Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Load distribution for composite steelconcrete horizontally curved box


girder bridge
S.J. Fatemi , M.S. Mohamed Ali, A.H. Sheikh
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 31 May 2015
Received in revised form 14 August 2015
Accepted 28 August 2015
Available online 15 September 2015
Keywords:
Steelconcrete composite deck slabs
Load distribution factors
Curved bridges
Brace spacing
Finite element analysis

a b s t r a c t
A comprehensive numerical investigation is carried out to assess the load distribution mechanism of horizontally
curved steelconcrete composite box girder bridges when subjected to loading recommended by Australian
Bridge Design Code and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO). In this
investigation, the effect of various parameters such as curvature ratio, span length, number of loading lanes
and number of cells is considered. In addition, a convergence study is carried out to identify the appropriate
bracing system so as to retain the maximum torsional rigidity of these structures. The numerical model is rst
validated with actual test results so that they can be adopted for an extensive parametric study with good
condence. The results obtained from the parametric study are used to determine load distribution factors for
moment and shear of horizontally curved box girder bridges. It is observed that these load distribution factors
according to AASHTO loads are considerably higher than those obtained from the loading recommended by
Australian Bridge Design Code. Hence, it is not reasonable to use load distribution factor based on AASHTO
loading guidelines for the design of these curved bridges subjected to Australian Bridge Design loading.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Horizontally curved steelconcrete composite box girders are
widely used in construction of highway bridges. This type of structural
system consists of a concrete deck connected with a steel box section
beam that exhibits a high torsional rigidity which is important in
resisting torsional effects produced by the curvature of the structure.
They are commonly used in highly populated intersections and elevated
highways in urban areas where severe spatial restrictions compromise
the motorway alignment, requiring a curved geometry. An accurate
analysis of these complex structures is extremely challenging. In order
to simplify the analysis, some researchers try to idealize the complex
bridge deck structures into a simple structural system such as grillage,
equivalent orthotropic plate and some other form [13] but the solution
accuracy is affected with these simplications which may not be acceptable for a reliable design of these structures. A satisfactory result can be
obtained by using a detailed nite element modelling [410] of these
curved structures but this is not feasible in a design ofce, specically,
for a preliminary design of these structures.
Usually, a designer treats such a complex bridge deck structure as
a single beam and calculates the stress resultants such as bending
moment, shear force and torsion which act on the entire cross section
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sfatemi@civeng.adelaide.edu.au (S.J. Fatemi),
ali.mohamed@adelaide.edu.au (M.S. Mohamed Ali), sheikh@adelaide.edu.au
(A.H. Sheikh).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.08.042
0143-974X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

of the bridge decks. This may be a simple task for a simply supported
straight beam but this is not so for curved beams as they are always
found to be statically indeterminate. Though some researchers [9,11,
12] try to avoid this problem by treating curved beams as equivalent
straight beams with altered properties to account for the member
curvature. These simplied assumptions can compromise the accuracy
of the results signicantly which may not be desirable. Moreover, the
loading conguration recommended by a bridge design code consists
of multiple loads acting on the structures. In this situation, the use of
inuence line diagrams for stress resultants of these structures are
useful to estimate the maximum value of those stress resultants at the
critical sections of the bridge deck. This problem was addressed by the
authors in previous research [13]. A closed form analytical solution
has been developed [13] in order to determine the inuence line
diagrams for statically indeterminate curved beams.
In the next step, designers need to know the stresses or stress
resultants of the different components or girders so as to design these
individual components following the usual design techniques. The
load distribution factors are typically used to calculate the stress resultants of the individual components from the total shear force, bending
moment and torsion acting on the entire bridge cross section. The availability of load distribution factors can denitely make the analysis and
design of these complex structural systems easy, but the determination
of these distribution factors is quite challenging. A detailed nite
element analysis of these curved bridge deck structures can be used
for this purpose. Such attempts are made by some researchers [410]
who have used the loading conguration recommended by AASHTO

20

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

[14]. In their investigations, the effect of different parameters such as


span length, curvature ratio, cross-frame spacing and number of loading
lanes on load distribution factors of horizontally curved bridges has
been studied. It has been found that the curvature ratio and span length
are the most inuential parameters that affected these distribution
factors.
AASHTO [14] has also given load distribution factors for these curved
bridge structures. However, these distribution factors are found to be
conservative according to some researchers [8,9,1517] who veried
this with physical tests, analytical and numerical results. Moreover,
the loading conguration (number of loads, their values and placements) recommended by any other codes such as Australian Bridge
Design Code, AS 5100.2-2004 [18] is quite different from that of
AASHTO. Thus, the load distribution factor according to AASHTO loading
conguration cannot simply be used for designing a bridge in other
countries such as Australia. Hence, there is a need for determination of
load distribution factors for the Australian bridge loading (AS 5100.22004).
In this study, load distribution factors of horizontally curved steel
concrete composite box girder bridges are determined based on the
Australian bridge loading [18]. First of all, a detailed nite element
analysis is carried out on a large number of curved bridge decks. All
the bridge components are modelled as shell elements except the top
anges (narrow strips of steel plates used to connect the concrete slab
with the steel web plates) which is modelled as a beam element. Initially, the maximum spacing of the cross bracing is determined which will
not allow any local deformation and retain the maximum torsional
rigidity of the curved box girder deck slab systems. The numerical
results obtained from the nite element analysis are validated with
the experimental results [4] to assess the performance of the nite
element model. After getting the condence on the reliability of the
nite element modelling technique, an extensive parametric study is
performed on 180 different curved bridge models by varying different
parameters such as curvature ratio, span length, number of cells and
number of loading lanes using Australian bridge loading conguration.
From these analyses, the maximum stresses or stress resultants at
the individual components or girders are obtained. On the other hand,
the closed form analytical solution for the inuence line diagram of
curved beams which has been developed by the authors [13] is used
to calculate the stress resultant acting over the entire bridge deck
section due to the same loading conguration. The stress resultants
obtained from the nite element analysis for the individual girders
and the total stress resultant obtained from the analytical solution are
used to calculate the load distribution factors as the ratio between them.
Based on the huge amount of data generated from these analyses, a
multivariate regression analysis is carried out to develop empirical
expressions to determine load distribution factors. A computer code is
also developed in MATLAB [19] to implement the regression analysis.
These expressions will be conveniently used by designers for the
preliminary design of individual bridge girders. The same modelling
technique is also used to determine the load distribution factors of
straight steelconcrete composite box girder bridge decks. Finally, the
load distribution mechanism of horizontally curved bridges is compared
with those obtained for straight box girder deck slabs. Those bridge
decks are subjected to two different bridge design load congurations
such as AASHTO and AS 5100.2-2004. It is shown that there is a signicant difference between the obtained load distribution factors for
curved and straight bridge decks.

Fig. 1. Simply supported horizontally curved beam.

the analytical model is not presented here as it has been reported in


[13]. In this section, only the nal equations which are used to calculate
the total shear force (V), bending moment (M) and torsion (T) at any
critical section within a curved beam (Fig. 1) are presented below.
V V 1 P h i

M V 1 R sin T 1 sinPR sin h i

T T 1 cosV 1 R1 cos P RR cos h i

where V1 and V2 are the vertical support reactions at A and B, respectively. T1 and T2 are the torsions at the supports A and B, respectively. R is the
radius of the curvature of the beam and the angle (0 ) is
measured from support A (Fig. 1). The moving load (P) acting vertically
downward on the beam is located at = . In Eqs. 13, equals to
one if , or equals to zero if b ; and the support reactions
(V1, V2, T1 and T2) are expressed as follows:
V 1 PV 2
V2

T 2 sin PR sin
R sin

T 1 V 2 R1 cos T 2 cos PR1 cos

4
5
6

2. Analytical solutions for horizontally curved beams


For the analysis of the statically indeterminate horizontally curved
beam, the closed form analytical solution has recently been developed
by the authors [13] which has been used to generate the inuence line
diagrams to predict the critical loading condition for the idealized
horizontally curved beam subjected to moving loads (P). The detail of

Fig. 2. Variation of mid-span deection with respect to the element sizes for different
girders.

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928
Table 1
Analysis of mid-span deection for 60 m horizontally curved box girder bridge.

Table 2
Comparison of reaction distribution under concentrated load between experimental and
nite element results.

Brace
spacing

Mid-span deection

(m)

W1
(m)

1
(%)

W2
(m)

2
(%)

W3
(m)

3
(%)

W4
(m)

4
(%)

4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.6
7.5
8.5
10

0.209
0.209
0.210
0.211
0.212
0.214
0.215
0.218
0.233

0.00
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.93
0.47
1.38
6.44

0.239
0.239
0.240
0.241
0.242
0.243
0.245
0.247
0.264

0.00
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.82
0.81
6.44

0.270
0.270
0.271
0.271
0.273
0.274
0.276
0.278
0.295

0.00
0.37
0.00
0.73
0.36
0.72
0.72
5.76

0.302
0.302
0.302
0.304
0.306
0.307
0.309
0.310
0.329

0.00
0.00
0.66
0.65
0.33
0.65
0.32
5.78

T2

T
f tt

where
T



R2
cos
sin
sin2 

sin cos
sin
sin
GJ
2
R
sin
sin
sin cos sin cos 

sin
GJ

cos
sin

sin2 sin cos 


sin
sin

R
:
GJ

and
f tt

21

It should be noted that, the inuence line for shear force has its
maximum value at the two ends (supports) of the beam, while the
maximum value of the inuence line for the bending moment will
occur at the middle of the beam [13].
3. Numerical modelling of curved bridge decks
The numerical simulation of the horizontally curved box girder
bridge systems is conducted by using a commercially available nite
element software (ABAQUS) [20]. In the process of modeling of the
box girder bridges, some assumptions are made to make the numerical
model a reasonable representation of the actual bridge for the present

Models

Location W1
(kN)

Location W2
(kN)

Location W3
(kN)

Location W4
(kN)

Experimental test
Kennedy's model
Current model

6.11
7.38
7.59

6.35
6.50
6.40

12.55
11.83
11.88

22.20
22.64
22.86

purpose. These assumptions are: 1) the bridge materials are homogeneous and isotropic, and behave elastically; 2) no member will fail
due to local buckling; 3) there is a complete composite action between
the concrete deck and the top ange of the steel girders by providing
adequate shear connection; and 4) to simplify the analysis, the contribution of curbs and railings on the bridge deck are ignored.
4. Convergence study
As a part of numerical analysis, convergence studies are conducted
on a curved bridge model to nd a suitable nite element mesh size
and to identify an appropriate brace spacing to prevent any undesirable
premature failure due to local and global buckling. Therefore, it is
proposed to investigate the sensitivity of nite element models to the
mesh sizes and bracing congurations.
Different element sizes ranging from 3000 mm down to 150 mm
(Fig. 2) are tried for a 60 m span of composite curved bridge with a
curvature ratio of 1.2 and considering six lane trafc loading to observe
the effects of element size on the accuracy of the model and to nd a
convergence point. It is very important to maintain the aspect ratio as
close to one as possible while changing the size of the elements to
achieve the most accurate results while performing the nite element
analysis.
The results obtained from mesh size convergence study are presented in Fig. 2 and it is observed since the element size decreases from
3000 mm to 250 mm, the corresponding deections converged when
the element with a size of 250 mm is used in the model. There are no
further signicant changes in deections when the element size is
reduced to a value below 250 mm. In addition, for the element size
smaller than 250 mm, the number of elements and nodes may be overly
large and reduce the efciency of the model. For example, for the
models with the element sizes of 500 mm, 250 mm and 150 mm, the
numbers of elements are 9891, 55,355 and 220,071, respectively.
On the other hand, cross bracing systems in curved box girder
bridges stiffen the box girder internally to resist rotations of girders
about their longitudinal axes which prevent the structure from

Fig. 3. Box girder bridge model.

22

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

premature failure due to torsional buckling and distortional warping


and retain the maximum torsional rigidity of the structure. The objective of the bracing analysis is to identify an appropriate cross brace spacing to estimate the bracing contribution to the reduction of the
deection while controlling torsional effects, such as distortion and
warping of the cross sections. To achieve this goal, the design load conguration of AS 5100.2-2004 [18] is used in a numerical investigation to
obtain the maximum cross brace spacing. Afterwards, the cross bracing
systems are located at different spacing on the horizontally curved
bridge model. Table 1 shows the results of the brace spacing convergence study which is conducted for the model. In this table, the analysis
of mid-span deection for different girders, such as W1, W2, W3 and W4
is done using different bracing spaces, varying from 4.0 m to 10 m. In
addition, in the same table, represents the deviations of the mid-span
deection due to various brace spacing (e.g. 1

W 15m W 14:5m
W 15m

 100).

According to Table 1, the obtained results from the brace spacing


convergence study indicated that there are signicant differences in
deection at the mid-span when the cross brace spacing is reduced
from 10 m to 5 m. However, for the brace spacing smaller than 5 m,
the deection variations at mid-span are insignicant. This means the
convergence starting point of brace spacing for the model occurred at
5 m. This conforms to AASHTO guidelines [14] and the Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation of Japan [21], that prescribe that the maximum
spacing of the intermediate diaphragms in these structural systems
should not exceed 7.5 m and 6 m, respectively. AASHTO guidelines
[14] specify the maximum spacing of the intermediate diaphragms
(LD) as

LD L

12
R
25ft
200L7500

10

where L and R denote the span length (in feet) and the radius of
curvature (in feet), respectively. On the other hand, the Hanshin
Expressway Public Corporation of Japan [21] species the maximum
spacing of the intermediate diaphragms (LD) in horizontally curved
box girder bridges as
LD LDS k; L

11

in which

LDS

8
< 6m
0:14L2:4m
:
20m

L b 60m;
60m L 160m;
L N 160m;

12

8
< 1:0 p
L60
k; L
p
: 1
100 2

L b 60m;
60m L 200m;

13

where LDS, k(, L) and indicate the spacing of the intermediate


diaphragms in straight box girder bridges (in m), the reduction factor,
and the central angle (in rad), respectively [22].
5. Validation of the nite element models
To ensure the accuracy of the nite element modelling methods, a
curved bridge model is developed according to the published experimental work [4]. In the experimental study, different horizontally
curved bridge prototypes by varying curvature ratio and loading
positions have been considered to obtain support reactions for each
case. The curved bridge deck utilized herein for validation purposes is
a simply supported 2.6 m span of curved composite box girder bridge
including ve cross bracings. The width of concrete deck is 1 m with
50 mm thickness where the span to radius of curvature ratio is 1.0
and has a central angle of 57.3.
To model the bridge components such as concrete deck, steel web
girders, bottom ange and end diaphragms, four node shell elements,
type S4R, with six degrees of freedom are used. The end diaphragms
are located on each side of the bridge models between the web girders.
Top ange and cross bracing systems are modelled as a two node beam
element, type B31H (Fig. 3). The modelling of the top ange as a beam
element makes the connections between the concrete deck slab to the
top ange much easier. In addition, tie constraints are dened to
connect the concrete deck slab to the top ange and top ange to the
box girders. The element with a size of 250 mm is used in the model
as described in Section 4.
Material properties of the steel and concrete, such as the modules of
elasticity (200 GPa for steel and 27 GPa for concrete) and the Poisson
ratio (0.25 for steel and 0.2 for concrete) are dened [4]. The support
conditions are considered as simply supported and to ensure full
interactions among the components of the bridge, cross bracings,
box girders and diaphragms, are merged together. Finally, reaction
distributions for this bridge model are measured at supports for all
four web girders (W1, W2, W3 and W4) due to four concentrated loads
(4 16.75 kN) which are applied at mid-span of each bridge girder
(Fig. 3). The results obtained from the numerical simulation are
compared with the experimental test data [4] and it is found that
there is a very good agreement between them (Table 2).

Table 3
Geometries of bridge models in parametric study.

Bridge type

Cross-section dimensions (mm)


Deck

Top ange

Cell depth

Girder depth

Top ange

Web

Bottom

Deck

Diaphragm

Loading, span

t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

2 lane, L = 20 m
2 lane, L = 40 m
2 lane, L = 60 m
4 lane, L = 20 m
4 lane, L = 40 m
4 lane, L = 60 m
6 lane, L = 20 m
6 lane, L = 40 m
6 lane, L = 60 m

9300
9300
9300
16800
16,800
16,800
24,300
24,300
24,300

300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300

800
1600
2400
800
1600
2400
800
1600
2400

1025
1825
2625
1025
1825
2625
1025
1825
2625

16
28
40
16
28
40
16
28
40

10
32
54
10
32
54
10
32
54

10
50
90
10
50
90
10
50
90

225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225

10
12
15
10
12
15
10
12
15

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

23

are considered in the modelling of these structural systems. The width


of the bridge models also varied according to the number of loading
lanes; these widths are 9300 mm, 16,800 mm and 24,300 mm for two,
four and six lanes, respectively. The detailed geometries of bridge
models used in the parametric study are presented in Table 3.
6.1. Loading conguration
To conduct the parametric study, the highway bridge loading as
prescribed by AS 5100.2-2004 [18] is applied on bridge models. According to AS 5100.2-2004, S1600 (stationary loads) and M1600 (moving
loads) are two main systems of loading congurations to which the
bridge might be subjected. Based on the inuence line diagram [13], it
is found that the M1600 moving trafc load may cause the critical
effects on the curved bridge deck models. To obtain the highest bending
moment of the models, M1600 moving trafc load are applied at the
mid-span of the bridge models while to determine the highest shear
reactions, M1600 moving trafc load are applied at the extreme end of
the bridge models. The conguration of M1600 moving load is shown
in Fig. 4a, which consists of 6 kN/m uniformly distributed load over
a 3.2 m width and four wheel groups of six wheels which each wheel
counted as 60 kN of concentrated load. Figs. 4b, 4c and 4d show
moving trafc loads for a 40 m span with four cells subjected to
two, four and six lane loading, respectively. For example, as can be
seen from Fig. 4, for single lane loading, the total uniformly distributed
load is 1.87 kN/m2 and the total concentrated load is 1800 kN.
The self-weight of the curved bridge decks is also included in the nite element models. A uniformly distributed load is applied to concrete
deck to account for self-weight of the deck slab by considering the value
of 2.4 kN/m3 as density of concrete and also a uniformly distributed load
is applied to the steel bottom anges to account for self-weight of bridge
girders (including webs, top and bottom anges) and cross bracing
systems by considering the value of 7.8 kN/m3 as density of steel. For
example, for a 40 span, a total of 6.3 kN/m2 uniformly distributed load
as permanent (dead) load are applied to the bridge model to account
for the self-weight of this structure.
Moreover, as stated in the AS 5100.2-2004 [18], accompanying
lane factors of 1, 0.8 and 0.4 are applied to the rst, second and third
(subsequent) loading lanes, respectively. In addition, the magnitude of
1.3 is applied to each loading lane as a dynamic load allowance to dene
the interaction of moving vehicles and the bridge structures [18].
6.2. Load distribution factor
In the current research, a large amount of results from nite element
analysis of curved bridge decks are obtained and these results are
collated further to develop the distribution factors for both bending
moment and shear force of horizontally curved box girder bridges. The
moment distribution factor is dened as
Fig. 4. (a) M1600 moving loads. Curved box girder bridge model subjected to (b) two lane
loading, (c) four lane loading and (d) six lane loading.

6. Parametric study using detailed nite element analysis


Having been satised that the nite element models described in the
preceding section yielded accurate results, an extensive parametric
study is carried out to determine the stress resultants of the individual
components or girders of the horizontally curved bridge structures
subjected to Australian bridge load. 180 different curved bridge models
are simulated using the nite element modelling technique as described
before by varying different parameters consisting of curvature ratio
(K = L/R), span length (L), number of loading lanes (NL) and number
of cells (NC). In the parametric study, different span lengths (20 m,
40 m and 60 m) with various curvatures (0.2, 0.4, 0.8 and 1.2) and the
number of cells ranging from two to four for a two-lane loading, three
to ve for a four-lane loading and four to six for the six-lane loading

Dm

Mmax
M

14

Fig. 5. Variation of moment distribution factor (Dm) with respect to number of cells for different numbers of lanes.

24

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

Fig. 6. Variation of moment distribution factor (Dm) with respect to number of girders for different numbers of cells.

where Mmax is a bending moment carried by each girder at mid-span


(which is determined by using the nite element analysis) and M is
total moment which is calculated from the analysis of simply supported
curved beam using analytical solutions [13] when subjected to M1600
moving trafc load [18] and dead load as a line load per meter long of
the bridge. The shear distribution factor also is dened as
Ds

V max
V

15

where Vmax is a reaction force under each girder at supports (which is


determined using the nite element analysis) and V is the total reaction
force which is calculated from the analysis of simply supported curved
beam using analytical solutions [13] when subjected to M1600 moving
trafc load (V = V1 obtained from Eq. 4) and dead load as a line load per
meter long of the bridge. In the following sections, sample results of load
distribution factors are presented.
6.2.1. Distribution factor for bending moment
The effects of number of loading lanes on moment distribution
factors of the horizontally curved bridges are investigated. Based on
Fig. 5, it is found out that as the number of lanes increases, the value
of moment distribution factor also increases. This gure shows the
change in moment distribution factors for outer girder of a 60 m span
of curved bridge with the curvature ratio of 0.8 when subjected to
different numbers of loading lanes. The effect of the number of cells
on moment distribution factors is also studied. According to Fig. 5, as
the number of cells increases, the moment distribution factor decreases
because more webs in the box girder can provide greater stiffness to
resist the torsion and distortion in curved bridge decks. Moreover, it
can be observed in Fig. 6, that the intermediate girders carried the
great amount of moment compared to outer girders.
Curvature ratio and span length also have a signicant impact on
moment distribution factors. As can be seen from Fig. 7, the moment
distribution factor decreases with an increase in the curvature ratios.
Fig. 8 shows that, the longer spans have greater distribution factors
compared to the shorter spans. For example, a 60 m span has the
greatest moment distribution factor compared to that of 40 m and

Fig. 7. Variation of moment distribution factor (Dm) with respect to number of cells for different curvature ratios.

20 m spans. This trend can be explained by, in longer span lengths


more loads are accommodate throughout the length.
6.2.2. Distribution factor for shear forces
In the current study, the investigation on shear distribution factors
revealed that the behaviour of intermediate girders are quite different
from outer girders due to position of moving loads as they are located
close to supports. According to Fig. 9, shear distribution factors for intermediate girders of a 40 m span with the curvature ratio of 0.2 are greater
than its outer girders. Based on the same gure, one can conclude that,
as the number of cells increases, the shear distribution factor decreases
because more loads are distributed among more girders, which resulted
in decreasing the load distribution factors.
The effects of curvature ratio and span length on shear distribution
factors of the outer left girders (Fig. 10a) of horizontally curved bridge
decks are presented in Figs. 10b and 11a, respectively. It is observed
that the shear distribution factor increases with an increase in the
curvature ratio as well as span lengths due to the presence of torsional
moments. On the other hand, Figs. 10c and 11b present the shear
distribution factor trends for outer right girders due to curvature ratio
and span length, respectively. It is observed that as the curvature ratio
and the span length increase, the shear distribution factor decreases. It
is worth to mention that for the curvature ratio greater than 0.8, there
is an uplift to the right support.
Fig. 12 shows the variation of shear distribution factors for different
numbers of lanes of a 40 m span with the curvature ratio of 0.6. According to this gure, it is observed that for the same number of cells, the
shear distribution factor for the outer girder decreases with an increase
in the number of lanes. It is worth to note that, although by increasing
the number of loading lanes, the amount of load increases but the
number of cells is also increasing due to the bridge width. Hence, by
increasing the number of cells, more loads are distributed among
more girders which resulted in decreasing the shear distribution factors.
7. Development of design guideline formulas
Based on the results obtained from the parametric study, the design
guideline in the form of some expressions is developed using a

Fig. 8. Variation of moment distribution factor (Dm) with respect to number of cells for different span lengths.

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

25

Fig. 9. Variation of shear distribution factor (Ds) for different numbers of cells.

multivariate regression analysis. The regression analysis is based on the


power functions which are implemented by a computer programme
code written in MATLAB [19]. The parameters considered in the study

are: curvature ratio (K RL ), span length (L), number of lanes (NL) and
number of cells (NC) for the determination of load distribution factor
expressions of horizontally curved bridges when subjected to the
Australian bridge load. These empirical expressions are derived
separately for the inner, outer and intermediate girders. The obtained
results from numerical simulations are plotted against the results from
proposed expressions (Figs. 13 and 14) which show a strong agreement
between them. In addition, it should be noted that to determine the
accuracy of the expressions, correlation coefcient (R2) is calculated
for each expression and all the corresponding R2 values are greater
than 0.92 which conrm the reliability and accuracy of the expressions.
These expressions will be conveniently used by designers for the
preliminary design of individual bridge girders.
7.1. Design expressions for moment distribution factor
Expressions for moment distribution factors of curved bridge decks
are generated for different girders such as outer right girders, outer
left girders and intermediate girders. The outer girders are dened as
two far end outside girders, and the intermediate girders are considered
as all inner and central girders for the purpose of calculating the
moment distribution factors. The moment distribution factor

Fig. 10. (a) Bridge model with different girders; variation of shear distribution factor (Ds)
for different curvatures: (b) outer left girder; (c) outer right girder.

Fig. 11. Variation of shear distribution factor (Ds) for different span lengths: (a) outer left
girder (b); outer right girder.

26

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

Fig. 12. Variation of shear distribution factor (Ds) with respect to number of cells for
different numbers of lanes.

Fig. 14. Comparison between the obtained shear distribution factor from proposed
expressions and nite element analysis results.

expressions for the outer right girders (DMoR) and the outer left girders
(DMoL) are expressed, respectively, as follows.

The last following formula is derived to determine shear distribution


factors at the central girders (DSc).

0:016NL 1:12
DMoR 0:3N0:95
L0:23 N 0:2
c
L K

16

DMoL 0:07N1:08
L0:47 N0:42
K 0:14NL 1:54
c
L

17

The developed moment distribution factor expression for the


intermediate girders (DMi) which is obtained from regression analysis is
DMi

0:16Nc1:06 L0:55 N0:13


K 0:006NL 1:24 :
L

18

7.2. Design expressions for shear distribution factor


Different formulas are deduced to account for shear distribution
factors of curved box girder bridges by considering the investigated
parameters. Due to the variety of distribution factors, ve different
empirical expressions are developed for various girders, including
outer right girders, outer left girders, inner right girders, inner left
girders and central girders. It should be noted that the inner girders
are located between the outer and the central girders. The two following
(shear distribution factor) expressions are derived for the outer left
girders (DSoL) and the outer right girders (DSoR), respectively.


DSoL 0:23N0:4
L0:36 N 0:63
1 2:54K1:74K 2 1:49K 3
c
L

19



L0:33 NL0:92 13:22K 3:89K 2
DSoR 3:9N 0:3
c

20

The next two following expressions are deduced for determination


of shear distribution factors at the inner left girders (DSiL) and the
inner right girders (DSiR), respectively.


DSiL 0:38N0:52
L0:28 N0:44
10:17K 0:67K 2
c
L

21

DSiR 0:013N 1:17


L0:13 N2:48
K 0:15NL 0:86
c
L

22

Fig. 13. Comparison between the obtained moment distribution factor from proposed
expressions and nite element analysis results.

L0:1 N0:36
K 0:150:024NL
DSc 0:6N1:1
c
L

23

8. Assessment of moment distribution factors of horizontally curved


bridges due to loading recommended by AASHTO and AS 5100.22004
A comparative analysis is conducted on load distribution mechanism
of horizontally curved steelconcrete composite box girder bridges
subjected to AASHTO [14] and AS 5100.2-2004 [18] bridge codes along
with similar bridge parameters and properties (such as material properties, girder dimensions and span lengths) so that a general comparison
could be made. This analysis revealed some similarities and distinctive
differences between the obtained load distribution factors according
to adopted bridge design loading congurations. Both bridge design
codes provided various load factors outlining maximum and minimum
values used to produce the more critical combinations of bridge loading
which results in producing different distribution factors for both bending moment and shear force.
This study is performed by considering different horizontally curved
box girder bridges subjected to AASHTO, HS20-44 design loading [14].
The bridges are 40 m long with a curvature ratio of 0.4 including different numbers of cells ranged between 24 cells. The conguration of
HS20-44, consists of 9.34 kN/m uniformly distributed load over a 3 m
width plus a single concentrated load which is taken as 80 kN for
moment distribution study [23]. The moment distribution factors
obtained for these bridges for AASHTO loads are compared with the
moment distribution factors which are developed in the present study
based on the AS 5100.2-2004 (M1600 design loading). The obtained
results are presented in Fig. 15. As can be seen from this gure, the
moment distribution factors for AASHTO loads [14] are about 25% less
than that due to AS 5100.2-2004 [18]. On the other hand, the same
analysis techniques are used for these bridges when subjected to
AASHTO loading to calculate shear distribution factors for the purpose
of comparing the predicted distribution factors corresponding to AS
5100.2-2004. Fig. 16 indicated that, the shear distribution factors for
AASHTO loads [14] are 10% greater than that for AS 5100.2-2004 [18].
Hence, it can be concluded that due to signicant differences in the
value of load distribution factors of these structures when subjected to
various bridge design loading congurations, it is not reasonable to

Fig. 15. Comparison of moment distribution factor between AASHTO and AS 5100.2-2004.

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

Fig. 16. Comparison of shear distribution factor between AASHTO and AS 5100.2-2004.

use AASHTO load distribution factors for the design of curved bridges
subjected to Australian bridge design load.
9. Comparison of load distribution factors of horizontally curved
bridges with straight bridges due to loading recommended by
AASHTO and AS 5100.2-2004
A comparative analysis is also performed on the load distribution
mechanism of horizontally curved and straight box girder deck slabs
according to AASHTO [14] and AS 5100.2-2004 [18]. The same nite
element modelling techniques as described in the previous sections
are used to model straight box girder bridges. The bridge models are
subjected to AS 5100.2-2004 loading. The load distribution factors
obtained from this analysis for AS 5100.2-2004 loading with the
AASHTO load distribution factors which are obtained from literature
[5,23] (for both straight and curved box girder bridges) are presented
in Figs. 17 and 18. These gures show that the load distribution factors
for horizontally curved box girder bridges are greater than straight
box girder bridges for both AASHTO [14] and AS 5100.2-2004 [18].
According to Fig. 17, for example, in the case of a 5 cell of box girder
bridge with a span of 60 m subjected to four-lanes of trafc loading of
AS 5100.2-2004 [18], the value of moment distribution factor is 0.2 at
the critical location whereas, for a curved bridge with the same bridge
characteristic (Nc = 5, NL = 4 and L = 60 m) as mentioned above,
with curvature of 0.8, the corresponding value of moment distribution
factor is 0.3. In other words, the maximum moment measured at the
mid-span of the curved bridge (17,630 kNm) is much greater than
that of the straight bridge (2130 kNm). This signicant difference
between the obtained moments at critical section of those bridges can
be explained by presence of torsional moment due to member
curvature at the curved bridges. Hence, designing of the curved bridge
structures based on the load distribution factors of straight bridges
may not be a safe and reliable design of these structures due to a significant difference between the obtained load distribution factors for
curved and straight bridge deck systems.
10. Conclusion
In the current study, the load distribution factors of horizontally
curved steelconcrete composite box girder bridges subjected to
Australian bridge load are determined from a large number of results
which are generated from detailed nite element analysis of these

Fig. 17. Comparison between load distribution factor of straight and curved box girder
bridges according to AS 5100.2-2004.

27

Fig. 18. Comparison between load distribution factor of straight and curved box girder
bridges according to AASHTO.

structures for a large number of cases. These large number of results


are obtained by varying different parameters such as curvature ratio,
span length, number of loading lanes and number of cells of these
structures. The accuracy and reliability of the above mentioned nite
element models are conrmed using experimental data available in
the literature. The design guideline for load distribution factor is also
determined in the form of some expressions which can be used to
conveniently calculate bending moment and shear force of different
components of these structures in a design ofce. Based on the observation in the current study the following conclusions can be drawn.
The maximum spacing of the cross brace spacing of the horizontally
curved box girder bridges should not be more than 5 m to avoid any
undesirable premature failure due to local and global buckling of
these structures and to retain the maximum torsional rigidity of them.
The curvature ratio and the number of cells are found to have signicant effects on load distribution factor for bending moment of
horizontally curved bridges. The maximum value of the load distribution factor for bending moment (found in the outer girder) is always
reduced with the increase of the number of cells as well as the
curvature ratios.
The values of load distribution factors for both bending moment and
shear force for AASHTO loads [14] of a curved bridge are greater
than those for Australian bridge load [18].
The maximum moment found at the mid-span of a curved bridge is
always found to be more than that of a straight bridge. Thus, it is not
recommended to treat a curved bridge as an equivalent straight
bridge in order to avoid unreliable design.

References
[1] J.F. Hajjar, D. Krzmarzick, L. Pallars, Measured behavior of a curved composite I-girder
bridge, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (3) (2010) 351368.
[2] D.G. Linzell, J.F. Shura, Erection behavior and grillage model accuracy for a large radius curved bridge, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (3) (2010) 342350.
[3] S.S. Dey, A.T. Samuel, Static analysis of orthotropic curved bridge decks, Comput.
Struct. 12 (2) (1980) 161166.
[4] K. Sennah, J. Kennedy, Shear distribution in simply-supported curved composite
cellular bridges, J. Bridg. Eng. 3 (2) (1998) 4755.
[5] K. Sennah, J. Kennedy, Simply supported curved cellular bridges: simplied design
method, J. Bridg. Eng. 4 (2) (1999) 8594.
[6] K. Sennah, J. Kennedy, S. Nour, Design for shear in curved composite multiple steel
box girder bridges, J. Bridg. Eng. 8 (3) (2003) 144152.
[7] G. Issa-El-Khoury, D.G. Linzell, L.F. Geschwindner, Computational studies of horizontally curved, longitudinally stiffened, plate girder webs in exure, J. Constr. Steel Res.
93 (2014) 97106.
[8] D. DePolo, D. Linzell, Evaluation of live-load lateral ange bending distribution for a
horizontally curved I-girder bridge, J. Bridg. Eng. 13 (5) (2008) 501510.
[9] P. Barr, et al., Live-load analysis of a curved I-girder bridge, J. Bridg. Eng. 12 (4)
(2007) 477484.
[10] W. Kim, J. Laman, D. Linzell, Live load radial moment distribution for horizontally
curved bridges, J. Bridg. Eng. 12 (6) (2007) 727736.
[11] Fiechtl, Fenves, Frank, Approximate Analysis of Horizontally Curved Girder Bridges,
Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University
of Texas at Austin, 1987.
[12] M.A. Grubb, Horizontally curved I-girder bridge analysis: V-load method, Transp.
Res. Rec. 982 (1984) 2635.
[13] S.J. Fatemi, A.H. Sheikh, M.S.M. Ali, Development and application of an analytical
model for horizontally curved bridge decks, Adv. Struct. Eng. 18 (1) (2015)
107118.

28

S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928

[14] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO), G.S.f.H.C.H.B., Washington DC, 1993.
[15] C. Yoo, et al., Bending strength of a horizontally curved composite I-girder bridge, J.
Bridg. Eng. 18 (5) (2013) 388399.
[16] D. Huang, Field test and rating of Arlington curved-steel box-girder bridge:
Jacksonville, Florida, Transp. Res. Rec. 1892 (2004) 178186.
[17] D. Huang, Full-scale test and analysis of a curved steel-box girder bridge, J. Bridg.
Eng. 13 (5) (2008) 492500.
[18] Standards Australia, Bridge Design Part 2: Design Loads, 2004 (AS 5100.2-2004 Sydney (Australia)).

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

MATLAB, version 8.1.0 (R2013a), The MathWorks Inc., 2013


ABAQUS Analysis User's Manual 6.12, 2012.
Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation, G.f.t.D.o.H.C.G.B., Japan, 1988.
N.-H. Park, Y.-J. Choi, Y.-J. Kang, Spacing of intermediate diaphragms in horizontally
curved steel box girder bridges, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 41 (910) (2005) 925943.
[23] K. Sennah, J. Kennedy, Load distribution factors for composite multicell box girder
bridges, J. Bridg. Eng. 4 (1) (1999) 7178.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen