LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS FOR COMPOSITE MULTICELL BOX

GIRDER BRIDGES
By Khaled M. Sennah1 and John B. Kennedy,2 Fellow, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Composite steel-concrete multicell box girder bridges combine excellent torsional stiffness with
elegance. While the current design practices in North America recommend few analytical methods for the design
of composite multicell box girder bridges, practical requirements in the design process necessitate a need for a
simpler design method. This paper presents an extensive parametric study using the finite-element method
in which 120 bridges of various geometries were analyzed. The parameters considered are: number of cells,
number of lanes, span length, and cross bracings. Results from testing a simply supported three-cell bridge
model is used to substantiate the analytical modeling. Based on the parametric study, moment and shear distri-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bution factors are deduced for such bridges subjected to AASHTO truck loadings as well as dead load. Saint-
Venant torsional stiffness for composite cellular cross sections used in this study is also investigated. Recom-
mendations to enhance the torsional stiffness are formulated. An illustrative design example is presented.

INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

The use of multicell box girders in bridge deck construction A composite concrete deck-steel three-cell bridge model
can lead to considerable economy. This type of construction was built and tested under various static loading conditions.
leads to an efficient transverse load distribution, due to the The concrete deck was 1 m wide, 50 mm thick, 2.6 m in
excellent torsional stiffness of the section. Further, utilities and length, and was supported by three steel cells. Fig. 1 shows
services can be readily provided within the cells. the cross-sectional details of the models. Two diaphragms, 5
Various analytical and numerical methods have been devel- mm thick, were placed at the extreme end sections. Three ac-
oped for the analysis of cellular bridges. The American As- cess holes 53 53 mm were provided in each diaphragm,
sociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials one in each cell. Five cross-bracing and top-chord systems of
(AASHTO 1996) and the forthcoming Canadian Highway rectangular cross section, 13 5 mm, were installed at equal
Bridge Design Code (CHBDC 1997) recommend the use of intervals from the support lines. To form the steel grid, the
the grillage-analogy method, folded-plate method, finite-strip webs, end diaphragms, cross bracings, and top flanges were
method, and finite-element method for the analysis of com- first clamped into position and then welded to each other. The
posite multicell box girder bridges. Published research on this bottom flange plate was then clamped to the steel grid and
subject, [e.g., Scordelis et al. (1985) among others] dealt with welded to the webs. Stud shear connectors were used with
analytical and numerical formulations, while other researchers length of 31.8 mm, diameter of 9.5 mm, and spaced 125 mm,
(Scordelis 1975; Siddique and Ng 1988, etc.) conducted ex- with two connectors per line. Strips of styrofoam sheets, 50
perimental studies to investigate the accuracy of the existing mm thick, were used for the concrete stay-in-place form work
methods of analysis. Several investigators (e.g., NCHRP 1991; between the cells and on the outside of the cells. Small cubes
Nutt et al. 1988) studied the load distribution in multicell box of styrofoam were placed inside the cells to support the sty-
girder bridges. However, the aforementioned investigations rofoam sheets. After hardening of the concrete, a simpler
were confined to reinforced or prestressed concrete construc- mechanism was devised to separate the styrofoam sheets from
tion, and did not include composite concrete deck-steel con- the bottom of the concrete deck. Two meshes of steel rein-
struction. Therefore, load distribution factors for moment and forcement, 100 100 3.2 mm, were placed over the form
shear are required for composite cellular bridges to fill the gap work, followed by placing the concrete deck slab. The con-
found in previous studies as well as in bridges codes. crete in the deck slab was designed for a seven-day compres-
The objective of this study is to conduct a parametric study sive strength of 41 MPa. All the steel plates in the bridge
to examine the key parameters that may influence the load
distribution characteristics of composite concrete deck-steel
multicell box girder bridges under AASHTO truck loading. It
should be noted that the dead load of the bridge was not con-
sidered in this study. The parameters considered herein are
number of cells, number of lanes, span length, and cross-brac-
ings. The results from an experimental study on a bridge
model are used to validate the modeling adopted in the para-
metric study. The data generated from the study is used to
deduce expressions for moment as well as shear distribution
factors for different loading conditions to aid in the design of
such bridges.
1
Res. Asst., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Windsor, Wind-
sor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada.
2
Distinguished Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Wind-
sor, Windsor, ON, Canada.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 1999. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on October 3, 1997. This paper is part of the Journal
of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1, February, 1999. ASCE, ISSN
1084-0702/99/0001-0071 0078/$8.00 $.50 per page. Paper No.
16853. FIG. 1. Cross-Sectional Details of Models

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999 / 71

J. Bridge Eng. 1999.4:71-78.

 bridge of two-lane, three-cell and of 80 m span. The cross-
sectional symbols used in Table 1 are shown in Fig. 3(a). The
number of lanes were taken as 1, 2, 3, and 4. Five different
span lengths of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 m were included,
representing the range for medium span bridges. Number of
cells ranged from 1 to 4 in case of one-lane, 1 to 7 in case of
two-lane, 3 to 9 in case of three-lane, and 4 to 9 in case of
four-lane bridges. When changing the number of cells for the
same bridge width, the thicknesses of the top steel flanges,
webs, and bottom flanges were altered to maintain the same
shear stiffness of the webs and the overall flexural stiffness of
the cross section. The bridge width was 6.8 m in case of one-
lane, 9.3 m in case of two-lane, 13.05 m in case of three-lane,
16.8 m in case of four-lane bridges. The ranges of the param-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

eters considered in this study were based on an extensive sur-

FIG. 2. Bridge Model under Test
model cross section had a modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa.
The bridge model was supported at its ends by an adjustable
point support system under each web. Load cells were in-
stalled at the support points to measure the reactions. Strain
gauges and dial gauges were installed on the surface of the
bottom flange under each web at the midspan section. A tie-
down system was used over each support to prevent any pos-
sible torsional uplift. The bridge model was tested under the
following elastic conditions: two concentrated loads over each
cell at midspan and four concentrated loads over the webs at
midspan. The model was then tested under free-vibration con-
ditions. It was finally loaded to collapse (Sennah 1998). Fig.
2 shows the bridge model under two concentrated loads over
the outer cell.
DESCRIPTION OF BRIDGE PROTOTYPES
For this study, 120 simply supported single-span bridges of
different configurations were used. The basic cross-sectional
configurations for the bridges studied are presented in Table
1, with span-to-depth ratio of 25. The symbols used in the first
column in Table 1 represent designations of the bridge types
considered: l stands for lane, c stands for cell, and the number
at the end of the designation represents the span length in
meters. For example, 2l-3c-80 denotes a simply supported
vey of actual designed composite box girder bridges (Heins
1978). The moduli of elasticity of concrete and steel were
taken as 27 and 200 GPa, respectively. Poissons ratio was
assumed as 0.2 for concrete and 0.3 for steel. Solid-plate di-
aphragms were provided at the supports. The material and
thicknesses for the end diaphragms were taken to be the same
as those for the webs.
BRIDGE MODELING
The modeling of each bridge prototype was carried out us-
ing the finite-element method, with ABAQUS software (Hib-
bitt et al. 1996). A four-node shell element with six degrees
of freedom at each node was used to model the concrete deck,
steel webs, steel bottom flange, and end diaphragms. A three-
dimensional two-node beam element was adopted to model the
steel top flanges, cross bracings and top-chords. Because of
their insignificant flexural and torsional stiffnesses, cross-brac-
ing and top-chord members are considered as axial members
loaded in tension and compression. Two different constraints
were used in the modeling, namely, the roller support at one
end of the bridge, constraining both vertical and lateral dis-
placements at the lower end nodes of each web, and the hinge
support at the other end of the bridge, restricting all possible
translations at the lower end nodes of each web. The multi-
point constraint option in the ABAQUS software, type BEAM,
was used to connect the shell nodes of the concrete deck slab
and the beam element nodes of the steel top flanges ensuring
full interaction between the two, thus modeling the presence

TABLE 1. Geometries of Prototype Bridges in Parametric Study

Span, L Number Number Cross Section Dimensions (mm)

Bridge type (m) of lanes of cells A B C D F t1 t2 t3 t4
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
1l-2c-20 20 1 2 6,800 2,270 300 800 1,025 16 10 10 225
2l-3c-20 20 2 3 9,300 2,325 300 800 1,025 16 10 10 225
3l-5c-20 20 3 5 13,050 2,175 300 800 1,025 16 10 10 225
4l-7c-20 20 4 7 16,800 2,100 300 800 1,025 16 10 10 225
1l-2c-40 40 1 2 6,800 2,270 375 1,600 1,825 28 14 12 225
2l-3c-40 40 2 3 9,300 2,325 375 1,600 1,825 28 14 12 225
3l-5c-40 40 3 5 13,050 2,175 375 1,600 1,825 28 14 12 225
4l-7c-40 40 4 7 16,800 2,100 375 1,600 1,825 28 14 12 225
1l-2c-60 60 1 2 6,800 2,270 450 2,400 2,625 40 18 15 225
2l-3c-60 60 2 3 9,300 2,325 450 2,400 2,625 40 18 15 225
3l-5c-60 60 3 5 13,050 2,175 450 2,400 2,625 40 18 15 225
4l-7c-60 60 4 7 16,800 2,100 450 2,400 2,625 40 18 15 225
1l-2c-80 80 1 2 6,800 2,270 530 3,200 3,425 52 22 17 225
2l-3c-80 80 2 3 9,300 2,325 530 3,200 3,425 52 22 17 225
3l-5c-80 80 3 5 13,050 2,175 530 3,200 3,425 52 22 17 225
4l-7c-80 80 4 7 16,800 2,100 530 3,200 3,425 52 22 17 225
1l-2c-100 100 1 2 6,800 2,270 600 4,000 4,225 64 26 20 225
2l-3c-100 100 2 3 9,300 2,325 600 4,000 4,225 64 26 20 225
3l-5c-100 100 3 5 13,050 2,175 600 4,000 4,225 64 26 20 225
4l-7c-100 100 4 7 16,800 2,100 600 4,000 4,225 64 26 20 225
Note: Symbols are shown in Fig. 3(a).

72 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999

J. Bridge Eng. 1999.4:71-78.

 of shear connectors. The parametric study was based on the
following assumptions: (1) the reinforced concrete slab deck
has complete composite action with the top steel flange of the
cells; (2) all materials are elastic and homogeneous; (3) outer
web-slope, curbs, and railing are ignored; and (4) the concrete
deck slab is considered uncracked.
LOADING CONDITIONS
Highway truck loads as well as bridge dead loads were con-
sidered. Highway live loads included AASHTO truck load
HS20-44 and lane load, consisting of superimposed load
of 9.34 kN/m uniformly and centrally distributed within a
strip of 3 m width plus a single concentrated load distributed
over 3 m width on a line normal to the center line of the lane.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
each girder of the prototype bridge, Mmax, was calculated by
integrating the normal stresses at midspan, determined from
the finite-element analysis of the loaded bridge prototype, tak-
ing into account the modification factors for multilane loading.
The moment distribution factor, DMS, was then calculated from
the following relationship:
Mmax
DMS = (1)
M
To calculate the shear distribution factors, DSS, carried by
each web, the maximum reaction force, V, in a simply sup-
ported girder, subjected to a line of wheel loads of an
AASHTO truck or a line of half the lane loading, was deter-
mined. The maximum reaction under each web, Vmax, was ob-

The single concentrated load was taken as 80 kN for the mo-
ment distribution study and 116 kN for the shear distribution
study. Modification factors of 1, 1, 0.9, and 0.75 for one-,
two-, three-, and four-lane loadings, respectively (AASHTO
1996) were applied. The two types of live loads were first
applied on a simply supported girder, with a span equal to that
of the bridge prototype, to determine which case produced the
maximum moment at midspan or the maximum shear force at
the support. Subsequently, three loading cases were considered
for each bridge prototype: full and partial AASHTO truck
loadings (or equivalent lane loadings), shown in Fig. 4, and
the bridge dead load. In the partial loading cases [Fig. 4(b)],
the wheel loads close to the curbs were applied at a distance
of 0.6 m from the inside edge of the curb.
LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
The cellular cross section was divided into I-beam shaped
girders as shown in Fig. 3(b). Each idealized girder consisted
of the web, steel top flange, concrete deck slab, and steel bot-
tom flange. In order to determine the moment distribution fac-
tor, DMS, carried by each girder of the bridge, the maximum
moment, M, was calculated in a simply supported girder sub-
jected to a line of wheel loads of an AASHTO truck, or a line
of half the lane loading. The longitudinal moment carried by
tained for each bridge prototype from the finite-element anal-
ysis, taking into account the modification factor for multilane
loading. The shear distribution factor, DSS, was then deter-
mined as follows:
Vmax
DSS = (2)
V
RESULTS
Table 2 shows a comparison between the experimental and
theoretical results for the deflection, longitudinal strain at mid-
span, and the reaction distribution under eccentric two con-
centrated loading applied to the model at the midspan section
over locations W1 and W2, shown in Fig. 1. Reasonable agree-
ment can be observed between the theoretical and experi-
mental results. It should be noted that this model failed at 255
kN when statically loaded by four concentrated loads, one load
over each web at the midspan section.
A sensitivity study was first undertaken to determine the
different factors that may influence the lateral load distribu-
tion. The sensitivity study revealed that changing span-to-
depth ratio, concrete deck slab thickness, or bottom flange
thickness has an insignificant effect on both moment and shear
distribution. This was also confirmed for moment distribution
elsewhere (Nutt et al. 1988). Therefore, the concrete deck slab
thickness was taken 225 mm as a minimum requirement rec-
ommended by the Canadian highway bridge design code
(CHBDC 1997). It should be noted that the effect of torsional-
to-flexural rigidity is implied in studying the effect of span-
to-depth ratio, concrete slab thickness, and the presence of
cross bracings. In practice, X-type bracings as well as top-
chords (lateral ties to the steel top flanges) are made from
single or back-to-back angles. The sensitivity study showed
that replacing the angle cross section by rectangular one, or

TABLE 2. Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Re-

sults from Testing Bridge Modela
Location Location Location Location
W1b W2 W3 W4
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) Deflection at mid-span (mm)
FIG. 3. Cross-Section of Five-Cell Bridge Prototype
Test 2.75 3.10 3.50 3.95
Theory 2.62 2.92 3.39 3.81
(b) Longitudinal strain at mid-span (microstrain)
Test 416 465 601 645
Theory 384 425 556 667
(c) Reaction (kN)
Test 2.89 6.00 11.09 18.88
Theory 2.35 5.91 10.26 19.68
a
Two concentrated loads were applied over girders W1 and W2.
FIG. 4. AASHTO Truck Loading Cases Considered in Paramet- b
Locations W1, W2, W3, and W4 are shown in Fig. 1.
ric Study

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999 / 73

J. Bridge Eng. 1999.4:71-78.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 5. Effect of Web Thickness/Bottom Flange Thickness on Torsional-to-Flexural Rigidity Ratio
FIG. 6. Effect of Number of Cells on Ratio of Torsional-to-Flex-
ural Rigidity
changing the bracing cross section, for fully and partially
loaded lanes, from 25 25 mm to 150 150 mm, has no
effect on the moment and shear distributions. Therefore, it was
decided to conduct the parametric study with a span-to-depth
ratio of 25 and with X-bracings and top-chords having a 100
100 mm rectangular cross section.
Torsional-to-Flexural Rigidity Ratio
An arbitrary loading on a bridge produces both flexure and
torsion. Under a flexural load, the cellular section deflects rig-
idly (longitudinal bending), and deforms (bending distortion).
Under torsional load, the cellular section rotates rigidly (mixed
torsion) and deforms (torsional distortion). Assuming that the
bridge is provided with a cross-bracing system sufficient to
minimize sectional distortion, the method of membrane anal-
ogy (Timoshenko 1956) can then be applied to determine the
Saint-Venant torsional stiffness of the cellular section. Thus,
the ratio of torsional-to-flexural rigidity, GJ/EI, can be ob-
tained, transferring the concrete area to equivalent steel area.
The stiffness of a cellular structure in torsion depends par-
ticularly on the relative thicknesses of the plates forming the
cells. The effect of web thickness to bottom flange thickness,
t2/t3, in enhancing the torsional-to-flexural rigidity ratio was
studied. Fig. 5 shows that effect in case of two-cell and six-
cell cross sections. It is observed that a peak value of the GJ/
74 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999
J. Bridge Eng. 1999.4:71-78.
EI ratio is obtained when t2/t3 is approximately 2 in the case
of two-cell cross sections. It is interesting to observe that in-
creasing the web thickness from 10 mm to 20 mm, for ex-
ample, has a significant effect on the torsional stiffness but not
on the flexural stiffness. Fig. 5 also shows a similar behavior
for six-cell cross sections. A study on different number cells
revealed that the optimum t2/t3 ratio to maximize the GJ/EI
ratio decreases with increase in the number of cells. A simple
expression for the optimum t2/t3 ratio for a maximum GJ/EI
ratio was deduced as follows:
t2 2.6
= (3)
t3 NC
The number of cells used in the parametric study ranged
from 1 to 9 depending on the number of lanes. Fig. 6 shows
the change in the GJ/EI ratio with the number of cells used in
certain cross sections. The dimensions of these cross sections
were those mentioned in Table 1 for span length of 40 m but
with a height, d, of 1.75 m where d is measured from the
center of the bottom flange to the center line of the concrete
deck slab. For simplicity, the steel top flanges were not con-
sidered. It can be observed that the GJ/EI ratio is almost con-
stant in cases of three- and four-lane bridges used in the para-
metric study, while in cases of one- and two-lane bridges this
ratio increased by about 12%, when using a two-cell instead
of one-cell cross section. However, any further increase in the
number of cells had no significant relief on the GJ/EI ratio.
Fig. 6 also shows the GJ/EI ratios where the internal webs
of a cross section have been ignored in the calculation of the
torsional stiffness. It can be observed that the contribution of
the internal webs to the torsional stiffness is rather small. Thus,
an assessment of the torsional constant of cellular sections can
be made based on an equivalent single cell with the same
outside dimensions as that of the actual cellular section and
neglecting the effect of the internal webs. Based on this sim-
plifying assumption, the following expressions for the tor-
sional constant, J, were deduced for bridge cross sections with
the number of cells from one to six.
For a one-cell cross section:
4Z 2t4
J= (4)
X 2Y
For a two-cell cross section:
 TABLE 3. Effect of Cross Bracings on Moment Distribution Factors
MOMENT DISTRIBUTION FACTOR, DMS
Number of
Bridge cross Fully Loaded Lanes and Girder Numbera Partially Loaded Lanes and Girder Numbera
type bracings 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1l-4c-60 0 0.35 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.35 0.52 0.53 0.43 0.33 0.19
8 0.35 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.35 0.36 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.34
2l-4c-60 0 0.70 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.70 0.61 0.59 0.43 0.27 0.10
8 0.70 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.70 0.37 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.34
3l-4c-60 0 0.92 1.18 1.21 1.18 0.92 1.19 1.16 0.86 0.56 0.23
8 0.94 1.17 1.18 1.17 0.94 0.76 0.90 0.86 0.82 0.66
4l-4c-60 0 1.02 1.31 1.35 1.31 1.02 1.20 1.17 0.86 0.54 0.22
8 1.05 1.30 1.31 1.30 1.05 0.77 0.92 0.87 0.79 0.65
a
Girder numbering is shown in Fig. 3(b).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 4. Effect of Cross Bracings on Shear Distribution Fac- improves the ability of the cross section to transfer loads from
tors for Eccentric AASHTO Lane Loadings one girder to the adjacent ones.
Shear Distribution Factor, DSS, at Table 4 shows the effect of cross bracings on the distribution
Number of
Girder Number of shear forces between webs at the support line under an
cross bracings
eccentric AASHTO loading. It is observed that adding cross
Bridge type between supports 1 2 3 4 5
bracings enhances the shear distribution between webs. As an
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
example, when using eight cross-bracing systems, the maxi-
2l-4c-60 0 1.11 0.79 0.29 0.04 0.24 mum shear force is reduced by 10% in the loaded outer web,
1 1.40 0.80 0.30 0.04 0.19
2 1.02 0.80 0.31 0.04 0.19
increased by 17% in the central web, and the uplift force in
3 1.01 0.80 0.32 0.05 0.19 the outer web away from load is reduced by 16%.
5 1.01 0.80 0.33 0.07 0.19 The effect of cross-bracing systems on the deflection distri-
8 1.00 0.80 0.34 0.06 0.20 bution at midspan for fully loaded and partially loaded lanes
was also studied. It was observed that, when all lanes are
loaded, the uniformity of the transverse distribution of deflec-
8Z 2t4 tion is not significantly improved by adding cross bracings,
J= (5)
XY but is significantly improved when the bridge is partially
loaded, as expected. Furthermore, results not shown herein re-
For a three-cell cross section: vealed that adding cross-bracing systems with a spacing less
4Z 2t4(3X 10Y) than the maximum spacing of 7.5 m specified by the AASHTO
J= (6) (1996) has an insignificant effect on the distribution factors.
X 2 4XY 2Y 2
Therefore, it was decided to conduct the parametric study with
For a four-cell cross section: number of cross-bracing and top-chord systems of 3, 5, 8, 11,
and 17 for bridge spans of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 m, respec-
8Z 2t4(2X 5Y ) tively.
J= (7)
X 2 3XY Y 2
For a five-cell cross section: Bending Moment Distribution
4Z t4(5X 28XY 35Y )
2 2 2
The critical loading case for the maximum moment distri-
J= (8)
(X 2Y )(X 2 4XY Y 2) bution factor is affected by the number of lanes. The maximum
moment distribution factor for a fully loaded one-lane bridge
For a six-cell cross section: is approximately the same as that for a partially loaded one,
8Z 2t4(3X 4 70XY 3 62X 2Y 2 23X 3Y 28Y 4) while for two-, three-, and four-lane bridges the fully loaded
J= (9) bridge is the governing case for design. This is clearly evident
(X Y )(X 2Y )(X 3 Y 3 6Y 2X 5X2Y ) from the results in Table 3.
where X = B[1 (t4/t3)]; Y = d[(t4/t2)]; and Z = Bd. Fig. 7 shows the effect of the number of cells and span
length on the moment distribution factor for the central and
Effects of Cross-Bracing Systems outer girders of four-lane bridges due to full truck loading. It
is observed that for longer span lengths, the moment distri-
The torsional stiffness of a box girder results from three bution factor becomes smaller for the central girder by an av-
components: the Saint-Venant rigidity, the warping rigidity, erage of 8%, and larger for the outer girder by an average of
and the distortional rigidity. Increasing the flexibility of any 15%, thus exhibiting better moment distribution between gird-
of these components reduces the rigidity of the box girder. ers. Moreover, increasing the number of cells decreases the
Adding bracings between support lines is generally required girder moment, as expected.
for stability purposes at the construction phase. Table 3 shows Fig. 8 shows the change in the moment distribution factor
the effect of bracings on the moment distribution between ide- with different numbers of lanes for the outer girder of 60 m
alized girders. It can be observed that, in the case of bridges span bridge. It is observed that for a certain number of cells,
with cross bracings and with fully loaded lanes, the bending the moment distribution factor increases with increase in the
moment increases by a maximum of 3% in the outer girder number of lanes. It is also interesting to note that the moment
and decreases by a maximum of 3% in the central girder, while distribution factors for the intermediate girders are very close
in the case of bridges with partially loaded lanes the maximum to those of the central girder, as shown in Table 3. This is due
bending moment carried by the loaded outer girder is consid- to the excellent torsional stiffness of this type of bridge. There-
erably reduced by more than 30%. Thus, adding cross bracings fore, in practice, it is unnecessary to distinguish between cen-
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999 / 75

J. Bridge Eng. 1999.4:71-78.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 7. Effect of Number of Cells and Span Length on Moment
Distribution Factors for Four-Lane Bridge
FIG. 8. Effect of Number of Lanes on Moment Distribution
Factors for Outer Girder of Bridges of 60-m Span
tral and intermediate girders, Fig. 3(b), when using the mo-
ment distribution factors in design.
Shear in Webs
Shear forces in the webs at support lines are distributed in
a manner quite different from that for bending moment, since
the governing loading case occurs when the truck loading is
located close to web and to the support line. Results shown in
Table 4 reveal that, for the partial loading case, the reaction
at some outer bearings may be downward as a result of twist-
ing. However, this effect is more than neutralized by the dead
load effects. The variation in the number of cells for the same
bridge width was studied for different numbers of lanes and
under dead load. Results not shown herein, for brevity, showed
that the shear force carried by the outer web decreases with
an increase in the number of cells. It was also observed that
for the same number of cells, the shear distribution factor for
outer web increased with an increase in the number of lanes.
Expressions for Moment and Shear Distribution
Factors
From the results of the parametric study, it became evident
that both the moment and shear distribution factors for com-
posite multicell box girder bridges are governed by the fol-
lowing parameters: (1) number of cells, NC; (2) number of
lanes, NL; and (3) bridge span length, L. Using a statistical
package for best fit, the following empirical expressions were
generated for moment and shear distribution factors for simply
supported straight composite multicell box girder bridges. It
should be noted that the modification factors for multilane
loading (AASHTO 1996) were included in the proposed ex-
76 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999
J. Bridge Eng. 1999.4:71-78.
pressions. All the dimensions used in these expressions are in
meters.
Moment Distribution Factors
For the outer girder of one-lane bridges:
DMS = N 0.7
C (10)
For the outer girder of two-, three-, and four-lane bridges:
DMS = 1.15(NL)0.5(NC)0.7(L) 0.05 (11)
For the intermediate girders of one-lane bridges:
DMS = 1.6(NC)0.8(L)0.04 (12)
For the intermediate girders of two-, three-, and four-lane
bridges:
DMS = 2.3(NL)0.65(NC)0.9(L)0.04 (13)
Shear Distribution Factors
For brevity, the expressions listed next for the shear distri-
bution factors are applicable only to one- and two-lane com-
posite cellular bridges. However, the designer can design
three- and four-lane bridges using the cross sections for one-
and two-lane bridges when the number of cells, NC, are less
than or equal to four. If shear distribution factors for three-
and four-lane composite cellular bridges are required, they can
be found elsewhere (Sennah 1998).
For the outer web due to partial truck loading
N 3C N 2C NC
DSS =
0.7NL 20.2 0.06NL 1.96 0.02NL 0.54
L
0.5NL 2.8
1616NL 2370 (14)
For the outer web away from load due to partial truck loading:
DSS = (0.89NL 2.06)(NC)(0.28NL0.36)
(3.4NL 2.15)(L)(1.25NL1.24) (15)
For the outer web due to fully loaded lanes:
DSS = (0.8NL 0.15)(NC)(0.01NL0.96)(L)(0.02NL0.13) (16)
For the central web due to fully loaded lanes:
DSS = (3NL 1.2)(NC)(0.14NL0.58)(L)(0.07NL0.04) (17)
It should be mentioned that the above expressions for shear
distribution factors do not provide only the maximum shear
distribution factors for the outer and central webs but also the
shear factors corresponding to each loading case. Thus, the
use of these expressions for shear would lead to the design of
shear connectors, the bridge bearings, and the supporting
frames or abutments. When necessary, the shear forces in the
intermediate webs can be found by linear interpolation.
Different methods found in the literature for load distribu-
tion of multicell box girder bridges were limited to reinforced
and prestressed concrete sections. Empirical equations for mo-
ment and shear distribution factors for such bridges can be
found in (1) AASHTO specification (1996); (2) The National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP 12-26
1991); and (3) The National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (Nutt et al. 1988). Table 5 shows the load distribution
factors for shear and moment predicted by the different meth-
ods in the literature for the outer and central girders of rein-
forced or prestressed multicell box girder bridges. Results
based on the finite-element modeling adopted herein as well
 TABLE 5. Live Load Moment and Shear Distribution Factors for Multicell Box Girder Bridges Predicted Using Different Methods
NCHRP NCHRP
Load
distribution AASHTO (Nutt et al. (Nutt et al. Composite Concrete-Steel
(1996) 1988) 1988) NCHRP (1991) Section
factors for
moment, Reinforced Prestressed Reinforced and Current-finite-
Bridge DMS, and for concrete Reinforced concrete prestressed element Proposed
type shear, DSS Girder section concrete section section concrete section analysis formulas
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1l-2c-60 DMS Outer 1.08 N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0.62
Central 0.95 N/A N/A N/A 0.80 0.78
DSS Outer N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.20 1.20
Central N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.92 0.94
2l-3c-60 DMS Outer 1.11 N/A N/A 1.11 0.88 0.89
Central 1.11 1.02 1.10 1.29 1.12 1.14
DSS Outer N/A N/A N/A 1.09 1.12 1.16
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Central N/A N/A N/A 1.54 1.25 1.25

3l-5c-60 DMS Outer 1.04 N/A N/A 1.04 0.77 0.76
Central 1.04 1.00 0.98 1.08 0.96 0.94
DSS Outer N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.62 1.59
Central N/A N/A N/A 1.45 1.08 1.03
4l-7c-60 DMS Outer 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 0.63 0.69
Central 1.00 0.92 0.87 1.00 0.79 0.83
DSS Outer N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.95 1.14
Central N/A N/A N/A 1.40 0.88 0.85
Note: N/A = Not applicable.

as results from the above proposed expressions, (10) (17) in-
clusive, for composite multicell box girder bridges are also
presented in Table 5. Comparing the developed moment and
shear distribution factors with the AASHTO and NCHRP for-
mulas is not beneficial because they represent different cross
sections. However, it can be observed that the results based
on the methods in the literature are quite limited when com-
pared with those from the present analysis. Furthermore, good
comparison is shown between the results from the finite-ele-
ment analysis and the proposed expressions.
ILLUSTRATIVE DESIGN EXAMPLE
Consider a two-lane, four-cell, simply supported bridge with
a concrete deck slab composite with a steel section to be de-
signed according to AASHTO specifications. The bridge de-
tails are as follows: span length = 54 m, deck width = 9.3 m,
deck slab thickness = 225 mm, all steel plate thicknesses = 10
mm, top steel flange width = 500 mm, steel section depth =
2.2 m, modulus of elasticity of steel = 200 GPa, and modular
ratio = 7. The superimposed dead load due to asphaltite ma-
terial = 10 N/m2. Calculate the design moment and shear
forces assuming a dynamic load allowance, DLA, of 25%.
Taking the concrete and steel densities as 2,400 and 7,800
N/m3, respectively, the total dead load per meter length for the
bridge is 66.55 kN/m. Based on this value, the maximum dead
load moment at midspan of the bridge per girder, MDL, is 359
kN.m, and the dead load reaction at the end of the bridge per
girder, VDL, is 359 kN. Applying a line of AASHTO wheel
loads and half the lane loadings on a simply supported girder
of span 54 m, the maximum moment at midspan, MLL, is 2270
kN.m and the maximum reaction, VLL, is 185 kN. Considering
the dead load to be distributed to the girders according to their
relative stiffness and using (11), the moment distribution fac-
tors for the outer girder of the bridge can be calculated as 0.16
due to dead load and 0.75 due to truck loading. Using (13),
the moment distribution factors for the intermediate girders
can be calculated as 0.23 due to dead load and 0.88 due to
truck loading. The shear distribution factors for the outer web
can be obtained, from (14) and (16), as 1.03 due to partial
truck loading on the outer lane, and 0.56 due to full truck
loading. Using (15), the shear distribution factor for the far
end web can be determined as 0.18 due to partial truck load-
ing on the outer lane. For the central web, the shear distribu-
tion factor can be calculated from (17) as 0.98 due to full truck
loading. The shear distribution factor for the central web due
to partial truck loading is 0.43, by interpolation. By multiply-
ing each moment distribution factor by MDL for dead load and
by MLL (1 DLA) for live load, the moments carried by each
girder are found. Thus, the resulting design moments are 6010
kN.m and 8077 kN.m for the outer and intermediate girders,
respectively. By multiplying each shear distribution factor by
VLL (1 DLA) for live load, the design shear forces carried
by each web due to different loading cases can be obtained.
Thus, the resulting shear forces carried by outer and central
webs under partial truck loading are 238 kN, and 99 kN, re-
spectively. The shear carried by the far end web becomes 42
kN. Under full truck loading, the resulting shear forces carried
by the outer and central webs are 130 kN and 227 kN, re-
spectively. By linear interpolation, the shears carried by the
intermediate webs can be calculated. These results are used to
design the girders, the webs, the shear connectors, the bridge
bearings, and the supporting frames or abutments.
CONCLUSIONS
An extensive theoretical and experimental investigation was
conducted to determine the effect of several variables on the
moment and shear distributions in simply supported straight
composite concrete deck-steel multicell box girder bridges.
Expressions were deduced for computing the moment distri-
bution factors for each girder and the shear distribution factor
at each web. The results from this investigation provide val-
uable design information currently unavailable in bridge codes
for the design of composite cellular bridges. Based on this
study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. An empirical formula for the ratio between web thick-
ness to bottom flange thickness was deduced to produce
maximum torsional resistance for the cellular section.
2. The presence of at least three cross-bracing systems be-
tween support lines, with a maximum spacing of 7.5 m,
significantly enhances the load transverse distribution of
moments, shear forces as well as deflections.
3. The use of the proposed expressions for shear would lead
to a more economical and reliable design of shear con-
nectors, bridge bearings, and supporting frames or abut-
ments.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999 / 77

J. Bridge Eng. 1999.4:71-78.

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPENDIX II. NOTATION
This research was supported by the National Science and Engineer-
ing Council of Canada under Grant #A-1896. The assistance of TRW The following symbols are used in this paper:
Nelson Stud Welding Co., in the loan of their equipment, is greatly
appreciated.
A = bridge width;
B = cell width;
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES C = steel top flange width;
Heins, C. P. (1978). Box girder bridge design state-of-the-art. AISC D = total depth of steel cells;
Engrg. J., 2, 126 142. DLA = dynamic load allowance;
Hibbitt, H. D., Karlson, B. I., and Sorenson, E. P. (1996). ABAQUS ver- DMS = moment distribution factor;
sion 5.5, finite-element program. Hibbitt, Karlson and Sorenson, Inc., DSS = shear distribution factor;
Providence, R.I. d = depth from center line of concrete deck slab to
NCHRP. (1991). Distribution of wheel loads on highway bridges. bottom flange;
NCHRP 12-26/1, Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative
E = modulus of elasticity;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., Vol. 1 and 2.

Nutt, R. V., Schamber, R. A., and Zokaie, T. (1988). Distribution of wheel F = total depth of composite bridge;
loads on highway bridges. Transportation Research Board, NCHRP, G = shear modulus;
Imbsen and Assoc. Inc., Sacramento, Calif. I = second moment of inertia;
CHBDC. (1997). Canadian highway bridge design code, draft. Downs- J = torsional constant;
view, ON, Canada. L = bridge span;
Scordelis, A. C. (1975). Analytical and experimental studies of multi- M = maximum moment in simply supported girder;
cell concrete box girder bridges. Bull. Int. Assoc. of Shell and Spatial Mmax = maximum moment at bridge midspan from anal-
Struct., 58, 9 22. ysis;
Scordelis, A. C., Chan, E. C., and Ketchum, M. A. (1985). Computer
program for prestressed concrete box girder bridges. Rep. No. UCB/
NC = number of cells;
SESM 85/02, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif. NL = number of lanes;
Sennah, K. M. (1998). Load distribution and dynamic response of t1 = thickness of steel top flange;
curved composite concrete deck-steel cellular bridges, PhD disser- t2 = thickness of steel web;
tation, Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., University of Windsor, Can- t3 = thickness of steel bottom flange;
ada. t4 = thickness of concrete deck slab;
Siddiqui, A. H., and Ng, S. F. (1988). Effect of diaphragms on stress V = maximum reaction in simply supported girder;
reduction in box girder bridge sections. Can. J. of Civ. Engrg., 15(1), VDL = maximum reaction due to dead load;
127 135.
Standard specifications for highway bridges. (1996). AASHTO, Wash-
VLL = maximum reaction due to live (truck) load;
ington, D.C. Vmax = maximum reaction under bridge web from analy-
Timoshenko, S. P. (1956). Strength of material, Part 2: Advanced theory sis; and
and problems, 3rd Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, Princeton, N.J., 250 X, Y, and Z = intermediate factors to calculate torsional constant
339. of section.

78 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999

J. Bridge Eng. 1999.4:71-78.