1

Preliminary Design of a Bowstring tied-arch deck

Pedro Pereira Clemente Andrade Gonçalves

October 2012

ABSTRACT

The present study aims the Preliminary Design for a Bowstring tied-arch solution for a bridge’s
deck.
A research about the historical context and construction methods of tied-arch bridges was
initially conducted, and a data base with an extensive list of the constructed Bowstring bridges up to
date was assembled, with the compilation of the i) general layout information, ii) geometric
characteristics and iii) main steel / concrete quantities.
A Preliminary Study of several Bowstring deck solutions was performed, as alternative solutions
for a real highway double box-girder bridge deck erected by the balanced cantilever method, in order
to choose one of them, to perform the deck pre-design.
The pre-design of the deck was then performed, namely the deck slab, the steel girders, the
steel arch and the hanger sections, as well as the installed forces.
The required and relevant safety verifications were performed at Preliminary Study level,
supported by a tridimensional structural analysis model, using the software SAP2000.
To finish, main quantities and estimated cost were evaluated for the proposed deck, solution
and a comparison of these results with other Bowstring tied-arch bridges and with the erected
box-girder bridges was performed.
Conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed solution were finally
discussed.

Keywords: tied-arch bridges, Bowstring bridge, hangers, bridge design, deck analysis, arch instability
 2

1. INTRODUCTION and constructed. Although less slender than

motorway bridges of the same type, this kind of
decks allow spans higher than 100 m, without
Bridges have always been considered
the need of intermediate supports, and with a
as “works of art” in the Structural Engineering
sufficient stiff deck. Several railway decks,
domain. Amongst them, bridges with “upper
namely for the high-speed railway networks in
arch” highlight for their first-class aesthetics.
Europe, China and Korea and Japan have,
Numerous tied-arch bridges have been
therefore, adopted Bowstring tied-arch decks.
designed and built over the last 50 years,
Also in Portugal, this kind of bridges has
many of the Bowstring type. The term
been built throughout the years. Maybe the
“bowstring” is the outcome of the actual
major example is the recently opened to traffic
behaviour for this kind of balanced structures.
railway crossing of the Sado River (Figure 1.2).
The upper arch “bow”, always strongly
It’s a unique structure, which combines two
compressed, is internally balanced by the
railway lanes with a 480 m long continuous
tensioned deck, which works as a “string”.
composite box-girder deck, suspended by
From the conjugation of the two elements,
three central arches of 160 m spans.
results the Bowstring tied-arch deck.
One of the forerunners of this solution,
Norwegian Engineer Per Tveit, proposed to
join the “Net” suspension system
(characterized by the crossed hangers
disposed in “net” arrangement). Since his first
built bowstring bridge deck in Steinkjer,
Norway, in 1963, to the astonishingly light and
slender Bolstadstraumen Bridge, 60 km
northwest of Bergen, Norway (Figure 1.1), Figure 1.2 – Bridge over Sado River in Portugal

numerous decks of this type were design and

built.
Figure 1.1 – Bolstadstraumen Bridge in Norway
Similarly, in the railway bridges domain,
Bowstring tied-arch bridges have several
advantages and therefore have been design
In the highway bridges domain several
recent structures were recent completed, for
small overpasses spans, to long span highway
river crossings. Two recent examples consist
of the Depot Street Bridge, concluded in the
[1]
USA in 2006, for crossing the Rogue River ,
and the Pentele Bridge, concluded in Hungary
in 2007, for crossing the Danube River by the
[2]
new M8 Highway .
The first one presents a reinforced concrete
deck and arch, with lateral inclined Net
suspension and a 93 m span, as the second
has an orthotropic deck slab and a steel arch,
with lateral suspension and a 308 m span,
which evidence the potentialities of this kind of
 3

structural solutions for medium spans, as for slenderness, the ach height or hanger steel
spans longer than 300 m. weight.
The collected data allowed acquiring the
“know-how” to concentrate the information in

2. OBJECTIVES some charts that display some relations

between bridge spans, arch heights, function,
deck steel and concrete weight, aiming to
The main purposes identified for this
obtain same “state-of-the-art” rules for the
study, in order to carry out a Preliminary
design of a Bowstring tied-arch deck.
Design of a Bowstring tied-arch bridge deck,
65
were the following: 60 Motorway
55

Arch height [m]

 Development of a data base including 50
45
Railway
40
the Bowstring tied-arch bridges 35 High-speed Railway
30
25
worldwide; 20
Motorway/Railway
15
 Preliminary study of multiple structural 10 Motorway/Light
5 Railway
0
solutions for this kind of construction, 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

and pre-design of the main structural Span [m]

elements; Figure 3.1 – Relation between the arch height and

 Study of the deck behavior for the span length

design actions, according to the

The results of Figure 3.1 enables to
Eurocodes;
conclude that there is an increasing arch
 Obtain the main deck quantities and its
height and approximately linear with the span,
estimated cost for the proposed solution,
and that it doesn’t matter in a significantly way,
and compare these results with the
if it concerns to a highway or railway bridge. It
constructed structure and other
also shows that the higher stiffness of the
Bowstring tied-arch bridges; and
deck, which is usually required in railway
 Conclusion assessment resuming
bridges, is, in Bowstring decks, achieved
advantages and disadvantages of the
without raising up the arch, but rising the
proposed deck solution.
stiffness of the deck slab, by the increasing the
steel used on hangers, arch sections and deck
girders.
3. BOWSTRING BRIDGES 4500
Total Quantity of steel/m2

Motorway
4000
AROUND THE WORLD
of deck slab [kg/m2]

3500
Railway
3000
2500 High-speed Railway
2000
An extensive search has been
1500 Motorway/Railway
conducted in order to characterized every kind 1000
500 Motorway/Light
of Bowstring tied-arch bridges that have been Railway
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
built all over the years, and to built a data base
Span [m]
with extensive technical and geometric
Figure 3.2 – Relation between the total amount of
information, such as the main span, the deck
2
steel by m of deck slab, and the span

Observing the chart that displays the
2
ratio of the total among of steel used by m of
deck slab (Figure 3.2), the quantities of steel
used in a Bowstring solution grows
approximately in a linear way with the span,
but it is not independent of the bridge use,
since highway decks have, in general, less
steel than railway and road/railway decks with
the same span.
4. PRELIMINARY STUDY
The Preliminary Study was based on a
constructed continuous pre-stressed concrete
box-girder deck solution with variable height,
named Bridge over the Sorraia River, in
Portugal, which is part of the A13 highway.
This bridge consists in two separate decks,
with three spans (75 m + 120 m + 75 m) and a
total length of 270 m.
All the studies are planned to substitute
the main span of 120 m, with a Bowstring with
a single deck solution, extending the deck of
the side viaducts to the transition piers.
The deck’s cross section is composed
by four traffic lanes with 3.75 m each; 3.0 m
and 1.0 m for the roadsides, right and left
respectively; sidewalks 1.05 m wide; curbs;
safety guards; fascia beams and drainage
system.
Some of these elements were modified
by the 3D geometry of the hangers in order to
accomplish some regulations, and adopting
one deck instead of two, like adopting a New
Jersey traffic separator for the central
reservation.
4
4.1. GRAPHIC STUDY
At the beginning of the Preliminary
Study, some sketches were drawn to image
some of the possible ways to raise a Bowstring
tied-arch deck. After analyzing which ones
were viable and physically possible, there was
one which imposed itself for its innovation and
challenging design (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 – Sketches for the proposed solution
Having the layout defined, it was
decided to choose a composite steel-concrete
deck, with a reinforced concrete deck slab,
crosswise steel girder attached on a central
longitudinal steel tube and lateral box-girder
beams, and a steel arch made of a tube with
high diameter and thickness, with interior
diaphragms.
4.2. PRE-DESIGN
Before performing the safety standard
verifications (Serviceability Limit State and
Ultimate Limit State), it was necessary to admit
dimensions for the deck elements (deck slab,
longitudinal and transversal beams, arch and
hangers).
The deck slab 30 cm thick was defined
according to the structural behaviour, use of
the bridge, deck materials and deck width.

For the main longitudinal beam it was
used the same tube section of the arch, a CHS
(Circular Hollow Section) with D = 1250 mm
and t = 25 mm, for aesthetic reasons mainly,
and two secondary longitudinal box-girders
beams were set on both cantilever tips, to stiff
the grid steel structure and better redistribute
the hangers forces through the deck.
Figure 4.2 – Transversal girders cross-section
The transversal beams were base on
important works like the Puente de
Exposición in Valencia or Pont
l’Observatoire in Liège (Figure 4.3), from the
famous architect Santiago Calatrava, leading
to a maximum and minimum cross-section
presented on Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3 – Pont de l’Observatoire in Belgium
The chosen cross-section for the arch,
the same as the main longitudinal beam, was a
CHS (D = 2500 mm and t = 80 mm) since it’s
going to be heavily compressed and subjected
to high bending moments in every direction.
5
The arch height and the hangers were
designed simultaneously due to the fulfilment
of the 5.0 m minimum required gabarit over the
sidewalks kerb. Since there was a maximum
height (1/4 of the span) defined by the study of
other Bowstring cases, 30 m high was the
chosen solution. From that, several designs
were made for the hanger’s geometry, leading
to an inclined Net solution of Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4 – Geometry of the hangers
4.3. MATERIALS AND ACTIONS
The materials adopted were the
concrete C35/45 for the deck slab; steel
la
reinforcement bars A500; steel grade
de [3]
S420 NH/NHL for all deck girders and grade
[3]
S460 NH/NHL for the arch; and steel S355
or S460 for the hangers.
For every step of the design, the actions
(dead loads, hangers installed forces, live
loads and fatigue) were considered. With all
the permanent actions in play, it is able to
[4] [5]
verify the ULS and fatigue , as well as the
ULS and stability of the arch.
5. SAFETY VERIFICATIONS
To determine the required area of
reinforcement in the concrete deck slab, the
shell bending moments were obtained by with
a 3D finite beam/shell elements analysis
model. The longitudinal slab cracking was
relevant to the slab behaviour, and a fictitious
 6

modulus of elasticity was determined based on A computation procedure was performed

the reinforcing bars rate and the slab with a group of matrixes to relate the influence
thickness. The cracking thickness was of each hanger on the others (Table 5.1). This
obtained and is within the standard limits. allowed finding the tensioning forces (defined
Since they aren’t subjected to highly as the axial displacements for the hydraulic
efforts and the main role is the desirable jacks) needed to apply on each of the hangers.
behaviour of the deck slab, for the beams,
longitudinal and transversal, safety checks
were performed using simple calculations to 5.2. ARCH
obtain the resisting bending moment,
considering in both cases a composite cross- When subjected to bending and axial
section (due to the benefits of the deck slab). force, it’s linearly checked is according to,

(5.1)

5.1. HANGERS
A major challenge comes out when
dealing with the stability of the arch, since the
To obtain the cross-section area for the
[4] expression used for the safety check should
hangers the rules regarding the SLS were
be:
taking into consideration. It was stated that the
hangers cannot be compressed (namely for
(5.2)
the several possible patterns of the live load
action), and imposed as well that the
displacements along the slab can’t be too high
(below 200 mm). (5.3)

Table 5.1 – Axial loads on the hangers

Nperm Nsob The interaction factors, the resisting
Nk+ Nk- NRd ΔN
cp ten sob+ sob-
Hanger [kN] moments and axial loading, and the reduction
1 -499 967 371 -393 839 75 2208 1369
2 208 645 227 -217 1080 636 2208 1128 coefficient due to buckling are calculated
3 753 868 191 -111 1812 1509 2208 396 [3]
according with the EC3 – part 1 . But, to
4 1148 501 300 -56 1949 1593 2208 259
5 1394 227 362 -29 1983 1592 2208 225 obtain the buckling coefficients was necessary
6 1512 194 387 -37 2093 1669 2208 115
7 1536 130 385 -40 2051 1625 2208 157 to determine the critic load of the structure,
8 1513 -12 362 -26 1863 1474 2208 345
9 1509 288 316 -9 2113 1787 2208 95 which was performed loading of the structure
10 1618 -97 261 -14 1781 1506 2208 426
(to obtain the normalized slenderness),
11 1977 -347 273 -101 1902 1528 2208 306
12 1897 -631 503 -159 1769 1107 2208 439 meaning the load that will lead to the first deck
13 1126 -603 319 -59 841 464 2208 1367
14 882 192 303 -24 1377 1050 2208 830 instability.
15 917 739 319 -53 1975 1603 2208 233
16 1057 256 326 -52 1639 1261 2208 569
17 1192 -92 331 -40 1431 1060 1773 342
18 1241 -357 334 -29 1218 855 1773 555
19 1122 -111 331 -24 1341 987 1773 432
20 761 -83 309 -35 986 643 1773 787
21 143 296 258 -59 697 380 1773 1076
22 -633 963 173 -84 503 246 1773 1270
23 -1207 1344 61 -96 198 41 1773 1575
 7

Verifying the three safety checks, it is

possible to notice that none of them meet the
desirable safety requirements:

st
Figure 5.1 – 1 mode of the arch buckling

[6]
A group of Belgian engineers To surpass this problem, the answer
proposed a simple method to obtain that load. goes through modifying the arch cross-section,
Using a 3D structural model as close as by increasing its diameter to the minimum of
possible to the real bridge, we’ll apply a live 3000 mm. Then the same calculation made so
2
loading to the deck slab (defined as 5kN/m , far, has to be redone, ensuring the safety of
[7]
corresponding to LM4 ), running a buckling the arch.
analysis to achieve a factor λ, that will
reproduce the number of times which the
loading pattern needs to increase to cause the
6. QUANTITIES AND
st
1 mode of instability (Figure 5.1).
That loading pattern is defined by the ESTIMATED BUDGET
Designer, and can correspond to the whole
deck slab area loaded, or just half of it (Figure The main quantities were evaluated. The
[8]
5.2) . amount of concrete and steel (bars, sections
and pre-stressing), was directly obtained from
3
the total volume of the deck slab in m
(concrete), and steel plates and tubes
3
considering (γs = 78kN/m ). The results are
presented in Table 6.1, Figure 6.1 and Table
6.2.
The estimated budget was based on two
actual budgets: one from the case study, the
other from a general Bowstring tied-arch
Figure 5.2 – Overloading patterns bridge. On them it’s possible to retrieve
information about the unitary cost for the
Table 5.2 – λ factors and respective critic loads
Position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
concrete C35/45 and for the different kind and
λ 4,594 4,969 5,164 5,194 4,86 5,118 4,966 range of steels.
NEd [kN] -65852 -61021 -56804 -57325 -60722 -57148 -60135
NFE,el [kN] 302526 303215 293333 297745 295111 292482 298632 Table 6.1 – Volume of concrete
Volume Weight
Gross area [mm2]
Note that the smallest factor doesn’t [m3/m] [m3] [kN/m3] [kN] [ton]
7830000 7,83 916 25 22892 2336
exactly correspond to the smallest critic load
as shown in Table 5.2.
 8

(regardless the unsuccessful safety checks of

113 (5%) 190 (8%) Steel bars
the arch) and maybe the best one in some
684 (28%)
Longitudinal girders cases.
65
Transversal girders 60 Motorway
55
843 (35%)

Arch height [m]

50 Railway
586 (24%) Arch 45
40 High-speed
35 Railway
Total = 2416 ton Hangers 30
Motorway/Railway
25
20
15 Motorway/Light
Figure 6.1 – Quantities of steel in ton 10 Railway
5 Proposed Solution
0
Table 6.2 – Proposed solution estimated budget 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Span [m]
Uni Quantity Uni. Cost Total
Concrete C35/45 m3 916 150,00 € 137.354,48 € Figure 7.1 – Relation between the arch height and
Steel bars A500 kg 190252 1,00 € 190.252,34 € span length (with solution proposed)
Profiles S420 NH/NLH kg 1429170 5,00 € 7.145.848,36 €
Profiles S460 NH/NLH kg 683652 6,00 € 4.101.914,34 €
4500
Hangers S355 kg 83586 10,00 € 835.858,89 €

Total Quantity of steel/m2

Motorway
4000
Hangers S460 kg 29122 15,00 € 436.829,11 €

of deck slab [kg/m2]

3500 Railway
12.848.057,52 €
3000
2500 High-speed Railway
2
Total Cost = 4100 €/m 2000
Motorway/Railway
1500
1000 Motorway/Light
The case study budget is known 500 Railway
Proposed Solution
rounded up as 2.000.000 €, with a total cost 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
2
approximately equal to 577 €/m (including Span [m]

equipment and labor). Comparing to the value Figure 7.2 – Relation between the quantity of total
2
obtained for the proposed Bowstring solution, steel by m of deck slab and span (with proposed
it’s around 7 times lower. It was expected to solution)

exceed it, but not by so much. There are some

Both charts show us that the design is
solutions that could resolve this matter:
inside the reasonable values: the height of the
 Bowstring design with a central arch with
arch at the highest level, the quantity of steel
central suspension, or two lateral arches
used in a high level, close to the amount used
with lateral suspension;
in railway bridges with similar spans.
 Reduction of the class of the steel used
in the deck girders;
 Reduction of the deck slab thickness.
8. REFERENCES

[1] Bridgehunter.com | Depot Street Bridge, available in:

7. CONCLUSIONS http://bridgehunter.com/or/jackson/depot-street/
[23/11/201]
[2] Hajós, B., Halász, L., Kara, K., Magyari, L.,
Although it’s obvious the beauty of this
Rasztik, R., Sitku, L., Tóth, E., Träger, H. (2008)
kind of solutions, the crossed arch wasn’t the
Bridges in Hungary – From the Roman heritage
best decision for this case. Nonetheless, it was until today’s giants, Budapest: Katalin Kara e
a good choice to show that is a viable solution Ernő Tóth Deng (translated by Ágnes Koroknai
 9

Székely)
[3] CEN: European Committee for Standardization.
(2005). Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures -
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
(version consulted Eurocódigo 3 – Projecto de
estruturas de aço – Parte 1-1: Regras gerais e
regras para edifícios) - prEN 1993-1-1, Lisboa:
LNEC
[4] CEN: European Committee for Standardization.
(2005). Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures -
Part 1-11: Design of structures with tension
components - prEN 1993-1-11
[5] CEN: European Committee for Standardization.
(2005). Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures -
Part 1-9: Fatigue (version consulted Eurocódigo
3 – Projecto de estruturas de aço – Parte 1-9:
Fadiga) - prEN 1993-1-9, Lisboa: LNEC
[6] Outtier, A., De Backer, H., Schotte, K., Stael, D.,
Van Bogaert, P., (2010) Design methods for
buckling of steel tied arch bridges, LSIECU
[7] CEN: European Committee for Standardization.
(2003). Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures - Part
2: Traffic loads on bridges - EN 1991-2:2003,
Brussels, Belgium: CEN
[8] Tveit, P. (2006) An Introduction to the Network Arch,
available in: http://home.uia.no/pert/backup/
[13/11/2011]