Proceedings of the IMAC-XXVII

February 9-12, 2009 Orlando, Florida USA

2009 Society for Experimental Mechanics Inc.

Finite Element Model Efficiency for Modal Analysis of Slab-on-Girder

Bridges

J. Ashley Warren, Elisa D. Sotelino, and Thomas E. Cousins

Via Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
200 Patton Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24060
ABSTRACT
The evaluation of fundamental dynamic characteristics of bridges is not trivial. Complex models using refined
finite elements can be prohibitive in terms of memory and computational time requirements. On the other hand,
simpler models such as the grillage approach lack the necessary details to accurately predict the fundamental
characteristics of these structures. There is, thus, a need for the development of modeling techniques that take
advantage of some of the concepts associated with the simpler models while producing accurate results. This
paper investigates the tradeoffs between accuracy and efficiency for various finite element modeling techniques
used for determining mode shapes and natural frequencies of a fully composite, concrete slab on steel girder
bridge. Four different girder models are considered, using various combinations of beam and shell elements.
The use of shell elements and 3D brick elements are also considered for modeling the bridge deck. The results
of these models are compared to the measured natural frequencies of the Colquitz River Bridge, determined
through field testing. The combination of element types and levels of refinement resulted in the creation of 56
models. This paper focuses on a few of these models, and includes a discussion of the accuracy of model type
versus mesh refinement, as well as the accuracy of the models versus computation time.
INTRODUCTION
Due the complex nature and expense of field and laboratory testing of civil engineering structures, approximate
analysis techniques have long been used to determine the behavior of such structures for analysis and design
purposes. With the availability of user friendly, commercial finite element software packages, the use of finite
element modeling has become a popular method of analyzing bridges.
Literature indicates that slab-on-girder type bridges have been modeled using various techniques (see references
[1] through [7]). Girder members have often been modeled using linear 4-node shell elements, quadratic 8-node
shell elements, linear 8-node brick elements, quadratic 20-node brick elements, 2-node 3D beam elements (both
Euler beam elements and shear-flexible Timoshenko beam elements), and 3-node 3D quadratic (Timoshenko)
beam elements. Researchers have also used both linear and quadratic shell and brick elements to model the
bridge decks. Some models include secondary elements such as diaphragms and parapets, while others do not.
Some researchers model the actual geometry of the bridge structure, while others model the girders and deck at
the same elevation and use modified moments of inertia to represent the actual stiffness of the structure. Each
modeling technique has its advantages and disadvantages, and the selection of the appropriate technique for a
particular application is dependent on the desired results, i.e., degree of accuracy and model simplicity. Some
offer ease of modeling and low computational expense at the sacrifice of accuracy. Others can be very accurate,
but burdensome to produce and computationally expensive.
The natural frequencies of a bridge and in particular the fundamental frequency has been found to be one of the
key parameters that affect the dynamic amplification of the response of a bridge to moving loads. The
determination of this amplification is an intrinsic part of the design of bridges. Therefore, the goal of this paper is
to identify a modeling technique that is easy to implement, computationally efficient, and provides acceptable
levels of accuracy for these calculations.

GIRDER MODELS
For the purpose of this paper, only shell and beam elements are considered for modeling the bridge girders.
Solid brick elements based on linear shape functions (8-node brick elements) do not accurately represent the
response of members in bending [8]. This is because these elements under bending develop spurious shear
strains, which result in an overly stiff model. Chung and Sotelino have proposed four different girder models that
use various combinations of beam and shell elements to represent the flanges and webs of typical I-shaped steel
girders [3]. The element choices adopted in their models are shown in Table 1, and diagrams of the models are
depicted in Figures 1-4. In the figures shown below, the flanges of the G1 model are offset from the element
reference nodes, and connected to the webs of the girders by use of a tie constraint. In this research, the G1
model is also formulated by keeping the reference node of the flanges at the midpoint of the thickness, connecting
the flanges to the web using rigid links. For all the models, the girders are connected to the deck elements with
rigid links, which tie the translational and rotational degrees of freedom (DOF) of the deck to those of the girder for
full composite action, i.e., by enforcing that plane sections remain plane after deformation.

Table 1Element choices for the models proposed by Chung and Sotelino [3] to represent I-shaped steel girders
MODEL
Flange Elements
Web Elements
G1
Shell
Shell
G2
Beam
Shell
G3
Shell
Beam
G4
Beam

Figure 1G1 girder model [3]

Figure 3G3 girder model [3]

Figure 2G2 girder model [3]

Figure 4G4 girder model [3]

BRIDGE MODEL
The natural frequencies of the Colquitz River Bridge have been determined experimentally, and the results for the
first three vertical flexural modes are provided in Table 2 [1]. The five-span bridge consists of six continuous W
33x141 steel girders and concrete deck of approximately 6.9 inches thick. The deck and girders are connected in
such a way that full composite action is achieved. The deck is 39 ft wide and the girders are spaced at 78 inches
on center. A cross-sectional view of the bridge is shown in Figure 5. The five span lengths are 46 ft, 59 ft, 60 ft,
59 ft, and 46 ft, for a total length of 270 ft. Each span has end diaphragms and 3 intermediate diaphragms
between all girders ([1], [2]).

Table 2Vertical flexural natural frequencies of the Colquitz River Bridge [1]
Mode
Frequency (Hz)
st
1 flexural
5.95
nd
2 flexural
7.14
rd
3 flexural
8.70

Figure 5Cross-section of Colquitz River Bridge [2]

Wu modeled the bridge using linear shell elements for the flanges and webs of the girders (G1 girder model) and
quadratic brick elements for the bridge deck. The bridge was modeled both with and without the guardrails, with
all diaphragms included in both models. More accurate results were obtained with the model that did not include
guardrails [2]. Ventura et al modeled the bridge using beam elements for the girder (G4 girder model) and shell
elements for the deck. Various models were created from this base model that included secondary elements [1].
For this paper, the Colquitz River Bridge was modeled using the commercial software package ABAQUS [9]. All
four girder models shown in Table 1 and Figures 1-4 were considered. Each of the four girders was paired with
both shell and brick elements to model the deck. Additionally, each combination of girder model and deck
element was modeled at various levels of refinement. It should be noted that in this work, only 2-node 3-D beam
elements and 4-node shell elements were considered. Accuracy and convergence are achieved via p-refinement
of the mesh. Figure 5 shows model trees for the girder models, describing the element combinations that were
considered. The bold capital letters in the tree indicate the meaning of each letter in the model name and the
number indicates the number of elements along the length of the member (i.e.G1LS40 is the G1 girder model,
with rigid Links connecting the girder parts, Shell elements for the deck, and 40 elements along the length of the
structure).
The G1 and G4 models were created first. For each modeling technique, a model was generated at five levels of
p-refinement. Table 3 provides a description of the refinement, element lengths, and aspect ratios for the deck
elements. The models with only 10 elements along the length of the bridge had very large aspect ratios and did
not typically produce accurate results. The models with 160 elements along the length were typically overly-

refined, resulting in increased model development and computation time. Therefore, these refinement levels were
not included when investigating the G2 and G3 models.

G1

Ties from
flanges to web
Shell
deck element

Links from
flanges to web

Brick
deck element

Shell
deck element

Brick
deck element

(a)

G2 / G3 / G4

Timoshenko
beam elements
Shell
deck element

Euler
beam elements

Brick
deck element

Shell
deck element

Brick
deck element

(b)
Figure 5: (a) Model tree for G1 girder model; (b) Model tree for G2, G3, and G4 girder models

Each model included all girders, the deck, and all diaphragms similarly to the modeling decisions presented in [2].
Two-node Timoshenko beam elements were used to represent the diaphragms in each model. Rather than
modeling the piers and abutments, the supports were modeled as simple pin and roller supports. For each model
created, the results obtained for the natural frequencies associated with the first three flexural modes were
compared to those determined from field testing. The three bending modes considered are pictured in Figure 6.
An investigation of the computation time versus model accuracy was also done for each model created. All the
obtained results are discussed in the next section.

Table 3Sizes of deck elements for various model refinements

No. of Elements in
total length

Approx. element
length (in)

Approx. aspect ratio

10
20
40
80
160

324
162
81
40.5
20.25

4.15
2.08
1.04
1.04
1.04

# of DOF in Deck
Mesh of Shell
Elements
528
1008
1968
6318
24150

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 6Mode shapes for Colquitz River Bridge: (a) First flexural mode; (b) Second flexural mode; (c) Third
flexural mode.

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Computational time is directly related to the number of degrees of freedom (DOF) in the model. Therefore,
meshes with more elements and/or higher order elements are more computationally intensive because they have
larger numbers of DOF. The middle level of refinement used in this research consisted of 40 elements along the
length of the deck. This refinement level tended to be the most efficient for most models with comparable
element types. The models that are considered efficient are those that were able to produce natural frequencies
that are within 5% of the frequencies measured experimentally for all three bending modes in consideration, and
whose computation times are smaller than for other models that produce more accurate results.
For the G1 models, those that included shell element decks exhibited smooth convergence curves. The basic
convergence behavior was the same for all three modes considered, but the convergence for the first bending
mode was the most accurate. All modes appeared to converge at the middle level of refinement. The most
refined models were the most accurate for the first mode. However, this increase in accuracy over a less refined
model was not usually significant, i.e., a decrease in percent error from approximately 1.5% to approximately 1%.
The G1 models that used brick elements to model the deck did not exhibit smooth or stable convergence trends.
All of these models tended to change from overestimating to underestimating the natural frequencies with the
various levels of refinement. The convergence trends for all G1 models are shown in Figure 7(a). Lastly, it is
noted that for both deck element types, the models containing rigid links between girder components obtained
nearly identical results to those using tie constraints to join girder elements. In most cases, the difference
between the two methods was less than 0.2%

G2 models with shell element decks tended to converge to a more accurate solution at lower levels of refinement
as compared to the G1 models when the first bending mode is considered. For the second and third modes, all
levels of refinement produced nearly the same level of accuracy (within 1%). However, these models are less
accurate than the most accurate G1 models with shell decks in determining the second and third modes. In
general, the use of linear brick elements to model the deck did not provide good results when used with the G2
girder models. These models tended to underestimate the natural frequencies by 5-20%, and also showed a
trend of oscillating between higher and lower percents error with each level of refinement. The convergence
behavior associated with the first bending mode for all G2 models is shown in Figure 7(b). For all G2 models, the
differences in results when using Euler beam elements compared to Timoshenko beam elements was negligible
for the first bending mode (i.e.-0.01-0.2% difference). The Timoshenko beam elements tend to be more accurate
in the determination of the higher modes, but typically only by approximately 1%.
The G3 models were in general the least accurate models considered, particularly for the first and second
bending modes. Most models required more refinement to obtain levels of accuracy similar to those obtained with
G1 or G4 models. Most of the G3 models did not converge to experimentally obtained frequencies, but rather
appeared to have a certain inherent amount of error that did not decrease with refinement. This amount of error
varied from approximately 3-15% for each of the models. In fact, for the models that included brick elements for
the deck, the most refined model was the most inaccurate by 10% or more. Lastly, almost all G3 models were
more accurate for the third bending mode than for the first two. The convergence trend for the first mode for all
G3 models is shown in Figure 7(c).
The G4 models, similarly to the G1 models, exhibited smooth convergence curves for the models with shell
element decks, and a more oscillatory trend for the models with brick element decks. This convergence behavior
is depicted in Figure 7(d). Also, all G4 models showed similar convergence behavior for each mode, and tended
to converge at the middle level of refinement. This convergence occurred at approximately half the number of
DOF as the G1 and G2 models; however, the G4 models converge to a less accurate solution than the G1 or G2
models, particularly for the first bending mode. The G4 models including shell element decks tended to be most
accurate for the third bending mode. The models that included brick element decks typically produced results
with a range of 5-25% error. Lastly, the models that used Timoshenko beam elements produced more accurate
results than the models using Euler beam elements. This finding indicates that the inclusion of shear
deformations is important to the determination of natural frequencies. The exclusion of shear deformations in
Euler-Bernoulli beam elements results in a higher stiffness for the element. Thus, these elements tend to
overestimate natural frequencies. Timoshenko beam elements, which include shear deformations, generally
predict natural frequencies more accurately [10].

First Bending Mode Frequency Accuracy--G2

First Bending Mode Frequency Accuracy--G1

40.00

10.00

30.00

5.00

20.00
% Error

G1LB

10.00

G1TS
G1TB

0.00
0

20000

40000

60000

-10.00

80000

100000

% Error

0.00

G1LS

10000

20000

30000

(a)

G2TS

G2EB

-10.00

120000

-20.00

No. of DOFs

50000

G2ES

-15.00

-20.00

40000

G2TB

-5.00

No. of DOFs

(b)

First Bending Mode Frequency Accuracy--G3

First Bending Mode Frequency Accuracy--G4

15.00

40.00
30.00

10.00

20.00
G3LTSL
G3LTBL

0.00
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

-5.00

G3LESL

G4TS
% Error

% Error

5.00

10.00

G4TB
G4ES

0.00

G3LEBL

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

G4EB

60000

-10.00

-10.00

-20.00

-15.00

-30.00
No. of DOFs

No. of DOFs

(c)

(d)

Figure 7Typical convergence behavior associated with the first bending mode natural frequency for a) G1
models, b) G2 models, c) G3 models and d) G4 models

DETERMINATION OF EFFICIENT MODELS

In order to determine the most efficient overall model, four models from each group of girder models were
considered, and then the most efficient in this group was selected. For each type of girder model, the individual
models that produced the most accurate results for each mode were considered, as well as one or two other
models that, by inspection, appeared to provide efficient and accurate results. These models were compared on
the basis of their overall accuracy for all three modes, and their computation time. The models were chosen such
that each type of model was considered at least one level of refinement. For each girder model, the single most
efficient model was chosen, and the most efficient models from each group were then compared to determine the
overall best modeling technique. The comparisons are shown in Figures 8-11.

G1 Model Computation Times

G1 Models Accuracy for Bending Modes

8.00

60.0

7.00

50.0

6.00
1st Mode

4.00

2nd Mode
3rd Mode

3.00
2.00

Time (s)

% Error

40.0
5.00

30.0
20.0
10.0

1.00

0.0

0.00
G1LS160

G1TS40

G1TB20

G1LB40

G1LS160

G1TS40

G1TB20
Models

Models

Figure 8G1 model comparisons

G1LB40

G2 Model Computation Times

16.00

18.0

14.00

16.0

12.00

14.0
12.0

10.00

1st Mode

8.00

2nd Mode
3rd Mode

6.00

Time (s)

% Error

G2 Models Accuracy for Bending Modes

10.0
8.0
6.0

4.00

4.0

2.00

2.0
0.0

0.00
G2ES80

G2TS80

G2TB40

G2ES80

G2EB40

G2TS80

G2TB40

G2EB40

Models

Models

Figure 9G2 model comparisons

G3 Model Computation Times

8.00

18.0

7.00

16.0

6.00

14.0
12.0

5.00

1st Mode

4.00

2nd Mode
3rd Mode

3.00

Time (s)

% Error

G3 Models Accuracy for Bending Modes

10.0
8.0
6.0

2.00

4.0

1.00

2.0
0.0

0.00
G3TB40

G3ES40

G3TS80

G3TB40

G3EB40

G3ES40

G3TS80

G3EB40

Models

Models

Figure 10G3 model comparisons

G4 Model Computation Times

7.00

7.0

6.00

6.0

5.00

5.0
1st Mode

4.00

2nd Mode
3.00

3rd Mode

Time (s)

% Error

G4 Models Accuracy for Bending Modes

4.0
3.0

2.00

2.0

1.00

1.0
0.0

0.00
G4TB40

G4EB20

G4TS80

G4ES80

G4TB40

G4EB20

G4TS80

G4ES80

Models

Models

Figure 11G4 model comparisons

The G1TS40 model is chosen as the best G1 model because it exhibits reasonable accuracy (< 4% error) for all
three bending modes and relatively efficient computation time when compared to the other models. It is noted
that the G1LB40 model shows better accuracy for the lower modes, without a significant increase in computation
time, but the convergence curves for all models with brick deck elements were not stable, and the use of this
modeling technique cannot be recommended for general use.
The G2TS80 model is selected as the best G2 model because it exhibits reasonable accuracy (< 5% error) for all
three bending modes and relatively efficient computation time when compared to the other models. It is noted
that the G2ES80 model is slightly more accurate, and has slightly decreased computation time; however, the

results from other aspects of this research and other literature indicate that Timoshenko beam elements are more
accurate for predicting natural frequencies [10]. Therefore, the model including these elements, rather than Euler
beam elements, is chosen as the best G2 model)
The G3TB40 model is chosen as the best G3 model because it exhibits reasonable accuracy (< 4% error) for all
three bending modes and relatively efficient computation time when compared to the other models. While a
model incorporating brick elements to model the bridge deck would not generally be recommended due to the
behavior of these elements, for the G3 models considered, the G3TB40 is chosen as the most efficient model
because it offers both the most accurate results and one of the smallest computation times. Alternatively, the
G3TS80 is chosen because it offers accuracy within 0.5% of the G3TB40 model and is modeled with a shell
element deck.
The G4TB40 model is selected as the best G4 model because it exhibits reasonable accuracy (< 4% error) for the
third bending mode and is also the most accurate for the lower, more important modes. Again, it is noted that a
brick deck element is not generally the best technique for model the deck, but for the G4 models, this model
produces the most accurate results. As an alternative, the G4TS80 would be chosen. This model produces
results within 3% of the measured first natural frequency.
The comparison of these four models based on accuracy and computational efficiency is shown in Figure 12.
Based on these comparisons, the G2TS model is chosen as the best overall model technique for determining
natural frequencies and modes shapes. This model shows best level of accuracy for the first two bending modes
at less than 2% error, while still predicting the third mode natural frequency within 5% error. Additionally, the
G4TS model can also be recommended as a modeling technique. This model did not produce as accurate results
for the first two bending modes as the G2TS model, but the results were still within approximately 3.5% of the
measured values. The G4TS model produced the most accurate results for third bending mode, and had a
computation time that is approximately 50% of that for the G2TS model. In addition to the numerical comparisons
that can be made between models, it is also important to consider the ease of the modeling technique, which
cannot be quantified. The G4 model is by far the easiest and quickest to produce because the only connections
that need to be made are between the single girder element and the deck. The other models all have three times
the number of connections because the flanges and webs of the girders have to be connected by rigid links. This
affects both the model production time and the computation time.

M odel Computation Time s

Model Accuracies for Bending Modes

18.0

5.00

16.0

4.00

14.0

1st Mode
2nd Mode
3rd Mode

2.00

Time (s)

% Error

12.0

3.00

10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0

1.00

2.0

0.00

0.0

G1TS40

G2TS80

G3TS80

G4TS80

Models

G1TS40

G2TS80

G3TS80

G4TS80

Models

Figure 12Comparisons of efficient models for each girder model type.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The results of this research show that the bending natural frequencies and mode shapes of slab-on-girder bridges
can be accurately and efficiently predicted using finite element modeling. Based on the 56 models that were
created and compared based on accuracy and efficiency, the following significant observations and
recommendations can be made:

It is recommended that 4-node linear shell elements, rather than 8-node solid brick elements, be used to
model the bridge decks of fully composite slab-on-girder bridges. These shells elements demonstrate a
stable behavior of converging to an accurate prediction of natural frequencies, while the brick elements
exhibit an erratic behavior of both under and overestimating frequencies based on the level of model
refinement.
The use of Timoshenko beam elements typically results in a less stiff, more accurate model for the
prediction of natural frequencies when compared to Euler beam elements. This trend is more apparent in
the determination of higher modes.
For the most accurate prediction of the first bending mode natural frequency, the use of the G2 girder
model with a shell element deck is recommended.
For a model that can predict all three natural frequencies within approximately 4% of the measured value,
and do so with a low model production and computation time, the G4TS model is recommended.
For all modeling techniques, an element size of 1-3% of the total bridge length is recommended.

REFERENCES
[1]

Ventura, C.E., Felber, A.J., and Stiemer, S.F., Determination of the Dynamic Characteristics of the
Colquitz River Bridge by Full-Scale Testing, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 23, pp. 536-548,
1996.

[2]

Wu, Haiyong, Influence of Live-Load Deflections on Superstructure Performance of Slab on Steel

Stringer Bridges, Ph.D. Dissertation, West Virginia University, pp.80-110, 2003.

[3]

Chung, W. and Sotelino, E.D., Three-dimensional Finite Element Modeling of Composite Girder Bridges,
Engineering Structures, 28, pp. 63-71, 2006.

[4]

Machado, M.A.S., Sotelino, E.D., and Liu, J., Modeling Technique for Honeycomb FRP Deck Bridges via
Finite Elements, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(4), 572-580, 2008..

[5]

Barth, K. and Wu, H., Efficient Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Slab on Steel Stringer Bridges,
Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 42, pp.1304 1313, 2006.

[6]

Cao, C. and Shing, P.B., Simplified Analysis Method for Slab-On-Girder Highway Bridge Decks, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, v 125, n 1, pp 49-59, Jan. 1999.

[7]

DeSantiago, E., Mohammadi, J. and Albaijat, H.M.O., Analysis of Horizontally Curved Bridges Using
Simple Finite-Element Models, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, American
Society of Civil Engineers, v10, n 1, pp.18-21, Feb 2005.

[8]

Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., Plesha, M.E., and Witt, R.J., Concepts and Applications of Finite Element
th
Analysis, 4 ed., Wiley, 2001.

[9]

ABAQUS, Inc., Abaqus Analysis Users Manual, Version 6.7, Dassault Systmes, 2007.

[10]

Han, S. M., Benaroy, H., and Wei, T., Dynamics of Transversely Vibrating Beams
Using Four Engineering Theories, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 225(5), pp.935-988, 1999.