Skew PDF
Skew PDF
www.arpnjournals.com
ABSTRACT
T-beam bridge is a common choice among the designers for small and medium span bridges. In order to cater to
greater speed and more safety of present day traffic, the modern high ways are to be straight as far as possible. This
requirement, along with other requirements for fixing alignment of the bridges, is mainly responsible for provision of
increasing number of skew bridges. The presence of skew in a bridge makes the analysis and design of bridge decks
intricate. For the T- beam bridges with small skew angle, it is frequently considered safe to ignore the angle of skew and
analyze the bridge as a right bridge with a span equal to the skew span. However, T-beam bridges with large angle of skew
can have a considerable effect on the behavior of the bridge especially in the short to medium range of spans. In this paper
an analytical study using three dimensional finite element methods was performed to investigate the effect of skew angle
on behavior of simply supported reinforced concrete T-beam bridge decks. The parameters investigated in this analytical
study were the span lengths and skew angle. The finite element analysis (FEA) results for skewed bridges were compared
to the reference straight bridges (nonskewed). The geometric dimensions of the T-beam bridge decks and the loading used
are in compliance with AASHTO standard specifications. The FEA results and comparison of skewed bridge with straight
bridge indicate that max. Live load bending moments and deflections decreases in T- beams for skewed bridges, while
max. shear, torsion and supports reactions increases in some T-beams for skewed bridges for all considered span lengths
(12, 16, 20 and 24m). This study disagreement with the AASHTO standard specifications as well as the LRFD in
recommending that bridges with skew angle less than or equal 20 be designed as straight (non skewed) bridges also it
recommended that engineers are better to perform three dimensional finite element analysis for skewed T-beam bridge
decks.
1. INTRODUCTION
T- Beam bridge deck [1], is the most common
type of bridges in Iraq and other contraries, it consists of
several beams or girders. The span in the direction of the
road way and connected across their tops by a thin
continuous structural stab, the longitudinal beams can be
made of several different materials, usually steel or
concrete. The concrete deck is presented in present study.
Skewed bridges are often encountered in highway
design when the geometry cannot accommodate straight
bridges. Highway bridges are characterized by the angle
formed with the axis of the crossed highway. The skew
angle can be defined as the angle between the normal to
the centerline of the bridge and the centerline of the
abutment or pier cap, as described in Figure-1.
Due to high traffic speeds road or railway
schemes can seldom be modified in order to eliminate the
skew of their bridges. Therefore, a considerable number of
skew bridge decks are constructed.
AASHTO [2] suggests that bridges with a skew
angle less than as equal 20 be designed as a typical bridge
at right angles with no modifications. However, if the Figure-1. Description of a skewed bridge.
skew angle exceeds 20, AASHTO [2] suggest the use of
an alternate superstructure configuration. This study presents the results of a parametric
study which evaluated the effect of skew angle on the
behavior of simply supported R.C. T-beam bridge decks.
Here the present study is carried out for two lane T-beam
bridges decks consists of four beams and two diaphragms
at ends, without footpath loaded with two HS-20 truck
1
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
positioned according to AASHTO [2] to produce skewness on the behavior of T-beam bridge decks is
maximums of bending moments, shears, deflections, studied by analyze each span with skew angles 0,15, 30
torsions and maximum supported reactions, are analyzed and 45. Straight bridges with zero skew angle served as a
for 12, 16, 20 and 24m right spans with 0, 15, 30 and reference for comparison with skewed bridges. In total 16
45 skew angles. The results of skewed bridges were bridge cases were analyzed and assessed using finite
compared with straight bridges (skew angle = 0). element analysis.
2
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
Table-1. Bridge decks models. bridges. According to AASHTO [2] ( section 3.6), the lane
loading or standard truck shall be assumed to occupy a
Span Skew Span Skew
No. No. width of 10 ft (3.048 m) and these loads shall be placed in
(m) angle (m) angle
minimum 12 ft (3.658 m) wide design traffic lanes, as
1 12 0 9 20 0 shown in Figure-4.
2 12 15 10 20 15 To find the minimum depth (hf) for flange (slab)
3 12 30 11 20 30 and total depth for longitudinal beams (ht), Table (8.9.2) in
4 12 45 12 20 45 AASHTO give a depth to limit deflection or any
5 16 0 13 24 0 deformations that may adversely affects the strength or
serviceability of the structure at service load plus impact.
6 16 15 14 24 15
The details of dimensions of longitudinal beams and ends
7 16 30 15 24 30 diaphragms are shown in Table-2.
8 16 45 16 24 45
3.1 Geometric dimensions of T- Beam
T-beam construction consists of vertical
rectangular stem with a wide top flange as shown in
Figure-3; the wide top flange is usually the transversely
reinforced deck slab and the riding surface for the traffic.
The stem width (hw) vary from (14 in-22 in) [2] set by the
required horizontal spacing for positive moment
reinforcement. The depth of wide top flanges (hf) and stem
depth (hs) must satisfy the requirement of moments, shear
and deflection under critical combination of loads.
Beam No.
3
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
4. POSITION OF LOAD ON THE BRIDGE DECK edge) and E3 (wheel load at 0.9m or 3ft from the free
MODELS edge) and E3 (wheel load at 0.9m or 3ft from the free
In previous studies [4, 5] related to straight edge) showed only a 5% difference. It was also shown that
reinforced concrete slab bridges, two possible transverse the "Edge Load" resulted in higher maximum moments
loading positions of the design trucks were considered: (a) than the "Centered Load ".
centered condition where each truck is centered in its own Since the objective of presents study is to
lane as prescribed by AASHTO [2], and ( b) edge investigate the effect of skew angles on behavior of simply
condition where the design trucks are placed close to one supported R.C. T- beam bridge decks. Selected 16 two
edge (left) of the deck, such that the center of the left lane bridge decks models with different spans and skew
wheel of the left most truck is positioned at one foot from angles as mentioned in section 3.2 were analyzed by
the free edge of the deck. The distance between the placing two HS-20 truck wheel Loads using finite element
adjacent trucks for the edge condition was intentionally analysis method. The transverse positions used for these
selected for this study to be 1.2m (4ft) or 3m (l0ft) center two trucks in order to produce the worst wheel loading
to center spacing, in order to produce the worst live conditions as refer above in previous studies [4, 5] are
loading condition on the bridge. Placing the HS-20 truck shown in Figure-5. An increment of 0.4m is given in the
wheel loads this close in the transverse direction (1.2m or longitudinal direction for moving load generation [6]. The
4ft apart) is not in accordance with the AASHTO [2] dead load of the deck is neglected in this study.
Loading requirements of one truck per lane. However, it
meets AASHTO LRFD [3] section 3.6.1.3.1 provision of a
minimum 1.2m (4ft) distance between the wheels of
adjacent design trucks. Therefore, the FEA models and
HS-20 wheel load arrangements are expected to generate
higher bending moments due to this imposed live loading
condition. Placing the wheel load at 0.3m (1ft) from the
free edge could be considered critical or overestimating
the longitudinal bending moment. However, AASHTO [2]
specifies a minimum distance of 0.6m (2ft) from the curb
of railing to be more realistic and practical. Therefore,
bridges with edge load were reanalyzed further by placing
the wheel load of left truck 0.6m (2ft) from the parapet
(0.3m or 1ft) which totals 0.9m (3ft) instead of 0.3m (1ft)
from the edge. The FEA results of two edge loading
conditions E1 (wheel load at 0.3m or 1ft from the free
4
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
5
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS evaluated. Thus, the finite element results for skewed
The FEA results were obtained and reported in models with skew angles 15, 30 and 45 are compared to
terms of the maximums bending moment, shear, torsion, their corresponding FEA values for straight bridges (skew
deflection and support reactions in longitudinal beams in angle = 0). The FEA bending moments are presented in
the bridge deck models due to the applied live load (two the form of the ratio M/M0, where M is the maximum
HS-20 truck wheel loads) as referred before in section 4 FEA moment in the T-beam for given skew angle, are
and 5. The results of straight and skewed models are listed 15, 30 and 45, and M0 is the FEA moment for
in Tables 4 to 8. nonskewed bridges (0 skewness). Similarly, the ratio
The effects of skewness of T-Beam deck models Sh/Sh0,T/To, /0 and SP/SP0 were calculated from
on the maximums live load bending moments, shear, the FEA shear, torsion, deflection and support reactions
torsions, deflections and supports reactions were also results, respectively as shown in Figures 7 to 11.
6
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
7
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
8
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
6.1 Maximum live load bending moments in longitude ratio M/M0 is ranging from 0.9 to 0.99 for the four
T-Beams beams in the decks models at skew angles 15 and 30 for
General behavior indicate that maximum bending spans lengths (12, 16, 20 and 24m), while the ratio M/M0
moments in T-beam bridge decks for skewed bridges has different values for bridge decks with skew angle
compared to that of straight bridges decreases with equal 45 for each considered span lengths as follows: The
increase of skew angle for all considered span lengths ratio M/M0 is ranging from 0.73 to 0.85 for span length
(12,16, 20 and 24m) as shown in Figure-7. =12m; 0.8 to 0.88 for span length = 16m; 0.87 to 0.91 for
The decrement in maximum bending moment in span length =20m and 0.9 to 0.93 for span length =24m
longitudinal T-beams are summarized as follows: The for the four beams.
Figure-7. FEA maximum live load bending moments in longitudinal T-Beams -ratio M/M0.
6.2 Maximum live load shear in longitudinal T-Beams The variations in the results of maximum shear
General behavior indicate that maximum shear in for skewed T-beam bridge decks are summarized as
T-beams bridge decks for skewed bridges shows a wide follows: The ratio Sh/Sh0 is ranging from 1.04 to 1.166
variation compared to that of straight bridges. The exterior for beam No.1 and 1.05 to 1.29 for beam No. 4 in the deck
beams (B.1 and B.4) have shear values increases with models for skew angle up to 45 for all spans, while the
skew angles and the interior beams (B.2 and B.3) decrease ratio Sh/Sh0 for beams No. (2 and 3) is ranging is from
with skew angle for considered span lengths (12, 16, 20 0.9 to 0.94 for skew angle 15; 0.78 to 0.95 for skew angle
and 24m) as shown in Figure-8. 30 and 0.64 to 0.98 for skew angle 45 for considered
span lengths (12, 16, 20 and 24m).
9
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
Figure-8. FEA maximum live load shear in longitudinal T-Beams -ratio Sh/Sh0.
6.3 Maximum live load torsion in longitudinal T-beams are 1.94 ,1.71 ,1.55 and 1.45 at skew angle 15; 3.05, 2.57,
General behavior indicate that maximum torsion 2.26 and 2.03 at skew angle 30; 4.03, 3.57, 3.12 and 2.79
in T-beam bridge decks for skewed bridges compared to at skew angle 45 for spans lengths 12, 16, 20 and 24m,
that of straight bridges increases with increase of skew respectively; while for beams No. 2 and 3 and beam No. 4,
angle for considered span lengths (12, 16, 20 and 24m) as the ratio T/To is ranging from 1 to 1.42 for skew angle
shown in Figure-9. The increments in the results of 15; 1 to 1.93 for skew angle 30; 2.4 to 1.75 for skew
maximum torsion for skewed T-beam bridge decks, are angle 45 for considered span lengths (12, 16, 20, and
summarized as follows: The ratio T/To for beam No.1 24m).
10
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
Figure-9. FEA maximum live load torsion in longitudinal T-Beams -ratio T/T0.
6.4 Maximum live load deflections in longitudinal T- The decrement in max deflections in T-beams are
Beams summarized as follows: The ratio /0 is ranging from
General behavior indicate that maximum 0.82 to 0.992 at skew angles 15 and 30 for the four
deflections in T-beam bridge decks for skewed bridges beams in the deck models for considered span lengths (12,
compared to that of straight bridges decreases with 16, 20 and 24m), while the ratio /0 is ranging from
increase of skew angle for all considered span lengths (12, 0.658 to 0.913 at skew angle 45 for the four beams in the
16, 20 and 24m) as shown in Figure-10. deck models for considered span lengths (12, 16, 20 and
24m).
11
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
Figure-10. FEA Max. live load deflections in longitudinal T-Beams -ratio /0.
6.5 Maximum live load support reactions in The variations in the results of maximum support
longitudinal T-Beams. reactions for skewed T-beam Bridge decks are
General behavior indicates that max. Support summarized as follows: The ratio SP/SP0 for beam No.1
reactions in T-beam bridge decks for skewed bridges is ranging from 1.06 to 1.4 at skew angles 15, 30 and
shows a wide variation compared to that of straight 45 for considered span lengths (12, 16, 20 and 24m),
bridges. Beam No.1 has support reactions values increases while the ratio SP/SP0 for beams No. 2, 3 and 4 are
with skew angles and Beam No. 2, 3 and 4 have support 0.788 to 0.991 at skew angle 15; 0.499 to 0.829 at skew
reactions values decrease with skew angles for considered angle 30 and - 0.146 to 0.856 at skew angle 45 for
span lengths (12, 16, 20 and 24m) as shown in Figure-11. considered span lengths (12, 16, 20 and 24 m).
12
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
13
VOL. 6, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
2006-2011 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
REFERENCES
14