European Union Brite EuRam III

St r uc t ur al and ec onomi c
c ompar i son of br i dges made
of i nver t ed T-beams
w i t h t oppi ng

Eur oLi ght Con
Economic Design and Construction with
Light Weight Aggregate Concrete

Document BE96-3942/R33, June 2000

Project funded by the European Union
under the Industrial & Materials Technologies Programme (Brite-EuRamIII)
Contract BRPR-CT97-0381, Project BE96-3942











The European Union Brite EuRam III

St r uc t ur al and ec onomi c c ompar i son of
br i dges made of i nver t ed T-beams w i t h t oppi ng


Eur oLi ght Con
Economic Design and Construction with
Light Weight Aggregate Concrete


Document BE96-3942/R33, June 2000
Contract BRPR-CT97-0381, Project BE96-3942




































Although the project consortium does its best to ensure that any information given is accurate, no liability or responsi-
bility of any kind (including liability for negligence) is accepted in this respect by the project consortium, the au-
thors/editors and those who contributed to the report.

Acknowledgements
This report is written by: Aleksandar Milenkovic (Spanbeton bv / CZ Civiele Techniek bv) and M.R. Trouw (Spanbeton
bv). The illustrations are made by C. v/d Ploeg (Spanbeton bv)

Information
Information regarding the report:
Spanbeton bv., Hoogewaard 209, 2396 AS Koudekerk aan den Rijn, The Netherlands;
Tel: +31 (0)71 3419115; E-mail [email protected]
Information regarding the project in general:
Jan P.G. Mijnsbergen, CUR, PO Box 420, NL-2800 AK Gouda, the Netherlands
Tel: +31 182 540620, Email: [email protected]
Information on the project and the partners on the internet:: http://www.sintef.no/bygg/sement/elcon

ISBN 90 376 02 68 1



The European Union Brite EuRam III

St r uc t ur al and ec onomi c c ompar i son of
br i dges made of i nver t ed T-beams w i t h t oppi ng


Eur oLi ght Con
Economic Design and Construction with
Light Weight Aggregate Concrete




Document BE96-3942/R33, June 2000
Contract BRPR-CT97-0381, Project BE96-3942





Selmer ASA, NO
SINTEF, the Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research at the
Norwegian Institute of Technology, NO
NTNU, University of Technology and Science, NO
ExClay International, NO
Beton Son B.V., NL
B.V. VASIM, NL
CUR, Centre for Civil Engineering Research and Codes, NL
Smals B.V., NL
Delft University of Technology, NL
IceConsult, Lnuhnnun hf., IS
The Icelandic Building Research Institute, IS
Taywood Engineering Limited, GB
Lias-Franken Leichtbaustoffe GmbH & Co KG, DE
Dragados y Construcciones S.A., ES
Eindhoven University of Technology, NL
Spanbeton B.V., NL


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 5
Table of Contents
PREFACE 7
SUMMARY 10
SYMBOLS 11
1. INTRODUCTION 17
2. GENERAL 20
2.1 Standards and starting points 20
2.2 Materials 20
2.3 Geometry 21
2.4 Loads 25
2.4.1 Permanent loads 25
2.4.2 Live loads 26
2.4.3 Loads combinations 29
2.5 Computer programs 30
2.5.1 Theory of shear force calculation 30
2.5.2 The Spreid program 32
2.5.3 The Span program 33
2.6 Superstructure calculation 33
2.6.1 Data obtained from computer programs 33
2.6.2 Beam 35
2.6.3 Topping 39
2.6.4 Composite structure 41
2.7 Substructure 48
3. COMPARISON 50
3.1 Quantities 50
3.1.1 Bridge with a span of 20 m 50
3.1.2 Bridge with a span of 30 m 51
3.1.3 Bridge with a span of 40 m 51
3.2 Costs per quantity 52
3.3 Project costs 53
3.3.1 Bridge with a span of 20 m 53
3.3.2 Bridge with a span of 30 m 54
3.3.3 Bridge with a span of 40 m 54
4. CONCLUSIONS 55
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
6 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
APPENDIX: MIXTURE COMPOSITION 56


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 7
PREFACE
The lower density and higher insulating capacity are the most obvious characteristics of Light-
Weight Aggregate Concrete (LWAC) by which it distinguishes itself from ordinary Normal
Weight Concrete (NWC). However, these are by no means the only characteristics, which jus-
tify the increasing attention for this (construction) material. If that were the case most of the
design, production and execution rules would apply for LWAC as for normal weight concrete,
without any amendments.

LightWeight Aggregate (LWA) and LightWeight Aggregate Concrete are not new materials.
LWAC has been known since the early days of the Roman Empire: both the Colosseum and the
Pantheon were partly constructed with materials that can be characterised as lightweight aggre-
gate concrete (aggregates of crushed lava, crushed brick and pumice). In the United States, over
100 World War II ships were built in LWAC, ranging in capacity from 3000 to 140000 tons and
their successful performance led, at that time, to an extended use of structural LWAC in build-
ings and bridges.

It is the objective of the EuroLightCon-project to develop a reliable and cost effective design and
construction methodology for structural concrete with LWA. The project addresses LWA manu-
factured from geological sources (clay, pumice etc.) as well as from waste/secondary materials
(fly-ash etc.). The methodology shall enable the European concrete and construction industry to
enhance its capabilities in terms of cost-effective and environmentally friendly construction,
combining the building of lightweight structures with the utilisation of secondary aggregate
sources.

The major research tasks are:
Lightweight aggregates: The identification and evaluation of new and unexploited sources spe-
cifically addressing the environmental issue by utilising alternative materials from waste. Further
the development of more generally applicable classification and quality assurance systems for
aggregates and aggregate production.
Lightweight aggregate concrete production: The development of a mix design methodology to
account for all relevant materials and concrete production and in-use properties. This will include
assessment of test methods and quality assurance for production.
Lightweight aggregate concrete properties: The establishing of basic materials relations, the
influence of materials characteristics on mechanical properties and durability.
Lightweight aggregate concrete structures: The development of design criteria and -rules
with special emphasis on high performance structures. The identification of new areas for appli-
cation.

The project is being carried out in five technical tasks and a task for co-ordination/management
and dissemination and exploitation. The objectives of all technical tasks are summarised below.
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
8 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
Starting point of the project, the project baseline, are the results of international research work
combined with the experience of the partners in the project whilst using LWAC. This subject is
dealt with in the first task.
Tasks 2-5 address the respective research tasks as mentioned above: the LWA itself, production
of LWAC, properties of LWAC and LWAC structures.
Sixteen partners from six European countries, representing aggregate manufacturers and suppli-
ers, contractors, consultants research organisations and universities are involved in the Eu-
roLightCon-project. In addition, the project established co-operation with national clusters and
European working groups on guidelines and standards to increase the benefit, dissemination and
exploitation.

At the time the project is being performed, a Working Group under the international concrete
association fib (the former CEB and FIP) is preparing an addendum to the CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990, to make the Model Code applicable for LWAC. Basis for this work is a state-of-the-
art report referring mainly to European and North-American Standards and Codes. Partners in
the project are also active in the fib Working Group.

General information on the EuroLightCon-project, including links to the individual project part-
ners, is available through the web site of the project:
http://www.sintef.no/bygg/sement/elcon/

At the time of publication of this report, following EuroLightCon-reports have been published:
R1 Definitions and International Consensus Report. April 1998
R1a LightWeight Aggregates Datasheets. Update September 1998
R2 LWAC Material Properties State-of-the-Art. December 1998
R3 Chloride penetration into concrete with lightweight aggregates. March 1999
R4 Methods for testing fresh lightweight aggregate concrete, December 1999
R5 A rational mix design method for lightweight aggregate concrete using typical UK mate-
rials, January 2000
R6 Properties of Lytag-based concrete mixtures strength class B15-B55, January 2000
R7 Grading and composition of the aggregate, March 2000
R8 Properties of lightweight concretes containing Lytag and Liapor, March 2000
R9 Technical and economic mixture optimisation of high strength lightweight aggregate con-
crete, March 2000
R10 Paste optimisation based on flow properties and compressive strength, March 2000
R11 Pumping of LWAC based on expanded clay in Europe, March 2000
R12 Applicability of the particle-matrix model to LWAC, March 2000
R13 Large-scale chloride penetration test on LWAC-beams exposed to thermal and hygral
cycles, March 2000
R14 Structural LWAC. Specification and guideline for materials and production, June 200
R15 Light Weight Aggregates, June 200
R16 In-situ tests on existing lightweight aggregate concrete structures, June 200
R17 Properties of LWAC made with natural lightweight aggregates, June 2000
R18 Durability of LWAC made with natural lightweight aggregates, June 2000
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 9
R19 Evaluation of the early age cracking of lightweight aggregate concrete, June 2000
R20 The effect of the moisture history on the water absorption of lightweight aggregates,
June 2000
R21 Stability and pumpability of lightweight aggregate concrete. Test methods, June 2000
R22 The economic potential of lightweight aggregate concrete in c.i.p. concrete bridges, June
2000
R23 Mechanical properties of lightweight aggregate concrete, June 2000
R24 Prefabricated bridges, June 2000
R25 Chemical stability, wear resistance and freeze-thaw resistance of lightweight aggregate
concrete, June 2000
R26 Recycling lightweight aggregate concrete, June 2000
R27 Mechanical properties of LWAC compared with both NWC and HSC, June 2000
R28 Prestressed beams loaded with shear force and/or torsional moment, June 2000
R29 A prestressed steel-LWAconcrete bridge system under fatigue loading
R30 Creep properties of LWAC, June 2000
R31 Long-term effects in LWAC: Strength under sustained loading; Shrinkage of High
Strength LWAC, June 2000
R32 Tensile strength as design parameter, June 2000
R33 Structural and economical comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with top-
ping, June 2000
R34 Fatigue of normal weight concrete and lightweight concrete, June 2000
R35 Composite models for short- and long-term strength and deformation properties of
LWAC, June 2000
R36 High strength LWAC in construction elements, June 2000
R37 Comparison of bridges made of NWC and LWAC. Part 1: Steel concrete composite
bridges, June 2000
R38 Comparing high strength LWAC and HSC with the aid of a computer model, June 2000
R39 Proposal for a Recommendation on design rules for high strength LWAC, June 2000
R40 Comparison of bridges made of NWC and LWAC. Part 2: Bridges made of box beams
post-tensioned in transversal direction, June 2000
R41 LWA concrete under fatigue loading. A literature survey and a number of conducted
fatigue tests, June 2000
R42 The shear capacity of prestressed beams, June 2000
R43 A prestressed steel-LWA concrete bridge system under fatigue loading, June 2000


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
10 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
SUMMARY
Lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) contains certain properties that could be of influence
upon the total project costs. A possible negative influence can be found in the higher material
costs of LWAC compared to the material costs of NDC, while a possible positive influence can
be found in the lower density, which can reduce the sub-, superstructure-, transport- and assem-
bling costs.
To find the influence of the application of LWAC (instead of NDC) on the total project costs,
this research is done with two variable factors: the change in application of LWAC in the beam
and topping, and the change in bridge span (20m, 30m and 40m).
The height of the beams is chosen in relation with the span of the bridge. To comply to fatigue
regulations, the beam and the topping height are further assumed variable.

The width of the bridge is 18m, realised by 15 inverted T-beams with a structural topping of 210
mm.

The calculations are based on two regulations used for bridge calculations:

The Dutch standard V.B.C. 1995, calculation methods and structural demands for concrete
application.
The Dutch standard V.B.B. 1995, calculation methods and structural demands for bridges

The load spreading calculation of the bridge is based on the theory of Guyon and Massonnet.
The bending and torsional moments of inertia, in both directions, are based on the theory of elas-
ticity.


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 11
SYMBOLS
Greek symbols
torsion factor used in loads spreading calculation
angle for shear calculations.
factor used in fatigue calculation

f
loading factor

m
material factor

sd
safety factor for calculating design values
fictive height, used in the theory of Timoshenko for stiffness calculation

max
maximal shrinkage value dependent on the f
ck
and the relative humidity

c
basic shrinkage dependent on the relative humidity

r

topping
representative creep value of the topping

r

beam
representative creep value of the beam
stiffness factor used in the loads spreading calculation
ratio of bond strength of pre-stressing steel and high bond reinforcing steel.
Poissons ratio
density of the concrete [kg/m3]

perm
stress due to permanent loads

s
representative tensile stress in the reinforcement

bmd
mean compressive stress due to the normal force with inclusion of the
pre-stress load of N
d
/ A
b

s;10
7
;rep
representative value of the fatigue limit of the reinforcement at 10
7
cycles

s;n;rep
representative value of the fatigue limit of the reinforcement

c;max
maximum compressive stress at a fibre under the frequent combinations of
actions

s;d;max
design value of the tensile stress of the reinforcement

s;d;min
minimal design value of the tensile strength in the reinforcement

s;u
(n) ultimate tensile stress in the reinforcement at n cycles

b;90
compressive stress at 90 mm from the bottom of the beam

temp
representative stress at the bottom caused by temperature influences

1
limit value of the shear stress without shear reinforcement

2
limit value of the shear stress with shear reinforcement

d
design value of the shear stress

n
part of the normal force in the shear capacity

n+1
limit value of the shear stress without shear reinforcement with inclusion of
the pre-stress force

red
reduced
d
due to the vertical component of the pre-stress steel force

beam
calculated creep factor of the beam

topping
calculated creep factor of the topping
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
12 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon

max
maximal creep value

s
diameter of reinforcement

km
diameter of the top reinforcement

of the topping
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 13

Latin lower case symbols
a half of the theoretical span of the bridge
b half of the effective width of the bridge
b half of the real width of the bridge
b
1
fictive width of the topping (part 1) used in the theory of Timoshenko
b
2
fictive width of the web (part 2) used in the theory of Timoshenko
b
3
fictive width of the flange (part 3) used in the theory of Timoshenko
b
t
real width of the topping
b
w
width of the web
c coverage of the reinforcement, dependent on the environment classification
c
top
coverage of the top reinforcement of the topping
dbeam useful height of the beam
d
end
distance between the centre of gravity of the reinforcement and the bottom
of the beam in the end section.
d
middle
distance between the centre of gravity of the reinforcement and the bottom
of the beam in the middle section.
f
b
design value of the compressive strength of the concrete
f
buv(n)
see S
u
(n)
f
ck
characteristic compressive strength of the concrete
f
b
design value of the tensile strength of the concrete
f
brep
representative value of the tensile strength of the concrete
f
s
design value of the tensile strength of the reinforcement
h construction height
h
f
height of the flange
h
m
fictive thickness of the section
h
t
height of the topping
h
w
height of the web
i moment of inertia in longitudinal direction
i
o
torsion moment of inertia in longitudinal direction
j moment of inertia in transversal direction
j
o
torsion moment of inertia in transversal direction
k
1
, k
2
, k
3
cracking factors
k
b
shrinkage factor dependent on the factor f
ck
k
c
creep factor dependent on the relative humidity
k
d
creep factor dependent on the age of the concrete
k
h
shrinkage factor dependent on (h
m
).
k
p
shrinkage factor dependent on the amount of reinforcement
k
t
shrinkage factor dependent on the age of the concrete
l
1
spacing between the two considered beams
m factor dependent of
s;10
7
;rep

n number of load cycles
n
1
number of beams
p
d
design value of the equally divided live load
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
14 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
p
rep
representative value of the equally divided live load
q
d
design value of the line load
q
rep
representative value of the line load
s spacing of the reinforcement bars in the cracking calculation
w
b
the fictive width of the topping used in the calculation of i
x the deformation of the beam due to the pre-stress force
x
u
height of the compressive zone in the cross section
y the deformation of the beam due to the self weight of the beam and topping
and the permanent loads
z internal distance between the compressive force and the tensile force
z
b
distance between centre of gravity and the top of the beam.
z
o
distance between centre of gravity and the bottom of the beam.

Latin upper case symbols
A
bot
bottom

reinforcement of the topping
A
c
cross-section surface of the beam
A
s
cross-section surface of reinforcement by tensile force
As cross-section surface of reinforcement by compressive force
A
top
top reinforcement of the topping
A
tot
total fictive area used in the theory of Timoshenko
B
v
load length factor
C factor for calculating the dynamic factor
E
beam
modulus of elasticity of the beam
E
topping
modulus of elasticity of the topping
E
s
modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement
F
pw
pre-stress force
F
wheel
the wheel load
G sliding modulus
L loads
L
b
beam length
LC loads combination
L
th
theoretical span of the bridge
M
1
/ M
2
moments used in fatigue calculation
Mb moment due to compressive stress in the concrete
M
d
design moment
M
d;l
decisive moment of M
first
and M
second
obtained from load spreading
calculation
M
first
moment caused by the first load system
M
second
moment caused by the second load system
M
neg;rep
negative moment due to the local wheel load (topping reinforcement)
M
perm
moment due to the permanent loads
M
pos;rep
positive moment due to the local wheel load and global q-load
M
pre-stress
moment due to the pre-stress force
M
s
moment due to the increasing tensile stress in the reinforcement, caused by
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 15
cycle load
M
sw;beam
moment due to the self weight of the beam
M
sw;topping
moment due to the self weight of the topping
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
16 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
Ms moment due to the increasing compressive stress in the top reinforcement,
caused by cycle load
M
u
ULS moment
Nb compressive force in the concrete
Ns compressive force in the reinforcement due to the compressive stress in the
concrete
Q factor for traffic type
R ratio of minimum and maximum relative stress (R =
c;min
/
c;max
)
S dynamic factor
S
c;d;max
general fatigue quantity
S
u
(n) design value of the material strength in fatigue at n cycles
V
d;vertical
design shear force (summation of the shear forces due to the self weight of
the beam, topping, permanent and live loads).
V
d;horizontal
design shear force (summation of shear forces due to permanent and
live loads).
V
Rd1
design shear resistance
V
red
shear force due to the vertical pre-stress force
V
rep
shear resistance.
V
rep;max
maximum representative shear force due to dead load, pre-tensioning and
maximum of the variable actions;
W
beam;top
moment of resistance in the top of the beam
W
beam;bot
moment of resistance in the bottom of the beam
W
cs
moment of resistance in the composite structure
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 17
1. INTRODUCTION
This sub-task is set up in the EuroLightCon project, to find the economical consequences of the
application of Light Weight Aggregate Concrete (LWAC) compared to Normal Density Con-
crete (NDC) in a bridge structure.
Two concrete compositions, two compressive strengths and three different spans are used to get
a clear view in the relation of total strength, stiffness, material- and project costs.

The bridge consists of 15 standard VIP beams (inverted T-beams) with a concrete of C45/55
strength, and a topping of 210mm height and C30/37 strength.
Such a choice of bridge structure produces four material combinations:
One with a reference bridge configuration completely executed in ordinary NDC
The other three with an individual application of LWAC in the beam, topping or both.
Spans of 20, 30 and 40 m are used in this research, with respectively VIP 700, VIP 1100 and
VIP 1600 beams.

The figures given in this document are based on a bridge span of 30m, unless me n-
tioned otherwise.

Superstructure
Length (of the beams) : 30.35 m
Width : 18.00 m
Theoretical span : 30.35m - 2 * 0.30 = 29.75 m (fig. 1 and 3).
Beams : 15 VIP 1100 beams with an individual width of 1.18m and
15 joints of 20 mm
Transversal end beams : at both bridge ends with a size of 0.55 m * 1.325 m (fig. 3 )
Topping : 210 mm


Figure 1 Longitudinal section of the superstructure of the bridge

Beam length = 30350 mm
Lt = 29750 mm
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
18 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
The topping and the edge beams are made in-situ after placing the inverted T-beams at the sub-
structure. The edge beams are made at the supports to connect the inverted T-beams in trans-
versal direction.
The width of the bridge is big enough to place four different lanes and two pedestrian strokes.
Although the bridge design could be interpreted as suitable for situations where side collision can
occur, it is omitted by this research due to the large difference in the international regulations.



Figure 2 Cross section of the bridge.

To calculate the spreading of permanent and live loads, the representative stresses and the de-
formations of the beam two computer programs are used:
Spreid to calculate the spreading of permanent- and live loads over the bridge construction.
Span , to calculate the representative stresses and deformations by the use of static quanti-
ties obtained from the load spreading calculation

Substructure (fig 3)
The substructure is divided in two land abutments and a number of piles.

Land abutment
The shape of the land abutment is designed to enable optimal support of the inverted T-beams
and the dynamic plate, as well as the accomplishment of the transitional joint.

Piles
The size of the piles is chosen at 250x250 mm
2
with a length of 15 m. The piles are placed in
groups of two and equally divided over the land abutment. To take the horizontal force which is
caused by the breaking forces of the live loads, the piles are placed in the ground at a slight an-
gle.

15*1180 [VIP.1100] + 15*20 [joint] = 18000 [mm]
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 19

Dynamic plate



Transitional joint

Structural topping


Transversal end beam

Inverted T-beam



Land abutment


Piles





Figure 3 Detail of the joint between the super- and substructure of the bridge


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
20 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
2. GENERAL
The used calculation procedures are based on real bridge calculations, while the project only
concerns a fictive bridge.

2.1 Standards and starting points
In structural bridge calculations the following standards and starting points are used:

Standards
V.B.C. 1995. (Dutch standard for calculation methods and structural demands by the con-
crete application)
V.B.B. 1995. (Dutch standard for calculation methods and structural demands for bridges)

Starting points
Environmental class 3 (Moist surrounding in combination with thaw minerals).
Relative humidity of 75%.
Due to the ground configurations in the Netherlands, piles of 15m are used in the substructure
calculation.

2.2 Materials
The materials comply with the materials used in the real bridges. In such a way a realistic
comparison between LWAC and NDC is obtained.

Beams concrete strength by releasing the tension 30 N/mm

2
(prefabricated) concrete strength (28 days) B55 (C45/55)
pre-stressing steel (VIP 700 and 1100) FeP (f
p
) 1860 , 12,5 mm,
with A
p
= 93 mm
2

(VIP 1600) FeP (f
p
) 1860 , 15,7 mm,
with A
p
= 150 mm
2

reinforcement: FeB (f
y
) 500
Topping (in-situ) concrete strength B35 (C30/37)
reinforcement: FeB (f
y
) 500
Transversal end concrete strength b 35 (C30/37)
beam (in-situ) reinforcement: FeB (f
y
) 500
Land abutment concrete strength B35 (C30/37)
(in-situ) (normal density)
piles 250 x 250 mm
2
B45 (C35/45)
(prefabricated) (normal density)

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 21

2.3 Geometry
The geometry of the beam is expressed in four static quantities:
i = moment of inertia in longitudinal direction [mm
4
/mm
1
]
j = moment of inertia in transversal direction [mm
4
/mm
1
]
i
0
= torsion moment of inertia in longitudinal direction [mm
4
/mm
1
]
j
0
= torsion moment of inertia in transversal direction [mm
4
/mm
1
]

The moment of inertia in longitudinal direction is obtained confirm the theory of elasticity of the
composite structure. The torsion moments of inertia are calculated by the theory of Bredt and
the membrane theory.
To obtain comparable stiffnesses for calculating the -factor and the -factor, the moments of
inertia in longitudinal direction are multiplied by the modulus of elasticity of the beam, and the
moments of inertia in transversal direction are multiplied by the modulus of elasticity of the top-
ping.


Figure 4 Cross section of the composite structure (VIP 1100 and topping)

Moment of inertia in longitudinal direction ( i )
This moment of inertia is calculated of the composite structure. Due to the E-modulus difference
between the beam and topping, the width of the topping (w
b
) changes, based on the following
formula:
This results in a change of the moment of inertia when LWAC applied
in the beam, topping or both.


w b
E
E
b t
topping
beam

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
22 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon

Moment of inertia in transversal direction ( j )
In this section only the topping is present, therefore this moment of inertia only is based on the
height of the topping.

j
b h
b
h
t t
t
t

1
12
1
12
3
3
[mm
4
/mm
1
]

Torsion moment of inertia in longitudinal direction ( i
0
)

The calculation of the torsion moment of inertia is based on the Timoshenko theory of elasticity
and is an approximation of the real cross section by three rectangles (figure 5).

Figure 5 Torsion stiffness calculation by the method of Timoshenko
Where:

Part 1(topping) 2(web) 3(bottom flange)
b b
t
x 0.5 x (E
t
/ E
b
) b
w
b
t
-10 mm
H h
t
h
w
+ 0.25h
t
+ 0.175 h
f
h
f

d
b
2 xb
1
-b
2
2 x b
2
2 x b
3
-b
2

A h
1
x b
1
h
2
x b
2
h
3
x b
3


b
t

b
t

0.175
0.65
0.175
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 23
db is the second fictive width used in the calculation
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
24 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
To calculate the torsion moment of inertia (i
o
) these data are used in the following formula:

i
w
A
db
h
h db
b
tot
t w f
t w f 0
2
1 2 3
3
1 2 3
1 4 1
3
+

1
]
1
1
1
1

, ,
, ,
, , , ,
or: i
w
A
db
h
h db
b
tot
t w f
t w f 0
2
1 2 3
3
1 2 3
1 4 1
3
+

1
]
1
1
1
1

, ,
, ,
, , , ,


This formula is composed of the theory of Bredt (first part) and the Membrane theory (second
part)

Torsion moment of inertia in transversal direction (j
0
)
The torsion moment of inertia is calculated taking in account only the present height of the top-
ping.

j
b h
b
h
t t
t
t 0
3
3
1
6
1
6
[mm
4
/mm
1
]

Review of the moments of inertia and the torsion moments of inertia
Combinations
Topping-beam
i [mm
4
/mm
1
] j [mm
4
/mm
1
] i0
[mm
4
/mm
1
]
j0
[mm
4
/mm
1
]

NDC-NDC 129.2E+6 771.8E+3 5.36E+6 1.54E+6 0.162 1.118
LWAC-NDC 113.6E+6 771.8E+3 5.03E+6 1.54E+6 0.177 1.163
NDC-LWAC 145.8E+6 771.8E+3 5.79E+6 1.54E+6 0.152 1.073
LWAC-LWAC 129.4E+6 771.8E+3 5.36E+6 1.54E+6 0.162 1.119

where:

b
a
i
j 2
4
and
( )

+

G i j
E i j
0 0
2
=
( ) 0 2
0 0
, i j
i j
+

( v = 0,2)

Review of the stiffness
Combinations:
Topping-beam
Modulus of elastic-
ity
(topping-beam)
stiffness
(EI): i
Stiffness
(EI): j
torsion
stiffness
(EI) :i
0

torsion
stiffness
(EI): j
0

NDC NDC 31000-36000 4650E+9 23.9E+9 192.9E+9 47.85E+9
LWAC NDC 23276-36000 4088E+9 18.0E+9 181.2E+9 35.93E+9
NDC LWAC 31000-27030 3941E+9 23.9E+9 156.6E+9 47.85E+9
LWAC LWAC 23276-27030 3487E+9 18.0E+9 144.9E+9 35.93E+9


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 25
2.4 Loads
The representative loads are divided into permanent and live loads

2.4.1 Permanent loads





Figure 6 Detail of the location of the loads at the side and at the middle of the bridge

The next permanent loads (L) are determined:

L1: Railing
L2: Crash barriers at both sides of the bridge

L3: Crash barrier at the middle of the bridge

L4: Side element at both sides of the bridge

L5: Dump in the middle and at both sides of the bridge
L6: Asphalt layer

The railing and the side element are placed directly at the side of the bridge.
The crash barriers are placed in the middle and at 1400 mm from the sides of the bridge.
The dump is present between 500 and 1200 mm from the side of the bridge.
The asphalt layer is present from 1200 mm form the side of the bridge.



Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
26 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon

Figure 7 Detail of the place and size of the permanent loads

2.4.2 Live loads
Live loads can be divided into an equally divided square load and axle pressures of two loads
systems. The representative forces of these live loads are obtained from following table:

Mobile
class
subscription equal divided
square load
three axle
pressures
axle pressure
divided over:
60 Bridges admitted in roads
where the traffic cannot be
diverted.
P
rep
= 4 kN/m
2
F
rep
= 200kN 4 wheels

These loads are multiplied with the dynamic factor to include the impact of the entering vehicles
at the bridge.
Dynamic factor for load spreading calculation, S C
L
h L
th
th
+
+
1
100 ( )


For NDC (C = 0.7)

: 1 + 0.7 * 29.75 / (1.325 * 129.75) = 1.12
For LWAC (C = 0,8) :

1 + 0.8 * 29.75 / (1.325 * 129.75) = 1.14

Review of the dynamic factors that are calculated by different spans and concrete composi-
tions.
Span / material NDC LWAC
20 m 1.12 1.14
30 m
40 m
1.12
1.11
1.14
1.12
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 27

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
28 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
First load system Second load system
The next live loads (L) are determined:

L7: Equal divided mobile load is present from 1200 mm of both sides of the bridge

Loads 8 and 9 are obtained from the load spreading calculation, based on the most unfavourable
positions.
L 8: Simple load system. (position of the first load system in figures 8a and 9)
L 9: Double load system is used to calculate the moment in longitudinal direction according
to figures 8a and 9

Loads 10 and 11 have standard positions.
L10: Double load system is used to calculate the negative moment in transversal
direction

(simple load system at both sides of the bridge, fig 9).
L11: Second load system is used to calculate the fatigue and an extreme loading
case (second load system in figures 8a and 9)
L12: Extreme loading case (wheel directly at the side of the bridge, in case of an accident),
figure 8b.
Figure 8a Wheel configurations of two load systems in SLS
Figure 8b Wheel configuration of two load systems in ULS

Figure 8c Wheel configurations that are causing the largest bending moment in longitu-
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 29
dinal direction

L
th

Figure 9 Place of the traffic loads with regard to the load combinations

2.4.3 Loads combinations
The next load combinations are used for calculation of the representative moment:

LC 1: L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 + L5 + L6 (Permanent load)
LC 2: LC1 + L7 + L8 (Simple load system)
LC 3: LC1 + 0.8 L7 + 0.8 L9 (Double load system, longitudinal
direction)
LC 4: LC1 + 0.8 L7 + 0.8 L10 (Double load system, transversal
direction)
LC 5: LC1 + L7 + 1.2 L12 (Extreme loading case, simple load
system)
LC 6: LC1 + 0.8 L7 + 0.8 L11 + 1.2 L12 (Extreme loading case, double load
system)

When two load systems are applied at the same time (in LC3, LC4 , LC6), the result of both
load systems are then multiplied with = 0.8, according to Dutch regulations.
L 12 (included in LC5 and LC6) is multiplied with 1,2 according to Dutch regulations
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
30 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon

2.5 Computer programs
The shear forces, caused by the live loads, are calculated in paragraph 2.5.1.
The other calculations in this report are based on two computer programs, which calculate the
spreading of the loads, the representative moments and shear forces (the Spreid program) and
the representative stresses and deformations in the elements (the Span program).

2.5.1 Theory of shear force calculation
The representative decisive shear force is calculated in two live loading situations:

1. Simple loading case where only one load system placed at the bridge.
2. Double loading case where two load systems is placed at the bridge.

The largest shear force is chosen in those two loading cases

Simple load system:
V
rep.
1
L
th
L
th
a 5000
X
3
L
th
a 1000
X
2
L
th
a
X
1


+

+

_
,

axle load +
1
2
P S l
rep th









Figure 10 Simple load system


Where:
( ) x a c
1
2
2
3
+
( ) x a c
2
2 1000
2
3
+ +
( ) x a c b
3
5000
2
3
+ + +
Where:
a = 500 mm
b = 1400 mm
c = 1750 mm
Load system
B
X1
X
2
X
3
a 1000 4000
Lth
b
c
=tan
2
3

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 31


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
32 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
Double load system

V axle load
1
L
th
L
th
a 9500
X
6
L
th
a 5500
X
5
L
th
a 500
X
4
L
th
a 5000
X
3
L
th
a 1000
X
2
L
th
a
X
1
rep.


+

+

+

+

+

_
,

4
0,8 +
1
2
0 8 p S l
rep th .
,

Where:
( ) x a c
1
2
2
3
+
( ) x a c
2
2 1000
2
3
+ +
( ) x a b c
3
5000
2
3
+ + +
( ) x a c
4
2 4500
2
3
2 1000 + + +

( ) x a c
5
2 5500
2
3
1000 + + +
( ) x a b c
6
9500
2
3
2 1000 + + + +

a = 500 mm
b = 1400 mm
c = 1750 mm

Figure 11 Double load system

2.5.2 The Spreid program
This computer program is based on the theory of Guyon & Massonnet. The calculations of the
representative moments and shear forces are done with this theory for every composite beam
structure individually, in longitudinal direction and every joint in transversal direction.
For practical reasons, the beam with the governing moments and shear forces is representative
for all the beams. Therefore all other beams are equally pre-stressed and reinforced.

The theory uses the following equations for the calculation of the spreading of the loads:
0 2 .

b
a
i
j 2
4
with b
n
n
b

1
1
1
'

( )

+

G i j
E i j
0 0
2
with
( )
G
E

+ 2 1

( )

+

0 2
0 0
, i j
i j

Load system
Load system
c
c
Lth

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 33
2.5.3 The Span program
This computer program is based on the theory of elasticity and calculates i.e. the geometry, the
representative stresses and deformations of the composite structure.
The program checks the cross-sections of the beam in SLS and ULS.

2.6 Superstructure calculation
Both computer programs and the spreadsheet for live shear force are used in this calculation.

2.6.1 Data obtained from computer programs
The used data in the calculations are obtained from the computer programs and are divided into:

The moments and shear forces due to self-weight of the topping and the beam.
The moments and shear forces due to permanent loads and the moments due to live loads.
The shear force due to live loads.

2.6.1.1 Moments and shear forces due to self weight

The moments and shear forces caused by self-weight are obtained from the representative
stresses and deformations calculation.

Combinations topping-beam Moments (kNm) Shear force (kN)
beam Topping beam topping
NDC-NDC 1080 683 145 92
LWAC-NDC 1080 530 145 71
NDC-LWAC 837 683 113 92
LWAC-LWAC 837 530 113 71

2.6.1.2 Data due to loads spreading calculation
The moments caused by the permanent and live loads, and the shear forces caused by the per-
manent loads, are obtained from the loads spreading calculation and are divided into longitudinal
and transversal direction. In longitudinal direction the moments and shear forces are calculated in
the beam; in transversal direction the moments and shear forces are calculated in the topping.
The shear force caused by the live loads in longitudinal direction is calculated using the theory of
paragraph 2.5.1.

Longitudinal direction
The moments and shear forces, given in the following table, are used for the stress and deforma-
tion calculation of the beam. The dynamic factor is included in the results.
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
34 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon

Combinations
topping-beam
Moment (kNm)

Shear force (kN)

permanent loads live loads Permanent loads live loads
NDC-NDC 578 1395 80 290
LWAC-NDC 585 1412 80 295
NDC-LWAC 573 1463 80 295
LWAC-LWAC 578 1420 80 295

Transversal direction
This calculation can be divided into two situations: overall and local.

Overall situation
A car is placed at both sides of the bridge, by which, theoretically, the bridge bends upwards in
transversal direction. This loading situation is resulting in the following moments.

Combinations
topping-beam
Decisive moment

normal situation;
positive (LC 1-4)
normal situation;
negative (LC 1-4)
extreme situation;
negative (LC 5,6)
NDC-NDC 33 -11 -21
LWAC-NDC 31 -9 -19
NDC-LWAC 34 -13 -23
LWAC-LWAC 34 -11 -21

Local situation
The wheel load of a vehicle causes an extra positive moment in the topping, when standing pre-
cisely between the two beams (the most unfavourable position). These moments are used to cal-
culate the topping reinforcement.

M
neg;rep
: F
wheel

q
d



l
1
l
1
l
1

M
pos;rep


M q l
pos rep d ;

1
24
1
2
( = 0.3 kNm)
M q l
neg rep d ;

1
12
1
2
( = 0.6 kNm)
M F l
pos rep wheel ;

1
8
1
(= 6.4 kNm)
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 35
Shear calculations
The shear calculations are done in the web of the beam (vertical direction) and in transitional
zone between beam and topping (horizontal direction, due to the deformation of the construc-
tion). This horizontal stress is present near the top of the stirrup and therefore influences the stir-
rup composition at the top. A standard stirrup composition is used with three sections at the top
(according to fig 14).

The vertical component caused by the pre-stress force (fig 12) is used to reduce the shear force
in the web (vertical direction).

V
d;vertical
= design shear force (summation of shear forces due to self weight beam, topping,
permanent and live loads).
V
d;horizontal
= design shear force (summation of shear forces due to only permanent and live
loads).

Combinations
Topping-beam
Vertical V
d

(kN)
vertical component
pre-stress force
(kN)
horizontal V
d
(kN)
NDC-NDC 607 -75 370
LWAC-NDC 592 -74 376
NDC-LWAC 579 -65 375
LWAC-LWAC 559 -63 375

2.6.2 Beam
2.6.2.1 Pre-stress steel calculation
The numbers of pre-stress strands are determined full filling all demands in ULS and SLS, in the
transitional (assembling) phase of the construction as well as at the end stage.
In this case, deformations of the beam were decisive.
The exact place of the strands in the beam is based on the application of fig 12 and 13.
Two strands are needed at the top of the beam for the application of the stirrups.
The position of the strands in the cross section is chosen to cover as good as possible the ex-
pecting moments of the beam under all the loadings.

Cross section B Cross section A


d
middle
d
end



3/8 x L
th


L
th



Vertical component of
the pre-stress force
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
36 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
Figure 12 Position of the centre of gravity of the pre-stress strands over the beam length


Topping
Beam


Cross section A Cross section B
Figure 13 Details of the place of the pre-stress strands in the cross section

The deformation of the beam is calculated in the several development stadiums: from the time
the beam is fabricated, until the moment when the beam is loaded by live loads (period of 12
months)
The deformation is checked in agreement with specific regulations, based on the next formula:

x - 1,1 y >
1
where:
1
= L
th
/ 2000 [mm]

2.6.2.2 Check in extreme loading case
The moment in extreme loading case is checked at the maximum moment, with the formula:

M M M M M
u extremeloadingcase sw beam sw topping prestress
+ + +
; ;


Where:
( ) ( ) M LC LC LC LC
extreme loadingcase
+ + + 10 1 0 8 7 11 10 12 , , ,
M
u
, M
sw;beam
, M
sw;topping
and M
prestress
, are obtained from the representative stresses and deforma-
tions calculations

2.6.2.3 Shear
The shear reinforcement is first calculated in the beam and then checked with the horizontal
shear in the transitional zone between the beam and topping.

a) The shear force in the web of the beam

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 37
The shear force is divided into live and permanent part.

Live part
The shear in the beam is calculated with a simple and double load system, according to the fig-
ures 10 and 11.

Permanent part
The representative shear force is obtained from the loads spreading calculation.
The shear reinforcement is calculated by the following figure which is based on Dutch stan-
dards.

d
d
w
V
b d

d = h-c ; where:
d

c(bottom)=30 mm
d;red.

c(top) = 40 mm 0,2
d


(n+1)


n bmd
015 , ; Where
bmd
pw
c
F
A

1




n n +
+
1 1
200 - 1300

1
0 4 , f
b
; Where f
f
f
b
brep
m
ck

+

0 7 1 05 0 05
1 4
, ( , , ' )
,

2
0 2 , ' f k k
b n

;

Where
f b
f
ck
'
. '
,

072
12
; k
f
n
bmd
b

_
,

5
3
1 10
'
'
. ; k

10 .

red
red
w
V
b d

; WhereV
d d
L
F
red
end middle
th
pw

3
8
(based on the following figure)

d
middle
d
end



3/8 x L
th


L
th



When LWAC applied, certain factors are changing:

2
0 2
1
, ' f k k k
b n
k
1
0 4 0 6
2300
+ , .

= 0.9 (

= 1900 kg/m3)
F
pw

top surface
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
38 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
f
f k
f
b
brep
m
ck

+
1
0 7 105 0 05 0 9
1 4
, ( , , ' ) ,
,


Other agreements:
The shear reinforcement is calculated at 200mm from the beam end.
The transfer length, is estimated at 1500 mm from the beam end.
The shear stress in the middle of the span, is estimated at 20 % of the calculated
d

The intersection between the
d
line and the
n+1
line is calculated by the equality of triangles.
The distance from the support to the intersection must be reinforced. This distance is sub-
divided into three equal distances in which:
Part 1 is calculated for: 5/9 of the total surface
Part 2 is calculated for: 3/9 of the top surface
Part 3 is calculated for: 1/9 of the top surface

The calculation of the shear reinforcement, is based on the next procedures:
1. Needed reinforcement surface is calculated by the above-described method.
2. The practical reinforcement is chosen (based on diameter and spacing) compared to the
needed reinforcement.
3. The maximum number of stirrups is calculated by :
re orcement dis ce
spacing
inf tan


4. The optimisation of the reinforcement by choosing a second spacing, is based on the follow-
ing example :

End of a considered reinforcement part

8-100 assume a stirrup reinforcement with
a spacing of 100 mm and that four stirrups
can be reduced at the end of the rein-
forcement section.
When a second spacing of 200 mm is used,
a distance of 800 mm is needed to get this
reduction.


8-200


In the more complex cases, this distance can be calculated by the formula below:


reduced stirrups
spacing first spacing
first spacing
spacing
sec.
sec.

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 39


b) Shear force in transitional zone
The transitional zone between the beam and the topping must be reinforced because of the hori-
zontal shear stress occurring when the construction is under permanent and live load.
The shear stress in the transitional zone is calculated by the formulas below:

d
d
w
V S
b I

1
0 3 , ' f
ck


The difference between
d
and
1
is reinforced. This length is divided into 5 parts by which the
first part is calculated by 9/25 part of the surface, the second part 7/25, the third part 5/25, the
fourth part 3/25 and the last part 1/25.
The stirrup calculation in this zone is equal to the calculation procedure of the shear in the web.

3 sections in transitional zone

Figure 14 Detail of the stirrup composition in transitional layer between topping and
beam

2.6.3 Topping
The reinforcement is calculated in two loading situations:
1. The ultimate limit state (ULS)
2. The serviceability limit state (SLS)

In ULS, the positive and negative moments are calculated in normal (
sd
= 1,5) and extreme
situation (
sd
= 1,0). The representative moments in normal situations are divided into local and
topping
beam
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
40 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
overall moments. The representative moments in extreme situation exist only of a global mo-
ment.

The moments in overall situation are obtained from the load spreading calculation.
The moments in local situation are calculated by the figure below:


M
neg;rep
: F
wheel

q
d



l
1
l
1
l
1

M
pos;rep


The total positive moment is based on a summation of the wheel- and q-load.
The total negative moment is based only on the q load. The wheel load cannot occur in the
situation when each of two cars stands at the side of the bridge.

The necessary reinforcement in the topping in transversal direction is determined in ULS
In SLS, already chosen reinforcement is checked on cracking. This check is done according to
the Dutch regulation, which includes two methods:
Complete developed cracking pattern (
M
W
f
rep
bm
)
Incomplete developed cracking pattern (
M
W
f
rep
bm
)

Agreements by a complete developed cracking pattern according to the Dutch regula-
tions
One of the two agreements below has to be correct:
a)
s
s
k
1

b) s
k
s

_
,
100 13
2

,

Agreements by an incomplete developed cracking pattern according to the Dutch
regulations

( )

+

+

km
ck
sr s
sr s
k f
k
and
3
2
1
50

'


s
s
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 41

sr
c r bm
s
A k f
A

54 .

s s
rep
u
f
calculated mm
present mm
M
M

2
2


k
r
= 0,9-0,5h
2.6.4 Composite structure
2.6.4.1 Stresses due to shrinkage , creep and temperature
Due to the difference in the humidity and the temperature of the surroundings and the fresh con-
crete, a part of the mix water of the concrete can evaporate resulting in the shrinkage of the
concrete. Creep, however, depends only on the loading and loading time. Theoretically, the creep
reduces the shrinkage.
The differences of the temperature at the top and the bottom of the bridge also influences the
stresses in the construction.

Shrinkage
According to the Dutch standard, the shrinkage factor '
r
(for NDC) is calculated by the
multiplication of several variable factors:

' ' '
max r c b h p t
k k k k




Where:
k
p
=
1
1 0 2 + ,
o

k
t
=
t
t h
m
+ 0 04
3
,
with t in days; and h
m
=
2
2

+
( )
( )
L h
L h



When using LWAC:

' ' '
max r c b h p t
k k k k k
5

k5 = : 1.2 for a strength fck > 25 N/mm
2

: 1.5 for a strength fck = 15 N/mm
2

strength values between 15 and 25 N/mm
2
are linear interpolated
k
t
=
t
t h
m
+
with t in days

Creep
Creep factor is dependent on several variable factors:

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
42 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
k k k k k
c d b h t max


Where:
h
m
=
2
2

+
( )
( )
L h
L h

k
t
=
t
t h
m
+ 0 04
3
,
with t in days

Stresses due to shrinkage and creep
The shrinkage difference between the topping (fresh concrete) and the beam (aged concrete)
causes a horizontal force and moment which is given by the following figure and formulas:

------- F ( ) F E A r topping r beam
topping topping

'
;
'
;



M F h
h
z
topping
o

_
,

2



These two forces cause stresses in the construction, which are calculated using the next formu-
las:




F
A
topping

F
A
E
E
total
topping
beam

( ) M h z
W
h h z
total b
beam top
topping b


,


M
W
E
E
beam top
topping
beam ,

M
W
beam top ,

+ + =


F
A
total

M
W
beam bottom ,

'
, , r beam bottom



The total stress at the bottom of the beam is calculated by the formulas below:

Topping

Beam
h
t
/ 2
z
o

h
M
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 43

beam bottom ;
= (creep
reduction beam
+ creep
reduction topping
) x
'
, , r beam bottom


Where:
Creep reduction of the beam =
1

e
beam
beam

Creep reduction of the topping =
1

e
topping
topping

'
, , r beam bottom
= Stress caused by shrinkage

Temperature
The temperature of the surroundings causes extra stress in the construction. When certain tem-
perature on the top of the bridge is reached, an extra stress occurs at the bottom of the construc-
tion. This extra stress together with the present stress (due to loading) needs to be checked to
the maximal stress.
In this situation a tensile stress occurs at the bottom of the beam and therefore checked with the
present tensile stress.

The mean temperature T
mean
is calculated by the next formula:
T
A
T x b x dx
mean
c x
x

1
1
2
( ) ( )

The temperature difference T
b
is calculated by the formula:
T
h
I
T x b x x dx
b
x
x

( ) ( )
1
2


The temperature of the construction T x
e
( ) is calculated by the formula:
{ } T x T T x T x
mean b e
( ) ( ) ( ) +

T x T T T x
mean b e
( ) ( )
1
6
7
18
4
9


0
1
6
7
54
8
27
T T T x
mean b e
( )

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
44 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon

0
1
6
7
18
2
9
T T T x
mean b e
( )


temperature beam beam bottom
E T
,


Where:
= -1.0 x 10
5

T
beam bottom
= 0
1
6
7
18
2
9
T T T x
mean b e
( )

The total extra stress (caused by shrinkage and creep differences and temperature influence) is
added to the present tensile stress (caused by permanent and live loading). And is given by the
following formula:

b admissible b present shrinkage creep temperature , , ,
+ +

2.6.4.2 Fatigue
Fatigue in the construction is caused by the load cycles due to the passing traffic (live load).
These load cycles are influencing in time the representative stresses. Such behaviour can cause
fatigue in the construction parts due to which the construction can collapse without exceeding
the maximum calculated stress.

Fatigue in longitudinal direction
The fatigue moment is calculated with the next formula:
M M B
fatigue d l v

;


Where:
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 45
( ) B L
v th
0 8 20 0 004 0839 , , .
( ) f K
e 1
2
10 .
f L
th 1
0 01 0 15 0 4475 + , , .
K
K
K K
e

+
1
1 2
K
M
M
first
1

max
K
M
M
ond
2

sec
max


The load spreading calculation (LC8 and LC11) calculates M
first
and M
second

M
max
is calculated by the following figure:

L
th


x 1000 4000 y

F
wheel
F
wheel
F
wheel


R
a
R
b

500
Schematical longitudinal section of the bridge

( )
R
x F
L
b
wheel
th

+ 3 6000


M R y F
b wheel max
( ) + 4000 4000

Topping (longitudinal direction)
The representative stress caused by fatigue is checked by the maximal stress according to the
formulas below:

tot buv n u n
f S ' ( )
( ) ( )


Where:

tot perm fatigue
+

fatigue
fatigue
c s
M
W

;

( )
( )
( ) S R n f
u n bv
1 0 1 1 , log '



Where:
R
M
M
bd
d
permanent

'
'
;min
;max max

middle of the span
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
46 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
n = 1,1 x 10
9

= 1.0
( )
f
f
bv
b rep k
m
'
' , ,
; ;

+
1
2
0 85 30 0 85 30

f f
b rep k ck
' . '
; ;
085

m
1 2 ,

Beam (longitudinal direction)
The representative stress caused by fatigue is compared with the maximal stress according to
the formulas below:

tot buv n u n
f S ' ( )
( ) ( )


Where:

tot perm fatigue
+

fatigue
fatigue
c s
M
W

;

( )
( )
( ) S R n f
u n bv
1 0 1 1 , log '

Where:
R
M
M
bd
d
permanent

'
'
;min
;max max
n = 1,1 x 10
9
= 1.0
( )
f
f
bv
b rep k
m
'
' , ,
; ;

+
1
2
0 85 30 0 85 30

f f
b rep k ck
' . '
; ;
085

m
1 2 ,

Tension in pre -stress steel

The tension leap is calculated by:


s rep s u ; ;


Where:
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 47

s u s d
s rep
m
m
n
; ; ;min
; ;
+

10
7
7
10


n = 1.1 x 10
8

m
11 ,


s rep b
n
;

n =
E
E
s
b
0 6 ,

b
fatigue
live load
b mm
M
M

;90


Transversal direction
The representative moment is checked by the chosen top and bottom reinforcement of the top-
ping. It appeared in all cases that the earlier calculated bottom reinforcement was too small to
comply with the fatigue regulations, hence a new reinforcement had to be chosen. This new re-
inforcement is again checked on cracking.

M M
rep s .
< (Tensile strength reinforcement)
M M M
rep b s .
' ' < + (Compressive strength concrete and steel)

Where:
M
rep
= the decisive moment of M
1
and M
2
load local M M
v first
+
2
1
1

load local M M
v ond
+
2
1
sec 2


M
first
and M
second
are calculated in the spreading calculation in LC8 and LC11
M
pos;rep
is calculated in paragraph 2.6.3

M
z A
s
s n rep
m top

; ;
10
6


Where:

s n rep
s rep
m
n
; ;
; ;

10
7
7
10

m
= 1.15
z = d - 1/3 x


M
pos;rep

M
pos;rep

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
48 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon


Where:
( ) ( )
x n A A n A A n c A A d
top bot top bot top km top bot
+ + + + +

_
,
+

_
,

2
2
2 1000
1
2
and is obtained from the two equations:
N A E A E
d
x
s s s s s s b
s
' ' ' ' '
'

_
,
1 and
N A E A E
d
x
s s s s s s b
s

_
,
' 1



( )
M
x A S d x
b
top u n
'

_
,

_
,

1
2
1000
1
3
10
6

( )
( )
( ) S R n f
u n bv
1 0 1 1 , log '

Where:
R
M
M
bd
d
permanent

'
'
;min
;max max

n = 1,1 x 10
9

= 1.0
( )
f
f
bv
b rep k
m
'
' , ,
; ;

+
1
2
0 85 30 0 85 30

f f
b rep k ck
' . '
; ;
085

m
1 2 ,

M
A E
c
x
d c
s
top s bu
top km
top km
'
'

_
,

_
,

_
,

10 1
1
2
1
2
10
3
6


2.7 Substructure
A land abutment is placed in transversal direction under both bridge ends. Both land abutments
are supported by a number of piles, calculated according to the local (Dutch) ground regulations.

Land abutment
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 49
The height of the land abutment is related to the height of the beam, therefore by an increasing
span, the height of the beam and height of the land abutment increases. This results in a larger
volume according to the table below:


Span Volume land abutment
20 1.2 m
3
/ m
1

30 1.6 m
3
/ m
1

40 2.0 m
3
/ m
1


Piles
The piles are calculated by inclusion of the following loads:
Weight of the land abutment
Weight of the beams
Weight of the topping
The permanent loads of the individual bridge parts (railing, asphalt layer, etc.)
Equally divided live loads
Live loads (two cars standing directly at the support).
The total weight per span changes only when the weight of the topping and beam are changed.
The reduction in piles can be found when LWAC is applied by different spans.

The size of the piles is 250 x 250 mm
2
. Assumed is a ground resistance of 10 N/mm
2
. This as-
sumption results in a maximum pile force of 625 kN.
The calculated number of piles is rounded to an even figure. In this way the piles can be applied
in groups of two, and equally divided over the length of the land abutment.
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
50 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
3. COMPARISON
The LWAC is variable applied in the beam as well as the topping. Also the spans of the bridge
are changed from 20, 30 up to 40 m. Combination of all this variables results in an reliable com-
parison. First have been calculated the material quantities for every combination. The total costs
are obtained multiplying the quantities by there costs. The total costs are excluding overhead and
engineering costs.

3.1 Quantities
The quantities are given in the tables with constant span and with variable LWAC application to
find the influence of LWAC on the construction.

Superstructure
The quantities of the superstructure are expressed per square meter bridge surface. The total
amount of concrete (C30/37) added in-situ consists of the topping layer and the two edge beams
(figure 3).

Substructure
The influence of the weight reduction on the superstructure is expressed in a smaller pile force
and where possible in reducing the number of piles. The volume of the land abutment is held
constant by each span.

3.1.1 Bridge with a span of 20 m
The inverted T-beam with height of 715mm (VIP 700) is chosen from tables in relation to the
span of the bridge.
L
th
= 20 m
B = 18 m
A
bridge
= 20 x 18 = 360m
2

Superstructure
Combinations
topping-beam
Elements

topping + 2 edge beams

concrete
(m
3
/m
2
)
pre-stressing
steel (kg/m
2
)
Reinforcement
(kg/m
2
)
concrete
(m
3
/m
2
)
reinforcement
(kg/m
2
)
NDC-NDC 0.27 18.1 6.0 0.25 14.9
LWAC-NDC 0.27 15.1 6.1 0.25 15.9
NDC-LWAC 0.27 12.7 7.4 0.25 16.5
LWAC-LWAC 0.27 12.1 7.2 0.25 17.2

Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 51
Substructure
Volume of the land abutment: 1,2 m
3
/ m
1

Combination
Topping-beam
Present pile force [kN] Total number of piles
NDC-NDC 595 24
LWAC-NDC 567 24
NDC-LWAC 565 24
LWAC-LWAC 536 24

3.1.2 Bridge with a span of 30 m
The VIP 1100 is chosen in relation to the span of the bridge.
L
th
= 30 m
B = 18 m
A
bridge
= 30 x 18 = 540m
2
In the combinations with NDC beams, the height of the beam is increased with approximately 50
mm due to fatigue regulations. This results in a difference of 0,01 m
3
/m
2
compared to the other
combinations

Superstructure
Combinations
topping-beam
Elements

topping + 2 edge beams

concrete
(m
3
/m
2
)
pre-stressing
steel (kg/m
2
)
reinforcement
(kg/m
2
)
concrete
(m
3
/m
2
)
reinforcement
(kg/m
2
)
NDC-NDC 0.34 25.4 6.8 0.254 21.9
LWAC-NDC 0.34 24.9 6.3 0.254 21.3
NDC-LWAC 0.33 22.5 7.5 0.254 24.7
LWAC-LWAC 0.33 21.9 7.5 0.254 26.3

Substructure
Volume of the land abutment: 1,6 m
3
/ m
1

Combination
Topping-beam
Present pile force
[kN]
total number of piles
NDC-NDC 604 36
LWAC-NDC 580 36
NDC-LWAC 563 36
LWAC-LWAC 602 32

3.1.3 Bridge with a span of 40 m
The VIP 1600 is chosen in relation to the span of the bridge.
L
th
= 40 m
B = 18 m
A
bridge
= 40 x 18 = 720 m
2
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
52 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
In the combinations with NDC beams, the height of the beam is increased with 50 mm due to
fatigue regulations. This resulted in a difference of 0,01 m
3
/m
2
compared to the other combina-
tions

Superstructure
Combinations
topping-beam
Elements

topping + two edge beams

concrete
(m
3
/m
2
)
pre-stressing
steel (kg/m
2
)
reinforcement
(kg/m
2
)
concrete
(m
3
/m
2
)
reinforcement
(kg/m
2
)
NDC-NDC 0.48 36.1 7.6 0.258 17.2
LWAC-NDC 0.48 31.2 7.5 0.258 18.9
NDC-LWAC 0.47 26.3 8.8 0.258 19.3
LWAC-LWAC 0.47 26.3 8.5 0.258 21.8

Substructure

Volume of the land abutment: 2,0 m
3
/ m
1

Combination
topping-beam
Present pile force [kN] total number of piles
NDC-NDC 620 52
LWAC-NDC 594 52
NDC-LWAC 612 48
LWAC-LWAC 583 48

3.2 Costs per quantity
The costs in the table below are average prices of spans 20, 30 and 40m and they are based on
mean Dutch prices.

Materials Units Material costs
(euros)
labour costs
(euros)
Topping NDC C30/37 m
3
81 157
Topping LWAC C30/37 m
3
79 157
Beam NDC C45/55 m
3
118 91
Beam LWAC C45/55 m
3
110 91
The material costs exist of: The labour costs exist of:
- Concrete material - equipment costs
- Reinforcement - moulding
- Pre-stressing steel - assembling of prestress and reinforcing steel
- Maintenance and energy. - casting
- Small inserts - other
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 53
Transport and assembling costs
The transport costs are obtained from the relation between the weight of the beam and the
needed lorry; given in the table below:

Weight of the beam costs per transport over 100 km
(euros)
0 - 350 kN 340
350 450 kN 795
450 600 kN 1248

The assembling costs are obtained from the relation between the weight of the beam and the
needed crane; given in the table below:

Weight of the beam costs per hour
(euros)
0 - 480 kN 567
480 590 kN 681

Review transport and assembling costs
span Beam weight

transport costs
(euros)
assembling costs (euros)
(2 beams / hour)
NDC LWAC NDC LWAC NDC LWAC
20m 162 kN 130 kN 2723*
1
2723*
1
4253 4253
30m 306 kN 238 kN 5106*
2
5106*
2
4253 4253
40m 576 kN 450 kN 18720*
2
11913*
2
5108 4253
*
1
two beams per drive *
2
one beam per drive
3.3 Project costs
To get a clear view of the costs per bridge part, the sub- and superstructure are divided into
parts. The costs of the land abutment are equally calculated as the costs of the topping (equal
concrete and reinforcement price).
The costs of the piles are assumed at 410 Euro / piece (all costs included).

3.3.1 Bridge with a span of 20 m
L = 20 m
A = 20 x 18 = 360 m
2
substructure
(euros/m
2
)
superstructure
(euros/m
2
)
total
(euros/m
2
)
topping-beam land
abutment
piles element topping transport assembling
NDC-NDC 25.8 27.3 56.8 59.2 7.6 11.8 188.5
LWAC-NDC 25.8 27.3 55.2 58.6 7.6 11.8 186.3
NDC-LWAC 25.8 27.3 53.7 59.6 7.6 11.8 185.8
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
54 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
LWAC-LWAC 25.8 27.3 53.3 58.9 7.6 11.8 184.7




3.3.2 Bridge with a span of 30 m
L = 30 m
A = 30 x 18 = 540 m
2
substructure
(euros/m
2
)
superstructure
(euros/m
2
)
total
(euros/m
2
)

topping-beam land
abutment
piles element topping transport assembling
NDC-NDC 23.4 27.3 72.7 61.5 9.5 7.9 202.3
LWAC-NDC 23.4 27.3 72.3 60.5 9.5 7.9 200.9
NDC-LWAC 23.4 27.3 69.0 62.3 9.5 7.9 199.4
LWAC-LWAC 23.4 24.3 68.7 61.8 9.5 7.9 195.6

3.3.3 Bridge with a span of 40 m
L = 40 m
A = 40 x 18 = 720 m
2
substructure
(euros/m
2
)
superstructure
(euros/m
2
)
total
(euros/m
2
)

topping-beam land
abutment
piles element topping transport assembling
NDC-NDC 22.7 29.6 102.3 61.1 26 7.1 248.8
LWAC-NDC 22.7 29.6 99.6 60.7 26 7.1 245.7
NDC-LWAC 22.7 27.3 94.6 61.7 16.6 5.9 228.8
LWAC-LWAC 22.7 27.3 94.5 61.5 16.6 5.9 228.5


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 55
4. CONCLUSIONS
It is very important to stress again that following conclusions are based, structurally on the Dutch
codes and regulations of concrete structures and economically on the average material and la-
bour prices in The Netherlands. As earlier mentioned engineering and overhead costs are in this
comparison excluded as well as the eventually investments.

Using LWAC in stead of NDC, in the structural parts of composite bridges made of inverted T
beams with topping, can reduce amount of needed pre-stressing steel in the elements for more
than 30 %.

On the other hand, amount of applied reinforcement in the LWAC elements and the topping will
increase up to 25 %.

LWAC used in the beams and the topping will reduce the total weight of the bridge. For the lar-
ger bridge spans this will lead to reducing of amount of needed piles in the substructure up to 11
%.

The material costs of new, within Euro- LightCon project developed, LWAC (C45 / 55) are
lower than standard NDC (C45 / 55) of some 4%. Also the material costs of LWAC (C30 / 37)
are lower than NDC (C30 / 37).

Especially for longer beams, the transport and assembling costs are in favour of LWAC ele-
ments of about 32%.

For bridges with a superstructure fully made of LWAC, the total project costs will decrease
from 2% for span of 20m up to 8% for span of 40m, in comparison with bridge with NDC super-
structure. The relative big costs reduction at the span of 40 m, is significantly influenced by the
lower transportation and assembling costs (about 4%)


Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
56 BE96-3942 EuroLightCon
APPENDIX: MIXTURE COMPOSITION
Mixture compositions of Normal Density Concrete and LightWeight Aggregate Concrete with
C30/37 and C45/55 strengths.

Mixture composition (Normal density concrete, NDC)

C45/55
(kg / m
3
)
costs
/ ton
Costs / m
3

(euros)
C30/37
(kg / m
3
)
cost
s/
ton
costs /
m
3

(euros)
Cem | 52.5 R 120 84.7 10.16 - - -
Cem ||| A 52.5 245 81.1 19.87 320 81.1 25.95
Additive Cugla MO 20 6.5 499 3.24 - - -
Water 160 0.87 0.14 144 0.87 0.13
Sand 0-4 mm 775 8.5 6.59 885 8.5 7.52
Concrete granulate 0-16 135 10.6 1.43 140 10.6 1.48
Gravel 4-16mm 950 11.9 11.31 910 11.9 10.83
Total 2392 52.7 2399 45.9




Mixture composition (Light weight aggregate concrete, LWCA)

C45/55
(kg/m
3
)
cost
s/
ton
Costs /
m
3

(euros)
C30/37
(kg/m
3
)
costs/
ton
costs /
m
3
(euros)
Cem | 52.5 R 350 84.7 29.65 - - -
Cem | 32.5 R - - - 320 81.2 26.3
Additive Tillman ON2 1.75 454 0.79 - - -
Additive Tillman Oft3 2.45 454 1.11 - - -
Limestone 25 77.1 1.93 - - -
Water 151 0.87 0.13 150 0.87 0.13
Sand 0-2 mm 489 9.0 4.40 761 9.0 6.85
Lytag 0,5-4 mm 99 17.2 1.71 72 17.2 1.24
Lytag 0.5-6 mm 258 17.2 4.45 186 17.2 3.21
Lytag 6-12 mm 377 17.2 6.50 272 17.2 4.69
Total 1753*
1
50.7 1761*
1
42.4

*
1
This is the dry density of LWAC. When the LWA particles are fully saturated, a wet density
Structural and economic comparison of bridges made of inverted T-beams with topping
BE96-3942 EuroLightCon 57
of approximately 1900 kg/m3 is obtained.