LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS FOR SKEW STEEL-CONCRETE BRIDGES

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS FOR SKEW
STEEL CONCRETE COMPOSITEBRIDGES
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(With Specialization in Structural Engineering)
By
SOUMYA S. S.
ANTRAL Lle~ :,
.
~No ................
. .
~.• ...
oFflC
VL ~ Jv
v~ v
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE -247 667 (INDIA)
JUNE, 2011
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work which is being presented in this dissertation entitled LOAD
DISTRIBUTION FACTORS FOR SKEW STEEL CONCRETE COMPOSITE BRIDGES,
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Technology in
Civil Engineering with specialization in Structural Engineering submitted in the Department of
Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, is an authentic record of
my own work carried out for a period from July 2010 to June, 2011 under the supervision of Dr.
N. M. Bhandari, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, Roorkee.
The matter embodied in this dissertation has not been submitted by me for the award of
any other Degree.

Date: June 30, 2011 (SOUMYA S. S.)
Place: Roorkee
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge.
1~ owe
Dr. N. M. Bhandari
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
ABSTRACT
It is more efficient to design bridges with skewed geometries in urban areas due to the lack of
space required for more traditional right bridges. In addition, skewed bridges are common at
highway interchanges, river crossings, and other extreme grade changes where skewed
geometries are necessary due to limitations in space. The transfer of load from concrete slab to
steel girder in a skew steel concrete composite bridge is a complex three dimensional
phenomenon. Methods of analysis for this case include finite element analysis, grillage analysis
and load distribution factor method. Even though Finite element analysis. is considered to be an
accurate method, it requires much effort in data preparation, bridge modelling and analysis, and
interpretation of results. And so it cannot be used as a practical tool for the routine design
problem. The load distribution factor given by most codes of practice simplifies the analysis and
design of bridges. These factors allow the design engineer to consider the transverse effect of
wheel loads in determining the shear and moment in girders under the longitudinal as well
transverse placement of live loads. As per load distribution method, maximum shear and moment
in bridge are obtained firstly as if the wheel loads are applied directly to the bridge as a single.
beam. Using the load distribution factors, design shear forces and moments in individual girders
of the bridge are obtained.
However, the use of inappropriate load distribution factors may lead to extremely
conservative or unsafe design moments. The method given by AASHTO is too conservative for
skew bridges, since the method does not consider the reduction in girder moments due to skew.
Conversely, AASHTO LRFD equation produces accurate results, but it is considered to be
cumbersome in practice. Several researchers have investigated the load distribution in skew
bridges and presented empirical formulae for moment distribution factors for bridges subjected
to AASHTO truck loading using different method of analysis. But only a few studies have been
done on skew composite bridges subjected to IRC load and dead load.
The main aim of this work is to conduct a parametric study to examine the key
parameters that may influence the load distribution characteristics of a skew steel-concrete
composite bridge. Three dimensional finite element modelling, using "ANSYS" software, has
been used for these load distribution analyses. An extensive parametric study is done, in which
35 skew steel-concrete composite bridge models are analyzed to evaluate their load distribution
factors for moment and shear under dead load and IRC live load conditions. Th'e key parameters
ii
considered in the study are the span length (20m, 30m and 40m), skew angle (0 - 60 deg),
number of main girders (3, 4 and 5) and orientation of cross bracings. Based on the parametric
study, moment and shear distribution factors are deduced for skew composite. bridges subjected
to IRC loading as well as dead load. Results from published literature are used to substantiate the
analytical modelling.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My humble salute to that Supreme Power who is my creator and the guardian, and to whom I
owe my very existence, for allowing me to complete this work.
I wish to express my heartiest thanks and deep sense of gratitude to my guide, Dr. N. M.
Bhandari, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
for his kind cooperation and encouragement while doing this dissertation work. His incisive
comments and valuable guidance gave me immense confidence to complete this work.
Words are insufficient to appreciate my friend Mayank Ajugia for his unyielding
support and constructive ideas, which have helped me in finishing this work successfully.
A word of thanks to my friend Jaya Lakshmi Kolli also for all the timely help she
provided.
My deepest gratitude goes to my family for their unflagging love and support throughout
my life in Roorkee. Thanks for those blessings which always protect me from all the dangers of
life.
My heartfelt gratitude goes to all those who helped me in completing this work.

June 30, 2011 SOUMYA S. S.
Roorkee
ry
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 BEHAVIOUR OF SKEW BRIDGES 2
1.2.1 Skew girder bridge 3
1.3 INTRODUCTION TO SKEW COMPOSITE BRIDGES 4
1.4 CURRENT STATUS OF STUDY ON COMPOSITE SKEW BRIDGES 5
1.5 OBJECTIVE OF THESIS 6
1.6 ORGANISATION OF THESIS 6
2. LOAD DISTRIBUTION THEORIES AND LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 GENERAL 8
2.2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS 8
2.2.1 Simplified methods 8
2.2.2 Rigorous methods 13
2.3 LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS: A REVIEW 16
2.4 CONCLUDIND REMARKS 19
3. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE BRIDGES 20
3.1 INTRODUCTION 20
3.2 ANSYS FEATURES AND CAPABILITES 22
3.3 GEOMETRIICAL MODELLING OF SKEW COMPOSITE BRIDGES
USING ANSYS 23
3.3.1 Modelling of deck slab, webs and end-diaphragms 23
3.3.2 Modelling of steel top flange, bottom flanges, top and bottom chords,
V
cross-bracings 24
3.3.3 Boundary conditions 26
3.4 MODELLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE IN ANSYS 27
3.4.1 Steps in modeling and analysis of composite bridges in ansys 28
3.5 VALIDATION OF ANSYS RESULTS WITH PUBLISHED RESULTS
IN LITERATURE 32
3.5.1 Details of experimental study [Sennah 1999] 32
3.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS 35
4. COMPUTATION OF LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS 36

4.1 METHODOLOGY 36
4.2 PARAMETRIC STUDY 37
4.2.1 Description of bridge models 37
4.2.2 Assumptions 40
4.3 LOADING CONDITIONS 41
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46
5.1 GENERAL 46
5.2 MOMENT AND SHEAR DISTRIBUTION FACTORS 48
5.3 COMPARISON OF DESIGN MOMENT AND SHEAR FORCE FOR
DIFFERENT LOADING CONDITIONS 55
5.4 VERIFICATION STUDY 56
5.5 EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON DISTRIBUTION FACTOR 59
5.6 EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON DISTRIBUTION FACTOR 62
5.7 EFFECT OF ORIENTATION OF TRANSVERSE DIAPHRAGMS ON
DISTRIBUTION FACTOR 65
5.8 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE 67
5.8.1 Problem 67
5.8.2 Solution 67
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 70
6.1 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 71
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

NUMBER
Figure 1.1 Characteristics of skew decks ------------ 2
Figure 1.2 Plan of a typical skew girder bridge ------------ 3
Figure 3.1 SHELL63 elastic shell ------------ 23
Figure 3.2 BEAM4 3-D elastic beam ------------ 25
Figure 3.3 MDC184 Rigid link/ beam element ------------ 26
Figure 3.4 Finite element discretisation of a cross section for a two ------------ 27
lane four girder bridge
Figure 3.5 Line model of bridge in Ansys ------------ 29
Figure 3.6 Plan of meshed model of bridge in Ansys ------------ - 30
Figure 3.7 3-D view of meshed model of bridge in Ansys ------------ 30
Figure 3.8 Loaded bridge model in Ansys ------------ 31
Figure 3.9 Model cross section ------------ 33

Figure3.10
Cross sectional details of model ------------ 33
Figure 4.1 The basic cross section configuration of bridge and ------------ 38
symbols
viii
Figure 4.2 The basic configuration of Class 70R train ------------ 42
Figure 4.3 The basic configuration of Class A train of vehicles ------------ 42
Figure 4.4 The transverse placement of IRC 70R vehicle ------------ 43
Figure 4.5 The transverse placement of IRC classA train ------------ 44
Figure 5.1 The deflection contour plot of a two lane 20 m span right ------------ 47
bridge for dead load
Figure 5.2 The deflection contour plot of a two lane 20 m span right
bridge for live load 47
Figure 5.3 The deflection contour plot of a two lane 20 m span ------------ 48
bridge- front view
Figure 5.4 Effect of skew angle on MDF in 20 m span bridge for - ------------ 60
70R wheel load placed centrally
Figure 5.5 Effect of skew angle on MDF in 20 m span bridge for ------------ 60
70R wheel load placed eccentrically
Figure 5.6 Effect of skew angle on SDF in 20 m span bridge for 70R ----------- 61
wheel load placed centrally
Figure 5.7 Effect of skew angle on SDF in 20 m span bridge for 70R ----------- 62
wheel load placed eccentrically.
Figure 5.8 Effect of span length on MDF for exterior girder for 70R ------------ 63
Figure 5.9 Effect of span length on MDF for interior girder for 70R ------------ 63
ix
Figure 5.10 Effect of span length on SDF for exterior girder ------------ 65
Figure 5.11 Effect of span length on SDF for exterior girder ----------- 65
Figure 5.12 Effect of orientation of transverse diaphragms on MDF ------------ 66
of interior girder, for 70R loads placed centrally
Figure 5.13 Effect of orientation of transverse diaphragms on MDF ------------ 66
of exterior girder, for 70R loads placed eccentrically
N
LIST OF TABLES
DESCRIPTION PAGE
NUMBER
Table 3.1 Comparison of theoretical and experimental results ------- 34
Table 4.1 Cross-sectional dimensions of case studies ------- 39
Table 5.1 Moment Distribution Factors for Dead load 49
Table 5.2 Moment Distribution Factors for 70R train placed centrally 50
Table 5.3 Moment Distribution Factors for 70R train placed

51
eccentrically -------
Table 5.4 Shear Distribution Factors for Dead load ------- 52
Table 5.5 Shear Distribution Factors for 70R train placed centrally 53
Table 5.6 Shear Distribution Factors for 70R train placed eccentrically 54
Table 5.7 Comparison of bending moment for two trains of ClassA

55
and 70R wheeled vehicle
Table 5.8 Comparison of design shear force for two trains of ClassA
56
and 70R wheeled vehicle - -------
Table 5.9 Comparison of MDF values ------- 57
Table 5.10 Comparison of SDF values ------- 58
xi-
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
There has been a general tendency in the past to align the bridge at right angle to the
abutment even by providing long approach roads. This results in increasing travel
distance and many other traffic problems. To catch the requirements of the high speed
and stem safety measures of present day heavy highway traffic as well as to reduce the
initial huge investment in the long curved approach roads, it has become greatly
important to minimize the number of horizontal curves in the highway alignments. This
requires the construction of skew bridges at the locations where crossings are at some
inclination and not at right angle to river centre line.
A skew bridge is the one whose longitudinal axis is not at right angle to the
abutment, but makes an angle less than 90 degree. The design of skewed bridges is
becoming more customary in the bridge engineering. Skewed bridges are especially
common in developed areas where alignment issues may control the design of the bridge
rather than economy. Skewed bridges are also quite common in mountainous regions
where topographical features may demand that the bridge . superstructure cannot be
perpendicular to the abutments and piers. Skewness can also be due to factors such as
natural or manmade obstacles, complex intersections, space limitations, or mountainous
terrain.
In the last few years, there has been a considerable increase in the number of skew
bridges constructed throughout the world. Recent studies have shown that most of the
(over 30 percent) of the short span bridges constructed in the recent past are the slab-
girder bridges with significant skew. This has necessitated better understanding and
analysis of skew bridges. The increase in the demand for skew bridges has been
accompanied by the development of computer .aided methods of analysis and now it is
possible to design a structure at any angle of skew.
1
1.2 BEHAVIOUR OF SKEW BRIDGES
The behaviour of a skew bridge is quite different from that of a straight bridge. In
non-skewed bridges, the load path goes straight towards the support in the direction of the
span. In skewed bridges, this is not the case. For a solid slab-skew bridge, the load tends
to take a short cut to the obtuse comers of the bridge. In addition to introducing problems
in the design of details of the deck, skew has considerable effects on the deck's behaviour
and critical design stresses. The special characteristics of skewed deck slab are shown in
Figure 1.1 and summarised below. They are:
• Variation in the direction of maximum bending moment across width, from near
parallel to span at edge, to near orthogonal to abutment in the central region.
• Development of hogging moments in slab near obtuse corners.
• Considerable torsion of the deck.
• High support reactions and shear forces developed near obtuse corners.
• Low reactions and a possibility of uplift reaction forces at the acute comers.
Sagging moments near Sagging moments

parallel to skew edge rto
abutments
1'_',; it -r
Hogging moments high upiitt of

shear and high torsion acute corner
near obtuse corner High reaction
at obtuse corner
Figure 1.1: Characteristics of skew decks
The size of these effects depends on the angle of skew, the ratio of width to span
and the type of construction of deck and supports. The harmful effects of skew can be
reduced by supporting the deck on soft bearings. The high reaction on the support at the
obtuse comer is shed to neighbouring bearings. In addition to reducing the magnitude of
2
the maximum reaction, this also reduces the shear stresses due to shear and torsion in the
slab and it reduces the hogging moment at the obtuse corner.
1.2.1 SKEW GIRDER BRIDGES
The skew effects are particularly significant in slab bridges. This is mostly so because
their high torsional stiffness tries to resist the twisting of deck. In bridge decks supported
by longitudinal girders also, load tries to take the shortest path, but this effect is less
pronounced. This change in direction of the load path in highly skewed bridges brings
about the following special characteristics:
• Under loading the adjacent girders have significantly different values for
deflection, slope and rotations (much different from what actually happens in slab-
decks).
• This distortion of the deck can occur without generating large reactive forces only
if the torsional stiffness of the T-section is low.
udinal girders
bracings
Skew span
Figure 1.2: Plan of a typical skew girder bridge.
• Under concentrated loading, distribution still takes place by transverse bending of

the deck slab but the girders behave much as in a right deck bridge spanning
3
longitudinally. However, the increase in girder shear and reaction at obtuse corner
is still significant and development of rotation in the girders is quite noticing.
1.3 INTRODUCTION TO SKEW COMPOSITE BRIDGES:
Composite structures are the ones that combine material such as steel, concrete, timber or
any two different materials into one structural element. Nowadays, composite bridges
imply bridges having either reinforced concrete or prestressed concrete slab with
structural steel girders or pre-cast reinforced concrete or prestressed concrete girders.
Steel concrete bridges generally occupy the middle ground between concrete and steel
structures. They are competitive with concrete bridges from span about 20 m in basic
beam and slab forms. For heavier loads, like in railways, deeper through girder or truss
forms are more likely. For 50m to 500 m, steel concrete composite arches and cable
stayed bridges are suitable.
The traditional steel-concrete composite bridge is composed of longitudinal
girders (a rolled beam, rolled beam with cover plates, or built up girder) which are
connected to the cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab by shear connectors (usually
welded studs) to ensure full interaction between the two.
Two principle types of composite bridges are plate girder and box girder bridges.
Beams and plate girders are widely used for medium span to large span bridges while box
girders are used for longer spans. The most common are composite multi girders,
composite twin girder bridges with haunched slabs or cross girders. Plate girders are
prone to lateral torsional bucking. They need to be stabilised by the deck slab and/or
bracing and/or U-framed restraint.
Composite construction combines the advantage of prefabricated construction,
namely speedy erection, better quality control, reduced cost of form work, minimized cost
of transport of finished components etc, which lead to the wide use of them in railway
and roadway bridges. The main advantages of composite bridges in comparison with the
other of similar dimensions are the following:
• Very slender and aesthetic bridges due to the optimal combination of high tensile
strength of structural steel and the high compressive strength of concrete.
4
• High durability of normal reinforced concrete decks due to restrictive crack width
limitation.
• In comparison with steel bridges composite bridges have a better behaviour with
regard to freezing in winter.
• Because the low dead weight of the composite bridges deck, composite bridges
have advantages with regard to the foundation and settlements of supports.
• Due to innovative erection methods, composite bridges are often used for bridges
over passing existent railways or highways without any restrictions for the traffic.
• Protection against corrosion and fire are yet another advantage. Fire protection can
be by using principles of reinforced concrete in which the concrete protects the
steel.
1.4 CURRENT STATUS OF STUDY ON COMPOSITE SKEW

BRIDGES
In these days, there is an increasing trend of constructing steel concrete composite

bridges with skewed alignment. This tendency is mainly due to the benefits of composite
'bridges over the other types of bridges of similar dimensions. But as we know, special
characteristics of skew bridges make their analysis and design more complicated than the
right bridges. Many of Indian designers face a problem in the design of composite bridges
and especially skewed composite bridges, as there are no codal provisions or guidelines
available in this matter. IRC is also silent about the methods of design of composite skew
bridges. Usually the common practice observed is that, those methods of bridge analysis
that are developed basically for right bridges are also used for analyzing skew bridges,
provided the angle of skew is less than 20 degree. If the angle is greater than 20 degree,
we should go for a rigorous analysis. Grillage analogy method, finite difference method,
finite strip method, finite element method, orthotropic plate method are some among the
computer aided methods for the analysis of a composite skew bridges.
The load distribution factor given by most codes of practice simplifies the
analysis and design of bridges. These factors allow the design engineer to consider the
transverse effect of wheel loads in determining the shear and moment in girders under the
longitudinal as well transverse placement of live loads. However, the use of inappropriate
load distribution factors may lead to extremely conservative or unsafe design moments.
The method given by AASHTO is too conservative for skew bridges, since the method
5
does not consider the reduction in girder moments due to skew. Conversely, AASHTO
LRFD equation produces accurate results, but it is considered to be cumbersome in
practice. Several researchers have investigated the load distribution in skew bridges and
presented empirical formulae for moment distribution factors for bridges subjected to
AASHTO truck loading using different method of analysis. But only a few studies have
been done on skew composite bridges subjected to IRC load and dead load.
1.5 OBJECTIVE OF THESIS
• To carry out a three dimensional finite element analysis of skew composite

bridges.
• Development of procedure for the computation of moment as well as shear
distribution factors for different loading conditions, which can be helpful for the
purpose of design
• To conduct a parametric study to examine the key parameters that may influence
the load distribution characteristics of skew composite bridge under IRC loading
and dead load.
• To propose suitable design charts for quick estimation of design forces in
longitudinal girders.
1.6 ORGANISATION OF THESIS
This thesis is composed of six chapters:

Chapter 1 gives the background information about the topic and the objective of the
thesis.
Chapter 2 contains the basic principle of load distribution and different theories and
methods for analysing a bridge. A review of load distribution factor is done based on the
available literature and the gap in the available practises is found out from the review.
Chapter 3 deals with basic finite element analysis along with issues related to bridge
modelling. The salient features and capabilities of ANSYS software are discussed. The
elements taken for study is shown and the steps of modelling are described. A validation
problem is included to state the efficiency and reliability of modelling method.
Chapter4 includes the procedure of finding out distribution factor for moment and shear.
The various parameters considered in the study and the different types of bridge models
analysed, are presented here. A discussion about different load placements is also done.
Chapters contains the results of the parametric study for moment and shear distribution
factors. A detailed discussion is done on the effect of various parameters on the
distribution factors. Some examples have been covered to illustrate the validity of the use
of proposed distribution factors in the routine design of skew bridges.
Chapter6 deals with the final conclusion drawn on the basis of work carried out and
some suggestion for future work is also given.
7
CHAPTER 2
LOAD DISTRIBUTION THEORIES AND

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL:
For a very long time, skewed bridges have been analyzed, designed, and constructed in
the same way as straight bridges regardless of the magnitude of the -skew angle. Many
design factors are treated the same way for skewed and straight bridges. Compared to its
frequent installation, the IRC codes are surprisingly silent about the methods of design of
skew bridges. It is said that if the skew angle is less than 200, then it can be designed as a
right bridge. Nothing is said about bridges with a skew angle of more than 20°, when the
most common skew angle noted is 45°. Distribution coefficient methods, e.g. Morice and
Little (1956) are already well known to bridge designers. These methods can be applied
manually to obtain the values of various load effects at any reference point on a
transverse section of the bridge, but the application of these methods to skew bridges is
not that much reliable.
Present study aims to look into some of these aspects for skewed steel concrete
composite bridges. This chapter gives the critical_ review of the relevant literature.
2.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS:
The methods available for the analysis of bridge decks may be classified into two broad
groups:-
1.Simplified Methods
2. Rigorous Methods
2.2.1 SIMPLIFIED METHODS
The simplified methods are derived and used for right bridges only. There is no such
similar method for the design of skew bridge decks. However, according to the IRC, skew
bridges with skew angle less than 20 degrees can be designed as a right bridge of the
effective span. In fact, before the inception of micro computers, skew bridges were
designed using the simplified methods only. Under the simplified methods, the following
are of use
A) Courbon's Method
This is one of the early methods, which for its simplicity in application have been
commonly used for analyzing the girder bridges. This method assumes transverse
members as rigid and hence bridge deck bends bodily and does not change its shape when
loads are applied on deck.
According to Courbon's method, the reaction (R1) of the cross beam on any girder
i of a typical bridge consisting of multiple parallel beams is computed assuming a linear variation
of deflection in the transverse direction. The deflection will be maximum on the exterior
girder on the side of the eccentric load (or C.G. of loads, if there is a system of concentrated
loads) and minimum of the other exterior girder.
The reaction Ri is then given by

R _ PxI; + PxI; + exd; xEI; (2.1)
II1 Lld'
I+ exd; >I,
PxI , x (2.2)
R.=
' II; Y-Iidi
Where:
P = Total live load
IL = Moment of inertia of longitudinal ith girder
e = Eccentricity of live the load (or C.G. of loads in case of multiple loads)
dL = Distance of girder i from the axis of the bridge.
When the intermediate and the end longitudinal girders have the same moment of inertia, the
quantity Ii in the second term within bracket now reduces to P/n, where n is the number of
longitudinal girders. This method is applicable only for right or skew girder bridges up to
200 skew, if the following conditions are satisfied:
• The ratio of span to width is greater than 2 but less than 4.
• The longitudinal beams are interconnected by symmetrically spaced cross
girders of adequate stiffness.
• The cross girders have a depth at least 75% of that of the longitudinal girder.
• There should be minimum 5 cross girders and 3 longitudinal girders
B) Henry-Jaeger Method
Henry-Jaeger method is based upon two simplifying assumptions:

• Loading on the bridge deck can be replaced by a Harmonic or Fourier series.
• Actual structure is replaced by a semi continuum. This implies that the structure is
assumed continuous longitudinally and discontinuous transversally, but the
transverse flexural rigidity is taken to be same along the length.
Hendry and Jaegar assume that the cross beams can be replaced in the analysis by a
uniform continuous transverse medium of equivalent stiffness._ According to this method,
the distribution of loading in an interconnected bridge deck system depends on the
following three dimensionless parameters:
3
12 nEI (2.3)
A r 1112x h El
x
2
F=—x x (2.4)
2n L EIT
C= EI' (2.5)
EI2
Where,
L = Span of the bridge
H = Spacing of longitudinal girders
n = Number of cross girders
EI, and GJ = flexural and torsional rigidities of longitudinal pair.
EI1, EI2 = flexural rigidity of the outer and inner girder respectively.
EIT= flexural rigidity of the cross girder
The parameter A is the most important of the above three parameters. It is a
function of the ratio of span to spacing of longitudinal girder and the ratio of transverse to
longitudinal flexural rigidity. The second parameter F is a measure of the relative
torsional rigidity of the longitudinal girders, and it is difficult to determine accurately due
to uncertainties surrounding the CJ values for practical girder sections. The torsional
rigidity of the transverse system is neglected in the analysis.
Graphs giving the values of the distribution co-efficient for the different
conditions of number of longitudinal girders (2-6) and two extreme values of F i.e. zero
and infinity are available. Distribution coefficients for the intermediate values are
obtained by interpolation.
m f = mo + (ma — mo ) F; (2.6)
3 +F[A
Where mf is the required distribution coefficient and m0 and m« are respectively the
coefficients for F= zero and F= infinity
C) Morice-Little Method
Morice and Little have applied the orthotropic plate theory to concrete bridge systems,
using the approach first suggested by Guyon neglecting torsion and extended by
Massonnet to include torsion. This approach has the merit that a single set of distribution
coefficients for two extreme cases of no torsion grillage and a full torsion slab enable the
distribution behaviour of any type of bridge to be found. This is also called the method of
distribution coefficient. Its results can generally be accepted for skews of up to 200.
The structural properties of the bridge deck under analysis are defined in terms of
some special parameters. The basis of this method of distribution coefficients is the study
of an equivalent elastic system obtained by transforming the stiffness of a number of
beams, which may be considered as contorted at nodal points into a uniformly distributed
system of the same overall stiffness. The effect of producing a distributed system is to
introduce a structure width, 2b, which is given by the number of original main beams
multiplied by their spacing. This results in an equivalent width greater than the original
width in certain. cases. If the bridge deck consists of a number of longitudinal girders at a
spacing p, then the effective width 2b is defined as np, where n is the number of girders.
In some cases, this may lead to an effective width greater than the actual width. The
actual span of the bridge is taken as 2a.
The flexural properties of the bridge deck as a whole may be expressed by the
parameter given by equation:
)0.25
B = b X t (2.7)
2a j
11
Where
i= Longitudinal second moment of area of the equivalent deck per unit width•
=I/p
I = Second moment of area of each longitudinal girder.
p = Spacing of longitudinal girders
j = Transverse second moment of area of the equivalent deck per unit length
=J/q
J = The second moment of area of each transverse diaphragm or cross beam
q = Spacing of diaphragms or cross beams
The torsional properties per unit width are determined in the same way as those
for bending, by using a single parameter, oc
_ G(i0 +.lo)
(2.8)
a 2E ij
Where
E = Young's modulus of the material of deck
G = Modulus of rigidity of the material of the deck
to = Longitudinal torsional stiffness per unit length
=10 /p
to = Torsional stiffness constant of a longitudinal girder
Jo = Transverse torsional stiffness per unit length
= Jo 'p
to = Torsional stiffness constant of a cross beam.
The flexural parameter has a primary effect upon the distribution coefficients. The value
of oc will be zero for a no-torsion grillage and unity for a solid slab which has the
maximum torsional stiffness. For all other forms of bridge deck, the parameter oc will
have a value intermediate between 0 and 1.
In order to make the system practical, the profile shape is given by distribution
coefficients relative to the mean deflection of the whole section for stations at nine
equally distributed standard positions across the width and the loading eccentricities are
also given at these nine discrete position (-b, -3b/4, -b/2, -b/4, o, b/4, b/2, 3b/4 and b). The
loadings and deflections at these nine standard positions are considered and all deflections
are related to the average deflection. The actual deflection at each of these nine standard
12
positions will be given by an arithmetical coefficient, called distribution coefficient and
denoted by the symbol K, multiplied by the average deflection produced by the load
distributed uniformly across the entire effective width. Graphs give the distribution
coefficient at each standard reference point for load applied at any of the nine standard
positions for a bridge deck with zero torsional stiffness.
For any intermediate value of oc, the distribution coefficient can be obtained from
the interpolation relationship given in equation:
K. =Ko +(Ki —Ko )J (2.9)

Where
Ka = the distribution coefficient for the actual value of oc.
Ko = distribution coefficient for oc equal to 0.
KI = distribution coefficient for oc equal to 1.
The above distribution coefficients have been derived for deflections. However, these
may also be applied for longitudinal bending moments, and, therefore, to longitudinal
bending stresses. Since the mathematical analysis used for the preparation of the design
curves used only the first term of the harmonic series, which forms the basis of the above
theory, the bending moment and stress under a concentrated load are to be increased by
10 percent for design.
Most of these simplified methods of bridge analysis have been developed for
concrete bridges where full composite action of slab and beam is guaranteed due to
monolithic construction. In the absence of any method made for steel concrete composite
bridges, the same methods are being used. There is little information about performance
evaluation of such methods for the composite bridges.
2.2.2. RIGOROUS METHODS
Many rigorous methods of bridge analysis have been developed basically for right bridges
(i.e., for bridges of zero angle of skew). Adapting them to the analysis of skew bridges is
quite tedious and often difficult. Examples of such rigorous methods are: Orthotropic
plate method, Finite Difference Method, Grillage Analogy Method, Finite Element
Method, Finite strip method Semicontinuum method
13
A) Orthotropic Plate Method
This method idealizes the bridge deck as an orthotropic plate having constant thickness
but different flexural and torsional properties in two mutually perpendicular directions.
The deflections of an orthotropic plate are governed by a non-homogenous plate equation
which is solved to obtain the solution in terms of deflection. The various plate responses
are then calculated using suitable expressions.
B) Finite Difference Method
The finite difference method developed by Nielson and later by Westergaards was used
by many in the analysis of bridge decks with complex shapes and complicated boundary
conditions. Amongst them, Heins and Loney are notable. Cusen and Pama summarised
the application of this technique to the solution of orthotropic plates. In this method, the
deck is divided into grids of arbitrary mesh size and the deflection values at the grid
points are treated as unknown quantities. The governing equation of the deck and the
accompanying boundary conditions are expressed in terms of these unknowns. The
resulting simultaneous equations are then solved for unknown deflections.
C) Grillage Analogy Method
The approximate representation of the bridge decks by a grillage of interconnected beams

is a convenient way of determining the general behaviour of the bridge under loads.
Henry, Jaegar and Lightfoot — Sawko did pioneering work in this method. Hambly
summarised the application of this technique to bridge deck analysis. Jaeger — Bakht gave
recommendations on this idealisation of bridge types as grillages. This method of analysis
involves the idealisation of the given bridge deck as an assembly of one dimensional
beams subjected to loads acting perpendicular to the plane of assembly. Both the flexural
and torsional rigidities of beams are taken into account. Grillage beams in the longitudinal
direction are made to coincide with the centre line.It is possible to analyze any two-
dimensional deck structure with any support conditions or skew angle (up to about 200). It
is normally required to smooth out the discontinuities at the imaginary joints between
grillage members. This method can be extended to cater for three dimensional systems
(space-frame analysis),In skew bridges, with small skew angle (less than 150 )and with no
intermediate diaphragms, the transverse grid lines are kept parallel to the support lines.
For higher skew angle, orthogonal mesh should be adopted to get accurate response.
14
D) Finite Strip Method
The finite strip method is a hybrid procedure which combines some of the advantages of
the series solution of the orthotropic plates with the finite element concept. In this
method, bridge deck is represented by strip elements extending from support to support.
This bridge superstructure may be idealized either as a three dimensional assembly of
strips of equivalent orthotropic idealization of bridge structure. Simple displacement
interpolation functions are then used to represent displacement fields within and between
individual strips. The step involved in the finite strip is:
a) To assume a displacement function
b) To establish the continuity at the boundaries with adjacent strips for slopes and
deflections to get the displacement functions constants. Here it is necessary to
express the function for deflection in terms of displacement function and a sine
term. Slopes and deflections in terms of the displacement function and a sine
term. Slopes and deflections at each edge are the amplitudes of the sine function.
c) The total energy of a strip, is given as a sum of internal strain energy caused due
to stress resultants and the potential energy due to external loading on the strip
d) The total energy of the plate is the sum of the energies of all the strips.
e) From the principle of minimum potential energy, the total energy of the plate is
differentiated and equated to zero to obtain a set of simultaneous equations
which, when solved will give the solution in terms of displacement or force.
E) Finite Element Method
The finite element method is the most powerful method of analysis arising from the direct
stiffness method. Zienkiewicz, Desai — Abel and Martin — Carey did pioneering work in
this field. Finite element analysis, also called the finite element method, is a method for
numerical solution of field problems. A field problem requires determination of the
spatial distribution of one or more dependent variables. Mathematically a field problem is
described by differential equations or by an integral expression. Either description may be
used to formulate finite elements. In more and more engineering situations today, we find
that it is necessary to obtain approximate numerical solutions to problems, rather than
exact closed-form solutions.
15
Elements are connected at points called nodes and the assemblage of elements is called
finite clement structure. The particular arrangement of elements is called a mesh. How the
finite element method works can be summarized in the following general terms:
• Discretise the continuum: The first step is to divide the continuum or solution into
elements. A variety of element shapes may be used and different element shapes
may be employed in the same solution region.
• Select interpolation functions: The next step is to assign nodes to each element
and then choose the type of interpolation function to represent the variation of
field variable over the element.
• Find the element properties: Once the finite element model has been established
the matrix equation expressing the properties of the individual elements is ready to
be determined.
• Assemble the element properties to obtain the system equations: The matrix
equations expressing the behaviour of the elements must be combined to form the
matrix equations expressing the behaviour of the entire solution region or system.
• Solve the system equation: The assembly process of the preceding step gives a set
of simultaneous equations that can be solved to obtain the unknown nodal values
of the field variable.
2.3 LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS: A REVIEW
Load Distribution Factors (LDF) have been used in bridge design for many decades as a
relatively simple method to estimate live load effects on bridge members for the design
and evaluation of bridges. The load-distribution factor concept allows the design engineer
to consider the longitudinal and transverse effects of wheel loads as two separate
phenomena, thus simplifying the analysis and design of the bridge. The LDF is a function
of parameters such as bridge geometry, relative stiffness of components, and nature of the
loads.
In the 1930's AASHTO Standard specifications introduced an "S-over" equation
for the load distribution factor (LDF), which was a function of girder spacing only. This
code does not consider the effect of skew angle and bridge continuity. Finite element
studies, however, have shown it to be unsafe in some cases and too conservative in others.
16
The current AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO LRFD,
2010) recognize that the LDF is a function of girder spacing, span length, slab thickness,
and beam stiffness and so they introduced a new LDF equation, based on elastic finite
element analysis (PEA). The LDFs are specified differently for exterior and interior
girders, for shear and moment, and for one-lane loaded and two-or-more-lane loaded
cases. AASHTO LRFD Specifications, introduce reduction factor for LDF as function of
skew angle.
However, this equation involves a longitudinal stiffness parameter, which is not
initially known in design. Thus, an iterative procedure is required to correctly determine
the LDF value. Meanwhile, the FE model used in developing the LRFD LDF equation did
not include some important features such as presence of the secondary elements like cross
bracing, diaphragms, and parapets in bridges, which may affect the lateral load
distribution. So the distribution factor equations specified in the current AASHTO LRFD
Specifications include limited ranges of applicability, and when these limitations are not
met, the specifications mandate a refined analysis. Study on the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications for skew bridges showed that the AASHTO LRFD Specifications
overestimate bending moment and shear force for skew angle larger than 20 degree.
The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC) (Ontario 1992) accounts for
longitudinal and transverse rigidities of bridges in addition to the girder spacing.
However, the method is limited to simply support and small-skew-angle bridges.
Several researchers have investigated the load distribution in skew composite
bridges, presenting empirical formulae for moment distribution factors for bridges
subjected to AASHTO truck loading: Bakht (1988) analysed some skew bridges as right
bridges by developing a simplified method and recommended a procedure for obtaining
longitudinal moments with good accuracy in skew slab-on-girder bridges. It is shown that
the errors in analyzing skew slab-on-girder bridges as right are not characterized by the
angle of skew but by two dimensionless parameters, which depend upon the angle of
skew, the spacing and span of girders, and their flexural rigidities relative to the flexural
rigidity of the deck slab. Recommendations are given for the use of the simplified
methods of analysis for skew slab-on-girder bridges. It is proposed that bridges having (S
tan ❑/L) less than 0.05 can be analyzed as equivalent right bridges, where S. L and ❑ are
the girder spacing, bridge span, and angle of skew, respectively.
Khaleel and Itani (1990) presented a method for determining bending moment in
continuous normal and skewed slab-and-girder bridges due to live loads by conducting
17
studies on continuous bridges with pretensioned I girders. They concluded that the
AASHTO Standard Specifications underestimate the bending moments by as much as
28% for exterior girders in normal bridges and that for a skew angle of 600 the maximum
moment in the interior girder is approximately 71 % of that in a normal bridge. They also
concluded that the -edge girders control the design for a combination of a large angle of
skew, a large span, small girder spacing, and a small girder-to-slab stiffness ratio. This is
due to a larger skew reduction factor in the interior girders.
•By conducting parametric study, Zokaie et al. (1991) also concluded that the skew
angle is the key parameter for skewed bridge behaviours such as load distribution factor
and load effect on bearings.
Helba and Kennedy (1994) tested continuous skewed composite bridges to define
collapse loads. The results were presented for both simply supported and continuous, two-
span, skewed composite bridges.
Ebeido and Kennedy (1996) investigated the influence of skew angle, as well as
other design parameters, on the moment, shear and reaction distribution factors of
continuous, two-span, composite steel-concrete bridges and showed that the interior
girders are more sensitive to a change in the skew angle than the exterior girders. They
also concluded that bridge aspect ratio has an influence on the moment distribution factor.
The effect of aspect ratio increases with increase in the skew angle.
Khaloo and Mirzabozorg (2003), using the finite-element analysis method (FEA),
analyzed 3-D, simply supported, skewed bridges with different span lengths, skew
angles, girder spacing, and arrangements of internal transverse diaphragms. They showed
that the load distribution factor of exterior girders reduces by 24% for a skew angle of 60°
compared to non-skewed bridges. In addition, the study showed the sensitivity of load
distribution factors of interior girders with respect to skew angle. For decks with a skew
angle of 60°, the distribution factors decrease by 26.3% as compared with non-skewed
bridges. It was concluded that load distribution factors of AASHTO Standard
Specifications are up to 43.1% higher than those found by FEA. The authors suggested
that girder live load distribution factors should be re-evaluated for skewed bridges.
Huang et al. (2004) carried out field testes and theoretical analyses using FEA for
two-span continuous slab-on-steel girder composite bridges with a skew angle of 60°.
Demek et al. (2007) studied the effect of dynamic loads on a skew-box girder
continuous bridge. It was found that the influence of skew in both the static and dynamic
behaviours of the bridge within the skew angle range of 0°-30° is very small.
IL
Menassa et al. (2007) have conducted FEA for simply supported, one-span,
multilane skew reinforced concrete slab bridge. They showed that the ratio between FEA
longitudinal moments for skewed and straight bridges was almost one for bridges with
skew angle less than 20°. This ratio decreased to 0.75 for bridges with skew angles
between 30° and 40°, and further decreased to 0.5 as the skew angle of the bridge
increased to 500 .
Study on the effect of skewness on the distribution of live load reaction at piers of
skewed continuous bridges by Sharon and Zhang (2008) reveal that the reaction
distribution factors at the piers of continuous skewed bridges increase with increased
skew angles and the distribution factors of reactions at the piers are higher than those for
shear near the same piers. The increase in reaction distribution factor at the piers in the
interior beam lines is more significant than that in shear distribution factor when the skew
angle is greater than 30°.
2.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this chapter a discussion on the basic principle of load distribution and different
theories and methods for analysing a bridge have been done. A review of load distribution
factor is done based on the available literature and found out that most of the literature
and information are available for AASHTO loading only, which are not relevant to Indian
conditions. It can be seen that IRC is also silent about the methods of design of composite
skew bridges. Usually the common practice observed is that, those methods of bridge
analysis that are developed basically for right bridges are also used for analyzing skew
bridges, provided the angle of skew is less than 20 degree. If the angle is greater than 20
degree, it is recommended to go for a rigorous analysis.
19
ACC No................y'Q-C
Date ....................
CHAPTER 3
FINITE ELEMENT ANAL IS OF COMPOSITE

BRIDGES:
3.1 INTRODUCTION:
The age old transformed area method has dominated the composite bridge design for past
50-60 years and is still used by many consultants for design practice. However, it does
not adequately reflect the mechanics of composite bridge, more specifically composite
skew bridge. The need for a safe and economical bridge may be satisfied to the fullest
only when a robust analysis module is performed for this purpose.
The finite element analysis is a well known tool for the solution of complicated
structural engineering problems, as it is capable of accommodating many complexities in
the solution. In this method, the actual continuum is replaced by an equivalent idealized
structure composed of discrete elements, referred to as finite elements, connected together
at a number of nodes.
The finite element analysis was first applied to problems of plane stress, using
triangular and rectangular element. The method has since been extended and we can now
use triangular and rectangular elements in plate bending, tetrahedron and hexahedron in
three dimensional stress analyses, and curved elements in singly or doubly curved shell
problems. Thus the finite element analysis may be seen to be very general in application
and it is sometimes the only valid form of analysis for difficult deck problems. The finite
element method is a numerical method with powerful technique for solution of
complicated structural engineering issues. Recent development in the finite element
method of analysis make it possible to model a bridge in more realistic manner and to
provide a full description of its structural response within and beyond its elastic stages of
loading. The most important advantage of this method is its capability to deal with
problems which have arbitrary arrangement of structural elements, material properties
and boundary conditions
The finite element method involves subdividing the actual structure into a suitable
number of sub-regions that are called finite elements. These elements can be in the form
of line elements, two dimensional elements and three- dimensional elements to represent
20
the structure. The intersection between the elements is called nodal points in one
dimensional problem where in two and three-dimensional problems are called nodal lines
and nodal planes respectively. At the nodes, degrees of freedom (which are usually in the
form of the nodal displacement and! or their derivatives, stresses, or combinations of
these) are assigned. Models which use displacements are called displacement models and
models based on stresses are called force or equilibrium models, while those based on
combinations of both displacements and stresses are called mixed models or hybrid
models. Displacements are the most commonly used nodal variables, with most general
purpose programs limiting their nodal degree of freedom to just displacements. A number
of displacement functions such as polynomials and trigonometric series can be assumed,
especially polynomials because of the ease and simplification they provide in the finite
element formulation. To develop the element matrix, it is much easier to apply a work or
energy method. The principle of virtual work, the principle of minimum potential energy
and castigliano's theorem are methods frequently used for the purpose of derivation of
element equation.
The finite element method has a number of advantages; they include

i. Finite element analysis is applicable to any field problem.
ii. Finite element method can be used to model irregularly shaped bodies and
composed of several different materials. There is no geometrical restriction.
iii. This can handle general load condition and unlimited numbers and kinds of
boundary conditions.
iv. Material properties are not restricted to isotropy and may change from one
element to another or even within an element.
v. FEA include dynamic effects also.
vi. FEA handles nonlinear behaviour existing with large deformation and nonlinear
materials.
vii. In this analysis, components that have different behaviour, and different
mathematical descriptions, can be combined.
viii. A finite element analysis closely resembles the actual body or region.
ix. The approximation is easily improved by grading the mesh.
21
Disadvantage of finite element analysis is that it is fairly complicated, making it
time- consuming and expensive to use. Also the analyses carried out without sufficient
knowledge may lead to results that are worthless.
In the present study FE software ANSYS has been employed for the analysis of
composite skew bridges. To this end, this chapter elaborates the procedure for modelling
of different components of the composite skew bridges, i.e., the reinforced concrete deck
slab, the steel top and bottom flanges, the steel webs, the solid end diaphragms, the cross
bracings, and the top and bottom chord using `ANSYS'. In the following section, an
attempt has been made to identify the various parameters those are likely to influence the
structural behaviour of the composite skew bridge.
3.2 ANSYS FEATURES AND CAPABILITIES:
ANSYS is a commercially available, general-purpose finite element-modelling package

for numerically solving a wide variety of engineering problems. These problems include
static/dynamic analysis (both linear and .non-linear), heat transfer and fluid problems, as
well as acoustic and electro-magnetic problems. The program employs the matrix
displacement method of analysis based on finite element idealisation.
In general, a finite element solution may be broken in to the following three stages, as
given under.
(1) Pre-processing: In this step of analysis, the element type is selected. Properties are
assigned to different parts of the structure. Thereafter, modelling of geometry is
carried out and meshing is performed to discretize the structure into elements.
(2) Solution: In this step, first of all, analysis type is defined. The analysis type may
be static, modal or harmonic etc. and displacement constraints and loads are
applied on the modal according to the desired boundary conditions. Then electric
voltage is imposed to the actuator and the problem is solved.
(3) Post processing: In this step, the deformed shape of the sandwich beam is plotted
and the nodal solution at the required position is listed. Plotting of graph is carried
out to interpret the results.
22
3.3 GEOMETRICAL MODELLING OF SKEW COMPOSITE
BRIDGES IN ANSYS:
The structure is first divided into several components, namely: the reinforced concrete
deck slab, the steel top flanges, the steel webs, the bottom flanges, the solid end
diaphragms, the cross bracings, and the top and bottom chord system. The reinforced
concrete slab is rigidly connected to the steel top flange . by means of stud shear
connectors. ANSYS has large variety of element in its element library. From previous
studies it was noted that the vertical web stiffeners have insignificant effect on the
structural behaviour and so the component is not included in the finite element modelling
3.3.1 MODELLING OF DECK SLAB, WEBS AND END-DIAPHRAGMS:
A four-node shell element `SHELL63' with six degrees of freedom at each node is used
to model deck slab, webs and end-diaphragms. The element has both bending and
membrane capabilities. Both in-plane and normal loads are permitted for this element.
The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are
shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: SHELL63 elastic shell
23
The input/ output data summary for the 'SHELL63'element is given below:
Element name : SHELL63
Nodes : I,J,K,L
Degrees of Freedom : UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ
Real Constants TK (I), TK (J), TK(K), TK(L), EFS, THETA, RMI, CTOP,
CBOT,
(ADMSUA)
Material Properties : EX, EY, EZ, (PRXY, PRYZ, PRXZ or NUXY, NUYZ,
NUXZ), ALPX, ALPY, ALPZ (or CTEX, CTEY, CTEZ or
THSX, THSY, THSZ), DENS, GXY, DAMP
Orthotropic material directions correspond to the element coordinate directions. The

element X axis may be rotated by an angle THETA (in degrees). The thickness is
assumed to be varying smoothly over the area element, with the thickness input at four
nodes. In our bridge modelling, we assume the element has a constant thickness . and
hence only TK(I) need to be input. The elastic foundation stiffness (EFS) is defined as the
pressure required to produce a unit normal deflection of the foundation. The elastic
foundation capability is bypassed if EFS is less than or equal to zero. CTOP and CBOT
are the distance from middle surface to the extreme fibres to be used for stress
evaluations. Both CTOP and CBOT are positive, assuming that the middle surface is in
between the fibres used for stress evaluations. If not input, stresses are based on input
shell thickness. ADMSUA is the added mass per unit area.
3.3.2 MODELLING OF STEEL TOP FLANGE, BOTTOM FLANGES, TOP AND

BOTTOM CHORDS, CROSS-BRACINGS:
A three-dimensional two node beam element, named BEAM4 in ANSYS library is used
to model steel top and bottom flanges, top and bottom chords, cross-bracings. The
element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z
directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z axes. BEAM4 is a uniaxial element
with tension, compression, torsion, and bending capabilities.
The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are
shown in Figure 3.2
24
K_ (option%&)
Tddc
Y
T2,TO•TKY. t T7
Figure 3.2: BEAM4 3-D elastic beam
Element name BEAM4
Nodes : I, J, K (K orientation node is optional)

Degrees of Freedom : UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ
Real Constants : AREA, IZZ, IYY, TKZ, TKY, THETA, ISTRAN, IXX,
SHEARZ,
SHEARY, SPIN, ADDMAS
Material Properties EX, ALPX, DENS, GXY, DAMP
The element is defined by two or three nodes, the cross sectional area, the two area
moments of inertia (IZZ and IYY), two thickness (TKY and THZ), an angle of orientation
(❑) about the element X-axis, the torsional moment of inertia (IXX), and the material
properties. The element x-axis is oriented from node I toward node J. For the two-node
option, the default (0 = 00) orientation of the element y-axis is automatically calculated to
be parallel to the global X-Y plane. Several orientations are shown in Figure 3.2: BEAM4
3-D elastic beam.
25
The initial strain in the element (ISTRN) is given by A/L, where A is the
difference between the element length, L, (as defined by the I and J node locations) and
the zero strain length. The shear deflection constants (SHEARZ and SHEARY) are used
only if shear deflection is to be included.
3.3.3 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS:
Two different nodal constraints are used in the analysis namely, boundary constraints and
multi point constraints. The two simple supports at the ends of the bridge are modelled
using a boundary constraint option. The multipoint constraint option (MPC-184 of
ANSYS) allows constraints between different degrees of freedom. It is used between the
shell nodes of the reinforced concrete deck slab and the beam element nodes of the steel
top flange. The multipoint constraint option ensures full interaction between the
reinforced concrete deck slab and the longitudinal steel girders, thus modelling the
presence of the shear connectors. MPC is valid only for static analysis. A typical MPC
184 element is shown in figure 3.3
Zf
Figure 3.3: MPC184 Rigid link/ beam element
The input/ output data summary for the `MPC184'element is given below
Element name : MPC184
Nodes : I, J
Degrees of Freedom UX, UY, UZ (KEYOPT(1)=0)
UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ (KEYOPT(l) =1)
Real Constants : NONE
Material Properties DENS
Two nodes define the element. The element x-axis is oriented from node I toward
node J. The cross-sectional area of the element is assumed to be one unit. Because the
element models a rigid constraint or a rigid component, material stiffness properties are
not required. Depending upon the application, the element can behave as rigid link or
rigid beam. If KEYOPT(l) = 0 (default), the element is a rigid link with two nodes and
three degrees of freedom at each node (UX, UY, UZ). In the present model, KEYOPT(1)
= 1, is chosen to constraint all six degrees of freedom between shell nodes of concrete
deck and beam element nodes of shell top flange.
A typical finite element discretisation of a cross section for a two lane four girder
bridge using the above element is shown in figure 3.4
element For deck slab MPG 184
BEAM4` eiemi
1
for top flange
element
for web
'BEAM4' elements
for bottom flange
Figure 3.4: Finite element discretisation of a cross section for a two lane four girder bridge
3.4 MODELLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE IN ANSYS
Following are the specifications for a typical bridge model that must be known before the
modelling:
• Number of longitudinal girders
• Number of lanes
• Number of bracings
• Clear carriageway width
• Span of bridge, L
• D, total depth of steel section from top flange to bottom flange.
• Centre to centre distance between longitudinal girders
• Top flange width
• Thickness of top flange
27
• Thickness of web
• Thickness of bottom flange
• Thickness of concrete deck
• Thickness of bracing
• Width of bracing
• Thickness of Diaphragm
3.4.1 STEPS IN MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE SKEW

BRIDGE IN ANSYS
Following are the steps to model a composite skew bridge on ANSYS7 using GUI:
Step-i Set preferences:
Turn on structural.
Step -2 Define element types and options:

Choose Shell-elastic 4 node 63 elements, Beam 3D elastic4, Rigid Nonlinear
MPC 184 (with option- rigid beam)
Step -3 Define real constants:

Typical real constants include shell thickness and cross-sectional properties for
shell elements. For beam element, cross sectional area, thickness and moment of
inertia along z and y direction must be given.
Step-4 Define Material Properties:

Material properties are constitutive properties of material such as modulus of
elasticity, Poisson's ratio, density and are independent of geometry.
Step-5 Modelling of Bridge cross section:

Create key-points in a plane and copy them in the, direction normal to plane. Make
lines by joining them; create areas through key-points or lines.
Step-6 Glue the Areas:

Glue the Areas connected at common point.
Figure 3.5: Line model of bridge in Ansys
Step-7 Mesh the Area:

Mesh the areas after giving proper mesh attributes and element sizes.
Step-8 Create shear connectors and Cross Bracings:

Create elements between the corresponding nodes of concrete deck (shell
element) and top flange (beam element) using MPC (rigid beam). Also cross
bracings between nodes of web and bottom flange using beam element.
Step-9 Applying Boundary conditions:

Apply boundary conditions as rollers under each web at near end and hinges at far
end.
29
Figure 3.6: Plan of meshed model of bridge in Ansys
Figure 3.7: 3-D view of meshed model of bridge in Ansys
30
Step-10 Applying Loads:
This is the most critical step found while applying IRC loading on deck because of
following reasons.
A) These IRC loadings are patch loads.

B) Patch load at any random location cannot be given on ANSYS meshed model.
To get solved this problem a program (Mat lab) (Appendix-I) has been written to
convert the patch load at any random location on meshed deck of bridge in to
nodal loads. For conversion the shape functions (interpolation functions) have
been used.
Figure 3.8: Loaded bridge model in Ansys
Step-11 Solution:
Run analysis as Current LS and analyse the structure for different load
combinations,
Step-12 Post Processing:

Enter the general post processor and read the results. Deformation and stress
values are taken at the required cross section. This is again an important step in
analysis. As a civil engineer we are interested in integrated values like bending
moment and shear force etc. but the results we get in ANSYS are in the form of
31
stress contours. Again a program (CPP) (Appendix-II) has been written for getting
moment of resistance of the section by inputting stress listing and geometric
details.
3.5 VALIDATION OF ANSYS RESULTS WITH PUBLISHED

RESULTS IN LITERATURE:
In order to evaluate the efficiency of modelling using above types of elements, there is a
need to validate the procedure. The results from an experimental study on a bridge model
[Sennah 1999] are used to validate the modelling adopted in the parametric study. The
details of the above referred experiment are as below:
3.5.1 DETAILS OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDY [SENNAH 1999]:
A composite concrete deck-steel three-cell bridge model was built and tested under
various static loading conditions. The concrete deck was 1 m wide, 50 mm thick, 2.6 m in
length, and was supported by three steel cells.
Two diaphragms, 5mm thick, were placed at the extreme end sections. Three
access holes 53 X 53 mm were provided in each diaphragm, one in each cell. Five cross-
bracing and top-chord systems of rectangular cross section, 13x5 mm, were installed at
equal intervals from the support lines. To form the steel grid, the webs, end diaphragms,
cross bracings, and top flanges were first clamped into position and welded to each other.
The bottom flange plate was then clamped to the steel grid and welded to the webs. Stud
shear connectors were used with length of 31.8 mm, diameter of 9.5 mm, and spaced 125
mm, with two connectors per line. Two meshes of steel reinforcement, 100 x 100 x 3.2
mm, were placed over the formwork, followed by placing the concrete deck slab. The
concrete in the deck slab was designed for a seven-day compressive strength of 41 MPa.
All the steel plates in the bridge model cross section had a modulus of elasticity of 200
GPa. The bridge model was supported at its ends by an adjustable point support system
under each web. Load cells were installed at the support points tomeasure the reactions.
Strain gauges and dial gauges were installed on the surface of the bottom flange under
each web at the midspan section. A tie down system was used over each support to
prevent any possible torsional uplift.
32
The bridge model was tested under the elastic condition with two concentrated
loads applied to model at midspan over the location Wl and W2, as shown in figure 3.9
and Figure 3.10.
The above bridge is modelled using finite element software 'Ansys'. A
convergence study is conducted to choose the finite element mesh. Based on the
convergence study, in the finite element modelling, four elements are utilised on each
side of the cell and on each side of the support diaphragms. 72 elements are used in the
longitudinal direction of the bridge model.
1 000
Longitudinal and transverse reinforcing
steel (3.2 ' mm Dia., 100 mm spacing)
- 1'
50
5 I
3
250 -' 250 25
Figure 3.9: Model cross section
Shear connectors 9.5 mm Dia.

/125 mm spacing .
i~I11M1 ~1~~~ A~AII
r~r •
Figure 3.10: Cross sectional details of model
33
Table 3.1 summarises .the experimental [Sennah 1999] and theoretical result [Sennah
1999: ABAQUS] for longitudinal strain at midspan, and the reaction distribution under
specified eccentric loading.
Table 3.1: Comparison of theoretical and experimental results
W1 W2 W3 W4
(a) Deflection at midspan (mm)
Experimental 2.75 3.1 3.5 3.95

[Sennah 1999]
ABAQUS[Sennah 2.62 2.92 3.39 3.81
1999]
ANSYS 2.8 3.0 3.4 3.6
[Soumya]
(b)Longitudinal strain at midspan (micro strain)
Experimental 416 465 601 645

[Sennah 1999]
ABAQUS[Sennah 384 425 556 667
1999]
ANSYS 400 460 590 650
[Soumya]
(c)Reaction (kN)
Experimental 2.89 6.00 11.09 18.88

[Sennah 1999]
ABAQUS[Sennah 2.35 5.91 10.26 19.68
1999]
ANSYS 2.5 6.21 11.2 19.2
[Soumya]
From these comparison, one can see that a reasonable agreement is there between
the experimental [Sennah 1999] and theoretical result [Sennah 1999: ABAQUS] and the
analytical results from the ANSYS model as presented in this study. In fact ANSYS
results are closer to the experimental results than those predicted by ABAQUS. So the
34
same methodology has been adopted in the parametric study of skew composite bridges
in the dissertation.
3.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS:
This chapter deals with basic finite element analysis along with issues related to bridge
modelling. The salient features and capabilities of ANSYS software are discussed in this
chpter. The elements taken for study is shown and the steps of modelling are described. A
validation problem is included to state the efficiency and reliability of modelling method.
35
CHAPTER 4
COMPUTATION OF LOAD DISTRIBUTION

FACTORS
4.1 METHODOLOGY:
Effect of live load on the longitudinal members, of a bridge is a function of the magnitude
and location of the truck wheel loads. Load Distribution Factors have been used in bridge
design for many decades as a relatively simple method to estimate live load effects on
bridge members for the design and evaluation of bridges. The load-distribution factor
concept allows the design engineer to consider the longitudinal and transverse effects of
wheel loads as two separate phenomena, thus simplifying the analysis and design of the
bridge
In this study of load distribution factor, a bridge is idealised as a single
longitudinal girder and analysed for one train of loading, regardless of the transverse
dimensions and properties of the bridge. The forces developed in this system are
determined using basic structural analysis method. Forces in specific girder of real system
are obtained by multiplying the results of a simplified one dimensional linear model
analysis by the distribution factor. The moment in a specific girder of a real system, MG is
obtained according equation (4.1) through the use of appropriate distribution factor for
moment DM , and the maximum moment M obtained from analyzing the simplified single
line girder system,

M G =DM xM (4.1)
However an exhaustive analysis using Finite Element Technique is carried out

beforehand in order to determine the moment distribution factor DM , for each girder of the
bridge. Herein the moment carried by each girder of. the bridge is calculated by
integrating the normal stress at a particular section, determined from the finite element
analysis of the loaded bridge model. The moment distribution factor is then calculated
from the equation (4.2).
Wo

DM =MG IM (4.2)
The shear distribution factor is also found out using the same procedure. To
calculate the shear distribution factor Ds, carried by each girder web, the maximum shear
force V, in a simply supported girder, subjected to one train of IRC load, is determined.
The maximum shear VG in the web of a particular girder is obtained for each bridge
prototype from the finite-element analysis. The shear distribution factor is then
determined as follows:

DS =V G IV (4.3)
4.2 PARAMETRIC STUDY:
The main aim of this study is to carry out a three dimensional finite element analysis of
composite skew bridges for computation of moment as well as shear distribution factors
for different loading conditions and to generate a data base for moment and shear
distribution factors for a simplified design procedure in all 35 bridge cases of varying
spans and skew angles. From this study, the key parameters that may influence the load
distribution characteristics of a skew steel-concrete composite bridge under dead load and
IRC loading have been examined
In the present study, FE software ANSYS has been employed to carry out
computer aided analysis of more than 35 skew composite steel -concrete bridges to
evaluate their load distribution factors for moment and shear under dead load and IRC
live load conditions. The key parameters considered in the study are the span length
(20m, 30m and 40m), skew angle (0°, 10°, 20 °, 30 ° and 45 °), number of main girders (4
and 5) and the orientation of cross bracings (parallel to abutment and normal to
longitudinal girder).
4.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF BRIDGE MODELS:
In the present study, 35 bridge models of different configurations are considered for
finding out the load distribution factors. These bridge prototypes are skew steel concrete
composite bridges with reinforced concrete slab and steel I sectioned longitudinal girders.
X-type bracings with top and bottom chord are used as cross girders. The number. density
of cross girder is kept constant throughout the study.
37
From the results of various sensitivity studies, on composite bridges, it is found
that changing concrete deck slab thickness or bottom flange thickness has an
insignificant effect on both moment and shear distribution (Sennah 1999). Therefore, the
concrete deck slab thickness is taken as 250 mm. It is also seen that the vertical web
stiffeners have insignificant effect on the load distribution and so they are not considered
in the analysis. In practice, X-type bracings as well as top and bottom chords are made
from single or back-to-back angles. From previous studies, it is also found that replacing
angle section by rectangular section has no significant effect on structural response. So
the entire parametric study is done with 100 X 100 mm rectangular cross section. An
important thing to be noted is that the span of the bridge in this study means distance
between supports along the girder, not the perpendicular distance between them. For all
bridge type considered, the span-to-depth ratio of 18 is maintained. The basic cross
sectional dimensions of all bridges, considered in this study are shown in table 4.1
The symbols used in the first column in Table 4.1 represent designations of the
bridge types considered: s stands for skew angle, l stands for lane, g stands for number of
main girders, and the number at the end of the designation represents the span length in
meters. For example, 1Os-21-4g-40 denotes a simply supported bridge of two-lane four
girders with 100 skew angle and 40 m span. The cross sectional symbols used in Table 4.1
are shown in Fig. 4.1. The numbers of lanes is taken as two. Number of longitudinal
girders ranged from 3 to 5. The bridge width is 10.5m for two lane.
t4
" B `l;
Ir B rl
Figure 4.1: The basic cross section configuration of bridge and symbols
Table 4.1: Cross-sectional dimensions of case studies.
Type of
bridge Cross-sectional dimensions, mm
A B C D E ti t2 t3 t4
10500 3500 500 1110 600 35 14 55 250

Os-21-3g-20
10500 3500 500 1110 600 35 14 55 250

IOs-2l-3g-20
10500 3500 500 1110 600 35 14 55 250

20s-21-3g-20
10500 3500 500 1110 600 35 14 55 250

30s-21-3g-20
10500 3500 500 1110 600 35 14 55 250

45s-21-3g-20
10500 2625 500 1110 600 30 12 50 250

Os-21-4g-20
10500 2625 500 1110 600 30 12 50 250

lOs-21-4g-20
10500 2625 500 1110 600 30 12 50 250

20s-21-4g-20
10500 2625 500 1110 600 30 12 50 250

30s-21-4g-20
10500 2625 500 1110 600 30 12 50 250

45s-21-4g-20
10500 2100 500 1110 600 25 12 45 250

Os-21-5g-20
10500 2100 500 1110 600 25 12 45 250

IOs-21-5g-20
10500 2100 500 1110 600 25 12 45 250

20s-21-5g-20
10500 2100 500 1110 600 25 12 45 250

30s-21--5g-20
10500 2100 500 1110 600 25 12 45 250

45s-21-5g-20
10500 2625 600 1670 650 35 14 55 250

Os-2l-4g-30
10500 2625 600 1670 650 35 14 55 250
lOs-21-4g-30
10500 2625 600 1670 650 35 14 55 250

20s-21-4g-30
10500 2625 600 1670 650 35 14 55 250

30s-21-4g-30
10500 2625 600 1670 650 35 14 55 250

45s-21-4g-30
10500 2625 650 2220 800 45 14 55 250

Os-21-4g-40
10500 2625 650 2220 800 45 14 55 250

]Os-2l-4g-40
10500 2625 650 2220 800 45. 14 55 250

20s-21-4g-40
10500 2625 650 2220 800 45 14 55 250

30s-21-4g-40
10500 2625 650 2220 800 45 14 55 250

45s-21-4g-40
4.2.2 ASSUMPTIONS
The analysis of a bridge using ANSYS software is based on the following assumptions:
(1) The reinforced concrete slab has complete composite action with the top flange of
the steel girder (it is assumed that by using adequate shear connectors, slip is
completely prevented).
(2) All materials used are elastic and homogeneous.
(3) The bridge is simply supported.
(4) All loads are in static conditions,. and loading is based on IRC loading.
The moduli of elasticity of concrete and steel are taken as 27 and 200 GPa,
respectively. The compressive strength of concrete is 30 MPa. Poisson's ratio is assumed
as 0.2 for concrete and 0.3 for steel. End diaphragms are provided at the supports with
minimum thickness and the material for the end diaphragms and the cross bracings are
taken to be the same as those for the webs.
4.3 LOADING CONDITIONS
Bridge dead loads and live loads as per IRC specifications are being considered in this
study. Three loading cases are considered for each prototype bridge, central and eccentric
live load and the bridge dead load. It is clear that the trucks are moved in the transverse
direction within the lanes in order to yield the maximum moment in both the exterior and
the interior girders. The trucks are also moved in the longitudinal direction in order to
yield the maximum moments. The third loading case is the dead load of the bridge in
which the total weights of the reinforced concrete deck slab, the longitudinal steel girders,
and the transverse diaphragms are applied on the bridge as a uniformly distributed load.
To simulate the dead load due to self weight, the concrete deck is subjected to a
uniform load of 6 kN/m2, which is equivalent to a concrete density of 24 kN/m3 .
Assuming a density of 78 kN/m3 for steel, a uniform load is applied on the steel girders,
thus simulating the weight per meter run of the girder.
The main live load on highway bridge is of the vehicles moving on it. Indian
Roads Congress (IRC) recommends different types of standard vehicular loading systems
in IRC 6:2000, for which a bridge is to be designed. In order to obtain the maximum
response resultants for the design, different positions of each type of loading system as
per IRC 6:2000 is tried on the bridge deck. The load is moved longitudinally and
transversely in small steps to occupy a large number of different positions on the deck.
The largest force response is taken for the analysis.
IRC live loads include class 70R tracked and wheeled vehicles, class AA tracked
and wheeled vehicles and class A train of vehicles.
The positioning of vehicle is an important factor from design point of view. The
most critical position, both in longitudinal and transverse direction, on the deck will be
one that will result into the maximum value of moment (and shear) in respective
direction. The longitudinal placement of loading should be such that it should yield
maximum bending moment along span while transverse placement should give maximum
moment in that section. In the same way transverse and longitudinal placement of load is
so adjusted to get maximum shear in webs. In this study, 70R wheeled vehicle is
considered since it produce the maximum moment when compared to other IRC loadings,
for span up to 40m. The basic configuration of class 70R and class A loading is depicted
in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3.
41
1 2 3 4 5 5 6 Axle number
80 120 120 170 170 170 170 Me load (kN)
40 60 60 85 85 85 85 Wheel load (kN)
41 * I * I Grossl load 1000 kN
ry 3.96 ~ 2.13 1.37

1, 9i 3.05 Fig 1 .37
Distances(m)
1.93m
Figure 4.2: The basic configuration of Class 70R train
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Axle number
27 27 114 114 68 68 68 68 Aide load (RN)
13.5 13.5 57 57 34 34 34 34 Wheel load (kN)
I I I I I I I Grossl bad 554 M
1,1 X3,2- - - ..1J2.1 _ 4.2 _ 3.0 3.0 _____ Distances (m)
1.8m
Figure 4.3: The basic configuration of Class A train of vehicles.
The minimum specified clearance between outer edge of the wheel and road way
face of the curb and the minimum clearance between the outer edges of passing or
crossing vehicles on multilane bridge is taken from the codes, in accordance with IRC
specification. The transverse placement of load is shown in Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.5
42
- 1.93 m -~
(a) Two lane bridge subjected to centrally placed Class 70R train of vehicles
-~— 1.93 m —~
I/
(b) Two lane bridge subjected to eccentrically placed Class 70R train of vehicles
Figure 4.4: The transverse placement of IRC 70R vehicle
43
(a) Two lane bridge subjected to centrally placed Class A train
-1.8 m' ---1.8 m-- -
(b) Two lane bridge subjected to eccentrically placed Class A train
Figure 4.5: The transverse placement of IRC classA train
The live load is considered as static patch loads in the analysis. It requires
conversion of patch load into nodal load since for an ANSYS meshed model deck patch
load cannot be given at any random location. To calculate it manually it takes great
efforts since the meshed deck of model contains a number of nodes. So a program in
Matlab (Appendix-I) has been written to convert this patch at any random location in to
corresponding nodal loads. Mesh input for this program is given in the form of node and
element listing obtained from ANSYS software.
44
A general description on the methodology adopted for the computation of load

distribution factors has been presented in this chapter. The finite element modelling
described in the previous chapter has been employed to conduct the parametric study on
the load distribution response of the composite skew bridge. The different parameters
taken for study are discussed along with the loading condition and load placement. The
results of the parametric study along with the discussion are presented in the next chapter.
45
CHAPER 5
RESULTS AND -DISCUSSION
5.1 GENERAL:
This chapter presents the results of the parametric study undertaken to investigate the
effect of span and skew angle on Load Distribution Factors (LDF) in steel concrete
composite bridges. In order to obtain the load distribution factor, the post-processing of
the finite element analysis results is required. The bridge finite element analysis yields the
results only at the nodes and the element integration points. These locations depend on
the meshing of the bridge. In order to obtain the results at other locations, the
interpolations of the finite element results are necessary. Furthermore, the finite element
analysis yields only stresses in the elements. In order to obtain meaningful results for
bridge analysis, i.e. the load distribution factor, an appropriate interpretation of the finite
element results is essential. To calculate the LDF from the finite element analysis, the
moment in the girder section has to be established. The moment at a particular section is
the resultant of girder moment in the beam elements and deck moment in the shell
elements. These moment values are obtained by integrating the longitudinal stress values
found out from the analysis of bridge using ANSYS software. A program in C++ has
been developed for the purpose.
Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.3 show the deflection contour plot of a two lane 20 m span
bridge for dead load and IRC loading. By observing these contour plots, one can reach at
some conclusion about the location of maximum deflection and displacement of various
parts, even before referring to the exact numerical value.
Figure 5.1: I he deflection contour plot of a two lane 20 in span right bridge for dead load
Figure 5.2: The deflection contour plot of a two lane 20 m span right bridge for five load
47
Figure 5.3: The deflection contour plot of a two lane 20 m span bridge- front view
5.2 MOMENT AND SHEAR DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
35 different types of bridges are considered for finding out moment and shear distribution
factors and the results of the study are shown in Table 5.1 to Table 5.6. The effect of
different parameters such as skew angle, span length, number of girders, orientation of
cross bracings etc are also examined here. The analysis has been carried out for IRC 70R
tracked vehicle, 70R wheeled vehicle, two trains of ClassA loadings and it is observed
that for span ranges of 20m to 40m considered in the study, IRC 70R wheeled vehicle
yields the maximum stress resultants and hence the results are given for 70R wheeled
vehicle only. So the moment distribution factors and shear distribution factors are
determined for the following load cases: bridge dead load and IRC 70R wheeled vehicle
placed centrally or eccentrically. The results of the study can be summarised as below.
Table 5.1: Moment Distribution Factors for Dead load:
Outer
Bridge Type Order Interio
r girder
• I II III
Os-21-3g-20 0.333 0.333 0.333
10s-21-3g-20 0.334 0.332 0.334
20s-21-3g-20 0.335 0.329 0.335
30s-21-3g-20 0.336 0.322 0.336
45s-21-3g-20 0.341 0.296 0.341
Os-21-4g-20 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250

1Os-21-4g-20 0.250 0.249 0.249 0.250
20s-21-4g-20 0.252 0.247 0.247 0.252
30s-21-4g-20 0.255 0.241 0.243 0.255
45s-21-4g-20 0.263 0.228 0.228 0.263
60s-21-4g-20 0.259 0.189 0.189 0.259
Os-21-5g-20 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200

10s-21-5g-20 0.200 0.200 0.199 0.200 0.200
20s-21-5g-20 0.202 0.199 0.197 0.199 0.202
30s-21-5g-20 0.205 0.196 0.193 0.196 0.205
45s-21-5g-20 0.213 0.189 0.176 0.189 0.213
Os-21-4g-30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

lOs-21-4g-30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
20s-21-4g-30 0.251 0.249 0.249 0.251
30s-21-3g-30 0.253 0.247 0.247 0.253
45s-21-4g-30 0.258 0.239 0.239 0.258
60s-21-4g-30 0.267 0.219 , 0.219 0.267
Os-21-4g-40 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

lOs-21-4g-40 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
20s-21-4g-40 0.251 0.249 0.249 0.251
30s-21-3g-40 • 0.251 0.248 0.248 0.251
45s-21-4g-40 0.255 0.244 0.244 0.255
60s-21-4g-40 0.263 0.231 0.231 0.263
Table 5.2: Moment Distribution Factors for 70R train placed centrally:
Bridge Type Interi

or girder
girder Order
I II III
Os-21-3g-20 0.317 0.366 0.317
l Os-21-3 -20 0.317 0.363 0.317
20s-21-3g-20 0.321 0.351 0.319
30s-21-3g-20 0.318 0.345 0.316
45s-21-3g-20 0.313 0.323 0.311
Os-21-4g-20 0.234 0.268 0.268 0.234

10s-21-4 -20 0.235 0.266 0.265 0.235
20s-.21-4g-20 0.235 0.266 0.265 0.234
30s-21-4g-20 0.237 0.259 0.258 0.236
45s-21-4g-20 0.239 0.241 0.240 0.238
60s-21-4g-20 0.217 0.186 0.187 0.216
Os-21-5g-20 0.184 0.208 0.219 0.208 0.184

1Os-21-5 -20 0.185 0.207 0.218 0.206 0.185
20s-21-5g-20 0.185 0.206 0.219 0.205 0.185
30s-21-5g-20 0.187 0.202 0.213 0.201 0.187
45s-21-5g-20 0.191 0.190 0.193 0.189 0.190
Os-21-4g-30 0.239 0.262 0.262 0.239

IOs-21-4 -30 0.239 0.261 0.261 0.239
20s-21-4g-30 0.239 0.261 0.261 0.239
30s-21-3g-30 0.241 0.258 0.258 0.241
45s-21-4g-30 0.243 0.249 0.249 0.243
60s-21-4g-30 0.246 0.225 0.225 0.246
Os-21-4g-40 0.241 0.259 0.259 0.241

1Os-21-4 -40 0.241 0.259 0.259 0.241
20s-21-4g-40 0.242 0.258 0.258 0.242
30s-21-3g-40 0.242 0.257 0.256 0.242
45s-21-4g-40 0.244 0.253 0.253 0.244
60s-21-4g-40 0.250 0.238 0.238 0.250
50
Table 5.3: Moment Distribution Factors for 70R train placed eccentrically:
Outer Outer
Bridge Type Interior girder
girder girder
I II III
Os-21-3g-20 0.392 0.359 0.249
IOs-21-3 -20 0.390 0.357 0.250
20s-21-3g-20 0.390 0.349 0.257
30s-21-3g-20 0.382 0.345 0.260
45s-21-3g-20 0.369 0.318 0.268
Os-21-4g-20 0.295 0.284 0.242 0.182

IOs-21-4 -20 0.295 0.282 0.240 0.184
20s-21-4g-20 0.292 0.281 0.239 0.188
30s-21-4g-20 0.290 0.272 0.234 0.196
45s-21-4g-20 0.282 0.253 0.219 0.207
60s-21-4g-20 0.257 0.207 0.169 0.195
Os-21-.5g-20 0.232 0.234 0.217 0.182 0.139

IOs-21-5 -20 0.231 0.233 0.216 0.182 0.141
20s-21-5g-20 0.229 0.232 0.217 0.179 0.144
30s-21-5g-20 0.227 0.224 0.211 0.178 0.151
45s-21-5g-20 0.221 0.210 0.193 0.170 0.166
Os-21-4g-30 0.288 0.276 0.24 0.196

IOs-21-4 -30 0.287 0.275 0.239 0.197
20s-21-4g-30 0.287 0.275 0.239 0.199
30s-21-3g-30 0.284 0.271 0.237 0.205
45s-21-4g-30 0.280 0.262 0.230 0.214
60s-21-4g-30 0.279 0.238 0.206 0.224
Os-21-4g-40 0.282 0.272 0.241 0.206

IOs-21-4 -40 0.282 0.271 0.241 0.206
20s-.21-4g-40 0.281 0.270 0.241 0.208
30s-21-3g-40 0.279 0.269 0.240 0.211
45s-21-4g-40 0.277 0.264 0.236 0.218
60s-21-4g-40 0.277 0.25 0.222 0.23
51
Table 5.4: Shear Distribution Factors for Dead load
Outer
Bridge Type Outer girder Interior girder
girder
I II III
Os-21-3g-20 0.332 0.332 0.332
IOs-21-3g-20 0.334 0.334 0.334
20s-21-3g-20 0.336 0.330 0.336
30s-21-3g-20 0.339 0.325 0.339
45s-21-3g-20 0.349 0.306 0.349
Os-21-4g-20 0.250 0.249 0.249 0.249

lOs-21-4g-20 0.250 0.250 0.248 0.251
20s-21-4g-20 0.249 0.249 0.247 0.253
30s-21-4g-20 0.252 0.249 0.241 0.257
45s-21-4g-20 0.247 0.244 0.224 0.275
60s-21-4g-20 0.241 0.212 0.172 0.312
Os-21-5g-20 0.199 0.199 0.199 0.199 0.199

IOs-21-5g-20 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
20s-21-5g-20 0.203 0.199 0.198 0.199 0.203
30s-21-5g-20 0.207 0.203 0.197 0.203 0.207
45s-21-5g-20 0.228 0.198 0.188 0.198 0.228
Os-21-4g-30 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250

IOs-21-4g-30 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
20s-21-4g-30 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.252
30s-21-3g-30 0.254 0.251 0.251 0.254
45s-21-4g-30 0.263 0.251 0.251 0.263
60s-21-4g-30 0.290 0.246 0.246 0.290
Os-21-4g-40 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250

1Os-21-4g-40 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
20s-21-4g-40 0.251 0.250 0.250 0.251
30s-21-3g-40. 0.252 0.251 0.251 0.252
45s-21-4g-40 0.258 0.252 0.252 0.258
52
Table 5.5: Shear Distribution Factors for 70R train placed centrally
Outer
Bridge Type Outer girder Interior girder girder
I II III
Os-21-3g-20 0.276 0.447 0.276
1Os-21-3 -20 0.278 0.436 0.282
20s-21-3g-20 0.286 0.396 0.290
30s-21-3g-20 0.284 0.369 0.286
45s-21-3g-20 0.249 0.315 0.294
Os-21-4g-20 0.202 0.312 0.312 0.202

10s-21-4 -20 0.205 0.299 0.316 0.205
20s-21-4g-20 0.205 0.293 0.311 0.207
30s-21-4g-20 0.212 0.276 0.290 0.212
45s-21-4g-20 0.225 0.284 0.304 0.225
60s-2l-4g-2O 0.245 0.255 0.265 0.245
Os-21-5g-20 0.159 0.214 0.275 0.214 0.159

lOs-21-5 -20 0.164 0.223 0.252 0.231 0.162
20s-21-5g-20 0.162 0.230 0.228 0.239 0.162
30s-21-5g-20 0.167 0.223 0.219 0.234 0.167
45s-21-5g-20 0.183 0.190 0.215 0.218 0.204
Os-21-4g-30 0.218 0.303 0.303 0.218

lOs-21-4 -30 0.219 0.294 0.307 0.220
20s-21-4g-30 0.220 0.295 0.309 0.220
30s-21-3g-30 0.225 0.281 0.295 0.225
45s-21-4g-30 0.234 0.264 0.271 0.235
60s-21-4g-30 0.259 0.271 0.285 0.259
Os-21-4g-40 0.226 0.297 0.297 0.226

1Os-21-4 -40 0.227 0.289 0.296 0.227
20s-21-4g-40 0.229 0.289 0.300 0.229
30s-21-3g-40 0.230 0.284 0.295 0.230
45s-21-4g-40 0.236 0.296 0.307 0.236
53
Table 5.6: Shear Distribution Factors for 70R train placed eccentrically:
Bridge Type Outer girder Interior girder Outer girder

I II III
Os-21-3g-20 0.340 0.340 0.223
IOs-21-3 -20 0.342 0.430 0.227
20s-21-3g-20 0.354 0.408 0.233
30s-21-3g-20 0.347 0.380 0.237
45s-21-3g-20 0.354 0.329 0.264
Os-21-4g-20 0.258 0.343 .0.242 0.163

lOs-21-4g-20 0.261 0.312 0.263 0.172
20s-21-4g-20 0.265 0.290 0.271 0.173
30s-21-4g-20 0.274 0.287 0.269 0.173
45s-21-4g-20 0.301 0.282 0.254 0.187
60s-21-4g-20 0.310 0.258 0.200 0.215
Os-21-5g-20 0.196 0.284 0.261 0.127

IOs-21-5 -20 0.199 0.263 0.250 0.136
20s-21-5g-20 0.200 0.263 0.233 0.137
30s-21-5g-20 0.207 0.235 0.261 0.150
45s-21-5g-20 0.219 0.244 0.208 0.185
Os-21-4g-30 0.262 0.327 0.245 0.184

lOs-21-4g-30 0.267 0.311 0.260 0.191
20s-21-4g-30 0.268 0.296 0.270 0.193
30s-21-3g-30 0.275 0.299 0.269 0.208
45s-21-4g-30 0.284 0.283 0.259 0.202
60s-21-4g-30 0.305 0.288 0.243 0.225
Os-21-4g-40 0.261 0.317 0.247 0.198

IOs-21-4 -40 0.264 0.307 0.257 0.203
20s-21-4g-40 0.269 0.295 0.265 0.206
30s-21-3g-40 0.271 0.300 0.269 0.217
45s-21-4g-40 0.278 0.288 0.275 0.215
54
5.3 COMPARISON OF DESIGN MOMENT AND SHEAR FORCE
FOR DIFFERENT LOADING CONDITIONS
Since the minimum kerb distance for Class A vehicle is very less (0.15m) compared to
that for Class 70R vehicle (1.2m) it may be critical for eccentric loading case. IRC code
specifies that bridges designed for class AA loading are to be checked for classA loading
also. To check the above mentioned possibility, the Class A loading is considered in
analysis for eccentrically loaded lanes to compare the moment and shear obtained with
70R wheeled vehicle.
A two lane 20 m span bridge with three girders is considered for this comparison.
The dimensions of the bridge cross section are as shown in table 4.1 of chapter 4. The
Table 5.7 gives the comparison of design moment and Table 5.8 gives the comparison of
design shear force for two train of classA and 70R wheeled vehicle.
Table 5.7: Comparison of moment for two trains of ClassA and 70R wheeled vehicle.
Maximu MDF Design moment (kNm)

Type of Loading m
bridge moment Outer Inner Outer
Inner girder
girder girder girder
ClassA (two
6934 0.363 0.350 2517.04 2426.9
trains)
Os-21-3g-20
70R wheeled
7290 0.392 0.359 2857.68 2617.11
vehicle
ClassA (two
6934 0.360 0.340 2496.24 2357.56
trains)
20s-21-3g-20
70R wheeled
7290 0.390 0.349 2843.1 2544.21
vehicle
ClassA (two
6934 0.347 0.312 2406.09 2073.27
trains)
45s-21-3g-20
70R wheeled
7290 0.369 0.318 2690.01 2318.22
vehicle
55
Table 5.8: Comparison of design shear force for two trains of ClassA and 70R wheeled
vehicle.
Design Shear force

Maximum SDF
Type of Loading shear force
bridge (1) Outer Inner Outer Inner
girder girder girder girder
ClassA (two
1496 0.316 0.408 472.73 610.36
trains)
Os-21-3g-20
70R wheeled
1513 0.340 0.469 514.42 709.59
vehicle
ClassA (two
1496 0.335 0.405 501.16 605.88
trains)
20s-21-3g-20
70R wheeled
1513 0.354 0.408 535.60 617.304
vehicle
ClassA (two
1496 0.345 0.330 516.12 493.68
trains)
45s-21-3g-20
70R wheeled
1513 0.354 0.329 535.602 497.78
vehicle
From this comparison of design moment and shear for 70R wheeled vehicle and
two train of ClassA, it is clear that 70R wheeled vehicle govern the design of bridge
prototypes considered in the study.
5.4 VERIFICATION STUDY
To examine the margin of errors in estimation of design forces i.e. maximum

bending moment and maximum shear force, in the girders of a composite bridge, one
verification study has been done. For these bridges, the value of distribution factors have
been estimated by interpolation of proposed design charts as well as by carrying out a
rigorous analysis by FEM.
To verify the results of the study, we take a 27 m span, 2 lane bridge with four
girder and 25° skew angle and model it by finite element method using ANSYS software.
The cross sectional details of the bridge are taken from table 4.1 of Chapter 4. The
moment and shear distribution factors are found out for this model by using ANSYS. The
56
MDF and SDF values are also found out from the results of the parametric study, by the
interpolating the design charts between 20 m and 30m span, and 20 degree and 30 degree
skew angle. Table 5.9 and Table 5.10 show the results of this verification study for MDF
and SDF.
Table 5.9: Comparison of MDF values:
70R wheel load applied centrally
Exterior Interior Interior Exterior

girder I girder II girder III girder (IV)
MDF by interpolation 0.239 0.260 0.261 0.239
MDF from FEM

0.244 0.256 0.256 0.244
analysis
Error (%) 2.04 1.56 1.56 2.04
70R wheel load applied eccentrically
Exterior Interior Interior Exterior

girder I girder II girder III girder
MDF by interpolation 0.287 0.274 0.238 0.199
MDF from FEM 0.289 0.270 0.236 0.203

analysis
Error (%) 0.692 1.48 0.847 1.97
57
Table 5.10: Comparison of SDF values
70R wheel load applied centrally
Exterior Interior -Interior Exterior

girder girder II girder II girder
0.218 0.237 0.301 0.219
SDF by interpolation
0.219 0.239 0.293 0.221

SDF from FEM analysis
Error °l0 0.456 0.83 2.73 0.904
70R wheel load applied eccentrically
Exterior
Exterior Interior Interior
girder
girder (I) girder (II) girder (III)
(IV)
0.27 0.294 0.29 0.192
SDF by interpolation
0.273 0.281 0.277 0.189
SDF from FEM analysis
Error (%) 1.098 4.57 4.6 1.58
It may be further noted that the maximum discrepancy in the estimation of

maximum design moment or MDF in the outer girder and inner girder is 0.692% and
1.48% only. The higher margin of error is in the values which are inconsequential in
design.
Similarly maximum discrepancy in the estimation of maximum design shear force
or SDF in the outer girder and inner girder is 1.098% and 2.73% respectively.
Since the percentage error between the results of finite element model and
parametric study are not much significant, the results of the study can be used for finding
out the MDF and SDF of bridges with intermediate values and the method can be
considered as a reliable one also.
m
5.5 EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON DISTRIBUTION FACTOR
The skew angle of the deck is the most critical factor on load distribution. The results of
this study show that the load distribution factors of skew bridges are less than those of
right bridges regardless of span length. From the results, it is also clear that the skew has
no significant effect on the moment distribution factor for skew angles between 0 and 30°.
However, the moment distribution factor decreases significantly with increase in skew
from 300 to 600. These conclusions are in agreement with studies conducted by Bishara
(1993) and Khaloo (2003).
As shown in Figure 5.4, for the 20 m span bridge with four girders, when IRC
wheel load is applied eccentrically, , the load distribution factor of external girders
reduces only by 3% for a skew angle of 30° and 13% for a skew angle of 60°, as
compared with right bridges. For interior girder also we can observe a tendency of
decreasing moment distribution factors for higher skew angles. When the skew angle is
30°, only 5% decrease in moment distribution factor occurs. As the angle increase to 60°,
moment distribution factor decreases to 32% as compared to right bridges. Another
important finding of the study is that the sensitivity of load distribution factors of internal
girders with respect to skew angle is high as compared to external girder.
Figure 5.4 and figure 5.5 shows the variation of MOF with skew angle for the
exterior and interior girder of a 20m span bridge, when 70R wheeled vehicles are placed
centrally or eccentrically.
59
Figure 5.4: Effect of skew angle on MDF in 20 m span bridge for 70R wheel load placed
centrally
Figure 5.5: 'Effect of skew angle on MDF in 20 m span bridge for 70R wheel load
placed eccentrically
The general tendency of decrease in moment distribution factor with increase in
angle may be due to the fact that some of the wheels of trucks on skew bridges are closer
to the supports than on right bridges. Another reason may be that in short spans with large
skew angle bridges, the slab tends to bend along a direction perpendicular to the
abutments. This action transfer part of the load from deck slabs directly to the supports,
rather than through the girders as in right bridges.
The effect of skew angle on shear distribution factor is shown in figure 5.6 and
5.7. From these figures, one can observe that the SDF of exterior girders increases for
increasing skew angles and that of interior girder decreases. Around 24% decrease is seen
in the case of the interior girder of a 20m span bridge with 600 skew angle. For the same
bridge, the increase of SDF of exterior girder is observed to be 18%, when compared to a
right bridge.
Figure 5.6: Effect of skew angle on SDF in 20 m span bridge for 70R wheel load placed
centrally
61
0.360 —1— Exterior girder
Interior girder
0.320
0.280
0.240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Skew angle (degree)
Figure 5.7: Effect of skew angle on SDF in 20 m span bridge for 70R wheel load
placed eccentrically.
It must be mentioned that the results are for those bridges with specific
configuration and the results may change if the presumed conditions vary; although the
tendency should be similar.
5.6 EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON DISTRIBUTION FACTOR
From the study, it is clear that load distribution depends on span length of the bridge also.
For examining the effect of span length on MDF and SDF, the bridge width is kept
constant while changing the span length. From the values of MDF, it can be observed that
the moment distribution factor generally increases with increase in span length, especially
for highly skewed bridges. For small skew angles, the increasing effect of moment
distribution factor with span is not much prominent. For 20 m span bridge of skew angle
600, the MDF value for interior girder for eccentric loading is 0.195 while for 30 m span
bridge this value is 0.238 and for 40 m, MDF value is 0.250. The load-distribution factor
increased almost linearly with span length but the increase in distribution factor decreases
with span. For 20 m span bridge with skew angle 60°, the reduction in MDF for interior
girder is 32% while that for 30 m span bridge is 13% and for 40 m span reduction is only
8 % when compared to right angle bridges of each type. The variation is more
pronounced with smaller deck widths and skew angles larger than 45°.
62

Figure 5.8 and 5.9 shows the effect of span length on MDF of exterior girder and
interior girder of a 20 m two lane four girder bridge under 70R loading placed centrally.
0.250 --0 0 degree

10 degree
--*— 20 degree
0.245
—~E-30 degree
X45 degree
•~" "vim" : .~ .=
0.240
0.235
0.230
20 30 40
Span (m)
Figure 5.8: Effect of span length on MDF for exterior girder for 70R wheel load
placed centrally
0.28
t0 degree
0.27 10 degree
degree
—x€--30 degree
0.26
—°45 degree
0.25
0.24
0.23
20 30 40
Span (m)
Figure 5.9: Effect of span length on MDF for interior girder for 70R wheel load
placed centrally
From the figures, it can be clearly seen that outer girder MDF decreases as span increases
and inner girder MDF decreases for higher spans for central lane loading. These results
63

are in agreement with the findings of study on load distribution factors of composite
bridge by Tiwari.S (2007).
The effect of span length on shear distribution factor is as shown in Figure 5.10
and Figure 5.11. It can be seen from these graphs that for 40 m span length, the effect of
increasing skew has no effect on the distribution factor and we reach at the conclusion
that even a large angle of skew would have relatively little effect on the load distribution
characteristics of a bridge if it has extremely long span and very small girder spacing.
0.300 —4 O degree
—0— 10 degree
0.280 ....,"~...,~,o,
h-20 degree
—30 degree
X45 degree
0.240
0.220
20 25 30 35 40
Span (m)
Figure 510: Effect of span length on SDF for exterior girder
64

--r--0 degree
0.340 10 degree
". n>
0.320 20 degree
x-30 degree
0.300
44€45 degree
rA 0.280
0.260
0.240
0.220
20 30 40
Span (m)
Figure 5.11: Effect of span length on SDF for exterior girder
5.7 EFFECT OF ORIENTATION OF TRANSVERSE DIAPHRAGMS

ON DISTRIBUTION FACTOR
The orientation of internal diaphragms in the bridges has a significant effect on

the load distribution pattern. Two different arrangements of intermediate transverse
diaphragms are possible. In the first case, the transverse diaphragm is perpendicular to the
longitudinal girders while in the second case, transverse diaphragms are parallel to the
supporting line of the deck. In usual design practice, we provide cross bracings parallel to
support for low skew angles (up to 200) and for higher skew angle, we opt cross bracings
perpendicular to main girders. For studying the effect transverse diaphragms arrangement
on load distribution, the spacing of transverse diaphragm is kept as 3 m and study is done
on a two lane 30 m span bridge with skew angle varying from 00 to 600.
It is found that when the transverse diaphragm is perpendicular to the longitudinal
girders, the moment distribution factor significantly decreases with increases in skew
angle. In the case of a 20 m span bridge with central loading, moment distribution factor
decreased by about 11% for 45° skew angle, and decreases to about 32% as the bridge
skew angle increases to 60°. When transverse diaphragms are parallel to the supporting
line of the deck, for the same case, it is noticed that the skew angle has a negligible effect
on moment distribution factor for the exterior girders. In this system, the moment
distribution factor for exterior girders decreases to only 16% for a skew angle to 60°. It
65
can also be noted that there is a slight increase (11%) in MDF for interior girders when
cross bracings are placed parallel to abutment and load is applied eccentrically. These
results are in agreement with the parametric investigations of previous researches. (e.g.,
Khalloo & Mirzabozorg, 2003).
0.310
—+—Cross bracings parallel
to abutment
Cross bracings
perpendicular to
0.260
abutment
0.210
0.160
0 20 40 60
Skew angle (degree)
Figure 5.12: Effect of orientation of transverse diaphragms on MDF of interior girder, for
70R loads placed centrally
0.300
--Cross bracings
0.290 perpendicular to the
abutment
0.280 Cross bracings parallel to
the abutment
0.270
0.260
0.250
0 10 20 30 40 50
Skew angle (degree)
Figure 5.13: Effect of orientation of transverse diaphragms on NMF of exterior girder, for
70R loads placed eccentrically
5.8 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
To demonstrate the use of design charts proposed for finding out design bending moment
and design shear force, an example problem has been shown below.
5.8.1 PROBLEM
Consider a two lane 20 m span simply supported skew bridge with a concrete deck slab
composite with four steel I girders, to be designed according to IRC specification. The
angle of skew is 30° and the width of bridge deck is 10.5 m. The bridge details are as
follows:
Span of the bridge = 20 m
The total width of bridge deck = 10.5 m
Number of lanes — 2
The depth of slab = 250 mm
Number of longitudinal girders = 4
Centre-to-centre spacing of longitudinal girders = 2.625 m
The total depth of girder = 1.11 m
Dimension of longitudinal girders:
Steel top flange = 500 x 30 mm
Web = 1030 x 12 mm
Bottom flange = 600 x 50 mm
X=type cross bracings of ISA 150 x 150 x 15 mm with top and bottom chord is used.
Compressive strength concrete used is taken as 30 MPa. Modulus of elasticity of steel is
taken as 2e5 MPa and that of concrete is 27000 MPa. Calculate the design moment and
shear forces for this bridge.
5.8.2 SOLUTION
Taking concrete and steel densities as 24 kN/ m3 and 78.5 kN/ m3 respectively, the total
dead load per meter length of bridge is 81 kN/ m. Based on this value maximum dead
load moment at mid span is 4050 kNm and maximum shear force at support is 810 kN.
When one train of IRC 70R loading is applied on a simply supported girder of
span 20 m, a maximum moment of 7428 kN rn and shear of 1553 kN is obtained.
The moment distribution factor for the outer girder of the bridge is taken as 0.237 (Table
5.3) due to dead load and 0.288 (Table 5.5) due to wheel load. The moment distribution
factor for the intermediate girder is taken as 0.259 (Table 5.3) for dead load and 0.272
(Table 5.5) for wheel load.
67
The shear distribution factor for the outer girder of the bridge is taken as 0.257 (Table
5.3) due to dead load and 0.274 (Table 5.5) due to wheel load. The moment distribution
factor for the intermediate girder is taken as 0.241 (Table 5.3) for dead load and 0.290
(Table 5.5) for wheel load.
Multiplying each moment distribution factor by MDL for dead load and by M LL for live
load, the moment carried by each girder can be found out.
Thus, the resulting moments are:

For dead load
M. = D, x MDL
For outer girder = 0.237 x 4050
= 959.85 kNm
For intermediate girder = 0.259 x 4050
= 1048.9 kNm
For live load
M. = Dms x M LL
= 2139.26 kNm
= 2020.8 kNm.
The resulting shear forces are:

For dead load
V. = Dss x VDL
= 208.17 kN
= 195.21 kN
For live load
V = Dss x
= 425.522 kN
= 450.37 kN
In this chapter, an extensive parametric study has been done using ANSYS software and
the load distribution factor for each case has been found out. The effect of several
variables such as skew angles, span length, orientation of cross bracings etc has been
observed thoroughly. A validation study has been done to check the reliability of the
distribution factors proposed. Still, inn order to apply these load distribution factors to
actual bridges, we should consider the limitations of the study and understand when
accurate results can be expected. The models that are used to develop the values have
uniform spacing, girder inertia, and skew. So an engineer's judgment must be used when
any of the parameter gets disturbed.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

A skew bridge is the one whose longitudinal axis is not at right angle to the abutment, but
makes an angle less than 90 degree. The design of skewed bridges is becoming more
customary in bridge engineering since it helps in reducing the initial huge investment in
the long curved approach roads and tackles the problems due to complex intersections
and natural or manmade obstructions.
In the present study three dimensional finite element modelling, using ANSYS
software has been done for the load distribution analyses and the influence of different
key parameters on load distribution characteristics of a skew steel-concrete composite
bridge have been examined.
Based on the study results and discussions presented in Chapter 5, following conclusions
are made.
• The effect of skew on the moment and shear distribution factor is insignificant for
angles less than 300. However, these factors changes considerably with increase in
skew from 30° to 60°.
• The moment distribution factors of skew bridges are less than those of right
bridges regardless of span length.
• With an increase of skew angle, the shear decreases significantly in the interior
girders (up to 24% for a 20 m two lane bridge) while it increases in the exterior
girders (around 19% for a 20 m two lane bridge).
• The sensitivity of load distribution factors of internal girders with respect to skew
angle is high as compared to external girder. For the 20 m span bridge with four
girders, the load distribution factor of external girders reduces only 13% for a
skew angle of 60°, as compared with right bridges. For interior girder as the angle
increase to 60°, moment distribution factor decreases to 32%. Due to this
tendency, exterior girders may become controlling in skew bridge design. This
tendency may pronounce for large skew angles.
• The moment distribution factor generally increases linearly with increase in span
length, especially for highly skewed bridges.
70
• Even a large angle of skew would have relatively little effect on the load
distribution characteristics of a bridge if it has long span and very small girder
spacing.
• The orientation of internal diaphragms also has a significant effect on the load
distribution. It is found that when the transverse diaphragm is perpendicular to the
longitudinal girders, the moment distribution factor significantly decreases with
increases in skew angle. When transverse diaphragms are parallel to the
supporting line of the deck, it is noticed that the skew angle has a negligible effect
on moment distribution factor for the girders and so a perpendicular arrangement
of cross bracings is preferred.
It must be mentioned that the results are for those bridges with specific
configuration and the results may change if the presumed conditions vary; although the
tendency should be similar. In order to apply these load distribution factors to actual
bridges, we should consider the limitations of the study and understand when accurate
results can be expected. The models that are used to develop the values have uniform
spacing, girder inertia, and skew. So an engineer's judgment must be used when any of
the parameter gets disturbed.
6.1 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
The present study can be extended in any of the following directions
• Design expression for distribution factors for moment and shear can be evaluated
by extending the present study by increasing the number of bridge prototypes.
• The effect of number of lanes, more number of girders and span length on
distribution factors may be included.
• In the present study, the number density and size of cross bracings are kept
constant. For future study, this can vary and find out the optimum number and size
for a better distribution of loads.
• The shear connectors in composite steel and concrete bridges require slip to
transmit shear. Most of the composite bridges are designed assuming full-
interaction because of the complexities in partial interaction analysis technique.
71
Partial interaction theory can be explored to reflect the behaviour of structure
more realistically.
72
REFERENCES
[1] AASHTO (1998), "AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 16th Ed.,
Washington, D.C.
[2] AASHTO (1996), "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges", American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
[3] ANSYS (2003), "Ansys User's Manual", Version 7.1, Ansys, Inc., South-Point,
275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
[4] Bakht, B. (1988), "Analysis of Some Skew Bridges as Right Bridges", Journal
of Structural Engineering, 114(10), 2307-2322.
[5] Bartha, K. E, Wub, H. (2006), "Efficient Nonlinear Finite Element Modelling

of Slab on Steel Stringer Bridges", Finite Elements in Analysis and Design
42:1304 —1313.
[6] Celik,O. C., Bruneau.M, (2011) "Skewed Slab On Girder Steel Bridge Super
Structures With Bidirectional Ductile End Diaphragms", Journal Of Bridge
Engineering, 16(2), 207-218,
[7] Chen Y (1999), "Distribution of Vehicular Loads on Bridge Girders by the

FEA: Modelling, Simulation and Comparison", Computers &Structures;
72:127-39.
[8] Conner, S.,Huo, X. S. (2006), "Influence Of Parapets And Aspect Ratio On

Live-Load Distribution", Journal Of Bridge Engineering 11(2), 188-196
[9] Ebeido, T., Kennedy, J. B. (1996), "Girder Moment in Continuous Skew

Composite Bridge", Journal of Bridge Engineering, 1(1), 37-45.
[10]. Ebeido, T., Kennedy, J. B. (1996), "Shear Distribution in Simply Supported

Skew Composite Bridges", Journal of Bridge Engineering, 1(4), 155-165:
[11] Gupta, T., Misra, A. (2007) "Effect on Support Reactions of T-Beam Skew
Bridge Decks", ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2(1), 1-8
73
[12] Hambly, E, C., (1976), "Bridge Deck Behaviour", Chapman and Hall, London.
[13] Helba, A., Kennedy, J. B. (1994), "Parametric Study on the Collapse Loads of
Skew Composite Bridge", Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(5), 1415-
1433.
[14] Helba, A., Kennedy, J. B. (1994), "Collapse Loads of Continuous Skew

Composite Bridges", Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(5), 1395-1414.
[15] Huang, H., Shenton, H. W., Chajes, M. J., (2004), "Load Distribution For A
Highly Skewed Bridge: Testing And Analysis", Journal Of Bridge Engineering,
9(6), 558-562
[16] Indian Road Congress, IRC: 6-2000. Standard Specifications and Code of
Practice for Road Bridges. Section: II- Loads and Stresses, New Delhi, India.
Practice for Road Bridges, Section III-Cement Concrete (Plain and
Reinforced), New Delhi, India.
Practice for Road Bridges. Section: VI- Composite Construction, New Delhi,
India.
Practice for Road Bridges. Section: V-Steel Road Bridges, New Delhi, India.
[20] Meng, J., Ghasemi, M. , Lui, E. M (2004) , "Analytical And Experimental

Study of a Skew Bridge Model", Engineering Structures, 26 :1127-1142
[21] Khaloo, A. R, Mirzabozorg, H. (2003). "Load Distribution Factor in Simply

Supported Skew Bridge." Journal of Bridge Engineering, 8(4), 241-245.
[22] Khaleel, M.A. And Itani, R. Y. (1990). "Live-Load Moment for Continuous
Skew Bridge." Journal of Structural Engineering, 116(9), 2361-2373
[23] Kocsis, P.E.(2004), "Evaluation of AASHTO Live Load and Line Load
Distribution Factors for I-Girder Bridge Decks", Journal of Structural
Engineering, 9(4), 211-215
[24] Krishnamoorthy, C.S, (1989), "Finite Element Analysis and Programming",

Tata Mcgraw Hill Publishing Company.Ltd.
74
[25] Menassa, C, Mabsout, M., Tarhini, K., Frederick, G. (2007). "Influence of
Skew Angle on Reinforced Concrete Slab Bridge." Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 12(2), 205-214.
[26] Puckett, J. A., Huo, X. S., Patrick, M. D., Jablin, M. C., Mertz, D., and Peavy,
M. D. (2008), "Simplified Live Load Distribution Factor Equations For Bridge.
Design." Journal Of The Transportation Research Board, CD 11-S, 67-78
[27] Sennah, K., Kennedy, J. B (1999), "Load Distribution Factors for Composite
Multi-Cell Box Girder Bridges", Journal of Bridge Engineering, 4(1), 71-78.
[28] Tarhini, K. M., Frederick, G. R. (1992). "Wheel Load Distribution in I-Girder

Highway Bridges" Journal of Structural Engineering, 118: 1285-1294.
[29] Tiwari, S. (2007), "Load Distribution and Thermal Response of Composite Box
Girder Bridges", Ph.D Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee (India)
[30] Wonseok Chunga, Elisa D. Sotelinob, (2006) "Three-Dimensional Finite

Element Modelling Of Composite Girder Bridges", Engineering Structures, 28:
63-71
[31] Huo, X. S., Zhang, Q. (2008), "Effect Of Skewness On The Distribution Of

Live Load Reaction At Piers Of Skewed Continuous Bridges", Journal Of
Bridge Engineering, 13(1), 110-114
75
APPENDIX
PROGRAM TO CONVERT PATCH LOADS TO NODAL LOADS

The following program in Matlab is used for the conversion of patch load into nodal loads
mx=input('Enter the mesh spacing along x :

lx=input('Enter the mesh extent along x :
mz=input('Enter the mesh spacing along z :
lz=input('Enter the mesh extent along z:
theta=input('Enter the angle of skew:
ang=pi*thetall 80;
nx=lx/mx+ l ;nz=lz/mz+ l ;
meshx=[];meshz=[];.
for i=l :1:nz
for j=1:1:nx
meshz(i, j)=(i-1) * mz;
meshx(i, j)=(j-1) *mx+(i-1)*mz*tan(ang);
end
end
load ('r70w.dat');
r70w(:,5:6)=0;
xs=input('Enter the start coord of vehicle along x :
zs=input('Enter the start coord of vehicle along z :
r70w(:,5)=r7Ow(:,3)+xs;r7Ow(:, 6)=r7Ow(:,4)+zs;
plot(meshx,meshz,'k+',r7Ow(:, 5),r7Ow(:, 6),'ro');
pause
NLOAD=zeros(nz,nx);
for whi=1:1:14
whx=r7Ow(whi, 5);whz=r7Ow(whi, 6);
for i=1:l:nz-1
if meshz(i,1)<=whz && meshz(i+I ,1)>=whz
break
end
end
76
for j=1:1:nx-1
xrvec=[meshx(i,j);meshx(i,j+1);meshx(i+1,j+1);meshx(i+l ,j);meshx(i,j)] ;
zrvec=[meshz(i,j);meshz(i,j+1);meshz(i+l,j+1);meshz(i+1 ,j);meshz(i, j)];
[in on]=inpolygon(whx,whz,xrvec,zrvec);
if injon
break
end
end
whcx=whx-xrvec(1,1); whcz=whz-zrvec(1,1);
phi=[(-1 *whcx/mx)-(whcz/mz)+(whcx*whcz/mx/mz)+1 (whcx/mx)-
(whcx*whcz/mx/mz);
(-tan(ang)*whcz/mx)+(whcx*whcz/mx/mz) (((mx+mz*tan(ang))/mx/mz)*whcz)-
(whcx*whcz/mx/mz)];
cnload=phi*r70w(whi,2);
NLOAD(i:i+l ,j :j+1)=NLOAD(i:i+1, : j+1)+cnload(:,:);
end
surf(meshx,meshz,NLOAD);
77

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS FOR SKEW STEEL-CONCRETE BRIDGES

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS FOR SKEW STEEL-CONCRETE BRIDGES

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS FOR SKEW

STEEL CONCRETE COMPOSITEBRIDGES

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

4. COMPUTATION OF LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS 36

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 3.6 Plan of meshed model of bridge in Ansys ------------ - 30

Figure 3.7 3-D view of meshed model of bridge in Ansys ------------ 30

Figure 3.8 Loaded bridge model in Ansys ------------ 31

Figure 3.9 Model cross section ------------ 33

Figure 4.3 The basic configuration of Class A train of vehicles ------------ 42

Figure 4.4 The transverse placement of IRC 70R vehicle ------------ 43

Figure 4.5 The transverse placement of IRC classA train ------------ 44

Table 3.1 Comparison of theoretical and experimental results ------- 34

Table 4.1 Cross-sectional dimensions of case studies ------- 39

Table 5.1 Moment Distribution Factors for Dead load 49

Table 5.3 Moment Distribution Factors for 70R train placed

Table 5.4 Shear Distribution Factors for Dead load ------- 52

Table 5.7 Comparison of bending moment for two trains of ClassA

Table 5.9 Comparison of MDF values ------- 57

Table 5.10 Comparison of SDF values ------- 58

Sagging moments near Sagging moments

Hogging moments high upiitt of

Figure 1.1: Characteristics of skew decks

1.2.1 SKEW GIRDER BRIDGES

Figure 1.2: Plan of a typical skew girder bridge.

• Under concentrated loading, distribution still takes place by transverse bending of

1.3 INTRODUCTION TO SKEW COMPOSITE BRIDGES:

1.4 CURRENT STATUS OF STUDY ON COMPOSITE SKEW

In these days, there is an increasing trend of constructing steel concrete composite

1.5 OBJECTIVE OF THESIS

• To carry out a three dimensional finite element analysis of skew composite

1.6 ORGANISATION OF THESIS

This thesis is composed of six chapters:

LOAD DISTRIBUTION THEORIES AND

2.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS:

2.2.1 SIMPLIFIED METHODS

The reaction Ri is then given by

Henry-Jaeger method is based upon two simplifying assumptions:

K. =Ko +(Ki —Ko )J (2.9)

2.2.2. RIGOROUS METHODS

B) Finite Difference Method

C) Grillage Analogy Method

The approximate representation of the bridge decks by a grillage of interconnected beams

E) Finite Element Method

2.3 LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS: A REVIEW

2.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

FINITE ELEMENT ANAL IS OF COMPOSITE

The finite element method has a number of advantages; they include

3.2 ANSYS FEATURES AND CAPABILITIES:

ANSYS is a commercially available, general-purpose finite element-modelling package

3.3.1 MODELLING OF DECK SLAB, WEBS AND END-DIAPHRAGMS:

Figure 3.1: SHELL63 elastic shell

Orthotropic material directions correspond to the element coordinate directions. The

3.3.2 MODELLING OF STEEL TOP FLANGE, BOTTOM FLANGES, TOP AND

Figure 3.2: BEAM4 3-D elastic beam

Element name BEAM4

Nodes : I, J, K (K orientation node is optional)

3.3.3 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS:

Figure 3.3: MPC184 Rigid link/ beam element

element For deck slab MPG 184

for top flange

3.4 MODELLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE IN ANSYS