×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

steel bridge design
5

steel bridge design

steel bridge design

(OP)
It's a small steel bridge for people(walking only).
Bridge is 1,20 m wide and its span is around 7 m.

I'm wondering about my selection of steel cross sections and details.

Primary steel beam is 'C' section 85/240 mm. I like using 'open' sections since they are easy to install - bolt.
Secondary beams are bolted to the primary beams as shown below (pinned connections at both sides). I was thinking about using 'I' section since flange provides bearing seat for steel grids.
Steel fence in fixed to the flange of primary beams.
At the end of primary beam there is a steel plate that is welded to beam.
Plate is anchored to existing concrete wall bellow.

One side of beam has standard holes and other side has elongated holes because of steel temperature - expansion/shrinkage since bridge will be outside where temperature change.

What do you think about my design? Any better suggestion?
The only thing I don't like is that primary beam has pretty thin web (9,5 mm), but I think it shouldn't be a problem since forces are small. Buckling of compression flange (from bending moment) shouldn't be a problem since there are secondary beams between that provide lateral support.

RE: steel bridge design

Quote (greznik91)

It's a small steel bridge for people(walking only)

Your span-to-depth of L/D = 29 is "up there" and consider that many a pedestrian bridge often has to accommodate more than 'walking' excitation.

RE: steel bridge design

(OP)
can you please elaborate what do you mean by this (English not my language)?

Quote:

Your span-to-depth of L/D = 29 is "up there"

Quote:

consider that many a pedestrian bridge often has to accommodate more than 'walking' excitation.
Yes I know. Tnx.

BTW - I'm frome Europe so I'm using Eurocodes.

RE: steel bridge design

A couple of points:

1. You say that: "Buckling of compression flange (from bending moment) shouldn't be a problem since there are secondary beams between that provide lateral support." If you are referring to the wide flanges in Section B-B.....they do NOT provide lateral support unless you are counting on them (in some way) being tied into the grating and the grating being capable of transferring lateral load to the support. (I.e. like a diaphragm. Something I never do with grating.) The connection doesn't look right for torsional support either. (See AISC (Appendix 6; 13th ed.) for further guidance.)

2. With that kind of span (and channel support), I'd worry about it being too flexible. Check the deflection/Frequency requirements for pedestrian bridges (as per AASHTO).

3. I don't know what length of slot you have on that one end.....but be sure it can accommodate a high differential drift for those walls. You get up high enough and the seismic drift can get outrageous.

RE: steel bridge design

Inside or outside? I'm okay with assuming that the secondary beams torsionally brace the primary. Unless you're willing to claim diaphragm capability for the grating, you'll probably want some horizontal bracing there.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: steel bridge design

(OP)
Its outside.
Would you choose a different primary beam section? I would gp with a 'C' section or 'H' section.
I dont think there are lots of options here regarding that...

@WARose - why do you think that connection of secondary beam to primary beam is not ok for torsion?

RE: steel bridge design

Quote:

@WARose - why do you think that connection of secondary beam to primary beam is not ok for torsion?

Primarily because the web is typically not stiff (nor strong) enough for it. Not saying it can't be done......but I've tried it before myself and couldn't make it happen. You have a stiffener and that helps.....but it's something to carefully check.

It would probably be easier to just put in horizontal bracing. You'd probably need that anyway to transfer the horizontal loads.

RE: steel bridge design

@WARose/@Kootk could you explain why the I-shapes will not provide lateral bracing to the C-section primary beams?
I don't see how the grating is needed - seems similar to the concrete deck on a bridge not being needed for the lateral bracing to work.

RE: steel bridge design

I'm with Jreit, I think the connection is capable of bracing the compression flange for LTB. Though adding in some horizontal bracing would eliminate any doubt.

RE: steel bridge design

Where would you put/fix bracing?
At upper flange of 'I' beams?

WARose looks like you have done something like that before. What sections did you use?

RE: steel bridge design

(OP)
I would fix bracing on upper flange of 'I' beams.
Would that be allright?
I rarely do something like this...
TNX for help.


RE: steel bridge design

What do you guys think about this detail?

Primary beam as "H" section
Secondary beam as "I" section
Wherever secondary beam is connected to primary beam I would add a steel plate that is welded to flanges of primary beam + stiffener welded on both sides of "H" section in the middle of a plate.
Secondary beam bolted to this plate.
Bracing fixed on top flanges of secondary beam.

Do you guys think this is overkill?
Since "I" beams are away from center of "H" beam, can torsion of primary beam be an issue?





RE: steel bridge design

(OP)
Tnx for replies.

Klitor, I like your design but I have a problem - I cant deliver large elements to a field (big welded parts are not OK) so I have to use smaller elements that are bolted together at the site.

what do you think about details that mats12 provided?

RE: steel bridge design

Can someone please tell me how do you design bracing?
I mean on what loads?
Wind load is pretty damn small on horizontal construction like this.
People on a bridge contribute to some horizontal forces but I have no idea how to consider that load.
Im also from EU so Im wondering do Eurocodes deal with this kind of loading?

RE: steel bridge design

(OP)
Klitor, can you please post a connection between primary beams (bolted connection in the middle of span - bolts 6 x M20).
Is this a moment connection with all bolts inside IPE 360 flanges?

tnx again.

RE: steel bridge design

I like your original scheme with the channels. As I mentioned previously, I feel that the cross beams brace the channels sufficiently on their own. I didn't suggest the horizontal bracing for that purpose. I suggested it for overall lateral capacity of the bridge for wind, earthquake, and incidental lateral due to live loaded. Maybe design the bracing for 5% of the gravity load on the bridge applied laterally. If the two primary beams are strong and stiff enough laterally, they could even do the job without the bracing. For my purposes, the bracing does not need to be at the top flange and would probably be easier to detail centered on the cross beams. That way it wouldn't interfere with the deck attachment. I'd think that some light angle bracing arranged to take compression like Kiltors Schon would be efficient.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: steel bridge design

(OP)
I added bracing and chose larger channels. Here are some details. What do you think?
I designed it on 5 kN/m2. max deflecetion in the middle is 7 mm.









I dont know how to make a detail at supports since channels are only 100 mm wide. Something like this perhaps?



RE: steel bridge design

I'd leave the beam & brace connection design to your friendly neighborhood fabricator. (Unless your contract makes you the fabricator. You can indicate the forces on the design drawings and he'll take it from there.) You would still detail those end connections (with the slots).....and the grating hold down call outs (and anything else he doesn't have the info to do). But the rest I'd leave to him. You would likely pour a lot of time into something he is going to change anyway.

RE: steel bridge design

Quote:

(mats12)

WARose looks like you have done something like that before. What sections did you use?

I don't recall (at this point). I just remember trying all kinds of web thicknesses and it not working. Not saying it couldn't work with some combination of web thicknesses and (required) torsional bracing forces.......but it winds up being a time consuming endeavor (when you could just add horizontal bracing (which no one would question) and be done with it).

RE: steel bridge design

(OP)
tnx for suggestions WARose and KootK.

thank you bridgebuster for this...

RE: steel bridge design

greznik91 - There is a straight forward and cost effective way to design this walking bridge and avoid all complex bracing.
You have a question about the span-to-depth ratio (L/D =29) being too high. This number is the span length (7000 mm) divided by the main beam depth (240 mm). That number is a very good and easy way to see if the main beams will be "stiff" enough to keep the bridge from moving too much when it is used. This is not how a bridge is designed but lets the Engineer know if the estimated beam may be good. A ratio of 29 is too high. A good ratio would be less than 24; probably about 20 is better for this type project.

For the 7000 mm span, I would consider main beams that are about 350 mm deep (7000 mm / ratio 20) = 350 mm (14 inches).
Note: I am not good with metric, so will have to write in customary US units.
Since 14" deep beams are a reasonable choice, look at selecting a W14 section that has a "wide" flange. A beam with a "wide" flange has a much longer allowable unbraced length than a channel or a beam with a "narrow" flange.

The bridge is very narrow (1.2 m). Each of the beams will carry half (0.6 m). We don't know the design live load, but say it is 100 lb/ft2. The total load on each beam will be low for 7000+ mm long, W14 beams. Because of the grating, the dead load will be low, also. Therefore the design bending moment that each beam must resist will be low.

For that calculated bending moment it will be easy to select a (reasonable size) W14 that has an allowable unbraced length greater than the total length (7500 mm) of each beam. Use your original cross members (maybe a different size to better fit a W14) to tie the two main beams together and help anchor the grating.

The W14 (or similar sized beams) will not be much heavier (expensive) than the minimum size main beams would be. This approach avoids all the design time, bracing material and labor needed to make minimum size beams work.

For What It Is Worth, I don't know how much experience you have, but your original design is a pretty good first effort.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: steel bridge design

(OP)
SlideRuleEra
thank you for your insight, I appreciate it and yes this has been my 1st bridge.
So guidence like this is very helpful.
Thank you again.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources