ADVANCED STEEL DESIGN

CE 267

CRISTINA E. LINDSTROM

BEHAVIOR OF A HORIZONTALLY CURVED AND SKEWED I-GIRDER

BRIDGE
 Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 3
LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR ..................................................................................... 3
ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................................................... 5
BRACING .......................................................................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 12
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 13

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Construction Stage with Deck pouring sequence .......................................7

Figure 2: Components of Typical I-Girder Bridge .......................................................9
Figure 3: Torsional Beam Bracing ............................................................................ 10
Figure 4: Effect of Torsional Brace Location ............................................................ 11

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 2

INTRODUCTION

Bridges are one of the most critical components in the transportation network, their

performance and serviceability are primordial in a catastrophe, it is necessary to understand the

analysis input in pursuance of a successful response. A curved and skewed I-girder bridge will

develop a peculiar behavior compared to a box girder and a straight I-girder because of its

geometry leading to a challenge to understand the implications of analysis, design, and

constructability.

During the construction stage, however, the behavior is not well understood but critical.

Developed Stresses during this stage can reach up to more than half the total design stress for a

given cross section. The design for construction loading requires the determination of correct

cross-sectional stresses and member forces based on a well-known behavior of the geometry and

characteristics of the materials to be used, not on assumptions. This determination could be

achieved by making use of thorough analytical techniques that can capture the response of a

bridge with acceptable accuracy leading to a structurally acceptable behavior during the bridge

serviceability.

This proposed investigation is focused on the approximating assumptions that influence the

accuracy of the analysis models affecting the integrity of the structure during construction and

serviceability leading to an away from reality behavior.

LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOR

Buckling typically involves a lateral translation of the compression flange accompanied by

twisting of the whole cross-section where the beam flange is free to displace laterally and rotate.

To reduce this effect and augment the overall stability of the girder system, the size of the flange

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 3

should either be increased or/and provide bracing to prevent twist at intermediate locations to

reduce the unsupported length. Per Miller et al [1] in contrast with straight girders, horizontally-

curved I-girders exhibit flange local buckling that may vary from the outer to the inner side of

the web while Local buckling is possible on the inner half of the tension flange. S-shaped

bending occurs in the web, causing an increase of stress at the web-flange connection.

Curved beams develop twisting effects which result in warping stresses out of plane like torsion,

as a result of combined bending and torsional shear, developing flange lateral buckling effects.

Opposed to an I straight girder where shear, bending and deformations are similar, the curved

and skewed geometry will develop more deformations due to the horizontal curvature. During

construction and serviceability, torsion acts along the span and as the supports are intermittent,

torsion tends to concentrate in various locations that are highly difficult to match in both the

analysis and modeling stages. In comparison with a closed cross-section, the closed loop

performs better when subjected to torsion, frequently addressed as Saint-Venant torsion, where

the behavior assumes that the cross-section plane prior to the application of torsion remains a

plane and the element only rotates during torsion. In the case of a Box-shape girder, which is

commonly used for bridges, more complicated analysis should be modeled, and they require a

number of simplifying assumptions and several additional calculations at the end of the analysis

to determine all of the individual member load effects [2]. In addition, negligible secondary

effects occur when the curved compression flange bows outwards, increasing the degree of

curvature in comparison with I-girder torsion behavior where the torsion will not be severe

enough to control the design of the section and the approximate methods can be used.

Alternately, because of the effects developed by a curved and skewed I-girder steel beam and its

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 4

behavior, it is highly suggested that analysist and designers use a more refined analysis than

would be required for a non-skewed bridge.

During the analysis stage, these characteristics are ignored, the designer interprets the results

and considers details that cannot always be easily built and often the contractor does not

adequately comprehend the structural behavior of the elements nor the structural system itself,

and because of this, the outcome has a high probability of being a poor design. Such challenges

and difficulties should be expressed and addressed to comprehend and achieve an accurate

design in conformance with project blueprints, current regulations and codes.

ANALYSIS

Skew in an I-girder bridge introduces complexity into to the system stiffness and associated

load paths compared to a non-skewed bridge, depending on how severe the skew, more analysis

should be done in order to get a more accurate comprehension of differential equations, cross

frame forces, associated fatigue stresses and bearing reactions, such effects should be simulated

in the software by the direction of a competent and strongly knowledgeable analyst.

There are two types of computational methods, approximate and rigorous analysis.

The approximate methods are close estimates on the behavior of the bridge, ASSHTO-LRFD

allows their use if they conform with Sec 4.4. Such methods consist in the girder line and v-load

method. A plane frame is used to model the behavior of regular structures and distribute gravity

and lateral loads and each node of the two-node plane frame element have three degrees of

freedoms, which two are translation and one rotation. The girder line analysis transforms

multiple girder cross-sections into a single girder cross-section applying service, fatigue, strength

and extreme event limit states. The V-load analysis is based upon basic static equilibrium

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 5

equations and cannot resemble more complicated structural systems, it illustrates gravity load

effects. the free body diagram is a cross frame between adjacent girders. The shear transferred

across the cross frame represents the load being shifted from the girder closer to the inside of the

curve and to the outside of the curve. The forces then are balanced by a horizontal force couple

directly associated with the lateral flange bending effects develop by the curved and skewed I-

girder sections according to the Steel Bridge Design Handbook [2]

The rigorous methods consist of 2-D and 3-D methods, have more accurate analysis and are used

for detailed evaluations of new and existing bridges. The use of this methods is desirable because

it allows direct calculation of important load effects, instead of approximating these effects

manually as it would occur if the AASHTO empirical live load distribution factors with

approximate manual adjustments. The method includes direct analytical solution, finite

difference method, infinite strip method, slope-deflection method and finite element method,

which consider two-dimensional models that have warping degree-of-freedom capabilities and

refined inelastic shell-beam finite element analysis (FEA) that approach and had demonstrated

their ability to closely predict the experimental response of a bridge. Even in this analysis,

smaller members such as stiffeners are not modeled and their self-weight could be applied as a

percentage of the girder self-weight, the analyst should be aware of these details and consider

them by choosing if entering the numbers individually or as a percentage. Allowing the designer

to choose between composite and non-composite girders, changing the moment of inertia and

torsional constant for the deck or the deck and the girder as a unit. This analysis assimilates the

degrees of freedom at each element such as rotation, translations, shear and moment.

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 6

 Figure 1: Construction Stage with Deck pouring sequence

Construction Stage with Deck pouring sequence using a 3D Rigorous method analysis MIDAS

Engineering Software.

There could be cases where the system can potentially be mathematically reduced from a three-

dimensional analysis to a two-dimensional grid model, depending upon its complexity, this

model can include the effect of girder eccentricity and cross frame stiffness in an indirect and/or

approximate manner with the application of just a few simple modification factors.[2]

The buckling moment of a section is affected by plasticity that its related to its geometry,

because of this assumption the layout of the bridge during the analysis is crucial to define the

basic geometry and girder type, alignment, spans, substructure and boundary conditions. The

buckling moment resistance in agreement with Mary Brettle [3], shows that very slender sections

fail by elastically instability due to the excessive lateral torsional buckling at an applied moment

close to the critical moment, when intermediate slender sections fail inelastically by excessive

lateral torsional buckling at applied moments less than the critical moment and both slenderness

plasticity and instability will interact in comparison with stocky sections that will fail by fully

plastic action with negligible lateral torsional buckling. In the case of the Girder line Analysis,

the structure is simplified by using typical cross-sectional properties, it is important to consider

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 7

the composite and non-composite behavior of the girders because of their geometry variation and

location, modeling a composite girder behavior is more complicated than modeling a non-

composite girder and that not all the sections behave the same, standard sizes are often employed

for cross-frames and diaphragms, these braces are often much stiffer than needed for stability

requirements. The stiffer braces develop large forces during truck loading and these large brace

forces combined with complex connection details to the girder and webs usually lead to large

stress concentrations that result in fatigue problems.

BRACING

On a typical I-Girder bridge, continuous bracing is provided to the compression flange by a

concrete deck that is carried by the beam system, restraining the beam region which is subjected

to a cycling moment. Out of the previously explained analytical methods, the finite element

method is the most suitable for construction-load analysis, one limitation of this method,

however, is that it requires knowledge of the finite element method on the analyst part. The

majority of the loading during construction comes from the weight of wet concrete. The entire

deck is usually not cast in one stage because of the large volume of concrete, constructability

schedule and to control shrinkage. As a result, parts of the girders may become partially

composite in sequential stages. Analysis for construction loading should be precise on this stage

and take into account the partial composite action developing between the stages. In order to

accurately model this phenomenon, a thorough understanding of the behavior of both the

concrete deck and steel-concrete interface at early ages is fundamental. [4]

The three-dimensional response that a horizontally curved and skewed I-Girder Bridge is

exposed to is directly influenced by the bracing system configuration. the 2D grid and grillage

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 8

analysis model simulate such effects. These primary members offer an additional load path for

induced live loads which influences vertical bending of adjacent girders. Bracing that controls

both lateral movement and twist is more effective than lateral or torsional braces acting alone,

per Tong and Chen Tong, G. Research Study [5] A torsional brace can directly restrain the twist

of the cross section and can only increase the buckling capacity about fifty percent above the

unbraced case if no stiffener is used, as in the case of twin beams (Lateral Brace) Figure 2 shows

a typical portion of a composite i-girder bridge consisting of a concrete deck and built-up plate

girder I-Section with stiffeners and cross frames.

Figure 2: Components of Typical I-Girder Bridge

Components of Typical I-Girder Bridge.[9]

The most common braces used in steel bridges are cross-frames, diaphragms, and transverse

stiffeners Cross-frames are truss type systems in which the members resist axial forces, the

correct representation of the stiffness of these members is essential in refined analyses since the

cross-frames in these structures are integral parts of the structural system as declared in the

bracing requirements for elastic steel beams, Yura [7], such effects can be modeled by suing the

V-load method, where girders, cross frames, support spacing and member sections can have

variable sections, can be skewed and also composite members can be considered and modeled if

necessary, if a diaphragms bracing system is used, the braces develop bending moments to

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 9

restrain girder twist providing lateral resistance to the bottom flange against wind load and are

still needed in the negative moment region for stability. If transverse stiffeners are going to be

used, lateral torsional buckling capacity of the girders increase by augmenting the warping

torsional resistance which should be prevented by diaphragms located near the centroid of the

stringer. Such effects can be considered when analyzing the system by the grillage method,

where 4 degrees of freedom are for translation, 2 rotation components in the x and y plane and 1

warping effect component, the assumptions made that could lead to a poor design are that the

cross section is nonsymmetrical, shear deformation is neglected and the support conditions are

pinned or fixed. Torsional behavior can be restrained by cross frames that prevent the relative

movement of the top and bottom flanges when the brace is attached to the top flange, there is no

cross-section distortion.

Figure 3: Torsional Beam Bracing

Torsional beam bracing. Picture retrieved by the Fundamentals of Beam Bracing / Engineering

Journal / First Quarter / 2001.

Loading through the deck during the sequence of construction can provide a beneficial

“restoring” effect, as the beam tries to buckle, the contact point shifts from mid-flange to the

flange tip resulting in a restoring torque that increases the buckling capacity. In agreement with

the Fundamentals of Beam Bracing by Joseph A. Yura [8], If a web stiffener is used with the

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 10

torsional brace attached to the compression flange, the buckling strength increases until buckling

occurs between the braces at 3.3 times the unbraced capacity.

As proven in the analysis and research project that Sammy Taha described [9] The buckling

moment capacity increases as the point of load application moves below the shear center. As the

number of cross frame increases, the difference in the critical moment between top flange

loading and bottom flange loading decreases. Figure 4 shows the torsional bracing Investigation

that Yura and Phillips completed [8], the behavior of the tension flange (dashed line) is just as

effective as compression flange bracing (solid line), even with no stiffener. If the beam has no

stiffeners, splitting bracing equally between the two flanges gives a greater capacity than placing

all the bracing on just one flange. The dot-dash curve is the solution if transverse stiffeners

prevent web distortion. the buckled cross section at midspan has no distortion as shown by the

heavy solid lines. If no stiffeners are used, the buckling load drops, yet there is only slight

distortion as shown by the dashed shape. The overall angle of twist for the braced beam is much

smaller than the twist in the unbraced case (dot-dash curve).

Figure 4: Effect of Torsional Brace Location

Effect of torsional brace location, Analysis by Joseph A. Yura. And J. A., Phillips [7]

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 11

CONCLUSION

The combination of the V-load and grid line methods have shown to be reliable and congruent

that will decently assimilate the behavior for a wide range of structures to a certain extent, being

relatively simple and fast to elaborate but the 3D rigorous modeling analysis is the most accurate

since the level of detailing takes into account as many characteristics of the serviceability

behavior as the designer wish to resemble.

Depending on the curvature and/or skew of the I-girder beam, where the accurate calculation of

deflections, rotations and deformation play an important role and become more significant, the

analyst should perform a rigorous analysis, thoroughly enough that considers detailing and

erection of the structural elements of the system such as girders, cross frames and bracing that

could lead to an accurate result.

Informing the contractor of tolerances, construction sequence and loading response of the

structural system that could direct to significant deformations and geometric nonlinear effects

that can potentially change the behavior and differ with the analysis. The measured forces and

stresses in the field should be compared with the analysis input to provide a good correlation

between findings from laboratories and field tests with mathematical analysis in order to get a

correct mathematical representation of the physical problem being considered.

Current studies, literature, and investigations lack experimental evidence of the interface

behavior of steel-concrete. This information is essential in understanding the stresses being

transfered between the composite sections, most analytical predictions were in reasonable

agreement with the experimental findings, but the computed forces were higher than the ones

observed in the field.

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 12

Recall the main purpose of the bridge design, in the case of a catastrophe the damage can only be

properly addressed if the designer and/or analyst is knowledgeable about the structural system,

its weakness and behavior and such deficiencies can be structurally fixed while the bridge still

operates and complies with its function.

REFERENCES

[1] Miller, J. and T. Baber. 2009. Field Testing of the Wolf Creek Curved Girder Bridge: Part II:

Strain Measurements. Virginia Transportation Research Council, FHWA/ VTRC 09- CR14.

Charlottesville, Virginia.

[2] Steel Bridge Handbook. Us department of transportation Federal Highway Administration,

Structural Analysis, Publication No. FHWA-IF-12-052-Vol.8. November 2012.

[3]. Mary Brettle, Senior Engineer at the Steel Construction Institute, Lateral torsional buckling

and slenderness.

[4] Composite Action during Construction of Steel Trapezoidal Box Girder Bridges, Report No.

1. FHWA/TX-07/0-1898-2, Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at

Austin, C. Topkaya, J. A. Yura, E. B. Williamson, and K. H. Frank.

[5] Tong and Chen, 1988; Tong, G. S., and Chen, S. H., 1988, “Buckling of Laterally and

Torsionally Braced Beams”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 11, pp. 41-55

[6] Fundamentals of Beam Bracing Joseph A. Yura / Engineering Journal / First Quarter / 2001.

[7] Yura and Phillips, 1992“Bracing Requirements for Elastic Steel Beams,” Report No. 1239-1,

Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, May, 73 p. Yura, J. A.,

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 13

Phillips, B., Raju, S., and Webb, S. (1992), “Bracing of Steel Beams in Bridges,” Report No.

1239-4F, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, October, 80 p.

[8] Cross-Frame Analysis and Design Improvements, The National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine.

[9]. Lehigh University. Lehigh Preserve Theses and Dissertations 2000 Lateral torsional

buckling of HPS bridge I-girders with cost-effective cross-frame spacing Sammy Taha Elsayed.

FALL 2016 Ngoc, Pham, PE 14