CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: REASONS FOR FAILURE OF IDENTIFIED

BRIDGES
4.1 INTRUDUCTION
Following recently failure bridges were selected for our study. By studying the existing
information of the bridges, following details were gathered and it is shown in Table.4.1.

Table.4.1 - General details of failure Bridges

Name of the Length Width Construction

Road Name Type Condition
bridge (ft) (ft) year

Moronthuduwa Steel Failed in

Paragastota 163.38 14.5 1929
-Horana Truss 1999

Madampe – Steel Failed in

Rakwana 91.21 12.80 1930
Deniyaya Truss 2014

Mallawapitiya-
Rambadagalla- Steel Failed in
Kappitigala 122.05 12.20 After 1900
Kappitigala Truss 2015
(MRK)

4.2 CASE STUDY 01

Paragastota Bridge (By Photographic Evidence)

Fig.4.1 - Failed Paragastota Bridge

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 15
 CHAPTER 4

 The Paragastota Bridge was situated on Moronthuduwa – Horana road about 2km from
the Gonaduwa junction over the Bolgoda River. The bridge was a steel brotherhood
truss bridge. It was a single span double intersection Pratt type truss bridge. Deck was
semi through type and supported on two abutments. The bridge was 163.4 feet long and
14.4 feet wide. Initially the bridge had a timber deck and that was replaced by a
reinforced concrete deck in 1997, which introduced new super imposed dead load to the
bridge. Also it seriously reduced the load carrying capacity of the bridge.[6] Paragastota
Bridge failed in 1999 when a loaded tipper of 22-25 tons tried to cross the bridge.
Minimum thicknesses for concrete and asphalt could be 5” (125mm) and 1” (25mm).

By studying the photographic evidence gathered from RDA, the following members were
identified as critical members before the FE model analysis.
The Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 shows the end of the failure bridge that loaded tipper entered.
Figure 4.5 shows the other end of the bridge.

Fig.4.2 - Side view of the failed end Fig4.3 - Closer view of fallen deck

Fig.4.4 - Closer view of the truss Fig.4.5 - Other end of the bridge

Introduction to the structural analysis program (STAAD.ProV8i) is shown in Appendix V.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 16
 CHAPTER 4

4.2.1 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING FOR PARAGASTOTA BRIDGE

The bridge consists of single span of double intersection Pratt type and semi through type deck
supported on abutments. By using the detailed drawings of the Paragastota bridge [3] a full 3D
STAAD Pro model of the Paragastota Bridge was developed incorporating the main trusses and
bracings, cross girders and deck for the analysis. Especially in here, end plates of the bridge
were modeled as a shell element by using this software as a special feature of the STAAD Pro
comparing the SAP2000 software. Full details of the model, loading and numerical results
obtained are given in Appendix VIII.

Fig.4.6 - 3D view of the Paragastota Bridge

Finite element model of the Paragastota Bridge is shown in Fig.4.6.

Both Manual calculations as well as structural analysis software, STAAD Pro, were used for
this analysis. Accuracy of the software was checked by comparing the manual calculation
results with that numerical analysis results (Appendix VI).

Material Properties
As the result of previous researcher’s material testing for Paragastota Bridge, the material of the
bridge truss, cross girders and bracings are identified as wrought iron. The following properties
were obtained from the material test result. [15]
Modulus of Elasticity E = 193.1x103 N/mm2
Yield Strength, fy = 190 N/mm2
Tensile Strength, fu = 250 N/mm2

Support Condition
Roller and Pin supports

Loadings
Dead load, superimposed dead load and the weight of the tipper were considered in the analysis.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 17
 CHAPTER 4

Dead load is the weight of the truss itself and was automatically obtained from the software.
Loads due to reinforced concrete deck slab and the asphalt layer were calculated and it was
considered as the superimposed dead load. The load due to the metal loaded tipper was
considered as the live load. The analysis was done with 25 tons loaded three axial tipper moving
on the bridge.

4.2.3 ANALYSIS RESULT

Analysis was done for the bridge model under actual loadings on the bridge. According to the
finite element analysis the truss members, middle member of bottom chord (member 2437) has
been identified as the critical member with maximum axial force.

Axial Force – 2093 kN

Elastic Capacity – 1870 kN [6]
Tensile Capacity – 2450 kN [6]

Fig.4.7 - Axial force variation of the member 2437 depending on the position of the tipper

Fig.4.7 shows the axial force variation of the member 2437 corresponding to the movement of
the tipper from failed end to other end. When the tipper was reaching towards the middle of the
bridge, the member 2437 has exceeded its elastic capacity.

When the tipper is in the critical location of the bridge, axial forces of other members also
checked to verify the progressive collapse pattern. The following members were identified as
critical members with axial force exceeded their elastic capacity.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 18
 CHAPTER 4

113.428 kN
Member 360
113.428 kN 79.706 kN

Member 493 Member 2437 Member 537

Member 2436 Member 2562 Member 526 Member 2438

Member 570

Member 471 Member 559

Fig.4.8 - Elastic capacity exceeded members of Paragastota Bridge

All the critical members identified from FE model analysis result are listed below.
Table 4.2 - All the members those exceeded elastic capacity.

Member Axial Force (kN)

471 1919
2436 1975
493 2024
2562 2066
2437 2093
526 2088
537 2063
2438 2026
559 1971
570 1907

By considering the FE model analysis result, above ten members of the bottom chord have
exceeded elastic capacity and it may be concluded that progressive collapsed could be
happened.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 19
 CHAPTER 4

4.2.4 SPECIMEN CALCULATION

Cross section capacities of tension in critical members were calculated manually using the code
BS 5950 and following results were obtained.

Reference Calculation Results

Check for Cross section capacity of tension

Clause
4.8.2.2

Mx – Moment about the major axis

Mcx – Moment capacity about the major axis
Mcy – Moment capacity about the minor axis
My – Moment about the minor axis

Member 2437 ( Critical Member)

Therefore eqn ① is not satisfied.

Cross
For Member 2562
section
capacity is
not satisfied

According to the manual calculation results, cross section capacity is greater than the allowable

value of 1.0 in elastic capacity exceeded members. It shows that members had overstressed.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 20
 CHAPTER 4

Fig.4.9 - Closer view of reverts /bolts to the end frame

Reference Calculation Result

Shear capacities of rivets / bolts

Diameter 7/8” (22 mm) 1” (25 mm)

BS 449
Single shear 38 kN 49.1 kN
Double shear 76 kN 98.2 kN

Total six rivets/bolts are visible at the ends of all four lattice
diagonals which were connected to the end frame of Figure 4.9.
Consider upper inter connected two lattice diagonals with 3
numbers of rivets/bolts [5].

Consider 359 and 360 Lattice Diagonal members

The elastic capacity of 3 number 1” (25 mm) rivets/bolts in double
shear
Total elastic capacity of 1 rivets/ bolts
Total elastic capacity of 3 rivets/ bolts

Member 360
Force increase due to superimposed load
Force increase due to Tipper
Force increase due to dead load
Total increase force

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 21
 CHAPTER 4

Member 359
Force increase due to superimposed load
Force increase due to Tipper
Force increase due to dead load
Total increase force

Total force increase due to two members

Therefore Elastic capacity rivets/ bolts not exceeded.

Elastic
capacity
Note- Loads are included 1.4 and 1.25 safety factors for dead loads
is not
and dynamic loads respectively.
exceeded

Calculations showed that rivets/bolts of lattice diagonals to end frame did not reached their
maximum elastic shear capacity first, before mid-span of bottom chord reaches its maximum
elastic capacity.

4.2.5 FAILURE CAUSES OF THE BRIDGE

After replacing the 3“timber deck of the bridge by a 5” concrete deck, the dead load of the
bridge increased considerably and reduced the load carrying capacity. The bridge failed by
overloading due to a 25 ton metal loaded tipper. When the tipper was coming towards the
middle part of the bridge, ten number of bottom chord members at the middle part of the bridge
failed in tension by exceeding the elastic capacity. Obtained result from the manual calculation
showed that critical members had overstressed.

Also previous calculations showed that rivets/bolts of lattice diagonals to end frame did not
reached their maximum elastic shear capacity first, before mid-span of bottom chord reaches its
maximum elastic capacity. Ten members of bottom chord had exceeded their elastic capacity as
mentioned in Table 4.2. Then progressive collapsed pattern had occurred. It may be concluded
that the reason for the bridge failure.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 22
 CHAPTER 4

4.3 CASE STUDY 02

Madampe – Deniyaya 129/3 Bridge (Sudu Palama) (By Photographic evidence)

Fig.4.10 - Failed Rakwana Bridge

The bridge was located on Madampe- Deniyaya road and also known as “Sudu Palama”. This
bridge was a single span steel truss bridge with single lane. The Bridge was 91.20 feet long and
12.80 feet wide and had through type deck supported on two abutments. The bridge collapsed in
2014 when a fertilizer loaded lorry of 35 tons tried to cross the bridge. According to the RDA
information this bridge was 80 years old when it failed. There had not any research for this
bridge failure. Photographic evidence gathered from RDA was used for get some initial
conclusions, before the FE model analysis. Fig.4.10 shows the failed end and fallen deck of the
bridge with the load. Fig.4.11 shows the failed end of the bridge with broken truss and Fig.4.12
shows the other end of the bridge.

Fig.4.11 - Truss had broken in the failed end Fig.4.12 - Other end of the bridge

As seen from the photographs, the deck of the failed end from where lorry entered had fallen
down from road level (Fig.4.10).Top chord had bend at failed end and both top & bottom
chords had broken in the failed end (Fig.4.11).There is no significant damage in the other end
of the truss (Fig.4.12).

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 23
 CHAPTER 4

4.3.1 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING FOR RAKWANA BRIDGE

The bridge consists of single span of modification Pratt type truss. It had through type deck
supported on abutments. After measuring all the necessary dimensions of the truss members in
the failed bridge, a full 3D STAAD Pro model was developed for Rakwana Bridge. A full detail
of the model, loading and numerical results obtained are given in Appendix IX.

Member 299

Member 05

Fig.4.13 - 3D view of the Rakwana Bridge

Material Properties
Laboratory tests were carried out to determine material properties of the bridge material for use
this analysis. From the material test result obtained, the material of the bridge truss, cross
girders and bracings are identified as wrought iron. Full details of the testing and observations
are given in the previous chapter and the main results are summarized below.
Modulus of Elasticity E = 195 x 103 N/mm2
Yield Strength, fy = 206 N/mm2
Tensile Strength, fu = 283 N/mm2
Support Condition
Roller and Pin supports
Loadings
Dead load, superimposed dead load and the weight of the tipper were considered in the analysis.
The analysis was done with 35 tons loaded three axial tipper moving on the bridge.

According to the photographic evidence bottom chord member 5 and top chord member 299
have been identified as the critical members. These critical members were taken into
consideration. Analysis was done for the bridge model under actual loadings on the bridge.

Fig.4.14 and Fig.4.15 show the axial force variation of the member 5 and member 299
respectively, corresponding to the movement of the tipper from failed end to other end.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 24
 CHAPTER 4

Fig.4.14 - Axial force variation of the member 05 depending on the position of the
tipper.

Elastic capacity =4573.2 kN

Axial force = 1182 kN

Fig.4.15 - Axial force variation of the member 299 depending on the position of the
Tipper

Obtained result from FE model analysis indicated that the elastic capacities of the critical
members are larger than applied load substantially. It may be concluded that any member in this
bridge not exceeded elastic capacity.

Stress range = (Maximum Stress ( max)) – (Minimum Stress ( min))

Mean stress = (Fmax - Fmin)/2A

= (1116-792)/ (2x 0.0104)
= 15.58 N/mm2

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 25
 CHAPTER 4

4.3.2 SPECIMEN CALCULATION

Cross section capacity of tension in bottom chord critical member 5 and buckling resistance of
top chord member 299 were calculated manually as indicated below.

Reference Calculation Result

BS 5950 Check for Cross section capacity of tension
Part1
2000
Clause Bottom chord Member 5 (Critical Member) Cross
4.8.2.2 section
capacity
of tension
Check for buckling resistance of member is satisfied
Top chord Member 299 (Critical Member)

Clause
4.8.3.3.1

Where
Fc is the axial compression
Mb is the buckling resistance moment
Mlt is the maximum major axis moment in the segment length L
governing Mb
Mx is the maximum major axis moment in the segment length Lx
governing p cx

My is the maximum minor axis moment in the segment length Ly

governing p cy
Pc is the smaller of p cx p cy
P cx is the compression resistance from 4.7.4 considering buckling
about the major axis only

Pcy is the compression resistance from 4.7.4 considering buckling

about the minor axis only
ZX is the section modulus about the major axis
Zy is the section modulus about the minor axis

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 26
 CHAPTER 4

β=1
Table.26
mx = my= 1
From eqn ② Buckling
resistance
is
Clause satisfied.
4.3.6.4 Mb = PbZx

Table.16
λLT = Le/r
= 2.08/√13.19 x 10-5 /0.02219
= 27.01
Pb = 235 N/mm2

Mb = 235 N/mm2x 106 x 5.383 x 10-4 m3

= 126.50 kN

Table.18 mLT = 1
From eqn ③ Buckling
resistance
is satisfied

Obtained results indicated that the tension capacity of the member 5 and buckling resistance of
member 299 are satisfied. Therefore this bridge could not fail due to this manner.

4.3.3 FATIGUE FAILURE

Fatigue in metals is the process of initiation and growth of cracks under the action of repetitive
tensile loads. If crack growth is allowed to go on long enough, failure of the member can result
when the un-cracked cross-section is sufficiently reduced such that the member can no longer
carry the internal forces for the crack extends in an unstable mode. The fatigue process can take

place at stress levels (calculated on the initial cross section) that are substantially less than those
associated with failure under static loading conditions. The usual condition that produces
fatigue cracking is the application of a large number of load cycles.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 27
 CHAPTER 4

Depending on the magnitude of cyclic stresses, there are four types of fatigue failure.

1. Very High Cyclic Fatigue (VHCF)

2. High Cyclic Fatigue (HCF)

3. Low Cyclic Fatigue (LCF)

4. Ultra-Low Cyclic Fatigue (ULCF)

The HCF is defined as fatigue due to stress below the general yield stress. The number of
cycles for failure in HCF region is within 103 – 104 cycles to 107 – 108 and above this the
VHCF region starts. Most of the cyclic stresses due to service load in bridge elements are
within the HCF & VHCF region. [20]

The LCF is defined as fatigue due to stress above the general yield stress & the number of
cycles for failure is between HCF (less than 103-104cycles) & ULCF. Such stresses (related to
LCF) may develop in bridge elements due to overloading & minor accidents.

ULCF is defined as the failure due to fatigue in less than 10 – 20 cycles where the stress is
above the general yield stress & the failure is due to ductile fracture. Stresses of ULCF region
may develop during earthquakes while the bridge is loaded & due to blast loading etc. [2]

The fatigue life of a fabricated steel structure is determined by three factors. These are:

1. The number of cycles of loading to which the member is subjected;

2. The type of detail under examination; and

3. The stress range at the location of the detail.

Members susceptible to fatigue are those under fluctuating tensile stresses, and hence the
critical members of the truss needing fatigue analysis.

Determination of type of fatigue

As indicated in the previous chapter, a sample of a truss member of Rakwana bridge supplied
by RDA was tested in the Structural laboratory, University of Peradeniya and following results
were obtained.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 28
 CHAPTER 4

Table.4.3 – Fatigue test result

Fractural
Specimen Diameter Load Time Number
Length(mm) Length
Number (mm) (lb) (min) of cycle
(mm)
1 6.1 100 6.5 16 0.48 x 105 99

2 6.0 100 3.6 18 0.5 x 105 100

3 5.95 100 2.0 30 2 x 105 96

According to the lab experiment result of fatigue analysis there was identified a High Cyclic
Fatigue (HCF). Final aim of this exercise is to identify that the bridge having the remaining
fatigue.

4.3.4 S-N CURVE

An S-N curve defines the number of cycles to failure, when a material is repeatedly cycled
through a given stress range. S of S-N curve stands for “Stress”. That means repetitive load. N
stands for “Number of cycles to failure”. S describes a vertical axis and N describes a horizontal
axis.

σ – Stress

w – Load

L – Length

y – Neutral axis

I – Second moment of area

Specimen calculation

w = (6.5 + 5) x 4.448 N

= 51.152 N

y = d/2

= 6.1/2 = 3.05 mm

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 29
 CHAPTER 4

= 67.966 mm4

σ1 = 51.152 N x 100 mm x 3.05 mm = 229.55 N/ mm2

67.966 mm4

Obtained result of stresses of each sample by manual calculation is tabulated below.

Table.4.4 Stresses corresponding to Number of Cycles

Number of Cycles (x105) Stress (N/mm2)

0.48 229.55

0.54 180.39

2 150.56

By using above values the S-N curve for the truss material is plotted.

Endurance Limit

Fig.4.16 - S-N Curve

According to experimental testing result the endurance limit of material is around to 100
N/mm2. But operating stress is 15.6 N/mm2 (by previous calculation). It is very below the
endurance limit. That means there cannot be any fatigue failure.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 30
 CHAPTER 4

4.3.5 FRICTION FAILURE

Static Friction

Static friction is friction between two or more solid objects that are not moving relative to each
other. The coefficient of static friction, typically denoted as μs, is usually higher than the
coefficient of kinetic friction. The maximum possible friction force between two surfaces before
sliding begins is the product of the coefficient of static friction and the normal force.

Fmax = µsFn
Fmax is the maximum force of friction exerted by each surface on the other

µs is the coefficient of friction

Fn is the normal force exerted by each surface on the other directed perpendicular (normal) to
the surface

By the FE model analysis result support reactions are obtained assuming support conditions as
pined.

Fig.4.17 - Support reactions of the bridge

µs = 0.74 [14]
Friction Force,
FF = µFn = 0.74x 633
= 468.42 kN
Horizontal Force – 898 kN

Friction Force, FF < Horizontal Force, FH

In here, the friction force is less than the horizontal force. Obtained results indicated that bridge
sliding could be occurred.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 31
 CHAPTER 4

4.3.6 FAILURE CAUSES OF THE BRIDGE

According to the results from FE analysis, bridge could not failed due to axial force failure.
Calculations showed that cross section capacity of tension in bottom chord critical member
(member 5 was selected as the critical member by photographic evidence) and buckling
resistance in top chord critical member (member 299 was selected as the critical member by
photographic evidence) were satisfied. This confirmed that bridge could not failure in this
manner.
According to the lab experimental results of fatigue, bridge could not failed due to the fatigue
failure. By checking the horizontal force and friction force of the bridge with the vehicle, it
could be identified Friction force < Horizontal force. Therefore it showed that bridge sliding
could be happened. This could be the reason for the failure of the bridge.

4.4 CASE STUDY 03

Mallawapitiya-Rambadagalla-Kappitigala (MRK) 30/1 Bridge (By Photographic
evidence)
This bridge was a single span steel truss bridge with single lane. The bridge was 122.05 feet
long and 12.20 feet wide and had through type deck supported on two abutments. The bridge
was located on Mallawapitiya – Rambadagalla – Kappitigala road. The bridge collapsed in 2015
when two metal loaded tippers tried to cross the bridge.

Fig.4.18-Kappitigala Bridge before Failure

According to the information gathered by RDA, corroded three wind bracings had been
removed before failed the bridge. Fig.4.19 shows the failed end of the bridge.Fig.4.20, Fig.4.21
show the plan view and side view of the failed bridge.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 32
 CHAPTER 4

Fig.4.19 - Failed end of the bridge Fig.4.20 - Plan view

Fig.4.21 - Side view

By observing the photographic evidence of the failed bridge following critical members were
identified. The deck of the failed end from where two tippers entered had fallen down from road
level (Fig.4.19).Top chord and web diagonals had buckled at the centre (maximum bending
moment area)(Fig.4.21).Top chord had bend at the failed end. (Fig.4.20).Significant number of
wind bracings (3 bracings) had been removed at the moment of accident.

4.4.1 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING FOR KAPPITIGALA BRIDGE

The bridge consists of single span of warren type supported on abutments. By visual Inspection
of failed bridge there was identified that three lateral bracings to the top Chord was removed
before failure. Two 3D STAAD Pro models of the Kappitigala Bridge (one model with the all
lateral bracings and the other without three lateral bracings) incorporating the main trusses and
bracings, cross girders, deck was used in the analysis. Full details of the two models, loading
and numerical results obtained are given in Appendix X.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 33
 CHAPTER 4

Member 18

Fig.4.22 - 3D view of the Kappitigala Bridge

Material Properties
Laboratory tests also carried for collected failed bridge truss sample collected from RDA
depots. From the material test result obtained, the material of the bridge truss, cross girders and
bracings are identified as mild steel. Full details of the testing and observations are indicated in
the previous chapter and the main results are summarized below.
Modulus of Elasticity = 205x103 N/mm2
Yield Strength, fy= 238 N/mm2
Tensile Strength, fu =384 N/mm2
Weight per unit volume = 76.8191 kN/m3

Support Condition
Roller and Pin supports
Loadings
Dead load, superimposed dead load and the weight of the truck were considered in the analysis.

4.4.2 ANALYSIS RESULT

The analysis was done with two tippers of 32 tons loaded two axial tippers moving on the
bridge. Results from the FE analysis for the two FE models: with all top lateral bracings and
without three top lateral bracings are discussed below.

FE model with all the top lateral bracings

Axial force variation of the truss members were analyzed depending on the movement of the
rear truck. The load case envelope was developed by considering all the load cases to identify
the maximum load in each truss member.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 34
 CHAPTER 4

Figure: 4.23 - Axial Force Diagram for the load case envelope with all
lateral bracings

Fig.4.23 illustrates the axial force variation of the truss members for the load envelope in the FE
model with all the top lateral bracings. It is clear that the bottom chord members at the middle
of the truss have higher tensile forces while those at the middle of the top chord have higher
compressive forces.

Fig.4.24 - Demand capacity ratios in the model with all lateral bracings

By FE model analysis result, there haven’t any truss member exceeded demand/capacity ratio
over 1, indicating no failure will occur.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 35
 CHAPTER 4

Fig4.25 - Steel design result of member 18 with major and minor moments with all lateral
bracings

Without three top lateral bracings

By STAAD Pro. analysis there was identified No.18 top chord member as the critical member
and the design check data sheet obtained for that member is shown in Fig.4.26

Fig4.26 - Steel design result of member 18 with major and minor moments without three
lateral bracings

It is clear that the FE model accurately predicts the failure of the top chord member by giving a
warning message.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 36
 CHAPTER 4

Fig.4.27 - Axial force variation of the member 18 corresponding to the movement with
constant distance (31m) between two tippers.

Fig.4.28 - Axial force variation of the member 18 corresponding to the movement of the
rear tipper when front tipper steady point on the end of the bridge

Member 18
Fig.4.29 - Demand capacity ratios in the FE model without first three lateral bracings
from the entering end.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 37
 CHAPTER 4

Following two tables are indicated the summary of the FE model analysis results with all top
lateral bracings and without first three top lateral bracings.

Table.4.5 - Results With all top lateral bracings

Member Axial Force(kN) My (kNm) Mz(kNm) Demand/Capacity

17 978.6 (0.608) 3.7 (0.023) 4.5 (0.032) 0.663
18 974.2 (0.606) 3.7 (0.023) 4.4 (0.031) 0.660
19 973.9 (0.606) 2.7 (0.017) 4.7 (0.032) 0.655

Table.4.6 - Results Without first three top lateral bracings

Axial
Member My (kNm) Mz(kNm) Demand/Capacity
Force(kN)
17 973.5 (0.601) 81.1 (0.513) 4.4 (0.035) 1.149
18 970.0 (0.603) 119.8 (0.757) 4.4 (0.030) 1.391
19 969.7 (0.603) 112.7 (0.712) 4.6 (0.032) 1.347

4.4.3 SPECIMEN CALCULATION

Reference Calculation Result
Clause Slenderness ratio λ = Le /r

4.8.3.3.1 Le – Effective length

Le = 1.0 L
r - Radius of gyration
r = √I/A
Slenderness ratio = 3.1/√7.036x10-5/0.0082
= 33.466 < 180
Slenderness ratio is satisfied. Therefore no lateral torsional Slenderness
buckling. ratio is
satisfied

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 38
 CHAPTER 4

Check for buckling resistance of member Top chord

Member 18 (Critical Member)

BS 4 - : Zy = Iy/B+0.5S
2005 B – Flange length
S – Space between webs
B = 0.09 m
S = 0.75 m
Iy = 0.0001189 m4
Zy = 0.0001189/(0.09+0.5x0.175)
= 6.70 x 10-4 m3

Table.26
β=1
mx = my= 1
Clause. without first three lateral top bracings
Moment capacity, MC < 1.2 PyZ
4.2.5.1
MCX < 1.2 x 238000 x 6.015 x 10-4
Clause.
< 171.79 kNm
4.2.5.2 MCX = 238000 x 7.10 x 10-4
= 168.98 kNm < 171.79 kNm
Moment capacity = 169 kNm
From eqn ②

Table.18
Buckling
mLT = 1
resistance
From eqn ③
isn’t
satisfied.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 39
 CHAPTER 4

Reference Calculation Result

Clause. Shear capacity, PV=0.6 PYAV

PVX = 323.9 kN
4.2.3 PVY = 492.7 kN
Shear Force FVX = 12.607 kN
FVY = 1.733 kN
Clause. FV < 0.6 PV Low shear
0.6 PVX = 0.6 x 323.9 = 194.34 kN >FVX condition is
4.2.5.2 0.6 PVY = 0.6 x 492.7 = 295.62 kN >FVY satisfied.

With all lateral top bracings

From eqn ②

Buckling
From eqn ③
resistance is
satisfied.

4.4.4 FAILURE CAUSES OF THE BRIDGE

According to the results from FE analysis, bridge could not fail due to axial force failure.
Calculations showed that the top chord critical member do not fail due to lateral torsional
buckling as the slenderness ratio of the members are less than 180. By comparing minor axis
moment, My values of the critical member (Member18) with all lateral bracings and without
first three top lateral bracings, it showed the My value increased from 3.719 kNm to 119.81
kNm. Table.4.5 shows that Demand/Capacity ratio of the truss members have not exceeded over
1 with all lateral bracings. However according to the Table.4.6, it shows that Demand/Capacity
ratio of the truss members have exceeded over 1 without first three top lateral bracings at the
entering end due to increasing the minor axis moment. This could be the reason for the failure
of the bridge.

Structural assessment of recent bridge damages and failures in Sri Lanka Page | 40