Gilgel Abay Bridge Technical Report Summary

--- 6 • ri^ f\£la’■y 
-------- -
'-
-X
PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA
S— a uX no t y 
MIN. CO. MINISTRY OF CONSTRUCTION I
’>— cl 19 nr
1
f— Tuptn/wion — ■ -
natn contnuior — 
------ - —
——— —
■ ■1
---- ------------------------------------------------
TANA BELES PROJECT
- ««c € <o n ----------------------------------- rub #• of <4>n -
10-DESIGN* TENDER DOCS 07—BRIDGE 1 — tlU*------------------------------------------------------------
B • REPORTS
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE TECHNICAL REPORT
I
>— •nytnor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S F* STUDIO PIETRANGELI
.*—cod#
data
DES/BRID1/REP 04 B 18DE87 SP1007B04B
-<
— —------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- '
•rr sacMftconfw—< n ► »x*b»#c<tan <Krem^ dug n. •
!wp n.GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - CONTENTS
Pag.l
CONTENTS
ACCOMPANYING LETTER
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Content
1.2 Editions
1.3 Acknowledgements
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIOGE
2.1 Bridge Location
2.2 Type of Bridge Structure
2.3 Description of the Structures
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
2.3.1
Bridge Deck
5
2.3.2
Piers
6
2.3.3
Abutments
6
2.3.4
Road Embankment
6
3 TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
3.1 General
3.2 Solution 1 - Steel Beams 3x3x32
3.2.1 Descriptions
3.2.2 Pros
3.2.3 Cons
3.3 Solution 2 - Continuous Steel Beams 3x3x32
3.3.1 Description
3.3.2 Pros
3.3.3 Cons
3.4 Solution 3 - Precase Pretensioned Concrete Beams 3 x 3 x 32 . . . . 3.4.1 Description
3.4.2 Pros
3.4.3 Cons
3.5 Solution 4 - R.C. Continuous Beams 5 x 20
3.5.1 Description H
3.5.2 Pros
3.5.3 Cons’ ’ ’ * * ’ ’ * * * *
3.6 Solution 5 - R.C. Frame 5 x 20
3.6.1 Description
3.6.2 Pros
3.6.3 Cons* ’ ’ ’ ’ ' ' ’ ’ ' '
’’*’'’
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
'’
”
4 GEOLOGICAL REPORT
4.1 General
4.2 Regional Geology . .
’’'
* *’ *'’
4.3 Geology of the Bridge Site ’ i ’ ’ ’ ’ ' '
''’
’’’’
4.4 Foundation Conditions . . .
4.5 Borehole Logs’
’ ......................................................... ’ ' '
13
13
13
14
15
16
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\GIL_RELl(14ja88,fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - romer.
r.
l
[ r.GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - CONTENTS
Pag.2
5 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 General.................................................................................................................................................................... 18
5.2 Data.......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
5.3 Calculation Method ............................................................................................................................................... 18
5.4 Gilgel Abay Longitudinal Slope .................................................................................................... 19
5.5 Manning's Roughness Coefficient .................................................................................................................... 20
5.6 Natural Flow......................................................................................................................................................... 21
5.7 Flood Calculation ................................................................................................................................................ 22
6 STABILITY CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 24
6.1 Structural Steelwork .......................................................................................................................................... 24
6.1.1 Design Data........................................................................................................................................... 24
6.1.2 Construction and Loading Programme .............................................................................................. 26
6.1.3 Loads.................................................................................................................................................... 27
6.1.4 Combination of Loads........................................................................................................... 36
6.1.5 Stresses and Control of Girders......................................................................................................... 38
6.1.6 Checking of Stresses in Lattice Bulkheads .................................................................. 43
6.1.7 Stresses and Controls of the Lattice............................................................................. 50
6.1.8 Stresses and Checking of Bolted Joints ....................................................................... 61
6.1.9 Stresses and Controls of Girder-Slab Connectors ..................................................... 69
6.1.10 Stresses and Controls of Web and Stiffening Ribs....................................... 72
6.1.11 Strains ................................................................................................................................................. 89
6.2 Reinforced Concrete Slab for Bridge Deck............................................................................. 93
6.2.1 Load Analyses....................................................................................................................................... 93
6.2.2 Stresses................................................................................................................................................. 94
6.2.3 Controls................................................................................................................................................. 95
6.3 Piers................................................................................................................................................................... 102
6.3.1 Bearing-Hinge Pier.............................................................................................................................. 102
6.3.2 Foundations.........................................................................................................................................107
6.4 Right Abutment........................................ ... ........................................ .... ................................................. 110
6.4.1 Front Wall............................................................................................................................................ 110
6.4.2 Lateral Wall..........................................................................................................................................114
6.4.3 Foundations . ................................................................................................................................... 117
6.5 Left Abutment............................................................................................................................................ 125
6.5.1 Front Wall............................................................................................................................................125
6.5.2 Lateral Wall......................................................................................................................................... 126
6.5.3 Foundations....................................................................................................................................... 128
7 PIER CONSTRUCTION METHODS ................................................................................................................. 135
7.1 General....................................................................................................................................................... 135
7.2 Method A - Provisional Embankment .................................................................................................... 135
7.2.1 Hypothesis......................................................................................................................................... 135
7.2.2 Operative Phases ............................................................................................................................ 135
7.2.3 Checking of Provisional Structures .............................................................................................. 137
7.3 Solution B - Floating Platform.....................................................................................................................139
8 BILL OF QUANTITIES..................................................................................................................................... 140
8.1 General* ’ ’ ’ ’
140
8.2 Bill of Quantities Summary.........................................................................................................................141
8.3 Detailed Bill of Quantities........................................................................................................................... 142
8.4 Cost Estimate.............................................................................................................................................. 155
TANADIP\OES\BRID1\GIL_RELl(14ja88,fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - rome
1GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - CONTENTS
Pag.3
9 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................... 156
10 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME .............................................................................................................. 157
10.1 General ...............................................................................................................................................157
10.2 Gantt Diagram.....................................................................................................................................158
11 EQUIPMENT LIST......................................................................................................................................... 159
11.1 General ................................................................................................................................................159
11.2 Equipment List.................................................................................................................................... 160
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 5.1 - DISCHARGE DIAGRAM AT BRIDGE 1 SECTION Fig. 5.2 - BRIDGE 1 BASIN HYPSOGRAPHIC CURVE
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Fig. 6.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
6.
.1
.2
3
4
STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK - PLACING PHASES AND STABILITY SCHEMES BRIDGE DECK - TRANSVERSAL SCHEME OF LIVE LOAOS
- BEARING SCHEME
STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK -
CALCULATION MODEL OF GIRDER
Fig-
Fig.
Fig-
Fig-
Fig-
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig-
Fig.
Fig-
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
6. 5
6.6
6.7
6.8
N
M
II
•f
W
II
II
II
-• CONCRETE
BRIDGE
DECK ■-
6.9 -
6.10 -
6.11 -
6.12 -
6.13 -
6.14 -
6.15 -
6.16 -
6.17 -
6.18 -
6.19 -
6.20 -
6.21 -
6.22 -
6.23 -
6.24 -
6.25 -
6.26 -
II
N
- BRACING DETAILS AT PLACING PHASE
- DETAILS OF GIRDER/SLAB CONNECTION
- POSITION OF TRANSVERSAL CONNECTORS
LOAD SCHEME q.lD
- " " q.lC
PIERS (BEARING CHECK) - LATTICEWORK MODEL
DISPLACEMENT OF PIERS - HINGE/TROLLEY PIER BEARING COMBINATION 1 PIER - FOUNDATION PILING
PIER - PLINTH - BENDING CHECK MODEL
RIGHT ABUTMENT - LOADS OF FRONT WALL (EXCLUDING OECK)
II
“ 
- CALCULATION MODEL FRONT WALL
- SCHEMES OF STRESSES ON FRONT WALL
- LATERAL WALL ANO SCHEME OF STRESS
- LATERAL WALL FLAG
- PILING FOUNDATION
- SCHEME OF CONCRETE SLAB AND PILES 4 & 5
------- -----
H
<1
II
II
II
fl
It
H
II
H
. W It
It
N
" PILE 7
LEFT ABUTMENT
- LOADS OF FRONT WALL
(EXCLUDING DECK)
Fig.
6.27 -
II
II
II
•I
II
II
N
II
- CALCULATION MODEL FRONT WALL
- SCHEMES OF STRESSES ON FRONT WALL
- LATERAL WALL AND SCHEME OF STRESS
- PILING FOUNDATION
- SCHEME OF CONCRETE SLAB ANO PILE 5
Fig. 7.1
Fig. 7.2
Fig. 7.3
Fig. 7.4
PILING CONSTR. TECHNIQUE - CALCULATION MODEL FOR TEMP. SHEET PIL.
" - CALC. SCHEME FOR FRAME OF TEMP.PIL.
" - STRESSES ON FRAME
- FRAME DETAILS OF TEMP. SHEET PILING
TANADIP\0ES\BR!Dl\GIL_RELl(14ja88,fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - CONTENTS
Pag.4
ANNEXES
A - DRAWINGS -—===—
Al
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
» KEY MAP 1:100,000
=
PLAN
1:10,000
■ GENERAL LAYOUT 1:500
-
-
SURVEY
RIVER
PLAN
CROSS
1:200
SECTIONS
= BRIDGE
- GENERAL SCHEME
08.01.D.08.H
10.07.F.04.B
10.07.F.05.B
10.07.F.06.B
10.07.F.07.B
10.07.F.08.B
A7 - STEEL STRUCTURAL WORK - MAIN GIRDER GENERAL SCHEME 10.07.F.09.B
A8
A9
-
"
’
"
- STRAP JOINTS
- " n " - LATTICE BULKHEADS
A10 = " " "
- STRUCTURAL NODES
All = "
'
" - PLACING PROVISIONAL JOINTS
10.07.F.10.B
10.07.F.11.B
10.07.F.12.B
10.07.F.13.B
A12 » DECK - PRECAST CONCRETE SLABS GENERAL DISTRIBUTION 10.07.F.14.B
A13
=
"
-
PRECAST
CONCRETE
SLABS
TYPE A
AND B
10.07.F.
15.B
A14
• 
"
-
PRECAST
CONCRETE
SLABS
TYPE C
AND D
10.07.F.
16.B
A15 - " - PRECAST CONCRETE SLABS TYPE E-F-G-H-I 10.07.F.17.B A16 PIER - FORMWORK
A17 = "
A18 - "
A19 - "
A20 = "
A21 - H
A22 - *
A23 ■ "
- PIERS AND PILES REINFORCEMENT
- RIGHT ABUTMENT - FORMWORK
- RIGHT ABUTMENT - REINFORCEMENT TABLE 1
- RIGHT ABUTMENT - REINFORCEMENT TABLE 2
- LEFT ABUTMENT
- LEFT ABUTMENT
- LEFT ABUTMENT
- FORMWORK
- REINFORCEMENT TABLE 1
- REINFORCEMENT TABLE 2
10.07.F.18.B
10.07.F.19.B
10.07.F.20.B
10.07.F.21.B
10.07.F.22.B
10.07.F.23.A
10.07.F.24.A
10.07.F.25.A
B ■ GEOLOGICAL REPORT APPENDICES
B1 = INVESTIGATIONS - BRIDGE 1 GENERAL LAYOUT 1:500 B2 = INVESTIGATIONS - GEOLOGICAL PLAN AND PROFILE 1:200 08.05.F-02.A
08.05.F.03.A
T ANADI P\DES\BRIDI\GIL_REL1(14ja88,fw2,83 k)
studio pietrangeli - comeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
r
1. INTRODUCTION
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\DIV_lA(dec87, lotus2, 2k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - INTRODUCTION
Pag. 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 CONTENT
The present report illustrates the project relative to the G1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE foreseen for at ch. 26.700 of the 8ahar Oar - Kunzila Road which is presently under construction.
CHAPTER 2 (Description of the Bridge) describes the works and the technical* economical criteria upon which the design of the bridge has been based.
CHAPTER 3 (Technical Comparisons) illustrates the technical comparisons among the various design solutions. The choice of the final design solution has been based on the above mentioned comparisons.
CHAPTER 4 (Geological Report) describes the geological considerations regarding both the regional and local geology and the results of the investigations carried out for the definition of the foundations of the bridge.
CHAPTER 5 (Hydraulic Calculations) presents the hydraulic and hydrologic calculations carried out in order to establish the intrados elevation of the bridge deck.
CHAPTER 6 (Stability Calculations) presents all the stability calculations relative to the various components of the bridge:
. bridge deck
. abutments
. piers
CHAPTER 7 (Construction Methods) describes two possible construction methods for the piers.
CHAPTERS 8, 9 and 10 present the Bills of Quantities, Technical Specifications
and Construction Programme relative to the Gilgel Abay Bridge.
CHAPTER 11 lists the materials and equipment foreseen for the construction of the bridge with the exception of the equipment necessary for earthworks (dozers and excavators) and the equipment relative to transport and lifting (trucks and cranes). ’ '
The main tables and figures are annexed at the end of the relative chapters.
TANADIP\OES\BRID1\GIL_REL1(14ja88,fw2,83k)
studio pietranaeli - romeIGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - INTRODUCTION
Pag.2
1.2 EDITIONS
The present document comprises a single volume. Reduced-scale drawings are annex to this volume.
Full-scale drawings are presented separately.
This edition represents the first edition of the project relative to the Gilgel Abay bridge.
If modifications should be made, a new, full edition will be issued. Any modifications made shall be summarised in this subsection and the drawings indicated in the "Revisions".
1.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author of this report wishes to express his thanks to the following authorities and professionals for their contribution to this work:
* Comr. KASSA GEBRE, Ministry of Construction, for his contribution in the choice of the final solution of the bridge.
* Ato SHIGUT of ETCA (Ethiopian Transport and Construction Authority) for his precious assistance during the investigations.
* Prof. FLORIANO CALVINO. Engineer Geologist, Professor of Applied Geology at
the University of Genoa, who directed the geological investigations and gave
his invaluable advice for any design decision.
* Mr. CARLO SILVESTRI, Engineer, who carried out the stability calculations of the structures.
To all the STAFF of Studio Pietrangeli involved in this Project, and in particular to Mr. Paolo Alfredo PALLAV1CINI. Engineer and Chief Designer of
TANADIP\0ES\BRIDl\GIL_RELl(14ja88,fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN ■ REPORT DECEMBER 1987
DESCRIPTION of BRIDGE
THE
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\DIV_lA(dec87, lotus2, 2k)
studio pletrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE
- FINAL DESIGN - DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE
Pag.3
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE
2.1 BRIDGE LOCATION
ThP location of the bridge has been the result of close examination and the optimisation between route alignment and suitable zones for the crossing of the river.
From the various possible sites, the site chosen is certainly the best for the following reasons:
It does not deviate (to any remarkable degree) from the practically straight
alignment of the Bahar Dar-Kunzila Road.
The areas of black-cotton soil to be crossed and those subject to flooding by
the river are minimised.
. The basaltic flows appear to be more superificial at this point and thus
permit shallow foundations.
In this area however, two possibilities existed:
. The first was to cross the river utilising the small islands which divide the river into different branches.
. The second possibility was to cross the river downstream adopting a single structure.
The second possibility has been chosen since the first foresees a very long structure which is economically less advantageous than the first and with no technical advantage.
2.2 TYPE OF BRIDGE STRUCTURE
The structure of the bridge is diveded into three spans of lengths 28*45+28 m. s?ab^rid9e deCk 'S coniposed of two metal longitudinal girders with a concrete
The statical scheme is that of resting girder.
(Ref.^Chapter ^anc^techn5 bfen chosen after various studies and be adopted for this work 'Ca analyses relative to the construction
comparison
methods to
TANADIP\DES\BRI01\GIL_RELl(14 a88,fw2,
J 83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeFINAL DESIGN - DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE
The .lt.rn.tl.es which h.ve been studied (Ref. Ch.pter 3) .re the followln,: hridno nf steel-concrete structure with three equal spans of length 3 x 32 tn
Pag.4
• SnJ’Ih™ 
"rdlfs for . bridge deck of the resting type.
bridge similar to the above-described structure but with continuous girder,
prestressed reinforced concrete bridge with three equal spans 3 x 32 m with precast girders and resting bridge deck.
bridge with five spans of 20 m each constructed with continuous concrete
girder.
. bridge similar to the above but with deck fixed to piers
The reasons for the chosen solution are the following:
The steel-concrete structure facilitates construction of the deck since the metal girders, assembled prior to placing, may be placed without using lifting
equipment.
Once the girders have been placed, the concreting of the upper slab may be carried out by positioning the prefabricated reinforced base slabs which become integrated in the final concrete pour.
(frame structure)
Therefore, neither support works nor formwork are necessary which would be difficult to execute on the river bed.
The adoption of a central girder longer than the others facilitates construction of the piers (near to the river banks during the dry season) without an appreciable increase in cost.
The adoption of resting girders
of construction with respect to
rather than a continous girder is due to ease insignificant savings in the structure.
TANA0,P\0ESXBR,0 X
1
CllJ1EL1(14jae8 83ki
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE
FINAL DESIGN - DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE
Pag.5
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURES
2.3.1 Bridge Deck
As mentioned
steel-concrete
in the previous subsection, the bridge deck comprises structure with metal girders and collaborating concrete slab.
a
The girders are of variable height.
In order to facilitate placing, the intrados has been kept absolutely flat while the upper rise is obtained by following the angle of the access ramps.
The two girders are coupled and assembled prior to construction in such way as to permit a greater transversal rigidity also in the placing phase. In this manner the structure presents greater resistance to wind action and/or seismic action.
In the placing phase wind braces are foreseen on the girders.
During the placing phase four provisonal supports are foreseen to be placed on the piers (which shall be supplied by the manufacturer of the girders) in order to facilitate the movement of the girders and spread the concentrated loads which develope.
The girders shall be made solid during placing by means of provisional joints which shall be dismantled when the girder is placed on the permanent supports.
The type of steel foreseen is CORTEN which needs no anti-oxidation protection and thus no maintenance is necessary.
The girders shall be divided into sections of maximum length 15.4 m in order to permit transport by normal semi-trailers.
The concrete deck slab
precast concrete slabs
the deck slab shall be
shall be concreted during construction by utilising the which replace formwork. The lower final reinforcement of
inserted in the precast concrete slabs.
The paving kerbs shall also be
external formwork.
prefabricated in order to eliminate the use of
Supports, hinges and bearinqs
maintenance.
shall be dust-proof and thus shall require no
The possibility of
supports.
lifting the deck
is foreseen in order to replace the
TANA01P\DES\BRIDl\GlL_RELl(14ja 8.
8
fw2.83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeDESIGN - DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE
Pag.6
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL
2.3.2 Piers
The piers ere two In number and shall be located near the banks during the dry season.
The foundation Is foreseen on bored plles of Jla.eterJZOO ^^
'
of the river
. The piles of
shall reach'a basaltic level of good thickness onto which
transmitted b, the bridge.
The piles shall be connected by a foundation plinth 1.80 m thick, upon which the pier shall be constructed.
The pier is composed of a wall 1 m thick and 6 m long.
Both niers have been calculated to resist the longitudinal forces transmitted by “ cj«rll sjln .Uhough, in practice, only one of the piers will resist these forces.
For the construction of the piers reference should be made to Chapter 7 of this report.
2.3.3 Abutments
The abutments are of the classic type with front and side walls. This is to protect the foot of the embankment during floods.
The abutments shall constructed on piles of diameter 1200 mm which shall reach the same basaltic foundation layer of the piers.
Since the superficial basaltic layer is fessured and particularly weathered, settlement (of many centimetres) would have resulted had direct foundations been adopted.
2.3.4 Road Embankment
I^Annex^l S®CtiOn of the emt>ankment of the access road
The embankment shall be carried nut in rorizfgii c u
allow seepage from
foundation fron''Mbanki.enti,Br S*n<l 20 thick-
The foot of the embankment shall be protected by a row
to the bridge
shall be used
is shown
in order to
to separate
TANAI)IP\DESWl01\CIl_ ELl(14
R jaaa fw2 83k)
,,
piping, by hand placed
of gabions.
studio pietrangeli - romeH
GILGEL ABAY
BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN ■ REPORT DECEMBER 1937
3. TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\DIV_lA(dec87, lotus2, 2k)
studio pietrangeli - rorneGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE • FINAL DESIGN - TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
Pag. 7
3. TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
3.1 GENERAL
This chapter presents the results of the technical comparisons of the five different types of structure studied in March 1987.
The types of structure are the following:
1. Three equal spans of 32 m each. Steel-concrete bridge, resting type, comprising 3 metal girders and concrete slab poured during construction.
2. As above, but with continuous girder deck.
3. Three equal spans of 32 m each. Resting type bridge deck comprising 3 prestressed precast girders and concrete slab poured during construction.
4. Five spans of 20 m each. Continous girder concrete deck poured during construction.
5. As above, but with deck joined to piers.
At the end of the comparison, solution No.l has been chosen.
Some modification have been made to this solution (variation of reduction of the number of girders from 3 to 2) which have structure both from the technical and economical points of view.
the spans,
improved the
TANADIP\OES\BRID1\GIL REL1(14ja88.fw2.83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE • FINAL DESIGN - TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
Pag.8
3.2 SOLUTION 1 - STEEL BEAMS 3 x 3 x 32
3.2.1 Description
* Concrete slab over 3 steel beams, No.3 spans, 32 m each. Total length 96 * Piers: No.2 - Three columns dia.1200 each
* Foundation: No.2 concrete blocks 4.80 x 8.40 x 1.50 m
and No.15 * 2 piles dia.600
* Total bridge width: 7.50 m
3.2.2 Pros
1 • Probably preferable for Foreign Contractor
2 - Cost: Cheapest of No.5 solutions considered
3 - Time: Short construction time on site (where steel beams on site) 4 - Hydraulics: Min. river flow obstacle (2 piers only)
3.2.3 Cons
1 - Time: Not immediate start of deck construction, due to time for construction and transport of the 9 longer steel beams.
2 - Equipment: Equipment for beam launching required (crane, derrick)
3 - Maintenance: Required for
* steel beams
* No.6 loading pads
* No.4 expansion joints
TANADIP\OES\BRID1\GIL REL1(10ja88,fw2.45k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIOGE - FINAL DESIGN - TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
Pag.9
3.3 SOLUTION 2 - CONTINUOUS STEEL BEAMS 3 x 3 x 32
3.3.1 Description
* Continuous deck with concrete slab on 3 steel beams, over 3 spans 32 m each.
1 shoulder anchored, other free to move.
♦ Similar to solution 1
3.3.2 Pros
1 * Probably preferable for Foreign Contractor, similar to Sol.l
2 - Cost: Reduced steel quantity (if compared with Sol.l) due to the
continuity of the beams.
3 - Time: Short construction time on site (where steel beams on site)
4 - Hydraulics: Mtn. river flow obstacle (2 piers only)
5 - Maintenance: Required for No.2 expansion joints only (solution 1 has No.6
expansions joints). Sol.2 is better than Sol.l because these joints are delicate.
3.3.3 Cons
1 - Time: (see solution 1)
2 - Equipment: (see solution 1)
3 - Maintenance: Required for
* steel beams
* No.4 loading pads
* No.2 expansion joints
4 - Technology
* Deck has to be pretensioned after concrete hardening (to support
negative bending movements). Pretensioning is obtained by means of jacks (placed over the 2 intermediate piers).
This technology is not common practice in r.e. structures.
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\GIL_REL1(10ja88,fw2,45k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
Pag. 10
3.4 SOLUTION 3 - PRECAST PRETENSIONED CONCRETE BEAMS 3 x 3 x 32
3.4.1 Description
* Concrete slab over No.3 precast and prestressed concrete beams. No.3 spans 32 m each. Total length 96 m.
* Foundations: Similar to solution 1
3.4.2 Pros
1 - General
*
Combines advantages of both concrete solution (maintenance) and steel
solution (cost).
*
Is a typical solution for specialised construction.
2 - Cost
3 - Hydraulics: Min. river flow distribution (2 piers only)
3.4.3 Cons
1 - Technology:
Specialised technology of precast and pretensioning is required
2 - Equipment:
* Formwork
Equipment for pretensioning and launching beams
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\GIL_RELl(10ja88.
fw2,45k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
Pag. 11
3.5 SOLUTION 4 - R.C. CONTINUOUS BEAMS 5 X 20
3.5.1 Description
* Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beam over 5 points (1 shoulder anchored, the other free to move)
* Deck:
+ Hollow slab 2 x 5 m
+ Pneumatic formwork or alternative systems
No.4 holes D - 1.20 m.
* Piers: solid concrete walls 0.8 m thick and 5 m high * Foundation: No.4 x 11 - 44 piles dia. 600 mm
3.5.2 Pros
1 - Work starts immediately
to create void in central
area.
* No delay for importation by sea of material or equipment from Italy
- pneumatic formwork and support pads transported via air cargo
- equipment for 600 mm piles available in Ethiopia 2 - Easy construction
*
Support from "tubi innocenti" or wood, H max. 6 m (from river IL to
formwork for deck)
*
Single formwork
*
Standard RC technology
3 - Minimum maintenance for:
* No.2 expansion joints only
3.5.3 Cons
1 - Large use of cement
2 - Formwork supports based on river bed with fluent water
TANAD1P\DES\BRID1\GIL_REL1(14ja88.
fw2.83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY
BRIDGE - FINAl DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
4. GEOLOGICAL REPORT
TANADIP\DES\BRlDl\DIV_2A(dec87, lotus2, 2k)
studio pietrangeli
romeG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - TECHNICAL COMPARISONS
Pag.12
3.6 SOLUTION 5 - R.C. FRAME 5 x 20
3.6.1 Description
* Reinforced Concrete Frame 5 spans 20 m each (approx). Similar to solution 4. * Oeck: Hollow slab (pneumatic formwork)
* Piers: Solid concrete walls, B - 0.8 m, H • 5 m
* Foundation: 4 x II • 44 piles 600 mm
3.6.2 Pros
1 - Work starts immediately (see solution 4)
2 • Easy construction (see solution 4)
3 - Minimum maintenance for:
* No.2 expansion joints
3.6.3 Cons
1 - Large use of cement
2 - Piers (and foundation) loaded (exceptionally) with bending movements due
to:
* seismicity
* braking
* thermal stresses
tanadip\des\bridi\gil
R ^l(14ja88.fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY
BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
4. GEOLOGICAL REPORT
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\DIV_2A(dec87. lotus2, 2k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - GEOLOGICAL REPORT
Pag.13
4. GEOLOGICAL REPORT
FOREWORD
...
...............................................................................................................
This chapter has been abstracted from the Geological Report and reproduced here to facilitate consultation.
The Drawings are annexed. Geological logs, geotechnical and petrographic analyses have not been reproduced and therefore reference should be made to the Geological Report.
4.1 GENERAL
Geological investigations have been carried out for the design of the Gilgel Abay bridge along the new Bahr Dar/Kunzila Road.
The investigations consisted in 9 crown boreholes, for a total length of 132.90 m, drilled on both sides of the river.
Eight SPT tests have been performed in the holes.
The borehole locations are shown in the following drawing: Appendix VI. I - Bridge 1 - Investigations - Map.
4.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Lesser Blue Nile, before entering Lake Tana, crosses
crosses for about 40 km an
almost level territory covered by Quaternary basalt volcanics hills of various heights, the shape of
preserved.
lavas
i and studded with
which
is generally well
The river winds its
bank and the other,
between lava flows
"V through the lavas, which flowed alternately from one it tends to follow the depressions occurring at the junction
ot converging dips, cutting the basalt.
and ^ariouily leathered TJsJive and ves’cular or scoriaceous. both fresh
also occur, interbedded bet^tS^XantcT^
palaeOSoils
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\GIL_RELl(14ja88.
fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE ■ FINAL DESIGN - GEOLOGICAL REPORT
Pag.14
4.3 GEOLOGY OF THE BRIDGE SITE
wooded island.
The terrain is flat, covered by reddish clay.
The river cut shows steep earthy scarps, about 4 m high above the low-water
level.
The river is about 60 metres wide. In low-water conditions its depth does not exceed 2 metres.
Every 5 m along the centreline soundings have been done in order to establish the nature of the river bed. The results are plotted in the geological cross-section of Appendix VI.2 Bridge 1 • Tentative Geological Cross Section along Bridge Centreline.
Rough penetration tests have also been performed, finding strong resistance in the right river section and low resistence in the left section, in accordance with the findings of the soundings and the correlations between boreholes.
The essential borehole logs are herein appended: Appendix VI.3 • Bridge 1 • Investigations - Logs.
The geological cross-section explains the relationship among the different horizons crossed by the boreholes and kept distinct on the ground of the nature. They belong to a series of basalt lavas, with almost horizontal attitude, mostly very weathered, but partially fresh and sound. Near the top of the series, two layers of clayey palaesoils also occur (Cl and C2).
The horizons marked with B and Bw (fresh and wpathprpd basalt 1 dn not
IBNAD1P\OES\BRIDI\G1L RELI(14jaS8,f«2.33k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - GEOLOGICAL REPORT
Pag.15
4.4 FOUNDATION CONDITIONS
Considering the discontinuous high compressibility of the clayey palaesoiIs and the weathered basalt, no footing foundation is adrmssable for the bridge piers and shoulders.
The shallowest fresh basalt horizons are equally not reliable for footing foundation:
* Bl outcropping on the left river side with a thickness of about 2 m, rests
over the soft clay C2, which at the top gave SPT value of only 4 blows per
foot:
* B2, 3 to 4 m deep on the right side, shows a rapidly variable thickness on
the right side (3 to 2 m at BH.210 and 202, whereas 35, 70, 25 and 21 cm respectively at BH.2O1, 209. 204B and 2O4A) as well as a negligible thickness
on the left side (30 to 70 cm at BH.206 and 205).
The weathered basalt horizon Bwl is too heterogeneous to be reliable for any kind of pier foundation. Even if assuming the worst SPT value (9 blows/ft) or also the results of laboratory tests on undisturbed samples, the doubt would remain of local serious non-uniformities in the strained zone.
Therefore it is unavoidable to design deep foundations, on piles reaching the horizon B3, which is continuous, given that it has been met by 4 boreholes, has a sufficient thickness of at least 3 m and is found at an acceptable depth (8 to 9 m under the river and 10 to 15 m under the banks).
The piles must be of the drilled type, executed with a rig of sufficient power to cross the tough basalt beds interposed between the ground surface and B3.
Soil and Weathered Basalt are not used as foundations, so no comment is required concerning their geotechnical characteristics (shown in Appendix VI.4).
TANA IP\0fs\BRt01\GIL_REll(14
O
ja8e f
.„,
2 s3k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE -
FINAL DESIGN - GEOLOGICAL REPORT
Pag. 16
4.5 BOREHOLE LOGS
BH.201
............................................................................................
0.00 - 2.95
2.95 - 4.20
4.20 - 12.00
12.00 - 15.50
BH.202
Very consistent brown clay (C2) Slightly vesicular basalt (B2) Weathered basalt: rock remnants
in brown clay and grey clayey
sand (Bwl)
Very vesicular basalt
(B3)
0.00
3.30
5.30
11.20
BH.2O3
3.30 Brown clay, consistent from 0.80 m (C2) 5’30 Slightly weathere vesicular basalt (B2)
11.20 Weathered basalt (Bwl)
16.00 Massive basalt with vesicular beds (B3)
0.00 - 7.00
7.00 - 7.60
7.60 - 15.60
BH.204 B
Very consistent brown clay, with silty sand layer from 4.70 to
5.40 m (C2)
Very fractured basalt (B2)
Very vesicular weathered basalt (Bwl)
0.00 - 2.30 Alluvial deposit, consistent, clayey up to 0.35 m. then silt- sandy up to 1.00 m and after sandy with fine gravel containing quartz and obsidian (a).
2.30 - 3.14
3.14 - 3.35
3.35 - 12.50
BH.204 A
0.00 - 2.15
2.15 - 2.36
2.36 - 12.26
12.26 - 15.20
BH.205
0.00 - 1.95
1-95 - 5.00
5.00 - 5.70
Consistent sandy silt (SPT at 2.80 m: 4-12 16 bl/15 cm) (C2).
Basalt (B2)
Weathered basalt (Bwl)
Alluvial deposit, consistent, clayey up to 0.20 m, then sandy with fine gravel (a).
Fresh basalt (B2)
Weathered basalt (SPT at 3.80 m: 3 4-5: at 5.30 m: 18-15-15
(Bwl)
Vesicular basalt (RQD = 73) (B3)
Vesicular to
Brown clay.
Vesicular to
massive basalt (RQD » 100) (Bl) slightly plastic (SPT at 3.60 m: 3-5-7) (C2)
massive basalt (RQD • 60) (B2)
TANfl01P\DES\BRIDl\GIL_RELl(|4JaBB.fW2.e3k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - GEOLOGICAL REPORT
Pag.17
5.70
10.40
10.40
12.60
Weathered basalt
Vesicular basalt
fractured (B3)
(Bwl)
(RQD - 0), massive from 11.40 m (RQD = 25),
BH.206
0.00 - 1.00 Consistent brown clay, with rock inclusions near the bottom (Cl)
1.00 - 3.30
3.30 - 7.30
7.30 - 7.60
7.60 - 10.70
10.70 - 13.80
13.80 - 14.60
14.60 - 16.30
BH.209
Vesicular to slightly vesicular basalt (RQD = 80) (81)
Brown clay, poorly consistent at the top (SPT at 3 45m- 1-2-2)
(C2)
Massive basalt (RQD = 80) (B2)
Weathered basalt (Bwl)
Massive basalt (RQD = 70 to 85), vesicular and brittle from 12.80 m (RQD - 50) (B3)
Weathered basalt (Bw2)
Massive basalt, fractured (RQD = 65 to 100) (64)
0.00
4.85
5.55
4.85 Consistent brown clay, with sandy beds from 2.40 m (SPT at 4.20 m: 6-5-4) (C2)
5.55 Basalt (B2)
15.70 Weathered basalt (SPT at 9.40 m: 9-14-24) (Bwl)
TANADIP'CES\BRlDl\GIL_RELl(l4ja88
fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE -
FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
5. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\DIV_2A(dec87, lotus2, 2k)
studio pietrangeli - rome’*■4GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
Pag.18
5. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
5.1 GENERAL
The present chapter illustrates the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations which have determined the minimum elevation of the intrados of the bridge.
The calculations have been carried out with a hypothetical Return Period of Tr = 100 years, taking into consideration the importance of this structure.
5.2 DATA
The fundamental elements and the available data are the following:
. Transversal sections of the river bed in correspondence to the bridge
. Map of the bridge area to scale 1:500
. Plotting from aerial photography to scale 1:10.000
1:50,000
. Aerial photographs
. Photographs of the river in the area of the bridge
. Flow diagrams with relation to the areas of the basins (USBR 1964)
5.3 CALCULATION METHOD
The calculation method adopted in the present chapter is the following:
a. From the topographical maps and aerial photographs (by means of a mirror stereoscope with parallax bar) the longitudinal slope of the water course is
estimated.
b. From the photographs of the river bed, examination of the river bed material
and topography the Manning roughness value is estimated both in the river bed and the overflow side sections.
c. From the transversal
radius are calculated
Chezy method, the
correspondence to the
Perind^Tr
sections the areas, wetted perimeter and hydraulic
with respect to the water levels of the river. With natural flow level of the river is calculated
bridge section.
method the maximum flood value is calculated with Return
diaaram wh^rh « ye*rs- J^e flow value obtained is verified by the USBR 1964
the basin areasTni retSn plSd!*11"’
B1UC
* ith re$PeCt U
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\GIL RELl(14ja88.fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
Pag.19
e The backwater effect due to the embankment is verified and thus the elevation
of the bridge intrados is obtained.
5.4 GILGEL ABAY LONGITUDINAL SLOPE
There are no reliable topographic elements available.
The available elements are:
. water level elevation of bridge =* 1799.50 m a.s.l.
. corresponding level of Lake Tana • 1785.50 m a.s.l.
In the area between the bridge and the outlet into Lake Tana there are four
rapids (Ref. 1:50,000 SM 10
0153).
- 08.01.E.10.C and aerial photographs S3/O152 and
The photographs are to a scale of 1:50,000 therefore only an approximate calculation is possible of the difference in height of each rapid but not the total calculation.
From an average of the measurements the following results are obtained (from upstream to downstream):
RAPID AH
11
21
31
4 1 AH total of rapids AHR = 4 m
* Slope Estimate
. WLB = water level of bridge
. WLL • water level of Lake Tana
. AHT - WLB - WLL - AHR = 1799.50 1785.50 4 =
. L = length of river bed axis
• i = average slope - AHT/L • 10/32 3 =
By comparing this value with
during the detailed topographic
seen that the calculated slope
the topographers.
some elevations taken along
survey activities (Ref. Map
coincides approximately with
1799.50 m a.s.l .
1785.50 "
10 m
32.3 km
0.3 m/km
the river banks
1:500), it can be
that surveyed by
T’NA0tl>\0ES\BmDl\6 L_REU(l4ja88.fM2. 3k)
I
8
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - HYORAULIC CALCULA
TIONS Pa
g.20
5.5 MANNING’S ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT
In order to calculate Manning’s roughness coeff VENTECHOW - OPEN CHANNEL HYDRAULICS (Pag. 98) has bee
Estimate of Roughness Coefficient
icient the method suggested n adopted.
in
Min.
Max.
. Material involved ■ earth
nO ■ 0.015
0.020
. Degree of irregularity • smooth
nl - 0.000
0.000
. Var. channel cross section • gradual
n2 « 0.000 0.000
. Relative effect of obstructions = negligible
n3 ■ 0.000
0.000
. Vegatation ■ low
n4 - 0.005
0.005
. Degree of meandering = minor
m5 • 1 1
TOTAL = Sigma ni x m5
From the comparison with the tables shown photographs shown in the same book, it can be been calculated is acceptable.
For the hydraulic calculation the following is assumed:
. n - 0.025 for the river bed
. n » 0.030 for the overflow side areas
min » 0.020 max - 0.030
on pag.112 and the compa
rison
deduced that the value which
has
TAWADIP\0ES\BRlDl\GIl_RELl(14JaSe.f„2.a3k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
Pag.21
5.6 NATURAL FLOW
In correspondence to the bridge section, the flow may be calculated by means of the following equation (Chezy):
A
A
A l/2
Q - ((Alrl 2/3)/O.O25) + (3A2r2 2/3)/0.030)) l
With:
. Al and rl areas and hydraulic radii in the river bed zone
Al and r2 "
"
"
" ’n overflow side zones
. A2 and r2 shall be - 0 for z < 1803 m a.s.l.
z
(m a.s.l.)
Al
(m2)
rl
(m)
A2
(m2)
r2
(m)
Q
(m3/s)
1807
756.5
6.77
572
2.00
3450
1806
656.5
5.87
321
1.50
2210
1805
556.5
4.98
143
1.00
1370
1804
456.5
4.09
36
0.50
850
1803
356.5
3.19
0
0
535
1802
262.3
2.67
350
1801
180.2
2.12
206
1800
111.0
1.59
1799
105
54.4
1.01
38
For the discharge
diagram of th
e river reference should be
made to Fig. 5.
1.
TANADIP\DES\BR
ID1\G1L RELl
(14ja88,fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - romet tdh . ■' v
: t « «;
L
Mi rwx s i teH U
...
■
i
j
-.1
i i
aGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 5.7 FLOOD CALCULATION
. Basin area ■
. Bridge elevation •
. Branch of spring stream
- Length of branch at spring =
- Max. elevation of relative branch basin -
. Branch of pluvial stream
- Length of branch »
- Max. elevation of basin •
. Average elevation of basin
This is calculated by tracing the hypsographic curve of
5.2).
H - A/St - 444.52 =
z - 1800 ♦ 450 -
. Calculation of Flood
- Concentration Time (Giandotti)
Tc = (4/5 + 1,5L)/(0.8/AZ) with
Pag.22
■ 3650 km2
- 1800 m a.s.l.
= 140 km
- 2990 m a.s.l.
• 127 km
• 3530 m a.s.l.
the basin (Ref. Fig.
■ 450 m
» 2250 m a.s.l.
S = 3650 km2 basin area
L - 140 km maximum length of river branch
AZ = 450 m difference of elevation between basin average elevation and river bed level at bridge section
Tc = 27 (hours) Concentration Time
- Rain with duration in Tc = 27 hours
(1 day is considered)
at Bahar Dar max. 1 hour rainfall in 28 years of rain observations • mm/h 85
calculated
- Flood coefficient
The following is assumed: PSI = 0.5
HTC » mm/day 150
TANADI P\DES\BRID1\GIL_REL1(14ja88.fw2,83 k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
- Flood (Giandotti)
Q - 0.278 S((gamma x PSI)/Lambda * Tc) HTC m3/s
with
Gamma - peak/average flood ratio « 3 Lambda - flood duration in Tc units - 4
Q - flood peak with RT - 30 years - 2100 m3/s - From USBR diagram Q25 = 2200 m3/s
Pag.23
The calculation of the floods has been carried out by means of the Giandotti
method adopting a maximum rainfall relative to an observation period of 28
years.
The flood value obtained Q =
years.
2100 m3/s shall have a Return Period of about 30
In the USBR 1964 diagram for a Return Period of Tr = 25 years a flood of Q » 2200 m3/sec is shown which corresponds well with the calculated flood.
The flood value adopted in the design of the bridge is Q = 2500 m3/sec corresponding to a Return Period of Tr - 100 years (from USBR diagram).
A hydraulic elevation of 1806.25 m a.s.l. corresponds to this flood.
The depth due to the backwater effect determined by the presence of embankments can be estimated at about 50 cm.
Since the bridge has been verified for a hydraulic pressure on the girders corresponding to this height. the intrados elevation of the bridqe is established at 1806.25 m a.s.l.
TANADlP\0ES\BRI0l\GILJlELl(14ja88,fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - rompFl LVATlCN
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN -
DECEMBER 1997
FIG. 5.1 - DISCHARGE DIAGRAM Al BRIDGE 1 SECTION
1ANAOIP\DES'.3RID1 (dec87)
Studio pietranqeii . PomeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN -
DECEMBER 1987
FIG. 5.2 - BRIDGE 1 BASIN HYDfflGWKIC CURVE
TANADIP\OES'BRIO1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
6. STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\DIV_2A(dec87, lotus2, 2k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
^"'stability calculations S.l. STRUCTURAL steelwork 6.1.1 DESIGN data
6.1.1.1 STANDARDS
Pag.24
The standards which have been adopted are the Italian technical standards valid at 1.9.1987, and in particular:
STATE REGULATION (Leggi dello Stato)
No.1086 5.11.1971 Standards For works in reinforced concrete, prestressed
concrete and steel structures.
No. 64 2.2.1974 Construction regulations with particular regard to seismic
zones
MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS REGULATIONS (Decreti del Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici)
D.M. 24.1.1986 Technical standards relative to seismic contruction
D.M. 3.10.1978 General criteria for verification of the safety of the works
and the loads and overloads.
D.M.
12.2.1982
Updating of the technical standards relative to general
criteria for verification of safety factors in construction
and in loads and overloads.
D.M.
27.7.1985
Technical standards for the construction of works in
reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete and steel
structures.
D.M. 2.8.1980 General criteria and technical specifications for design, construction and inspection of road bridges.
D.M. 21.1.1981
MINISTRY OF PUBLIC
Technical standards regarding soil and rock investigations,
stability of natural slopes and escarpments. General criteria and specifications for design, construction and inspection of earth support works and foundation works.
WORKS INSTRUCTIONS (Circolari del Ministero dei L.L. P.P.)
No.27996 31.10.1986 Instructions relative to technical standards for
construction of works in reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete and steel structures.
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP\STATIC_](14ja88,fw2,9Bk)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.25
No 18591 3.11.1978 Instructions relative to loads, overloads and general
criteria for the verification of safety factors of
constructions.
No.20977 11.11.1980 Instructions relative to the technical standards of road
bridges.
No.21597 3.6.1981 Technical standards relative to soil and rock
investigations, stability of slopes and escarpments and
specifications for design, construction and inspection of
earth support works and foundation works.
No.27690 19.7.1986 Instructions relative to the technical standards for
construction in seismic zones.
INSTRUCTIONS OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (Istruzioni del CNR)
CNR 10011 (1983) Steel structures. Instructions for calculation, construction
and maintenance.
CNR 10016 (1985) Concrete and steel girders. Instructions for their use in
construction work.
For some specific aspects reference has been made to CECM-ECCS (1978) European Recommendations for Steel Constructions.
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\RE P\STA TIC_1114j a88.fw2.98 k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY 8R10GE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.I.1.2 MATERIALS
Steelwork
All steel elements are in laminated steel with the following specifications:
Type: Fe 510
Grade: C (T - 0)
Quality: CORTEN
All joints are formed with high resistence bolts consisting of:
BOLTS: UNI 5712 • 10.9
NUTS: UNI 5713 - 8G
WASHERS: UNI 5714
Pag.26
The contact surfaces shall be mechanically cleaned (preferably by sandblasting) to eliminate all impurities and corrosion and to guarantee a friction coefficient of Mi /> 0.3.
Concrete
Characteristic strength = 250 kg/cm2
Reinforcement
High yield deformed steel bars, type FeB 38K.
6.1.2 CONSTRUCTION AND LOADING PROGRAMME
The following loading phases have been determined:
Phase 0 - Placing
Phase 1 - Installation of precast structures and concreting Phase 2 - Finishing works + shrinkage of slab Phase 3 - Live loads (moving + wind)
PHASE 0 - PLACING
11 sub-phases of placing are defined (0.1
- 0.11) with 6 No. static schemes of
which 5 No. are temporary and scheme No.6 is the final scheme of the bridge.
The static schemes in the various placing phases are carried out with 7 No. supports, of which:
A,B,C: Temporary supports aligned at the temporary placing elevation of Q*
D,E,F,G: Final supports of the bridge successively located at temporary elevation Q*
Elevation Q = 0,00 final elevation of the bridge. The temporary elevation Q* is
TAHADIP\DES\BRI01\REP\STATIC_i(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
the highest of DELTA e, DELTA f, DELTA q.
In Table 6.1 and Fig.6.1 the placing phases and static schemes 6.1.3 LOADS
6.1.3.1 STEEL STRUCTURES
- MAIN GIRDER (1 girder)
q • A * y
y - 7.85 t/m3: specific weight of steel
A (m2) « Area of steel section
- ACCESSORIES
(joints, ribs, diaphragms, pegs, bolts, etc.)
q • 0.2 t/m
- TOTAL: q tot • A * 7.85 * 0.2 6.1.3.2 CONCRETE SLAB
Permanent loads on steel girder.
Slab (25 cm) = 0.25 * 4 * 2.5
Lateral Kerb = 0.15 * 0.25 * 2.5
Camber « 0.025 * 3 * 2.5
Pag.27
are described.
• 2.5
• 0.094
0.1875
I *2.78 t/m
6.1.3.3 FINISHING WORKS
Paving: = 3 * 0.3
Internal kerb (25*25)
Slab (0.05 * 0.7)
Guardrail + handrail
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP\STATlC_l(14ja88.fw2,98k)
= 0.9
’ 0.16
= 0.09
= 0.15
| » 1.30 t/m studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.1.3.4 SHRINKAGE EFFECTS
Pag.28
Shrinkage is calculated only for the 22 cm of cast slab, equivalent to delta T • -10 degrees (n - Es/Ec).
- Isostatic Effect
Tension in the slab:
SIGMAc = - ALFA x • delta T * Ec - -ALFA * delta T * Es/n -10A-5 * 10 * 2.1 * 10A7/m = 2.1 * 10'4/n (t/m2)
- Hyperstatic Effect
Combined compression and bending in the beam. N = 0.22 * 4 * SIGMA c ■ 1.848 * 10 4/n (t) applied to 0.11 m from the extrados, that is:
M - N (Htot - 0,11 - Yinf) (tm)
where:
Htot = total height of the concrete-steel section
A
INF » distance from bottom edge to baricentre of
section
DELTA t • 0: (n = 7.4)
SIGMA c •
N«
INF (sect, type 2)
DELTA t • infinite (n • 22.2)
SIGMA c «
N•
INF (sect, type 2)
6.1.3.5 LIVE LOADS (Ref. Fig. 6.2)
Evaluation of design stresses:
. bending
. shear
. twisting
due to live loads.
• -284 t/m2 (tension)
= +250 t (compression)
- -95 t/m2
- +83 t
TANADIP\DES\BRlDl\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88,fW2,98k)
studio pietrangeli • romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
. h height of box section
Pag.29
.b
.t
.q
width of box section
web thickness
uniform live load over entire width of deck uniform twisting couple over entire deck (tm/m)
For the evaluation of the q load of the m divides for 50% in an increase of the
DELTA q - (m/2)/b = m/2b
and for 50% in a twisting action on the those of a shearing load (non bending).
DELTA q - ((m/2)‘l/2 OMEGA t)ht = (m/2)*(ht/2hbt) = m/4b The total of the live loads is the following:
. Bending load on a girder:
qf • q/2 + m/(2*4,5) => (q/2>m/9)
. Shear load on a girder:
most stressed girder, it is assumed that
bending-shearing load:
Bredt box, whose TAU corrisponds to the
qt - q/2 + m/(2*4,5) ♦ (m/4‘4,5)
SPAN L = 45 m
. ql(qf) «l*0.4
ml - 0.4 * 3.5
. qlA - 4.35 - 45/250
M (qlA) • 45*2 * 4.53/8
qlc -
M = 45 * 55/4
• q2
. q3 (qlB) • 2.23 - 45/500
m2 - 4.17 * 1.5
m3 = 2.14 * (-1.5)
• A* (qf)
m4 - 0.4 ♦ (-3.5)
(q/2 + m/6)
=0.4 t/m
• 1.4 tm/m
• 4.17 t/m
• 1147 tm
= 55 t
= 619 < 1147
= 4.17
= 214 t/m
=6.26 tm/m
= -3.21 tm/m
= 0.4 t/m
= -1.4 tm/m
TANADIP\0ES\BRIDI\REP\STATIC 1 (14 ja88,fw2,98 k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.30
IANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC I(l4ja88,fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY
BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.31
* Over entire deck
. Maximum load
q•
m=
. Maximum twist:
q-
m-
* On the single girder
. Maximum load:
Bending load: qf • (7.11/2) + (3.05/9)
Shear load: qt * (7.11/2) + (3.05/6)
. Maximum twist:
Bending load: qf ■ (4.57/2) + (7.66/9)
Shear load: qt - (4.57/2) + (7.66/6)
* Oesign Loads for single 45 m girder
qf = 3.89 t/m
(qf/qtot - 3.89/7.11 = 0.55)
qt • 4.07 t/m
(qt/qtot = 4.07/7.11 • 0.57)
For comparison purposes, the distribution i method is shown below (non twist resistant
Courbon transversal distribution
• 7.11 t/m
•3.05 tm/m
= 4.57 t/m
=7.66 tm/m
= 3.89 t/m
= 4.07 t/m
•3.13 t/m
=3.56 t/m
alculation carried out by the COURBON
section; rigid diaphragms).
Coefficient of distribution of the loads 1,2,3,4 in the most stressed girder A: (k - 0.5 + e/4.5)
Load 1 2 3 4
e (m)
3.5
1.5
-1.5
X 1-278 0.833 0.167 Loads 1,2.3 contribute positively to the load q - 0.4*1.278*4.17*0.833+2.14*0.167
qtot • 0.4+4.17+2.14+0.4
TANADIP\DES\8RID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
-3.5
-0.278
in the girder.
•4.34 t/m
= 7.11 t/m
studio pietranqeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE • FINAL DESIGN • 5TA3ILIIf CALCULATIONS
Paq.3Z
ty/qtot » 4.34/7.11 •
DYNAMIC COEFFICIENT
gain - 0.0319*7.85*0.2*2.78*1.3
qt •
9/q *
FI - 1.4 - 0.002(1.21+1)45
DESIGN DYNAMIC LOAOS FOR SINGLE GIRDER L - 45 a q*f . 1.2 ♦ 3.39
q*t - 1.2 ♦ 4.07
SPAN L • 28 m
. ql •
al •
. qlA - 2.89*52/28
(M(qlA) • 4.75*28'2/B
qlc •
M(qlc) • 55*28/4
. q2 • qlA
m2 •
. q3(qlB) • 2.23 • 28/500
m3 •
• q4(qlF)
m4 ■
* Over entire deck
. Maximum load:
q•
a-
- 0.61
4.92 t/a
4.07 t/a
1.21
1.20
4.67 t/a
4 88 t/a
0.4 t/a
1.4 ta/a
4 75 t/a
466 ta
55 t
335 < 466)
4.75 t/a
7.13 ta/a
2.17 t/a
•3.26 ta/n
0.4 t/a
•1.4 tm/m
• 7.72 t/a - 3.87 t.a/m
TANAOIP\DES\BRIDI\RE P\STATIc 1(I4ja88.fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN • STABILITY CALCULATIONS
. Maximum twist:
m-
* Over the single girder
. Maximum load:
Bending load: qf = 7.72/2 + 3.87/9
Shear load: qt - 7.72/2 + 3.87/6
. Maximum twist:
Bending load: qf = 5.15/2 + 8.53/9
Shear load: qt = 5.15/2 + 8.53/6
Design Static Load for single girder L - 28 m
qf - 4.29 t/m (qf/qtot = 0.56)
qt » 4.51 t/m (qt/qtot - 0.58)
DYNAMIC COEFFICIENT
g - 0.0497*7.85 + 0.2 + 2.78 + 1.3
q■
g/q ■
FI = 1.4 - 0.002 (1.04 ♦ 1)28
Design Dynamic Loads for single girder L = 28 m q*f = 1.29 * 4.29
q*t = 1.29 * 4.51
Maximum twist
q*f - 1.29 * 3.52
q*t = 1.29 * 4.00
Pag.33
• 5.15 t/m =8.53 tm/m
-4.29 t/m
- 4.51 t/m
=3.52 t/m
=4.00 t/m
» 4.67 t/m
= 4.51
= 1.04
= 1.29
•5.53 t/m
• 5.82 t/m
-4.54 t/m
= 5.16 t/m
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STAT1C I(14ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.I.3.6 WIND LOAD
Ouring Operation (Girder 45 and 28 m)
Pv =0.25 t/m2
at 60%:
Al 60%: fv • 0.6 * 0.25 * 5.67
mv = 0.85 * 1.35
ev - (5.66/2 - 1.48)
Pag.34
- 0.85 t/m
= 1.15 tm/m
- 1.35 m
qf
• 115/9
• 0.13
t/m
qt
= 1.15/6
- 0.19
t/m
During Construction
Pv «
5.1.3.7 TWIST RESISTING ELEMENTS
In order to determine the structural elements stressed actions of the Bredt box, it is assumed that 75% of the unloaded as twisting action on the box.
. Girder 45 m
From loads - m • 1.2 * 7.66 * 0.75 From wind - m • 1.15 * 0.75
Total - m =
. Girder 28 m
From loads - m = 1.29 * 8.53 * 0.75 From wind - m = 1.15 * 0.75
Total - m -
6.1.3.8 BRAKING
. Span L = 45 m
«0.25 t/m2
"only" by twisting twisting couples is
=6.89 tm/m
'0.86 tm/m
=7.75 tm/m
= 8.25 tm/m
=0.86 tm/m
•9.11 tm/m
f - 0.1 * qlB = 9.63 t
f = 0.25 * qlD - 7.75 t
on one girder; F = 4.82 t
the greater value is considered
f = 9.63 t
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\.STATIC 1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.35
. Span L • 28 tn
F - 0.1 * qlB - 6.08 t
F - 0.25 * qlD • 7.75 t the greater value is considered F • 7.75 t
on one girder: Ff - 3,88 t
6.1.3.9 SEISMIC ACTION
Total permanent load: q * (3.89 ♦ I.5)*2
Seismic coefficient K •
fs - 10.78 * 0.12
ms • 1.29 (2.25 - 1.48)
On one girder:
Bending load: qf • m/2 * 4.5
Shear load: qt • m(l/2*4*5 > 1/4*4.5) » m/6
lower than that of the operational loads
fs - 1.29 t/m > f (wind)
ms - 0.99 tm/m < m (wind)
6.1.4 COMBINATION OF LOADS
6.1.4.1 GENERAL
The following combinations of loads are considered:
1. PLACING
2. OPERATION at t = 0
3. OPERATION at t infinite
4. SEISMIC at t • 0
5. SEISMIC at t infinite
for the design of the girders.
- 10.78 t/m
- 0.12
• 1.29 t/m
• 0.99 tm/m
•0.11 t/m
• 0.17 t/m
•0.85 t/m
-1.15 t/m
In order to verify the deck design, the combinations with seismic action are not significant, since the seismic action on the deck produces stresses which are inferior to the live loads.
Braking action causes only normal stress in the deck.
TANAOIP\DES\BR1D1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88.fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL A8AY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Table 6.11 shows:
. elementary loads
coefficient of homogeneous for the calculation of resistent sections corrisponding to each load
load phases in which some loads are considered cumulated
combining coefficients of the loads in the three combinations 6.1.4.2 COMBINATION 1 (PLACING)
. Resistent Sections: type 1 steel section (n - Es/Ec • infinite)
. Static schemes n. 1,2,3,4,5 of the various placing phases
. Loads:
- weight of steel structure: q = A * 7.85 + 0.2 t/m
- wind at launch: Pv •
H girder • (2.35 ♦ 1.5)/2
fv - 1.93 * 0.25/2
on each bracing lattice (upper and lower)
The result is:
. Girder 28 m
Amax • 0.05248 m2
q ■ 0.05248 • 7.85 > 0.2
. Girder 45 m
Amax - 0.0848 m2
q • 0.0848 * 7.85 + 0.2
6.1.4.3 LOAD PHASE 1 - WEIGHT OF GIRDER AND SLAB
. Resistant section: n = infinite
. Static scheme No.6 (temporary joints • unbolted)
. Loads: q • A*7.85 + 0,2 + 2,78
- GIRDER L • 28 m
q - 0.61 + 2.78 = 3.39 t/m
Pag.36
•0.25 t/m2
• 1.93 m
• 0.24 t/m
• 0.61 t/m
- 0.87 t/m
q • 3.4 t/m is assumed
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC I(14ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
- GIRDER L • 45 m
q - 0.87 + 2.78 - 3.65 t/m
6 1 4.4 LOAO PHASE 2 - SLA8 SHRINKAGE * WEIGHT OF FINISHING WORKS
Fag.37
9 ’ 3.7 t/" <s assumed
These loads are calculated alternately at t ■ 0 (i.e. with homogeneous sections of n - 74) and at t infinite on mixed homogenous sections with n - 3*7.4- 22 2 to take into account the effects induced by the creep of the concrete.
PHASE 2 (0) (at t = 0)
. Static scheme
. Resistent Section:
. Loads:
- Finishing works
- Shrinkage
PHASE 2 (oo) (at t • infinite)
. Static scheme
. Resistant Section:
. Loads:
- Finishing works
- Shrinkage
6.1.4.5 LOAD PHASE 3 - LIVE LOADS + WIND DURING OPERATION
Static scheme
Resistant Section:
Loads (t/m):
No.6
n - 7.4
q » 1.3 t/m
Sigma c - -284 t/m2
N • 250 t
No. 6
n « 22.2
q • 1.3 t/m
be - 95 t/m2
N - 83 t
No.6
n ■ 7.4
L - 45 m
L - 28
m
qf
qt
qf
qt
- Live ................
........ 4.67
- Wind ..............
4.88
5.53
........ 0.13
5.82
0.19
- Total ...............
0.13
........ 4.80
0.19
5.07
5.66
6.01
T ANADIP\OES\BR101\RE P\STAT1C 1(!4j a88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN • STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.1.5 STRESSES AND CONTROLS OF GIRDERS
6.1.5.1 GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RESISTANT SECTIONS The geometry of the bridge deck is shown in the project drawing.
Pag.38
For the calculation of the stability characteristics of the sections, three types of resistant section are considered for each section, corrisponding to three homogeneous coefficient values of the concrete slab and three values of collaborating width.
TYPE 1
No slab B » 0
n = Es/Ec • infinite
TYPE 2 (t • 0)
Collaborating concrete slab H = 27 cm with R’ck = 250 kg/cm2
Ec - 18000 * (Rc)*0.5 - 18000 ‘ 250*0.5 ■
n - Es/Ec - 2.1*10*6/285000
Longitudinal reinforcement:
„.
s
DeltaB • 9,4 m • 7,4/27
„ 
. 285000 kg/cm2
. 7.4
*9 cm2/m
. j 0 cn
» Girder L = 45 m
b - 2 m; b/1 - 2/45
ETA (L/H)
B ■ (4 + 0,1) * 0,98
(Collaborating slab width for each girder)
’ Girder L = 28 m
As
deltaB
b • 2 m; b/1 = 2/28
ETA (L/H)
B - (4 + 0,l)*0,96
. 0 044
, Q>98
a n, m
’ 5 cm2/m
= 10 cm
= 0,07
= 0,96
- 3.94 m
™«0IP\0ES\SRI01W\STAT CJ(Uja 8.f,.2.
I
8 Mk)
studio pietranqeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN ■ STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TYPE 3 (t - infinite)
Collaborating concrete slab H - 27 cm with
E‘c - Ec/3
to take into account the creep of the concrete
ETA ■ Es/E*c
Longitudinal reinforcement:
As
deltaB =9*4* 22.2/27
i Girder 45 m
B - (4 ♦ 0,3) * 0.98 ■
♦ Girder 28 m
B - (4 ♦ 0.3) * 0,96 -
Summary of collaborating width B (m)
Pag.39
- 95000 kg/cn>2
• 22.2
• 9 cm2/m
- 30 cm
- 4.21 m
- 4.13 m
Type 1
n • Infinite
Type 2
n » 7,4
Type 3
n - 22,2
L - 45 m
0
4.02
4.21
L ■ 28 m
0
3,94
4.13
6.1.5.2 CALCULATION MODEL
The stability scheme of the bridge composed of three girders of 28, 45,
deck after placing is Scheme 6 in Fig.6.1
28 m with bearings.
The model of calculation is shown in Fig.6.4 where the girders are subdivided in elements of L • 2.8 m.
TANADlP\DES\BRlDl\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.1.5.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Pag.40
In Tables 6.Ill, 6.IV and 6.V data and results are shown for the calculation of the stresses and strains of the girders.
In particular:
Tab.6.Ill
. Load Phase I
. Loads: Steel + concrete slab
. Homogeneous section with n - Infinite
Tab.6.IV
Load: Finishing works q
Homogeneous section with n
“
“ /
(For n - 22.2 the stresses remain unaltered since the scheme is isostatic; the strains are inversely proportional to the moment of inertia of the girders).
In order to obtain the 2nd LOADING PHASE these are increased by the shrinkage effect in each section.
Tab. 6.V
. Load Phase 3
. Live loads +■ wind during operation
. Homogeneous section with n = 7.4
6.1.5.4 VERIFICATION
The calculation of the tension of the sections for each loading phase is carried out.
The tensions in Phase 0 (Placing) are independent, while those in Phases 1,2,3 are increased.
The tensions in Phase 2 calculated for t • 0 (with section type 2: n = 7.4) and for t - infinite (with section type 3: n = 22.2) are added alternatively in order to obtain the critical tensions.
The tensions are calculated in a hypothesis of homogeneous section entirely resistent and plane (elastic materials).
For each section two tables are annexed (Tab. from 6.VI to 6.XXI) The first: with geometric characteristics and stress characteristics
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88.fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY 8RIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
The second: with normal tension values (t/m2), shear and ideal stress sigma id - ((sigma *2*3* tau '2)'0.5)
in the following points of the sections:
Pag.41
1.
2.
3.
4.
1ower edge
lower web-flange joint
upper web-flange joint
upper edge
CIS upper edge of concrete slab
In addition, the unit sliding value tau*b (t/m2) at the flange-slab joint is given (Fig.4).
To the resulting calculated tensions, the tension due to the normal force induced by braking and by twist-resistant behaviour of the box is added.
For each girder:
. Braking N =» 4 t
. Twist Nmax - 21 t
Ntot • +/- 25 t
in section 1
A - 0,1906 m2 (n - 7,4)
On the bearings:
Delta Sigma • 25/0,1906 ■ ♦/- 131 t/m2
In axis:
Delta Sigma • 4/0.1906 - +/- 20 t/m2
Even with these increases the admissible tensions of materials is not reached.
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC I(14ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGTLGEL ABAY BRIDGE • FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.1.5.5 REINSTATEMENT OF RESISTANCE OF WEAKENED FLANGES
Lower Flange
The lower cross beams of the vertical bracings and the diagonal beams of the intrados lattice are bolted with M27 to the lower flanges of the girders.
In order to reinstate the resistance joint plates of the following thicknesses
are adopted:
# TR 45
lower flange (1000 * 40)
weakness: 3 M 27
thickness of joint plate:
X = (40.500/50-3.27) - 40 - 7.7 mm
# TR 28
lower flange (700 * 35)
weakness: 3 M 27
thickness of joint plate:
X - ((35*35)/(350-3,27)) - 35 - 10,5 mm
Upper flange
Pag.42
The diagonal beams of the extrados lattice are bolted to the upper flanges with 2 M 27.
The increase in tension is the following:
* TR 45: K » 500/(500-2,27) - 1,12
♦ TR 28: K = 400/(400-2.27) = 1,16
This increase is applied only to the traction tensions which act upon the upper flanges in Phase 0 (placing).
The values obtained are noteably inferior to the acceptable values.
The increase is not applied to the compression tensions of the upper flanges in
operation.
’
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.1.6 CHECKING OF STRESSES IN LATTICE BULKHEADS
6.1.6.1 SUPPORT BULKHEADS FOR GIRDER L = 45 m
# 1st METHOD
Maximum distributed twisting force (live load and wind) m - 7,66 * 1,2 + 1,15 -
Twisting reaction in bearing
M = 10,34 * 44,8/2
■
. Lower cross beam
N - 232/1,88 1/4 -
. Diagonal cross beam
Alfa ■ arc tg (225/188) - 50 deg
N - (232/2)/{4,5*cos50 deg) =
. Upper cross beam (concrete slab)
N - 232/1,88 * 2 =
4 2nd METHOD
Wind Loading during Operation
f=
On L/2: f = 0,85 * 44.8/2 •
Moment on bearing face
M = 19,04 * 2,9 =
. Lower cross beam
N • 55,3/1,88 * 2 =
. Diagonal beam
N = 55,3/4,5*cos50 deg =
. Upper cross beam (concrete slab)
N - 14,7 * 2 -
TANADIP\BRID1\REP\RELSTATI(07de87,fw2,.. k)
Pag.43
= 10,34 tm/m
- 232 tm
- +/- 31 t
= +/- 40 t
• +/- 62 t
* 0,85 t/m = 19,04 t
= 55.3 m
= 14,7 t
= 19,2 t
» 29,4 t studio pietrangeli - romaG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.44
Action calculated on intermediate bulkhead
. Lower cross beam
N=
. Diagonal beam
N =.
. Upper cross beam (concrete slab)
N-
Resulting Force
. Lower cross beam
N - 14.7 + 17 -
. Diagonal beam
N ■ 19.2 + 20 »
. Upper cross beam (concrete slab)
N - 29.4 + 9 «
Envelope stresses in Methods I and II
. Lower cross beam
N = 31; 31.9 =
. Diagonal
N = 40; 39.2 t =
. Upper cross beam (slab)
N = 62; 38.2 •
CHECKING OF TRUSS
. Diagonal beam (2L120 * 10)
N-
A.
TANADIP\BRID1\REPX.RELSTAT1(07de87.fw2,...k)
- 17 t
- 20 t
=9t
= 31.7 t
= 39.2 t
= 38.2 t
« +/• 32 t
= ♦/- 40 t
■ +/- 62 t
• 40 t
• 23.2 cm2 studio pietrangeii - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
IK •
lambda ■ 281/3.67 -
omega =
Sigma - 1.89*40/2*23.2 -
. Upper cross beam
N = +/* 62 t
Due to the presence of the slab the following is considered: N = 62/2 • 31 t (only tension)
2L (100 . 8)
A • 2*15.5 -
sigma * 1.0 t/cm2
. Bolts
n - 31/7.14 • 4.34 = 3 + 3 M 27
. Lower cross beam
Refer to intrados lattice work.
6.1.6.2 EXTERNAL BULKHEAD FOR GIRDER L - 28 m # 1st Method
I Maximum Twisting Force
m - 8.53 * 1.29 + 1.15 =•
Twisting reaction in bearing:
M = 12.15 * 28/2 «
. Lower Cross Beam
N = 170/1.5 1/4 =
. Diagonal Beam
N ■ 170/(2*4.5*cos56) •
. Upper Cross 8eam (concrete slab) N ■ 170/1.5 * 2 ■=
Pag.45
= 3.67
- 77
• 1.89
-1.63 t/cm2
= 31 cm2
« 12.15 tm/m = 170 tm
= 29 t
» 34 t
- 57 t
TANADIP\BRIDI\REP\RE LSTAT1(07de87,fw2,...k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL A8Af BPIOGE • FINAL 0€SIC»M STABILITY CALCULATIONS
I 2r.d Method
Wind loading during operation.
M . 0.85*(28/2)*283 •
. Lower Cross Beam
N - 34/1.5 • 2 •
. Diagonal Beam
N - 34/4.5 ♦ cos 56' •
. Upper Cross Beam (concrete slab)
N • 11.4 * 2 •
Action calculated on intermediate bulkhead
. Lower cross beam
N - 17 t
. Diagonal beam
N - 20 t
. Upper cross beam
N • 9 t
Resulting Force
Lower cross beam
N • 11.4 ♦ 17 •
. Diagonal beam
N - 13.5 ♦ 20 -
. Upper cross beam (concrete slab)
M - (22.8 ♦ 9) -
Pag 46
- 34 t»/»
• 11.4 t
• 13.5 t
- 22 3 t
• 23.4
• 33.5
• 32 t
TANADIP\BRlDl\REP\RELSTATl(07de87,fw2. k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGIL&EL ARA7 BRIDGE - FINAL 0(51GM - STMlLin CALCULATIONS
Envelop* stresses in Methods I and II
. Lower cross beam
N - 29; 29 - 29 t
. 01 agonal beam
N - 34; 34 - 34 t
. Upper cross beam (concrete slab)
N - 57: 32 - 57 t
Truss Checking
. Diagonal beam
N • 34 t
L - 270 cm
2L (130.12) with 3*3 M27
The control carried out for the 45 m girder (N - 40 t) is valid
. Upper cross beam
N - 57 t
Due to the presence of the concrete slab the following is considered: N • 57/2 • 28.5 t for tension
2L (100.8)
A - 2*15*5 «
Sigma • 0.92 t/cm2
. 8olts
n - 28.5/7.14 - 4 (2 r 2 M 27)
. Lower cross beam
Refer to intrados lattice.
P»g.47
• 31 c«2
TANAD|P\8RI01\REP\RELSTATl(07de97,fw2,...k)
studio oietrangelf
roanGILGEL A8Af BRIDGE - FIMJL 0E5IGN STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.1.6.3 INTERNAL SUPPORT BULKHEAO OP 29 i« GIBDEP
Pjq <3
a girder, with lower stresses at the external support bulkhead girder (due to the greater height).
The internal support bulkhead of the 28 m qlrder ha; the >jMV geonwjtry as the <5
of
the 23 n
The dimensions are therefore guaranteed by the checking carried out for the other two bearing webs.
6.1.6.A INTERMEDIATE BULKHEADS
Stresses
The stresses in the trusses are calculated considering a totally non twist-resistant behaviour, which is the most conservative for this structural member.
For the lower cross beam a 75% twist resistant behaviour has been considered to superimpose the effects on those present in the twistresistant intrados lattice
* Intermediate Bulkhead TR 28
Maximum twistinq force:
m max * 12.15 tm/m
for delta L • 5.6 hi
fl • 12.15 • 5.6 •
(on each intermediate bulkhead)
. Lower cross beam
m - 68 tm (h • 1.5; b • 4.5 m)
With twist-resistant behaviour at 75% and at 25% pendular N - 68/1.5 (0.25/2 r 0.75/4) .
* Intermediate bulkhead TR45
<n ■ 10.34 tm/m
On delta L • 5.6
• 68 tm
M • 58 tm
TANADIP\BRIOl\REP\RELSTATl(07de87.fw2.. k)
studio pietrangeli ■ romaGILGEL AMf BRIDGE ■ FtWl DESIGN - STAfllLir* CALCULATIGN5
. Lower cross beam
N • M/2 • 2 •
With 75* twist-resistant behaviour.
N • (M/2) * (0.25/2 * 0.75/4) •
. Diagonal beam
N - 58/4.5 • cos 48’ -
. Upper cross beam (concrete slab)
The following is assumed:
N • 15 t (only traction)
Truss checking
. Lower cross beam
Refer to calculation for intrados lattice.
. Dlaqonal beam (Girder I - 28 m)
N - 27 t
Lmax • 3.07 m
2L (100.10)
Rag 49
• •/- 15 t
-9t
• 19 t
A - 19.2 * 2 •
• 33 4 cm2
Ik -
• 3.04 C3
lambda • 307/3.04 -
omega •
sigma - 2.61 • 27/38.4 •
. Diagonal beam (Girder L • 45 m)
N-
2L (100.8)
lambda
omega
sigma
• 10!
• 2.51
•1.34 t.'cs2
• • - 19 t
• 101
• 2.61
• 1.7 t csi2
rANADIP\BRIDl\REP\RELSTATl(07de87.fw2,. k)
Studio pietrangeli - comaGTLGEL BRIDGE - FI^L DESIGN • STABll[Tf CMCUUHGI45
Bag 50
Bolts:
n • 27/7.14 - 3.8 • 2*2/ M 27
. Upper cross bean
N - -23 t (traction only)
2L 100.6
A - 2 * 15.5 •
On reduced section
A • 31 - 2.7 * 2 * 0.8 -
sigma • 23/26.7 •
Bolts:
n - 23/7.14 • 3.22 • 2 ♦ 2 M 27
6.1.7 STRESSES AND CONTROLS OF THE LATTICE
6.1.7.I EXTRADOS LATTICEWORK
The critical stress condition occurs In the placing phase with a span of 44.B n
. Loads: Wind p - 0.25 t/m2
h • (2.35»1.5)/2 •
fv • 1.93 * 0.25/2 -
For delta L • 5.6 m; -
For delta L - 2.8 m; -
. Calculation model shown in fig. 6.5
. Stress
• 
31 cm2
*
26.7 ca2
•0
.86 t/c«2
• 1.93
• 0.24
Fv • 1.35
Fw • 0.67
Tab.6.XXII shows data and results of the calculation carried out for fv - 0.282 t/m
TANAO1P\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC 1(14ja88.fw2.99k)
studio pietrangeli • romaGILGEL AMY 8R1CGE • FINAL DESIGN • STAflllirt CALCULATIONS
Pjvj .51
For each of the lattices (lower and upper)
. X • 45 m
(Internal Joint 45 n girder)
Diagonal
Cross beam
Tight truss
Compressed truss
X - 28 m
(provisional joint TR28/TR45)
01 agonal
Cross beam
Briglie terra
Briglie compresse
The stress on the girders is obtained by doubling
lattice truss.
The stresses calculated here are lower than those lattice from the twisting load during operation.
Therefore in the placing phase only the control of
significant.
6.1.7.2 CHECKING OF TRUSSING
Diagonal
N • -16.1 t (only traction)
L ( 100.50.3): A * H.5 cm2
On the weakened section
Al . 73*8 ■
A2 - 50*8 -
A* .
Sigma • 16.1/9.1 •
Bolts
with 2 M 27
f - 16.1/2 -
Acceptable force In checking condition II.
the following results
N • -16.1 t N • 10.8 t N < -41.0
» • *53.5
N • -97 t
N • 6.| t
N . .13.4 t
N * *20.9 t those calculated for the induced in the Intrados the eatrados lattice Is
• $34 ob2
• 400 m2
• 910 m2
•1.77 t/cm2
• 3.C5 t
TANAD!P\DES\BRtDl\REP\STATICJ(!4ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangclt - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
The control is considered satisfactory given the temporary and exceptional nature of the load.
. Cross beam
N - +/- 10.8 t
L-
2L (110.8): A - 15.5 * 2 -
ik =
lambda - 450/3.06 =
omega -
Sigma • 4.69*10.8/15.5*2 =
. Bolts
n - 10.8/7.14 ■ 1.51 - 1+1 M 27
6.1.7.3 INTRADOS LATTICE
Placing condition:
The stresses calculated for the extrados lattice are considered valid.
The calculation of the stresses during operation are shown below.
GIRDER 45 m
With maximum twisting live moment
m - 9.19 tm/m (89%)
Wind
m » 1.15 tm/m (11%)
Total
m • 9.19 * 1.15 =
Twisting stress on the section (12) at 2.8 m from support: (axis of first bracing zone)
m - 10.34 * 19.6
with maximum shear load
m = 19.6(1.2 * 3.05 + 1.15) =
Pag.52
= 450 cm
• 31 cm2
» 3.06 cm
» 147
= 4.69
. 1.63 t/cm2
= 10.34 tm/m
x 203 trn
= 94 tm
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
For
of
the
the
calculation twisting
of
loads
the
are
force in the
re-loaded
trussing, it
has stress
been
in
assumed the
Pag.53 that 75%
as
twisting
twist-resistant
trussi
ng (Bre
dt).
m - 0.75 * 203 -
A = 2.05 * 4.5 =
(TAU * t) - m/2 A -
. On cross beam:
S • 8.3 * 4.5 ■
. On the diagonal:
S • 37/sen 39’ -
. On girder:
S - 37/tg 39’ -
- 152 tm
- 9.23 m2
* 8-3 t/m
- 37 t
- 59 t
- 46 t
These forces decrease towards the axis (Ref. following table).
By substituting the maximum twisting load with the maximum shear load on the deck, the maximum force on the girder is:
S - 46 * 94/203 • 
= +/- 21 t
which is added to the effect of the braking and vertical loads for the calculation of the tensions on the girder.
GIRDER 45 M - Forces
( ): dummy value
SECT.
in the intrados lattice truss under
twisting (at 75%)
01 AGONAL
CROSS BEAM
GIRDER
Support
11
(59)
37
46
12
59
13
(37)
46
14
(51)
32
40
42
15
(26)
33
(34)
16
21
27
17
25
(16)
19
18
(17)
11
13
8.4
Axis
19
(5.3)
7
(0.0)
0.0
0.0
TANADIP\DES\
BRID1\REP\STATIC 1(1
4ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
CROSS BEAMS
Pag.54
In the hypothesis of box section behaviour at 75% twist-resistant, the stresses on the lower cross beams are obtained by overlaying those obtained by the calculation of the bulkheads with those of the intrados lattice (Ref, following table).
Stresses on bottom cross
beams TR45 m
CROSS BEAM
SECT.
BULKHEAD
(t)
LATTICE
(t)
TOTAL
(t)
11
32
37
69
13
9
32
41
15
9
21
30
17
9
11
20
19
9
0
9
GIRDER 28 m
Maximum twisting load:
m-
Wind:
m»
Total:
m - 8.53 * 1.29 + 1.15 =
Maximum twisting stress on box at sect!
x■
M - 12.15 * 11.2 =
With maximum shear load on deck slab
m ■ 11.2 (1.29 * 3.87 <■ 1.15) .
Assuming 75% twist-resistant section.
m - 0.75 * 136 =
A - 1.5 * 4.5 -
(TAU * t) » M/(2*A) =
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC K14ja88.fw2.98k)
(2) (axis of first area)
• 10.78 tm/m
= 1.15 tm/m
- 12.15 tm/m
= 2.8 m
= 136 tm
= 69 tm
= 102 tm
= 6.75 m2
= 7.6 t/m
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.55
. On compressed lower cross beam
S - 7.6 * 4.5 =
. On lower diagonal tie
S = 34/sen 39’ »
. On girder (lower truss)
S = 34/tg 39’ -
With a maximum shear load on the deck the maximum force on the girder is: S = 42 * 69/136 -
- 34 t
- 54 t
■ 42 t
- +/- 21 t
to be added to the other loads for the calculation of the tensions in the girder.
. On lower cross beam (compressed)
S = 7.6 * 4.5 «
. On lower diagonal
S - 34/sen 39’ -
These stresses move in a line towards the axis (Ref. following table)
Forces in the intrados lattice TR28 m under twisting load (75%)
» 34 t
= 54 t
SECT.
DIAGONAL
CROSS BEAM GIRDER
Support 1 (54) 34 42
2
3
4
5
54
(41)
(34)
26
42
32
Axis
6
27
(14)
(17)
9
21
11
0.0
(0.0)
0.0
The stresses deriving from the calculation of the bulkheads is added to the stresses thus obtained for the cross beams, assuming behaviour at 75%
twist-resistant.
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC I(14ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.56
Girder 28 m - Force on lower cross beams
CROSS BEAM
SECT.
DIAPHRAGM
(t)
LATTICE
(t)
TOTAL
(t)
1
29
34
63
3
14
26
40
5
14
9
23
6.1.7.4 CHECKING OF TRUSSING
GIRDER 45 m
First Diagonal (sect. 12)
(not considering the compressed diagonal) N = -59 t (only traction)
2L (120 * 8)
A ■ 18.7 * 2 =
Sigma » 59/37.4 =
Weakened section:
Al - 93 * 8 -
A2 -
A* =
Sigma - 59/30.14 =
BOLTS
First Load Condition
N = 59 * 0.89 -
n = 52.51/7.13 -
(4 + 4 M 27)
Second Load Condition
N=
n ■ 59/7.9 •
(4 + 4 M 27)
» 37.4 cm2
-1.58 t/cm2
• 744 mm2
= 960 mm2
= 3014 mm2
• 1.96 t/cm2
= S2.51 t
• 7.36
• 59 t
- 7.5
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88,fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS Second Diagonal Tie (Sect.14)
N-
2L (100 * 8)
A = 15.5 * 2 =
Sigma • 42/31 -
Weakened section
Sigma - 42/24.24 -
Bolts:
n • 42/7.13 •
(3 + 3 M 27)
Third Diagonal Tie (Sect.16)
N=
2L (100*8)
A=
Sigma = 25/31 -
Bolts:
n - 25/7.13 =
(2 + 2 M 27)
Cross beam on support (Sect. 11)
Pag.57
- 42 t
■ 31 cm2
-1.35 t/cm2
-1.73 t/cm2
• 5.9
- 25 t
- 31 cm2
=0.81 t/cm2
- 3.5
N tot = 32 + 37 =
2 L 130*12 (built-up section)
A « 30 cm2
ik = 3.97 cm
- 69 t
i min = 2.55 cm
i w (s=20 mm) = 6.49 cm
. Horizontal movement
11 »
lambda 1 - 75/2.55 - lambda = (450-25J/6.49 = lambda* - (65 2 + 30 2) 0.5 =
omega -
Sigma = 1.77 * 69/2.30 »
A AA
Checking of tension weakened section: Sigma = 69/(2 * 30 - 2.27 * 1.2) -
» 75 cm
- 30
• 65
= 72
- 1.77
- 2.04 t/cm2 -1.29 t/cm2
TAMADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC I(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - rooaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
. Vertical movement
Pag.58
1 . (225 - 12.5)
■
lambda - 213/3.97 =
omega
Sigma - 67*1.41/2.30 -
Bolts:
n - 69/7.14 -
(5 + 5 FI 27)
= 213 cm
= 54
• 1.41
=1.58 t/cm2
’97
The control carried out is conservative because of the presence of the bearings which participate in the absorption of the forces transmitted by the intrados lattice.
First intermediate cross beam (Sect.13)
N-
2L (120.10)
L=
A=
i=
ik =
in »
lambdal = 75/2.36 =
lambda - 450/5.3 =
lambda* »
omega =
Sigma -
Bolts:
n = 41/7.13 =
(6 M 27)
Tension weakended section
b - 41(23.3 * 2 - 2*47*1) -
- 41 t
= 450:225 cm
= 23.2*2 cm2
• 2.36 cm
= 3.67
- 5.3 cm
= 31.8
= 8.5
= 91
■ 2.28
=2.0 t/cm2
= 5.8
• 1.0 t/cm2
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STAT1C _1(14ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli ■ romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.59
Second Intermediate Cross Beam (Sect.15)
N=
■ 30 t
-
2L (120 * 8)
—
A - 18.7 * 2 cm2 -
• 37.4 cm2
i«
- 2.37 cm
ik -
■ 3.69
iw =
• 5.3
lambdal « 75/2.37 -
- 31.6
—
lambda - 450/5.3 -
- 85
lambda* =
- 91
omega -
■ 2.28
-
Sigma = 2.28 * 30/18.7 * 2 -
- 1.83
—
Bolts:
First Condition:
N - 30 * 0.89 =
• 27 t
n - 27/7.13 =
» 3.7
(2+2 M 27)
Second Condition:
N-
= 30 t
If
n = 30/7.9 =
= 3.8
(2 ♦ 2 M 27)
♦ GIRDER 28 m
First Diagonal (Sect.2)
—
N-
2L (120 * 8)
» -53 t
Sigma =
=1.42 t/cm2
Bolts:
n - 53/7.13 =
(4 + 4 M 27)
=74
Weakened section:
Sigma =
=1.60 t/cm2
T ANADIP\DES\BRIDI\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS Second Diagonal (Sect.4)
N=
2L (100 * 8)
Sigma -
Bolts:
n - 27/7.13 -
(4 M 27)
Weakened Section:
Sigma -
Cross beams on support (Sect. 1)
Ntot »
2L (130*12) (built-up section)
Pag.60
- -27 t
- 0.87 t/cm2
- 3.8
» 1.01 t/cm2
- 63 t
The control carried out for 45 m girder
Bolts:
First Condition
N • 63*0.89 -
m = 56/7.13 =
(4 + 4 M 27)
Second Condition
N=
m • 63/7.9 •
(4+4 FI 27)
The control caried out is conservative because of which participate in the absorption of the forces
lattice.
First lower intermediate cross beam (Sect.3)
is valid (N • 67 t)
= 56 t
- 7.9
- 63 t
=8
the presence transmitted
of the bearings
by the intrados
First TR45 m cross beam valid (N = 41 t)
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC I(14ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.61
Second lower intermediate cross beam (Sect.5)
N=
23 t
Second TR45 m cross beam valid (N = 30 t)
6.1.7.5 TWIST-RESISTANT BOX SECTION
Equivalent thickness of intrados dummy web of box (H - 182 cm, with diagonal 2L (100.8) (A » 31 cm2)
t* - (2.7*10A7)/(0.8*10A7) * 31 * 560 * (sen 13 deg 39’)/450A2 If also the compressed diagonal is efficient
t* - 2 * 0,056
with diagonal 2L (120*8) (A = 37,4)
t* •
2t* -
6.1.8 STRESSES ANO CHECKING OF BOLTED JOINTS
6.1.8.1 BOLTS
All friction joints are formed with high resistence bolts consisting of:
BOLTS: UNI 5712.75 - class 10.9
NUTS: UNI 5713.75 - class 84
WASHERS: UNI 5714.75
Resistence of the friction bolts for each section employed:
fy • 800 N/mm2
In control condition I:
F ■ (0.3*0.8*Ares*800)/l.25
Fl = 154 * Ares (N)
In control condition II:
F2 - 1.125 * Fl • 173 * Ares (N)
al fa - 39)
0,056 cm
0.112 cm
■ 0,0676 cm
- 0.135 cm
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli • romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
(Ref.following table)
Resistence of bolts class 10.9 on one section
Pag.62
BOLT
AREAS (mm2)
F1(N)
F2(N)
M 27
459
70000
78000
M 24
353
53000
60000
M 20
245
37000
42000
M 16
157
24000
27000
6.1.8.2 CHECKING OF
THICKNESS OF STEEL JOINT
PLATES TO UPSETTING
Sigma ADM -
=2.4 t/cm2
S > Ff/2.5 * 240 * FI (mm)
The thickness doubles for resistant bolts on Minimum thickness of steel joint plates
FI (mm)
27
24
20
two sections (ref. following table
16
Smin (mm)
5
4
4
3
6.1.8.3 DIMENSIONAL
LIMITS
p: bolt step
a: distance from edge
t: steel plate thickness
d: diameter of bolt
10 d
> p > 3d
15 t
3d
> a > 1.5 d
6t
TANADIP\DES\BRIDI\REP\S
TATIC 1(1
4ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.1.8.4 INTERNAL JOINT OF GIRDER L • 45 m
Upper compressed flange (500 * 35)
N - (19498 + 18904)/2 * 0.035 * 0.5 •
28 M 27 (2 sections)
V - 336/28 * 2 -
. Extrados plate: control N = (19490/2) * 0.035 * 0.5 =
Sigma - 171/45 * 2 »
. Intrados plate: control
N - (18904/2) * 0.035 * 0.5 -
Sigma » 165/2 * 20 * 2 -
Bottom Tie Flange (1000 * 40)
Sigmal =
N1 = 2.0302/2 * 100 * 4 -
Sigma2 •
N2 =
Ntot =
62 H 27 (2 sections)
V » 798/2 * 62 -
Pag.63
• 336 t
■ 6 t/sez
= 171 t
- 1.9 t/cm2
» 165 t
•2.07 t/cm2
= 20302 t/m2
- 406 t
- 19624 t/m2
= 392 t
• 798 t
- 6.44 t/sez
Control of weakened flange (s = 40 mm)
(798 * (6*0.6+56)/62)
Sigma ■ ............................................. =
(100 - 6 * 2.7) * 4
Control of lower plate (s=22) on first
406 (6*0.6+56)/62
Sigma • .
(100-6*2.7) * 2.2
TANADIP\OES\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88.fw2.98k)
on first row of bolts:
« 2.29 t/cm2
row of bolts
» 2.11 t/cm2
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.64
Control of upper plate on first row of bolts
392 (0.96)
Sigma » ............................ ■
(95-6*2.7)2.2
WEB (12 * 2275)
Sigma » -19624; +18904 t/m2 =
W-
M • W * sigma.min -
T - 3113 * 0.012 * 2.275 =
MT - 85 * (0.05 ♦ (0.085/2)) •
Mtot •
Bolting
With respect to barycentre of bolting (42 bolts)
n - 10.5 * 4 bulloni
summation (y 2) • 42446 * 4
summation (x 2) = 190 * 4
summation (y 2 + x 2) - 42636 * 4
•2.17 t/cm2
tau » 3113 t/m2 - 0.01035 m3
• 203 tm
• 85 t
• 7.9 tm -- 211 tm
A
A
AA
Coefficient of increasing of the shear
YT - (1.33 * 85)/(4 * 10.5) =
XM = (211 * 1.05)/(4 * 42636) •
YM - (211 * 0.045)/(4 ♦ 42636) =
YTOT =
XTOT •
A A A0.5 =
V « (X 2 ♦ Y 2)
V = 13.39/2 =
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88.fw2.98k)
force of the farthest bolt: k « 1.33
= 2.7 t
- 13 t
= 0.53
= 3.23
= 13
= 13.39 t = 6.7 t/SEZ
studio pietranqeli - romaGllGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.65
Considering resistence of bolting to normal maximum force
N-
(without contribution of concrete slab) the following results:
number of bolt resistant sections:
n - 2 * (28 + 62 + 42) -
delta V • 25/264 -
VMAX - 6.7 + 0.1
6.1.8.5 JOINT IN AXIS OF GIRDER L = 28 m
Lower flange tie (700 * 35)
NINF - (2,0457/2)(70*3.5) =
NSUP = (1.9685/2)(70*3.5) -
NTOT =
38 M 27 (2 sect)
V = 491/2 * 38 -
Control of weakened first row of bolts
491(0.6*4+34/38)
Sigma • ..........................
• 3.5*(70-4*2.7)
Control of weakened upper joint plate (s-20) in first row
241(0.958)
Sigma .................... ..........
2*(65-4*2.7)
= 25 t
- 264
- 0.1 t
- 6.8 t/sect
= 250 t
- 241 t
= 491 t
= 6.46 t/sect
-2.27 t/cm2
-2.13 t/cm2
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88,fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIOGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Upper compressed flange (400 * 20)
NSUP - (1.9164/2) 40 * 2 - NINF - (1.8718/2) 40 * 2 =
NTOT -
16 M 24 (2 sect)
V = 152/16 * 2 =
Pag.66
Upper joint plate
($-12)
Sigma = 77/(1.2 *
35) -
Lower joint plate
Sigma = 75/(1.2 *
2 * 15) =
- 77 t
- 75 t
- 152 t
-4.75 t/sez
•1.83 t/cm2
•2.08 t/cm2
A
Web (10 * 1705)
Sigma -
tau =
W-
M = W * sigma.min ■
T-
Bolting (32 M 24)
With respect to barycentre of bolting summation (y 2) • 18040 * 4 cm2 summation (x 2) ■ 112.5 * 4 cm2
n » 8 * 4 » 32 bolts
summation (y 2) + x 2) . 18148 * 4 cm2 XM - (95.4*0.7725)/(4*18148) •
YM =
VTOT • 10.2/2 =
Normal maximum force
N-
- -19685; +18718 t/m2
=0
• 0.004845 m3
• 95.4 tm
=0
A
AA
= 10.2 t
« 0.5 t
= 5.11 t/sez
= 25 t
TANADIP\DES\BR101\REP\STAT!CJ(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIOGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Bolt resistant section:
n - 2(38+16+32) =>
V - 25/172 -
For H 27
Vmax •
For M 24
Vmax -
6.1.8.6 PROVISIONAL JOINT IN PLACING PHASE Upper tie flange (400 * 20)
N - 0.765 * 0.4 * 0.02 ■
12 M 27 * 1 section
V - 78/12 -
Control of weakened joint plate (400 * 15) Sigma - 78 (0.6*4+8/12)/(l.5(40-4*2.7)) - Lower compressed flange
. With wind (condition II)
N - (5726+5485)/2(0.7 * 0.035) -
18 M 27 (1 section)
V - 137/18 • 7.6 t
. Without wind (condition I)
A (section n - INF) =
N = 137 - (42/0.0525)(0.7 * 0.035) =
V - 117/18 =
Checking of joint plate (700 * 15) Sigma - 137/(70 * 1.5) »
Pag.67
- 172
- 0.15 t
- 6.6 t
• 5.26 t
- 78 t
-6.5 t/sect
- 1.54 t/cm2
• 137 t
= 0.0525 m2
• 117 t
= 6.52 t/sect - 1.30 t/cm2
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88,fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - comaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Web (1998 * 10)
Sigma -
W-
M • 9627 ‘ W -
T-
MT • 17 * 0.05 -
MTOT ■
19 M 24 (2 section); step 10 cm
summation (y*2) »
n = 9.5 ‘ 2 ‘ 2 (No. sections) = 38 sections YT = 1.33 • 17/9.5 ‘2*2=
XM - (65‘0.9)/(28500‘2*2) - VTOT - ((0.60)*2 + (5.13)‘2) 0.5 -
Pag.68
A
- »5485; -9627 t/m2
- 0.006653 m3
• 64 tm
- 17 t
- 0.85 tm
- 65
- 28500 ‘ 2 cm2
•0.6 t/sect
■ 5.13 t/sect = 5.17 t/sect
TANADIP\DES\BR101\REP\STAT IC 1(14ja88.fw2.98k)
studio pietranqeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.1.9 STRESSES AND CONTROLS OF GIRDER-SLAB CONNECTORS 6.1.9.1 GEOMETRY OF GIRDER-SLAB CONNECTION
Studs with head are to be used.
The thickness of the slab varies: 300 < he < 250 mm
Pag.69
de » 0;
Dimension limits
(Ref. Fig.6.6)
tc • he
The following regulations regarding limits of dimensions are to be respected: For the welded girder:
ts >/■ tw >/- ts/5; ti/7
For the slab:
he </- 25ts; 1.5 bs
de </» 2 tc
5 de >/• ac >/- de
For the studs:
26 mm; 2 ts; hc/6 >/- dp
hp >/» 0.6 he
c >/■ 2.5 ts; 25 mm
he >/• iL >/= 7 dp
it >/- 5 dp
>/- 8 mm; hc/16
In this case the result is the following:
26 mm > dp > 16 mm : dp ■ 20 mm
hp >/= 150 mm: hp = 150
c >/= 80 (for TR45): c » 125 mm; 50 (for TR28): c = 100 mm
il - 150
it « 100 (TR28)
it = 125 (TR45)
TANADIP\DES\8RID1\R E P\STAT!C 1(14ja88,fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIOGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.1.9.2 RESISTENCE OF GIRDER-SLAB CONNECTION
For each stud:
Pag.70
| 4d 2 * (3.2 + 0.11 * 20.3)
A
| .................................................. - d 2 • 10.35
A
P(kn) <
1.4 * 1.5
I 0.7 * 3.14 * d'2 * 335
| .............................................. d 2 ‘ 12.28
| 40 • 1 * 1.5
A
Rck (cubic) » 24.5 N/mm2
fck (cylindric) • 20.3 N/mm2
fyk
hp • 4 d (cm)
■ 335 N/m2
Result: P(kn) - 10.35 * d 2 (cm)
A
In the presence of dynamic loads equal to 50% of the total a reduction coefficient is assumed equal to:
- 0.9
A
K - (0.5 * 1 + 0.5 * 0.8) »
Therefore:
P(t) - ((0.9 * 10.35)/9.81) * d 2 (cm)
P(t) - 0.95 * d 2 (cm)
to which a resistant cut of the stud corresponds
Tau - P/A - 0.95 * 4/3.14
Tau - 1.209 t/cm2
A
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romatmvu.w iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.1.9.3 CHECK OF CONNECTORS
The following Table shows the sliding forces Tau*b(t/m) of the flange/slab resulting from the checking of the sections.
The values in brackets represent the values obtained by interpolation of the distance of the axis (x) and the height of the girder (H).
(Tau*b2) » (Tau*bl) * X2 * Hl/Xl * H2 CONTROL OF CONNECTORS
Pag.71
SECT.
X
(m)
H
(mm)
Tau *b
(t/m)
Connectors
(Tau *b)RES.
(t
/m)
1
14
1493
64.7
2
11.2
1549
50.3
3F120915
76
3
8.4
1605
(36.4)
4
5.6
1661
(23.5)
2F120015
51
5
2.8
1717
(11.3)
6
0.0
1773
0.0
IF 120015
25
7
2.8
1829
(10.9)
8
5.6
1885
(21.2)
2F120015
51
9
8.4
1941
(30.8)
10
11.2
1997
(40.0)
3FI2O015
76
11
14
2053
48.6
11
22.4
2070
63.3
12
19.6
2126
54.3
3F120015
76
13
16.8
2182
14
(45.3)
14
2238
(36.9)
15
2F120015
51
11.2
2294
16
(28.8)
8.4
2350
21.13
17
2FI2O015
51
5.6
2350
18
2.8
(14.1)
2350
19
0.0
(7.1)
1FI2O015
25
2350
0.0
Fig.6.7
illustrates the
transversal
disposition
of the studs.
TANADIP\
DES\BRIDl\REP\STATl
C_l(14ja88,fw2,98k
)
studio pietrangeli
- romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.1.10 STRESSES AND CONTROLS OF WEB AND STIFFENING RIBS 6.1.10.1 STABILITY OF THE WEB PANELS
SECT.19 - TR45 CENTRE LINE
# Upper panel
(630 * 2800)
s • 
sigma sup =
sigma inf =
PSI =
ALPHA -
h/t =
sigma CR =
sigma ID =
k-
sigma 1* -
sigma c • 
sigma c* • 
n - 320/218 = 1.47
Pag.72
» 12 mm
« 218 N/rm2
-94 N/mm2
- 0.43
- 4.44
- 52.5
» 67.55
=> 218
« 5.49
- 371
» 371
« 320
The control is satisfactory because it assumes the panel to be h'inged when instead it is stopped from rolling from the concrete slab.
4 Intermediate panel
(670*2800)
s-
sigma sup -
sigma inf ■
PSI <
alpha -
h/t - 56 < 160 OK
SECT 16
* Lower Panel (at placing)
(97 * 282)
s»
sigma sup =
sigma inf =
Tau »
sigma id =
Alpha =
TANADIP\DES\BR1D1\REP\STATIC 1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
= 12 mm
» +94 N/mm2
= -3.98 N/mm2
< -1
- 4.18
12
0 N/mm2
84 N/mm2
12.4 N/mm2
86 N/mm2
2.91
studio pietrangeli - roma1
1
I I
1
I
■I 1 ]
1
II J
I -I ul LlGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN • STABILITY CALCULATIONS
h/t -
Sigma CR -
Ktau
tau*
K6
Sigma*l «
Sigmac -
Sigma*c -
214
n = — . 2.49 > 1.5
86
t Upper Panel (in operation)
(630 * 2800)
s-
sigma sup =
sigma inf -
sigma id -
tau •
alpha =
h/t -
Sigma CR •
Ktau
tau*
Ksigma
Sigma*l -
Sigmac » 210/(.1943)+ (.1316+.005)A0.5 Sigmac
Sigma*c •
319.4
n ■- - - - - - - - - - =1.56 = >1.5 OK
205
SECT.12
» Top panel
(410*2800)
s=
sigma sup ■
sigma inf •
tau =
sigma id =
PSI =
alpha -
h/t =
sigma CR «
Ksigma =
TANADIP\DES\BRI01\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88.fw2,98k)
Pag.73
• 81
• 28
• 5.81
• 166
- 7.64
■ 216
• 214
• 214
- 12 mm
- 200 N/mm2
• 81 N/mm2
= 205 N/mm2
« 31 N/mm2
- 4.44
- 52.5
- 67.55
• 5.55
- 375
= 5.62
= 380
• 372
- 319.5
■ 12
= 66 N/mm2
■ 41 N/mm2
- 71
= 155
- 0.62
■ 6.83
= 34
= 160
- 4.88 studio pietrangeli - romaT
J
1
J
n
i i
ci '] n
:i
l.iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Paq.74
sigma
K TAU
TAU *
sigma
sigma
sigma
♦
V
C•
c-
C* '
155 /((l+O.62/4)/4*(66/781))♦((3-0.62/4)*(66/781)’2>(7l/869)A2)*0.5
- 781
- 5.43
• 869
■ 1191
- 350
m - 350/155 - 2.26 > 1.5
f Intermediate panel
(670*2800)
s=
sigma sup ■
sigma inf =
PSI ■
TAU -
sigma ID »
alpha -
h/t -
sigma CR »
k sigma -
sigma * •
k TAU -
TAU * -
sigma C = 130/0.245 =
sigma C* =
n - 338/130 = 2.6 > 1.5
# Lower panel
(960*2800)
s-
sigma sup ■
sigma inf -
PSI -
TAU -
sigma VD •
alpha -
h/t «
sigma CR -
k sigma •
TAU * -
sigma C -
sigma C* «
n - 289/130 - 2.22> 1.5
with s ■ 10 mm:
h/t -
sigma CR =
k TAU -
OK
- 12 mm
• 41 N/mm2 « 0 N/mm2
• 0.0
- 71 N/mm2
- 130 N/nn2
- 4.18
- 55.83
• 60
= 7.6
= 458
- 5.4
• 334
• 530
» 338
OK
= 12 mm
• 0 N/mm2 - -58 N/mm2
< -1
- 71 N/mm2
• 130 N/mm2
= 2.92
- 80
- 29
= 5.81
* 168
» 292
= 289
OK
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STAT1C 1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
- 96
= 20.2
» 5.81 studio pietrangeli - roma3 1 1
1 I 1 1 'I ‘1
C1GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAU * »
sigma C »
sigma C* -
n - 2O3/I3O - 1.56 > 1.5 stabile
SECT. 11 - TR 45 BEARING
# Lower panel (negligible traction)
(960*1400)
s=
TAU =
sigma VD •
alpha -
h/t *
sigma CR •
K TAU -
TAU * -
sigma C =
sigma C* =
n -317/164 - 1.93 > 1.5 OK
with s = 10 mm
h/t -
sigma CR -
K TAU •
TAU * ■
sigma C »
sigma C* »
n - 253/164 - 1.54 > 1.5 OK
SECT.6
4 Upper panel
(38*2800)
s-
sigma sup «
sigma inf ■
sigma ID =
PSI -
alpha -
h/t =
sigma CR -
K=
sigma C ■
sigma C* =
n • 344/195 » 1.76 > 1.5 OK
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC 1(14ja8S,fw2,98k)
Pag.75
- 117 N/mm2
- 203
- 203
- 12 mm
• 95 N/mm2
• 164 N/mm2
■ 1.46
- 80
- 29
- 7.22
- 209
- 362
- 317
- 96
- 20.2
■ 7.22
- 146
- 253
■ 253
- 10 mm
• 195 N/mm2
- 106 N/mm2
• 195
- 0.54
- 7.4
- 38
• 129
- 5.12
• 661
- 344
studio pietrangeli - roma1
1
:i
■i o
I
ra
ci
»iG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.76
f Intermediate panel
(695*2800)
s=
sigma sup -
signa inf -
alpha ■
h/t •
sigma CR -
PSI ’
for PSI = 0
k-
sigma C =
sigma C* -
n - 290/106 - 2.7 > 1/5 stabile
SECT. 2
* Top panel
(375*2800)
s=
sigma sup =
sigma inf =
PSI -
TAU -
sigma ID =
d-
h/t -
sigma CR -
K sigma »
sigma * ■
K TAU -
TAU * •
• 1 ITffl
- 106 N/mm2
• -57 N/mn2
-4
- 70
- 38
- -0.54
- 7.63
- 290
- 290
= 10 mm
- 87 N/mm2
=44 N/mm2
= 0.51
= 80.3
= 181
= 7.47
= 37.5
= 132
- 5.22
= 689
- 5.41
= 714
sigma c = 181/((1+0.51)/4)*(87/689)) + (3+0.51/4*87/689)-2t(80.3/714)A2)A0.5
sigma c =
sigma c* =
n • 349/181 -1.93 > 1.5 stabile
# Lower panel (negligible traction)
(660*2800)
s-
sigma sup =
sigma inf =
TAU -
sigma ID =
alpha •
T ANADIP\OES\BRIDI\REP\STATIC_1(14j a88.fw2.98k)
-881
= 349
= 10 mm
- -0.8 N/mm2
» -83 N/mm2
- 80 N/mm2
= 139 N/mm2
= 4.24
studio pietrangeli - romaG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGM ■ STABILITY CALCULATIONS
h/t ■
sigma CR »
K TAU -
TAU * -
sigma c - /3 * TAU* =
sigma c* =
n = 325/139 - 2.34 > 1.5 stabile
SECT. 1 (Internal bearing TR 28 m)
# Lower panel (negligible traction)
(660*2800)
s=
TAU -
sigma ID =
alpha =
Pag.77
-66
• 42.7
■ 5.56
- 238
- 411
■ 325
= 10 mm
- 104
■ 181
■ 2.12
h/t • 
’66
sigma CR =
-42.7
K TAU
-
• 6.23
TAU *
-
• 266
sigma c • 
sigma c* =
n - 333/181 = 1.84 > 1.5 stabile
The other panels of Sect.l are in more favourable conditions for stability. SECT. 10 AND II GIRDER 28 M
■ 461
• 333
The stability of the web panels corresponding to Sections 10 and 11 of Girder L = 28 m, is guaranteed by the controls carried out for Sections 11 and 12 of the Girder L = 45 m, with thickness of web S = 10 mm.
TANADIP\DES\BR1DI\REP\STATIC_1(14j a88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABA/ BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.1.10.2 STABILITY OF WEB FOR CONCENTRATED LOAD
* SECT. 16 - PHASE 0.6 - SCHEME 5
I Stresses
M = 655 tm
T • 32 t
R bearing - 67 t
I Control with concentrated reaction (according to Italian regulations)
Pag.78
Considering the horizontal stiffening ribs to be efficient, the control for the height of a panel is carried out.
H-
S-
sigma * 67*10*4/12*1000 «
sigma ADM = 160000/(1000/12)*2 * (l+2*(1000/2800)*2) - 28.92 N/mm2 The control is not satisfactory for Italian regulations.
sigma • 56 > 29 N/mm2
* BASLER THEORY (Ref. 1 pg. 694)
sigma C - 113000/(1000/n)*2 * XI = 16.272 * XI Xlmin -2+4 (1000/2800)*2 =
Xlmax -5.5+4 (1000/2800)*2 -
sigma c min -
sigma c max =
Minimum safety factor: ,
V min • 40.84/56 ■ 0.73 (with no flanges tilting)
V med ■
V max = 98/56 = 1.75 (with only one flange tilting)
V med > 1 satisfactory
♦ GRANHOLM FORMULA
= 1000 ran
• 12 mm
• 56 N/mra2
■ 2.51
- 6.01
- 40.84 N/mm2
• 97.79
= 1.24
fc - 0.04 * E *
E-
t=
A A Al/8
t 2 (1 - 6*2/fy 2)
sigma -
(tension on compressed flange)
fy -
fc = 1.177 * 10*6 N «
f agente •
TANAOIP\DES\BR1D1\REP\STATIC_l(14ja88,fw2,98k)
» 206000 N/mm2
= 12 mm
= 84 N/mm2
= 335 H/mm2
= 118 t
= 67 t
studio pietrangeli - romar
i n
i i i
j a
i
iiG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.79
Safety factor:
V • 118/67 -1.76 satisfactory
f Control with distributed reaction (according to Italian standards)
A length of 1 m for distribution of reaction is considered:
sigma - 67*10*4/12*2000 ■
sigma < sigma ADM =
Control satisfactory.
* SECT. 11 (GIRDER 28 M) PHASE 0.9 - SCHEME 2
* Stresses
M-
TAU =
R bearing -
* Control with concentrated reaction - (according to Italian standards)
Rmax »
Maximum height of web panel between two horizontal impediments: 950 mm sigma - 42*10*4/10*950 =
sigma ADM = 160000/(950/10)*2 * (1 + 2 (950/2800)*2) - Control not satisfactory.
# BASLER FORMULA
sigma C • 1 13000/(975/10)*2 * Xi = 11.89 * Xi
Flanges tilting:
Xi min = 2 + 4 (925/2800)*2 =
With one flange tilting:
Xi max =
Sigma C min =
Sigma C max =
Safety factors:
V min = 29.55/44 .
V max - 71.16/44 -
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATICJ(14ja88,fw2,98k)
• 28 N/mm2 - 29 N/mm2
- 239 tm
- 17 t
= 42 t
• 42 t
- 44 N/nw2 * 22 N/mm2
= 2.485
- 5.985
- 29.55 N/mm2
- 71.16 N/mm2
= 0.68 < 1 - 1.61 > 1
studio pietrangeli - roma*1-
u—
I '1
I
II
I
3
flGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.80
The control is satisfactory only in the hypothesis with one flange tilting. I GRANHOLM FORMULA
Fc - 0.04 * n06*10*3*10*2*(1-66*2/335*2)*1/8 -
V ■ 83.58/42 -
Satisfactory
# Control with Distributed Pressure (According to Italian standards)
A length of 1 m of distribution of reaction is considered.
sigma = 42*10*4/10*1950 • 
sigma < sigma A0M • 
6.1.10.3 WEB STABILITY FOR CONCENTRATED LOAD IN PLACING PHASE
* SECT.16 * PHASE 0.6 - SCHEME 5
Fmax =
With punctiform bearing on 4 cm flange.
sigma - 67/(1.2 *2*4)=
sigma ADM • 1.15 * 2.446 •
sigma > sigma ADM: Unsatisfactory control
For a satisfactory control:
sigma ■ 67/1.2(2 * 4 + C) •
C > 12 cm
c: length of provisional bearing to distribute the reaction under the web.
- 83.58 t
• 1.97 > 1
-21.5 N/mm2
=22 N/mm2
• 67 t
•7.3 t/cm2
• 2.81 t/cm2
= 2.81 t/cm2
In order to obtain Sigma ADM the reaction must be distributed in at least THREE bearing points to have:
sigma • 7.3/3 - 2.43 < 2.81 t/cm2
The reaction must be concentrated under the web without employing the lower flange at bending.
TANADIP\DE S\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14j a88.fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli ■ roma11 -A -
{IfGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Calculation of maximum eccentric load on the lower flange:
H-P*e
sigma • P * e * 6/0.04*2 * 2 e
sigma • P * 3/0.04*2 < 2.4 * 10*3
P < 1.28 t eccentric admissible reaction with respect to web. * SECT.11 (TR.28) PHASE 0.9 - SCHEME 2
F max • 42 t
With punctiform bearing on base less than 3.5 cm.
sigma ADM . 1.15 * 2.446 -
sigma 42/1 * 2 * 3.5 -
Control unsatisfactory.
For provisional bearing of 28 m girder:
Lenght of distribution of reaction
c > 42/(1*2.81) - 2.35 •
n - 6.0/2.81 • 2.13 ----> 3
That is, reaction must be distributed over three bearing points. 6.1.10.4 VERTICAL STIFFENING RODS ON BEARINGS
* SECT.11 - GIRDER 45 M
N = T - 83.3 + 29.3 + 114.1 »
Pag.Bl
• 2.81 t/cm2
■ 6.0 t/cm2
■ 8 cm
« 226.7 t
Cooperating cross shaped section made from web (300*12) and stiffening (500*28) is considered:
b/t - 250/28 «
A=
J•
i - (J/A)*0.5 =
TANADIP\DE S\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88,fw2.98k)
= 8.9
- 173 cm2
« 29171 cm4
• 12.99 cm
studio pietrangeli - romai
I I IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.82
lambda = 1/i • 200/12.99 •
omega •
sigma - 1.01 * 227/173 =
Stiffening was strengthened to permit the bearing replacement. Condition b/t = width/thickness < 12 is satisfied.
* SECT.11 ■ GIRDER 28 M
- 15.40
- 1.01
•1.32 t/cm2
Cooperating cross shaped section made from web (240*10) and stiffening (400*20) is considered:
b/t - 200/20
• 
N • T - 47.6 + 18.2 + 82.5 -
A-
J-
• 10
= 148.3 t
- 102 cm2
* 10669 cm4
i«
=
10.2 cm
hmax • 
• 
200 cm
lambda - 200/10.2
• 
■
19.6
omega =
«
1.03
sigma • 1.03 * 148.3/102 -
-1.50 t/cm2
Stiffening was strengthened to permit the bearing replacement. Condition b/t = width/thickness < 12 is satisfied.
6.1.10.5 CONTROL OF STIFFENING RODS FOR STABILITY OF WEB PANELS
# VERTICAL STIFFENING RODS - GIRDER 45 M
- 1st Method: CECM recommendations (Ref.l pg.734) 4(2.5(2270/2813)'2-2)2813 ♦ 12*3 - < 0
J ADM =
(0.5 * 4 * 2813 * 123) « 9.7 * 10*6 mm4 Moment of inertia of stiffening rod (250 * 2):
J■
J > J ADM: OK
- 2nd Method (Ref. 1 pp. 754)
with reference to web centre line:
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88,fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - roma:Rf A
I
■ ■■ .
# 
i.'OAil
ATGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.83
Is > 0.092 * gamma* * h * t'3
Is(x-x) - 250*3*12/3 - 62.5 * 10*6 mm4
gamma* - 8
Is* • 0.092 * B * 2000 * 12*3 =
(corresponds = XI » 2)
If we have Xi • 4
Is* • 5 * 10*6
Is > Is* control satisfactory
Is • 62.5 * 10*6 > Is* ■ 5 * 10*6 OK
GIROER 28 M - INTERMEDIATE STIFFENING RODS
J ADM - 5.6 * 10*6
We have:
Built-up section - web/stiffening rib
J - 18.7 ♦ 10*6 mm 4
Section with only stiffening rib
J - 6.67 * 10*6 mm4
J > J ADM control satisfactory
GIRDER 45 M - HORIZONTAL STIFFENING RIBS
The following are adopted: L 150 * 100 * 12
AL -
with cooperating web section (290 * 12)
Atot -
J = 24.5 * 10*6 mm4
In axis (h = 2300 mm)
Gamma = 10.92 * 22 * 10*6/2300 * 12*3 =
Delta « 2870/(2300*12) ■
TANADI P\DES\BR ID1 \REP\STAT IC_1 (14 j a88»fw2,98k.)
- 2.5*10*6
= 2870 mm2
- 6350
67
0.1 studio pietrangeli - romaa
n
iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
On bearing (h - 2000 mm)
Gamma =
Delta -
Pag.34
• 76
- 0.12
Control
Case 9
carried out according to CECM recommendations (pg.725 Ref.l)
Bending with horizontal stiffening ribs at h/2 and h/4 from compressed edge.
Alpha =
Gamma -
Delta •
2.8/2.3
= 1.22
- 60
- 0.1
Gamma* - <0 not significant
Case 13
Shear with horizontal stiffening ribs at h/2 and h/4 from compressed edge.
Alpha = 2.8/2
Gamma =
Delta ■
From the table the following is obtained:
Gamma * •
Gamma ** « XI * 13.2
with Xi » 4 as recommended by CECM
Gamma > Gamma ** = 53: control satisfactory
GIRDER 28 M - HORIZONTAL STIFFENING RODS The following is adopted: L 150*100*10
A-
Jx -
with cooperating web section (240 * 10)
Atot -
Jtot •
External bearing (n « 2000)
Gamma • 10.92*19.3*10*6/2000*10"3 -
Delta = 2420/2000*10 =
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STAT1C 1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
• 1.4
• 69
= 0.12
• 13.2
- 53
= 2420 mm2
• 5.520.000 mm4
« 4820
• 19.3*10*6 mm4
« 106
» 0.12 studio pietrangeli - romarr T
i
a a 1
_J
■1
1
J
:ik
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.85
i r
Axis (h - 1720)
Gamma •
Delta -
- 123
- 1.4
Internal bearing (h « 1440)
Gamma ’
■ 147
Delta -
- 1.67
Result:
Gamma min =
- 106
Case 13 (Ref.l Pg. 729)
Shear with horizontal stiffening ribs at h/2 and h/4 from compressed edge.
Alpha - 2.8/2 -
Gamma «
Delta -
The following is obtained:
Gamma* •
Gamma ** - 4 * 13.2 =>
(Xi » 4: CECH)
External bearing:
Alpha =2.8/1.5 ■
Gamma * -
Gamma ** •
The following is obtained: Gamma > Gamma •* : (106 > 53) Control satisfactory.
■ 1.4
» 58
- 0.1
• 13.2
- 53
- 1.9
- 28.4
- 114
TANADIP\DES\BRI01\REP\STATICJ(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romad I I I I
I
3 3 B
I
■ B LI
ri El
I
il
■
a
■
IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGtl - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.1.10.6 STABILITY OF INTERMEDIATE STIFFENING RIBS IN PLACING PHASE ♦1st METHOO
# GIRDER 45 m
N max -
H
Pag.86
• 67 t
- 227 cm
Only a length equal to (12 * t) (in web and in stiffening) is considered effective.
A = 3 ♦ 1.2 ‘ 14.4 -
Sest ■
J est ■
y = 162/52 -
Jo - Jest - y 2 • A •
i - (J/A) 0.5 -
Lambda • 227/4.44 •
A
A
omega -
Sigma -1.36 ♦ 67/52 -
With H - 100 cm (interaxis of horizontal stiffening ribs)
Lambda - 100/4.44 =
omega =
Sigma = 1.05 * 67/52 -
# GIROER 28 M
N max =
H-
A - 24 + 12 -
S est -
J est -
y • 96/36 =
Jo -
i = (J/A) 0.5 =
Lambda = 199/3.66 =
Sigma - 1.41 * 42/36 «
- 52 cm2
- 162 cm3
- 1532 cm4
- 3.12 cm
- 1025 cm4
= 4.44 cm
• 51
- 1.36
-1.75 cm2
- 23
- 1.05
- 1.35
A
- 42 t
-199 cm
- 36 cm2
- 96 cm3
* 740 cm4
• 2.67 cm
- 484 cm4
= 3.66 cm
- 54
omega = 1.41
=1.65 t/cm2
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE • FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
♦ 2nd METHOD (REF. 1 PG.681)
t GIRDER 45 tn
The section is considered to be built-up with non-stiffened parts.
b/t - 250/12 -
AISI regulations (profiles not stiffened - pg. 691, Ref.l)
for 10 < b/t < 25:
Sigma C • fy ((1.667-0.432(235/fy))-(I-0.648(235/fy))•(b/t)/15) Sigma C •
Alpha • Sigma c/fy - 201/335 = 0.6 •
k - 1.2 * 0.6 - 0.2 •
fc « 0.52 * 335 ■
Lambda c = 3.14(Es/fc) 0.5 -
Pag.87
“ 21
A
Section characteristics in banking:
A=
Y=
S-
J■
Jo - J - YA2 A -
i■
1 ■ H anima ■
Lambda -
(not considering the benefit of the horizontal stiffening ribs)
- 201 N/mm
• 0.52
- 174 N/mm2
• 108
- 6456
mm2
■ 64
mm
• 413736
mm3
Lambda* • 1ambda/1ambda c = 28.6/108 *
Dimensional curve "c”
Lambda* = 0,27 ----> N •
Sigma c ■ 174 * 0.9654 =
Sigma ADM = 168/1.5 =
Nmax =
Sigma • 67 * 10A4/6456 •
Sigma < Sigma ADM
= 67273888 mm 4
• 40759409 mm 4
• 79 mm
= 2270 mm
» 28.6
= 0.27
- 0.9654
= 168 N/mm2
- 112 N/mm2
= 67 t
- 104 N/mm2
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC I(14ja88.fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaL
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
. BGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
t GIRDER 28 M
Hmax =
Sigma ■
For lateral banking:
A-
S-
J»
i-
1*
Lambda =
Sigma c =
Alpha = Sigma c/fy ■ 0.637
K=
fc »
Lambda c •
From dimensional curve c:
Lambda • 31/104 =• 0.3 ----> N • Sigma c ■ 0.9510 * 189 •
Sigma ADM - 180/1.5 =■
Fmax =
Sigma • 42*10*4/4400 =- Sigma - 95 < Sigma AOM •
Control satisfactory.
Pag.88
- 42 t
•95 N/mm
4400 mm2
232000 mm3
18714000 mm4
65 fflHl
2000 nm
31
213
N/mm2
0.56
189
104
N/Nrcm2
■ 0.9510
• 180 N/mm2
• 120 N/mm2
• 42 t
- 95 N/mZ
• 120
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STAT IC 1(14j a88,fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaI I I V
I
8
H
I I I
I I
■
1■
.J
I
iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.1.11 STRAINS
6.1.11.1 SHRINKAGE
i GIRDER 45 M
At time O:
No =
Mo = 251(2.22 ♦ 0.16 - 1.8) -
J■
Psi - (146*22.5)/(2.1*10*7*0.2) ’ 0.8 * 10*-3 Rad
Delta ■ (146*45*2/8)/(2.1*10*7*0.2) • 9*10*-3 ................................. > 9 mm At infinite time
J•
N-
M = 84(2.22 + 0.16 - 1.4) =
Psi - 82 * 22.5/2.1*10*4*0.15 • 0.59 * 10*-3 Rad Delta - 82 * 45*2/8 EJ - 6.6 * 10A-3 --•> 7 mm
# GIRDER 28 M
At time 0:
Pag.89
- 251 t
- 146 tm = 0.2 tn4
- 0.15
- 84 t
• 82 tm
J=
No =
Mo ■ 251(1.78 + 0.16 - 1.57) Psi - (92*14)(2.1*10*7*0.089) -
-
- 0.089 m4
= 251 t
= 92 tm
• 0.69*10*-3 Rad
Delta « (92*28*2/8)/(2.1*10*7*0.089) = 4.8*10*-3 ---> 5 mm At infinite time:
J■
N=
M - 84(1.78 + 0.16 - 1.26) =
Psi ■ 57 * 14/EJ •
Delta = (57*28*2/8)/(EJ) = 3.9*10*-3 ----> 4 mm
6.1.11.2 TOTAL STRAINS
The following tables illustrates the strains: Delta (mm): sag in axis
Psi (Rad * 10*-3): rotation of bearings
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC 1(14ja88,fw2,98k)
» 0.068 m4
= 84 t
« 57 tm
- 0.56*10*-3 Rad
studio pietrangeli - romaI
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
n
ri i
i
2
a
ji a
■
.8GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.90
A
TOTAL STRAINS Oelta (mm) Psi (RAD*10 -3)
t
28 tn
45 m
PHASE 1
DEAD
Delta 52 130
Psi
6.0
9.3
PHASE 2.1 Delta 0 6 17
FINISHING WORKS
INFINITE 8 23
Psi 0
INFINITE
0.64
0.83
1.2
1.64
PHASE 2.2 Del ta 0 5 9
SHRINKAGE
INFINITE 4 7
Psi 0
INFINITE
0.69
0.56
0.8
0.59
PHASE 3
LIVE
Delta 26 64
Psi
2.8
4.6
The girders shall be supplied with the following camber (in axis):
TR.28: Delta - 52 + 6 + 5 -
TR.45: Oelta - 130 + 17 + 9 «
. At infinite time and no load:
TR28: Delta - (8+4)
- (6+5) =
TR45: Delta - (23+7) - (17+9) =
. For live loads
TR28:
TR45:
Delta
Delta
-
■
.
26
• 64
* 63 mm
- 156 mm
= 1 mm
= 4 mm
ran
nrn
. In operation with infinite time
TR28: Oelta ■ 1 + 26 = • 27 mm TR45: Delta - 4 + 64 = • 68 ran
Result:
TR.28: Delta/L • 27/28000 = 0.1%. < 0.2%. TR.45: Delta/L - 68/45000 = 0.15%. < 0.2%.
Strains are acceptable.
Rotation in operation with t - infinite
TR.28: Psi - 2.86 ♦ 10A-3 < 8‘10A-3 Rad TR.45: Psi ■ 4.83 * 10A-3 < 8*10A-3 Rad
TANAOIP\DES\BR1D1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88.fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaL
1
I
I
I r
iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.91
6.1.11.3 HORIZONTAL STRAINS
The
maximum
elastic
shifting
of
the
pier
occurs
with
the
load
combination
of
pier No.3 (Ref. subsection 6.3.1.2) and is:
PIER B (BEARING-HINGE): delta - 6.78 mm
PIER C (BEARING-BEARING): delta • 1.53 ran
Since the combination *3 is a combination with
seis
mic force
, in ord
er to
evaluate movement under seismic force,
Italian standards:
deltaB* • 6 * 6.78 -
deltaC* - 6 * 1.53 »
* Horizontal axial strains
. Thermal strains:
Delta T -
Alpha
TR 28: delta =
TR 45: delta =
plastic camp is assumed, according to
= 41 ran
• 9 mm
Elastic strain of pier under seismic force with
PIER B: delta =■
PIER C: delta •
. Joint movements
JOINT C: Lambda delta c = 14+23+6*6.78 = JOINT B: Lambda delta c = 14+6*6.78 =
. Bearing movements
PIER C
TR 45 m: delta = 23+6*6.78+6*1.53 =
TR 38 m: delta = 14+6*1.53 =
PIER B
TR 28 m: delta » 14+6*6.78 -
• 50 deg
- 1.10A-5
= 14 ran
• 23 mm
seismic coefficient k - 0.10
« 6.78 ran
• 1.53 ran
• +/- 78 mm
= +/- 55 ran
= +/- 73 mm
• ♦/- 23 mm
= 55 mm
The following table illustrates the design values of the jointing equipment and moving bearings.
TANAD1P\DES\BR1D1\REP\STATIC I(14ja88,fw2,98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE • FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.92
OES1GN VALUES
JOINTS
JOINT OPENING AT ASSEMBLY:
A-D: ABUTMENT
B : PIER (BEARING-HINGE)
C : PIER (2 BEARINGS)
MOVEMENT OF JOINTING EQUIPMENT:
A-D: ABUTMENT
B : PIER (BEARING-HINGE)
C : PIER (2 BEARINGS)
THEORETICAL
0 r<n
55 mm
78 nn
0 mm
>/- 55 mm
+/- 78 irm
PROJECT
50 mm
100 mm
100 m
0 mm
♦/- 55 mm
♦/• 78 mm
MOVEMENT OF BEARINGS: *
PIER B: BEARING TR 28
+/- 55 mm
♦/- 55 mm
PIER C: BEARING TR 28
♦>/- 23 mm
+/- 23 mm
PIER C: BEARING TR 45
+/• 73 mm
+/- 73 mm
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP\STATIC_1(14ja88,fw2.98k)
studio pietrangeli - romaI I I T
I
I
I
I
0
I n
II D
II
r
I SI
. ii
9GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.93
6.2 REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB FOR BRIDGE DECK 6.2.1 LOAD ANALYSES
6.2.1.1 AT CONCRETING OF SLAB
Precast concrete slab below deck (6 cm): p - Concreting of slab (21 cm): p -
Kerb: q -
Live loads during construction: p -
6.2.1.2 FINISHING WORKS
■ 0.15 t/m2
-0.53 t/m2
- 0.094 t/m
-0.05 t/m2
Paving
:p-
Railing and Guard rail
:q-
Slab on box
:q•
Inner kerb
:q-
• 0.3 t/m2
■ 0.15 t/m
- 0.09 t/m
-0.16 t/m
6.2.1.3 LIVE LOADS
A dynamic coefficient of 1.4 is applied to all loads.
Pedestrian Load
P■
Moving Loads
On road:
•0.4 t/m2
It is considered that the most serious effects are caused alternatively by:
. Maneuvering load qlD: P = (12+12+7) =
. Moving load qlC: Rear axis: P - (18+18) -
- 31 t
- 36 t
Collaborating length (b*) of slab (along bridge axis) for girder calculation.
. Load qlD (manouver of overhang): b* - 2.3 + 0.75 * 2 » (also adopted conservatively in span)
. Load qlC
Transversal mass (at bridge axis)
a - 1.6 + 0.25 -
Longitudinal mass: b = 1.20 + 0.25 - TANADIP\BRIDl\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
- 3.8 m
. 2.85 m
- 1.45 m
studio pietrangeli - romeG1LGEL ABAY BRIOGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.94
On overhang: b* - 1.45 ♦ 2 * 0.75
On span: b* ■ 1.45 ♦ 4.5/2
6.2.2 STRESSES
6.2.2.1 AT POURING OF SLAB
The stresses on the overhang and span are shown in Tab. 6.XXIII.
6.2.2.2 FINISHING WORKS
Ref. Tab. 6.XXIV.
6.2.2.3 INCIDENTAL LOADS
* Pedestrian Load
. Overhand
T-
. Span
T-H
4 Live loads
LOAD qlD
The load schemes which have been considered are shown in Fig.6.8
. Overhang
M - -1.4 * 9/3.8
. Span
M • + 1.4 * 7.20/3.8
LOAD qlC (Ref. Fig. 6.9)
Overhang
p* = 1.4*36/2.85*2.95
M = -6*0.75*2/2 »
Span
p* = 1.4*36/2.85*3.7 -
M - +4.78(1.425*2.25-1.425*2/2) TANADlP\BRIDl\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
2.95 n
3.7 <n
- 0.56 t/m
0.70 tm/m
0
-3.32 tm/m
+2.65 tm/m
6.0 t/m2
-2.53 tm/m
4.78 t/m2
+10.47 tm/m studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.95
STRESSES
The most Important stresses are shown in Tab.6.XXIV.
The stresses produced by the live loads are tripled In the vicinity of the discontinuity joints of the concrete slab for a length of 2.25 m (along the bridge axis), according to Italian standards.
The resulting stresses on the joints are shown in Tab.6.XXIV.
6.2.3 CONTROLS
A typical precast concrete slab below deck is 1.05 m wide. 6.2.3.1 LATTICEWORK (4 FI 12/1.05 m)
Tmax -
On each lattice
T - 1.66*1.05/4 -
On angled truss (1 FI 12)
N - 0.4358 * 1.41 -
L - 25 * 1.41 -
i - FI/4 = 1.2/4 -
Lambda - 35/0.3 =
Omega =
Sigma - 3.16 * 0.61/1.13 -
- 1.66 t/m
- 0.4358 t
■ 0.61 t
- 35 cm
• 0.3 cm
- 118
• 3.16
•1.71 t/cm2
TANADIP\BRIDl\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeJ0
a
.1
.3
a
iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.96
6.2.3.2 OVERHANG
Lower truss stability through bearing opening in the girders during construction 1s guaranteed by stability controls carried out for the upper trusses in the
slab span.
* SLAB OVERHAND IN GIRDER BAY
# AT END OF CONCRETING (Precast slab active, concrete Inactive)
Asup - (2FI24)
c - (distance from compressed edge)
Ainf - (4FI24)
c-
From TAB. 6.XXIII:
M - 1.207 * 1.05 -
X-
(neutral axis inside precast concrete slab below deck)
Sigma’c » (CLS) -
Sigma’s - (4FI24 INF) -
Sigma s - (2FI24 SUP) -
Ignoring contribution from compressed concrete:
N - -1.27/0.16 -
Sigma s - (tension) -
Sigma’s - (compression) -
# IN OPERATION (slab fully active)
M - -4.55 • 1.05 -
T=
Tau =
- 9.04 cm2
- 20 cm
• 18.08
- 4 cm
- -1.27 tm
= 5.5 cm
• 20 kg/cm2
• +80 kg/cm2
- -792 kg/cm2
- 7.94 t
= -878 kg/cm2
- +439 kg/cm2
= 4.78 tm
• 5.62 t/m
» 31 t/m2
(*) indicates reinforcement added before concreting of slab. The other reinforcement are relative to the precast concrete slab).
The following is considered: M « Ml ♦ M2
M-
Ml -
M2 -
. Ml -
All the reinforcement is considered active. The result is:
Sigma c « CLS
Sigma’s = 4FI24 INF (c - 4)
TANA0!P\BRIDl\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
-4.78 tm
-4.00 tm
-0.78 tm
-4.00 tm
44 kg/cm2
308 kg/cm2
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN ■ STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.97
-
-1382 kg/cm2
-
-1115 kg/cm2
-
64 kg/cm2
-
388 kg/cm2
-
1907 kg/cm2
■
-1115 kg/cm2
-
-1382 kg/cm2
Sigma s - (*) 7F16 SUP (c-23)
(♦) 2FI24 SUP(c-20)
Sigma s - 2FI24 SUP (c-2O)
RESULTING TENSIONS (Ref. subsection 6.2.1.2)
The tensions due to concreting of slab are summed:
Sigma c - CLS: 20+44 -
Sigma’s - 4FI24 INF: 80+308 -
Sigma s = 2FI24 SUP: -792-1115 -
Sigma s - (*) 2FI24 SUP:
Sigma s = (*) 7F06 SUP:
M2 -
It is considered that the upper 2FI24 of the precast concrete slab below deck are no longer efficient because with Ml they reach Sigma ADM - 1900 kg/cm2.
The following is considered:
-
-0.78 tm
(♦) A sup - 2 cm2 (c - 23) (*) A sup - 9.04 " (c - 20)
A inf = 18.08 " (c » 4)
The results are the following:
Sigma’c - (x « 6 cm) -
Sigma’s - 4FI24 INF:
Sigma s ■ (*) 7FI6 SUP:
Sigma s - (*) 2F124 SUP:
TOTAL RESULTING TENSIONS:
(7FI6)
(2FI24 slab)
(4FI24 precast concrete slab below deck)
Sigma’c - Concrete - 64 + 11 -
Sigma’s - 4FI24 INF - 388 + 55 =■
Sigma s - 2FI24 SUP
The control is satisfactory.
The summary of the tensions is illustrated in Tab. 6.XXV
» 11 kg/cm2
- 55 kg/cm2
- -454 kg/cm2
- -374 kg/cm2
» 75kg/cm2
= 443kg/cm2
■ -1907 kg/cm2
Sigma s -
2FI24 SUP (*) -
-1115
- 374-
- -1489 kg/cm2
Sigma s -
7FI6 (*)
» -1384
- 454-
- -1836 kg/cm2
TANADIP\BRID1\STAT1C 2(12j a88.fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.98
• SLAB OVERHANG ON GIRDER JOINT
# AT END OF CONCRETING:
The following is adopted:
A sup -
9 cm2 (2FI24)
(c
- 20)
A*Inf -
41 cm2 (9FI24)
(c
- 3)
A’inf -
2 cm2 (7FI6)
(c
- 2)
The results are the following (Ref. Tab. 6.XXIII): M - -1.207 * 1.05 -
x-
Sigma’c ■
Sigma's =
Sigma s -
Without contribution of compressed concrete:
N - -1.27/0.16 -
Sigma s -
Sigma s’ ■
IN OPERATION (Ref. Tab. 6.XXIV)
M - 11.19 ♦ 1.05 = -11.75 - -8-3.75 tm
The following has been adopted:
A sup • 9 cm2 (2FI24) (c - 20) (Efficient only for M « 8 tm)
A sup - 38 cm2 (8FI24 + 7FI6) (c - 20) (Efficient for M = 11.75 tm)
A’inf - 41 cm2 (9FI24) (c - 3)
A’inf - 2 cm2 (7FI6) (c = 2)
(Efficient for M = 11.75 tm)
The results are the following:
M=
X-
Sigma’c =
Sigma’s ■
Sigma s -
M-
x-
Sigma’c ■
Sigma’s =
TANADIP\8RID1\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
- -1.27 tm
= 4.6 cm
- 16 kg/cn>2
- 18 kg/cm2
= -793 kg.cm2
- 7.94 t
- -878 kg/cm2
- +195 kg/cm2
-8 tm
8.8 cm
53 kg/cm2
520 kg/cm2
-998 kg/cm2
-3.7! 5 tm
8. 1 cm
• 26 kg/cm2
■ 246 kg/cm2
studio pietrangeli - romei ’ r. :i Frs’F/fiKiM jl*.G1LGEL ABAY 8RIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.99
Sigma s -
The resulting tensions are sunnarised in Tab. 6.XXIV.
6.2.3.3 SLAB SPAN
* IN GIRDER SPAN
» SLAB CONCRETING IN CRITICAL CONDITION (Ref. Tab. 6.XXIII) M - 1.62 * 1.05 -
■ -574 kg/cm2
- 1.743 tm
A inf - 7FI24 + 7FI6 - 33.6 cm2 (c - 21)
A’sup - 7FI24 - 9.04 cm2
(c - 5)
Internal Force:
8 - 21 - 5 -
N - 1.743/0.16 -
. IN COMPRESSION (2FI24 sup)
Sigma’A - 10.89/2*4.52 -
Stability at compression
(FI 24)
J■
A-
i-
Lmax - (25-8)*2 =
Lambda - 34/0.6 -
Omega -
Sigma - +1200 * 1.5 -
. IN TENSION (7FI24 + 7FI6)
A - 33.6 cm2 (7FI24 + 7FI6)
Sigma s - 10.89/33.6 -
» AT END OF CONCRETING (Ref. Tab. 6.XXIII):
M - 0.51 ‘ 1.05 -
Sigma's -
Omega =
Sigma’s =• 1.5 * 360 »
Sigma s -
- 16 cm
- +/- 10.89 t
- +1200 kg/cm2
» 1.63 cm4
- 4.52 cm2
- 0.6 cm
= 34 cm
• 57
- 1.5
- +1800 kg/cm2
- -324 kg/cm2
- 0.54 tm
- 360
- 1.5
= 540
- -97 kg/cm2
TANADIP\BR101\STATIC_2(12j a88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.lOO
I IN OPERATION (Ref. Tab. 6.XXIV):
T-
Tau -
H - 10.7 * 1.05 -
. In slab axis (H-30 cm)
A’sup - 2 cm2 (7FI6)
A’sup - 9.04 (2FI24)
A inf = 33.6 (7FI24 + 7FI6)
X-
Sigma c =
(2FI24 SUP) ---> Sigma’s -
Sigma s =
. Resulting Tensions (Ref., cap. 3.1.3)
- 7.49 t/m
- 42 t/m2
- 11.24 tm
(c - 2 cm)
(c - 10 cm)
(c - 26 cm)
■ 11.4 cm
- 79 kg/cm2
» *145 kg/cm2
• -1514 kg/cm2
he tensions at the end of slab concreting are summed:
Cement: Sigma'c -
Upper reinforcement precast
slab below deck: Sigma’s - 360 + 145 - Lower reinforcement precast
slab below deck: Sigma s = -97 - 1514 -
* IN GIRDER JOINT
Assumed for each precast slab below deck:
-79 kg/cm2
- 505
- -1611
Asup - 59 cm2 (13FI24)
Asup - 2 cm2 (7FI6)
Asup - 9 cm2 (2FI24)
(c - 3)
(c - 2)
(c - 10)
Ainf - 68 cm2 (15FI24)
Ainf - 2 cm2
(c - 27)
(c = 28)
* AT END OF CONCRETING (Ref. Tab. 6.XXIII)
M-
Sigma’s -
Sigma s =
» IN OPERATION (Ref. Tab. 6.XXIII):
M - 31.64 ♦ 1.05 -
Thus:
X=
TANADIP\BR101\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
- 0.54 tm
• 360
- -49 cm2 - 33.2 tm
- 11.9 cm studio pietrangeli - romeT
]
I
I
I
J I a
i i o ti
JGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Sigma’c •
Sigma’s -
Sigma s -
The resulting tensions are shown in Tab. 6.XXVII * SHEAR VERIFICATION (Ref. Tabs. 6.XXIII and 6.XXIV)
Ttot - 1.53 + 21.11 -
T - 22.64 * 1.05 -
Tau c - 22.64/0.27 - 84 t/m2 - Tau co
In the hypothesis of longitudinal reinforcement resisting to shear:
Pag.101
- 106
• 253
- -2150 kg/cm2
- 22.64 t/m
- 23.8 t
On the support As
Tau c = 23.8/52 -
9+41+2
- 52 cm2
-0.46 t/cm2
6.2.3.4 RESULTING TENSIONS
The tensions resulting from the verification of the concrete slab are summarised in Tables 6.XXV, 6.XXVI and 6.XXVII.
The controls carried out on the girder joint (Tables 6.XXVI and 6.XXVII) have lead to higher values than those acceptable for the adopted materials:
Sigma c - 106 > 85 kg/cm2 (R’bk - 250)
Sigma s • -2199 > 1900 kg/cm2 (FeB 38 k not checked)
However, the controls can be considered satisfactory because of the exceptional live loads required by the Italian standards (tripled with respect to the normal loads).
TANADIP\BRID1\STATIC.2(12ja88.fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL A8AY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.102
6.3 PIERS
6.3.1 BEARING-HINGE PIER
6.3.1.1 STRESSES
The following tables are annexed.
Tab.6.XXVIII - Stresses for elementary load Tab.6.XXIX - Stresses for elementary load Tab.6.XXX - Load combinations (combinating factor)
in pier head
in pier foot
Tab.6.XXXI - Stresses in pier head (under bearing) in calculation combinations
Tab.6.XXXII • Stresses in pier foot in calculation
combinations
The following definitions are considered in Table 6.XXX "Load Combinations':
Comb.l: Seismic force x
' 2: Seismic force y
" 3: Collapse of girder 28 m
" 4: In operation with Nmax and wind x
" 5: In operation with Nmax and wind y
6: In operation with My max and wind y
7: In operation with Mx max (live only on TR 45) and wind x
6.3.1.2 VERIFICATIONS
* Oosseret
The load on the bearing of a 45 m girder is:
with seismic force
(comb. 1): N = 230/2
without seismic force (comb. 4): N » 426/2
From subsection 6.1.11 the maximum excursion of the bearing is:
with seismic force x
without seismic force x
w 115 t
■ 213 t
delta x - 73 nm
delta x • 23 mm
By adding 1/6 of the maximum dimension of the bearing equipment the maximum eccentricity of the load on the bearing is calculated:
(1/6 x 500 - 83 mm)
with seismic force:
e = 73 +83
.
156 rm
without seismic force:
e - 23 +83
.
106 mm
With calculation of latticework model, the following results (Fig.6.10)
N‘
= 213 t
TANADIP\B RID1\STATIC_2(12j a88,fw2,104 k)
studio pietrangeli - romeLj
1
I
I
H
I
I
V
I
H
I
I
ffl
i
g
•I
_■
■
flGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.103
T - 213 x 10/60 -
C-
As - 36/1,6 -
Sigma z -
■ 36 t
- 213 t
- 22 cm2
-1.6 t/cm2
Considering a concrete connecting rod (25 x 100) as collaborating with the load, the following results:
Sigma C -
Shear verification is not valid in the case of short cantilever.
- 850 t/m2
However, the reinforcement in the concrete is aimed at absorbing 50% of the shear stress since half of the load is considered to be transmitted from the bearing equipment directly to the pier.
T = 0.5 x 213 -
on one section (100 x 80):
tau - 158 t/m2 x tau cl.
By attributing 50% of the shear to the stirrups, we have:
- 107 t
A’st
- 0,5 x 107/0,9 x 0,75 x 1,9
- 42 cm/m
Omega p 0,5 x 107 x 0,5 m -
27 tm
A p - 27 tm/ 0,9 x 0,75 x 1,9 x 1,41 - 15 cm2
# Pier Head
COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING STRESS
(STIRRUPS: 1 Fl 16/10)
(BENT: 8 FI 16)
The verifications by combined compressive and bending stress on the pier head with Mx are carried out considering a collaborating complessive section of the pier (200 * 100).
The effect of the corrisponding My is evaluated as an effect of loading-unloading of the normal force with 4.5 m arm.
COMBINATION 3
N=
Mx -
My »
Sigmac =
Sigmas -
- 230 t
- 115 tm
=0
- 58
=1137 kg/cm2
TANADIP\BRIDl\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - rome■ r
i
i
i v
H
H
H I D I
ti
SI a
i N a
jGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.104
COMBINATION 6
N
Mx
My
N* - 588 ♦/- 2 * 470/4.5 -
N*
Mx
Sigmac =■
Sigmas -
N*
Mx
Sigmac =
Sigmas -
COMBINATION 7
N
Mx
My
N* - 562 +/- 2 * 84/4.5 -
N*
Mx
Sigmac •
Sigmas =
N*
Mx
Sigmac =
Sigmas =
COMBINATIONS 4 AND 5
N
MX
My
N* - 706 +/- 2 * 255/4.5 -
N*
Mx
Sigmac •
Sigmas -
N*
Mx
Sigmac -
Sigmas -
TENSION VERIFICATION BELOW THE BEARINGS
- 588 t
• 80 tm
- 470 tm
- 797 ; 379 t
- 797 t
- 80 tm
- 66 ;17 kg/cm2
- >0
- 379 t
- 80 tm
- 40
- -28 kg/cm2
- 562 t
- 158 tm *
■ 84 tm
- 599 ; 525 t
- 599 t
- 158 tm
- 74
-257 kg/cm2
- 525 t
= 158 tm
- 74
- -424 kg/cm2
- 706 t
- 94 tm
= 255 tm
- 819 ; 593 t
- 819 t
- 94 tm
=64 ;14 kg/cm2
• >0
- 525 t
• 94 tm
- 54 ; 3 kg/cm2
- >0
From COMBINATIONS 4 and 5) it can be seen that the Nmax at one end of the pier is:
N - 819/2
- 410 t
TANADIP\BRIO1\STATIC 2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeewaMtHe 5(1 • ..RS w I
h wa\s
- •*' '■
' ’4 9} ■ p 4
iWJi» * il ktlLOz u
>
WUMUiW 1
•GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
The horizontal tension in the pier in direction y is: T - 410 * 0.3 ♦ (4.5-0,5)/4.5
In head the following is assumed:
10 FI 20 As - 31,4 cm2 Resisting tension with sigma.s ■ 1.9 t/cmZ:
T - 31,4 x 2,9
On pier body:
T - 109 - 60
a height equal to - 4.5/2
with Sigma s « 1.9 t/cm2:
A’S - 49/1,9 • 2,25
(1+1 FI 12/20)
# Pier Foot
INSTABILITY VERIFICATION
A - 6.13 m2
Jx - 0.417 + 0.049
Jy -
i x = Jx/A =
L = 2 * 7.15=
Lambda x « 14.30/0.276 -
Omega -
(multiplier of N)
c
(multiplier of M)
Pag.105
- 109 t
- 60 t
- 49 t
- 2,25 m
- 11,5 cm2/m
= 0.466 m4
• 13.88 m4
- 0.276 m
• 14.30 m
- 51.81 m
- 1.0074
- 1.037
Given the low value of these "multipliers" the following controls are considered valid with multipliers - 1.
COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING STRESS
Reinforcement:
A - 31,4 cm2/m (1 FI 20/10)
along the perimeter of the pier at a distance of 5 cm from the free surface.
TANAD1P\BRID1\STATIC_2(12j a88,fw2,104 k)
studio pietrangeli - rome.t .
•'
•w?»•
' if
'1
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
ii
i
i
i
■
I
I
I
I
IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.106
Controls with combined compressive and bending stress have been carried out for the 7 load combinations shown in Tab.6.XXXII
The data and results of the controls are shown in Tab.6.XXXIII
The most severe combination is the COMB 1 (Seismic force x) for which we have:
Sigmac -
Sigmas -
PIER DISPLACEMENT (HINGE-BEARING PIER) IN COMBINATION 1
E
J-
FIB - T* = (47+452)/2*7 EJ - 1,53 * 10*3 RAD- DeltaB - M* = (1/EJ) * (1152 + 6615)-
PIER DISPLACEMENT (BEARING-BEARING) IN COMBINATION 1 Delta - (1/EJ) * (1152 + 604) -
- 66 kg/cm2
- 1690 kg/cm2
- 2.5*10*6 t/m2
- 0.458 m4
-0.09 deg
- 6,78 mm
- 1.53 mm
TANADIP\BRlDl\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - rome~m
u
tf
I
I
I
I
1
I
n
i
El
■
.1
0
111
El LI El
.GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE • FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.107
6.3.2 FOUNDATIONS
6.3.2.1 PILING (Ref. Fig. 6.12)
A system of 6 piles FI -
characteristics:
A=6
Wx = 10,8 m
Wy - 14,4 m
1200 mm is adopted with the
following geometric
The weight of the foundation plinth (9x5,4x1,8) is
For each pile:
A global seismic force due to the plinth weight is assumed: The weight of a 9 m high pile is
6.3.2.2 PILE IN ELASTIC SOIL Winkler coefficient of soil:
K
P - 218 t
Pp - 36 t
Fp - 18 t
Pg - 25 t
8
- 1.5*120 -
Es
- 0.5*180 -
Es
Lo
- (4EJ/ES)*0.25
E
J (FI 1200) =
ES
Lo
M - (H‘Lo)/2 -
Consrevative assumption:
M (head) - (H*Lo)/4.5 - H * 3,9
Where H (t) is the horizontal force applied to the pile head.
-0.5 kg/cm3
- 180 cm
- 90 kg/cm2
- 900 t/m2
- 2.5*10A6 t/m2
- 0.10 m4
- 900 t/m2
- 5.8 m
- H * 2.9 m
TANADIP\BRID1\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeM.
liGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.108
AA
6.3.2.3 STRESSES ON PILES
f Normal Force
In each calculation combination for the pier the normal maximum and minimum forces of the piles are calculated.
Nmax - Pp + Pg + (N + Mx/Wx + My/Wy)
Nmin ■ Pp + (N - Mx/Wx - My/Wy
where N, Mx, My are the stresses at the pier foot (Ref. Tab. 6XXXI1).
Pp and Pg: the weight of the plinth and the pile on one pile. A, Wx, Wy: the geometric characteristics of the piling.
Bend and Shear Stress
On each pile a horizontal force is considered on the head:
H => ((Tx 2+Ty 2)10.5 + Fp)/A
where:
Tx, Ty: shear stress at pile foot (Ref. Tab. 6.XXXII)
A: number of piles
fp: seismic force on plinth
The maximum flexing moment in the pile head is:
M • H * 3.9 (tm) (Ref. sect. 6.3.2.2)
In Table 6.XXXIV the critical stresses on the pile are illustrated.
6.3.2.4 PILE VERIFICATION
- Pile Reinforcement:
head: 18 FI 20 (Gamma = 0.5%)
spiral: FI 10/25 (A’st - 6.24 cm2/m)
- Shear Verification:
Tmax = 12.3 t
Tau - 12.3 * 1.18 - 14.5 t/m2
- Combined Compressive and Bending Stress Control
Table XXXV shows the stresses analysed and tensions resulting from this control.
TANADIP\BR1D1\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2.104k)
studio pietrangeli - romei
I
aGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.109
6.3.2.5 PIER PLINTH VERIFICATION
- Shear Stress Verification
PIER:
Perimeter: L -
Area : A • 
The maximum load on the pile head, less the weight of the plinth rake, is:
P=
The maximum shear stress on the plinth at the joint with the pile is:
T - 190 * 6/13.4 -
Tau - 85/0.9*1.75 -
Tau < Tau.co
Shear reinforcement is not necessary in the plinth.
Bending Stress Verification
A calculation method along a diagonal beam is adopted. (Ref. Fig. 6.13).
P-
T = 190 • 200/150 -
As - 253/1.6 -
Sigma s »
It is assumed:
As - 35 * 2.5 + 10 • 7,07 =
In fact:
Reinforcement at right angle
1 FI 30/20*20 -
On one diagonal metre
A = 2 * 35 * 0.71/1.41 m =
Over a collaborating length of 2.5 m
A - 35 * 25 -
Adding in diagonal beam:
A = 158 - 88 = 70 cm2 • 10 FI 30
- 13.4 m
• 6.13 m2
- 190 t
- 85 t/m - 54 t/m2
- 190 t
- 253 t
- 158 cm2
=1.6 t/cm2
= 158 cm2
= 35 cm/u - 35 cm2/m = 88 cm2
TANADIP\BRID1\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeI
I
.El
LIGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.llO
6.4 RIGHT ABUTMENT
6.4.1 FRONT WALL
6.4.1.1 STRESSES
Tab.6.XXXVI shows the stresses of the single loads on the bearing axis of the
abutment.
Fig.6.14 illustrates the normal pressures on the front wall (t/m2) in accordance with the depth z (m), which are:
Pressures on front wall
EARTH:
Pt - Ka * Gamma * z -
OVERLOAD:
Pq » Ka ♦ q -
SEISMIC FORCE x ON WALL:
Pm - Sm * Gamma ♦ Ks -
SEISMIC FORCE x ON EARTH FOR RIGHT ABUTMENT: Pst - Ks * Gamma * (H-z) - (1.66-0.2*z)
SEISMIC FORCE x ON EARTH FOR LEFT ABUTMENT:
Pst - (1.23 - 0.2 * z)
where:
- 0.54*z
- 0.54
- 0.21
Ka (Fl - 35 deg) - 0.27
q -2 t/m2
Gamma - 2 t/m3
Gammam -2.5 t/m3
Sm = 0.8 in
Ks = 0.1
H - 8.3 m
H - 6.3 m
(active force)
(overload)
(weight of earth)
(weight of wall)
(thickness of wall: conservative)
(seismic factor)
(total height of right abutment) (total height of left abutment)
Tab.6.XXXVII illustrates the load combinations considered for the front wall, and the relative combinating factors for the single loads.
TANADIP\BRID1\STAT IC_2(12ja88.fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.lll
Tab.6.XXXVIII Illustrates the values of the global loads In the load combinations considered (1.2.3).
The significance of the global loads, and the calculation model of the front wall is illustrated in Fig.6.15
The stresses on the front wall have been taken from:
RICHARD BARES
"TABLES POUR LE CALCUL DES DALLES ET DES PAROIS"
(DUMOS - PARIS - 1969).
Fig. 6.16 shows the calculation model with the significance of the calculation stresses.
In Tab.6.XXXIX the stresses taken from BARES for the unit vales of the global loads are shown.
Finally, Tab.6.XL illustrates the stesses which result from the three combinations which have been considered.
The values of Mxvs are nil because the vertical sides are considered to be
hinged. These sides are however, reinforced with horizonal reinforcement
calculated for the moment Mx transmitted from the sidewall.
The values in brackets of Hxs refer to the upper edge of the wall (at the joint with the front wal1).
6.4.1.2 CONTROL OF FRONT WALL
Vertical reinforcement
Foot of Wall (s - 60 cm)
Ay (internal) -
Ay (external) •
Normal force:
Front wall N’ =
■ 27.5 cm2/m
- 2 cm2/m
Wall
Total Wall N -
Bridge Deck:
N’ =
= 2.05 t/m
- 8.45 t/m
- 10.5 t/m
For the calculation of N transmitted by the bridge deck (Ref. Tab.l) it has been assumed two conditions: that the load is transmitted at 100% on the front wall; at 75% on front wall and 25% on lateral walls.
TANADIP\BRID1\STAT IC_2(12j a88,fw2.104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeI
I
I
I 8 i
I 3 3
El I
3GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.112
COMB. 1 (construction)
My -
N-
Sigmac -
Sigmas -
COMB. 2 (in operation)
N - 10.5 + (136+144)/7.5 * (1;0.75) - (48; 38 tm/m)
My
N
Sigmac -
Sigmas =
My
N•
Sigmac -
Sigmas -
COMB. 3 (seismic force x)
My
N - 11.5 + 136/7.5 * (1;0.75) - (29; 24 t/m)
My
N
Sigmac -
Sigmas »
My
N•
Sigmac -
Sigmas -
At Half Height
Ay - 9 cm2/m (0.15%) (int/ext)
My
Sigmas -
Horizontal Reinforcement
Mx - 5.67 + 5.41 -
N - ((0.54+4.59)/2)*((6*8}/2)/5.6 -
- -19.59 tm/m
• 10.5 t/m
- 45
- 1273 kg/cm2
- 23.07 tm/m
- 4B t/m
- 57 kg/cm2
- 990 kg/cm2
- 23.07 tnv/m
- 38 t/m
- 56 kg/cm2
- 1125 kg/cm2
- 29.59 tm
» 29.59 tm/m
= 29 t/m
- 70
kg/cm2
= 1730
kg/cm2
- 29.59
tm/m
- 24
t/m
- 69
kg/cm2
- 1800 kg/cm2
- -6.17 tm
- 1400 kg/cm2
- +11.08 tm/m
- 11 tm/m
Average horizonal traction on front wall transmitted by sidewalls (N « 11 t/m). Superimposing 50% of Mx transmitted by side wall
Mx - 11.08 - 12.27/2 .
TANADIP\BRID1\STATIC 2(12jaB8,fw2,104k)
« + 4.95 tm/m
studio pietrangeli - romeM
T
1
I
1 I
9 Bl I
1 I a
i II
Hl 0
ttJGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.113
Ax (ext) -
w
10
cm2/m
Ax (int) •
■
5
cm2/m
Sigmac
■
13
kg/cm2
Sigmas
1520
kg/cm2
Upper Horizontal Edge
M - 5.67+13.93 - 21.54/2 -
-
+8.83
tm/m
N - (traction)
■
-11
t/m
H=
•
100
cm
Ax (ext) «
■
10
cm2/m
Ax (int) =
•
5
cm2/m
Sigma s =
■
-1520
kg/cm2
Front Wall (100*30)
The bending moment due to seismic force of the concrete slab on earth is summed to M (COMB.I).
AlfaT = (0.25*2.5*5*0.1) -
M(3) = 3.71+1.9*0.31 =
T - 0.31+8.97 -
Tau - 41 t/m2 < Tauco
My
N
Ay (int) «
A’y (ext) »
Sigmac •
Sigmas -
Bearing
Traction under bearing
Rmax - 280/2 =
Horizontal traction on front wall:
N = 0.3*140*(4.5-0.4)/4.5 ■
Height of distribution:
H - 4.5/2 =
Ax tot - 38/119 -
Ax = 20/2.25 =
(1+1 FI 12/20)
TANADlP\BRIDl\STATIC_2(12ja88.fw2,104k)
- 0.31 t/m
- 4.304 tm/m
- 9.28 t/m
- 4.304 tm/m
- 1.43 t/m
- 12 cm2
- 2 cm2
- 48 kg/cm2
- 1532 kg/cm2
• 140 t
- -38 t
- 2.25 m
• 20 cm2
- 9 cm2/m
studio pietrangeli - romeT
T
T
1
I
I
I
I R
I B
I
9
0
II
II
Bl
■
fclGILGEL ABAY BRIOGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.4.2 LATERAL WALL
6.4.2.1 STRESSES
Internal Forces
Paq.114
The normal internal pressures acting on the lateral wall are the same as those of the front wall, as are the load combinations which have been considered (1,2,3).
Tab.6.XLI illustrates the values of the global loads in the load combinations which have been considered. These global loads for the laterial wall are reduced to the normal internal uniform pressure (PSUP) and triangular: Delta P - (Pinf - Psup).
The stresses on the lateral wall are taken from the above mentioned BARES tables.
Fig.6.17 illustrates the calculation model of the lateral wall with the significance of the calculation stresses.
Tab.6.XLII shows the stresses relative to BARES for the unit values of the global loads.
Finally, Tab.6.XLIlI illustrates the stresses which result from the internal pressures.
The values with (•) are those found at the free end of supported edge. External Forces
Total force of earth at outside:
S - (0.27*2/2)*(4.5 2 + 0.7 2)*(5.7/2) «
AA
Considering S triangular, we have h • 2.5 m
Pmax - (!5.96/5.7)*(2/2.5) =
On h - 5 m:
=
- 15.96 t
■2.24 t/m2
- 1.12 t/m2
Tab.6.XLIV gives the stresses of triangular pressure of the earth outside. P - 2.24 t/m2: per H ■ 2.5 m
P ■ 1.12 t/m2: per H - 5m
TANAD1P\BRID1\STATIC_2(12ja88.fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli • romeI
T
I
1 1 1
I
1 II 8 I
I
I I I I I 1
I
JGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.115
In the controls the distribution on H - 5 m shall be adopted since It is more
realistic.
Resulting Stresses
Tab.6.XLV gives the stresses which result from internal and external pressures.
5.2.1.4 FLAG OF SIDE WALL (Ref. Fig.6.18)
Stot -
- 3.04
t
Mxtot
■
- 2.39
tm
q
- 3.04/2 -
- 1.52
t/m
Mx
- 2.39/2 -
- 1.2
tm/m
With 1 inear M in H - 2 m:
Mxmax (head) •
Mxmin (foot) -
Bending moments transmitted by flag to supported edge of side wall. My* - 0.2*1.52*7.5 -
Mx* - 0.25*1.2+0.3*1.52*7.5 -
Mx - 0.1*1.2+0.07*1.52*7.5 -
6.4.2.2 CONTROLS
Flag Control (100*50)
Mx -
Ax =
Sigmas -
Vertical Reinforcement at foot of wall (s = 60 cm) * FREE END OF FOOT EDGE
COMB. 3
N=
My
N
Ay(int)-
Ay(ext)=
Sigmac =
Sigmas =
- 2.39 tm/m
- 0.00
■ 2.28 tm/m
■ 3.72 tm/m
-0.92 tm/m
-2.39 tm/m
- 7.5 cm2/m
- 790 kg/cm2
11.3 t/m
28.5 tm/m
11.3 t/m
30 cm2/m
5 cmZ/m 63 kg/cm2 1768 kg/cm2
TANADIP\BRID1\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - rome'i
I
T
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
fl
I I
al
■
■
:■
2GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
* IN MIDOLE FOOT EDGE
COMB. 3
My - 14.9*1.5 -
(nella ipotesi di semincastro sul bordo verticale: K - 1.5)
Pag.116
■ 22.35 tm/m
N-
- 11.3
t/m
Ay(int)-
- 22.5
cm2/m
A’y(est)-
-5
cm2/m
Sigmac -
- 55
kg/cm2
Sigmas =
- 1770
kg/cm2
Horizontal Reinforcement on Supported Vertical Edge
* TOP END OF EDGE
COMB. 3
Mx = -22.18 - 3.72 -
Ax(int) =
A’x(est) =
Sigmac -
Sigmas «
* MIDDLE OF EDGE
Ax(int) =
A’x(est) -
COMB. 3
Mx - -17.86 - 0.92 -
Sigmac -
Sigmas ■
COMB. 1
Mx -
Sigmac -
Sigmas •
- 25.9 t/m
- 30 cm2/m
- 5 cm2/m - 56 kg/cm2
- 1760 kg/cm2
= 20 cm2/m
= 5 cm2/m
= 18.78 tm/m
=47 kg/cm2 = 1880 kg/cm2
*
13.4 tm/m
-
34 kg/cm2
•
1340 kg/cm2
TANADIP\BRIDI\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104 k)
studio pietra
ngeli - rome■GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.4.3 FOUNDATIONS
6.4.3.1 GEOMETRY
Pag.117
The foundation of the abutment is composed of a slab with thickness 120 cm and dimensions 7.8 * 9.8 m upon the system of 8 piles FI1200 mm (Ref. Fig.6.19).
The geometric characteristics of the pile system are:
A■
Wx =
Wymin -
Wymax •
d■
distance between the downstream edge of front wall
system.
8 piles
18 n
18 m
36 m
2.5 m
and barycentre of pile
6.4.3.2 STRESSES ON FOUNDATION SOIL
Abutment and Earth
The stresses induced by the weight of the foundation and the overlying earth, calculated with respect to the downstream edge of the front wall, are the following:
FOUNDATION RAKES
lateral (0.9 + 0.9) m
N-
Mx -
1.4m downstream
N=
Mx =
1.4 m upstream
- internal zone
N-
Mx »
• external zone
N=
Mx -
- 84 t
- -160 t
- 77 t
- +58 t
■ 185 t
- -1063 tm
- 58 t
= -329 tm
TANADIP\BR1DI\STATIC_2(12j a88,fw2,104 k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS Total foundation rakes
N-
Mx -
- Internal abutment
V - (8 ♦ 5 * 8.IS) -
Gamma -
N » 326 * 2 -
Mx = 652 * 2.5 -
- Force of Earth
Tx - (0.54 » 8.15A2/2)*8 -
Mx - 143*8.15/3 «
- Total Abutment and Earth
N - 404 + 652 ■
Tx -
Mx - -1494 - 1630 + 390 -
Stresses for all loads
Pag.118
- 404 t
- -1494 tm
- 326 m3
- 2 t/m3
- 652 t
- -1630 tm
- 143 t
- +390 tm
- 1056 t
- 143 t
- -2734 tm
The stresses induced by all loads acting on the abutment, calculated with respect to the downstream edge of the front wall, are shown in Tab.6.XLVI
Tab.6.XLVII illustrates the load combinations chosen for the control of the foundation.
Tab.6.XLVIII shows the stresses which result from the different combinations, calculated with respect to the downstream edge of the front wall.
6.4.3.3 STRESSES ON THE PILES
Normal Force
On the basis of the global stresses in the foundation (calculated with respect to the downstream edge of the front wall) shown in Tab.13 for the different load combinations, and on the basis of the geometrich characteristics of the pile system:
(A - 8; Wx - 18; Wy » 18)
and the distance between the barycentre of the foundation and downstream edge of the front wall: (d = 2.5 m), the maximum and minimum loads in the pile heads are calculated.
P = N/A +/- (Mx+N*d)/Wx +/- My/Wy.
TANADIP\BRID1\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Bending and Shear Forces
On each pile a horizonal force acting of the head Is considered: H - ((TxA2+TyA2)A0.5)/A
The maximum bending force in the pile head Is: M - H*3.9 (tm) (Ref. subsection 6.3.2.2).
In Tab.6.IL the critical stresses in the pile head are shown.
6.4.3.4 CONTROL OF PILE
Shear Force
Pag.119
Tmax -
S* - 1.13/2*0.4244*0.6 -
J■
S/J‘b -
Tau - 32*1.18 -
Spiral FI 10/20
Combined compressive and bending stress
The reinforcement of 35 FI 24 adopted along the perimetro of the pile section: (Gamma - 1.4%)
Tab.6.L shows the stresses analysed and the resulting tensions.
6.4.3.5 STRESSES ON SLAB
For loads on piles
The most serious distribution of the loads on the pile head occurs in Comb. 5.1. (N - 220, 216, 212; 177, 173; 137,133,129 t)
- 32
t
- 0.1439 m3
- 0.1017 m4
- 1.18
- 38 t/m2
Analysis models with horizontal frame are adopted to calculate the bending moment in the fountation material.
PILES 4 e 5
F-
Ref.Fig.6.20
- 187 t
TANADIP\BRID1\STAT IC_2(12j a88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - rome■GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
(a - support; 1 • joint)
delta 1 (a) - (fl/EJ)(4.5 * 3.41) - fl/ES * 7.91 delta 1 (1) - (fl/ES)(7.9I - 6.74) - 1.17 • fl/ES
delta 2 (i) - f2 * 3.79/EJ
assuming delta 1 - delta 2 we have:
fl(i) -
fl(a) ■
fl (aver) •
f2(a) -
f2*(a) -
f2(aver) »
From piles 4 and 5 (f » 187 t)
. Front wall joint
Mx - (0.68*187*2.25)/3.75 -
. Side wal1 joint
My - (1.34*0.76*187)/4.5 -
. Span
fl (aver) -
My = (0.54*187*1.75)/4 =
PILE 7
(a • support; i - joint)
f■
Ref. Fig.6.21
delta 1 (a) - (fl/EJ)*8.79
delta 1 (i) - (fl/ES)*2.25
delta 2 (i) - f2/EJ(48*0.7) - (f2/EJ)*34 Assuming delta 1 = delta 2 we have:
fl (i) »
fl (a) -
f2 (i) ■
f2 (a) -
Pag.120
- 0.76 f
- 0.32 f
- 0.54 f
- 0.24 f
- 0.68 f
- 0.46 f
- 76 tm/m (INF) - 42 tm/m (INF)
- 0.54 f
» -44 tm/m (SUP)
• 166 t
- 0.94 f
- 0.79 f
- 0.06 f
■ 0.21 f
TANADIP\BRIDl\STATIC_2(l2ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romew 'B
’B 'B B R
B PI Fl
ri ri
El El
.LI 'Ll
L L
kJ
:biGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
From pile 7 (f - 166 t)
. Front wall joint
f2 (a) - 0.21 * 166 -
Mx -(35 * 5.25)/7.5 -
. Side wall joint
fl (i) - 0.94 • 166 -
My - ((7.5/8) * 156)/5.25 -
. Span
fl (aver) • ((0.94 + 0.79)/2)*166 -
My = (144*7.5)/(8*5.25) -
. In pile heads 4 and 5
f2(a) -
Mx - 35 * 3/(1.2 ♦ 2 * 3) -
PILES 1, 2, 3
f-
Mx = (209*0.75)/(l.2 + 2 ♦ 0.75) -
For moment in pile head
Pag.121
- 35 t
- 24.4 tm/m (INF)
- 156 t
- 28 tm/m (INF)
- 144 t
- -26 tm/m (SUP)
- 35 t
- 15 tm/m (INF)
- 209 t
- 58 tm/m (INF)
The moment in pile head of Comb 1 (SIS.X)
Mx -
Resistant width of slab in pile head:
B - 1.2 + 2 * 0.6 =
. ON PILES 6, 7, 8
Mx - 124/2.4 -
. ON PILES 4, 5
Mx - 124/2*2.4 -
. Results on PILES 4, 5
is conservatively considered.
- 124 tm
- 2.4 m
- 52 tm/m (INF) = +/• 26 tm/m (INF,SUP)
TANADIP\BRIDl\STATIC_2(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - rome—
LJGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
From pile 7
Mx - 124/(1.2 + 2 ♦ 2.5) =
From piles 4. 5
Mx - +/- 26 tm/m (INF/SUP)
Totals
Mx - 20 + 26 -
Mx -
. RESULTING STRESSES AT FRONT WALL JOINT
Pag.122
- 20 tm/m (INF)
- 46 tm/m (INF)
- -26 tm/m(SUP)
Only the bending moments in pile heads 4 and 5 are considered, because the moment of pile 7 is considered extinguished.
Mx = (2*124/2)/7.5 •
From earth and slab
INTERNAL FIELD
Pg - 1 * 2.5 + 7.3 * 2 -
Peserc - 17.1 + 2 -
= 17 tm/m (INF)
- 17.1 t/m2
- 19.1 t/m2
Calculation of plate (BARES) with three closed sides, one free. The closed edges are alternatively considered hinged or jointed.
. SPAN
- Hinged edges
My =
- Jointed edges
MV ■
. FRONT WALL JOINT
Mx “ 
. SIDE WALL JOINT
My ’
DOWNSTREAM RAKE
p - 1 * 2.5 + 2 * 2 =
1=
Mx ■ 6.5 * 1.65A2/2 ■
TANADIP\BRIDI\STATIC 2(12j a88,fw2,104k)
= +56;62 tm/m (INF)
« +22;25 tm/m (INF)
- -61;-68 tm/m (SUP)
- -37;-41 tm/m (SUP)
■ 6.5 t/m2
- 1.65 m
- -9 tm/m (SUP)
studio pietrangeli - rome1 I
I
I
a
a
:b t Fl AlGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.4.3.6 RESULTING STRESSES AND CONTROL OF FOUNDATION MAT
Direction x
. FRONT WALL JOINT
- EXTERNAL JOINT
Mx - +58 - 9 + (23/2) -
(Mx - 23 tm/m: from front wall)
- INTERNAL JOINT
Pag.123
Mx - +76 + 24 + 17 - 61 -
(The M transmitted from the front wall
• CONTROL
SEZ. (100 * 120)
Mx -
Alpha - 0.47: Sigma c < Sigma c
A x INF =
Sigma s -
PILE HEADS 4, 5
Mx =
A x SUP -
Sigma s =
PILE HEADS 6, 7, 8
Mx -
A x INF -
Sigma s ■
is conservatively ignored)
- 60 tm/m (INF) - 56 tm/m (INF)
- 60 tm/m (INF)
- 36 cm2/m -1.6 t/cm2
» -26 tm/m
- 15.7 cm2/m
- 1.6 t/cm2
- 52 tm/m
- 31 cm2/m
- 1.6
T ANADIP\BR1D1\STATIC_2(12j a88,fw2.104 k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Direction y
. FRONT WALL JOINT
- INTERNAL JOINT
My - +42 + 28 - 37 =
A y INF -
Sigma s -
. SPAN
My - -44 - 26 + 22 -
A y SUP -
Sigma s -
Shear Stress
CONTROL OF PUNCHING
(slab H « 120 cm)
R - 0.6 + 0.6 =
C - 2 * 1.2 * 3.14 -
Sup = 7.54 • 1.2 -
Pmax -
Tau - 220/0.9 * 1.1 * 7.54 -
. SHEAR STRESS
Pmax -
(front angle pile)
T-P-
Collaborating width
B - 1.2 + 2 ‘ 0.6 + 2 * 0.5 =
From the foundation
T - 3.4 * 1.4 * 6.5 -
Ttot - 220 - 29 -
TAU - 191/0.9 * 1.15 * 3.4 -
Pag.124
- +33 tm/m(INF)
- 20 cm2/m
-1.6 t/cm2
- -48 tm/m(SUP)
■ 30 cm2/m
- 1.6
- 1.2 tn
- 7.54 m
- 9 m2
- 220 t
• 29 t/m2
- 220 t
- 220 t
- 3.4 m
- 29 t
= 191 t
- 54 t/m2
TANADIP\BRID1\STATIC_2(12j a88,fw2,104 k)
studio pietrangeli - romeI
I
R R
. II n
B El
B _E
a
_a
.■
w
II ■ Si EGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.5 LEFT ABUTMENT
6.5.1 FRONT WALL
6.5.1.1 STRESSES
Pag.125
Reference should be made to the description In subsection 6.4.1 relative to the Right Abutment.
The tables and figures relative to the present subsection 6.5 (Left Abutment) are annexed hereto.
6.5.1.2 CHECKING OF FRONT WALL
Vertical Reinforcement
FOOT OF WALL
Ay (INT) >
Ay (EST) -
. Combination 3 (Sisma x) (Critical combination)
My -
N-
Sigma c -
Sigma s -
AT HALF HEIGHT
Ay EST =
as in right abutment
Horizontal Reinforcement
IN SPAN
Ax EST =
Ax INT =
as in right abutment
HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT AT JOINT
Mx -
As «
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\STATIC_3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
= 26 cm2/m
■ 10 cm2/m
-24.4 tm/m
- 21 t/m
= 56
=» 1540 kg/cm2
- 9 cm2/m
- 10 cm2/m
= 5 cm2/m
• 11.3 tm/m
« 14 cm2/m
studio pietrangeli - romak
1
I
I
1
1 1
F
.I :r
■ _■
:■
■i 1U
.LI
.W
■
.y
LIGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Sigma s -
Front Wall
Identical to the controls carried out for the right abutment.
Bearing
The controls carried out for the right abutment are valid also for the left.
6.5.2 LATERAL WALL
6.5.2.1 STRESSES
Internal Forces
Reference should be made to Subsection 6.4.2.1 relative to the Right Abutment.
Pag.126
-1.6 t/cm2
The tables and figures relative to the lateral wall of the left abutment are annexed hereto.
External Forces
Due to the lower height of the left abutment with respect to the right abutment, the favourable contribution of the external forces is lesser still, and therefore is conservatively ignored.
Resulting Stresses
Since the values of "Stresses due to External Forces" are nil, "Resulting Stresses" coicincides with Tab.6.LVIII "Resulting Stresses due to Internal Forces".
Flag
Reference should be made to Fig.6.25 and the resulting stresses of the side wall flag of the right abutment (Ref. subsection 6.4).
In particular:
Stot •
Mx tot -
- 3.04 t
- 2.39 tm
TANADIP\DES\BRI01\STATIC 3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - roma.L
1
I I
1 FGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS 6.5.2.2 CONTROLS
Flag
(s » 50 cm)
Mx -
Ax int =
Sigma s =
Wall
(s = 50 cm)
FOOT OF WALL
From flag (as for right abutment):
My «
Pag.127
- 2.39 tm/m -7.5 cm2/m
- 790 kg/cm2
- 2.28 tm/m
The critical combination is No.3: Ref.
* EDGE ENO
My - 2.3 + 9.3 -
Ay int =
Sigma s »
* EDGE MIDDLE
My - 2.3 + 5 -
Ay int =
Sigma s =
VERTICAL EDGE
* EDGE END
. From flag
S-
Mx »
On 3 m of wall height
Mx = (3.04*2.8+2.4)/3 -
. From the force on the wall
(Ref. Tab.6.LVIII)
Mx -
TANADIP\OES\BRID1\STATIC_3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
Tab. 6.LVIII
= 11.6 tm/m = 18 cm2/m -1.6 t/cm2
- 7.3 tm/m
• 12 cm2/m
• 1.6 t/cm2
- 3.04 t
- 2.4 tm
•3.7 tm/m
- 7.6 tm/m studio pietrangeli - romato
1
■
I
'■
■ H
?■
n
rn
■ Bl
HI
■
jl
I
'_I_I
.id
.*IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
. Total
Mx.vs tot - 3.7 + 7.6 -
Ax int -
Sigma s -
* MIDDLE EDGE
The following is adopted:
Ax int
6.5.3 FOUNDATION
6.5.3.1 GEOMETRY
The foundation of the left abutment is composed of a concrete slab of 100 cm thickness and dimensions 5.40 x 9.00 m on 6 No. piles FI 1200 mm (Ref. Fig.
6.26).
The geometric characteristics of the piles are:
A-
Wx -
Wy «
d»
distance between upstream edge of front wall and barycentre of piling
6.5.3.2 STRESSES ON FOUNDATION LAYER Weight of Foundation and Earth
Pag.128
11.3 tm/rn
18 cm2/m
1.6 t/cm2
18 cm2/m
»6
- 10.B m
- 14.4 m
- 1.7 m
The stresses induced by the weight of the foundation and the overlying earth, calculated with respect to the upstream edge of the front wall are the
following:
FOUNDATION RAKE:
(0.6 + 0.6) m Lateral rake
N-
M-
(1 m) Upstream rake
N-
M-
(1 m) Downstream rake
TANADIP\OES\BRID1\STATIC_3(12j a8B,fw2,104 k)
- 26 t
- -50 tm
32 t
+ 16 tm
studio pietrangeli - romaPI
PI
J
. El
1GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE • FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.129
- Internal zone
N-
H-
- lateral zone
N=
M-
RAKE TOTAL
N-
M-
INTERNAL ABUTMENT
V - (7.8 ♦ 3.4 * 6.15)m3 -
Gamma •
N - 163 * 2 •
M - 326 * 1.7 -
FORCE FROM EARTH
Tx - (6.15A2 * 0.54J/2 * 7.8 -
Mx - 80 * 6.15/3 -
TOTAL ABUTMENT AND EARTH
N - 163 * 326 -
Tx -
Mx - -443 -555 + 163 -
Stresses
-
94 t
-
-365 tm
-
11 t
-
-44 tm
-
163 t
-
-443 tm
-
163 m3
-
2 t/m3
-
326 t
-
-555 tm
-
80 t
-
163 tm
-
489 t
-
80 t
= -835 tm
The stresses induced by all the loads acting on the abutment, calculated with respect to the upstream edge of the front wall are shown in Tab.6.LIX
The combinations of loads chosen the control of the foundations are shown in Tab.6.LX
Tab.6.LXI shows the resulting stresses in the various combinations with respect to the upstream edge of the front wall.
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\STATIC_3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
6.5.3.3 STRESSES ON PILES
Normal Force
The loads on the pile heads are calculated with the following formula: P - N/A +/- (Mx + N * d)/Wx +/- My/Wy
where N, Mx, My are shown in Tab.6.LXI and A. Wx, Wy, d are expressed in chapter 6.5.3.1.
Bending and Shear Forces
Pag.130
The considerations expressed in subsection 6.4 are valid. In the following table 14 the critical stresses on the pile heads are illustrated.
6.5.3.4 CONTROL OF PILE
Shear Stress Control
Tmax -
Tau - 26 * 1.18 -
(spiral FI 10/20)
Combined Compressive and Bending Strength
- 26 t
- 31 t/m2
A reinforcement in the head has been adopted of 27 FI 24 - 122 cm2, along the perimeter of the pile section (Gamma - As/Ac = 1.1%).
The stresses analysed and the resulting tensions are shown in Tab.6.LXIII
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\STATJC_3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - roma■: I
I
l I
Fl n
■
:u _□
si
u 11 hl tel
■GILGEL ABAY BRIOGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Pag.131
6.5.3.5 STRESSES ON CONCRETE SLAB For loads on piles (Ref. Fig.6.27)
Maximum load on pile No.5: f - 115 t (a: bearing; i - joint)
Delta la - fl/EJ * 8.79
Delta li - fl/EJ ♦ 2.25
Oelta 2
- f2/EJ(U*0.7) - f2/EJ * 7.6
(0.7: for the greater collaborating length)
Assuming Delta 2 • Delta 1 the following is obtained:
fla -
fli -
f2a =
f2i -
From pile 5:
- Front Wall Joint
f2a = 0.54 * 115 -
Mx - (62*3.2O)/7.5 -
- Lateral Wall Joint
fli = 0.77 * 115 -
My = ((7.5/8)*89)/2.8 -
- Span
fl (average) = (0.54+0.23)/2 * 1150 - My - (44 * 7,5)/(8 * 2.8) -
For Moment on Pile Head
Mx -
Collaborating length: 8 -
Mx - 102/2.4 -
- 0.46 f
- 0.77 f
- 0.54 f
- 0.23 f
■ 62 t
- + 26.5 tm/m (INF)
- 89 t
= + 30 tm/m (INF)
- 44 t
- - 15 tm/m (SUP)
- 102 tm
- 2.4 m = 43 tm/m
TANAOIP\DES\BRID1\STATIC_3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - roma■
I
T
I R
1
Fl
H :n n
n
■
Ll U lJ U kJ
_U
EJGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
From Earth and Concrete Slab
INTERNAL FIELD
Pg » 1 * 2.5 + 5.15 ♦ 2 -
Peserc. = 12.8 + 2 ■
* SPAN
- Hinged edge
My - 18 ; 21 tm/m (INF)
- Jointed edge
My - 14 ; 16 tm/m (INF)
* FRONT WALL JOINT
Mx - -37 ; 42 tm/m (SUP)
* LATERAL WALL JOINT
My - -17 ; 20 tm/m (SUP)
6.5.3.6 STRESSES AND CONTROL OF FOUNDATION SLAB
Direction x
* FRONT WALL JOINT
- INTERNAL JOINT
Mx - 27 - 42 -
A-
Sigma •
* PILE HEAD No.5
Mx -
Ax inf -
(for 8 - 2.4 m)
Pag.132
- 12.8 t/m2
- 14.8 t/m2
- -15 tm/m (SUP)
- 10 cm2/m (SUP)
- 1.6
- 43 tm/m (INF)
■31 cm2/m
to be applied on central piles since the lateral piles unload the M directly on the side walls.
TANADlP\DES\BRIDl\STATIC_3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
- EXTERNAL JOINT
Ppile -
with lattice model on traction truss: N - 188 * 20/80 -
Ax inf. - 47/1.6 ■
with collaborating length:
B - 1.2 + 2 ♦ 0.5 -
Ax inf. = 29/2.2 »
Direction y
* LATERAL WALL JOINT
- INTERNAL JOINT
My - +30 -17 =
Ay inf -
- EXTERNAL JOINT
p-4*2-
My * 8 * 0.6 2/2 -
Ay sup ■
(Gamma ■ 0.1%)
Pag.133
- 188 t
- 47 t
- 29 cm2
- 2.2 m
■ 13 cm2/m
A
- SPAN
My - -15 ♦ 21 -
Ay inf -
Sigma -
Ay inf =
(= 0.1%)
- +13 tm/m (INF)
- 10 cm2/m
- 8 t/m2
» 1.44 tm/m
* 10 cm2/m
- +6 tm/m (INF)
» 5 cm2/m
■ 1.6 t/cm2 = 10 cm2/m
TANADIP\DES\BR1D1\STATIC 3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN • STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Shear Stress Control
DOWNSTREAM PILE
Pmax -
T - 188 * 0.6 -
Collaborating Length
8 - 1.2 + 2 ♦ 0.5 ♦ 2 * 0.1 -
Only 60% of the load on the pile is considered to unload with shear stress on the joint section of downstream rake. In fact, part of the load unloads directly onto the front wall.
T - 113/2.4 -
From rake and downstream backfill:
H-
Gamma -
P*
T • 3.4 * 1 =
Ttot - 47 - 3.4 -
Tau = 43.7/0.9 • 0.05 -
Pag.134
- 188 t
- 113 t
- 2.4 tn
• 47 t/m
- 1.7 m
» 2 t/m3
=3.4 t/m2
- 3.4
- 43.7 t/m
■ 51 t/m2
TANADIP\DES\BRlDl\STATIC_3(12ja88,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romar
r
H ■ ■ ■ K EZ [- E □ □ i J □ . J □ k I
iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.1 - CONSTRUCTION PHASES AND STATICAL SCHEMES
PHASE
STAGE DESCRIPTION
SCHEME
0.1
Girder assembly with same scheme as the bridge
1
0.2
8earing A elimination
2
0.3
First span placing (Delta E calculation)
3
0.4
Bearing E lifting and levelling
4
0.5
Bearing B elimination
5
0.6 Second span placing (Delta F calculation)
5
0.7
Bearing F lifting and levelling
4
0.8
Bearing C elimination
3
0.9
Third span placing (Delta G calculation)
2
0.10
Bearing G lifting and levelling (Bearing DEF levelling to
bearing G)
1
0.11
Dismantling of provisional joints
6
TANAOIP\BR1D1\REP\(STAT6 I,14ja88.fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaI
I
:u
ki
.fejGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TA8. 6.II - LOAD COMBINATIONS
............. |............... |
COMBI N A T I ONS
i............ i
LOADS
n-Es/Ec
PLACING [OPERAT. j 1t-0 |
_
OPERAT. isEIS.ACTISEIS.ACT t - INF I T - 0 |T - INF
LOAD | STAGES |
Wind at placing
00
1
1
1
Steel
00
______
11
11
1 1 11
. 1... ... 1
Slab
00
1
__ 1 11
11
J.. ......... 1
11
Shrinkage
7.4
1
11
. 1.. ...... 1
1
( )|
Finishing
7.4
1
11 1 1
Shrinkage
22.2
11
120
111 1
Finishing
22.2
11
-11--
1
.................... 1
____
1
______
Live
7.4
1
Wind in operat.
7.4
1 ............. 3
___ _ _ _ _
I 11 1
.1.. —
1
...........
1
. 1..
1
.1
1 2(1NF) |
1
1_ _ _ _ _ _
1.............
1
Braking
7.4
•
1
111
. 1..
Seismic action
7.4
1 11
...........
1
•1
11
1........... -1“ 1........... ■1.............
TANADIP\BRID1\REP\(STAT6_II,14ja88.fw2)
studio pietrangeli - roma.L
1
1
I V
r
L
L
. k 
kGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN • REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.Ill - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 1 STEEL AND CONCRETE SLAB
PON 1
NuNiur a u * NOL-a. □ et tislumu HO
1
NumerU C i GRu.-PX a i tfiomenlx
1
huniv r u MA lQNDIZauNX ax Laricu 1
Dau du-1
NODu
Itflli u .jen«rati
-uJlCx Ja VINCULO del NO J A CUuKOXiM^it ael NUDl
e luro Itrr'iK..1 UKrt
nr
X
7
z
XX
YY
zz
X
Y
Z
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
0
. OUO
.000
• UUU
• OU
2
o
0
1
1
1
u
d.dUU
.000
• uuu
.OU
3
0
U
1
1
1
□
G.oUO
.ouu
• LUU
.uu
4
u
V
t
1
1
u
3.4UU
. uuu
.UUu
.uu
5
□
0
1
1
1
□
11.200
.000
.UUU
.uu
a
0
0
1
1
1
0
14.GQO
.QUO
-QUO
.00
7
0
0
1
1
1
0
16.600
. ODO
• UUU
.00
a
V
0
1
1
1
0
1V.6UU
.ouu
• UUU
• U’J
*/
u
U
1
•l
1
0
22.400
. OUU
• -vU
.00
IV
u
0
1
♦
1
u
2D.3UU
.UUU
. UUU
• uu
1i
u
<
1.
4,
u
1
dd.UUO
. CUO
.UUU
. uu
IC
u
V
1
i
1
u
dU.w l-i
.LUO
. uuu
• U*J
13
U
U
1
1
1
u
32. 62D
. uuu
. uuu
.uo
w o 1 1 1 u 36 •
.uuu
. uuu
.uu
•u
0
0
1
1
1
o
39.250
.UGU
. uuu
.’JO
la
u
o
»
1
1
o
Yd.063
. WUU
.uuu
.uu
1/
□
0
»
1
1
0
44.6/0
. uuu
. UU‘J
.00
id
u
U
1
1
1
o
•> / . oda
. UJG
♦ uuu
19
.uu
0
u
•1
1
1
1
50.DUO
. uuu
. uuu
. uu
i
I
1
1
1
I
• UvU
I . uuu
.OOv
. uQ
Corr;-;uudunzu GHHUX ji LitSHra- - ANCUGNlfd
NQUU
nr
f
! n!A 4U-1ZI0.K
-
v ■J U
KoraziuNi
XX YY ZZ
0u»
—
J
u
□
u
J
L.
6
4
0
0
4
u
/
V
>.
-4
0
0
0
12
1U
u
u
0
6
ID
13
0
0
/
0
16
1/
Id
u
u
6
u
20
19
2
u
0
9
0
2Y
22
u
o
w
>•
10
4.W
37
0
0
0
11
— ¥
0
30
2d
3I
32
12
32
34
0
0
U
Q
•3
35
L.i
3/
a
o
0
• ia
*1 Y
~9
•0
0
0
Vj
u
YI
•3
..3
J
G
0
■»*»
16
4_
46
0
0
0
47
:7
*. w
y¥
0
0‘
u
IS
bO
51
52
0
U
0
IV
_
D2
DD
u
0
20
u
U
u
u
U
u
0
O
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.Ill - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 1 STEEL AND CONCRETE SLAB
Tri
Elem&ntu LridimensiDruie lipa TRAVE
2
Numer a di cGErc.N1X Nuim ru il« HATGRIALX
Itt
1
Numa r d 1 SEZ1UNI 9 £
Numoro il a IXP1 dl CARXCHI in LUCE
a
Nui&vrc U X I A pi 41 t-dwZh a NUDl KlSSX 3 u
Car^llur . ;T. ; cht? del hATERIAux
NATEhlActe
nr
.•lODUud
YOUNG
-i. IUOL*07
CUErrIL
POISSON
.OOUfc-U I
CMJ u CPJ cpecifico
.oout*oo
CQcrrXL
DXLATAZ
.UQUL+QO
Cara'. *. l *-lx cht? GcClMETFflCHE
AHEM
’.7/Ut-Oi*
HHEA
•AugAU r
• UUUc^Ou
.UOOE+OU
•'<7 ••
IAGgxQ Z
.U0uu*UU
•OUOE+UO
aNERZXA
IUrtbXUNfe,
l .UUUE*UU
itaUizm rLLlj‘w. f
I .UUUE+UU
L.uUlA
i-ggss. z
1.uoul*ou 1 .<JL»Og*OU
*1CL XPl.lufx iei GmmxCmi
rk
U I — A
. OOU
u a r — f
. UGO
u 1 r — r.
• uQO
.UUU
.Quo
. UwO
G
.UUO
. OUU
.000
-
a 000
a 000
a GOO
CAHiCHi *: -.UCE ecorc^ii
in caorainaie local;
CAR .
1 .HU
VALURE
nr
a. I\ X Z X ML t
OlSir.NZA
VAGCRE
DML NJUU 1
01STANZA
r Al L-’ic
rXNAGG
DAL .’dJUU x
- - <■ . J -
*/
i
i_ a ■
-3.400
L.r-1
.OU
—3.700
-J.ouo
G
.OU
« 'juU
-3.700
L
.GOO
TANADIP\OES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietranaeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.Ill - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 1 STEEL AND CONCRETE SLAB
LaruLLc t i j *. i <» r i v deg l a o l emcnl i X. 1 pO 1HHVE
3
ELxh — nuDa. ------ LUNGntZZh MAT SEZ nr X j K
sv.-, iCb’Li
'-•UtAwHl L'J'.u • ’ll -Sb 1
A J rl d 0 u A to L. u
I
1
d
20
2.20
1
1
0
U
1
0u
Q
V
0
u
0
d
3
.J
2. ttO
1
1
o
U
t
uu
u
U
0
0
0
3
3
20
2.a0
1
1
0
u
1
uu
o
u
O
o
u
4
4
5
20
2.20
1
1
U
0
1
o •J
0
0
U
0
0
5
□
o
20
a.do
1
1
0
u
1
ou
fl
U
u
u
Q
6
to
7
20
2.20
1
1
o
0
1
00
0
0
0
0
J
7
/.
b
20
2. OU
I
1
0
0
♦
u0
u
u
0
o
0
S
2
9
20
2.20
1
1
0
o
*
00
0
u
0
0
o
7
7
10
20
2.hU
I
I
0
u
u rj
u
0
0
’J
u
10
10
11
20
2.60
1
1
0
1
1
0u
u
0
0
0
o
1-1
1i
12
20
2.a i
1
w
v-
1
u
•>
uu
u
u
0
u
•J
12
12
IS
20
2.01
1
2
0
o
».♦
□0
0
0
f>
0
J
12
U
14
20
2.0 I
1
2
0
u
wtt
0u
u
u
O
J
u
1*1
14
15
20
2.61
1
2
0
0
2
00
0
0
0
o
u
lb
l_>
Ito
20
2 .a l
1
2
0
0
2
DU
o
U
0
u
o
ie>
16
iZ
20
2.01
1
2
0
0
2
>J o
u
o
0
o
0
I/
I/
lb
20
d..1l
1
2
o
0
2
uu
J
U
u
u
u
its
1.1
w
20
2. ai
1
2
o
o
2
uo
□
0
•J
•«
r•
Numv r u
1 4 VO XV U A
c^Uu.iuni
bb
Aiiip iv4-
-A dx L’dlida
-»
f
Uujiivr u
-a .uu4 .uf'i
per SkULLw
lUJkV f U
suLUArJl
biucchx
1
cut IIF
1
«1UuV iPLlGA i □«< 1
h
de x
tJ
COhHUNtxN i x
CD
1 .QQU .OOQ .OOO .000
c ’tUJUAL.41 -I-I NUUi
L_ *T _ r- —■— — — —• — — —
’
.t.
i l i'
__ ____ ____________
-------------------- ---- —
r.r
-X-
-z-
-7 •
.0Q02*0U . OU’Jt *uu .UOOE*OO .OOUE+OO • OOUfll? -5.7<ZU-UW
21
2.s?IE—11
-1.624E-Q2
.UOQE+QG
.UUOE*QO
. 0G0£.*00
—O . 614U-02
3
•
b.741E- 11
-2.091E-02
.00UE*U0
• UOUd-rUU
.QOUt*OO
-4 .
4
1
1.01ttto-10
-4.23 IE-02
. OOCe-HjO
.OOUL-rOU
.OOOto-OO
-3.3/et-u2
4
1
1.322E-10
-4.9b6E-02
.UOOt>UQ
.0002*00
. OGOfOO
- 1 . / tout- 03
to 1 1.7 14 &- 10 -5.204t.-U2
.0002*00
. U'J0t*0U .uOUx*UO -4 .Stotot—Q9
/1
2. 1Q5E- 10 —*.9562-02
AS 1 2.4O&E- 10 -4.221E-O2
9 2.792E-10 -3.091E-02
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
.uOUt.*UO .C-OOE*OQ .OOOE-fUO 1./60E-02
.GOOt*UU .UOGtoWO bUGO£*00 —*•37 is L_ “ 0 ku
.UUUL-«-U0 .OCO£*OC .GUUc*0U '♦./1U2-QS
studio pietrangeli - rome1
V
1
n
ii
i
□
jGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.Ill - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 1 STEEL AND CONCRETE SLAB
4
10 1 J. 15eit-10
-1.63*6-02
.OOUU*UO .ouu6*oo
.0006*00 5.6 Ku -tx;
1
3.V34E-10
.0006*00
.0006*00
.0006*00
.OOOE*UO
.0006 GC
12
1
3.WE-10
-2.579E-02
’.OOOE*UO
.0006*00
.0006*00’
-9.0246-0
*13
1
3.94ME-10
-5.046E-0Z
.00UL*0O
.0006*00
.0006*00
-6.**76-03
14
1
3.93*6-10
-7.3016-02“
.000t.*00
.0006*00
.0006*00
-7.5366-03
15
1
3.934E-10
-9.259E-02
-.0006*00
,000x*00
.0006*00
-6.2S2E-03
16
1
2.764E-10
-1.0356-01 “
.0006*00
.OOOE*OC
.0006*00
-*.755E-U2
17
1
3.9646-10
-1.203E—01
.0006*00
.0006*00
.0006*00
-3.3926-03
13
I
3.96*6-10
-1.2756-01
.0006*00
.0006*00
.0006*00
-1.7Z46-U3
19
1
3.93*6-10
-1.200E-01
.0006*00
.0006*00
.0006*00
.0006*00
20
IUI IX VMUOfU i
HULU I
— • - —
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romen
i SJ
LI
I lJ u
LI
IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.Ill - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 1 STEEL AND CONCRETE SLAB
r«
FDH/C e -'-i.-tt.NTl su AST£ di tipo CRAVE
5
Asrn vac
flwza x
FURZA y
FURZA 7
W4.M0 *
rfcrurnu y
,XTtNI U 7
nr r»r
MbUlHLL
TAGuiANre
rnouiANIt
lUKCEN.t
H t 1 1 LN i U
rLET TEN I L
11
-1 .U7UE-U5
*1.7b0t*01
.UUUh*OU
.OOOb-UU
.OUVc*VO
-4.-94E-UH
1.070E-U5
-3.a08£>01
.OUUL-CU
.OUUL-UU
.UU0b*OU
1.2UUL-HJ2
21
-1.U7Ct-Ub
3.S08£*0I
.OOUt*00
•OOUL+OO
.U0Ut**JL»
- 1 .3UUU*U_
1 .07GE-OG
-2.dSbt*ui
• uvUt *00
.UuUc*UJ
.wGUE—vo
d. rddL-'Ud
3i
- I. a‘j<iE-ub
d.dSbt*01
.OUGt*00
• UGut-w
.UU0t-OU
~d . l32t*u-
1.&54E-05
-1.904E+01
.QOOE+OO
.0002*00
.OOOt_*OG
.'. /WE •
41
-1. 13SE-QS
1.904E+01
.OOUE*OO
.OUOE+UQ
.ojo^*uu
-J.7976*02
1 . I3'jt—OS
-9.520E+0Q
.GOU£*OO
.0GUu*U0
•OUOt*UU
j. .99t*O<.
5I
- 1 .409E-U5
9.52 lE-uu
.OGUE*UU
•QGUE+OO
. UOUu-UO
-d. v/vt_*u<:
1.459E-U5
-3. V4/E“0*i
.COOL*00
.0UUb*OO
.OUUh*UU
d•332L*O2
b1
- I • 459E—OS
/.555E-04
.OOOE*00
.0006*00
.0006*00
-3.33ZL+U2
I.459E-Q5
9.52Ot*U0
.WOOE*OU
.0006*00
.UUOL*UO
J. V/Vfc-»UZ
7 -1
- 1.Hd7t-0b
-9.O2Ot*OU
.UUGE*OO
.QUUE+UU
.UOU£*UV
-_l. 1VW*U«*
1. 12/E-US
t.7O4t*Q1
.O0CE*L'0
.OOUL*UO
.OOOC*UO
2.777b
31
- 1.□ttlE-Db
- 1.9O4fc*O1
.UOUt*UU
.0006*00
.OOUL-OU
--£. 779£* 0^
i.no it—Ob
r. abe>t-*U 1
.uUOc*uO
.L,Jue*UU
.UUVt*UU
d. i32b*U^:
91
-e>. □ it-Ob
—2.d5e»t*01
. UGOt*OU
. G'uUb+OO
.w»Jut*Uu
-.t. iXEL-Ot
6. lblE-Ob
3.d0d£*01
.UOOt*GO
.CUOE+OG
.UuLE-OU
i.EOGbiUx
10 1
-3. QbOc.-0 0
-j.aoae.--oi
.OUO£*GO
. OG(Jt*OO
•G00t*U0
-1.b
a. G80b—0J
4.780E*01
. L/OOE^QO
.UUCc*uJ
. GuOb*vG
. uwt-*u _•
i1
— i .adUt"1 I
d. 32oc.- u 1
,
. UOOc*OG
.OvUt’UM
. •-UVftW'J
1 .adOE-11
—7.2dat*0 i
. OUu£*UO
.OOU£*UO
.OOO£*VG
12
- I.3toOE-1 1
7.2dJ£*O1
.UOOL*O0
. UOOr *UO
.OOUt*oO
1 . utaUb— 1 i
-2. 191; I *U.
—a.bIGfciO i
- 0UGc.--uL
•GuUe*UU
. Cult* vu
-i. uvdt * v.-
tj l
a.Sv3E- •
|
.uQ0t*0U
• UG‘Jt*<JU
. U’JVCTUiJ
-•. .O7o&-*uc
-3.JOSE-12
-□.204t*OI
.OOOE*00
.U0Qt*UU
.vOUt*OO
0 . .*Gdt*u_
W1
2.0b It- 11
5 . 204t*O 1
.OOQe*UU
-2.U8 It- H
.000fc*00
. u j(Jc*uu
—• • lhd£*O1
-5./Ufct*U2
.UUut*U0
. O’jut.-*uu
•UUOe*UU
/•Ud-r *02
IG 1
**. uOab- 12
4. la’af^U 1
.u<JUE*UO
•OGGt*UO
.UoOc*vO
-9.008E-12
— 7 •U2‘jE*u^.
-i.123E*0 1
• .000E*00
.000t*UO
•0006*00
ib
2.L3 1fe-11
3.I22E+0l
-2. bd it-Ii
.00Ot*Q<J
.00uE*OO
-b.Odit*ui
•OOVE*UO
-b .C2Ot-*U2
.0UGt*uu
.OGU£*OU
. UOl?t-» uU
...
*< / li
—t • / -t it— 12
2.0ddt*U 1
2.79 IE-12
- 1. 043E*l)1
.UUUt *VO
. uGQc.1 U<j
• UGG.- *uO
-tt • /o2L.TUr*
.UOLt*OO
.OOOE*OU
.UCJUt*UO
9.22 IttUd
IS 1
-2.79 IE- 12
1.0402*01
.OOQb*OO
Z.791E- IE
.0006*00
.UOOfL'0
H.022E-O3
~9.'d1b*U2
.0006*00
.GGOE*0O
•LOOt*UO
9.367E*02
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - rome-'%u'
M
' fif
1 fl fl
Fl
fi r
□
□
LI
kl LI
1*1
LIGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.IV - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 2 FINISHING WORKS (EXCLUDING SHRINKAGE)
FONT
6
Nuu.uro J*
Nunicr^ u.
\CLU del SL^teirta
LirtUHi*! 4l alomenti
di U*+r*Cu L!ul 1 m*-'* NODi Lett. gendfj’.L
1
1
NJLu
nr
r z XX Y¥ £2
-uJ-Cl di viMJuLti de i
L■ d U*-f U ,i * ,i fi | £, d t 1
X
NL'Ui Y
v 4 ur u |. £j\ rhrti't J Orin
*»
X.
i
-
i
1
1
1
1
0
.000
£
u
u
1
I
j
.□DU
u
E.bOO
. coo
. 00
0
-OUO
0
1
i
1
- uuu
. uu
■+
0
tOO
w
•J
1
I
• OUU
u
a,. 400
-QUO
• 00
J
u
.uOO
D
1
1
1
-0
is
o
11.200
.uu
I
l
1
.GUO
0
.OOU
7
u
I
14*000
-VO
0
1
1
• uuo
1a «aOo
• UUL
. DOO
.OU
d
0
J
0
1
1
1
i y... auu
. DDL
.QU
V
U
0
I
•1
. UCtO
1
0
• UUJ
• uu
Io
M
u
>i
2 2• Ov
1
I
-OQU
u
• uou
■iO *£00
. uu
i:
u
i
■1
1
-UUU
1
1
.uou
23.000
• uu
u
J
ij 1
1
li
i
.DUO
u
.000
3u . d 12
• 00
iJ
■J
u
•M
1
k
u
1
u
. DUG
* uuu
U
1
1
I
33.62^
- ULii
-UOO
o
. UOU
-*JU
1 tj
U
u
)
1
dfa.nIda
. uGO
o
o
.Olid
. uou
♦ UU
lt>
I
U
'J
1
1
1
. 'JL'U
**£ - Ufed.
. L-U
1'
L?
u
t
1
1
♦ u ju
r
44.a/5
.DU
U
0
. U'J-J
o
1
I
1
-ODO
. UDO
*+7 . uad
. QU
u
u
u
•1
1
1
T
. uuo
XiO.iOO
. UG’U
i. (J u o
-OUU
. j‘J
1
1
i
1
1
. UllU
1. ouo
• UUJ
. L'U
.GO
t. Q r : u .
• . - Fl d x.
-1 LlUUliW
J-NCUGrci r
MCWu iHf.Lnl 04 • *UM
'■ t' £
1 nz xUNl
z.Z
r¥
/J
*
■J 0
■J
- _r
4 - t."
•j
o
-
ii
Q "i 1‘J u
la V
/
1/ • 3 o
uU1
u0 uu/ 0 •j 10 Q 0 ; _-,
u u Tfe
Cl 2o 2 l O
T ■ud
u
(J
ID Lc TJ / U 1 1 2V O 0
■12 40 « I
• __ —• —* 2*i 0 « - F £3 37 u
!□ _iV ■*u u ;t 0
u
u ■V
0 22
u 0 cL u
o Lr
-i
0 22 Lr
G uu s‘j £2)
o
(J
1
- c-j *- a u
u 4l
u •4 A
1 Jj ’■tt -1 ■*•* 0
IV i UiX u
2- 0 U TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
Uo
(J o
o
uo
0 u <J
studio pietrangeH rome■
1
Fl Fl
r
r ii
gi a
LI fed
hl
U*!
-1
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.IV - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 2 FINISHING WORKS (EXCLUDING SHRINKAGE)
7
T
•-
■
1
!
T
1
IR
— Elenonlo I r I J uni ns i otu l o lipa TRAVE
t
1
Num it r u
Cl l
tLtHte.NI X
3
—Numoro
dl
HATEnXALI
—
1
Numero
dl
btIXUNI
d
Numpfo
di
tipi di CARXCHX in LUCE
— -I —
2
Nunvr
ai
Lipi di ru«Zt. a NODI Flbbx
3
0
Car..< tier is lune dri rATtrtlALI
NA I tH XMLe.
HODUlO
YOUNG
COEFFXC
CHJ □ CH 3
nr
POISSON
specif1 co
COtFrxC
DXLATAZ
1
2. 100t*U/
J.OUOfc-01
.OOOE*UO
.OOOE^OO
larallcr istiChc- ULQrtL HtlCHE
SEZxONE
nr
1
d
AREA
NU.-t.1ALt A
1./5iE-O1
AREA
.AREA INERZIA
iAGLXO V TAGLxU Z
tURbiCNt
.Guut*OO .UOut-rUO i. OuuE-^GO
d.d I3E-U 1 . UUUt*GU .UOOE+GO 1 . GGuE-mjU
XM2HZXA l“ LLLL • f
. . - _ - DLl 1 . JOOl’-'jU
xNLRZIA
LE------- .
e.anut-.— 
'd .
j
— HOL TXPLaC ATONI d«i CmHICHX
A
b
c
d1r-K
• GUO
.000
di r —»
.000
.GUO
.000
D
.ouo
Ql r-x
• UGU
.000
.GOu
.000
• UGU
.ouu
CAMXCHX in
LUCE espressi
in coordinate
I
1 acaii
CAM .
nr
TXPO VALORE
xNxZXALtx
1
I L. t- Y
- d L.rY
- 1 .add
-1.2U0
DIS I*ANZA
UAL NUDU x
.QU
.CO
VALURt
r xNi.Lt
-1.aOU
— 1.JOO
D1S l At4 Z A LAL NuLU X
L
L
: Al lO.tlx
4.r.LKXlALE
.uou
. UOu
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - rome
1GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.IV - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 2 FINISHING WORKS (EXCLUDING SHRINKAGE)
8
Caratter. . 11 l i. v I X v i Ciht? nt x t x p j IKAVfc.
ELEM — NODi • ------ lunGhEZZh mat sse £/» SVXNCUUX CAHXCha LUGE •\uox • lbai
nr
A
j
K
1
J
A3cu
K» u
V
u
I
1
4
40
4.30
I
•
O
O
1oVO
u0
u
u
-r
3
4U
2.30
1
1
u
o
.uou
tt o
0
V
4
40
2.30
1
1
0
u
1uoo
uu
0
u
4
•»
A
20
2.30
1
1
o
0
100o
G
o
0
L
*-
20
2.30
1
1
u
u
10ou
0
□
0
V
O
f
20
2.30
4
1
0
0
1 0 ’J u
•J.
0
y
u
7
»
G
20
2.40
1
1
0
o
1u0u
y
M
u
•J
&
4
7
20
4.40
1
0
u
0uu
0
-■
U
u
•/
7
1'J
20
4.GU
1
1
o
u
■ o ♦J J
J
.i
u
lU
iu
11
20
2.40
1
1
•->
u
1
iuuo
u
o
u
Ii
i.
•4
20
2.2 i
1
1
0
4000
u
u
J
•-■
12
*3
i3
20
2.31
*1
2
0
0
4•>* u 1» 0
G
0
o
•J
13
i
i*i
20
2.3 1
1
u
0
0
200u
o
0
J
-J
14
>4
r-r
20
2.21
1
B
0
o
2oo0
u
u
Q
0
•0
IO
la
So
4.3 t
1
2
u
u
2oou
u
u
o
1e»
.6
1/
20
2.3 1
1
4
o
u
J o \J u
2 u <« o
o
’u
•J
u
1?
1/
ib
20
4.0 i
•
4
o
u
u
u
•a
1b
lb
i¥
20
4.0 1
)
2
0
0
uuV
u
•j
u
V
MU-ne r u 1 M «. <-I 1 C U •
Aiti hi .• c x .i
iMuu«cf u c.
NUIhUf J
41 O-iitdu*
U«J - iuii. pirr uiullu
..liC Ul Bloc cm
-rd
-J4
1
dW 1
1
GO
I .OOU .oou .OUO .UOO
i U’U
-ci IvJux
llUuU wd- ———— t KHbu/iZlOM------------- ----------------— « _j»-- — RufAZlUttx — --------------- -- —
nr nt
"" Y “■
-x—
- f-
-4-
i
i
*vJ
.UuUe^UU
. Cull 4 ♦’•ju
.uQOE^UO
.UOUE-’-UU
-a. •-2/4-04
-♦ . ;-£• 12
- 1.733E-03
.OUOE^OO
. UOOE’t’UO
.G'JOfUL-
L. .
2
l
i.42CE-’2
-4.340t-03
.uOGL^OO
.COUE-rOC
. U00i.*0O
□.G7CE-U4
*4
. IOliE-1 1
—4.-722-02
.□OOE-yUU
.OOUt_*OQ
.0004*00
. -3E- 11
.000^*00
. UUUb.’tOO
.LUU^jo
- 1.7O-.U-G’1
61
. w‘. £-1 1
-b.344E-U2
.COOL‘OU
. UJU^-t-UU
.COUi^UG
-y./3'a - .0
4.£fc1w-11
.OUOE-HJO
.UOOE+OU
.CCOLYCO
-
u
?.1 l
- • .Z/^E-02
.UUQu+Uo
•oeoE*oo
.0004*00
2.G4U2-U ;
71
.2<4£- 11
“4.4M0t -U-i
.0004*00
.OOUE*UO
.L'OOE*UU
u . L /U2-L
TANAD1P\DE
S\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli • rom
e■
IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.IV - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 2
FINISHING WORKS (EXCLUDING SHRINKAGE)
9
10
1
3.4212-11
—1.76“2-03
.0002*00
•0002*00
.0002*00
6.0*72-04
11
1
'♦.2’ct-l 1
.0002*00
.0002*00
•0Vu£*V0
•OVQu*U0
. 0002*00
-12
1
4.3 te>£-1l
-3.2712-03
.000**00
•0002*00
•0002*00
- 1 • 1«6e.-03
13
1
4.3162-11
-6.3V9E-03
.0002*00
.0002*00
•0002*00
-1.0712-03
14
1
•1.3162-11
-*.as5E-03
.0002*00
.0002*00
.000**30
-V.5372-04
1b
1
4.3162-11
-1.1742-02
.0002*00
.0002*00
•0002*00
-a.0572-94
16
1
4.3162-11
-1.3762-02
.0002*00
.0002*00
.000**00
-t». 2832-0*
17
1
4.31*2-11
- 1 .5262-02
.0002*00
.OQUE*OV
.UOOL*VU
-4.30*2-04
ia
1
4.3 162—11
-i.6l72-02
.0002*00
.0002*00
•000**00
-a. 1C6C.-U4
1V
1
4.31*2-11
-1.6462-02
.0002*00
.ouot*ou
.0002*00
.0032*00
20
lUi Ii valqhl
NOLLX
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - rome.■ T
VGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.IV - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 2 FINISHING WORKS (EXCLUDING SHRINKAGE)
10
IK
if ntir.UNfl AUlu dl Upo
ASTA CdL
nr nr
11
.-UHZA X
.1001022
ruwZA v
rAgeian It
I HAVE
hUHM Z
1AbUlANIE
nurs^ro .c rUHCLNI c.
.nir&jtccj v
Ku 1 ItNl t
nuntHTO z
b L2 1 1 tri I 2
-*•.0912-06 1 .OdUt*O1
.OQOt*UU .0002*00 .UGG2-00 - 1 .97E&-U9
•
ci-06
-1.4562*01
d 1 -4.09 lt-06 1.4562*01
•0002+00
.0002*00
.oout*oo .0002*00 4.9262 *U I
.0002*00 .0022*00 —4.bd6L*O1
• . .09 t£-U6 — I .0922*01 .OUOc^UO .0002*00 .UUUt*UO 5. Ib’dL *U 1
Li
-±». JZJt-U6 1.U92fc*O1
5. JJ‘JE-06 -7.2602*00
. OQUfOU .0002*00 . UUU=.*OU . i9at r U 1
.0002*00 . Q00cl*G0 .0002*00
.0002*00 .QOUE+OO .0002+UO
:.0702-02
4 1 -4.d3V£-O6 7.2602*00
4.J‘d9b-06 -J. t)4UL -GO .uoou*oo
O 1 -‘J.3/9&-U6 a,4»4'Jt*UU
O.5/‘?£-U6 5.355E-05
.0002*00
.0002*00
.0002*00 .OGUt*OO *i • 2if3t*Gu
.0002*00 .0002*00 - I . Jddu*Od
.0002*00 .0002*00
2k 1
9.9/7E-06 4.2’d6E-UA
.0002*00 .0001- +OU .0002*00 -1.d/4E*b2
0.0/7E-O0
j.tqut-uu
.0002*00
.UU0b*U0 .0002*uo 1.251-2*02
( • —J • 0jJG“UO — a • t»**u£*uu
2 . □£—Oo 7.dttUE*O0
. UUUt*OG •0002*00
•0002*00 .0002+00
. Uk/Uu*UU - 1 .££-d*Ux-
.OUO2*UU ..u/0^»U_
OI
|9IE-U6 -7.2d0t*QU
•0002*00
.0002*00 • OUO£*<jU — I .0/02*<2
/ . 19 ic.—L/6
i • G92t’*v 1 .OQOE*GO .OOGE-* jo .OUoE*UU a, pjau—v I
1 -c.. auEt—06 -•.092&*u 1 • wGUE ”JO .uuU£*Gu •0002*00 — Q • 1 1
£ . Uo 1 • 49e»£*O 1 iU 1 - I . . • 09 — 1.4b6£-*O I
. uuot>oo
.0002*00 . GOUc+Gu •• .bC22*U 4
.000£*uu . UGOc*OU .GOUe*UO - 1 .O5XJ2-V 1
. at—ua 1 . ccvt*G1 •GUU£*gU . UOUc.*Ou •UUOc*VO . - L *<*v
•i i
12 i
. ^ouc.— 12 t.9242*01
.uuUt*0u
.OUu2*Ou • Ubua *mO .LUOa—UV
-o. 9du£—12
i . i • /t— i 1
-2.959E*U1
2.5592-H) I
-X • l9d£*U l
.OGCE-OU .00Ux-U0
.UOUE*oO .0002*09
.0002*OU /. 71*12*01
.OUOE*OU -7.711 E*U 1
- •.
• Zt— 1 1
la * ____ > It— <£ d. 1902*0 1
J.dh tfc-12 “ .CZL1L+U1
• UUUt_-bU .000e*UU .0002-00 1 • •• JV2*U*«
•UUOt*0O .OOLa-U’J .UUOt* JO - 1 . sa'72 • «J£
in
15
.-9 12-12 I.5262*01
IE- 12 - :. nt2E*u i
. .ab IE- 12 1 « 4522*0 1
-r!.E5 >£-12 ->.096E*U1
•UOOu*UO .0002*00
.0002*00 .0002*00
.0002*00 .UOOe*UU
.UUUt♦GO 2.0Jb2 * Od
. GOG->OG -2.0022 *02
.0002*00 2 . A6/2 • Oa
•uuut*oo .UUUc.*OO • OU’Jt*O0 -d.16/E*UZ
.OOOe*OU .0002*00
.oooe*ou .0002*00
.22/2*22
l d.ab IE-12
I .0966+01
-£.aOIt- Id — 7 ■ aU 7
.0002*00
.0002*00
.OGob—uU .QU0a*UO . UOUG-rO J - .2241=. *02
17 i
2.ab It- 12
7 . 3092*00 •GOuE^OU . O<JUE*UO .G5JU2*UQ -d . (/CAE^Ud
i ci
i
—2. lib IE—12 -3.6532*00
d . .-. J 1E— 12 3.69/E+00
—— . ab lu—12
1272-04 .OOGE^UO
.OUOE^OO .00QE*UO . UOU£*OO d. 4' jcn 02
. OOOE-vQQ .OoOE*UO •0002*00 *•3 • w3du-*Ud
.OGGt*o0
.UU0e*Ow 2.dVUE*U^
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - rome.M I
I 1 V
.'W
fl
-fl
n
F
: it
□
□
H
LI LI
hl
.SJ nI1
GILGEL A8AY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.V - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 3 LIVE LOAD AND WIND IN OPERATION
11
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romerv 'r
N
I Fl Fl Fl
n
ip
LU
LI LI LI LI LI LJ
JGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1937
TAB. 6.V - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 3 LIVE LOAD AND WIND IH OPERATION
12
t'.if . -
____- - -
C F 1 1-T -
' f rir
iw£tirz>n
Ill-----------------
i IL.fli'Iht F X
l AGlXlI
/
TAGl-XQ iLUl<L.lLlf»t.
r l-E.
-Y
*
1
L---------------------------
..QUOE-UJO
, «r. b u, Qi
-UOOfc*OU
1 ,G‘jOl*OU
d. a lvfc~W
. O'JtJ? -"*.J J . 1_
inCL- I ,r*i. kvi mp<1 dtft_______ ---------------------------------------------------—--------------------------------
.%@C
d L r — - il i r —*• ¥
__ ,UUb
. GQQ
-OOO
4 UCI'J
■ QUO
ru
w
. GOLI
*CUjJ____
C.'iHi -
■_
Jr- !■-
«J» ci.'•irdjj.-'-I*-'
-------- -------------
----------------
L «i r" -
, ■' 1
V-'LLHt
iL' i-Ll I ' "llMZ I' 1
Qji iLUiiG*.
wlj i. i i . i^_i ".I
. . ♦, , dJlL.
iir
>> Fw 1 -' I* 'lL.u
U<«L MJQj *
FANfiLE
U/.l-
1
^,i_A+ i. .^L.
i
L . i- r
-h-. L. j'j
-QU
k
LiU-i
..
-r L.
L.i t
. d •‘‘J
—■•'?. aU'J
• DO
-Ob
”-i . dbU
. U_u
.Vjd
«■>
1— . ■
-J . u.‘o
-<JO
-• - - L - ■
r
. l i i. ■ MV'jU i. L fc~Hi fc* i IL L L i t-»u iijf't'vL-
J
r* U I L - C, .4
r-L-afi.
1 IF
---------- * - .Ul? .
l_U ''■ ».r|t 2' 2 f I "’li I ' I
iV xt-h;ULI
C rm i d r-i x
• i i-r
I
K
4U d . iiU
a J A b j t 1 L' *_ -j
■ 1.
Li
■J X
-
-G
■Q-L.du 1 1 o 0
r.
i0O*
i0
u □ Ob
u U b - r LJ
■w U
*
■t-
■^4 J id . tiO i 1 u
'.J
Ij
r t
d'J
2v
/ 20
i
fl • j
s,dO
d . t»0
•Mr V ;0 du 2-30 t 1
- • > •y du 2-tJO i
w
I
■*
I
ij
II? □
J J li
H
■J " j U LT
nJ u i> Q -J
J b JJ
i -J IQ 1 1 dO d-dU i 1 CJ 1 »• U U
'J
o I z G Q sj u
1 11
so
I -**’ ■ 2 L X du - . e. i 1 2 u U
d.iii 1 2 1 U
*ir o b u
.J. IJ.
Id JX i Fi du
’i
2 - id l
I il
iL».
uu
14 1*1 '? dO d. ti i
0_
lj
•~r ”b U
-----
•lb.
.dj
1/
13
1 Jf
lz
1 £3
1d
1 *7
so
i£Q
3Q
20
d.Hi
d,31
x.d’i
uu
d
li
a
Ml
i.r Lr Q L,
:
rj
2
d
2
kJ
u
U
0
o
b
u
0
'1
’a
6
■---------F
u
eu
i
(J
Gu
Q
0
u
0
b <J y
V UU
Q U ij
U b (J
TANAOIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - roneT
wGTLGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.V - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 3 LIVE LOAD AND WIND IN OPERATION
13
NuiftVr u i u i a * »• d 1
»• 4.1.^
E«jumX k uru
,1,1.> * 1 ab fk 1 pr» r
li.UUr/ L------ -■J-.,— — 1HmL£.aA,.--------------
.
_____L_._-tc1:_____________________.t_i_n_1_ II ■PL<J1JCUA1. O90H0J----------LUU—C- UaUKMr-O--t-t-t----L- llxJ. 'jLL _______■£ir_________________________________._Q__UaO_! _. O_O_J_ fa-------- ------------------u-u-W- .
SPQSTAMte..
NODO CUC
nr »•
1
---------- ------ ---- [••‘AbLii. .
v.L .• riUTAZlUUl dci NUDX
.OOUt-HX) .OOUt*00
.□□or >oo . ooui ••oo
±Lz
-Z-
-X-
ru*1u1i rr. / «i.» j i
k j. d i
— Y —
-Z-
. WL’f W . GC0f*U0 . 00 — “£. • / •»•«!.- U J
. GOUt ♦()()
.GUGt*0O .UOVx*OU * G-U-J.a
21
. ■ — 1 l
- . - ‘J Zk
.UOG *U0
.uuwt—uo
2
l.akUWu-11
-Z.99bt-G2
.UCUt*UO
.uuu^*ou
. --GOc. ♦ •
•uUUc*uu
. *L —“L - ~ t . • •» Vt_-vC
. UOUt
. UQUh *vO
. UOUl. •♦ ul)
■/
>■—
--.•:26b-04
—. . ft/! al. UJ
.G‘nt- 1 i
- 1 , *j 1 Ji-—02
. OUUt *uo
JMl/L-UU
• OuOl * J«J
■. . *ii ~ 1 ♦
—U2_____ . iJ(JO£-*0O_____ . UOU&^UO _ .
| - J , I) 7 id cl—02 , Ul)O£-*GO. UUGe-»UQ. %/;JUc
~~ t . jou~~U_C _
~
,
______ 6.1 '6h-11 f. .:36r,-04__________________________ ._O_GG>, »«jO___ duUtrQU . m)u. *>•-<_
t
__________ — 
I 1 ~.2.4<lt>L.—02 .OObc^UU .
. la . /t ~u*»
-
I 1 -~.' U id-Ud
. UUGi-^uu_______ .
___ . Uuu>_
______. j UU_
-.
‘ Jt£- II -2. U46Li-
U2
> OOGL'f Ul)_____.
GUOc.»UU______
. CcGl
. _ # _ —-••
71
v. .’2/£- i t
-2.2M6E-02
.ooau-oo
. C,GCt*OU
. Uvbt*O'j
i .0322- 10
i- 02
• Q0UL.*O<J
.UUUt-HJU
«bUU»*UO
61
•a
. :u 1L— IU
-1 .W.T2L-0Z
. L JO£*-«jU
. UOGc.*UU
. UUUu^Ou
a_
1.
' . P.T_ - •
1.22 id— ■ u
-2.U72E-02
. G'jLil » gO
. GG'jL^C'U
aUfUt + U*.•
M
.
9
/
la-
I
. U64&— 10
- .42cjU-G2
--
.
IG
.UuGu *C0
.* i
. UL*trC
2. ’
~IJ .
• Cue■ *uo
.UGUt^UO
. ■_■ . .. —_”J
IU
‘J
I
• <46 IE- IU -7.
G?.7r Uu
• ’ OF- IO
• GG Ut * CQ
-03
♦OOOe+OU
. LG'. r
. -LU(_f•t. * L/.uU
.. .
J I
■ UOGu+GU .O'JUti-HjG . v „G.£tqu
uQkl. r&k
1?
.c43L- iO . .' - - V. •■
■ V^Ah-VJ ,-.. r ■ -- ’•
j-UOGutQU_____ .
.oout+uo _ . r. ., <-ug
•
•_
.-COOl^QO , I.'OQI-»UU • 'I? 2_______________________
13 1
2
I .M43E-10 -2.26J£-02
.756E-10 -? . •‘•962-02
.G002+QQ______ . • __ ___ .
.OOOE-rQO ,000^00 ,OOO£-iM> -< .>
- _h > - .__ -Ci;
14
’
1.8432-10
-3.4IWt-CH
1.9’jbt-lO --.61 iu-O2
I.b43£-1Q ”4•—J6t-U2
IU
d 1.7U&L-10 “•••— dut. ~ 02
TANAD1P\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
.GOOc-rQu _____ «GOOt Op ______ ^GGti’-CO _ 1 _? G'JGc.* GU___ . (XXJtj»UO______ . GLHjL
• OGCl£-^U j
• L'ClCd ♦ wU
» uJUi.~UU
. OUl i£-» O J
. L1 J-x
«V v —rub
studio pietrangeli ■ rome.■
i r V
1
1
1
PI
"I n n a ii
■i
1
i i i
•rGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.V - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 3 LIVE LOAD AND WIND IN OPERATION
14
lAi
1
1
£—1O
.OMPE-O2
.ouoe-uo
-»JOG^>OO
-aoo *oo
-2! .LllOE-QLl
cJ
I
10
,36BL-Q^
.OGQG^OU
.aaoE^QQ
_ -infEJpU’
17 1— ia -A34E-Q2 . QGOE.+QQ -GGOu^OG -OOOE>GO
1 .•iTWifc.- 10
—li J2^1E.-UZ—
-OGOE^LH)
.OOOE-DO
-000^*00
-l.67hE-0J------------
1H ■
r-1U
. 9 7 IE-02________
-------------------------
---________________
JUUV- ♦VU_ -
___________? I .^S
at-10
-f,.3O7E-O2 .OUdL^OQ
-------------------------
--- .QUQEXJU______
-a^Sc-O'l______________________
19 I
l.iJ42E-TO
-A.OH5E-OE-----------
,OUfJt>ULl
-OOOE-rCJO
__
1 .V •!>“ - IO
-to ■ 'I27l_-U>--------
~OUO^-!JO -
DOUE^LU
__ UMl'JLtUU 4• __ eUUGxtyy—
£'-■ 1 - . UH 1 Mu I L
2 '* *
1
lOKEhrO < HLhStNill y -lU/ir f. . . TQHCENTE KKTTFNrE lpuettsnie
-1
I ?’
.QCik.^Qp
';O
-pl J'y^»UU,
,
. uLL' »OQ ____ .Up <■'*-»{) u
____ i»P9? < xQn
.1 -1
•7
• »£-QL>_ -t.5»i/E+O)
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
in- -up fr.by/c,<>. i
« L/C ; l_-h t u
. UyijL fQu
■ OOU'c, »uo
.OQOu+QO
.OOQE+OQ
.COPE4QO
.OuUL<UU
.00012 WO
.UOGL+bU
studio pietrangeli • rome
v1GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.V - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 3 LIVE LOAD AND WIND IN OPERATION
15
3 1 • to‘/7c.-03 •4.634b *01
.9U0b-*O9 •G00_»09
-WO- *oo
. GOuU*Gu
. OOvi *00
-2.4dlU’U4
d
A.7O/£*O 1
__ 4 . 46JU -b -^<2Vd£-*9 1
.COOL>99 * JGCr .O9G.H>0 “ j •
‘
,’jL Jt**99
• bbO.. T vU • >’J jr, -JO
A 1 -l.ttl>3b-U3 3. lOtttt+91 . QUOtxtOG
1 • dbJE-Ob -1.334t*ut
1 .W -03 .,-73L>0
,QUUf ‘/O .0094*99
,G« k K-v
. O'. - : • • /•/
. SjJGu *U'.» —
•0094*09 3. .
.<;•
-'J.*
?.96CL>G3
-i.to49E+01 .OGOE+OO .dU9£*00 .og-vu^o 9.>; u,")d
51
. □OOE-*L)O ^C00£*<A> .OOiJt^UO
•-3dJ--0b -o . 3d It—0A -OUOE+UO ^UOGE-*0 . L ’
____
.
•
2 33Mb-OS ! .649EKJ1
.gogexju .GUUKXXJ
f
.auotnjo. -LGr-(JU
.'JOve*OO . . /Zt-»*j£
4.
* — J
l.O3lt-O3 . 0002*310
.GOV *09 • OGUi ♦‘•fJ
. l52£“Cj
i . Lrb'*t*L)1 ' .532E-04
.OOOE+OO
.(iuou’vu
• G»JVl *LHJ
.COUc^GQ
b.r-2 It *9?.
J
-—
-J
i — >
.t, JOt m#9
—9 • /
•0/''
. -.'
i-Gci -Ob
1.6<V?E ♦<) 1
.0()0£-* 09
. G€ 0 <- 0'-)
r
.0099j
b
. uA il—u
7
’
-4
.22
VC.-09
-11
. GGub*OO
t-UU
.GUOL*uG
- J .44
. ~J7t.-OL .,. idBb. ’G I . Gl ut- *00
.900: *U0 • UUOl ’L'J
rGJ
—u
.
•♦/ IL -Ci,
— 
1 . □■4-yt-i-t? l
.9uGc.-*0O
.U00u-O0
. UGLMu*V9
—b • b ♦ -.-uc
•
d•
■' 1b — C
j
u.J7aeiu 1
. ut Jx*uG
.UUUL*UG
. b90i•90
a
•.. .
i- Gu.—Gb
-3. iG3e.*0 :
• 9OO&MK)
. J JC/G*'OO
r
. \J i^L><_ • bO
^.O/u^-OG
♦> • ba-r.f01
.OOJE+9O
• (jGOk^-rOD
.G00c*9O
J. ••»> it ■* 'jL:
-.I.4b4<_-Ob
- 2 . t?/9v.*9 I
. OOtlL+Ov
• 0 GO c. + 90
. UOOi-
3.dbdE-Ob
»01
.OOOLtOO
• GbvE *00
• CObL- * Ou
9
*. -l.O9cc-9b
-A.662b*0I
•OOOx‘uu
.OOUd^GU
. UUUG.*U0
-3 .
• _ *Gx
i . OUcb—Ob
o . 4 IbL. *01
• UOGc. vJO
r
• GuCU*-bG
.OoGL^bU
1 • */
—
4
-1.9672-Ob
—•+ . 9 a /b*u '•
. wG Ju *<J<J
. 'JUUtrQV
. CGog^ug
■ , S-
J . 1 .,
. 9t#7E—Ob
to.b r 7E+O 1
. CK/Oi_ *u J
•UGGutOU
. G’Jgl^Go
3•vt
bt_—u.^.
10 1
- .07-
-to . .1 :.6x<-0 1
.uUOU^'JU
. 9GG«_ •■00
. UOG-L*OU
-1--.■
* 1 »/.*.
.OHdb-Ub
7 . 7 /ua-H) 1
♦ 00(JE-» bu
.uOo£*UO
. Gwbt*OO
4
j . J2lc. —0 J
/ x*u i
. J'JOt-oo
-GUOu*OO
•wOuL*09
-.
uL *t
*?.S3e»t-to H.dAnt*UI
.oaoE+oo .CbOt^bG . CIOGd’tOO -Obbi. ♦ uU
ill
. .od/b-i :
1 . Oaut.*<Jd
.000b *0U
. GOvc.* UU
. •_ UUX^GG
. ^0— r«9Cr
- .037E- I i
-9. •i«»3t.*b 1
. UbUt.*OO
. QGCi£*oO
.09GU »0m
. .G-'/cTUL
3
,hJdc.-tl
1.14 g-O3
. UUOb-rQO
.UOUk-og
. •-> -J -
.6bdL_-
-r. 7/9E’ O‘
.U00u*')0
• bUUL- ' UU
.00 . ♦
_. bu/;‘«. _
12 I
J> « & 13ti.~ 1 i
'* .44ttt*U 1
.OOOE•uo
.GQOx•Ob
.90Ox>dO
-j.a »3E—i 1
-d*09dk-4-0l
.oouu-^oo
.CCOb » UO
- • i t “1 t X ~ 5- ■
».I.--
rf
II
. 7 / 7£v(j 1
.JUUe+UQ
.9uu^*G9
. uUOe. *'J"J
-
t- 1 1
— rt . 934c. >0 1
. ouoiLt-uu
. uGO^-rOG
. uJLu *tX>
....
13 1
3 . Ud6»_* 1 1
d.Of/db*O 1
•GGLb-OU
.OUOk*UO
.LUUh*JU
-9.- .
~~x . Obtc.— 1 1
—to./48E+0]
•C. t L4
. UuC4H)C
.ODUt^OG
.v-UL^ 0^
t
4 4.717b-Il
ri.9S3£>O1 . OUOE-rOU .OUOb+Ol) . GUOb+tjCI -if.tol.
.OOOt*90
.bUtrc *90 . -•□03-*90 7.C. 31OEt GJ
1
-3.7-.7£-t1 -7.12?£»Ji
. fc-'r/’x— 14 _ ■’• • / •» /' t_ • .
4.44/L - 14 -b.3V7e*U .
X -i.^3st-14 7. IJdL•0 1
13 -L.702E+0 1
d. 2*17t£-12 b.x‘?du*O I
.OGOu *-09 . cuu.--«-00 .ubbu-Gu - / • <_ *■ ■_-J
.uuuktuo .bUGe^UU .OOUL-fOU *1*. 1 lOU*O4
-UOU. «O0
.009. * Jl; .UUOL-MMJ — 7 . Li 1 Ob
Vo 1
.OOUb-HjU . G0G£'*<>0 . UUt
.GOOu*CJ .GOUL 1 OU ,0U0U*9U -v . • :Oh-rG2
ti
d.247L->2 -•’ . UMdb+Q; -UOOb-HM) .GOUL>09 .GuOl -tGJ '. . wn •« 7 * .?!-
' . ?J4E- |,iL •j.70^E .{)|
.9S4I -12
1A 1 -a.?4/r- 12
TANAD1P\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
.ooau*<>a . GO* i '♦ GO . (JuOG, <00 “9 . jbex r\)t
.276e*U .
•4.0-4rtt*0 l
.009U*UG .GOOt *00
.uvQtiOU .UGCc>09
.0094*90 ! . ’*>'44 ‘
— . . kJ •« — t — w«.
studio pietrangeli - romek
b
F
’b
LGJLGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.V - STRESSES AND STRAINS - LOAD PHASE 3 LIVE LOAD AND WIND IN OPERATION
16
■J
U.Z47E-1Z
IOGP-1 1
-2-1QQE-11
~2.6?dE*U1 .UGUL*UU • UvOOUG ,UUGL*UG
GGG»«^GG
-OGOL+OO axxi£±oc ax)0t>oo
1.
-1 UlMl •>-»
1. i±U2£*lXl
17 1
1.1 1
2.b99E*01
.OOOE-UQ.
.OUQE+QO
■ OOQE-OQ
. OOUb *00
• <XX)£*00
,QQC£*66
-1.13V=>O3
- 1.4dde-'i 1
-1.349E-HJ1
1 • *i 4 b l
3
I.432E-11
2.3b2E*Q1
.oooe+qo
.QQQE>00
,OC'Ur.*UO
-i..?Q3L*03
- .. 11
- 1.425E+01
.OOOb*00
.OOOrXJO
.(XjOe*<M)
1 . H6dfe*O*J
-in 1 -l.442fc.-H
1.349fc*0l .OGUOUO • UUQE-rOO •OQUL+OQ - I. |76e*i>’3
1.44ZE-11 _
=..6>ZE-12
7.327E-02
-OCUE^UU
.0002*00
.OOUE+QO
1.4Z7g*01
.OUOU+OO
,UUOE>UO
.OJCL
-1 .
-d. 6322- 12
-1.9Z6E-U3
.0002*00
.QUUb-uO
, GCVc. ♦•JO
» •Zd*Ju^U2
TANADIP\DES\BR1O1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.VI - SPAN L - 28 m - SECTION J
GEOMETRIC AND STRESS CHARACTERISTICS
SECT. |LOWER FLANGE WEB UPPER FLANGE SLAB Ea/Ec
X (»)
| 8/H (n)
B/H (m)
B/H (m)
8/H (m)
1 ........................................... ..................... ”1
I
3.94
n
7.4
1
0.7
0.01
0.4
I
I
4.13
22.2
1.438
0.02
0.27
n=Ea/Ec
A (m2)
INF(m)
Jo (m4)
S*/J(m*-7)
INF
0.0469
0.4935
0.1684
0
7.4
0.1906
1.3490
0.632
0.6344
22.2
0.0971
1.0803
0.0484
0.56B9
PHASE
_____
|
I
n
1 LOAD | M (tm) N (t) 1 T (t)
0 INF —............. |
’ — —
1
■*
1!
- ---- - - - - - - - - - 1
INF
3.4 | 0
............ -- ”1
0
48
2.1
7.4
22.2
AT-10’ 76
1 48
... ................ - 251
84
...... ......... ..
0
0
2.2
7.4
22.2
1.3 0
1
0
18
3
7.4
f: 4.8
t: 5.07 |
f: 5.67 |
t: 6.0! |
1-.......... -—I
0
0
84
TANADIP\BRID1\REP\(STATS VI.14ja88,Cw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY 8RI0GE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6_VII - SPAN L - 28 m - SECTION 1
NORMAL STRESSES, SHEAR AND IDEAL STRESSES
|PHASE
1
1..........
Sigma
1
INF
Sigma Sigma
23
Slgma2ID|Sigma31D| TAU b4 |
1
10
11..........
1
1
1 2(0)
1
1
12(00) | INF
13
1.........
0
-306
-207
0
Sigma | Sigma | TAU
4|5
UPP |CONCR. |
.......... I............. I'—
II
.......... I............. I—"
II
oo
-264 1466
-173 1255
00
0 I 0 I 3338
1
1490 |
1
1
1275 |
1
1
-40
I 1252
1
1
| 1252
-5782
-2184
|1
5782 |
0
1
2617
1
-26
1
11
|
1
-2175
|1
2505
|
10.2
o 0 | 5841
1
-10118 |
11
11
10118 | 53.3
1
H.2,3
1
1..........
-306
-264 1466
1
..........
1490 | -40
1
110431
......... I........... I.........
I
-18084 | 18517 | 64.7
I
I
......... I........... I.........
I
I
TAN AD IP\B RID1\R E P\(STAT6 V11 14 j a 88,fw2)
1
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL A8AY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.VIII - SPAN L - 28 m
GEOMETRIC AND
SECTION X - 2 hi
STRESS CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION |LOWER FLANGE WEB UPPER FLANGE SLAB Ea/Ec
X (<•) i B/H (m)
...................
1
B/H (m) B/H (m) B/H (m)
1
1
1
1
2
1,
1
0.7
0.01
1.494
1
0.4 |
0.02 j
1
3.94
4.13
0.27
n
7.4
22.2
0.035
I n-Ea/
Ec
A (m2)
INF(m)
Jo (m4)
A
S*/J(m -7) |
INF
0.0474
0.515
0.01830
1
11
j
7.4
0.1912
1.3939
0.067930
0.6139
22.2 0.0977 1.1161 0.051954 0.5490
PHASE n
LOAD | M (tm)
N (t)
1
________
1 T (t)
0 INF
-
-1
-
1 INF
3.4
1
120 0 | 38
2.1 7.4
I 22.2
........... .........
AT-10’
"1........................ 78 251 o
50 84
1
2.2 7.4
| 22.2
1 .................. -
1.3
*"l..................... - 46 o 15
11
4 7.4
1
1....................
f: 5.67 200
”1................... ••1.......................
t: 6.01 1 1 1
1................. -I............... —1.............. —
10
67
TANADIP\BR101\REP\(STA6V111,14ja88.fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL A8AY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.IX - SPAN L - 28 m - SECTION 2
NORMAL STRESSES, SHEAR AND IDEAL STRESSES
PHASE
Sigma |Sigma | Sigma | Sigma
TAU
|Slgma2ID|S1gma3ID| TAU b4 |
INF 1
1 12| 3
1*
| UPP
Sigma
5
CONCR.
I1
1
1
0
I
I
11
1
2(0)
2(00)
3
11
-3376 1-3147 | 6650 | 6782
1
-1232 1-1168 | 1559 1596 11 1 111
-1202 1-1138 | 1623 | 1660 11 11
-4104 1-4001 | 398 457
-
-3
2
169
2543
1004
1004
8032
1,2.3
-8712 1-8316 | 8671
1
16899
8032
I
I
I
I
...........I.............I
I......... I
-5414 7977 0
-2095 I 2336 9.2
-2078 2379 8.24
-8737 7778 41.13
-16246 | 18134 | 50.3 |
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
171
1.......... 1............. 1-...........
I............ I............I......... I
I
I
TANADIP\BR1O1\REP\(STAT6_1X,14ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.X - SPAN L - 28 m - SECTION 6
GEOMETRIC ANO STRESS CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION |LOWER FLANGE WEB UPPER FLANGE SLAB Ea/Ec
X (m)
6
B/H (m) B/H (m)
~l.........................
1
1
0.7
0.035
0.01
1.720
B/H (!!!)
0.4
0.02
1
____
B/H (m)
3.94
4.13
n
7.4
22.2
1 0.27
n-Ea/Ec
A (m2)
INF(m)
Jo (m4)
A
S*/ J (m -'
INF
0.0497
0.6025
0.02591
-
7.4
0.1935
1.5741
0.8892
0.5430
22.2
0.09993
1.2597
0.06793
0.4809
__________ __ _________
PHASE I| n
1 LOAD
|
M (tm) N (t) 1 T (t)
0
. .................. - I..
INF
-
-1
I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1................. —
-
1
INF 3.4
1 —................. 1............... — 333 0 0
2.1 7.4
22.2
AT-10’
92 251
57 84
1.............. “— 10
0
2.2 | 7.4
1 22.2
1............... ..... 1..................... 1.3 127 0 1 0
| 127 1 o
0
3 7.4
1
............... "I
1............... 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f: 5.67 555 0 1 0
t: 6.01 I 1 1
1........ ............ 1................... ■1.............. —-
TANAD1P\BRID1\REP\(STAT6_X,14ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - roma■
■
n
K A’
r c
i
i
i
j jGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XI - SPAN L - 28 m - SECTION 6
NORMAL STRESSES, SHEAR AND IDEAL STRESSES
I PHASE |Sigma |Sigma
II1
I I INF |
|2
l-o-l...|...
Sigma | Sigma | TAU |Sigma2ID|Sigma3ID| TAU M |
UPP |CONCR.
1
2(0)
2INF
3 1-9824
I....... I.......
11.2,3 1-20457
II.......
I................ I I
1-7586
15407 15674
1743 1792 47 0
=m===
I
2
— I I
3I
0
1-2493
230
-2477 2182 2236 39 0 2 3 0
-9606 1129 1254 397 0
-19685
18718
0
TANADlP\BRIDl\REP\(STAT6_XI.14j 88,fw
a 2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XII - SPAN L - 28 m - SECTION 11
GEOMETRIC AND STRESS CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION
| LOWER FLANGE WEB
B/H (m) B/H (m)
UPPER FLANGE SLAB
11
0.7
0.01
I..............................
0.035
2.0
B/H (a)
0.4
0.02
B/H (n)
I............
| 3.94
I............
4.13
Ea/Ec
n
7.4
22.2
I
I............
| 0.27
n-Ea/Ec A (m2)
INF(m) Jo (m4) SVJIa*-?)
00
7.4
0.0525
0.1963
0.7141
1.7952
0.0348
0.1194
0
0.4752
22.2 0.1027 1.4357 0.0910 0.4163
I PHASE | n | CARICO | M (tm) | N (t)
T (t)
................ 1
o
1
INF
—............. 1
0.61
.....................
-240
♦42
-27
17
1
INF
3.4 |
0
0
48
2.1
7.4
22.2
AT-10*
1
104
65
251
84
0
2.2
7.4
22.2
1-3 1 1
0
0
18
3
....................
7.4
f: 5.67
t: 6.01
0
0
84
TANADIP\BRID1\REP\(STA6 X11,14ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XIII - SPAN L
NORMAL
- 23 m - SECTION 11
STRESSES, SHEAR ANO IDEAL STRESSES
PHASE
Sigma
1
LOW
Sigma Sigma 23
Sigma
4
UPP
Sigma
5
CONCR.
TAU
Signa2ID|S1gma3ID| TAU b4 I)
I1
0
5726
4412
5465 -8313 4171 -9765
9627
—
-8451
-9765
0
0
850
850
5679 -8442 o
4423 -9739 o
I
2(0)
2INF
3
0
284
208
0
0
............
o
0
1506
1260
0
0
-50
-29
0
2400
900
900
4200
1.2,3
-284
______
-254 1488
-......... ............
254 1488
183 1244
oo
-4157 4157 0 -1579 2155 8.6 -1570 1995 7.5
-7275 7275 40
.............
1505
-50
7500
_______ _______
-13011 13587 48.6
.............. .............. ............
TANAOIP\BRID1\REP\(ST6_X111.14ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XIV - SPAN L - 45 m - SECTION 11
GEOMETRIC AND STRESS CHARACTERISTICS
I
I SECTION
•1..................
|LOWER FLANGE WEB UPPER FLANGE SLAB E»/Ec
1
I1
11 1
___________ 1 B/H (m)
B/H (m) B/H (m) B/H (m) n
1......................
11
1 1 1 1-0
1 __
1 | 0.04 1.995 0.035
0.012 0.50
11
4.02 7.4 4 21 cc . c
0.27
n«Ea/Ec A (m2)
INF(m) Jo (m4) S*/J(m*-7) |
...................... 1
00 0.0814 0.7558 0.06093 0 7.4 0.2281 1.69 0.1718 0.4417 22.2 0.1326 1.3153 0.1273 0.3580
1................
| PHASE
i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
LOAD
|
M (tm) |
....
N (t)
T (t)
10
11......... . .....
1 __1
1
1
n
_____ ____
INF
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _— _ 11 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
1•1
11
1................
1
INF 3.7
0
0
83.3
11
j................
2.1 1 7.4 | AT»1O’
22.2 1
136
77
251
84
0
0
i 2.2 1
11
7.4 i 1.3
22.2
i............ ........
0
0
29.2
3
7.4 1 f: 4.8
t: 5.07
1......... -.........
1.................... o0
11
1.................... 1....................
114.1
....................
TANADIP\BR101\REP\(STA6_X1V,14j a88.fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XV - SPAN L - 45 m - SECTION 11
NORMAL STRESSES, SHEAR ANO IDEAL STRESSES
S E Z I 0 N E 1 1 (TR . 45)
PHASE |Sigma
11
| LOW
Sigma | Sigma | Sigma 2 13 |4
| UPP
Sigma | TAU
5
CONCR. |
Sigoa2ID|Sigma3ID| TAU b4 | 111
11
......... 1.......... 0
1...........
11
.........
100 2(0) -231 -200
I
1
2INF -160 | -137
1
3o
0
0
1374
1068
0
0
1402
1089
0
3480
01
-67 | 1220
1
1
-39 | 1220
1
1
o 4766
-6026 6026 | 0
11
-2122 2520 | 12.9
1
1
-2117 2367 | 10.5
1
1
-8255 | 8255 | 50.4
......... 1 ......... 1
11
I.2,3 | -231 | -200 i ....... -1 ......... 1 ......... 1
1374
1402
1
-67 | 9466
........... 1-
1
-16398 16801 | 63.3
............. ............. 1-
TANAD1P\BRID1\R E P\(STAT6 _XV.14ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaSki
1JGILGEL ABAY 8RI0GE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XVI - SPAN L - 45 m - SECTION 12
GEOMETRIC ANO STRESS CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION
12
LOWER FLANGE WEB UPPER FLANGE SLAB Ea/Ec
B/H (m)
B/H (m)
B/H (n) B/H (m) n
.
0.04 2.036 0.035 |
1 0.27
1 4.02 7.4
1.00 0.012 0.5 |-
4 21 22 2
.
..............................................................................................I
n-Ea/Ec
A (m2)
INF(m) Jo (m4) syjtm*-:
00
0.0819
0.7724
0.06363
0
7.4
0.2286
1.7179
0.17867
0.4336
22.2
0.13313
1.3391
0.13236
0.3508
I—-............................
| PHASE
______ ___
0 INF
| n 1 LOAD |
______ ______ 1
1
1
M (tm)
......._ _ _ _ _ _ _
N (t)
__________
-
T (t)
-
1
INF
3.7 220
0
73
2.1
7.4
22.2
AT-10’ 138 251 1 78 84
0
2.2
7.4
22.2
..................... 1 1.............. * — 1.3 77 o
11
26
4
7.4
1 ..................... f: 4.8 285 0
t: 5.07 |
100
TANADIP\BRID1\REP\(STA6_XV1,14ja88.fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XVII - SPAN L - 45 m - SECTION 12
NORMAL STRESS, SHEAR AND IDEAL STRESSES
|PHASE
1
1
Sigma |Sigma
Sigma
1 Sigma | Sigma
TAU
Sigcia21D
1
LOW
12
3 4 15 UPP |CONCR.
Slgma3ID| TAU b4
1
1.........
0 11
...........1...........
1
1I
1
11
1 2(0
1
1
| 2INF
1
1
13
-2671 I 2532 -969 | 921
1
1
-937 | 890
1
1
-2740 | 2676
4507 4628
-
I1
1529 1571 | -29 .
1
1
1494 | 1535
1 -12
1
1
571 627 | 143
2988
1064
1064
4093
-5462
-2061
-2047
-7577
6863
0
2395 11.3
1
2373 I 9.12
!
7112 43
1........ 1
H.2,3 | -6380 1-5829 111
1........ 1 1.........
6607 6826 1
| 143
........... 1 I............
-14260
7081
15504 54.3
—
..............
TANADIP\BRIDI\REP\(ST6_XV11.14j a88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - roman
o
LI
U
L
i.GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XVIII - SPAN L - 45 m - SECTION 16
GEOMETRIC AND STRESS CHARACTERISTICS
I............
| SECTION
1........................
HOWER FLANGE WEB UPPER FLANGE SLAB Ea/Ec
I I
I I I-
B/H (m) B/H (m)
B/H (a)
16
1.0
0.04
n-Ea/Ec A (m2)
0.12
2.275
0.50 |-
............... I 4.22
0.035 |
B/H (n)
1 4.02
n
7.4
22.2
0.27
INF(m) Jo (m4) S*/J(m*-1) 1
INF
7.4
0.0848
0.2315
0.8699
0.0807
1.89 0.2218
0
0.3914
0.3139
1
1
22.2 0.1360 1.48 0.1643
PHASE | n 1 LOAD
M (tm) 1 N (t) | T (t)
0
PHASE
INF
-714
1
1
+63
-48
35
35
1
1-.......... ........
INF
3.7
*1 ............. . —1*’
805 0 31
2.1
7.4
22.2
• 1..................... 1 -
AT-10’ 156 251 | 0 87 84 0
2.2
1---.......... .......
7.4
22.2
■ 1.................... 1 ■
1.3 283 1 0 11 1 11
.............. .......
13
7.4
f: 4.8 1044 0 43
TANAD1P\BRIDI\REP\(ST6XV111,14ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - roma-IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN • STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XIX - SPAN L - 45 m - SECTION 16
NORMAL STRESSES, SHEAR AND IDEAL STRESSES
PHASE I Sigma
11
I LOW
Sigma
2
Sigma
3
Sigma
4
UPP
Sigma | TAU
5(
CONCR.
Sigma2ID
Sigma3lD
TAU b4
0 j 8440
I 7131
8086
6777
*12044
-13353
-12353
-13663
♦ | 1282
* | 1282
8385
7131
-12247
-13536
0
0
1 j-8678 2(0) 1*271]
1
1
2INF 1-2664
1
1
3 1-8913
1
j........ ..
-827B
-2621
-2585
-8725
14416
2503
1919
1985
14766
2582
1988
2150
- ' 1135 49 | 403
1
1
56 I 403
1
1
462 | 1575
1
-8509
-2712
-2677
•9142
14550
2598
2042
3374
0
3.45
4.30
15.83
1,2.3 I-20302
1..........
■19624
18904
19498
518 1 3113
1-.........
-20363
20522
21.13
TANADIP\BRI0l\REP\(STA6_XIX,14ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaw
■
w
RGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XX - SPAN L - 45 m - SECTION 19
GEOMETRIC ANO STRESS CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION
19
LOWER FLANGE WEB UPPER FLANGE SLAB Ea/Ec
8/H (m)
B/H (■)
B/H (raj
B/H (m) n
4.02 7.4
1.00 O.OI2 0.5
4.22 22-2
0.01 2.375 0.035
0.27
n-Ea/Ec
00
7.4
A (m2)
9.0848
0.2315
INF(m) Jo (m4)
0.8699
0.807
S*/J(mAl)
0
22.2 0.1360
1.89 0.2218 0.3914
1.48 0.1643 0.3139
PHASE
n
LOAD
H (tm)
N (t)
T (I)
0
00
................... .
-
-
-
-
1
co
3.7
0.37
0
0
2.1
7.4
22.2
156
87
251
84
2.2
___
7.4
22.2 ---------- - ------
AT-IO’
______
1.3
-
...
329
0
0
3
7.4
__ _____
f: 4.8
t: 5.07
1215
0
0
--------- - —- -
-- - - - - - - - - --—1
TANADIP\BRID1\REP\(STAT6_XX,14ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXI - SPAN L = 45 tn - SECTION 19
NORMAL STRESSES, SHEAR ANO IDEAL STRESSES
1 PHASES!Sigma 1 Sigma
1 1112
1 LOW |
Sigma
3
Sigma
4
UPP
Sigma
5 COM CP..
TAU
Sigraa2ID
SigmaTID
TAU b4 1
1
1”— 1 ------1------ 1 0 (’
1......... 1- - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - i 1 [-lOlOl|-9636
ri
11
1 2(0)
1
1-3125 1-3023
11
| 2 INF 1-3053 ]-2966 [ 11
[i1
I3
| - ]03731-10154
16781
2737
2006
2310
17107
2826
2082
2502
-
63
76
538
0
0
0
0
Sigma 2
Sigma 2
Sigma 2
Sigma 2
Sigma 3
Sigma 3
Sigma 3
Sigma 3
0
0
0
D
11
11.2.3 I-235991-22813
f.......... 1......... !...........
21828
22515
614
TANADIP\BRID1\REP\(STA6_XXI,]4ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romarv.
n
□
FL. LL
C.
U
u
uGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1967
TAB. 6.XXII - LATTICEWORK CALCULATIONS AT PLACING.
GEOMETRY OF STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
2 *7Z?: I 7" 1- - L Li iZ .>\ K
I
-T'
TN2TDENZA DELLt ftSTc
4
> .unQiiE.2-u i L/tiJ *
—------------------ —-------
L.iA'
X
z 
1
x-»&u
*
L>. &U
4
L - oU
4
J . &O
*
L. o u
x
5. cv 
»
•J. ok-
>
------- .--------------------------------- ------------
----- <
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietr
angeli • romcGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1937
TAB. 6.XXII - LATTICEWORK CALCULATIONS AT PLACING.
2
GEOMETRY OF STRU
CTURAL
STEELWORK
+-
• «
*
INCIDENZA
BELLE
ASTE
*
•-
■——--------------------- ----------------------
** —---------
-*
*
t'odu St er' t Miro
Ent *
ILllU *
■*
t
17
1—
*V•
1 -1
L. 60
¥
•
13
1J
15
5.60
A
t
1a
15
1-
5.60
t
15
IS
n
3.60
t
16
17
1£
5. &u
*
r
17
i
id
4.50
s
1
IE
*■‘1
11
4.50
■
t
19
-T
W
12
4.5O
<
20
4
13
4.5u
♦
21
CU
14
4.50
f
t
22
L
15
4.50
t
23
It
4. SC
■
*
24
s
17
4.50
23
9
IE
4.50
»
♦
26
1
11
7. 18
X
t
27
2
12
7.18
X
t
2B
**
13
7. IB
X
t
29
4
14
♦
30
7. IQ
4
5
15
7. 18
A
t
31
6
»
32
16
7. 18
V
7
33
17
t
7. 18
4
9
t*
IB
7. 18
*
— t
TANADIP\DES\BRIO1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN • REPORT DECEMBER 1987
TAB. 6.XXII - LATTICEWORK CALCULATIONS AT PLACING.
LOADING CONDITIONS
3
► „ — ------------------- »----- --------------------- -------- —--------------------------- 4
CARATTER1ST1CHE DI CARICO
>
<
NUMERO DEI NODI *19 i
♦ ------
------------------------------------------*-------------------
-------------- -—I
♦
NIJMERO DI NODI CAR I CAT I -
9
<
t-------
----------—.—------------------------------------------
------------ -------
*
*
CARTCHI SUI NODI
t
* ---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ,------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
* Nodo t
t = ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------- ------------------------------------------ *
-rx^ndo a Pr-J'ql Lonpor.unis seconuo Y PyCKgJ t
t
1«1
790
«
t
m
1580
*
T
3
A
0
- JOO
»
1
0
isau
t
t
*>
1 Jou
t
*
7
»
m—
-L -JL5U
I
*
r
X
t
R
D
•>
t
lJuu
7 7U
X
------ —<
TANADIP\DES\BRIO1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romeFl
Fl
L
L
»GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1937
TAB. 6.XXII - LATTICEWORK CALCULATIONS AT PLACING.
CALCULATION RESULTS
4
Undr *
1
REAZIOMi VirXC^ARl
F. r J-
-<7Q1~
«■ 7”“ t'
1 HvtKUJ *
■* SFOR7 I WEt-LE ASTE
A--
/' •*- “t.
*—
------------------ £
Tip-
-
* *-
a SEl/l TifwrrE »
*
i. ■*■ 11 rai’Ite *
24S72 7 * n At J T t ♦
4
*-*
15730
Tif-AHTZ c
♦
r~
7 IA At IT t *
S
77 3—
TIRANTE 4
4-
2£7
7 IF. ANTE *
4
i,’.
• C>
PUN7 Ci 44- *
*
*’J
-431"1
FUNTONE I
1
1J
-35391
FONTONE 4
+
1”
74T77
FUNTONE »
♦
IT
15729
plutone *
*
14
-S847
#
PUNTONE »
•s
3731
PUNTONE 1
*
*?
■
■^1
MJmTTIE *
-2lo -V.*
1 • LlU r-
»
4
IE
<Q
11E50
FONTONE ■
M4
-10270
FUN TONE 4.
20
3690
4
PUNTDNE 1
21
—4 «
’7110
FUNTONE L
i
5530
FUNTDNE *
t
23
-3250
FUNTDNE 1
t
24
-2370
t
25
PUNTONE *
-790
UNTONE i
t
2ii
13918
t
77
TIRANTE *
A
28
1639b
TIRANTE t
no
13873
t
TIRANTE -
11351 -
TIRANTE *
*
TO
y ?
B329
t
TIRANTE *
6306
t 32
TIRANTE i
t
3784 TIRANTE 3
1261
TIRANTE *
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - rome
» «♦ ■ 1
1! 1
1 I I 1
1 1
I il 1
1 II i
i rt i
i ii i
:i 1i
■1 1
1-5 ' •
7B
■I
rGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXI11 - STRESSES AT CONCRETING OF SLAB
OVERHANG
T
(t/m)
M
(tm/m)
PRECAST CONCRETE SLAB
CONCRETING
EXTERNAL KERB
0.263
0.928
0.094
-0.230
-0.812
-0.165
LIVE LOAD
0.088
-0.083
END OF CONCRETING
CRITICA ????
1.285
1.373
1.207
1.290
SPAN
T approx.
H
CONCRETE SLAB
CONCRETING OF SPAN CONCRETING OF OVERHANG EXTERNAL KERB
SPAN LIVE LOAD
OVERHANG LIVE LOAO
0.34
1.19
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.00
0.15
1.34
-0.81
-0.17
+0.13
-0.08
ENO OF CONCRETING
CRITICA ????
1.53
1.66
0.51
1.62
TANAD1P\DES\BRID1\REP(ST6XX111,15ja88h f 2)
w
studio pietrangoli - rome?V5 *3JTJ3tGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXIV - OVERHANG AND SPAN OF SLAB
OPERATING STRESSES (FINISHING AND LIVE LOADS) ON SPAN AND GIRDER JOINT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OVERHANG
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SPAN
FINISHING
T
(t/m)
MT (tm/m) 1 (t/m)
M
(tm/m)
PAVING
RAILING ANO GUARDRAIL
0.23
0.15
-0.08 I 0.68
1
SMALL CONCRETE SLAB 0.09
INTERNAL KERB
0.16
-0.19
-0.12
-0.14
11
0
0
0
0.68
-0.19
-0.12
-0.14
FINISHING
0.63
-0.53 0.68
0.23
PEDESTRIAN LOAD
0.56
________
-0.70
........... .....
0.0
0.0
LIVE LOADS
4.43
-3.32 6.81
10.47
GIRDER SPAN IN OPERATION
5.62
-4.55 7.49
10.70
GIRDER JOINT IN OPERATION
14.48
-11.19 | 21.11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . -1
31.64
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP(ST_6XXIV,15ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli • rome7B :«
Fl H
.Fl
F TH ’Ll
LI
kJGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXV - OVERHANG AND SPAN OF SLAB ON GIRDER SPAN
RESULTING TENSIONS
................. OVER!
................. IANG
CONCRETING
OPERATION
RESULTING
u
p
p
E
R
L
0
w
E
R
CONCRETE
7 FI 6
2 FI 24
2 FI 24
4 FI 24
7 FI 6
CONCRETE
-
-
-792
-
80
-
20
-
-1382-454
-1115
-1115-374 308 + 55
-
44 + 11
-1836
-1907
-1489
+443
-
+75
”••1.......................................................... '’I 1
I........... ................... _ ................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 —. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SP
AN
U
p (CONCRETE
p |7 FI 6
E (2 FI 24
R |2 FI 24
i
iCONCRETING OPERATION |RESULTING
-
-
+360
1
1
79
I
n
1
1
|7 FI 24
-
-97
-
145
•
-1514
w |7 FI 6
E1
R |CONCRETE
"11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*79
i
1
1-
1
I +505
1
1-
1
1
I -1611
1
11
1
-1..... —.........
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\REP(STA_6XXV,15ja88.fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romeIT
M
n
H
n
n
u XI
□ El
XI kl
blGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXVI - OVERHANG OF SLAB ON GIRDER JOINT
RESULTING TENSIONS
OVERHANG
1........
M - 1.27
M-8
M - 3.75
TOTAL
u
p
p
E
R
L
0
W
E
R
7 FI 6 *
2 FI 24
8 FI 24 *
18
51
51
-793
-998
-998
-998
-574
-574
-1572
-1791
-1872
4 FI 24
5 FI 24
7 FI 6
33
33
18
81
81
81
520
520
520
246
246
246
847
847
847
CONCRETE
16
53
26
95
*
TANADIP\DES\BR1D1\REP(ST6_XXVI,15ja88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXVII - OVERHANG OF SLAB ON GIRDER JOINT
RESULTING TENSIONS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| M = 0.54
M » 33.2
c [concreting
OPERATION
TOTAL
CONCRETE
7 FI 6 *
13 FI 24 *
2 FI 24
0
••I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
+ 106
+ 106
1
21
11
3 1-
10 +360
1
+253
+616
15 FI 24
7 FI 6
c: distance from compressed edge of slab. * added reinforcement
1
27 -49
28 -49
1
"1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-2150
-2150
-2199
-2199
TANADIP\DES\BR101\REP(ST6XXV11,15j a88,fw2)
studio pietrangeli - romeL~
M
■
■
■
n
n Tl
K E £ L £ £ £GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXVI11
PILE HEAD N (t)
Tx (t)
Ty (t)
Mx (tm)
My (tm)
PERM: 45 m 230
SLAB: 28 m
1
136
LIVE: N max 196
45 m My max 126
LIVE: N max 144
28 m My max 96
BRAKING 45 m
0
28 m | 0
PIER BEARING 0
TRUNK 0
1
WIND x LIVE 0
SLAB 0
PIER 0
WIND y LIVE 0
SLAB 0
PIER 0
SEISMIC x SLAB 0
BEARING | 0
TRUNK 0
SEISMIC y SLAB 0
BEARING 0
TRUNK 0
SEISMIC 2 SLAB ♦/• 73
BEARING */- 4
TRUNK
Io
0
0
0
0
0
0
+/-10
0
0
+/- 5
0
0
0
0
0
46
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
19
0
0
0
0
37
2
0
0
0
0
♦ 115
-68
+98
+63
-72
-48
+/-10
0
0
+/- 5
0
0
0
0
0
46
1
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
84
211
72
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127
38
0
0
0
0
73
1
0
o
o
0
TANAOIP\DES\BR1D1\REP(6XXV111)
studio pietrangeli
rome~r
T
■
■
■
n
n n
n
_n
' L_l
k
k
I
k
iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXIX
PILE HEAD
N (t)
Tx (t)
Ty (t)
Mx (tm)
My (tm)
PERM: 45 m
SLAB: 28 m
LIVE: N max
45 m My max LIVE: N max
28 m My max BRAKING 45 m
28 m
PIER BEARING TRUNK
WIND x LIVE
SLAB
PIER
WIND y LIVE
SLAB
PIER
SEISMIC x SLAB BEARING
TRUNK
SEISMIC y SLAB BEARING
TRUNK
SEISMIC Z SLAB BEARING
TRUNK
230
136
196
126
144
96
0
0
18
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 +/- 73
1 +/- 4
1 ♦/- 17
1. . . . . . . . . .
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
8
0
0
5
0
11
0
0
0
46
2
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
19
2
0
0
0
37
2
8
0
0
0
+115
-68
+98
+63
-72
-48
70
56
0
0
35
0
37
0
0
0
368
13
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84
211
72
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
295
152
7
0
0
0
295
13
24
o
0
0
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP(ST6_XXIX)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXX
:0M8
INA1
I0N
S
LOADS
-------
PERM: 45 m
SLAB: 28 m
LIVE: N max
45 m Ky max
LIVE: N max
29 in My max BRAKING 45 m
20 m
PIER
WINO x LIVE
STRUCTURE
WIND y LIVE
STRUCTURE
SEISMIC x
SEISMIC y
1
......
1
1
2
--- - - -
1
1
3
1
0
1
I
1
4
......
1
1
I
0
1
0
I
1
I
0.6
0.6
5
- - - ...
1
1
]
0
i
0
1
1
1
6
-----
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
7
----
1
1
1
0
J
0
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1
1
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP(ST6_XXX)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXXI
---- .
..... ....
..... ....
PILE HEAD
N
Tx
iy
Kx
My
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
366
366
230
706
706
588
562
48
0
0
+A 21
+/- 18
+/- 18
+/- 13
0
39
0
0
28
28
0
94
47
115
94
91
80
158
0
74
0
156
255
470
84
TANADIP\OES\BRID1\REP(ST6 XXXI)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXXII
PILE HEAD
N
Tx
Ty
Mx
My
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
468
468
332
808
800
690
664
56
0
0
28
18
18
20
0
47
0
0
29
29
0
452
47
115
242
229
188
258
0
332
0
156
428
643
84
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\REP(ST6XXX11)
studio pietrangeli - rompx-.d------ f
«
n
T1 T1
LJ
El»
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1907
1
TAB* 6.XXXIII - PIER - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE ANO BENDING MOMENT VERIFICATIONS.
T S3T T CHE DEI MATERIAEI 1------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- — *
*
DATI DI PROGETTL
i
t------- --------------- ■--------- ■- -- ------------ -------- ---------------------- * + ■-------------------------- —--------------- *---------------------------------------—-»
* 
Ji
; - i-
*
t
*
*
?I ■'1 Ta. ■ Lu k - L3O *'*J- ^rr»q i
------------------- - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -—■-$ 'i- -.4^1 - c-.vu i.Lj.rmq *
* — - - •- - - — ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------»
”a
.f
C.“rq t
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - rome:pi
1
□GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
2
TAB. 6.XXXIII - PIER - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING MOMENT VERIFICATIONS.
LOADING CONDITION No 1
CARATTERISTICHE
AGENTI
. — —
Sforzo normale M «
468000 Kq
Momenta Mu =*
452000 Kgm
Momenta My =
u Kgm
fT I SOL.T AA*T X
' ANAL-ISI
CARATTER1STICHE GLOBAL!
4
V------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V --------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
mas^ii Tta . /er tici* 
n r* 5": sin C.-’.rnvstura ;20)
2) =•
"i^O, A kg/croq t
4
*
Kg, crnq
t
PTh
4
— *•
4
— 4
COORD I MATE DEI P'JMTI IMTERSEZIONE FRA
CDMTOPMO DELLA SEI I ONE =L A3SE NEUTRO
*
•
u TEN3T0NI JEI ,EF<
ICI DELLA SE2IONL
J r. I . f k-.ai J
3
T
0 • LJ
1
O-ij
*
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli
romeT H
n
n
c Fl El
I
EGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
3
TAB. 6.XXXIII - PIER - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING MOMENT VERIFICATIONS.
LOADING CONDITION No 2 capatteristiche AGENTI
»
* Sforro porm-ili? N 3
468000 Kg i
* ------------------------------------- --------- ---------------------------
t
Mcnunto Hz - 47000 Kqm «
*--------- ——---------------------- —<—’-----------------
*
f'cnento My - 33200U
»
t------------------.— —-------------------- _— ------------ *
Fr r SLJL
r
’ i^rsirtu. isi
k
CARATTERI3TICHE GLOBALI
4
* "r Dah-L^6 i c? ’< i u .3- ♦ Tx r*-»r- 1(TJ < -
2/
-7.^ .
4
’ •-- M~. -ZzL, .2 Kg/crnq t
t
‘^piFrr.A 3ncs‘i3Fr.rTA
i
* COORDINATE DEI * COHTOPNO DELLA
t -------------------------- -- _
a *--
<■ r
FONT I ZNTERSEZldKE i kh PEL12ME £0 mSS£ NtjlHO
- Jr
" TEMSIONI MEI ‘.’ERTICI DELLA SEZ1GNE
lr M J , _B
1ANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romePI
PI
0
El
L_l
JG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
4
TAB. 6.XXXIII - PIER - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING MOMENT VERIFICATIONS.
LOADING CONDITION No 3
*
CARATTERI5TICHE AGENT!
4
- ----------------------------------------------- —------------------------------- *
t------------ -------- .------------ — —---------------------------- ——.— 4
t Sfc’—o normal r? N -
ZZ2000 i>g 4
t
v
“Ic^entc Nx — 113000 Kcjm 4
M Hy — 
0 i,gin 4
* ---------------- —-----------------------------------------------------„„_ +
r T n ■ r!
DELL- mNAx_I L3 I
t
r^RA^^ERISTICHE GLCBALi
4
t rr •*'!- ! -v-* ♦ ^4 
tier- £’• - 'r»rn^t irsi 35)
17.0 r.q/c.T.q 4
- -33-. > <-y/L»nq *
* COORDINATE DEX
t CCNTORMD DELLA
D 'JNT I liUTERSEZIGNE FRm "EZIONE ED ASSE MEUTRO
- - - - . ... — 
*
■* ' ■?
A-
..
I
- -.v j
t
277\ . ?
risi •-’HRTICI JEs-Lrt SEZi-<t
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli
rqmeHr t»
1
I
1 i I
1
1
i
t
i
1 L M -•
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN ~ REPORT DECEMBER 1987
5
TAB. 6.XXXIII - PIER - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING MOMENT VERIFICATIONS.
LOADING CONDITION No 4
* ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------- -—n
» CARATTERISTICHE AGENT I
4
t--------------------------- -------- *------------------------------------------------- t
* Sfnrz-* normals N =
808000 kg <
<---------------------- -------------------- ■ ---------- --------------- —, <
t
Mu - 242DOO kgm 4
* ----------------------------------- - --------- ----------------•--------—-----------*
► Mzrn ?r. ':c 11/ -- laauGu kgui * ------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------
li A X
*
CARf\TTERISTICH£ □LOBhI. 1
♦
’ T-
2- = ~’rO.^ . g/aiiq
i c-c Tup-ii-Tir < rr.Ti • r.^-53*
- -5&1.2
■ Gdiq
*
VERIFIED 30DDX^r.VTTM
4
♦
4
4
♦
■r COORD I MATE DEI
k CDfJTORMO DELLA
4 A--r . - -
F'L'NTI 1MTER5EZ10NE FRA
SEZXDNE ED ASSE NEU IRQ
t-r•
It. «-ii ■ L v t Jl
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio p ietrangel i
romeT fl I
fl
n
I
n
El £1
LI
U
I
:
iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
6
TAB. G.Xmil
PIER - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING MOMENT VERIFICATIONS.
LOADING CONDITION No 5
*
caratteristiche AGENTI
»
t----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—■------------- -------------------------- 1
+ B W, , * ■*.-—- — 
* <5forze
™ — " -- ~ — — _ — _ — — — —
• 908000 Kg i
+ -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*
*k><ner.to Mx = 229000 Kgm t
+ — — — 
-- - ■ — —— f
•*
fiamrnto My - 420000 Kgm <
4* _ —— — — — — ------------------------------- — “ — — « — 
— — — — — — —
r=- r jt_ TF- Z OELL-1— "
£S£
•
CARATTERISTICHE GLOBALI
4
. - ----------- ----------- ----------------------
---------------------------------------------------------- —
*
izrtt n..-
- u ■ I-
■*------------ -------------- —----- - -------- -------
2) - 44. 7 Kgz
*
----- ----------------------- ...---------- j
* n- C
' cr *7. t u.
-
------------------ .—,----------- ,
uccyr]
75) -±,32.3 Kg/cmq 4
l^DDISFATTrt
i
• h._ _____ ___________ _________ . _ _ ________
COORDINATE DEI PUNT I 1NTERSEZI0NE FRA
r 0NT0FNC DELLA 5EZ10NE ED ASSE NtUTRO
*
4
1
- - - .j J
_|
. L.Ilj
I
- ''
4.2 
44. 7
--------------s
4
t
'■ TEWSIONI !EI
dellh ^ezicne
.L|. Lillig J 
T
, ------------------------ ---------- .----------- *
4 LJ -+-T . -
-4 .
*
T
*
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangelj
ronte-T' :r
r
. Fl
n
ri El
.I _I
SJ
fed
Ed
_IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
7
TAB 6 XXXIII - PIER - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING MOMENT VERIFICATIONS.
LOADING CONDITION No 6
*
CAFATTENIST ICHE AGENTI
»
fr------------------- -- ------ - ------------------------ —----------’--- -------------- A
♦------ ------------------- ---------- ---------- -------------------------------------- .»
t cj-r-r rr?rrn3lc= fl
■#
♦------------------- ------- --------------------------------- —-------------- ---------- *
it
KrirsfeMltcJ MJ; — 
iGQOOu Kym
*
1-
M ‘iTIPll tc *1/ -
r
£4,*UU0 » .y«ii
T
i
,,
--------_----------- ------------------------------
------------------ ---------
-------------- *
t *=
um
T- c 
j-mmae.
ils±
CARATTERISTICHE GLO
Bhl I
*
+
*
ir ___
*
*
_’
*
rr =1 = j i ’
8 -j 4. a -. lu. , |
■ I .4 *1 ’ I
7
L
L q t cijj.ci
U.JL]
*
c7"C_ hT7A
* &
I
OTWINATE de: PUMI X, ITEH3EZ 1 ONE FRA CCWTCRNC DELLA CEZICNE CD ASSi_ hlEUiRU
* 'rENSTfJMT ‘IE I 'E?T'CT
___ __________ "
□2LL.1 SEZIDNE
i
J-
♦
*
1 - rr,r - i m-
* " * k— Hi -J — 
r
IL;
%
-> a V
*■ - —•J
TANAOIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli
romen
Fl
n
□
n
m
□GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
8
TAB. 6.XXXIII - PIER - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING MOMENT VERIFICATIONS.
LOADING CONDITION No 7
» CARATTERIETICHZ AGENT1
*
IE-- t <£*;• »• *7
XX
t . ----------------------------------------- -------- —-------- — -------------------------------- —----- ♦
i
CARATTERISTICHE GuGBALi
»
♦ ?r —?r7,zi ’
* .Tr^ixL O
—67.3 t.Q/cmq 4
♦ ----------------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- <
♦ ~ * mass: it- /'rLr.:u‘ cl S3 .• 
— i.g/cmq »
♦ ------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
♦
SODDISFATTA
♦
•-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
t COORDINATE DEI PUNTI 1KTER3EZ10NE FRA < t CONTORT ’C DELLC EEZIDNE ED A3SE NEUTRD i
t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ a
r’’
*
Didih^d . UhiJ
a
t ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* TEMSXO’II NEI VERTICI DELLA SEZ1ONE »
»-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
t
[Kr./ mqJ
C
♦
* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------*------------------------------- 4
-62.a
*
0.0
»
TANADIP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - romeEl
Fl
Fl
LI
E
EGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXXIV • PIERS - BEND AND SHEAR STRESSES
COMBINATIONS
H (t)
N (t)
H (t)
1
2
5
6
7
12.3
10.8
5.7
5.7
3.3
175
66
160
SO
241
114
232
82
196
111
40
48
42
42
22
22
22
22
13
13
TANAD IP\D E S\BR101\RE P(ST6X X XIV)
studio pietrange! i - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB. 6.XXXV - PIERS - COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND BENDING STRESS
VERIFICATION
COMBINATIONS
N (t)
M (trfl)
Sigma c
(kg/cm2)
Sigma s (kg/cm2)
1,1
1,2
5.1
175
66
241
48
48
22
42
SO
35
-212
-1190
-> 0
TANADIP\DES\BR!D1\REP(ST6XXXV)
studio pietrangeli - rame-I
1
I
■
■
□
J
r
uGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.XXXVI - FORCES ON BEARING AXIS OF RIGHT ABUTMENT
N
Tx
Ty
Hx
My
DEAD LOAD L - 28 m
136
0
0
0
o
LIVE LOAD 28 m Nmax My max
144
96
0
0
0
72
160
BRAKING
(BRIDGE. EARTH)
0
*/- 0
0
0
0
WIND x ON VEHICLES
0
5
0
0
0
WINO y VEHICLES
0
0
+/- 11
0
0
GIRDER
0
0
+/- 7
0
0
SIS X ON BRIDGE
0
27
0
0
0
SIS Y ON BRIDGE
0
0
14
0
0
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\ST_TAB1(12ja88,fw2,94k)
studio pietrangeli - rnman n
ba
□
-ri
n
BGILGEL ABA? BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.XXXVIT - RIGHT ABUTMENT - COMBINATIONS FOR FRONT WALL
COMBINATIONS
LOADS
1
2
3
Dead load of bridge
Live load of bridge
Braking on bridge
Braking on earthfill
Wind x on vehicles
Seismic x on bridge
Wall weight
Earth force
Earth force for live load
Seismic x wall
Seismic x earth
COMB.l: Construction
COMB.2: In operation
COMB.3: Seismic force x
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
-
-
1
1
1
1
0.6
-
1
1
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
-
1
1
TANADIP\DES\BR[Ol\ST_TABl(12jaBB,fw2,94k)
studio pietrangeli - roma—
n
□
EJ
lJ
J
rj u
jGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.XXXV]11 - RIGHT ABUTMENT FRONT WALL: VALUES OF GLOBAL LOADS
LOADS
12
3
M (tm/m)
H (t/m)
V (t/m)
1.59
2.00
1
3-61
4.67
0 37.33
3.71
7.74
18.13
Psup (t/fl»2)
Delta P
Pinf (t/m2)
1.57
(3.02)
4.59
|
I
1.57
(3.02)
4.59
2.49
(1-92)
4.41
1—. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TAB.6.XXX1X - RIGHT ABUTMENT FRONT WALL; STRESSES FOR UNIT LOADS (tm/fli)
Psup
......................... 1
Delta P H M
1 .................. .......
-1’-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Myvs (tm/m)
Mys (tm/m)
Mxvs (tm/m) Mxs (tm/m)
-5.91
0.55
-
1.79
-2.52
-1.27
1
-0.7
0.46 -0.48 -0.42 11
1
11 1
-
0.64 i (1-58)
i 0.68 0.04
(+0.25)
TAB.6.XL - RIGHT ABUTMENT FRONT WALL: RESULTING STRESSES (tm/m)
COMBINATIONS
-------------
__ ( 1
■- - - - - - - - - 1. . . . . . . . 23
Myus (tm/m)
Mys (tm/m)
Mxvs (tm/m) Mxs (tm/m)
14.74
-19.54
+2.4]
-1.63
+(3.76)
-23.07
29.59
1
+2.41 | +2.49
+ 1.43 1—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-6.17
-
4a.7,34 t+8'75)l |5.67
-5.27
(+13.93)
+3.32I +5.41
TANADIP\DES\BRIOl\ST_TABl(12j 00.f
a
W2
i94k)
studio pietrangeli - roman
■
n
Ul
■
LI bJGTLGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.XII - RIGHT ABUTMENT LATERAL WALL: INTERNAL FORCES
COMBINATIONS
LOADS
I
......................... ........ .................
23
PsUp (t/m2) Delta P (t/m2)
0.54
(4-05)
4.59
0.54 1.86
(4.05)
4.59 4.41
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |—-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2.55)
TAB.6.XLII - RIGHT ABUTMENT LATERAL WALL: STRESSES FOR TO INTERNAL UNIT FORCES
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Psup
Myvs (tm/m)
1
(*) -9-77
11 -5.16
Mxvs (tm/m) |
11
(*) -9.43
-6.89
Mmax.x y I
--------- ----------- 1
+ 1.57
Delta P
(*) -4-41
-2.66
(*) -2-15
-2.47
+0.87
TAB.6.XL 1II - RIGHT ABUTMENT LATERAL WALL:
STRESSES RESULTING FROM INTERNAL FORCES
[
1
1
COMBINATIONS
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i.
1 ------------------ 1
|
1i2
i
3
|
My vs (tm/m)
Mxvs (tm/m)
(*) -22.43 11 (*) -29.4]
-13.56
(*) -13.80
-13.72
-16.38
{*) -23.02
-19.11
Mmax +
+4.37
+5.14
g
(* on ed e)
/ * nn orfna I
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\ST_TAB1(12ja&8,fwZ , 94k)
Studio pietrangeli - roman
n
J
n
■
■
■
■
£ LI 1 LI
LI LJ
IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.XLIV - RIGHT ABUTMENT
STRESSES OF TRIANGULAR PRESSURE OUTSIDE EARTHFILL
H - 2.5 m
H- 5m
My vs
Mxvs
-0.22 *
-0.53
-3.19 *
-2.19
-0.84 *
-1.25
Mmax
+0.34
♦0.51
TAB.6.XLV - RIGHT ABUTMENT: RESULTING STRESSES
COMBINATIONS
1
1&2 3 1 ... .
Myvs
Mxvs
-19.24 *
-11.37
______ ___
-26.22 *
-14.19
-11.59 • 1 -22.18 *
-12.47
-17.86
Mmax
+3.86
+4.63
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\ST TAB1(12ja88,fw2,94k)
studio pietrangeli - roma
1
:*$
»•
1•
1CM1 11
i
1
•
•R
rGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.XLVI - RIGHT ABUTMENT FOUNDATION LAYER: STRESSES FOR ELEMENTARY LOAOS
LOAOS
N
Tx
•»WVM
Ty
»W
Mx
My
DEAD LOAD ON BRIDGE
136
0
0
-54
0
LIVE LOAO ON BRIDGE N
144
0
0
-58
72
My
96
0
0
-38
160
braking
0
+/- 16
0
*/- U7
0
ABUTMENT
earth
RAKE
1056
143
0
-2734
0
LIVE LOAO ON ABUTMENT
60
27
0
-40
0
WIND X
0
+/- 5
0
+/- 49
0
WIND y
0
0
IB
0
153
SEISMIC FORCE X
0
+/- 108
0
+/- 578
0
SEISMIC FORCE y
0
a
95
0
510
TANADIP\BRIDI\ST_TAB3(12j a88,fw2,4 2 k)
studio pietrangelj - romen
Fl
Fl
ri
□
iGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TA8.6.XLVII - RIGHT ABUTMENT LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR A8UTMENT FOUNDATIONS
Sx
1
sy
2
COSTPUL
3
A VUOTO
4
ESERC
Nmax
5
ESERC
My
6
DEAD LOAD ON BRIDGE
1
1
0
1
1
1
LIVE LOAD ON N
BRIDGE My
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
BRAKING
0
0
0
0
1
1
ABUTMENT
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIVE LOAD ON ABUT.
0
0
1
0
1
1
WIND X VEHICLES GIRDER
0
-
0
-
0.6
•
0
•
0.6
-
0
•
WIND y VEHICLES GIRDER
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.6
SEISMIC x BRIDGE ABUTMENT
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
SEISMIC y BRIOGE ABUTMENT
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
TANADIP\BRIDI\ST_TAB3(12j a88,fw2,42k)
studio pietrangeli - romeElG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.XLVIII - RIGHT ABUTMENT FOUNDATION LAYER: RESULTING STRESSES
1 -----------
...... .........1 --....... ---
COMBINATIONS
N Tx
Ty
Mx My
SEISMIC X I
1192 251
25
0
-2215 0
-3371
................
SEISMIC y 2
1192 143
95
-2793 510
CONSTRUCTION 3
1116 173
167
0
■
-2750 0
-28OB
ONLY DEAD LOAD 4
1192 143
0
-2793 0
IN OPERATION N 5
1396 189
151
0
-2745 72
-3037
IN OPERATION My fi
1348 186
154
............... ................
11
-2754 252
-2988
................ ...........
TANAD1P\BRID1\ST_TAB3(12ja88.fw2,42k)
studio pietrangeli - romeLI
□
kJ
U
JGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.IL - RIGHT ABUTMENT FOUNDATION: STRESSES ON PILE HEADS
COMBINATIONS
N <t)
D/S
N (t)
U/S
T (t)
............... 1
M (tm) |
1
1
192
127
107
171
32
122
2
188
110
22
84
3
142
139
137
141
22
84
4
159
139
18
70
5
220
203
129
145
24
92
6
217
204
120
133
23
91
TANADIP\BR1D1\ST_TAB3(!2ja88,fw2,42k)
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TA8.6.L - RIGHT ABUTMENT FOUNDATION: CONTROL OF PILES
N (t)
M (tm)
Sigma c
(kg/cm2)
Sigma s
(kg/cni2)
192
107
122
122
as
as
1180
1665
220
92
70
650
TANADIP\BRID1\ST TAB3(12ja88,fw2,4Zk)
studio pietrangeH - rome’n
n
n
n
□
LI
U
LJ
L
LJ
UGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.LI - FORCES ON BEARING AXIS OF LEFT ABUTMENT
N
T*
Ty
MX
My
DEAD LOAD L - 28 m
136
0
0
0
0
LIVE LOAD 28 m Nmax
My max
144
96
0
0
0
72
160
BRAKING
(BRIDGE, EARTH)
0
+/- 8
0
0
0
WIND x ON VEHICLES
0
+/• 5
0
0
0
WIND y VEHICLES GIRDER
0
0
0
0
*/- 11
♦/- 7
0
0
0
0
SIS X ON BRIDGE
0
27
0
0
0
SIS Y ON BRIDGE
0
0
14
0
0
TANADI P\DES\BR ID1 \ST_ TAB2 (12 ja88, fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romar:
r
II
I
r
i
>
i
i
n
u
SI
□
□
□
IdGILGEL A8AY BRIDGE - FINAL OESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB,6.LI I - LEFT ABUTMENT - COMBINATIONS FOR FRONT WALL
COMBINATIONS
LOADS
1
2
3
Dead load of bridge
Live load of bridge
Braking on bridge
Braking on earthfil1
Wind x on vehicles
Seismic x on bridge
Wall weight
Earth force
Earth force for live load
Seismic x wal1
Seismic x earth
-
-
-
-
■
1
1
1
-
-
1
1
1
1
0.6
-
1
1
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
-
1
1
COMB.l: Construction
COMB.2: In operation COMB.3: Seismic force x
TAN AD I P\DES\BRID1\ST_TAB2 (12 j a88, fw2,104 k)
studio pietrangeli - rama=*<
.T T
"T T
T
1
1
bn
i
Tl d
Tl
.J
□
□
id
JGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.LII1 - LEFT ABUTMENT FRONT WALL: VALUES OF GLOBAL LOADS
LOADS
1
2
3
M (tm/m)
H (t/m)
V (t/m)
1.59
2.00
0
3.61
4.67
37-33
3.71
7.74
18.13
Psup <t/m2) Delta P (t/m2)
Pinf (t/mZ)
1.S7
1.70
3.27
1.57
1.70
3.27
2.49
1.07
3.56
TA8.6.LIV - LEFT ABUTMENT FRONT WALL: STRESSES FOR UNIT LOADS (tm/m)
Psup
Delta P
H
M
Myvs (tm/m) Mys (tm/m) Mxvs (tm/m) Mxs (tm/m)
-3.79
-0.31
-
+0.90*
+0.28
-1.38
+0.01
+0.23*
+0.09
-1.6
-0.67
-
+1.05*
+0.45
-0.30
-0.60
-
+ 0.2*
0.03
TA8.6.LV - LEFT ABUTMENT FRONT WALL: RESULTING STRESSES (tm/m)
COMBINATIONS
1
2
3
Myus (tm/m) Mys (tm/m) Mxvs (tm/m) Mxs (tm/m)
-12
-2.8
-
4.2*
1.6
-17
-6
-
7.5*
2.a
1
-24.4
-8.2
-
11.3*
4.4
TANADIP\DES\BRIDI\ST_TAB2( 12ja88.fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.LVI - LEFT ABUTMENT LATERAL WALL: INTERNAL FORCES
COMBINATIONS
LOADS
1
2
3
Psup
Delta P (t/m2)
O.S4
2.81
0.54
2.01
1.86
1.77
TAB.6.LVII - IFF’ ABUTMENT LATERAL WALL: STRESSES FOR TO INTERNAL UNIT FORCES
Psup
1..................... —’
] Delta P
Myvs (tm/m)
Mxvs (tm/m)
{*) -3-4
' (*} -1.7
-1.73 1 -1
(*) -3.4
-2.8
1
1.................
(*) -0-7
-1.0
TA0.6.LVIII - LEFT ABUTMENT LATERAL WALL: STRESSES RESULTING FROM INTERNAL FORCE
!
1
COMBINATIONS
1
2
3
Myvs (tm/m)
Mxvs (tm/m)
{•) -6.6
-3.8
f) -3.8
-4.3
(*) -5.6
-3.8
(*) -3.8
-4.3
(*} -9.3
-5.0
(*) -7-6
-7.0
(g
* on ed e)
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\ST_TAB2(12jaaa,fw2,104k)
studio pietrangeli - romaK
>
rB
~l
i
k
BGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.LIX - LEFT ABUTMENT: STRESSES FOR ELEMENTARY LOADS
LOADS
N (t)
Tx (t)
Ty (t)
Mx (tm)
My (tm)
DEAD LOAD ON BRIDGE
LIVE LOAD N ON BRIDGE My BRAKING
ABUTMENT
LIVE LOAD ON ABUTMENT
Wind x
Wind y
Seismic x
Seismic y
136
144
96
0
489
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
+/-16
80
20
+ /-5
0
+/-77
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
64
-54
-58
-38
+/-S2
-835
9
+/-21
0
+/-29S
0
0
72
160
0
0
0
0
115
0
225
TANADIP\DES\BRI01\ST_TAB1 (12j a88.fw2.94 k)
studio pietrangeli - romaElGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.LX - LEFT ABUTMENT - LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR ABUTMENT FOUNDATION
1
Sx
Sy
Cosipul
A vuoto
Nmax
My
DEAD LOAD ON| BRIDGE
LIVE LOAD N ON BRIDGE My
BRAKING ABUTMENT
LIVE LOAD
ON ABUTMENT Wind x VEH.
Wind y VEH. GIRDER
Seis x BRIO. ABUTMENT
Seis y BRID. ABUTMENT
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1.................
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
I
1
1
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
1
1
1
I
0
0.6
0.6
0
0
0
0
TANAD1P\OES\BR1D1\ST TAB1(!2jaB8,fw2,94k)
studio pietrangeli - roma\—
bJ
bGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.LXI - LEFT ABUTMENT FOUNDATION: STRESSES FOR COMBINATIONS (with respect to upstream edge of front wall)
COMBINATIONS
N (t)
Tx <t)
Ty (t)
Mx (tm)
My (tm>
Seismic x
Seismic y
In construction
Only dead load In operation
with Nmax
In operation with MYmax
625
625
530
625
310
752
157
3
80
103
97
80
119
81
116
110
...........
0
64
0
0
0
11
...................
-594
-1184
-889
-831
-857
-889
-861
-1050
-854
-1018
0
225
0
0
72
229
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\ST_TABl(12ja88,fw2,94k)
studio pietrangeli - romaGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.LX 11 - LEFT ABUTMENT FOUNDATION: STRESSES ON PILE HEADS
combinations
N (tj
D/S
N (t)
U/S
T (t>
M (tm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
148
93
136
95
92
120
188
170
184
169
61
115
72
82
84
88
82
100
70
85
26
17
17
13
20
19
102
67
67
52
77
76
TANADlP\DES\BRI D1\ST TAB] (12 j a88.fw2,94k)
studio pietrangeli - romaPI
"Fl '■
Fl H O
□
JC t
k
k
L
I rGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - STABILITY CALCULATIONS
TAB.6.LXIII - LEFT ABUTMENT FOUNDATION - PILES VERIFICATION
1.................
NM
| Signa C
(t)
(tm) 1 (kg/cm2)
Sigma $
(kg/cm2)
148 102 1 76 11
93 102 1 76
1
188 n
1.................
58
-1...................
1370
1800
590
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\ST_TAB1(12jaB8,fw2,94k)
studio pietrangeli - romaI
i
■GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - RfpW DECEMBER 1987 FIG. 6.1 - STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
PLACING
PHASES AND STABILITY SCHEMES
6o
to
$
co <J1
$*
studio p>etrangeli - rorneGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE * FINAL DESIGN - DECEMBER I9B7
FIG. 6.2 - BRIDGE DECK
TRANSVERSAL SCHEME GF LIVE LOADS
FIG. 6.3 - BRIDGE OECK
BEARING SCHEME
rANAOIP\DES\BRlDl (dec87)
studio pietrangei j . romeLOCAL
ABSOLUTE: fUF.
GfLGEL ABAY BRIDGE ■ FINAL DESIGN - REfMT DECEMBER 1907
FIG, 6.4 - STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
'ANAD1P\DFS-HRID! (deca7)
Studio pietrangeli
rnrr.eGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
FIG - M - STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
BRACING DETAILS AT PLACING PHASE
TANADIP\DES,..BRID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangelj _
rome2GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1937
FIG. 6.6 ~ STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
DETAIL OF GIRDER / SLAB CONNECTION
L
*
1
1
■.
1____________________________ I
1 
i ■ -
TANAD1P\DES\BR1O1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - rorn-g( . t » li ( i I ii L MJfiw
f ■« • aos/
CILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DEC EMBER 1987
FIG. 6.7 - STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
POSITION OF TRANS VERBAL CONNECTORS GIRDER 28 m
GIRDER 45 m
fl
C?
2 d20//S
i
TANADIP\DES'.BR1D1 (decB7)
studio pietrangeli - romeG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER J907
FIG. 6.8 - CONCREFE BRIDGE DEG
LOAD SCHEME q.lD
7/
-f
3
------7
Z<?<7 1 75
tn
r 75i
375
1
—---- ------------- ■*
»|
67
5<7 L '" *
"T"
z?/
7/
1■ L
’A
Zh
i
/
/5<?
25 12S
F- <
325
75 1
-f 1
r ------------- ---------------
j
?------
1
*ANAOIP\DES\BR1DI (dec87}
studio pietranqeM - roneIf
7GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - DECEMBER 19fl7
FIG, 6.9 - CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK
LOAD SCHEME q.lC
>5 l7 ///77^ —q
i
1
W | 75 .
2/0
■
200
I?5
too
/--------
K----- ------------ -rf"
11!
©
J
1 z ,
2
8.8g'//fT7
1
i
z
■ OO 75
32 =
7*25 I /^2S
82® 75 .80
--- - . — - — ------------+--------------
235
TANAD IP' DES\BKSD1 (d*cH7)
studio pietrangeli - rone••
I Is
■
1
I
I
IGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN ■
CtCWflfR l$fl7
FIG. 6.11 - DISPLACEMENT OF PIERS
HINGE - TROLLEY PIER BEARING COMBINATION 1
TANAD1P\DES\BR1D1 [dec87)
studio pielrangeli - rone1
*
1
J
1C,tGEL mw . final BKIGN _ SOMr
FlG
-
6 - PIER
foundation piling
9C? I
'—<
1
' So 1 ao 1 30
T S^<7
f —±
^WDIP\DFS\BR!D1 (dec87)
studio pletrange]j
rom&GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
FIG. 6.13 - PIER PLINTH
SENDING CHECK MODEL
TAHAD!P\DES\BR!O1 (decBl)
studio pielrangeli
rome
OS>!GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - I DECEMBER 1987
FIG. 6.14 - RIGHT ABUTMENT
LOADS ON FRONT WAU (EXCLUDING DECK)
L/s -
Il
----------
ZL* J
5-<
* .o----e-—V± —
1
]
*- N
tooa Pre
TANADIPXDES^BRIOI (dec87)
studio pietrangeli - rameI 1
1
¥
V
?5 6D
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER ]gg7
FIG. 6.IS - RIGHT ABUTMENT
CALCULATION MODEL FRONT WALL
P GUP
■' • z
Z z *
P IMF
7.50
f------------------------------------------
PlKF. “ 
PsUP
FIG. 6.16 - RIGHT ABUTMENT
SCHEME OF STRESSES ON FRONT WALL
TANADIP\DES\0RID1 (dec87)
studio pietrangeli
romeI
■
t
jGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - R^HT DECEMBER 1987
FIG. 6.17 - RIGHT ABUTMENT
LATERAL WALL AND SCHEME OF STRESSES
f 60 cm
If)
7 'z,
z z1"
Z / z
z z z
Zz I //
FfXVS
My vs
' / // ////’//////S////
1
500
f
FIG. 6,18 - RIGHT ABUTMENT
LATERAL WALL - FLAG
225
—------------------------ —<«-
TANAOTP\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
i
studio pietranqeli rompI
I
IGtLGtL ABA* BRIDGE DESIGN 'J®W ;H* FIG. 6.19 - RIGHT ABUTMENT
PILING FOUNDATION
-Vt,’ Jf..-l£f^
FIG. 6.20 - RIGHT ABUTMENT SCHEME OF CONCRETE SLAB
FIG. 6.21 - RIGHT ABUTMENT
AND PILING 4 4 5
SCHEME OF
AND PILING 7
CONCRETE
SLAB
rANAOtP\OES\aJUOl (.tecs?)
i ■ rateGflGEL A Al' ftflfDfiE fiJM- Dfjp!*
MCGW LMZ
FIG. 622 - LEFT ABUTMENT
LOADS 0* FRONT w4U rUCLUCJK QECXj
*N
S^'S^rj*/
’I
4#';’?
_____—n, ■ -------------- ------------
TAflAOiP'OES' BHEDl (tiecfl?)
'.Tu-4ta pI32
j
J 3 2
rjLGEi *aAif aaronc final quick
FIG. 6.33 - LEFT ABUTMENT
iFCi^Fa ;;<!•
CALCULATION MCOEL HCH FRQnT WALL
FIG. 6.24 - LEFT ABUTMENT
SCHEME OF STRESSES ON FRONT WALL
7 5(?
' f -- --------- ----- ---------- *
-— 1
My s
MXS
|MyzS
1
-
1
[
s
1
1
1
1
1Z
FANADtP DES'SRIO1 (deca?)
ptetravMfeH rcwGILGEL ABAY BRfDGE - FINAL DESIGN - DECEMBER 1987
FIG. 6.25 - LEFT ABUTMENT
LATERAL WALL AND SCHEHE OF STRESSES
TANAOIP\DES\BRI01 (dec87)
studic pietrangeli - rameG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - RtPORT DECEMBER 1987 FIG. 6.26 - LEFT ABUTMENT
PILING FOUNDATION
SCHEME OF CONCRETE SLAB AND PILING 5
FANADIP'DESXBRIDI (<iecB7)
sl ud i o piptrangeli - romer- GGllGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1937
..
■
-- r-__- •
*1
J
I
It
!J|
7 PIERS CONSTRUCTION METHODS
r-F'
HJ .
TANAOFP\DES\BR101\DlV_3A(decB71 lotus?, 2k)
studio pietrangeli - rameGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - PIER CONSTRUCTION METHODS
Pag .135
7. PIER CONSTRUCTION METHODS
7.11 GENERAL
The two pier construction methods are basically similar.
They differ for the following reasons:
a. The first method can be carried out during the dry season (low levels of water in the river) and does not require the use of floating platforms.
b. The second method can be used also when river levels are high since the pier construction and the sheet piling is carried out from a floating platform.
Both methods are described in the following subsections.
7.2 METHOD A - PROVISIONAL EMBANKMENT
7.2.1 Hypothesis
The left pier is considered, with a lower elevation than the foundation:
qf = 1795.20 m
The level of water assumed during construction is:
Qw </= 1798.70 m
that is, Hw </- 3.5 m
7.2.2 Operative Phases
1. An artificial embankment is constructed which must be above the water level by at least Delta H - 0.5 m; of which:
Qr </- 1701.20 m
The ridge of the embankment shall have a horizontal distance from the plinth
D >/= 2 m
TANADlP\DES\BRIDl\GIL_RELl(l4jaB8,fw2 83k)
h
studio pietrangeli - romeT'
i i-, h h nGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - PIER CONSTRUCTION METHODS
Pag. 136
2. The drilled piles are carried out by machinery operating from the embankment.
3. On the top of the embankment the sheet piles bracing frame shall be
assembled.
4. With a net horizontal distance from the pier metal sheet piles are inserted
which cross the entire provisional embankment and are fixed at least 2 m into
the natural earth or until rock is encountered. The sheet piles are inserted
by using the bracing frame as template.
5. Excavation is carried out (by machinery operating from the embankment) of the embankment material inside the space created by the sheet piling and dewatering is carried out by pumping.
6. Levelling of the excavation is carried out to at least 20 cm below the foundation elevation. The levelling layer of blinding concrete has been assumed at a thickness of at least s - 20 cm.
7. Grouting of the levelling layer.
fl. Cutting of pile heads.
9.
The formwork for the plinth is assembled in the excavation.
10.
The plinth reinforcement is assembled inside the formwork.
11.
Concreting of the plinth is carried out and curing
of
the
concrete
takes
pl ace.
12.
The formwork is dismantled and can be reused for the other pier.
13.
The reinforcement for the trunk of the pier is assembled.
14.
Formwork for concreting of pier trunk is assembled.
15.
Pouring of the pier trunk is carried out and curing commences.
16.
Formwork of pier trunk is dismantled.
17.
At this point final execution of the pier can take place:
. withdrawal of the sheet piling which can be used for the other pier
. improvement or demolition of the embankment according to the hydraulic needs of the river
TANADIP\DES\BRl01\GlL_RELl(14ja8a.fw2,83k)
studio pielrangeli - rnmeT
T
T
T
fl
0
[I
0Fag.137 GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - PIER CONSTRUCTION METHODS
7.2.3 Checking of Provisional Structures
SHEET PILING
From calculation of the sheet piling with the hypothesis of free resting safety factor of ETA ’ L5.
Mmax -6.83 tm/m
From calculation of resting girder:
M = 6.29 tm/m
M - 6.83 tm/m is adopted
Sigma admissible - 1.4 t/csn2
W >- 6.83/1.4 * 10*4 = 4.9 * 10*-4 m3/m
y ’ 1.10 -3 m • 0.1 cm
The LARSEN profile sheet piling is adopted, type la.
b - 400 mm
h = 22Q mm
t “7.5 mm
tl - 6.3 mm
Wx =■ 600 cm3
Sigma s max. ’ 6.83/6.00 » 1.14 t/cm2
HORIZONTAL FRAME (SHEET PILING BRACING) {Ref. Fig. 7.2-7.4)
A
From the calculation of sheet piling with the hypothesis of head support pressure is:
"free resting11, the
n (safety factor)
q (t/m)
l.S
3.77
2.0
4.22
From calculation of resting girder of sheet piling the head reaction is q - 4,47 t/m
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\GIL REL1(14jaB8.fw2.83k)
studio pietrange)i - romePag.138
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - PIER CONSTRUCTION METHODS The following has been adopted on frame:
q=
L-
T=
M - 1/8 1P2 * 4.47 -
Sigma ADM -
W >- (69*105)/(1.4*10'3) =
for H - 50 cm, H/2 = 25 cm
J - W ‘ (4/2) =
11*4 * 4.47
Eta---------------- ----------------- --------- --------- = 77*2.1*10''?*] 20730*10'-8
- 3.35 * IOA-2 =
with L = 10.5 m:
10.5*4 * 4.47
Eta................................................... ............... 77*2.1*10A7*L20730*10A-S
= 2.78 * 10"-2 •
The following profile has been adopted:
. p - 184 kg/m
. WX - 4932
. Jx = 130720
Sigma ■
Tau x 25/(0.8*53) =
Sigma vd -
SHORT SIDE
L - 5.5 + 1 + 1 -
M - 1/8 * 7.5A2 * 4.47 =
T - (7.5*4.47)/2 -
Bolt calculations:
Tau adm - 1.13 t/cm2 (CL.4,6)
A bull - 16.8/(0.75*1.0) '
n FI 24 = 22.35/4.52 = 5 • Bolts adopted: No.6 bolts FI 24
, 4.47 t/m
- 11 m
= 24.6 t
= 68 tm
= 1.4 t/cm2 - 4829 cm3
- 120730 cm4
= 3.35 cm
- 2.78 cm
HSA 530
= t.38 t/cm2
= 0.59 t/cm2
- 1.5 t/crrt2
= 7.5 m = 31.4 tm
= 16.8 t
- 22.35
=6
TANAD1P\DES\BRI DI\G1L_ RE LI(14j aB8.fw2.83 k)
studio pietrangeli - romeT
T
T
T
I
ll
0
I il
3GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - PIER CONSTRUCTION METHODS
Pag.139
7.3 METHOD C - FLOATING PLATFORM
This system is very similar to that previously described.
The main difference consists in the fact that the piles and the protective sheet piling are realized from a floating platform instead of the provisional embankment.
Also the bracing frame of the sheet piling shall be placed from the platform and fixed at the head of the piling.
In this case, since there is no embankment to lower the permeability of the system, water-proof sheeting shall be placed at the extrados in order to avoid large amounts of filtration with the relative punping.
for the rest, the method is completely identical to Method A.
TANADIP\DES\0RID1\GIL_RELl(14ja8fl,fw2,S3k)
stud 1 0
pietrangeM - pome!
!
i
1
J
J
mFG1LGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - RW DECEMBER 1987 FIG. 7.1 - PILING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
CALCULATION MODEL FOR Temporary SHEET PILING
TANADIF\DES\BRIOl (deca?)
studio p/ietlrange] i rone1
—GILGEL ABAY BRIOGE - FINAL DESIGN - «EfoRT DECEMBER 1987
FIG. 7.2 - piling CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
CALCULATION SCHEME FOR FRAME OF TEMPORARY SHEET PILING
—
11
L
t
in
. - - . -Lu
_
1
r
J
1J
FIG. 7.3 - STRESSES ON FRAME
I ANA DIP\DES\BRID1 ! d e c 8 7)
studio pietrange'M - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE * FINAL DESIGN - REpW DECEMBER 1987
FIG. 7.4 ~ PILING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
FRAME DETAILS OF TEMPORARY SHEET PILING
SECTION A-A
4-
o
Ip
0
6/ 6 7tl
TANAD1P\DES\BRID1 (dec87)
studio p^etrangel I - rome
53<?GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
8. BILL OF QUANTITIES
TANAOlP\DES\0RIDl\OIV_3A(decB7, latus2, 2k)
studio pietrangeli - romePag.140
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE * FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES
8. BILL OF QUANTITIES
8.] GENERAL
This chapter presents the Bills of Quantities for the Gilgel Abay Bridge.
They are summarised in the following subsection 8.2 where the work categori
are divided into 17 items relative to the following four mam gro P
. Excavation
. Concrete
. Structural steelwork
. Metalwork
Subsection 8.3 illustrates the detailed bills of quantities.
The Cost Estimate has been carried out as an "Engineer’s Estimate”.
The prices of the Civil Works have been adopted from comparison with the works carried out in the Tana-Beles Project Part 1. and those relative to Metalwork on the basis of the suppliers’ offers.
TANADIP\DES\BR101\GlL_RELl(l4ja88,fw2 83k)
t
studio pietrangeli - romeIpag.141
GILGIL AEBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES 8.2 BILL OF QUANTITIES - SUMMARY
RATE
AMOUNT
No
1. EXCAVATION
DESCRIPTION
UNIT QUANTITY
1.1 PILES D ■> 1,2 in FOUNDATION EXCAVATION
m 246
1.2 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION
Z. CONCRETES -
F■*r
m3
355
1 ■ ± 9 ■-»3= =*■=>
2.1
CONCRETE R'bk 150 kg/cm2
m3
38
2.2
CONCRETE Rbk 250 kg/cm2
m3
1.015
2.3
PRECAST CONCRETE R'bk 250 kg/cm2
m3
70
3. FORMWORKS -
4. CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT ■ a
m2
1.270
■ ==
4.1
WELDMESH (Dia - 6, 15*15 cm) ..
kg
5.300
4.2
4.3
REINFORCEMENT .
kg
111-COO
ANGLE IRON 50*50*6 ...
kg
2.100
S. STEELWORKS
5.1 GUARDRAIL ..
■i
■t + F
kg
6.000
5.2
STEEL PLATES
kg
123.000
5.3
UNEQUAL SIZED ANCLE IRON
kg
10.600
5.4
EQUAL
SIZED ANGLE IRON ...
kg
15.000
5.5
BOLTS UTS M2O (estimated
L-
00 mm) . .
kg
70
5.5
BOLTS UTS M24
(estimated
L’
kg
350
5.7
BOLTS UTS M2 7 (estimated
L-
130 rum)
kg
3.600
5.8
CONNECTORS (BEAM-SLAB)
kg
950
GRAND TOTAL
TANADIP DESX0RIO .IXBRI_BOQ1 (dec87, lotus?, 4k)
1
studio pietrangel i
romeGILG1L AB8AY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES 0.3 DETAILED BILL OF QUANTITIES
pag.142
DESCRIPTION
UNIT QUANTITY
1. EXCAVATION
1.1 PILES D = 1,2 m FOUNDATION EXCAVATION * left abutment : 6*9,0
* left pier ; 6*9,0
* right pier : 6*7,0
* right abutment : 8*12,0
1.2 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION * left abutment : 5,0*9,4*1,0
* left pier : 5,8*9,4*1.8
* right pier : 5,8*9,4*1,8
* right abutment : 8,2*10,2*1,2
TOTAL
m
m
m
m
m
m3
m3
m3
m3
*
various
m3
54,00
54,00
42,00
96.00
246,00
54,52
98,14
98,14
100,37
4
3,8
TOTAL m3
355,00
2.
CONCRETES -............... ............... .
2.1 CONCRETE R'bk 150 kg/cm2
* left abutment : 5,8*9,4*0,15
* left pier : 5,8*9,4*0,15
* right pier : 5,8*9,4*0,15
* right abutment : 8,2*10,2*0,15
* various
2.2 CONCRETE R'bk 250 kg/cm2 * LEFT ABUTMENT
+ piles
6*0,6*2*3,14*9,0
+ foundation
5,4*9.0*1,0
+ abutment
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
8,18
8,18
8,18
12,55
0.92
TOTAL
(0,6*3,15+0.45*{0,95+0,5)/2+0,3*l,687)*7,8 2*0,75*1,622*0.3+3,78*0,45*0,3+2*0,4*0,4*0,2
+ wing walls
2*((2,2+2,65)/2*O.45+2,35*2,841 )*0,5
2*( (1,896+1,7i)/2*4,35-2,0* 1,33*l/2)*O, 5
2*(1,0*0,6-0,6*0,25-2*0,05*0,05) *4,65
+ slab
2*(0,22+0,27)/2*3.0*4,65 * LEFT PIER
+ piles
6*0,6*2*3,14*9,0
C/F
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
61,04
48.60
21.23
1,30
7,77
6,51 4.14 6,84
61,04
218,48
TANAD1P\DES\BRID_1\BRI. B0Q2 (decB7, °tus2, 59k)
studio pietrangeli - ronieGILGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BiLL OF QUANTITIES
No
DESCRIPTION
pag.143
UNIT quantity
B/F
m3
218,48
+ foundation
5.4*9.0*1,8
m3
87.48
+ pier
d (0e ,c5k*2s*u3p.1p4o+r5t ,0*1,0)*6,35
m3
36,73
+
m3
8,95
(2*2,0*2,0+1,0*2,5}*0,8+(0.175*3,73+0,275*3,48)*
*0.25+4*0,5*0.5*0,15
m3
8,95
*
RIGHT PIER
+ piles
m3
47,48
+
6*0,6*2*3,14*7,0
foundation
S,4*9,0*1,8
m3
87,48
+ pier
(0,5*2*3,14+5,0*1,O)*5.95
m3
34.42
+ ddeecckkssuuppppoortrt
(2*2,0*2,0+1,0*2.53*0,8+10,175*3,78+0.275*3,40)
*0,25+4*0,5*0,5*0.15
m3
8,95
*
RIGHT ABUTMENT
+ piles
8*0,6*2*3,14*12,0
m3
108,52
+ foundation
7,8*9,8*1,2
+ abutment
(0,6*4,95+0,45*(0,95+0,5)/2+0,3*1,687)*7,8 2*0,75*1,622*0,3+3,78*0,45*0,3+2*0,4*0.4*0,2
+ wing walls
m3
91,73
m3
29,66
m3
1.30
2*((4,0+4,45)/2*0.45+3.95*4,239)*O,6
m3
22.37
2*((2,298+2,03)/2*6,4-2,5*1,65*l/2)*0,6
m3
14,14
2*(1,0*0,6-0,6*0,25-2*0.05*0,05)*6,7
m3
5,96
+ slab
*
2*(0,22+0,27)/2*3,0*6.7
m3
9,85
OPENINGS IN PRECAST SLAB
+ type A and C
2*(35+4)*0,45*1,05*0.06
+ type B and D
m3
2,21
2*(44+8)*0.35*1,05*0,06
type E
2*2*0,45*0,65*0.06
m3
m3
+ type F
2,29
0,07
2*2*0,35*0,65*0,06
+ type G
m3
0.05
2*2*0,45*0,925*0,08
m3
+ type H
0,13
2*2*0,45*0,775*0,08
+ type I
m3
0,11
*
m3
0,09
*
*
2*2*0,35*0,775*0.08
SLAB
2*(0,19+0.24)/2*3,85*103,3
m3
SLAB KERB
171,01
2*(0,25*0,2+0,2*0.05)*103.3
various
m3
m3
12,40
4,16
TOTAL
m3
1 -015,00
TANADIP\QES\BRID_l\BRI_B0Q2 (dec87, lotus2, 59k}
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES
DESCRIPTION
2.3 PRECAST CONCRETE R'bk 250 kg/cm2
* PRECAST SLABS
+ type A
35*(2*1,475+4,05)*!,05*0,06
+ type B
44*(2*1,525+4,15)*],05*0,06
+ type C
4*(2*1,475+4,05)*l,05*0,06
+ type D
8*(2*1,525+4,15)*],05*0,06
+ type E
2*(2*1.475+4.05)*0.65*0.06
+ type f
2*(2*l,525+4.15)*0,65*0.06
+ type G
2*(2*1,475+4,05)*0,925*0,08
+ type H
2*(2*1,475+4,O5)*O,775*O,08
+ type I
2*(2*1,525+4,15)*0,775*0,08
* PRECAST SLAB KERB
+ type A - B - C and 0
2*(35+44+4+8) *(0,05*0,16+0,15*0,39+0,1*0,05)* 1,05 + type E and F
2*(2+2)*(0,05*0,16+0,15*0,39+0,10*0,05)*0,65 + type G
2*2*(0,05*0,18+0,15*0,37fO,10*0,05)*0,925
+ type H and 1
2*(2+2)*(0,05*0,18+0,15*0,37+0,10*0,05)*0.778 * CABLE DUCT COVER
2*(lO3+7+5)*O,7O*l,O*O,O5
* various
pag.144
unit quantity
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
m3
TOTAL m3
15,44
19,96
1,76
3,63
0,55
0,56
1.04
0,87
0.89
13.66
0,37
0.26
0,43
B.05
2.54
70,00
3. FORMWORKS ■■■•«
* LEFT ABUTMENT
+ foundation
2*(5,4+9,0)*l,0
+ abutment
m2
28,80
(3,15+1,6B7)*7,8+(3,2>0,64+2.187)*6,8
2*0,75*1,622+2*(3,78+0,45)*0,3+2*4*Q,
4*0,2
m2
78.71
+ wing walls
m2
5.61
2*(3,6*2,841+1,05*1,896+(
1,896+1,71)/2*4.35-
2,0*
*1,33*1/2)
2*((2,2+2.65)72*0,45+3.15*2,84
1+( 1,896+1,71 )/2*
m2
37,46
*4,35-2,0*1,33*1/2)
2*(2,841+2.4+0,38)*0,5 2*(0.1+0,3+2*0,6+2*0.25)*4,65
m2
33,11
m2
5,62
m2
19,53
C/F m2
208,84
TANADIP\DES\BRID_1\BR1_BOQ2 (decB7, l
otus2, 59k)
studio pietrangeli - romer
r
m
: ci
□ EJ
u
■I
LJ
Ipag.145
UNIT QUANTITY
A
GTLGIL ABBAY BRIDGE * FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES DESCRIPTION
6,0*4,65+2*2*(0,22*0.271/2*3,0
* LEFT PIER
+ foundation
2*(5,4+9,0)*1.8
+ pier
(2*3,14*0,5+2*5,0)*6,35
+ deck support
2*(2,0*2,0-0,5 2*3,14*1/2-1,25*1,0)
(6*2,0+4*0,5+2*2,5)*O,B+2*(3,78+0,45)*0.25+4*4*0,5*
*0,15
* RIGHT PIER
+ foundation
2*(5,4+9,0)*l,8
+ pier
(2*3,14*0,5+2*5,0)*5,95
+ deck support
2*(2,0*2,0-0,5*2*3,14*1/2-1,25*1.0)
(6*2,0+4*0.5+2*2,5)*0,8+2*(3,78i0.45)
*0.15
* RIGHT ABUTMENT
+ foundation
2*(7,8+9,8)*l,2
+ abutment
(4,95+1,6S7)*7,8+(4,0+0,64+2.1B7)*6,6
2*0.75*1,622+2*(3,78+0,45)*0,3+2*4*0,4*0,2
+ wing walls
2*(5.0*4,239+1,05*2,298+(2,298+2.03)/2*6.4-2.5*
*1,65*1/2)
2*((4,0+4,45)/2*0,45+3,95*4,239+(2,298+2.03)/2*6,4 - -2.5*1,65*1/2)
2*(4,239+3.0+0.38J*0.6
2*(0,1+0,3+2*0,6+2*0,2S)*6,7
+ slab
6,0*6,7+2*2*(0.22+0.27)/2*3.O
* PRECAST SLABS
+ type A
35*(4*1,475+2*4,05+6*1,05)*0.06
+ type B
44*(4*1,525+2*4,1S+6*I.05)*0,06
+ type C
4*(4*1,475+2*4,05+6*1.05)*0,06
+ type D
8*14*1,525+2*4,15+6*1,05)*0,05
+ type E
2*(4*1,475+2*4,05+6*0,65)*0.06
+ type F
2*(4*1.525+2*4.15+6*0,65)*O,06
+ type G
2*(4*1,475+2*4,05+6*0,925)*0,08
+ type H
2*(4*1,475+2*4,05+6*0,775)*0,08
TANADIP\DES\BRID 1\BRI_B0Q2 (decB7. Iotus2, 59k)
m2 208,84
*0,25^4*4*0,5*
C/F
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
30.84
51.84
63,44
4.72
18,52
51,84
70,18
4.72
18,52
42,24
96,83
5,61
70,79
60.86
9,14
28.14
43.14
42.63
54,65
4,87
9,94
2,15
2,20
3,13
2,98
1.030,74
j
studio pietrangeli - romeL
:n
n
nGILGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES
No
DESCRIPTION
pag.146
UNIT QUANTITY
B/F
m2
m2
1.030,74
3,05
Jr
+ type I
i 2rr*a(4e*r1r,i5a2a5+2*4,15+6*0,775)*O,08
PRECAST SLAB KERB
'
+
type A ~ B ■ C and 0
2*2*(35+44+4+8)*(O,O5*O,16+0,15*0,39+0,10*0,05) 2*(35+44+4+8)*2*0,15*1,05
m2
26.03
m2
57.33
+
+
+
type E and F
2*2*(2+2)*(0,05*0,16+0,15*0,39+0,10*0,05)
2*(2+2)*2*O,15*0,65
m2
1,14
m2
1.56
type fi
2*2*2*(0,05‘0t18+0,15*0,37+0.10*0,05)
2*(2+2)*2*O.15*0,925
m2
0,56
m2
2,22
type H and I
2*2*(2+2)*(0.05*0,18+0,15*0,37+0, 10*0.05)
m2
1,11
2*(2+2)*2*0,15*0,775
m2
1,86
★
*
SLAB KERB
2*(0,2*103,0+0,05*103,1+0.25*103,3)
2*2*(O,2*O.6+0,05*0,65+0,25*0,85)
CABLE DUCT COVER
m2
m2
103,16
1,46
2*(103+7+5)*(2*0,7+2*1,0)*0,05
various
m2
39,10
*
m2
0,68
TOTAL
m2
1.270.00
4. CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT
4.1 WELOMESH (Ola = 6, 15*15 cm)
* PRECAST SLABS
+ type A
35*(2*1,475+4,05)*l,05*3,11 kg/m?
+ type B
44*12*1,525+4,15)*1,05*3,11 kg/m2 + type C
4*(2*1,475+4,05)*l,05*3,11 kg/m2
+ type 0
a*(2*l 525+4 J5)*LO5*3 JI kg/m2
=
t
+ type E
2*(2*1,475+4,05)*0,65*3,11 kg/m2
+ type F
2*(2*1,525+4.15)*0,55*3,11 kg/m2 + type G
2*12*1,475+4,051*0.925*3JI kg/m2 + type H
2*(2*1,475+4.05)*0,775*3,11 kg/m2
+ type I
2*12*1,525+4,15)*0,775*3,11 kg/m2 * SLAB : 7,7*103,3*3,11 kg/m2
* CABLE DUCT COVER
2*(103+7+5)*0.7*1,0*3,11 kg/m2
* various
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
800.05
1.034,51
91,43
188.09
28.30
29.11
40,27
33,74
34 71
kg 2.473.73
kg
kg
500,71
45,34
TANADIP\OES\BR1D 1\BRI_BOQ2 (dec87, lotus2. 59k)
TOTAL kg 5.300.00 studio pietrangeli - routeGILGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES
pag.147
No
4.2 REINFORCMENT
* LEFT ABUTMENT
DESCRIPTION
UNIT QUANTITY
+
+
piles
Dia 24 : 6*(J5*9.9+12*4,9)*3,551
Dia 20 ;■ 6*4*4,0*2,466
Dia 10 : 6*(45*4,0+5*4,0)*0,617
foundation
Dia 20 ;
Dia 16 :
Dia 14 : 6*10*2,76*1.208
Dia 8 : 12*20*0,74*0,395
+ abutment and wing walls
Dia 20 ; (34*3,45+5*B.34}*2,466
Dia 16 : (3*39*4,1 +2*6*1,95+2*2*5,49)*1, 578
Dia 16 : (2*2*3,75+2* J 5*2,0+2*15*4,95+2*15*4 )*1.578
Dia 16 ; (2*23*1,61+2*17*2,4+2*16*8,84) *1.578
Oia 14 : (2*15*2,0+2*16*4,95+2*8*3,44) *1 ,208
Dia 14 : (2*2*8*2165+2*8* 1,74+2*8*3.99)*1,20B Dia 14 : (2*2*25*4,14+2*2*1,3+2*16*3,0)*! ,208 Dia 12 : (39*1,95+34*2,5+17*2,0+2*2*1,85) *0.888 Dia 12 : (2*2*24*1,52+2*9*8,22+35*4.61+2*4,44 + 19*
*2,09)*0,888
Oia 10 : (2*30*4.89+30*2,45+2*I0*5,49)*O, 617 Dia 10 : (2*24*6,24+2*24*1,75+2*24*1,47)*0,617
(45*7,16+45*5,9+14*5.9+27*9,5) *2,466 (4*6.14+4*9,74+27*10.76)*l,578
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
4.416,73
236,74
740,40
2.285,49
558,68
200,04
70,15
kg
392,09
kg
820,54
kg
542.04
kg
692,02
kg
330,32
kg
213.19
kg
622,36
kg
179.78
kg
447,39
kg
294,12
kg
280,17
LEFT PIER
+ piles
+
Dia 20 :
Dia 8 :
foundation
6*(6*5,2+12*10,7+3*4,2)*2,466
6*(45*3.9+7*3,9)395
+
Dia 30 i (10*4*7,1+27*10.1+45*6.5) *5,549
Dia 16 ! (3*2*9.74+3*2*6,14+9*9.3+15*5,7)*l,57B
Dia 16 : (27*12.4+45*8.0+24*4,46)*1.57B
pier
Dm 20 : (2*33*3,0+2*33*6,0+2*33*7,1 + 12*2,91 ) *2,466 Dia 12 : (2*31*5,0+2*31*2,68)*O,888
Dia 8 : 9*10*1,24*0,395
deck support
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
2.547,87
480.64
+
Oil
Di a
Di a
Di a
* RIGHT
20 :
16 :
12 :
12 :
PIER
(10*7,92+18*3,32)*2,466
(14*3,5+8*5,52+10*3,32+18*2.92}*1.578 (20*2,32+8*4,3+5,1*4.74+16*2.09) *0 S88
2*1,82*0,888
+
piles
Dia 20 :
Dia 8 :
6*(6*5,2+12*8,7+3*4,2)*2.466
6*(35+3,9+7*3,9)*0,395
+ foundation
4.712,21
417.35
1.322,11
2.706,43
422,83
44,08
342,68
282,34
110,18
3,23
2,192.77
388.21
Dia 30 : (10*4*7.1+27*10,1+45*6.5)*5.549
Dia 16
(3*2*9,74-3*2*6,14+9*9,3+15*5,7)*]
Dia 16
;
:
(27*12,4+45*8,8+24*4,46)*!,578
+
pier
4. 712.21
417,35
1-322,11
Dia 20
:
(2*33*3,0+2*33*6,0+2*33*6,7
+
12*2
Dia 12
:
(2*29*5,0+2*29*2,68)‘0,888
5?B
9|)*2 466
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
2641,38
395,55
C/F kg 38.791,03
TANADlP\OESXBRlD_l\BRl_0Oa2 (dec87, lotusZ, 59k)
studio
pietrangeli - romeGILGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES
pag. 148
No
DESCRIPTION
UNIT quantity
B/F
Dia 8 : 9*10*1,24*0,395
+ deck support
Dia 20 : (10*7,92+18*3,32)*2,466
Dia 16 : (14*3,5+8*5,52+10*3,32+18*2,92)*1,578
Dia 12 : (20*2,32+8*4,3+5,1+4,74+16*2.09)*O,888
Dia 12 ; 2*1,82*0,888
* RIGHT ABUTMENT
4* piles
+
Oia 24 : 8*(12*6,2+12*8,2+12*6,2+12*4.2)*3.551 Dia 20 : 8*6*4,0*2,466
Dia 10 : 8*(60*4.0+5*4,0)*0,617
foundation
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
24 :
20 :
16 :
14 :
8:
+ abutment
Di a 24 :
Dia 20 :
Di a 20 :
Di a 16 :
Dia 16 :
Dia 16 :
Dia 16 :
Dia 14 :
Di a 14 :
Dia 12 :
Dia 12 :
Dia 12 :
Oia 10 i
Dia 10 :
(49*B,7+39*6,0+39*10,7)*3,551
{49*9,96+49*8,3+39*11,96+2*39*4.0) *2,466 (4*8,54+4*10,54}*l.578
8*10*3,14*1,208
16*20*0,84*0,395
and wing walls
2*5*3,0*3,551
(33*?’ 2+33*5,0+33*3,47+2*5*2,2] *2,466
(2*22*5,0+5*8,34)*2,466
(39*2,2+2*39*4,9+2*17*2,2+2*22*6,65) * 1.578
(2*22*1,72+2*7*5, B9+2*6*2,75)*l, 578
(2*25*8,84+2*25*3,0+2*20*3+2*25*5.94) *] , 578
(2*4*2.5+2*6*1,95+2*4,4+4*7,54) *1,578
(2*22*2,2+2*22*6,65+2*7*6,34+2*6*2,75)*
*1,208
(2*7* 1,74+2*25*5,94+2*4*2,5) *J,208
(33*2.32+2*12*2,3+2*8*8,22+20*2.0) *0,880
(39*1,95+2*4*4.61+2*4,44+19*2,09)*0,888
2*2*33*1,52*0,888
(2*30*6,94+30*2,45+33*6,24 + 33*6,24) *0,617 (2*10*7.54+2*33*1,75+2*33*1.471*0,617
* PRECAST SLABS
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
38.791.S3
44.08
342,68
282,34
110,18
3,23
8.454,22
473,47
1.283,36
3,826,56
4.126,06
120,43
303,45
106.18
106,53
922,56
645,35
1.318,26
301,62
1.592,20
129,96
617.48
412,36
269.31
143,43
163,20
556,37
224,17
+ type
A
+
Dia 24
Dia 12
type 6
Dia 24
Ola 12
+ type C
Dia 24
Dia 12
+ type D
+
+ type
Dia 24
Dia 12
type E
Dia 24
Oia 12
F
Dia 24
Dia 12
: 3S*(2*7,6+4*7,8+3*4,35)*3,551 : 35*2*36*0,78*0.888
: 44*(2*7,6+4*7,8+3*4,3S)*3,551 : 44*2*36*0,78*0,888
: 4*(2*7,6+9*7,8+6*4,35}*3.551 : 4*2*36*0.78*0,888
: 8*(2*7,6+9*7,8r6w4.35)*3,551 : 8*2*36*0,78*0.888
: 2*(2*7,6+4*7,8+4,35)*3,551 : 2*2*36*0.78*0,888
: 2*(2*7,6+4*7,8+4,35)*3,551 : 2*2*36*0,78*0.888
kg 7.388,74
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
1.745,45
9.288,71
2.194,28
1.583,75
199,48
3.167,49
398,96
360.43
99.74
360.43
99.74
C/F
kg 92-558.08
TANADIP\DES\BRID_1\BRI_8OQ2 (dec87, lotus2, 59k)
studio pietrangeli - rowsn
_n
♦ -
Q
J
IG1LGTL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES
No
DESCRIPTION
pag.149
UNIT QUANTITY
B/F
kg
92.558,08
+ type G
Dia 24 : 2*(2*7,6+4*7,8+3*4,35)*3,551
kg
Dia 12 : 2*2*36*0,72*0,838
kg
422.21
92.07
+ type H
Dia 24 : 2*(2*7,6+4*7,8+4,35)*3.551
kg
Oia 12 : 2*2*4,35*0,888
kg
350.43
15,45
Dia 12 : 2*2*36*0,72*0,888
kg
+ type I
Oia 24 : 2*(2*7,6+4*7,8+4,35)*3,551
kg
Oia 12 : 2*2*4,35*0,888
kg
92,07
360,43
15,45
Oia 12 : 2*2*36*0.72*0,888
kg
92,07
* PRECAST SLAB KERB
+ type A * B - C and D
Dia 8 : 2*(35+44+4+8)*(7*l, 17+7*0,77+6*l,0)*0,395 + type E and F
Oia 8 : 2*{2+2)*(5*l, 17*5*0.77+6*0,6)*0,395
+ type G
Oia 8 : 2*2*(7*1,17+7*0,77+6*0.375)*0,395
+ type H and 1
Dia 8 : 2*(2+2)*(6*1,17+6*0,77+6*0.725)*O.395
* SLA8
Dia 24 : 2*(35+44)*3*2,4*3,55l
Dia 24 : 2*(4+8)*8*2,4*3,551
Dia 24 : (4+8)*(6*2,4+7*4.2)*3,551
Dia 24 : 2*(5*2)*3*2.4*3,551
Dia 12 : 2*31*9*12.0*0.888
* SLAB KERB
ia 8 : 2*(3*9*12,0+690*0,72+690*0,93)*0,395 Dia 8 : 4*(3*0,65+5*0,52+5*0,73)*0,395
* various
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
1.407,61
42,03
29,75
50.53
4.039.62
1,636.30
1.866.41
511,34
5.946,05
1 155,38
12.96
293.79
TOTAL
kg 111.000,00
4.3 ANGLE IRON 50*50*6
* CABLE DUCT
2*(2*103.3+2*6,7+2*4,651*4,47 kg/m * various
kg 2.049,94
kg
50,06
TOTAL
kg 2. 100.00
5. STEELWORKS
5.1 GUARDRAIL
2*(103,3»6,7+4,65)*25.0 kg/ra
* various
kg
kg
5.732,50
267,50
TOTAL kg 6.000.00
~ W IE «= s = .=.» 
-
TANADIP\DES\BR1D_1\BRT .BOQ2 (dec87, lotus?, 59k)
studio pietrangeli
romeGILGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES
pag.150
DESCRIPTION
UNIT QUANTITY
5.2 STEEL PLATES
* GIRDER L - 28,0 m
+ upper beam flange t = 20 mm
2*2*(13,6+15,125)*O,4*160,0
+ web t = 10 on
kg/m2
kg
7-353,60
2*2*(1,432+1,704)/2*13,6*80,0 kg/m2
2*2*(1,704+2,00651/2*15,125*80,0 kg/m2 + lower beam flange t - 35 mm
2*2*(13,6+15,125)*0,7*280,0 kg/m2
+ web vertical stiffeners t = 20 mm
2*2*1,4380*0,2*160,0 kg/m2
2*2*1,998*0,2*160.0 kg/m2
+ web vertical stiffeners t - 30 mm
2*2*1.438*0,35*240,0 kg/m2
2*2*1,998*0,35*240,0 kg/m2
+ web vertical stiffeners t = 10 mm
2*2*{1,466+1,494+1,55+1,606+1,662+1 +1,83+1,8B6+1.942+1,9 7)*0,25*80,0 kg/m2
kg
6.823.94
kg
8.979,41
kg
22.520,40
kg
184,06
kg
255,74
kg
483,17
kg
671,33
,718+1,774+
kg
1.511,84
* GIRDER L - 45,0 m
+ upper beam flange t ■ 35 mm
2*(2*15,125+15,4)*0,5*280,0
kg/ut2
+ web t - 12 mm
2*2*( 1,9865+2.275)/2*15,125*96,0 kg
.m2
2*2,275*15,4*96,0 kg/m2
+ lower beam flange t ■ 40 mm
2*(2*15,125+15,4)*1,0*320,0 kg/m2
kg 12.782,00
kg 12.375,40
kg 6.726,72
kg 29.216,00
+ web vertical stiffeners t = 30 mm
2*2*1,995*0,25*240,0 kg/m2
+ web vertical stiffeners t • 40 mm
2*2*(0,25+0,5)/2*l,99S*320,0 kg/m2
+ web vertical stiffeners t = 12 mm
2*2*(2,023+2.051+2,107+2,163+2,219
+2,275)*
*0,25*96,0 kg/m2
2*5*2,275*0.25*96,0 kg/m2
*
STRAP JOINT L - 28,0 m
+ upper beam flange t = 12 mm
2*2*(2*0,15+0,351*0,64*96,0 kg/m2
+ web t = 7 mm
2*2*2*0.3*1,62*56,0 kg/m2
+ lower beam flange t » 20 mm
2*2*(2*O,325+0,7)*1,12*160,0 kg/m2
*
STRAP JOINT L - 45,0 m
+ upper beam flange t • 20 mm
2*2*(2*0,2+0,45)*1.24*16O,0 kg/m2
+ web t * 8 mm
2*2*2*0,35*2,19*64.0 kg/m2
+ lower beam flanqe t =■ 22 mm
2*2*(2*O,475+1,0)*l.24*176,0 kg/m2
*
PROVISIONAL JOINTS
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
478,80
957,60
1.232,45
546.00
159.74
217,73
967,68
674.56
392.45
1.702.27
+ upper beam flange t * 15 mm
2*2*0,4*0,54*120,0 kg/m2
TANADIP\OES\BRIDJ\BR1_BOQ2 (dec87, 1dLus2, 59k)
kg 103,68 C /F kg 117.316.57
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGIL ASSAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN ■ BILL OF QUANTITIES
DESCRIPTION
+ web t - 8 m
pag.151
UNIT quantity
B/F
kg 117.316,57
2*2*2*0,2*1,9*64.0 kg/m2
+ lower beam flange t 24 mm
2*2*0.7*1,0*192,0 kg/m2
2*2*1,0*1,0*192.0 kg/m2
+ lower beam flange t = 5 mm
2*2*2*0,3*0.27*40.0 kg/m2
+ lower beam flange t * 15 mm
2*2*2*0,3*0,54*120,0 kg/m2
* VERTICAL BRACINGS 1 and 6
+ thickness = 30 mm
2*(O,35*0,9+4*0,2*0,13+8*0.1*0,l)*240,0 kg/m2
2*(0,37*0,78+4*0,2*0,13+8*0.1*0. l)*240,0 kg/m2
* VERTICAL BRACINGS 2 - 3 - 4 and 5
+ thickness • 10 mm
2*4*(0,3*0,7+4*0,2*0,12+8*0,1*0,1)*80,0 kg/m2 * VERTICAL BRACING 7
+ thickness = 40 nun
2*(0,37*0,78+4*0.2*0.13t0*O,1*0,1)*320,0 kg/m2 * VERTICAL BRACINGS 8 - 9 and 10
+ thickness - 12 mm
2*3*{0,3*0,55+4*0,2*0,12*8*0,1*0,l)*95,0 kg/m2 * VERTICAL BRACING 11
+ thickness ■ 12 mm
(0,3*0,55+4*0,2*0,12+8*0,1*0,1 )*96,0 kg/m2 * GIRDER L - 28,0 n
+ lower bracings t ■ 12 mm
2*(4*0,5*0.725-8*0,5*1,1+5*0,35*1. 1)*95 kg/m2 + upper bracings t • 10 mui
2*5*0,12*0,51*80,0 kg/m2
* GIRDER L = 45,0 m
+ lower bracings t = 12 mm
(2*6*0,42+2*0,42+2*4*0.35)*1,1*96,0 kg/m2 + upper bracings t • 10 m
2*4*0,12*0,51*00.0 kg/m2
* various
5.3 UNEQUAL SIZED ANGLE IRON
* GIRDER L - 28,0 m
• angle iron 150*100*10
2*2*(2*13,3+2*14,7)*l9,0 kg/m
+ upper bracings 100*50*8
2*10*6.88*8.99 kg/m
* GIRDER L - 45,0 m
+ angle iron 150*100*12
(2*2*2*14,7+2*2*15,4)*22,6 kg/m + upper bracings 100*50*8
2*8*6,88*8,99 kg/m
* various
194,56
537,60
768.00
25.92
155.52
239.52
226.85
247.04
302,46
196.42
32.74
TOTAL
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg 1.492.80
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg 123.000,00
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
48.96
916.61
39.17
259,27
4.256,00
1.237.02
4.049,92
989,62
67,44
total
kg
10.600.00
TANADIP\OES\BRID_1\BRI_BOQ2 (dec87, lotusZ, 59k)
studio pietrangeli . rQmeGiLGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - SILL OF QUANTITIES DESCRIPTION
5.4 EQUAL SIZED ANGLE IRON
* VERTICAL BRACINGS 1 and 6
pag. 152
UNIT QUANTITY
+ lower 130*1?
2*2*2*4,42*23,6 kg/m
kg
834,50
+ upper 100*8
2*2*2*4,42*12,2 kg/m
kg
431,39
+ bracing 120*10
2*2*(2*2,22+2*2,609)*17,5 kg/m
kg
676,06
*
VERTICAL BRACINGS 2 and 5
+ lower 120*10
2*2*2*4,42*17,5 kg/m
kg
610,80
+ upper 100*8
2*2*2*4,42*12.2 kg/m
kg
431,39
+ bracing 100*10
2*2*(2*2,298+2*2,531)*15,1 kg/m
kg
583.34
*
VERTICAL BRACINGS 3 and 4
+ lower 120*0
2*2*2*4,42*14,7 kg/m
kg
519.79
+ upper 100*8
2*2*2*4,42*12,2 kg/m
kg
431,39
+ bracing 100*10
2*2*(2*2,376+2*2,453)*I5,1 kg/m
kg
583.34
*
VERTICAL BRACING 7
+ lower 130*12
2*2*4,42*23,6 kg/m
kg
417,25
+ upper 100*8
2*2*4,42*12,2 kg/m
kg
215,70
+ bracing 120*10
2*2*2*2,65*17,5 kg/m
kg
371.00
*
VERTICAL BRACING 8
* lower 120*12
2*2*4,42*23.6 kg/m
kg
417,25
+ upper 100*8
2*2*4,42*12,2 kg/m
kg
215,70
+ bracing 100*8
2*2*2*2,72*12,2 kg/m
kg
265,47
*
VERTICAL BRACINGS 9 and 10
+ lower 120*8
2*2*2*4,42*14,7 kg/m
+ upper 100*8
kg
519.79
2*2*2*4,42*12,2 kg/m
+ bracing 100*8
2*2*(2*2,79+2*2,861*12,2 kg/m
kg
431.39
*
VERTICAL BRACING 11
kg
551,44
+ lower 120*8
2*4,42*14,7 kg/m
+ upper 100*8
2*4,42*12,2 kg/m
+ bracing 100*0
kg
kg
129,95
107,85
2*2*2,66*12,2 kg/m
*
GIRDER L = 28,0 m
kg
139,57
+ lower bracings 120*8
C /F kg 8.892,36
TANADIP\
DES\BRID_1\BRI B0Q2 (decfl?, lotus?, 59k)
studio pietrangeli
romeIGILGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL D£SI6H - SILL Of QUANTITIES
DESCRIPTION
2*3*2*6,53*14,7 kg/m
+ lower bracings 100*8 2*7*2*6,554*12 2 kg/m
* GIRDER L - 45,0 m
+ lower bracings 120*0 2*2*6,524*14,7 kg/m
* lower bracings 100*8
pag.1 S3
UNIT QUANTITY
kg 8-892,36 kg 1.151.89 kg 2.238,85
kg
383,61
* various
2*7*2*6,554*12,2 kg/m
TOTAL
kg 2.238.65
kg 94,45
kg 15.000,00
5.5 BOLTS HTS M20 (estimated L = 90 mm}
*
VERTICAL BRACINGS 1 and 6
2*2*(4*1+4*1J*0,4 kg
kg
12,80
*
VERTICAL BRACINGS 2 ■ 3 - 4 and 5
2*4*(4*1+4*1)*0,4 kg
kg
25.60
*
VERTICAL BRACING 7
2*(4*U4*1)*O,4 kg
kg
6,40
*
VERTICAL BRACINGS 3 - 9 and 10
2*3*(4*l+4*l)*0,4 kg
kg
19.20
*
VERTICAL BRACING II
(4*U4*l)*0,4 kg
kg
5,60
*
various
kg
0,40
TOTAL
kg
70,00
5.6 BOLTS HTS K24 (estimated t - 00 mm)
* STRAP JOINT L • 20,0 nt
+ upper beam flange : 2*2*32*0,65 kg + web : 2*2*64*0,65 kg
* PROVISIONAL JOINTS
+ web : 2*2*38*0,65 kg
* various
5.7 BOLTS HTS M27 (estimated L - 130 mm)
* STRAP JOINT L - 2fl,0 m
+ lower beam flange : 2*2*76*1,1 kg
* STRAP JOINT L - 45,0 m
+ Upper beam flange : 2*2*56*1,1 kg
+ web : 2*2*68*1,1 kg
f lower beam flange : 2*2*124*1,1 kg
* PROVISIONAL JOINTS
+ upper beam flange : 2*2*24*1,1 kg + lower beam flange : 2*2*36*1,1 kg
* VERTICAL BRACINGS i and 6
2*2*{9+4*2+4*3+2*2)*l,l kg
* VERTICAL BRACINGS 2 - 3 - 4 and 5 2*4*(6+4*2+4*2+2*2)*l1l kg
kg
83.20
kg 166.40
TOTAL
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
98,80
1,60
350,00
334,40
246.40
kg 387,20
kg 545,60
kg
kg 158,40
kg 145,20
kg 228,00
105,60
E/F
kg
2.151,60
TANADIP\DES\BRID_1\BR1_BOQ2 (decfl?, lotus2, 59k)
studio pietrangeli - roneGILG1L ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES
description
pag IS4 UNIT quantity
—
* VERTICAL BRACING 1
2*(9+4*2+4*3+2*2)*l,1 kg
* VERTICAL BRACINGS 0 - 9 and 10 2*3*(5+4*2+4*2+2*2)*l,1 kg
* VERTICAL BRACING 11 (5+4*2+4*2+2*2)*l,l kg
* GIRDER L - 28,0 m
+ lower bracings
2*(6*8+14*6+2*5*8)*l, 1 kg + upper bracings
2*(20*2+5*5)*l,1 kg
* GIRDER L - 45,0 m
+ lower bracings
2*(2*8+l4*6+2*4*8)*l, 1 kg + upper bracings
2*(16*2+4*5)*!,1 kg
* various
5.8 CONNECTORS (BEAM-SLAB)
* GIRDER L =
Oia 20 :
* GIRDER L •
28,0 m
2*2*(3*21+2*38+75+2*59)*0,15*2,466
45.0 m
B/E kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
TOTAL kg
kg
2.151,60
72,60
165,00
27,50
466,40
143,00
360,80
114,40
98,70
3.600.00
491,23
Di a 20 :
2*2’(3*40ir2*61 -52) ‘0,15*2,466
kg
*
various
kg
435,00
23 77
.
TOTAL kg 950,00
t ANAD!P\0ES\BRIDJ\BR1 _B0Q2 (dec97, lotus2, 59k)
studio pi strange]i - roneGLLGIL ABBAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - BILL OF QUANTITIES 3.4 BRIDGE 1 - COST ESTIMATE
pag.155
No
DESCRIPTION
UNIT QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT (MLit)
1. EXCAVATION «=—==--= .= ..-===
1.1 PILES 0 = 1,2 m FOUNDATION EXCAVATION
1.2 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION m3
2, CONCRETES •*=
2.1 CONCRETE R'bk 150 kg/cm2
2.2 CONCRETE R'bk 250 kg/cm2
2.3 PRECAST CONCRETE R'bk 250 kg/cm2
3. FORMWORKS -.............. » -■
4. CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT
4.1 WELDMESH (Dia - 6, 15*15 Cm}
4.2 REINFORCEMENT
4.3 ANGLE IRON 50*50*6
5. STEELWORKS ............
5.1 GUARDRAIL .........................
5.2 STEEL PLATES .....................
5.3 UNEQUAL SIZED ANGLE IRON
5.4 EQUAL SIZED ANGLE IRON .,
5.5 BOLTS NTS M20 (estimated 1 = 90 rwn) ..
5.6 BOLTS UTS M24 (estimated I - 80 nrn) . .
5.7 BOLTS UTS M27 (estimated L = 130 mm) .
5.8 CONNECTORS (BEAM-SLAB) ..
-===-
=-• — 
m
246
2SO.OOO
355
8.000
m3
30
240.000
ml
1.015
300.000
m3
70
320.000
m2
1.270
30.000
kg 5.300 3.500
Kg J11.000 3.500
Kg 2.100 4.500
kg
6.000 4.500
kg 123.000 4.500
Kg 10.600 4.500
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
15.000 4.500
70 4.500
350 4.500
3,600 4.500
kg 950 4.500
64 *3
51,5
Z’B
336,0
9,1
304 5
1
22,4
38,1
416,6
18,6
33B.5 9.5
718.1
27,0
553,5
47,7
67,5 0,3
1,6
16,2 4,3
6. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
7.
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES 5% APPROX -
8. PRICE ESCALATION 3% APPROX ==
9. ENGINEERING -==
9.1 DESIGN DURING CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL INVESTMENT
9.2
SUPERVISION OF WORKS (months 7 • 20 MLit) ,
10. GRANO TOTAL
TANADIP\OES\BRID 1\BR1_BOQ1 (dec87, Tctus2, 6k)
studio pietrange]i
1.573,1 78,0 48.9
1.700,0
340,0
200,0
140,0
2.040,0
rome?oT Z
"'..A
«
.•#i Vi.
Tf? *
.
> ... ’>
?•'
*
c rd r
... n^wi &
-O
•r ?.
! K
■ V-
t
hr*
Ai
•’
I
t',
X} 1 • • 
£
5• -’ •,»•••
4 ■’.•. ?<. .»•;
. • ■'.’ .¥:»,•.
s.
>c
-*1*
J b I-t
>. (rr ’1>C
•*; :i.
3?
I m ’ I tr»’-' .’ -
'!
% .•*
+3
j • * i
.. f8A-j?-*V 5$
ft ?
’ • f ? Ar_
/•A*
.6
• <'
•J*
■-GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
9. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\DIV3A(dec87, lotus2, 2k)
studio
piotrangeli - romeGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE -
EIMAL DESIGN - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Pag.156
9- TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
The Civil Works shall be carried out directly by the Ethiopian Government, while the girders and all the metalwork shall be supplied by an Italian company specialised in metal constructions.
With respect to the reinforced concrete therefore, the Ethiopian regulations relative to construction shall be observed.
As far as metalwork is concerned. Italian regulations governing materials, welding characteristics, etc. shall be followed together with the most important international regulations (British Standard, German DINJ.
Italian fitters shall be employed for the assembly and placing of the girders. These fitters shall be supplied by the manufacturer and be under the direct control of the Engineer and the Designer.
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\GIL REL1(14ja38,fw2,83k)
studio pietrangeli - rome1
GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 19871
n
n
GL
uGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL
DESIGN - CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME
Fag.IS 7
10. CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME
10.1 GENERAL
The present chapter summarises a construction programme based on various timing hypotheses mainly relative to approval and supply times of the equipment and the metalwork.
The climatic conditions (dry season and rainy season) may modify
to some extent. Therefore, a delay of one or two months <n t le P operations does not necessarily correspond to a delay of the same m 9 the execution of the works, but could determine an increase m construe and/or modification to the methodology.
P9
The total time foreseen
allocated to approvals
are for the construction
is about 11 months, of which the first four months are and preliminary activities, and the final seven months
oroper of the Civil Works.
TANAOIP\DES\BRID1\GIL RtLl(10ja88,fw2,. ..k)
studio
Pietrartgel i rone|£_j L_i
L—-J
GJLGEl ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN • CON51BUGTION PROGRAMME
DESCRIPTION
MONT
MS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
equipment
.. „«*•
- ■ ■ ■■ . ........
STtOCTJR*I HEEL UOSY
ittw****
»«**** fl
..........
.........
...........
........
flflflflflflflfl ■■■■.,.,
__
*■>+___
„.---
'tNrfrfl.... ........ __________________
_____ ....
.----------• •
RAINY SEASON
TANAD IPXDESIM101 \HEP\G I £_GAM F (11 jiflfi. ... k)
■CudIo pitlrBnsell " ro®er
r»
:w
r
[ L
L•GILGEL ABM BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1937
11. EQUIPMENT
list
TAHAmP\DES\BRiDl\DlV 4A(dec87, lotus2, 2fc)
studl» Pi«r
ingeliin IFT LI
□L
W]
u
J
MGILGEL ABAY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - EQUIPMENT LIST
Pag.159
11. EQUIPMENT LIST
11.1 GENERAL
The present chapter gives the list of equipment necessary for the construction
. foundations
. concrete
■ reinforcement
relative to the Gilgel Abay Bridge.
Excavation machinery (dozer, excavators, etc.) is excluded from the list, and also the equipment necessary for transport, earthworks and lifting (trucks, cranes, rollers, etc.).
. Floating Platform - Required only if Solution B Construction Method adopted
. Prices FOB Italy ■ November 1987
< For details reference should be made to offers, pamphlets and drawings illustrating the machinery (Ref. SP letters of 31 st November and 18th December
1987).
TANADIP\DES\BRini\GlL_RELl(14ja89. w2,83k)
f
studio pietrangeli - romeGILGEL A8AY BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - EQUIPMENT LIST
11.2 EQUIPMENT LIST
Pag.160
Ml it
1. CRAWLER EXCAVATOR LINK-BELT LS08/HD
+ Spare Parts .....
2. PILE EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT
2.A. Hydraulic casing oscillator MGB 1300 2.B. Reduction set for 1200 mm diam. pile
Reduction set for 1000 mm "
Reduction set for 800 mm “ 
2.C. Hydraulic power pack 2R - 100
2.D. Hydraulic plant and control board for
"
"
casing oscillator and powpr corneation
2.E. Double wall casing column 1200 mm diam.
25/26 mm depth
2.F. Drilling tools:
No.l rope-operated hammer grab-BMT SP 950
No.l electrowelded steel chisel c/w swivel
2.G. 40 ft workshop container ............................................................................... .............
2.Z. Spare Parts ............................................................. ......................... .. ...............................
3. FLOATING PLATFORM FOR OFF-SHORE DRILLING
4. EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT APPLICABLE TO LS108/HD
4.A. Drag-line bucket
4.B. Grab bucket (usable: rope operated hammer grab) ................
5. DEWATERING
5.1 Submersible water pump type FLIGHT B2066 No. 2 ................................................................ 10
5.2 Neoprene pipe diam. 3” - 1 • 30 m .........................................................................................
6. SHEET PILING
36 1
5
6.1 Sheet piles type LARSSEN-i II M2 480 approx. 60 t ........................................................... 90
6.2 Truck mounted pile driving machine with 5 tons
diesel Hammer-type DEMAG VR 40 .................................................................................... 90
6.3 Rectangular steel frame USA 530/184 ................................................................................... jq
7. CONCRETING
7.1 Concrete mixer 500 It (actual output) ....................................................................
7.2 Electric concrete vibrators (No.5) .......................................... ..........................
7.3 Concrete batching plant 20 m3/h . / ’’ '
7.4 Concrete pump ..................................................................................
7.5 Precast slab formworks (No. 12 slabs) ...................................... .. ...................
7.6 Welding machine 400 Amp
7.7 Automatic bending machine with disk . ..................................... ................. (1) Supply offers not yet available
TANADIP\0ES\BRIDl\G[L_RELl(i4jaa8.fw2,83k)
studio pietranqeli
romeGILGEL ABAf BRIDGE - FINAL DESIGN - EQUIPMENT LIST
8. GENERAL
8.1 Generator KW 50 No.2 'ii
8.2 Portable air compressor pressure 7 bars ...........................................................
Estimation value offers not yet available .................................................................. •
Total equipment 1
Pag-161
1592
Transport
Insurance & Contingen
cies ...
^25
/=>
GRAND TOTAL 2200
TANADIP\DES\BRIDl\GIL_RELl(14ja88 fw2,83k)
f
studio
Pietrangeli -
rompGILGELABAYBRIDGE- FINALDESIGN- REPORTDECEMBER1987
T.^NADlP\DES’,BR]Dl\Dl
V5A
_
(dec87.1otus2,2k)
sturfiopfetrangeii
CJ E e
i.
vn UJ X LklI i.
I
I*
..
□GILGEL ABAY BRIDGE FINAL DESIGN - REPORT DECEMBER 1987
ANNEX A DRAWINGS
TANADIP\DES\BRID1\DIV 5A(dec87r lotus2, 2k)
studio
pietrangel1 - romek'unzila
LAKE TANA
NOTESA"
r
LEGEND
NOTES
-REVISIONS--------
*OM1 <wenrw4*<
« o» / noM*
4 • M AM’
TAB* auts
paojtcr - part ?
MfUCO —•
'“jO.'wMW
U~- i»rXXJ '
-.MIHM*
AMNt, A 2
p------------- «j
1
PLAN / 10,000
SO ITuO'O aMsraawM.,
XS/BRO 1/DHGS/O48 IB DE 87 •»< 1 0 0 7 F 0 4 S!-
r-
LEGEND
NOTES
S<01
rr«r>0» A 'tn ■ meCROSS SECTION fPr=OO 00}
CROSS SECTION (Pr=10.001
CROSS SECTION (Pr=05 001
CROSS SECTION (PrH5OO)
Ltrr bank
-■ n
HGHT BAf*
ieio
—
. 1805
tilt*
__ idoa .
—•
1795
1
I
F
r/790
son. TYPE
GROUND LEVEL I CH A IN A GE
SOIL TYPE
—J
z— LEGEND——— 
-NOTES -----------------------------------------------------------------------
* • • «S w
revisions--------- -------------------------- -------
--------
-
-
cMA TERIALS
notes
REVISIONS2B OOrn C/HDEFf - SHEAR COHHECTQRS SCHEME i:/O_
DETAIL (A)
*5 Qg/r. GIRDER - SHEAR CONNECTORS SCHEME IIP
DETAIL
''&)
DETAIL
<£)
MATERIALS -
«a . F3 sTUt rw Ft 5/O-C-CORTEN M2O-M24 M27 IfOK-BG)
NOTES
- REVISIONS
I.
a an
aM
orr/At® ■ ©
MINCO
O? . »“ u
r
r . jwaawGS a>a£< At
'STCCL S 7*UC TURAL W'tt’"
.................. . MAIN GIRDER
'............................... ........... —L
G EN£RAL SCHEME
Df:S/BRiD}'D*GS/O9B 18 DE87 tt» | 0 0 7 F 0 9 ?■Qo/fi 5-5 fit
8
MATERIALS
•otia trm rrn F»5JO-C-CORTFN noirs mts U24-M27 II0K-8GI
REVISIONSAT 1
MA TERIALS-----------------------
fOCLCD trni rvrr F»5K>-C-COftTEH
wrs aot rs M27-I. .
MOWS/OMu anir/’D JO/A/7-
S£CT7M a a
Z//V .SJWwey)
n
•V
t"
0 0 9 • • •
• o 9 • • •
♦ • • ♦ * ♦
sW-Z*
11
/
4
X
fl
. u-----
yy
•
»
y»
••-
■------------J------------- -— *****
’ «*>•*___
■T
rf-'l'-'.
0 9 0 €09
o ♦ o o o o
9 • 9 9 0 0
«r
X ,50-r .
•
Pfi.
9<
MATERIALS
•air srm. ’"T F»5«-C-C0ffT£N ; *TSMtM M24-M27 f>OK-BG)
NOTES
REVISIONS
I
uaa lilts mojici but i
. 5*4.
srtr. sn»ucru»rr*-
PLACING PROVISIONAL JOINTS *»° : 0 0 7jFJ I 3 B 1W-AS' S^tAi
-WrcasT JAS dMWGMW
SLdA ASH
7*-
NOTES
PMJtCT nil J
AW.r A 12
--- -.VO
. PRECAST CONC SLABS
_______________ GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
XS^8PCKN<S^I48 >8 DE 87 I 0 0 T E \ 4 0amyls ’ as
cawm j^usc nW
- /**
V-*t* •“-.&.
JZ /~Z.-&‘.'■ Y^
srrr/avc-c- /*>
z
*—X-
4 A^V-Jv. J\f.:. a?v
5 _. - — - -
slm £av<f/7t/a/A/J4 4f/wnK&/M what/-
,^Z* ,/S , * , fS ^J$ ., /S^7*
•1
v
utrtAt: sao//
/OS j
a-+•«/■'■.
- 1---------?5T-
____________P__-_______
f-
M.m.nr ««•■< . r.— wi* |UES PROJECT - M»T
MINCO — '••• «• 
.’
£:*■J/>’^*M' S3 =^A.*>Mr-*' r:_
PRECAST CONC SLABS
TYPE A ANO B
SO >>^0<0
DES/BfW/DHGS/'ISB 16DE8? so | 0 0 7 F I 5J*
_
—.COST tWWK
Tff*:
----------------------- J—
M. <*• /Xv—j------------------------
s’ J
___________ _________________ __ ._____
4_
——r—:-------:—7~:--------- ---------------------- -1
Sjrr/a'-3A
t-*z±—

PRECAST CONC SLABS
TYPE E-F-G-H-!
D£S/9ROI/W'GS//7B faO£87 ***[ I 0 0 7 F'l 7 Bg0 I J Z O O I i«« JOs/iffe/zsaMa/zode/sjs
MHOMH&OJ
O.U««> eg
^a*/ ss.»o»«
lYit&ttSHiti&'io
n» m amituNoi io*-
3a J
«iwr -9mm rac ■ ,t.__________________
ixrc aJxjr wiSWJa.s s*. DaJj
,u>9/t)i 0SZ**L3
'I'* V’i'J'Sl
i .»a— *^c~
i imm - loarou sana-wiiii ...
y
odniiv
\,'^.'
SNOISlAJd —
S3 ION
H • r :
*r
•r
I Ip
A27ZZJ2TF
/vrrra wu rtww
A/y~nr <rai
'-f*
I2£ t
1 f
1
--------------- i
«»r-/
si*
~p
_i
U
-------------------------- --y-
*rr«V^r<-/
----------------]---------------
M>Z v/rf-Q
t
t------•>
/'V -V
____
<■; *
=HT‘ ! ! ' f-f-f ; !
S& | tfHTnJWflf aiidiii.'fHfeSi®
M ’ ‘i
V1
*
1
Tf
*
II
il
J-
1
k <
k f H
t
—
' 1 ■*
—i
 M4»4?-Fwsrr sr«f*«r*> <rrr» /• turs fFbh»25O Kg/crn*
ST&.
srcn ct*ss
FeB 3BK eo*r*ot.itr> m •*<.. ft MW CCMCfifTf
IMTJMTSS ’> O-stcr.r.s c c
sj-cr/c/- o-p
tiff
I
I
-*1 i------------—------------- =— ~ h
T
r NOTES--------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------
cQtfCRETC
CO****$»n CHA»iC'i»iTr craracrw awrrv ?• <mvi <?I»>250 Kg/cm*
5*01.
rrm cit»
F»B 38K “CT .'Cwt»oil<**- zj»
A/^ r j! -
------ ----------------- ***•,*
S^_
-f
rag £u.a^- /so
PSA
V.~A
NOTES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rt»925O Kg/cmr
faB 3BK wor co*r*tx.«.ro n mu
aMtiS.f!)***
I*'**
- REVISIONS -
Uli HKS WOJICT M«» J
c..
.-.
'<■- • • .*--• -•
t>u»4Crr»B« xr»TMSrN xrr « /a Dxrs
r
X . 06XV
MC-.
A 2!
*.n-T tau-nnotr
FORMWORK
:€S/9tOl/D*G£/23A IBDE 87 “"J 0 0 7F.2 3 A*
1
1
sf’O
^z<r A^/S^Am?
TzAr wupVMiajsrrww oc
'I
*
s
SSC77O*/ rr
*L
NOTES
ctSZxssrrf rHAC£crc>"STK jr»r*crw trrfu .•• :t,f RM 9 250 Kq'cm'
5ZE&
5 tf. CL4XS
Fed 'V-- ;o«twuCTWM. g tAP*«;_CO«yC?£T£
u; ■ >
----------- REVISIONS______ANNEX B GEOLOGICAL REPORT APPENDICES
SA(dec87. Iotus2. 2kJ TANAOlPXOESXSRtO'XOI'^'
studio pietrangeli - ro«Mgeological profile1

Summery

Project: Tana Beles Project - Part 2

Location: Bahar Dar-Kunzila Road, Ethiopia (ch. 26.700)

Client: Ministry of Construction, People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Designer: Studio Pietrangeli, Rome

Report Date: December 1987

1. Project Overview

The Gilgel Abay Bridge is a critical infrastructure component along the Bahar Dar-Kunzila Road in Ethiopia. The final design features a steel-concrete composite structure with three spans (28m-45m-28m) and a total length of 101 meters.

2. Bridge Description

2.1 Selected Design Solution

The chosen design (Solution 1 from five alternatives considered) features:

Two longitudinal steel girders with variable height
Concrete deck slab with precast elements
Resting girder statical scheme
CORTEN steel requiring no anti-oxidation protection

2.2 Key Components

Component	Description
Bridge Deck	Steel-concrete composite structure with precast slabs, 7.5m width
Piers (2)	Founded on Ø1200mm bored piles reaching basaltic layer, 1m thick walls
Abutments	Classic type with front/side walls on Ø1200mm piles
Road Embankment	Rockfill from basalt quarries with geotextile separation layer

3. Technical Comparisons

Five structural solutions were evaluated before selecting the current design:

Solution	Type	Pros	Cons
1 (Selected)	Steel beams 3×32m	Cost-effective, minimal river obstruction, short construction time	Requires beam launching equipment, some maintenance needed
2	Continuous steel beams	Reduced steel quantity, fewer expansion joints	Complex pretensioning required after concrete hardening
3	Precast concrete beams	Combines concrete and steel advantages	Requires specialized precast technology
4	RC continuous beams	Immediate start, standard technology	High cement use, formwork challenges
5	RC frame	Minimum maintenance	Piers exceptionally loaded with bending movements

4. Key Technical Aspects

4.1 Geological Conditions

The bridge site features basaltic lava flows with weathered layers. Foundations were designed as bored piles reaching the continuous B3 basalt layer at 8-15m depth due to:

High compressibility of clayey paleosols
Variable thickness of shallow basalt layers
Heterogeneous weathered basalt

4.2 Hydraulic Design

Key hydraulic parameters:

Design flood: Q = 2500 m³/s (100-year return period)
Bridge intrados elevation: 1806.25 m a.s.l.
Backwater effect: ~50 cm
River slope: 0.3 m/km

4.3 Structural Design

The structural design includes comprehensive stability calculations for:

Steel girders and connections
Concrete deck slab
Piers and abutments
Bearings and expansion joints

5. Construction Features

Girders divided into max 15.4m sections for transport
Precast concrete slabs used as permanent formwork
Provisional supports during girder placement
Dust-proof bearings requiring no maintenance

6. Annexes

The report includes numerous detailed annexes with:

Technical drawings (general layout, structural details, etc.)
Geological maps and borehole logs
Detailed calculation tables
Construction specifications

Conclusion: The Gilgel Abay Bridge design represents a comprehensive engineering solution that balances technical requirements, constructability, and economic considerations for this important river crossing in Ethiopia.