Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture

LONG-SPAN RAILWAY BRIDGE DESIGN:

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL

FORMS, A CASE-STUDY OF A 170 M SINGLE-SPAN

DOUBLE-TRACK BRIDGE

PIKASILDELISTE RAUDTEESILDADE PROJEKTEERIMINE: ALTERNATIIVSETE

KONSTRUKTSIOONILAHENDUSTE TEHNILINE ANALÜÜS 170 M SILDEAVA

KORRAL

MASTER’S THESIS

Student Kees Vanamölder

Student code 144394EATM

Supervisor Professor Juhan Idnurm

Tallinn 2017

1

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

Hereby I declare that I have written this thesis independently.

No academic degree has earlier been applied for based on this material.

All works, major viewpoints and data of the other authors used in this thesis have been

referenced.

19.05.2017

Author: ..............................

/signature /

Thesis is in accordance with terms and requirements

“.......” .................... 201….

Supervisor: ….........................

/signature/

Accepted for defence

“.......”....................201… .

Chairman of theses defence commission: .............................................................................

/name and signature/

2

Preface

Current MSc thesis has been carried out in cooperation with Republic of Estonia Technical

Regulatory Authority and Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications in order to

analyse possible structural solutions for railway bridge of Rail Baltic over Pärnu river.

I would like to express high gratitude to my supervisor professor Juhan Idnurm for

supporting, consulting and advising me during thesis writing. I want to thank professor

emeritus Siim Idnurm for teaching and introducing me to the exciting world of bridge and

structural engineering. I appreciate highly my mentor and a great friend Vladimir Keiv for

motivating me to study bridge engineering.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone who have contributed to my pleasant time at Tallinn

University of Technology during my master studies 2014-2017, including my fellow-

students from the university and colleagues from Sweco.

3

Table of contents

Preface ...............................................................................................................................2Table of contents ................................................................................................................31 Introduction ................................................................................................................52 Literature survey and current practice in design of long-span railway bridges .............6

2.1 Classic arch bridges .............................................................................................72.2 Network arch bridges ......................................................................................... 102.3 Cable-stayed bridges .......................................................................................... 142.4 Suspension bridges ............................................................................................ 182.5 Truss bridges ..................................................................................................... 232.6 Beam and cantilever bridges .............................................................................. 25

3 Case-study: technical characteristics and ground information ................................... 303.1 Location of designed railway bridge .................................................................. 303.2 Railway track geometry on the bridge ................................................................ 323.3 Technical constraints for design and requirements of Rail Baltic ........................ 33

4 Structural design of solutions for case-study railway bridge...................................... 354.1 Structural materials ............................................................................................ 354.2 Basics of structural design.................................................................................. 36

4.2.1 Loads .......................................................................................................... 364.2.2 Ultimate limit state ..................................................................................... 394.2.3 Service limit state ....................................................................................... 414.2.4 Structural dynamics .................................................................................... 43

4.3 Structural design and FEM analysis ................................................................... 444.3.1 Basics of girder modelling .......................................................................... 454.3.2 Basics of arch modelling ............................................................................. 464.3.3 Basics of cables modelling .......................................................................... 474.3.4 Basics of truss modelling ............................................................................ 474.3.5 Supports and bridges layout ........................................................................ 47

5 Structural evaluation and description of bridge alternatives ...................................... 505.1 Deflections and displacements of structural elements ......................................... 505.2 Internal forces of structures ................................................................................ 53

4

5.3 Conclusions of structural analysis ...................................................................... 566 Quantities of structural materials .............................................................................. 577 Life cycle cost evaluation ......................................................................................... 58

7.1 Methodology and base-prices ............................................................................. 587.2 Conclusions and LCC comparison ..................................................................... 61

8 Aesthetics evaluation ................................................................................................ 648.1 Methodology...................................................................................................... 648.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 64

9 Conclusions and further research .............................................................................. 679.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 679.2 Main contributions ............................................................................................. 679.3 Further research ................................................................................................. 68

10 Summary .................................................................................................................. 6911 Kokkuvõte................................................................................................................ 70Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 71

5

1 Introduction

Due to constant development and upgrading of railway infrastructure around the world,

structural solutions for long-span railway bridges need to be applied around the world. Being

a technically advanced solution and requiring high investments, decision-making about cost-

effective and rational structural form is important.

Many long-span railway bridges were built during 19th or 20th century around the world.

Despite long history, bridge engineering is in constant development by new construction

materials, increased application of high strength concrete and steel and new developments

for innovative structural solutions.

For example, network arch bridge that is among the structures analysed in current study, was

developed during the second half of 20th century but found wider use in last 20 years

[Varennes 2011]. Truss bridges have been widely used during 19th and 20th century,

nowadays optimized structural forms have been developed.

The aim of current study was to analyse and compare different structural forms for 170 m

single-span railway bridge, taking into account modern structural solutions and materials

available. For comparing the structural forms, following evaluation criterions have been

defined:

- Cost-effectiveness: life-cycle cost and construction price;

- Aesthetics: architectural value of structural form of bridge.

For estimation of described criterions, conceptual design, including structural analysis and

optimization was carried out on 5 different structural forms for case-study bridge.

6

2 Literature survey and current practice in design oflong-span railway bridges

In current chapter, literature survey was carried out to determine common design and

construction practices of railway bridges similar to 170 m span that is being analysed in

current study.

Bridges with double-track railway superstructure spanning up to 170 m are considered as

exceptional solutions and should not be considered as economically reasonable solution in

case possibility for intermediate supports exist. According to investigations conducted at

Delft University of Technology, long-span solutions for double-track railway bridges solved

with arch or cable-stayed structure showed to be in average 1.7...1.9 times more expensive

than typical continuous beam or truss bridge with intermediate supports. [TU Delft: ESDEP

course]

Optimal and possible span length for different bridge structure types can be observed from

Figure 2.1. These values are based on mechanical characteristics of existing building

materials, excluding any possible new materials that could probably be available in the

future. [Melaragno 2009]

Figure 2.1. Optimal and possible range of span for different bridge structure types

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

Concrete/steel beambridge

Steel truss bridge

Concrete/steel archbridge

Cable stay bridge

Suspension bridge

Span lenght [m]

7

As showed in Figure 2.2, all above described bridge types can be found amongst variety of

road bridges in Sweden (Trafikverket) [Safi 2012].

Figure 2.2. Structural forms of road bridges in use in Sweden with span range 100-200

m

2.1 Classic arch bridges

Arch is a typical structure of bridge for spans between 50-400 m. Philosophy of arch bridge

lies in exertion of vertical loads into compression forces in the arch cross-section and

transmitting them to ground support to be balanced by horizontal and vertical reaction

component.

Since for curved beams forming the arch, longitudinal forces are usually more economical

to resist compared to bending, arch type structure, in case if optimally designed, can be more

economical for long spans, compared to simple beam bridges.

For abutments of arch bridge, solid ground conditions are required since both vertical and

horizontal forces from the arch are transmitted to the ground by abutments. [Melaragno

1998]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Beam/truss bridge

Arch bridge

Cable stay bridge

Suspension bridge

Number of bridges in analysed segment [pcs]

8

Arch bridges for long spans can be divided into two main categories based on configuration

of hinges presented in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Arch types divided according to number of hinges [Sundquist 2007]

For zero-hinge arches, foundation needs to absorb both the horizontal force and clamping

moment, therefore remarkably good ground conditions are required, preferably rock or other

material with internal friction. Zero-hinge arches provide the most material-economical

solution for arch. In case of poor ground conditions, two-hinge arch should be introduced.

In Figure 2.4, different bridge deck configurations are presented. Bridge types 4) and 5) use

deck plate as both tie and stiffening beam, as for bridge types 1) and 2) expansion joint have

been introduced to accommodate railway connection in the middle of the bridge. This

solution can be called bow-string arch and can be used for two-hinge arch in order to reduce

horizontal reaction forces on abutments.

9

Figure 2.4. Different solutions of bridge deck configuration for arch bridges [Sundquist

2009]

Span-to-rise ratio L/f is normally provided between 5 and 7 in order to introduce

economically reasonable solution. [Sundquist 2007]

Figure 2.5. Stäketbron in Sweden. Concrete arch bridge on Mälarbanan (Stockholm-

Västerås railway). Span lenght 130 m. Opened for traffic in 2001. Picture of author

10

Figure 2.6. Typical process for construction of concrete arch bridge with no

intermediate supports. Arch is constructed step-by-step with supporting of pieces with

cables, supported on vertical columns and anchored to soil [Осипов, Храпов, Бобриков

1988]

For conventional arch bridge both reinforced concrete and steel are considered as suitable

options for arch material. Reinforced concrete, according to world practice, can be more

suitable option when majority of internal forces are formed by bending moments. In case

of longitudinal tension is considered as the dominating type of internal forces, steel arch

would be more suitable. [Осипов, Храпов, Бобриков 1988]

In case of arch is installed on top of bridge deck, vertical hangers conventionally can be

manufactured from steel since they work for longitudinal tension.

2.2 Network arch bridges

Network arch is defined as a tied-arch bridge with inclined hangers that cross each other at

least twice. The hangers always work under tension and chords for both tension and

11

bending. Arch is usually manufactured from steel. Lower bridge deck is typically a

concrete slab. Example of network arch bridge is presented in Figure 2.7. [Varennes 2011]

Figure 2.7. Typical network arch bridge [Varennes 2011]

Figure 2.8. Network arch road bridge at Rannu-Jõesuu, Estonia. Span lenght 90 m,

opened in 2009. Photo: AS Merko Ehitus.

Network arch hangers can be wires or rods and they have strength for longitudinal tension,

they are not meant for resisting bending moments. Hangers are typically tied to each other

in order to prevent them from bumping into each other.

Network arch bridge is considered to be structural form where components are loaded with

more longitudinal tension and less bending moment compared to tied arch bridge. This

12

effect is especially remarkable in case if bridge is only partially loaded and not being under

constant divided load for all length. This phenomena was characterised by calculations of

Per Tveit in 1980, presented in Figure 2.9. [Tveit 2014]

Figure 2.9. Influence lines for bending moments in the lower chords [Tveit 2014]

Hangers of network arch should be configured as shown in Figure 2.10. Angles α between

arch axis and hangers should be equal.

Figure 2.10. Geometry of fastening for hangers and arch [Brunn, Schanack 2003]

13

Figure 2.11. Fehrmansundbrücke, Germany. Steel network arch bridge on railway line

Lübeck-Puttgarden, longest span 248 m. On bridge deck single-track railway and 1+1 road

is accommodated. Bridge was constructed 1960-1963. Photo: Mario Schürholz

In order to simplify constructability, arch structure for network arch bridge has typically

circular shape. It could be manufactured from I-beams (shorter spans) or box steel beams

(longer spans).

Network arch as a first alternative can be constructed on site by erecting the arch and

fastening the hangers with each other and finally constructing the lower bridge deck. Since

network arch is considered to be light structure, compared to other bridge types,

constructing it nearby and then lifting it on site with floating cranes (Brandanger bridge,

Norway) or by sliding the bridge to right place. Mentioned alternative is illustrated in

Figure 2.12. [Tveit 2014]

14

Figure 2.12. Possible construction technology proposed by Per Tveit for Straubing

bridge (span lenght 152 m), Germany, constructed in 1981 [Tveit 2014]

2.3 Cable-stayed bridges

Cable-stayed bridge consist of vertical or longitudinally tilted pylons and cables that connect

pylons to the bridge deck. Typically cable-stayed bridge consists of one medium span and

two spans on sides that in most cases are approximately two times shorter than medium span.

Beams that support the bridge deck can be trusses, plate-girders or box-girders. Cable-stayed

15

bridges are common solutions for covering long spans, also for railway bridges. Typical

configurations of a cable-stayed bridges are presented in Figure 2.13. [Осипов, Храпов,

Бобриков 1988]

Figure 2.13. Main structural types of cable-stayed bridges. Type 1) harp configuration,

type 2) fan configuration and type 3) asymmetrical system. For type 4) pylon has been tilted

in longitudinal direction in order to equalize cable forces [Sundquist 2009, Idnurm 2016]

16

Figure 2.14. Cable-stayed bridge over Po river, Milan-Bologna high-speed railway in

Italy. Main span length is 192 m, the bridge was opened in 2006. Picture: Mario Petrangeli

& Associati

Cables are typically formed of steel ropes fixed with internal plastic cover. Several

different configurations exist for configuration of cable and pylon supports. Main

configurations are presented in Figure 2.14. [Idnurm 2016]

17

Figure 2.15. Typical construction procedure of a cable-stayed bridge [Sundquist 2009]

18

Figure 2.16. Main configurations of cable fastenings and pylon supports for cable-stayed

bridge. For a) and b) cables are fastened to bridge deck and are therefore supported for

both sides. For c) cables are anchored to ground, pylon can be lighter in that case. For d)

pylons are stiffly fastened with deck plate. For railway bridges typically solution a) or b) is

applied [Idnurm 2016]

2.4 Suspension bridges

A suspension bridge is a type of bridge in which the deck (the load-bearing portion) is hung

below suspension cables on vertical suspenders. Main load-bearing components are main

cable, vertical hangers, pylons and bridge deck that also works as stiffening girder (See

Figure 2.17).

19

Suspension bridges can be classified by number of spans, continuity of stiffening girders,

types of suspenders and types of cable anchorage. Stiffening girders can be classified into

two-hinge or continuous types. In order to provide equalised distribution of internal forces,

for railway (or combined road-railway bridges) typically continual girder is preferred. [Kivi

2009]. Examples of suspension bridge classification can be found from Figures 2.18 and

2.19.

Figure 2.17. Main components of suspension bridges and typical cable ground anchorage

[Harazaki, Suzuki, Okukawa 2000]

20

Figure 2.18. Suspension bridge with continuous (a) and two-hinge (b) stiffening girders

Figure 2.19. Suspension bridge with cable anchorage to stiffening girder with side-spans

(a) and to externally anchored main cables (b) without side-spans.

Typically suspension bridges are designed with one span in the middle and two side-spans

with length 0.5 times the length of middle span. In case if the need for side-spans does not

exist, suspension bridge can be designed also with single middle-span with main cables

anchored to ground (Figure 2.18b). [Gimsing, Georgakis 2012]

Typically suspension bridges are in use in world practice for long-span solutions (300 m or

more) with road or combined road-railway bridges. Longest spans of suspension bridges

cover up to 2000 m in length.

(b)

(a)

(a)

(b)

21

World’s practice lacks of good examples about railway dedicated suspension bridges.

World’s first railway suspension bridge was opened in 1855 at Niagara Falls between USA

and Canada (Figure 2.20). Good examples exist for very long-span road and railway

combined bridges, bridges with span more than 1,0 km have been built (Figure 2.21).

Figure 2.20. Suspension bridge for single-track railway, opened in 1855 with middle span

length 251 m. The suspension bridge was replaced with arch bridge during 1890s due to

increased traffic loads.

22

Figure 2.21. Tsing Ma bridge in Hong Kong, carrying 6 lanes of road traffic and 2 railway

tracks with middle span 1377 m [Wikipedia]

Typical erection technology for suspension bridge involves firstly launching main cables

and fastening deck plate and hangers piece-by-piece to main cables and can be observed

from Figure 2.22. [Harazaki, Suzuki, Okukawa 2000]

Figure 2.22. Typical construction technology of a suspension bridge

23

2.5 Truss bridges

Truss is a load-bearing element of a structure that is formed of elements that bear only

longitudinal tension and compression, not bending moment, and are connected to each other

with pinned joints. Truss was introduced to wider use for railway bridges during 19th century.

Main types of truss configuration can be found from Figure 2.23.

Figure 2.23. Main truss types in use for bridges [Kulicki 2000]

In world practice truss has appeared as reasonable structural type for covering spans between

25 and 300 m. Examples of truss bridges can be found from Figures 2.24, 2.25 and 2.26.

24

Figure 2.24. Steel truss single-track railway bridge in Estonia over Narva river with span

150 m that was opened for traffic in 1947. Truss can be considered as double-intersection

Warren type

Figure 2.25. Ekensbergsbron in Stockholm city, light rail Warren truss bridge over

conventional railway with span 70 m that was manufactured during 2011 [promostal.pl]

25

Figure 2.26. Stockley bridge in London is a Warren truss railway bridge constructed in

2014 [crossrail.co.uk]

Warren truss has occurred as the most popular option for railway bridges during 1980s and

1990s due to high structural performance and aesthetics.

Typically truss bridges are constructed similarly compared to network arch or tied arch

bridges, i. e manufactured on ground and then lifted to place. [Kulicki 2000]

2.6 Beam and cantilever bridges

Beam and slab bridges are not frequently used for covering long spans because usually high

beam is needed for that case and that increases significantly structural height of a bridge.

Span-to-structural depth ratio is usually considered to be about 1/20 in case of concrete

bridges, so for example bridge with 170 m span would require at least 8,5 m height of beam

and slab. [Melaragno 1998] Therefore simple beam or continous beam bridges are not further

analysed in current study.

For beam cross-section, T-beams, box-girders or steel-concrete composite bridges can be

used. Two mainly preferred girder systems for long-span bridges can be followed in Figure

2.27.

26

Figure 2.27. Possible cross-sections for long-span single-track railway beam or cantilever

bridge – box girder (left) and steel-concrete composite bridge (right) [Sundquist 2009]

For long-span bridges, balanced cantilever bridges can be used that are common in world

practice with span range 100-300 m. Bridge piles support rigidly cantilevers that are usually

formed of symmetrical beams, balancing vertical loads both sides of supports. Beams are

connected to each other in the middle of a span with vertically stiff bearing in order to

equalize internal forces of structure. [Sundquist 2009] Typical cantilever bridge layout can

be seen in Figure 2.28.

Figure 2.28. Typical cantilever bridge [Sundquist 2009]

27

Figure 2.29 Voroshilov cantilever road bridge, Russia. Longest span 160 m. Photo:

Rostov-on-Don city municipality

Typical construction method for cantilever bridge construction is presented in Figures 2.29

and 2.30. Bridge is being constructed step-by-step by lifting segments into place.

Figure 2.30. Construction of Krasnopresnensk cantilever bridge from precast concrete

elementsthat are lifted into place with a crane, Russia. Span 130 m [Осипов, Храпов,

Бобриков 1988]

28

Figure 2.31. Construction of cantilever road bridge at Ihaste, Estonia. Cast-in-situ

technology is applied with movable form step-by-step. Photo: Estonian society of concrete

engineering

In order to compensate bending moment that is exerted to cantilevers in middle span, typical

cantilever bridge should have in addition to middle span, side spans with length about 0,5

middle span. Structure of cantilever bridge is being designed with an assumption that

selfweight of side span bridge deck and possible traffic load on side span compensates

bending moments exerted to structure in middle span. Therefore bridge supports are not

designed to resist great bending moments and properly designed side spans are required. In

case if side spans were to be eliminated and supports to be designed to resist bending

moments the described technical solution of a bridge would appear to become an integral

beam bridge instead of cantilever bridge. Integral beam bridges have not shown to be

technically optimal solution for span as long as 170 m. [Sundquist 2009]

As the case-study railway bridge of current thesis does not require side spans and providing

side spans would result with unreasonably long and probably economically not optimal

solution, cantilever bridge is not further analysed in this study.

29

For case-study railway bridge, cantilever bridge requires to be analysed in further

investigations in case of placement of supports into the river becomes possible or side spans

appear to be necessary due to additional roads etc.

30

3 Case-study: technical characteristics and groundinformation

In order to evaluate possible structural solutions for bridges in practical case, case-study was

performed on the basis of designed Rail Baltic bridge over Pärnu river.

Rail Baltic is designed as new railway line between Tallinn and Poland that would connect

Baltic states with European railway network with 1435 mm track gauge. Rail Baltic is

double-track electrified railway line for mixed traffic with design speed of 240 km/h and

with overall length around 700 km. In Estonia overall length of railway route is around 210

km and railway alignment follows Tallinn (Muuga/Ülemiste), Rapla, Pärnu and Ikla.

Preliminary design of Rail Baltic will be finished during 2017-2018. Detailed design will be

carried out starting from 2018. Construction works scheduled to begin in 2019 and by 2026

new railway will be opened for traffic.

For ground information of current study, Rail Baltic preliminary design was presented to

author by agencies representing Estonian government in Rail Baltic project1 and consulting

company2 performing preliminary design.

3.1 Location of designed railway bridge

According to approved railway alignment in preliminary design, Rail Baltic intersects Pärnu

river, with a width of 150 m, inside Pärnu city. Due to environmental reasons locating bridge

supports into the river is restricted, therefore bridge spanning around 170 m needs to be

applied.

Future Rail Baltic bridge is located 20 m East from existing railway and road bridge over

Pärnu river. Location of bridge can be seen in Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and Appendix 1.

1 Republic of Estonia Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications;Republic of Estonia Technical Regulatory Authority.2 Reaalprojekt OÜ

31

Figure 3.1. Route of Rail Baltic inside Pärnu city. With red circle case-study bridge

location is highlighted.

Figure 3.2. Proposed location of case-study bridge, view from North-East side. Future

Rail Baltic bridge will be located next to existing railway and road bridge.

32

Figure 3.3. Proposed location of case-study bridge, view from South-East side.

3.2 Railway track geometry on the bridge

On the proposed bridge a double-track railway is located with a straight track section and a

constant gradient 5‰.

Following clearances have been taken into account for bridge design:

- Vertical clearance above road at least 5,3 m;

- Vertical river clearance 7,3 m or more.

As a part of Pärnu station, railway track crossovers need to be placed on the bridge. That

requires good accessibility and possibility for turnout installation to be taken into account in

bridge design. Since, according to current design, turnouts are partly located on deformation

joints that cannot be relocated on the future bridge, solution for turnouts on the bridge will

probably need to be redesigned.

Due to railway horizontal curve near Pärnu station, design speed of railway on the Pärnu

river bridge is restricted to 120 km/h.

33

3.3 Technical constraints for design and requirements of RailBaltic

Near Pärnu river, two road bridges need to be located at:

- Km+m 5+265 that is solved with a slab frame bridge in current study, span length

8,0 m;

- Km+m 5+526 that during current study is solved with a two-span (20+24 m)

continuous beam.

Due to design restriction of one middle-span and two relatively short side spans, structural

forms that require side-spans with at least 0,5 times the length of middle-span (cantilever

bridge, typical solution of suspension or cable-stayed bridge) cannot be used or needs to be

modified to meet the requirement of having only one span.

Due to clearances, main load bearing structure cannot be accommodated under a bridge and

therefore arch, truss etc need to be located above the bridge deck.

For Rail Baltic, railway structural clearance GC is in use together with distance between

parallel railway tracks 4,2 m that can be followed in Figure 3.4. [EVS-EN 15273-

3:2013+A1:2017]

34

Figure 3.4. Typical cross-section of Rail Baltic structural clearance (GC

35

4 Structural design of solutions for case-study railwaybridge

In order to provide alternative bridge solutions on sufficient level that allows to compare

them by multi-criteria analysis and to perform technical assessment, solutions were designed

on a level of preliminary bridge design. Designed structures can be followed from

appendixes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Structural analysis were carried out using FEM (Finite element method) numerical analysis

with software Bentley STAAD.Pro. Structure elements were dimensioned on the basis of

ultimate limit state (ULS) and service limit state (SLS).

Bridge structure optimisation and structural analysis were parts of overall technical

evaluation that allowed to make conclusions about different technical characteristics of

investigated bridge solutions.

4.1 Structural materials

For structural analysis and technical evaluation, main structural materials were used that

form the basis of structures load bearing capacity. List of structural materials and their

properties is presented in Table 4.1.

36

Type of material Steel S355Reinforced concrete

C35/45

Modul of elasticity E [MPa] 210*10³ 33,5

Poisson’s ratio υ 0,3 0,2

Shear modulus G [MPa] 81*10³ 9,28*10³

Density ρ [kg/m³] 7850 2500

Yield stress f.y [MPa] 335

Tensile strength f.u [MPa] 490

Compression strength f.ck [MPa] 35

Table 4.1. List of structural materials properties used in current study [Rohusaar et al

2014, Otsmaa 2014]

Reinforced concrete was modelled with FEM as monolitic material with modul of elasticity

60 MPa for longitudinal tension. Reinforcement rate was not considered during current study

since it needs to be determined during following phases of design.

4.2 Basics of structural design4.2.1 Loads

Load models that were used as basis of structural design, are defined in standard EVS-EN

1991-2/NA:20073. Main load models for railway traffic on bridges are as follows:

- Vertical traffic loads LM71, SW/0 and SW/2, presented in figures 4.1 and 4.2;

- Centrifugal force, applied in case railway track on a bridge is located on a horizontal

curve;

- Traction and braking force;

- Derailment forces.

For vertical load definition, load models LM71 and SW/2 have been applied:

3 EVS-EN 1991-2/NA:2007. Actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. Estonian National Annex

37

Figure 4.1. Load model LM71 for static influence of conventional railway traffic [EVS-

EN 1991-2]

Figure 4.2. Application scheme of load model SW/0 for static influence of conventional

railway traffic to continuous beam structure and SW/2 for influence of heavy railway traffic

[EVS-EN 1991-2]

Load model qvk [kN/m] a [m] c [m]

SW/0

SW/2

133

150

15,0

25,0

5,3

7,0

Table 4.2. Normative load values of SW/0 and SW/2 models

According to information that was available during this investigation for Rail Baltic, heavy

railway traffic load model SW/2 needs to be taken into account for dimensioning of

structures. SW/0 load model is not taken into consideration during current study since

continous beams are not in use for designed structures, it is expected that SW/2 is source of

higher loads that are governing compared to SW/0.

Vertical load models need to be multiplied with coefficient of dynamics Φ3 [EVS-EN 1991-

2/NA:2007] as following:

=2,16− 0,2

+ 0,73

has been considered as double distance between lateral beams, that according to designed

structures is 15 m. Therefore =1,32 for all structures.

38

Braking and traction forces acting on a bridge deck can be estimated according to

following rules:

- Traction force: Qlak= 33 [kN/m] La,b [m] ≤ 1000 [kN] for LM71, SW/0 and SW/2;

- Braking force: Qlbk=20 [kNm] La,b [m] ≤ 6000 [kN] for LM71 and SW/0 or Qlbk=35

[kN/m] La,b [m] for SW/2.

In order to evaluate the effect of different load models through bending moment formation

in the structure, a simple exercise has been carried out to compare load model effect on

simple beam bridge with 170 m long span. As seen from Figure 4.3, in general cases LM71

could be a source of highest bending moment in structure.

Figure 4.3. Calculated bending moments for 170 m single-span beam bridge.

Different structure types, such as suspension, cable-stayed or arch bridge could be more

sensitive to concentrated loads from load models SW/0 and SW/2. Also differences occur

depending on load exertion position on bridge deck – for example suspension bridges in

general could be more sensitive to concentrated loads on one side of the span than loads

exerted at mid-point of span.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

Bend

ing

mom

ent[

kNm

]

x-coordinate of span [m]

LM71 SW/2 SW/2SW/0

39

Selfweight of designed structures are considered with their respective densities (see Table

4.1).

4.2.2 Ultimate limit state

Ultimate limit state (ULS) is defined as a loading state where structure is working at its limit

of load bearing capacity. Exceeding ULS would result in a collapse of the structure.

Load factors can be found from EVS-EN 1990:2002/A1:2006. Generally for railway bridge

design dead load factor = 1,35 and live load factor = 1,45. Therefore for ULS

following equations apply for total load calculations:

∑ = +

stands for dead load according to standard load models. stands for live load according

to standard load models.

For calculation of ULS, all normative load cases were analysed in combination with dead

load in order to analyse structural stress and define necessary dimensions of structural

elements.

For material strength check in ULS, permissable stress in material can be calculated as

following:

For concrete compression: =

For steel: =

According to EVS-EN 1993-2:2006 = 1,15 and = 1, 5.

Structures in current study have been dimensioned for ULS according to Eurocodes. Variety

of checks have been carried out to provide necessary structure load bearing capacity. For

example steel structures for bending and shear stresses, steel beams for buckling and

40

stability, reinforced concrete deformation, stresses, crack opening, reinforcement tension

etc.

For global design of compressed and/or bent steel structures classification of cross-sections

has been taken into use for determining safe limits for minimum flange and wall width.

According to Figure 4.4, steel elements have been dimensioned for class 1 cross-sections

[EVS-EN 1993-2:2006/AC:2009].

Figure 4.4. Drawings for determining element width t and size c and factor α for cross-

section classification [EVS-EN 1993-2:2006/AC:2009].

Cross-sections for class 1 need to be determined according to following equation [EVS-EN

1993-2:2006/AC:2009]:

In case if > 0,5, ≤

In case if ≤ 0,5, ≤

41

=235

Where – yield strenght of steel

For estimating stresses in elements that are simultaneously suffering bending moment and

longitudinal tension, following equation was used for determining stresses [EVS-EN 1993-

2:2006/AC:2009]:

, + , − , ∗ , + 3 ≤ 1

Where , – stress of longitudinal tension

, – stress of lateral tension

– shear stress

4.2.3 Service limit state

Service limit state (SLS) involves several requirements that need to be followed in order to

provide acceptable working situation for the structure. In case if SLS is not followed,

structure strength is not necessarily yet endangered, but structure working state is no longer

providing visual aesthetics or reasonable maintenance, also structure reliability could be in

danger.

Service limit state is stated in Eurocode EVS-EN 1990:2002/A1:2006 and main

requirements are following:

- Vertical accelerations of bridge deck must be limited in order to maintain contact

between rail and rolling stock wheel. For ballasted railway track acceleration is

limited to 3,5 m/s² and for slab track 5,0 m/s².

- Twist of bridge deck is limited in order to avoid risk of rolling stock derailment. For

railway tracks with design speed 120 km/h or less bridge deck is allowed to be

twisted up to 1,5‰.

42

- Deflection of every specific bridge span is limited in order to provide general

stiffness of structure and to ensure required minimum vertical radius for passenger

comfort. Required L/δ (span/deflection) ratios can be observed from Figure 4.4. L/δ

ratio overall must not exceed 600. That results in maximum 283 mm deflection of

bridge deck at any point for 170 m span.

- Horizontal displacement of bridge deck upper level at span end is limited in order to

provide sufficient working conditions for deformation joints.

- Bridge deck horizontal rotation around its bearing at span edge is limited in order to

maintain required level of railway track geometry.

- Lateral deflection of bridge deck is limited in order to avoid additional forces in rail

fastenings and rail longitudinal tension.

Figure 4.4. Minimum span/deflection values stated in Eurocode for bridge with 3 or more

spans. For single-span bridge L/δ should be multiplied with 0,7. [EVS-EN

1990:2002/A1:2006]

During FEM simulation of current study, bridge deck deformations are observed and further

discussed in chapter 5.

It is assumed that bridge deck deflections only need to be calculated with traffic loads since

deformations from selfweight are compensated during construction process and deflection

of a bridge suffering only selfweight and no traffic loads is zero.

43

4.2.4 Structural dynamics

According to Eurocodes [EVS-EN 1991:2004+NA:2007] requirements whether a static only

or also a dynamic analysis is needed, are presented on Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5. Flow chart for determining whether a dynamic analysis is needed [EVS-EN

1991:2004+NA:2007]

44

Where V – maximum line speed at site [km/h];

L – span length [m];

n0 – first natural bending frequency of the bridge loaded by permanent actions

[Hz]

nT – first natural torsional frequency of the bridge loaded by permanent

actions [Hz]

v – maximum nominal speed [m/s]

According to Eurocodes, dynamic analysis is not needed for case-study railway bridge.

Therefore dynamic analysis are not included in this study and the results are valid only for

bridges that do not require dynamic analysis.

4.3 Structural design and FEM analysis

In order to analyse structural differences of bridges for load bearing capacity and to

determine dimensions of structural elements, structural analysis with FEM software Bentley

STAAD.Pro was carried out during this study. Bridge structures were analysed with traffic

loads and self-weight according to EVS-EN 1991-2/NA:2007.

Ultimate limit state (ULS) was evaluated according to EVS-EN 1990:2002/A1:2006 and

EVS-EN 1993-2:2006 and therefore bridge structures were dimensioned with sufficient load

bearing capacity. As a result of the study, major requirements that define structure

dimensions for ULS and has the most effect on overall design of the bridge from ULS point

of view are stresses in bridge elements (arch, pylons, cables and deck plate) due to tension,

compression and bending.

Service limit state (SLS) was determined according to requirements in EVS-EN

1990:2002/A1:2006, therefore bridges were dimensioned according to different

requirements stated for SLS.

As a result of the study, major requirement that defines structure dimensions for SLS and

has the most effect on overall design of the bridge from SLS point of view is vertical

deflection of bridge deck. Other requirements such as twisting of bridge deck or horizontal

deflection of elements can easily be avoided with increase of dimensions and moment of

45

inertia for single specific element. Therefore these requirements have no effect on general

structure of the bridge.

4.3.1 Basics of girder modelling

Designed bridge deck is typically a box girder of reinforced concrete, carrying two tracks of

ballasted or ballastless railway. Deck width has been selected according to required

structural clearances of railway and fixed distance between track centrelines. Typical cross-

section is presented in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6. Typical bridge deck for designed alternatives.

Girder has been modelled in STAAD.Pro as 4 parallel longitudinal beams consisting of

following:

- Two edge beams, forming edge of deckplate and fastening of cables and hangers;

- Two main beams, forming together box gross-section, including walls, upper and

lower flanges.

For load distribution between girders, lateral beams were designed, typically with 10 m step

between longitudinal girders. Typical girder modelled in STAAD.Pro is presented in Figure

4.7.

46

Figure 4.7. Analysed deck plate in STAAD.Pro. Longitudinal girders are displayed red,

lateral beams are painted blue and edge beams green.

Deck plate was analysed as a beam element, working for bending, tension and compression.

4.3.2 Basics of arch modelling

For arch bridge, reinforced concrete arch was taken into use and modelled in STAAD.Pro as

beam element, working for bending, tension and compression. Box beams were used as arch

with cross-section 2.0*2.5 m. Arch was formed from different straight beams that were

connected to each other at hanger position.

For network arch bridge, steel box beam is used as arch with dimensions 0.75*1.0 m. Cross-

sections of steel and reinforced concrete arch are shown in Figure 4.8.

47

Figure 4.8. Cross-sections of reinforced concrete (left) and steel arch analysed in current

study

4.3.3 Basics of cables modelling

Cables and hangers of all bridge types were modelled from steel with a condition that they

can only bear longitudinal tension, not to resist bending moment or compression (truss

element). Therefore realistic working conditions were possible to simulate.

4.3.4 Basics of truss modelling

Truss was modelled similar to cables and hangers, they were programmed to bear only

longitudinal forces: tension and compression.

Box steel beams were used as members for truss bridge with selected cross-section 0.7*0.7

m for main horizontal rod and 0.5*0.5 m for diagonal rods.

4.3.5 Supports and bridges layout

For analysis of bridge structures, bridges with 170 m long main span were considered

separately from short-spans at North side of the bridge. For deck plate, simple beam instead

of continuous beam was used (for arch bridge, continuous beam with intermediate supports

to arch through hangers) in order to avoid interaction of long-span bridge structure with side-

span on North side of the bridge and therefore to avoid unequal force and displacement

distribution in the main span.

48

Pylons were modelled with stiff fastening to ground as they could be reinforced in stiff

connection with foundation.

Layouts of alternative bridges 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are presented in Figure 4.9. With black, beams

and truss members are presented. With red, cables and hangers are presented.

FEM models made with Bentley STAAD.Pro can be found from Figure 4.8.

49

Figure 4.9. Layouts of tied-arch bridge (alternative 1, a), network arch bridge (alternative

2, b), suspension bridge (alternative 3, c), cable-stayed bridge (alternative 4, d) and truss

bridge (alternative 5, e). Tied-arch bridge deck is formed of continous beam, supported at

ends and by arch. For other alternatives bridge deck is formed of simple beam

(b)

(a)

(c)

(d)

(e)

50

5 Structural evaluation and description of bridgealternatives

5.1 Deflections and displacements of structural elements

Deflection of bridge deck under traffic loads is important parameter that should be followed

during structural design of a railway bridge. Deflection is limited according to Eurocode

service limit state requirements and therefore forms one of the main criterions for

dimensioning of general bridge structural elements, such as arch, hangers, truss, deck plate

etc. Deflection characterizes an overall bending stiffness of bridge structural form.

During current study was estimated that deflection of structure selfweight could be

compensated during construction and therefore only deflection from traffic loads needs to

be taken into account. Deflection of bridge deck of compared structural forms can be

followed from Figures 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. Overall deformations can be followed from Figure

5.4.

Figure 5.1. Bridge deck deflection caused by traffic load LM71.

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Defle

ctio

nof

brid

gede

ck[m

m]

x-coordinate [m]

Arch

Network arch

Suspension

Cable stay

Truss

51

Figure 5.2. Bridge deck deflection caused by traffic load SW/2 that has been located to

the middle of span.

Figure 5.3. Bridge deck deflection caused by traffic load SW/2 that has been located to

the edge of span.

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Defle

ctio

nof

brid

gede

ck[m

m]

x-coordinate [m]

Arch

Network arch

Suspension

Cable stay

Truss

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Defle

ctio

nof

brid

gede

ck[m

m]

x-coordinate [m]

Arch

Network arch

Suspension

Cable stay

Truss

52

Figure 5.4. Deformations caused by LM71 traffic load exaggerated 100 times for arch

(a), network arch (b), suspension (c), cable-stayed (d) and truss bridge (e)

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

53

According to analysis of deflections of different structural forms of bridges, following

conclusions can be formed:

- Conventional arch bridge can be considered as a relatively stiff structure for loads

that are located to middle of span. In case if load is located only to one side of the

span, deflections occure higher due to low bending stiffness of bridge deck and

displacement of arch;

- Network arch bridge can be considered as relatively stiff structure that results in

low deformations. Bridge deck deflection for equally distributed load is higher than

for concentrated load in the middle of the span. High structural stiffness means that

the structure should be dimensioned for ultimate limit state instead of service limit

state;

- Truss bridge can be considered as relatively stiff for loads that are exerted to one

side of the span, but relatively flexible for loads that are equally distributed to the

whole length of the span;

- Suspension and cable-stayed bridges have the least stiffness for concentrated loads

that are exerted to only one side of the span due to low bending stiffness of bridge

deck and flexible structural form. High flexibility of structural form causes high

dimensions of structural elements that need to be dimensioned according to service

limit state and therefore have high amount of reserve for ultimate limit state.

5.2 Internal forces of structures

In order to characterize distribution of loads in structure, peculiarities of every studied

structural form are described in current chapter.

As described in previous chapters, arch structures are dedicated to work under compressive

internal forces and the amount of bending moment should be as small as possible. Internal

bending moments for arch and network arch bridge are presented in Figure 5.5.

54

Figure 5.5. Internal bending moments for conventional arch and network arch bridges

formed by SW2 load model and selfweight

As visible from Figure 5.5, arch is suffering higher amount of bending moments in case of

classic arch bridge compared to network arch since hangers that are configured in diagonal

direction compensate bending moment which therefore results in required lower bending

stiffness of arch. Bending moment in deck plate is distributed more equally in case of classic

arch bridge compared to network arch.

Axial force diagrams of designed structures are presented in Figure 5.6.

55

Figure 5.6. Deformations caused by SW2 traffic load and selfweight for arch (a),

network arch (b), suspension (c), cable-stayed (d) and truss bridge (e). Tension is presented

with red, compression with blue color

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

56

According to Figures 5.1-5.6, following conclusions can be made:

- For classic arch bridge, load bearing capacity of the structure is formed mainly by

bending of bridge deck and arch and compression of arch. For non-tied arch bridge,

deck is working for tension only with longitudinal, but not with vertical traffic loads.

Due to high compression forces in the arch, geotechnical conditions of ground ought

to be sufficient for anchorage;

- For network arch bridge, load bearing capacity of the structure is formed mainly

by compression of arch and tension and bending of bridge deck;

- For steel truss bridge, load bearing capacity of the structure is formed mainly by

longitudinal tension and compression of rods and bending of bridge deck;

- For suspension and cable-stayed bridges, structural load bearing capacity is formed

by tension of cables, compression of pylons and bending of deck plate. Due to high

tension in anchored cables, geotechnical conditions of ground ought to be sufficient

for anchorage.

5.3 Conclusions of structural analysis

In order to satisfy the criterions for ULS (ultimate limit state) and SLS (service limit state)

structural design for different structural forms, bridge alternatives were designed and

analysed. ULS was main criterion for global design of structure for network arch and truss

bridges. Therefore these two structural forms are over-dimensioned for SLS.

SLS was main criterion for global design of structure for suspension, arch and cable-stayed

bridges. Due to high requirements for railway bridges SLS (including deflection), suspension

and cable-stayed bridges need to have relatively massive structure with high longitudinal

stiffness of cables.

57

6 Quantities of structural materials

According to designed and optimised structures, quantities of structural materials have been

calculated for designed bridge alternatives. More detailed list of quantities can be found in

Appendix 7. Quantities of requiered reinforced concrete and structural steel are presented in

Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

Figure 6.1. Volume of reinforced concrete for bridge alternatives

Figure 6.2. Volume of structural steel for bridge alternatives.

1461 1512

3584

1998 1833855

380

1197

1197

380

2016

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Arch bridge Network archbridge

Suspensionbridge

Cable-stayedbridge

Truss bridge

Volu

me

ofre

info

rced

conc

rete

[m³]

Deck plate Substructure and pylons Arch and truss

159278

2063

5791083

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Arch bridge Network archbridge

Suspensionbridge

Cable-stayedbridge

Truss bridge

Volu

me

ofst

ruct

ural

stee

l[m

³]

Cables and hangers Arch and truss

58

7 Life cycle cost evaluation

In order to evaluate possible alternative structural solutions, life-cycle cost for designed

alternatives was calculated.

7.1 Methodology and base-prices

Life-cycle cost analysed in current study consists of following components:

- Construction cost;

- Maintenance cost.

In order to simplify calculation, construction and maintenance costs were calculated with

base-year 2016.

Construction cost was calculated according to structural quantities and unit prices. Unit price

estimation by Estonian Road Administration statistics for year 2016 tenders for bridge

construction was used. In order to more accurately consider various structural peculiarities,

recommendations from unbiased construction experts were included in order to estimate the

unit prices. Overview and detailed construction price calculation results can be found in

Appendix 7.

Maintenance cost was estimated according to following basis:

- Maintenance work list and intervals are partly based on Russian Federation

requirements on railway bridges and culverts maintenance4. Experience and practice

of Estonian Road Administration (Maanteeamet) and Estonian Railways Ltd (AS

Eesti Raudtee) for bridge maintenance has been taken into account. Therefore a

typical maintenance worklist and intervals have been determined for a railway bridge

located in Estonia. Detailed maintenance worklist can be found from Appendix 8.

- Base-prices of maintenance work were determined on basis of Estonian Road

Administration tender statistics 2016.

4 Инструкция по содержанию искусственных сооружений. МПС России. Москва: Транспорт. 1999.

59

Maintenance cost was calculated with estimation of total bridge life cycle 70 years. For

discounting maintenance prices, NPV (net present value) was used:

= (1 + )

Where i – discount rate, as estimated 0,04

C2016 – cost of specific maintenance work during 2016 [EUR],

t – number of years, counted from 2016 when a specific maintenance work

will be carried out

N – total number of maintenance procedures following same algorithm

To implement annual increase in bridge maintenance prices, average coefficient of price

change was calculated on the basis of analysis of construction price index during the years

of 2002-2017. Average increase in bridge maintenance was selected as im=1,03. Similar

coefficient (1,04) is also recommended in Estonian Road Administration roadworks unit

price prognosis5.

Unit prices for maintenance works for years 2016-2086 have been calculated according to

following formula:

( ) = (1 + )

5 Teetööde ühikhinnad ja nende prognoos aastani 2022. Tallinn: Tallinna Tehnikaülikool 2013.

60

Figure 7.1. Construction price index according to Statistics Estonia [http://www.stat.ee].

Price index is calculated on the basis of 1997 year to be equal to 100.

Maintenance worklist, intervals and unit prices can be observed in detail in Appendix 8.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Cons

truc

tion

pric

ein

dex

year

61

7.2 Conclusions and LCC comparison

For characterisation of construction prices and LCC of designed bridge alternatives Figures

7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 can be observed.

Figure 7.2. Construction costs of analysed bridge alternatives in 2016 prices,

percentage of different structural elements in total construction cost is presented

Figure 7.3. Maintenance cost of analysed bridge alternatives, cost by specific structural

element type in total maintenance cost is presented

1069 121 1098 8012346 761 1382 782 1292 561

525 468 258 134

2453 4122453 412

258 134412 851 722 488

5851 6275363 291

0

2016 400 1591 350

0

0

2166 428

51 398 34 767

93 003

93 003

34 767

0

2000 000

4000 000

6000 000

8000 000

10000 000

12000 000

Arch bridge Network archbridge

Suspension bridge Cable-stayedbridge

Truss bridgeCons

truc

tion

cost

[EU

R]

Deck plate Bridge substructure and cable ground anchorage

Cables and hangers Arch and truss

Groundworks

612 975 633 712

1406 102

813 128612 975

41 014 31 043

42 144

42 39328 55717 216 57 386

247 908

377 417

022 351 90 115

0

0

312 04116 923

16 923

16 923

16 923

16 923

0200 000400 000600 000800 000

1000 0001200 0001400 0001600 0001800 000

Arch bridge Network archbridge

Suspension bridge Cable-stayedbridge

Truss bridge

Tota

lmai

nten

ance

cost

durin

gLC

[EU

R]

Deck plate Bridge substructure and cable ground anchorage

Cables and hangers Arch and truss

Groundworks

62

Figure 7.4. Total LCC cost of analysed bridge alternatives, calculated with base year

2016, percentage of construction and maintenance cost in total LCC is presented

As seen from Figures 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and Appendixes 8 and 9 following conclusions about LCC

can be formed:

- Network arch bridge can be considered among the most economical solutions for

170 m single-span configuration. Since the optimisation of a bridge results in

relatively stiff and slender structure, amount of structural materials (reinforced

concrete and structural steel) are relatively small;

- Truss bridge, having approximately 2% higher life cycle cost compared to network

arch bridge can be considered among the most economical solutions for 170 m

single-span configuration.

- Arch bridge with reinforced concrete arch is 7% more expensive compared to

network arch bridge according to LCC, therefore it can be considered among the

most economical solutions. The main difference in construction price of arch bridge

compared to network arch or truss bridge is caused by higher price of the arch and

arch ground anchorage;

- Cable-stayed bridge is 2.3 times more expensive compared to the cheapest

alternative network arch. Increase in cost is caused mainly by cables and pylons.

Cable dimensions have been selected according to limited deflections of bridge deck

4075 238 3705 540

10744 8039292 488

3751 890

710 479 829 180

1713 077

1249 861

970 497

0

2000 000

4000 000

6000 000

8000 000

10000 000

12000 000

14000 000

Arch bridge Network archbridge

Suspension bridge Cable-stayedbridge

Truss bridge

Tota

lLCC

[EU

R]

Construction Maintenance and overhaul

63

under traffic loads, therefore the estimation of cost is considered to be exact and

future optimisation might not be possible in large scale;

- Suspension bridge is the most expensive alternative for 170 m single-span solution.

Being altogether 2.8 times more expensive compared to network arch bridge, the

difference is mainly caused in high amount of structural materials required to provide

necessary structural stiffness, including cables and pylons. Similarly to cable-stayed

bridge, cost of suspension bridge is considered to be exact and future optimisation

might not be possible in large scale.

64

8 Aesthetics evaluation

8.1 Methodology

In order to evaluate visual aesthetics of bridge alternatives, evaluation was carried out with

4 experts of architecture. Each architect was asked to evaluate all 5 bridge alternatives from

the aesthetical point of view and determine a grade in 10 points scale. Following aspects

were taken into account for evaluation:

- Bridge aesthetical and artistic value;

- Bridge dignity and solemnity;

- Consistency with existing city environment;

- Consistency with Estonian architecture.

Therefore for any bridge alternative points between 0 and 40 could be obtained.

8.2 Conclusions

Scores obtained by different bridge alternatives could be followed from Table 8.1 and

Figure 8.1.

Archbridge

Networkarch

bridge

Suspensionbridge

Cable-stayedbridge

Trussbridge

Number ofpoints

18 32 16 35 14

Table 8.1. Scores obtained during aesthetics evaluation by different bridge alternatives

65

Figure 8.1. Scores obtained during aesthetics evaluation by different bridge alternatives

As a result of aesthetics evaluation, following conclusions were made during the discussion

with experts:

- Arch bridge can be considered as clumsy architectural solution for current case. Due

to long span and railway loads, structure is too massive to be aesthetically valuable.

The bridge is architecturally very similar to a landmark of Tartu town (Kaarsild),

therefore it is not forming any separate architectural value.

- Network arch bridge is architecturally innovative and solemn solution, value is

formed of structure slenderness and uniqueness for Estonia. Additional possibilities

exist for making the bridge aesthetically more interesting and eye-catching –

connecting two arches on top of the bridge, reconfiguring hangers etc.

- Suspension bridge is a majestic and elegant, but also formal and archaic structure.

Architectural value is decreased by massive and high pylons. Configuration of cables

allows passenger of train to have undisturbed view to the river whilst the train is in

the middle of the span.

- Cable-stayed bridge can be considered as architecturally the most valuable solution.

The structure is slender, bridge is majestic and innovative. Tilted pylons create

dynamic impression of the bridge. Similar to suspension bridge, cable configuration

allows passengers to have undisturbed view in the middle of the river.

- Truss bridge has the least value from architectural viewpoint due to clumsiness and

massive structure. Since the bridge is similar to typical bridges that were built during

first half of 20th century, the overall impression is conventional and archaic. The

18

32

16

35

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Arch bridge Network archbridge

Suspensionbridge

Cable staybridge

Truss bridge

Scor

eob

tain

edby

alte

rnat

ive

[poi

nts]

66

keyword for characterising aesthetical performance is rather industrial, not

architectural.

67

9 Conclusions and further research

9.1 Conclusions

On the basis of structural evaluation, LCC calculation and aesthetics evaluation, following

conclusions that apply for 170 m single-span railway bridge can be formed:

- Arch, network arch and truss bridges can be considered as relatively stiff structures

for analysed span and loads, therefore they can be designed with slender cross-

sections of main structural elements;

- Suspension and cable-stayed structures lack stiffness that is required for service limit

state for railway bridges, therefore the design of structure results in relatively massive

and expensive elements.

- Life-cycle cost of arch, network arch and truss bridges is similar, therefore they can

be considered as appropriate structural forms for analysed span;

- Cable-stayed and suspension bridge are approximately 2-3 times more expensive by

means of LCC, therefore cable structures cannot be considered as economically

rational options;

- Network arch and cable-stayed bridges are among structural forms with the highest

architectural and aesthetical value compared to other structural forms.

According to described results, the main conclusion of the current study is that network arch

bridge should be considered as preferred structural form for 170 m single-span double-track

railway bridge due to low LCC and high architectural value.

9.2 Main contributions

The main contribution of this study to modern bridge engineering is that first time network

arch double-track railway bridge was included for equal comparison with other structural

forms of long-span bridges according to Eurocode load models and requirements for

structural design.

68

9.3 Further research

In order to perform further research on comparison of the different structural forms of long-

span railway bridges, possible additional investigations that could be performed on the field

would be following:

- Environmental impact and life-cycle assessment of different structural forms of long-

span railway bridges;

- Comparison of different structural forms for long-span railway bridges with included

analysis of structural dynamics. Due to additional requirements for stiffness,

eigenfrequencies and oscillation modes of structure, structural elements of bridges

for high-speed railways need to be dimensioned in different way that could result in

increased mass of structure that influences the conclusions.

69

10 Summary

The aim of current MSc thesis was to investigate and compare different structural forms for

long-span railway bridges. The study focuses on double-track single-span railway bridge

with span 170 m. Case study was performed on the basis of Rail Baltic bridge over Pärnu

river in Estonia. Five different structural forms were included in the analysis:

- Classic-arch bridge with non-tied deck;

- Network arch tied bridge;

- Single-span suspension bridge with ground-anchored main cables;

- Cable-stayed bridge with ground-anchored cables;

- Steel truss bridge.

Analysed structural forms were evaluated and compared from following perspectives:

- Technical peculiarities of bridge structures;

- Life-cycle cost;

- Architecture and aesthetics.

Bridges with five defined structural forms were designed in preliminary phase on the basis

of case-study conditions. LCC was determined, structural peculiarities were analysed and an

architectural value was determined with help of experts.

The conclusion was made that since LCC of arch, network arch and truss bridges occurred

to be similar, these structural forms can be considered as the most suitable for span 170 m

from the financial point of view. LCC of suspension and cable-stayed bridges are

approximately 2-3 times higher compared to previously mentioned structural forms,

therefore cable structures cannot be considered as economically rational options. High

architectural and aesthetical value is obtained by network arch and cable-stayed bridges.

According to described results, the main conclusion of the current study is that network arch

bridge should be considered as preferred structural form for 170 m single-span double-track

railway bridge due to low LCC and high architectural value.

70

11 Kokkuvõte

Käesoleva magistritöö eesmärgiks oli võrrelda omavahel erinevate pikasildeliste

raudteesildade konstruktsioonilahendusi. Töös kasutati võrdlusena kaheteelist ühesildelist

raudteesilda avaga 170 m. Uuringu tarbeks defineeritud baas-raudteesilla projekteerimise

tehnilised tingimused määrati lähtuvalt Pärnu jõele projekteeritavast Rail Baltic

raudteesillast. Süvitsi analüüsiti viite erinevat konstruktsioonilahendust:

- Betoonkaarsild, kus silladekk ei tööta tõmbina;

- Võrkkaarsild;

- Rippsild maasse ankurdatud peakaablitega;

- Vantsild püloone tasakaalustavate ankurdatud kaablitega;

- Terassõrestiksild.

Erinevaid sillakonstruktsioone võrreldi järgnevatest parameetritest lähtuvalt:

- Sillakonstruktsioonide tehnilised eripärad;

- Elukaarekulud;

- Arhitektuur ning sillakonstruktsiooni esteetika.

Magistritöö tarbeks projekteeriti ning arvutati 5 eelpoolmainitud konstruktsioonilahendust

Rail Baltic sillana üle Pärnu jõe eskiisprojekti tasemel ning seejärel leiti elukaarekulud,

analüüsiti sillakonstruktsioonide eripära ning ekspertide abiga hinnati arhitektuurset

lahendust.

Töö järeldustena leiti, et betoonkaarsilla, võrkkaarsilla ning terassõrestiksilla

elukaaremaksumused on sarnased, mistõttu võib majanduslikult pidada neid antud sildele

ning tehnilistele tingimustele sobivateks variantideks. Ripp- ja vantsilla elukaarekulud on 2-

3 korda suuremad, kui eelpoolmainitud variantidel, seega ei ole need 170 m sildega

raudteesillana majanduslikult otstarbekad. Suurimat arhitektuurset väärtust omavad

analüüsitud sillatüüpidest võrkkaarsild ning vantsild.

Lähtuvalt eelpoolkirjeldatud tulemustest on käesoleva töö soovituseks 170 m pikkuse

sildega kaherajaliste raudteesildade projekteerimisel rakendada üldjuhul võrkkaarsilda, kuna

see on majanduslikult otstarbekas ning arhitektuurselt väärtuslik.

71

Bibliography

Atsushi, O., Suzuki, S., Harazaki, I. 2000. Suspension bridges. Bridge engineering

handbook. London, New York, Washington DC: CRC Press

Kulicki, J. M. 2000. Highway truss bridges. Bridge engineering handbook. London, New

York, Washington DC: CRC Press

Idnurm, Juhan. 2016. Lecture materials of course: Advanced design of bridges. Tallinn:

TUT.

Melaragno, Michele. 1998. Preliminary design of bridges for architects and engineers. New

York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Otsmaa, Vello. 2014. Betoonkonstruktsioonide arvutamine. Tallinn: TUT

Rohusaar, J., Mägi, R., Masso, T., Talvik, I., Jaaniso, V., Otsmaa, V., Loorits, K.,

Peipman, T., Pukk, O., Voltri, V., Õiger, K., Just, E., Just, A., Hartšuk, V. 2014.

Ehituskonstruktori käsiraamat. Tallinn: Ehitame

Safi, Mohammed. 2009. Bridge life cycle cost optimization. Analysis, evaluation &

implementation. Stockholm: KTH.

Safi, Mohammed. 2012. LCC applications for bridges and integration with BMS. Licenciate

thesis in structural engineering and bridges. Stockholm: KTH.

Sundquist, Håkan. 2009. Infrastructure structures. Stockholm: KTH.

Sundquist, Håkan. 2007. Arch structures. Stockholm: KTH.

Sundquist, Håkan. 2008. Prestressed concrete structures. Stockholm: KTH.

Tveit, Per. 2014. The network arch.

Varennes, Maxime. 2011. Design of a single-track railway network arch bridge. Stockholm:

KTH.

Крыльцов, Е. И., Попов, О. А., Файнштейн. 1974. Современные железобетонные

мосты. Москва: Транспорт.

Осипов, В. О., Храпов, В. Г., Бобриков, Б. В. 1988. Мосты и тоннели на железных

дорогах. Москва: Транспорт.

Content of TU Delft course: Steel construction: Economic & commercial factors.

72

http://fgg-web.fgg.uni-lj.si/~/pmoze/ESDEP/master/wg01a/toc.htm

Teetööde ühikhinnad ja nende prognoos aastani 2022. Tallinn: Tallinna Tehnikaülikool

2013.

Инструкция по содержанию искусственных сооружений. 1999. Москва: МПС России.

EVS-EN 1990:2002/A1:2006/AC:2010. Eurocode – Basis of structural design

EVS-EN 1990:2002/A1:2006 (+NA:2009). Eurocode - Basis of structural design.

Amendment A1 - Annex A2: Application for bridges

EVS-EN 1993-2:2006/AC:2009. Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 2: Steel

Bridges

EVS-EN 1991-2/NA:2007. Actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. Estonian

National Annex

EVS-EN 1992-2:2005/AC:2008. Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures - Concrete

bridges - Design and detailing rules

EVS-EN 15273-3:2013+A1:2017. Railway applications - Gauges - Part 3: Structure gauges

4.5

1

4.7

1

3.90

4.0

1

5.7

0

7.33

8.98

vana nılvakindlustus

9.14

2.1

5 2.1

2

2.1

4

3.1

6

3.0

5

2.8

3

2.6

2

2.3

5

7.7

2

7.6

1

2.7

3

1.6

8 1.6

9

0.5

3

1.4

2

1.6

9 1.2

8

2.2

4

2.5

3

2.5

3

9.24

mulla

hunnik

ud

Kr

Kr

Kr

A

A

Kr

KrKr

1.52

1.3

7

1.3

1

1.0

7 1.2

5

1.7

1

2.3

3

1.8

8

2.3

4

1.6

3

1.65

1.7

3

1.7

2

1.6

9

1.7

0

1.5

7

1.6

1

1.3

9 0.11

1.7

8

2.0

8

2.16

1.78

1.77

2.16

2.16

2.29

2.2

4

2.1

1

2.3

2

2.2

6

2.8

7 2.7

4

2.7

5

2.7

6 2.9

0

2.6

7 2.4

9

2.5

4

2.5

9

2.7

2 2.5

8

2.9

0 2.6

5

2.6

0

2.9

5

2.9

7 2.7

4

2.7

3

2.8

0

2.6

8 2.5

6

2.9

1

2.5

4

2.7

2

3.7

9

2.75 2.6

4

3.48 8.88

3.9

7

3.92

3.9

4

3.30

2.72 2.87

3.55 3.12

8.61

8.68

8.79

6.34

8.42

8.50

8.82

8.51

9.15

9.14

8.99

8.62

8.27

8.77

8.94

8.36

9.07

9.04

8.85

8.24

8.08

8.54

8.83 8.98 8.93

8.77

8.25

8.06

6.69

4.73

2.74

2.80 2.72

2.87

2.79

2.83

2.94

2.91

3.2

2

3.8

9

3.2

9

3.60

3.57

3.57

3.9

3

4.12

4.07

4.01

4.07 3.99

2.1

4

9.43 9.53 9.72

3.4

9

3.0

0

1.6

3

2.3

2

2.4

6

2.6

4

3.0

5 3.0

2

3.1

7

2.7

6 2.9

4

3.4

3

3.3

9 3.2

0

7.97 7.97

3.9

2

8.99

9.30

9.30

8.67

-

0.0

2

-0.0

4

-

0.0

2

-

0.0

3

-

0.16

0.2

4

1.3

8

1.6

1

1.5

7

0.0

9

-

0.0

3

2.2

5

0.3

4 -

0.0

2

0.1

3

2.2

6

1.31

1.9

4

2.0

1

2.0

0

1.8

4

2.0

8

2.1

9

2.0

6

2.2

2

2.0

6

2.1

4

1.51

0.6

0

1.7

4

2.0

3

2.0

0 1.9

8

1.8

9

9.82

9.99

10.00

9.57 9.53

9.84

9.64

9.52

9.85

9.51

9.43 9.52

9.71

9.70

9.33

3.19

3.23

3.1

3

2.17

2.65

2.25

2.77

3.01

3.05 3.03

2.70

9.62

9.62 9.43

9.30

9.31

2.74

3.11

5.12

4.4

2

4.1

7

2.73

2.74

2.67

2.47 2.67 3.76

2.85

7.10

8.65

8.81

8.59

8.00

7.00

8.00 8.47

8.26

8.36

8.11

8.19

8.2

3

8.85

9.16

8.83

8.15 8.34 9.02

4.7

5

TP

3.7

9 3.9

4

9.2

2

Kill

A

A

Kr

A

A

Kr

4.6

1

4.4

7 4.1

8 4.1

6

4.2

0 4.2

5

4.3

1

5.1

0 4.2

2

4.1

5

4.0

3

4.0

6

3.9

4

3.9

3

3.8

6

3.4

1

2.3

4

1.9

7

1.2

3

0.2

4

4.5

2

4.0

6

4.1

8 4.2

5

4.2

9

4.1

3

3.9

4

3.9

3 3.9

2

3.9

1

3.9

0 3.5

3

2.8

5

0.5

9

0.2

7

1.0

6

0.1

8

2.65

2.47

0.1

3

2.1

6

0.2

0

4.4

3

2.7

5

3.98

4.0

3 3.8

7

4.4

6 4.6

4

4.2

1

4.2

5

4.3

0

4.3

4

4.2

7

4.1

6

4.1

2

4.1

1

4.0

8 4.0

6

3.7

1

3.2

8

2.8

1

0.1

8

2.5

7

0.0

1

3.4

1

2.9

7

4.0

0

4.0

5

4.6

7

4.5

2

4.6

3

4.3

7

1.4

5

1.1

6

-

0.1

7

-

0.2

1

-

0.1

9

-

0.1

9

2.16-1.9

64.0

4

kaev-0.7

92.8

7.5

0

8.1

0

8.8

8 8.9

2

9.0

5

8.5

6 8.8

0

8.4

4

7.6

8

7.6

5

bet

bet

6.2

7 6.4

7

8.2

7

9.2

2

10.62

TP

kaev-2.5

9

10.16

10.24

10.42

5.6

9

10.20

10.25

10.26

10.55 10.73 10.73

10.56

8.79 8.89

10.25

6.44

6.83

7.71

6.3

7 7.4

3

6.19

9.43

10.36

10.03

7.47

7.7

7

7.6

6

7.4

4

7.7

3

8.0

3

7.6

2

8.2

8 7.6

4

8.20

8.52

10.15

10.65 10.66

9.79

10.05

10.12

10.3

1 8.2

1

10.46

6.5

5

10.56

9.64

9.66 9.57

9.55 9.49

9.52

9.4

3 9.4

3

9.5

7 9.3

4

Platvorm

Platvorm

9.73

9.72 9.92 10.09

10.09

9.73 9.68

10.83

10.84

10.45

10.62

10.64

10.54 10.50

10.59

10.68 10.85 10.85

10.60

11.14

10.56

10.55

10.82

10.82

10.52

10.50

10.48

10.52

10.61 10.77

10.78

10.43 10.37

1.7

1

0.8

0 1.0

2 1.8

5

1.7

9

1.3

7

10.74 10.74

10.37

10.43

10.46 10.29

10.43

10.61

10.62

10.31 10.26

10.28

10.27 10.16

10.18 10.37 10.52

10.52

10.18 10.15

10.10

10.04

10.38

10.38

10.02

10.03

9.95

9.97

10.16 10.30

10.30

9.91 9.93

9.86 9.88

9.82

9.82 9.96 10.15 10.15

9.76

9.81

9.84 9.99 10.04 9.85 10.10 10.13

10.26

10.36

10.36 10.40

10.50

A

ASB 2xo10

2WASB 3x 10 2W+1WW

2v

2v

6 kaablit ASB 2x 10

kaugsid

e

2 kaablit

2 kaab

lit

2 kaablit

2v

4v

3.0

4

3.1

1

2.6

0

2.8

3

2.6

1

2.2

8

1.9

9

1.9

6

1.6

9

1.7

6

3.0

4

3.1

2

2.1

0

2.0

5

2.1

2

2.1

2

1.7

3

2.0

4 1.9

4

1.9

2

-

0.1

6

-

0.0

3

-

0.0

4

0.3

0

2.8

4

2.8

5

2.5

8

2.5

0

2.2

0

betpl

8.13

8.22

8.25

8.35 8.51 8.36

8.20

7.9

6 8.09

8.05

8.30

8.44

8.33

8.38

8.54

8.43 8.56

8.64

8.52

8.53 8.37

8.70

8.54

8.66

8.66 8.77

8.84

8.74

8.79

8.66

8.8

9 8.9

1 8.9

7

1.1

4

2.27

2.19

1.71 1.99

2.54 2.62

2.62 2.60

2.06 1.82 0.3

4

9.7

2

9.8

6

9.9

3

10.0

5

10.1

9

10.2

4

10.3

3

10.4

9

3.9

5

4.0

4

4.1

2

4.2

0

4.1

2

4.0

4

4.8

7

8.05 8.22 8.21

8.30 8.29 8.13

2.8

5

2.84

2.8

9

2.7

0

2.4

4

-

0.1

7

-

0.1

9

2.0

7

2.0

0

2.0

5

1.95

2.01

0.2

7 1.6

2

2.8

9

2.6

5

2.1

9

2.2

7

1.7

6

1.9

6

3.8

4

3.9

2

4.0

2

4.1

1

4.0

1

4.4

5

4.5

2 4.5

4

8.8

0

9.6

5

8.2

8

8.7

9

7.6

2

7.4

6

10.22

6.1

4

Kr

Kr

4.7

2 4.3

7

2.3

4

1.8

0

2.75

3.0

0

3.1

0

0.1

5

0.1

5 -

0.0

2

0.89

2.3

1

A

A

X= 6471150

Y= 532600

X= 6470800

Y= 532550

A

A

Papiniidu tänav

T15

62514:177:0082

Ehitajate tee

T11

62517:064:0072

Papiniidu tänav

T12

62514:177:0081

7118

7118

5+200 5+300 5+400 5+500 5+600

+50+50 +50 +50 +50

II1/12 1/18.5

1/18.51/18.5

1/18.5

I

1+646 K

M

DR

L 1

0.4

7

Nr. 3

Nr. 1Nr. 7

Nr. 5Nr. 9

0+0000+100

+50

W

S

N

E

Rail Baltic bridge

Existing railway bridge

Existing road bridge

<- Riga

14.57

3.35

4.20 4.20

12.50

Tallinn ->

Kees Vanamölder

SUPERVISOR Professor Juhan Idnurm

STUDENT

NAME OF THESIS

LOCATION LAYOUT OF CASE-STUDY BRIDGE DESIGN

NAME OF APPENDIX

DRAWING

APPENDIX 1

DATE

29.05.2017

BRIDGE

CASE-STUDY ON 170 M SINGLE-SPAN DOUBLE TRACK

OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS,

LONG-SPAN RAILWAY BRIDGE DESIGN: EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

SCALE

1:400

4,20

2,10 2,10

1,75

4,65

2,5

0

2,00

2,0

0

2,4

8

A-A 1:250

P˜RNU RIVER

ROAD

5+300

5+400

5+500

5+600

20,0020,0020,0020,0020,0020,0020,0020,0015,00

28,5

0

A

A

182,50

ROAD

24,0028,30

RIGATALLINN

SIDE VIEW 1:400

D=0,3m

ROAD 8,7

0

5,3

3

Kees Vanamölder

SUPERVISOR Professor Juhan Idnurm

STUDENT

NAME OF THESIS

NAME OF APPENDIX

DRAWING

APPENDIX 2

DATE

29.05.2017

BRIDGE

CASE-STUDY ON 170 M SINGLE-SPAN DOUBLE TRACK

OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS,

LONG-SPAN RAILWAY BRIDGE DESIGN: EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

SCALE

1:400

ALTERNATIVE 1: ARCH BRIDGE

4,20

2,10 2,10

1,75

4,85

2,4

8

A-A 1:250

1,00

0,75

ROAD

P˜RNU RIVER

ROAD

5+300

5+400

5+500

5+600

26,5

0

A

A

176,00

ROAD

24,0020,00

TALLINNRIGA

SIDE VIEW 1:400

D=0,15m

5,3

3

8,6

3

Kees Vanamölder

SUPERVISOR Professor Juhan Idnurm

STUDENT

NAME OF THESIS

NAME OF APPENDIX

DRAWING

APPENDIX 3

DATE

29.05.2017

BRIDGE

CASE-STUDY ON 170 M SINGLE-SPAN DOUBLE TRACK

OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS,

LONG-SPAN RAILWAY BRIDGE DESIGN: EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

SCALE

1:400

ALTERNATIVE 2: NETWORK ARCH BRIDGE

0,9

6

4,20

2,10 2,10

3,10

5,15

15,70

3,8

3

A-A 1:250

P˜RNU RIVER

ROAD

5+300

5+400

5+500

5+600

A

A

176,00

ROAD

24,0020,00

32,5

0

5,50

TALLINNRIGA

D=0,6m

D=0,6m

SIDE VIEW 1:400

D=0,3m

ROAD

5,3

3

7,2

8

Kees Vanamölder

SUPERVISOR Professor Juhan Idnurm

STUDENT

NAME OF THESIS

NAME OF APPENDIX

DRAWING

APPENDIX 4

DATE

29.05.2017

BRIDGE

CASE-STUDY ON 170 M SINGLE-SPAN DOUBLE TRACK

OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS,

LONG-SPAN RAILWAY BRIDGE DESIGN: EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

SCALE

1:400

ALTERNATIVE 3: SUSPENSION BRIDGE

ROADP˜RNU RIVER

5+300

5+400

5+500

5+600

A

A

169,00

TALLINNRIGA

10,00

SIDE VIEW 1:400

ROAD ROAD

24,0020,00

15°

27,8

3

D=0,43m

D=0,25m D=0,25m

5,3

3

8,4

5

A-A 1:250

0,9

6

4,20

2,10 2,10

1,75

5,15

15,70

2,4

8

Kees Vanamölder

SUPERVISOR Professor Juhan Idnurm

STUDENT

NAME OF THESIS

NAME OF APPENDIX

DRAWING

APPENDIX 5

DATE

29.05.2017

BRIDGE

CASE-STUDY ON 170 M SINGLE-SPAN DOUBLE TRACK

OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS,

LONG-SPAN RAILWAY BRIDGE DESIGN: EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

SCALE

1:400

ALTERNATIVE 4: CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE

A-A 1:250

4,20

2,10 2,10

1,75

4,95

0,7

0

0,70

0,5

0

0,70 0,70

ROAD

P˜RNU RIVER

ROAD

5+300

5+400

5+500

5+600

25,2

0

A

A

176,00

ROAD

24,0020,00

TALLINNRIGA

SIDE VIEW 1:400

5,3

3

8,6

3

t=0,07 m

0,7*0,7 m

t=0,05 m

0,5*0,5 m

Kees Vanamölder

SUPERVISOR Professor Juhan Idnurm

STUDENT

NAME OF THESIS

NAME OF APPENDIX

DRAWING

APPENDIX 6

DATE

29.05.2017

BRIDGE

CASE-STUDY ON 170 M SINGLE-SPAN DOUBLE TRACK

OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS,

LONG-SPAN RAILWAY BRIDGE DESIGN: EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

SCALE

1:400

ALTERNATIVE 5: TRUSS BRIDGE

Arch bridge Network archbridge

Suspensionbridge

Cable-stayedbridge

Truss bridge

20101 Site preparation 150000 1 1 1 1 1

60409 Concreteing with reinforcement [m³] 600 1 461 1 512 3 584 1 998 1 83360801 Water isolation layer [m²] 40 1 592 1 549 1 717 1 649 1 59260404 Surface protection layer [m²] 8 1 592 1 549 1 717 1 649 1 59261002 Steel barriers [m] 255 386 374 374 340 38661601 Expansion joints [m] 950 19 23 19 19 19

1 069 121 1 098 801 2 346 761 1 382 782 1 292 561

60408Reinforced concrete for supports and wingwalls[m³]

420 265 226 438 438 226

60408 Reinforced concrete for pylons [m³] 900 2 105 2 10560406 Reinforced concrete for slab foundation [m³] 350 557 123 728 728 12360302 Concrete piles, including driving [pcs] 2500 68 36 36 36 3661609 Elastomeric bearings [pcs] 2380 16 8 8 8 860411 Reinforced concrete transition plate [m³] 400 28 28 28 28 28

525 468 258 134 2 453 412 2 453 412 258 134

60602 Steel cables and hangers [t] 2600 159 278 2 251 2 063412 851 722 488 5 851 627 5 363 291 0

60403 Reinforced concrete and assembly [m³] 1000 2 01660602 Steel arch and assembly [t] 2750 57960602 Steel truss and assembly [t] 2000 1 083

2 016 400 1 591 350 0 0 2 166 428

60202 Ground excavation for structure [m³] 5 2 058 720 4 776 4 776 72060206 Cavity fill [m³] 11 1 501 597 4 048 4 048 59761202 Slope protection of cone [m²] 50 492 492 492 492 492

51 398 34 767 93 003 93 003 34 767

4 075 238 3 705 540 10 744 803 9 292 488 3 751 890Total construction cost of alternative [EUR]

Construction price for deck plate [EUR]

Construction price for substructure and cable

Construction price for cables and hangers [EUR]

Construction price for arch [EUR]

Construction price for groundworks [EUR]

Bridge substructure and cable ground anchorage

Cables and hangers

Arch and truss

Groundworks

Price per unit[EUR]

Name of quantityQuantities

Deck plate

Preparation works

Appendix 7Specification of materials and construction worklist

Arch bridgeNetwork

arch bridgeSuspension

bridgeCable-stayed

Truss bridge

60505 Concrete surface repairs 15% [m²] 20 57 725 802 822 725 72560409 Overhaul of bridge deck [m³] 50 600 1 461 1 512 3 584 1 998 1 46160801 Renewal of water isolation layer [m²] 20 40 1 592 1 549 1 717 1 649 1 592

612 975 633 712 1 406 102 813 128 612 975

60505 Concrete surface repairs 35% [m²] 20 57 39 39 385 385 3960901/60902

Repairs or replacement of drainagesystem 30% [pcs]

20 335 12 12 12 12 12

Replacement of bearings [pcs] 30 2380 16 8 8 8 861601 Replacement of expansion joints [m] 30 950 19 23 19 19 19

41 014 31 043 42 144 42 393 28 557

60602Cleaning, repainting and corrosionprotection of steel surface [m²]

8 80 283 942 4 072 6 198

17 216 57 386 247 908 377 417 0

60505 Concrete surface repairs 15% [m²] 20 57 570

60602Cleaning, repainting and corrosionprotection of steel surface [m²]

8 80 1 480 5 125

22 351 90 115 0 0 312 041

61203Repairs of slope protection of cone 20%[m²]

20 50 492 492 492 492 492

16 923 16 923 16 923 16 923 16 923

710 479 829 180 1 713 077 1 249 861 970 497

Quantities

Deck plate

Bridge substructure and cable ground anchorage

Interval[years]

Maintenance price of cables and hangers during LC [EUR]

Maintenance price of arch during LC [EUR]

Maintenance price of deck plate during LC [EUR]

Maintenance price of substructure and cable during LC [EUR]

Name of quantityPrice per

unit [EUR]

Cables and hangers

Arch and truss

Groundworks

Total maintenance cost of alternative [EUR]

Maintenance price of cone and slopes during LC [EUR]

Appendix 8Maintenance worklist