Prestressed Concrete Briges Christian Menn

Analytical and Experimental Studies on Torsion Behavior of
Hybrid Truss Bridge Girder with Various Connection Joints

Ji-Hun Choi, Kwang-Hoe Jung, Tae-Kyun Kim, Jang-Ho Jay Kim
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, volume 12 ( 2014 ), pp. 478-495
Inelastic Performance of High-Strength Concrete Bridge Columns under Earthquake

DaiJeong Seong, TaeHoon Kim, MyungSeok Oh, HyunMock Shin
Development and Evaluation of New Connection Systems for Hybrid Truss Bridges
Kwang-Hoe Jung , Jang-Ho Jay Kim, Jong-Wo Yi , Sang-Hyu Lee

478
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 12, 478-495, November 2014 / Copyright 2014 Japan Concrete Institute
Scientific paper
Analytical and Experimental Studies on Torsional Behavior of Hybrid

Truss Bridge Girders with Various Connection Joints
Ji-Hun Choi1, Kwang-Hoe Jung2, Tae-Kyun Kim3 and Jang-Ho Jay Kim4*
Received 10 July 2014, accepted 5 November 2014
doi:10.3151/jact.12.478
Abstract
A hybrid truss bridge (HTB) is a bridge constructed by replacing the concrete webs of a pre-stressed box girder bridge
with steel truss webs. With its open web section, HTB offers advantages of high structural efficiency and excellent aesthetic appearance. The core technology of HTB is the connection system between the steel trusses and the concrete deck.
Since the open web section of a HTB decreases the torsional capacity, precise analysis of the torsional behavior of the
open web section with respect to the connection joint type is needed to ensure the safety of HTBs. In this study, the torsional capacity of HTB was calculated using the torsion formula derived based on the steel plate thickness conversion
equation for corrugated steel web plates and the space truss theory. The torsion formula was verified by performing a
parametric study using a commercial finite element program. Next, the torsion analysis results of the HTB girder were
compared to experimental results to evaluate their accuracy. Finally, the simulation, experimental, and torsion formula
results were compared to evaluate the feasibility of using the formula in design.
1. Introduction
Hybrid truss bridge (HTB) refers to a bridge constructed
by replacing the solid concrete web sections of a prestressed box girder bridge with open steel truss web
sections. As shown in Fig. 1, replacement of concrete
webs with relatively light steel truss members would
reduce the self-weight of the super-structure by approximately 20% to increase the span length and decrease the required sub-structure member size. Furthermore, since the open web section has an excellent aesthetic appearance that can harmonizes the bridge with
the surrounding environment, HTBs are becoming
popular for medium-span bridges (e.g., span length of
40-60m) constructed in urban settings. (Minami et al.
Doctoral Student, School of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Yonsei University, Concrete Structural
Engineering Laboratory, Engineering Building #A, 134
Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749, South
Korea.
2
Chief Research Engineer, Research and Development
Division, Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co.
Ltd., 102-4, Mabuk-dong, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si,
Gyeonggi-do, 446-716, South Korea.
3
Doctoral Student, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Yonsei University, Concrete Structural
Engineering Laboratory, Engineering Building #A, 134
Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749, South
Korea.
4
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Concrete Structural Engineering Laboratory, Engineering Building #A,
134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749,
South Korea.
*Corresponding author, E-mail: jjhkim@yonsei.ac.kr
2002; Aoki et al. 2005; Fujiwara et al. 2005)

The core technology of HTB is the connection system
between the steel truss member and the concrete deck.
In HTB, the joint types embedded in the top and bottom
concrete decks can either be the same or different, depending on design requirements. An appropriate joint
type is selected based on the code requirements and the
construction cost. As a result of the configuration of
web trusses, stresses are concentrated at the joint with a
complex stress distribution profile. Therefore, the joint
performance must be fully guaranteed to ensure the
safety of the HTB. The joint dictates not only the local
behavior but also the global behavior of the girder (e.g.,
overall deflection and torsional rotation). Various researchers and engineers have studied, developed, and
verified many different types of joint for HTB. (Miwa et
al. 1998; Tsujimura et al. 2002; Shim et al. 2007a, b)
However, because of the open web section, the torsional
performance of a HTB is weaker than that of a prestressed concrete (PSC) box girder bridge with solid
web sections. Because of uncertainty of the torsional
capacity, the open web section has rarely been used in
eccentrically loaded or curved PSC box girder bridges.
Fig. 1 Hybrid Truss Brige (HTB).
479
J-H. Choi, K-H. Jung, T-K. Kim and J-H. J. Kim / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 12, 478-495, 2014
(Jung et al. 2007a, b, 2010a, b, 2011a, b, 2013a; Choi et

al. 2011) In this study, space truss theory was used to
derive and analyze a torsional moment formula for a
HTB girder. The commercial finite element (FE) program MIDAS FEA was then used to simulate a torsion
test of HTB. Finally, the formula, simulation and experimental results of HTB girder under torsional loading
were compared to evaluate the accuracy of the formula.
2. Load transfer mechanisms at the

connection joint
For this study, three different types of connection system, an embedded hinge type (EHT), continuous studflange plate type (FHT), and discontinuous stud-gusset
plate type (GHT) were used in HTB girder specimens.
The load transfer mechanism of the three joint types is
shown in Fig. 2. (Jung et al. 2013b) In EHT, the center
of the concrete deck is in alignment with the centerline
of the steel truss member such that the eccentric moment would be minimized as shown in Fig. 2(a). In
FHT and GHT, shown in Fig. 2(b) and 2(c), respectively,
the top or bottom truss ends are connected to a single
continuous plate for all joints or a discontinuous gusset
plate for each joint, respectively. For both FHT and
GHT, shear studs are welded on the surface in contact
with concrete for shear connection and the center of the
concrete deck does not coincide with the centerline of
the truss members. Therefore, the eccentricity between
the two centerlines causes eccentric moment at the joint.
HTB girder specimens 4 m in length were constructed
with the three joint types and tested in torsion to evaluate and compare their torsional and load carrying capacities.
centroid
e=0
Shear
Force
Compression
Tension
(a) EHT: Embedded hinge type Hybrid Truss

Local
Moment
centroid
Shear
Force
Flange Plate
Compression
Tension
(b) FHT: Flange plate type Hybrid Truss

Local
Moment
Expected
failure line
centroid
Shear
Force
base plate
gusset plate
Compression
Tension
(c) GHT: Gusset plate type Hybrid Truss

Fig. 2 Load transfer mechanism at the connection joint.
3. Derivation of analytical torsion formula

of HTB
3.1 Space truss theory
At the present time there are no specific analytical formulas for calculation of torsional capacity of HTB.
Therefore, we formulated an analytical formula for torsion by applying previous study results of a corrugated
steel plate web girder to the HTB girder. For torsional
behavior of the reinforced concrete (RC) girder, the
space truss theory is most commonly used by bridge
engineers. The space truss theory was first introduced
by Rausch and further developed by Lampert. (Rausch
1929; Lampert 1968) The design concepts of the space
truss theory are based on the assumption that steel rebars are embedded in the concrete. The girder crosssection resists the torsion, because space truss members
run in the direction of crack development such that torsion-resistant capacity is obtained from the concrete
surrounding the rebars. However, in the design of the
space truss theory, the torsional strength is usually overestimated compared to the actual torsional strength.
Therefore, Collins modified the conventional space
truss theory by making an assumption that the centerline

of the shear flow coincided with the centerline of the
concrete section, and expressed the nominal torsion
strength as a function of the area enclosed by the centerline of the shear flow and the cross-sectional area of the
structure as shown in Equation 1: (Collins et al. 1980)
Tn = 2
A0 At f y
s
cot
(1)
where Tn is the nominal torsion; A0 is the area enclosed by the centerline of the shear flow; At is the
cross section of the lateral steel rebar; f y is the yield
strength of lateral steel rebar; s is the stirrup spacing;
and is the inclination angle.
3.2 Analytical torsion model of HTB girder
Mo et al. (2000) assumed that when torsion is applied to
a corrugated steel plate web girder bridge with top and
the bottom PSC decks, the area enclosing the shear flow
traveling through the centerline in the concrete deck A0
is determined by only using the concrete decks as
shown in Fig. 3. They proposed that the area of the
480
flange should be half of the entire area. (Mo et al. 2000,

2006) Based on this proposal, the torsion acting on the
top and bottom concrete decks is calculated using Equation 2:
1
A0 = (b tb )(h td )
2
(2)
where tb is the thickness of the corrugated web steel

plate and td is the effective thickness of the concrete
deck. It is assumed that the cross-section of the box
girder under torsion is a rigid body rotating along the
longitudinal axis of the girder and that the torsional angle of the cross-section of the box girder under torsion is
uniformly distributed on the cross-section. The torsion
resisted by the web can be calculated as a function of
the shear force acting on the web and the distance to the
corrugated steel plate web as shown in Equation 3:
Tw = w Aw (b tb )
(3)
where Tw is the torsion acting on the web steel plate;

w is the shear stress; Aw is the web cross-sectional
area. The total torsion acting on the corrugated steel
plate web bridge is calculated as the sum of the torsion
acting on the top and bottom concrete decks Tn and the
torsion acting on the corrugated steel plate web Tw as
shown in Equation 4:
T = Tn + Tw
(4)
3.3 Web plate thickness conversion

The cross-section in a HTB girder is not constant, similar to that in a corrugated steel plate web girder. Therefore, the formula for the torsional capacity of corrugated
steel plate web girder can be applied to the HTB girder
with minor modifications. In this study, the web truss
members are assumed to be arranged in series with constant spacing and attached to the top and bottom concrete decks as shown in Fig. 4. If the cross-sectional
area for the torsion is calculated based on the assumed
configuration, the converted plate thickness of the web
truss member assumed as a concrete web can be calculated using Equation 5: (JPCEA 2005)
E
ah
t* = c 3
Gc d
1
a3 1
n A + 3 A +A
cl
cu
e sd
Fig. 3 Concrete box-girder bridge with corrugated steel

web sections.
(5)
where t * is the plate thickness calculated by converting

the steel truss member into a concrete web thickness
that is continuous in the longitudinal direction; Ec is
the elastic modulus of concrete; Gc is the shear
modulus of concrete; a is 1/2 of the horizontal distance between the connection joints of the steel truss
members; h is the height of the torsion resisting enclosed cross-section; d is the length of the steel truss;
ne is the ratio of the elastic modulus of steel and con-
(a) Side view
(b) Sectional view

Fig. 4 Calculated web plate thickness from the conversion.
crete ( Es / Ec ) ; Es is elastic modulus of the steel truss;

Asd is the cross-sectional area of the steel truss; and
Acu and Acl are the concrete area of the top and bottom connection joints of the HTB girder, respectively.
Equation 5 was derived for an enclosed cross-section in
which the torsional shear force is transported to the top
and bottom concrete decks as a shear flow traveling
through the truss members and connection joints. In this
study, it was assumed that the converted thickness t * is
dependent on Acu and Acl , due to the difference in
shear flow transfer mechanism of various joint systems.
Therefore, t * would replace the corrugated steel web
thickness tb used in Equation 2.
481
3.4 Torsion formula evaluations

To verify the effect of the three connection joints (EHT,
FHT, and GHT) on the torsional capacity of HTB girder,
the analytical formula was evaluated for the three different joints. The converted plate thicknesses of EHT,
FHT, and GHT calculated by the plate thickness conversion formula of Equation 5 are shown in Table 1. The
calculation was performed using MathCAD Version
14.0. As stated before, the centerline of the concrete
deck coincides with the centerline of the steel truss in
EHT, whereas they do not coincide in FHT and GHT.
Therefore, when 1/2 of the horizontal distance from the
concrete deck to the steel truss connection joint (e.g.,
a in Fig. 4(a)) is taken as 450 mm, the truss angle
becomes 62 in EHT and 64.2 in FHT and GHT. Hence,
the distance of the steel truss (e.g., d in Fig. 4(a))
becomes 962mm in EHT and 1,034mm in FHT and
GHT. The effective thickness of the concrete deck td
is 150mm in both FHT and GHT, connection systems
without a haunch. For EHT, a connection system with a
haunch, the haunch area is divided by the member width
to yield a value of 40 mm, which is then added to the
deck thickness to obtain an effective thickness of 190
mm. On the other hand, the concrete areas of the top
and bottom connection joints ( Acu and Acl , respectively), are 50,000 mm2 in EHT and 45,000 mm2 in FHT
and GHT. As a result, the converted thickness tb of the
steel truss calculated by Equation 5 is 13.0mm in EHT
and 11.5mm in FHT and GHT, showing a difference of
1.5mm.
The torsion calculated from Equations 1 to 4 and the
corresponding torsional loads are shown in Table 2. The
effective cross-sectional area A0 corresponding to the
area enclosed by the centerline of the shear flow is
339,000 mm2 in EHT and 356,400 mm2 in FHT and
GHT; this difference is due to the difference in the effective thickness described above. Because of the differences in the truss angle, the length and converted
thickness of the steel truss, and the existence of the
haunch, the calculated torsion is 1,361 kNm in EHT
and 1,305 kNm in FHT and GHT, showing a difference
of approximately 4.3%. The calculated ultimate load
considering the loading beam is 454 kN in EHT and 435
kN in FHT and GHT.
4. Torsion experiment of HTB girder

4.1 Details of torsion experiment
For this study, the torsion capacity of the HTB girders
with the three connection joints was verified by a torsion experiment as shown in Fig. 2 and 5. Tables 3 and
4 show the specifications and the material properties,
respectively, of the test specimens. The three test specimens were prepared to have a square cross-section with
a height and width of 1,000 mm and a length of 4,300
mm. The top and bottom concrete deck thickness was
150 mm, but a 100-mm thick concrete haunch was installed in EHT to provide sufficient concrete to fully
Table 1 Equivalent plate thickness.

Index
Truss angle
(degree)
(mm)
td
Acu
Acl
tb
(mm)
(mm)
(mm2)
(mm2)
(mm)
EHT
450
62.1
962
190
50,000
50,000
13.0
FHT
450
64.2
1,034
150
45,000
45,000
11.5
GHT
450
64.2
1,034
150
45,000
45,000
11.5
Tw (kNm)
T (kNm)
Pu (kN)
Table 2 Results of the torsion formula.

Index
w (MPa)
A0 (mm )
Aw (mm2)
Tn (kNm)
EHT
230.94
339,000
526,200
343.6
1,017
1,361
454
FHT
230.94
356,400
487,500
361.2
944.1
1,305
435
GHT
230.94
356,400
487,500
361.2
944.1
1,305
435
Table 3 Dimension of the specimens [unit : mm].

Index
EHT
FHT
GHT
Width
1,000
1,000
1,000
Height
1,000
1,000
1,000
Length
4,300
4,300
4,300
Slab thickness
150
150
150
Haunch height
100
-
Table 4 Material properties in the simulation [unit : MPa].

Index
Concrete
Steel Truss / plate
Rebar
Type
OPC
SS440
SD400
Allowable Stress
Strength
f ck = 40
f a =140
f y =240
f a =180
f y =400
482
(a) Front and right side view(EHT)
(b) Front and right side view(FHT)
(c) Front and right side view(GHT)

Fig. 5 Design details of the test specimens.
embed the hinge joint. To fix the specimen to a strong

floor and apply torsional load, both ends of the specimen were extended with 800-mm concrete sections to
attach the necessary apparatus. Therefore, the total
length of the specimen was 4,300 mm with the truss
web included in a 2,700-mm region in the middle.
In FHT and GHT, the steel truss joints were attached
to a longitudinal flange plate and gusset plate, respectively, and were integrated with the top and bottom concrete decks using the shear studs. The diameter and
thickness of the steel trusses were 114 mm and 6 mm,
respectively, for all specimens. In addition, the yield
strength of the EHT connection hinge plate, the FHT
flange plate, and the FHT gusset plate was 240 MPa,
equivalent to that of the steel truss. SS400 steel with
allowable strength of 140 MPa and thickness of 6 mm
was used for the truss members in all specimens. The
studs used for FHT and GHT had the same specifications as those used for general hybrid bridges with a
diameter of 19 mm and a height of 120 mm, and were
arranged at an interval of 150 mm. All of the longitudinal steel reinforcing bars were SD400 high-strength
steel with a diameter of 13 mm and yield strength of
400 MPa.
4.2 Torsion test setup
The manufacturing process of the test specimens is
shown in Fig. 6. The steel pipes and plates were assembled in the factory by fillet welding according to the
design configurations. The studs were attached using a
stud gun. After placing the assembled trusses in a steel
mold at a predetermined position, the steel rebars attached to strain gauges were added before concrete casting. After concrete casting, the specimens were cured
for 28 days to achieve a concrete compressive strength
of 40 MPa. When the specimen was ready for testing,
the right end of the specimen was tightly fixed onto the
strong floor using four anchor bolts as shown in Fig. 7.
A steel pipe was attached to the left end in a longitudinal direction for use as a rotational axis. In addition, a 3m loading beam attached to an actuator with 2,000 kN
capacity was installed at the left end for torsion loading
by applying a vertical load.
4.3 Data measurement positions and loading
The location of installed strain and displacement gauges
are shown in Fig. 8. A Rosette gauge was installed on
the diagonal truss to measure the strains occurring on
the diagonal truss. A concrete Rosette gauge was also
installed on the top surface of the concrete deck to
measure the crack strain and the principle strain direction on the concrete surface. In addition, six displacement gauges were installed at critical locations to accurately measure the displacement and torsional angle
(a) Plate and Steel pipe
483
(b) Studs
(c) Assembly
(d) Strain Gauge
(e) Concrete pour
(f) Test setup
Fig. 6 Manufacturing process of the test specimens.
Fig. 7 Torsion test setup.
from torsional loading. A displacement controlled load

was applied with a rate of 0.02 mm/sec. For initial setting of the specimen a load of 50 kN was first applied
before adding incremental loading of 50 kN.
5. Analysis of torsion experiment results

5.1 Deflection and torsional rotation
The torsional moment-displacement curves drawn using
the displacement measurements from LVDT 2 and
LVDT 3, which were installed at the rotational end of
the specimens, are shown in Fig. 9. In all three specimens, symmetrical displacement profiles and ultimate
failure due to a shear failure of the top deck were observed. The torsional rigidity did not change until the
moment exceeded 900 kN m; at this point the displacement of FHT and GHT significantly increased and
the rigidity decreased, whereas those of EHT only
slightly increased and decreased, respectively. The torsional moment-rotation curves drawn using the relative
displacement of LVDT 2 and LVDT 3 are shown in Fig.
10. In all three specimens, a linearly increasing curve
484
Fig. 9 Torsional moment-displacement relations.

(a) Gauge location
Fig. 10 Moment-torsional rotation angle relations.
(b) LVDT location

Fig. 8 Strain and displacement gauge locations.
was observed up to approximately 700 kNm at which

point the torsional rotation of FHT and GHT drastically
increased, whereas that of EHT increased at a constant
rate until decreasing at 900 kNm.
In Fig. 10, , , and curves are torsional rotation calculated by assuming the specimen to be an elastic body. curve shows the rotation calculated in EHT,
which behaves similarly to the rotation obtained from
the test up to 900 kNm. and curves are the rotations calculated in FHT and GHT, respectively, where a
single curve represents both FHT and GHT since they
both have same cross-section. The measured rotation
was smaller than the calculated rotation up to approximately 700 kN m. However, beyond this point the
measured rotation increased drastically, exceeding the
calculated rotation at a load of approximately 900 kNm.
The calculated and measured torsional rotation of the
specimens for moment steps of 300, 600, 900, 1,050,
1,200, and 1,350 kNm are shown in Table 5. The calculated rotation of EHT is smaller than that of FHT and
GHT, because the torsional rigidity of EHT is greater
than that of FHT and GHT. The measured rotations of
the three specimens at 300 and 600kNm were almost
the same, but beyond 600 kNm the measured rotation
of FHT and GHT was greater than that of EHT. In
summary, the elastic limit of EHT was approximately
600 kN m and that of FHT and GHT was approximately 750 kNm, indicating that the torsional rigidity
of EHT was greater than that of FHT and GHT. As
shown in Table 5, the torsional rotations were not significantly different, but the torsional rigidities and failure behaviors were different depending on the connection system. FHT and GHT showed almost the same
torsional behavior, indicating that continuity of the longitudinal flange plate did not have a great effect on the
torsional behavior.
-3
Table 5 Torsional lotation results [unit : 10 radian].

Applied Moment
(kN)
300
600
900
1,050
1,200
1,350
Calculated Torsional Lotation
Measured Torsional Lotation
EHT
1.24
2.48
3.72
4.34
4.96
5.58
EHT
1.15
2.18
3.74
4.82
5.81
6.90
FHT
1.52
3.05
4.57
5.33
6.09
6.85
GHT
1.52
3.05
4.57
5.33
6.09
6.85
FHT
1.17
2.17
5.16
8.97
-
GHT
1.57
2.60
5.42
8.00
-
/
EHT FHT GHT
0.9 0.8
1.0
0.9 0.7
0.9
1.0 1.1
1.2
1.1 1.7
1.5
1.2
1.2
-
485
5.2 Stress acting on steel truss web

Strains of the trusses located nearest to the rotational
axis (L_T1 and L_T2) among the six pairs of trusses
installed on both sides of the specimens are shown in
Fig. 11. As shown in the figure, strains in the diagonal
trusses for FHT and GHT were almost the same, but the
strain of the trusses of EHT was approximately onethird of that of FHT and GHT. We can postulate that the
truss strain of EHT was small, because the torsional
load was resisted mainly by the concrete decks in EHT,
whereas in FHT and GHT the stress delivered to the
concrete decks was directly transferred to the truss
through the flange and gusset plates, respectively.
The measured strains from the six pairs of trusses
were converted to stresses and are shown in Table 6 to 8.
The truss stress of EHT showed a maximum stress of
91.8 MPa from the maximum torsional moment of
1,398 kNm as shown in Table 6; this is below the allowable stress limit of the SS400 steel of 140 MPa and
within the linear elasticity range. On the other hand, the
truss stresses of FHT and GHT showed that the torsional
stresses exceeded the allowable stress limit of the SS400
steel of 140 MPa at loading of 900 kNm as shown in
Tables 7 and 8, respectively. In addition, when the
maximum torsional moments of FHT and GHT were
Fig. 11 Torsional moment-strain relations.
1,074 kNm and 1,092 kNm, respectively, some of the

web trusses yielded at torsional stresses of -270 MPa
and -286 MPa, respectively, when the yield strength of
the SS400 steel of 240 MPa was exceeded.
5.3 Crack patterns
The crack patterns of the top concrete deck from the
torsional load are shown in Fig. 12. Vertical and horizontal lines are drawn on the concrete surface at an interval of 100 mm as reference axes to clearly indicate
Table 6 Axial stress distribution of EHT.

Applied Moment
(kNm)
300
600
900
1,050
1,200
1,350
1,398
L_T1
R_T1
-17.1
-1.9
-37.0
-21.8
-45.5
-24.9
-45.9
-26.3
-48.7
-28.8
-51.2
-30.3
-51.9
-30.7
L_T2
R_T2
27.7
27.4
46.4
42.9
59.3
54.7
62.6
55.1
64.6
54.1
66.7
53.7
67.5
53.7
Truss Axial Stress (MPa)

L_T3
L_T4
R_T3
R_T4
-15.7
17.6
-15.8
30.0
-45.3
42.1
-32.9
40.2
-59.3
53.5
-55.1
56.6
-62.2
55.5
-61.6
60.7
-63.3
59.0
-66.9
60.9
-64.8
60.7
-70.5
63.0
-64.6
60.9
-72.1
63.6
L_T5
R_T5
-21.8
-16.6
-54.0
-32.9
-70.9
-51.8
-74.7
-55.1
-74.9
-56.0
-78.3
-56.0
-78.9
-56.2
L_T6
R_T6
20.1
40.2
44.7
50.4
70.0
60.7
77.7
63.8
83.0
63.4
89.3
65.1
91.8
65.3
Table 7 Axial stress distribution of FHT.

Applied Moment
(kNm)
300
600
900
1,050
1,074
L_T1
R_T1
-51.6
-37.7
-99.7
-74.2
-149.4
-135.7
-171.9
-202.1
-175.5
-222.8
L_T2
R_T2
53.5
40.4
103.7
81.0
146.9
122.9
161.5
139.3
164.2
139.3

L_T3
L_T4
R_T3
R_T4
-60.9
46.3
-47.3
36.1
-118.3
89.5
-93.1
76.5
-170.0
124.9
-165.4
119.4
-191.7
121.9
-230.9
138.4
-194.5
116.8
-270.0
141.8
L_T5
R_T5
-57.6
-44.6
-113.2
-88.1
-162.5
-165.2
-168.0
-230.3
-178.6
-268.2
L_T6
R_T6
49.5
36.3
98.0
78.3
152.6
139.7
186.9
180.9
204.2
193.8
486
Table 8 Axial stress distribution of GHT,

Applied Moment
(kNm)
300
600
900
1,050
1,092

L_T1
R_T1
-56.7
-37.1
-103.3
-70.0
-170.8
-123.3
-208.0
-154.2
-223.1
-167.9
L_T2
R_T2
69.8
60.9
125.1
110.0
163.8
156.3
184.3
181.3
185.2
184.5
L_T3
R_T3
-72.6
-61.6
-134.4
-115.9
-212.5
-204.3
-242.1
-243.5
-242.7
-258.6
L_T4
R_T4
73.6
55.3
134.4
103.0
201.3
154.8
230.0
180.3
236.2
182.4
L_T5
R_T5
-81.5
-60.7
-147.1
-113.8
-251.9
-215.3
-300.9
-265.3
-314.5
-286.0
L_T6
R_T6
58.2
42.9
101.2
80.0
151.5
126.0
176.3
157.9
179.5
165.4
(a) EHT
(b) FHT
(c) GHT
Fig. 12 Crack patterns.
the crack pattern. As shown in Fig. 12, the cracks propagated toward the top right corner at approximately 45
in all three specimens, representing a typical torsional
shear failure mode and crack pattern. In FHT and GHT
specimens, cracks were formed at approximately 60 kN
and then rapidly propagated at a load of 250 kN. However, in EHT the cracks were formed at approximately
90 kN and then propagated in a stable manner until the
maximum load was reached.
6. HTB girder torsion simulation

A 3-D nonlinear FE simulation was performed for the
torsional experiment to validate the analytical formula
derived using the space truss theory and converted plate
thickness. A commercial nonlinear FE analysis software

Midas FEA was used for the simulation. Nonlinear constitutive models were used in the simulation. (Midas
2008)
6.1 Concrete and steel reinforcing bar model
To properly represent the nonlinear constitutive behavior of steel, an appropriate plastic model is required. In
this study, the von Mises plastic model was used. To
implement the isotropic stress effect in the simulation, a
proper compressive stress-strain relation must be used.
We used the Thorenfeldt hardening curve with softening
characteristic applicable to a compression region, as
shown in Fig. 13 and Equation 6: (Thorenfeldt et al.
1987)
487
i
n
f = fp
p
i
n 1 +
p
where n = 0.80 +
nk
(6)
if 0 > i > p
1
f cc
f cc
, k=
17
0.67 + 62 if i p
where p is strain at peak stress (negative value) and

f p is peak stress (positive value).
For the tensile model, a brittle model with a cap tensile
strength was used as shown in Fig. 14. The fracture energy as a function of peak strain is shown in Equation 7:
Gf =
1
ft nnpeak h
2
Fig. 13 Thorenfeldt compression curve.
(7)
where G f is fracture energy; nnpeak is the peak strain;

h is crack band width; ft is tensile strength.
6.2 Torsion simulation details
The specimen and test details of the simulation were as
same as those for the torsion experiment. Eight-node
and six-node cubic elements were used for the concrete
and web truss, respectively, as shown in Fig. 15. The
steel rebar was modeled using a bar element as shown in
Fig. 16. The material properties obtained from the torsion test were used in the simulation. The elastic
modulus of concrete calculated from a prediction equation was used. The material properties used in the simulation are provided in Table 9. The design strength of
the concrete was 40 MPa. SS400 steel with allowable
and yield strength of 140 and 240 MPa, respectively,
was used for the steel truss and plates. SD400 steel rebar with a diameter of 13 mm and yield strength of 240
MPa was used for the longitudinal and lateral rebar.
6.3 Load and boundary condition details
The load and boundary conditions used in the simulation are shown in Fig. 17. A distributed load of equal
magnitude along the length of the loading grip was applied to the four edges around the rotational axis to apply torsional load. A load was applied to the specimen
with 100-kN increments until the specimen failed. The
top and bottom surfaces of the right end were fixed to
prevent displacement or rotation.
Fig. 14 Brittle tension curve.
8 node element
6 node element
Fig. 15 Solid element types.
(a) Bar model
(b) Bar element in solid element
Fig. 16 Bar element modeling.
Table 9 Material properties of the test specimens.

Index
Material
Concrete
OPC
Steel Truss / Plate

SS400
Rebar
SD400
Strength [MPa]
f ck = 40
f y =240
f y =400
Elastic Modulus [MPa]

Weight Density [kN/m3]
Poisson's ratio
31618
24.5
0.18
2.0105
76.9
0.26
2.0105
76.9
0.3
488
the maximum load was 2,800 and 2,600 kN for EHT

and FHT/GHT, respectively, whereas the experimental
results for the maximum load were 466, 358, and 364
kN for EHT, FHT and GHT, respectively. Due to the
difference in the load modeling in the experiment and
simulation, it is necessary to compare load results with
respect to the applied torsion according to the load application setup. If the vertical load from the experiment
is converted to the 4 edge loads of the simulation, the
maximum load becomes 467.18 and 433.17 kN for EHT
and FHT/GHT, respectively. The maximum load of
EHT from the simulation would be approximately 7.7%
larger than that of FHT/GHT.
In the simulation, all three specimens showed linear
elastic torsion behavior until a load of 250 kN. However,
the torsional rotation change beyond the load of 250 kN
was much more rapid in FHT/GHT than in EHT, showing that EHT is better at resisting torsional load. The
torsional behaviors of the experimental and simulation
results are compared in Fig. 18. The calculation results
of the analytical formula based on space truss theory
and converted plate thickness are given in Table 10. The
analytical formula calculation of torsional load and
moment were 453.58 kN and 1,361 kNm respectively
for EHT, and 435.12 kN and 1,305 kNm for FHT/GHT.
As shown in Table 10, the torsional moment and the
maximum load results of / and /, respectively, obtained from the analytical formula and the
simulation showed approximately 98% similarity. Both
the experimental and simulation results for EHT were
similar to the formula results. However, the experimental results of FHT/GHT showed approximately 80%
similarity to the formula and simulation results. This
difference in the similarity is due to differences in the
calculation of an effective cross-sectional area used to
resist torsion in the formula and simulation compared to
the experiment. These result comparisons showed that it
may be possible to apply the analytical formula to an
actual HTB girder analysis, but a sufficient safety factor
of 20% or higher should be implemented if the formula
is to be used for HTB girder design.
Fig. 17 Boundary conditions.
Fig. 18 Torsional moment-displacement relations.
7. Result analysis
7.1 Torsional load and behavior
In the experiment, torsional load was applied to the
specimen by eccentrically applying a vertical load using
a beam attached to the top surface of the specimen on
the loading end. In addition, a steel pipe was embedded
at the center of the specimen on the left end to measure
torsional rotation. In contrast, in the simulation, the
loads were directly applied to the 4 edges on the loading
end of the specimen. The simulation results showed that
Table 10 Torsional moment and maximum load results.

Index
Torsional
Moment
Load
Displacement
EHT
FHT
GHT
Calculated Moment
1,361kNm
1,305kNm
1,305kNm
Measured Moment
1,398kNm
1,074kNm
1,092kNm
Analyzed Moment
1,400kNm
1,300kNm
1,300kNm
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.82
0.82
Calculated Ultimate Load
453.58kN
435.12kN
435.12kN
Measured Max. Load
466kN
358kN
364kN
Analyzed Max. Load
467.18kN
433.17kN
433.17kN
Measured Max. Displacement
17.39mm
29.74mm
18.8mm
Analyzed Max. Displacement
16.95mm
24.99mm
25.73mm
(a) EHT
489
(b) FHT
(c) GHT
Fig. 19 von Mises stresses of the trusses of the specimens.
7.2 von Mises stresses

The von Mises stresses of the trusses for the specimens
are compared in Fig. 19. The stress on EHT exceeded
the allowable stress of the SS400 steel of 140 MPa at
the moment of 800 kNm, and reached the maximum
stress of 252.8 MPa at the moment of 1,401 kNm. The
stress on FHT exceeded the allowable stress of the
SS400 steel at 800 kNm and reached the maximum
stress at 264.3 MPa at the moment of 1,301 kNm. The
stress on GHT exceeded the allowable stress of the
SS400 steel at 600 kNm and reached the maximum
stress of 298.9 MPa at the moment of 1,301 kNm. The
stresses of FHT and GHT were similar to the experimental results. However, in the EHT experiment, the
stress was mainly resisted by the deck because of the
existence of the haunch. Since the boundary conditions
of the simulation assumed that the haunch and truss are
perfectly fixed, the stress increased because of efficient
stress transfer from the truss to the haunch. When the
stresses in all three experimental models exceeded the
allowable stress of the SS400 steel, the torsional stress
of EHT was larger than that of FHT and GHT at the
maximum load. The load was mainly resisted by the
concrete deck in EHT, whereas the continuous longitudinal flange plate in FHT distributed the stress in the
deck to the web trusses. In contrast, in GHT the load
delivered to the deck was directly transferred to the
truss through a discontinuous gusset plate. The stress
profiles obtained from the FE simulation results of the

three specimens are shown in Fig. 20.
7.3 Crack patterns
The crack patterns obtained from the simulation are
shown in Fig. 21 to 23. All three specimens showed a
typical torsional shear failure crack pattern. In EHT, the
initial crack was generated at a load of 116 kN at a location between the bottom deck haunch and the embedded
connection joint, and then propagated toward the top
surface of the deck with an inclined angle of 45 to the
top right corner at a load of approximately 200 kN.
More cracks were generated as the torsional load increased. In FHT and GHT, a crack was generated and
propagated in a similar manner as in EHT. The initial
crack appeared around the joint region at a load of 83
kN and then propagated toward the top surface of the
deck at approximately 150 kN; however, this was followed by drastic crack propagation at a load of 183 kN
unlike the gradual crack propagation until the maximum
load was reached in EHT. In all three test specimens the
cracks were concentrated at the location between the
connection system and the deck, showing an effective
resistance to the torsional load. The crack pattern and
crack propagation stability showed that EHT has advantages over FHT and GHT in terms of serviceability issues.
(a) EHT
(b) FHT
(c) GHT
Fig. 20 von Mises stresses.
490
(a) 700kN
(b) 1,200kN
(c) 2,800kN
Fig. 21 Crack patterns of EHT.
491
(a) 600kN
(b) 1,200kN
(c) 2,600kN
Fig. 22 Crack patterns of FHT.
492
(a) 600kN
(b) 1,100kN
(c) 2,600kN
Fig. 23 Crack patterns of GHT.
493
494
Table 13 Cracking loads [unit : kN].

Index
Calculated Cracking Load
Measured Cracking Load
Analyzed Cracking Load
EHT
FHT
GHT
108
124
124
79
52
56
116.7
83.3
83.3
In Table 13, the cracking torsion formula calculation

of Equation 8 is compared to the simulation and experimental results (KCI 2007)
Tcr =
1
3
f ck
Acp2
pco
(8)
where Acp denotes a cross-sectional area enclosed by

the shear flow of the torsional load and pco is a
circumferential length of the shear flow. In the experiment, crack load was calculated from strains obtained
from the Rosette gauge installed on the concrete surface.
In EHT, experimental and calculated cracking loads
were the same and equal to approximately 116 kN.
However, in FHT and GHT, the experimental cracking
load was approximately 67% of the calculated cracking
load, indicating that FHT and GHT are more vulnerable
to cracking and serviceability problems than EHT. In
addition, the cracking load results showed that the HTB
girder with open web sections must be carefully studied
before its implementation in design. Comparison of the
simulation and formula results showed that EHT with a
haunch section resisted torsional loading better than
FHT/GHT without a haunch section. Therefore, based
on the comparison study we concluded that the hinge
embedded connection system of EHT is a more optimal
joint selection than FHT and GHT with respect to torsional rigidity and usability.
8. Conclusions
In summary, the HTB torsion strength formula derived
from the space truss theory and corrugated steel plate
web thickness conversion showed good agreement with
the experimental and simulation results. Also, evaluation of experimental and simulation verification of the
three different joint systems of EHT, FHT and GHT
showed that the haunch section of EHT conferred superior torsion resisting capacity compared to FHT/GHT
without a haunch section.
Comparison of the formula and simulation results
showed 99% similarity for all three specimens as shown
in Table 10. Additionally, comparison of the formula
and experimental results of EHT and FHT/GHT showed
a similarity of 97% and 80%, respectively. Based on
these study results, further detailed parametric studies of
the torsion formula are required for design usage.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the
Korea government (MSIP) (No.2011-0030040). This
/ /
0.73
0.42
0.42
1.08
0.67
0.67
work was also partially supported by R&D Policy Infrastructure Technology Commercialization Project by the
Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs of the
Korea government. The authors wish to express their
gratitude for this financial support. The opinions, findings, and conclusions of the paper are the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
References
Aoki, K., Takatoku, Y., Notoya, H., Uehira, Y., Kato, T.
and Yamaguchi, T., (2005). Design and construction
of Sarutagawa bridge and Tomoegawa bridge.
Bridge and Foundation, 39(5), 2-11. (in Japanese)
Choi, J. H., Jung, K. H., Ha, J. H. and Kim, J. J. H.,
(2011). A study on the torsional stiffness of the
hybrid truss bridge. Proceedings Journal of the
Korea Concrete Institute, 23(1), 165-166.
Collins, M. P. and Mitchell, D., (1980). Shear and
torsion design of prestressed and non-prestressed
concrete beams. Journal of the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 25(5), 32-100.
Fujiwara, H., Shoji, A., Sakata, H., Ushiroshoji, S.,
Kabaki, Y. and Noro, T., (2005). Design and
construction of Shitsumi Ohashi bridge. Bridge and
Foundation, 39(11), 2-11. (in Japanese)
JPCEA (Japan Prestressed Concrete Engineering
Association), (2005). Design and construction
standards for composite bridges. Gihodo Shuppan
Co. Ltd. (in Japanese).
Jung, K. H., Kim, K. S., Chung, C. H. and Shim, C. S.
(2007a). An experimental study on the horizontal
shear strength of composite truss joint according to
the structural connection system. Civil Expo 2007,
Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Daegu, 130-133.
Jung, K. H., Kim, K. S. and Chung, W. S., (2007b).
Flexural behavior of prestressed concrete hybrid
girder with steel webs. In: Proceedings of 4th
International Conference on The Conceptual Approach to Structural Design, Venice, Italy, 297-305.
Jung, K., Yi, J. and Kim, J. J. (2010a). Structural safety
of the newly developed connection system of the
prestressed concrete hybrid girder with truss web
section. In: Proceedings of 8th Short and Medium
Bridge Conference, CSCE, Niagara Falls, Canada,
210(1-8).
Jung, K., Yi, J. and Kim, J. J., (2010b). Structural
safety and serviceability evaluations of prestressed
concrete hybrid bridge girders with corrugated or
steel truss web members. Engineering Structures,
32(12), 3866-3878.
Jung, K. H., Lee, S. H., Choi, J. H., Choi, J. H. and Kim,
J. J. H., (2011a). Study on the torsional behavior of

the hybrid truss bridges according to the connection
systems. Proceedings of the Korea Concrete Institute, 23(2), 79-80.
Jung, K. H., Yi, J. W., Lee, S. H. and Kim, J. J. H.,
(2011b). Fatigue capacity evaluation of hinge type
connection system for a hybrid truss bridge. Journal
of the Korea Concrete Institute, 23(3), 303-310.
Jung, K. H., Kim, J. J. H., Yi, J. W. and Lee, S. H.,
(2013a). Development and evaluation of new connection systems for hybrid truss bridges. Journal of
Advanced Concrete Technology, 11(1), 61-79.
Jung, K. H., Yi, J. W., Lee, S. H., Choi, J. H. and Kim, J.
J. H., (2013b). Torsional behavior of hybrid truss
bridge according to connection systems. Journal of
the Korea Concrete Institute, 25(1), 63-72.
KCI (Korea Concrete Institute), (2007). Structural
concrete design code. Korea.
Lampert, P. and Thrlimann, B., (1968). Torsion tests
of reinforced concrete Beams (Torsionversuche an
Stahlbetonba lken). Report No. 6506-2, 101.
Midas Information Technology Co., Ltd., (2008).
Midas User's Manual, Analysis & Algorithm.
Korea.
Minami, H., Yamamura, M., Taira, Y. and Furuichi, K.,
(2002). Design of the Kinokawa viaduct composite
truss bridge. In: Proceedings of the 1st JSCE
Congress, Composite Structures, Osaka, Japan, 371380.
Miwa, H., Nagasawa, T., Yoda, T., Suzuki, T. and
Kumagai, Y., (1998). Experimental study on the
mechanical behavior of panel Joints in PC hybrid
495
truss bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering,

JSCE, 44A, 1475-1484.
Mo, Y. L., Jeng, C. H. and Chang, Y. S., (2000).
Torsional behavior of prestressed concrete boxgirder bridges with corrugated steel webs. ACI
Structural Journal, 97(6), 849-859.
Mo, Y. L. and Fan, Y. L. (2006), Torsional design of
hybrid concrete box girders. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, 11(3), 329-339.
Rausch, E., (1929). Design of reinforced concrete in
torsion (Berechnung des Eisen betons gegen
Verdrehung). PhD thesis, Technische Hochschule,
Berlin, 53.
Shim, C. S., Park, J. S. and Kim, K. S., (2007a). An
experimental study on joint structures ofcomposite
truss bridges. Journal of Korean Society of Steel
Construction, KSSC, 19(3), 303-312.
Shim, C. S., Park, J. S., Chung, C. H. and Kim, K. S.,
(2007b). Design and experiments on connection of
composite truss bridges. In: Proceedings of 6th
International Conference Steel and Aluminium Structures, Oxford, 963-970.
Tsujimura, T., Shoji, A., Noro, T. and Muroi, S., (2002).
Experimental study on a joint in prestressed concrete
bridge with steel truss web. In: Proceedings of the
1st fib Congress, Osaka, Japan, Composite Structures,
347-352.
Thorenfeldt, E., Tomaszewicz, A. and Jenson, J. J.,
(1987). Mechanical properties of high-strength
concrete and applications in design. In: Proc. Symp.
Utilization of High-Strength Concrete, Tapir.

Prestressed Concrete Briges Christian Menn

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Prestressed Concrete Briges Christian Menn

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Analytical and Experimental Studies on Torsion Behavior of

Hybrid Truss Bridge Girder with Various Connection Joints

Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, volume 12 ( 2014 ), pp. 478-495

Inelastic Performance of High-Strength Concrete Bridge Columns under Earthquake

Kwang-Hoe Jung , Jang-Ho Jay Kim, Jong-Wo Yi , Sang-Hyu Lee

Analytical and Experimental Studies on Torsional Behavior of Hybrid

Doctoral Student, School of Civil and Environmental

2002; Aoki et al. 2005; Fujiwara et al. 2005)

Fig. 1 Hybrid Truss Brige (HTB).

(Jung et al. 2007a, b, 2010a, b, 2011a, b, 2013a; Choi et

2. Load transfer mechanisms at the

(a) EHT: Embedded hinge type Hybrid Truss

(b) FHT: Flange plate type Hybrid Truss

(c) GHT: Gusset plate type Hybrid Truss

3. Derivation of analytical torsion formula

truss theory by making an assumption that the centerline

flange should be half of the entire area. (Mo et al. 2000,

where tb is the thickness of the corrugated web steel

where Tw is the torsion acting on the web steel plate;

3.3 Web plate thickness conversion

Fig. 3 Concrete box-girder bridge with corrugated steel

where t * is the plate thickness calculated by converting

(a) Side view

(b) Sectional view

crete ( Es / Ec ) ; Es is elastic modulus of the steel truss;

3.4 Torsion formula evaluations

4. Torsion experiment of HTB girder

Table 1 Equivalent plate thickness.

Table 2 Results of the torsion formula.

Table 3 Dimension of the specimens [unit : mm].

Table 4 Material properties in the simulation [unit : MPa].

Steel Truss / plate

(a) Front and right side view(EHT)

(b) Front and right side view(FHT)

(c) Front and right side view(GHT)

embed the hinge joint. To fix the specimen to a strong

(a) Plate and Steel pipe

(d) Strain Gauge

(e) Concrete pour

(f) Test setup

Fig. 6 Manufacturing process of the test specimens.

Fig. 7 Torsion test setup.

from torsional loading. A displacement controlled load

5. Analysis of torsion experiment results

Fig. 9 Torsional moment-displacement relations.

Fig. 10 Moment-torsional rotation angle relations.

(b) LVDT location

was observed up to approximately 700 kNm at which

Table 5 Torsional lotation results [unit : 10 radian].

Calculated Torsional Lotation

Measured Torsional Lotation

5.2 Stress acting on steel truss web

Fig. 11 Torsional moment-strain relations.

1,074 kNm and 1,092 kNm, respectively, some of the

Table 6 Axial stress distribution of EHT.

Truss Axial Stress (MPa)

Table 7 Axial stress distribution of FHT.

Truss Axial Stress (MPa)

Table 8 Axial stress distribution of GHT,

Truss Axial Stress (MPa)

6. HTB girder torsion simulation

thickness. A commercial nonlinear FE analysis software

where p is strain at peak stress (negative value) and