Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering 185

Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges

Árpád Rózsás
BME Department of Structural Engineering, e-mail: rozsasarpi@gmail.com

Abstract
Contrary to the previous design practice - which is overwhelmingly based on elasticity - the new European standard allows the
mobilization of plastic reserves of composite bridges. Hitherto, no comprehensive study was made to assess the achievable gain
through the exploitation of these reserves. This paper makes an attempt to fill this gap for composite bridges with rolled girders
through parametric analysis coupled with optimization. As post-elastic limit states the first-hinge and shakedown limit states are
considered. Rolled sections comprise many advantages over their exploitable plastic reserves e.g. fewer onsite welding, few or no
stiffeners, quick erection. The calculations showed that rolled girders inherently own significant plastic reserves and they seem to
be competitive alternatives of the widely applied bridge types in small and medium span ranges.

Introduction
In Hungary and all over Continental Europe the elastic approach is prevalently applied in design by bridge
engineers. This conservative approach has mainly historical roots connected to limited knowledge and
computational power. Over the years, the calculation methods and our understanding on plastic behavior
have undergone substantial development. Nowadays, plastic analysis and design of bridges are attainable and
desirable. Since the new European standard allows the plastification of composite sections [11] it should be
quantitatively assessed whether it is worth or not to exploit these reserves. This paper makes an attempt to
draw general conclusions about these post-elastic reserves based on the predesign of more than three
hundred rolled girder composite bridges considering ULS, SLS and FLS limit states for the main girders
prescribed in the Eurocodes. Due to the extensive and diverse varying parameters we restrict our attention to
simple- and two span composite bridges formed by twin and multiple main girders. Some other parameters
and factors such as the construction sequence, deck width, the material strength or loading class are
constrained as well; these are detailed in the following chapters.
Plastic Design
Plastic or post-elastic design - where the yielding of the material is allowed - is not new notwithstanding
rarely applied design approach in bridge engineering. First-hinge ultimate limit state based on elastic
analysis is optional in BS and in AASHTO as well and now it is permitted in the Eurocode for composite
bridges, but not for steel ones [7; 1]. If one would like to utilize more the structure the ultimate limit state can
be pushed further to incremental collapse. For small and medium span bridges due to the relatively high live
to dead load ratio and to the variable loading, the phenomenon of shakedown has to be considered. This is
the governing limit state instead of – in structural engineering typically applied – plastic collapse [12].
Practical application of shakedown theory in bridge engineering elaborated only in the US [14].
The first-hinge approach can be considered as a simplified shakedown analysis, where the limits are chosen
such a way that the incremental collapse criterion is automatically fulfilled. Symbolical representation of
these limit states and domains can be seen in Fig. 1. The green region denoted by E represents the typically
used elastic load domain. The µ1 and µ2 load factors describe the loading conditions to which the structure is
subjected. The aim of plastic methods is to extend this space into the orange (S) region where the structure is
still capable to carry its loads. Previous studies - based on rather few examples - suggest that it is worth
exploring this space [3; 4; 6; 5; 19].
The application of plastic limit states for rolled girder composite bridges (RGC) seems to be straightforward
due to the compactness of rolled steel sections. In this paper, the conjecture of the above researchers is
intended to be generalized through a few hundred design examples. In the investigation, the first-hinge and
shakedown limit states are considered.

Rózsás, Á.: Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges
Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering 186

µ1 µ1

PC PC
IC, A IC, A
S S
E E
1,0
µ2 µ sh µ2

Fig. 1. Interpretation of the shakedown load factor and the load-bearing domains (E - elastic; S - shakedown; IC, A - incremental
collapse, alternating plasticity; PC - plastic collapse).

Rolled Girder Composite Bridges

RGC bridges offer many advantages over the typically applied reinforced concrete (RC) and pre-stressed
concrete bridges. Some of these are features of every composite bridge and some unique or more
pronounced for rolled types. In respect to several aspects a comparison can be seen in Table 1 between the
three conventionally applied bridge types.
pre-stressed reinforced composite
concrete concrete construction
construction cost + ++ +
construction time o - ++
Slenderness + - +
Maintenance 1.1% 0.9% 1.1%
Robustness - ++ +
Inspection -- - +
Strengthening -- -- ++
++ very good; + good; o acceptable; - fair; -- poor
Table 1: Comparison of pre-stressed pre-fabricated, monolith reinforced concrete and composite bridges [16].
Rolled girders are available in maximum 32m length, exceptionally up to 40m [16]. Therefore, onsite
welding can be entirely omitted in many cases. The above-mentioned 32m as a maximum span covers the
98% of Hungarian road bridge inventory [18]. The additional costs from fabrication - which comprises about
19-29 % of the total cost of the steel girder of a convention composite plate girder bridge [8] – can be
reduced significantly since stiffeners, onsite welding and cross-section change is generally not required. The
small span RGC bridges can be entirely prefabricated and lifted into their final position by crane.
Another applicability constraint arises from the maximum available girder height (1100mm) and from the
discrete section range. The accessible europrofils (Fig. 2) cover quite continuously the demand especially for
smaller sections.
Therefore, the discrete range of sections seems to be a minor restriction. It has a considerable effect in case
of larger span (>~25m) bridges where the section modulus demand is higher; it can be seen that the points
are less crowded at the end of the graph. This makes harder to follow the demand in these cases,
nevertheless, with additional welded plates the graph could be made more continuous. In this paper we do
not consider this option.

Rózsás, Á.: Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges
Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering 187

40000
HE, HL sections
35000
Wely

Section modulus [cm3 ]

30000
Wply
25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00 1 000.00
Area [cm2 ]

Fig. 2.HE and HL sections (higher than 400mm); area vs. elastic (Wely) and plastic (Wply) section moduli.
Additionally, among the typical advantages of composite bridges the improved stiffness and reduced steel
weight compared to steel bridges, reduced overall weight over reinforced concrete bridges, ease of
inspection and maintenance, straightforward fabrication and improved fatigue resistance should be
mentioned [15]. The rolled H-sections’ web is compact, not susceptible to local buckling, thus there is no
need for expensive welding or stiffeners, this makes them suitable for plastic design. In the following, it will
be shown that these bridges own some significant plastic reserves, which make them even more competitive
but at least to a consideration worth alternative. Nakamura et al. (2002) showed that using rolled girder in
continuous configuration with concrete encased internal support region and mobilizing the plastic reserves
the maximum achievable span can be extended up to the remarkable 50m span over the previous 25m. An
American design guide for typical situations also recommends the use of rolled girders instead of plate
girders [2].
Studied Structures
To assess the achievable gain through plastic design a comprehensive parametric analysis is carried out.
Numerous elastic and plastic designs are performed and compared; these represent quasi-optimal solutions
for the given constraints in respect of structural steel weight. Twin and multi-girder bridges with varying
length, span number and material strength are examined. In case of wide multilane (more than two) bridges
the twin girder bridges are typically formed as ladder deck bridges (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Typical ladder deck (left) and multi girder (right) superstructures.
The crossbeams of ladder deck bridges are also provided with shear studs; therefore, the deck acts as a two
way slab. The arrangements, main geometric parameters are chosen based on built examples and on the
guidelines of the following literature [21; 8; 17]. The structures are not skewed and the reinforced concrete
deck is formed with a 10cm high haunch. For multi-span bridges continuous static system offers many
advantages, therefore, we should seek to establish such a joint. The continuous connection can be realized by
various ways; two possible solutions are presented in Fig. 4 based on [13]; the left one is considered
throughout this paper.

Rózsás, Á.: Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges
Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering 188

endplate with studs

rebars

rc crossbeam
maingirder lyingstuds
main girder

Fig. 4: Continuity connections of the main girders over internal supports.

The limitations and fixed parameters of the current investigation are the following:
– 10m total deck width, 8m for traffic, this means 2 lanes and 2m remaining area;
– Class 1 traffic load is considered;
– 25cm (30cm) thick deck;
– one construction method (detailed in the next chapter);
– only one- and symmetric two-span bridges are examined;
– solely the superstructure is considered.
Altogether about 300 bridges are examined covering the above parameters.
Global Analysis and Design
For the analysis the finite-element method is chosen. Due to the simple outline, a grillage model is adequate
to capture every relevant aspect of the structural behavior [20; 17] and to calculate the plastic load bearing
capacity [3]. The bridge is modeled with 2-node beam finite elements comprise three degrees of freedom
(displacement, torsion, rotation) at each node. The supports are modeled as perfect hinges for rotation and as
rigid supports for translation. Throughout the entire analysis and design procedure the general
recommendations of the Eurocode – not considering any national annex – are taken into account. Every
ultimate, serviceability and fatigue limit states which influence the main dimensions of the structures are
checked. The shear-lag is incorporated by adopting the standardized effective width method. The analysis
takes into account every relevant action prescribed in the Eurocodes, such as:
– selfweight of every structural and non-structural elements;
– creep;
– shrinkage;
– temperature effect (with the simplified method recommended by EN 1994-2);
– traffic load, Class 1 (adjustment factors equal to 1.0).
Moreover, it reflects the effect of the sequence of the construction. In this paper, an unpropped construction
method - where the reinforced concrete cross-beam over the internal support is casted at the same time as the
deck - is adopted for every bridge. This means that the majority of the dead load is carried by the steel
girders as isostatic beams. The time-dependent phenomena of concrete: shrinkage and creep are also
considered. The latter is taken into account by Fritz’s effective modulus method applying different modular
ratio for every different type of permanent loads (creep multiplier Ψ) and depending also on the age of
concrete at the time of load application. The shrinkage is modeled by external loads generating an equivalent
response as induced by the strain of concrete. The cracking of concrete in the vicinity of internal supports is
considered neglecting the tension stiffening effect. For the design the partial factor method is chosen. The
load combinations are formed according to the simplified formula: 6.10 of EN1990:2002.

Rózsás, Á.: Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges
Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering 189

The freeware finite element application ACOBRI [9] combined with excel spreadsheets are used for the
structural analysis and design. For the first-hinge limit state the elastic internal force envelopes are used and
the design value of effects compared to the design value of plastic resistance of cross-section. This
apparently inconsistent approach is generally used in structural engineering and accepted as sufficient and
reliable approximation. The objective function for the optimization process is the weight of structural steel
for both the elastic and plastic designs as well. To find the less weight solution iterative procedure is applied
using subsequent complete structural analyses and design checks of the bridges. The sections were changed
after each iteration step according to the utilization ratio to various design criteria. Since the sections are
available from a discrete range the optimal sections can be found in a relatively low number of iterations
(Fig.6.).

Preliminary Elastic global Select minimum weight section

ULS (elastic or plastic),
based on the maximal utilization
design. analysis. SLS, FLS checks. ratio.

Iterate until the section converges.

Fig. 5: Flowchart of the optimization steps.

The designs are carried out starting with a minimal 10m span with 1m increment until the maximum feasible
one. Fig. 6 shows the typical cross sections of the two analyzed bridge systems.

Fig. 6: Typical cross-sections of analyzed twin (top)- and multi-girder (bottom) bridges [9].
For the elastic and plastic analyses the same loads and effects are taken into account. For the check of plastic
ultimate limit states the primary and secondary effect of creep and shrinkage and the effect of the sequence
of the construction could be neglected. Nevertheless, since the calculations showed that only the first-hinge
limit state is achievable, solely the primary stresses vanishing with the plastification. In the current
investigation these are also taken into account as a safe side approximation. These effects should be
considered for the verification of serviceability limit states. For plastic design the same serviceability limit
states are adopted as in case of elastic analysis.
Analysis Results
The process illustrated in Fig.5. is applied to determine the optimal sections and structural steel weight for
elastic and plastic ultimate limit states as well. All presented results correspond to elastic (first-yield) and
first-hinge limit states. The calculations showed that in case of allowing the formulation of one plastic hinge
the serviceability criterion for the structural steel stress in characteristic combination or the fatigue limit
states become governing. Therefore, further section decrease and allowing the formulation of additional
hinges, i.e. adopting the shakedown limit state, would certainly violate these conditions. Moreover, in case of

Rózsás, Á.: Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges
Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering 190

simple span bridges only the first-hinge limit state is applicable, since they do not own indeterminacy to
shake down. Dominantly the stresses in bottom flange of mid-span section in characteristic combination
governed the design. The investigation of whether it is effective or not to restrict the yielding of the steel in
characteristic combination is not part of this paper. Nonetheless, it should be noted that yielding occurs once,
and the structure would carry any subsequent lower or equal loads in a purely elastic manner.
In the calculation of the amount of total structural steel solely the main girders are considered. Therefore, for
twin girders - where the cross beams are more robust - the actual values could be higher. The values
presented in the following figures correspond to 2.33m and 6.0m girder distance for multi-girder bridges and
twin-girder bridges, respectively. The deck is 25cm thick and casted using C35/45 concrete. Simply
supported and two span bridges with varying span length and steel grade are investigated. Some results of
calculations are summarized in Fig. 7 and in Fig. 8 in respect of the required steel amount per total deck
area.
multi-girder − one-span twin-girder − one -span
350.00 160.00
elastic S460 elastic S460
140.00 first hinge S460
300.00 first hinge S460
elastic S355
elastic S355 first hinge S355

steel/deck area [kg/m2]

steel/deck area [kg/m2]

120.00
250.00 first hinge S355
100.00
200.00
80.00
150.00
60.00
100.00
40.00

50.00 20.00

0.00 0.00
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10 15 20 25 30
average span [m] average span [m]

Fig. 7: Relative steel amount and average span for simply supported twin and multi-girder RGC bridges.
The graph shows significant steel saving in respect of main girders. The points of Fig. 7 can be interpreted as
that allowing the formulation of one hinge yields to very similar results as one class steel grade increase in
case of elastic design. Likewise, as Fig. 8 suggests the exploitation of first-hinge limit state is quasi-
equivalent to making the structure continuous. For the bridges with described parameters 18% average steel
amount reduction is realized adopting the first-hinge limit state.
320.00
multi-girder twin-girder
160.00
elastic elastic
first hinge 140.00 first hinge
270.00 elastic
elastic
first hinge
steel/deck area [kg/m2]
steel/deck area [kg/m2]

first hinge 120.00

220.00
100.00
170.00
80.00

120.00 60.00

40.00
70.00

20.00
S355
20.00 S355
0.00
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10 15 20 25 30
average span[m] average span [m]

Fig. 8: Relative steel amount and average span for simply supported and two-span RGC bridges with S355 steel grade.
The required amount of structural steel is also examined using higher C40/50 concrete. The calculations
showed that it has so minor effect that - due to the discrete section range - it does not manifest in any
structural steel saving considering the first-hinge limit state. For two span bridges the saving due to steel
grade increase to 460 is less pronounced; only above 25m span and in lesser extent than in case of simply
supported bridges. The comparison of twin and multi-girder bridges are presented in Fig. 9.
Rózsás, Á.: Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges
Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering 191

two-span one-span
300.00 300.00
elastic elastic

250.00
first hinge 250.00
first hinge
elastic elastic

steel/deck area [kg/m2]

steel/deck area [kg/m2]

first hinge first hinge

200.00 200.00

150.00 150.00

100.00 100.00

50.00 50.00
S355 S355
0.00 0.00
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10 15 20 25 30 35
average span [m] average span [m]

Fig. 9: Comparison of the multi and twin girder bridges with S355 structural steel.
It can be seen from the points that when both structural systems are feasible the twin girder solution is more
economical in respect of the main girders. The maximum achievable spans of RGC bridges considering
elastic and first-hinge limit states are presented in Fig. 10.
S355 26 5
S355 35 5
S355 23 5
S355 32 4
S460 28 4
S460 36 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 10: Maximum spans for elastic (orange) design and increase by considering first-hinge (green).
It can be seen that the maximum feasible span ranges increased notably.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
Based on the investigation considering more than three-hundred RCG bridge designs, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
– Shakedown limit state is typically not achievable, since even the first-hinge approach is governed by
serviceability and fatigue limit states. The ways to increase the SLS and FLS capacity to reach the
shakedown limit state is the topic of further studies;
– Using the first-hinge limit state significant ~18% average structural steel saving can be realized for
main girders. This is partially attributed to the restricted range of rolled sections and to uniformly applied
cross-section over the entire structure, but mainly represents the plastic reserves;
– Applying higher steel grades are clearly advantageous for simply supported bridges, the same is true
– but less pronounced – for two-span RGC bridges;
– The parametric study showed that the thickness of the deck (25 and 30cm are considered), the girder
distance and concrete strength class have negligible effect on the optimal solution;
– With the 10m wide deck the twin girder bridges are more beneficial in respect of structural steel
consumption for smaller spans;
– The maximum elastic spans can be expanded by about 14%.
The analysis and design of few hundred RGC bridges according to Eurocode showed that among – in the
first part of this paper – enumerated advantages composite bridges inherently own remarkable plastic
reserve. This is worth to exploit at least up to the first-hinge limit state, which seems to be the maximum
achievable for RGC bridges if we accept every serviceability criterion. Based on the generated data, the

Rózsás, Á.: Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges
Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering 192

plastic design manifests in ~18% structural steel amount reduction of main girders. Moreover, the maximum
span extends by about 4m, and covers significant portion of the bridge inventory in every country. Therefore,
RCG bridges have the potential to become widely applied structures.
Acknowledgement
This work is connected to the scientific program of the Development of quality-oriented and harmonized
R+D+I strategy and functional model at BME. This project is supported by the New Széchenyi Plan (Project
ID: TÁMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0002).
References
[1] AASHTO. “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”, 5th Ed. (2010).
[2] AASHTO/NSBA. “Guidelines for Design for Constructibility”: AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration. G 12.1. (2003).
[3] Barker, M.G. and Galambos, T.V. “Shakedown Limit State of Compact Steel Girder Bridges”. Journal of Structural
Engineering. Vol. 118. No. 4. April. 1992. (1992).
[4] Barker, M.G. and Zacher, J.A. “Reliability of Inelastic Load Capacity Rating Limits for Steel Bridges”. Journal of Bridge
Engineering. Vol. 2. No. 2. May. 1997. (1997).
[5] Barth, K.E., Hartnagel, B.A. and White, D.W. “Recommended Procedures for Simpliefied Inelastic Design of Steel I-girder
Bridges”. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 9. No. 3. May. 2004. (2004).
[6] Barth, K.E. and White, D.W. “Inelastic Desing of Steel I-girder Bridges”. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 5. No. 3. August.
2000. (2000).
[7] BS5400-5. “Steel, concrete and composite bridges. Part 5. Code of practice for design of composite bridges”: British
Standards Institution. 0 580 46716 3. (2005).
[8] Collings, D. “Steel-concrete Composite Bridges”. London: Thomas Telford. 0-7277-3342-7. (2005).
[9] CTICM. ACOBRI “Composite Bridge Predesign Software”. ArcelorMittal. Long Carbon Europe Europe - Research Center.
ver. 3.02. (2011).
[10] EN 1990. “Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design”. (2002).
[11] EN 1994. “Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures”. (2005).
[12] Galambos, T.V., Leon, R.T., French, C.M., Barker, M.G. and Dishong, B.E. “Inelastic Rating Procedures for Steel Beam and
Girder Bridges”. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. (1993).
[13] Guezouli, S., Somja, H., Kaing, S.S. and Lachal, A., “Numerical Modelling of Composite Beam-to-Beam Joints - Innovative
Solutions” Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete VI. Tabernash, Colorado. (2008).
[14] Haiyan, Y. and Fangfang, L. “Inelastic Load Capacity Analyzing of Steel I-Girder Bridges with Shakedown Method”.
Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering (MACE), International Conference 2010. Wuhan, PRC. 946-949.
10.1109/MACE.2010.5536250. (2010).
[15] Hanswille, G., “Composite bridges in Germany - State of the Art” Proceedings of 7th German Japanese Bridge Symposium.
Osaka. (2007).
[16] Hechler, O. and Girkes, A. “Efficient reconstruction of bridges with small and medium spans”. IABSE Symposium Weimar
2007. Improving Infrastructure Worldwide. Weimar, Germany. (2007).
[17] Iles, D.C. “Composite Highway Bridge Design: Worked Examples. In Accordance with Eurocodes and UK National
Annexes”. Berkshire. UK: The Steel Construction Institute. 978-1-85942-195-6. (2011).
[18] KKK. “Híd Önálló Osztály. Híd Adattábla” [online]. Közlekedésfejlesztési Koordinációs Központ. Available from:
http://www.3k.gov.hu/pages/index.jsp?p=2&id=1829 [Accessed 04 April 2012]. (2012).
[19] McConnell, J.R., Barth, K.E. and Barker, M.G. “Rotation Compatibility Approach to Moment Redistribution for Design and
Rating of Steel I-Girder Bridges”. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 15. No. 1. January. 2010. (2010).
[20] Surana, S.C. and Agrawal, R. “Grillage Analogy in Bridge Deck Analysis”. New Delhi, India: Narosa Publishing House. 81-
7319-153-0. (1998).
[21] Szatmári, I. “Composite Structures”. Budapest. Manuscript for educational purpose. in Hungarian. (1998).

Rózsás, Á.: Plastic Reserves of Simple- and Two-span Rolled Girder Composite Bridges