ES - 02 - Courbon & Engesser Methods

Politecnico di Torino
Department of structural and geotechnical engineering

Bridge design
Girder bridges 1/ 92 4
BRIDGE DESIGN
COURBON METHOD
Bridge design
Girder deck dimensions - Bottom view
Bridge design
Girder deck dimensions Interaxis between main members
Bridge design
Girder deck dimensions Cross section
Bridge design
The beams subjected to the highest bending moment
are the external ones, so the other beams are designed
as they were subjected to the same actions. This
reduces design time and is a safe approximation.
We proceed calculating the internal actions (bending
moment and shear) in the mid-span section of an
external beam called beam 1.
Bridge design
Values of the multi component actions
Loads on carriageway Loads on
footways
Vertical Horizontal Vertical
Group
of
actions
Main action
LM1-2-3-4-6
Special
vehicles
Crowd Braking
Accel.
Centrifugal Uniform
1 Characteristi
c value
2.5
kN/ m
2
In this exercise we will solve the structure only for the multi
component action group n 1. Needless to say that the other
groups have to be taken into account too.
Bridge design
Load analysis
Dead load g
1
1. Longitudinal beams
2. Transverse beams
3. Slab
1. Longitudinal beam 1
3
0.5 1.20 15 25 225
lb
kN
g b h l m m m kN
m
= = =
2. Transverse beam 1
3
0.3 1.00 2.5 3 25 56
tb
kN
g b h l m m m kN
m
= = =
3. Slab 1
3
12 15 0.25 25 1125
s
kN
g b l h m m m kN
m
= = =
Bridge design
Load analysis
Dead load g
1
Total weight of the girder
1 1 1 1
4 4 4 (225 56) 1125 2249
tot lb tb s
g g g g kN = + + = + + =
Dead load on the outermost beam
1
1,1
2249
38
4 4 15
tot
b
kN
g
kN
g
l m
m
= = =
Two simplifications:
a. Dead weight uniformly distributed among beams
b. Dead weight of transverse beams taken as uniformly
distributed instead of 4 concentrated forces
Bridge design
Load analysis
Permanent loads g
2
1. Kerb
2. Pavement
3. Vehicle restraint system
4. Pedestrian parapet
1. Kerb 2k
3
1.5 0.23 15 25 129
kN
g b h l m m m kN
m
= = =
2. Pavement
2
2
1.5 15 3 67.5
p
kN
g b l m m kN
m
= = =
The load value for the pavement takes into account that
several layers of asphalt may be placed one over another
during maintenance of the road:
Bridge design
Load analysis
3. V. R. S. 2
15 2 30
vrs
kN
g l m kN
m
= = =
4. Pedestr. parapet 2
15 1.0 15
pp
kN
g l m kN
m
= = =
Permanent load on the outermost beam
2,1 2, 2, 2, 2,
1,1
( )
(129 68 30 15) 15 24215 16 / 44%
b k p vrs pp
b
g g g g g l
kN m kN m g
= + + + =
= + + + = = ~
One simplification:
a. The permanent load for the outermost beam is grater then for the other
beams. In this example the load of kerb and barriers is fully given to the
outermost beam, in reality it would distribute itself according to Courbon
theory on the others beams resulting in a lesser weight for beam one.
Bridge design
Internal actions due to permanent loads
In the mid-span section of beam 1 we find the following internal actions:
Bending moment
( )
( )
2
1,1 2,1
1 1,1 2,1
2
8
38 16 15
1068 450 1518
8
b b
b b b
g g l
Mg Mg Mg
kNm kNm
+
= + =
+
= = + =
Shear 1 1,1 2,1
0 0 0
b b b
Vg Vg Vg kN = + = + =
Bridge design
Load analysis
Variable traffic load q
1
We need to trace the influence lines of bending moment and shear
for the mid-span cross section of the beam for moving vertical
loads.
We apply a disconnection dual to the desired internal action and
we calculate the function of the entity dual to the known action
(vertical force).
Bridge design
Bending moment in mid-span
Drawing influence surface
0.5
4 2
l l
=
1 u =
0.5 u =
One dimensional influence line for longitudinal simply supported beam
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
Transversal load repartition according to Courbon theory
, i j
Bridge design
Transverse distribution
1, j
Is the amount of the load P=1
applied on the beam 1 that goes on
the beam j (j=14)
1, j
Is the amount of the load P=1
applied on the beam j (j=14) that
goes on the beam 1
Or:
Bridge design
If we modulate the two graph seen before we obtain
0.2
4
l
0.7
4
l
The blue area has to be loaded to
maximize the mid-span bending
moment in beam 1
Bridge design
1.2m 6.9m 6.9m
3.75
4
l
m =
4
6.9 3.75/7.5 6.9 3.45
2
l
m
l
= =
P
,
2 3.45 6.9
S P
M P P = =
1 u =
0.5 u =
Longitudinal distribution (concentrated loads)
Bridge design
3.75
4
l
m =
q
,
2 1.875 3.7 3.7 7.5 27.75
2
S q
l
M Rq q q q = = = =
1.875
8
l
m =
4
l
4
l
Rq
1 u =
0.5 u =
4
l
4
l
Rq
Longitudinal distribution (uniformly distributed loads)
Bridge design
Transverse distribution
Carriageway width = 9m
Width of each notional lane = 3m
Number of notional lanes = 3
Bridge design
Transverse distribution (concentrated loads)
0.5 2.0 0.5
1 Notional
Lane
3.0
150kN 150kN
0.5 2.0 0.5
3.0
100kN 100kN
2 Notional
Lane
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
We dont place the third
notional lane because its
centroid will fall inside
the negative influence
line of load distribution
, i j
Bridge design
0.5 2.5
a
F
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
1,a
R
a
y
1,
0.5
150 0.7 0.3 150 0.65 97.5
3
a a a
R F y kN kN kN
| |
= = = =
|
\ .
Bridge design
0.5 2.5
b
F
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
1,b
R
b
y
1,
2.5
150 0.7 0.3 150 0.45 67.5
3
b b b
R F y kN kN kN
| |
= = = =
|
\ .
Bridge design
0.5 2.5
c
F
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
1,c
R
c
y
1,
0.5
100 0.4 0.3 100 0.35 35.0
3
c c c
R F y kN kN kN
| |
= = = =
|
\ .
Bridge design
0.5 2.5
d
F
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
1,d
R
d
y
1,
2.5
100 0.4 0.3 100 0.15 15.0
3
d d d
R F y kN kN kN
| |
= = = =
|
\ .
Bridge design
1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
97.5 67.5 35 15 215
concentrated a b c d
R R R R R
kN
= + + + =
= + + + =
Bridge design
Transverse distribution (uniformly distributed loads)
1 Notional
Lane
1.5 1.5
3.0
27 / kN m
1.5 1.5
3.0
2 Notional
Lane
7.5 / kN m
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
line of load distribution
, i j
2
9 /
a
q kN m =
2
2.5 /
b
q kN m =
Bridge design
1.5 1.5
3.0
27 /
a
q kN m =
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
1.5 1.5
3.0
7.5 /
b
q kN m =
1
R
1, . . 1, 1,
27 0.55 7.5 0.25 14.85 1.87 16.7 /
u distr a b a a b b
R R R q y q y kN m = + = + = + = + =
a
y
b
y
Bridge design
Pay attention!
2 1
F
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
If we consider a force F and we calculate its
distribution using directly the influence line, or
we solve the static scheme shown below and then
we calculate the force in the beam 1 with the
reactions, we obtain the same result.
, i j
3
F 2
3
F
1
2
0.5 0.7 0.4
3 3
F F
R F = = +
Bridge design
Transverse distribution (crowd)
1.5
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
We dont place crowd on this
foothpath because its centroid will
fall inside the negative part of the
influence surface
, i j
2
2.5 / q kN m =
1
F
2
F
Bridge design
1.5
2
2.5 / q kN m =
3
1
F
2
F
q
q
R
1.5 3.75 /
q
R q m kN m = =
2
3.75 0.75/3 0.94 / F kN m = =
1
3.75 0.94 4.69 / F kN m = + =
0.7
0.4
1,crowd
R
1, 1 2
0.7 0.4 2.9 /
crowd
R F F kN m = + =
Same result if we extrapolate
the Curbon transverse line
outside beam n1
Bridge design
1,
215
concentrated
R P kN = =
Concentrated tandem system
1.2m 6.9m 6.9m
P
1 u =
0.5 u =
, 1,
6.9 1484
S concentrated concentrated
M R kNm = =
Uniformly distributed
1, . .
16.7 /
u distr
R q kN m = =
, . . 1, .
27.75 463
s u distr u distr
M R kNm = =
q
Rq
1 u =
0.5 u =
Rq
Bridge design
Crowd
1,
2.9 /
crowd
R q kN m = =
, 1,
27.75 81
s crowd crowd
M R kNm = =
q
Rq
1 u =
0.5 u =
Rq
Total bending moment from vertical traffic actions
, , , . . ,
1484 463 81 2028
s Vtraffic s concentrated s u distr s crowd
M M M M kNm = + + = + + =
Bridge design
Shear in mid-span
One dimensional influence line for longitudinal simply supported beam
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
Transversal load repartition according to Courbon theory
, i j
7.5m 7.5m
1
Bridge design
Shear in mid-span
If we modulate the two graph seen before we obtain
0.2 0.5
0.7 0.5
The blue area has to be loaded to
maximize the mid-span shear in
beam 1
0.7 0.5
0.2 0.5
Bridge design
Shear in mid-span
Variable concentrated traffic load
1.2m 7.5m 6.3m
1
2
m
6.3
1
0.42
2
7.5
m =
P
,
(0.5 0.42) 0.92
S P
V P P = + =
Bridge design
Shear in mid-span
Variable uniformly distributed traffic load
1
2
m
,
1 15
1.875
2 4 8
S q
l
V q q q = = =
1
4
m
q
4
l
4
l
Rq
Bridge design
0.5 2.0 0.5
1 Notional
Lane
3.0
150kN 150kN
0.5 2.0 0.5
3.0
100kN 100kN
2 Notional
Lane
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
0.5 2.0 0.5

3.0
50kN 50kN
3 Notional
Lane
Bridge design
Longitudinal location of previously seen concentrated loads
1 Lane 2 Lane
3 Lane
Bridge design
0.5 2.0 0.5
150kN 150kN
0.5 2.0 0.5
100kN 100kN
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
0.5 2.0 0.5
50kN 50kN
1
R
1,
150 (0.65 0.45) 100 (0.35 0.15) 50 ( 0.05 0.15)
165 50 5 220
concentrated
R
kN
= + + + + + =
= + + =
Bridge design
1 Notional
Lane
2 Notional
Lane
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
3 Notional
Lane
1.5 1.5
3.0
27 / kN m
1.5 1.5
3.0
7.5 / kN m
2
9 /
a
q kN m =
2
2.5 /
b
q kN m =
1.5 1.5
3.0
7.5 / kN m
Bridge design
Longitudinal location of previously seen distributed loads
1 Lane 2 Lane
3 Lane
Bridge design
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
1.5 1.5
27 / kN m
1.5 1.5
7.5 / kN m
1.5 1.5
7.5 / kN m
1
, . . 27 0.55 7.5 0.25 7.5 0.05 17.1 / R u distr kN m = + + =
1
R
Bridge design
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
1.5
2
2.5 / q kN m =
3
1
F
2
F
q
q
R
2 3
3.75 0.75/3 0.94 / F F kN m = = =
1 4
3.75 0.94 4.69 / F F kN m = = + =
1, 1 2 3 4
0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2
4.69 0.9 0.94 0.3 3.94 /
crowd
R F F F F
kN m
= + + + =
= =
3
F
4
F
1.5
q
q
R
3
1.5 3.75 /
q
R q m kN m = =
Bridge design
Longitudinal location of previously seen distributed loads
1 Lane 2 Lane
3 Lane
Bridge design
Shear in mid-span
1,
220
concentrated
R P kN = =
Concentrated tandem system
, 1,
0.92 202
S concentrated concentrated
V R kN = =
Uniformly distributed
1, . .
17.1 /
u distr
R q kN m = =
, . . 1, .
1.875 32
s u distr u distr
V R kN = =
1.2
m
7.5
m
6.3
m
P
Rq
q
Bridge design
Crowd
1,
2.9 /
crowd
R q kN m = =
, 1,
1.875 5.4
s crowd crowd
V R kN = =
Total shear from vertical traffic actions
, , , . . ,
202 32 5 239
s Vtraffic s concentrated s u distr s crowd
V V V V kN = + + = + + =
Shear in mid-span
Rq
q
Bridge design
Wind referring speed
,0
25
b b
m
v v
s
= =
Non traffic actions: WIND
Location: Piemonte 250m o.s.l.
Kinetic referring pressure
2 2
2
1 1
1.25 25 391
2 2
b b
N
q v
m
= = =
Geografic zone 1
Terrain roughness class D (open land without obstacles)
Site exposition category II k
r
= 0.19
z
0
= 0.05m
z
min
= 4 m
Maximum height of the structure z=3m
Bridge design
Exposure coefficient ( ) ( )
2
min min
min
0 0
ln 7 ln
e e r
z z
c z c z k
z z
(
| | | |
= = +
( | |
\ . \ .

( )
2
4 4
0.19 ln 7 ln 1.8
0.05 0.05
e
c z
(
| | | |
= + =
| | (
\ . \ .

Dynamic coefficient = 1
Shape coefficient = 1
Wind pressure
2
3911.8 11 0.74
b e p d
kN
p q c c c
m
= = =
Bridge design
Surface exposed to the wind
3m
1.58m
From pavement
extrados to
longitudinal beams
intrados (13cm of
pavement thickness)
Bridge design
Vertical position of the centroid of the deck
1
225 4 0.6 540
lb
Sg kN m kNm = =
2. Transverse beams 1
56 4 0.5 112
tb
Sg kN m kNm = =
3. Slab
1
1125 1.325 1491 /
s
Sg kN m kN m = =
Total
540 112 1491 2143 / Sg kN m = + + =
Static moment of bridge masses with respect to the intrados
1
225 4 900
lb
Mg kN kN = =
2. Transverse beams 1
56 4 224 = =
tb
Mg kN kN
3. Slab 1
1125
s
Mg kN =
Total
900 224 1125 2249 = + + = Mg kN
Total mass of the bridge
Bridge design
Vertical position of the centroid of the deck
Vertical position of the centroid
2143
0.95
2249
= = =
g
g
g
S
y m
M
g
y
3.63m
0.95m
Wind
Mt
Torque
moment due
to the wind
Bridge design
Wind resultant
2
0.74 4.58 3.39
wind
kN kN
q p h m
m m
= = =
Torque moment
( )
3.39 4.58/ 2 0.95 4.54 = = =
wind
kN kN
Mt q e m
m m
Equivalent vertical
load acting un beams
1 and 4
.,
/9
4.54/9 0.50
= =
=
Vert wind
q Mt m
kN
m
9m
Bridge design
Bending moment in mid-span of beam 1 due to wind action
2
2
.,
,
0.50 15
14.1
8 8

= = =
Vert wind
S wind
q l
M kNm
Shear in mid-span of beam 1 due to wind action
,
0
S wind
V kN =
Bridge design
ULS combination
Bending moment in mid-span of beam 1
, , , ,
1.35 1.35 1.50
1.35 1518 1.35 2028 1.50 14 4808
S tot S perm S traffic S wind
M M M M
kNm
= + + =
= + + =
Shear in mid-span of beam 1
, , , ,
1.35 1.35 1.50
1.35 0 1.35 239 1.50 0 323
S tot S perm S traffic S wind
V V V V
kN
= + + =
= + + =
Bridge design
Pay attention:
Its not possible to evaluate the internal actions in the
transverse beams using Courbon, because Courbon
hypothesis doesnt locate transverse beams in a specific
position but smears them in the whole length of the
deck.
If we want to know the internal actions in the transverse
beam we have to use the Engesser model.
Bridge design
BRIDGE DESIGN
ENGESSER METHOD
Bridge design
We will analyze the same deck seen with the Courbon
approach with Engesser theory.
We will calculate bending moment and shear in the mid-
span of beam 1 exactly as we have done with Courbon
for the same multi component actions.
For sake of simplicity we will assume for dead load and
permanent actions the same values seen in Courbon
example (theres very little difference as the deformation
due to these loads is cylindrical).
We will then focus only on variable traffic loads.
Bridge design
2
2
1
2
1 0
10
( )
1 3 3
2
5 2 2 2
a
z z
for z l
l
y z
z l
z for l z l
l
| |
s s
|
\ .
=

| |
+ s s
|
\ .
1 u =
One dimensional influence line for longitudinal beam (continuous on
transverse beams)
tb
R
tb
R
z
2
l
2
l
l
2
3
5
b
tb
EI
R
l
=
5 l m =
Bridge design
tb
R
Beam 1
Beam 2
Beam 3
Beam 4
We apply the virtual reactions on the girder and we calculate with
Courbon theory the global deformation of the deck.
tb
R
z
x
b
Bridge design
The equation of the surface drawn in the previous page is
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
3 2
2
3
3 2
2
3 3
3 2
2
1
6 0
10
1
( , ) 0.7 0.9 6 2
3 10
1
2 6 2 3
10
+ s s
| |
= + + s s
|
\ .

+ + + s s
b
z l z for z l
l
x
y z x z z l l z for l z l
b l
z z l z l l z for l z l
l
Longitudinal direction
Transverse
direction
Bridge design
That can become for the single beams
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
3 2
2
3
3 2
, 1, 2
3 3
3 2
2
1
6 0
10
1
( ) 6 2
10
1
2 6 2 3
10
+ s s
= + + s s
+ + + s s
b i i
z l z for z l
l
y z z z l l z for l z l
l
l
Transverse
direction
1,
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.2
i
=
Beam 1
Beam 2
Beam 3
Beam 4
Bridge design
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
z
y
ya1
yb1
yb2
yb3
yb4
Bridge design
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
z
y
ya1+yb1
yb2
yb3
yb4
Bridge design
1. We have to distribute on the longitudinal beams the vertical loads acting
on the slab using the simply supported schemes seen before
2. Once the loads are on the beams we can use the influence lines shown
in the previous slide to calculate the bending moment in mid-span.
Procedure
Bridge design
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
1
F
0.5 2.0 0.5
3.0
100kN 100kN
surface of load
distribution
0.5 2.0 0.5
3.0
150kN 150kN
2
F
3
F
4
F
Concentrated loads
Bridge design
1
2
3
150
150 100 250
100
F kN
F kN
F kN
=
= + =
=
2. Once the loads are on the beams we can use the influence lines shown
in slide 61 to calculate the bending moment in mid-span.
i
F
z
6.9 z m =
8.1 z m =
i
F
Bridge design
,1 ,1 ,1 ,1
,2 ,2
,3 ,3
(6.9) (6.9) (8.1) (8.1) 0.6 2.0 2.60
(6.9) (8.1) 1.14
(6.9) (8.1) 0.285
a b a b
b b
b b
y y y y
y y
y y
+ = + = + =
= =
= =
, 1 ,1 ,1 1
, 2 ,2 2
, 3 ,3 3
2 (6.9) (6.9) 2 2.60 150 780
2 (6.9) 2 1.14 250 570
2 (6.9) 2 0.285 100 57
( = + = =

= = =
= = =
s F a b
s F b
s F b
M y y F kNm
M y F kNm
M y F kNm
,
1484
S concentrated
M kNm =
With Courbon model it was
, , 1 , 2 , 3
780 570 57 1407
S concentrated S F S F S F
M M M M kNm = + + = + + =
5% difference
Bridge design
0.7
0.4
0.1
-0.2
, i j
1
q
surface of load
distribution
2
q
3
q
4
q
Uniformly distributed loads
1.5 1.5
27 / kN m
1.5 1.5
7.5 / kN m
Bridge design
1
2
3
13.5 /
13.5 3.75 17.25 /
3.75 /
q kN m
q kN m
q kN m
=
= + =
=
2. Once the loads are on the beams we can integrate the influence lines
shown in slides 56 and 59 for a uniformed distributed load to calculate
the bending moment in mid-span.
z
i
F
Bridge design
a system
2
2
1
2
1 0
10
( )
1 3 3
2
5 2 2 2
a
z z
for z l
l
y z
z l
z for l z l
l
| |
s s
|
\ .
=

| |
+ s s
|
\ .
3
3 2 2 2
1 2
0 0
1 3
( ) 2 1 2
10 5 2 2
l
l l
a
l
z z z l
q y z dz q dz q z dz
l l
| |
| | | |
|
= + +
| |
|
\ . \ .
\ .
} } }
3
2 2 2
2
0
1 3
2 1 2
10 5 2 2
l
l
l
z z z l
q dz z dz
l l
| |
| | | |
|
= + + +
| |
|
\ . \ .
\ .
} }
2 2
2
3 1
2 0.625
40 80 40
l l
q q l q
| |
= + = =
|
\ .
Bridge design
b system
( ) ( )
( )
3 2
3
3 2 3 2
, 1, 2 2
0 0
1 1
( ) 2 6 6
10 10
l l l
b i i
l
q y z dz q z l z dz q z z l l z dz
l l
| |
= + + + + +
|
\ .
} } }
( ) ( )
( )
2
3
3 2 3 2
1, 2
0
2 6 6
10
l l
i
l
q
z l z dz z z l l z dz
l
| |
= + + + + +
|
\ .
} }
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
3 2
2
3
3 2
, 1, 2
3 3
3 2
2
1
6 0
10
1
( ) 6 2
10
1
2 6 2 3
10
+ s s
= + + s s
+ + + s s
b i i
z l z for z l
l
y z z z l l z for l z l
l
l
4 4 2
1, 1, 2
11 11 11
10 2 2 10
i i
q
l l q l
l

| |
= + =
|
\ .
Bridge design
a + b systems
Beam 1
2
1 11 41 25 41
0.7
40 10 100 4
q l q q
| |
+ = =
|
\ .
Beam 2
2
11 11
0.4 0.44
10 25
| |
= =
|
\ .
q l q q
Beam 3
2
11 11
0.1 0.11
10 100
| |
= =
|
\ .
q l q q
Total
, . . 1 2 3
41 41
0.44 0.11 13.5 0.44 17.25 0.11 3.75 146
4 4
+ + = + + =
S u distr
M q q q kNm
, . .
463
S u distr
M kNm =
37% difference
Bridge design
Shear in mid-span
2
2
1
3
2
2
1 0
3
( )
3
1 1
3 2
a
z z
for z l
l l
y z
z z z
for l z l
l l l
| |
s s
|
\ .
=

| |
| |
+ s s
| |
\ .
\ .
1 o =
One dimensional influence line for longitudinal beam (continuous on
transverse beams)
tb
R
tb
R
z
2
l
2
l
l
2
6
b
tb
EI
R
l
=
5 l m =
Bridge design
Shear in mid-span
tb
R
Beam 1
Beam 2
Beam 3
Beam 4
We apply the virtual reactions on the girder and we calculate with
Courbon theory the global deformation of the deck.
tb
R
z
x
b
Bridge design
The equation of the surface drawn in the previous page is
3 2
3
3 3 2
3
3 3 3 2
3
2
0
6 3
2 ( )
( , ) 0.7 0.9 2
3 6 2 3
2 ( ) ( 2 )
2 3
6 2 2 3
| |
s s
|
\ .
| | | |
= s s
| |
\ .
\ .
| |
s s
|
\ .
b
z l z
for z l
l
x z z l l z
y z x for l z l
b l
z z l z l l z
for l z l
l
Transverse
direction
Bridge design
That can become for the single beams
Transverse
direction
1,
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.2
i
=
Beam 1
Beam 2
Beam 3
Beam 4
3 2
3
3 3 2
1, 3
3 3 3 2
3
2
0
6 3
2 ( )
( , ) 2
6 2 3
2 ( ) ( 2 )
2 3
6 2 2 3
| |
s s
|
\ .
| |
= s s
|
\ .
| |
s s
|
\ .
b i
z l z
for z l
l
z z l l z
y z x for l z l
l
z z l z l l z
for l z l
l
Bridge design
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
z
y
ya1
yb1
yb2
yb3
yb4
Bridge design
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
z
y
ya1+yb1
yb2
yb3
yb4
Bridge design
Longitudinal position of the three tandem systems
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
z
y
ya1+yb1
yb2
yb3
yb4
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
Concentrated loads
Bridge design
Longitudinal location of previously seen concentrated loads
1 Lane
2 Lane
3 Lane
Each couple of tandem
systems should be
treated separately
Concentrated loads
Bridge design
1 2
150 F F kN = =
1
F
0.5 2.0 0.5
3.0
150kN 150kN
2
F
1Lane
,1 ,1
,1 ,1
(7.5) (7.5) 0.5 0.0 0.5
(8.7) (8.7) 0.27 0.13 0.40
a b
a b
y y
y y
+ = + =
+ = + =
,2
,2
(7.5) 0
(8.7) 0.08
b
b
y
y
=
=
( )
,1 1
0.50 0.40 0 0.08
0.98 150 147
= + + +
= =
c
V F
kN
Concentrated loads : 1 lane
Bridge design
The z corresponding to the maximum value
of has to be calculated. For
sake of simplicity it is done for 0<z<7.5
and then used for the symmetric points
with z>7.5m.
( )
3 2
,2
3
2
0.4
6 3
b
z l z
y z
l
| |
=
|
\ .
2
F
0.5 2.0 0.5
3.0
100kN 100kN
3
F
2Lane
( )
,2 b
y z
( )
3 2
,2
3
2
0 0.4 0
6 3
b
y z
z l z
z z l
( c | | c
= =
( |
c c
\ .

2
4.08
3
z l m = =
1
1
4.08 0.6 3.48
4.08 0.6 4.68
t
t
z m
z m
= =
= + =
Bridge design
,2 ,2
,2 ,2
(11.52) (3.48) 0.140
(10.32) (4.68) 0.140
b b
b b
y y
y y
= =
= =
2
F
0.5 2.0 0.5
3.0
100kN 100kN
3
F
2Lane
,3 ,3
,3 ,3
(11.52) (3.48) 0.035
(10.32) (4.68) 0.035
b b
b b
y y
y y
= =
= =
2 3
100 F F kN = =
( )
,2 2
2 0.140 0.035
0.350 100 35
c
V F
kN
= +
= =
Bridge design
,4
,4
(3.48) 0.070
(4.68) 0.070
b
b
y
y
=
=
3
F
0.5 2.0 0.5
3.0
50kN 50kN
4
F
3Lane
,3
,3
(3.48) 0.035
(4.68) 0.035
b
b
y
y
=
=
3 4
50 = = F F kN
( )
,3 3
2 0.070 0.035
0.070 50 3.5
=
= =
c
V F
kN
The tandem loads are placed
symmetrically to the ones of the
2 lane with respect to the mid-
span of the bridge because of
the anti-symmetry of the
influence line of beams 3 and 4
Bridge design
Concentrated loads : total shear in mid-span
, ,1 ,2 ,3
147 35 3.5 185.5
S concentrated c c c
V V V V kN = + + = + + =
We add the contribution of the three lanes
,
202
S concentrated
V kN =
8.9% difference
Bridge design
Location of uniformly distributed loads
1 Lane 2 Lane
3 Lane
Each lane should be
treated separately
Uniformly distributed loads
Bridge design
a system
3 3
3
2 2 2 2
1 2 2
0 0
( ) 1 1 1
3 3
l l
l
a
l
z z z z z
q y z dz q dz q dz
l l l l l
(
| | | |
| |
= + +
(
| | |
\ .
( \ . \ .

} } }
3
3
3 3 2
2 2
0
1 1
1
3 3
l
l
l
z z z
q z dz z dz
l l l l l
| |
| | | |
| |
|
= + +
| | |
|
\ .
\ . \ .
\ .
} }
1 25 1 1 1
5 0.156
12 192 64 32 32
| |
= + = = =
|
\ .
ql ql q q
2
2
1
3
2
2
1 0
3
( )
3
1 1
3 2
a
z z
for z l
l l
y z
z z z
for l z l
l l l
| |
s s
|
\ .
=

| |
| |
+ s s
| |
\ .
\ .
N.B. For sake of simplicity the

following calculations are done
for 0<z<7.5 and then used for
the symmetric values with
z>7.5m.
Bridge design
b system
3 3
3 2 3 3 2 2 2
1 1, 3 3
0 0
2 2 ( )
( )
6 3 6 2 3
l l
l
b i
l
z l z z z l l z
q y z dz q dz q dz
l l

(
| | | |
= +
` ( | |
\ . \ .
)
} } }
3 2
3
1 1,
3 3 2
3
2
0
6 3
( )
2 ( )
2
6 2 3
| |
s s
|
\ .
=
| |
s s
|
\ .
b i
z l z
for z l
l
y z
z z l l z
for l z l
l
3
3 3 3 2 2
2
1, 3 3
0
2 2 ( )
3 2 6 2 3
l
l
i
l
q z q z z l l z
l z dz dz
l l

| | | |
= +
` | |
\ . \ .

)
} }
1, 1, 1, 1,
1 65 1 5 11 11
5 1.72
4 192 64 12 32 32
i i i i
ql ql ql q q
| |
= + = = =
`
|
\ . )
Bridge design
Then is:
1,1
1.72 0.7 1.72 0.156 1.36 = + = q q q q
3
3
2
1 1
3 0
2
( ) ( )
l
l
b b
l
q y z dz q y z dz =
} }
For beam 1:
For beam 2:
For beam 3:
For beam 4:
1,2
1.72 0.4 1.72 0.688 q q q = =
1,3
1.72 0.11.72 0.172 q q q = =
1,4
1.72 0.2 1.72 0.344 q q q = =
Bridge design
1,1 2,1
27/ 2 13.5 / q q kN m = = =
1,1
q
3.0
1Lane
Distributed loads
1.5 1.5
27 / kN m
2,1
q
On 1
st
beam
due to 1
st
lane
On 2
nd
beam
due to 1
st
lane
3.0
2Lane
1.5 1.5
7.5 / kN m
2,2
q
3,2
q
On 2
nd
beam
due to 2
nd
lane
On 3
rd
beam
due to 2
nd
lane
2,2 3,2
7.5/ 2 3.75 / q q kN m = = =
Bridge design
3,3 4,3
7.5/ 2 3.75 / q q kN m = = =
3,3
q
3.0
3Lane
Distributed loads
1.5 1.5
4,3
q
On 3
rd
beam
due to 3
rd
lane
On 4
th
beam
due to 3
rd
lane
7.5 / kN m
Bridge design
The shear due to distributed loads is then:
Beam 1 - lane 1:
Beam 2 - lane 1:
Beam 2 - lane 2:
Beam 3 - lane 2:
Beam 3 - lane 3:
Beam 4 - lane 3:
,1,1 1,1
1.36 1.36 13.5 18.36 = = =
d
V q kN
,2,1 2,1
0.688 0.688 13.5 9.29
d
V q kN = = =
,2,2 2,2
0.688 0.688 3.75 2.58
d
V q kN = = =
,3,2 3,2
0.172 0.172 3.75 0.65
d
V q kN = = =
,3,3 3,3
0.172 0.172 3.75 0.65
d
V q kN = = =
,4,3 4,3
0.344 0.344 3.75 1.29
d
V q kN = + = + =
Pay attention to the signs !
See next slide
Bridge design
Location of uniformly distributed loads
1 Lane 2 Lane
3 Lane
The influence line on
beam 3 has for lane 3
opposite sign with
respect to lane 2 (point
a).
The influence line on
beam 4 would have
been negative in c but
is positive in b
c
b
The distributed load on lane 3 is on the
opposite side with respect to lane 1 and 2.
a
Bridge design
Distributed loads : total shear in mid-span
, ,1,1 ,2,1 ,2,2 ,3,2 ,3,3 ,4,3
18.35 9.29 2.58 0.65 0.65 1.29 31.5
= + + + + + =
= + + + + =
S distributed d d d d d d
V V V V V V V
kN
We add the contribution of the three lanes
,
32
S concentrated
V kN =
0% difference

ES - 02 - Courbon & Engesser Methods

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

ES - 02 - Courbon & Engesser Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Politecnico di Torino

Department of structural and geotechnical engineering

0.5 2.0 0.5

N.B. For sake of simplicity the

You might also like