Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
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
4
5
6
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
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
22
S.J. Fatemi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 116 (2016) 1928
W 15m W 14:5m
W 15m
100).
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
Table 3
Geometries of bridge models in parametric study.
Bridge type
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
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.
V max
V
15
Fig. 7. Variation of moment distribution factor (Dm) with respect to number of cells for different curvature ratios.
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.
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.
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
18
19
L0:33 NL0:92 13:22K 3:89K 2
DSoR 3:9N 0:3
c
20
21
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
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.
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]