UNIVERSITY OF ELDORET CVS 517E -DESIGN OF BRIDGES ‘Types of superstructures 1. Slab on stringer bridges Consist of a deck, resting on the girders. The deck distributes the loads transversely to the girders. The girders carry the loads longitudinally (down the length of the bridge) to the supports, (abutments and intermediate bents). + Concrete + Deck Girder + Prestressed I Girder + Prestressed Double Tee + Prestressed Box + Plate Girder + Wide Flange + _ Steel Box Girder Petre Cont bb Tans oaoany choss section f JI cl CONCRETE PRESTRESSED DOUBLE TEE a‘STEEL PLATE GIRDER Welded box shaped plete girders in compen in dn og welded piste grder The aee of the Box theped member is limited ta Silations where vrical clegranes for tealie undarveath tha sree it not (valieble forthe | hoped mere ROADWAY CROSS SECTION 2. Slab bridges In slab bridges the deck itself is the structural frame or the entire deck is a thin beam acting entirely as one primary member. These types are used where depth of structure is a critical factor.+ Typical Slab Bridges : Concrete Box Culverts : Solid Slabs : Voided Slabs T concrETE soup stags seer triple box culvert BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE ANALYSIS Introduction The object of the analysis is to arrive at design load effects (moments, shear forces and stresses) for the various elements of the structure. The most severe selection of loadings and combinations needs to be determined for each critical element. The main design load effects that are to be calculated include the following: «Maximum moment with co-existent shear in the most heavily loaded main girder: at midspan, over intermediate support and at splice positions ‘| Maximum shear with co-existent moment in the most heavily loaded main girder: at supports and at splices + Maximum forces in transverse bracing at supports Maximum and minimum reactions at bearings «Transverse slab moments (to be combined with local slab moments for design of slab reinforcement) Displacements and rotations at bearings will also need to be calculated. Displacements at midspan may need to be checked if clearance is critical. Stiffness of the girdersduring construction may need to be determined, for design of bracing and restraint systems. The total deflections under dead and superimposed loads should be calculated so that the designer can indicate the dead load deflections on the drawings. Selection of the most heavily loaded girder can usually be made by inspection, as can selection of the more heavily loaded intermediate supports. Influence lines can be used to identify appropriate loaded lengths for the maximum effects. It is now common practice to use a computer analysis, and this facility is assumed to be available to the designer. Software packages are available over a wide range of sophistication and capability, and the selection of program will usually depend on the designer's in-house computing facilities. For a structure as fundamentally simple as a beam-and-slab bridge, quite simple programs will usually suffice. For a simple span, the central bending moment on the whole bridge is of course easily calculated manually. However, the proportion of the moment carried by each beam depends on the relative stiffness of beams and slab, so a computer model analysis is of benefit even for such structures. Simplified Analysis Methods Approximate analysis techniques have several advantages that make them attractive for specific applications, even in this age of computerization. Many of the approximate analysis techniques are based on equlbium approaches and are quite raneparent, giving the engineer a good feel for one distribution of forces through a bridge, Most of the approximate analysis techniques are also relatively simple and quick to use, making them valuable for preliminary designs or as approximate tools for validating more complex analyses. However, approximate analysis techniques should only be considered rough tools for bridges with anything beyond the most basic geometry and framing. The simplifications and approximations involved in applying the approximate analysis techniques to more complex bridges tend to reduce the accuracy of their results, particularly with regard to the prediction of structural deformations, Use of approximate analysis techniques should be limited to preliminary design or the design of relatively simple structures. a) Analysis Using Classical Beam Analysis Methods Straight, non-skewed bridges are ideal candidates for using classical beam analysis techniques such as the moment distribution method, the moment-area theorem, etc. These types of structures have a structural behavior that is reasonably modeled in one dimension only and can often be characterized simply by beam analysis. Typically this is referred to as line girder analysis or girderline analysis. Classical beam analysis techniques have several advantages that make them attractive for specific uses. Many of the classical beam analysis techniques are based on direct ‘equilibrium and are quite transparent, clearly illustrating the distribution of forces through a bridge. Most classical beam analysis techniques also are simple and quick to use, making them valuable for preliminary designs or as approximate tools for validating more complex analyses. However, gitderline analysis techniques should only be considered approximate tools for bridges with characteristics beyond the most basic geometry and framing. The simplifications and approximations involved in applying the classical beam analysis techniques to more complex bridges tend to reduce the accuracy of their results, particularly with regard to the prediction of structural deformations. Use of girderline analysis techniques should be limited to the design ofrelatively simple structures. In addition, before undertaking an analysis using the classical beam analysis techniques by hand, designers are advised to consider the complications which may arise from the need to model moving live loads. Similarly, designers should consider the complexity associated with performing the specified capacity calculations at all potentially critical sections along the length of the girder. Performing these code checks by hand for strength, service, fatigue, deflection and other issues can be simple for shorter structures but may become a very tedious task for longer bridges. Prudence is required in applying simple girderline analysis methods to bridges with complicated framing plans. While these simpler methods may be more transparent and easier to implement, the number of simplifying assumptions and approximations needed to adapt a girderline analysis to a complex framing plan may affect the accuracy and understanding of important behavior. Computerized Approaches Based on Classical Beam Analysis Methods One way to address the complexity of live load modeling in a girderline analysis is to computerize the analysis calculations. There are numerous ways to incorporate computer technology into a girderline analysis. Usually, the extent of the design process covered in the computer application determines the effort required to create and use that tool. An application may be as simple as a spreadsheet that tabulates moments and shears for the beam, or it may be as complicated as a custom program which covers the entire design process, from generation of geometric parameters and cross section properties, quantification of framing considerations, calculations of shears, moments, stresses, and deflections, and comparisons to specification-derived capacities and other code provisions. Spreadsheets offer flexibility and control in girderline analyses. The limitations to the complexity and extent of the spreadsheet are based primarily on the time and money available and the skills of the designer in programming the spreadsheet. However, care should be exercised in using spreadsheets. As with any computer application, a spreadsheet can become a “black box” approach that is difficult to document, check, and interpret. Moreover, quality control and validation may be limited in many cases. For example, spreadsheets are often not checked with a full range of testing suites like most commercial applications. Finally, the spreadsheet can easily be changed when used by different engineers, and a sheet of the same filename can become a different, non-validated application. In addition, the multiple paths and decision points in the steel girder design provisions may prove to be difficult to program efficiently in a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets are efficient for calculating a large number of values using simple formulas, but are much less efficient when used for calculating values that may result from complex formulas or processes often dependent on the value of one or more other variables with several conditional execution paths. A more efficient approach to addressing the complexities in steel girder design may be found in applications that are developed using a formal programming language where spreadsheets constraints are removed. However both significant computer science and engineering experience are required to address the complexities of the current steel girder design provisions. Applications for girderline analysis are most often commercially licensed or otherwise developed by specialized consultants. Several steel girderline design applications are available, both from commercial software companies and from various bridge owner-agencies (either for freeor at a nominal cost). In all cases, any computerized approach, whether a spreadsheet or a program, whether commercially-purchased or “home-grown,” should always be verified and spot-checked by independent calculations performed either by hand or by an independent computer tool. Most computer applications are complex tools and even minor programming errors can drastically affect the results of engineering computations. RIGOROUS ANALYSIS METHODS The most commonly used rigorous analysis methods can be broadly divided into two categories: 2-D and 3-D analysis methods. @) ee en) q ce Rigorous analysis method models. (a) Actual del, (6) 3-D analysis 2D, or “Grid” analysis 2-D "Grid" Analysis Methods The “entry level" finite element model used by the building structural engineer is the plane frame. Plane frames are routinely used to model the behavior of regular structures for the distribution of gravity and lateral loads. The “entry level” finite element model used by the bridge structural engineer is the plane grid for superstructures and plane frame for substructures. This approach is called a “grillage” or “grid” analysis, Space frames are routinely used as well. Results from grillage models can be used in several ways: + Direct computation of live load envelopes and subsequent combination with dead loads for all load combinations. + Direct computation of live and/or dead loads for use in hand-calculation GRILLAGE ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE DECK GeometryLongitudinal grillage members are arranged to represent the main beams with transverse members representing the deck slab and diaphragm beams. The spacing of transverse grillage members are chosen to be about 1.5 times the spacing of the main longitudinal members, but may vary up to a limit of 2:1. Transverse members are required at the diaphragm positions and, in order to achieve a member at mid span, there needs to be an odd number of members. 2.0m 2.0m SHRH RHR HH 11No. Y4 beams at im c/c ena diophragm t (Fig.1) 20.0m span Section A-A Member Properties The bending inertia and torsional inertia are required for all the members in the grillage model. The sections for the members representing the deck in Fig.1 are shown in Fig.4 and Fig.5 below. Mt Darl Sik) crapal Beary =i. Gos Sa a src vest . 78 | r (ree) Zz fy ey Lecel Member AxisThe bending inertia for the composite sections can be calculated using a suitable proforma. Member properties for the grillage are calculated for the local member axis as shown and care will be needed to ensure you are using the correct notation. An approximation of the torsional inertia of the member is obtained by dividing the section into component rectangles as shown in Fig.4. The torsional inertia for a rectangle is given by J=k: b? bmax where: b is the length of the short side, bmax is the length of the long side k1 =(1-0.63(b/bmax )(1-b4 /12b4max )V/3 The torsional inertia of the section is the summation of the inertias of the individual rectangles. Bearing and Supports Most grillage programs will allow the supports to be modeled as free, rigid or sprung. Spring supports are used to model the elastic deformation either of the bearing or of the support structure. Rubber bearings will distort under load and have a significant effect on the distribution of loads throughout the deck. Even the elastic deformation of concrete columns can have an effect on the distribution of loads in a continuous deck. A simple line beam analysis will give an approximate magnitude for the reactions. This will enable a suitable bearing to be chosen for the grillage model. Alternatively the grillage analysis can be carried out with rigid vertical supports and modified later Loading All loading is proportioned to the grillage members and grillage joints (nodes) before the moments, shears and torsions are calculated Results Itis always good practice to carry out approximate checks of the output as the job proceeds. One simple check is to obtain the total reactions for each load case to see if they agree with an estimate of the total load applied in each load case. Also a simple line beam analysis will produce approximate moments and shears that can be compared with the results from the grillage analysis.