Thesis Report Soumya Sandipa

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF CURVED AND SKEWED CONCRETE
I-BEAM BRIDGE GIRDER
A thesis
Submitted by
SOUMYA SANDIPA
2012A2TS009P
In partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the degree
B.E. (Hons.) Civil Engineering
Submitted to
DR. MANOJ KUMAR
HOD, Civil Engineering Dept., BITS Pilani
Department of Civil Engineering

Birla Institute of Technology and Sciences, Pilani
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333031
May, 2016
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to express my most profound gratefulness to each one of the individuals
who gave me the likelihood to finish this report. During my thesis period, I
have been bolstered by such a variety of individuals for whom I remain
profoundly thankful to every one of them.
I am deeply thankful to my thesis instructor Dr. Manoj Kumar Sir, HOD Civil
Engineering Department, BITS Pilani for his constant guidance and support.
I would also like to thank my team members Aishwarya Gupta and Priyamvada
Agarwal for helping me whenever I was in difficult situation.
2
ABSTRACT
Bridges are the key elements in any road network. The configuration of today's roadways
has set expanding requests on the architect. Because of requirements on accessibility of
area in urban communities a curved and skewed bridge girder is fundamental with the
arrangement adjusted to suit the site. Horizontally curved and skewed girders react to loads
uniquely in contrast to do straight girders in view of the torsional powers actuated by the
shape of the longitudinal axis. Curved bridges have an additional point of preference of
stylish claim.
In spite of the fact that the utilization of curved and skewed scaffolds keeps on expanding
relentlessly all through the nation, certain parts of their conduct amid development still are
not surely known. Subsequently, there is a need to create direction for extension engineers
concerning tending to development issues amid configuration. The impacts of configuration,
creation and development on the geometry and burden dissemination in a curved or
skewed, I-beam bridge system are regions in which assist study and comprehension are
required.
The modelling of the box-girder, I-beam girder and T-beam girder was done using CSI Bridge
v18.1. The loading patterns and criteria on the bridges were according to IS Specifications
IRC 006. The dimensions for box-girder Bridge and T-beam Bridge were taken from IRC 006
and for I-beam girder, AASHTO recommendations were used.
Parametric study, on simply supported bridge models, has been done by analysing the effect
of length of span (20m, 25m and 30m), radius of curvature(100m, 200m and 300m) and
skew angle(0°, 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°) on various responses such as bending moment, shear
force, torsion, displacement and compressive and tensile stresses induced.
The models have been analysed using finite element method in CSiBridge v18.1 software.
The parametric study on behaviour of the bridges showed that, as curvature decreases,
responses such as longitudinal stresses at the top and bottom, shear, torsion, moment and
deflection. It is observed that as the span length increases, longitudinal stresses at the top
and bottom, shear, torsion, moment and deflection increases.
There are some other parametric studies which cannot be studied using CSiBridge software
but these parameters should be taken care of during construction of the bridges. They are
web-plumbness, temporary shoring placement and settlement effects, cross-frame
consistent detailing, girder and cross-frame erection sequencing along the span and with
respect to girder radius and the effects of “drop-in” erection, solid plate diaphragms verses
cross frames and global temperature change.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………………………….…………1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………2
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….…….3
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………….4
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….……6
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….....7
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General…………………………………………………………………………....8
1.2 Box, I and T-Beam Girder………………………………………………….9
1.3 Objective………………………………………………………………………….10
1.4 Scope……………………………………………………………………………….11
1.5 Methodology……………………………………………………………………11
1.6 Outline of thesis……………………………………………………………….11
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General……………………………………………………………………………..12
2.2 Analysis procedure……………………………………………………………16
2.3 IS Specifications
Loading on bridge……………………………………………………………21
Specifications for box-girder bridge………………………………….22
4
Longitudinal forces………………………………………………………..……23
AASHTO recommendations for I-beam girder…………………….24
2.4 Comparison between box, I and T-beam girder…………………..26
CHAPTER 3 MODELLING AND PARAMETRIC STUDY
3.1 Modelling…………………………………………………………………………..29
3.2 Parametric study………………………………………………………………..35
3.2.1 Analysis of effect of curvature……………………………………….38
3.2.2 Analysis of effect of skew angle…………………………………….54
3.2.3 Analysis of effect of span……………………………………………….68
INFERENCES
4.1 Effect of curvature…………………………………………………………….84
4.2 Effect of skew angle………………………………………………………….85
4.3 Effect of span…………………………………………………………………….86
CONCLUSION……………………………................................................... 87
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………..88
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.
1 I beam Girder Bridge 4
2 Box beam Girder Bridge 4
3 T beam Girder Bridge 4
4 I-beam girder section twisted by a torque 8
5 Distribution of lateral loads on flanges 9
6 AASHTO recommendations for dimensions of I beam 18
7 AASHTO relation between span length and beam type 19
8 Typical pre-stressed pre-cast concrete I-beam girder 19
9-13 Effect of curvature on bending moment 44-45
14-18 Effect of curvature on shear force 45-47
19-23 Effect of curvature on torsion 47-48
24-28 Effect of curvature on compressive stress 49-50
29-33 Effect of curvature on tensile stress 50-52
34-38 Effect of curvature on deflection 52-53
39-42 Effect of skew angle on bending moment 60-61
43-46 Effect of skew angle on shear force 61-62
47-50 Effect of skew angle on torsion 62-63
51-54 Effect of skew angle on compressive stress 64-65
55-58 Effect of skew angle on tensile stress 65-66
59-62 Effect of skew angle on deflection 66-67
63-67 Effect of span on bending moment 74-75
68-72 Effect of span on shear force 75-77
73-77 Effect of span on torsion 77-78
78-82 Effect of span on compressive stress 79-80
83-87 Effect of span on tensile stress 80-82
88-92 Effect of span on deflection 82-83
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
1 Characteristic parameters for 0⁰ skew angle 24
6 Non-dimensional ratios for bending moment for effect of curvature 38
7 Non-dimensional ratios for shear force for effect of curvature 39
8 Non-dimensional ratios for torsion for effect of curvature 40
9 Non-dimensional ratios for compressive stress for effect of curvature 41
10 Non-dimensional ratios for tensile stress for effect of curvature 42
11 Non-dimensional ratios for deflection for effect of curvature 43
12 Non-dimensional ratios for bending moment for effect of skew angle 54
13 Non-dimensional ratios for shear force for effect of skew angle 55
14 Non-dimensional ratios for torsion for effect of skew angle 56
15 Non-dimensional ratios for compressive stress for effect of skew angle 57
16 Non-dimensional ratios for tensile stress for effect of skew angle 58
17 Non-dimensional ratios for deflection for effect of skew angle 59
18 Non-dimensional ratios for bending moment for effect of span 68
19 Non-dimensional ratios for shear force for effect of span 69
20 Non-dimensional ratios for torsion for effect of span 70
21 Non-dimensional ratios for compressive stress for effect of span 71
22 Non-dimensional ratios for tensile stress for effect of span 72
23 Non-dimensional ratios for deflection for effect of span 73
7
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Bridge construction today has accomplished an overall level of significance. Bridges are the
key components in any street system. Use of box beams and T-beams as compared to steel
beams is picking up ubiquity in bridge construction in light of its better steadiness,
serviceability, economy, tasteful appearance and basic proficiency.
Pre-stress cement is in a perfect world suited for the development of medium and long
traverse span bridges. Since the time that the advancement of pre-focused on cement by
Freyssinet in the mid-1930s, the material has discovered broad application in the
development of long-traverse spans, bit by bit supplanting steel which needs immoderate
support because of the intrinsic drawback of consumption under forceful environment
conditions.
Tight geometric prerequisites are regularly put on roadway structures because of right-of
route confinements in congested urban regions. Skewed on a level plane bended solid brace
scaffolds are a standout amongst the most sparing choices for fulfilling these requests.
Progressively strict and complex site requirements are prompting span ventures with longer
traverses, more serious ebb and flow and more intricate geometries.
These attributes intensify the inborn three-dimensional (3-D) reaction of bended and
skewed scaffold structures. Thus, the conduct of these sorts of scaffolds should be better
caught on. The capacity of different levels of examination to catch (or record for) the 3-D
span reactions should be concentrated on in more profundity, and the ramifications of
different investigation and configuration approximations on the wellbeing, constructability
and economy of bended and skewed extensions should be characterized all the more
plainly.
Box girders have increased wide acknowledgment in turnpike and scaffold frameworks
because of their auxiliary proficiency, better dependability, serviceability, economy of
development and satisfying feel. Examination and outline of box-girder beams are
exceptionally intricate due to its three dimensional practices comprising of torsion,
distortion and bending in longitudinal and transverse directions.
A box-beam girder is especially appropriate for use in curved beam systems because of its
high torsional rigidity. High torsional rigidity empowers box girders to viably oppose the
torsional distortions experienced in curved thin walled beams. There are three box girder
configurations commonly used in practice. Box girder webs can be vertical or inclined, which
reduces the width of the bottom flange.
Box girders can be constructed as single cell, double cell or multi-cell. It may be
monolithically constructed with the deck, called closed box girder or the deck can be
8
separately constructed afterwards called open box girder. Or box girders may be
rectangular, trapezoidal and circular.
T beam - A T-beam, used in construction, is a load-bearing structure of reinforced

concrete, wood or metal, with a t-shaped cross section. The top of the t-shaped cross
section serves as a flange or compression member in resisting compressive stresses. The
web of the beam below the compression flange serves to resist shear stress and to provide
greater separation for the coupled forces of bending.
The T-beam has a big disadvantage compared to an I-beam because it has no bottom flange
with which to deal with tensile forces. One way to make a T-beam more efficient structurally
is to use an inverted T-beam with a floor slab or bridge deck joining the tops of the beams.
Done properly, the slab acts as the compression flange.
I beam – I-beam girders are among the most commonly used girders in bridge construction.
I-beam girders are made from rolled steel, and bridges constructed using I-beams are often
called rolled steel girder bridges. I-beam girder bridges are economical, simple to design and
relatively straightforward to build, making them a good option in most cases.
The I-beams used in bridge girder construction are mostly composite bridges because they
consist of both concrete and steel. If the bridge contains any curves, the beams become
subject to twisting forces, also known as torque." I-beams, therefore, are best used to
construct bridges that do not have any significant curves. The concrete is also reinforced
with steel rods. The concrete withstands the forces of compression well and the steel rods
embedded within resist the forces of tension. I-Beam bridges may be costly for rather short
spans, since expensive steel is required as a construction material.
Concrete is also used as beam material, and is cheaper. However, concrete is comparatively
not that strong to withstand the high tensile forces acting on the beams. Therefore, the
concrete beams are normally reinforced by using steel mesh. When long spans are required
to be covered, I-beam bridges are extremely expensive due to the piers required for holding
the long beams. Building of the support piers may not always be possible due to the
limitation of space.
In bridges with light curvature, the curvature effects on bending, shear and torsional shear
stresses may be ignored if they are within acceptable range. Treating horizontally curved
bridges as straight ones with certain limitations is one of the methods to simplify the
analysis and design procedure. But, now-a-days higher level investigations are possible due
to the high capacity computational systems available. It is required to examine these bridges
using finite element analysis with different radius of curvatures, span length and skew angle
configurations.
9
Figure 1 - I beam Girder
Bridge.
Reference -
http://www.johnweeks.com/
river_mississippi/pics02/mn2
32palisade03.jpg
Figure 2 – Box beam Girder Bridge.
Reference -
https://erkrishneelram.files.wordpr
ess.com/2015/03/box-girder-
bridge.png?w=350&h=200&crop=1
Figure 3 – T-Beam Girder Bridge.
Reference-
http://techsoftglobal.com/Technical
%20Docs/ASTRA%20Pro/img_29.jpg
1.2 OBJECTIVES:
The objectives of the present study are:
1. Literature review of the analytical methods, previous experimental and theoretical

research work, and general behavior of curved and skewed I girder bridges.
2. To study the behavior of curved and skewed I girder bridges and analyze the effects
of change in span, curvature and skew angle.
10
1.3 SCOPE:
The present work is about the study of the behaviour of pre-stressed concrete I-beam girder
bridges. Present study involves various span length (i.e. 20m, 25m and 30m), radius of
curvature (100m, 200m and 300m) and skew angles (0°, 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°). The cross-
section of the bridge is adopted from AASHTO recommendations. Properties like Bending
moment, shear force, torsion, compressive stress, tensile stress and deflection are
considered in the present study. Warping stress and shear lag are not considered since CSi
Bridge has no provisions for calculating the above two properties.
1.4 METHODOLOGY:
Sixty I-beam girder bridge models are considered with varying span length, radius of
curvature and skew angle. These are modelled using CSiBridge v18.1. CSìBrìdge ìs
specìalìzed analysìs and desìgn software taìlored for the engìneerìng of brìdge systems.
Suspensìon, cable-stay, elevated-roadway, and other types of brìdge systems may be
modelled and desìgned to suìt any one of a varìety of purposes, ìncludìng means for crossìng
water, lìnkìng poìnts between shear terraìn, and extendìng over hìghway ìnfrastructure.
Customìzed controls and features ìntegrate across a powerful object-based modellìng
envìronment to offer an ìntuìtìve, practìcal, and productìve computatìonal tool for brìdge
engìneerìng. All the models are subjected to self-weìght and movìng load of ÌRC Class A
tracked vehìcle. The longìtudìnal stress at top and bottom of cross sectìons, bendìng
moment, torsìon, deflectìon and shear force are recorded. The responses of all the sìxty
models are compared. The ratìo of responses ìs expressed ìn terms of a non-dìmensìonal
parameter.
OUTLINE OF THESIS
This thesis contains three chapters. Chapter-1 is introduction to this thesis followed by
objective and scope of the study.
In chapter-2, there is a study of previously published theoretical, experimental work on

bridge girders, horizontal, curved, skewed bridges.
In chapter-3, the focus is on modelling of the girder bridges using CSiBridge and the
parametric study on the models, how they behave in different curvatures, span length, and
skew angles under same loading conditions, same material property and same boundary
condition.
11
CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL – This chapter is about the description of various literatures on curved and
skewed type bridges. This discusses; the origin of curved beam theory, effect of change of
span length, curvature and skew angle on various properties like bending moment, shear
force, torsion, compressive stress, tensile stress and deflection, different analysis
procedures for curved and skewed bridges, calculation of torsional effects and warping
stresses.
Previously, limited component examination has been widely utilized for investigation of box
beam, I-beam and T-beam girders. Abdelnaby and Frankie (2004) examined Numerical
hybrid investigation of a curved bridge girder and techniques for numerical model
alignment. This study has demonstrated that some displaying suppositions that are
generally utilized as a part of seismic investigation of extension structures are implausible
and subsequently may prompt off base results.
Li Yu and Zhong Tieyi (2008) inspected effect of Curvature and Seismic Excitation
Characteristics on the Seismic Response of Seismically Isolated Curved Continuous Bridge.
The results were vibration models of bended shaft extension are correlative with the
relationship amongst dock and bar and the trademark time of seismic detached bended bar
span range can't be impacted by the sweep of ebb and flow; the foremost characteristic
time of the seismically separated bended pillar scaffold can be delayed to dodge the
dominating time of seismic movements. Along these lines, the seismic reaction of the
seismically confined bended scaffold can be lessened.
Saxena and Maru (2013) did the Comparative Study of the Analysis and Design of T-Beam
Girder and Box Girder Superstructure. A vital exploration has been distributed for Box
Girder Bridge by Chu, K. H. (1971) dissected essentially upheld bended box brace spans by
utilizing limited component strategy. Schlaich, J. (1982), portray the Concrete Box-Girder
Bridges. Sami M. Fereig (1994), [3] has been done a Preliminary outline of precast pre-
focused on Concrete Box Girder Bridge. M. Qaqish (2008), presents the investigation of two
nonstop traverses Box Girder Bridge.
Linzell and Shura (2009) examined Erection conduct and grillage model exactness for an
expansive range bended scaffold. Results from the study demonstrated that, for the
structure that was analyzed: (1) apparent distorting burdens were produced amid support
erection; (2) the traditional grillage model expectations were less exact amid brace erection
while the ``modified'' model forecasts were more precise amid deck arrangement; and (3)
the anticipated grillage model diversions were littler for an outside to-inside support
erection technique than an inside to-outside strategy.
12
White, Chang and Ozgur (2007) studied Construction Simulation of Curved and Skewed Steel
I-Girder Bridges. Richard Miner (2014) studied effect of abutment skew and horizontally
curved alignment on bridge reaction forces. The outcomes exhibit that the insensitive
corner response powers are enormously impact by the scaffold viewpoint proportion over a
wide assortment of skew and bend points.
Besides, the horizontal arrangement curvature has a substantial impact, even at little
arrangement focal points. In addition, the impact of skew point is appeared to be somewhat
subject to scaffold ebb and flow; in spite of the fact that this coupling of the skew and bend
impacts is negligible at little skew edges. The bearing solidness was additionally differed,
which largely affected the responses of skewed and curved extensions.
Komatsu and Nakai (1966, 1970) presented several studies on the free vibration and forced
vibration of horizontally curved single, and twin box-girder bridges using the fundamental
equation of motion along with Vlasov’s thin-walled beam theory. Field tests on bridges
excited either by a shaker or by a truck travelling at various speeds showed reasonable
agreement between the theory and experimental results.
Chu and Pinjarkar (1971) proposed a finite element formulation of curved box-girder
bridges, consisting of horizontal sector plates and vertical cylindrical shell elements. The
method can be applied only to simply supported bridges without intermediate diaphragms.
Chapman et al. (1971) carried out a finite element analysis on steel and concrete box-girder
bridges to study the effect of intermediate diaphragms on the warping and distortional
stresses.
Galambos (2000) considered late research and plan improvements in steel and composite
steel–concrete structures in USA. The central driving force for proceeded with examination
is that gave by normal catastrophes, for example, seismic tremors, hurricanes, tornadoes
and surges happening in thickly populated urban regions. New materials and new
exploratory and computational innovations additionally offer ascent to new and energizing
examination issues.
Lim et al. (1971) proposed a component that has a beam like-in-plane uprooting field. The
component is trapezoidal fit as a fiddle, and subsequently, can be utilized to investigate
right, skew, or curved box-brace spans with consistent profundity and width. William and
Scordelis (1972) presented an elastic analysis of cellular structures of constant depth with
arbitrary geometry in the plane using quadrilateral elements.
Horizontally curved bridges respond to loads differently than do straight bridges because of
the torsional forces induced by the curvature of the longitudinal axis. A surmised technique
for investigation for on a level plane bended extensions can be created utilizing
13
proportionate straight supports if the torque delivered by the shape is spoken to without
anyone else equilibrating loads on the braces. These extra loads are called V-loads since
they are an arrangement of vertical shears on the comparable straight braces. The V-
burdens are created from balance necessities and are principally an element of the sweep of
arch, width of the scaffold unit, and dividing of stomachs between the supports.
In a curved bridge unit with two girders, the outer girder experiences an increase in load
due to the curvature while the inner one experiences a decrease in load. The same
phenomenon occurs in a unit with more than two girders, but the effect of curvature must
also be distributed to the inner girders.
Torsional Response of Girders Because of the horizontal curvature of the bridge unit the
girders must resist torsional forces. The two types of torsional stresses which can exist in
wide flange sections are St. Venant's torsion and warping torsion. Assuming no bracing in
the plate of the bottom flange, the St. Venant’s stiffness for wide flange girders is less than
its warping stiffness. For this reason, St. Venant's stresses are generally much less than the
warping stresses, so St. Venant's torsion is neglected in an approximate analysis of curved
girder units without 13 bracing in the plane of the bottom flanges. All of the torsion is
assumed to be resisted by warping of the girders.
The effects of warping torsion can be approximated by applying lateral forces to a straight
model of the bottom flange. Due to the horizontal curvature, radial forces develop on the
flanges to establish equilibrium. The lateral load on the flange, F, varies along its length and
in proportion to the bending moment as required for radial equilibrium, where M is the
total bending moment on the girder, h is the distance between flanges, and R is the radius.
Figure 4- showing an I-beam girder

section twisted by a torque,
followed by the equation to
determine the lateral load on the
flange.
Fr = M / hR Reference-
Effect of Curvature and Seismic
Excitation Characteristics on the
Seismic Response of Seismically
Isolated Curved Continuous Bridge
1 1 1
Li Yu , Zhong Tieyi , Yang Fengli and
1
Yan Guiping
14
The diaphragms restrain lateral bending of the girders, acting as lateral supports for the
flanges. In the approximation, the diaphragms are assumed to provide rigid supports against
lateral bending.
The lateral bending moments in the flange resulting from this loading are the flange warping
moments, MI. The flange moments vary along the length of the flange. The normal warping
stress at the flange tip is then given by:
Sw = Mf / Sf
Where Sf is the section modulus of the bottom flange for lateral bending.
There are two separate issues significant to the investigation of curved bridge units. The
principal includes computing the moments, shears, longitudinal and warping stresses, and
responses that create because of dead load and determined positions of live loads. An
immediate investigation of the structure with the recommended burdens can be performed
to figure the reactions.
The second issue includes processing the envelope estimations of most extreme and least
minutes and shears that can happen on the scaffold because of moving live loads. In light of
the confused geometry of curved beam units, it is unrealistic from the earlier to decide the
heap positions delivering greatest reaction, so a progression of examinations is required,
one for each live load position.
The inexact investigation system, taking into account the V - load strategy, introduced in this
section registers the reaction of multi-brace span units with variable sweep of ebb and flow
and skew backings. The braces might be non-kaleidoscopic and incorporate composite
conduct of the steel supports and solid chunk. The heaps following up on the extension
incorporate the dead load, path stack and moving truck loads. Dead loads follow up on the
exposed supports, while the superimposed dead load and truck loads follow up on the
composite girder.
Figure 5- showing distribution of

lateral loads on flanges, followed by
bending and warping stress in girder
cross section.
Reference-
Effect of Curvature and Seismic
Excitation Characteristics on the
Seismic Response of Seismically
Isolated Curved Continuous Bridge
1 1 1
2.2LiANALYSIS
Yu , Zhong Tieyi
1
, Yang Fengli and
PROCEDURE
Yan Guiping
15
The investigation strategy for on level plane curved bridges depends on the V-load
technique portrayed underneath. Two investigations of the identical straight supports are
performed for every heap case. The connected burdens on the support are called P-Loads,
and examination of the braces subjected to these heaps brings about P-Load reactions, for
example, Mp " Vp " Rp" the bowing minutes, shears, and responses, individually. Due to the
level ebb and flow of the unit, V-loads follow up on the supports. The braces are
investigated a second time with the V-loads connected at the stomach areas. The reaction
because of these V-loads result in V-Load reactions M", V"' R", the bowing minutes, shears,
and responses, separately. The reaction of the braces in the bended unit is the total of the
P-Load and V-load reactions.
The immediate firmness technique is utilized to compute the reaction of a support to

individual burden cases. Every proportional straight brace in the unit is displayed by a
subjective number of kaleidoscopic shaft components (steady properties for every
component) associated at hubs. The individual components can have diverse area
properties to speak to the non-kaleidoscopic braces, including zones of composite and non-
composite conduct. The auxiliary solidness network is amassed from the component
firmness grids. For a solitary burden case, this auxiliary firmness grid is figured and back-
substituted with the heap vector to decide removals at the nodal focuses. Utilizing these
removals the occasions, shears, responses, and anxieties are figured in the bar components.
The grid firmness strategy can be utilized productively as a part of creating envelopes of
least and most extreme reactions because of moving live loads. The auxiliary solidness
network is free of the heaps; it can be collected and considered once and used to acquire
reactions for the diverse burden positions.
A critical prerequisite of the investigation is to register the reaction values along the whole
length of the supports, not exactly at the hubs. The more areas at which the reaction is
registered, the better the determination of the most extreme and least reaction. The areas
along the supports at which reactions are registered are called network focuses. The
investigation methodology naturally produces lattice focuses along every brace utilizing the
geometrical properties of the scaffold unit and a coveted level of reaction determination. In
figuring the envelope values these framework focuses are utilized to find the moving
burden. Each concentrated live load (e.g. because of a truck wheel) is put at every network
point to guarantee that the most extreme minute is found at all the matrix focuses.
16
Analysis Procedure for Single Load Case
Model of Bridge Unit–
The geometrical design of the bridge unit is depicted by a reference line from which the
areas of the girders are connected. The reference line is spoken to by portions of curvature,
perhaps with digression segments. The radii of the reference line sections are processed
from its circular segment length and the comparing radius of curvature.
Every girder in the unit is found a consistent spiral separation from the reference line along
the whole length of the scaffold unit. Spiral stomachs between the supports are found self-
assertively along the reference line of the unit. Underpins, which might be spiral or skew,
are situated as for the reference line.
The examination method permits non-kaleidoscopic supports. Every support in the

extension is displayed freely by shaft components associated by hubs. A bar component is
made wherever there is an adjustment in area properties of the brace. Extra hubs are
required at every backing regardless of the fact that the segment properties of the brace
don't change over the backing.
The matrix focuses are the areas at which the reaction amounts are figured and are utilized
to position the moving burden. The bolster areas (counting skew) and stomach areas are
utilized to produce the matrix focuses along the supports. It is conceivable to determine
extra lattice focuses to build the determination of the reactions.
Analysis of Girders for Single Load Case-

The curved girders are separated, straightened and modelled by prismatic beam elements.
The response of the girders is computed using the direct stiffness method by solution of the
equilibrium equations:
K*U=P
for each girder, where K is the structural stiffness matrix assembled from beam element
stiffness matrices, P is the load vector for the load case, and U is the vector of resulting
displacements of the nodes. Displacements are computed for each degree of freedom of the
girder.
Each node has two degrees of freedom, a vertical translation and rotation. Vertical degrees
of freedom at the support locations are deleted. Because of the modelling of the girders by
beam elements the stiffness matrix is banded, with a semi-bandwidth of four.
A banded storage and equation solution procedure is used to minimize memory

requirements and computation time in the equation solution procedure. The nodal
17
displacements of the girders are used to compute the internal forces at the ends of each
element.
The internal forces at all the grid points of the girders are computed accounting for
concentrated or distributed loads on the elements. The reactions at the supports are
computed from the shears on each side of a support.
Analysis of Bridge Unit For Single Load Case-

The analysis of a bridge unit uses the procedure described before for the response of each
girder in the unit. The first load case is that of the P-Loads which are applied to the unit; the
resulting responses are denoted P-Load responses. The moments, M, in the girders are
summed at each diaphragm location and the V-loads are given by Eq. 2.21. These V-loads
are applied to each girder at the diaphragm locations as a second load case. The response
analysis described before is again performed for each girder using the V-loads, and the
responses computed are denoted as V-load responses. The total response of the bridge unit
is then the sum of the P-Load and V-load responses for each girder:
Mt = Mp + Mv
Vt = Vp + Vv
Rt = Rp + Rv
The analysis of a bridge unit for a single load case can be summarized as:
1. Determine P-Loads
2. Perform single load case analysis of girders with P-Loads for P-Load responses
3. Compute V-loads
3.1 Sum moments at the diaphragms
3.2 Compute V-loads at each diaphragm
4. Perform single load case analysis of girders with V-loads for V-load responses
5. Add the P-Load and V-load responses for the total responses of the girders
Computation of Response Envelopes

To enhance the productivity of the investigation for moving burdens, impact capacities for
the supports are utilized to register envelopes. Impact capacities are reactions in the shaft
components because of a unit load at every level of flexibility in a brace.
The impact capacities are processed by setting a unit load on every level of opportunity and
illuminating for the minutes and shears in every shaft component, and responses at the
backings. To utilize the impact capacities for the calculation of reaction envelopes, the
position of the truck loads on the unit is initially decided.
18
Once the heap vector P is computed for every wheel load position, it is increased
straightforwardly by the impact capacities to acquire the occasions, shears, and the
responses for every brace because of the P-Loads. The V-load reactions are figured by
increasing the V-loads by the same impact capacities for the supports.
The reactions are then registered at all framework purposes of the braces and the base and
greatest qualities are spared. The truck burdens are set so that each focused burden is set
on every matrix point to deliver greatest minute at that network point. A somewhat bigger
minute might be delivered with the inside cycle between lattice focuses. The procedure to
compute the response envelopes can be summarized as:
1. Determine the influence functions

o Assemble the banded structural stiffness matrix from the element stiffness
matrices
o 1.2 Factor the stiffness matrix
o 1.3 For each of two degrees of freedom per node:
 1.3.1 Apply a unit force at the node
 1.3.2 Back substitute for displacements
 1.3.3 Calculate member end forces
 1.3.4 Form influence functions for moment, shears, and reactions
2. Determine the position of the moving load along the reference line so that each load
acts at each grid point.
3. Multiply the load vector by the influence functions to obtain the moments, shears,
and reactions due to the P-Loads for each girder
4. Compute the V-loads
5. Multiply the V-loads by the influence functions to obtain V-load moments, shears,
and reactions for each girder
6. Sum P-Load and V-load response for the total response
7. Determine minimum/maximum response quantities at grid points
8. Repeat steps 2 through 7 until moving load is no longer on the bridge unit
Computation of Flange Warping Stresses-

As described earlier, the flanges of the girders are subjected to warping due to the torsion
induced by the horizontal curvature of the bridge unit. In composite girders the concrete
slab acts together with the top flange to resist the warping moment.
The section modulus for lateral bending of the top flange and slab is much larger than for
the bottom flange resulting in smaller warping stresses. Generally only the warping of the
bottom flange is important in composite systems.
19
In the approximate analysis procedure, the bottom flanges of the girders are straightened
and modelled as individual flange elements supported at each diaphragm location. The
curvature of the flanges is the same as that of the girders.
Support locations, coordinates, and grid points are generated for the flanges as described in
Sec. 3.2.1. Using the model of the bottom flanges an analysis of the lateral bending can be
performed after the loads are specified. As described earlier, the lateral bending of the
flanges is caused by the radial flange forces which develop due to the horizontal curvature.
The forces which act on the flange are computed using V-loads and vary along the bridge in
proportion to the total bending moment in the girders. To compute lateral bending stresses
in the flange, the lateral force on the flange is applied to the flange model using equivalent
concentrated loads at the grid points of the original girder.
The lateral force at a grid point is considered to be an average of lateral loads between
adjacent grid points. These forces are used to compute the bottom flange warping
moments, Mf by the same single load case analysis procedure used for the girders. Because
the moment used to determine the lateral forces on the flanges is the sum of M v and Mp, a
separate V-load analysis of the flange is not required.
2.3 IS SPECIFICATIONS: IRC 006-2014 - The limit for mild steel reinforced
bridges of a single span lies at approximately 35m; for more than one span at a maximum of
60m. Today, practically all box girder bridges are pre-stressed.
The selection of the span lengths should mainly follow from aesthetic aspects. From the
structural point of view, the span length ratio of end span to its neighbouring inner span
should be Le/Li = 0.75 but not < 0.40 so as to avoid uplift at the end span supports.
Particularly imperative for the structure and the dimensioning of the bridge is the choice of
the bridge depth. Up to a traverse length of around 90m, a constant bridge depth is
sensible, whereby starting with a traverse length of roughly 50m it is convenient to build the
thickness of the bottom flange over the piers within the box-girder where this is not visible.
For span length, l, in the middle range and constant bridge depth, d, the following ratios are
normally used:
- Mild steel reinforced: single span l/d = 17

Multiple spans l/d = 18
- Pre-stressed: single span l/d = 21
Multiple spans l/d = 25
It is structurally and economically advantageous to change the bridge depth in the

longitudinal direction starting with span lengths of about 60m onwards. For span lengths
over 150m this cannot be avoided. The depth Ds, over the piers should vary so that it is
about 3 times as large as at mid-span, Df
20
The depth of box girder should vary in the longitudinal direction between the piers and mid-
span in such a way that the forces in the tensile and compressive chords increase linearly
and therefore the shear forces in the webs remain roughly constant throughout the span.
Suitable ratios are:
L/Df = 33 – 50; L/Ds = 12 – 20
Skewed single celled box-girder bridges with β<= 15° can be designed as if they were
orthogonal bridges. For larger β the angle of skew must be considered. For curved brìdges,
where ìn addìtìon to longìtudìnal bendìng moments, torsìonal moments are also ìmportant
to satìsfy equìlìbrìum, the box-gìrder cross-sectìon ìs especìally advantageous. The angle of
curvature ìs the governìng crìterìon for the ratìo of Mt/Mb. For α < 30° ìt ìs suffìcìent to
calculate Mb as for a straìght brìdge and Mt for the curved brìdge, ì.e. to neglect the
couplìng effect of the two upon each other.
Loading on Bridge
The different kind of loads, forces and stresses to be considered in the investigation and
outline of the different parts of the bridge are given in IRC 6:2014(Section II). However, the
basic forces are considered to outline the model are as per the following:
Dead Load (DL): The dead load conveyed by the girder or the part comprises of its own
weight and the bits of the heaviness of the superstructure and any settled burdens
bolstered by the part. The dead load can be evaluated reasonably precisely amid outline and
can be controlled amid development and administration.
Superimposed Dead Load (SIDL): The heaviness of superimposed dead load incorporates
pathways, earth-fills, wearing course, stay-in - place frames, weight, water-sealing, signs,
engineering ornamentation, channels, conductors, links and some other relentless
appurtenances introduced on the structure.
Live Load (LL): Live loads are those brought about by vehicles which disregard the scaffold
and are transient in nature. These heaps can't be evaluated decisively, and the planner has
almost no power over them once the extension is opened to movement. In any case,
speculative loadings which are sensibly reasonable should be developed and indicated to
serve as outline criteria. There are four sorts of standard loadings:
i. IRC Class 70R loading- This loading is to be regularly embraced on all streets on which
perpetual scaffolds and ducts are developed. Spans intended for Class 70R Loading ought to
be checked for Class A Loading likewise as under certain conditions, heavier hassles may
happen under Class A Loading.
ii. IRC Class AA loading- This loading is to be embraced inside certain city limits, in certain
current or considered modern regions, in other indicated ranges, and along certain
predetermined expressways. Spans intended for Class AA Loading ought to be checked for
Class A Loading likewise, as under certain conditions, heavier anxieties may happen under
21
Class A Loading. iii. IRC Class A loading- This loading is to be normally utilized on all types of
roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are to be constructed.
iv. IRC Class B loading- This loading is to be ordinarily utilized for timber bridges.
Specifications for box girder bridge-

1. Thickness of Web
The thickness of the web might not be not as much as d/36 or more double the reasonable
spread to the support in addition to width of the pipe gap where'd' is the general profundity
of the crate brace measured from the highest point of the deck section to the base of the
soffit or 200 mm in addition to the breadth of conduit gaps, whichever is more prominent.
2. Thickness of Bottom Flange
The thickness of the bottom flange of box girder shall be at least 1/20th of the clear web
spacing at the junction with bottom flange or 200 mm whichever is more.
3. Thickness of Top Flange
The minimum thickness of the deck slab including that at cantilever tips must be 200 mm.
For top and bottom flange having pre-stressing cables, the thickness of such flange must be
at least 150 mm plus diameter of duct hole.
4. Losses in Pre-stress
While assessing the stresses in concrete and steel during tensioning operations and later in
service, due regard shall be paid to all losses and variations in stress resulting from creep of
concrete, shrinkage of concrete, relaxation of steel, the shortening (elastic deformation) of
concrete at transfer, and friction and slip of anchorage.
In computing the losses in pre-stress when un-tensioned reinforcement is present, the
effect of the tensile stresses developed by the un-tensioned reinforcement due to shrinkage
and creep shall be considered.
5. Calculation of Ultimate Strength

Ultimate moment resistance of sections, under these two alternative conditions of failure
shall be calculated by the following formulae and the smaller of the two values shall be
taken as the ultimate moment of resistance for design:
i. Failure by yield of steel (under-reinforced section)
Mult = 0.9dbAsFp
Where,
As = the area of high tensile steel
Fp = the ultimate tensile strength for steel without definite yield point or yield stress or
stress at 4 per cent-elongation whichever is higher for steel with a definite yield point.
db = the depth of the beam from the maximum compression edge to the centre of gravity of
the steel tendons.
ii. Failure by crushing concrete
22
Mult = 0.176 bdb2fck
Where,
b = the width of rectangular section or web of beam
fck= characteristics strength of concrete
6. Calculation of Section un- cracked in flexure
b = width in the case of rectangular member and width of the rib in the case of T, I and L
beams
d = overall depth of the member
fcp = compressive stress at centroidal axis due to pre-stress taken as positive.
LONGITUDINAL FORCES
1) Ìn all road brìdges, provìsìon shall be made for longìtudìnal forces arìsìng from any
one or more of the followìng causes:
a) Tractìve effort caused through acceleratìon of the drìvìng wheels;
b) Brakìng effect resultìng from the applìcatìon of the brakes to braked wheels;
c) Frìctìonal resìstance offered to the movement of free bearìngs due to change of
temperature or any other cause.
NOTE - Brakìng effect ìs ìnvarìably greater than the tractìve effort.
2) The brakìng effect on a sìmply supported span or a contìnuous unìt of spans or on any
other type of brìdge unìt shall be assumed to have the followìng value:
a) Ìn the case of a sìngle lane or a two lane brìdge: twenty percent of the fìrst traìn load
plus ten percent of the load of the succeedìng traìns or part thereof, the traìn loads ìn one
lane only beìng consìdered for the purpose of thìs sub-clause. Where the entìre fìrst traìn ìs
not on the full span, the brakìng force shall be taken as equal to twenty percent of the loads
actually on the span or contìnuous unìt of spans.
b) Ìn the case of brìdges havìng more than two-lanes: as ìn (a) above for the fìrst two lanes
plus fìve per cent of the loads on the lanes ìn excess of two.
c) Note: The loads ìn thìs Clause shall not be ìncreased on account of ìmpact.
3) The force due to brakìng effect shall be assumed to act along a lìne parallel to the
roadway and 1 .2 m above ìt. Whìle transferrìng the force to the bearìngs, the change ìn the
vertìcal reactìon at the bearìngs should be taken ìnto account.
23
The dìstrìbutìon of longìtudìnal horìzontal forces among brìdge supports ìs effected by the
horìzontal deformatìon of brìdges, flexìng of the supports and rotatìon of the foundatìon.
For I-beam girder, AASHTO specifications were used since no specifications were provided in
IRC 006-2014. For the design purpose, Beam Type 3 was used.
Figure 6 – showing AASHTO

recommendations for dimensions of
pre-stressed concrete I-beam girder.
Reference- AASHTO
24
Figure 7 – showing relation
between span length and beam
type for four road widths.
Reference - AASHTO
Figure 8 – showing a typical

precast pre-stressed concrete I-
beam bridge system
Reference - AASHTO
25
2.4 COMPARISION BETWEEN BOX-BEAM, T-BEAM AND I-BEAM:
Advantages Associated wìth Box Gìrders:

 Ìn recent years, sìngle or multì-cell reìnforced concrete box Gìrder Brìdge have been
proposed and wìdely used as economìc aesthetìc solutìon for the over crossìngs,
under crossìngs, grade separatìon structures and vìaducts found ìn modern hìghway
system.
 The very large Torsìonal rìgìdìty of the box gìrder‘s closed cellular sectìon provìdes
structures beneath ìs more aesthetìcally pleasìng than open-web type system.
 Ìn case of long span brìdges, large wìdth of deck ìs avaìlable to accommodate pre-
stressìng cables at bottom flange level.
 Ìnterìors of box gìrder brìdges can be used to accommodate servìce such as gas
pìpes, water maìns etc.
 For large spans, bottom flange could be used as another deck accommodates traffìc
also.
 The maìntenance of box gìrder ìs easìer ìn ìnterìor space ìs dìrectly accessìble
wìthout use of scaffoldìng.
 Alternatìvely space ìs hermetìcally sealed and enclosed aìr may be drìed to provìde a
non-corrosìve atmosphere.
 Ìt has hìgh structural effìcìency whìch mìnìmìzes the pre-stressìng force requìred to
resìst a gìven bendìng moment, and ìts great Torsìonal strength wìth the capacìty thìs
gìves to re-centre eccentrìc lìve loads, mìnìmìzìng the pre-stress requìred to carry
them.
Dìsadvantages:
One of the maìn dìsadvantages of box decks ìs that they are dìffìcult to cast ìn-sìtu due to
the ìnaccessìbìlìty of the bottom slab and the need to extract the ìnternal shutter. Eìther the
box has to be desìgned so that the entìre cross sectìon may be cast ìn one contìnuous pour,
or the cross sectìon has to be cast ìn stages.
A T-beam, used ìn constructìon, ìs a load-bearìng structure of reìnforced

concrete, wood or metal, wìth a t-shaped cross sectìon. The top of the t-shaped cross
sectìon serves as a flange or compressìon member ìn resìstìng compressìve stresses. The
web of the beam below the compressìon flange serves to resìst shear stress and to provìde
greater separatìon for the coupled forces of bendìng.
The T-beam has a bìg dìsadvantage compared to an Ì-beam because ìt has no bottom flange
wìth whìch to deal wìth tensìle forces. One way to make a T-beam more effìcìent structurally
ìs to use an ìnverted T-beam wìth a floor slab or brìdge deck joìnìng the tops of the beams.
Done properly, the slab acts as the compressìon flange.
26
Overview and History of T-Beams
A T-beam ìs a structural element able to wìthstand large loads by resìstance ìn the beam or
by ìnternal reìnforcements. Ìn some respects, the T-beam dates back to the fìrst tìme a
human formed a brìdge wìth a pìer and a deck. After all, a T-beam ìs, ìn one sense, no more
than a pìllar wìth a horìzontal bed on top, or, ìn the case of the ìnverted T-beam, on the
bottom (Ambrose & Trìpeny, 2007).
The uprìght portìon carryìng the tensìon of the beam ìs termed a web, and the horìzontal
part that carrìes the compressìon ìs termed a flange. However, the materìals used have
changed over the years but the basìc structure ìs the same. T-beams structures such as
hìghway overpasses, buìldìngs and parkìng garages, have extra materìal added on the
undersìde where the web joìns the flange to reduce the T-beam’s vulnerabìlìty to shear
stress (Chajas, 1995). However, when one ìnvestìgates more deeply ìnto the desìgn of T-
beams, some dìstìnctìons appear.
Desìgn of T-Beams
The T-beam, though sìmple ìn desìgn, contaìns multìple desìgn elements of ìnterest. Unlìke
an Ì-beam, a T-beam lacks a bottom flange, whìch carrìes savìngs ìn terms of materìals, but
at the loss of resìstance to tensìle forces (Mìrza & Furlong, 1985). Parkìng garages, however,
ìt ìs obvìous that thìs lack of a bottom flange on a T-beam actually serves as an advantage ìn
that the stem rests on shelf makìng the flange the upper deck. T- beam desìgns come ìn
many sìzes, lengths and wìdths dependìng on what the structure ìs and ìts compressìon
tensìon needs.
However, the sìmplìcìty of the T-beam ìs ìn questìon by some who would rìghtly test more
than one complex structure; for example, Cheng, Mohammed, and Mustapha (2009 and
Hashìm Fìdow, 2014) tested pretensìon ìnverted T-beams wìth cìrcular web openìngs, wìth
mìxed but generally favourable results. Thus, ìn some cases, the extra tìme and effort
ìnvested ìn creatìng a more complex structure proves worthwhìle. A sìmpler matter to
consìder ìs that of whìch materìal or materìals make up the constructìon of T-beams.
Issues
An ìssue wìth the T-beam compared to the Ì-beam ìs the lack of the bottom flange. Ìn
addìtìon, thìs makes the beam not as versatìle because of the weaker sìde not havìng the
flange makìng ìt have less tensìle strength.
Concrete beams are often poured ìntegrally wìth the slab, formìng a much stronger “T” –
shaped beam. These beams are very effìcìent because the slab portìon carrìes the
compressìve loads and the reìnforcìng bars placed at the bottom of the stem carry the
tensìon. A T-beam typìcally has a narrower stem than an ordìnary rectangular beam. These
stems are typìcally spaced from4’-0” apart to more than12’-0”.
27
The box gìrder often ìs more advantageous than a pìe-beam due to-
1) Ìts hìgh bendìng stìffness combìned wìth a low dead load, yìeldìng a favorable ratìo
of dead to lìve load.
2) Ìts hìgh torsìonal stìffness whìch allows freedom ìn the selectìon of both the supports
and brìdge alìgnment; and
3) The possìbìlìty of utìlìzìng the space ìnsìde the box gìrder.
4) The box-gìrder brìdge consìsts of a top and bottom flange connected by vertìcal or
ìnclìned webs to form a cellular or box-lìke sectìon. Dìctated by the hìghway
alìgnment layout and the sìte condìtìons, these brìdges are usually curved ìn plan. Ìf
the radìus of curvature ìs large compared wìth the span, a curved deck may be
placed on a serìes of straìght gìrders, and the desìgn ìs essentìally the same as that
for a straìght span. However, ìn cases where the radìus of the curvature ìs small, ìt
wìll be more economìcal and aesthetìcally pleasant to have a curved structural
system ìn whìch both the flanges and webs are curved horìzontally.
5) As the curvature effect ìs no longer neglìgìble ìn the desìgn, the webs must be
treated as thìn shells and the flanges as flat curved plates. Varìous analytìcal and
numerìcal methods were developed ìn the last decade for the analysìs and desìgn of
such brìdges. Needless to say, the fìnìte-element method ìs the most versatìle tool,
but specìal elements, such as the straìn-based (Ashwell and Sabìr 1972) and semì-
loof (Ìrons 1974) elements, have to be used ìn the analysìs to ensure satìsfactory
convergence. These elements have a large number of degrees-of-freedom per
element, and thìs very much lìmìts theìr applìcabìlìty ìn the analysìs of large
structure. On the other hand, the classìcal fìnìte-strìp method (Cheung 1976), whìch
ìs based on the trìgonometrìcal serìes expansìon, ìs sìmple and ìnexpensìve, but ìts
applìcatìon ìs restrìcted to sìmple boundary condìtìons and geometry.
6) The box gìrder cross-sectìon evolved structurally from the hollow cell deck brìdge or
the T-beam brìdge. The wìdenìng of the compressìon zone that began as a structural
requìrement at the central pìers was ìn the end extended throughout the entìre
length of the brìdge because of the advantageous transverse load-carryìng
characterìstìcs.
7) The concrete box gìrder wìth streamlìned cross-sectìon has also been successful
recently ìn the case of cable-stayed brìdges. Ìts hìgh dead load favorably ìnfluences
the dynamìc stress amplìtudes of the cables and the necessary longìtudìnal pre-
stressìng steel. A torsìonally stìff box-gìrder ìs requìred to handle the torsìonal
moments ìncurred by attachìng the cables to the brìdge’s centerlìne. Attachìng the
cables to both sìdes allows a much-reduced sectìon depth.
28
CHAPTER-3
MODELLING AND PARAMETRIC STUDY
3.1 Modelling
3.1.1 Introduction- CSìBrìdge software ìs used for modellìng all the 60 brìdge gìrders.
CSìBrìdge ìs a specìalìzed analysìs and desìgn software taìlored for the engìneerìng of brìdge
systems. Suspensìon, cable-stay, elevated-roadway, and other types of brìdge systems may
be modelled and desìgned to suìt any one of a varìety of purposes, ìncludìng means for
crossìng water, lìnkìng poìnts between shear terraìn, or extendìng over hìghway
ìnfrastructure. Customìzed controls and features ìntegrate across a powerful object-based
modellìng envìronment to offer an ìntuìtìve, practìcal, and productìve computatìonal tool
for brìdge engìneerìng. Ìt has advanced modellìng features and sophìstìcated analysìs
technìques account for dynamìc effects, ìnelastìc behavìour, and geometrìc nonlìnearìty.
Code-based templates streamlìne the engìneerìng process from model defìnìtìon through
analysìs, desìgn optìmìzatìon, and the generatìon of comprehensìve output reports.
CSìBrìdge ìs the premìer software for brìdge engìneerìng.
3.1.2 Modeling of Bridge Systems- CSìBrìdge ìmplements a parametrìc object-based

modelìng approach when developìng analytìcal brìdge systems. Thìs enables desìgners to
assìgn brìdge composìtìon as an assembly of objects (roadway superstructure, substructure,
abutments, pìers, foundatìon system, etc.) before the SAPFìre ® Analysìs Engìne, ìntegral
to CSÌ Software, automatìcally transfers the object-based model ìnto a mathematìcal fìnìte-
element model by meshìng the materìal domaìn and assìgnìng materìal propertìes. Thìs
object-orìented approach sìmplìfìes and expedìtes the modelìng process, savìng engìneers
the need to dìrectly defìne, lìnk, constraìn, and mesh all materìal volumes.
CSìBrìdge also allows engìneers to ìmport model data from Dwg/Dxf, ÌGES, CÌS/2 STEP, and
Land XML fìle formats, or export to PERFORM-3D, MS Access, and CÌS/2 STEP, all followìng
ÌFC standards.
3.1.3 Loading and Analysis - After modelìng, CSìBrìdge provìdes optìons for the
assìgnment of load cases and combìnatìons. Vehìcle, seìsmìc, and wìnd loadìng are
generated accordìng to buìldìng code (AASHTO LRFD, Canadìan, etc.) and assìgned accordìng
to model geometry. A serìes of templates for assìgnìng and envelopìng load condìtìons make
CSìBrìdge ìntuìtìve and practìcal.
After the orìgìnal object-based model has been translated ìnto a fìnìte-element model and
subjected to load cases and combìnatìons, the analysìs process follows dìrectly.
29
Analysìs capabìlìtìes go well beyond elastìc performance ìnto the assessment
of ìnelastìc behavìors. Geometrìc and materìal nonlìnearìtìes provìde ìnsìght ìnto strength,
ductìlìty, and other performance measures crìtìcal to response under extreme loadìng.
Statìc-pushover and dynamìc analyses (steady-state, response-spectrum, and tìme-hìstory)
provìde further ìnsìght ìnto earthquake resìlìence. Substructure hìngìng propertìes are
customìzable.
Addìtìonal analysìs features may account for creep and shrìnkage behavìor, post-tensìonìng
wìth optìonal automatìc cable tensìonìng, staged-constructìon effects ìnherent to segmental
constructìon, bucklìng, camber and shape fìndìng.
(Reference- https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/csibridge/Home)
3.1.4 MODELLING IN CSIBRIDGE :
Fig a and b showing Curved I-beam

bridge girder as modeled in
CSiBridge.
30
Figure c showing bridge
object model for 0° skew
angle and 300m radius of
curvature.
Figure d showing bridge object

model for 60° skew angle and
infinite radius of curvature.
Figure e showing bridge object

model for 60° skew angle and
100m radius of curvature.
31
Figure f displaying bridge object response for bending moment. We can determine the
maximum and minimum bending moment for three load cases i.e. dead load, live load and
combination of the two. Here combination case is displayed. This is a 20m span bridge. The
maximum bending moment occurs at 10.086 m from left end of the bridge.
32
Figure g displaying bridge object response for torsion. We can determine the maximum and
minimum torsion for three load cases i.e. dead load, live load and combination of the two.
Here combination case is displayed. This is a 20m span bridge. The maximum torsion here is
-2677.236 kN-m.
33
Figure h showing stress distribution in a bridge object, 60° skew angle, 25m span length.
Areas that are pink/red in color have lower stress as compared to that in blue colour. It
can be concluded from the above figure that middle portion of the bridge has maximum
stress when subjected to vehicle load.
34
3.2 PARAMETRIC STUDY
Table 1 showing bending moment, shear force, torsion, displacement, tensile and
compressive stress for models with 0 skew angle and varying radius of curvature and
span length.
0 span radius of Shear Stress

Skew length curvature BM max Force Torsion (tensile) Stress(compressive) Displacement
20 Straight 4706 970 604.72 11388 3553 0.0135
100 6116 1180 699.8 13612 3374 0.02
200 4633 955 780 12208 2933 0.0169
300 4645.5 963.18 721.6 11478 3084 0.0162
Shear Stress
0 span radius of BM max Force Combo Stress Combo
Skew length curvature Combo Combo Torsion (tensile) (compressive) Displacement
25 Straight 7131 1215 669 16582 4858.6 0.032
100 8623.5 1430.3 1177 20290 4627 0.0482
200 7302.6 1375.5 859.76 17964 3963 0.0404
300 9445.1 1405.4 663 18056 4570 0.0378
Shear Stress
0 span radius of BM max Force Combo Stress Combo
Skew length curvature Combo Combo Torsion (tensile) (compressive) Displacement
30 Straight 10631 1620 711 23086 6422 0.0672
100 10851 1623.6 1497 26992 5913 0.0904
200 11986.5 1642.4 1077.8 26717 5671.4 0.0952
300 13165 1578.3 886 25344 6107.47 0.0753
The unit of bending moment is kN-m, shear force is kN, torsion is kN-m,
displacement is m, tensile and compressive stress is kN/m2.
35
compressive stress for models with 15 skew angle and varying radius of curvature and span
length.
15 span radius of BM Shear Stress Stress

Skew length curvature max Force Torsion (tensile) (compressive) Displacement
20 Straight 4649.23 967.8 613.43 11436.24 3793.87 0.0134
100 8552 1513.12 1113.6 20290 4656 0.0477
200 6950 1416.7 1028.4 17994 3951.8 0.04
300 4596 953 718 11480.5 3495.5 0.016
15 span radius of BM Shear Stress Stress

Skew length curvature max Force TORSION (tensile) (compressive) Displacement
25 Straight 7075.8 1238.6 734.7 16647 4855.5 0.0318
100 8737.5 1491 1173 20647 4658 0.0489
200 7858 1432 1025.3 18262 4044 0.043
300 9342 1493 934 17932 4488.2 0.0367
15 span radius of BM Shear Stress

Skew length curvature max Force Torsion Stress(tensile) (compressive) Displacement
30 Straight 10558 1679.89 825.85 22603.18 6377.47 0.0667
100 10736 1330.4 1346.5 26750.4 5901 0.089
200 11929 1660 1286.2 26669 5707 0.094
300 13139.9 1585 954 25221 6131.4 0.074
compressive stress for models with 30 skew angle and varying radius of curvature and span
length.
30 span radius of Shear Stress Stress

Skew length curvature BM max Force Torsion (tensile) (compressive) Displacement
20 Straight 4521.65 1000.7 729.15 11344.5 3920.34 0.0128
100 5779 1206 1206.5 13472 3770 0.0203
200 4466 1062 900 12134 3241 0.016
300 4463 980.6 848.4 11415 3418 0.0154
25 Straight 6913.7 1303.3 865.4 16425 5229.8 0.0308
100 8588.7 1517 1320 20336 4984 0.047
200 7681.8 1504 1166.5 17840 4573 0.042
300 6808 1236.7 1085 16688 4521 0.037
30 Straight 10356.31 1741.014 1034.29 22318.3 6568.3 0.0651
100 10412 1766 1744.2 25437 5843.5 0.0836
200 11709 1650 1460 26275 5899 0.092
36
span length.
300 12934 1594 1267 24828 6057 0.0727

20 Straight 4177.37 1045.5 821.08 11150.66 4978.17 0.0117
100 5267.18 1210.4 1136.13 12629 3561.53 0.0183
200 4110 1081.3 1004 11800 3086 0.0146
300 4112.4 1025.4 953.82 11151 3242.54 0.014

25 Straight 6567.9 1378.78 997.4 16057 6531.18 0.0286
100 8112.14 1516.5 1509.2 19435 4836.7 0.044
200 7272.5 1566 1219.2 17179 4345.8 0.0384
300 6434.3 1248 1224.58 16099 4291.3 0.0342

30 Straight 9878.47 1786.18 1286.3 21288.028 6551.7 0.0611
100 9944.8 1753.8 2014.3 24366.5 5945.7 0.0784
200 11128 1639 1643.93 25261.4 5967.98 0.0864
300 12369.5 1601.3 1654.5 23865 5917.5 0.068
span length.
span radius of Shear Stress Stress

60 Skew length curvature BM max Force Torsion (tensile) (comp.) Displacement
20 Straight 4283.6 1159.9 1007.258 10470.13 3323.5 0.0112
100 5350 1234 1053.07 11446.3 2943.8 0.0184
200 4173.25 1252.4 1124 11027 2914.4 0.0146
300 4208.7 1143.97 1093.8 10339.3 2469.5 0.0139
25 Straight 6439.18 1609.9 1228.28 14900 4257.78 0.0278
100 7558.3 1585.25 1443.2 17242 3906.7 0.041
200 6867.4 1630.15 1337.23 14921.65 3451.03 0.036
300 6332.7 1412.8 1398 14776 3390 0.00327
30 Straight 8620.1 1883.9 1624.8 19567.9 6147.4 0.052
100 8574 1895.7 2151.1 22619.2 5599.64 0.0688
200 9633.6 1631 2040.41 23238.6 5512.9 0.0736
300 10799.23 1613.3 2342.4 21607.17 5498.5 0.057
37
ANALYSIS OF EFFECT OF CURVATURE:
1. BENDING MOMENT
radius of
0 skew curvature span = 20m span=25m span=30m
100 1.1 1.21 1.02
200 0.984 1.124 1.127
300 0.987 1.024 1.238
straight 1 1 1
radius of
15 skew curvature span=20m span=25m span=30m
100 1.217 1.225 1.0098
200 1.176 1.102 1.122
300 0.976 1.31 1.236
straight 0.987 0.992 0.993
radius of
100 1.028 1.204 0.9794
200 0.949 1.077 1.101
300 0.948 0.954 1.21
straight 0.961 0.97 0.974
radius of
100 1.12 1.137 0.935
200 0.8738 1.02 1.046
300 0.8733 0.902 1.163
straight 0.887 0.921 0.93
radius of
100 1.137 1.06 0.8065
200 0.886 0.963 0.906
300 0.894 0.888 1.0158
straight 0.91 0.903 0.811
Table 6 showing non-dimensional ratios for bending moment for effect of

curvature.
The non-dimensional ratios are calculated separately for span 20m, 25m and 30m. For each
span length, the model with 0° skew angle and infinite radius of curvature is taken as the
base model and the corresponding values of all other models are divided by the value of the
base model to obtain the non-dimensional ratio.
38
2. SHEAR FORCE
radius of
100 1.216 1.177 1.002
200 0.984 1.132 1.01
300 0.993 1.156 0.974
straight 1 1 1
radius of
100 1.26 1.227 0.821
200 1.16 1.18 1.024
300 0.982 1.228 0.978
straight 0.997 1.02 1.037
radius of
100 1.143 1.248 1.09
200 1.094 1.237 1.018
300 1.01 1.0178 0.983
straight 1.03 1.072 1.074
radius of
100 1.247 1.203 1.082
200 1.114 1.242 1.011
300 1.057 0.9904 0.988
straight 1.077 1.094 1.1
radius of
100 1.272 1.258 1.17
200 1.191 1.293 1.0068
300 1.179 1.121 0.995
straight 1.195 1.277 1.163
Table 7 showing non-dimensional ratios for shear force to analyse

the effect of curvature.
39
3. TORSION
radius of
100 1.156 1.53 1.643
200 1.289 1.118 1.183
300 1.192 0.862 0.972
Straight 1 1 1
radius of
100 1.24 1.523 1.478
200 1.15 1.333 1.431
300 1.186 1.214 1.247
Straight 1.014 0.955 0.906
radius of
100 1.54 1.716 1.574
200 1.387 1.517 1.402
300 1.202 1.41 1.391
straight 1.105 1.125 1.135
radius of
100 1.878 1.962 2.21
200 1.66 1.585 1.504
300 1.576 1.592 1.816
straight 1.357 1.297 1.412
radius of
100 1.741 1.876 2.361
200 1.858 1.739 2.239
300 1.81 1.818 2.571
straight 1.664 1.597 1.783
Table 8 showing non-dimensional ratios for torsion to analyse the

effect of curvature.
40
4. COMPRESSIVE STRESS
radius of
100 0.949 0.952 0.9207
200 0.825 0.815 0.883
300 0.868 0.94 0.951
straight 1 1 1
radius of
100 1.2104 0.958 0.918
200 1.112 0.832 0.888
300 0.984 0.923 0.954
straight 1.067 0.999 0.993
radius of
100 1.061 1.026 0.9099
200 0.912 0.9412 0.9185
300 0.962 0.9305 0.943
straight 1.103 1.0764 1.022
radius of
100 1.002 0.995 0.925
200 0.868 0.894 0.929
300 0.912 0.883 0.921
straight 1.4 1.344 1.02
radius of
100 0.8285 0.804 0.872
200 0.8202 0.7103 0.8584
300 0.695 0.6977 0.8562
straight 0.935 0.8763 0.9572
Table 9 showing non-dimensional ratios for compressive stress to

analyse the effect of curvature.
41
5. TENSILE STRESS
0 skew radius of curvature span = 20m span=25m span=30m

100 1.195 1.223 1.169
200 1.072 1.083 1.572
300 1.008 1.088 1.0978
straight 1 1 1
15 skew radius of curvature span=20m span=25m span=30m
100 1.4 1.245 1.158
200 1.3 1.101 1.155
300 1.008 1.0814 1.092
straight 1.004 1.0039 0.98
100 1.183 1.226 1.101
200 1.065 1.075 1.138
300 1.002 1.006 1.075
straight 0.996 0.991 0.966
100 1.109 1.172 1.055
200 1.036 1.036 1.094
300 0.979 0.9708 1.033
straight 0.979 0.9683 0.922
100 1.005 1.04 0.979
200 0.968 0.8998 1.0066
300 0.908 0.891 0.9359
straight 0.92 0.8985 0.8476
Table 10 showing non-dimensional ratios for tensile stress to

analyse the effect of curvature.
42
6. DEFLECTION
radius of
100 1.481 1.506 1.3452
200 1.252 1.2625 1.416
300 1.2 1.181 1.12
straight 1 1 1
radius of
100 1.5 1.528 1.324
200 1.3 1.343 1.398
300 1.185 1.1468 1.101
straight 0.9926 0.993 0.9925
radius of
100 1.503 1.468 1.244
200 1.185 1.3125 1.37
300 1.141 1.156 1.0818
straight 0.948 0.9625 0.968
radius of
100 1.355 1.375 1.166
200 1.081 1.2 1.285
300 1.037 1.0687 1.012
straight 0.866 0.893 0.909
radius of
100 1.363 1.281 1.0238
200 1.081 1.125 1.095
300 1.03 1.0218 0.8482
straight 0.8296 0.8687 0.7739
Table 11 showing non-dimensional ratios for deflection to analyse

the effect of curvature.
43
1. BENDING MOMENT
Bending Moment v/s radius of curvature (0 skew)

1.25
1.15
BM ratio
1.05
span = 20m
0.95
span=25m
0.85 span=30m
0.75
100 200 300 straight
Radius of curvature
Fig-9
The bending moment decreases with increase in radius of curvature.
Bending Moment v/s radius of curvature (15

skew)
1.35
1.25
1.15
BM ratio
1.05 span=20m
0.95 span=25m
0.85 span=30m
0.75
Radius of curvature
Fig-10

1.35
1.25
1.15
BM ratio
1.05 span=20m
0.95 span=25m
span=30m
0.85
0.75
Radius of curvature
Fig-11
44
Bending Moment v/s radius of curvature (45
1.25 skew)
1.15
BM ratio
1.05
0.95 span=20m
span=25m
0.85
span=30m
0.75
Radius of curvature
Fig-12

1.2
1.1
1
BM ratio
0.9
span=20m
0.8
span=25m
0.7
span=30m
0.6
0.5
Radius of curvature
Fig-13
2. SHEAR FORCE
Shear Force v/s radius of curvature (0 skew)

1.2
1.1
1
SF ratio
span = 20m
0.9 span=25m
0.8 span=30m
0.7
Radius of curvature
Fig-14
The shear force decreases with increase in radius of curvature.
45
1.15
1.1
1.05
SF ratio 1
0.95
0.9 span=20m
0.85 span=25m
0.8
span=30m
0.75
0.7
Radius of curvature
Fig-15

1.3
1.25
1.2
Shaer force ratio
1.15
1.1
1.05 span=20m
1 span=25m
0.95
0.9 span=30m
0.85
0.8
Radius of curvature
Fig-16

1.3
1.25
1.2
Shear force ratio
1.15
1.1 span=20m
1.05 span=25m
1
span=30m
0.95
0.9
radius of curvature
Fig-17
46
1.4
1.3
Shear Force ratio 1.2

1.1
span=20m
1
span=25m
0.9
span=30m
0.8
0.7
Radius of curvature
Fig-18
Shear force first decreases, then increases with increase in radius of curvature.
3. TORSION
Torsion v/s radius of curvature

(0 skew)
1.7
1.5
Torsion ratio
1.3 span = 20m

1.1 span=25m
0.9 span=30m
0.7
Radius of curvature Fig-19
Torsion decreases with increase in radius of curvature.
Torsion v/s radius of curvature (15 skew)

2.1
1.9
1.7
Torsion ratio
1.5
span=20m
1.3
1.1 span=25m
0.9 span=30m
0.7
0.5
47

2.1
1.9
1.7
Torsion ratio
1.5 span=20m
1.3 span=25m
1.1 span=30m
0.9
0.7

2.3
2.1
1.9
Torsion ratio
1.7
span=20m
1.5
span=25m
1.3
1.1 span=30m
0.9
0.7

2.4
2.2
Torsion ratio
1.8 span=20m
1.6 span=25m
1.4 span=30m
1.2
Radius of curvature
Fig-23
48
Compressive stress v/s radius of curvature

(0 skew)
1.05
1
Comp. stess ratio
0.95
0.9 span = 20m
0.85 span=25m
0.8 span=30m
0.75
0.7
Compressive stress first decreases and then increases with increase in radius of curvature.
Compressive stress v/s radius of curvature

1.35 (15 skew)
1.25
1.15
Comp stress ratio
1.05 span=20m
0.95 span=25m
0.85 span=30m
0.75
Radius of cuvature Fig-25
Compressive stress v/s radius of curvature (30

skew)
1.15
1.1
Comp stress ratio
1.05
1 span=20m
0.95
span=25m
0.9
0.85 span=30m
0.8
0.75
49
Compressive stress v/s radius of curvature (45
skew)
1.45
1.35
1.25
Comp stress ratio
1.15
span=20m
1.05
0.95 span=25m
0.85 span=30m
0.75

Compressive stress v/s radius of curvature (60 skew)

1
0.9
Comp stress ratio
0.8
span=20m
0.7
span=25m
0.6 span=30m
0.5
5. TENSILE STRESS
Tensile stress v/s radius of curvature (0 skew)
1.3
1.2
Tensile stress ratio
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Tensile stress decreases with increase in radius of curvature.
50
1.5
1.4
Tensile stress 1.3
1.2
span=20m
1.1
1 span=25m
0.9 span=30m
0.8
0.7

1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1 span=20m
1.05 span=25m
1 span=30m
0.95
0.9

1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
span=20m
1
span=25m
0.95
span=30m
0.9
0.85
0.8
51
1.1
1.05
1
0.95 span=20m
0.9 span=25m
0.85 span=30m
0.8
0.75
6. DEFLECTION
Deflection v/s radius of curvature (0 skew)

1.7
1.5
Deflection ratio
1.3
1.1 span = 20m
0.9 span=25m
span=30m
0.7
0.5
Deflection decreases with increase in radius of curvature.

1.7
1.5
Deflection ratio
1.3
span=20m
1.1
span=25m
0.9
span=30m
0.7
0.5
Deflection decreases with decrease in radius of curvature.
52
1.7
1.5
1.3
Deflection ratio
span=20m
1.1
span=25m
0.9
span=30m
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
Deflection ratio
1.2
1.1
span=20m
1
span=25m
0.9
span=30m
0.8
0.7
1.5 Deflection v/s radius of curvature (60 skew)
1.3
Deflection ratio
1.1
span=20m
0.9
span=25m
0.7 span=30m
0.5
Radius of curvature
Fig-38
53
EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE:
1. BENDING MOMENT
R=
100m span = 20m span=25m span=30m
0° 1.3 1.21 1.02
15° 1.27 1.2 1.0098
30° 1.22 1.18 0.9794
45° 1.12 1.137 0.935
60° 1.137 1.06 0.8065
R=200m span = 20m span=25m span=30m
0° 1.184 1.124 1.127
15° 1.176 1.102 1.122
30° 0.949 1.077 1.101
45° 0.8738 1.02 1.046
0° 0.987 1.324 1.238
15° 0.976 1.31 1.236
30° 0.948 0.954 1.21
45° 0.8733 0.902 1.163
60° 0.894 0.888 1.0158
straight span = 20m span=25m span=30m
0° 1 1 1
15° 0.987 0.992 0.993
30° 0.961 0.97 0.974
45° 0.887 0.921 0.93
60° 0.91 0.903 0.811
Table 12 showing non-dimensional ratios for bending moment to

analyse the effect of skew angle.
54
2. SHEAR FORCE
Skew
R = 100m angle span = 20m span=25m span=30m
0° 1.216 1.177 1.002
15° 1.2001 1.227 1.01
30° 1.197 1.248 1.09
45° 1.143 1.203 1.082
60° 1.127 1.258 1.17
0° 0.984 1.132 1.01
15° 1.26 1.18 1.024
30° 1.094 1.237 1.018
45° 1.114 1.242 1.011
60° 1.291 1.293 1.0068
0° 0.993 1.156 0.974
15° 0.982 1.228 0.978
30° 1.01 1.0178 0.983
45° 1.057 0.9904 0.988
60° 1.179 1.121 0.995
0° 1 1 1
15° 0.997 1.02 1.037
30° 1.03 1.072 1.074
45° 1.077 1.094 1.1
60° 1.195 1.277 1.163
Table 13 showing non-dimensional ratios for shear force to analyse

the effect of skew angle.
55
3. TORSION
Skew
0° 1.156 1.53 1.643
15° 1.84 1.523 1.478
30° 1.994 1.716 1.914
45° 1.878 1.962 2.21
60° 1.741 1.876 2.361
0° 1.289 1.118 1.183
15° 1.3 1.333 1.411
30° 1.487 1.517 1.602
45° 1.66 1.585 1.504
60° 1.858 1.739 2.239
0° 1.192 0.862 0.972
15° 1.186 1.214 1.047
30° 1.402 1.41 1.391
45° 1.576 1.592 1.816
60° 1.81 1.818 2.571
0° 1 1 1
15° 1.014 0.955 0.906
30° 1.205 1.125 1.135
45° 1.357 1.297 1.412
60° 1.664 1.597 1.783
Table 14 showing non-dimensional ratios for TORSION to analyse

56
Skew
0° 0.949 0.952 0.9207
15° 1.3104 0.958 0.918
30° 1.061 1.026 0.9099
45° 1.002 0.995 0.925
60° 0.8285 0.804 0.872
0° 0.825 0.815 0.883
15° 1.112 0.832 0.888
30° 0.912 0.9412 0.9185
45° 0.868 0.894 0.929
60° 0.8202 0.7103 0.8584
0° 0.868 0.94 0.951
15° 0.984 0.923 0.954
30° 0.962 0.9305 0.943
45° 0.912 0.883 0.921
60° 0.695 0.6977 0.8562
0° 1 1 1
15° 1.067 0.999 0.993
30° 1.103 1.0764 1.022
45° 1.4 1.344 1.02
60° 0.935 0.8763 0.9572
Table 15 showing non-dimensional ratios for COMPRESSIVE STRESS

to analyse the effect of skew angle.
57
5. TENSILE STRESS
skew
0° 1.195 1.223 1.169
15° 1.781 1.245 1.158
30° 1.183 1.226 1.101
45° 1.109 1.172 1.055
60° 1.005 1.04 0.979
0° 1.072 1.083 1.572
15° 1.18 1.101 1.155
30° 1.065 1.075 1.188
45° 1.036 1.036 1.094
60° 0.968 0.898 1.0066
0° 1.008 1.088 1.0978
15° 1.008 1.0814 1.092
30° 1.002 1.006 1.075
45° 0.979 0.9708 1.033
60° 0.908 0.891 0.9359
0° 1 1 1
15° 1.004 1.0039 0.98
30° 0.996 0.991 0.966
45° 0.979 0.9683 0.922
60° 0.92 0.8985 0.8476
Table 16 showing non-dimensional ratios for TENSILE STRESS to

analyse the effect of skew angle.
58
6. DEFLECTION
span =
R = 100m skew angle 20m span=25m span=30m
0° 1.481 1.506 1.3452
15° 1.568 1.528 1.324
30° 1.503 1.468 1.244
45° 1.355 1.375 1.166
60° 1.363 1.281 1.0238
span =
R=200m 20m span=25m span=30m
0° 1.252 1.2625 1.416
15° 1.2 1.343 1.398
30° 1.185 1.3125 1.37
45° 1.355 1.375 1.166
60° 1.081 1.2 1.285
span =
R=300m 20m span=25m span=30m
0° 1.2 1.181 1.12
15° 1.185 1.1468 1.101
30° 1.141 1.156 1.0818
45° 1.037 1.0687 1.012
60° 1.03 1.0218 0.8482
span =
straight 20m span=25m span=30m
0° 1 1 1
15° 0.9926 0.993 0.9925
30° 0.948 0.9625 0.968
45° 0.866 0.893 0.909
60° 0.8296 0.8687 0.7739
Table 17 showing non-dimensional ratios for DEFLECTION to analyse

59
1. BENDING MOMENT
Bending moment v/s skew angle(R=100m)

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
BM ratio
1 span = 20m
0.9 span=25m
0.8
0.7 span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew angle Fig-39
Bending moment decreases with increase in skew angle.
Bending moment v/s skew angle(R=200m)

1.2
1.1
1
BM ratio
0.9
span = 20m
0.8
span=25m
0.7
span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew angle
Fig-40
Bending moment v/s skew angle

( R=300m)
1.5
1.3
1.1
BM ratio
span = 20m
0.9
span=25m
0.7
span=30m
0.5
0.3
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew angle Fig-41
60
Bending moment v/s skew angle( straight)
1.05
1
BM ratio 0.95
0.9 span = 20m
0.85 span=25m
0.8 span=30m
0.75
0.7
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew angle Fig-42
2. SHEAR FORCE
shear force v/s skew angle(R=100m)

1.4
1.3
1.2
Shear force ratio
1.1
1 span = 20m
0.9
span=25m
0.8
0.7 span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
SKew Angle
Fig-43
Shear force increases with increase in skew angle.
shear force v/s skew angle( R=200m)

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
Shear Force ratio
1 span = 20m
0.9
0.8 span=25m
0.7 span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle
Fig-44
61
shear force v/s skew angle( R=300m)
1.3
1.2
1
0.9 span = 20m
0.8 span=25m
0.7
span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle
Fig-45
shear force v/s skew angle(straight)

1.4
1.3
Shear Force ratio
1.2
1.1
1 span = 20m
0.9
0.8 span=25m
0.7 span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle
Fig-46
3. TORSION
Torsion v/s skew angle (R=100m)

2.5
2
Torsion ratio
span = 20m
1.5
span=25m
1 span=30m
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-47
Torsion increases with increase in skew angle.
62
2.5
2.3
2.1
Torsion ratio 1.9
1.7
1.5 span = 20m
1.3 span=25m
1.1
span=30m
0.9
0.7
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-48

3
2.5
Torsion ratio
2
span = 20m
1.5 span=25m
span=30m
1
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew angle Fig-49
Torsion v/s skew angle (straight)

1.9
1.7
1.5
Torsion ratio
1.3 span = 20m

1.1 span=25m
0.9 span=30m
0.7
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew angle Fig-50
63
Compressive stress v/s skew angle(R=100m)

1.2
1.1
Comp stress ratio
1
0.9 span = 20m
0.8
span=25m
0.7
span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle
Fig-51
Compressive stress decreases with increase in skew angle.

1.1
1
Comp stress ratio
0.9
0.8 span = 20m
0.7 span=25m
0.6 span=30m
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle
Fig-52

1.1
1
comp stress ratio
0.9
0.8 span = 20m
0.7 span=25m
span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew angle Fig-53
64
Compressive stress v/s skew angle(straight)
1.5
1.3
Comp stress ratio
1.1
span = 20m
0.9
span=25m
0.7 span=30m
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-54
Compressive stress initially increases, then decreases with increase in skew angle.
5. TENSILE STRESS
Tensile stress v/s skew angle(R=100m)

1.3
1.2
1.1
1 span = 20m
0.9 span=25m
0.8
span=30m
0.7
0.6
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
SKew Angle Fig-55
Tensile stress decreases with increase in skew angle.

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
span = 20m
0.9
span=25m
0.8
0.7 span=30m
0.6
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-56
65
1.15
1.1
Tensile stress ratio 1.05
1
span = 20m
0.95
0.9 span=25m
0.85 span=30m
0.8
0.75
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-57
Tensile stress v/s skew angle(straight)

1.05
1
0.95
span = 20m
0.9
span=25m
0.85
span=30m
0.8
0.75
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-58
6. DEFLECTION
Deflection V/s Skew angle (R=100m)

1.7
1.5
Deflection ratio
1.3
span = 20m
1.1
span=25m
0.9
span=30m
0.7
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-59
Deflection decreases with increase in skew angle.
66
1.7
1.5
deflection ratio
1.3
1.1 span = 20m
0.9 span=25m
0.7 span=30m
0.5
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle
Fig-60

1.3
1.2
Deflection ratio
1.1
1 span = 20m
span=25m
0.9
span=30m
0.8
0.7
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-61
Deflection V/s Skew angle (straight)

1.05
1
Deflection ratio
0.95
0.9 span = 20m
0.85 span=25m
0.8
span=30m
0.75
0.7
0° 15° 30° 45° 60°
Skew Angle Fig-62
67
EFFECT OF SPAN
1. BENDING MOMENT
0 SKEW SPAN R = 100 R = 200 R = 300 Straight
20 1.3 0.984 0.987 1
25 1.21 1.024 1.324 1
30 1.02 1.127 1.238 1
15
SKEW R = 100 R = 200 R = 300 Straight
20 1.417 1.476 0.976 0.987
25 1.225 1.102 1.31 0.992
30 1.0098 1.122 1.236 0.993
30
20 1.228 0.949 0.948 0.961
25 1.204 1.077 0.954 0.97
30 0.9794 1.101 1.21 0.974
45
20 1.12 0.8738 0.8733 0.887
25 1.137 1.02 0.902 0.921
30 0.935 1.046 1.163 0.93
60
20 1.137 0.886 0.894 0.91
25 1.06 0.963 0.888 0.903
30 0.8065 0.906 0.903 0.811
Table 18 showing non-dimensional ratios for BENDING MOMENT to

analyse the effect of span length.
68
2. SHEAR FORCE
0 SKEW Span R = 100 R = 200 R = 300 Straight
20 1.216 0.984 0.993 1
25 1.177 1.132 1.156 1
30 1.002 1.01 0.974 1
15
20 1.36 1.26 0.982 0.997
25 1.227 1.18 1.228 1.02
30 0.821 1.024 0.978 1.037
30
20 1.243 1.294 1.01 1.03
25 1.248 1.237 1.0178 1.072
30 1.09 1.018 0.983 1.074
45
20 1.247 1.114 1.057 1.077
25 1.203 1.242 0.9904 1.094
30 1.082 1.011 0.988 1.1
60
20 1.272 1.291 1.179 1.195
25 1.258 1.293 1.121 1.277
30 1.17 1.0068 0.995 1.163
Table 19 showing non-dimensional ratios for SHEAR FORCE to

69
3. TORSION
20 1.156 1.289 1.192 1
25 1.53 1.118 0.862 1
30 1.643 1.183 0.972 1
15
20 1.44 1.2 1.186 0.914
25 1.523 1.333 1.214 0.955
30 1.648 1.411 1.047 0.906
30
20 1.594 1.487 1.402 1.105
25 1.716 1.517 1.41 1.125
30 1.814 1.602 1.491 1.135
45
20 1.878 1.66 1.576 1.357
25 1.962 1.585 1.592 1.297
30 2.21 1.504 1.816 1.412
60
20 1.741 1.858 1.81 1.664
25 1.876 1.739 1.818 1.697
30 2.361 2.239 2.571 1.783
Table 20 showing non-dimensional ratios for TORSION to analyse

the effect of span length.
70
20 0.949 0.825 0.868 1
25 0.952 0.815 0.94 1
30 0.9207 0.883 0.951 1
15
20 1.1104 1.112 0.984 1.067
25 0.958 0.832 0.923 0.999
30 0.918 0.888 0.954 0.993
30
20 1.061 0.912 0.962 1.103
25 1.026 0.9412 0.9305 1.0764
30 0.9099 0.9185 0.943 1.022
45
20 1.002 0.868 0.912 1.4
25 0.995 0.894 0.883 1.344
30 0.925 0.929 0.921 1.02
60
20 0.8285 0.8202 0.695 0.935
25 0.804 0.7103 0.6977 0.8763
30 0.872 0.8584 0.8562 0.9572
Table 21 showing non-dimensional ratios for COMPRESSIVE STRESS

to analyse the effect of span length.
71
5. TENSILE STRESS
20 1.195 1.072 1.008 1
25 1.223 1.083 1.088 1
30 1.169 1.572 1.0978 1
15
20 1.381 1.28 1.008 1.004
25 1.245 1.101 1.0814 1.0039
30 1.158 1.155 1.022 0.98
30
20 1.183 1.065 1.002 0.996
25 1.126 1.075 1.006 0.991
30 1.101 1.138 1.075 0.966
45
20 1.109 1.036 0.979 0.979
25 1.172 1.036 0.9708 0.9683
30 1.055 1.094 1.033 0.922
60
20 1.005 0.968 0.908 0.92
25 1.04 0.8998 0.891 0.8985
30 0.997 1.0066 0.9359 0.8476

72
6. DEFLECTION
20 1.481 1.252 1.2 1
25 1.256 1.125 1.1 1
30 1.18 1.046 1.005 1
15
20 1.3 0.96 1.185 0.9926
25 1.528 1.343 1.2 0.993
30 1.7 1.398 1.3 0.9925
30
20 1.503 1.185 1.141 0.948
25 1.6 1.3125 1.156 0.9625
30 1.65 1.37 1.19 0.968
45
20 1.355 1.081 1.037 0.866
25 1.375 1.2 1.0687 0.893
30 1.4 1.285 1.1 0.909
60
20 1.363 1.081 1.03 0.8296
25 1.281 1.125 1.0218 0.8687
30 1.0238 1.095 0.8482 0.7739

73
1. BENDING MOMENT
1.35
Bending moment v/s span (0 skew)
1.25
1.15
BM ratio
R=100
1.05
R=200
0.95
R=300
0.85
Straight
0.75
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-63
Bending moment increases with increase in span length.

1.3
1.2
1.1
1 R = 100
0.9 R = 200
0.8 R = 300
0.7 Straight
0.6
0.5
20 25 30
Fig-64

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
BM ratio
R = 100
0.9
R = 200
0.8
0.7 R = 300
0.6 Straight
0.5
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-65
74
1.2
1.1
1
BM ratio R = 100
0.9
R = 200
0.8
R = 300
0.7
0.6 Straight
0.5
20 25 30
Span length Fig-66
1.1 Bending moment v/s span (60 skew)

1.05
1
BM ratio
0.95 R = 100
0.9 R = 200
0.85 R = 300
0.8 Straight
0.75
20 25 30
Span length Fig-67
2. SHEAR FORCE
Shear force v/s span (0 skew)

1.25
1.15
shear force ratio
1.05 R = 100
R = 200
0.95
R = 300
0.85 Straight
0.75
20 25 30
Span length Fig-68
Shear force decreases with increase in span length.
75
1.35
1.25
R = 100
1.05
R = 200
0.95
R = 300
0.85 Straight
0.75
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-69

1.35
1.25
Shear Force ratio
1.15
R = 100
1.05
R = 200
0.95 R = 300
0.85 Straight
0.75
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-70

1.35
1.25
Shear Force Ratio
1.15
R = 100
1.05
R = 200
0.95 R = 300
0.85 Straight
0.75
20 25 30
Span Length
Fig-71
76
1.4
1.3
Shear Force ratio
1.2
R = 100
1.1
R = 200
1 R = 300
0.9 Straight
0.8
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-72
3. TORSION
Torsion v/s span (0 skew)

1.55
1.45
1.35
Torsion ratio
1.25 R = 100
1.15
R = 200
1.05
0.95 R = 300
0.85 Straight
0.75
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-73
Torsion increases with increase in span length.

1.9
1.7
1.5
Torsion ratio
1.3 R = 100
1.1 R = 200
0.9 R = 300
0.7 Straight
0.5
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-74
77
2.1
1.9
1.7
Torsion ratio
1.5 R = 100
1.3 R = 200
1.1 R = 300
0.9 Straight
0.7
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-75

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
Torsion ratio
2 R = 100
1.8 R = 200
1.6
R = 300
1.4
1.2 Straight
1
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-76

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
R = 100
Torsion ratio
2
1.8 R = 200
1.6 R = 300
1.4 Straight
1.2
1
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-77
78
4. COMPRESSSIVE STRESS
Compressive stress v/s span (0 skew)

1.05
1
0.95
Comp stress ratio
0.9
0.85 R = 100
0.8 R = 200
0.75 R = 300
0.7
0.65 Straight
0.6
20 25 30
Span Length
Fig-78
Compressive stress decreases with increase in span length.

1.1
1
Comp stress ratio
0.9 R = 100
R = 200
0.8
R = 300
0.7 Straight
0.6
20 25 30
Span Length Fig-79

1.2
1.1
Comp stress ratio
1
R = 100
0.9
R = 200
0.8
R = 300
0.7
Straight
0.6
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-80
79
1.1
1
Cmp stress ratio
0.9
R = 100
0.8 R = 200
0.7 R = 300
0.6 Straight
0.5
20 25 30
Span Length Fig-81

1
0.9
Comp stress ratio
0.8
R = 100
0.7 R = 200
0.6 R = 300
0.5 Straight
0.4
20 25 30
Span length Fig-82
5. TENSILE STRESS
Tensile stress v/s span (0 skew)

1.3
1.2
1.1
1 R = 100
0.9
R = 200
0.8
R = 300
0.7
0.6 Straight
0.5
20 25 30
Span Length Fig-83
Tensile stress remains almost constant with increasing span length.
80
1.5
1.4
Tensile stress ratio 1.3
1.2 R = 100
1.1 R = 200
1 R = 300
0.9 Straight
0.8
20 25 30
Span Length
Fig-84
Tensile stress decreases with increase in span length.

1.3
1.2
1.1
R = 100
1
R = 200
0.9
R = 300
0.8 Straight
0.7
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-85

1.2
1.1
1
R = 100
0.9 R = 200
0.8 R = 300
0.7 Straight
0.6
20 25 30
Span Length Fig-86
81
1.05
1
Tensile stress 0.95
0.9
0.85 R = 100
0.8 R = 200
0.75
R = 300
0.7
0.65 Straight
0.6
20 25 30
Span Length
Fig-87
6. DEFLECTION
Deflection v/s span (0 skew)

1.9
1.7
Deflection ratio
1.5
1.3 R = 100
1.1 R = 200
0.9 R = 300
0.7 Straight
0.5
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-88
Deflection increases with increase in span length.

1.9
1.7
Deflection ratio
1.5
R = 100
1.3 R = 200
1.1 R = 300
0.9 Straight
0.7
20 25 30
Span length Fig-89
82
1.9
1.7
Deflection ratio 1.5
1.3 R = 100
1.1 R = 200
0.9 R = 300
0.7 Straight
0.5
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-90

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
Deflection ratio
R = 100
1.1
1 R = 200
0.9 R = 300
0.8
0.7 Straight
0.6
20 25 30
Span length
Fig-91

1.3
1.2
Deflection ratio
1.1
1 R = 100
0.9 R = 200
0.8 R = 300
0.7 Straight
0.6
20 25 30
Span Length
Fig-92
Deflection decreases with increase in span length.
83
INFERENCES:
EFFECT OF CURVATURE:
1. Bending Moment: - The variation of non-dimensional bending moment ratio with
change in the radius of curvature of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from
the graphs. For all the skew angles, bending moment decreases with increase in
radius of curvature. However, the decrease in bending moment is not linear. The
change from 100m to 200m is steeper than that from 200m to infinity. The maximum
change in bending moment is 25% from 100m to 200m radius of curvature.
2. Shear Force: - The variation of non-dimensional shear force ratio with change in the
radius of curvature of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. For
all skew angles, shear force decreases with increase in radius of curvature. However,
for 0° and 15° skew angle, the decrease is linear. With increasing skew angle, shear
force decreases till 300m then increases slightly up to infinite radius of curvature. The
maximum change in shear force is 3%. This suggests that shear force is not very much
affected by change in radius of curvature.
3. Torsion: - The variation of non-dimensional torsion ratio with change in the radius of
curvature of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. The graphs of
torsion ratio are clearly suggest than torsion decreases linearly with increase in radius
of curvature for all span lengths and all skew angles. The deviation of torsion ratio
from base model is maximum for 100m span and minimum for 300m span. The
maximum change in torsion is 20% for change from R=100m to 200m for 30° skew
angle, 20m span length.
4. Compressive Stress: - The variation of non-dimensional compressive stress ratio with

change in the radius of curvature of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from
the graphs. For smaller skew angles, compressive stress first decreases till 200m
radius and then increases. However as skew angle increases, compressive stress
decrease till 300m and then increase slightly till infinity. Maximum change is 33% for
change from radius 300m to infinity.
5. Tensile Stress: - The variation of non-dimensional tensile stress ratio with change in
the radius of curvature of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs.
Tensile stress decreases almost linearly with increase in radius of curvature. The
changes in values decrease as skew angle increases. The curves start becoming flatter
with increasing radius of curvature. The maximum change is 23% from 200m to 300m.
84
6. Deflection: - The variation of non-dimensional deflection ratio with change in the
radius of curvature of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs.
Deflection decreases as the bridge span becomes flatter. The decrease is mostly linear
with some ups and downs in between. For 30m span bridge, deflection first increases
slightly till 200m radius and then decreases. The maximum change in deflection is
21% for change from 100m to 200m radius of curvature.
EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE:

change in the skew angle of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs.
Bending moment decreases with increase in skew angle. The decrease in values
becomes more prominent with increasing radius of curvature. Maximum change in
bending moment is 20% from 45° to 60° skew angle.
skew angle of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. Shear force
increases with increase in skew angle. But the changes in the values are minimal. The
increase is very less from 100m to 300m, and slightly increases from 300m to infinity.
Maximum change in shear force is 11.53% from 45⁰ to 60⁰ skew angle.
3. Torsion: - The variation of non-dimensional torsion ratio with change in the skew angle
of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. Torsion increases
linearly with increase in skew angle. This is the most linear graph of all the graphs
drawn for all the parameters. The maximum change in torsion is 34.21% from 45⁰ to
60⁰ skew angle.

change in the skew angle of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs.
Compressive first increases slightly from 0⁰ to 15⁰ and then decreases with increase in
skew angle. The decrease from 45⁰ to 60⁰ skew angle is most profound, with the
maximum value being 20%.
the skew angle of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. Tensile
stress decreases with increase in skew angle. The change in tensile stress is not as
evident as that in compressive stress. Maximum change in tensile stress is 9.4% from
45⁰ to 60⁰.
6. Deflection: - The variation of non-dimensional deflection ratio with change in the skew
angle of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. For all the span
lengths, deflection decreases linearly with increase in skew angle. But the slope is
85
more steep in case of R=300m as compared to other radius of curvature. The
deflection values for 30m span length are lower than that for 20m and 25m span
length. The maximum deflection is for 0° skew angle, R=100m and minimum is for 60°
skew angle, R=300m. The maximum change in deflection is 10% for change from 0 to
15° skew angle.
EFFECT OF SPAN:
change in the span length of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the
graphs. Bending moment increases with increase in span length. However, increase
in the values is not very significant as it was in case of increasing radius of curvature
and skew angle. The maximum change in bending moment is 10% for change from
20m to 25m span length.
span length of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. Shear
force decreases with increase in span length. However, the curves are steeper for
lower skew angles than higher skew angles. The maximum deviation is seen for 15°
skew angle. The maximum change in shear force is 5% for change from 20m to 25m
span length.
3. Torsion: - The variation of non-dimensional torsion ratio with change in the span
length of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. Torsion
increases almost linearly with increase in span length. Torsion value for R=100m is
greater than that for R=200 and 300m, however the distinction between the values
for varying radius decreases as the skew angle increases. The maximum change in
torsion is 13.8% for change from 20m to 25m span length.

change in the span length of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the
graphs. Compressive stress does not change significantly with increase in span
length. The maximum change in compressive stress is 5% for change from 20m to
25m span length.
the span length of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs.
Change in tensile stress with increasing span length is very minimal. The values
decreases from 20m to 30m span length. Maximum change in tensile stress is
11.54% from 20m to 25m span length.
86
6. Deflection: - The variation of non-dimensional deflection ratio with change in the
span length of the I-beam bridge girder can be observed from the graphs. It is very
evident that for all skew angles and radius of curvature, deflection increases linearly
with increase in span length from 20m to 30m. The maximum change in deflection is
10% for change from 20m to 25m span length.
CONCLUSION:
As the radius of curvature increases and the bridge becomes flatter, bending moment, shear
force, torsion, tensile stress and deflection decrease; compressive stress increases; however
the change is not necessarily linear, some parameters first increase up to a certain radius
and then decrease. Here change in shear force is least and change in torsion is the highest.
With increase in skew angle, parameters like shear force and torsion increase. The increase
in torsion is the steepest as compared to other parameters. But bending moment,
compressive stress, tensile stress and deflection decrease with increasing skew angles. Here
change in shear force is least and change in torsion is the highest.
Bending moment, deflection and torsion increase linearly with increasing span length.
Compressive stress, tensile stress and shear force decrease with increasing span length.
Here, the change in compressive stress is the least and change in torsion is the highest.
The changes in properties like bending moment, torsion etc from radius 100m to 200m were
more significant than that from R=200m to 300m. Similarly, changes in parameters from 0°
to 15°and 20m to 25m had maximum deviation. This suggests that change in the value of
the parameters is not entirely linear. The rate of increase/decrease is higher in the initial
part of the graph.
Out of all the properties, bending moment, torsion and deflection were most affected by
the change in radius of curvature, skew angle and span length. Shear force, compressive
stress and tensile stress were not very much affected by changes in the above mentioned
parameters.
87
REFERENCES:
1. IRC 006: Standard specifications and Code of practice for Road Bridges, Section II-
Loads and Stresses.
2. IRC 112: Code of practice for Concrete Road Bridges, Section III- Identification of the
position, magnitude and direction of a free action.
3. Sami M. Fereig (1994),”Preliminary Design of Precast Pre-stressed Concrete Box
Girder Bridge.” PCI Journal
4. M. Qaqish, Al-Balqa Applied University, JORDAN (2008), “Comparison between One
Dimensional and Three Dimensional Models of Two Continuous Spans of Box Girder
Bridges” ICCBT 2008 - C - (42) [5] Chan, 5. T.H.T., and O’Connor, C. (1990a). “Wheel
Loads from Highway Bridge Strains: Field Studies.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 7.
5. Chan, T.H.T., and O’Connor, C. (1990b). “Vehicle Model for Highway Bridge Impact.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 7.
6. Wang, T.L., and Huang, D.Z. (1992). “Computer Modeling Analysis in Bridge
Evaluation.” Report No. FL/DOT/RMC/0542(2)-4108, Structural Research Centre,
Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.
7. Dr. Maher Qaqish, Dr.Eyad Fadda and Dr.Emad Akawwi (2008), “Design of T-Beam
Bridge by Finite Element Method and AASHTO Specification” KMITL Sci. J. Vol.8 No.1.
8. AASHTO (2012), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th Edition with
Interims, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C. National Research Council.
9. NCHRP Report 620: Development of Design Specifications and Commentary for
Horizontally Curved Concrete Box-Girder Bridges. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press, 2009.
10. Song, Shin-Tai, Y. H. Chai and Susan E. Hida (2003), Live Load Distribution Factors for
Concrete Box-Girder Bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.
273-280.
11. Wallace, Mark (1975), Skewed Concrete Box-Girder Parameter Studies, California
Department of Transportation.
12. Zokaie, Toorak, Mish, K. D., and Imbsen, R. A. (1993) Distribution of Wheel Loads on
Highway Bridges, Phase 3, Final Report to NCHRP Project 12-26 (2).
13. Karim, A., and Adeli, H. ~2000!. “Global optimum design of cold-formed steel I-shape
beams.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 5~2!, 78–81.
14. Lounis, Z., and Cohn, M. Z. ~1993!. “Optimization of precast pre-stressed concrete
bridge girder systems.” PCI J., 38~4!, 60–78.
15. Ohio Department of Transportation ~ODOT!. ~2000a!. Summary of Contracts, ODOT,
Columbus, Ohio.
16. Ohio Department of Transportation ~ODOT!. ~2000b!. Bridge Design Manual, ODOT,
Columbus, Ohio.
88
17. Park, H. S., and Adeli, H. ~1997!. “Distributed neural dynamics algorithm for
optimization of large steel structures.” J. Struct. Eng.,
18. Precast/Pre-stressed Concrete Institute ~PCI!. ~1997!. Bridge design manual, PCI,
Chicago.
19. Precast/Pre-stressed Concrete Institute ~PCI!. ~1999!. PCI design handbook, 5th Ed.,
PCI, Chicago.
20. Vanmarcke E, Fenton G, Heredia-Zavoni E. SIMQKE-II, conditioned earthquake
ground motion simulator: user’s manual, version 2; 1997.
21. Xu SY, Zhang J. Axial-shear-flexure interaction hysteretic model for RC bridge
columns under combined actions. Eng Struct 2012;34(1):548–63.
22. Zhiguo S, Bingjun S, Dongsheng W, Xun G. Experimental research and finite element
analysis of bridge piers failed in flexure-shear modes. Earthquake Eng Vib
2008;7(4):403–14.
23. Belarbi A, Prakash S, You YM. Effect of Spiral Reinforcement on Flexural-Shear-
Torsional Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Circular Bridge Columns. Struct
Eng Mech 2009;33(2):137–58.
24. Zhang J, Xu SY, Tang Y. Inelastic Displacement Demand of Bridge Columns
considering Shear-Flexure Interaction. Earthquake Eng Struc 2011;40: 731–48.
25. Prakash SS, Li Q, Belarbi A. Behavior of Circular and Square Reinforced Concrete
Bridge Columns under Combined Loading Including Torsion. ACI Struct J 2012:317–27
26. Elnashai AS, Papanikolaou V, Lee D. ZEUS NL – a system for inelastic analysis of
structures, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, IL; 2002.
27. Frankie TM. Impact of complex system behavior on seismic assessment of RC
bridges. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA; 2013.
28. Gencturk B, Elnashai A. Hybrid simulation of RC and ECC frames with an
experimental module at small-scale. ASCE Structures Congress, Chicago, IL, March
29–31; 2012.
29. Hindi RA, Browning BJ. Torsionally loaded circular concrete members confined with
spirals. ACI Struct J 2011:139–47.
30. Holub C. Similitude considerations for small scale distributed hybrid simulation of
reinforced concrete structures. MS Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA; 2005.
31. Jeng CH. Simple rational formulas for cracking torque and twist of reinforced
concrete members. ACI Struct J 2010:189–98.
32. Kwon O, Nakata N, Elnashai AS, Spencer Jr BF. A framework for multi-site distributed
simulation and application to complex structural systems. J Earthquake Eng
2005;9(5):741–53.
33. Li Yu1 , Zhong Tieyi1 , Yang Fengli1 and Yan Guiping , Effect of Curvature and Seismic
Excitation Characteristics on the Seismic Response of Seismically Isolated Curved
Continuous Bridge, October 2008.
89

Thesis Report Soumya Sandipa

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Thesis Report Soumya Sandipa

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF CURVED AND SKEWED CONCRETE

I-BEAM BRIDGE GIRDER

In partial fulfilment of the requirements

Department of Civil Engineering

Title Page No.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2 Analysis procedure……………………………………………………………16

Specifications for box-girder bridge………………………………….22

AASHTO recommendations for I-beam girder…………………….24

2.4 Comparison between box, I and T-beam girder…………………..26

CHAPTER 3 MODELLING AND PARAMETRIC STUDY

3.2 Parametric study………………………………………………………………..35

3.2.1 Analysis of effect of curvature……………………………………….38

3.2.2 Analysis of effect of skew angle…………………………………….54

3.2.3 Analysis of effect of span……………………………………………….68

4.1 Effect of curvature…………………………………………………………….84

4.2 Effect of skew angle………………………………………………………….85

4.3 Effect of span…………………………………………………………………….86

2 Box beam Girder Bridge 4

3 T beam Girder Bridge 4

4 I-beam girder section twisted by a torque 8

5 Distribution of lateral loads on flanges 9

6 AASHTO recommendations for dimensions of I beam 18

7 AASHTO relation between span length and beam type 19

8 Typical pre-stressed pre-cast concrete I-beam girder 19

9-13 Effect of curvature on bending moment 44-45

14-18 Effect of curvature on shear force 45-47

19-23 Effect of curvature on torsion 47-48

24-28 Effect of curvature on compressive stress 49-50

29-33 Effect of curvature on tensile stress 50-52

34-38 Effect of curvature on deflection 52-53

39-42 Effect of skew angle on bending moment 60-61

43-46 Effect of skew angle on shear force 61-62

47-50 Effect of skew angle on torsion 62-63

51-54 Effect of skew angle on compressive stress 64-65

55-58 Effect of skew angle on tensile stress 65-66

59-62 Effect of skew angle on deflection 66-67

63-67 Effect of span on bending moment 74-75

68-72 Effect of span on shear force 75-77

73-77 Effect of span on torsion 77-78

78-82 Effect of span on compressive stress 79-80

83-87 Effect of span on tensile stress 80-82

88-92 Effect of span on deflection 82-83

T beam - A T-beam, used in construction, is a load-bearing structure of reinforced

Figure 2 – Box beam Girder Bridge.

Figure 3 – T-Beam Girder Bridge.

1. Literature review of the analytical methods, previous experimental and theoretical

In chapter-2, there is a study of previously published theoretical, experimental work on

Figure 4- showing an I-beam girder

Figure 5- showing distribution of

The immediate firmness technique is utilized to compute the reaction of a support to

The examination method permits non-kaleidoscopic supports. Every support in the

Analysis of Girders for Single Load Case-

A banded storage and equation solution procedure is used to minimize memory

Analysis of Bridge Unit For Single Load Case-

Computation of Response Envelopes

1. Determine the influence functions

Computation of Flange Warping Stresses-

- Mild steel reinforced: single span l/d = 17

It is structurally and economically advantageous to change the bridge depth in the

L/Df = 33 – 50; L/Ds = 12 – 20

Specifications for box girder bridge-

5. Calculation of Ultimate Strength

Figure 6 – showing AASHTO