Design of A Composite Bridge Deck

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009 B.Eng.
CBE
Declaration
I declare that this project entitled “Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of
Karamoja” is my own original Project work, except as cited in the references. The project has
not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature or award of
any other degree.
Signature…………………… Date ……………………..

OKUCU ANTHONY TWENY
(STUDENT)
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) i Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Re-design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja, Uganda 2009 B.Eng.CBE
Supervisor Approval
Having supervised the student and read through the work herein presented, I do hereby consent
that the project is worth the award of the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Civil and
Building Engineering of Kyambogo University
Signed …………………………………… Date………………………………
DR. MICHAEL KYAKULA

SUPERVISOR.
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) ii Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Project Title:
The title to this project is:
RE-DESIGN OF NARIAMABUNE BRIDGE IN KAABONG DISTRICT
OF KARAMOJA, UGANDA
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) iii Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula
Dedication
To Jehovah God Almighty from whom all wisdom and blessings flow. Take all the praise,
glory and honour!
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) iv Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Acknowledgements
I must in all sincerity, thank my wife, Margaret, children: Shalom, Emmanuel, Rebecca and
Ezra who have had to endure my absence from home during the times I had to be away in order
to pursue this course of studies. From your patience and endurance I derived courage and
feeling of support.
Special thanks to my parents: Joshua J. Tweny and his dear wife Mummy Alice Tweny who
forfeited enjoyment of their meager income in order that I may be schooled.
To Charles Ayo, my very concerned uncle who rekindled my interest in studies when I was
almost giving up on academics. You picked me up and helped me reach here. And to my sister,
Dr. Atim C. Oyet, you were a challenge, an inspiration and a helping hand at the time of need.
To my former school teacher, Mr. Ahimbisiibwe Wilson, who helped me to realize my

engineering aptitude, and encouraged me to tow that line. Little did you know you were
shaping this work but you’ve done it.
Great appreciation to my Project Supervisor, Dr. Michael Kyakula for the guidance advice and
positive criticisms that have shaped this project and made it such a successful and
comprehensive design report. All my lecturers in the department of Civil and Building
Engineering of Kyambogo University. The knowledge and skills you imparted was quite
helpful in this project.
To all the staff of Uganda National Roads Authority, Kotido Station for the support and
information they provided and to my course mates for criticizing positively the works
especially during the processes of analysis and design of the structures.
To all the authors and authorities whose works have been cited herein
Thank you all sincerely.
Okucu Anthony Tweny.
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) v Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Abstract
Nariamabune Bridge is found in Kaabong District, Karamoja Sub-region, located at
N03o38’ 57” and E34o02’09” along the Kaabong – Kapedo Road link. The road link offers
P P P P
trade opportunities to the local people with other communities and neighbouring towns,
promotes tourism industry (Kidepo Valley National Game Park) and links the Region to Kenya
and Southern Sudan. It also facilitates humanitarian assistance and security interventions, in
case of insurgencies.
The existing bridge structure comprises of a Bailey bridge (steel decking) supported on stone
masonry abutments that in turn sit on foundations observed to be sinking (a sign of settlement).
Scouring / erosion have also been observed at the abutments and embankments pointing to an
imminent failure.
The problems associated with the imminent failure of the bridge are quite adverse. There is
urgent need to prevent this imminent failure by re-designing the bridge. This project has had to
be carried out, therefore, by using the geo-soil properties of the existing bridge site,
determining the flood levels at the water crossings, carrying out the hydraulic design that will
minimize scouring, determining the significant loads for analysis of the substructure and the
superstructure and designing the decking of the bridge, the abutments (and piers) as technically
necessary. Finally detailed drawings and appropriate recommendations will be made.
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) vi Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Table of Contents
Pictures ....................................................................................................................................- 1 -
Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................- 2 -
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................- 2 -
1.1. Project Title:.....................................................................................................................- 2 -
1.2. Background:.....................................................................................................................- 2 -
1.2.1. Bridge: ...........................................................................................................................- 4 -
1.2.2. Bridge design:................................................................................................................- 4 -
1.4. Project Aim: .....................................................................................................................- 5 -
1.5. Project Objectives:...........................................................................................................- 5 -
1.6. Scope of the Project:........................................................................................................- 6 -
1.7. Justification:.....................................................................................................................- 6 -
Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................- 8 -
2.1 Definition of a bridge; ......................................................................................................- 8 -
2.2.1 Bridge Materials: ...........................................................................................................- 9 -
2.2.2 Classification:...............................................................................................................- 10 -
Steel Bridges ..........................................................................................................................- 10 -
Classification according to structural action: ....................................................................- 13 -
Simply supported span bridge.............................................................................................- 13 -
Continuous span bridge .......................................................................................................- 14 -
Cantilever bridge ..................................................................................................................- 14 -
Rigid frame bridges ..............................................................................................................- 15 -
Classification according to Floor location ..........................................................................- 15 -
Classification based on type of connections: ......................................................................- 17 -
Reinforced- concrete Bridges...............................................................................................- 18 -
Types of Bridges....................................................................................................................- 18 -
2.2.3 Requirements: ..............................................................................................................- 20 -
2.3 Site Investigation.............................................................................................................- 21 -
2.4 Substructure and Foundations ......................................................................................- 22 -
2.4.1 Abutments ....................................................................................................................- 24 -
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) vii Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula
2.4.3. Design of Gravity and Cantilever Retaining Walls. ................................................- 24 -

2.4.3.1. Gravity retaining walls............................................................................................- 25 -
2.4.3.2. Cantilever Walls of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) ......................................- 25 -
Abutment design ...................................................................................................................- 25 -
Reinforced concrete abutments ...........................................................................................- 26 -
2.4.4 Reinforced concrete retaining walls...........................................................................- 26 -
2.4.5 Bearing Shelves ............................................................................................................- 26 -
2.4.6 Piers...............................................................................................................................- 27 -
Reinforced Concrete Piers ...................................................................................................- 27 -
2.4.7 Determination of allowable bearing pressure, ..........................................................- 27 -
Non cohesive soils..................................................................................................................- 27 -
Cohesive soils.........................................................................................................................- 28 -
Presumed values....................................................................................................................- 30 -
Table 2…................................................................................................................................- 31 -
2.4.8. Foundations on Rock..................................................................................................- 33 -
2.4.9. Run-on Slabs ...............................................................................................................- 33 -
2.5 Superstructure ................................................................................................................- 34 -
2.6 Design Detailing ..............................................................................................................- 35 -
2.6.1 Vertical Profile over the Bridge..................................................................................- 35 -
2.6.2 Shear Connectors.........................................................................................................- 35 -
2.6.3 Protective Treatment to Steelwork ............................................................................- 36 -
2.6.4 Bolts and nuts...............................................................................................................- 36 -
2.6.5 Bearings ........................................................................................................................- 36 -
2.6.6 Expansion joints...........................................................................................................- 37 -
2.6.7 Construction joints ......................................................................................................- 37 -
2.6.8 Slab Reinforcement .....................................................................................................- 37 -
2.6.9 Drainage........................................................................................................................- 38 -
2.6.10 Parapets, Surfacing and Services .............................................................................- 38 -
2.6.11 Provision for Pedestrians and Cyclists ....................................................................- 38 -
2.7 River Hydraulics and Hydraulic Design.......................................................................- 38 -
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) viii Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula
Chapter 3 ...............................................................................................................................- 44 -
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................- 44 -
3.3.1 Trial pit excavation......................................................................................................- 45 -
3.3.2 Sampling .......................................................................................................................- 46 -
3.3.3 Soil Testing ...................................................................................................................- 46 -
Chapter 4 .................................................................................................................................-49-
Analysis and Design................................................................................................................-49-
Chapter 5 .................................................................................................................................-99-
Recommendations...................................................................................................................-99-
Appendices.............................................................................................................................-101-
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) ix Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Single span Simply supported Bridge ..........................................................................- 13 -

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

T T T
Figure 1.3 Continuous Span Bridge .................................................................................................- 14 -

Figure 1.4 Cantilever Bridge with a Suspended Span ....................................................................- 15 -
Figure 1.5 Solid Ribbed Arch............................................................................................................- 16 -
Figure1.6. Braced Ribbed Arch. .......................................................................................................- 16 -
Figure1.7. Spandrel Braced Arch Bridge.........................................................................................- 17 -
Figure 1.8. Tied Arch Bridge ............................................................................................................- 17 -
Figure 2.1 Slab Bridge .......................................................................................................................- 18 -
Figure 2.2. Deck Girder Bridge ........................................................................................................- 18 -
Figure 2.3. Composite Steel-Concrete Bridge..................................................................................- 19 -
Figure 2.4. Composite Pre-stressed Concrete Bridge ................................................................- 19 -
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) x Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Pictures
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) -1- Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula
Chapter 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Title:
Re-Design of Nariamabune Bridge in Kaabong District of Karamoja.
1.2 Background:
Nariamabune Bridge is found in Kaabong District, Karamoja Sub-region, located at N03o38’ P P
57” and E34o02’09” along the Kaabong – Kapedo Road. (see Plate 1 Appendix 1)
P P
The history of this road link was not readily available but Kaabong – Kapedo Road plays an
important role of linking parts of Kaabong district to Pader, Kitgum and Lira districts from
where most of the merchandise is brought into Kaabong.
This road link is significant not only for linking economic activities of the local people, but
in the promotion of tourism industry. According to a UWA brochure, Kidepo Valley
National Game Park receives tourists from various countries annually. Some of the tourists
reach the National Park by way of Kampala – Mbale – Soroti – Kotido – Kaabong route,
while others use the Kampala – Karuma – Lira – Kotido – Kaabong - Kidepo Route yet
others use the Kampala – Karuma – Lira – Pader – Orom – Karenga – Kapedo Route. The
former two therefore needs the bridge at Nariamabune to be safe and sound for easy
passage.
Most tourists from Europe, the Americas, Australia and other parts of the world land in
Kenya and from Nairobi, they travel by road to Western Uganda to Mgahinga Gorrila
National Park, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Kibale National Park, Queen Elizabeth
National Park, Murchison Falls National Park, and others before embarking on moving to
Kidepo National Park and finally passing along Kapedo – Kaabong – Kotido – Soroti –
Mbale to Mt Elgon National Park from where they get back to Kenya.
Besides the trade and commercial activities, this road link is significant in fostering
humanitarian assistances to Karamoja region most of which lies in the arid climatic zone of
North-eastern Uganda, often characterized by famine.
Of great importance is the fact that a road link is being planned to join Kapedo to New Site
in Southern Sudan
Kaabong District of Karamoja is located within Latitudes 20 30’ and 4

P P
0
P P 15’ South and
Longitudes 33 0 30’ and 35 0 00’ East in the north eastern part of Uganda. The Total area is
P P P P
13,208 km2 (5.47% of Uganda’s total area) of which arable land coverage is 7,268 km2 and
P P P P
2
water coverage is 0 km . Since arable land coverage is only 7,268 square km the crop
P P
productivity rating is limited.
Forestry:
There are 12 natural forests and five plantation forests. Artificial forest coverage is 0.2 Km2 P P
with acassia, same and eucalyptus.
Wild life:
The largest Game Park in Uganda (Kideepo Valley National Game Park) has an area of
1,442 square Km.
Animals:
water bucks, Jackson’s hartebeest, zebras, buffalos, elands, ribi, warthogs, bush bucks,
jackals, elephants, giraffes, lions, cheetahs, leopards, ran antelopes and ostriches. Bird life is
in abundance.
Minerals:
Gold, silver, copper, iron, and mica and crude petroleum at Kathile basin.
Sunshine and wind:

Between December and April the Northeasterly wind usually exceed 200Km per day.
Characterized by dust storms, desiccating and pulverizing the sparse vegetating cover.
Average rainfall is 519mm per annum. Rainy season falls in April – August with a marked
minimum in June and marked maximum peaks in May and July. The rain is erratic in nature.
Distinct wet and dry seasons are a prominent feature. The rainfall is unevenly distributed
and unreliable and has a significant influence on the economy and life of the district.
1.2.1. Bridge:
Bridge, in this context, shall mean a structure that permits traffic to pass over the water
crossing safely and conveniently.
1.2.2. Bridge design:

Bridge design in this context shall mean the application of scientific theories in combination
with field data and technological knowledge to come up with a safer and an economical
bridge structure that will permit traffic to pass safely, conveniently and comfortably above
the river crossing.
Almost all human activities involve problem solutions. Production of goods and services has
always resulted from almost all the human activities. Unless the goods and services
produced are distributed, exchanged and consumed the economic chain is not complete. In
order, therefore, to complete the economic chain, transportation becomes a vital factor in the
economy as the outcomes of the production process must find their ways into some market
where exchange and consumption take place.
Transportation involves the movement of factors of production like machinery, labour, raw
materials, fuels, and of finished goods or services to places of utility. Traffic of various
forms and kinds are involved in the said movement, depending on certain factors outlined
herein as: accessibility of the places of production and markets relative to the terrain,
existing infrastructure, drainage pattern and land use.
Traffic form is also dependent on the economic activities, magnitude of haulage and nature
and value of goods and services produced. In this case road transport has been considered as
it is the most feasible and is already an existing infrastructural investment in the area of the
project.
1.3 Problem Statement:

The existing bridge structure comprises of a Bailey bridge (steel decking) supported on
stone masonry abutments that in turn sit on an earth foundation. It is observed that since its
constructions in 2004, the bridge deck level is sinking. Information available from UNRA
Kotido Station estimates the level to have sunk by about 400mm yet there are indications
that the embankments are prone to be cut by the waters due scouring and erosion noticed at
the site.
The local scour at abutments are an indication that the width of the channel is not sufficient,
hence a hydraulic design needs to be done, taking into account the scour and a preventive
measures taken to minimize the same.
Qualitative site survey has shown no protective measures taken to minimize the effects of
scour at the abutments upstream of the water crossing, and the side drains of the
embankments are extremely gullied, progressively leading to the embankments failure.
1.4 Project Aim:

The aim of this project is to design a strong and economical bridge to meet the structural and
hydraulic requirements and improve on the level of service for a design life of 40 years.
1.5 Project Objectives:

The objectives are to:
o Carry out the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the catchments area and the river,
o Determine the flood levels at the water crossings,
o Carry out the hydraulic design that will maximize flow with minimal width of
channel and scouring effects
o Determine the significant loads for analysis,
o Design the decking of the bridge
o Use the existing soils parameter to Design the abutments, piers and the foundations.
o Come up with the working and structural drawings
o Make recommendations
1.6 Scope of the Project:

o Obtaining Geotechnical data / soil parameter.
o Hydrologic (Flow) analysis and Hydraulic Design,
o Analysis and design of Superstructure,
o Analysis and design of Substructure.
o Detailed drawings
1.7 Justification:
Kaabong – Kapedo - Karenga trunk road links Pader, Kitgum, Lira and Soroti to Kaabong
Town in the North - eastern part of Uganda. Failure of Nariamabune Bridge and therefore
has a very significant connotation in the economic life of the four towns.
Most of the goods and essential commodities consumed in Kaabong are sourced from
wholesale markets as far as Kampala, Soroti, Mbale and Lira by way of Lira – Abim or
Soroti Abim routes. The same routes are used by humanitarian organizations to transport
relief food to the district
The same road is a link to Kidepo Valley National Game Park, therefore, very significant in
tourism industry. The road also links this part of Uganda to Southern Sudan and North-
western Kenya and therefore an important link for international trade. The two facts mean
the road is a foreign exchange earner in Uganda’s economy.
There is a plan by the government of the republic of Uganda to connect this road link to
New Site in Southern Sudan through Kapedo, an investment that is anticipated to boost
traffic on Kaabong – Kapedo road.
Kaabong District, as already noted elsewhere, is endowed with mineral resources like gold,
silver, copper, iron, mica and crude petroleum at Kathile Basin. The exploitation of such
mineral resources require explicit transportation scheme that motivate deliberate investment
in the sector.
Besides the economic considerations, Karamoja region, in general, is an arid area and often
affected by famine. Food aid and humanitarian assistance will always require excellent
mobility. Any slight break in mobility will lead to massive death due to famine. Other social
services also need transportation networks that are consistent to facilitate emergency
deliveries.
Worth mentioning is the fact that a section of the Karamojong have firearms and are
aggressive to passers-by. In case of failure of Nariamabune Bridge, such people will not
hesitate to attack, loot, kill or harm the unfortunate road users that may find themselves
trapped in the ignominy.
The problems associated with the imminent failure of the bridge are quite adverse as has
been seen. This project therefore is intended to offer solutions by preventing the failure
through redesigning the bridge.
Chapter 2
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
The basic concept involved in this chapter is to examine the recent and historical significant
studies that form the basis of design of a bridge.
2.1 Definition of a bridge;
A bridge is a structure for carrying road traffic and other moving loads over a depression or
gap or obstruction such as river, canal, channel, canyon, valley, road or railways (Punmia, et
al 1998). In other words, it's the structural system carrying the communication route and
includes beams, girders, stringers, arches, cables and all other components above bearing
level.
If a bridge is constructed to carry highway traffic, it is known as a highway bridge. If,

however, it is constructed to carry railway traffic, then it is known as a railway bridge. There
may be a combined highway and railway bridge to carry both the highway as well as railway
traffic. Some bridges, constructed exclusively to carry pedestrians, cycles and animals, are
known as foot bridges while those constructed to carry canals and for pipe lines are known as
aqueduct bridges.
A bridge may be a culvert, high level bridge or submersible bridge. A culvert is a bridge
having a gross length of six metres or less between the faces of abutments or extreme
ventway boundaries, and measured at right angles there to the direction of water flow.
• A high level bridge is a bridge which a carries the roadway above the highest flood
level of the channel.
• A submersible bridge is a bridge designed to be over topped in floods.
• A bridge may be fixed or movable type.
• A fixed bridge is the one which always remains in one position.
• A movable bridge is the one which can be opened either horizontally or vertically so
as to allow river or channel traffic to pass. Such bridges are constructed over a
navigable stream where the normal headway is not sufficient for the vehicles to pass
through.
A bridge may be either of deck type or through type.
A deck type bridge is the one in which the roadway/railway floor rests on the top of the
supporting structure.
A through bridge is the one where the roadway/railway floor rests on the bottom of the main
load supporting structure.
However when the floor lies between the top and bottom of the main load supporting
structure, it is known as half through type bridge, semi-through bridge or pony bridge.
2.2.1 Bridge Materials:

Bridges are made of different material such as timber, stone masonry, brick masonry,
concrete and steel. Timber bridges are constructed only over small spans and for temporary
purpose, to carry light loads. Masonry bridges are also constructed for shorter spans.
Concrete bridge, both of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) as well as of prestressed cement
concrete (PCC) are constructed over moderate to high spans, to carry all types of loads.
Concrete arch bridges have been constructed of spans up to 200 m. Similarly, steel bridges,
are constructed both over moderate to high spans as well as for heavy trafficular loads. In
India, steal bridges are commonly used for railways for all types of spans. [Pumnia, et al
(1995)]
A bridge just like any other civil engineering structures has two component parts, namely
• Substructure
• Super structure
2.2.2 Classification:
(i). According to end fixity a bridge can be classified as simple or continuous bridge.
(ii). According to ability to slide/move a bridge can be fixed or movable bridge.
(iii). According to purpose it may be foot railway or highway Bridge.
(iv). According to location of bridge floor it may be deck, through or semi-through
bridge.
(v). According to highest flood levels it may be submersible or non-submersible.
(vi). According to construction materials it may be stone and brick (Masonry), steel,
timber or concrete bridge
Steel Bridges
Classification
Steel bridges may be classified according to the following criteria:
1. Type of structural arrangement

2. Structural action
3. Floor location
4. Type of connection
5. Movement of structural parts
Classification according to structural arrangement:
Under this classification a steel bridge may be of the following types:
(i). I-girder bridge

(ii). Plate girder bridge
(iii). Truss girder, or
(iv). Suspension bridge.
By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) - 10 - Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

I-girders may be used for small as the main load carrying members. For this purpose, wide
flanged I-sections are used. Such structures are suitable for spanning over crossings of
moderate widths. There are however limitations in the maximum size of available I-sections,
hence for longer span bridges built up plate girders are to meet the requirements of section
modulus corresponding to the applied loads.
Plate girder bridges: This type of are quite popular with railway bridges, the advantage
being in transportation since it can be transported in one piece. the limiting depth of plate
girders is only 3 -4m hence when the structural requirement for depth is more than this, steel
truss girder bridges are preferred.
Truss girder bridges: in this arrangement, trusses are used as the main load carrying
members. They are commonly used over spans of 20 – 200m
For still longer spans, steel arch bridges or suspension bridges using high strength steel
cables may be used.


Classification according to structural action:

According to the criteria of structural action, steel bridges may be of the following types:
(i). Simply-supported-span bridges
(ii). Continuous span bridges
(iii). Cantilever bridge
(iv). Arch bridges
(v). Rigid Frame Bridge.
Figure 1.1. Single span Simply supported Bridge
(i) Simply supported span bridge

Such types are commonly used when the width of gap is small, necessitating the use of
single span. However, even if the width of the gap to be bridged is large, the whole width
can be subdivided into a number of individual spans, each span being simply supported
Figure 1.2. Simply Supported Multi- span Bridge.
Such an arrangement is preferred specially .is those locations where there is likelyhood of
uneven settlement of intermediate piers. The analysis of simply supported span bridge is
very simple.

(ii) Continuous span bridge
When the width of gap is quite large, and where there are no chances of uneven settlements,
bridge may be continuous over two or more spans (Figure 1 (c)). Because of continuity,
moments are developed at pier supports resulting in the reduction of stresses at the inner
spans. This results in an economical design. Also, continuous span bridges require few
supports, since larger spans can be used; they can also support higher loads in comparison to
simply supported spans.
Figure 1.3 Continuous Span Bridge
(iii) Cantilever bridge

In the case of a three span continuous bridge, loaded with uniformly distributed load over all
the three spans, it is observed that these are two points of contraflexure in the central span.
Hence if the continuous beam/girder of the middle span is cut at these two points of
contraflexure, and shear resisting joints are made at these two points, the resulting
configuration will be a cantilever bridge with a central suspended span between these two
formed joints, as shown in Figure 1.4. Thus, a cantilever bridge consists of two simple
spans, one at each end, each having an overhanging or cantilever portion along with a
simple span (or suspended span) in between the two cantilever portions. The main
advantage of such an arrangement is that the B.M. diagram will now not be affected by the
settlement of supports. The suspended span is supported by the cantilever span, at each end
by means of mechanical hinge. This gives rise to a statically determinate structure which can
be analyzed very easily. Because of development of moments at the pier supports, the
stresses in each end span is very much reduced. Another advantage of such bridge is that the
cantilever portion and the suspended span can be erected without the use of false work or

staging. Such bridges are usually provided for longer span, ranging between 200 m to 500
m.
Figure 1.4 Cantilever Bridge with a Suspended Span
(i v) Arch Bridge.
For deep gorges, arch bridges are generally used, since they offer economical and aesthetic
solution. However, they require strong abutments to resist the thrust from the arches. The
arches may consist of girder sections or trusses, and may be:
Fixed arches
Two hinged arches, or
Three hinged arches,
The two hinged arches are more common.
The arch bridge may further be classified as:
solid ribbed arches
braced rib arch
spandrel braced arches or
Tied arches (Figure 1.8).
Solid ribbed arch bridges are more commonly used for highways, while braced rib arch
bridges and spandrel braced bridges are commonly used for railways.
( v) Rigid frame bridges
Rigid frame bridges, comprising of single span or two to three continuous spans, are used
for dry-over or under-crossing, for gaps between 10 to 20 m. These consist of steel columns
and steel girders with continuity at the knee. Such bridges are quite suitable for rigid
foundations.
Classification according to Floor location

According to the location of the floor, bridges can be classified as under:

Deck-type bridge
Through type bridge
Half through-type bridge.
In deck type bridge the floor is placed on the top flange in the case of plate girder bridge and
on the top chord in the case of a truss bridge. No top bracing is therefore required.
In the case of through type bridge, the floor" is placed at the level of lower chord of truss
type bridge, and the top chord is braced laterally.
However, in the case of plate-girder bridge, the floor of the through bridge is supported on
the bottom flange. In half through bridge, also known as ponny truss bridge, the floor lies
between the top and the bottom. There are also double deck bridges constructed to carry the
traffic of both roadways and railways. Both the decks can have through floors. Alternatively,
one deck may have through floor while another deck may be kept open. The requirements of
grade line and clearance of highways or railway track decide whether it should be through-
type bridge or a deck type bridge. Deck type bridges are more economical than through type
bridges, and hence they are more popular.
Figure 1.5 Solid Ribbed Arch.
Figure1.6. Braced Ribbed Arch.

Figure1.7. Spandrel Braced Arch Bridge
Figure 1.8. Tied Arch Bridge
Classification based on type of connections:

Depending upon the type of connections of the joints, bridges can be of the following types:
(i). Riveted bridges
(ii). Welded bridges
(iii). Bolted (pin connected) bridges

Reinforced- concrete Bridges

Types of Bridges
According to Winter and Nilson (1972), reinforced concrete is particularly adaptable
for use in highway bridges because of its durability, rigidity, and economy, as well
as the comparative ease with which a pleasing architectural appearance can be
secured. For very short spans, from about 10 to 25 ft, one-way-slab bridges (Fig. 2.1)
are economical. For somewhat longer spans, concrete girder spans (Fig. 2.2) may be
used.
Probably most highway spans of medium length, from 40 to 90 ft, presently use
composite steel-concrete construction (Fig. 2.3) or composite pre-stressed-concrete
construction (Fig. 2.4).
Figure 2.1 Slab Bridge
Figure 2.2. Deck Girder Bridge

Figure 2.3. Composite Steel-Concrete Bridge
Figure 2.4. Composite Pre-stressed Concrete Bridge
In composite construction with structural steel, the concrete deck is made to act
integrally with supporting steel stringers by means of devices called shear connectors,
welded to the top flange of the steel section and embedded in the slab. Although such a
bridge is not strictly a reinforced-concrete structure, the design of this type of bridge
will be discussed in some detail in this section because of its widespread use. Pre-
stressed-concrete bridges frequently make use of composite section characteristics also.
Commonly, the girders are pre-cast and placed into final location by crane, eliminating

the necessity for obstructing traffic by falsework. The deck slab is then cast in place,
bonded, and tied to the pre-cast sections by steel dowels.
Hollow box girders, usually pre-stressed, are often used for intermediate and long-
span concrete bridges. Spans up to about 80 ft are pre-cast in one piece and lifted into
position. Longer spans of similar cross section, carrying two lanes of highway traffic
as well as shoulders and walkways, have either been cast in place or pre-cast in short
segments, which are post tensioned after positioning.
Bridge spans as long as 320 ft have been attained using pre-stressed girders. Other
possibilities for long-span concrete bridges are the various forms of arches, including
the barrel arch and the three-hinged arch. [Winter and Nilson (1972)]
2.2.3 Requirements:
The bridge should be efficient, effective and equitable so that;
• It is economical
• It's aesthetically sound
• It should serve the intended function with utmost convenience, comfort and
safety.
• It is durable

2.3 Site Investigation
The soils supporting the abutments and pier foundations always carry the weight of the
traffic, superstructure, abutments and piers. In order to design for the best suitable
foundations, the designer has to determine the nature and location of the different soil types
occurring at the site of the bridge and its approaches, to depths containing strata sufficiently
strong to support the bridge and embankments without failure.
This information is obtained by analyzing samples taken from a grid of bore-holes or test pits
covering the whole of the proposed site, and by testing the samples for density, shear
strength, plasticity and penetration, in order to provide quantitative data for foundation
design.
2.3.1 Methods of site investigation
• Test pits
• Hand auger boring
• Cable percussion boring
• Rotary drilling
• Geophysical surveying.
2.3.2 Sampling
The choice of sampling technique depends on the purpose for which the sample is required
and the character of the ground.
There are four main techniques for obtaining samples:
• Taking disturbed samples from drill tools or from excavating equipment in the course
of boring or excavation
• Drive sampling in which a tube or split tube sampler with a sharp cutting edge at its
lower end is forced into the ground, either by static thrust or by dynamic impact
• Rotary sampling, in which a tube with a cutter at its lower end is rotated into the
ground, so producing a core sample

• Taking block samples cut by hand from a trial pit, shaft or heading.
Samples obtained by the last three techniques will be sufficiently intact to enable the ground
structure within the sample to be examined. However, the quality of these samples can vary
considerably, depending on the sampling technique and ground conditions, and most samples
will exhibit some degree of disturbance. Table 2.1 indicates the mass of sample required for
identification purposes, Atterburg tests, moisture content, sieve analysis and sulphate tests.
Care should be taken to ensure that samples are as pure and undisturbed as possible.
Table1. Required Sample Mass
Mass required
Soil type
(kg)
Clay, silt, sand 2
Fine and medium gravel 5
Coarse gravel 30
2.3.3 Aggressive Chemicals
The ground or ground water may contain chemicals capable of causing damage to concrete
or steel. These chemicals may emanate from nearby industrial processing or may occur
naturally. Total sulphate content of more than 0.2% by weight in soil and 300 ppm in ground
water are potentially aggressive (BRF 1981). There are often difficulties in specifying
ground condition before the excavation for constructions are complete. For this reason the
engineer should be prepared to review his plan, both during construction, if evidence is
found of unexpected soil conditions.
2.4 Substructure and Foundations
This is a support for the super structure and comprises of; abutments, piers, wing walls and
any part below bearing level i.e. the foundation.

The substructure can be made of materials such as mass concrete, reinforced concrete, steel,
timber and if experience is available in structural masonry it can be an economical substitute
for concrete. However, the engineer must be certain of the strength of materials used,
particularly when they are submerged in flowing water.
All concrete decks must have rigid substructures like those detailed in this booklet, because
uneven settlement of either abutment or pier can result in unacceptably high stresses in the
materials of the decks. The positioning of the abutment and pier foundations is critically
important.
Because the most likely cause of bridge failure is scour, a bridge designer should pay careful
attention to the estimation of general and local scour. Pier foundation depths are specified
according to foundation type and protection method. However when dealing with
substructures and foundation, there are two important issues to consider:-
• The general scour area must not be obstructed or the flow will be impeded meaning
more scour damage.
• Local scour is caused by turbulence and may be reduced by armouring the bed.
Abutments also fail when the soil under the foundation is not strong enough to carry the
combined forces from the bridge structure and the embankment. It's recommended that
spread foundations be used wherever possible, but if adequate support is unavailable, a piled
foundation is required.
If a satisfactorily strong soil is found not too far below preferred foundation level, caisson
support may be considered. The technique is simple if the caissons are short, but the engineer
must take care that:-
• The maximum soil reaction at the sides does not exceed the maximum passive
pressure at any depth,
• The soil pressure at the base remains compressive throughout and the maximum
pressure does not exceed the allowable pressure.

2.4.1 Abutments
Besides carrying the dead load of the superstructure, it's imperative that the abutments of a
bridge must:
• Resist the vertical and horizontal live loads exerted on them by vehicles and other
elements.
• Retain the approach embankments and the live loads (or surcharge) applied to them.
• Provide a smooth transition from the road surface to the deck running surface.
The essentials features of abutments are:-
• A foundation slab, which transmits the weight of the abutment and the superstructure
and its loads directly to the supporting soil, or which forms a capping slab to a system
of load bearing piles.
• A front wall with bearing shelf that supports the superstructure and usually retains the
soil of the embankment.
• Wing walls or retaining walls which may be separate from the abutments or, if they
are short, may be built integrally with them. These walls retain the road embankment
or river bank adjacent to the abutment and are usually built so as to bisect the angle
between the road and the river bank, though they can be set at any angle to the
abutments and may be built parallel to the road or perpendicular to it.
2.4.3. Design of Gravity and Cantilever Retaining Walls.
A gravity retaining wall is that which resists the lateral earth pressure by its own weight;
whereas, a cantilever retaining wall is that which resists the lateral earth pressure by bending
action. Garg (2005)

2.4.3.1. Gravity retaining walls

Gravity retaining walls are, therefore, thicker in section, and are made of stone or brick
masonry or sometimes plain cement concrete (PCC).
2.4.3.2. Cantilever Walls of reinforced cement concrete (RCC)

The cantilever walls of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) are more economical, because the
backfill itself is employed to provide most of the dead weight to counteract the lateral thrust.
Both types of walls are liable to rotational turning or translational sliding movements, and
the lateral pressure for the design is computed by Rankine’s or Coulomb,s theories.
The design of retaining wall should be such that the wall as a whole must satisfy the two
basic conditions:
• The base pressure at the toe of the wall must not exceed the allowable bearing
capacity of the soil.
• The Factor of safety against sliding between the base and the underlying soil must be
adequate; value of 1.5 being usually required.
Unyielding retaining walls, such as the bridge abutments, restrained by the deck structure,
do not deform. In such cases, therefore, active or passive pressures would not be developed;
rather, the lateral pressures should be computed as equal to ‘rest value’ using the coefficient
KR (also represented by KO).
B B B B
This value of KR is also very high when the backfill is compacted artificially; say as high as
B B
0.8 or so. It has, thus, been noticed that in such unyielding walls, compaction caused by the
flow of sewers, etc. may lead to residual lateral pressures, considerably higher than the
corresponding values for the uncompacted soil.
(i) Abutment design
While designing the abutment, there is need to carefully analyze and take into account all the
individual characteristics of the site and the superstructure, e.g. foundation conditions, deck
thickness, expansion joints etc. Specifications for the concrete and steel are also important.

(ii) Reinforced concrete abutments
For small span bridges of (span not exceeding 12m) abutments are provided with a standard
width of 1200mm at the top but the front and rear faces are vertical. This structure is
considerably lighter than its mass concrete counterpart. The bearing shelf is an integral part
of the stem. The widths of the toe and heel, and the thickness of the foundation for various
heights, span and bearing pressures are suggested in ORN9.
2.4.4 Reinforced concrete retaining walls
Considerations here are just as in the abutments with reinforced concrete stems. If the
retaining wall is not long, weep holes can usually be ignored. These details apply to the
typical case of walls set at 45° to the abutments supporting road embankments with slopes of
1 in 2.
2.4.5 Bearing Shelves
These designs are generally suitable for concrete, composite or timber decks, though the
bearing details will be specific to the deck type. The dowel and bearing pad details are
required for concrete and composite decks. Good drainage and the facility for removal of
debris are important requirements on all bearing shelves. The road approaches should be
built to prevent water draining onto the bridge, but some water falling on the deck will
penetrate expansion joint seals and leak through to the bearing shelves. This is particularly
likely to occur when no seal at all is provided. A number of drainage configurations are
available, Hambly (1979), but the two main principles to be observed are:-
• Slope horizontal surfaces to direct water away from the bearing pads.
• Provide good access for the removal of stones, vegetation, bird nests and other
debris.

2.4.6 Piers
Just like abutments, piers perform a support function by transmitting vertical and horizontal
loads from the superstructure via the bearing shelf, stem and foundation slab to the
supporting soil. In most cases, piers stand on saturated soils for most or all of the year: they
do not retain soil embankments but are designed to withstand hydraulic pressures and impact
loads. Piers are often more affected by scour damage than abutments and need to be
orientated carefully with respect to flow direction. Their foundations should be located well
below maximum scour depth.
Reinforced Concrete Piers
Though piers may be built using masonry or mass concrete, reinforced concrete has several
advantages, notably a more slender stem presenting less interference to flow and hence
causing less induced scour. Superstructure spans are sometimes designed to be simply
supported at the abutments and at the piers. Each span should have one fixed and one free
end. It is usual practice, though not essential, to provide one fixed bearing and one free
bearing on the bearing shelf of each pier. Pier foundations are even more susceptible to
damage by erosion than abutment foundations. They must be constructed on soils of well
established allowable bearing pressure
2.4.7 Determination of allowable bearing pressure,
a) Non cohesive soils
The allowable bearing pressure under foundation in non cohesive soils is governed by the
permissible settlement of the structure due to consolidation of the soils under the applied
loading.
If standard penetration tests have been performed in bore holes, the values of N can be used
to obtain allowable bearing pressure for various foundation dimensions.

The allowable bearing pressure is that which causes 25mm of settlement under the given
breadth of foundation front to back, Br i.e. measured perpendicular to water flow direction on
B B
the assumption that the water table always remains at the depth of at least Br below the B B
foundation level. If the water table can be higher than this, then the allowable pressure is
halved. At a shallow depth, the test seriously under-estimates the relative densities of
cohesionless soils thus the engineer may need to correct the standard penetration values
measured in boreholes before applying the relationships
To allow for this, a correction factor should be applied to the measured values
Where the N values of a fine or silty sand below the water table is greater than 15, the
density of the soil should be assumed to be equal to that of sand having the N value of
15 + 1 ( N − 15)
2
Very loose uniformly graded sands with N equal to 5 or less and subject to rapid changes of
water level are liable to suffer large settlements under load. In these circumstances, either the
sand should be dug out and thoroughly re-compacted or the foundation should be supported
on piles.
b) Cohesive soils
Most cohesive soils at the foundation level are saturated and have an angle of shearing
resistance equal to zero. Provided that no water is expelled from the soil as the load is
applied. This is accepted as the basis for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of
foundations where the load is applied relatively quickly.
The ultimate bearing capacity of cohesive soils can be calculated from the following
formula.
Ultimate bearing capacity, qf = CuNe = P

B B B B B B
Where

Cu = untrained shear strength (kN/m2) P P
Ne = bearing capacity factor

B B
P = total overburden pressure at foundation level kN/m2 P P
= γD
Where
γ = density of soil above foundation level kN/m3 P P
D = depth of foundation level below ground surface.
Values of the bearing capacity factor Nc for square or circular foundations can be read from
B B
the graph in Figure 8.6 ORN9
For rectangular foundations
⎡ B ⎤
Nc(rectangular) = ⎢0.84 + 0.16 r ⎥ N c
⎣ L⎦
B B B B
Where
Br = breadth of the foundation front to back

B B
L = length of the foundation
The undrained shear strength Cu of soft clays can be measured by means of field vane tests
B B
but the results need to be corrected because the soil is sheared in the horizontal direction.
The value of Cu to be used in the bearing capacity formula is the vane shear strength
B B
multiplied by the correction factor read from the graph in figure 8.7 ORN 9. This factor is
dependent on the plasticity index of the soil.

The allowable bearing pressure is one third of the calculated ultimate bearing capacity.
c) Presumed values
Sometimes at the preliminary stage of design there may be no measured values of soil
density or field strengths available. For purposes of estimation, Table 2.2 below lists
approximate values of allowable bearing pressures for different soil types.

Table 2. Presumed Bearing Capacities
(a) Foundations beadng on ROCK, width not exceeding

3m and the length not more than 10 times width.
Presumed
Description of rock bearing
valuekN/mz P P
Massive strong igneous and

metamorphic rocks and limestones 10,000
Unweathered medium to fine grained
sandstones
4,000
Schists and slates 3,000
Hard shales, mudstones and soft
sandstones
1,500
Soft limestones 600
(b) Foundations in non cohesive soils at a minimum

depth of 1m below ground level
Presumed bearing
value,kN/mz
Description of soil
P P
Foundation width
1m 2m 3m
Very dense sands and gravels 600 500 400
Dense sands and gravels 500 400 300
Medium dense sands and gravels 250 200 150
Loose sands and gravels 100 75 75
(c) Foundations in cohesive soils at a minimum depth of

1m below ground level
Presumed bearing
value,kN/mz
Description of soil
P P
Foundation width
1m 2m 3m
Hard boulder clays, hard fissured
clays, weathered shales and 800 600 400
weathered mudstones
Very stiff boulder clays, very stiff
marls
600 400 200
stiff boulder clays, stiff fissured clays
and stiff marls
300 200 100
Firm clays 150 100 75
Soft alluvial clays 75 35 0
Source: Table 8.1 ORN 9


2.4.8. Foundations on Rock
The foundation designs presented in the preceding sections are for soils readily excavated by
hand or mechanical digger. Modifications may be required to suit individual site conditions,
particularly when bedrock is encountered. Where foundations are set on rock at ground level
or on the river bed, substantial keying will be necessary in the form of steel dowels and
notching.
2.4.9. Run-on Slabs
Almost all earth embankments are subject to settlement. The amount they settle will depend
on the height, the degree of compaction of the material and the strength of the sub-grade.
Relatively uniform settlement can be expected from most embankments until a cause of
uneven compaction is met, such as a bridge or a box culvert with little fill above it. It is
difficult to compact fully the embankment material close to the bridge abutments or the
culvert walls, and the result of poor compaction is more pronounced settlement. The
resulting longitudinal profile is uncomfortable for road users and causes impact loads on the
structure, owing to vehicle bounce. These local depressions in the carriageway close to
drainage structures may be bridged using run-on slabs. They are more easily constructed at
the same time as the structure, rather than afterwards as a remedial measure, and they span
the fill material susceptible to settlement. One end of the slab rests on a small shelf cast onto
the culvert wall or on the abutment ballast wall, while the other rests on well compacted
material several meters away.
Run-on slabs are usually between 3 and 6 meters long. The concrete and reinforcement
details may be abstracted from the culvert detailing, assuming that the slab is resting on good
support for one third of its length, i.e. a 6m slab will have similar details to a 4m wide
culvert lid. Run-on slabs are usually made wide enough to support the kerbs on the approach
roads.
Run-on slabs should not be required where efficient maintenance facilities are readily
available (Hambley 1979).

2.5 Superstructure
2.5.1 Steel/concrete Composite Superstructures
Because they are easy to erect, more durable if well maintained and are light in weight, steel
beams with concrete decking are often a good solution for structures intended to have a long
service life. Through regular maintenance painting can prevent deterioration of the beam
webs and bottom flanges. Where structures are intended to be permanent, the durability of
the steel over a service life of 50 years or more can be achieved more readily by the use of a
cast in situ concrete deck slab (ORN 9). Composite action of the slab and beams is secured
by the use of shear connectors welded to the top flanges of the beams and cast into the
concrete. As an alternative to the solid concrete slab decks almost any bridge can be
constructed of steel universal beams (UB) with a composite concrete deck slab. The main
beams and cross members can be of standard rolled carbon steel sections (yield stress
274N/mm2), with deck slab reinforcement in either mild steel (MS) or high yield steel
P P
(HYS).
However, Steel/concrete composite deck structures have the following advantages:
• The deck self weight can be less than that of an equivalent all-concrete structure
• The off-site prefabrication of the main load carrying elements of the bridge greatly
reduces the work necessary on site, resulting in more rapid construction.
• No temporary supports are required during construction of the deck slab, since the
soffit shuttering can be supported directly from the steel beams. This can be a
particular advantage at sites with poor ground conditions, steeply sloping terrain, or
with a fast stream.
• Steel is a more reliable material which is supplied with guaranteed strength
properties, enabling the production of high and consistently reliable structure.

2.5.2. Reinforced Concrete Bridges
Reinforced concrete is particularly adoptable for use in highway bridges because of its
durability, rigidity, and economy as well as comparative ease with which a pleasing
architectural appearance can be secured. Winter (1972)
For very short spans of about 10ft (3m) to 25ft (7.5m), one way slab bridges are economical.
For somewhat longer spans, concrete girder spans may be used. Most highway spans of
medium length, from 40ft. (12m) to 90 ft. (27m), presently use steel- concrete construction
or composite pre-stressed concrete. In composite construction with structural steel, the
concrete deck is made to act integrally with supporting steel stringers by means of shear
connectors, welded to the top of thee flange of the steel section and embedded in the slab.
2.5.3 Design Standards
Among many, the design of any bridge and/or its superstructure can be in accordance with
B88110 structural use of concrete, BS 5950 structural use of steel. BSI (1979) for HA
loading and AASHTO (1985) for HS20-44 loading, Uganda Bridge Design Manual, and
Uganda Drainage Design manual
2.6 Design Detailing
2.6.1 Vertical Profile over the Bridge
The bridge should preferably be constructed either to a level profile or to a constant

longitudinal grade, if this is required by the road alignment. The steel beams can be
cambered to give some degree of hogging vertical curvature should the equipment be
available, but it may not be economical in most circumstances.
2.6.2 Shear Connectors
In order to provide more restraints to the steel beams and help attach firmly, the deck to the
tensile stress carrying steel beams, connectors are provided. These connectors are the only
links between the concrete slab, acting in compression and bending when under load, and the
steel beams, acting in tension and bending. The largest shear forces act at each end of the

deck, where the shear connectors are spaced closer together. Welded channel shear
connectors are specified, since they can be produced from readily available material and
fixed locally. The joints, however, should be of good quality welding and be protected from
corrosion both in storage and in use.
2.6.3 Protective Treatment to Steelwork
The degree of protection which the steelwork will require depends on the local environment.
However Particular care should be provided for structures in coastal locations or where there
is significant atmospheric pollution. Types of paint used and surface preparation methods
depends on the availability of materials and equipment. The designer should try to achieve
the following standard in order to ensure a reasonable life to first maintenance:
• Grit blasting to remove mill scale, loose rust, welding scale etc., and produce a clean
surface for any coat of painting especially prime;
• Application of a multi-coat paint system to a total dry film thickness of 0.25mm.
At least one paint coat should be applied at site after completion of construction, so that
damage to paintwork incurred during transport, steel erection and concreting can be repaired.
2.6.4 Bolts and nuts
Ordinary bolts, grade 8.8 to ISO (1982) together with grade 8 nuts, are specified for fixing
cross members. Alternatives should match the tensile strength of 80 kg/mm2 with a P P
minimum elongation at fracture of 2%.
2.6.5 Bearings
Elastomeric bearings, are specified because they are durable, inexpensive and simple to
install. These bearings consist of discrete strips of black natural rubber, extending over the
full width of the slab soffit at the support point, with a maximum width of approximately
300mm and a maximum thickness of approximately 25mm. At the free end of the span, the
bridge deck locates by friction between the rubber strip and the concrete deck, with no

positive mechanical means to develop resistance against transverse loadings. At the fixed
end, dowel bars passing through the pad at frequent intervals provide the necessary restraint,
both longitudinally and transversely. To allow rotations to occur and the deck to expand
laterally, the dowel bars are usually fitted with rubber caps where they pass into the concrete
deck slab.
2.6.6 Expansion joints
At these relatively short deck lengths, joint movements due to temperature and live loading
are small and are readily accommodated by a simple gap joint, The joints are sealed by a
polysulphide sealant to prevent water penetration. An alternative unsealed joint, more
suitable for bridges on gravel roads, may be provided.
2.6.7 Construction joints
It is always best if the deck slab can be cast in one continuous pour. If this will not be
practicable, permissible locations for construction joints should be marked on the drawings.
If a joint is unavoidable, it should be perpendicular to the centre line at a location least likely
to promote corrosion in underlying steelwork.
2.6.8 Slab Reinforcement
According to Overseas Road Note 29 Section 9.2.5, the maximum length of reinforcing bar
generally available is 12m. Where a longer bar is required, e.g. for a 12m span bridge, two
bars must be lapped. The lap length should be at least 40 times the diameter of the lapped
bars and laps should be staggered both to avoid a line of weakness and to minimize
congestion of reinforcement. Main bars are positioned with the hooks at alternate ends.
Accurate positioning of the reinforcement is essential in order to maintain the minimum

cover of 50mm of well compacted concrete, so that moisture and pollutants cannot penetrate
the slab to reach the reinforcing bar and corrode it.

2.6.9 Drainage
Drainage should be provided if required, generally as detailed for concrete slab bridges down
pipes must be of sufficient length to ensure that run-off water is discharged at least 150mm
clear below the beam lower flanges.
2.6.10 Parapets, Surfacing and Services
Parapet and surfacing details are the same as for concrete slab bridges. If ducts for services
are required, they can be provided
2.5.11 Provision for Pedestrians and Cyclists
The recommendations set out on pathways for pedestrians and cyclists on concrete decks
apply equally to composite decks. The addition of a 2m wide walkway to a composite deck
of the type detailed here would also require one more ''I'' beam to match those for the road
bridge.
2.7 River Hydraulics and Hydraulic Design
2.7.1 River Hydraulics
In order to secure safety from the effects of flowing water, the engineer has to ensure that the
flowing water under the bridge can pass the structure without causing damage to its parts, the
road embankment or the surrounding land. This topic thus explains how the parameters for
safe hydraulic design can be obtained. Damage can occur in a number of ways, namely:
• The river may react against obstructions such as piers and abutments, and scour
beneath them causing failure.
• The approach embankments may act as a dam during high floods, sustaining damage
or causing more extensive flooding upstream.
• A river flowing on a shifting path may bypass a bridge and cut a new channel across
the highway
• A river may over-top a bridge if sufficient clearance is not provided.

The hydraulic characteristics of the river must be well understood and quantified so as to be
able to design a structure that avoids the above problems and unnecessary costs. The most
economical structure is usually one which is just wide and high enough to accommodate the
design flood, minimizing the total cost of abutments, piers, superstructure, approach
embankments, relief culverts and river training works.
The hydraulic data required for the design process detailed in the following sections relate to:
• Design flood level DFL, flow volume and velocity.

• Maximum flood level, flow volume and velocity.
• Bed characteristics - particle size, vegetation.
• Channel shape and flood plain width.
• Sedimentation and meander characteristics.
• Navigational requirements and clearance of floating debris.
Using the above data, determine by calculations the:-
• Geometry of waterway required at the bridge site.

• Backwater caused by the restriction of flow due to piers and abutments. (Scour
caused by the restriction.
• River training works required.
Calculating velocity using Manning's formula to estimate mean velocity
2
1 ⎡ A⎤ 3 1
V= ⎢ ⎥ S 2
n ⎣P⎦
Where
V = velocity (m/sec)
A = Area of cross section of the flooded channel (m2) P P
P = length of the wetted bed across the channel

S = gradient of the surface or bed slope
n = value of rugosity coefficient taken from the table 4.1 (ORN 9)
There are many methods of obtaining flow volume but only two are discussed here.
(i). The Area velocity method
Q = A.V
Where
Q = volume of flow (m3/sec)

P P
A = cross sectional area (m2) P P
V = mean velocity of the water (m/sec)
Area velocity method is necessary where the river tops its banks during flood.
(ii). The Rational Formula
CIA 3
Q= (m / s )
3 .6
Where
Q = volume of flow (m3/sec) P P
C = Catchment coefficient
I = Rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
A = Area of the watershed/ catchment.

In design of any bridge structure, much as excessive rainfall is unpredictable, it should be

carefully designed for. Meteorological data should be used carefully to narrow or remove the
range of uncertainty in river hydrology.
Every designer needs to select a Design Flood Level (DFL), a design discharge or flow
volume and a design velocity, on which to base calculations of waterway geometry,
foundation depths, scour protection and vertical clearance.
The design flood is the maximum flow that can pass through the bridge without:-
• Unacceptable disruptions to traffic.

• Endangering the pier and abutment foundations with respect to scour
• Damaging approach embankments
• Causing flood damage on the upstream side of embankment.
It should however be noted that the design flood is not necessarily the highest flood. The
highest flood is a rarely occurring flow that it's uneconomical to include in the design flood
but which may be considered when designing superstructure and piers of the bridge.
Where the river is narrow enough, it can be bridged with a single span. The abutments are
built clear of the level of the design flood and hence there is no restriction to river flow i.e.
no river training, no backwater or additional scour is expected as a result of the bridge
presence. For a wide flood channel, the superstructure is longer and will be very expensive if
piers are not used. Both pier and abutment foundations are below DFL and thus require
protection from scour.
The abutment walls and piers will sabotage the design flood. This restriction causes
backwater and additional scour of bed which must be considered while designing the
foundation.
(i) The Hydraulic Design Process.
The steps involved in the design process include:-
1. Establish the height of the infrastructure i.e. clearance above the DFL

2. Establish trial positions for the abutments according to the bed shape at the proposed
crossing.
3. Make a provisional decision concerning the number of piers that will result in the
lowest overall cost of the superstructure, piers and abutments.
4. Calculate the general and local scours due to the abutments and piers and draw the
worst case profiles in the cross sections.
5. Check that the backwater caused by the restriction to flow doesn't cause damage to
surrounding land upstream of the bridge or affect the height set for the superstructure.
6. Prepare preliminary designs of abutments and piers.
7. Check scour and backwater effects and make adjustments as required, reclaiming the
effects of any changes to the waterway.
8. Calculate the cost of the superstructure once its length is decided and the cost of the
substructures, embankments, river training works and relief culverts.
9. In order to obtain the most economical design, or to compare the cost of the structure
s catering for the different design floods, it may be necessary to repeat the above
procedure on the basis of alternative waterway conditions.
(ii) Bridge Height.
The waterway below the superstructure must be designed to pass the design flood and the
floating debris carried on it Table 5.1 below shows recommended vertical clearance at DFL
minimum measurements for a vertical clearance between the lowest part of the
superstructure and the DFL, taking in to account backwater effects. This clearance should be
increased on rivers with a history of unusually large floating items or navigational
requirement

Discharge Vertical clearance
(m3/sec)
P P (mm)
<0.3 150
0.3 - 3.0 450
3.0 - 30.0 600
30 - 300 900
>300 1200
(iii) Positioning of Abutment
Choose a position bearing in mind the guidelines at the beginning of hydraulic design then
check for scour using flow charts and spacing of abutments and piers.
(iv). Scour
Scour is the erosive effect of water flow on the river bed or banks. Bridge works may alter
the existing scour pattern by restricting the free flow of the stream and/or causing local
changes to the current. Approximately half of all river bridge failures are due to scour alone
(ORN 9)
However, there are four types of scour and they include:
• natural scour and channel shifting on alluvial rivers

• scour caused by changes to the river upstream or downstream of the bridge site·
• General" scour caused by reduction in the channel width at the bridge works .
• "Local" scour at the base of piers, abutments and river training works where these
divert the general flow.
At the bridge site provide estimates for general and local scour.

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
A bridge just like any other structure must be designed to resist all loads and forces that may
reasonably be exerted on it during its design life. The methodology used here was meant to
address and aim at achieving the objectives outlined in section 1.4 above in a way that will
appropriately solve the identified problem. And consider the design to take into account the
cost implications and environment impact of the bridge structure. In this chapter, procedures
to obtain which parameters are likely to occur and the magnitudes and combination of loads
that produce maximum stress are listed.
This project started by data collection through site visits, observations, physical
measurements and interviewing local community, visiting and interactions with offices of
the various authorities concerned with bridge development in Uganda to acquire adequate
data and information on the history of the bridge. All these data was compiled and used in
design. In brief, the general procedures were as follows;
3.1 Data collection
This focused on;
• Establishing the history of the bridge.

• Establishing the soil condition of the site.
• Establishing the catchment area of the bridge.
• Establishing the nature of the rainfall pattern of the area.
• Establishing the nature of flow of the river.
• Obtaining the maximum discharge of the river through the bridge.
• Establishing the highest flood level attained so far.
3.2 Physical measurements

Measurement of the bridge width, (length of waterway) L=13. 74m
Measurement of unrestricted width of the river, W = 20m
Slope was determined by carrying out alignment survey along the center of the river and
determining the river pattern from which the slope S0 was got. (See appendix, Table 5.1)
B B
The wetted perimeter, P and cross sectional area for maximum flow of the river was got by
carrying out measurements at a section across the water way. The level of the water mark of
the most recent highest flood (2007) was aligned with a string line; depths of the bed were
measured at 2m intervals. The profile was then plotted accurately using AutoCAD
application software, by which the area and perimeter of flow were obtained. Wetted
perimeter, P, was then determined. The cross sectional area was also calculated. (See
appendix; Table …. and Figure ….)
3.3 Bridge Site observation
The following was done:-
Geotechnical investigation; a simplified investigation was done comprising of:
• Visual inspection
• Trial pit excavation
• Soil lab testing
Geological/topographical information:
These were obtained from the World Wide Web, existing data from ArcGIS and Department
of Lands and Survey.
3.3.1 Trial pit excavation
This was done to obtain the information on the bridge soil foundations and allow visual
examination of the soil profile. Two (2) pits were excavated each to a depth of 6.45meters.

3.3.2 Sampling
Disturbed samples were collected. Each sample weighed 2kg was taken at intervals of
500mm
3.3.3 Soil Testing
The samples from the trial pits were tested using procedures provided in the British Standard
(BS) code 1377:1975 and in so doing, the following tests were carried out to classify the soil
and evaluate its load bearing capacity:
• Soil moisture content test.

• Sieve analysis (Gradation test)
• Plastic limit test
• Liquid limit test
See Appendix; Tables … to Table ……
3.4. Velocity
According to Road Design and Drainage Manual, Chapter 3, Hydrology and Design
Criteria (2003), the velocity of flow (whether in a watercourse or overland) is one of the
most important criteria dictating the performance of a drainage system, the potential for
erosion and the subsequent implications for design.
The presence of high velocities can result in a number of problems, such as erosion or scour,
undermining of a structure, or high afflux. Similarly, in areas where fish passage occurs,
high velocities may inhibit or prevent passage from occurring. In each of these situations,
the designer has a responsibility to limit velocities to manageable magnitudes (preferably
below 2 m/s).
However, where high velocities are a natural occurrence, or result from the need to confine
flows, then it may be necessary to protect a waterway from the impacts of the high
velocities.
Velocity criteria may be specified in terms of the average velocity at a location (for a
nominated design event), or in terms of the maximum velocity at locations of interest, such

as the bed of a watercourse.

Velocity criteria will typically fit into one of the following three classifications:
1. Existing;
2. Desirable maximum; and
3. Maximum permissible.
3.4.1 Existing Conditions

The existing velocity regime may be considered acceptable in those circumstances where
minimal changes to a watercourse are proposed, and that watercourse is currently stable.
However, care must be taken to ensure that where the bed or banks of a watercourse are
disturbed, that appropriate restoration occurs. Failure to meet this requirement will usually
result in erosion, and possible failure of drainage infrastructure.
3.4.2 Desirable Velocity

Where works in a watercourse are required, the desirable maximum velocity will typically
be dictated by the types of soil and vegetation present. The value chosen applies to peak
velocities, but should also be linked to an understanding of the duration of flow. For short
duration events, a higher velocity may be tolerated than for long duration events.
Table below provides a summary of typical maximum velocity criteria for different
conditions.
Where the desirable maximum velocity cannot be achieved (i.e. where it is exceeded), then
the designer will need to look at the selection of appropriate linings which can withstand the
estimated peak velocities predicted to occur
3.4.3 Maximum Permissible Velocity

In some circumstances, it will not be possible to offer bed or bank protection in order to
cater for a velocity higher than the desired maximum. For example, where fish passage is a
requirement, there may be specific velocity criteria that apply to normal and/or low flow.
These will typically be determined through the REF/lAS process and use of a fish specialist.
In these situations, the specified velocity criteria must be satisfied, and hence design of the
cross drainage system will not be modified accordingly.

Table….
Source: Table 3.4 Maximum permissible velocities (m/s) for earth channels [SCS 1982]
3.5 Interviews:
A lot of information was missing from the Ministry of Works and Transport both nationally
and regionally, the same applies to Local Government, leave alone the local and national
meteorological departments. The only option was to interview elders within the locality of
Kaabong and Kapedo of any relevant information about the bridge; like the highest flood
levels ever experienced among others.
3.6 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
An EIA was not carried out to obtain the effects of redesigning the bridge on the
environment. Any short coming was to be mitigated.
The villagers were briefly interviewed and it was found that everyone believes a good bridge
will make their lives easier. Some few villagers interviewed however, believe that the current
bridge pose a very big threat to the lives of their children, elderly, women, drunkards and
their animals.

Chapter 4
4.0. Design and Analysis
Using British Standard design procedures, American Association of States and Highway
Officials (AASHTO), Uganda Bridge Design manual, Uganda Drainage Design Manual,
Uganda National Standards for Highway and Bridges, Overseas Road Note 9; Design of
Small Bridges and other relevant sources of reference, a systematic design of the bridge was
done and at the end accurate drawings and specification produced.

Reference Calculations Output

DETERMINATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION
U
Longest Flow Path, L

Two options were used:
Plate 1 1. Physical Measurement from the Map
2. Digitizing from a map using ArcGIS software
Physical measurement:
Scaling using a thread the longest flow path was 3.3 km
Using ArcGIS Software,

The longest flow path was 3.714 km
Adopt 3.714 km 3.714 km.
Height difference, H:
Two options were used:
1. Physical Measurement from the Map
Estimated from contour differences as:
1750 − 1450 = 300m
Highest level = 1776 m ASL
Lowest level = 1456 m ASL
H = 1776 − 1456 = 320m
Adopt H = 320 m H = 320 m
Time of Concentration:
U.S Bureau of Using Kirpich’s Model
Reclamation 0.385
⎡ 0.87 L3 ⎤
Tc = 60 ⎢ ⎥ (min s )
⎣ H ⎦
0.385
⎡ 0.87 × 3.714 3 ⎤
Tc = 60 ⎢ ⎥ = 28.1 min s Tc =28.1 min
⎣ 320 ⎦
B B


DETERMINATION OF RAINFALL INTENSITY
U
Figure 1 Using Intesity – Duration – Frequency Diagram:

Appendix 1
Return Period:
For minor bridges, the return period is 20 years Return period
SABA of 20 years
Consultants
(2003)
For Duration = 28.1 min (I FD Curve)
Rainfall intensity =91.6mm I = 92 mm/hr

.


DETERMINATION OF CATCHMENT AREA
U
2 methods used:
1. Physical Measurement from the Map
Plate 1 The catchment area was determined by drawing lines
along the topographical water divide (topographical
peaks and ridges) on the map and estimating the area
bound by the line by give and take method. The area was
estimated to be 5.5 sq. km .
The area was marked out on an electronic map, digitized
and found to be 4.44 sq km
From the Geomorphologic Map:
U
Figure 2 Area under rock was found to be 0.62 sq km

Appendix 1 Area under cultivable land was 3.82 sq km
Adopting the greater value, Catchment area, A = 5.5 km2 P P
A = 5.5 km2 P P
0.62 Ar =0.768 km2

Area under rock, Ar = 5.5 × = 0.768km 2
B B P P
4.44
B B
3.83 Ac =4.732km2
Area of cultivable Land, Ac = 5.5 × = 4.732 km 2 B B P
4.44
B B
Total catchment area < 25km2 therefore the Rational

SABA
P P
Method is Applicable
Consultants
(2003)


ESTIMATION OF PEAK FLOW, Q
U
Uganda Evaluation of Rational Coefficient, C:

Drainage Here 2 kinds of surfaces are involved in which case:
Design Manual
C r = run off coefficient for rocky area and
Section 4
C c = run off coefficient for cultivable land
But C r = C s1 + C k1 + C v1
And C c = C s 2 + C k 2 + C v 2
Table 1 (based on Table 4.7 b UDDM)
Table 4.7 b
Rocky Areas, C r = C s1 + C k1 + C v1
UDDM .
Factor Component MAP 300 -
600mm
Cs1
B B Average slope of >35% very 0.22
hillside in catchment steep
Ck1
B B Permeability of the Impermeable 0.21
soil
Cv1
B B Vegetation Bare rock 0.26
C r = 0.22 + 0.21 + 0.26 = 0.69

Table 2 (based on Table 4.7 b UDDM)
Cultivated Areas, C c = C s 2 + C k 2 + C v 2
Factor Component MAP 300-

600 mm
Cr = 0.69
B B
Cs2
B B Average slope of Soft to 0.06
hillside in catchment moderate
Ck2
B B Permeability of the Permeable 0.06
soil
Cv2
B B Vegetation Grassland 0.17
C c = 0.06 + 0.06 + 0.17 = 0.29
Cc = 0.29
B B


Uganda Using Equation 4.6
Drainage Weighted Catchment Coefficient Cw is given by:
B B
Design C r Ar + C c Ac 0.69 × 0.768 + 0.29 × 4.732

Cw = = = 0.346
Manual Ar + Ac 5.5 Cw = 0.346
B B
Peak Flow:
C∗I ∗A 3
Peak Flow, Q= (m / s)
3 .6
0.346 × 92 × 5.5 Q = 48.63m3/s
Q= = 48.63m 3 / s
3 .6 .
The river in question is an intermittent river that has no
dry weather flow (DWF), the peak flow is contributed
only by run off.
ESTIMATION OF AREA OF FLOW:

U
This was done using the Competent velocity method to

5.4.1.2 ORN 9 minimize general scour.
Depth of flow upstream = 2.43m (observed from silt
marks on the trees and rocks.
(2.43 − 1.5)
Vc = 0.6 + (0.65 − 0.6) = 0.631m / s Vc =0.63m/s
B B
Table 5.2 (3.0 − 1.5)

ORN 9
Q
From A = ,
Vc
Area A, of flow that would minimize general scour is
given by:
48.63
A= = 77.2m 2
0.63


FLOW AREA FROM MANNING’S EQUATION.
2 1
A
Q = R 3 * S o2
n
From the river section profile taken at 15m upstream of the
water crossing, the area of section was calculated as in Table 1,
Appendix 1 A=52.7m2
Figure 3, The same data was used to plot the profile in AutoCAD, from
Appendix 1 which the area of section and the perimeter of flow were
estimated. A=
Area by AutoCAD was 52.7005m2 52.7m2
Perimeter = 53.187 m (by AutoCAD)
Wetted Perimeter = Perimeter – surface width
= 53.187 − 25.7 = 27.487m P
Hydraulic radius: =27.487m
A 52.7
R= = = 1.917 m
P 27.487
Velocity from Channel Characteristics,
Appendix… using Manning’s Formula

1 2
v= (1.917) 3 ∗ 0.013 0.5 = 5.865m / s
0.030
So =0.013
B B
Peak Discharge:
v
From Q = Av = 52.7 × 5.865 = 309.09m 3 / s =5.868m/s
RDDM Design Velocity can be:
June 2003 • Maximum permissible velocity

Ch. 3 • Existing velocity Q
Cl.3.4.2.2 • Desirable velocity =310m3/s
Table3.4 Moderate erodibility condition on bare soil,
(SCS, 1982) maximum permissible velocity 0.6m/s
From Desired velocity of say, 5.8 m/s (less than existing)
judgement was chosen.


FLOW AREA FROM MANNING’S EQUATION.
Table 4.1 Taking a desired velocity of 5.8 m/s and lining the channel with n = 0.025
ORN 9 gabions and Reno mattresses to minimize scour
Area of flow at the bridge, A:
Q 310
A= = = 53.45m 2
V 5 .8
From Manning’s:
0.6667
1 ⎡ 53.45 ⎤
5 .8 = × 0.013 0.5
0.025 ⎢⎣ P ⎥⎦
3
⎡ 53.45 0.6667 × 0.013 0.5 ⎤ 2
From which, P=⎢ ⎥ = 37.28m
⎣ 0.025 × 5.8 ⎦
P = 2d + b = 37.28......................(i )
53.45
A = bd ⇒ b = ...................(ii )
d
(ii ) int o(i ) :
2d 2 − 37.28d + 53.45 = 0
d1 = 1.565 ≈ 1.6m
Adopt
d 2 = 17.07 m
d =1.6m
P = 37.28 = (2 × 1.6) + b
b = 34.5
⇒ b = 34.1m
m
Take b =34.5m

BRIDGE SPANS:
Dividing the water way into three equal widths, each
water way would be:
34.5
l= = 11.5m
3
BRIDGE HEIGHT:
Depth of flow = 1.6m
Back water effect (afflux):

Due to the effect of the piers water will tend to rise above
the design depth, by a height, hBW B B
Eq.5.2 v 2 ⎡ w2 ⎤
hWB = ⎢ 2 2 + 1⎥
ORN 9 2g ⎣ c L ⎦
Assuming Bell mouthed Entry c = 0.9
5.8 2 ⎡ 25.7 2 ⎤
hWB = ⎢ 2 + 1⎥ = 0.303m < 0.5m, (ok)
2 × 9.81 ⎣ 0.9 × 34.5 2
⎦
Water depth = 1.6 + 0.303 = 1.903m
v 5.8
Fr = = = 1.342 > 1
gd 9.81 × 1.903
Flow is turbulent and would lead to scour, otherwise the

channel will be lined with gabions and Reno mattresses
to abate the scouring action.
Minimum Height of soffit above proposed bed level, H

Prvide a freeboard for passage of debri = 0.9m H =3.0 m
(Qp from 30 – 300 m3/ s)

B B P P
H = 1.6 + 0.9 + 0.303 = 2.803m


Abutments and Piers:
Cl. 8.4.3 Reinforced concrete abutments and piers were used as
ORN 9, they are a more economical option, lighter in weight and
Garg (2005) offer less obstruction to flow of water as they are often
thin.
For small bridges (span not exceeding 12m):
ORN 9 Standard width of abutments = 1,200mm
Standard width of piers = 800 mm
(1.2 − 0.45) 0.8

Extreme Spans = 11.5 + + = 12.275m
2 2
⎛ 0 .8 ⎞ Span =
Middle span = 11.5 + 2⎜ ⎟ = 12.30m
⎝ 2 ⎠ 12.3m
Sketch of Bridge showing the spans:
The type of deck adopted was composite Steel Concret

construction


Section showing the lane arrangements:
DECK ANALYSIS AND DESIGN:

U U
Type HA Loading:
BS 5400 Carriageway = 7.2m wide
Cl. 6.2 Deck Span =12.3m (c/c of bearings for simply
Uganda Bridge
supported spans).
Design Manual
Design for a metre width of deck

No. of notional lanes = 2
Cl.3.2.9.3.1
7 .2
Notional lane width = = 3 .6 m
2
Nominal Uniformly Distributed Load:
Loaded length, L =12.3m < 30m
Cl. 6.2.1
BS 5400 Pt 2
W = 30 kN/m
W = 30 kN per linear metre of notional lane
(UBDM
Cl. 6.2.1) Adopt 30 kN/m
KEL =
Nominal Knife edge Load (KEL): 120kN
Cl. 6.2.2 KEL = 120 kN per notional lane.


HA LOADING:
UDL per meter width across the lane (Figure …):
30
= = 8.33kN / m
3.6
KEL (taken as uniformly distributed across the lane)
per meter width across lane:
120
= = 33.33kN / m
3 .6
Total HA loading = 8.33 + 33.33 = 41.66kN / m
QkB B
=42kN/m
Dead loading on slab:
Assume: 200mm thick slab
100mm thick surfacing
Unit weight of concrete = 24 kN/m3 P P
Unit weight of surfacing = 24 kN/m3 P P
Slab = 0.2 × 1 × 24 = 4.8kN / m

Surfacing = 0.1 × 1 × 24 = 2.4kN / m
Total dead Loading = 4.8 + 2.4 = 7.2kN / m GkB B
=7.2kN/m
Ultimate load on Slab due to HA only:
Reynolds and Partial safety factor for HA loading = 1.5
Steedman But taking 1.6 is safer.
(1988) Design Ultimate load, w = (1.4Gk + 1.6Qk )

w = (1.4 × 7.2 + 1.6 × 42) = 77.28kN / m

HB LOADING:
Taking 30 units of type HB loading per axle (one unit is
10 kN and each wheel is 2.5 units), the load arrangement
is as in the figure below:
Taking the wheel separation of 6m gives the most

onerous condition.
Analysis of the slab behavior under/ reaction to various
loading cases for both type HB loading and HA (udl +
kel) was carried out using Prokon Application software.
Appendix 2 shows the data from which Table 3. was
extracted.
Table 3. Summary of Maximum Stresses due to Loading Cases
MAXIMUM STRESS IN SLAB
LOADING
Moment (kNm) Shear (kN) Deflection (mm)

CASE
+ve -ve +ve -ve +ve -ve

1 29.16 38.17 126.44 153.64
2 40.70 34.34 157.94 157.94
3 35.54 34.78 151.75 151.75
4 37.20 38.16 126.70 153.41

Mu =40 kNm
B B
5 40.45 34.78 130.99 152.91

V = 140 kN
6 18.99 20.17 74.55 74.34
7 19.90 18.36 72.96 74.34
8 32.51 39.33
U U 139.46
U U 139.46
U U


Cases 1-5 should be disallowed on this bridge
Design R.C Deck Slab:
The deck is designed as a reinforced concrete slab and
was idealized into 1 meter strip widths spanning 1.8
meters.
BS 8110: Pt .1 Condition of Exposure: severe
(1997) Tables Nominal Concrete cover for durability; 50mm
3.1 and 3.3
Compressive strength of concrete, f cu = 40 N / mm 2
Reinforcement steel strengths, f y = 460 N / mm 2
And f y = 250 N / mm 2
Bar diameter =16mm, 20mm, 25mm
BS 8110: Pt 1 Basic span / effective depth ratio = 26

(1997), 1800
Minimum effective depth = = 69.23 ≈ 70mm
26
Table 3.9
φ
Minimum thickness, h = d + cov er +
2
16
= 70 + 50 + = 128mm
2
Take h = 250mm (as thickness of 150mm failed in shear
h =250mm
when checked).
Design Ultimate Moment = 40kNm

φ
d = h − cov er −
Effective depth, 2
16 d=192mm
d = 250 − 50 − = 192mm
2

M 40 × 10 6 Mu =40 kNm
k= = = 0.027 < 0.156
B B
f cu bd 2 1000 × 192 2 × 40 V = 140 kN
No compression reinforcement required.
⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ 2⎤
1
Lever arm, z = d ⎢0.5 + ⎜ 0.25 − ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ 0.9 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
⎡ ⎛ 0.027 ⎞ 2 ⎤
1
z = d ⎢0.5 + ⎜ 0.25 − ⎟ ⎥ = 0.969d > 0.95d ,

⎢⎣ ⎝ 0.9 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
Take z = 0.95 × 192 = 182.4mm z = 182.4mm
Area of Steel Required:

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

Asmin = = = 600mm 2 / m
100 100
(1997)
As prov > Asmin (OK)
Provide the Minimum steel area as distribution bars

Provide R10@125 mm c/c

Crack Control:
cl. 3.12.11.2.7 Spacing = 150mm < 3d = 3 × 192 = 576mm (OK)
BS8110: Pt. 1 Cracking will not occur
Shear Resistance:
Maximum Applied Shear, V = 140kN
Applied Shear Stress, v
V 140 × 10 3
v= = = 0.729 N / mm 2 < 5 N / mm 2 (OK)
Cl.3.4.5 & bv d 1000 × 192
Table 3.8 of Design Concrete Shear, vc: B B
BS8110: Pt. 1 1 1 1
⎛ 100 As prov ⎞ 3 ⎛ 400 ⎞ 4 ⎛ f cu ⎞ 3 ⎛ 1 ⎞
v c = 0.79⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
(1997) ⎜ bd ⎟ ⎝ d ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 25 ⎟⎠
⎝ v ⎠ ⎝γm ⎠
1 1 1
⎛ 100 × 1340 ⎞ 3 ⎛ 400 ⎞ 4 ⎛ 40 ⎞ 3 ⎛ 1 ⎞
vc = 0.79⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ = 0.787
⎝ 1000 × 192 ⎠ ⎝ 192 ⎠ ⎝ 25 ⎠ ⎝ 1.25 ⎠
v c = 0.787 N / mm 2 > v = 0.729 N / mm 2 (OK)
Shear reinforcement not required

Deflection Check:
BS8110: Pt 1 Continious Rectangular Beam
(1997) Basic Span/d ratio = 26
Cl. 3.4.6.
Table 3.10. 2 f y Asreq 1
fs = ×
3 As prov βb
Assuming a 20% moment redistribution, β b = 0.8
2 × 250 × 923.36 1
fs = × = 143.56 N / mm 2
3 × 1340 0 .8
M 40 × 10 6
= = 1.085
bd 2 1000 × 192 2
⎡ ⎤
⎢ 477 − f s ⎥
MFT = 0.55 + ⎢ ⎥ ≤ 2.0
⎢ ⎛ M ⎞⎥
⎢120⎜⎝ 0.9 + bd 2 ⎟⎥
⎠⎦
⎣
⎡ 477 − 143.56 ⎤
MFT = 0.55 + ⎢ ⎥ = 1.9498 ≤ 2.0 (OK)
⎣120(0.9 + 1.085) ⎦
Area of Compression steel = 0mm2 P P
MFC = 1
Allowable Span/d ratio = MFT × MFC × ( BasicSpan / d )
= 1.95 × 1 × 26 = 50.7
Span 1800
Actual = = 9.375 << 46.93
d 192
The slab is compliant with deflection requirement.

See the details in the Appendix

BEAM ANALYSIS
U
Analysis of Beams for Type HB Loading Using

Influence Lines
30 units of HB type loading per axle was taken and each
unit = 10kN. Th most onerous arrangement is when the
load is as below:
Bending Moment
In general, the bending moment under a particular load is
a maximum when the center of the beam is midway
between that load and the resultant of all the loads then
on the span. With this rule, the maximum moment under
each load was computed, and the biggest of the moments
used for the design. Usually, the biggest of these
moments occurs under the biggest load.
(www.mathalino.com - accessed on 26th May 2009 at 9:
H H P P
35 am local time)
Applying the above rule, since all the loads are equal (i.e.
150 kN) the loading case producing the greatest moment
is as below:

Maximum moment in the span due to type HB loading,

per beam is given by:
M max = 150 * 3.55 + 150 * 5.35 + 150 * 0.95 = 1477.5kNm
Note: This excludes the bending moment due to dead
loads.
Shear Force:
The maximum shear occurs at the reaction where the
resultant load is nearest. Usually, it happens if the biggest
load is over that support and as many as possible of the
remaining loads are still on the span.
(www.mathalino.com - accessed on 26th May 2009 at 9:
H H P P
35 am local time)
Applying this rule the loading arrangement shown below
produces the greatest shear force at the left hand support:

The shear force per beam due to unfactored load, Vmax B B
will therefore be given by:

150*1.000+150*0.854+150*0.366+150*0.220= 366.0kN
Table of γfL values:

B B
Limit State Serviceabil Ultimate

ity
Load combination Comb. Comb.
1 3 1 3
Dead γfL B 1.0 1.0 1.15 1.15
concrete
B
Superimposed dead γfL B B 1.2 1.2 1.75 1.75

Surfacing
Live load γfL HA
B B 1.2 1.0 1.50 1.25
γfL HB
B B 1.1 - - -
Temperature γfL B B - 0.8 - 1.00
difference

γfL HB for serviceability limit state = 1.1

B B
Therefore Design shear due to HB Type loading

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

Imposed Load per meter width of lane:

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

UDL = 8.33 × 1.8 = 15kN / m
KEL = 33.33 × 1.8 = 60kN
Type HA UDL and KEL loads shall be applied to two

Cl. 6.4.1
notional lanes in the appropriate parts of the influence
Vol IV Bridge
line for the element or member under consideration.
Design
In this case however the maximum moment occurs when
Manual
the KEL is at mid span.
(MOWHC)
Note: This moment does not include the dead loads.
Moment due to dead loads
⎡15 × 12.32 60 × 12.3 ⎤
= 1.5⎢ + ⎥ = 979.0kNm
⎣ 8 4 ⎦
Shear force:
Maximum shear occurs at the reaction when KEL
loading is directly on the support
as below:

Reaction on the left support, RL (=VHA) is given by:

B B B B
(15 × 1.5) × 12.3

VHA = + (1.5 × 60) = 228.375kN
2
Analysis of the Beam for Dead Loading
Dead loads:
Slab = 1.8 × 0.25 × 24 = 10.8kN / m
Surfacing = 1.8 × 0.1 × 24 = 4.32kN / m
Beam = ? (to be evaluated after choosing
section)
Total load = 10.8 + 4.32 = 15.12kN / m
Factor for dead loading = 1.4

Factored dead load = 1.4 *15.12 = 21.17kN
Moment due to dead loads, MD B B
21.17 × 12.32
= = 400.35kNm
8
21.17 × 12.3
Shear due to dead loads, VD = = 130.2kN
2
B B

Total Stresses for Design

HA Type Loading:
Applying the principle of superposition,
Total moment in the beam under HA loading is given by:
M HA + D = M HA + M D
M HA + D = 979.0 + 400.35 = 1379.35kNm
Total Shear in the beam under HA loading is given by:
VHA + D = VHA + VD
VHA + D = 288.375 + 130.2 = 418.58kN
HB Type Loading:
Total moment in the beam under HB loading is given by:
M HB + D = M HB + M D
M HB + D = 1625.25 + 400.35 = 2025.6kNm
Total Shear in the beam under HB loading is given by:

VHB + D = VHB + VD
VHB + D = 402.6 + 130.2 = 532.8kN
Therefore the HB type loading will govern the design.


Generally to
BS 5950 BEAM DESIGN
U
Moment Due to Dead load = 400.35 kNm

(Excluding self weight)
Moment Due to Live load = 1625.25 kNm
Total Moment due to Dead + Live loads = 2025.6 kNm
Initial Section Selection.

U
Assuming Py = 275 N/mm2

B B P P
M
Sy >
Py
2025.6
Sy > = 7365.8cm3
275
Possible sizes:
838 x 292 x 194 UB, S x = 7640cm 3 Take
610 x 305 x 238 UB, S x = 7484cm 3 838 x292 x

194 UB
914 x 305 x 201 UB, S x = 8351cm3
Properties of 838 x 292 x 194 UB

U
I xx = 279200cm 4
I yy = 9066cm 4
rxx = 33.6mm
ryy = 6.06mm
Z xx = 6641cm 4
Z yy = 620cm 4
S yy = 940cm 4


u = 0.862
x = 41.6
D = 840.7
T = 21.7mm
t = 14.7 mm
b
= 6.74
T
d
= 51.8
t
A = 247cm 2
Strength Classification:
Cl. 3.1.1 PyB B
For 838 x 292 x 194 UB, 16mm < T < 40mm

Table 6 =265N/mm2 P P
Section Classification:
b
cl. 3.5.2 = 6.74 < 8.5 Є Class 1
T
Table 7 Plastic
275 275
Є= = = 1.019 Section
Py 265
Shear Buckling:
d
Cl. 4.2.3 = 51.8 < 63 Є Okay
t
Shear Strength:
Shear Capacity of the section, Pv B B
Cl. 4.2.3
Pv = 0.6 Py Av
Pv = 0.6 × 265 × (14.7 * 840.7 ) × 10 −3 = 1964.97kN
Shear
Applied Shear Force. Fv
Capacity
Fv = 402.6 + 130.2 O.K.
Fv = 532.8kN
Fv < Pv
Low Shear
0.6 Pv > Fv
Load

Cl. 4.2.5 Moment Capacity Check

Moment Capacity M c
M cx = Py S x ≤ 1.2 Py Z xx = 265 * 7640 * 10 −3
M cx = 2024.6kNm
O.K
M cx ≤ 1.2 Py Z xx = 1.2 * 265 * 6641 = 2111.8kNm
Moment Due to Dead + Imposed Loads excl.

Self Weight of the beam = 2025.6 kNm
Extra load. Due to Self Weight of the beam
2
⎛ 194 * 9.81 ⎞ 12.3
= 1.4⎜ ⎟* = 50.39kNm
⎝ 1000 ⎠ 8
Total Moment M t = 2025.6 + 50.39
= 2075.99 kNm Not O.K.

M t > M cx Choose a
bigger
Choosing the Section Section
914 x 305 x 201 UB, S x = 8351cm 3
I xx = 325300 U = 0.854 A = 256

I yy = 9423 X = 46.8
rxx = 35.7 D = 903.0

ryy = 6.07 T = 20.2
Z xx = 7204 t = 15.1
b
Z yy = 621 = 7.51
T
d
S yy = 982 = 54.6
t
Strength classification
Cl. 3.1.1
T = 20.2
Table 6 Py = 265
16mn < T < 40mm

Section classification
3.5.2 b
= 7.51 < 8.5 Є
Table 7 T Section is
275 275 class 1
Є= = = 1.019
Py 265 plastic
Shear Buckling
4.2.3 d
= 54.6 < 63 Є
t
O.K
Shear strength
Cl. 4.2.3 Shear capacity of the section, Pv
Pv = 0.6 Py Av
= 0.6 * 265 * (15.1 * 903.0) *10 −3
Pv = 2168.01kN
Applied Shear Force:

Fv = 532.8kN < Pv = 2168.01kN O.K
Low Shear
0.6 Pv > Fv
Load
Moment Capacity Check:

Cl.4.2.5
Moment Capacity, Mcx: B B
M cx = Py S x ≤ 1.2 Py Z xx
M cx = 265 × 8351 × 10 −3 = 2213 .02 kNm
1.2 Py Z xx = 1.2 × 265 × 7204 × 10 −3 = 2290.8kNm
M cx < 1.2 Py Z xx
O.K

Moment due to Dead + Imposed Loads (excluding self

weight) = 2025.6 kNm
Extra moment due to self weight of the beam
2
⎡ 201 × 9.81⎤ 12.3
= 1.4⎢ ⎥ × 8 = 52.21kNm
⎣ 1000 ⎦
Total Moment:
M t = 2025.6 + 52.21 = 2077.8kNm
M t < M cx Section O.K
Deflection Check:
Cl.2.5.1
Limits of deflection, for all other beams,
Table. 5
Maximum Allowable Deflection
BS 5950
Span 12300
= = = 61.5mm
200 200
Actual Deflection
5ωl 4 Wl 3
δc = +
384 EI 48EI
⎤ ⎡ 5 × 15 × 12.3 60 × 12.33 ⎤
4
⎡ 1
=⎢ 6 −8 ⎥ ⎢
+ ⎥
⎣ 205 × 10 × 325300 × 10 ⎦ ⎣ 384 48 ⎦
δ c = 10.19mm < allowable = 61.5mm (OK)


DESIGN OF PIER
U
Design data:
Dimensions of the Column:
Height, H = 6600mm
Breadth, b = 1000mm
Depth, h = 900mm
Steel strength, f y = 460 N / mm 2
Concrete Strength, f cu = 50 N / mm 2
Concrete cover = 50mm (most severe condition)

Loading:
Axial load per 1.8 meter width 532.2kN / m
Appendix …
532.2
Axial load per meter width = = 296 kN / m
1 .8
Assuming 2 vehicles meet at the abutment/ pier at critical
positions:
N=592kN
Axial load per meter, N = 296 * 2 = 592kN / m
Skidding and Braking Loads:

U
Nominal HA = 8kN / m * ( span ) + 250 kN

BS 5400 Pt. 2
= 8 *12.3 + 250 = 348.4kN
Cl.6.10
Nominal HB = 25% * 30units *10kN * 4axles

25
= * 30 * 10 * 4 = 300kN
100
300<348.4 i.e. HA Braking is critical
348.4
HA Braking load per meter = = 96.78kN / m 96.78kN/m
3.6

h' = 900 − 50 − 16 − 8 = 826mm

b = 1000mm
h = 900mm
d 826
= = 0.92
h 900
N 592 × 10 3
= = 0.66
bh 1000 × 900
Moment at the bottom of the pier, M:

M = 96.78 × 6.6 = 638.74 kNm ( permeter ) M=638.74
kNm/m
M 638.74 × 10 6
= = 0.789
bh 2 1000 × 900 2
Area of Compression Steel, Asc : B B
BS 8110 Pt. 3 100 Asc

= 0.4
Chart 50 bh
0.4 × 1000 × 900
Asc = = 3600 mm 2
100
Table 86 Y25@125m
Provide Y25@125mm c/c (Area =3926mm2)
m c/c
P P
Reynolds &
Steedman
Distribution Steel Bars:
Provide minimum reinforcement
100 As 0.13 × 1000 × 900
> 0.13 ⇒ As > = 1170mm 2 / m
Ac 100
Y20@250
Provide Y20@250 mm c/c as distribution bars
mm c/c

DESIGN OF ABUTMENTS
U
Design Data:
Lab Report Angle of Friction, φ = 33o
from KOM
Bulk Density, γ = 18.9Mg / m 2
Consultants
Cohesion, c = 6kPa
Ltd.
Ultimate Load from beam, N = 296kN

Horizontal Load, H = 96.78kN / m
Moment, M = 435.51kNm
Height of the Wall, h = 4500 + 25 + 903 + 250 + 100
h = 5778mm
1 − sin φ
Coefficient of Active Pressure, k a =
1 + sin φ
1 − sin 33o
ka = = 0.295
1 + sin 330
For stability calculations use Active Pressures only
Active pressure = k a γh
Active pressure at depth of 5.778m
= 0.295 × 18.9 × 5.778 = 32.22 kN / m 2
Earth Pressures on the Abutment:

Vertical Pressures, σ = γz
At the top, σ v1 = 0

At the bottom of the abutment (assuming uniform soil)

σ v = 18.9 × 5.778 = 109.2kN / m 2
2
Active Earth Pressures:

Pa = γzk a − 2c k a
Pa1 = 0 − 2 × 6 0.295 = −6.52kN / m 2
Pa2 = 18.9 × 5.778 × 0.295 − 2 × 6 0.295 = 25.7 kN / m 2
Passive Earth Pressures:

1 + sin φ
Coefficient of Active Pressure, k p =
1 − sin φ
1 + sin 33o
kp = = 3.39
1 − sin 33 0
Pp1 = 0 + 2 × 6 3.39 = 22.10kN / m 2
Pp2 = 18.9 × 2.4 × 3.39 + 2 × 6 3.39 = 179.86kN / m 2
(see sketch next page)

Horizontal force acting on wall per meter length:
γzk a − 2c k a = 0
2 × 6 × 0.295
⇒z= = 1.169m
18.9 × 0.295
d = 5.778 − 1.169 = 4.609m
Active Force:
1
P1 = × 25.7 × 4.609 = 59.23kN / m( Active)
2
1
Acting at × 4.609 = 1.536 m above base level
3

Passive Forces:
P2 = 2.4 × 22.10 = 53.04kN / m at 1.2m
1
P3 = × 153.76 × 2.4 = 184.5kN / m at 0.8m
2
BS 5400 Pt 2 Forces due to Surcharge:
Cl.6.11 Fs = K a ωh
Case 1: At Construction:
Surcharge due to compaction equipment is taken as 30
units of HB type loading (www.childs-
ceng.demon.co.uk/tutorial/abutmentu.html#ep)
30 units of HB is equivalent to 12 kN/m2 P
Hence, Fs = 0.295 × 12 × 5.778 = 20.45kN
h 5.778
Acting at = = 2.889m above toe
2 2
Case 2: At Service:
Surcharge due to HA, ω = 10 kN / m 2
Surcharge due to HB, ω = 20 kN / m 2
HB is critical, hence, Fs = 0.295 × 20 × 5.778 = 34.09kN
Acting at 2.889m above the toe level

Vertical loading acting on Abutments:

Case 1: At Construction
W1 = 1.228 × 0.45 × 24 = 13.26kN / m @ 1.975m

W2 = 4.5 × 1.2 × 24 = 129.6kN / m @1.6m
W3 = 5.4 × 0.9 × 24 = 116.64kN / m @ 2.7m
W4 = 1.5 × 1.0 × 18.9 = 28.35kN / m @ 0.5m
W5 = 4.878 × 3.2 × 18.9 = 295.02kN / m @ 3.8m
Stabilizing Moments, MR are as shown in the table
B B
below:
Notation Force (kN) Lever arm Moment
(m) (kNm)
W1B B 13.26 1.975 26.19
W2B B 129.60 1.600 207.36
W3B B 116.64 2.700 314.93
W4B B 28.35 0.500 14.18
W5B B 295.02 3.800 1121.08
∑MR= B B 1683.74

Destabilizing Moments Mo: B B
These are due to Forces, Fs and P1 B B B
P1 = 59.2kN / m @ 1.536
Fs = 20.45kN / m @ 3.339m
(m) (kNm)
P1
B B 59.20 1.536 90.93
Fs
B B 20.45 3.339 68.28
∑MO= B B 159.29
Overturning Check: Wall will

not overturn
Fo =
∑M R
=
1683.74
= 10.57 > 1.5 (ok)
∑M o 159.29 at
construction

Case 2: At Service:
Vertical loadings due to wall and soils, acting on the

foundation (W1 to W5) remain the same.
B B B B
At Service,
Fs = 34.09 kN/m @ 3.339 m
B B
Horizontal Load, H = 96.78 kN/m @ 5.4 m

Beam Reaction, V = 296 kN/m
Destabilizing Moments, Mo B B

(m) (kNm)
P1 B B 59.20 1.536 90.93
H 96.78 5.400 522.61
Fs B B 34.09 3.339 113.83
∑MO= B B 727.37

Stabilizing Moments, MR B B

(m) (kNm)
W1 B B 13.26 1.975 26.19
W2 B B 129.60 1.600 207.36
W3 B B 116.64 2.700 314.93
W4 B B 28.35 0.500 14.18
W5 B B 295.02 3.800 1121.08
V 296.00 1.375 407.0
∑MR= B B 2090.74
Overturning Check:
Wall will
Fo =
∑MR =
2090.74
= 2.874 > 1.5 (ok) not overturn
∑M o 727.37
in service

Safety Against Sliding:

Garg (2005) At service
Fs =
∑F R
=
∑W tan δ + ∑ P Pi
≥ 1.5
∑F S ∑P Ai
∑ V =(13.26 + 129.6 + 116.64 + 28.35 + 295.02 + 296

∑ V = 878.84kN / m
δ = 0.5 × φ = 0.5 × 33o = 16.5 o
∑P Pi = 53.04 + 184.50 = 237.54kN / m
∑P Ai = 59.20 + 34.09 + 96.78 = 190.07kN / m
878.84 tan δ + 237.54

Fs = = 2.61 > 1.5 (OK)
190.07
During Construction
∑ V =(13.26 + 129.6 + 116.64 + 28.35 + 295.02)

∑ V = 582.87kN / m The
abutment
∑ P = 59.20 + 20.45 = 79.65kN / m
Ai
will not
582.87 tan δ + 237.54
Fs = = 5.15 > 1.5 (OK) slide in both
79.65
cases

Eccentricity of Loading:
Summation of moments about the Toe,
∑M toe = 2090.74kNm / m
Summation of vertical forces, ∑V = 878.87kN / m
The resultant of Vertical forces pass through the base at
χ=
∑M toe
=
2090.74
= 2.37889 ≈ 2.38m from toe
∑V 878.87
⎛B ⎞ ⎛ 5 .4 ⎞
Eccentricity, e = ⎜ − χ ⎟ = ⎜ − 2.38 ⎟ = +0.32m
⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
B 5 .4
= = 0.9m > e = 0.32m ,
6 6
Tension will not develop in the base.
Pv =
∑V ⎡1 ± 6e ⎤
B ⎢⎣ B ⎥⎦
878.87 ⎡ 6(0.32) ⎤
Pv = 1±
5.4 ⎢⎣ 5.4 ⎥⎦
At the toe,
878.87 ⎡ 6(0.32) ⎤
Pvmax = ⎢1+ ⎥ = 220.62kN / m 2
5 .4 ⎣ 5 .4 ⎦
At the heel,
878.87 ⎡ 6(0.32) ⎤
Pvmin = 1− = 104.89kN / m 2
5.4 ⎢⎣ 5.4 ⎥⎦
(See Stress Profile at the Base below)

Maximum Pressure, Pvmax = 220.62kN / m 2
Allowable Bearing capacity = 700 kN / m 2

Since PV max < BearingCapacity ,
The dimensions are adequate.

Bending reinforcements for the abutments

Height of the stem = 4.5m
Horizontal forces on stem are:
FH = 96.78kN @ 4.5m
P1 = 59.23kN @ 0.636m
P2 = −53.04kN @ 0.3m
Fs = 34.09kN @ 1.989m
Design Ultimate Moment at the base, Mu B B
M = 96.78 × 4.5 + 34.09 × 1.989 + ×59.23 × 0.636 − 53.04

= 487.95kNm
M u = 1.4 × 487.95 = 683.13kNm
Assume diameter 20mm bars
BS 8110: Pt .1 φ
d = 900 − cov er −
(1997) Tables 2
= 1200 − 50 − 10 = 1140mm
3.1 and 3.3
f cu = 50 N / mm 2
f y = 460 N / mm 2
b = 1000mm.
Mu 683.13 * 10 6
K= = = 0.0105 < 0.156 <
f cu bd 2 50 * 1000 *1140 2
Thus no compression reinforcement required
Steel area required
Lever arm
⎡ ⎛ 0.0105 ⎞ 2 ⎤
1
z = d ⎢0.5 + ⎜ 0.25 − ⎟ ⎥ = 0.988d > 0.95d

⎢⎣ ⎝ 0.9 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
Take z = 0.95d = 0.95 *1140 = 1083mm

Table 3.25 Mu 683.13 * 10 6

AsRe q = =
BS 8110: Pt.1 0.95 f y z 0.95 * 460 * 1083
(1997) = 1443mm 2 / m
Minimum Steel Area:
0.13 * Ac
Asmin =
100
0.13 *1200 *1000
=
100
= 1560mm 2
Thus provide for the minimum area of 1560mm 2
i.e. provide T20 @ 200mm
T20 @
2
As prov = 1570mm / m in both directions
200mm

DESIGN OF PAD FOOTING FOR PIERS

U
Data
U
⎛ 532.8kN ⎞
Axial load per meter = ⎜ ⎟ * 2 = 592kN
⎝ 1 .8 ⎠
Lab. Report Bearing Pressure of soil = 700 kN / m 2
(Appendix…) Unfactored loads
Imposed loads: (Qk )
366 + 366 = 732 kN Qk =
732kN
Dead loads:
Surfacing + slabs = 15.12kN
201 * 9.81 * 12.3
Beam self weight = = 24.25kN
1000
self weight of pier = 0.9 *1 * 6.6 * 24 = 142.56kN
Total Deal loads

Gk = 15.12 + 24.25 + 142.56 = 181.98kN
Gk =
181.98kN
Service loads = 1.0Gk + 1.0Qk
= 1.0 *181.98 + 1.0 * 732

= 913.98kN ≈ 914kN
10
Total service load = 914 + * 914 = 1005.4kN
100
N s 1005.4
Size of the base = = = 1.436 ≈ 1.44
q 700
For a rectangular base of dimensions shown:

1.4 is very small, therefore b was provided according to

ORN 9
height of the pier
From ORN 9, when H = 5.2m; D = 1.0m;
B = 2 × 1.4 + pierthickn ess = 2.8 + 0.9 = 3.7 m
3.7m was found to be sufficient i.e.
Sketch:
Ultimate loads = 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk
= 1.4 *181.98 + 1.6 * 732

= 1425.97 ≈ 1426kN
Ultimate Pressure
N 1426
qu = =
b*l 3.7
= 385.41kN / m 2
Moment Reinforcement
1.4 2
Moment M = 385.41 * *1
2
= 377.7 ≈ 378kNm

Assumptions
f cu = 30 N / mm 2
f y = 460 N / mm 2
Cover = 50mm
Assuming 16mmΦ bars

h = 1000mm
d x = 1000 − 50 − 8 = 942
d y = 1000 − 50 − 8 − 16 = 926
BS8110 The smallest is taken

Cl. 3.4.4.4
M 378 *10 6
k= = = 0.0147 < 0.156
f cu bd 2 30 * 1000 * 926 2
No compression reinforcement required

⎛ k ⎞
Lever aim z = d ⎜⎜ 0.5 + 0.25 − ⎟
⎟
⎝ 0 . 9 ⎠
⎛ 0.0147 ⎞
= d ⎜⎜ 0.5 + 0.25 − ⎟
⎝ 0.9 ⎟⎠
= 0.98d > 0.95d

Take z = 0.95d
= 0.95 * 926
= 879.7mm
M 378 * 10 6
Area of steel Asreq = =
0.95 f y z 0.95 * 460 * 879.7
Cl.3.11.3.2
= 983 .28mm 2 / m

Table 3.2.5 0.13 Ac

Minimum area, As min =
100
0.13 *1000 *1000
=
100
= 1300mm 2 / m
As min > Asreq
Provide As min:
∴ Provide both ways Y 16 @ 150mm c As = 1340mm 2

c
Area required = 983 .28mm 2 / m

⎛ 3c 9d ⎞⎟ 3 * 900 9 * 926
⎜ + = + = 2758.5mm
⎜ 4 4 ⎟⎠ 4 4
⎝
3700
lc = = 1850 < 2758.5m
2
Therefore the reinforcements should be spaced equally at
150mm c/c
Vertical Shear Check

BS8110
The critical section y – y at the column face is at a

distance d = 926mm from the face of the column.
Table 3.8

V = 385.41* 0.474 *1 = 182.68kN

Applied shear stress
182.64 *10 3 2
= = 0.197 N mm < 0.8 30 = 4.38 (OK)
1000 * 926
1 1 1
⎛ 100 As ⎞ 3 ⎛ 400 ⎞ 4 ⎛ fcu ⎞ 3 1
vc = 0.79⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ *
Cl.3.11.4.5 ⎝ bvd ⎠ ⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ 25 ⎠ fm
100 As 1000 * 1340
= = 0.145 < 3 ∴ O.K
bvd 1000 * 926
400 400
= = 0.43 < 1,
d 926
400
take =1
d
1
Vc = 0.79(0.145) 3 *1 4 * 30
1
25
( 1
3
* ) 1
1.25
1
0.79 * 0.525 *1 *1.063 *
1.25
2
= 0.353N / mm
Since Vc > V
No shear reinforcement is required
Cracking Check:
Bar spacing = 150mm < 3d

3d = 3 * 926 = 2778mm
∴ Cracking will not occur

Check of Shear at the Column Face

V = 385.41* (1.4 *1) * 2 = 1079.15kN
Applied vertical shear at the column face
1079.15 *10 3
= 1.165 N / mm 2 < 0.8 30 = 4.38
1000 * 926
Therefore the pier is safe against vertical shear at the
column face.
NB: Provide the same reinforcements for the abutments.

U U

Chapter 5
5.0. Recommendations
5.1. Guide banks
Proper study on the bed materials and river hydraulics should be done and a comprehensive
design of guide banks carried out. Appropriate river training measures that are sustainable
should then be done.
5.2. Channel and embankment lining
The channel should be lined with gabions and Reno mattresses to minimize scouring and
erosion at the structures. Grass should be planted at the embankment sides to prevent their
erosion.
5.3. Traffic control:
Only one HB Type vehicle at a time shall be allowed to traverse the bridge and no other
vehicle at such times may be allowed to pass (side by side or overtake) the HB Type vehicle
on the bridge.
5.4. Joints and Bearings
Comprehensive designs of the joints and bearing of the bridge should be done and
compliance with this design checked before implementation.

References:
1. Charles E. Reynolds and James C. Steedman, Reinforced Conrete Designer’s Handbook,
10Ed, E&FN Spon Ltd, (1998) London, ISBN 0-419-14530-3
2. T.J. MacGinley & T.C. Ang, Structural Steel Design to Limit State Theory, Butterworth,
London (1987), ISBN0-408-03020-8
3. Glenn O. Schwab, Richard K, Frevert Talcott W. Edminster, Kenneth k. Barnes, Soil and
Water Conservation Engineering, 3Ed. John Wiley and Sons (1995) New York. ISBN 0-
471-09423-4
4. Ray K. Linsey and Joseph B. Franzini, Water Resources Engineering, 3Ed, Mc Graw Hill
Int. Singapore (1979). ISBN 0-07-Y85435-1
5. Overseas Road Note 9, A design manual for small bridges, 2Ed (2000) London ISSN 0951-
8797
6. S. K. Khanna, C. E.G. Justo, Highway Engineering, 5Ed. (1982) India
7. Karl Terzaghi and Ralph B. Beck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2Ed. John Wiley
and Sons Ltd. (1967) Catalogue Card No. 67 – 17356
8. L.S. Negi and R.S. Jangid, Structural Analysis, TataMcGraw Hill (1972) New Delhi ISBN
0-07-462304-4
9. Dr. B.C.Pumnia, Ashok Kumar Jain and Arun Kumar Jain, Comprehensive Design of Steel
Structures, Laxmi Publication (P)Ltd. New Delhi (1995) ISBN 81-7008-2
10. S.K Garg, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering in SI Unit, 6Ed. Khanna Publishers
(2005) New Delhi.
11. Road and Bridge Design Manual, Vol. IV Bridge Design Manual (Ministry of Works
Housing and Communications), the Republic of Uganda.
12. Uganda Drainage Design Manual (Ministry of Works Housing and Communications), the
Republic of Uganda.
13. Chapter 3, Road and Drainage Design Manual (accessed from the www)
14. Report on Geotechnical Investigations for Nariamabune Bridge Site on Kaabong – Kapedo
Road, February 2008, (Central Materials Laboratory, Ministry of Works and Transport), the
Republic of Uganda.
15. http:/www.mathalino.com
16. http:/www.childs-ceng.demon.co.uk
Appendix 1
Plate 1. Topographic Map Showing Bridge Site Location
Appendix 2, Figure 2. Geomrphologic Map
Appendix 3. Figure 3. River Section Profile
Appendix 4.Table 1. Calculation of Area
i di (m)
B B xi (m)
B B Area (m2)
P P
1 0.000 2.0 1.843

2 1.843 2.0 4.010
3 2.167 2.0 4.452
4 2.285 2.0 4.589
5 2.304 2.0 4.636
6 2.332 2.0 4.672
7 2.340 2.0 4.646
8 2.306 2.0 4.569
9 2.263 2.0 4.477
10 2.214 2.0 4.390
11 2.176 2.0 4.314
12 2.138 2.0 4.281
13 2.143 1.7 1.822
14 0.000
25.7 52.701
Area of flow at the section considered = 52.7m2 P
Appendix 5. Table 2. Determination of bed Gradient.
Assume Bench Mark is 300m ASL

Instrument Height measured = 1.570m
Height of Collimation ASL =301.570
LEVEL BOOKING.
HT.
BS IS FS RL DIFF. REMARKS
0.325 301.245 160m upstream
0.489 301.081 0.164 140m
0.810 300.760 0.321 100m
1.235 300.335 0.425 80m
1.347 300.223 0.112 60m
1.700 299.870 0.353 40m
2.167 299.403 0.467 20m
2.480 299.090 0.313 0m
Summation of Height Differences 2.155
(RL at 160) – (RL at 0) = 301.570 - 299.090 = 2.155 m
2.155
Average Bed Slope, S o = = 0.0134 ≈ 0.013 (used in calculation of velocity)
160
Appendix 6. Loading Cases:
Appendix 7: Pictures
Picture taken at one of the abutments. Notice the erosive action of water.
Picture showing the bank that is being washed away by river action.
Notice how water is undercutting the bank.
Notice how the embankment soil has collapsed (right)
Picture taken upstream of the water crossing, with the rocky hills in the background.
The smooth sandy bed in the foreground emphasizing the meandering of the river

Design of A Composite Bridge Deck

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of A Composite Bridge Deck

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of A Composite Bridge Deck

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the project about?

What is the project about?

What are the objectives of the project?

What are the objectives of the project?

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

Signature…………………… Date ……………………..

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) i Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Signed …………………………………… Date………………………………

DR. MICHAEL KYAKULA

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) ii Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) iv Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

To my former school teacher, Mr. Ahimbisiibwe Wilson, who helped me to realize my

Okucu Anthony Tweny.

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) v Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) vi Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

2.4.3. Design of Gravity and Cantilever Retaining Walls. ................................................- 24 -

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) ix Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

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

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

Figure 1.3 Continuous Span Bridge .................................................................................................- 14 -

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) x Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Kaabong District of Karamoja is located within Latitudes 20 30’ and 4

productivity rating is limited.

with acassia, same and eucalyptus.

Sunshine and wind:

1.2.2. Bridge design:

1.3 Problem Statement:

1.4 Project Aim:

1.5 Project Objectives:

1.6 Scope of the Project:

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of a bridge;

If a bridge is constructed to carry highway traffic, it is known as a highway bridge. If,

2.2.1 Bridge Materials:

Steel bridges may be classified according to the following criteria:

1. Type of structural arrangement

Classification according to structural arrangement:

Under this classification a steel bridge may be of the following types:

(i). I-girder bridge

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) - 10 - Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) - 11 - Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) - 12 - Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Classification according to structural action:

Figure 1.1. Single span Simply supported Bridge

(i) Simply supported span bridge

Figure 1.2. Simply Supported Multi- span Bridge.

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) - 13 - Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

(ii) Continuous span bridge

Figure 1.3 Continuous Span Bridge

(iii) Cantilever bridge

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) - 14 - Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

Figure 1.4 Cantilever Bridge with a Suspended Span

Classification according to Floor location

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) - 15 - Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula

According to the location of the floor, bridges can be classified as under:

Figure 1.5 Solid Ribbed Arch.

Figure1.6. Braced Ribbed Arch.

By: Okucu Anthony Tweny (07/U/2032/ECE/PE) - 16 - Supervised by Dr. Michael Kyakula