APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE

Box GIRDER BRIDGES

By Kenneth W. Shushkewich,1 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to show that the actual three-
dimensional behavior of a box girder bridge as predicted by a folded
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

plate, finite strip, or finite element analysis can be approximated by

using some simple membrane equations in conjunction with a plane
frame analysis. This is a useful method since virtually all structural
engineers have access to a plane frame computer program, while many
have neither the access nor the inclination to use more sophisticated
programs. In particular, the method allows the reinforcing and prestress-
ing to be proportioned for transverseflexure,as well as the stirrups to be
proportioned for longitudinal shear and torsion in single-celled precast
concrete segmental box girder bridges. Three numerical examples
illustrate how the method may be applied to practical problems.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to show that the actual three-dimensional

behavior of a box girder bridge as predicted by a folded plate, finite strip,
or finite element analysis (Scordelis 1982) can be approximated by using
some simple membrane equations (Shushkewich 1986), in conjunction with
a plane frame analysis. This is a useful method since virtually all structural
engineers have access to a plane frame computer program, while many
have neither the access nor the inclination to use more sophisticated
programs.
A previous paper (Shushkewich 1986) has shown that the membrane
forces acting on a box girder bridge can be determined from simple
strength-of-material relationships. The longitudinal membrane force Nxx is
found by treating the box girder as a beam. By differentiating Nxx with
respect to x (longitudinal direction) and integrating with respect to y
(transverse direction), the membrane shear force Nxy can be found. By
further differentiating Nxx with respect to x and integrating with respect to
y, the transverse membrane force Nyy can be found. The previous paper
had the following limitations: (1) The webs were assumed to be vertical; (2)
the loads were placed directly over the webs; and (3) the loads were
symmetrically placed (i.e., no torsion).
The present paper overcomes these limitations: (1) The webs may be
inclined; (2) self-weight, uniform load, and loads over the webs may all be
considered with respect to transverse flexure; and (3) both symmetrical
(flexural) and antisymmetrical (torsional) loads may be considered with
respect to longitudinal shear and torsion. This paper is particularly useful
in the design of single-celled precast concrete segmental box girder
"Struct. Consulting Engr., 178 Maryland St., Winnipeg, Manitoba R3G 1L3,
Canada.
Note. Discussion open until December 1, 1988. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
November 14, 1986. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
114, No. 7, July, 1988. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/88/0007-1644/$1.00 + $.15 per
page. Paper Mo. 22621.

1644

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 bridges. Note that the effects of shear lag and warping torsion are not
considered.

BASIS OF METHOD

Consider the simply supported box girder shown in Fig. 1. A uniform

load of vv/2 is applied at each web, and the span length is L. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

center-to-center distance between the webs is B, at the centroid of the top

slab andBb at the centroid of the bottom slab. The width of the cantilevers
is C, and the depth of the section is D. The distances from the neutral axis
to the centroid of the top slab and bottom slab, respectively, measured
along the axis of the web, are y, and yh . The thicknesses of the top slab,
bottom slab, and webs are given as t,, th , and tw , respectively. Note that

,w/2 w/2.

FIG. 1. Cross Section

bottom slab
(a) (b)

FIG. 2. Methods of Analysis and Sign Conventions: (a) Folded Plate Analysis; (to)
Plane Frame Analysis

1645

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 77 is the horizontal projection of the web, while Vis the vertical projection
of the web.
It is important to appreciate the difference between a folded plate
analysis and a plane frame analysis. In a folded plate analysis [Fig. 2(A)],
the entire length of the bridge is considered, and the supports are located
at the ends of the structure. However, in a plane frame analysis [Fig. 2(b)],
a unit length of the cross section is considered, and supports are placed at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the junction of the webs and the bottom slab. For this study, the folded
plate analysis will be considered to be exact and will be the basis of
comparison for the method described here.
The membrane forces and their sign conventions are given in Fig. 2(a).
Nxx is the longitudinal membrane force, Nxy is the membrane shear force,
and Nyy is the transverse membrane force. Note that tension is positive and
that ail membrane forces are defined as force per unit length. The plane
frame sign conventions are shown in Fig. 2(b). Nyy is again the transverse
membrane force, Qyy is the transverse normal shear force, and MyY is the
transverse bending moment. In addition to the above forces, a folded plate
analysis would also give the longitudinal normal shear force Qxx, the
longitudinal bending moment Mxx, and the twisting moment Mxv, but
these values are insignificant here and will be ignored. The: determination
of Nxx, Nxy , Nyy,, Q>y , and Myy, is useful since:

1. The transverse reinforcing and prestressing must be designed to resist

the transverse bending moment Myy and transverse membrane force (axial
force) Ny,y.
2. The stirrups must be designed to resist the membrane shear force
(diagonal tension) Nxy due to both longitudinal shear and torsion.
3. The longitudinal prestressing and reinforcing must be designed to
resist the longitudinal membrane force Nxx . (Note that it is more common
to deal with longitudinal moments than longitudinal membrane forces).
4. The individual elements of the box girder must be adequate to resist
the transverse normal shear force Q .
Fig. 2 also shows the four distinct elements that comprise the box girder.
These are the cantilevers, top slab (between the webs), bottom slab, and
webs. Each of these elements has a local x- and y-coordinate system as
shown. The membrane forces acting on each of these elements are derived
in Shushkewich (1986) and summarized in Appendix I. Note that the
subscripts 1-4 denote the cantilever, top slab, bottom slab, and web,
respectively. Although these equations were originally derived for box
girders having vertical webs, the only difference for box girders having
inclined webs is in the third term of Eq. 8. This will be discussed shortly.
It is important to note that yt, yh, and 7 (moment of inertia) in these
equations are measured with respect to the inclined axis of the web. In
other words, the usual values of y,, yb , and 7, measured with respect to the
vertical axis, are multiplied by (y, + yh)/V (see Fig. 1).

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1

The prestressed concrete box girder shown in Fig. 3(a) has a span length
of 48.77 m (160 ft) and is subjected to the load cases shown in Fig. 3(b),
namely: (1) Loads over webs; (2) uniform load; and (3) self-weight. The
1646

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 3.048m 7.315m 3.048m

2.667m
A = 6.937 m2
I = 7.564m4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

72.95kN/m ?2.95kN/m
10.88 k N / m 2
U I I U U TTT1 7=21.03 k N / m 3

loads over webs uniform load self weight

(b)

FIG. 3. Example Problem 1: (a) Cross Section; (b) Load Cases

magnitudes of the loads are such that the total load for each load case is
145.9 kN/m (10 klf).
Fig. 4 compares the results of the plane frame analysis with those of the
folded plate analysis for the three load cases. Similar values have the same
letter, and zero values are denoted by 0. A number of observations can be
made:

1. A plane frame analysis does not give values of Nxx and Nxy , and thus
zeros are entered.
2. A folded plate analysis gives the same values of Nxx and Nxy for all
load cases, and thus A and B are entered.

self weight
1 I i \j \
\j w
plane folded plane folded plane folded
frame plate frame plate frame plate

Nxx 0 A 0 A 0 A

Nxy 0 B 0 B 0 B

Nyy C D C D E F

Q yy 0 0 6 6 I I

Myy 0 0 H H J J

FIG. 4. Comparison of Various Results

1647

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 (a)
-1367 -1367
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N y y (kN/m)
(0<x<L)
-90.87"
-90.87

FIG. 5. Nxx, N„ , and N„. for Loads over Webs

3. The values of NyY for the loads over the webs and the uniform load
are given as C by plane frame theory and D by folded plate theory.
4. The values ofNYV for self-weight are given as E by plane frame theory
and F by folded plate theory.
5. With respect to the loads over the webs, QYY and MYY are zero for both
the plane frame and folded plate analyses.
6. With respect to the uniformly distributed load, QYY and MYY are the
same for both the plane frame and folded plate analyses and are denoted by
G and H, respectively.
7. With respect to self-weight, QYY and MYY are the same for both the
plane frame and folded plate analyses and are denoted by / and J,
respectively.

The membrane equations (Appendix I) are used to construct the Nxx,

Nxy , and NYY diagrams for the loads over the webs (Fig. 5). These results
compare favorably with those from the folded plate analysis.
Considering the joint equilibrium diagram shown in Fig. 5(c), the 72.95
kN/m (5.00 klf) vertical load is resisted by a compressive force 91.19 kN/m
(6.25 klf) in the web. [The membrane equations give a value of 90.87 kN/m
(6.23 klf), an error of less than 1%.] This compressive force in turn causes
a tensile force of 54.71 kN/m (3.75 klf) in the top slab. This tensile force is
the previously mentioned third term in Eq. 8.
It is interesting to note that with respect to the slabs, Nxx has a quadratic
distribution in the longitudinal direction and a constant value in the
transverse direction. Conversely, NYY has a constant value in the longi-
1648

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 6. Nyy , Qy>., and Mvv for Self-Weight

tudinal direction and a quadratric distribution in the transverse direction.

Meanwhile, NXY has a linear distribution in both directions. With regard to
the webs, the longitudinal distribution is the same as for the slabs, while
the distribution in the transverse direction is an order higher than for the
slabs.
The plane frame and folded plate analyses are used to construct the Nyy ,
Qyy, and Myy diagrams for self-weight (Fig. 6). These diagrams all have
constant values in the longitudinal direction. The Qvy and Myy diagrams
given by the plane frame analysis are virtually identical to those given by
the folded plate analysis, while there are significant differences between
the Nyy diagrams given by the plane frame and folded plate analyses. In
particular, it should be noted that the plane frame analysis gives a
compressive force of 36.20 kN/m (2.481 klf) in the bottom slab, while the
folded plate analysis gives a tensile force of 32.16 kN/m (2.204 klf). If the
webs were vertical instead of inclined, this difference would be even
greater.
The Nyy, diagram for self-weight as given by the folded plate analysis can
be determined as shown in Fig. 7. The plane frame results for the loads
over the webs are subtracted from the plane frame results for self-weight
and added to the membrane equation results for the loads over the webs to
yield the folded plate results for self-weight. Note that Fig. 1(d) compares
very well with Fig. 6(A). In order for this superposition to work, the total
load over the webs must equal the self-weight.

1649

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

--59.47" 90 ' 87

+ 54.71

-50.05 50.05

FIG. 7. Determination of Nyy (kN/m) for Self-Weight

It is interesting to review Fig. 4 in terms of Figs. 5-7. The membrane

equation results for the loads over the webs shown in Fig. 5 allow A, B, and
D to be determined. The plane frame results for self-weight shown in Fig.
6 allow E, I, and / to be determined. Similarly, the plane frame results for
uniform load (not shown) would allow C, G, and H to be determined.
Finally, the superposition (D - C + E) allows F to be determined. Thus,
the results of the folded plate analysis are determined by using only
membrane equations and plane frame analyses.
The procedures outlined here can also be used to determine the
membrane force distribution (in particular Nyy) in other structural elements
such as single tees, double tees, 17-sections", etc., due to self-weight and
uniform load. Only the pertinent membrane equations need to be used, and
the plane frame analysis reverts to a simple static analysis.
1650

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 LONGITUDINAL SHEAR AND TORSION

The equations in Appendix I are used to determine the shear component

of Nxy, while the torsional component is found using the well-known
expression for St. Venant torsion, which according to our terminology is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

we(L — 2x)
N„0c, y) = 2(B, + B )V (1)
b

where e = the average eccentricity for the uniform load. It should be noted
that this expression is approximate and cannot be used when warping
torsion prevails. Eqs. 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 can be used to draw the Nxy
diagram or, alternatively, the maximum values of Nxy (which occur in the
webs at y = yb) for each value of x can be determined with the following
expression:

(twy2b + tb Bb yb) 1
NM, y) = w(L — 2x) (2)
21 (B, + Bb)V

W
" I _I I \ \ ' f f f f T "
A
: ^J

V(x)=-^w(L-2x)
(a)

" w
W W
T T '' ?

V(x) = (2L)P + (2L) 2 .LwL

(b)

FIG. 8. V(x) versus v for: (a) Uniform Load; (b) AASHTO Lane Load

1651

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 It is convenient to replace \I2W{L - 2x) in these equations by V(x), the
shear force at x. This allows both a uniformly distributed load [Fig. 8(a)]
and the maximum effects of an AASHTO (1983) lane load [Fig. 8(b)] to be
considered. [Note that Fig. 8(a) shows a shear force diagram, while Fig.
8(b) gives the influence line diagram for shear at x.]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2

The prestressed concrete box girder of example 1 is subjected to the six

load cases shown in Fig. 9. These include self-weight, superimposed dead
load, sidewalk live load, and three variations of AASHTO HS30 lane load.
These variations of lane load correspond to no eccentricity, left eccen-
tricity, and right eccentricity. Of course, V(x) shown in Fig. 8(a) is used for
the first three load cases, while V(x) given by Fig. 8(b) is used for the last
three load cases.
Let us take a closer look at lane load 2. For an HS20 lane load, the
uniform load is given as 9.338 kN/m (0.640 klf), while the concentrated
load for shear is 115.6 kN (26 k). The values of w and P are determined as
follows: w = 9.338 x 2 x 1.50 x 1.175 = 32.92 kN/m; and P = 115.6 x 2
x 1.50 x 1.175 = 407.5 kN, where 2 corresponds to two lanes, 1.50

Self weight, superimposed dead load,and sidewalk live load

n railing railing

sidewalk asphalt overlay curb

1.829m 0.610m

Lane load 1 (no eccentricity)

w,P w,P W,P
f e=0
3.048 m 3.048 m

Lane load 2 (left eccentricity)

w,P W,P

FIG. 9. Example Problem 2

1652

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 87.3 72.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

51.6

torsion
139.1

130.2
shear + torsion

FIG. 10. N„ (kN/m) at x = L/4 for Lane Load 2

converts an HS20 load to an HS30 load, and 1.175 includes the impact
factor for a 48.77 m (160 ft) span. (The values of w and P for lane load 1
would be further multiplied by 0.9, which is the load reduction factor for
three lanes.) The lane loads are separated by a distance of 3.048 m (10 ft)
giving an average eccentricity e of (3.353 + 0.305)/2 = 1.829 m.

261.8.

membrane equations
folded plate

FIG. 11. Nxy (kN/m) at y = yh for Lane Load 2

1653

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 Substitution of these values into Eqs. 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 for x = L/A
allows the diagrams shown in Fig. 10 to be constructed, or alternatively,
the maximum values of Nxv in the webs at x = LIA can be determined with
Eq. 2. The longitudinal distribution at y = yh for the left and right webs is
shown in Fig. 11. The membrane equation results are very close to the
folded plate results except in the immediate vicinity of the concentrated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

load where some localized warping torsion occurs.

Although this method has been developed in terms of a simply supported
span, it gives reasonable results for an interior span of a continuous
structure.

TRANSVERSE FLEXURE

Whereas AASHTO lane loads govern in the design for longitudinal shear
and torsion, AASHTO truck loads govern in the design for transverse
flexure. The usual procedure to handle truck loads is to plot the individual
wheel loads on the influence surfaces of Pucher (1977) or Homberg (1968).
This allows the fixed-end moments to be determined. The distributed
moments are found by applying the fixed-end moments to a plane frame
analysis. The PTI manual (1978) discusses this procedure in detail.

Self weight,superimposed dead load, and sidewalk live load

railing railing

sidewalk asphalt overlay curb

\-
1.829m 0.610m

Truck load 1 (negative cantilever moment)

1.829m 0.305m

Truck load 2 (negative interior moment)

P P

1.829 m 1.219m 1.829m

^ ^s* <g p>

Truck load 3 (positive interior moment)

P

1.829 m 1.219m 1.829m

FIG. 12. Example Problem

1654

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3

The prestressed concrete box girder of example 1 is subjected to the six

load cases shown in Fig. 12. These include self-weight, superimposed dead
load, sidewalk live load, and three variations of AASHTO HS30 truck
load. These variations of truck load correspond to negative cantilever
moment, negative interior moment, and positive interior moment.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Let us take a closer look at truck load 3. The value of P is determined as

follows: P = 71.17 x 1.50 x 1.30= 138.8 kW, where 71.17 kN (16 k) is the
maximum wheel load for an HS20 truck, 1.50 converts an HS20 load to an
HS30 load, and 1.30 is the maximum impact factor. There are a total of 12
wheel loads to be plotted on the influence surface (four in the transverse
direction times three in the longitudinal direction). In the longitudinal
direction, the middle axle is located at midspan, and the loads for the front
axle are PIA.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that the results of a folded plate analysis (which is
considered to be exact) can be approximated very closely by using some
simple membrane equations in conjunction with a plane frame analysis. In
particular, the method allows the reinforcing and prestressing to be
proportioned for transverse flexure, as well as the stirrups to be pro-
portioned for longitudinal shear and torsion in single-celled precast con-
crete segmental box girder bridges.
With respect to transverse flexure, Myv and Nvv for self-weight, uniform
load, and loads over the webs have a uniform distribution in the longitudi-
nal direction, and this distribution is completely independent of the span
length. For self-weight, Nvy is found by superimposing the membrane
equation results with the plane frame results, while Mvy is given by the
plane frame results. The live load effects of the AASHTO truck loads are
determined by applying the fixed-end moments given by the influence
surfaces of Pucher (1977) or Homberg (1968) to a plane frame analysis to
get the distributed effects.
With regard to longitudinal shear and torsion, NXY for self-weight,
superimposed dead load, and sidewalk live load is given by the membrane
equations combined with the expression for St. Venant torsion. The live
load effects of the AASHTO lane loads are included by using a function
V(x), which is based on the influence line for shear.

APPENDIX I. MEMBRANE EQUATIONS

Cantilever

NXXl{x, y) = ~ 2 wt'x(L - x) J (3)

Nxyi(x, y)=~\ wt,(L -2x)yj (4)

Nyyi(x, y) = + \ wt,y2 j (5)

1655

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 Top slab

N„2(x, y) = - j »vr,jr(L - x) j (6)

Nx),(x, y) = + -^ wtt(L - 2x)(B, -2y)j (7)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Nyy2(x, y) = - ^ wt,yip, - y) j + ^ wttC2 j + 2wy (8)

Bottom slab

N„Jix, y) = + 2 wt„x(L - x)j (9)

N > , y)=~\ wtb(L - 2x)(Bh - 2y) y (10)

Nyyjix, y) = +^wthy(Bb-y) j (11)

Web

i V . v , ( x j ) = +\Wtwx{L - x ) ^ ^ (12) „

N 2x {
*yM> y) = + \ ""«•(*• ~ )y ^~ + \ wtb(L - 2x)Bh j (13)

x
xj < \ . jOyb-y) i n yb ....
Nyyt(x, y) = - - wtwy ^ wtbBhy y (14)

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES

Homberg, H. (1968). Decks with variable thickness. Springer-Verlag, New York,
N.Y. (in German).
Post-Tensioning Institute. (1978). Post-tensioned box girder bridge manual. Phoe-
nix, Ariz.
Pucher, A. (1977). Influence surfaces of elastic plates. Springer-Verlag, New York,
N.Y.
Scordelis, A. C. (1982). "Berkeley computer programs for the analysis of concrete
box girder bridges." Proc, NATO Advanced Study Institute on Analysis and
Design of Bridges, Cesme and Izmir, Turkey, 119-189.
Shushkewich, K. W. (1986). "Membrane forces acting on a box girder bridge." J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 112(8), 1900-1907.
Standard specifications for highway bridges. (1983). American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 13th Ed., Washington, D.C.

APPENDIX III. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A = section area;
Bh = center-to-center distance between webs at centroid of bottom
slab;

1656

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.

 center-to-center distance between webs at centroid of ton slab-
width of cantilevers;
section depth;
average eccentricity;
horizontal projection of web;
section moment of inertia;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

span length;
transverse bending moment;
longitudinal membrane force;
membrane shear force;
transverse membrane force;
concentrated load;
transverse normal shear force;
thickness of bottom slab;
thickness of top slab;
thickness of web;
vertical projection of web;
shear force at x;
uniform load;
coordinate in longitudinal direction;
coordinate in transverse direction;
distance from neutral axis to centroid of bottom slab measured
along axis of web; and
distance from neutral axis to centroid of top slab measured
along axis of web.

1657

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:1644-1657.