TRUSS BRIDGE ANALYSIS - TRUCK WEIGHTS

SUBMITTED BY:
HAZIM AL KHUSAIBI
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
EMCH 461 FINAL PROJECT SUBMITTED TO DR. I. SMID
F I N I T E E L E M E N T A N A L Y S I S
Engi neeri ng Mechani cs 461

Ha z i m Al Khus a i bi Ema i l ; Hs a 5 0 0 6 @ps u. e du
Table of Contents
Background 1
Finite Element Analysis 1
Truss Bridge 1
Introduction 2
General Introduction to Project 2
Geometry 2
Approach & Formulation 4
Assumptions 4
Program Selection & Other ANSYS Assumptions 5
Problem Formulation 5
Analysis 6
Part 1: Control Analysis: 6
Part 2: Analysis After 75 year Cycle: 7
Results 8
Reaction Forces: 8
Deection: 9
Axial Stress: 9
Discussion: 10
Conclusion 10
Results & Improvements to Model: 10
Finite Element Methods Discussion: 11
Appendix 12
List of Figures 12
List of Tables 12
Glossary 13
Bibliography & Programs Used 14
Fi na l Pr oj e c t E mc h 4 6 1
Background
Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element Method can be dened as the numerical method for solving problems of engineering
and mathematical physics. Fields usually frequented by the nite element method range from
structural analysis, mass transport, uid ow and heat transfer. For complex cases and geometries it is
also possible to obtain an analytical mathematical solution but this will not be emphasised much on
this project. Developed in the 1940s by Structural engineers (Hrennikoff & McHenry) the nite element
method increasingly evolved with the aid of computer programming, from being a lattice of single
dimensional analysis to an enormous and advantageous application in solving complicated
engineering programs from structural engineering to bioengineering.
1
Truss Bridge
Truss structures are composed of members that are connected to form a rigid frame of steel, this broad
application can be used in many areas, such as roof structures rail road and other transportation
bridges. The individual members of a Truss Bridge are the load carrying components of the structure,
they are arranged in a triangular manner resulting in the loads carried to become either in tension or
compression. Today bridge trusses are mainly used for short span distances, since suspension and
other advanced bridges with modern concrete & steel standards.

Typical Short Span Truss Bridge
used in project
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
1
1
Logan, Daryl L. A First Course in the Finite Element Method. Detroit: Cengage-Engineering, 2006. Print.
Figure 1
Introduction
General Introduction to Project
As a senior in the Civil Engineering program with an emphasis in Structural Engineering, Bridges play
an important role in the fundamentals of Structural Design. Especially since bridges undergo a variety
of loads, such as wind, snow and the transient loads due to the vehicular trafc utilising the bridge.
Today, in the United States alone, thousands of aged bridges are in active service, challenging many
municipalities and state governments to spend millions and hire many engineers to evaluate the
structural integrity of the bridge. Avoiding disasters such as the collapse of the I-35 W Mississippi River
Truss-Arch Bridge in Minnesota. (Date of Incident: Wednesday, August, 1
st
2007)
My projects aim is to highlight the affect of vehicular transient loads, mainly the loads due to heavy
duty trucks utilising a short span truss bridge, by emphasising the results of deection due to loads of a
Truss Bridge before and after ageing 75 years. The properties I found very important to consider after
this time are: Fatigue, accumulation of rust, cross bracing distortion and the reduction of redundancy at
the connection points of the girders.
Geometry
The bridge chosen for this project, is a Howe Truss Conguration bridge, consisting of cross braced
deck truss and a multi steel girder spans. The bridge geometric properties are as follows:
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
2
1 Short spanned bridge that is 40 m (~130 ft) long
2 Base Girders that are 5 m each (W21x44)
3 Diagonal truss beam are 9.43 m each (W14x22)
4 The hight of the Truss Girder is 8 m
Table 1
The geometry combined results in the following arrangement in the nite element analysis software,
ANSYS. The base girders and beams are all connected via gusset plates and are cross braced on the top
as well as the bottom where the pavement sits, the bridge carries a two way, four-lane road that serves
about 7,500 trucks per day.
This table to the right illustrates how the key-
points are assigned to the coordinate system
(x,y) in ANSYS forming the truss shown in
the image above. Please refer to the text input
attached to the Glossary section for more
information and the (.txt) le used to execute the command.
The following material properties and element type were used to model the truss bridge conguration
into ANSYS.
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0, 0 5, 0 10, 0 15, 0 20, 0 25, 0 30, 0 35, 0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
40, 0 35, 8 40, 8 25, 8 20, 8 15, 8 10, 8 5, 8
Table 2
Figure 2: ANSYS model showing member and nodal assignment
ELEMENT USED TO REPRESENT
( GI RDERS & BEAMS)
POI SSON S RATI O
MODULUS OF ELASTI CI TY
LINK 1
0.29
200 GPa
Approach & Formulation
Assumptions
To make this FEA problem much simpler, several basic assumptions have been made. The assumptions
made concern the properties of the steel girders, the type of connections of the steel girders and beams,
the amount of live load due to the transient load and nally the location of the load between the two
cases.
1. Girder - Beam Connections: The girder-beam connections used in an actual Truss Bridge uses gusset
plates, for simplication, the gusset plates were omitted from the nite element analysis and instead,
simply line connections converging to a point were used instead. As illustrated below.
2. Beam-Girder Cross Sectional Area: The average cross-sectional area is assumed as (3250 mm
2
).
3. The (ADT): The Average Daily Trafc will be assumed as 15,000 trucks in both directions, as the
bridge is mainly a cargo route.
4. Predicted Average Life: The predicted average life at a typical live-load stress of 138 MPa, is between
20,000 and 40,000 cycles.
5. Lane Loading: The Lane loading is set using the maximum AASHTO legal limit of 356 kN, at a
spacing of 38 m. A single point load of 356 kN will be used at the mid point of the span for maximum
deection calculation. The ANSYS model assumes 10,000 signicant load cycles per day.
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
4
Figure 3 Figure 4
Simplication Gusset Plate
6. Truss Deterioration Assumption: Many factors play into the deterioration of a Truss Bridge, most
notably Fatigue, Fatigue cracking at gusset plate connections, excessive truck loading and a lack of
redundancy in the mainframe of the truss bridge.
To simplify and summarise all these factors in ANSYS, the Modulus of Elasticity (E) will be reduced by,
modelling the reduction in Stiffness (E I).
Program Selection & Other ANSYS Assumptions
The truss bridge will be modelled using the (ANSYS 11.0) nite element analysis software. The type of
element used for this Analysis is the structural mass (LINK1 --> 2D spar) element for all the beams and
girders in the truss assembly. Metric units were used in Metres (m) for distances and spans and
Newtons (N) for loads.
Constraints: The Truss Bridge assembly is xed in all degrees of freedom at Keypoint #1,
bridge is pinned at Keypoint #9.
The Control Modulus of Elasticity used is 200 GPa, and a Poisson's ratio of (0.29).
The Modulus of Elasticity after 75 years of deterioration assumed as 0.02 GPa.
Force due to truck loading: Simplied to point load of 356 kN.
Total Dead Load (Self Weight) of the truss assembly is (818.24 kN) distributed equally at
Nodes (1 through 9) as (90.9 kN) Point Loads.
ANSYS Analysis Type: Static Truss Analysis.
Problem Formulation
Before beginning the ANSYS analysis, hand calculations were used to solve for the internal reactions of
the beam-Girder conguration (By method of sections), and beams and girders are labeled according to
their reactions being in compression or tension. The loading used was strictly the dead loads of the
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
5
Figure 5: ANSYS model showing mesh distribution and Nodal loading (Self Weight & Truck)
beams, and the results are used to stimulate where the weakest connection point in the truss
conguration may be present. Once these calculations were complete the Dead loads (Self weight) will
be simplied to the nodes numbered (1 - 9).
The ANSYS analysis of the Truss is done twice as follows:
1. The rst part analysis, calculates the nodal deection, reaction forces and stress for the Truss
conguration used. These results are to be used as a xed control, to compare later with the
results due to 75 years of service.
2. The second part of the analysis, models the excessive loading after 75 years of service cycles,
nodal deection, reaction forces and the stress for the truss conguration measured will be
compared to the control results.
Analysis
Part 1: Control Analysis:
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
6
Figure 6: ANSYS model showing exaggerated deection of the truss conguration
Part 2: Analysis After 75 year Cycle:
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
7
Figure 7: ANSYS model showing Nodal Deection Solution with the Red Colour indicating the max value
Figure 8: ANSYS model Axial Stress and the stress distribution along the Truss conguration
Figure 9: ANSYS model showing exaggerated deection of the truss conguration
Results
Reaction Forces:
THE FOLLOWING X,Y,Z SOLUTIONS ARE IN THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
8
Figure 10: ANSYS model showing Nodal Deection Solution with the Red Colour indicating the max value
Figure 11: ANSYS model Axial Stress and the stress distribution along the Truss
CONTROL REACTI ONS CONTROL REACTI ONS CONTROL REACTI ONS
NODE FX FY
1 2.33E-09 5.87E+05
9 5.87E+05
Total 2.33E-09 1.17E+06
REACTI ONS REACTI ONS REACTI ONS
NODE FX FY
1 -6.46E-09 5.87E+05
9 5.87E+05
Total -6.46E-09 1.17E+06
Table 3 Table 4
Deection:
Axial Stress:
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
9
THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN
THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM

NODE UX UY UZ USUM
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2 0.23856E-08-0.36154E-07 0.0000 0.36232E-07
3 0.67197E-08-0.66371E-07 0.0000 0.66711E-07
4 0.12565E-07-0.88218E-07 0.0000 0.89108E-07
5 0.19485E-07-0.10255E-06 0.0000 0.10439E-06
6 0.26405E-07-0.88218E-07 0.0000 0.92084E-07
7 0.32250E-07-0.66371E-07 0.0000 0.73792E-07
8 0.36585E-07-0.36154E-07 0.0000 0.51435E-07
9 0.38970E-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.38970E-07
10 0.69198E-08-0.30047E-07 0.0000 0.30833E-07
11 0.93055E-08-0.61383E-07 0.0000 0.62085E-07
12 0.13640E-07-0.84348E-07 0.0000 0.85444E-07
13 0.19485E-07-0.97053E-07 0.0000 0.98989E-07
14 0.25331E-07-0.84348E-07 0.0000 0.88070E-07
15 0.29665E-07-0.61383E-07 0.0000 0.68175E-07
16 0.32050E-07-0.30047E-07 0.0000 0.43932E-07
MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES
NODE 9 5 0 5
VALUE 0.38970E-07-0.10255E-06 0.0000 0.10439E-06
THE FOLLOWING DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESULTS ARE IN
THE GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM

NODE UX UY UZ USUM
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2 0.23856E-04-0.36154E-03 0.0000 0.36232E-03
3 0.67197E-04-0.66371E-03 0.0000 0.66711E-03
4 0.12565E-03-0.88218E-03 0.0000 0.89108E-03
5 0.19485E-03-0.10255E-02 0.0000 0.10439E-02
6 0.26405E-03-0.88218E-03 0.0000 0.92084E-03
7 0.32250E-03-0.66371E-03 0.0000 0.73792E-03
8 0.36585E-03-0.36154E-03 0.0000 0.51435E-03
9 0.38970E-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.38970E-03
10 0.69198E-04-0.30047E-03 0.0000 0.30833E-03
11 0.93055E-04-0.61383E-03 0.0000 0.62085E-03
12 0.13640E-03-0.84348E-03 0.0000 0.85444E-03
13 0.19485E-03-0.97053E-03 0.0000 0.98989E-03
14 0.25331E-03-0.84348E-03 0.0000 0.88070E-03
15 0.29665E-03-0.61383E-03 0.0000 0.68175E-03
16 0.32050E-03-0.30047E-03 0.0000 0.43932E-03
MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES
NODE 9 5 0 5
VALUE 0.38970E-03-0.10255E-02 0.0000 0.10439E-02
Control Deection: Deection:
Element
Axial Stress
Element
Axial Stress
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
95.4 173 234 277 277 234 173 95.4 -180 153 -147 125 -114 96.7 -81
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
138 -81 96.7 -114 125 -147 153 -180 -95 -173 -234 -234 -173 -95
Control Axial Element Stress:
Element
Axial Stress
Element
Axial Stress
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
95.4 173 234 277 277 234 173 95.4 -180 153 -147 125 -114 96.7 -81
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
138 -81 96.7 -114 125 -147 153 -180 -95 -173 -234 -234 -173 -95
Axial Element Stress:
Table 5
Table 6
Discussion:
The results are most interesting, with a large reduction in the Modulus of Elasticity (Assumed with the
deterioration of the truss assembly), the FEA program ANSYS yielded relatively the exact same Axial
Stresses in both cases, a small variation in the reaction force at Node #1. The most notable difference,
that this project aims to highlight, is the signicant change in deection.
The deection of the truss assembly is initially (-0.10255 x 10
-6
m) and went up several orders of
magnitude to (-0.10255 x 10
-2
m), at the middle of the span (Refer to Node #5). This large change in
magnitude would suggest a predication for a signicant failure at multiple points for the truss bridge
assembly.
Conclusion
The ANSYS analysis for this Truss Bridge is very insightful, even with many factors being omitted in
the analysis. The results are very interesting in that the exaggerated change in (E) did not yield any
changes in the Axial Stress nor the Reaction forces of the Truss conguration, neither does this changes
the internal forces of the beams and girders. The change was most notable in the value of deection,
which is an important value to study in bridge failures.
Results & Improvements to Model:
I am very satised with the results I have yielded with this analysis, and if I had more time, given more
time and properties, I could have incorporated many more properties into the analysis, such as the
geometry of the steel beams and girders used, the presence of the gusset plates at each connection
point, as well as the affect of the cross bracing truss members that contribute to the general stiffness of
the over all truss conguration. I would also incorporate the entire 3-Dimensional conguration of the
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
10
truss bridge, along with properties for the concrete pavement and girders used to form the four-lane
road.
Finite Element Methods Discussion:
The Finite Element analysis software used for this project is ANSYS 11.0, and was run directly using the
universitys server & HAMMER (interactive login cluster) on my personal computer at home.
Most of the assumptions used for this analysis were attained using the help of Dr. Edward Gannon
(ejg3@psu.edu), a professor in the Civil Engineering Department, whose input was important in
helping simply the Truss conguration for me and making it workable on ANSYS.
In reference to my results formulation on ANSYS, the truss conguration was meshed once only, since
the important factor in my results, deection, did not get affected my increasing the mesh size,
nonetheless, as simple as the truss conguration I used, meshing any more would not have yielded any
difference in results.
The text INPUT used to formulate my project is attached below in the Glossary section, the text le
does not include however the different varying solutions I have sought for the results of my project.
The accurate results of an FEA model is very impressive and forms the basis of other softwares used
more specically for Civil Engineering purposes such as SAP2000 and STAADpro.
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
11
ELEMENT
USED
TI ME
ELAPSED FOR
ANALYSI S
LI CENSE USED
LINK 1 ~ 15 seconds ANSYS 11.0
Appendix
Hand Calculations:
The hand calculations performed for this projected
included:
1. Self Weight of the 2-D truss assembly, using
approximate AISC beam sizes.
2. The force reactions due to the self weight plus the
weight of truck loading.
3. The internal reactions of the truss members using the
method of sections.
4. AASHTO Bridge typical weight approximates for
truss bridges of varying spans.
5. Axial Stress using (F/A)
List of Figures
1. Cover image: Walh Truss Bridge. [Online image]
Available http://www.dcctrain.com/images/
walh_corner_bridge.jpg, Dec 1, 2009.
2. Figure 1: Simple Span Truss Bridge. [Online image]
Available http://www.con-span.com/DYOBTruss/,
Dec 1, 2009
3. Figure 2: ANSYS model showing member and nodal
assignment.
4. Figure 3: Gusset Plate simplication, drawn in Paint.
5. Figure 4: Gusset Plates. [Online image] Available
http://images.publicradio.org/content/
2007/08/09/20070809_gussetplate_2.jpg, Dec 1, 2009.
6. Figure 5: ANSYS model showing mesh distribution
and Nodal loading (Self Weight & Truck)
7. Figure 6: ANSYS model showing exaggerated
deection of the truss conguration
8. Figure 7: ANSYS model showing Nodal Deection
Solution with the Red Colour indicating the max value
9. Figure 8: ANSYS model Axial Stress and the stress
distribution along the Truss conguration
10. Figure 9: ANSYS model showing exaggerated
deection of the truss conguration
11. Figure 10: ANSYS model showing Nodal Deection
Solution with the Red Colour indicating the max value
12. Figure 11: ANSYS model Axial Stress and the stress
distribution along the Truss conguration. (After 75
Years Cycle)
List of Tables
1. Table 1: Geometric Properties Table (summary)
2. Table 2: Nodal (Keypoint) assignment t the
coordinate system.
3. Table 3: Table summarising ANSYS results for the
Reaction forces in the X and Y directions (CONTROL)
4. Table 4: Table summarising ANSYS results for the
Reaction forces in the X and Y directions
5. Table 5: Table summarising ANSYS results for the
nodal deection in the X and Y directions (CONTROL)
6. Table 6: Table summarising ANSYS results for the
nodal deection in the X and Y directions
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
12
Glossary
ANSYS Text Input as follows:
/PREP7 ! preprocessor phase
! dene keypoints
K,1, 0,0
K,2, 5,0
K,3, 10,0
K,4, 15,0
K,5, 20,0
K,6, 25,0
K,7, 30,0
K,8, 35,0
K,9, 40,0
K,10, 35,8
K,11, 30,8
K,12, 25,8
K,13, 20,8
K,14, 15,8
K,15, 10,8
K,16, 5,8
! dene lines
L,1,2
L,2,3
L,3,4
L,4,5
L,5,6
L,6,7
L,7,8
L,8,9
L,9,10
L,10,8
L,8,11
L,11,7
L,7,12
L,12,6
L,6,13
L,13,5
L,13,4
L,4,14
L,14,3
L,3,15
L,15,2
L,2,16
L,16,1
L,16,15
L,15,14
L,14,13
L,13,12
L,12,11
L,11,10
!*
ET,1,LINK1
!*
R,1,3250, ,
!*
!*
MPTEMP,,,,,,,,
MPTEMP,1,0
MPDATA,EX,1,,200e9
MPDATA,PRXY,1,,0.29
! /REPLOT,RESIZE
! /REPLOT,RESIZE
! /REPLOT,RESIZE
! /REPLOT
! LPLOT
! /PNUM,KP,1
! /PNUM,LINE,1
! /PNUM,AREA,0
! /PNUM,VOLU,0
! /PNUM,NODE,0
! /PNUM,TABN,0
! /PNUM,SVAL,0
! /NUMBER,0
!*
! /PNUM,ELEM,0
! /REPLOT
!*
!*
LESIZE,ALL, , ,1, ,1, , ,1,
FLST,2,29,4,ORDE,2
FITEM,2,1
FITEM,2,-29
LMESH,P51X
! /PNUM,KP,1
! /PNUM,LINE,0
! /PNUM,AREA,0
! /PNUM,VOLU,0
! /PNUM,NODE,1
! /PNUM,TABN,0
! /PNUM,SVAL,0
! /NUMBER,0
!*
! /PNUM,ELEM,0
! /REPLOT
!*
ANTYPE,0
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,1
!*
/GO
DK,P51X, , , ,0,ALL, , , , , ,
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,9
!*
/GO
DK,P51X, , , ,0,UY, , , , , ,
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,5
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,5
FLST,2,1,3,ORDE,1
FITEM,2,5
!*
/GO
FK,1,FY,-90.916e3
FK,2,FY, -90.916e3
FK,3,FY, -90.916e3
FK,4,FY, -90.916e3
FK,5,FY, -446.916e3
FK,6,FY, -90.916e3
FK,7,FY,- 90.916e3
FK,8,FY,- 90.916e3
FK,9,FY,- 90.916e3
FINISH
/SOL
!*
ANTYPE,0
! /STATUS,SOLU
SOLVE
FINISH
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
13
Bibliography & Programs Used
1. ANSYS-386/ED Reference Manual
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specications, Washington (District of Columbia)
3. Truss Bridges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss_bridge
4. Logan, Daryl L. A First Course in the Finite Element Method. Detroit: Cengage-Engineering, 2006.
Print.
5. Steel Construction Manual, 13th Edition (Book). New York: American Institute of Steel Construction,
2006. Print.
6. Geschwindner, Louis F. Unied Design of Steel Structures. New York: Wiley, 2007. Print.
Program used:
1. ANSYS Version 11.0 Workbench.
Fi na l Pr oj e c t Emc h 4 6 1
14