of impact from errant vehicles is minimised, both to protect the
pier and the vehicle itself. This requirement is usually achieved by setting the pier
back a reasonable distance from the edge of the carriageway.

Strict rules for vertical and lateral clearance over railways are laid down by all
railway authorities, and must be complied with.

Navigation authorities specify clearances over rivers, to allow not only for the mast
height and width of vessels below the bridge, but also for particular requirements
for piers in the waterway (or on a flood plain) to avoid excessive flow velocity and
scour of river banks.

In considering vertical clearance, a designer must bear in mind the problems of

attaining them. The approach gradient for a highway bridge should not normally
exceed about 4% and a railway bridge much less. This is of great importance when
comparing fixed with moving bridges.

3.3 Loading

The type and magnitude of loading has a significant bearing on the form of bridge.
Highway loading by its nature is impossible to determine exactly, either in
disposition or in magnitude. For obvious reasons, a highway bridge requires a deck
on which the traffic can run and (unless the span is so short that a simple slab is
adequate to span between abutments) the deck must be strong enough to distribute
the loading to the main girders. Traditionally, railway bridges were designed
without full decks since the position of the load was determinate and the bridge
could be constructed with rail tracks running directly on the girders. However,
modern railway bridges, particularly in certain environments, have decks to
support the ballast. The latter is necessary to give satisfactory noise reduction. A
service bridge, e.g. a pipeline, may similarly dispense with a deck.

Every country has its own specification for the magnitude of loading on highway
and railway bridges. Eventually, in the European Community, these specifications
will be replaced by a standard European loading specification, but until then the
national codes will continue to be used. For highway bridges most national codes
have in common a uniform loading together with a line load (or series of point
loads) to represent isolated heavy axles. In many codes, the uniform load is of
decreasing intensity as the length of bridge increases, to allow for the reduced
probability of a concentration of heavy lorries. Furthermore, there are rules for
multiple lane loadings, frequently assuming that not more than two lanes are fully
loaded at any one time, again based on a probabilistic approach. Many authorities
also specify checks for a single very heavy abnormal vehicle. In many codes, the
effect of impact (dynamic magnification) of highway loads is implicitly taken into
account by the static load specification.

Railway loadings are more nearly deterministic since the loads of the heaviest
trains are reasonably well known. However, most codes for railway loadings
require an explicit calculation for the impact effect.

Additionally, forces arising from braking or acceleration of vehicles, centrifugal

effects on curved bridges, temperature effects and wind have to be taken into
account where relevant.

Whilst the details of applied loads are appropriate to the detailed, rather than the
conceptual design of a bridge, certain aspects enter into the concept. For example,
where heavy abnormal vehicles are specified, the bridge will require good
transverse load distribution. This requirement may eliminate certain forms of
construction. Temperature effects are significant for bearing layout and structural
articulation, and wind loading plays a dominant part in the conceptual design of
very long spans, even though it may be insignificant for short spans (except,
possibly, for the foundations).

Lecture 15B.2 gives a detailed introduction to bridge loading.

3.4 The Topography and Geology of the Site

Sometimes this aspect alone determines the structural form. For example:

 The overall topography of the site will probably determine the line of the
road or railway. Not infrequently this may mean that bridges will have to
cross other roads, railways or rivers at a substantial angle, resulting in skew
spans (Figure 3). The road may be on a curve; whilst it is possible to curve a
bridge to follow this, it is frequently expensive and structurally inefficient,
usually dictating the use of torsionally stiff girders even for short spans. If
the curve is slight, it may be preferable to construct the bridge as a series of
straight spans.
 Poor foundation conditions will favour fewer foundations and hence longer
spans. A diagrammatic representation of the costs of a bridge is given in
Figure 4. A balance has to be found between the cost of foundations and
superstructure to minimise the total cost.
 Sometimes topography alone will point to a particular solution; the classic
case is a deep, rocky sided gorge which is ideally suited to a fixed arch
bridge (Figure 2a).
Generally, the bridge site is fixed by the geometry of the obstacle and local terrain.

 However, where possible, it is well to consider the siting carefully. There is

often the possibility to reduce the size of the span, to avoid placing the
bridge on a curve, to reduce the angle of skew, or improve the construction
depth.
4. OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING CONCEPTUAL
CHOICE
4.1 Introduction

In addition to considerations of the purpose and function of the bridge, there are
several other important factors which can have a significant influence on the
conceptual design of a bridge.

4.2 Methods of Erection

It has long been appreciated that a designer must consider at the design stage the
method by which a bridge will be erected. Indeed it is not infrequently the case that
such consideration should be made even at the time of conceptual choice, since it
can happen that the superficially most attractive design is impossible to erect in a
particular location. For example, a design that relies on being erected in large
pieces (such as a major box girder), may be ruled out because of the impossibility
of transporting such pieces to a remote site with inadequate access roads.

Frequently, particularly on large structures, it is possible to adjust the distribution

of moment and forces in a structure by choosing a particular erection sequence.
This possibility can affect the conceptual choice, e.g. the designer of a major three
span estuarial crossing with a central span of 200m, may consider that the best
conceptual choice is a steel box girder haunched at the internal piers thus carrying
high hogging bending moments at these piers and comparatively low sagging
moments at midspan. However, the most convenient erection method for this site
may be to float out and lift most of the central span in one piece, thus causing high
dead load sagging moments at midspan. By building the end supports high and
jacking the ends of the bridge down after the connection of the mainspan is made,
an overall hogging moment can be induced to counter the unwanted sagging
moment. Certainly this solution requires very careful analysis, and calculation of
fabrication and precambering dimensions to obtain the correct carriageway profile,
but at least the concept will be right!

Many methods of erection of steel bridges exist; five typical ones are:

 Assembly in situ
 Launching
 Lifting
 Cantilevering
 Sliding or rolling-in.

Combinations of these methods are possible.

4.2.1 Assembly in situ

This method involves assembling the bridge from its individual components or
sub-assemblies in its final position, usually on falsework or some other form of
temporary support, making the site splices and removing the falsework. Adequate
cranage must be provided to cover the whole of the deck area. The presence of
falsework may temporarily block a road, railway or river over which a bridge is
built. Because large individual pieces are not normally involved, it is a method
which may be practicable when access to a site is difficult. Assembly in situ may
be used in conjunction with other methods of erection.

4.2.2 Launching

This method involves assembling a bridge on rollers, slide-tracks or skates on its

final alignment but at the side of the obstacle to be crossed. When complete it is
pushed or pulled forward to cross the obstacle and land on bearings on the far side
(Figure 5).

Whilst simple in principle, launching requires a site where large pieces of the
bridge can be constructed in line with the final position but on the shore. The
operation also requires very careful control and detailed analysis since, at various
stages, bridge sections may be subjected to loadings differing greatly from those in
service.

4.2.3 Lifting

This method involves lifting a self-supporting part or the whole of a bridge into or
near to its final position (Figure 6). Pieces lifted can vary from a small footbridge
weighing a few tonnes, to a large section of a major crossing weighing over 1000
tonnes. Lifting may be a complete operation in itself, or part of a cantilever
erection scheme.
Lifting plant may range from small cranes for minor bridges, to very large floating
cranes for major parts of estuarial bridges; alternatively winches or jacks on the
already erected part of the bridge may be used. Hence the position and topography
of the site will have a significant effect on the conceptual choice.

4.2.4 Cantilevering

This method involves constructing a bridge, normally continuous over several

spans, progressively from one or both abutments, by attaching sections to the end
of already erected portions (Figure 7). An anchor span is lifted or assembled in
situ, and sections then cantilevered from this by either lifting from ground level, or
running along the deck and lowering from the end. The position of the site and the
access to it will determine the size of the pieces erected and this in turn will have a
bearing on the original choice of the structural concept. Cantilevering is an ideal
method for erecting cable-stayed bridges, using the stays as supports for the
cantilever as work progresses.
4.2.5 Sliding or rolling-in

This method involves building the bridge offset laterally from the final site and
then jacking and winching it sideways into its final position. It is typically used for
replacing an existing bridge which cannot be taken out of service for a long period.
For obvious reasons it is only possible to use it for a very strictly limited type of
site.

4.3 Local Constructional Skills and Materials

It should go without saying that a bridge should be suited to local technology. It is

not sensible to specify a sophisticated design in welded high tensile steel if all the
material and labour has to be imported. This consideration applies not only to
minor bridges - the new 460 m span Hooghly Bridge in Calcutta, under
construction in 1992, was designed as a rivetted cable stayed bridge; rivetting skills
were still available in India and local steels could have given problems with site
welding; the design proved an economic solution whereas in Europe there are
probably no riveters still in existence and weldable steel is the norm.

4.4 Future Inspection and Maintenance

The importance of future inspection and maintenance cannot be overemphasised,

both at the conceptual design and the detailed design stages. There is little doubt
that too little attention has been given to it in the past, with the result that many
bridges, otherwise satisfactory, have deteriorated because of difficulty in
inspection and maintenance. It is particularly important that in locations where
access is difficult (either physically or because it would cause disruption of
services) details which deteriorate should be avoided as far as possible. This will
be considered further in various respects, for example whether a bridge should be a
series of simple spans or should be continuous.

At the conceptual design stage, a designer should consider whether it would be

appropriate to use a material such as weather resistant steel or perhaps whether the
structure should be fully enclosed with a non-maintenance material to protect it and
give access for inspection. Either of these expedients could result, for example, in a
requirement for greater clearance of the bridge above the obstacle being crossed.
They might have to be considered together with the layout of the overall scheme.
For example, the topography might show that a minor change of alignment could
accommodate the greater clearance at little or no extra expense.

4.5 Aesthetic and Environmental Aspects

The appearance of bridges has in recent years become a matter of considerable

importance. Frequently, a scheme takes a road or railway through an area of great
natural beauty and it is important that any structures are in keeping with these
surroundings and do not adversely affect them. Many authorities consider that
there are some bridges which actually contribute to the environment by giving an
interesting focus to an otherwise empty scene; the Severn Bridge is a typical
example. Regrettably, however, there are many bridges for which the contrary is
true. Not infrequently, the problem could have been avoided by following some
simple rules.

For example, it is commonly accepted that a bridge is more aesthetically pleasing

with an odd number of spans than an even number. In addition, a degree of
deepening at piers can add to the attraction. Figure 8 shows a typical location for a
highway overbridge, with a number of possible solutions, any of which is normally
structurally viable. There is little doubt that the 3-span structures are more
attractive than the two span ones. Hence, unless there are other contra-indications,
the conceptual choice should probably tend towards a 3-span solution.
In Section 3.3 it was pointed out that on a railway bridge, it is possible to mount
the rails directly on the main girders. Unfortunately this arrangement gives rise to a
high level of noise emission and so would not normally be acceptable, particularly
in an urban area. Provision of a concrete deck slab together with the use of ballast
and possibly elastomeric rail mountings can produce a dramatic improvement and
shows where an "obvious" choice can be modified by environmental
considerations.

5. DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS - GIRDER

BRIDGES
5.1 Introduction

In Sections 3 and 4 consideration was given to a number of general aspects which

have to be taken into account by a designer in making a conceptual choice. In the
current section, attention will be focused on some more detailed matters as an
introduction to the particular forms of construction which are covered in other
lectures. As the large majority of bridges are the simple girder type, attention will
be concentrated on these.

5.2 The Deck

A typical cross-section of a short span highway bridge is shown in Figure 9. For

obvious reasons such a bridge requires a deck on which the traffic can run. The
deck must be strong enough to distribute the local loads to the main girders. For
such multi-girder structures there is little conceptual choice for a designer - it has
been found by experience that a reinforced concrete slab between about 200 and
300mm thick, supported at about 3 - 3,5m centres is suitable for most purposes.
For large span structures, twin girder solutions become more attractive and either a
thicker deck, probably with varying depth, is required or cross girders have to be
introduced. Only in bridges where weight is at a real premium (e.g. long span
bridges, or moving bridges) is it normally necessary to think further than this.

One possibility for reducing the deck weight is the use of lightweight concrete (an
example is the 174m main span Friarton Bridge in UK where the deck has been
constructed as a lightweight reinforced concrete slab). However, a more normal
alternative to an RC slab is an orthotropically stiffened steel plate deck. Many
layouts have been tried, some of which have suffered from premature fatigue from
the repeated stresses from traffic. There now seems to be general agreement within
Europe that the cross-section shown in Figure 10 is the "state of the art" solution
for a steel deck in 1992.

Finally, it must be emphasised that in modern designs the deck, whether of

reinforced concrete or stiffened steel plating, will invariably be connected to the
girders below it so that it acts compositely with them in carrying the bending
moments imposed on them. In the case of concrete decks this connection will be
made using shear connectors (see Figure 9) and in the case of steel decks by a
direct connection (normally welding or high strength friction grip bolting).

5.3 Typical Layouts of Short and Medium Span Bridges

Figure 8 and figures 11 - 12 show a number of typical layouts for bridges of this
type with indications of dimensions. Comment has already been made in Section
4.5 on the aesthetic aspects. In the present section some technical questions
regarding the alternatives are addressed. For example:

 What are the relative merits of making the slab span transversely between
the main girders (Figures 11 a, b, c, d and f) or making it span longitudinally
between transverse girders spanning between the longitudinal girders
(Figure 11 e)?
  Should the slab provide the sole distribution medium to transfer the traffic
loads from the roadway surface to the main longitudinal girders, or will
additional transverse girders and/or transverse bracing be used?
 Should the slab be of constant or variable depth?
 Should the main longitudinal girders be fabricated from rolled sections or
made up (e.g. plate girders or box girders)?
 Should the main girders be designed as compact or non-compact?
 Should the main girders be of constant or variable depth?
 Should the main girders be continuous over the piers or not? If continuous,
into how many spans should the crossing be divided?
 What is the likely depth of the main girders?
 Is there any merit in using construction other than simply supported girders,
e.g. portal frame.
 How are environmental loads, e.g. wind, temperature, catered for?

The bridges shown on Figures 5, 8, 11 and 12 are all real structures; Figure 11, in
particular, identifies six types of cross-section for highway bridges, all of which
have been used successfully. In the end, the test at the detailed design stage is
which layout is the most economic for a particular site. To resolve this question
may require a significant amount of trial and error calculation. It is useful,
however, to lay down a few guidelines at the conceptual design stage (not
necessarily in the same order as the questions above!):
 If a slab is made to span transversely between main longitudinal girders, the
girder spacing is limited to 3 - 3,5m (unless a thicker slab is used; such slabs
are likely to be of variable depth). Hence if the carriageway is wide,
particularly in the case of long spans, an uneconomically large number of
 main girders may be required. On the other hand, widely spaced main
girders require the use of transverse girders which do not contribute to
carrying the longitudinal bending moments. Hence for narrow carriageways,
particularly on short spans, this arrangement is unlikely to be economic.
 When a concrete slab spans between transverse girders the local bending
effects cause stresses in the same direction as the overall bending stresses.
Hence the effects are frequently additive and the slab has to be designed to
allow for this.
 Steel plate decks will almost always be designed to span between transverse
girders since, if they form part of the overall compression flange of the main
girders, they will in any case require longitudinal stiffening.
 An alternative to transverse girders, to reduce the number of longitudinal
girders but still allow the slab to span transversely, is shown on Figure 11d,
where a longitudinal small section stringer supports the slab and is
supported in turn from the main girders.
 Normally in the sort of spans where multiple longitudinal girders with a
transversely spanning slab is the economic solution, it will be found that the
slab will be adequate for distributing longitudinal bending moments among
the main girders without added bracing (such bracing may, however, be
required during erection to stabilise the system).
 Generally a constant depth slab is considerably cheaper than a haunched
one, but is normally limited to a span of about 3,5m between supporting
beams.
 Rolled sections are significantly cheaper per tonne than fabricated sections.
However, they are of a limited depth so the maximum span for which they
can be used is limited.
 Fabricated sections can be made more "efficient" structurally than rolled,
since the material can be concentrated where it is most needed, i.e. in the
flanges, and more particularly, in the lower flange when the deck forms a
significant part of the upper flange. Hence for the same span they can be
made lighter but this advantage may be offset by higher unit fabrication
costs, see Section 5.5.
 Rolled sections are almost invariably Class 1. Hence advantage can be taken
of designing them to allow for the full plastic moment of resistance in
calculating their strength.
 Fabricated sections designed as compact are seldom economic.
 The conclusion is that rolled sections are usually economic for spans up to
about 25m if simply supported and 30m or so if continuous. Plate girders
and box girders can be used for spans up to 300m.
 Box girder construction for short span bridges is not normally economic
unless it is necessary for a specific purpose, e.g. where high torsional
rigidity is necessary, such as in curved bridges.
  Variable depth longitudinal girders are more expensive per tonne than
constant depth ones, but can offer significant weight savings in continuous
spans and frequently are aesthetically more pleasing.
 There are arguments both for and against continuity in short to medium
spans. Some of these are listed below:

For Against

Items difficult to maintain, such as expansion Compression in bottom flange near piers;
joints, can be minimised. hence potential stability problems.
Composite sections much more efficient in
Advantages of reduced depth of construction
sagging than in hogging.
Hyperstatic structure - indeterminate -
May be essential for bridge erection and/or
problems with differential settlement,
launching.
concrete shrinkage and temperature gradient.
The reduction in maximum moments during
concrete placing is useful.

Whilst other forms of construction, e.g. cable stayed, have been used for short span
bridges in the past, they are normally adopted only in cases where special
conditions govern (e.g. moving bridges, severe restrictions on headroom, etc.) or
where the undeniable aesthetic attraction of such bridges is an important
consideration. Footbridges frequently fall into the latter category.

5.4 Long Span Girder Bridges

Long span girder bridges are normally developments of the plate or box girder
forms described in the previous section. They will usually be continuous over two
or more spans and will frequently be haunched. Normally the span limit is about
250 metres clear (although longer examples exist, e.g. Rio Niteroi). A typical
elevation of such a girder bridge is shown in Figure 13.
As with shorter spans, consideration has to be given to the cross-section (number
of main girders, etc.) and the form of deck - normal reinforced concrete,
lightweight reinforced concrete, orthotropically stiffened steel plate, etc. A very
typical cross-section is the twin box girder with transverse girders as shown in
Figure 14, although when the carriageway is comparatively narrow a single large
box girder, frequently with an orthotropic steel deck, is quite common (Figure 15).
A form of construction used frequently in the USA and Canada, although not
common in Europe, is the "open-top" composite box girder in which the reinforced
concrete slab, placed in-situ, forms the complete top flange (Figure 16). The main
problem with this form occurs during construction, when the tops of the webs need
stabilising until the slab is placed.
5.5 Minimum Cost or Minimum Weight?

Any modern bridge designer must recognise that the ratio of material to labour
costs has changed considerably within the last few decades. Depending on local
conditions, 1 man hour now costs the same as 30 to 70kg steel. In the past, material
costs were relatively greater and detailed designs close to practical minimum
weight were also likely to be minimum cost designs.

In current conditions, it is frequently the case that the most economic design is one
where the labour content of the fabrication has been minimised by careful design,
where necessary at the expense of material weight. Figure 17 shows two examples
where modern economic design is considerably simpler than earlier detailed
designs. In the plate girder example shown, the stiffened girder would be 230kg
lighter if it was 10m long but the seven stiffeners would each take at least ¾ hour
to position and weld, a total time of 5¼ hours. Thus the heavier girder is cheaper in
all fabrication shops where a man hour costs more than 230 ¸ 5¼ = 44kg of steel.

5.6 Design For Construction

Design for minimum fabrication can influence directly the choice of structural
form. Table 1 indicates the contributions to total cost of these different types of
bridge girder, taking the total cost of a plate girder construction as 100 units.

Bridge Type Rolled Section Plate Girder Box Girder

 Steel 30 30 30

Fabrication 30 30 70

Corrosion Protection 10 10 15

Erection 10 10 15

TOTAL 80 100 130

The influence of fabrication content is readily seen. Clearly a rolled section bridge
can still be the cheapest solution even if it is significantly heavier than a box girder
alternative.

The detailed economic comparison will vary considerably with local conditions but
local fabricators will generally be only too ready to advise on the relative
economics of different forms of construction.

Fabrication can be considerably facilitated by detailing which maximises repetition

and also makes the bridge easier to construct. For example, incorporation of bolted
joints for some connections introduces a tolerance to the structure which is not
available in all-welded construction. Carefully positioned, they may minimise the
use of expensive full penetration butt welds and may also reduce the risk of
lamellar tearing. (The latter may require special treatment in welded construction
with cruciform joints, such as the specification of material with guaranteed through
thickness properties.) Once again, fabricators are usually pleased to advise
designers on such matters.

6. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
 'If the concept is right, the design will be right' is at least as true for bridges
as it is for other types of structure.
 Initial conceptual choice should take account of:

× clearance requirements and the avoidance of impact damage

× type of loading

× topography and geology of the site

× possible erection methods

× local skills and materials

× future inspection and maintenance

× aesthetic and environmental aspects

 The design development needs to make the correct choices for:

× deck structure

× layout i.e. spans and structural arrangements

× continuous or simple construction

× proportions, i.e. span/depth ratios

× reducing fabrication labour to a minimum

× design for ease of construction

7. ADDITIONAL READING
1. B.H.V. Topping (ed) Developments in Structural Engineering. Proc Forth
Rail Bridge Centenary Conference 1990, Spon, London.
2. ECCS Pub 70 Symposium International, Ponts Metalliques, Federation
National du Batiment Paris, France, 29 and 30 April 1992.
3. ECCS Pub 57 International Symposium, Building In Steel - The Way
Ahead, Stratford-Upon-Avon 1989.
4. Chladny, E et al (ed), Bridges on the Danube Proc. International Conference
Vienna, Bratislava - Budapest, Technical University of Budapest 1992.
5. Ivanyi, M (ed), Bridges on the Danube, Catalogue, Technical University of
Budapest 1993.

Previous | Next | Contents