ENCE717 Bridge Engineering
Bridge Analysis
7. Numerical Methods (3.0)
Chung C. Fu, Ph.D., P.E.
(http: www.best.umd.edu)
Numerical Methods 3D FEM
Issues include:
1)
2)
3)
Introduction Bridge Analysis
Numerical Methods 3D FEM
Advantages and Disadvantages of Grid Analysis
Advantages and Disadvantages of 3D FEM Analysis
3D FEM Example
Numerical Methods Elastic Stability (3.2.8 & 14.0)
Numerical Methods Creep and Shrinkage Analysis (3.3
& 5.2)
Numerical Methods Influence Surface (3.4)
Numerical Methods
Applications in Bridge Analysis
what types of element a bridge model should be
used;
when a 2D model is sufficient and when a 3D
model is necessary; and
how to correctly interpret FEM results from bridge
engineering perspectives, especially when a
bridge is modeled as plate or shell elements.
 Numerical Methods
Elements used in Bridge Analysis
In general, truss, frame(/beam) and shell(/plate) elements can
cover most bridge analyses;
Truss element is also called link element. Bridge bearings,
hangers, prestress tendons, cables, and etc. can be modeled
as truss elements.
In line models, girders, stringers, diaphragms, pylons,
columns, piers, and etc. are usually modeled as frame
elements.
Shell element combines in-plane stress/strain behavior
together with bending of a plate, either as a thin plate or a
thick plate.
Numerical Methods Advantages and
Disadvantages of Grid Analysis
Middle- and short-span girder bridges, an intermediate model,
or the so-called grid model, is widely used;
Grid model: each node of an element has only vertical
displacements, bending rotation and torsional displacements.
Element internal forces contain bending and torsional
moments plus shear, accordingly;
Some behaviors of a wide thin walled box girder, such as
warping when torsion is restrained, distortion when insufficient
diaphragm is used and shear lagging due to longitudinal shear
deformations of flanges, cannot be represented in a grid
model;

Numerical Methods Advantages and Numerical Methods Advantages and

Disadvantages of 3D FEM Analysis (1) Disadvantages of 3D FEM Analysis (2)
For truss or frame elements, internal forces output from FEM
analyses can be used directly for engineering design and
code checks; Stressesalonghorizontaldirectionafterunfolded

For shell elements, the original FEM results are not

meaningful and cannot be used in design or code because the
Majorprincipalstresses
stresses in each elements local coordinate system.
a) Curves axial stresses distribution
from a shell element model
b) Straight lines axial stresses
distribution re-computed from beam
bending theory by using equivalent
internal forces obtained from stress
integration
Shellelementsofawebinaboxgirderandverticalshearstresses
3D FEM Example - MD28 in Tuscarora 3D FEM Example - MD28 in Tuscarora

Pattern: All
cracks are
initiated from
skewed
abutment and
normal to the
abutment line.
Then, turn
parallel to the
girder lines

3D FEM Analysis - 55 Span, 15 Skew 3D FEM Analysis - 55 Span, 30 Skew

4 Skewed Ties at 5 and 20 2 Staggered Ties (Full- 4 Skewed Ties at 5 and 20 2 Staggered Ties (Full-
from Supports Width) from Supports Width)

Little difference Skewed ties show significant improvement

Numerical Methods Elastic Stability Numerical Methods Elastic Stability

Figure 14.12 The first mode of a simple arch

bridge bulking, out-of-plane ( 408.516

Numerical Methods
Elastic Stability Example
Creep and Shrinkage Analysis
Figure 14.13 The second mode of a
simple arch bridge bulking, out-of-plane
( 1046.208

Figure 14.14 The third mode of a

simple arch bridge buckling, in-plane
( 1259.367
 Numerical Methods
Creep and Shrinkage Typical Time Curve (1)
Creep and Shrinkage Analysis

Figure3.13 Momentdistributionofa3spancontinuousbridgebuiltspanbyspan,
withoutconsiderationofconcretecreepconsidered(kNM)

Figure3.14 Momentdistributionofa3spancontinuousbridge8yearsafterbuiltspan
byspan,withconsiderationofconcretecreepconsidered(kNM)

Creep and Shrinkage Typical Time Curve (2) Moment due to Creep
q
Fixed Fixed
4.0
STRAIN
TRA IN

3.72
3.5 2
MI qL
MI =
C REEP S

3.0 3.03 8
N D CREEP

2.5 2.57 L L
Free Cantilever Statical System
2.22
AND

2.0 2.00
L A S TI C A

2
1.70 MII qL
ELASTIC

1.5 1.44 2 M II =
qL 12
1.20
1.20

1.0 24
1.07
1.0 7

1.00
1.0 0

0.94
0. 9 4
0.96
0.96

0. 9 1
0.91

0.9 0
0.90

0 .8 8
0.88
O TA L E

Changed Statical System (Midspan Continuous)

TOTAL

0.5

Mcr (t)
T

0 3 7 14 21 28 42 56 3 4 56 9 1 1.5 2 3 5 t M Final (t) MI

Days Months Years

DURATION OF LOADING
M II
Structural Concrete subjected to Creep Structural Concrete subjected to Creep

Cantilever Beam Post-Tensioned Beam

P P

el (t 0)
PT Tendon
cr (t ) (t 0)
el

Simple Beam P P
P P

el (t )
el (t 0)
Pef Pef
Pef Pef
cr (t ) el ( t 0)

Numerical Methods
Collapse of Palau Bridge due to Creep Influence Surface
For spatial bridge analyses, traditional lateral load distribution theories,
influence lines and simplified calculation methods are substituted by
spatial structural analyses and influence surface loading.

Figure3.19 Influencesurfaceofatiedarchbridge