Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

CBDG Design Guide

International Design Practice


With the world becoming smaller it is common for bridge engineers to become involved with the design of bridges in other
countries, using a variety of international codes and satisfying local requirements.
Whichever code or specification is used, concrete is similar the world over and the fundamental principles of designing and
constructing concrete bridges remain the same. However, the approach taken by the different codes can vary greatly and each
needs to be learned when first used.
The following sections provide guidance on international codes and the differences with their UK counterparts. The references
include links to other websites where more information can be found on the major international codes likely to be encountered.

International Design Codes:


We are fortunate in the UK that BS5400 is recognised internationally as providing sound guidance for the design of bridges.
Some countries have employed it as their primary standard or have used it for the design of longer span or more complex
structures. However, it is only one of a number of international standards that may be specified by overseas clients and it is
advisable for designers to be aware of some significant differences between the concrete models underpinning BS5400 and
other codes. Users of BS5400 also need to be aware that support for this code by BSI and the HA, through their DBRB, will be
diminishing in years to come as the UK switches to the Eurocodes.

Basic code model


The bridge designer should be aware that there are two main code models in use. BS5400 uses the CEB approach towards the
design of reinforced concrete sections, which is similar to the Eurocode approach. The second model is that produced by ACI
which underpins the American, Australian and New Zealand concrete codes.

Eurocodes
The structural Eurocodes present both a major challenger and major opportunity for bridge engineers. Much has been written
about the Eurocodes and it is only intended to provide the briefest of summaries here. Links to useful sites are included; the
reader is cautioned that the Eurocodes are now being published and there is a considerable amount of information for the
uninitiated to digest before the Eurocodes may be used effectively.
The Eurocodes are gradually being introduced into the European member states. Many of the codes are being published as
final documents this year, with an on-going timetable for the publishing of all documents by 2009. A period of coexistence of
five years is permitted when either the British Standard or the Eurocode may be used. At the end of the period, the British
Standard will be withdrawn and designers will be obliged to use the Eurocodes.
Users of BS5400 will find the Eurocodes very different from the BS5400 provisions, primarily owing to the difficulty in
assembling the requisite documents needed to carry out a full design. British concrete bridge designs have been fortunate to
use a comprehensive, bridge specific code that provides all the design information required in one document. The Eurocodes
are not as readily amenable as BS5400 and the designer will need to arm himself with a number of documents to carry out a
design.
For example, the main code is BS EN 1992-1-1. The bridge designer will need to also obtain a copy of BS EN 1992-2, which
contains bridge specific details. The basis for design is given in BS EN 1990, while loading is provided in BS EN 1991-2.
This is simply a question of obtaining the appropriate documents, but there will be some frustration as designers start to get a
grip on the use of the Eurocodes. The designer will also need to obtain the National Annexes to see what Nationally Defined
International Design Practice

Page 1

CBDG Design Guide


Parameters are specified (the National Annexes are documents that are specific to designs carried out for each Member State
and take into account local design information such as environmental load effects, safety requirements and other sensitive
parameters). It is recommended that designers start to consider how they will develop a familiarity with the Eurocodes and
start to carry out some trial designs to the standard and check these against structures designed to BS5400.
There is a considerable amount of published information on the Eurocodes, with a number of guides already written. It is not
possible to keep pages such as these updated with respect to the newly published Eurocodes, National Annexes and Design
Guides and the reader is advised to look through the links listed in the text. Specific concrete advice is given at
www.eurocode2.info run by the Concrete Centre. One of the best sources for the full Eurocode suite is the Thomas Telford site
www.eurocodes.co.uk which provides an up to date listing of all published documents with news of forthcoming information.
Both the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers have produced a number of design guides. In
terms of understanding the basic differences between the Eurocodes and BS5400 there are a number of good entry level
references available on the web that give suitable guidance to engineers. A short document written by Dr R.M. Moss and Rod
Webster is available at www.eurocode2.info/PDF/EC2vBS8110.pdf .

Stress Models
One of the fundamental differences between concrete codes of practice is the calculation of the stress block in the concrete.
BS8110 and BS EN 1992-1-1 use similar models, but with slight difference in the parameters. The shape of the stress block in
the ACI model is arguably more realistic in that it takes into account the reduction in strength as the material approaches
compression failure. Perhaps a more significant effect is that BS5400 includes material factors within the stress/strain
relationship of both materials, whereas the ACI model applies a capacity reduction factor dependent on the aspect of the
section being considered. Thus, sections in bending (which for an under reinforced section is predominantly dependent on steel
strength) a higher factor is used, reflecting the greater consistency of the steel material strengths. Lower factors are used for
columns and for sections in shear, in keeping with the greater variation in concrete strengths.
One other significant area of difference is the design limits for shear. BS5400 is more penal on shear forces that other codes.
Paradoxically, the longitudinal shear requirements are higher in BS5400 than ACI.

Limit States
The UK has used limit state design for over twenty years and designers are very familiar with these requirements. The same is
not true internationally and limit state codes have only recently been introduced in some countries. The Indian bridge codes are
available in both limit state and working stress forms, as are AASHTOs (AASHTO is the American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials). It is work checking closely which standard has been adopted by the client for projects in
such countries, although experience shows that the limit state approach is generally used for major international projects.

Load Factors
Another area of fundamental difference is the approach taken in the determination of load factors and load combinations.
National design requirements are implicit in the choice of factors and it is as well for users to acquaint themselves with the
differences. Cases which may be governing for some bridge types under BS 5400 are not necessarily governing in the
AASHTO codes.

Mixing and matching


Great care is needed if provisions from one code are to be used in conjunction with another. There are basic incompatibilities
between the ACI and CEB methods of design and whereas some of the data is underpinned by the similar research, the
codification may be very different. If it is required to draw on the requirements in the ACI provisions for whatever reason, care
is required to determine the full application of the provisions used. The ACI commentary is very thorough in that it provides
lists of references of the source data used in assembling the standard. It is also possible to get good advice directly from the
code committees by following the links through the ACIs website.

The Designers perspective


In this modern age many engineers have become part of an itinerant workforce that moves from project to project around the
world. Often this is on a virtual basis where the designer sits in his office in his home country and services the clients needs via
the internet and e-mail but just as common is for engineer to travel to where the projects are being done. This requires bridge
engineers of today to be able to design bridges using any of the international design codes commonly used.
From a designers view point this creates challenges in adopting different codes and standards to those they are more familiar
with, but it also gives the opportunity for designers to broaden their knowledge and learn different way of doing things.
It requires engineers to learn the basic principles behind the codes so that they can apply them correctly and understand how
the different parts of the new codes fit together.
International Design Practice

Page 2

CBDG Design Guide


When using international design codes the designers first challenge is to determine the local requirements as well as
understand the design standards being used. Many countries have developed their own interpretation of the international
standards they have adopted and often publish their own accompanying rules to be followed. Often these local requirements
are only published in the local language, or are only available through the local authorities and obtaining this information
might be a length process. Fortunately it is common for international consultants to work in association with local consultants
who are usually able to provide guidance on the local rules and regulations.
It can sometimes take a while to get used to the symbols, notation and formulae used in the different codes. Fortunately, most
codes contain length explanations to help the designer work their way through.
One of the most common confusions when using the different codes is in the use of the cube strength or the cylinder strength
of the concrete. In the UK we are used to the cube strength while AASHTO and Eurocodes use cylinder strengths in all their
design codes and specifications. It is not unknown for projects to have design criteria and specifications based on the cylinder
strength but with all the strength testing based on crushing cubes. The relationship between cylinder and cube strength can vary
significantly and is described in A M Nevilles book Properties of Concrete, but is often taken as 0.8 for simplicity. That is
the cylinder strength = 0.8 x cube strength.
Where-ever a bridge is built in the world it uses similar materials and has the same function irrespective of the code it is
designed to. The codes are just a means to an end, and that is to design a safe, durable bridge that carries the road, rail or
pedestrian traffic over some obstruction below. Much of the designers work is the same for all bridges and does not depend on
the code is being used. The behaviour and analysis of a bridge, the generation of bending moments and shears, and drafting of
the structural elements are common to all bridges. It is usually in the application of the loading, the design formulae and the
detailing where the codes differ.
The differences can be significant in some respects. It is general considered that bridges designed to AASHTO will produce a
structure with less concrete, reinforcing and prestressing when compared to one designed to BS5400. One big difference
between the two is the applied loading, but the detailing rules and general design approach also make a difference. When a
designer is working in a country where they are left with a choice of which code to use they will often choose AASHTO,
especially if they are designing for a contractor where cost is paramount.
Many aspects of bridges that are standard practice in the UK are unheard of overseas. The following lists some of the
differences that the designer will come across:
Run-on or approach slabs are still used in many countries although less common in the UK in recent years
Internal tendons are used with precast segmental construction in most counties, apart from the UK
Steel ducts for prestressing tendons are more common elsewhere than the plastic ducts favoured in the UK
Partial prestressing is common is quite a few countries, although nearly unheard of for a bridge in the UK.
While local requirements may sometimes seem onerous or unreasonable when compared to what is usually done in the UK, the
local practice should usually be adhered to as the local engineers have also been developing their requirements out of many
years of experience.
Concrete, whether reinforced or prestressed is the same basic material where-ever it is used. Differences in aggregate and
cement may produce local variants, but if a designer understands the fundamental properties and behaviour of concrete and its
use in bridge structures, they should have little difficulty in designing and constructing concrete bridges anywhere in the world.

Links to relevant internet sites


Codification bodies
Country

National Standards Website

India
UK

www.bsi-global.com/index.xalter
www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/ha/dmrb/index.htm

Eurocodes

www.eurocodes.co.uk
www.cenorm.be/cenorm/index.htm

USA (AASHTO)

bridges.transportation.org

USA (ACI)

www.aci-int.org/general/home.asp

Canada

www.csa.ca

Japan

www.jsa.or.jp/default_english.asp

Australia

www.standards.com.au

International Design Practice

Page 3

Potrebbero piacerti anche