A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE MAGDEBURG CANAL BRIDGE,

MAGDEBURG, GERMANY

Christos Ellinas1

1MEng Undergraduate Student, University of Bath

Abstract: This paper introduces Europe’s largest Canal Bridge found in Magdeburg, Germany. The

uncommon nature of the bridge is established through its history and its function. Various relative checks

are then applied on critical aspects under its Ultimate Limit State. A structural analysis of critical

members, according to BS5400, is also undertaken.

Keywords: Magdeburg, Elbe River, Canal Bridge, Steel Girder, P-Truss

1 Introduction1

The Magdeburg Canal Bridge is currently the

largest water viaduct in Europe, connecting the Elbe-

Haval Canal with the Mittelland Canal over the Elbe

River.

The concept of connecting the two canals was first

conceived in 1919 and by 1938 the Rothensee lock and

the abutment of the bridge were in place. However, the

works were put on hold due to the World War II. After

the end of it – which found Germany divided –East

Germany postponed the works indefinitely. In 1991,

and after Germany was reunited, the Government

proposed 17 transport projects which aimed to recover

the communication links. Part of the Project №17 was

the Magdeburg Canal Bridge. [1]

The purpose of the project is two-fold:

I. To provide a reliable route for the barges to use. Due to

the fact that the water level of the Elbe River

undergoes great fluctuations, it provides an unreliable

passage for cargo with inherent costs and high risks.

II. The initial route first required the use of the Rothensee

Lock to lower the barge to the Elbe River; then to

undergo a 12 km detour to reach the Niegripp Lock

which then lifted the barge to the level of the Elbe-

Haval Canal. This was a time consuming process. The

Magdeburg Canal Bridge provides a much more direct

route by providing a more direct route incorporating

only one lock – the Hohenwarthe Lock.

Project №17 required the extension of the Elbe-Haval

Canal –in order to reduce the length of the required

bridge-, the construction of the Hohenwarthe Lock and

the Canal Bridge- which is divided in two parts, the

Main Bridge and the Approach Bridge.

1 Christos Ellinas – [ce229@bath.ac.uk]

Figure 1: Location of bridge with before and after

routes [2]

The Canal Bridge is an all-steel construction with a

total length of 918.2m and a longest span of 106.2m.

Both of the sub-divided bridges follow a beam design.

The bridge’s construction began in 1998 and was

finished in October 2003 with an overall cost of 500

million €. The design was done by Igenieurbüro Grassl

Gmbh and the main contractors were Belfinger Berger

and Dillinger Stahlbau. [3]

2 Aesthetics

Fritz Leonhart’s 10 Rules of Aesthetics will be used

in an attempt to divide and analyse the subjective

matter of aesthetics. It should be noted that a bridge

Rothensee

Lock

Niegripp

Lock

Hohenwarthe

Lock

can still be aesthetically unpleasant even following the

ten rules; however it is unlikely to be pleasing without

following them.

The Main Bridge follows a different design

approach than the Approach Bridge, although both

follow a similar structural design. This transition in the

design is illustrated by the tall, prismatic, concrete

towers located on the three abutments.

Figure 2: Aerial view of approach and main bridge [4]

The bridge has a very clear form – the

incorporation of the truss achieves a sense of stability

and safety since it’s a familiar structural system to the

general public. The inherent rigidity in a truss and its

rather stocky appearance also enhances the apparent

security of the structure.

Figure 3: Aerial photo of the main bridge [5]

The span/depth ratio of the main bridge is 39 - the

recommended for a truss bridge is 30. However, due to

the implications resulting from the purpose of the

bridge – minimum clearance for barges – the increased

depth was unavoidable. Furthermore, due to the

excessive depth of the deck, the piers appear to be out

of proportion. However, this was again an inevitable

implication; incorporation of stockier piers would

provide better proportions but a less efficient and

significantly more expensive design. The proportions

between the abutments, the piers and the main span

appear to be logical since the piers are closer to the

abutments, resulting to a larger main span in the

middle.

Figure 5: South elevation [6]

The repetitive natures of the truss seems to work

very well in providing a pleasing geometric repetition

while the nature of the piers and the four rising towers

provide the variety. Similar prismatic shape is followed

by both the piers and the towers – thus variety is

provided without any exaggeration or excessive use of

features. It should be noted that the prismatic shape of

the Piers also has a practical function since it reduces

the resistance to the river’s flow – thus reducing scour.

The bridge illustrates extensive refinement

throughout its structure. The joints between the struts

inside the Pratt Truss showcase a smooth and elegant

joint by avoiding hard lines and edges. The piers

showcase further elements of refinement by using a

smooth prismatic shape; reducing the opaque effect

resulting from viewing the piers at an oblique angle.

Additionally, they are tapered in order for the bottom

to appear thicker than the top part.

Figure 6: Pier elevation [8]

Interestingly, there is no sign of refinement in the

pedestrian walkway – showing that this capacity was

added as a rather insignificant feature or at a later stage

of the design.

The significance of the bridge as an engineering

achievement imposes great character on the structure-

the simple, clear and effective structure illustrates

maturity and effortlessly implies a degree of status.

The bridge’s strong character is further enhanced by

the simplistic nature of the surrounding environment

making it a symbol for the whole area. Although the

structure doesn’t compliment the environment in any

way, its heavy structure and character illustrate that

this may be the perfect environment for such a heavy

structure since its character and power comes from the

contradiction of the simplicity in the surrounding.

Figure 5: Detail of joint in

P-Truss [7]

Conclusively, although the bridge fails to satisfy all

10 rules, there is a need to understand the limitations

imposed by the purpose of the Bridge. By

acknowledging the overall design; the extensive

refinement and the heavy character of the structure, it

can be easily deduced that the design is successful.

3 Structure and Section definition

The Approach Bridge is a multi-span steel beam

bridge. It is made of 16 sections with a section length

of 42.85m and a total length of 685.6m. It is supported

by 15 cast-concrete piers and two abutments. [9] No

further analysis of the Approach Bridge will take place

since the Main Bridge is the main subject of this

analysis.

The Main Bridge is a 3-span continuous steel beam

bridge with two exterior steel girders. Each exterior

steel girder forms a hollow box-section at the Piers in

order to accommodate for torsion effects triggered by

wind loading, impact loading and HB loading. The

flanges of the 6 longitudinal beams of each exterior

girder are used to provide support for the wielded steel

sheets which in turn provide the trough wall structure.

The outer side of the steel girder is open and

incorporates a Pratt-Type truss. The bridge is broken

into 3 spans – 57.1m/106.2m/57.1m – with a total of

220.4m. It also has a height clearance of 6.4m above

the river Elbe to accommodate for traffic going under

the bridge. It is supported by four concrete Piers and

two Abutments. The vertical loads are transferred to

the substructure by Spherical PTFE Bearings and the

horizontal loads by Elastomeric Bearings – one of each

kind on each pier and three on each abutment. [10] The

substructure is expressed in the form of raft

foundations.

3.1 Calculations about the geometric properties of

the transverse section

Figure 7: Transverse section with centroid

3.1.1 Calculation to determine the centroid

Table 1: Section data 1

Object Area/m2 yn/m Ayn/m

3

1 (3.75x8.39)-

(2.27x6.91)=15.78

8.39/2=4.195 66.20

2 (3.75x8.39)-

(2.27x6.91)=15.78

8.39/2=4.195 66.20

3 (1.9x34)=64.6 1.9/2=0.95 61.37

∑

∑

3.1.2. Parallel Axis Theorem to calculate Second

Moment of Area along the x-x axis

∑ ∑

Table 2: Section data 2

Object y/m Ay2/m

3 In/m

4

1 4.195-

2.015=2.18

15.78 x

2.182=74.99

2 4.195-

2.015=2.18

15.78 x

2.182=74.99

3 2.015-

0.95=1.065

64.6 x

1.0652=73.27

Figure 7:

Transverse

section [11]

4 Loading

Generally, the nature of the loads experienced by a

bridge can be divided in two – permanent and transient

loading. As bridge designs have evolved, the general

trend has been for the permanent loading to decrease

and the transient to increase. However, this is not the

case here since the transient loading present is

insignificant compared to the enormous permanent

loads.

The Permanent Loading is made of the Self-Weight

of the structure and the water volume present – which

is considered as a Super-Imposed Load. The transient

load is made of pedestrian traffic and HB loading – in

the form of a 16 tonne fire truck – which may be

present under maintenance conditions. The presence of

barges in the bridge does not cause any change in the

loading since as the barge enters the bridge, the same

volume of water is displaced. Since water is denser, the

load actually decreases rather than to increase.

The following calculations have been done

according to BS5400, through the design of the bridge

has been done under DIN Standards.

4.1 Unfactored Load Calculation

4.1.1Water Load

Max. Height of Water=4.25m

ρ of Water @ 4 C° = 1000 kg/m3

Load

Table 3: Unfactored Steel Dead Load

Trough Side Girders

Mass 3650 tones 5850 tones

Acting

Area

( )

Load/m2

4.1.2 Unfactored Pedestrian Load

Nominal HA UDL for 220m span = 11.7 kN/m

Live pedestrian load =

4.1.2 Unfactored HB Loading

A 16 tonne fire-truck is considered, simplified as a

point load

The minimum longitudinal length required is 59.6m

while the minimum transverse length is 4m.

4.2 Safety Factors

Safety factors γf3 and γfl were taken into account in the

calculation, with values according to BS5400. It should

be noted that the safety factor for a super-imposed load

was lowered from 1.75 to 1.5. This was done in order

to provide a more realistic approach to this specific

example. This factor is usually applied to loading

caused by surfacing material and thus takes into

account any resurfacing that may take place during the

design life and any alterations of the weight due to

moisture absorption. However, these factors do not

come into play when water is considered as a super-

imposed load; thus the lower chosen value.

5 Primary Beam Design

All the loads are transferred along the transverse

direction to the two side girders via a 34m long, 3.8m

wide and 1.9 tall S355G2J3 I-beam, with a stated dead

load of 60 tonnes

Figure 8: Plan showing location of the primary beam

The required Second Moment of Area for the beam is

calculated by taking into account the loads

experienced, which in this case is the stated dead load

of the beam and the water load.

Dead Load UDL =

Factored Dead Load =

Super-Imposed Load =

Factored Super-Imposed Load =

( )

( )

6 Longitudinal Steel Girder

The steel girders receive the load from the

transverse beam and carry it to the piers through the

bearings. Since they are the critical structural

components of the superstructure, two loading cases

were established and tested in order to determine the

maximum bending moment. Initially, the Side Steel

Girder was designed in ROBOT and its geometric data

were derived. Afterwards, the section was loaded in

various ways and using various safety factors in order

to establish the worst case scenario.

Figure 9: Longitudinal Elevation [12]

Figure 10 illustrates the real section while Figure 11

illustrates the assumed design in ROBOT. It should be

noted that only the top and bottom chord – carrying

compression and tension respectively – are represented

in the design since the struts are assumed to carry only

shear and thus have no effect on the bending capacity

of the section. Various assumptions had to be taken due

to insufficient data. The steel thickness was assumed to

be 80 mm – the maximum delivered to the project [14]

– of S355G2J3 quality.

Table 4: Obtained properties

Figure 12: Longitudinal beam dimensions

Table 4 shows the geometric properties obtained.

Figure 12 illustrates the estimated dimensions of the 6

longitudinal beams.

6.1. Loading Configurations and Section Check

Initially, safety factors were applied uniformly in order

to establish the reaction forces and compare them to

known data. The results are shown in Figure 13.Then,

the safety factors were altered in order to establish the

ULS – note that different safety factors were applied

on the significant loads, depending on their position, in

order to either enhance or minimise their effect.

Loading Configuration 1 was established with the

loading combination shown in Figure 14 and resulted

to a moment distribution shown in Figure 15. In a

similar fashion, Loading Configuration 2 is shown in

Figure 16 and the resulting moment distribution in

Figure 17.

Figure 13: Deflection shape and support forces

Max Reaction Force = 135.36 MN, matching the actual

design data. [15]

The loads used in both configurations are shown

below. Note that HB loading differs depending on the

Load Configuration; in one case it acts alone and in the

other case it acts in combination with HA loading thus

different safety factors are used.

Table 5: Load types and values

Load Type Value

Water Load – Unfactored ⁄

Water Load with γF3 ⁄

Water Load with γF3 and

γFL

⁄

HA Load – Unfactored 11.7 kN/m

HA – Factored 16.73 kN/m

HB - Unfactored 156.96 kN

HB – Factored,

Configuration 1 258.98 kN

HB – Factored,

Configuration 2 224.45 kN

Dead Load – Unfactored

( )+

( )

Dead Load with γF3 232.61 kN/m

Dead Load with γF3 and

γFL 244.24 kN/m

Configuration 1 was set to induce the maximum

hogging bending momment by introducing HB loading

to the two shortest spans and by using a γF3 of 1 to the

loads in the main span.

Figure 14: Load combination and values for case 1

Figure 15: BMD for loading case 1

ȳ 4007mm

IYY

IXX 5.40650

Figure 111: Assumed girder section with centroid

Figure 10: Actual

girder section [13]

On the other hand, Configuration 2 was set to induce

the maximum sagging moment by incorporating HB

loading, accompanied by HA loading, in the main span

and using γF3 of 1 to the loads in the shortest spans.

Figure 16: Load combination and values for case 2

Figure 17: BMD for loading case 2

Principally, the method was justified by the Sagging

and Hogging moment ratio; however, numerically the

highest hogging moments was established in

Configuration 2, due to the large reduction of the load

by reducing the safety factors in Configuration 1.

Table 6: Global max. moment values

Configuration 1 Configuration 2

Max. Sagging 572.71 MNm 910.18 MNm

Max. Hogging 856.44 MNm 1 095.64 MNm

Max. Design Moment = 1 095.64 MNm

( ) ( )

⁄

Thus the section is safe, though optimization of the

estimated section probably took place to achieve a

more efficient design.

7 Ship Impact Load

The case of a barge hitting the bridge should be

examined in order to determine if the horizontal force

and the torsional effect associated with it are

significant. Table 7 indicates the maximum vessel

dimensions and capacities allowed in the bridge.

Table 7: Allowable vessel characteristics [16]

Max Barge, length & loaded weight 110m,

2000 tones

Max Convoy, length & loaded weight 185m,

3500 tones

Max Allowable Width 11.4 m

Max Allowable Draft 2.8 m

Max Allowable Speed 2.4 m/s

Pneumitaic fenders are present to the inner sides of the

bridge in order to protect the structure from any

significant damage. They are assumed to have a

displacement limit of 100 mm and to provide an extra

second to the duration of the impact.

Figures 18 and 19: Vessel geometry in bridge trough

7.1 Impact Load Calculation

Figure 18 and 19 illustrate the worst case geometry that

a 185m, 3500 tones convoy can have. Its calculated

lateral velocity – assuming a maximum longitudinal

velocity of 2.4 m/s – is 0.442 m/s. Applying dynamics

and solving simultaneously, the required time for a

fender to reach its maximum allowable deflection is

0.452 seconds.

+ 1s by the pneumatic fender = 1.452s

Applying Conversation of Momentum and assuming

15% of the energy is lost in crumpling [17],

( )

Further checks should be performed, since this

horizontal force will need to be transferred by the

elastomeric bearings to the piers – both of them will

need to be able to resist the induced moments and

stresses.

8 Wind Load

A simplified approach is followed in order to

calculate the wind load experienced at the centroid of

the steel girders. This method does not take into

account the energy dissipated when wind first hits the

outer part of the steel girder – the P truss -, it is

assumed that all the energy is experienced on the steel

trough wall. It should be noted that the effect of the

wind load will be relatively small due to the rigidity of

the structure and the damping effects of the water –

however it may play an important load in the torsion

experienced by the section

Magdeburg belongs in zone II and is characterized

by reference wind speeds of 27.6 m/s. When the water

level in the river is at its lowest (MW at 39.18m) the

centroid of the bridge is at 14.71m above ground level.

Figure 20: Critical area under wind load

Since the calculated load is going to be used for torsion

effects, and since the torsional resistance of the section

comes from the hollow boxes located only at the piers,

it is sensible to assume that the critical area where the

load acts on is the one shown in Figure 20.

8.1 Wind Load Calculations

Area supported by each pier = (

)

Critical velocity is given by and is found

to be

Assuming that the area experiencing the wind load has

a solid elevation made of the trough wall, the resultant

force, acting at the centroid of the Hollow Box, is

given by =

Where

⁄

thus CD=1.3.

Finally, the Horizontal Force on each Hollow Box =

9 Torsion

The transverse section of the bridge has one hollow

box at each Pier to account for any torsional effects.

The ULS is examined made of torsional effects caused

by a ship impact, wind loading and HB loading, as

shown in Figure 21. Hydrostatic forces resulting from

the containment of water are not taken into account

since they are assumed to be uniformly distributed –

thus having no overall torsional effect.

9.1 Torsion Resistance of Section

The torsional resistance of the transverse section

needs to be calculated in order to illustrate that it is

sufficient. It is assumed that the torsional resistance

results from the presence of the two Hollow Boxes –

any torsional resistance from the 34m transverse beam

is ignored. A uniform effective thickness of 740mm is

assumed for the Hollow Box and the established von

Misses criterion is assumed to apply.

⁄ ⁄

Figure 22: Box geometry

Total Torsion Resistance of Transverse Section =

9.2 Torsion Experienced Calculation

Torsion experienced by wind is equal to the factored

wind load multiplied by the eccentricity to the centroid

of the transverse section. The same principle is

followed for both HB and ship impact loading.

Factored Wind load =

Eccentricity = 2180 mm

Induced Torque=

Factored Impact Load=

Eccentricity = 6375mm

Induced Torque=

Factored HB Load= Eccentricity =18875mm

Induced Torque=

Total induced Torque=

Thus the transverse section is sufficient

under ULS conditions.

Bm 3010 mm

Dm 7650 mm

t 740 mm

𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑏𝑜𝑥 𝜏𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝐵𝑚𝐷𝑚𝑡

𝑀𝑁𝑚 𝐺𝑁𝑚

Figure 21: ULS for torsion

Table 7: Box geometric data

10 Temperature

Temperature effects during the operation of the

bridge are insignificant due to the vast volume of water

and its large heat capacity which provide a damping

effect and maintain a relatively constant temperature

under both diurnal and annual conditions.

However, the temperature effects need to be

considered during the construction phase of the bridge,

when this damping effect is absent.

Largest Span = 106.2 m, α for steel =

( ( ) ) ( ) ( )

( )

( ) ⁄

The elastomeric bearings responsible for the

horizontal loads need to be able to accommodate for

this temperature-induced stresses and for any induced

moments caused by the thermal difference.

As the spans expand and contract, a continuum

between the spans is essential in order to avoid any

water leakage from the trough. This is done by

incorporating a metal polymer between the spans. It is

waterproof, with a great resistance to large temperature

changes, corrosion and to high compressive loads. Its

main purpose is to act as an expansion joint but also

provide a continuum of material – this is done through

the high strain capacity of the material [18]. It also

provides a damping effect between the 3 spans,

reducing any stresses than may be caused by the

longitudinal flow of the water.

11 Natural Frequency

The natural frequency of the bridge needs to be

calculated in order to establish any interaction with the

wind. Again, the ULS is during the construction phase,

when water is absent and thus its advantageous extra

mass and damping effects are not present.

Natural frequency is given by:

√

,

Worst case is at the shortest span and when mass is

minimum.

E=216 MPa = 216000 kN/m2

I=486.98 m4

L1=L2=57.1m

L=106.2m

and

, thus k=3.55

Total mass per unit meter = mtrough + mside =

( ) √

( )

thus the bridge is safe.

12 Geotechnics

The ground conditions below the Main Bridge are

relatively uniform and are defined as silty clay,

otherwise known as Marlstone. [19] The foundation

system used is shallow footings, transferring the load

directly to the Marlstone layer.

12.1 Local Scour Depth calculation

Any scour attack experienced - due to the river flow -

will result to differential settlement, which will induce

significant moments - due to the high rigidity and

stiffness of the superstructure. Thus, Sheet Piling was

used to protect from Local Scour. Furthermore,

settlement monitoring was installed in each Pier in

order to monitor any differential settlement that takes

place. Due to the importance of the Local Depth of

Scour, it is calculated – assuming flow is parallel to the

Pier and using the Hanco method [20] with a Safety

Factor of 1.6. The result is compared to the Sheet

Piling Depth.

Figure 23: Foundation section with level heights,

Table 8: Data required

Since d90 > 0.7mm, α=1,

√ (

) ( )

Data Used

Width of Pier, H 12.00 m

Length of Pier, G 21.80 m

Ground Level,Z0 35.78 m

High Tide Level, ZD 43.19 m

Marlstone Density, ρs 2800 kg/m3

Grain Diameter, d90 13.80 mm [21]

Velocity of Water, U

1.38 m/s [22]

Safety Factor, Sf 1.6

Shape Factor, Φshape 1.05

√ (

) (

)

Φangle=1 and Φvelocity =0

Φdepth, for

, (

)

Converting to Datum Level,

Sheet piling is 1.5m below the foundation at 26.5m

Datum (=28-1.5m), thus the Pier is safe from Local

Scour.

13 Durability

Durability is a significant issue due to the intense

environmental conditions. Corrosion can significantly

affect the structural integrity of the bridge, thus

measures need to be taken into account. Other than the

protective coating applied to the structure, the main

defense mechanism is an active cathodic protection

system with the method of an impressed current.

External current is supplied both to the Steel Trough,

converting it to a cathode, and to an inert, Titanium

anode located to the side of the bridge. This is a very

efficient way to protect the structure, though costs arise

through the replacement of the used anodes.

Another significant issue is the case of water

freezing, since this would cause serviceability issues to

the Bridge and cause additional stresses on the

superstructure. An air system was installed to the

bridge in order to prevent ice formation. Air bubbles

are produced in the bottom of the trough through

pumps. The bubbles promote longitudinal flow of the

water even in freezing temperatures, thus limiting the

formation of ice. Furthermore, a gentle slope of 1:2 is

given to the edges of the transverse beam at the point

where it is joined with the steel girders in order to

reduce the stresses caused by any changes in the water

temperature. [23]

14 Serviceability

Pipes are located longitudinally across the

bridge in order to accommodate for the drainage of the

bridge when a serviceability check needs to take place.

[24]

Monitoring is a key issue. Due to the likelihood of

great moments being introduced after any amount of

differential settlement, several methods have been

applied in order to monitor it. Vertical Displacement

monitoring has been installed under each pier [25] and

each spherical PTFE bearing, thus providing real-time

updates on the situation of the bridge. [26]

Inspection halls are located at each pier, where

maintenance staff can examine the state of the

bearings. Furthermore, they can enter the side girder

and walk along the longitudinal axis and inspect the

interior of the side girder and the trough wall.

15 Construction Procedure

15.1 Construction Sequence for the Substructure

Sheet piling was first installed to define and protect the

excavation area. After the excavation was completed, a

thin prefabricated layer of concrete was set in place,

which contained provisions for settlement monitoring.

Then a boat-crane was used to set the prefabricated

reinforcement cage in place. Finally, the water was

pumped out and the rest of the pier was cast in situ.

The process is illustrated in Figure 24 - 28.

15.2 Construction Sequence for the Main Bridge

The construction method for the main bridge was

incremental launching. This was achieved due to the

large available space and due to the development of a

custom designed machine in order to achieve the great

amount of wielding with the required accuracy. All the

beams were delivered on site, positioned along with the

steel sheets and wielded together. The side truss was

made in a similar way. Temporary supports (Fig.30)

were set between the piers in order to avoid designing

the section for the increased construction loads.

Figure 29: Construction Sequence of the bridge [28]

Figure 30: Temporary piers for construction [29]

Figures 24 – 28: Pier construction sequence [27]

16 Suggested Improvements

An improvement could be made regarding the

structural stability of the Hollow Box during a bearing

replacement process. The most widespread method of

replacing a bearing is by using a hydraulic jack to lift

the section and then replace the bearing. However the

high point loads introduced by the jacks would cause

the hollow box to shear. Thus, it could be suggested

that the side girder is stiffened by diaphragms or k-

bracing across its longitudinal axis in order to avoid

shearing of the section.

The current structural system suggests that the truss

only receives a part of the load and thus, not efficiently

used – the main structural components of the side

girder are the 6 longitudinal beams. It would be

suggested to remove the truss and enhance the strength

of the beams – thus achieving a more economical and

sufficient design. If the aesthetical appeal of the truss

was a vital design parameter, then a truss bridge –

where the vertical load was carried wholly by a truss

structure underneath the trough – would be again a

more efficient design.

17 Impact on transportation and future impact

Once the canal bridge was completed in the end of

2003, a significant increase was observed in the

number of cargo being transported; illustrated

graphically in Chart 1. The number of barges is

expected to increase even further – estimation indicate

up to 200% increase – after the completion of Haval-

Oder canal in Berlin, which will enlarge the route

incorporated in the bridge.

As barge traffic increases, the adequacy of the

bridge will be tested to the limit, since its geometry is

set and any required change would result to an

extremely large cost. Furthermore, a larger draft would

be required in order to accommodate larger future

barges – thus higher amount of water required which

the structure may not be designed to resist.

Chart 1: Cargo transportation [30]

References

[4-8] – Janberg, N., 2009, Photographs of the Magdeburg

Canal Bridge, Available from:

http://en.structurae.de/photos/index.cfm?JS=146769

[Accessed 14 March 2011]

[1-3, 9, 10, 14, 25, 27] - Wasserstraßen-Neubauamt

Magdeburg, 2002, Magdeburg Canal Bridge, Magdeburg:

RGE Kanalbrücke Magdeburg andWasserstraßen-Neubauamt

Magdeburg, Available from: http://www.wsv.de/wna-

md/service/Doku/DSD.pdf [Accessed 04 April 2011]

[26] - Maurer Söhne, 2001, Bridge Bearings with Load

Measuring Capability, Munich: Maurer Sohne, Available

from http://www.maurer-

soehne.com/files/bauwerkschutzsysteme/pdf/en/productinfo/

Bridge_bearings_with_Load_Measuring_Capacity.pdf

[Accessed 18 March 2011]

[11] – WNA Magdeburg, 2003, Connecting River Elbe,

Magdeburg: WNA, Available from

http://www.wsv.de/aktuelles/projekte/wstr_kreuz_md/pdfs/ka

nalbruecke_bau.pdf [Accessed 04 April 2011]

[12] – Saul, R., 2005, Double Deck Steel Bridges, Stuttgart:

Arcelor, Available from http://www.lap-consult.com/pdf-

files/deutsch/sonderdrucke/sdr473.pdf [Accessed 03 March

2011]

[13, 28, 29] - Hanswille, G. and Sedlacek, G., 2007, Steel

and Composite Steel Bridges in Germany – State of the Art,

Oslo: Norwegian Steel Association, Available from

http://www.stalforbund.com/Staldag2007/Steel_composite_b

ridges_Germany.pdf [Accessed on 06 March 2011]

[15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 30] – Roskoden, M.,

(Marlies.Roskoden@wsv.bund.de), 11 April 2011,

Regarding the Magdeburg Canal Bridge, E-mail to C.Ellinas

(ce229@bath.ac.uk)

[17] – University of Kentucky, 2003, Multi-Barge Flotilla

Impact Forces on Bridge, Lexington: Kentucky

Transportation Centre, Available from

http://www.ktc.uky.edu/Reports/KTC_08_13_SPR_261_03_

2F.pdf [Accessed on 11 April 2011]

[18] - Diamant Metallplastic GmbH, 2011, Pressure-

Resistant Gap Balancing Systems, Mönchengladbach:

Diamant Metallplastic GmbH, Available from

http://diamant.ph/dia-downloads/10-TD-MM1018-GB.pdf

[Accessed on 03 March 2011]

[20] – May, R. et al, 2002, Manual on scour at bridges and

other hydraulic structures, Westminster: CIRIA, pp. 76 – 80

[21, 22]- Ritzert, F. and Nestmann, F., 1997, Influence Of

Silted Groynefields on Waterlevel, Kaiserallee: University of

Karlsruhe, Available from

http://www.iahr.org/membersonly/grazproceedings99/pdf/B0

63.pdf [Accessed on 28 March 2011]

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Mark Evernden and Dr. Tim

Ibell for providing vital notes about understanding the

art behind bridge design. I would also like to thank

Marlies Roskoden for the valuable help he provided me

through e-mails.

Car

go T

on

nag

e