Arch Bridge Design

CT5125: Steel bridges – file <arch-bridge-design>
21. Arch bridge
21.1 General
Recent designs of arch bridges show many variations of arrangements for arches as well as hangers, adding
aesthetic value to these structures. Some examples are given in fig. 1. It is well known that arch bridges are
conceived to stand permanent loads, while their performance under moving loads is less, requiring high flexural
deck stiffness. For high speed railway transportation, significant vibrations may take place, especially under the
conditions of “entering train” and “outgoing train”, which force the bridge to vibrate according to the “quasi-
symmetric” mode, characterised by a contra flexure point located at about mid-span. Therefore, new design
solutions started recently like multiple arch bridges that consist of an external arch connected to two internal
arches by means of the hangers.
a b
Fig. 1. Alternative design of arch bridges. c d
Unlike many other types of bridges, e.g. the DAF (dynamic amplification factor) for vertical displacement is
strongly non-uniform along the span but butterfly shaped, with low values at mid-span and large values at the
quarters. Therefore, the effects induced by trains are larger, compared to conventional bridges, especially if the
span length is small.
Fig. 2. Example of symmetric and

quasi-symmetric mode.
Basic nomenclature
The nomenclature of the structural elements of an arch bridge is as follows:
Type A.
The basic arch bridge, with a predominating arch and with the
thrust transmitted directly to the foundation. Therefore, the
elongation effect of the roadway supporting structure is assumed
to be absent.
The arch is subjected to bending, shear forces and axial forces.
The hangers are concentrated loaded in tension by local live load

and self-weight. Temperature actions results into extra bending
moments.
Fig. 3. Basic arch bridge, Nijmegen.
21. Design aspects of arch bridges 332

Dr. A. Romeijn
Type B.
The basic tied arch bridge. The arch still dominates, but tying the
ends of the arch through the deck system resists the thrust. The
hangers are concentrated loaded in tension by local live load and
self-weight.
A temperature action doesn’t result into extra bending moments.

The tensile force in the tie causes an elongation, which affects
the bending moments in the arch.
Fig. 4. Basic tied arch bridge, Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht.
Type C.
A tied arch bridge with stiffening girder. A predominating
stiffening girder is subjected to bending moments and axial
forces induced by the arch. The arch itself is mainly loaded in
compression.
Because of the stiffening girder, the hangers are more

uniform loaded.
Fig. 5. A tied arch bridge with stiffening girder,

Culemborg.
Though there is a difference in appearance, the mechanical behaviour of the three

types is largely similar. Mainly depending of hanger configuration, the arch bridges
are classified as illustrated in fig. 8.
For the Lohse arch, like the Dutch
Dintelhaven railway bridge, the position of
the arch is out of vertical plane. The
combination of a network hanger
configuration with the arch not vertically
positioned is called a Nielsen-Lohse bridge.
Fig. 6.
Dintelhaven railway bridge, Rotterdam.
Fig. 7. Nielsen-Lohse bridge, Osaka, Japan.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 8. Arch bridge classifications.

Recently, other particular hanger arrangements like hangers converging radial to a centre located outside the
structure’s perimeter referred, as the fan arrangements are mainly because of aesthetic reason becoming popular.
This because the fan arrangement introduces a rotating effect, obtaining a more dynamical view than e.g. the tied
arch bridge with vertical hangers.
Fig. 9. Various hanger configurations [7].
Fig. 3-5 shows three situations in which the arch lies above the deck. Other equally valid forms exist in which the
arch may be situated either entirely below or partly below the deck.
Fig. 10. Alternative relative levels of arch and deck girder.
Fig. 11. The Bayonne Bridge, one of the longest steel

arch bridges in the world.
21.2 Historical overview

Used for centuries, the graceful arch bridge was first constructed of stone, later of cast iron and more recently of
reinforced concrete and structural steel.
In its most common form referred to as a "true arch," in

(a) left, the arch delivers its axial thrust with attendant
horizontal thrust and vertical reactions to massive
abutments with the capacity to resist these forces. It is
also possible to construct a tie between the two ends of
an arch to balance the horizontal thrusts, (b) left. This
arrangement is referred to as a "tied-arch" and extends
the range of applicability of the arch since the
foundations must resist primarily only vertical loads.
If the roadway is constructed completely above the arch
as in (a) we refer to the bridge as a deck arch and if it is
completely suspended from the arch as in (b) it is a
through arch. If the deck is at some intermediate level as
in (c) we refer to it as "half-through."
The typically used ratio of rise-to-span for steel arch
bridges is in the range of 1:5 to 1:6. If the arch is too flat the arch thrust and secondary-bending effects can
become very large and result in an uneconomical design. An arch is very efficient in resisting uniformly
distributed loads over its entire span. However, for concentrated loads or partial span loading it can be flexible
and develop large bending stresses. To resist these effects the required arch bridge stiffness can be obtained
through the combined stiffness of the deck and arch members. For moderate span lengths the arch rib can be
constructed as I or box shaped girder and is referred to as a "solid-ribbed arch," (a-c) above. For longer spans or

Dr. A. Romeijn
bridges with very heavy traffic loading, a truss rib section can be used. The truss can be constructed of lighter
sections and configured to provide superior stiffness as shown in (d). Overall the steel arch bridge permits
numerous structural arrangements that can be extremely graceful and attractive.
The Pont du Gard is an aqueduct built 2000 years ago to carry water across
a valley and is still standing today.
The first metal bridge was an arch made from iron in Shropshire. This was
so famous that the place was named Iron bridge, it was opened in 1781 and
still stands today.
Fig. 12. The iron bridge, England.
As shown in fig. 13, the arch bridge is very competitive with other type of bridges. As an indication, the span
length of an arch bridge varies between 50 – 500m, with a maximum of approx. 250m for railway bridges and
500m for highway bridges.
Fig. 13. Largest span length for main type of bridges.
Some examples of arch bridges recently constructed in the Netherlands are shown in figures 16-18.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 14. Concrete arch bridges.
Fig. 15. Steel arch bridges.
Constructed:1990 (right part)

Type: Basic tied arch bridge
Length: 295 m
Width:27,5 m
f/l: 0,153
Arch: Steel box section
Hangers: diagonal, cables
(parallel); c.o.c. 30 m
Deck system: Steel: orthotropic
Fig. 16.
1 e and 2e Van Brienenoord
bridge.
Constructed: 1997 (right part)

Type: Tied arch bridge with
stiffening girder
Length: 188 m
Width: 10,0 m
f/l: 0,139
Arch: Steel box section
Hangers: vertically-shaped
Deck system: Open Grid
Fig. 17. Railway bridge Weesp.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Constructed: 1999
Type: Tied arch bridge
with stiffening girder
Length: 170 m
Width: 12,0 m
f/l: 0,176
Arch: Steel tubular section
Hangers: vertically,
cables; c.o.c.10,45 m
Deck system: ballast
supported by cross girders.
Fig. 18. Railway bridge,

Dintelhavenspoorbrug.
21.3 Choice of elements

The tied arch bridge generally consists of the following primary structural elements:
• arch
• hangers
• stiffening girders
The Arch
The arch can be either a truss, box girders, plate girder or some form of hollow section (e.g. circular). Ideally, for
aesthetic reasons the arch should follow a smooth, continuous curved profile. However, overall curvature of the
arch may also be achieved by means of a series of short straight chords.
Fig. 19.
Demka bridge under construction (2002) and positioned at final
location.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Depending on the overall design, the number of arches varies. For

example, as shown in fig. 20, when using a single arch in combination
with a single plane of hangers, because of eccentric traffic loading,
equilibrium exist only by torsion stiffness of the bridge deck.
Fig. 20.
La Barquete bridge, Sevilla (concrete).
To support the arch laterally and to reduce the buckling length of the arch members, an alternative as frequently
used is a system of bracings. Wind forces and stability effects are transmitted to the supports by rigid end portals.
Different methods may be adopted for transmitting these forces back to the supports.
Fig. 21. Lateral stability of the arch.
The vertical rigid end portal transmits their forces back to

the supports via the deck or wind bracing at deck level.
Fig. 22. Example on using a vertical rigid end portal.
The inclined rigid end portal is composed of the two last members of each arch, the reinforced last member of
the wind bracing and the end cross girder. The portal transmits forces directly back to the supports.
Fig. 23. Example on using inclined rigid end portal (Van Brienenoordbrug).

Dr. A. Romeijn
To obtain a minimum on arch buckling force,

beside various out of plane bracing systems
several other solutions exist. For example, as
shown in fig. 24 the use of horizontal members
connecting arches and/or inclined position of the
arches themselves, see also fig. 25. In case of a
single arch only, the V-shape is a very effective
solution for reduction of the out of plane buckling
length, see fig. 20.
Fig. 24. Improved out of plane arch buckling

behaviour by connecting both arches by
horizontal tubular members.
Fig. 25. Direct connection between arch –bearing.
Mostly, because of the large normal force in the arch, there exist a direct connection between bearing and arch.
An example is given in fig. 25.
Fig. 26.
Left: example of an arch constructed as a truss.
Middle: example of an arch constructed as a box girder.
Right: example of arches connected by horizontal members only.
The hangers
I-sections (welded or rolled), circular hollow sections (or massive) or cables may be used for the hangers.
Opinions differ about the optimum choice of section. The most important design criteria are in the field of:
• Static strength
• Fatigue strength
• Global stiffness criteria
• Permanent tensile loading
• Aerodynamics
• Reduction in-plane arch buckling length.

Dr. A. Romeijn
I-sections hangers can be sensitive with respect to flutter, whilst hollow sections and cables can be sensitive with
respect to vortex shedding. Many types of hanger configuration are present, like vertical, diagonal, network, etc.
For the Dutch market only the first two alternatives exist.
Fig. 27.
left: cable vertical
middle: cable diagonal
right: I-section.
Because of problems on flutter, the I-section members as shown in fig. 27 (right), are connected horizontally.
Some practical design criteria, based on measurements of existing railway bridges are:
f * Lh > 1.5 m/s
λ < 220
ft /fb > 1.3
with
f = bending or torsion first frequency
Lh = cross section width or height
λ = slenderness
Fig.28. Measurements against vortex excitation.
As shown in fig. 28, using slender hanger members means the use of a damping system like mass dampers and
energy absorbing dampers.
The risk on rain-wind induced vibration can be limited by a certain minimum on roughness outer surface or
attached circular shaped rings, see fig. 29.
Fig. 29. Measurements against rain-wind induced vibration.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Verification on minimum tensile force is done by

analysing influence lines. An example of the
development of an axial force of a hanger for a
network hanger system is shown in fig. 30.
Fig. 30.
Influence lines on axial force of a hanger.
The stiffening girder

Considering steel structures only, the girder can be made of:
§ an I-section
§ a box girder or other form of hollow section
§ an open “top hat” section
Considering the tied arch more closely, it is to be noted that arch and girder are often in separate vertical planes;
the arch is therefore connected eccentrically to the girder. Any of such eccentricity must be taken into account in
design.
Fig. 31.
Example on design model in case of different
vertical planes of stiffening girder and arch.
Fig. 32.
Example of a bridge deck under construction.
Fig. 33. Composite bridge deck; Demka bridge.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 34. Railway bridge using a ballast deck system (macadam).
Dependent on the importance on self-weight, the material used can be steel, concrete or combination of both. The
trend exists on decreasing interest on steel only. This because of high production costs and the frequent
inspection / maintenance (durability and fatigue).
Fig. 35. Typical cross-section as frequently used in the past.
Fig. 36. Example of an orthotropic steel deck.
Fig. 37.
Currently frequently used alternative on composite
steel/concrete deck system.
21.4 Arch bridges in The Netherlands

350
The number and type of bridge deck used considering arch 300
bridges (steel and concrete) is given in fig. 38. The main span
250
length for concrete arch bridges varies between 37 – 68 m,
main span [m]
and for steel arch bridges between 49 – 295 m. 200
After 1960 a period started using steel orthotropic decks, and 150
after 2000 steel/concrete composite decks are used 100

grid system
(Nootdorp, Kampen, Demka, Eefde, etc.). 50
orthotropic
steel-concrete
0
Fig. 38. Arch bridges, Netherlands: type of bridge deck 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
used. year
The type of arch bridge used depends largely on the type of loading (railway cq. highway). The tied arch bridge
with stiffening girder is mostly used in case of train loading, and the highway bridges are mostly constructed as a
basic tied arch bridge.
trekband
trekband
verstijfde
verstijfde
zuiver
Fig. 39. Distribution of arch bridges used; left railway bridges, right highway bridges.

Dr. A. Romeijn
An increase of loading, especially traffic loading, result for optimum design in an increase of arch height ‘f’.
Generally spoken, the ratio f/L for a railway bridge is nearly the same as for a highway bridge. For the arch
bridges constructed after approx. 1970, the ratio varies within a narrow scatter of 0.13 – 0.18, see fig. 40.
0.25
0.2
0.15
f/l ratio
0.1
railway: tied arch
railway: tied stiffening arch
Fig. 40. Ratio f/L for all type of arch bridges. highway: tied arch
0.05
highway: tied stiffening arch
railway+highway teid arch
For the hangers of highway bridges, cables are
0
used after 1960. Before this period, I-section has
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
been used only. year of construction
Because of the large ratio on σmax / σmin, which is an important parameter for the fatigue design, for railway
bridges cables are used at a much later state, namely after 1990. Considering an arch bridge with stiffening
girder, because of the stiffness behaviour and their related influence about influence line on normal force of a
hanger, the combination of diagonal hanger configuration with tied arch bridge with stiffening girder doesn’t
exist. Three large projects on arch railway bridges constructed in The Netherlands are Demkabridge (2002),
Nootdorp bridge (2004) and Eefde bridge (2005).
Network arch bridges

In contrast to other countries, arch bridges having a network hanger system doesn’t exist seriously in The
Netherlands.
Fig. 41 gives an overview of arch bridges with network hanger system constructed in Japan.
Main span length [m]
Year of construction
Fig. 41. Network arch bridges Japan.
The ratio arch height/main span is shown in fig. 42.

From this figure it is concluded that this ratio, which
varies between 1/5 (upper range) and 1/8 (lower
range), is nearly the same of both parallel arches and
Nielsen-Lohse arches (basket-handle-shape). The
range of span length for parallel arches is approx.
between 50 – 100 m and the range of span length of
basket-handle-shape is approx. between 100 – 250
m.
Fig. 42. Scope of network arch bridge.

(f/L=0.5 must be f/L=1/5). 1/5

Dr. A. Romeijn
21.5 Design aspects
21.5.1 Main types of loading

Also for the arch bridge simple manual calculations can be used for the initial design.
For the analysis, there exist four important patterns of loading, see fig. 43.
Fig. 43. Primary effects: main types of loading.
Considering a tied arch, some explanation is given.
Equilibrium vertical hanger (left) and fan arranged hanger (right).
For the vertical hanger system: Ha = Hc and M a = M – M c – Hc * y

For the fan hanger system: Ha = Hc + N * cos β and M a = M – M c – Hc * y – N*(y-y N ) cos β
with M = R0 *x - q 0 *x2 /2
Full loading
In this case the normal force (compression arch, tensile deck) reaches a maximum. As a result, for the deck a
good estimate can be obtained from
qL2
H= and for the arch at the connection arch – deck:
8f
qL2 with α is the angle between arch – deck.
N=
8 f ∗ cosα
Full loading over half the length
The half span of uniformly distributed loading 2q is equivalent to two superimposed

loadings.
1. Full loading: +q
2. Anti symmetric loading as follows:
to the left: positive loading +q
to the right: negative loading –q
Full loading generates a normal compression force in the arch, and a compensating
tensile force in the deck. The second loading doesn’t generate a compression force in
the middle of the arch (in case of a academic approach on fully symmetric support
conditions). As the deflection under this second loading is composed of two half
waves, the girder can be considered to be composed of two parts with a hinge at mid-span. The maximum
bending moment is therefore approx.
qL2
M=
32
This maximum bending moment occurs at L/4. This type of loading generally results into the largest deflection
of the bridge (globally).

Dr. A. Romeijn
Example in case of vertical hanger configuration.

As an approximation, the following equations on the determination of the deflection can be used.
For the anti symmetric loading (deflection at L/4)

5 pl 4 5 ( q − p )l 4
δ arch = and δ deck = (note: l = half of the main span length.)
384 EI arch 384 EI deck
Because of the connection between deck and arch and relatively small elongation of the hanger,
5 pl 4 5 ( q − p) l 4 q
δ arch = δ deck => = => p=
384 EIarch 384 EI deck EI
1 + deck
EIarch
For full loading (deflection at L/2)
1
F= qL
2
δ 0 = l3 − (l1 − ∆l1 ) 2 − (l2 + ∆l 2 ) 2
σ1 σ2
Ni
∆l1 = l1 ∆l2 = l2 σi =
E E Ai
17 ,75
The first eigen-frequentie (bending) is approx. fb =
δ self − weight
Full loading on one side of the bridge
Again the equally distributed loading 2q can be considered as being composed of two superimposed loadings:
Full loading: +q
Anti symmetric loading as follows:
full loading on one side of the bridge: positive loading +q
full loading on the other side of the bridge: negative loading –q
Again, the full loading primarily generates normal forces. The one side loading tends to lozenge the bridge cross-
section causing horizontal lateral forces on the arch and deck. These forces create horizontal bending moments in
the girders and deck. In a homogenous orthotropic steel deck, the bending moment may lead to considerable
stresses.
Alternating full loading over half the length of the bridge

Again the equally distributed loading 2q can be considered as being composed of two superimposed loadings:
Full loading: +q
Full loading on one side of half the length of the bridge:
to the left: positive loading +q
to the right: negative loading –q
On the other side of the bridge again full loading on half the length of the bridge, but now:
to the left: negative loading -q
to the right: positive loading +q
Again, the full loading primarily generates normal forces. Considering the deformations due to the second
loading, in one of the main girders:
there is no normal force
the connection between arch – deck is subject to rotation only
the arch moves vertically and horizontally
the movements of both main girders are in the opposite direction.
If a bracing is inserted, then the horizontal displacements impose an S-shape on the arch, with the inflection point
at mid-span. As a consequence, there is a shear force in the plane of the bracing. This shear force might be rather
moderate. The explanation given on main types of loading demonstrates that for final design, it is necessary to
consider the bridge as a three-dimensional structure.
Dr. A. Romeijn
21.5.2 Design examples
Fatigue analysis. [8]

Considering the check on fatigue strength of railway bridges, normally the first step is using the simplified
fatigue verification procedure – the so-called λ-calculation method. When the equivalent stress variation exceeds
the detail category, a more detailed analysis on the basis of rainflow damage counting method related to the so-
called standard mix of the various types of trains needs to be carried out. As an example the results of the fatigue
analysis of a welded joint of the deck system, of the bridge shown in figure 1c, is summarised in table 1.
λ-calculation results into a stress variation 114 N/mm2 ; detail category is 80 N/mm2 .
Train type Nature Number Speed km/h Fatigue damage
1 Passenger train 437406 200 0.110
2 Passenger train 437736 160 0.029
3 High-speed train 182979 330 0.042
4 High-speed train 182353 330 0.024
5 Freight train 255556 80 0.210
6 Freight train 438155 100 0.423
7 Freight train 291787 120 0.086
8 Freight train 219324 100 0.047
Table 1. Results fatigue design railway bridge: 12% trains cross bridge at same time; life time 100 years.
As shown in table 1, freight trains cause far more fatigue damage than high-speed trains.
Passengers comfort [9]

In general, the performance of bridges can be checked through a static procedure by calculating the maximum
deflection d, which has to be lower than the admissible value, defined as a fraction of the span length L (d = aL;
1/3000 = a = 1/2000). For the bridge shown in figure 1d (top) and designed according to the mentioned stiffness
criterion, the peak acceleration of each coach of the ETR500Y (France high speed transportation TGV
Mediterranean) as function of speed is given in fig. 44. The concrete deck is not pre-stressed and therefore, the
concrete in tension has been neglected in the analysis. Two different choices have been adopted. The former
(type B1) has been designed according to the limitation on deflection at 25% of the span length. The latter (type
B2) has been designed according to the limitation on deflection at mid-span. Normally, the passenger’s comfort
criterion is met when the car-bodies acceleration is lower than 1 m/s 2 (limit for good comfort).
Fig. 44. Peak coach

accelerations for types B1 (left)
and B2 (right), L = 70 m (top)
and L = 120 m (bottom).
For the alternative design shown in figure 1d (bottom), the so-

called multiple arch bridge, the results on vehicle vertical peak
acceleration is shown in fig. 45.
Beside a reduction on self-weight and deck height, the multiple
arch bridge shows a significant improvement on the
performance of the bridge regarding passenger comfort.
Fig. 45.
Peak vehicle acceleration, multiple arch bridge, L= 70 m.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Bonpas viaduct (high-speed railway Valence – Marseille) [7]

Two railway tracks with 4.80m spacing in-between compose the railway line that enables traffic up to 350 km/h.
Some specific design criteria are:
§ the bridge had to cross the whole toll plaza (span length 124m)
§ the height of the superstructure had to kept as low as possible since the runway of Avignon airport is
very close
§ the construction works were not to cause disturbance to toll-station operations
§ the bridge had to resist seismic forces.
The criteria listed above show clearly the unique character of the design of a bridge. Therefore, design rules on
optimisation are very restricted by local conditions.
Fig. 46. Plan view

(left) and elevation (right) of the Bonpas viaduct.
Fig. 47.
Cross section (left) and hanger anchorages (right).
The tied arch bridge consist of:

§ 2 steel box-section arches
§ 2 x 13 vertical hangers
§ 2 steel tie main girders
§ a composite deck made of steel cross-girders encased in concrete.
The arches have a constant cross section (1800 x 2000 x 50mm). Five box-section cross girders are used between
the 2 arches to keep them stable (lateral stability: wind, buckling).
The vertical hangers are full-section circular bars (Ø 160 or 180mm), and the anchorages of the hangers are
knuckle joints. The knuckle plates are welded inside the arches and to the top of the main girder webs.
Two constant depth (2900mm) plate girders support the deck. The cross-girders of the composite deck are
normal beams HEA 600, bolted or welded to the vertical web stiffeners of the main girder.
Fig. 48. Left: Cross-girders of the deck, bolted or welded to the vertical web stiffeners.
Right: Fitting the hanger.

Dr. A. Romeijn
The arch – main girder junction ensures the optimal tress transmission. This is achieved by means of a central
web common to the arch and to the girder.
Fig. 49. Arch – main girder junction.
The structural design studies were done in several stages:

§ a 2D model, to define the design moving load cases
§ a first 3D model made up of bar elements, to determine the static member forces. For the analyses, the
contribution of concrete on stiffness behaviour in longitudinal direction is neglected. This model was also
used to compute second order effects, in accordance with the initial geometrical deflection attributed to the
steel arches. Also, the effects of a hanger breaking and replacement are calculated.
§ a second 3D model made up of bar elements, to compute the dynamic response to high speed trains
§ 3D localised FE-models with shell elements:
§ arch – main girder connection
§ hanger anchorage (arch)
§ hanger anchorage (main girder).
The steel structure of the arch is fully assembled on the

west embankment, with temporary supports beneath the
main girder and steel props supporting the arches. For
each segment, the cycle of assembly stages were as
follows:
§ positioning and welding of the main girder segment

§ bolting / welding of the deck cross girder to the main
girder
§ positioning of the steel props and cross bracing
§ positioning and welding of the arch segment
§ fitting of the hanger.
The launching sequence is explained by figure 51. Fig. 50. Assembly on the approach embankment.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 51. Launching sequence, stage No 3 of the launching (left) and stage No 6 moving round the toll
building (right).
Finally, the bridge was lowered onto its definitive supports, the hanger stress was measured and the deck was
concreted.
Secondary effects
There are several secondary actions that need to be considered in the design of a bridge. An example is given on
hanger design. The initial analysis
has assumed that the connections
between the hangers and both the
arch and main girder are pinned.
In practice these connections are
semi-rigid and the displacements
in the structure lead to bending
moments in the hanger.
Fig. 52. Influence lines for the bending moments in the hangers and bending displacement and moment in
the shortest hanger.
Fig. 52 shows typical influences lines (explained in the next paragraph) and moments in the hangers. It can be
seen that the greatest bending moments arise when the arch is partially loaded. The worst cases in this example
are the shortest and longest hangers. Especially for the longest hangers, the moments are subject to full reversal
and are therefore most likely to influence the fatigue life. In general, their absolute value is, however, low,
justifying their neglect in the initial global analysis. (In the Amsterdam Rhine railway bridge, the maximum
bending stress was 80 N/mm2 ). In order to reduce the magnitude of these fluctuating stresses it is possible to
reduce the minimum second moment inertia of the hangers by e.g. reducing the flange width. Another issue is
connecting the shortest hanger after full self-weight of the bridge being present.
21.6 Influence lines

Especially for the design of traffic loaded structures like arch bridges, it is important to know the relation
between the position of a traffic load and the member force. Beside member forces, many other interesting items
exist, such as displacements. As an example, to illustrate the importance on these lines (surfaces) some are given
for the following type of bridge:
- basic tied arch bridge, vertical hangers, right bearing fixed
- span length:135.79 m
- distance between the tow main girders: 9.72 m
- positive sag: 1.70 m
- ratio height arch / span length: 0.20 m
- hangers placed vertically
Fig. 53. Model as used for the analyses.
Right: bending moments so-called M-line caused by self-weight.
Influence lines are given for the following situations:

Dr. A. Romeijn
Tie normal forces, arch normal forces, hanger normal forces, tie bending moments, arch bending moments and
tie vertical deflection.
For the Tie and Arch, three positions are considered: nearby left bearing, ¼ span length, ½ span length.
For the hanger, the shortest and longest hanger are considered.
influence line: normal force tie, loaction 1/4 spanlength,

Tie
[unity load 100 kN] influence line: normal force tie, loaction 1/2 spanlength normal
200 [unity load 100 kN]
forces
normal forcet [kN]
normal force [kN]

150 200
100 150
100
50
50
0
0
0 25 50 75 100 125
-50 0 25 50 75 100 125
distance from left bearing [m] distance from left bearing [m]
influence line: normal force arch, nearby left bearing influence line: normal force arch, 1/2 spanlength
[unity load 100 kN] [unity load 100 kN]
200 normal force [kN]
200
normal force [kN]
150 150 Arch

100 100 normal
50 50 forces
0
0
0 25 50 75 100 125
-50 0 25 50 75 100 125
influence line: normal force arch, location 1/4 spanlength

[unity load 100 kN]
200
normal force [kN]
150
100
50
0
0 25 50 75 100 125
distance from left bearing [m]
Hanger normal forces
influence line: normal force, hanger at approx. 1/2 span length

influence line: normal force shortest hanger [unity load 100 kN]
[unity load100 kN] 50
normal force [kN]
50 40
normal forcet [kN]
40 30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
-10 0 25 50 75 100 125 0 25 50 75 100 125

Dr. A. Romeijn
Tie bending moments

influence line: bending moment tie, nearby left bearing
[unity load 100 kN] influence line: bending moment tie, location 1/4 spanlength
[unity load 100 kN]
700
bending momentt
1000
bending moment
500
[kNm]
[kNm]
300 500
100 0
0 25 50 75 100 125
-100 0 25 50 75 100 125 -500
influence line: bending moment tie, location 1/2 spanlength

[unity load 100 kN]
700
bending moment
500
[kNm]
300
100
-100
0 25 50 75 100 125
-300
influence line, bending moment arch, nearby left bearing influence line, bending moment arch, 1/4 spanlength
[unity load 100 kN] [unity load 100 kN]
bending moment
200 200
bending moment
100 150
[kNm]
[kNm]
100
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 50
-100
0
-200 0 25 50 75 100 125
distance from left bearing [m] distance from left bearing[m]
influence line: bending moment arch, 1/2 span length

[unity load 100 kN]
200
bending moment
[kNm]
100
0
0 25 50 75 100 125
-100
Arch bending moments
influence line: vertical deflection tie, location 1/4 span length influence line: vertical deflection tie, location 1/2 span length
[unity load 100 kN] [unity load100 kN]
20
deflection [mm]
10
deflection [mm]
10
-10 0 25 50 75 100 125
0
-30 0 25 50 75 100 125
-10
-50 -20
Tie vertical deflection

Dr. A. Romeijn
21.7 Arch design
Theoretical background
Research on the buckling behaviour of arches can be found in several textbooks and journals. Some interesting
articles, as published by S. Palkowski can be found in Stahlbau 7 (1987) p. 246-250 and Stahlbau 8 (1994) p.
248-251. Some information/data specifically for the design of arch bridges is given.
1
M = q *l 2 and
8
q*l2
H*f =M H=
8* f
EI z
with q ki = α
l3
The critical in-plane buckling force of an arch with tension tie and hangers
H ki a * EI p 2 * EI y p cosϕ
N ki = = = ß= 8* l * f *
cosϕ 8 * l * f * cos ϕ (ß * s)2 s a
Hki = critical horizontal component of the arch normal force [kN]
Nki = critical normal force of the arch [kN]
q = uniform distributed arch loading [kN/m]
l = span length [m]
f = height of the arch [m]
s = half of the arch length [m]
ϕ = angle between arch and deck [rad]
α = coefficient depending on number of hangers and ratio on f/l [-] (see table 3)
β = effective length factor (buckling factor); depending on parameters like number of hangers and
ratio f/l [-]
The relation between f/l and arch length s expressed by a value is given in table 2.
f/l 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

s 0.513?l 0.549?l 0.602?l 0.667?l 0.739?l
Table 2. Relation between f/l and arch length s.
The α-value is largely influenced by the type of hanger

configuration, and results on this value for the configurations
shown in fig. 54 are summarized in table 3.
(a)
(b)

Dr. A. Romeijn
(c)
Fig. 54. Alternative types of hanger configuration.
Number Hanger f/l-ratio

of configuration 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
hanger
0-1 a), b), c) 28.7 45.5 47.2 44.3 38.6
a) 59.0 79.8 72.0 58.7 46.6
2 b) 62.0 94.9 93.3 77.3 63.3
c) 64.4 101.3 116.9 120.7 115.2
a) 101.6 112.4 90.9 68.2 51.5
3 b) 111.7 149.7 133.3 101.6 75.0
c) 116.9 171.3 170.8 136.6 102.1
a) 184.7 155.3 107.4 76.1 55.7
5 b) 219.3 235.4 170.1 115.6 80.2
c) 259.2 371.7 279.2 181.6 144.9
a) 345.9 194.2 120.4 81.9 58.6
11 b) 501.4 337.8 199.9 128.5 85.1
c) 919.2 1022.5 663.5 348.3 212.3
Table 3. Determination of the coefficient α.
From the data given in table 2 and 3, the factor β can

be analysed. Using the design code prEN 1993-2:
steel bridges”, the buckling factor β is taken from fig.
55. As shown in fig. 55, there exist a large influence
on the buckling factor in case of design criteria on
the possibility on missing a hanger.
Fig. 55. Buckling factor β.
As shown in table 3, the lowest a-value is obtained for configuration (a) of fig. 54 and the highest for
configuration (c). This phenomenon is explained by fig. 56.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 56. Influence of hanger configuration on arch buckling behaviour.
A decrease of angle between hanger and arch means an increase in effective supporting translation stiffness, see
deflected shape of arch given in fig. 56.
For arches having a large shear cross section capacity, the number of hangers strongly influences the size of
critical buckling force. A small shear cross section capacity means not only a large reduction on critical buckling
force but also a small influence of the number of hangers on this force.
This behaviour is explained by fig. 57.
The shear cross section capacity is

expressed by
EI
k=
G ⋅ As ⋅ l
2
where
G ⋅ As is the arch cross section

shear capacity.
Fig. 57. Influence of arch cross section shear capacity

on arch critical buckling force.
For a diagonal hanger configuration, the influence of

arch cross section shear capacity on the arch critical
buckling force is much less.
Note: for the tied arch bridge, an increase of positive sag

of the deck results in an increase of arch normal force.
Why: due to traffic loading, because of equilibrium, the
deck is loaded by normal force with changes the shape of
the deck more horizontally.
The critical in-plane buckling force of a free standing

arch with rigid supports

Dr. A. Romeijn
2
π 
N cr =   E ⋅ I y
β ⋅s
Snap through of arches may be assumed to be prevented, if the following criterion is satisfied:
EA
l∗ >K
12 EI y
A = cross sectional area
Iy = moment of inertia
K = factor taken from fig. 58.
Fig. 58. Factor on snap through of arches.
The critical out-of-plane buckling force in free standing arches

p 2 * EI z
N ki =
( ß * l )2
Nki the normal arch force at the supports. The value of β is
obtained from q
β 2 = 1 − 0,35 H .
β = β 1∗ β 2 q
qH = load part transmitted by hangers

q = total load
Table 4. Values on β 1
The critical out-of-plane buckling force in arches with bracing and end portals
Verified by a stability check of the end portals.
Fig. 59. Buckling of portals for arches.
Considering bending in-plane, the static strength is verified by the equation as given in NEN 6771
N c ;s;d n y  M y ;equ;s;d Fy ;tot;s ;d e * 

+  +  ≤1
N c;u;d n y − 1  M y ;u;d M y ;u;d 

Dr. A. Romeijn
21.8 Hanger configuration: vertical / diagonal

There exist a large influence about the chosen hanger configuration on the overall design of an arch bridge. For
explanation on this, results on load distribution and deflection obtained from a reseach on the reference Demka
bridge are given.
Fig. 60.
Layout of the reference design.
Fig. 61.
Arch welded steel cross section
Left: central part
Right: nearby the deck
Prestressed conrete deck, with

separate cables establishing
the tied arch bridge
Fig. 62. Bridge deck cross

section.
Some bridge characteristics are:

span length = 240 m;
c.t.c. hangers = 22 m;
self weight deck = 322 kN/m (incl. stiffening girders);
self weight arch = 73 kN/m;
self weight hangers = 0,73 kN/m;
arch height f = 37 m;
equivalent traffic loading = 82 kN/m / track;
Fig. 63. Demka bridge as realized.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Totally five alternative hanger configurations as illustrated

in fig. 64 have been investigated.
Number of 5 6 7 8 9
spans
c.t.c. hanger 30,4 25,3 21,7 19,0 16,9
Fig. 64. Alternatives on hanger configuration.
For studying the effect of alternative hanger configurations on the design of a tied arch bridge, a certain range on
values for the parameters as given in table 5 have been included. The design of the bridge is based on Eurocodes.
Structural component Bending stiffness Normal stiffness

‘EI’ ‘EA’ Table 5. Variation of parameters for
Arch v v studying the effect of hanger
Deck v v configuration on the overall design.
Hanger v
21.8.1 Results on stiffness
behaviour
For fixed values on ‘EA’ and ‘EI’ taken from the final reference design of the Demka bridge,
considering railway loading only (symmetrical and non-symmetrical), fig. 65 shows some results on deflection.
1400
Demka
1200
main span / deflection [-]
1000
800
600
400 diagonal hanger

diagonal max
200 vertical hanger
vertical max
0
16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
c.o.c. hangers [m]
Fig. 65. L/δ ratio for the 2 nd -hanger location and deck maximum.
From figure 65, considering the bridge stiffness, it is found that:

§ there exist a large difference on stiffness between diagonal and vertical hanger configuration, Because of
the design stiffness criteria (passengers comfort) L/ δ >1000, a vertical hanger configuration might be an
uneconomic solution;
§ for a certain range of number of hangers, in case of a diagonal hanger configuration caused by the angle
between hanger-arch/deck connection, decreasing the number of hangers results into an increase of
stiffness;
§ there exist a negligible influence about the number of vertical hangers on the stiffness. The arch stiffness is
found to be dominant;
§ a hanger-deck connection located at L/4 is found to be optimal.

Dr. A. Romeijn
60° 45°
From existing literature, in case of a diagonal hanger configuration, for an optimum on the use of material the
following angles are found to be optimal, see left figure.
Fig. 66. Optimal angle depending on type of hanger configuration.
21.8.2 Results on relation tensile force hanger / self weight of the bridge
The design criterion on a minimum of tensile force of the hanger N > 100 kN, results into a minimum on self
weight of the bridge.
40000
diagonal 100 kN
35000 tensile
Demka diagonal tensile
30000
self weight deck [kg/m]
vertical 100 kN tensile

25000
vertical tensile
20000
Based on influence lines
15000 on the normal forces for
the hangers, the
10000 minimum on self-weight
have been analysed. The
5000 results obtained are
shown in fig. 67.
0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
c.o.c. hangers [m]
Fig. 67. Minimum on tensile force of the hanger: self-weight of the bridge.
From figure 67, considering the design criterion on a minimum hanger force, for the self-weight of the bridge, it
is found that:
• a diagonal hanger configuration requires a large contribution of self weight

• there exist a strong relation between number of diagonal hangers and self weight
• for the Demka design, the ratio on self weight / traffic loading is found to be:
diagonal configuration: 1,5 and vertical configuration: 1,1
Because of these ratios, when determining the cross section of the hanger, the fatigue strength is decisive in case
of a diagonal configuration and the static strength in case of a vertical configuration.
21.8.3 Results on member forces (arch, hanger and deck)

Considering the values on ‘EI’ and ‘EA” of the reference design, the influence of hanger configuration on
member forces is summarised in tables 6-7. Totally three load cases have been analysed, namely: self weight,
traffic loading over full length and half length of the bridge.
Configuration Deflection Self weight Arch Hanger Deck

N M
Ratio Nmax Nmin N M
Nmax/N min
Diagonal + - 0 + - - - 0 +
Vertical - + 0 - + + + 0 -
Table 6. Comparison of influence hanger configuration on member forces. + is positive and – is negative.
Configuratie Deflection Self weight Arch Hanger Deck

N M Nmax Nmin Ratio N M
Nmax/N min

Dr. A. Romeijn
Diagonal + + 0 0 - + - 0 -
Vertical 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 -
Table 7. Comparison of influence number of hangers on member forces + is positive and – is negative.
Some results on bending moments for the arch and deck are shown in figures 68-69.
450000 450000
traffic full length + self weight
400000 400000
traffic half length + self weight
350000 self weight 350000
300000 300000
moment [kNm]
moment [kNm]
250000 250000
200000 200000
150000 150000
traffic full lenght+ self wieght
100000 100000
traffic half lenght+ self weight
50000 50000
self weight
0 0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
c.o.c. hangers [m] c.o.c. hangers [m]
Fig. 68. Arch bending moments at first hanger connection. Left diagonal and right vertical hanger
configuration.
70000 70000
traffic full length + self weight
60000 traffic half length + self weight 60000
self weight
50000 50000
moment [kNm]
moment [kNm]
40000 40000
30000 30000
20000 20000
traffic full length +self weight
10000 10000 traffic half length +self weight
self weight
0 0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
c.o.c. hangers [m] c.o.c. hangers [m]
Fig. 69. Maximum deck positive bending moments. Left diagonal and right vertical hanger configuration.
21.8.4 Influence of bending stiffness ‘EI’ on member forces and deflection

For the hanger configuration as shown in fig. 70, the influence of bending stiffness ‘EI’ of the deck and arch on
the deflection and member forces are summarised in tables 9-10.
Fig. 70. Hanger configuration used as a basic model for studying the influences of “EI” on deflection and
member forces.
Deck Ed I (Nmm2 ) Arch EaI (Nmm2 )

alternative alternative
1 1,37 E +16 1 9,14 E +16
2 2,16 E +16 2 2,84 E +17
3 9,86 E +16 3 7,04 E +17
4 (Demka) 1,37 E +17 4 (Demka) 9,14 E +17
5 1,76 E +17 5 1,12 E +18
6 2,53 E +17 6 1,54 E +18
7 1,37 E +18 7 3,28 E +18
Table 8. Variation on bending stiffness for studying the influences on deflection and member forces.
Increase of ‘EI’ Deflection Arch Hanger Deck

Dr. A. Romeijn
N M N M
Arch ++ 0 -- + +
Deck + 0 0 0 --
Table 9. Diagonal hanger configuration.
Effect of bending stiffness on deflection and member forces; + is positive and – is negative.
Increase of ‘EI’ Deflection

Arch Hanger Deck
N M N M
Arch ++ 0 - 0 ++
Deck + 0 + 0 --
Table 10. Vertical hanger configuration.
Effect of bending stiffness on deflection and member forces; + is positive and – is negative.
The influence of ‘EI’ on arch bending moment (at the position of the first hanger connection) is shown in fig. 71.
The influence of ‘EI’ on the deflection (at hanger – deck connection) is shown in figure 72.
600000 600000
bending stiffness arch
bending stiffness arch
Demka 9.135E+16
500000 9.135E+16 500000 2.84E+17
2.84E+17 7.035E+17
7.035E+17 9.135E+17
400000 400000
moment [kNm]
moment [kNm]
9.135E+17 1.1235E+18
1.1235E+18 1.5435E+18
300000 300000 3.28E+18
1.5435E+18
3.28E+18
200000 200000
100000 100000
0 0
1E+16 1E+17 1E+18 1E+19 1E+16 1E+17 1E+18 1E+19
bending stiffness deck p [Nmm2] bending stiffness deck [Nmm2]
Fig. 71. The influence of ‘EI’ on arch bending moment (at the position of the first hanger connection).
Left diagonal and right vertical hanger configuration.
3000 3000
bending stiffness arch bending stiffness arch
9.135E+16 9.135E+16
2500
2.84E+17 2500 2.84E+17
7.035E+17 7.035E+17
2000 9.135E+17 9.135E+17
1.1235E+18 2000
delfection [mm]
1.1235E+18
1.5435E+18 1.5435E+18
1500 3.28E+18
1500 3.28E+18
Demka
1000
1000
500
500
0
1E+16 1E+17 1E+18 1E+19 0
bending stiffness deck [Nmm2] 1E+16 1E+17 1E+18 1E+19
bending stiffness deck [Nmm2]
Fig. 72. Influence of bending stiffness on deflection.
Left vertical and right diagonal hanger configuration.
21.8.5 Influence of axial stiffness ‘EA’ on member forces and deflection

For the hanger configuration as shown in fig. 70, the influence of axial stiffness ‘EA’ of the deck and arch on the
deflection and member forces are summarised in tables 12-13.
Deck ErA (N) Arch Eb A (N)

alternative alternative

Dr. A. Romeijn
1 1,29 E +11 1 9,77 E +10

2 2,31 E +11 2 1,76 E +11
3 2,57 E +11 3 1,95 E +11
4 (Demka) 2,83 E +11 4 (Demka) 2,14 E +11
5 5,16 E +11 5 3,91 E +11
Table 11. Variation on axial stiffness for studying the influences on deflection and member forces.
Increase of ‘EA’ Deflection Arch Hanger Deck

(maximum) M N N M
Arch 0 0 0 0 0
Deck 0 0 - - -
Table 12. Diagonal hanger configuration.
Effect of axial stiffness on deflection and member forces; + is positive and – is negative.
Increase of ‘EA’ Deflection Arch Hanger Deck

(maximum) M N N M
Boog 0 0 0 0 -
Rijvloer 0 0 - - -
Table 13. Vertical hanger configuration.
Effect of axial stiffness on deflection and member forces; + is positive and – is negative.
The influence of ‘EA’ on the maximum deflection of the deck for both hanger configurations considered is given
in fig. 73.
350 300
Demka
300 250
250 axial stiffness arch

200
9.77E+10
deflection [mm]
deflection[mm]
200 1.76E+11
1.95E+11 150
2.14E+11
150
3.91E+11 axial stiffness arch
100 9.77E+10
100 1.76E+11
1.95E+11
50
50 2.14E+11
3.91E+11
0 0
1.0E+11 1.5E+11 2.0E+11 2.5E+11 3.0E+11 3.5E+11 4.0E+11 4.5E+11 5.0E+11 5.5E+11 1.0E+11 1.5E+11 2.0E+11 2.5E+11 3.0E+11 3.5E+11 4.0E+11 4.5E+11 5.0E+11 5.5E+11
axial stiffness deck [N] axial stiffness deck [N]
Fig. 73. Influence of axial stiffness on deflection.

Left vertical and right diagonal hanger configuration.

Dr. A. Romeijn
21.9 Consequence of hanger configuration on overall stiffness behaviour

The cooperation between arch and deck strongly depends on type of hanger configuration used. In case of truss
girders, the equivalent bending stiffness EI is analysed by using the Steiner theory. A reduction factor is included
to take into account certain flexibility caused by shear deformation, joint flexibility, etc. The question arises
whether the Steiner theory can also be used for arch bridges. For showing the consequence of using the Steiner
theory for arch bridges, the existing Papendrechtse arch bridge is used as a reference model. Some basics
information of the bridge is given in fig. 74.
Fig. 74. Geometry of the arch bridge crossing the Merwede at Papendrecht.
For the location half of the span the cross section properties are:
A arch = 10.56E4 mm2

A deck = 7.40E4 mm2
Iown: arch+deck = 2.5E10 + 2.3E10 = 4.8E10 mm4
zarc = 12361 mm
zdeck = 17639 mm
ISteiner: arch+deck= 10.56E4 * 123612 + 7.4E4 * 176392 = 3.92E13 mm4 .
(Iown can therefore be negelcted).
Some general information on deflection is given in fig. 75.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Fig. 75. Basic

information on the
deflection for two types of
traffic loading.
For the situation q = 10 kN/m, L = 202.8 m and E = 2.1?105 N/mm2 , the deflection is expressed by:
1.04875 ⋅ 1015
§ full length loading δ max = at ½ L;
I equ
3.899 ⋅ 1014
§ half length loading: δ max = at ¼ L.
I equ
Obtaining d max from computer analyses results into a value Iequa. Subsequently, by using the relation
I equ
η = , η-numbers are obtained which tells the consequence of hanger configuration on the global
I Steiner;ref
stiffness behaviour. Results on η-numbers considering four alternative hanger configurations are shown in fig.
76.
Fig. 76. Efficiency of

hanger configuration on
global stiffness bahaviour.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Some results on deflected shape are shown in fig. 77.
Hangver node position x/l [-]

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0
Vertical
deflection 25
[mm]
verticaal, volbelast
diagonaal, volbelast
50
netwerk, volbelast
diagonaal,halfvol belast
netwerk, halfvol belast
75
Fig. 77. Vertical deflection of the main deck girder.
From results given in fig. 76 and 77, it is concluded that:

- in case of full length loading, the influence of alternative hanger configurations on stiffness
behaviour is nearly the same for each type of configuration.
- A vertical hanger configuration results into too much deflection. For example, in case of half length
loading the deflection is extremely high. The bending stiffness is mainly derived from Iown: arch + deck
instead of any contribution by corporation between arch and deck.
- There no sense to use a large number of hangers, like alternatives 3 and 4 “network-system”. This
because the results on deflection for a simple diagonal hanger configuration and network hanger
configurations is nearly the same. This conclusion is also shown by fig. 78.
300
max [mm]
250
200
deflection
150
100
50
0
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 1,25 1,5 1,75 2 2,25
hanger area 1/A [*1/ Ao mm²]
diagonal,full length loading diagonal, half length laoding

network, full length loading network, half length loading
Fig. 78 Relation between hanger area and deflection (hanger system 2 and 3 of fig. 69).
Ao = 5027 mm2 .

Dr. A. Romeijn
21.10 Radial converging hanger system

Mainly based on attractive appearance (esthetics), see fig. 1-c, radial converging hanger systems are used
recently.
The configuration is expressed by the ratio Rb /Rh , see fig. 79.
4 Rb 43
Rh
Rh
Rb
Fig. 79. Definitions used on radial converging hanger configuration.
Left: Rb /Rh = 0.5
Right: Rb /Rh = -1.0
Some results on bridge behavior (using the Papendrechtse bridge as reference) are depicted in fig. 80 – 81.
x/L [-]
-20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0
20
zakking [mm]
40
60
80
100
120
140
RC[24, -1] RC[12, -1] RC[6, -1]
RC[24, -0.5] RC[12, -0.5] RC[6, -0.5]
Fig. 80. Deflection of the main deck girder in case of full length loading10 kN/m and negative Rb /Rh ratio.
(RC[24,-1] means hanger c.t.c. – 24 m and Rb /Rh = -1.0).
x/L [-]
-40
-20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0
zakking [mm]
20
40
60
80
100
120
RC[24, 0.5] RC[12, 0.5] RC[6, 0.5]

RC[24, 1] RC[12, 1] RC[6, 1]
Fig. 81. Deflection of the main deck girder in case of full length loading10 kN/m and positive Rb /Rh ratio.
(RC[24,1] means hanger c.t.c. – 24 m and Rb /Rh = 1.0).

Dr. A. Romeijn
x/L [-]
-0.6
vert.,x/L=0.14
-0.4 vert.,x/L=0.32
relatieve doorbuiging w/L
-0.20.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 vert.,x/L=0.5
Rb/Rh=-1, x/L =0.14
0
[ m m /m - ]
Rb/Rh=-1, x/L=0.32
0.2 Rb/Rh=-1, x/L=0.5
0.4 Rb/Rh=1, x/L=0.14
Rb/Rh=1, x/L=0.32
0.6
Rb/Rh=1, x/L=0.5
0.8
Fig. 82. Influence lines on deflection, unit load 100kN.
For the three hanger configurations vertical / positive Rb /Rh ratio / negative Rb /Rh ratio, the smallest deflection is
found for Rb /Rh = -1.0, see fig. 82. The stiffness behavior under half length loading shows for the three
alternatives not that much difference.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Otten, Influence hanger configuration on the design of an arch bridge: thesis work TU-Delft, 2000.
[2] Palkowski, S., ‘Statik und Stabilität von Zweigelenkbögen mit schrägen Hängern und Zugband’.
Stahlbau, 7 (1987), p. 246-250.
[3] Palkowski, S., ‘Über die Stabilität von schubweichen Zweigelenkbögen’. Stahlbau 57,
(1988), p. 59-62.
[4] Palkowski, S., e.a., ‘Bemerkungen über die Stabilität von Bögen mit Hängern und Zugband’.
Stahlbau 63, 8 (1994), p. 248-251.
[5] Palkowski, S., e.a., ‘Stabilität von Bögen mit Hängern und konvexem Zugband’. Stahlbau 66,
(1987), p. 508-510.
[6] http://www.struct.kth.se/research/bridges
[7] Friot, D., Bonpas Tied-Arch TGV mediteranee high-speed rail. Bridge over the A7 motorway toll plaza.
Composite Bridges, Proc. 3rd International Meeting, Madrid, 2001.
[8] Van Bogaert, P., et al., Tied Arch Bridges with Radial Oriented Hangers subject to Rail Traffic, IABSE
2003, Antwerpen.
[9] Braga, F. et al., Bowstring bridges for high-speed railway transportation, IABSE 2003, Antwerpen.
[10] Del Forno, J-Y, et al., Steel and composite bridges designed by the bureau Greisch, Proc. 3rd
International Meeting, Madrid 2001.
[11] Prof. Kuhlmann, U, et al., University.of Stuttgart, Germany.
[12] Ramondenc P., et. Al. Les viaducs de Mornas et de Mondragon, Ponts metailliques No . 19 –199, pp. 95-
129.
[13] L. Do, Network and radial converging hangersystem: thesis work TU-Delft, 2004.
APPENDIX
Arch bridge of Orleans [10]

Les Viaduct de Mornas; Mondragan [12]

Dr. A. Romeijn
Example: Arch bridge of Orleans
The bridge shown in fig. 63, can be considered as an example of close co-operation between engineering office
and architect. The span of the steel arch is approx. 150m. Two series of 28 cables ensure the deck support and
stabilise the arch transversally. The width of the orthotropic steel deck is 25m, and the deck is constructed as a
box girder.
Fig. 84. Bridge of Orlean (left) and static equilibrium (right).
Fig. 85. Fabrication of the deck structure.
The behaviour of this bridge is purely a three dimensional behaviour, even under self-weight. The consequence
of the concept is the necessity to construct the deck with op four cambers (large torsional stiffness); see fig. 65:
§ a longitudinal camber, to compensate the elongation of the deck under the arch effects;
§ a vertical bending camber, classical for any bridge;
§ a horizontal bending camber, in the plan of the deck to compensate the deflections under horizontal tension
of the hangers due to their non equilibrated slope;
§ a torsion camber of one percent at the middle of the main span.
Fig. 86.
Deformed shape under permanent loads.

Dr. A. Romeijn
Example: Les viaducs de Mornas et de Mondragon
The figures given are self-explaining.

Dr. A. Romeijn

Dr. A. Romeijn

Arch Bridge Design

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Arch Bridge Design

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CT5125: Steel bridges – file <arch-bridge-design>

21. Arch bridge

Fig. 1. Alternative design of arch bridges. c d

Fig. 2. Example of symmetric and

The hangers are concentrated loaded in tension by local live load

Fig. 3. Basic arch bridge, Nijmegen.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 332

A temperature action doesn’t result into extra bending moments.

Fig. 4. Basic tied arch bridge, Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht.

Because of the stiffening girder, the hangers are more

Fig. 5. A tied arch bridge with stiffening girder,

Though there is a difference in appearance, the mechanical behaviour of the three

Fig. 7. Nielsen-Lohse bridge, Osaka, Japan.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 333

Fig. 8. Arch bridge classifications.

Fig. 9. Various hanger configurations [7].

Fig. 10. Alternative relative levels of arch and deck girder.

Fig. 11. The Bayonne Bridge, one of the longest steel

21.2 Historical overview

In its most common form referred to as a "true arch," in

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 334

Fig. 12. The iron bridge, England.

Fig. 13. Largest span length for main type of bridges.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 335

Fig. 14. Concrete arch bridges.

Fig. 15. Steel arch bridges.

Constructed:1990 (right part)

Constructed: 1997 (right part)

Fig. 17. Railway bridge Weesp.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 336

Fig. 18. Railway bridge,

21.3 Choice of elements

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 337

Depending on the overall design, the number of arches varies. For

Fig. 21. Lateral stability of the arch.

The vertical rigid end portal transmits their forces back to

Fig. 22. Example on using a vertical rigid end portal.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 338

To obtain a minimum on arch buckling force,

Fig. 24. Improved out of plane arch buckling

Fig. 25. Direct connection between arch –bearing.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 339

Fig.28. Measurements against vortex excitation.

Fig. 29. Measurements against rain-wind induced vibration.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 340

Verification on minimum tensile force is done by

The stiffening girder

Fig. 33. Composite bridge deck; Demka bridge.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 341

Fig. 34. Railway bridge using a ballast deck system (macadam).

Fig. 35. Typical cross-section as frequently used in the past.

Fig. 36. Example of an orthotropic steel deck.

21.4 Arch bridges in The Netherlands

and for steel arch bridges between 49 – 295 m. 200

after 2000 steel/concrete composite decks are used 100

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 342

Network arch bridges

Fig. 41. Network arch bridges Japan.

The ratio arch height/main span is shown in fig. 42.

Fig. 42. Scope of network arch bridge.

21. Design aspects of arch bridges 343

21.5 Design aspects