ISSN 2277-2685

IJESR/August 2014/ Vol-4/Issue-8/463-473

Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

ANALYSIS OF SKEW BRIDGES USING GRILLAGE ANALOGY METHOD

Himanshu Jaggerwal*1, Yogesh Bajpai2
1
M.Tech Student (Structural Engineering), Dept. of Civil Engineering, GGITS, Jabalpur (M.P), India.
2
Assoc. Prof, Dept. of Civil Engineering, GGITS, Jabalpur (M.P), India.

ABSTRACT
In spite of increases in computing power, analysis of skew bridge deck has not changed to the same extent.
Therefore, there is a need for more research to study the skew bridges using Grillage analogy method. Grillage
analyze is a fast and simpler approach compared to the other method, and has been used by engineers to
analyses bridge deck over a long time. In this present study, a bridge deck consists of beam and slab is defined
and modeled using grillage analogy method. The effect of grid spacing on different skew angles on same-span
of reinforced concrete bridges using the grillage analogy method. Maximum reactions force, deflection, bending
and torsional moments is calculated and compared for different angles with different span. A total 11 Gridlines,
3-T sections, and 7- rectangular sections of two different sizes have been studied on skew angles 00, 150, 300,
450 and 600 to determine the most appropriate and efficient grid size. For this purpose a parametric study of
Simply Supported 3-Lane T-Beam Bridge has been performed in STAAD PRO. The parameters varied were
span and skew angle. The effect of same was observed on maximum live load bending moment, maximum live
load shear force and maximum live load reaction at critical locations. Live Load Class A Vehicle were applied
as per IRC 6 guidelines. The spans used were 10 m, 15 m, 20 m and 25 m. The skew angles were taken at an
interval of 150 starting from 00 up to a maximum of 600. Bridges with skew angle more than 450 are rare.

Keywords: Bridges, T-beam bridge decks, skew angle, span length, Grillage Analogy method, Grid size Class
A Vehicle.

1. INTRODUCTION
Generally, grillage analysis [8] is the most common method used in bridge analysis. In this method the deck is
represented by an equivalent grillage of beams. The finer grillage mesh, provide more accurate results. It was
found that the results obtained from grillage analysis compared with experiments and more rigorous methods are
accurate enough for design purposes. In the skew bridges, the effects of skew on the response of completed
structures have been well documented [1, 7, 9] with effects being shown to be more significant for skew angles
greater than 30. Critical values for vertical deflections and bending moments within in-service skewed bridges
have been shown to be lower when compared against those in similar right bridges. Conversely, torsional
rotations, shears and moments have been shown to be larger for skewed bridges. In addition, studies have also
demonstrated that interaction between main support girders and transverse bracing members (diaphragms and
cross frames) influences skewed bridge load distribution due to an increase in torsional rotations at certain
sections of the longitudinal girders. Additional work has shown that the magnitude of torsional shear rotations at
skewed bridge supports is largest at the obtuse corners [2, 3].
A bridge is said to be skew if the longitudinal axis of the bridge is not at right angles to the abutment. Skew
angle is defined as the acute angle between the center line (or axis) of the bridge and the normal to the flow of
river. Alternatively it can also be defined as the angle between the free edge of the bridge and perpendicular to
the abutment. Mathematically it can be found by subtracting the acute angle of the parallelogram from 90o. The
perpendicular distance between the abutments is defined as the right span, while the span along the free edge of
the bridge is defined as the skew span [9]. The word span in this thesis report is synonymously used for the
skew span.

*Corresponding Author www.ijesr.org 463

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Fig 1: Typical Skew Bridge

2. GRILLAGE MODELING OF T-GIRDER BRIDGE AND APPLICATION OF LOADS

2.1 Grillage Idealization of T-Beam Bridge Cross section
In Grillage Analogy Method, theoretically the grillage should resemble to the actual model of T Beam Bridge to
simulate its true behaviour. But exact modelling and calculation of the properties of structure becomes difficult
and tedious and too much time consuming also. So generally, a few approximations are made to allow for
simplicity and ease in modelling. These include slight shift in gridlines and neglecting the haunches underside of
the T section. The results are not affected much due to these approximations.
Since the whole bridge deck is discretized into a no. of longitudinal and transverse beams so the size of the
gridlines has to be fixed. Its on the designer to judiciously fix the sizes of the gridlines. The distribution of
bending stress in the flange of the T-Beam Bridge is not uniform as suggested by the simple bending theory, so
the effective width concept is used to define the width of the flange of the T-section [4]. For this purpose
assistance from IRC 21: 2000 clause 305.15 was sought in the selection of sizes of T-Beam. It suggests
be = bw + lo / 5
Where, be = effective flange width of T-Beam; bw = width of T-Beam and lo = distance between the points of
contra flexure.
As discussed above the following approximations were made in grillage idealizations. (i) The slab is assumed to
be of uniform size i.e. 220 mm. (ii) The haunches on the underside of the deck slab near longitudinal girders are
ignored. Figure 7 shows the division of the bridge cross section for grillage idealization. The dotted lines show
the location of the grid lines. Same technique is used for discretizing the bridge in transverse direction. Same
longitudinal grid lines are used in grillage model for all spans and skew angles [6].

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 464

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Fig 2: Grillage Idealization of the cross section of bridge. All dim in mm

2.2 Grid Pattern
2.2.1 Grillage Models for 10 m span bridge
(i) Plan of grillage of 00, 150, 300, 450 and 600 skew bridges is shown in Fig 9 to 13. One intermediate cross
girder is provided at centre while two end girders are provided. Pin supports have been provided at the end of
each longitudinal girder.

Fig 3: Plan of Grillage Model of 10 m span, Fig 4: Plan of Grillage Model of 10 m span, 15 skew
skew Bridge 00 Bridge

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 465

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Fig 5: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 10 m Fig 6: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 10 m
30 skew 45skew

Fig 7: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 10 m 60 skew

2.2.2 Grillage Models for 15 m span bridge
Plan of grillage of 00, 150, 300, 450 and 600 skew bridge is shown in Fig 14 to 18. One intermediate cross girder
is provided at centre while two end girders are provided. Pin supports have been provided at the end of each
longitudinal girder . is the skew angle. Two intermediate cross girders are provided at a spacing of 3.0 m. The
same type of grillage model for 450 skew angles. Also similar model for 150 and 600 but the intermediate cross
girder is changed. The cross girders and other transverse gridlines are perpendicular to the longitudinal girders.

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 466

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Fig 8: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m span Fig 9: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m
0 skew 15 skew

Fig 10: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m span Fig 11:Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m 45
30 skew skew

Fig 12: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m 60 skew

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 467

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

2.2.3 Grillage Models for 20 m span bridge

Plan of grillage of 00, 150, 300, 450 and 600 skew bridge is shown in Fig 19 to 23. One intermediate cross girder
is provided at centre while two end girders are provided. Pin supports have been provided at the end of each
longitudinal girder. Skew length of 00, 150, 300, 450 and 600 grillage are 20m, 20.70m, 23.09m, 28.28 and 40m
respectively. Skew length of bridge increases with increase of skew angle. Maximum skew length for 20.m span
is 40 m for 600 skew.

Fig 13: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span Fig 14: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20
0 skew m span 15 skew

Fig 15: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span Fig 16: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m
span 30 skew 45 skew

Fig 17: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span 60 skew

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 468

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

2.2.4 Grillage Models for 25 m span bridge

Plan of grillage of 00, 150, 300, 450 and 600 skew bridge is shown in Fig 24 to 28. One intermediate cross girder
is provided at centre while two end girders are provided. Pin supports have been provided at the end of each
longitudinal girder. The same type of grillage model for 450 skew angles. Also similar model for 150 and 600 but
the intermediate cross girder is changed. The cross girders and other transverse gridlines are perpendicular to the
longitudinal girders. Skew length of 00, 150, 300, 450 and 600 grillage are 25m, 25.88, 28.88m, 35.36m and
50.02m respectively. Skew length of bridge increases with increase of skew angle. Maximum skew length for
25.m span is 50.02 m for 600 skew.

Fig 18: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span Fig 19: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m
span 0 skew 15 skew

Fig 20: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span Fig 21: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m
span 30 skew 45 skew

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 469

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Fig 22: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span 60 skew

2.3 Idealization of Vehicle
The idealized vehicle for the live load application used in the present study is as shown in figure below. The
load values shown in the longitudinal details are the axle loads and since there are two wheels on each axle, so
the values are halved when seen in the transverse view. The loads were placed both centrally and eccentrically
and an increment of 0.1 m was given to each train of load.
(1) Class A Vehicle

Front Axle
2.4 Impact Factor
Provision for impact or dynamic action shall be made by an increment of the live load by an impact allowance
expressed as a fraction or a percentage of the applied live load [10].
(1) For Class A Loading: according to IRC: 6-2000 Clause 211.2, the impact factor shall be determined from the
following equation which is applicable for spans between 3m and 45m.
I.F = 4.5 / (6+L).
Where L is length in meters of the span as specified in IRC: 6-2000 Clause 211.5.
Table 1: Impact factor
Span (m) 10 m 15 m 20 m 25 m
Class A 0.28 0.21 0.17 0.14
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Bridges of span 10 m, 15 m, 20m, and 25m were analyzed for skew angles 00, 150, 300, 450 and 600. The results
are shown below [7]. All the moment values are for live load only and the word moment is synonymously
used for maximum moment at many places of this chapter [5]. Also the abbreviation G1, G2, G3, G4, & G5
are shown in Results and Discussions (Figure 23).

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 470

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Fig 23: Cross section of three lane T-Girder bridge

G1 is the outer longitudinal girder on the left side of the middle girder.
G2 is the inner longitudinal girder on the left side of the middle girder.
G3 is the middle longitudinal girder.
G4 is also the inner longitudinal girder but on right side of the middle girders.
G5 is also the outer longitudinal girder but on right side of the middle girder.
3.1 Effect of Arrangement of Loading
3.1.1 Three Lane of Class A
The Class A vehicle was placed centrally on G3 & G4 and The maximum moments obtained in the girders G1,
G2, G3, G4 and G5 were recorded. The maximum moment occured simultaneously in all girders for 00 skew
angle but for other skew angles it occurred with some lag due to skew effects. The lag increased with skew
angle. A total of 554 KN load was applied in this loading on 18.8m distance. Results from output of analysis of
bridge decks are shown in following graphs for three lanes Class A loading. Graphs were plotted for different
skew angles versus
Maximum Shear Force
Maximum Bending moment
Maximum Torsion
Maximum Positive Reaction
Maximum Negative Reaction

Fig 24: Maximum Shear Force Three Lane of Fig 25: Maximum Bending Moment Three
Class A Lane of Class A

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 471

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Fig 26: Maximum Torsion Three Lane of Class A

Fig 27: Maximum Positive Reaction Three Lane Fig 28: Maximum Negative Reaction Three
Lane of Class A Class A

4. CONCLUSION
The analysis of bridges and comparisons of the results of different span and skew angles have led to the
following conclusions.
1. For skew bridges the arrangement of cross girders perpendicular to the longitudinal girders is more
effective in transverse load distribution as compared to the arrangement in which the cross girders are parallel to
the abutments.
2. Grillage analogy method, based on stiffness matrix approach, is a reliably accurate method for a wide range
of bridge decks. The method is versatile, easy for a designer to visualize and prepare the study for a grillage.

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 472

 Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

3. The increase in BM up to 40 degree skew angle is less. At higher skew angle sharp increase is observed.
Results show that end girder placed in centre of skew span has maximum BM.
4. Torsion, with increase of skew angle increases appreciably in all directions.
5. Maximum positive and negative reactions are noted in skew bridges ,very close to each other
6. Results of SF shows mixed pattern i.e. value of maximum SF does not follow a regular pattern. However
the difference of SF, as the span increases, decrease.

REFERENCES
[1] Menassa C, Mabsout M, Tarhini K, Frederick G. Influence of Skew Angle on Reinforced Concrete Slab
Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE) 2007; 12.

[2] Jenkins D. Bridge Deck Behaviour Revisited; MEngSci MIEAust MICE. 2004;13.

[3] O'Brien EJ, Keogh DL. A discussion on neutral axis location in bridge deck cantilevers. Department of Civil
Engineering, University College, Dublin, Ireland, 1998; 46.

[4] Khalo AR, Mirzabozorg H. Load Distribution Factors in Simply Supported Skew Bridges. Journal of Bridge
Engineering (ASCE), 2003; 8(4).

[5] Ibrahim S, Harba I. Effect of Skew angle on Behavior of Simply Supported R. C. T-Beam Bridge Decks.
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2011; 6(8).

[6] Singh A. Analysis of skew effects on slab bridges, M.Tech Dissertation, IIT Roorke, 2006; 26.
[7] Vasant P, Rao U. Analysis of skew effects on T-Girder Bridges, M.Tech Dissertation, IIT Roorkee, 2006; 9.
[8] Victor DJ. Essentials of Bridge Engineering, Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi;250.
[9] Surana CS, Agarwal R. Grillage Analogy in Bridge Deck Analysis, Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi,
329.
[10] IRC 6-2000. Standard Specification and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section II, Loads And Stresses,
Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, 22-24.

Copyright 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 473