Influence Line Analysis of Bridges Using MATLAB

Saleh I. Aldeghaither
*
* College of Engineering, King Saud University,
P.O. Box 800, Riyad !!"#!, Saudi $ra%ia
ABSTRACT
&is 'a'er 'resents a (o)'uter 'ro(edure for (o)'uting influen(e lines for 'lane
fra)e %ridge )odels. &e 'ro(edure is %ased on te stiffness )atrix e*uation in
(on+un(tion ,it fixed end a(tions re'resenting te effe(t of )oving load. &e
'ro(edure does not need su%division of te stru(ture )e)%ers or s'e(ifi(ation of
load 'osition 'rior to stiffness )atrix analysis. S'e(ifi(ation of te load and effe(t
'ositions (o)es after te stiffness )atrix analysis. &e 'ro(edure ,as
i)'le)ented into a (o)'uter 'rogra) using -$&.$B and (an easily %e
i)'le)ented into any standard (o)'uter 'rogra) for )atrix stru(tural analysis.

! "#
"%&'( ) (* +,( - .!/ 01 2! 34
5
&67
"89(: ;< 2=(* 2( >( ": ?@< '/ AB +CD/E
F(@* - 3 / G CD/B &'( .H CIB B
* J< >* B :!( 2K 2! +"89(:
;( :!( G J9 LM!/ : 2!* &'( 311E
L"89(: N: @*1E +( !M1 F@( M* 3
OB P<6: *(Q 2!! "89(: 3 G* <:
01: P<6: + -$&.$B
INTRODUCTION
/nfluen(e lines ave i)'ortant a''li(ations for te design of stru(tures tat are
su%+e(ted to live or )oving loads, e.g. %ridges. /nfluen(e lines so, te influen(e
of 'ositioning of a unit load on a fun(tion 0!,#1. &e fun(tion 2or load effe(t3
(ould %e anyting tat varies as te load traverse te stru(ture, su( as )o)ent or
sear at a 'oint in a stru(ture, axial for(e in a )e)%er or su''ort rea(tion. On(e
te influen(e line for an effe(t at a 'oint in a stru(ture as %een esta%lised, te
)axi)u) effe(t (aused %y te live load (an %e deter)ined.
$ltoug deter)ination of influen(e lines for deter)inate stru(tures is
straigtfor,ard, it is rater involved for indeter)inate stru(tures. O%viously,
deter)ination of influen(e lines %y 'ositioning unit loads at several lo(ations on
te stru(ture is i)'ra(ti(al. Belegundu 041 'resented a 'ro(edure for (o)'uting
influen(e lines for deter)inate and indeter)inate stru(tures %ased on ,at e
(alled te 5ad+oint varia%le )etod6. &e )etod, o,ever, re*uires su%division
of te )e)%ers in order to (al(ulate te influen(e lines for fun(tions ,itin
)e)%ers. 7urter)ore, te effe(ts for ,i( influen(e lines are desired need to
%e s'e(ified 'rior to finite ele)ent analysis. &e -uller8Breslau 'rin(i'le, on te
oter and, 'rovides a )ore effe(tive ,ay of o%taining *ualitative influen(e
lines. 7or *uantitative evaluation of influen(e lines, te -uller8Breslau 'ro(edure
is so)e,at involved. Cifuentes and Pa9 0"1, o,ever, utili9ed te -uller8
Breslau 'rin(i'le in (on+un(tion ,it finite ele)ents to deter)ine te influen(e
lines. &ey used te :$S&R$: (o))er(ial (ode to de)onstrate te 'ro(edure.
&e 'ro(edure, o,ever, re*uires su%division of te stru(ture )e)%ers in order
to (al(ulate te influen(e lines at 'oints ,itin )e)%ers. -oreover, for ea(
influen(e line, a ne, in'ut data and en(e a ne, round of finite ele)ent analysis
is needed. Bridge oriented soft,are li;e QconBridge 0<1 are %ased on su%division
of %ridge s'ans into seg)ents, nor)ally ten seg)ents 'er s'an, 'rior to finite
ele)ent analysis. &is results in a iger degree of freedo) )odel and en(e
ex'ensive (o)'utation (ost. &e )etod 'resented in tis 'a'er is %ased on te
stiffness )etod and as te advantage of not re*uiring su%division of )e)%ers
nor te s'e(ifi(ation of te desired load effe(t, its lo(ation or te load )ove)ent
in(re)ent 'rior to te stiffness )atrix analysis. $fter a standard stiffness )atrix
analysis as %een (o)'leted, te )etod relies on si)'le stati(s to (al(ulate te
influen(e lines for any effe(t at any se(tion in te stru(ture using any desired load
)ove)ent in(re)ent.
COMUTATIONAL ROC!DUR!
Consider te fra)e so,n in 7ig. !. &e stiffness )atrix e*uation for te fra)e
(an %e ,ritten as 0=1
F
" " # 1 0
2!3
,ere $#% is n n stiffness )atrix of te stru(ture, is an 2n !3 ve(tor of
nodal dis'la(e)ents and " and "
F
are, res'e(tively, te ve(tors of nodal and
fixed8end for(es asso(iated ,it )e)%er loadings. Sin(e tere are no a''lied
nodal for(es, te ve(tor " (ontains 9eros for all degrees of freedo) ex(e't tose
asso(iated ,it su''ort rea(tions.
2a3
xl
i
Unit load
l
i
2%3
7igure !> 2a3 Plane fra)e ,it a unit load on )e)%er i. 2%3 7ixed8end for(es of
)e)%er i.
"i&ed'!nd "orces( &e 7ixed8end for(es due to a unit transverse load 'ositioned
at distan(e xl
i
20 ! x 3 fro) te left node 2/8node3 of s'an i (an %e ,ritten as
f
i
F
I
F
I
F
I
F
J
F
J
F
J
F
i
i i i
i i
x
N
V
M
N
V
M
l l l
l l
x
x
x
2 3

'

1
]
1
1
1
1
1
1

'

0
!
0
0
0
4
0
#
0 #
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
#
0 0
!
#
4

2#a3
or sy)%oli(ally
f $h% g
i
F
i
x x 2 3 2 3

2#%3
,ere
{ } g2 3 x x x x
T
!
# 4
243
/
?
xl
i
l
i
Unit load
&us, te vector function of fixed8end for(es (an %e regarded as a 5nonlinear6
(o)%ination of four constant vectors 2te ve(tors of $h%3 tat are inde'endent of
load 'osition, x. &e (o)%ination (oeffi(ients are te ter)s of g2x3.

&e stiffness )atrix e*uation for )e)%er i (an ten %e ex'ressed as
3 2 3 2 3 2 1 0 x x x
i i
g $h% f )
2"3
,ere 2x3 and f2x3 are, res'e(tively, ve(tor fun(tions of te dis'la(e)ents and
for(es at te )e)%er ends.
E*uation 2"3 (an %e transfor)ed to glo%al (oordinates to yield
3 2 3 2 3 2 1 0 x x x
i i
g $*% " #
2<3
,ere

i
T
i
T
T
i
T
i
x x
x x
$h% $C% *
f $C% "
$C%
$C% $)% $C% #

1 0
, 3 2 @ 3 2
, 3 2 3 2
, 1 0

2=3
and $C% is te dis'la(e)ent transfor)ation )atrix for a 'lane fra)e )e)%er 0=1.
E*uations si)ilar to e*. 2<3 (an %e o%tained for all s'ans tat ,ould %e su%+e(ted
to te )oving load. 7or oter )e)%ers te fixed8end for(e ter)s in e*.2<3 vanis.
:o, let n %e te total degrees of freedo) of te stru(ture and m te nu)%er of
s'ans tat ,ould %e loaded, ten te stiffness )atrix e*uation of te stru(ture (an
%e asse)%led fro) te )e)%er stiffness e*uations 2e*. =3 to yield te follo,ing
[ ]
3 ! " 2
#
!
3 " 2 # !
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 2 3 2 1 0

'

m
m
m n m
x
x
x
x x
g
g
g
% * $ % * $ % * $ " #

2A3
,ere i
1 0*
is an n " )atrix ,ose ro,s (ontain 9eros and te ro,s of te six-
row )atrix i
1 0*
, arranged a((ording to te glo%al (oordinate nu)%ers of
)e)%er i and

g
g
+
i
x
x i
2 3
2 3

'

,en te unit load is on )e)%er ,

oter,ise
:oting tat te un;no,n nodal dis'la(e)ents in te ve(tor
2 3 x
(orres'ond to
9ero for(es in te ve(tor "2x3, e*.2A3 (an %e 'artitioned as follo,s>

'

1
1
]
1

1
]
1

1
]
1

1
]
1

'

'

1
]
1

3 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
#
!
# !
x
x
x
x
x
m
m
p
f
p
f
p
f
p p
f
pp pf
fp ff
g
g
g
*
*
*
*
*
*
"
+

283
,ere

f p
x 2 3 and
are te ve(tors of un;no,n and 'res(ri%ed nodal
dis'la(e)ents, res'e(tively.
"
p
x 2 3
is te ve(tor of un;no,n for(es 2su''ort
rea(tions3. 7ro) e*. 283, te un;no,n dis'la(e)ents are given %y
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ]
[ [
f ff f f f
m
m
ff fp p
x
x
x
x
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3

'

!
! #
!
#
!
* * *
g
g
g
% %

2Ba3
or

'

,&- g
,&- g
,&- g
.
/
0

f f
x 1 0 3 2
2B%3
,ere
[ ] [ ]
. f / f 0 f
0
ff
% * $ % * $ % * $ % $#


m f f f f
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
# !

2!0a3
and
[ [

ff fp p
% %
!
2!0%3
Si)ilarly, te su''ort rea(tions (an %e ,ritten as
" $"
g
g
g
"
p
m
x
x
x
x
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3

'

+ ]
!
#

2!!3
,ere
[ ]
m p p p f pf
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 10 0 1 0
# !
* * * # " +
2!#a3
and
" % % [ [
pp p pf
2!#%3
/t sould %e noti(ed tat
and "
,ould vanis if te 'res(ri%ed
dis'la(e)ents

p are 9eros.
E*uations 2!03 and 2!#3 give solutions for nodal dis'la(e)ents and su''ort
rea(tions, ,i( are inde'endent of load 'osition ,itin loaded s'ans.
Ex'ressions for te nodal dis'la(e)ents and su''ort rea(tions as fun(tions of x,
te load 'osition, (an %e o%tained fro) e*s. 2B3 and 2!!3, res'e(tively. 7or
exa)'le, as te unit load traverses )e)%er j, te stru(ture nodal dis'la(e)ents
are given %y
[ ] [ ]
[ [
f ff f
j
j ff fp p
x x 2 3 2 3

!
!
* g % %
2!43
,ere x (anges fro) 0 to ! as te load )oves fro) /8node to ?8node of )e)%er
j. &e (ange in te values of x (an %e sele(ted at any rate to refle(t te desired
load )ove)ent in(re)ent. Su''ort rea(tions (an %e ex'ressed in si)ilar )anner
using e*. 2!!3.
ocal response
&e )e)%er nodal dis'la(e)ents in lo(al (oordinates, 2x3, (an %e o%tained
fro) te stru(ture nodal dis'la(e)ents 2e*. B3 %y transfor)ation. E*uation 2"3
(an ten %e used to give te nodal for(es of )e)%er j as fun(tions of te load
'osition x
f $) f
j
I
I
I
J
J
J
j
j j
F
x
N x
V x
M x
N x
V x
M x
x x 2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
1 2 3 2 3

'

+

2!"3
,ere te fixed8end for(e ter)s
f
j
F
x 2 3
vanis ,en te load is not on )e)%er j.
&e )e)%er axial for(e is si)'ly given %y
N x N x N x
j J I
2 3 2 3 2 3
2!<a3
and te sear and )o)ent at a distan(e sl
j
fro) te )e)%er /8node 20 ! s 3 are
given %y 2see 7ig. #3
V s x V x ! s x
M s x M x s V x ! s x
V s x V x
M s x M x sV x
I
I I
I
I I
2 , 3 2 3 2 3
2 , 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 33
2 , 3 2 3
2 , 3 2 3 2 3

+

+

,en te unit load is on te )e)%er
and


oter,ise
2!<%3
,ere
! s x 2 3
is te ste' fun(tion>
! s x
s x
2 3
>
'

!
0
,en
oter,ise
7igure #> Sear and )o)ent at distan(e sl fro) I node in )e)%er j
&e a%ove 'ro(edure ,as effortlessly i)'le)ented into a (o)'uter 'rogra)
using -$&.$B. &e ste's involved for deter)ining te influen(e lines are
su))ari9ed as follo,s>
ste' !> Constru(t te stru(ture stiffness )atrix $#%
ste' #> Co)'ute te )atrix $*%
j
2e*. =3 and asse)%le into te load
)atrix
m j
j
, , ! @ , % * $
ste' 4> Partition te syste) e*uation as so,n in e*. 283 and solve for

$ % $"% and
2e*s. !0 and !#3
*
.
ste' "> O%tain rea(tions influen(e (oeffi(ients 2ordinates of influen(e lines3,
if re*uired, %y su%stituting values for x in e*. 2!!3.
ste' <> Co)'ute te influen(e (oeffi(ients of a )e)%er axial for(e, sear or
)o)ent at any lo(ation ,itin a )e)%er %y su%stituting values for s and
x into e*s. 2!"8!<3.
:ote tat
$"% and ] [
are te results of a standard stati( stiffness )atrix
analysis. &e desired influen(e lines are su%se*uently (o)'uted fro) tese
results using )e)%er stiffness e*uations and si)'le stati(s. /t )ay %e ,ort
)entioning tat in te (o)'uter 'rogra), te a%s(issas of te influen(e lines (an
%e arranged to refle(t te a(tual 'ositions of te load ,it res'e(t to a referen(e
'oint. &e referen(e 'oint (ould %e te 'oint at ,i( te load ,ould start
traversing te stru(ture.
*
:ote tat inversion of te stiffness )atrix as i)'lied %y e*. 2!03 is not re*uired. /nstead, dire(t redu(tion of
te syste) of e*uations using standard eli)ination 'ro(edure is )ore effi(ient.
3 , 2 x s V
/
xl
i
sl
i
!

COMARISON 1IT* OT*!R M!T*ODS
&e deter)ination of influen(e lines (an %e %ased on 'ositioning unit loads at
several lo(ations on te stru(ture, te ad+oint )etod 0#1 or te -uller8Breslau
'rin(i'le 041. $ll of te afore)entioned )etods as ,ell as te 'resent )etod
are i)'le)ented using te standard finite ele)ent for)ulation, na)ely te
dis'la(e)ent )etod. &e effe(tiveness of a )etod against te oters is a
fun(tion of te CPU ti)e, 're'aration of data and te flexi%ility of te )etod.
&e CPU ti)e tat a )etod needs to o%tain a set of influen(e lines for a
stru(ture de'ends )ainly on te re*uired nu)%er of rounds of te 7E analysis
and te degrees of freedo) of te stru(ture. O%viously te degrees of freedo) of
te stru(ture ,ould in(rease if te )etod re*uires )e)%er su%divisions. &e
effort needed for 're'aration of data and te ro%ust and flexi%ility of te )etod
are also of great i)'ortan(e to te user. &erefore, te afore)entioned (riteria
(an %e used to assess te effe(tiveness of te 'resent )etod.
&a%le ! so,s a (o)'arison of te 'resent )etod against te $d+oint and
-uller8Breslau )etods. /t is evident fro) te &a%le tat te 'resent )etod is
su'erior in all (o)'arison (riteria ,i( 'roves te effi(ien(y of te )etod.
NUM!RICAL !2AML!S
&,o exa)'le 'ro%le)s are (onsidered to de)onstrate te effi(ien(y of te
'resent 'ro(edure. &e first is a four8s'an (ontinuous %ea) and te se(ond is a
rigid fra)e tat rese)%les a ty'i(al %ridge stru(ture. &e 'ro%le)s are solved
using a (o)'uter 'rogra) tat ,as develo'ed %ased on te 'ro(edure des(ri%ed
in tis 'a'er.
Beam "ro#lem
&e (ontinuous %ea) so,n in 7ig. 4a as %een (onsidered %y so)e autors
04,"1 to de)onstrate different )etods for deter)ining influen(e lines. Belegundu
041 only 'resented te influen(e line for te )o)ent at su''ort B using te
ad+oint )etod. Cit te 'resent )etod, te influen(e lines for any a(tion
2rea(tion, sear, )o)ent, axial for(e3 at any 'oint in te stru(ture for any load
)ove)ent (an %e o%tained in one (y(le stiffness )atrix analysis in (on+un(tion
,it si)'le stati(s. &e in'ut data for tis 'ro%le) are tose re*uired for a
standard stiffness )atrix analysis 'lus te s'e(ifi(ation of te )e)%ers tat
,ould %e traversed %y te )oving load 2)e)%ers !,#,4 and " in tis 'ro%le)3.
&e out'ut of te 'rogra) in(ludes ta%ulated values of influen(e ordinates and
'lots of influen(e lines. Due to s'a(e li)itation, only 'lots of influen(e lines are
'resented. &e influen(e lines for su''ort rea(tions, sears and )o)ents at
sele(ted 'oints in te %ea) are so,n in 7igs. "%8d. O%viously oter influen(e
lines, if needed, (an easily %e o%tained ,itout re'eating te stiffness )atrix
analysis.
Frame "ro#lem
&e rigid fra)e so,n in 7ig. "a is ty'i(al in %ridge stru(tures 0A1. &e
di)ensions so,n in te figure and )e)%er 'ro'erties are (osen to refle(t tose
of real %ridges of tis ty'e. On(e again, te in'ut data for tis 'ro%le) are te
data re*uired for a standard stiffness )atrix analysis 'lus te s'e(ifi(ation of te
)e)%ers tat ,ould %e traversed %y te )oving load 2)e)%ers !,# and 4 in tis
'ro%le)3.
&e influen(e lines for )o)ents and sears in s'ans $B and BC are 'resented in
7igs. "%8e. &e (urves so,n des(ri%es )o)ents and sears at 2$ m, % m,...,l3 in
te s'ans. 7igure "f so,s te influen(e lines for )o)ent, sear and axial for(e
in )e)%er BE.
CONCLUSION
$ ne, 'ro(edure for (o)'uting te influen(e lines for %ea)s and 'lane fra)es is
'resented. &e 'ro(edure is %ased on te standard stiffness )atrix analysis of te
stru(ture in (on+un(tion ,it si)'le stati(s. &e effi(ien(y of te 'ro(edure
(o)es fro) te fa(t tat it does not re*uire te su%division of )e)%ers nor te
s'e(ifi(ation of load )ove)ent in(re)ent 'rior to te stiffness )atrix analysis. /t
needs only te s'e(ifi(ation of )e)%ers tat ,ould %e traversed %y te )oving
load. $fter te stiffness )atrix analysis is 'erfor)ed, te (o)'utation of
influen(e lines for any a(tion at any 'oint in te stru(ture ,it any load
)ove)ent in(re)ent is a((o)'lised %y si)'le (al(ulations. &is gives te user
te a%ility to study and 're(isely lo(ate te (riti(al se(tions in te stru(ture ,en
su%+e(ted to )oving loads. &e 'ro(edure ,as a''lied to so)e %uilding and
%ridges stru(tures 2t,o of te) are so,n in tis 'a'er3 and 'roved to %e 're(ise
and ro%ust. &e extension of te 'ro(edure to (o)'ute for(es and )o)ents
envelo'es is under,ay and ,ill %e 'resented in u'(o)ing 'a'er.
&a%le !> Co)'arison of te 'resent )etod ,it te $d+oint and -uller8Breslau
)etods.
$d+oint )etod

0#1
-uller8Breslau 041 Present -etod
CPU
ti)e
-e)%er
su%division
:eeded for /..s.
,itin a )e)%er
:eeded for all
(ases
:ot needed.
:o. of
rounds of
7E analysis
One for ea( /...
,itin a )e)%er
One for ea( /... One for all /..s.
Data 're'aration :eeds ne, data
for ea( /...
,itin a )e)%er
:eeds ne, data
for ea( /...
On(e for all
/..s. 2original
stru(ture data3
Ro%ust and Desired /... needs Sa)e as ad+oint $ll desired /..s.
flexi%ility to %e deter)ined
'rior to 7E
analysis 2in'ut
data de'ends on
te re*uired /..s.3
)etod. (an %e o%tained
after 7E
analysis using
si)'le stati(s.

2a3 Continuous %ea)
-0.2
0.2
0.6
1
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
2%3 /nfluen(e lines for su''ort rea(tions

-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
2(3 /nfluen(e lines for )o)ents at su''orts
! # 4 "
!# ft !8 ft !< ft !< ft
E B D !.=/ 0.B/ / !.#/ C
$
RE
RD RC RB R$
-$
-D
-B
-C

-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
2d3 /nfluen(e lines for )o)ents at s'e(ified lo(ations ,itin %ea) s'ans.

-0.5
0
0.5
1
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
2e3 /nfluen(e lines for sears +ust to te rigt of su''orts B, C and D.
7igure 4> /nfluen(e lines for a %ea) 'ro%le).
2a3 Rigid fra)e stru(ture

-4
-2
0
2
4
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66
= )
ft
E
<
$
7
B C
D
40 ) !8 )
!8 )
! # 4
"
!< )
-B$
2ED3R 2EC3R
2EB3R
-<#ft
-4"ft
-#!ft
-Bft
-<ft
2%3 /nfluen(e lines for )o)ents in s'an $B.

-3
-1
1
3
5
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66
2(3 /nfluen(e lines for )o)ents in s'ans BC.



-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

66
2d3 /nfluen(e lines for sear in s'ans $B.

-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66
2e3 /nfluen(e lines for sear in s'ans BC.

-2
-1
0
1
2
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66
2f3 /nfluen(e lines for )o)ent, sear and trust in (olu)n BE
-
BC
-
CB
2E
C
3
.
2E
B
3
R
&rust
Sear
-o)ent 2-BE3
2E
B
3
.
2E
$
3
7igure "> /nfluen(e .ines for a 7ra)e Pro%le). Note& T'e influence lines s'own
for spans (B and B) represent t'e moments and s'ears at $m-intervals*
R!"!R!NC!S
0!1 Fsie, G., H+lementar, T'eor, of -tructures., Prenti(e8Fall, /n(., Engle,ood Cliffs, :. ?.,
!BA0.
0#1 Fi%%eler, R. C., H-tructural (nal,sis., Prenti(e8Fall, /n(., Engle,ood Cliffs, :. ?., !BB<.
041 Belegundu, $. D., H&e $d+oint -etod for Deter)ining /nfluen(e .inesI, Co)'uters
J Stru(tures, Eol. #B, :o. #, 4"<84<0, !B88.
0"1 Cifuentes, $. and Pa9, -., H$ :ote on te Deter)ination of /nfluen(e .ines and
Surfa(es Using 7inite Ele)entsI, 7inite Ele)ents in $nalysis and Design, Eol. A, #BB8
40<, !BB!.
0<1 Casington State De'art)ent of &rans'ortation, QconBridge -oftware, Eersion !.0(8
-ar(, !BBA.
0=1 -(Kuire, C. and Kallager, R. F., HMatrix -tructural (nal,sis., ?on Ciley J Sons,
/n(., :e, Gor;, !BAB.
0A1 Feins, C. P. and .a,rie, R. $., H/esign of Modern !ig'wa, Bridges., ?on Ciley J
Sons, /n(., :e, Gor;, !B8".