Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

3D Finite element analysis of Multi-beam Box girder Bridges – assessment of cross-sectional forces in joints

C.M. Frissen & M.A.N. Hendriks

TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, the Netherlands

N. Kaptijn

Ministry of Public Works and Water Management, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT: Three finite element models have been developed to analyze the cross-sectional forces in the joints of multi-beam box girder bridges. A model based on shell elements is used in nonlinear analyses in- cluding two analysis phases. The analysis phases simulate the construction phases. For straight bridges cur- rent design methods based on orthotropic plate models give reasonable results compared to the results of the advanced model. For bridges with a skew or curved geometry plan orthotropic plate models give poor predic- tions for the forces and moments in the joints. Advanced modeling, as presented in this paper, is then to be preferred.

1

INTRODUCTION

In this introductory section we will present a design question related to multi-beam box girder bridges. This question has lead to an intensive numerical study of a multi-beam box girder bridge. We will start with a general description.

1.1 Multi-beam Box girder Bridges

As indicated by the name, multi-beam box girder bridges consist of several box shaped girders. The topsides of the girders compose the car deck. Figure 1 is an illustrative sketch of a multi-beam box girder bridge. Prefabricated girders are frequently used for bridges crossing highways where you do not want not disturb the traffic during the construction phase. In the Netherlands multi-beam box girder bridges are not commonly applied. Because of the costs normally inverted prestressed T-beams are used. Multi-beam box girder bridges are regularly applied for spans up to 40 meters. Concrete multi-beam box girder bridges are al- ways prestressed in longitudinal direction. The curved prestressed tendons or strands in the girder webs of the boxes result in an upward load, in the opposite direction of the gravity load. The greater the curvature of the tendons, the greater this effect is. The maximal curvature of the tendons depends on the ratio between the height of the boxes and the length of the span.

between the height of the boxes and the length of the span. Figure 1. An illustrative

Figure 1. An illustrative sketch of a multi-beam box girder bridge

1.2 Current Design Practice

The following loads have to be taken into account:

the dead weight of the girders and the joints be- tween the girders,

the prestress of the tendons (or strands),

distributed loads, of asphalt, rails, mobile loads

concentrated wheel loads.

The wheel loads should be located on the most un- favorable position.

The force transmission of the loads through a multi-beam box girder bridge is a complex issue. The complexity increases even more when, instead of a straight plan arrangement, bridges of curved or skew plan geometry have to be analyzed. A popular, finite element based, methodology makes use of 2D plate bending models. For multi-beam box girder bridges the overall bending stiffness in longitudinal direction is substantial higher than the bending stiffness in transverse direction. In transverse direction the rela- tively soft joints between the box girders dominate the bending stiffness. In 2D plate bending models this is modeled by applying plate models with geo- metrically orthotropic properties, where moment of inertia I xx in longitudinal direction differs from the moment of inertia I yy in transverse direction. The de- termination of I xx and I yy follows Timoshenko’s the- ory for plates and shells (Timoshenko, 1970) and re- flects the cross-sectional shape of the box girder bridge. Linear static analyses are adopted where re- duced stiffness moduli account for cracking of the concrete.

1.3 Design considerations

The design considerations that form the basis of the numerical study as presented in this paper focuses on the cross-sectional forces in the joints between the girders. The girders are prefabricated boxes; the joints are casted after placement of the girders. These two construction phases cause the joints to be ini- tially stress free, apart from the influence of the dead weight on the joints. After completing the bridge with asphalt and after introducing additional loads such as mobile loads and possible (wind) loads re- sulting from baffle boards, this situation has been changed. The design of the reinforcements in the joints requires a good insight in the (shear) forces and bending moments in the joints. Furthermore, the question could be raised whether it is necessary to apply post-tensioned tendons in the cross direction. It is believed that the current design procedure does not give sufficient insight in the forces and bending mo- ments in the joints. For this, a more advanced analy- sis is in its place. More generally, such an advanced analysis could serve as an assessment of the design method based on orthotropic plate models.

1.4 Approach

In this study we have selected a relatively small bridge which we will describe in detail in section 2. The economic relevance of this case study is moti- vated by the popularity of such bridges. As a varia- tion study a wind load on baffle board was investi- gated. As a geometric variation study a skew bridge was investigated. In each case the forces and mo- ments in the joints are the primary concern.

An advanced analysis should include the construc- tion phases as these have a crucial effect on the stresses in the joints. Also, such an analysis should include nonlinear effects, such as cracking of the concrete and plasticity of the reinforcements. Three

models will be used: a full 3D model with solid brick elements, a degenerated full 3D model based on shell elements and a 2D plate bending model. The full 3D model is, from geometrical viewpoint, the most accu-

rate model. However, for the nonlinear analyses the

3D solid model is not considered as a feasible option.

For the nonlinear analyses the 3D shell model will be

adopted. The 2D plate bending model will serve as a reference and represents the standard design practice. Section 2 gives a more detailed description of the selected case. Section 3 and 4 then subsequently pre-

sent linear and nonlinear analyses. The linear analy-

ses are mainly meant to justify the three models. Sec-

tion 5 concludes this paper by reverting to the design

question.

2 CASE STUDY: BOX GIRDER BRIDGE HEULTSEDREEF

As a case study we selected viaduct ‘KW 14 Heultsedreef’, a typical multi-beam box girder bridge, located near Boxtel in the south of the Neth- erlands, crossing the 2 × 2 lanes highway ‘A2’. We

will subsequently describe its geometry, the material

properties and the design loads.

2.1 Geometry

The structure consists of five prestressed and prefab-

ricated box girders. The bridge comprises two fields, each spanning two lanes. Because of symmetry we

will consider one half of the structure with a span of

27225 mm. Each box is 1180 mm wide and 900 mm high. The center to center distance between the boxes is 1320 mm. The top slabs are designed such that a

strip of 230 mm wide and 160 mm thick will be casted on the site. We will refer to this strip as the ‘joint’. The width of the deck is 6960 mm. Each girder is placed on four rubber supports, located 250

mm from the girder ends. The general configuration

is illustrated in Figure 2. This figure also indicates

the horizontal supports, as how these will be schema- tized in the analyses.

250 26725 250 27225 6960
250
26725
250
27225
6960

Figure 2. Plan of viaduct ‘Heultsedreef’

The shape of the prestressed strands is illustrated in Figure 3. The figure shows the strands in one of the ten webs. Each web includes 20 bended strands. Note that the course of the strands is such that they come down 440 mm from the girder end to the middle of the girder. Each of the bottom slabs includes 24 prestressed strands, which are straight.

10613 10613 6000 6000 440 440
10613
10613
6000
6000
440
440

Figure 3. Shape of the prestressed strands

2.2 Materials

The Tables 1 and 2 summarize the material proper- ties of the reinforced concrete and the properties of the strands. The concrete quality of the joints is lower than the quality of the prefab girders. The rubber support blocks will be modeled as springs with a stiffness 227,000 N/mm for the supports in the left hand side and a stiffness of 289,000 N/mm for the supports on the right hand side.

Table 1. Material properties of concrete and reinforcements.

Box girders Young’s modulus Poisson ratio Density (rebars incl.)

Concrete class B55 36,000 N/mm 2

0.2

25 kN/m 3

Joints Young’s modulus Poisson ratio Density (rebars incl.)

Concrete class B35 31,833 N/mm 2

0.2

25 kN/m 3

Reinforcements

FeB 500 HWL steel 210,000 N/mm 2

Young’s modulus

Table 2. Properties of strands

Strands Young’s modulus Area per strand Prestress (applied) Prestress (actual)

FeP 1860 steel 200,000 N/mm 2 100 mm 2 140.9 kN 125 kN

2.3 Design loads

The design loads comprise (i) the dead weight of girders and joints, (ii) the prestress in the strands, (iii) distributed loads from the asphalt layer, rails, etc., (iv) a mobile load, as an equally distributed load (v) and wheel load. Figure 4 illustrates the distributed loads. Figure 5 illustrates the wheel load. The wheel load is composed of three axle loads. Each axle load is distributed over four wheels, resulting in 3 × 4 wheel prints. The critical position of the wheel load, in transverse as well as in longitudinal direction will be determined with an influence field analysis. This is described in section 3.

q 3 q q 3 q 4 4 q q 1 1 q q 2
q
3
q
q 3 q 4
4
q q
1 1
q q
2 2
333 333
6294 6294
160 160

Figure 4. Distributed loads on the top slabs, cross-sectional view

2500 2500 case 1 case 1 333 333 4x250 4x250 500 500 4x250 4x250
2500 2500
case 1
case 1
333 333
4x250
4x250
500
500
4x250
4x250
Y Y Z Z X X case 2 case 2
Y
Y
Z
Z
X
X
case 2
case 2

2230 2230

500 4x250 4x250 Y Y Z Z X X case 2 case 2 2230 2230 6960

6960 6960

4x250 Y Y Z Z X X case 2 case 2 2230 2230 6960 6960 1090
1090 1090 160 160 10004000 10004000 400 400 600 600
1090 1090
160
160
10004000
10004000
400
400
600
600

Figure 5. Wheel loads on the top slabs, cross-sectional view and top view.

3 LINEAR ANALYSIS

In the next three subsections we will subsequently present the element meshes for the full 3D model, the shell model and the orthotropic plate model. Section 3.4 presents a comparison of the major results. Sec- tion 3.5 presents an influence field analysis to assess the most critical position of the wheel loads. For this analysis the shell model was adopted.

3.1 Full 3D model

The 3D model could be termed as a straightforward model, as it required the fewest geometrically simpli- fying assumptions. The Figures 6 to 8 illustrate the mesh that comprises five girders. The mesh consists of 20-node brick elements, embedded reinforcement bars for the strands and embedded reinforcement grids for the reinforcements.

and embedded reinforcement grids for the reinforcements. Figure 6. Full 3D model – Cross section of
Figure 6. Full 3D model – Cross section of the model 6450 1088 5850 150
Figure 6. Full 3D model – Cross section of the model
6450
1088
5850
150

Figure 7. Full 3D model – Mesh of halved girder

5850 150 Figure 7. Full 3D model – Mesh of halved girder Figure 8. Full 3D

Figure 8. Full 3D model – Locations of the strands

3.2 Shell model

The shell model consists of 8-node quadrilateral ele- ments and 6-node triangular elements. These ele- ments could be envisaged as degenerated solid ele- ments, assuming the shell hypotheses of straight

normals and zero normal stress. Compared to the full 3D model the main point of concern is the geometric treatment of the corners in the model. As a guiding principle for the geometric discretization the bulk concrete volume bulk is preserved. Figure 9 shows a cross-section of the shell model. The embedding of strands and reinforcements is analogous to that of the full 3D model.

6960 6960 333 333 1014 1014 306 306 733 733
6960
6960
333
333
1014
1014
306
306
733
733

Figure 9. Shell model – Cross-section of the model

3.3 Orthotropic plate model

The orthotropic plate model consists of 8 node quad- rilateral plate elements. The geometrically ortho- tropic properties of the 2D plate elements reflect the actual geometry of the bridge, see e.g. Timoshenko, 1970. Two geometry groups are distinguished: one for the two edge girders and one for the three girders in between, see Figure 10. Table 3 presents the mo- ment of inertia I xx in longitudinal direction, the mo- ment of inertia I yy in transverse direction and the moments of inertia I xy and I yx . To estimate the mo- ments M xy,girder in the girders and the moments M xy,joints in the joints the calculated moments M xy re- sulting from the analysis should be multiplied with respectively 2.0 and 0.02 (Frissen, 2000).

15003960 15003960
15003960
15003960

edge girders 1 and 5

edge girders 1 and 5(Frissen, 2000). 15003960 15003960 edge girders 1 and 5 girders 2, 3 and 4 girders 2,

15003960 15003960 edge girders 1 and 5 edge girders 1 and 5 girders 2, 3 and

girders 2, 3 and 4

girders 2, 3 and 4

Figure 10. 2D orthotropic plate model – Moments of inertia

Table 3. Geometrically orthotropic properties of the plate ele- ments. Between parentheses: the properties for the two edge girders.

Property

I

xx yy I xy = I yx

I

[10 6 mm 4 /mm] 45.69 (42.80) 00.76 (00.76) 35.06 (35.06)

3.4 Results and justification

The force transmission of the wheel loads could eas- ily be demonstrated by plotting the reaction forces in the elastic supports. On each edge the bridge is sup- ported by ten elastic supports, two per girder. Figure 11 shows the reaction forces on one edge of the bridge as resulting from wheel load ‘case 1’ in the middle of the span (cf. Fig. 5). Compared to the reac- tion forces as obtained with the volume model, the shell model gives a difference of about 2% and the plate model gives a difference of about 10%. Figure 12 shows a similar graph but then for a prestress load applied in the strands. Note that this load could not be analyzed with the plate model, as this model does not explicitly model the strands.

140 plate 120 shell 100 volume 80 60 40 20 0 -20 1 2 3
140
plate
120
shell
100
volume
80
60
40
20
0
-20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-40
reaction forces [kN]

supports

Figure 11. Reaction Forces in the elastic supports – Wheel load

15 shell 10 volume 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15
shell
10
volume
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
reaction forces [kN]

supports

Figure 12. Reaction Forces in the elastic supports – Pre stress load

3.5 Influence fields

The shell model was adopted to calculate influence fields. Figure 13 shows the influence field of a wheel load. The colors indicate the cross moment M yy in the joint between edge girder 2 and girder 3 at the middle of the span. Note that we selected a point in a joint as that is the focus of the present paper. Based on vari- ous influence field analyses for several points and for both bending moments and shear forces, wheel load ‘case 2’, cf. Figure 5, was selected as the normative wheel load.

joint joint
joint
joint

x x

z z Myy Myy y y
z z
Myy
Myy
y y
normative wheel load. joint joint x x z z Myy Myy y y Figure 13. Influence

Figure 13. Influence field for cross moment M yy in the joint be- tween edge girder 2 and girder 3 in the middle of the span.

4 NONLINEAR ANALYSIS

The linear analyses revealed that the differences be- tween the results of the three models are small. For the assessment of the cross-sectional forces in the joint we will proceed with nonlinear analyses, all performed with the shell model. In this section we will specify the loading history and analysis phases,

the material modeling and results. The nonlinear re- sults are compared with results obtained from the orthotropic plate model.

4.1 Analysis phases, Loading and load history

The analysis comprises two phases. In the first phase the model consists of five girders, which are not yet connected with joints. The loads are the gravity and the prestress in the strands.

In the second analysis phase the joints are added to the model. The reasoning for distinguishing two phases is that the concrete in the joint is added free from strains, stresses and possible cracks. This also holds true for the reinforcements in the joints. As op- posed to the joints, the initial state of the girders in the second phase equals the resulting state of the first analysis phase. The loads from the first phase are maintained in the second analysis phase. Next the de- sign loads are applied including wheel load ‘case 2’, which was the outcome of the influence field analy- sis. A bridge modeled in such a way might be mod- eled too stiff. In reality, cracking due to the ongoing traffic loads might influence the transfer of loads. To simulate this in the analysis the bridge will be pre- damaged by applying and subsequently removing wheel loads at ten locations. Figure 14 illustrates the initial loading and unloading of wheel load ‘case 2’, the subsequent loading and unloading of the 10 wheel loads and finally the loading of wheel load ‘case 2’.

case 2 case 2 pre-damage: (1) pre-damage: (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5)
case 2
case 2
pre-damage: (1)
pre-damage: (1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(7)
(7)
(8)
(8)
(9)
(9)
(10)
(10)
case 2
case 2

Figure 14. Load history of the 12 wheel loads.

4.2 Material modeling

For the concrete Diana’s multiple fixed crack model is adopted, with linear tension softening. Full tension stiffening is assumed to model the composite behav- ior of reinforced concrete. The compressive behavior is modeled with a Von Mises plasticity model, which is acceptable for membrane stress situations. The reinforcements are modeled with ideally elasto-plasticity. For the strands hardening elasto- plasticity is adopted.

4.3 Results for construction phase 1 and 2

In this section some exemplary results for the ulti- mate limit state analysis are presented. The nonlinear analysis comprises two analysis phases. Figure 15 gives the bending of the topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress for analysis phase 1. Note that the elements representing the joints are not ac- tive in this analysis phase. In the middle of the span the displacement is 38 mm in upward direction. Fig- ure 16 shows the crack pattern for construction phase 2. Longitudinal cracks arise in the joints, whereas cracks in transverse direction could be observed in the bottom sides of the girders. Figure 17 further il- lustrates the cross-sectional deformations at the mid- dle of the span.

Model: FASE1 Model: FASE1 Model: FASE1 LC1: Load case LC1: Load case 1 1 LC1:
Model: FASE1
Model: FASE1
Model: FASE1
LC1: Load case
LC1: Load case 1 1
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 1 LOAD:
Step: 1 LOAD:
Step: 1 LOAD:
Nodal TDTX
Nodal TDTX
Nodal TDTX
G
G
G
Max/Min on mod
Max/Min on mod
Max/Min on mod
Max = 38.2
Max = 38.2
Max = 38.2
Min = -2.21
Min = -2.21
Min = -2.21
35 35
35
30
30 30
25
25 25
20
20 20
15
15 15
10
10 10
5 5 5
0 0
0
Figure 15. Phase 1 – the placement of the girders: bending of
the topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress.
topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress. Figure 16. Phase 2: Crack pattern
topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress. Figure 16. Phase 2: Crack pattern
topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress. Figure 16. Phase 2: Crack pattern
topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress. Figure 16. Phase 2: Crack pattern
topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress. Figure 16. Phase 2: Crack pattern
topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress. Figure 16. Phase 2: Crack pattern
topsides of the girders due to dead weight and prestress. Figure 16. Phase 2: Crack pattern

Figure 16. Phase 2: Crack pattern at the bottom side of the joints (top panel) and at the bottom side of the girders (bottom panel).

Z X Y     -215 -216 -217 -218
Z X Y     -215 -216 -217 -218
Z X Y
Z
X
Y
   

-215

-216

-217

-218

Figure 17. Phase 2: Vertical displacements at the middle of the span.

A typical comparison between the nonlinear shell model and the plate model is given in Figure 18. This graph presents the bending moment M yy , in trans- verse direction, in joint 2 along the span. Bending moment M yy is one of the many forces and moments that were compared in this study, but was considered as one of the most crucial ones for the joints. The lines distinguish between:

shell models versus orthotropic plate models

reduced stiffness ( red. ), to account for crack- ing, and non-reduced stiffness (for the plate model),

with ( dam. ) and without pre-damaging (for the shell model).

The lines show that the effect of pre-damaging the shell model could be neglected. Further, reducing the stiffness in the plate elements yields reasonable re- sults compared to the results of the shell model. The reduced plate model underestimates M yy up to 7%. Non-reduced plate models underestimate M yy up to 38%. Variation studies with skew viaducts see Figure 19, revealed that also the reduced plate models fail to accurately predict M yy in the joints. Figure 20 shows the same results as Figure 18 but now for the skew viaduct. Although, in absolute sense, the maximum value of M yy for the plate model with reduced stiff- ness is comparable with the maximum value for the shell model, we observe that the course is completely different.

0 0 10 20 30 -5 -10 -15 -20 Myy [kNm/m]
0
0
10
20
30
-5
-10
-15
-20
Myy [kNm/m]

span x [m]

joint joint z z Myy Myy y y x x plate red. plate shell shell
joint
joint
z z
Myy
Myy
y y
x x
plate red.
plate
shell
shell dam.

Figure 18. Phase 2: Bending moment Myy in joint 2.

dam. Figure 18. Phase 2: Bending moment Myy in joint 2. Figure 19. Skew viaduct, phase
dam. Figure 18. Phase 2: Bending moment Myy in joint 2. Figure 19. Skew viaduct, phase
Figure 19. Skew viaduct, phase 2: Crack pattern at the bottom side of the joints
Figure 19. Skew viaduct, phase 2: Crack pattern at the bottom
side of the joints (top panel) and at the bottom side of the gird-
ers (bottom panel).
10
joint
joint
5
z z
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Myy
Myy
-5
y
y
x
x
-10
plate red.
-15
plate
shell
-20
Myy [kNm/m]

span x [m]

Figure 20. Phase 2: Bending moment Myy in joint 2 for the skew viaduct.

5

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to perform a nonlinear analysis of box girder bridges taking into account the two main con- struction phases. Based on the current variation stud- ies, including the modeling of a skew viaduct, effect of the position of the wheel loads and the effect of wind loads on baffle boards, we concluded that nonlinear analyses have an added value above the orthotropic plate models. This holds especially true for the skew viaduct and will also hold true for

bridges with a curved planar geometry. In this case

plate models give bad predictions for the bending moments and forces in the joints. Nonlinear analysis is then to be preferred. For the ‘Heultsedreef’ bridge relative high bend- ing moments M yy in the joints occur but it was not necessary to apply post-tension strands in transverse direction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Apart from the authors, A. de Boer and H. Nosewicz, both from the Dutch Ministry of Public Works and Water Management, complemented the project team. The authors wish to thank them for the many stimu- lating discussions, advice and support in the course of this project.

REFERENCES

Frissen, C.M. 2000, Numerieke Analyse Kokerbalkviaduct. (in Dutch) TNO report 1999-MIT-NM-R0013, TNO Building and Construction research, Rijswijk Timoshenko, S.P., & Woinowsky-Krieger, S. 1970, Theory of

plates and Shells, 2 nd ed. McGraw-Hill