ISSN 2277-2685

IJESR/August 2014/ Vol-4/Issue-8/463-473
Himanshu Jaggerwal et al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

ANALYSIS OF SKEW BRIDGES USING GRILLAGE ANALOGY METHOD
Himanshu Jaggerwal*1, Yogesh Bajpai2
1
M.Tech Student (Structural Engineering), Dept. of Civil Engineering, GGITS, Jabalpur (M.P), India.
2
Assoc. Prof, Dept. of Civil Engineering, GGITS, Jabalpur (M.P), India.

ABSTRACT
In spite of increases in computing power, analysis of skew bridge deck has not changed to the same extent.
Therefore, there is a need for more research to study the skew bridges using Grillage analogy method. Grillage
analyze is a fast and simpler approach compared to the other method, and has been used by engineers to
analyses bridge deck over a long time. In this present study, a bridge deck consists of beam and slab is defined
and modeled using grillage analogy method. The effect of grid spacing on different skew angles on same-span
of reinforced concrete bridges using the grillage analogy method. Maximum reactions force, deflection, bending
and torsional moments is calculated and compared for different angles with different span. A total 11 Gridlines,
3-T sections, and 7- rectangular sections of two different sizes have been studied on skew angles 00, 150, 300,
450 and 600 ° to determine the most appropriate and efficient grid size. For this purpose a parametric study of
Simply Supported 3-Lane T-Beam Bridge has been performed in STAAD PRO. The parameters varied were
span and skew angle. The effect of same was observed on maximum live load bending moment, maximum live
load shear force and maximum live load reaction at critical locations. Live Load “Class A Vehicle” were applied
as per IRC 6 guidelines. The spans used were 10 m, 15 m, 20 m and 25 m. The skew angles were taken at an
interval of 150 starting from 00 up to a maximum of 600. Bridges with skew angle more than 450 are rare.

Keywords: Bridges, T-beam bridge decks, skew angle, span length, Grillage Analogy method, Grid size Class
A Vehicle.

1. INTRODUCTION
Generally, grillage analysis [8] is the most common method used in bridge analysis. In this method the deck is
represented by an equivalent grillage of beams. The finer grillage mesh, provide more accurate results. It was
found that the results obtained from grillage analysis compared with experiments and more rigorous methods are
accurate enough for design purposes. In the skew bridges, the effects of skew on the response of completed
structures have been well documented [1, 7, 9] with effects being shown to be more significant for skew angles
greater than 30◦. Critical values for vertical deflections and bending moments within in-service skewed bridges
have been shown to be lower when compared against those in similar right bridges. Conversely, torsional
rotations, shears and moments have been shown to be larger for skewed bridges. In addition, studies have also
demonstrated that interaction between main support girders and transverse bracing members (diaphragms and
cross frames) influences skewed bridge load distribution due to an increase in torsional rotations at certain
sections of the longitudinal girders. Additional work has shown that the magnitude of torsional shear rotations at
skewed bridge supports is largest at the obtuse corners [2, 3].
A bridge is said to be skew if the longitudinal axis of the bridge is not at right angles to the abutment. Skew
angle is defined as the acute angle between the center line (or axis) of the bridge and the normal to the flow of
river. Alternatively it can also be defined as the angle between the free edge of the bridge and perpendicular to
the abutment. Mathematically it can be found by subtracting the acute angle of the parallelogram from 90o. The
perpendicular distance between the abutments is defined as the right span, while the span along the free edge of
the bridge is defined as the skew span [9]. The word span in this thesis report is synonymously used for the
skew span.

*Corresponding Author www.ijesr.org 463

(ii) The haunches on the underside of the deck slab near longitudinal girders are ignored. GRILLAGE MODELING OF T-GIRDER BRIDGE AND APPLICATION OF LOADS 2. The dotted lines show the location of the grid lines. so the effective width concept is used to define the width of the flange of the T-section [4].1 Grillage Idealization of T-Beam Bridge Cross section In Grillage Analogy Method. Figure 7 shows the division of the bridge cross section for grillage idealization./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research Fig 1: Typical Skew Bridge 2. It suggests be = bw + lo / 5 Where. Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR. bw = width of T-Beam and lo = distance between the points of contra flexure. (i) The slab is assumed to be of uniform size i. The distribution of bending stress in the flange of the T-Beam Bridge is not uniform as suggested by the simple bending theory. Same longitudinal grid lines are used in grillage model for all spans and skew angles [6]. be = effective flange width of T-Beam. But exact modelling and calculation of the properties of structure becomes difficult and tedious and too much time consuming also.15 was sought in the selection of sizes of T-Beam. a few approximations are made to allow for simplicity and ease in modelling. These include slight shift in gridlines and neglecting the haunches underside of the T section. It’s on the designer to judiciously fix the sizes of the gridlines.e. The results are not affected much due to these approximations. As discussed above the following approximations were made in grillage idealizations. For this purpose assistance from IRC 21: 2000 clause 305. All rights reserved 464 . Himanshu Jaggerwal et al. Same technique is used for discretizing the bridge in transverse direction. theoretically the grillage should resemble to the actual model of T Beam Bridge to simulate its true behaviour. Since the whole bridge deck is discretized into a no. 220 mm. of longitudinal and transverse beams so the size of the gridlines has to be fixed. So generally.

Fig 3: Plan of Grillage Model of 10 m span. Himanshu Jaggerwal et al.1 Grillage Models for 10 m span bridge (i) Plan of grillage of 00. Fig 4: Plan of Grillage Model of 10 m span. All rights reserved 465 ./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research Fig 2: Grillage Idealization of the cross section of bridge. 450 and 600 skew bridges is shown in Fig 9 to 13. 15° skew skew Bridge 00 Bridge Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR.2 Grid Pattern 2. One intermediate cross girder is provided at centre while two end girders are provided. All dim in mm 2. 300. Pin supports have been provided at the end of each longitudinal girder.2. 150.

300. Pin supports have been provided at the end of each longitudinal girder . 150. The cross girders and other transverse gridlines are perpendicular to the longitudinal girders.0 m. 450 and 600 skew bridge is shown in Fig 14 to 18. Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 466 . Himanshu Jaggerwal et al. Two intermediate cross girders are provided at a spacing of 3.2 Grillage Models for 15 m span bridge Plan of grillage of 00.θ is the skew angle. One intermediate cross girder is provided at centre while two end girders are provided. Also similar model for 150 and 600 but the intermediate cross girder is changed.2./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research Fig 5: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 10 m Fig 6: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 10 m 30° skew 45°skew Fig 7: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 10 m 60° skew 2. The same type of grillage model for 450 skew angles.

Himanshu Jaggerwal et al. All rights reserved 467 ./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research Fig 8: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m span Fig 9: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m 0° skew 15° skew Fig 10: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m span Fig 11:Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m 45° 30° skew skew Fig 12: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m 60° skew Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR.

m span is 40 m for 600 skew. One intermediate cross girder is provided at centre while two end girders are provided. Himanshu Jaggerwal et al. 23. 450 and 600 skew bridge is shown in Fig 19 to 23. Fig 13: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span Fig 14: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 0° skew m span 15° skew Fig 15: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span Fig 16: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span 30° skew 45° skew Fig 17: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span 60° skew Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR. Skew length of bridge increases with increase of skew angle.2.28 and 40m respectively./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research 2. 300. Skew length of 00. All rights reserved 468 . 20. Maximum skew length for 20. 300. 150. 28.70m. 450 and 600 grillage are 20m. 150.3 Grillage Models for 20 m span bridge Plan of grillage of 00. Pin supports have been provided at the end of each longitudinal girder.09m.

The same type of grillage model for 450 skew angles. 450 and 600 grillage are 25m. 300. All rights reserved 469 . Skew length of 00.02 m for 600 skew. 150./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research 2. 25. The cross girders and other transverse gridlines are perpendicular to the longitudinal girders. 150. Himanshu Jaggerwal et al.02m respectively. Pin supports have been provided at the end of each longitudinal girder. Skew length of bridge increases with increase of skew angle. Fig 18: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span Fig 19: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span 0° skew 15° skew Fig 20: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span Fig 21: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span 30° skew 45° skew Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR.4 Grillage Models for 25 m span bridge Plan of grillage of 00.36m and 50.88m. 450 and 600 skew bridge is shown in Fig 24 to 28.88.2. 300. 35. Also similar model for 150 and 600 but the intermediate cross girder is changed. Maximum skew length for 25.m span is 50. 28. One intermediate cross girder is provided at centre while two end girders are provided.

All rights reserved 470 . the impact factor shall be determined from the following equation which is applicable for spans between 3m and 45m. (1) Class A Vehicle Front Axle 2.5.5 / (6+L). 15 m. Also the abbreviation G1.17 0.21 0. All the moment values are for live load only and the word “moment” is synonymously used for “maximum moment” at many places of this chapter [5]. G2.4 Impact Factor Provision for impact or dynamic action shall be made by an increment of the live load by an impact allowance expressed as a fraction or a percentage of the applied live load [10]. 300.3 Idealization of Vehicle The idealized vehicle for the live load application used in the present study is as shown in figure below. Himanshu Jaggerwal et al. The results are shown below [7]. and 25m were analyzed for skew angles 00./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research Fig 22: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span 60° skew 2. & G5 are shown in Results and Discussions (Figure 23). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Bridges of span 10 m.1 m was given to each train of load. 150. (1) For Class A Loading: according to IRC: 6-2000 Clause 211. I. 450 and 600. The load values shown in the longitudinal details are the axle loads and since there are two wheels on each axle. 20m. Where L is length in meters of the span as specified in IRC: 6-2000 Clause 211. G3. The loads were placed both centrally and eccentrically and an increment of 0. so the values are halved when seen in the transverse view. Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR.14 3.F = 4. Table 1: Impact factor Span (m) 10 m 15 m 20 m 25 m Class A 0.2. G4.28 0.

All rights reserved 471 . G4 is also the inner longitudinal girder but on right side of the middle girders. G5 is also the outer longitudinal girder but on right side of the middle girder. The maximum moment occured simultaneously in all girders for 00 skew angle but for other skew angles it occurred with some lag due to skew effects.1 Effect of Arrangement of Loading 3. G2.1 Three Lane of Class A The Class A vehicle was placed centrally on G3 & G4 and The maximum moments obtained in the girders G1. A total of 554 KN load was applied in this loading on 18./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research Fig 23: Cross section of three lane T-Girder bridge G1 is the outer longitudinal girder on the left side of the middle girder. G2 is the inner longitudinal girder on the left side of the middle girder.1.8m distance. 3. Results from output of analysis of bridge decks are shown in following graphs for three lanes Class A loading. G3 is the middle longitudinal girder. G4 and G5 were recorded. G3. Himanshu Jaggerwal et al. Graphs were plotted for different skew angles versus Maximum Shear Force Maximum Bending moment Maximum Torsion Maximum Positive Reaction Maximum Negative Reaction Fig 24: Maximum Shear Force Three Lane of Fig 25: Maximum Bending Moment Three Class A Lane of Class A Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR. The lag increased with skew angle.

is a reliably accurate method for a wide range of bridge decks. based on stiffness matrix approach. Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR. 2. 1. All rights reserved 472 . CONCLUSION The analysis of bridges and comparisons of the results of different span and skew angles have led to the following conclusions. Grillage analogy method./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research Fig 26: Maximum Torsion Three Lane of Class A Fig 27: Maximum Positive Reaction Three Lane Fig 28: Maximum Negative Reaction Three Lane of Class A Class A 4. For skew bridges the arrangement of cross girders perpendicular to the longitudinal girders is more effective in transverse load distribution as compared to the arrangement in which the cross girders are parallel to the abutments. The method is versatile. Himanshu Jaggerwal et al. easy for a designer to visualize and prepare the study for a grillage.

Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE). 329. 2003.e. Keogh DL. 9. Ireland. REFERENCES [1] Menassa C. 6(8).Tech Dissertation. [5] Ibrahim S. Effect of Skew angle on Behavior of Simply Supported R. Tarhini K. Grillage Analogy in Bridge Deck Analysis. T-Beam Bridge Decks. MEngSci MIEAust MICE. Bridge Deck Behaviour Revisited.250. University College. 2006. Load Distribution Factors in Simply Supported Skew Bridges. value of maximum SF does not follow a regular pattern.very close to each other 6. [7] Vasant P. Mirzabozorg H. New Delhi. with increase of skew angle increases appreciably in all directions. 22-24. 12. Indian Road Congress. Department of Civil Engineering./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research 3. 26. Frederick G. Analysis of skew effects on slab bridges. Oxford and IBH Publishing. [6] Singh A. 2004. New Delhi. 46.Tech Dissertation. 2006. A discussion on neutral axis location in bridge deck cantilevers. IIT Roorkee. Agarwal R. Loads And Stresses. Standard Specification and Code of Practice for Road Bridges. New Delhi. Dublin. 5. [8] Victor DJ. Torsion. Analysis of skew effects on T-Girder Bridges. IIT Roorke. [9] Surana CS. Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR. Harba I. Mabsout M. Influence of Skew Angle on Reinforced Concrete Slab Bridges. 8(4). Rao U. Maximum positive and negative reactions are noted in skew bridges . All rights reserved 473 . M. However the difference of SF. [2] Jenkins D. The increase in BM up to 40 degree skew angle is less. Himanshu Jaggerwal et al. Results show that end girder placed in centre of skew span has maximum BM. Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE) 2007. [4] Khalo AR. Section II. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2011. Narosa Publishing House. C. 4. Results of SF shows mixed pattern i.13. as the span increases. [10] IRC 6-2000. decrease. [3] O'Brien EJ. Essential’s of Bridge Engineering. 1998. M. At higher skew angle sharp increase is observed.