ICTB2010 - Lillehammer, September 12-15, 2010

Structural systems
for glulam arch bridges

Kolbein Bell
professor emeritus

Department of structural engineering

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Trondheim, Norway

September 2010 1 Department of structural engineering

 Types of arch bridges

preferable

2-hinge

or 3-hinge

most common

September 2010 2 Department of structural engineering

 Some typical glulam arch
bridges built recently in
Norway

in the 25 to 40 m span range

September 2010 3 Department of structural engineering

 Nybergsund

September 2010 4 Department of structural engineering

 Tynset

September 2010 5 Department of structural engineering

 Flm

September 2010 6 Department of structural engineering

 Msr

September 2010 7 Department of structural engineering

 Horne bru

September 2010 8 Department of structural engineering

All these bridges were designed to meet the
requirements of the Norwegian Timber Code
NS 3470

However, NS 3470 is now history

From April 2010 our timber bridges will

have to meet the requirements of
Eurocode 5 (EC5)

September 2010 9 Department of structural engineering

and EC5 is not kind to the typical
Norwegian arch bridge design
Major issues
kmod and M
volume effects (kh , kvol , kdis )
bending and shear ( k m and kcr )
d t ,90,d
combined d and t ,90,d + 1
f v ,d kdis kvol ft ,90,d
the quality of glulam
L40 from GL36c to GL28c
September 2010 10 Department of structural engineering
 Example

September 2010 11 Department of structural engineering

 Short term loading in service class 3

Capacity ( ), in % of ultimate limit strength

Numbers in parentheses are the ratio NS EC 5

September 2010 12 Department of structural engineering
Cont.
Capacity ( ), in % of ultimate limit strength

Numbers in parentheses are the ratio NS EC 5

September 2010 13 Department of structural engineering
Hanger arrangements
for
medium span length

25 40 m

September 2010 14 Department of structural engineering

 13,0 kN/m additional

19,5 kN/m
Light timber deck
300 kN

2-hinge

2D

fails miserably EC5 apparently OK

September 2010 15 Department of structural engineering

 However
hangers relax
and become up to
50 mm shorter

buckle with an
amplitude of
approx. 500 mm

Not acceptable ! unless

September 2010 16 Department of structural engineering
September 2010 17 Department of structural engineering
Heavy concrete deck

tie rod

September 2010 18 Department of structural engineering

 2D analyses

the winner

No relaxing hangers

Most unfavorable load positions with respect to sections A, B, C and D

September 2010 19 Department of structural engineering

 3D analyses of design C

No additional transverse stiffening

No
rotation

free rotation
MODEL

September 2010 20 Department of structural engineering

Buckling analysis dead load only
(no load factor)

1st buckling mode

buckling factor = 5,25

September 2010 21 Department of structural engineering

 Buckling analysis
Traffic load only (dead load constant)
(including load factor)

1st buckling mode 2nd buckling mode

buckling factor = 5,15 buckling factor = 7,80

September 2010 22 Department of structural engineering

 Nonlinear static analysis for
full traffic and wind loading
1,5 kN/m
Max.
horizontal
displacement

H = 95 mm

Displacements

September 2010 23 Department of structural engineering

 Findings - design C

A cross section of
b x h = 800 x 600 mm

is only slightly overstressed (105%) in

combined bending and axial compression
(shear and tension perp. to grain is OK)

EC5 with M = 1,15

This statement also applies to a 3-hinge arch design

September 2010 24 Department of structural engineering

Hanger arrangements
for
large span length

100 m

Network arches

September 2010 25 Department of structural engineering

Glulam: GL28c

Concrete deck: 10000 x 350 (two lanes)

Loading :
Additional dead load: 10 kN/m per arch (asphalt & railing)
Distributed traffic load: 13 kN/m per arch
Three concentrated traffic loads, each 300 kN, per lane
Wind load: 1,0 kN/m per arch

September 2010 26 Department of structural engineering

Hanger arrangements 2D model

constant
= 60 deg

29 arch
segments;
two lengths

x 29 equal arch
segments

September 2010 27 Department of structural engineering

 Preliminary 2D analyses

Alternative a : ample capacity

Alternative b : sufficient capacity

Alternative c : sufficient capacity

continue with c

September 2010 28 Department of structural engineering

 3D analysis one arch

MODEL Buckling analysis

dead load only

same BC as before
buckling factor = 0,91

September 2010 29 Department of structural engineering

 Full 3D model

September 2010 30 Department of structural engineering

 Buckling analysis only traffic load varies

mode
#1

#2

buckling factor = 7,7 buckling factor = 13,3

(dead load only: buckling factor = 4,9 )
September 2010 31 Department of structural engineering
 Design check based on
3D nonlinear static analysis of bridge
subjected to short term loading consisting of
dead load (with load factor = 1,2)
stage 1
wind load (with load factor 1,0)
traffic load (with load factor = 1,3) stage 2
and
Eurocode 5 for service class 3 and M = 1,15
combined bending and compr. 103 %
ULS capacity: shear 40 %
tension perp. to grain 30 %

September 2010 32 Department of structural engineering

 Stiffness
Deformations from nonlinear ULS analysis with critical loading

arch: 120 mm
arch: 50 mm

deck: 155 mm

September 2010 33 Department of structural engineering

 Free vibration analysis

September 2010 34 Department of structural engineering

Free vibration analysis, cont.

September 2010 35 Department of structural engineering

The proposed design, which is in no
way optimized, is believed to be
feasible
but there are many challenges:
the casting of the concrete deck
the tie rod (tension of 8000 kN!)
the hangers (change of length)
the arch (glued or mechanically joined?)
connection between arch and foundation
joint between hanger and arch

September 2010 36 Department of structural engineering

Standard connection

September 2010 37 Department of structural engineering

 Proposed connection
(in principle)

September 2010 38 Department of structural engineering

 Thank you
for your
patience

September 2010 39 Department of structural engineering