Design of A Composite Bridge Deck

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009
B.Eng.CBE
Declaration
I declare that this project entitled Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja is my own original Project work, except as cited in the references. The project has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature or award of any other degree.
Signature OKUCU ANTHONY TWENY (STUDENT)
Date ..
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)
Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula
B.Eng.CBE
Supervisor Approval
Having supervised the student and read through the work herein presented, I do hereby consent that the project is worth the award of the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Civil and Building Engineering of Kyambogo University Signed DR. MICHAEL KYAKULA SUPERVISOR. Date
ii
B.Eng.CBE
Project Title:
The title to this project is: RE-DESIGN OF NARIAMABUNE BRIDGE IN KAABONG DISTRICT OF KARAMOJA, UGANDA
iii
B.Eng.CBE
Dedication
To Jehovah God Almighty from whom all wisdom and blessings flow. Take all the praise, glory and honour!
iv
B.Eng.CBE
Acknowledgements
I must in all sincerity, thank my wife, Margaret, children: Shalom, Emmanuel, Rebecca and Ezra who have had to endure my absence from home during the times I had to be away in order to pursue this course of studies. From your patience and endurance I derived courage and feeling of support. Special thanks to my parents: Joshua J. Tweny and his dear wife Mummy Alice Tweny who forfeited enjoyment of their meager income in order that I may be schooled. To Charles Ayo, my very concerned uncle who rekindled my interest in studies when I was almost giving up on academics. You picked me up and helped me reach here. And to my sister, Dr. Atim C. Oyet, you were a challenge, an inspiration and a helping hand at the time of need. To my former school teacher, Mr. Ahimbisiibwe Wilson, who helped me to realize my engineering aptitude, and encouraged me to tow that line. Little did you know you were shaping this work but youve done it. Great appreciation to my Project Supervisor, Dr. Michael Kyakula for the guidance advice and positive criticisms that have shaped this project and made it such a successful and comprehensive design report. All my lecturers in the department of Civil and Building Engineering of Kyambogo University. The knowledge and skills you imparted was quite helpful in this project. To all the staff of Uganda National Roads Authority, Kotido Station for the support and information they provided and to my course mates for criticizing positively the works especially during the processes of analysis and design of the structures. To all the authors and authorities whose works have been cited herein Thank you all sincerely.
Okucu Anthony Tweny.
B.Eng.CBE
Abstract
Nariamabune Bridge is found in Kaabong District, Karamoja Sub-region, located at N03o38 57 and E34o0209 along the Kaabong Kapedo Road link. The road link offers
P P P P
trade opportunities to the local people with other communities and neighbouring towns, promotes tourism industry (Kidepo Valley National Game Park) and links the Region to Kenya and Southern Sudan. It also facilitates humanitarian assistance and security interventions, in case of insurgencies. The existing bridge structure comprises of a Bailey bridge (steel decking) supported on stone masonry abutments that in turn sit on foundations observed to be sinking (a sign of settlement). Scouring / erosion have also been observed at the abutments and embankments pointing to an imminent failure. The problems associated with the imminent failure of the bridge are quite adverse. There is urgent need to prevent this imminent failure by re-designing the bridge. This project has had to be carried out, therefore, by using the geo-soil properties of the existing bridge site, determining the flood levels at the water crossings, carrying out the hydraulic design that will minimize scouring, determining the significant loads for analysis of the substructure and the superstructure and designing the decking of the bridge, the abutments (and piers) as technically necessary. Finally detailed drawings and appropriate recommendations will be made.
vi
B.Eng.CBE
Table of Contents
Pictures ....................................................................................................................................- 1 Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................- 2 1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................- 2 1.1. Project Title:.....................................................................................................................- 2 1.2. Background:.....................................................................................................................- 2 1.2.1. Bridge: ...........................................................................................................................- 4 1.2.2. Bridge design:................................................................................................................- 4 1.4. Project Aim: .....................................................................................................................- 5 1.5. Project Objectives:...........................................................................................................- 5 1.6. Scope of the Project:........................................................................................................- 6 1.7. Justification:.....................................................................................................................- 6 Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................- 8 2.1 Definition of a bridge; ......................................................................................................- 8 2.2.1 Bridge Materials: ...........................................................................................................- 9 2.2.2 Classification:...............................................................................................................- 10 Steel Bridges ..........................................................................................................................- 10 Classification according to structural action: ....................................................................- 13 Simply supported span bridge.............................................................................................- 13 Continuous span bridge .......................................................................................................- 14 Cantilever bridge ..................................................................................................................- 14 Rigid frame bridges ..............................................................................................................- 15 Classification according to Floor location ..........................................................................- 15 Classification based on type of connections: ......................................................................- 17 Reinforced- concrete Bridges...............................................................................................- 18 Types of Bridges....................................................................................................................- 18 2.2.3 Requirements: ..............................................................................................................- 20 2.3 Site Investigation.............................................................................................................- 21 2.4 Substructure and Foundations ......................................................................................- 22 2.4.1 Abutments ....................................................................................................................- 24 By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)
vii
B.Eng.CBE
2.4.3. Design of Gravity and Cantilever Retaining Walls. ................................................- 24 2.4.3.1. Gravity retaining walls............................................................................................- 25 2.4.3.2. Cantilever Walls of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) ......................................- 25 Abutment design ...................................................................................................................- 25 Reinforced concrete abutments ...........................................................................................- 26 2.4.4 Reinforced concrete retaining walls...........................................................................- 26 2.4.5 Bearing Shelves ............................................................................................................- 26 2.4.6 Piers...............................................................................................................................- 27 Reinforced Concrete Piers ...................................................................................................- 27 2.4.7 Determination of allowable bearing pressure, ..........................................................- 27 Non cohesive soils..................................................................................................................- 27 Cohesive soils.........................................................................................................................- 28 Presumed values....................................................................................................................- 30 Table 2................................................................................................................................- 31 2.4.8. Foundations on Rock..................................................................................................- 33 2.4.9. Run-on Slabs ...............................................................................................................- 33 2.5 Superstructure ................................................................................................................- 34 2.6 Design Detailing ..............................................................................................................- 35 2.6.1 Vertical Profile over the Bridge..................................................................................- 35 2.6.2 Shear Connectors.........................................................................................................- 35 2.6.3 Protective Treatment to Steelwork ............................................................................- 36 2.6.4 Bolts and nuts...............................................................................................................- 36 2.6.5 Bearings ........................................................................................................................- 36 2.6.6 Expansion joints...........................................................................................................- 37 2.6.7 Construction joints ......................................................................................................- 37 2.6.8 Slab Reinforcement .....................................................................................................- 37 2.6.9 Drainage........................................................................................................................- 38 2.6.10 Parapets, Surfacing and Services .............................................................................- 38 2.6.11 Provision for Pedestrians and Cyclists ....................................................................- 38 2.7 River Hydraulics and Hydraulic Design.......................................................................- 38 -
viii
B.Eng.CBE
Chapter 3 ...............................................................................................................................- 44 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................- 44 3.3.1 Trial pit excavation......................................................................................................- 45 3.3.2 Sampling .......................................................................................................................- 46 3.3.3 Soil Testing ...................................................................................................................- 46 Chapter 4 .................................................................................................................................-49Analysis and Design................................................................................................................-49Chapter 5 .................................................................................................................................-99Recommendations...................................................................................................................-99Appendices.............................................................................................................................-101-
ix
B.Eng.CBE
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Single span Simply supported Bridge ..........................................................................- 13 T T
Figure 1.2. Simply Supported Multi- span Bridge. .........................................................................- 13 T T T
Figure 1.3 Continuous Span Bridge .................................................................................................- 14 Figure 1.4 Cantilever Bridge with a Suspended Span ....................................................................- 15 Figure 1.5 Solid Ribbed Arch............................................................................................................- 16 Figure1.6. Braced Ribbed Arch. .......................................................................................................- 16 Figure1.7. Spandrel Braced Arch Bridge.........................................................................................- 17 Figure 1.8. Tied Arch Bridge ............................................................................................................- 17 Figure 2.1 Slab Bridge .......................................................................................................................- 18 Figure 2.2. Deck Girder Bridge ........................................................................................................- 18 Figure 2.3. Composite Steel-Concrete Bridge..................................................................................- 19 Figure 2.4. Composite Pre-stressed Concrete Bridge ................................................................- 19 -
B.Eng.CBE
Pictures
-1-
B.Eng.CBE
Chapter 1 1
1.1
Introduction
Project Title:
Re-Design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja.
1.2
Background:
P P
Nariamabune Bridge is found in Kaabong District, Karamoja Sub-region, located at N03o38 57 and E34o0209 along the Kaabong Kapedo Road. (see Plate 1 Appendix 1)
P P
The history of this road link was not readily available but Kaabong Kapedo Road plays an important role of linking parts of Kaabong district to Pader, Kitgum and Lira districts from where most of the merchandise is brought into Kaabong. This road link is significant not only for linking economic activities of the local people, but in the promotion of tourism industry. According to a UWA brochure, Kidepo Valley National Game Park receives tourists from various countries annually. Some of the tourists reach the National Park by way of Kampala Mbale Soroti Kotido Kaabong route, while others use the Kampala Karuma Lira Kotido Kaabong - Kidepo Route yet others use the Kampala Karuma Lira Pader Orom Karenga Kapedo Route. The former two therefore needs the bridge at Nariamabune to be safe and sound for easy passage. Most tourists from Europe, the Americas, Australia and other parts of the world land in Kenya and from Nairobi, they travel by road to Western Uganda to Mgahinga Gorrila National Park, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Kibale National Park, Queen Elizabeth National Park, Murchison Falls National Park, and others before embarking on moving to Kidepo National Park and finally passing along Kapedo Kaabong Kotido Soroti Mbale to Mt Elgon National Park from where they get back to Kenya. Besides the trade and commercial activities, this road link is significant in fostering humanitarian assistances to Karamoja region most of which lies in the arid climatic zone of North-eastern Uganda, often characterized by famine.
-2-
B.Eng.CBE
Of great importance is the fact that a road link is being planned to join Kapedo to New Site in Southern Sudan Kaabong District of Karamoja is located within Latitudes 20 30 and 4
P P P P P P P
0
P
15 South and
Longitudes 33 0 30 and 35 0 00 East in the north eastern part of Uganda. The Total area is 13,208 km2 (5.47% of Ugandas total area) of which arable land coverage is 7,268 km2 and
P P P P
water coverage is 0 km . Since arable land coverage is only 7,268 square km the crop
P P
productivity rating is limited.
Forestry: There are 12 natural forests and five plantation forests. Artificial forest coverage is 0.2 Km2
P P
with acassia, same and eucalyptus. Wild life: The largest Game Park in Uganda (Kideepo Valley National Game Park) has an area of 1,442 square Km.
Animals: water bucks, Jacksons hartebeest, zebras, buffalos, elands, ribi, warthogs, bush bucks, jackals, elephants, giraffes, lions, cheetahs, leopards, ran antelopes and ostriches. Bird life is in abundance.
Minerals: Gold, silver, copper, iron, and mica and crude petroleum at Kathile basin. Sunshine and wind: Between December and April the Northeasterly wind usually exceed 200Km per day. Characterized by dust storms, desiccating and pulverizing the sparse vegetating cover. Average rainfall is 519mm per annum. Rainy season falls in April August with a marked minimum in June and marked maximum peaks in May and July. The rain is erratic in nature.
-3-
B.Eng.CBE
Distinct wet and dry seasons are a prominent feature. The rainfall is unevenly distributed and unreliable and has a significant influence on the economy and life of the district. 1.2.1. Bridge: Bridge, in this context, shall mean a structure that permits traffic to pass over the water crossing safely and conveniently. 1.2.2. Bridge design: Bridge design in this context shall mean the application of scientific theories in combination with field data and technological knowledge to come up with a safer and an economical bridge structure that will permit traffic to pass safely, conveniently and comfortably above the river crossing. Almost all human activities involve problem solutions. Production of goods and services has always resulted from almost all the human activities. Unless the goods and services produced are distributed, exchanged and consumed the economic chain is not complete. In order, therefore, to complete the economic chain, transportation becomes a vital factor in the economy as the outcomes of the production process must find their ways into some market where exchange and consumption take place. Transportation involves the movement of factors of production like machinery, labour, raw materials, fuels, and of finished goods or services to places of utility. Traffic of various forms and kinds are involved in the said movement, depending on certain factors outlined herein as: accessibility of the places of production and markets relative to the terrain, existing infrastructure, drainage pattern and land use. Traffic form is also dependent on the economic activities, magnitude of haulage and nature and value of goods and services produced. In this case road transport has been considered as it is the most feasible and is already an existing infrastructural investment in the area of the project.
-4-
B.Eng.CBE
1.3
Problem Statement:
The existing bridge structure comprises of a Bailey bridge (steel decking) supported on stone masonry abutments that in turn sit on an earth foundation. It is observed that since its constructions in 2004, the bridge deck level is sinking. Information available from UNRA Kotido Station estimates the level to have sunk by about 400mm yet there are indications that the embankments are prone to be cut by the waters due scouring and erosion noticed at the site. The local scour at abutments are an indication that the width of the channel is not sufficient, hence a hydraulic design needs to be done, taking into account the scour and a preventive measures taken to minimize the same. Qualitative site survey has shown no protective measures taken to minimize the effects of scour at the abutments upstream of the water crossing, and the side drains of the embankments are extremely gullied, progressively leading to the embankments failure.
1.4
Project Aim:
The aim of this project is to design a strong and economical bridge to meet the structural and hydraulic requirements and improve on the level of service for a design life of 40 years.
1.5
Project Objectives:
o Carry out the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the catchments area and the river, o Determine the flood levels at the water crossings, o Carry out the hydraulic design that will maximize flow with minimal width of channel and scouring effects o Determine the significant loads for analysis, o Design the decking of the bridge o Use the existing soils parameter to Design the abutments, piers and the foundations. o Come up with the working and structural drawings o Make recommendations
The objectives are to:
-5-
B.Eng.CBE
1.6
Scope of the Project:

o Obtaining Geotechnical data / soil parameter. o Hydrologic (Flow) analysis and Hydraulic Design, o Analysis and design of Superstructure, o Analysis and design of Substructure. o Detailed drawings
1.7
Justification:
Kaabong Kapedo - Karenga trunk road links Pader, Kitgum, Lira and Soroti to Kaabong Town in the North - eastern part of Uganda. Failure of Nariamabune Bridge and therefore has a very significant connotation in the economic life of the four towns. Most of the goods and essential commodities consumed in Kaabong are sourced from wholesale markets as far as Kampala, Soroti, Mbale and Lira by way of Lira Abim or Soroti Abim routes. The same routes are used by humanitarian organizations to transport relief food to the district The same road is a link to Kidepo Valley National Game Park, therefore, very significant in tourism industry. The road also links this part of Uganda to Southern Sudan and Northwestern Kenya and therefore an important link for international trade. The two facts mean the road is a foreign exchange earner in Ugandas economy. There is a plan by the government of the republic of Uganda to connect this road link to New Site in Southern Sudan through Kapedo, an investment that is anticipated to boost traffic on Kaabong Kapedo road. Kaabong District, as already noted elsewhere, is endowed with mineral resources like gold, silver, copper, iron, mica and crude petroleum at Kathile Basin. The exploitation of such mineral resources require explicit transportation scheme that motivate deliberate investment in the sector. Besides the economic considerations, Karamoja region, in general, is an arid area and often affected by famine. Food aid and humanitarian assistance will always require excellent
-6-
B.Eng.CBE
mobility. Any slight break in mobility will lead to massive death due to famine. Other social services also need transportation networks that are consistent to facilitate emergency deliveries. Worth mentioning is the fact that a section of the Karamojong have firearms and are aggressive to passers-by. In case of failure of Nariamabune Bridge, such people will not hesitate to attack, loot, kill or harm the unfortunate road users that may find themselves trapped in the ignominy. The problems associated with the imminent failure of the bridge are quite adverse as has been seen. This project therefore is intended to offer solutions by preventing the failure through redesigning the bridge.
-7-
B.Eng.CBE
Chapter 2
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW The basic concept involved in this chapter is to examine the recent and historical significant studies that form the basis of design of a bridge. 2.1 Definition of a bridge;
A bridge is a structure for carrying road traffic and other moving loads over a depression or gap or obstruction such as river, canal, channel, canyon, valley, road or railways (Punmia, et al 1998). In other words, it's the structural system carrying the communication route and includes beams, girders, stringers, arches, cables and all other components above bearing level.
If a bridge is constructed to carry highway traffic, it is known as a highway bridge. If, however, it is constructed to carry railway traffic, then it is known as a railway bridge. There may be a combined highway and railway bridge to carry both the highway as well as railway traffic. Some bridges, constructed exclusively to carry pedestrians, cycles and animals, are known as foot bridges while those constructed to carry canals and for pipe lines are known as aqueduct bridges. A bridge may be a culvert, high level bridge or submersible bridge. A culvert is a bridge having a gross length of six metres or less between the faces of abutments or extreme ventway boundaries, and measured at right angles there to the direction of water flow. A high level bridge is a bridge which a carries the roadway above the highest flood level of the channel. A submersible bridge is a bridge designed to be over topped in floods. A bridge may be fixed or movable type. A fixed bridge is the one which always remains in one position. -8Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula
B.Eng.CBE
A movable bridge is the one which can be opened either horizontally or vertically so as to allow river or channel traffic to pass. Such bridges are constructed over a navigable stream where the normal headway is not sufficient for the vehicles to pass through.
A bridge may be either of deck type or through type. A deck type bridge is the one in which the roadway/railway floor rests on the top of the supporting structure. A through bridge is the one where the roadway/railway floor rests on the bottom of the main load supporting structure. However when the floor lies between the top and bottom of the main load supporting structure, it is known as half through type bridge, semi-through bridge or pony bridge. 2.2.1 Bridge Materials: Bridges are made of different material such as timber, stone masonry, brick masonry, concrete and steel. Timber bridges are constructed only over small spans and for temporary purpose, to carry light loads. Masonry bridges are also constructed for shorter spans. Concrete bridge, both of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) as well as of prestressed cement concrete (PCC) are constructed over moderate to high spans, to carry all types of loads. Concrete arch bridges have been constructed of spans up to 200 m. Similarly, steel bridges, are constructed both over moderate to high spans as well as for heavy trafficular loads. In India, steal bridges are commonly used for railways for all types of spans. [Pumnia, et al (1995)]
A bridge just like any other civil engineering structures has two component parts, namely Substructure Super structure
-9-
B.Eng.CBE
2.2.2 Classification: (i). (ii). (iii). (iv). (v). (vi). According to end fixity a bridge can be classified as simple or continuous bridge. According to ability to slide/move a bridge can be fixed or movable bridge. According to purpose it may be foot railway or highway Bridge. According to location of bridge floor it may be deck, through or semi-through bridge. According to highest flood levels it may be submersible or non-submersible. According to construction materials it may be stone and brick (Masonry), steel, timber or concrete bridge
Steel Bridges
Classification Steel bridges may be classified according to the following criteria: 1. Type of structural arrangement 2. Structural action 3. Floor location 4. Type of connection 5. Movement of structural parts Classification according to structural arrangement: Under this classification a steel bridge may be of the following types: (i). I-girder bridge (ii). Plate girder bridge (iii). Truss girder, or (iv). Suspension bridge.
- 10 -
B.Eng.CBE
I-girders may be used for small as the main load carrying members. For this purpose, wide flanged I-sections are used. Such structures are suitable for spanning over crossings of moderate widths. There are however limitations in the maximum size of available I-sections, hence for longer span bridges built up plate girders are to meet the requirements of section modulus corresponding to the applied loads.
Plate girder bridges: This type of are quite popular with railway bridges, the advantage being in transportation since it can be transported in one piece. the limiting depth of plate girders is only 3 -4m hence when the structural requirement for depth is more than this, steel truss girder bridges are preferred.
Truss girder bridges: in this arrangement, trusses are used as the main load carrying members. They are commonly used over spans of 20 200m For still longer spans, steel arch bridges or suspension bridges using high strength steel cables may be used.
- 11 -
B.Eng.CBE
- 12 -
B.Eng.CBE
Classification according to structural action: According to the criteria of structural action, steel bridges may be of the following types: (i). (ii). (iii). (iv). (v). Simply-supported-span bridges Continuous span bridges Cantilever bridge Arch bridges Rigid Frame Bridge.
Figure 1.1. Single span Simply supported Bridge
(i) Simply supported span bridge Such types are commonly used when the width of gap is small, necessitating the use of single span. However, even if the width of the gap to be bridged is large, the whole width can be subdivided into a number of individual spans, each span being simply supported
Figure 1.2. Simply Supported Multi- span Bridge.
Such an arrangement is preferred specially .is those locations where there is likelyhood of uneven settlement of intermediate piers. The analysis of simply supported span bridge is very simple.
- 13 -
B.Eng.CBE
(ii) Continuous span bridge When the width of gap is quite large, and where there are no chances of uneven settlements, bridge may be continuous over two or more spans (Figure 1 (c)). Because of continuity, moments are developed at pier supports resulting in the reduction of stresses at the inner spans. This results in an economical design. Also, continuous span bridges require few supports, since larger spans can be used; they can also support higher loads in comparison to simply supported spans.
Figure 1.3 Continuous Span Bridge
(iii) Cantilever bridge In the case of a three span continuous bridge, loaded with uniformly distributed load over all the three spans, it is observed that these are two points of contraflexure in the central span. Hence if the continuous beam/girder of the middle span is cut at these two points of contraflexure, and shear resisting joints are made at these two points, the resulting configuration will be a cantilever bridge with a central suspended span between these two formed joints, as shown in Figure 1.4. Thus, a cantilever bridge consists of two simple spans, one at each end, each having an overhanging or cantilever portion along with a simple span (or suspended span) in between the two cantilever portions. The main advantage of such an arrangement is that the B.M. diagram will now not be affected by the settlement of supports. The suspended span is supported by the cantilever span, at each end by means of mechanical hinge. This gives rise to a statically determinate structure which can be analyzed very easily. Because of development of moments at the pier supports, the stresses in each end span is very much reduced. Another advantage of such bridge is that the cantilever portion and the suspended span can be erected without the use of false work or
- 14 -
B.Eng.CBE
staging. Such bridges are usually provided for longer span, ranging between 200 m to 500 m.
Figure 1.4 Cantilever Bridge with a Suspended Span
(i v) Arch Bridge. For deep gorges, arch bridges are generally used, since they offer economical and aesthetic solution. However, they require strong abutments to resist the thrust from the arches. The arches may consist of girder sections or trusses, and may be: Fixed arches Two hinged arches, or Three hinged arches,
The two hinged arches are more common. The arch bridge may further be classified as: solid ribbed arches braced rib arch spandrel braced arches or Tied arches (Figure 1.8).
Solid ribbed arch bridges are more commonly used for highways, while braced rib arch bridges and spandrel braced bridges are commonly used for railways. ( v) Rigid frame bridges Rigid frame bridges, comprising of single span or two to three continuous spans, are used for dry-over or under-crossing, for gaps between 10 to 20 m. These consist of steel columns and steel girders with continuity at the knee. Such bridges are quite suitable for rigid foundations. Classification according to Floor location - 15 -
B.Eng.CBE
According to the location of the floor, bridges can be classified as under: Deck-type bridge Through type bridge Half through-type bridge.
In deck type bridge the floor is placed on the top flange in the case of plate girder bridge and on the top chord in the case of a truss bridge. No top bracing is therefore required. In the case of through type bridge, the floor" is placed at the level of lower chord of truss type bridge, and the top chord is braced laterally. However, in the case of plate-girder bridge, the floor of the through bridge is supported on the bottom flange. In half through bridge, also known as ponny truss bridge, the floor lies between the top and the bottom. There are also double deck bridges constructed to carry the traffic of both roadways and railways. Both the decks can have through floors. Alternatively, one deck may have through floor while another deck may be kept open. The requirements of grade line and clearance of highways or railway track decide whether it should be throughtype bridge or a deck type bridge. Deck type bridges are more economical than through type bridges, and hence they are more popular.
Figure 1.5 Solid Ribbed Arch.
Figure1.6. Braced Ribbed Arch.
- 16 -
B.Eng.CBE
Figure1.7. Spandrel Braced Arch Bridge
Figure 1.8. Tied Arch Bridge
Classification based on type of connections: Depending upon the type of connections of the joints, bridges can be of the following types: (i). (ii). (iii). Riveted bridges Welded bridges Bolted (pin connected) bridges
- 17 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reinforced- concrete Bridges

Types of Bridges According to Winter and Nilson (1972), reinforced concrete is particularly adaptable for use in highway bridges because of its durability, rigidity, and economy, as well as the comparative ease with which a pleasing architectural appearance can be secured. For very short spans, from about 10 to 25 ft, one-way-slab bridges (Fig. 2.1) are economical. For somewhat longer spans, concrete girder spans (Fig. 2.2) may be used. Probably most highway spans of medium length, from 40 to 90 ft, presently use composite steel-concrete construction (Fig. 2.3) or composite pre-stressed-concrete construction (Fig. 2.4).
Figure 2.1 Slab Bridge
Figure 2.2. Deck Girder Bridge
- 18 -
B.Eng.CBE
Figure 2.3. Composite Steel-Concrete Bridge
Figure 2.4. Composite Pre-stressed Concrete Bridge
In composite construction with structural steel, the concrete deck is made to act integrally with supporting steel stringers by means of devices called shear connectors, welded to the top flange of the steel section and embedded in the slab. Although such a bridge is not strictly a reinforced-concrete structure, the design of this type of bridge will be discussed in some detail in this section because of its widespread use. Prestressed-concrete bridges frequently make use of composite section characteristics also. Commonly, the girders are pre-cast and placed into final location by crane, eliminating
- 19 -
B.Eng.CBE
the necessity for obstructing traffic by falsework. The deck slab is then cast in place, bonded, and tied to the pre-cast sections by steel dowels. Hollow box girders, usually pre-stressed, are often used for intermediate and longspan concrete bridges. Spans up to about 80 ft are pre-cast in one piece and lifted into position. Longer spans of similar cross section, carrying two lanes of highway traffic as well as shoulders and walkways, have either been cast in place or pre-cast in short segments, which are post tensioned after positioning. Bridge spans as long as 320 ft have been attained using pre-stressed girders. Other possibilities for long-span concrete bridges are the various forms of arches, including the barrel arch and the three-hinged arch. [Winter and Nilson (1972)]
2.2.3 Requirements: The bridge should be efficient, effective and equitable so that; It is economical It's aesthetically sound It should serve the intended function with utmost convenience, comfort and safety. It is durable
- 20 -
B.Eng.CBE
2.3 Site Investigation The soils supporting the abutments and pier foundations always carry the weight of the traffic, superstructure, abutments and piers. In order to design for the best suitable foundations, the designer has to determine the nature and location of the different soil types occurring at the site of the bridge and its approaches, to depths containing strata sufficiently strong to support the bridge and embankments without failure. This information is obtained by analyzing samples taken from a grid of bore-holes or test pits covering the whole of the proposed site, and by testing the samples for density, shear strength, plasticity and penetration, in order to provide quantitative data for foundation design. 2.3.1 Methods of site investigation Test pits Hand auger boring Cable percussion boring Rotary drilling Geophysical surveying.
2.3.2 Sampling The choice of sampling technique depends on the purpose for which the sample is required and the character of the ground. There are four main techniques for obtaining samples: Taking disturbed samples from drill tools or from excavating equipment in the course of boring or excavation Drive sampling in which a tube or split tube sampler with a sharp cutting edge at its lower end is forced into the ground, either by static thrust or by dynamic impact Rotary sampling, in which a tube with a cutter at its lower end is rotated into the ground, so producing a core sample
- 21 -
B.Eng.CBE
Taking block samples cut by hand from a trial pit, shaft or heading.
Samples obtained by the last three techniques will be sufficiently intact to enable the ground structure within the sample to be examined. However, the quality of these samples can vary considerably, depending on the sampling technique and ground conditions, and most samples will exhibit some degree of disturbance. Table 2.1 indicates the mass of sample required for identification purposes, Atterburg tests, moisture content, sieve analysis and sulphate tests. Care should be taken to ensure that samples are as pure and undisturbed as possible. Table1. Required Sample Mass Mass required Soil type (kg) Clay, silt, sand Fine and medium gravel Coarse gravel 2 5 30
2.3.3 Aggressive Chemicals The ground or ground water may contain chemicals capable of causing damage to concrete or steel. These chemicals may emanate from nearby industrial processing or may occur naturally. Total sulphate content of more than 0.2% by weight in soil and 300 ppm in ground water are potentially aggressive (BRF 1981). There are often difficulties in specifying ground condition before the excavation for constructions are complete. For this reason the engineer should be prepared to review his plan, both during construction, if evidence is found of unexpected soil conditions.
2.4 Substructure and Foundations This is a support for the super structure and comprises of; abutments, piers, wing walls and any part below bearing level i.e. the foundation.
- 22 -
B.Eng.CBE
The substructure can be made of materials such as mass concrete, reinforced concrete, steel, timber and if experience is available in structural masonry it can be an economical substitute for concrete. However, the engineer must be certain of the strength of materials used, particularly when they are submerged in flowing water. All concrete decks must have rigid substructures like those detailed in this booklet, because uneven settlement of either abutment or pier can result in unacceptably high stresses in the materials of the decks. The positioning of the abutment and pier foundations is critically important. Because the most likely cause of bridge failure is scour, a bridge designer should pay careful attention to the estimation of general and local scour. Pier foundation depths are specified according to foundation type and protection method. However when dealing with substructures and foundation, there are two important issues to consider:-
The general scour area must not be obstructed or the flow will be impeded meaning more scour damage. Local scour is caused by turbulence and may be reduced by armouring the bed.
Abutments also fail when the soil under the foundation is not strong enough to carry the combined forces from the bridge structure and the embankment. It's recommended that spread foundations be used wherever possible, but if adequate support is unavailable, a piled foundation is required. If a satisfactorily strong soil is found not too far below preferred foundation level, caisson support may be considered. The technique is simple if the caissons are short, but the engineer must take care that: The maximum soil reaction at the sides does not exceed the maximum passive pressure at any depth, The soil pressure at the base remains compressive throughout and the maximum pressure does not exceed the allowable pressure.
- 23 -
B.Eng.CBE
2.4.1 Abutments Besides carrying the dead load of the superstructure, it's imperative that the abutments of a bridge must: Resist the vertical and horizontal live loads exerted on them by vehicles and other elements. Retain the approach embankments and the live loads (or surcharge) applied to them. Provide a smooth transition from the road surface to the deck running surface.
The essentials features of abutments are: A foundation slab, which transmits the weight of the abutment and the superstructure and its loads directly to the supporting soil, or which forms a capping slab to a system of load bearing piles. A front wall with bearing shelf that supports the superstructure and usually retains the soil of the embankment. Wing walls or retaining walls which may be separate from the abutments or, if they are short, may be built integrally with them. These walls retain the road embankment or river bank adjacent to the abutment and are usually built so as to bisect the angle between the road and the river bank, though they can be set at any angle to the abutments and may be built parallel to the road or perpendicular to it.
2.4.3. Design of Gravity and Cantilever Retaining Walls. A gravity retaining wall is that which resists the lateral earth pressure by its own weight; whereas, a cantilever retaining wall is that which resists the lateral earth pressure by bending action. Garg (2005)
- 24 -
B.Eng.CBE
2.4.3.1. Gravity retaining walls Gravity retaining walls are, therefore, thicker in section, and are made of stone or brick masonry or sometimes plain cement concrete (PCC). 2.4.3.2. Cantilever Walls of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) The cantilever walls of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) are more economical, because the backfill itself is employed to provide most of the dead weight to counteract the lateral thrust. Both types of walls are liable to rotational turning or translational sliding movements, and the lateral pressure for the design is computed by Rankines or Coulomb,s theories. The design of retaining wall should be such that the wall as a whole must satisfy the two basic conditions: The base pressure at the toe of the wall must not exceed the allowable bearing capacity of the soil. The Factor of safety against sliding between the base and the underlying soil must be adequate; value of 1.5 being usually required. Unyielding retaining walls, such as the bridge abutments, restrained by the deck structure, do not deform. In such cases, therefore, active or passive pressures would not be developed; rather, the lateral pressures should be computed as equal to rest value using the coefficient KR (also represented by KO).
B B B B
This value of KR is also very high when the backfill is compacted artificially; say as high as
B B
0.8 or so. It has, thus, been noticed that in such unyielding walls, compaction caused by the flow of sewers, etc. may lead to residual lateral pressures, considerably higher than the corresponding values for the uncompacted soil. (i) Abutment design While designing the abutment, there is need to carefully analyze and take into account all the individual characteristics of the site and the superstructure, e.g. foundation conditions, deck thickness, expansion joints etc. Specifications for the concrete and steel are also important.
- 25 -
B.Eng.CBE
(ii) Reinforced concrete abutments For small span bridges of (span not exceeding 12m) abutments are provided with a standard width of 1200mm at the top but the front and rear faces are vertical. This structure is considerably lighter than its mass concrete counterpart. The bearing shelf is an integral part of the stem. The widths of the toe and heel, and the thickness of the foundation for various heights, span and bearing pressures are suggested in ORN9.
2.4.4 Reinforced concrete retaining walls Considerations here are just as in the abutments with reinforced concrete stems. If the retaining wall is not long, weep holes can usually be ignored. These details apply to the typical case of walls set at 45 to the abutments supporting road embankments with slopes of 1 in 2. 2.4.5 Bearing Shelves These designs are generally suitable for concrete, composite or timber decks, though the bearing details will be specific to the deck type. The dowel and bearing pad details are required for concrete and composite decks. Good drainage and the facility for removal of debris are important requirements on all bearing shelves. The road approaches should be built to prevent water draining onto the bridge, but some water falling on the deck will penetrate expansion joint seals and leak through to the bearing shelves. This is particularly likely to occur when no seal at all is provided. A number of drainage configurations are available, Hambly (1979), but the two main principles to be observed are: Slope horizontal surfaces to direct water away from the bearing pads. Provide good access for the removal of stones, vegetation, bird nests and other debris.
- 26 -
B.Eng.CBE
2.4.6 Piers Just like abutments, piers perform a support function by transmitting vertical and horizontal loads from the superstructure via the bearing shelf, stem and foundation slab to the supporting soil. In most cases, piers stand on saturated soils for most or all of the year: they do not retain soil embankments but are designed to withstand hydraulic pressures and impact loads. Piers are often more affected by scour damage than abutments and need to be orientated carefully with respect to flow direction. Their foundations should be located well below maximum scour depth. Reinforced Concrete Piers Though piers may be built using masonry or mass concrete, reinforced concrete has several advantages, notably a more slender stem presenting less interference to flow and hence causing less induced scour. Superstructure spans are sometimes designed to be simply supported at the abutments and at the piers. Each span should have one fixed and one free end. It is usual practice, though not essential, to provide one fixed bearing and one free bearing on the bearing shelf of each pier. Pier foundations are even more susceptible to damage by erosion than abutment foundations. They must be constructed on soils of well established allowable bearing pressure
2.4.7 Determination of allowable bearing pressure, a) Non cohesive soils The allowable bearing pressure under foundation in non cohesive soils is governed by the permissible settlement of the structure due to consolidation of the soils under the applied loading. If standard penetration tests have been performed in bore holes, the values of N can be used to obtain allowable bearing pressure for various foundation dimensions.
- 27 -
B.Eng.CBE
The allowable bearing pressure is that which causes 25mm of settlement under the given breadth of foundation front to back, Br i.e. measured perpendicular to water flow direction on
B B
the assumption that the water table always remains at the depth of at least Br below the
B B
foundation level. If the water table can be higher than this, then the allowable pressure is halved. At a shallow depth, the test seriously under-estimates the relative densities of cohesionless soils thus the engineer may need to correct the standard penetration values measured in boreholes before applying the relationships To allow for this, a correction factor should be applied to the measured values Where the N values of a fine or silty sand below the water table is greater than 15, the density of the soil should be assumed to be equal to that of sand having the N value of
15 + 1 ( N 15) 2 Very loose uniformly graded sands with N equal to 5 or less and subject to rapid changes of water level are liable to suffer large settlements under load. In these circumstances, either the sand should be dug out and thoroughly re-compacted or the foundation should be supported on piles. b) Cohesive soils Most cohesive soils at the foundation level are saturated and have an angle of shearing resistance equal to zero. Provided that no water is expelled from the soil as the load is applied. This is accepted as the basis for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of foundations where the load is applied relatively quickly. The ultimate bearing capacity of cohesive soils can be calculated from the following formula. Ultimate bearing capacity, qf = CuNe = P
B B B B B B
Where
- 28 -
B.Eng.CBE
Cu = untrained shear strength (kN/m2)

P P
Ne = bearing capacity factor

B B
P = total overburden pressure at foundation level kN/m2

P P
= D Where = density of soil above foundation level kN/m3

P P
D = depth of foundation level below ground surface. Values of the bearing capacity factor Nc for square or circular foundations can be read from
B B
the graph in Figure 8.6 ORN9 For rectangular foundations B Nc(rectangular) = 0.84 + 0.16 r N c L
B B B B
Where Br = breadth of the foundation front to back

B B
L = length of the foundation The undrained shear strength Cu of soft clays can be measured by means of field vane tests
B B
but the results need to be corrected because the soil is sheared in the horizontal direction.
The value of Cu to be used in the bearing capacity formula is the vane shear strength
B B
multiplied by the correction factor read from the graph in figure 8.7 ORN 9. This factor is dependent on the plasticity index of the soil.
- 29 -
B.Eng.CBE
The allowable bearing pressure is one third of the calculated ultimate bearing capacity. c) Presumed values Sometimes at the preliminary stage of design there may be no measured values of soil density or field strengths available. For purposes of estimation, Table 2.2 below lists approximate values of allowable bearing pressures for different soil types.
- 30 -
B.Eng.CBE
Table 2. Presumed Bearing Capacities
(a) Foundations beadng on ROCK, width not exceeding 3m and the length not more than 10 times width.
Description of rock
Massive strong igneous and metamorphic rocks and limestones Unweathered medium to fine grained sandstones Schists and slates Hard shales, mudstones and soft sandstones Soft limestones
Presumed bearing valuekN/mz

P P
10,000 4,000 3,000 1,500 600
(b) Foundations in non cohesive soils at a minimum depth of 1m below ground level Presumed bearing value,kN/mz Foundation width 1m 2m 3m
P P
Description of soil
Very dense sands and gravels Dense sands and gravels Medium dense sands and gravels Loose sands and gravels
600 500 250 100
500 400 200 75
400 300 150 75
(c) Foundations in cohesive soils at a minimum depth of 1m below ground level Presumed bearing value,kN/mz Description of soil Foundation width 1m 2m 3m
P P
Hard boulder clays, hard fissured clays, weathered shales and weathered mudstones Very stiff boulder clays, very stiff marls stiff boulder clays, stiff fissured clays and stiff marls Firm clays Soft alluvial clays Source: Table 8.1 ORN 9
800 600 300 150 75
600 400 200 100 35
400 200 100 75 0
- 31 -
B.Eng.CBE
- 32 -
B.Eng.CBE
2.4.8. Foundations on Rock The foundation designs presented in the preceding sections are for soils readily excavated by hand or mechanical digger. Modifications may be required to suit individual site conditions, particularly when bedrock is encountered. Where foundations are set on rock at ground level or on the river bed, substantial keying will be necessary in the form of steel dowels and notching.
2.4.9. Run-on Slabs Almost all earth embankments are subject to settlement. The amount they settle will depend on the height, the degree of compaction of the material and the strength of the sub-grade. Relatively uniform settlement can be expected from most embankments until a cause of uneven compaction is met, such as a bridge or a box culvert with little fill above it. It is difficult to compact fully the embankment material close to the bridge abutments or the culvert walls, and the result of poor compaction is more pronounced settlement. The resulting longitudinal profile is uncomfortable for road users and causes impact loads on the structure, owing to vehicle bounce. These local depressions in the carriageway close to drainage structures may be bridged using run-on slabs. They are more easily constructed at the same time as the structure, rather than afterwards as a remedial measure, and they span the fill material susceptible to settlement. One end of the slab rests on a small shelf cast onto the culvert wall or on the abutment ballast wall, while the other rests on well compacted material several meters away. Run-on slabs are usually between 3 and 6 meters long. The concrete and reinforcement details may be abstracted from the culvert detailing, assuming that the slab is resting on good support for one third of its length, i.e. a 6m slab will have similar details to a 4m wide culvert lid. Run-on slabs are usually made wide enough to support the kerbs on the approach roads. Run-on slabs should not be required where efficient maintenance facilities are readily available (Hambley 1979).
- 33 -
B.Eng.CBE
2.5 Superstructure 2.5.1 Steel/concrete Composite Superstructures Because they are easy to erect, more durable if well maintained and are light in weight, steel beams with concrete decking are often a good solution for structures intended to have a long service life. Through regular maintenance painting can prevent deterioration of the beam webs and bottom flanges. Where structures are intended to be permanent, the durability of the steel over a service life of 50 years or more can be achieved more readily by the use of a cast in situ concrete deck slab (ORN 9). Composite action of the slab and beams is secured by the use of shear connectors welded to the top flanges of the beams and cast into the concrete. As an alternative to the solid concrete slab decks almost any bridge can be constructed of steel universal beams (UB) with a composite concrete deck slab. The main beams and cross members can be of standard rolled carbon steel sections (yield stress 274N/mm2), with deck slab reinforcement in either mild steel (MS) or high yield steel
P P
(HYS). However, Steel/concrete composite deck structures have the following advantages: The deck self weight can be less than that of an equivalent all-concrete structure The off-site prefabrication of the main load carrying elements of the bridge greatly reduces the work necessary on site, resulting in more rapid construction. No temporary supports are required during construction of the deck slab, since the soffit shuttering can be supported directly from the steel beams. This can be a particular advantage at sites with poor ground conditions, steeply sloping terrain, or with a fast stream. Steel is a more reliable material which is supplied with guaranteed strength properties, enabling the production of high and consistently reliable structure.
- 34 -
B.Eng.CBE
2.5.2. Reinforced Concrete Bridges Reinforced concrete is particularly adoptable for use in highway bridges because of its durability, rigidity, and economy as well as comparative ease with which a pleasing architectural appearance can be secured. Winter (1972) For very short spans of about 10ft (3m) to 25ft (7.5m), one way slab bridges are economical. For somewhat longer spans, concrete girder spans may be used. Most highway spans of medium length, from 40ft. (12m) to 90 ft. (27m), presently use steel- concrete construction or composite pre-stressed concrete. In composite construction with structural steel, the concrete deck is made to act integrally with supporting steel stringers by means of shear connectors, welded to the top of thee flange of the steel section and embedded in the slab. 2.5.3 Design Standards Among many, the design of any bridge and/or its superstructure can be in accordance with B88110 structural use of concrete, BS 5950 structural use of steel. BSI (1979) for HA loading and AASHTO (1985) for HS20-44 loading, Uganda Bridge Design Manual, and Uganda Drainage Design manual 2.6 Design Detailing 2.6.1 Vertical Profile over the Bridge The bridge should preferably be constructed either to a level profile or to a constant longitudinal grade, if this is required by the road alignment. The steel beams can be cambered to give some degree of hogging vertical curvature should the equipment be available, but it may not be economical in most circumstances. 2.6.2 Shear Connectors In order to provide more restraints to the steel beams and help attach firmly, the deck to the tensile stress carrying steel beams, connectors are provided. These connectors are the only links between the concrete slab, acting in compression and bending when under load, and the steel beams, acting in tension and bending. The largest shear forces act at each end of the
- 35 -
B.Eng.CBE
deck, where the shear connectors are spaced closer together. Welded channel shear connectors are specified, since they can be produced from readily available material and fixed locally. The joints, however, should be of good quality welding and be protected from corrosion both in storage and in use. 2.6.3 Protective Treatment to Steelwork The degree of protection which the steelwork will require depends on the local environment. However Particular care should be provided for structures in coastal locations or where there is significant atmospheric pollution. Types of paint used and surface preparation methods depends on the availability of materials and equipment. The designer should try to achieve the following standard in order to ensure a reasonable life to first maintenance: Grit blasting to remove mill scale, loose rust, welding scale etc., and produce a clean surface for any coat of painting especially prime; Application of a multi-coat paint system to a total dry film thickness of 0.25mm.
At least one paint coat should be applied at site after completion of construction, so that damage to paintwork incurred during transport, steel erection and concreting can be repaired. 2.6.4 Bolts and nuts Ordinary bolts, grade 8.8 to ISO (1982) together with grade 8 nuts, are specified for fixing cross members. Alternatives should match the tensile strength of 80 kg/mm2 with a
P P
minimum elongation at fracture of 2%. 2.6.5 Bearings Elastomeric bearings, are specified because they are durable, inexpensive and simple to install. These bearings consist of discrete strips of black natural rubber, extending over the full width of the slab soffit at the support point, with a maximum width of approximately 300mm and a maximum thickness of approximately 25mm. At the free end of the span, the bridge deck locates by friction between the rubber strip and the concrete deck, with no
- 36 -
B.Eng.CBE
positive mechanical means to develop resistance against transverse loadings. At the fixed end, dowel bars passing through the pad at frequent intervals provide the necessary restraint, both longitudinally and transversely. To allow rotations to occur and the deck to expand laterally, the dowel bars are usually fitted with rubber caps where they pass into the concrete deck slab. 2.6.6 Expansion joints At these relatively short deck lengths, joint movements due to temperature and live loading are small and are readily accommodated by a simple gap joint, The joints are sealed by a polysulphide sealant to prevent water penetration. An alternative unsealed joint, more suitable for bridges on gravel roads, may be provided. 2.6.7 Construction joints It is always best if the deck slab can be cast in one continuous pour. If this will not be practicable, permissible locations for construction joints should be marked on the drawings. If a joint is unavoidable, it should be perpendicular to the centre line at a location least likely to promote corrosion in underlying steelwork. 2.6.8 Slab Reinforcement According to Overseas Road Note 29 Section 9.2.5, the maximum length of reinforcing bar generally available is 12m. Where a longer bar is required, e.g. for a 12m span bridge, two bars must be lapped. The lap length should be at least 40 times the diameter of the lapped bars and laps should be staggered both to avoid a line of weakness and to minimize congestion of reinforcement. Main bars are positioned with the hooks at alternate ends. Accurate positioning of the reinforcement is essential in order to maintain the minimum cover of 50mm of well compacted concrete, so that moisture and pollutants cannot penetrate the slab to reach the reinforcing bar and corrode it.
- 37 -
B.Eng.CBE
2.6.9 Drainage Drainage should be provided if required, generally as detailed for concrete slab bridges down pipes must be of sufficient length to ensure that run-off water is discharged at least 150mm clear below the beam lower flanges. 2.6.10 Parapets, Surfacing and Services Parapet and surfacing details are the same as for concrete slab bridges. If ducts for services are required, they can be provided 2.5.11 Provision for Pedestrians and Cyclists The recommendations set out on pathways for pedestrians and cyclists on concrete decks apply equally to composite decks. The addition of a 2m wide walkway to a composite deck of the type detailed here would also require one more ''I'' beam to match those for the road bridge. 2.7 River Hydraulics and Hydraulic Design 2.7.1 River Hydraulics In order to secure safety from the effects of flowing water, the engineer has to ensure that the flowing water under the bridge can pass the structure without causing damage to its parts, the road embankment or the surrounding land. This topic thus explains how the parameters for safe hydraulic design can be obtained. Damage can occur in a number of ways, namely: The river may react against obstructions such as piers and abutments, and scour beneath them causing failure. The approach embankments may act as a dam during high floods, sustaining damage or causing more extensive flooding upstream. A river flowing on a shifting path may bypass a bridge and cut a new channel across the highway A river may over-top a bridge if sufficient clearance is not provided.
- 38 -
B.Eng.CBE
The hydraulic characteristics of the river must be well understood and quantified so as to be able to design a structure that avoids the above problems and unnecessary costs. The most economical structure is usually one which is just wide and high enough to accommodate the design flood, minimizing the total cost of abutments, piers, superstructure, approach embankments, relief culverts and river training works. The hydraulic data required for the design process detailed in the following sections relate to: Design flood level DFL, flow volume and velocity. Maximum flood level, flow volume and velocity. Bed characteristics - particle size, vegetation. Channel shape and flood plain width. Sedimentation and meander characteristics. Navigational requirements and clearance of floating debris.
Using the above data, determine by calculations the: Geometry of waterway required at the bridge site. Backwater caused by the restriction of flow due to piers and abutments. (Scour caused by the restriction. River training works required.
Calculating velocity using Manning's formula to estimate mean velocity
1 A 3 1 V= S 2 n P
Where V = velocity (m/sec) A = Area of cross section of the flooded channel (m2)
P P
P = length of the wetted bed across the channel
- 39 -
B.Eng.CBE
S = gradient of the surface or bed slope n = value of rugosity coefficient taken from the table 4.1 (ORN 9)
There are many methods of obtaining flow volume but only two are discussed here. (i). The Area velocity method Q = A.V Where Q = volume of flow (m3/sec)
P P
A = cross sectional area (m2)

P P
V = mean velocity of the water (m/sec) Area velocity method is necessary where the river tops its banks during flood. (ii). The Rational Formula
Q= CIA 3 (m / s ) 3 .6
Where Q = volume of flow (m3/sec)

P P
C = Catchment coefficient I = Rainfall intensity (mm/hr) A = Area of the watershed/ catchment.
- 40 -
B.Eng.CBE
In design of any bridge structure, much as excessive rainfall is unpredictable, it should be carefully designed for. Meteorological data should be used carefully to narrow or remove the range of uncertainty in river hydrology. Every designer needs to select a Design Flood Level (DFL), a design discharge or flow volume and a design velocity, on which to base calculations of waterway geometry, foundation depths, scour protection and vertical clearance. The design flood is the maximum flow that can pass through the bridge without: Unacceptable disruptions to traffic. Endangering the pier and abutment foundations with respect to scour Damaging approach embankments Causing flood damage on the upstream side of embankment.
It should however be noted that the design flood is not necessarily the highest flood. The highest flood is a rarely occurring flow that it's uneconomical to include in the design flood but which may be considered when designing superstructure and piers of the bridge. Where the river is narrow enough, it can be bridged with a single span. The abutments are built clear of the level of the design flood and hence there is no restriction to river flow i.e. no river training, no backwater or additional scour is expected as a result of the bridge presence. For a wide flood channel, the superstructure is longer and will be very expensive if piers are not used. Both pier and abutment foundations are below DFL and thus require protection from scour. The abutment walls and piers will sabotage the design flood. This restriction causes backwater and additional scour of bed which must be considered while designing the foundation. (i) The Hydraulic Design Process.
The steps involved in the design process include:1. Establish the height of the infrastructure i.e. clearance above the DFL
- 41 -
B.Eng.CBE
2. Establish trial positions for the abutments according to the bed shape at the proposed crossing. 3. Make a provisional decision concerning the number of piers that will result in the lowest overall cost of the superstructure, piers and abutments. 4. Calculate the general and local scours due to the abutments and piers and draw the worst case profiles in the cross sections. 5. Check that the backwater caused by the restriction to flow doesn't cause damage to surrounding land upstream of the bridge or affect the height set for the superstructure. 6. Prepare preliminary designs of abutments and piers. 7. Check scour and backwater effects and make adjustments as required, reclaiming the effects of any changes to the waterway. 8. Calculate the cost of the superstructure once its length is decided and the cost of the substructures, embankments, river training works and relief culverts. 9. In order to obtain the most economical design, or to compare the cost of the structure s catering for the different design floods, it may be necessary to repeat the above procedure on the basis of alternative waterway conditions. (ii) Bridge Height.
The waterway below the superstructure must be designed to pass the design flood and the floating debris carried on it Table 5.1 below shows recommended vertical clearance at DFL minimum measurements for a vertical clearance between the lowest part of the superstructure and the DFL, taking in to account backwater effects. This clearance should be increased on rivers with a history of unusually large floating items or navigational requirement
- 42 -
B.Eng.CBE
Discharge Vertical clearance (m3/sec)

P P
(mm) 150 450 600 900 1200
<0.3 0.3 - 3.0 3.0 - 30.0 30 - 300 >300 (iii) Positioning of Abutment
Choose a position bearing in mind the guidelines at the beginning of hydraulic design then check for scour using flow charts and spacing of abutments and piers. (iv). Scour Scour is the erosive effect of water flow on the river bed or banks. Bridge works may alter the existing scour pattern by restricting the free flow of the stream and/or causing local changes to the current. Approximately half of all river bridge failures are due to scour alone (ORN 9) However, there are four types of scour and they include: natural scour and channel shifting on alluvial rivers scour caused by changes to the river upstream or downstream of the bridge site General" scour caused by reduction in the channel width at the bridge works . "Local" scour at the base of piers, abutments and river training works where these divert the general flow. At the bridge site provide estimates for general and local scour.
- 43 -
B.Eng.CBE
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY A bridge just like any other structure must be designed to resist all loads and forces that may reasonably be exerted on it during its design life. The methodology used here was meant to address and aim at achieving the objectives outlined in section 1.4 above in a way that will appropriately solve the identified problem. And consider the design to take into account the cost implications and environment impact of the bridge structure. In this chapter, procedures to obtain which parameters are likely to occur and the magnitudes and combination of loads that produce maximum stress are listed. This project started by data collection through site visits, observations, physical measurements and interviewing local community, visiting and interactions with offices of the various authorities concerned with bridge development in Uganda to acquire adequate data and information on the history of the bridge. All these data was compiled and used in design. In brief, the general procedures were as follows;
3.1 Data collection This focused on; Establishing the history of the bridge. Establishing the soil condition of the site. Establishing the catchment area of the bridge. Establishing the nature of the rainfall pattern of the area. Establishing the nature of flow of the river. Obtaining the maximum discharge of the river through the bridge. Establishing the highest flood level attained so far.
3.2 Physical measurements
- 44 -
B.Eng.CBE
Measurement of the bridge width, (length of waterway) L=13. 74m Measurement of unrestricted width of the river, W = 20m Slope was determined by carrying out alignment survey along the center of the river and determining the river pattern from which the slope S0 was got. (See appendix, Table 5.1)
B B
The wetted perimeter, P and cross sectional area for maximum flow of the river was got by carrying out measurements at a section across the water way. The level of the water mark of the most recent highest flood (2007) was aligned with a string line; depths of the bed were measured at 2m intervals. The profile was then plotted accurately using AutoCAD application software, by which the area and perimeter of flow were obtained. Wetted perimeter, P, was then determined. The cross sectional area was also calculated. (See appendix; Table . and Figure .) 3.3 Bridge Site observation The following was done:Geotechnical investigation; a simplified investigation was done comprising of: Visual inspection Trial pit excavation Soil lab testing
Geological/topographical information: These were obtained from the World Wide Web, existing data from ArcGIS and Department of Lands and Survey. 3.3.1 Trial pit excavation This was done to obtain the information on the bridge soil foundations and allow visual examination of the soil profile. Two (2) pits were excavated each to a depth of 6.45meters.
- 45 -
B.Eng.CBE
3.3.2 Sampling Disturbed samples were collected. Each sample weighed 2kg was taken at intervals of 500mm 3.3.3 Soil Testing The samples from the trial pits were tested using procedures provided in the British Standard (BS) code 1377:1975 and in so doing, the following tests were carried out to classify the soil and evaluate its load bearing capacity: Soil moisture content test. Sieve analysis (Gradation test) Plastic limit test Liquid limit test
See Appendix; Tables to Table 3.4. Velocity According to Road Design and Drainage Manual, Chapter 3, Hydrology and Design Criteria (2003), the velocity of flow (whether in a watercourse or overland) is one of the most important criteria dictating the performance of a drainage system, the potential for erosion and the subsequent implications for design. The presence of high velocities can result in a number of problems, such as erosion or scour, undermining of a structure, or high afflux. Similarly, in areas where fish passage occurs, high velocities may inhibit or prevent passage from occurring. In each of these situations, the designer has a responsibility to limit velocities to manageable magnitudes (preferably below 2 m/s). However, where high velocities are a natural occurrence, or result from the need to confine flows, then it may be necessary to protect a waterway from the impacts of the high velocities. Velocity criteria may be specified in terms of the average velocity at a location (for a nominated design event), or in terms of the maximum velocity at locations of interest, such
- 46 -
B.Eng.CBE
as the bed of a watercourse. Velocity criteria will typically fit into one of the following three classifications: 1. Existing; 2. Desirable maximum; and 3. Maximum permissible. 3.4.1 Existing Conditions The existing velocity regime may be considered acceptable in those circumstances where minimal changes to a watercourse are proposed, and that watercourse is currently stable. However, care must be taken to ensure that where the bed or banks of a watercourse are disturbed, that appropriate restoration occurs. Failure to meet this requirement will usually result in erosion, and possible failure of drainage infrastructure. 3.4.2 Desirable Velocity Where works in a watercourse are required, the desirable maximum velocity will typically be dictated by the types of soil and vegetation present. The value chosen applies to peak velocities, but should also be linked to an understanding of the duration of flow. For short duration events, a higher velocity may be tolerated than for long duration events. Table below provides a summary of typical maximum velocity criteria for different conditions. Where the desirable maximum velocity cannot be achieved (i.e. where it is exceeded), then the designer will need to look at the selection of appropriate linings which can withstand the estimated peak velocities predicted to occur 3.4.3 Maximum Permissible Velocity In some circumstances, it will not be possible to offer bed or bank protection in order to cater for a velocity higher than the desired maximum. For example, where fish passage is a requirement, there may be specific velocity criteria that apply to normal and/or low flow. These will typically be determined through the REF/lAS process and use of a fish specialist. In these situations, the specified velocity criteria must be satisfied, and hence design of the cross drainage system will not be modified accordingly.
- 47 -
B.Eng.CBE
Table.
Source: Table 3.4 Maximum permissible velocities (m/s) for earth channels [SCS 1982]
3.5 Interviews: A lot of information was missing from the Ministry of Works and Transport both nationally and regionally, the same applies to Local Government, leave alone the local and national meteorological departments. The only option was to interview elders within the locality of Kaabong and Kapedo of any relevant information about the bridge; like the highest flood levels ever experienced among others. 3.6 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) An EIA was not carried out to obtain the effects of redesigning the bridge on the environment. Any short coming was to be mitigated. The villagers were briefly interviewed and it was found that everyone believes a good bridge will make their lives easier. Some few villagers interviewed however, believe that the current bridge pose a very big threat to the lives of their children, elderly, women, drunkards and their animals.
- 48 -
B.Eng.CBE
Chapter 4
4.0. Design and Analysis Using British Standard design procedures, American Association of States and Highway Officials (AASHTO), Uganda Bridge Design manual, Uganda Drainage Design Manual, Uganda National Standards for Highway and Bridges, Overseas Road Note 9; Design of Small Bridges and other relevant sources of reference, a systematic design of the bridge was done and at the end accurate drawings and specification produced.
- 49 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
U
Calculations
DETERMINATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Output
Longest Flow Path, L Two options were used: Plate 1 1. Physical Measurement from the Map 2. Digitizing from a map using ArcGIS software Physical measurement: Scaling using a thread the longest flow path was 3.3 km Using ArcGIS Software, The longest flow path was 3.714 km Adopt 3.714 km Height difference, H: Two options were used: 1. Physical Measurement from the Map 2. Digitizing from a map using ArcGIS software Physical measurement: Estimated from contour differences as: 3.714 km.
1750 1450 = 300m

Using ArcGIS Software, Highest level = 1776 m ASL Lowest level = 1456 m ASL H = 1776 1456 = 320m Adopt H = 320 m Time of Concentration:
U.S Bureau of Reclamation
H = 320 m
Using Kirpichs Model

0.87 L3 Tc = 60 H
0.385
(min s )
0.385
0.87 3.714 3 Tc = 60 320

= 28.1 min s
Tc =28.1 min
B B
- 50 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
U
Calculations
DETERMINATION OF RAINFALL INTENSITY
Output
Figure 1 Appendix 1
Using Intesity Duration Frequency Diagram: Return Period: For minor bridges, the return period is 20 years Return period of 20 years For Duration = Rainfall intensity 28.1 min (I FD Curve) =91.6mm I = 92 mm/hr .
SABA Consultants (2003)
- 51 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
U
Calculations
DETERMINATION OF CATCHMENT AREA
Output
2 methods used: 1. Physical Measurement from the Map 2. Digitizing from a map using ArcGIS software Physical measurement: Plate 1 The catchment area was determined by drawing lines along the topographical water divide (topographical peaks and ridges) on the map and estimating the area bound by the line by give and take method. The area was estimated to be 5.5 sq. km Using ArcGIS Software, The area was marked out on an electronic map, digitized and found to be 4.44 sq km From the Geomorphologic Map:
U
Figure 2 Appendix 1
Area under rock was found to be 0.62 sq km Area under cultivable land was 3.82 sq km Adopting the greater value, Catchment area, A = 5.5 km2
P P
A = 5.5 km2
P P B B
Area under rock, Ar = 5.5

B B
0.62 = 0.768km 2 4.44

B
Ar =0.768 km2
P P
Area of cultivable Land, Ac = 5.5

B
3.83 = 4.732 km 2 4.44
Ac =4.732km2
B B P
SABA Consultants (2003)
Total catchment area < 25km2 therefore the Rational

P P
Method is Applicable
- 52 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
U
Calculations
ESTIMATION OF PEAK FLOW, Q
Output
Uganda Drainage Design Manual Section 4
Evaluation of Rational Coefficient, C: Here 2 kinds of surfaces are involved in which case:
C r = run off coefficient for rocky area and

C c = run off coefficient for cultivable land But C r = C s1 + C k1 + C v1 And C c = C s 2 + C k 2 + C v 2
Table 1 (based on Table 4.7 b UDDM)
Table 4.7 b
Rocky Areas, C r = C s1 + C k1 + C v1 Factor

Cs1
B B
UDDM
.
MAP 300 600mm 0.22 0.21 0.26
Component
Average slope of hillside in catchment Permeability of the soil Vegetation >35% very steep Impermeable Bare rock
Ck1
B B
Cv1
B B
C r = 0.22 + 0.21 + 0.26 = 0.69

Table 2 (based on Table 4.7 b UDDM)
Cultivated Areas, C c = C s 2 + C k 2 + C v 2 Factor

Cs2
B B
Component
Average slope of hillside in catchment Permeability of the soil Vegetation Soft to moderate Permeable Grassland
MAP 300600 mm 0.06 0.06 0.17
Cr = 0.69
B B
Ck2
B B
Cv2
B B
C c = 0.06 + 0.06 + 0.17 = 0.29
Cc = 0.29
B B
- 53 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Uganda Drainage Design Manual
Calculations Using Equation 4.6 Weighted Catchment Coefficient Cw is given by:

B B
Output
Cw =
C r Ar + C c Ac 0.69 0.768 + 0.29 4.732 = = 0.346 Ar + Ac 5.5
Cw = 0.346
B B
Peak Flow: Peak Flow,

Q= Q= CI A 3 (m / s) 3 .6 0.346 92 5.5 = 48.63m 3 / s 3 .6
Q = 48.63m3/s
The river in question is an intermittent river that has no dry weather flow (DWF), the peak flow is contributed only by run off. ESTIMATION OF AREA OF FLOW:
U
This was done using the Competent velocity method to

5.4.1.2 ORN 9
minimize general scour. Depth of flow upstream = 2.43m (observed from silt marks on the trees and rocks. (2.43 1.5) (0.65 0.6) = 0.631m / s (3.0 1.5)
Table 5.2 ORN 9
Vc = 0.6 +
Vc =0.63m/s
B B
From A =
Q , Vc
Area A, of flow that would minimize general scour is given by:

A= 48.63 = 77.2m 2 0.63
- 54 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
2 1
Calculations FLOW AREA FROM MANNINGS EQUATION.

A Q = R 3 * S o2 n
Output
From the river section profile taken at 15m upstream of the water crossing, the area of section was calculated as in Table 1, Appendix 1 Figure 3, Appendix 1 The same data was used to plot the profile in AutoCAD, from which the area of section and the perimeter of flow were estimated. Area by AutoCAD was 52.7005m2 Perimeter = 53.187 m (by AutoCAD) Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic radius:
R= A 52.7 = = 1.917 m P 27.487
A=52.7m2
A= 52.7m2
= Perimeter surface width = 53.187 25.7 = 27.487m P =27.487m
Velocity from Channel Characteristics, Appendix using Mannings Formula 2 1 v= (1.917) 3 0.013 0.5 = 5.865m / s 0.030 Peak Discharge: From Q = Av = 52.7 5.865 = 309.09m 3 / s RDDM June 2003 Ch. 3 Cl.3.4.2.2 Table3.4 From judgement Design Velocity can be: Maximum permissible velocity Existing velocity Desirable velocity Q =310m3/s
So =0.013
B B
v =5.868m/s
Moderate erodibility condition on bare soil, Desired velocity of say, 5.8 m/s (less than existing) was chosen. - 55 Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula
(SCS, 1982) maximum permissible velocity 0.6m/s
B.Eng.CBE
Reference Table 4.1 ORN 9
Calculations FLOW AREA FROM MANNINGS EQUATION.
Output
Taking a desired velocity of 5.8 m/s and lining the channel with n = 0.025 gabions and Reno mattresses to minimize scour Area of flow at the bridge, A:
A= Q 310 = = 53.45m 2 V 5 .8
0.6667
From Mannings:
5 .8 = 1 53.45 0.025 P 0.013 0.5
3 2
From which,
53.45 0.6667 0.013 0.5 P= 0.025 5.8
= 37.28m
P = 2d + b = 37.28......................(i ) A = bd b = (ii ) int o(i ) : 2d 2 37.28d + 53.45 = 0 d1 = 1.565 1.6m d 2 = 17.07 m Adopt d =1.6m 53.45 ...................(ii ) d
P = 37.28 = (2 1.6) + b b = 34.1m

Take b =34.5m
b = 34.5 m
- 56 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference BRIDGE SPANS:
Calculations
Output
Dividing the water way into three equal widths, each water way would be:
l= 34.5 = 11.5m 3
BRIDGE HEIGHT:
Depth of flow = 1.6m

Back water effect (afflux):
Due to the effect of the piers water will tend to rise above the design depth, by a height, hBW
B B
Eq.5.2 ORN 9
hWB
v 2 w2 = 2 2 + 1 2g c L
c = 0.9
Assuming Bell mouthed Entry
hWB =
5.8 2 25.7 2 + 1 = 0.303m < 0.5m, (ok) 2 2 2 9.81 0.9 34.5

5.8 9.81 1.903
Water depth = 1.6 + 0.303 = 1.903m Fr = v gd = = 1.342 > 1
Flow is turbulent and would lead to scour, otherwise the channel will be lined with gabions and Reno mattresses to abate the scouring action.
Minimum Height of soffit above proposed bed level, H
Prvide a freeboard for passage of debri = 0.9m (Qp from 30 300 m3/ s)
B B P P
H =3.0 m
H = 1.6 + 0.9 + 0.303 = 2.803m
- 57 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Abutments and Piers:
Output
Cl. 8.4.3 ORN 9, Garg (2005)
Reinforced concrete abutments and piers were used as they are a more economical option, lighter in weight and offer less obstruction to flow of water as they are often thin. For small bridges (span not exceeding 12m): Standard width of abutments = 1,200mm Standard width of piers = 800 mm
(1.2 0.45) 0.8 + = 12.275m 2 2
Span = 12.3m
ORN 9
Extreme Spans = 11.5 +
0 .8 Middle span = 11.5 + 2 = 12.30m 2
Sketch of Bridge showing the spans:
The type of deck adopted was composite Steel Concret construction
- 58 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Section showing the lane arrangements:
Output
DECK ANALYSIS AND DESIGN:

U U
Type HA Loading:
BS 5400 Cl. 6.2 Uganda Bridge Design Manual
Carriageway = 7.2m wide Deck Span =12.3m (c/c of bearings for simply supported spans). Design for a metre width of deck No. of notional lanes = 2
Cl.3.2.9.3.1 Notional lane width =
7 .2 = 3 .6 m 2
Nominal Uniformly Distributed Load:
Loaded length, L Cl. 6.2.1 BS 5400 Pt 2
=12.3m < 30m
W = 30 kN/m
W = 30 kN per linear metre of notional lane (UBDM Cl. 6.2.1) Adopt 30 kN/m
KEL =
Nominal Knife edge Load (KEL):
120kN
Cl. 6.2.2
KEL = 120 kN per notional lane.
- 59 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations HA LOADING:
Output
UDL per meter width across the lane (Figure ):

= 30 = 8.33kN / m 3.6
KEL (taken as uniformly distributed across the lane) per meter width across lane:
= 120 = 33.33kN / m 3 .6
Total HA loading
= 8.33 + 33.33 = 41.66kN / m
Qk
B B
=42kN/m
Dead loading on slab:
Assume:
200mm thick slab 100mm thick surfacing Unit weight of concrete = 24 kN/m3
P P P
Unit weight of surfacing = 24 kN/m3

P
Slab Surfacing
= 0.2 1 24 = 4.8kN / m = 0.1 1 24 = 2.4kN / m

Gk
B B
Total dead Loading = 4.8 + 2.4 = 7.2kN / m Ultimate load on Slab due to HA only: Reynolds and Steedman (1988) Partial safety factor for HA loading = 1.5 But taking 1.6 is safer. Design Ultimate load, w = (1.4Gk + 1.6Qk )
w = (1.4 7.2 + 1.6 42) = 77.28kN / m
=7.2kN/m
- 60 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations HB LOADING:
Output
Taking 30 units of type HB loading per axle (one unit is 10 kN and each wheel is 2.5 units), the load arrangement is as in the figure below:
Taking the wheel separation of 6m gives the most onerous condition. Analysis of the slab behavior under/ reaction to various loading cases for both type HB loading and HA (udl + kel) was carried out using Prokon Application software. Appendix 2 shows the data from which Table 3. was extracted.
Table 3. Summary of Maximum Stresses due to Loading Cases LOADING MAXIMUM STRESS IN SLAB CASE Moment (kNm) +ve 29.16 40.70 35.54 37.20 40.45 18.99 19.90 32.51
U
Shear (kN) +ve 126.44 157.94 151.75 126.70 130.99 74.55 72.96 139.46
U U U
Deflection (mm) +ve -ve
-ve 38.17 34.34 34.78 38.16 34.78 20.17 18.36 39.33

U
-ve 153.64 157.94 151.75 153.41 152.91 74.34 74.34 139.46

U
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mu =40 kNm
B B
V = 140 kN
- 61 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Cases 1-5 should be disallowed on this bridge Design R.C Deck Slab:
Output
The deck is designed as a reinforced concrete slab and was idealized into 1 meter strip widths spanning 1.8 meters. BS 8110: Pt .1 (1997) Tables 3.1 and 3.3 Compressive strength of concrete, Reinforcement steel strengths, And Bar diameter =16mm, 20mm, 25mm Basic span / effective depth ratio = 26 Minimum effective depth =
1800 = 69.23 70mm 26
f cu = 40 N / mm 2
Condition of Exposure: severe Nominal Concrete cover for durability; 50mm
f y = 460 N / mm 2 f y = 250 N / mm 2
BS 8110: Pt 1 (1997), Table 3.9
Minimum thickness, h = d + cov er + = 70 + 50 +
16 = 128mm 2
Take h = 250mm (as thickness of 150mm failed in shear when checked). Design Ultimate Moment = 40kNm
d = h cov er
h =250mm
d=192mm
Effective depth,
2 16 d = 250 50 = 192mm 2
- 62 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
40 10 6 M = 0.027 < 0.156 = k= f cu bd 2 1000 192 2 40

No compression reinforcement required.
1 k 2 Lever arm, z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0.9 1 0.027 2 z = d 0.5 + 0.25 = 0.969d > 0.95d , 0.9
Mu =40 kNm
B B
V = 140 kN
Take z = 0.95 192 = 182.4mm

Area of Steel Required:
z = 182.4mm
Use
f y = 250 N / mm 2
Asreq . = M 53 10 6 = = 923.36mm 2 / m 0.95 f y z 0.95 250 182.4
Table 86 Reynolds & Steedman (1988) Table 3.25 BS 8110: Pt.1 (1997) Minimum Area of Steel: Provide R 16 @ 150 mm c/c. Area =1340mm2/m
P P
Asprov
B B
=1340 mm2/m
P P
Asmin =
0.24 Ac 0.24 1000 250 = = 600mm 2 / m 100 100
As prov > Asmin (OK)

Provide the Minimum steel area as distribution bars Provide R10@125 mm c/c
- 63 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Crack Control:
Output
cl. 3.12.11.2.7 BS8110: Pt. 1
Spacing = 150mm < 3d = 3 192 = 576mm (OK)

Cracking will not occur Shear Resistance:
Maximum Applied Shear, V = 140kN Applied Shear Stress, v Cl.3.4.5 & Table 3.8 of BS8110: Pt. 1 (1997) v= V 140 10 3 = = 0.729 N / mm 2 < 5 N / mm 2 (OK) bv d 1000 192
B B
Design Concrete Shear, vc:
100 As prov v c = 0.79 bd v
3 400 4 f cu d 25
1 1
1 m
100 1340 3 400 4 40 3 1 vc = 0.79 = 0.787 1000 192 192 25 1.25

v c = 0.787 N / mm 2 > v = 0.729 N / mm 2 (OK)
Shear reinforcement not required
- 64 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Deflection Check:
Output
BS8110: Pt 1 (1997) Cl. 3.4.6. Table 3.10.
Continious Rectangular Beam Basic Span/d ratio = 26

2 f y Asreq 3 As prov
fs =
Assuming a 20% moment redistribution, b = 0.8

fs = 2 250 923.36 1 = 143.56 N / mm 2 3 1340 0 .8
40 10 6 M = 1.085 = bd 2 1000 192 2

477 f s MFT = 0.55 + M 0.9 + 2 120 bd 2.0
477 143.56 MFT = 0.55 + = 1.9498 2.0 (OK) 120(0.9 + 1.085) Area of Compression steel = 0mm2
P P
MFC = 1 Allowable Span/d ratio = MFT MFC ( BasicSpan / d )
= 1.95 1 26 = 50.7
Actual
Span 1800 = = 9.375 << 46.93 192 d
The slab is compliant with deflection requirement. See the details in the Appendix
- 65 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations BEAM ANALYSIS

U
Output
Analysis of Beams for Type HB Loading Using Influence Lines
30 units of HB type loading per axle was taken and each unit = 10kN. Th most onerous arrangement is when the load is as below:
Bending Moment
In general, the bending moment under a particular load is a maximum when the center of the beam is midway between that load and the resultant of all the loads then on the span. With this rule, the maximum moment under each load was computed, and the biggest of the moments used for the design. Usually, the biggest of these moments occurs under the biggest load. (www.mathalino.com - accessed on 26th May 2009 at 9:
H H P P
35 am local time) Applying the above rule, since all the loads are equal (i.e. 150 kN) the loading case producing the greatest moment is as below:
- 66 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Maximum moment in the span due to type HB loading, per beam is given by: M max = 150 * 3.55 + 150 * 5.35 + 150 * 0.95 = 1477.5kNm Note: This excludes the bending moment due to dead loads.
Shear Force:
The maximum shear occurs at the reaction where the resultant load is nearest. Usually, it happens if the biggest load is over that support and as many as possible of the remaining loads are still on the span. (www.mathalino.com - accessed on 26th May 2009 at 9:
H H P P
35 am local time) Applying this rule the loading arrangement shown below produces the greatest shear force at the left hand support:
- 67 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
The shear force per beam due to unfactored load, Vmax

B B
will therefore be given by:
150*1.000+150*0.854+150*0.366+150*0.220= 366 .0kN

Table of fL values:
B B
Limit State Load combination Dead

B
Superimposed dead Live load Temperature difference
fL concrete fL Surfacing fL HA fL HB fL
B B B B B B B B B
Serviceabil ity Comb. 1 3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.8
Ultimate Comb. 1 3 1.15 1.15 1.75 1.50 1.75 1.25 1.00
- 68 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
fL HB for serviceability limit state = 1.1

B B
Therefore Design shear due to HB Type loading = 366.0 * 1.1 = 402.6 kN. Design Moment due to HB type loading = 1.1 * 1477.5 = 1625.25 kNm. Note: this excludes the shear due to dead loads. In this case (HB Loading) the loads on each wheel are the same.
Analysis of the Beam for Type HA Loading
The Type HA loading consists of UDL of 30 kN/m per notional lane for loaded length not exceeding 30m and KEL of 120kN per notional lane
(Cl. 6.2.1)
(Cl. 6.2.2) Vol IV Bridge Design Manual (MOWHC)
- 69 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Imposed Load per meter width of lane:

UDL = KEL = 30 = 8.33kN / m per meter 3 .6 120 = 33.33kN per meter 3 .6
Output
On a typical beam B, C or D the imposed loads are:
UDL = 8.33 1.8 = 15kN / m KEL = 33.33 1.8 = 60kN

Type HA UDL and KEL loads shall be applied to two notional lanes in the appropriate parts of the influence line for the element or member under consideration. In this case however the maximum moment occurs when the KEL is at mid span. Note: This moment does not include the dead loads. Moment due to dead loads
Cl. 6.4.1 Vol IV Bridge Design Manual (MOWHC)
15 12.32 60 12.3 = 1.5 + = 979.0kNm 8 4

Shear force:
Maximum shear occurs at the reaction when KEL loading is directly on the support as below:
- 70 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Reaction on the left support, RL (=VHA) is given by:

B B B B
VHA =
(15 1.5) 12.3 + (1.5 60) = 228.375kN 2
Analysis of the Beam for Dead Loading Dead loads:
Slab Surfacing Beam section) Total load
= 1.8 0.25 24 = 10.8kN / m = 1.8 0.1 24 = 4.32kN / m

= ? (to be evaluated after choosing
= 10.8 + 4.32 = 15.12kN / m
Factor for dead loading = 1.4 Factored dead load = 1.4 *15.12 = 21.17kN Moment due to dead loads, MD
B B
21.17 12.32 = 400.35kNm 8

21.17 12.3 = 130.2kN 2
Shear due to dead loads, VD =

B B
- 71 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Total Stresses for Design HA Type Loading:
Output
Applying the principle of superposition, Total moment in the beam under HA loading is given by: M HA + D = M HA + M D M HA + D = 979.0 + 400.35 = 1379.35kNm Total Shear in the beam under HA loading is given by: VHA + D = VHA + VD VHA + D = 288.375 + 130.2 = 418.58kN
HB Type Loading:
Total moment in the beam under HB loading is given by: M HB + D = M HB + M D M HB + D = 1625.25 + 400.35 = 2025.6kNm Total Shear in the beam under HB loading is given by: VHB + D = VHB + VD VHB + D = 402.6 + 130.2 = 532.8kN
Therefore the HB type loading will govern the design.
- 72 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations BEAM DESIGN

U
Output
Generally to BS 5950 Moment Due to Dead load = 400.35 kNm (Excluding self weight) Moment Due to Live load = 1625.25 kNm Total Moment due to Dead + Live loads = 2025.6 kNm
Initial Section Selection.
U
Assuming Py = 275 N/mm2

B B P P
Sy >
M Py
Sy >
2025.6 = 7365.8cm3 275
Possible sizes:
838 x 292 x 194 UB, S x = 7640 cm 3 610 x 305 x 238 UB, S x = 7484 cm 3 914 x 305 x 201 UB, S x = 8351cm3 Properties of 838 x 292 x 194 UB
U
Take 838 x292 x 194 UB
I xx = 279200cm 4 I yy = 9066cm 4 rxx = 33.6mm ryy = 6.06mm Z xx = 6641cm 4 Z yy = 620cm 4 S yy = 940cm 4
- 73 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
u = 0.862 x = 41.6 D = 840.7 T = 21.7mm t = 14.7 mm b = 6.74 T d = 51.8 t A = 247cm 2
Cl. 3.1.1 Table 6
Strength Classification:
For 838 x 292 x 194 UB, 16mm < T < 40mm

Section Classification:
b = 6.74 < 8.5 T
Py
B B
=265N/mm2
P P
cl. 3.5.2 Table 7
Class 1 Plastic Section
275 = Py
275 = 1.019 265
Shear Buckling:
Cl. 4.2.3
d = 51.8 < 63 t
Okay
Shear Strength:
Shear Capacity of the section, Pv

B B
Cl. 4.2.3
Pv = 0.6 Py Av Pv = 0.6 265 (14.7 * 840.7 ) 10 3 = 1964.97kN

Applied Shear Force. Fv Fv = 402.6 + 130.2 Fv = 532.8kN Fv < Pv 0.6 Pv > Fv Low Shear Load Shear Capacity O.K.
- 74 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Cl. 4.2.5
Moment Capacity Check Moment Capacity M c
M cx = Py S x 1.2 Py Z xx = 265 * 7640 * 10 3 M cx = 2024.6kNm M cx 1.2 Py Z xx = 1.2 * 265 * 6641 = 2111.8kNm Moment Due to Dead + Imposed Loads excl. Self Weight of the beam = 2025.6 kNm Extra load. Due to Self Weight of the beam
2
O.K
194 * 9.81 12.3 = 1.4 = 50.39kNm * 8 1000

Total Moment M t = 2025.6 + 50.39 = 2075.99 kNm M t > M cx Not O.K. Choose a bigger
Choosing the Section
Section
S x = 8351cm 3
914 x 305 x 201 UB, I xx = 325300 I yy = 9423 rxx = 35.7 ryy = 6.07 Z xx = 7204
Z yy = 621 S yy = 982
U = 0.854 X = 46.8 D = 903.0 T = 20.2 t = 15.1

b = 7.51 T d = 54.6 t
A = 256
Cl. 3.1.1 Table 6
Strength classification
T = 20.2 16mn < T < 40mm
Py = 265
- 75 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Section classification
3.5.2 Table 7
b = 7.51 < 8.5 T

= 275 = Py 275 = 1.019 265
Section is class 1 plastic
Shear Buckling
4.2.3
d = 54.6 < 63 t
O.K
Shear strength
Cl. 4.2.3
Shear capacity of the section, Pv Pv = 0.6 Py Av = 0.6 * 265 * (15.1 * 903.0) *10 3 Pv = 2168.01kN
Applied Shear Force:
Fv = 532.8kN < Pv = 2168.01kN 0.6 Pv > Fv
O.K Low Shear Load
Cl.4.2.5
Moment Capacity Check:
Moment Capacity, Mcx:

B B
M cx = Py S x 1.2 Py Z xx M cx = 265 8351 10 3 = 2213 .02 kNm
1.2 Py Z xx = 1.2 265 7204 10 3 = 2290.8kNm

M cx < 1.2 Py Z xx
O.K
- 76 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Moment due to Dead + Imposed Loads (excluding self weight) = 2025.6 kNm Extra moment due to self weight of the beam
201 9.81 12.3 = 1.4 8 = 52.21kNm 1000

Total Moment: M t = 2025.6 + 52.21 = 2077.8kNm M t < M cx
Deflection Check:
Section O.K
Cl.2.5.1 Table. 5 BS 5950
Limits of deflection, for all other beams,

Maximum Allowable Deflection
= Span 12300 = = 61.5mm 200 200
Actual Deflection
5l 4 Wl 3 c = + 384 EI 48EI
4 1 60 12.33 5 15 12.3 = + 8 6 384 48 205 10 325300 10
c = 10.19mm < allowable = 61.5mm
(OK)
- 77 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference DESIGN OF PIER

U
Calculations Design data: Dimensions of the Column:
Output
Height, H = 6600mm Breadth, b = 1000mm Depth, h = 900mm Steel strength, f y = 460 N / mm 2 Concrete Strength, f cu = 50 N / mm 2 Concrete cover = 50mm (most severe condition)
Loading:
Appendix
Axial load per 1.8 meter width 532.2kN / m Axial load per meter width =
532.2 = 296 kN / m 1 .8
Assuming 2 vehicles meet at the abutment/ pier at critical positions: Axial load per meter, N = 296 * 2 = 592kN / m
Skidding and Braking Loads:
U
N=592kN
BS 5400 Pt. 2 Cl.6.10
Nominal HA = 8kN / m * ( span ) + 250 kN
= 8 *12.3 + 250 = 348.4kN

Nominal HB
= 25% * 30units *10kN * 4axles

= 25 * 30 * 10 * 4 = 300kN 100 348.4 = 96.78kN / m 3.6
300<348.4 i.e. HA Braking is critical HA Braking load per meter = 96.78kN/m
- 78 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
h' = 900 50 16 8 = 826mm b = 1000mm h = 900mm

d 826 = = 0.92 h 900
N 592 10 3 = = 0.66 bh 1000 900

Moment at the bottom of the pier, M:
M = 96.78 6.6 = 638.74 kNm ( permeter )
M=638.74 kNm/m
M 638.74 10 6 = = 0.789 bh 2 1000 900 2

Area of Compression Steel, Asc :
B B
BS 8110 Pt. 3 Chart 50
100 Asc = 0.4 bh

Asc = 0.4 1000 900 = 3600 mm 2 100
Table 86 Reynolds & Steedman
Provide Y25@125mm c/c (Area =3926mm2)

P P
Y25@125m m c/c
Distribution Steel Bars:
Provide minimum reinforcement
100 As 0.13 1000 900 > 0.13 As > = 1170mm 2 / m Ac 100

Provide Y20@250 mm c/c as distribution bars
Y20@250 mm c/c
- 79 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations DESIGN OF ABUTMENTS

U
Output
Design Data:
Lab Report from KOM Consultants Ltd.
Angle of Friction, = 33o Bulk Density, = 18.9Mg / m 2 Cohesion, c = 6kPa
Ultimate Load from beam, N = 296kN Horizontal Load, H = 96.78kN / m Moment, M = 435.51kNm Height of the Wall,
h = 4500 + 25 + 903 + 250 + 100 h = 5778mm

1 sin 1 + sin
Coefficient of Active Pressure, k a = ka = 1 sin 33o = 0.295 1 + sin 330
For stability calculations use Active Pressures only Active pressure = k a h Active pressure at depth of 5.778m
= 0.295 18.9 5.778 = 32.22 kN / m 2
Earth Pressures on the Abutment:
Vertical Pressures, = z At the top, v1 = 0
- 80 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
At the bottom of the abutment (assuming uniform soil)
v = 18.9 5.778 = 109.2kN / m 2

2
Active Earth Pressures:
Pa = zk a 2c k a Pa1 = 0 2 6 0.295 = 6.52kN / m 2 Pa2 = 18.9 5.778 0.295 2 6 0.295 = 25.7 kN / m 2
Passive Earth Pressures:
Coefficient of Active Pressure, k p = kp = 1 + sin 33o = 3.39 1 sin 33 0
1 + sin 1 sin
Pp1 = 0 + 2 6 3.39 = 22.10kN / m 2 Pp2 = 18.9 2.4 3.39 + 2 6 3.39 = 179.86kN / m 2

(see sketch next page)
- 81 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Horizontal force acting on wall per meter length:
zk a 2c k a = 0
z= 2 6 0.295 = 1.169m 18.9 0.295 d = 5.778 1.169 = 4.609m
Active Force:
P1 = 1 25.7 4.609 = 59.23kN / m( Active) 2 1 4.609 = 1.536 m above base level 3
Acting at
- 82 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Passive Forces:
P2 = 2.4 22.10 = 53.04kN / m at 1.2m

P3 = 1 153.76 2.4 = 184.5kN / m at 0.8m 2
BS 5400 Pt 2 Cl.6.11
Forces due to Surcharge:
Fs = K a h
Case 1: At Construction:
Surcharge due to compaction equipment is taken as 30 units of HB type loading (www.childsceng.demon.co.uk/tutorial/abutmentu.html#ep) 30 units of HB is equivalent to 12 kN/m2
P
Hence, Fs = 0.295 12 5.778 = 20.45kN Acting at

h 5.778 = = 2.889m above toe 2 2
Case 2: At Service:
Surcharge due to HA, = 10 kN / m 2 Surcharge due to HB, = 20 kN / m 2 HB is critical, hence, Fs = 0.295 20 5.778 = 34.09kN Acting at 2.889m above the toe level
- 83 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Vertical loading acting on Abutments: Case 1: At Construction
Output
W1 = 1.228 0.45 24 = 13.26kN / m @ 1.975m W2 = 4.5 1.2 24 = 129.6kN / m @1.6m W3 = 5.4 0.9 24 = 116.64kN / m @ 2.7m W4 = 1.5 1.0 18.9 = 28.35kN / m @ 0.5m W5 = 4.878 3.2 18.9 = 295.02kN / m @ 3.8m
Stabilizing Moments, MR are as shown in the table
B B
below:
Notation W1
B B
Force (kN) 13.26
Lever arm (m) 1.975 1.600 2.700 0.500 3.800 MR=

B B
Moment (kNm) 26.19 207.36 314.93 14.18 1121.08 1683.74
W2
B B
129.60
B
W3
B
116.64
B
W4
B
28.35
B
W5
B
295.02
- 84 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Destabilizing Moments Mo:

B B
These are due to Forces, Fs and P1

B B B
P1 = 59.2kN / m @ 1.536 Fs = 20.45kN / m @ 3.339m

Notation P1
B B
Force (kN) 59.20 20.45
Lever arm (m) 1.536 3.339 MO=

B B
Moment (kNm) 90.93 68.28 159.29
Fs
B B
Overturning Check:
Wall will not overturn at construction
Fo
M = M
R o
1683.74 = = 10.57 > 1.5 (ok) 159.29
- 85 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Case 2: At Service:
Vertical loadings due to wall and soils, acting on the foundation (W1 to W5) remain the same.
B B B B
At Service, Fs = 34.09 kN/m @ 3.339 m

B B
Horizontal Load, H = 96.78 kN/m @ 5.4 m Beam Reaction, V = 296 kN/m

Destabilizing Moments, Mo
B B
Notation P1
B B
Force (kN) 59.20 96.78 34.09
Lever arm (m) 1.536 5.400 3.339 MO=

B B
Moment (kNm) 90.93 522.61 113.83 727.37
H Fs
B B
- 86 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Stabilizing Moments, MR
B B
Notation W1
B B
Force (kN) 13.26
Lever arm (m) 1.975 1.600 2.700 0.500 3.800 1.375 MR=
B B
Moment (kNm) 26.19 207.36 314.93 14.18 1121.08 407.0 2090.74
W2
B B
129.60
B
W3
B
116.64
B
W4
B
28.35
B
W5
B
295.02 296.00
Overturning Check:
Fo =
MR M
o
Wall will not overturn in service
2090.74 = 2.874 > 1.5 (ok) 727.37
- 87 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Safety Against Sliding:
Output
Garg (2005)
At service
Fs =
F F
R S
W tan + P P
Ai
Pi
1.5
V =(13.26 + 129.6 + 116.64 + 28.35 + 295.02 + 296 V = 878.84kN / m

= 0.5 = 0.5 33o = 16.5 o
P P
Fs =
Pi
= 53.04 + 184.50 = 237.54kN / m = 59.20 + 34.09 + 96.78 = 190.07kN / m
Ai
878.84 tan + 237.54 = 2.61 > 1.5 (OK) 190.07
During Construction
V =(13.26 + 129.6 + 116.64 + 28.35 + 295.02) V = 582.87kN / m P = 59.20 + 20.45 = 79.65kN / m

Ai
The abutment will not slide in both cases
Fs =
582.87 tan + 237.54 = 5.15 > 1.5 (OK) 79.65
- 88 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Eccentricity of Loading:
Output
Summation of moments about the Toe,
toe
= 2090.74kNm / m
Summation of vertical forces, V = 878.87kN / m The resultant of Vertical forces pass through the base at
M V
toe
2090.74 = 2.37889 2.38m from toe 878.87
B 5 .4 Eccentricity, e = = 2.38 = +0.32m 2 2

B 5 .4 = = 0.9m > e = 0.32m , 6 6
Tension will not develop in the base.
Pv =
Pv =
V 1 6e
B B
878.87 6(0.32) 1 5 .4 5 .4 878.87 6(0.32) 1+ = 220.62kN / m 2 5 .4 5 .4 878.87 6(0.32) 1 = 104.89kN / m 2 5 .4 5 . 4
At the toe,
Pvmax =
At the heel,
Pvmin =
(See Stress Profile at the Base below)
- 89 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Maximum Pressure, Pvmax = 220.62kN / m 2 Allowable Bearing capacity = 700 kN / m 2 Since PV max < BearingCapacity ,
The dimensions are adequate.
- 90 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Bending reinforcements for the abutments
Output
Height of the stem = 4.5m Horizontal forces on stem are: FH = 96.78kN @ 4.5m P1 = 59.23kN @ 0.636m P2 = 53.04kN @ 0.3m Fs = 34.09kN @ 1.989m
Design Ultimate Moment at the base, Mu
B B
M = 96.78 4.5 + 34.09 1.989 + 59.23 0.636 53.04 = 487.95kNm

M u = 1.4 487.95 = 683.13kNm Assume diameter 20mm bars BS 8110: Pt .1 (1997) Tables 3.1 and 3.3 2 = 1200 50 10 = 1140mm f cu = 50 N / mm 2 f y = 460 N / mm 2 b = 1000mm. Mu 683.13 * 10 6 = = 0.0105 < 0.156 < f cu bd 2 50 * 1000 *1140 2 d = 900 cov er
K=
Thus no compression reinforcement required

Steel area required
Lever arm
1 0.0105 2 z = d 0.5 + 0.25 = 0.988d > 0.95d 0.9
Take z = 0.95d = 0.95 *1140 = 1083mm
- 91 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Mu 683.13 * 10 6 = 0.95 f y z 0.95 * 460 * 1083 = 1443mm 2 / m
Output
Table 3.25 BS 8110: Pt.1 (1997)
AsRe q =
Minimum Steel Area:
Asmin =
0.13 * Ac 100
0.13 *1200 *1000 100 = 1560mm 2 =
Thus provide for the minimum area of 1560mm 2 i.e. provide T20 @ 200mm As prov = 1570mm / m in both directions
2
T20 @ 200mm
- 92 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations DESIGN OF PAD FOOTING FOR PIERS

U
Output
Data
U
532.8kN Axial load per meter = * 2 = 592kN 1 .8
Lab. Report (Appendix)
Bearing Pressure of soil = 700 kN / m 2 Unfactored loads

Imposed loads: (Qk )
366 + 366 = 732 kN

Dead loads:
Qk = 732kN
Surfacing + slabs = 15.12kN Beam self weight =

201 * 9.81 * 12.3 = 24.25kN 1000
self weight of pier = 0.9 *1 * 6.6 * 24 = 142.56kN Total Deal loads Gk = 15.12 + 24.25 + 142.56 = 181.98kN Service loads = 1.0Gk + 1.0Qk
Gk = 181.98kN
= 1.0 *181.98 + 1.0 * 732 = 913.98kN 914kN

Total service load = 914 + Size of the base =
10 * 914 = 1005.4kN 100
N s 1005.4 = = 1.436 1.44 q 700
For a rectangular base of dimensions shown:
- 93 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
1.4 is very small, therefore b was provided according to ORN 9 height of the pier From ORN 9, when H = 5.2m; D = 1.0m;
B = 2 1.4 + pierthickn ess = 2.8 + 0.9 = 3.7 m
3.7m was found to be sufficient i.e. Sketch:
Ultimate loads = 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk
= 1.4 *181.98 + 1.6 * 732 = 1425.97 1426kN

Ultimate Pressure
N 1426 = b*l 3.7 = 385.41kN / m 2 qu =

Moment Reinforcement
Moment M = 385.41 *
1.4 2 *1 2
= 377.7 378kNm
- 94 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
Assumptions
f cu = 30 N / mm 2 f y = 460 N / mm 2
Cover = 50mm
Assuming 16mm bars h = 1000mm d x = 1000 50 8 = 942 d y = 1000 50 8 16 = 926 BS8110 Cl. 3.4.4.4 k=
The smallest is taken M 378 *10 6 = = 0.0147 < 0.156 f cu bd 2 30 * 1000 * 926 2
No compression reinforcement required

k Lever aim z = d 0 . 5 + 0 . 25 0 . 9 0.0147 = d 0.5 + 0.25 0.9
= 0.98d > 0.95d

Take z = 0.95d
= 0.95 * 926 = 879.7mm

378 * 10 6 M = = 0.95 f y z 0.95 * 460 * 879.7
= 983 .28mm 2 / m
Area of steel Asreq Cl.3.11.3.2
- 95 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
0.13 Ac 100
Output
Table 3.2.5
Minimum area, As min =
0.13 *1000 *1000 100 = 1300mm 2 / m =

As min > Asreq
Provide As min:
Provide both ways Y 16 @ 150mm c As = 1340mm 2 c
Area required = 983 .28mm 2 / m

3c 9d = 3 * 900 + 9 * 926 = 2758.5mm + 4 4 4 4
lc =
3700 = 1850 < 2758.5m 2
Therefore the reinforcements should be spaced equally at 150mm c/c

Vertical Shear Check
BS8110
The critical section y y at the column face is at a Table 3.8 distance d = 926mm from the face of the column.
- 96 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations
Output
V = 385.41* 0.474 *1 = 182.68kN

Applied shear stress = 182.64 *10 3 2 = 0.197 N mm < 0.8 30 = 4.38 (OK) 1000 * 926
1 1 1
Cl.3.11.4.5
100 As 3 400 4 fcu 3 1 vc = 0.79 * fm bvd d 25 100 As 1000 * 1340 = = 0.145 < 3 O.K bvd 1000 * 926 400 400 = = 0.43 < 1, d 926 400 take =1 d 1 1 1 1 3 Vc = 0.79(0.145) 3 *1 4 * 30 * 25 1.25 1 0.79 * 0.525 *1 *1.063 * 1.25 2 = 0.353N / mm
Since Vc > V
No shear reinforcement is required Cracking Check:
Bar spacing = 150mm < 3d
3d = 3 * 926 = 2778mm
Cracking will not occur
- 97 -
B.Eng.CBE
Reference
Calculations Check of Shear at the Column Face
Output
V = 385.41* (1.4 *1) * 2 = 1079.15kN
Applied vertical shear at the column face 1079.15 *10 3 = 1.165 N / mm 2 < 0.8 30 = 4.38 1000 * 926 Therefore the pier is safe against vertical shear at the column face.
NB: Provide the same reinforcements for the abutments.

U U
- 98 -
B.Eng.CBE
Chapter 5
5.0. Recommendations 5.1. Guide banks
Proper study on the bed materials and river hydraulics should be done and a comprehensive design of guide banks carried out. Appropriate river training measures that are sustainable should then be done.
5.2. Channel and embankment lining
The channel should be lined with gabions and Reno mattresses to minimize scouring and erosion at the structures. Grass should be planted at the embankment sides to prevent their erosion.
5.3. Traffic control:
Only one HB Type vehicle at a time shall be allowed to traverse the bridge and no other vehicle at such times may be allowed to pass (side by side or overtake) the HB Type vehicle on the bridge.
5.4. Joints and Bearings
Comprehensive designs of the joints and bearing of the bridge should be done and compliance with this design checked before implementation.
- 99 -
B.Eng.CBE
References:
1. Charles E. Reynolds and James C. Steedman, Reinforced Conrete Designers Handbook, 10Ed, E&FN Spon Ltd, (1998) London, ISBN 0-419-14530-3 2. T.J. MacGinley & T.C. Ang, Structural Steel Design to Limit State Theory, Butterworth, London (1987), ISBN0-408-03020-8 3. Glenn O. Schwab, Richard K, Frevert Talcott W. Edminster, Kenneth k. Barnes, Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, 3Ed. John Wiley and Sons (1995) New York. ISBN 0471-09423-4 4. Ray K. Linsey and Joseph B. Franzini, Water Resources Engineering, 3Ed, Mc Graw Hill Int. Singapore (1979). ISBN 0-07-Y85435-1 5. Overseas Road Note 9, A design manual for small bridges, 2Ed (2000) London ISSN 09518797 6. S. K. Khanna, C. E.G. Justo, Highway Engineering, 5Ed. (1982) India 7. Karl Terzaghi and Ralph B. Beck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2Ed. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. (1967) Catalogue Card No. 67 17356 8. L.S. Negi and R.S. Jangid, Structural Analysis, TataMcGraw Hill (1972) New Delhi ISBN 0-07-462304-4 9. Dr. B.C.Pumnia, Ashok Kumar Jain and Arun Kumar Jain, Comprehensive Design of Steel Structures, Laxmi Publication (P)Ltd. New Delhi (1995) ISBN 81-7008-2 10. S.K Garg, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering in SI Unit, 6Ed. Khanna Publishers (2005) New Delhi. 11. Road and Bridge Design Manual, Vol. IV Bridge Design Manual (Ministry of Works Housing and Communications), the Republic of Uganda. 12. Uganda Drainage Design Manual (Ministry of Works Housing and Communications), the Republic of Uganda. 13. Chapter 3, Road and Drainage Design Manual (accessed from the www) 14. Report on Geotechnical Investigations for Nariamabune Bridge Site on Kaabong Kapedo Road, February 2008, (Central Materials Laboratory, Ministry of Works and Transport), the Republic of Uganda. 15. http:/www.mathalino.com 16. http:/www.childs-ceng.demon.co.uk
- 100 -
B.Eng.CBE
Appendix 1
Plate 1. Topographic Map Showing Bridge Site Location
- 101 -
B.Eng.CBE
Appendix 2, Figure 2. Geomrphologic Map
- 102 -
B.Eng.CBE
Appendix 3. Figure 3. River Section Profile
- 103 -
B.Eng.CBE
Appendix 4.Table 1. Calculation of Area i di (m) 0.000 1.843 2.167 2.285 2.304 2.332 2.340 2.306 2.263 2.214 2.176 2.138 2.143 0.000
B B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
xi (m) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7
B B
Area (m2) 1.843 4.010 4.452 4.589 4.636 4.672 4.646 4.569 4.477 4.390 4.314 4.281 1.822
P P
25.7
52.701
Area of flow at the section considered = 52.7m2

P
- 104 -
B.Eng.CBE
Appendix 5. Table 2. Determination of bed Gradient.
Assume Bench Mark is 300m ASL Instrument Height measured = 1.570m Height of Collimation ASL =301.570
LEVEL BOOKING. HT. BS IS FS RL DIFF. REMARKS
0.325 0.489 0.810 1.235 1.347 1.700 2.167 2.480
301.245 301.081 300.760 300.335 300.223 299.870 299.403 299.090
160m upstream 0.164 140m 0.321 100m 0.425 80m 0.112 60m 0.353 40m 0.467 20m 0.313 0m
2.155
Summation of Height Differences
(RL at 160) (RL at 0) = 301.570 - 299.090 = 2.155 m

2.155 = 0.0134 0.013 (used in calculation of velocity) 160
Average Bed Slope, S o =
- 105 -
B.Eng.CBE
Appendix 6. Loading Cases:
- 106 -
B.Eng.CBE
- 107 -
B.Eng.CBE
Appendix 7: Pictures
Picture taken at one of the abutments. Notice the erosive action of water.
Picture showing the bank that is being washed away by river action. Notice how water is undercutting the bank.
- 108 -
B.Eng.CBE
Notice how the embankment soil has collapsed (right)
Picture taken upstream of the water crossing, with the rocky hills in the background. The smooth sandy bed in the foreground emphasizing the meandering of the river
- 109 -
B.Eng.CBE
- 110 -
B.Eng.CBE
- 111 -

Design of A Composite Bridge Deck

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of A Composite Bridge Deck

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

Signature OKUCU ANTHONY TWENY (STUDENT)

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

Okucu Anthony Tweny.

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

Figure 1.1. Single span Simply supported Bridge ..........................................................................- 13 T T

Figure 1.2. Simply Supported Multi- span Bridge. .........................................................................- 13 T T T

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

Re-Design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja.

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

productivity rating is limited.

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

The objectives are to:

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

Scope of the Project:

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE)

Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009