You are on page 1of 67

# ABSTRACT

Integral bridges are becoming popular day by day as they are easy to construct
and require less maintenance efforts due to absence of bearings. There is an
increasing tendency to construct long span bridges. However due to movement
restraints fatigue stresses build up that leads to reduction in useful life. In this
study, an effort has been made to estimate the fatigue life of an integral bridge
subjected to transient loads. In this paper, the results of a transient analysis of
an integral bridge of total length 156 m having 5 continuous spans with the
maximum span of 40 m has been done using ANSYS. The roles of deformation
and von-Misses stress that occur in the bridge have been found to influence
fatigue life. Further, midpoint deflection in the longest span, its variation with
loading history and its influence on fatigue life has been analyzed and found to
match satisfactorily with standard results and the same process is applied on
various length of longer span with the concrete variation to develop a
mathematical model for determination of fatigue life.
CHAPTER 1
INTERODUCTION
1.1 General
Integral bridges in the simplest term can be defined as bridges without joints.
Integral bridges are categorized by monolithic connection between the deck
and the substructure (piers and abutments). They are constructed from one
abutment, over intermediate support piers to the other abutment, without any
joint with the deck. Integral bridges have been built all over the world including
India.
Integral bridges are joint less bridges that are used to avoid and
eliminate the characteristic problems related with installing, maintaining, and
repairing deck joints and bearings. As a consequence of having no joints in
integral bridge the problem of replacing and maintaining can be solved,
however, these types bridges experience large amounts of lateral load and
displacement as a result of transient loading that are provided by running
vehicles. This, combined with a complex mechanics of soil-structure interaction,
creates several issues, one of them is the possibility of yielding and deformation
of parts of the bridge, predominantly the bridge deck. This transient loading
occurs in many numbers over daily, monthly and yearly cycles. These cycles
have created concerns for fatigue in these types of structures. A component or
structure that is designed and constructed for carrying a single monotonically
increasing application of static load or designed for cyclic repeated load may
fracture and fail if the same load or an even smaller load is applied cyclically
many times. Let us consider an example of a thin rod that is bent back and
forth, it breaks after a few cycles of such repeated bending. This tendency of
failing is termed as fatigue failure. Examples of structures prone to fatigue
failure are bridges, cranes and slender towers that are subjected to cyclic
loading. Fatigue is the cause of approximately 5090% of all metallic failures
(Stephens and Fatemi, 2001). The fatigue also shows the significant role in the
failure of RC bridges. The fatigue failure occurs due to the propagation of aws
in material under cyclic loading. This failure is partially boosted by the stress
concentration at the tip of such a aw or crack.
Fatigue failure can be dened as a number of fatigue cycles, and in this
way the time taken to reach a predened or threshold failure condition can be
determined. Fatigue failures can be classied into two types, namely, high-cycle
and low-cycle fatigue failures, depending on the number of cycles resulting in
rupture or failure of structure. If the material shows plastic deformation, low-
cycle fatigue is likely to occur. Most of the cases, low-cycle fatigue life is
anticipated in many of these bridges. The load transfer mechanism is very
difficult to predict in this type of structure. If the bridge is free to expand, then
the total load is completely transferred directly to the piles. However, in real
condition, the bridge is constrained on the both ends by the embankment or
backll soil. In such a case, the forces are collectively distributed between the
backll soil or embankment and the piles. Subsequently, the increased vertical
earth pressure may have an reverse effect on the abutment and piers and thus
result in the generation of internal forces. These internal forces generated in
abutments and piers may degrade the concrete material of abutment and pier
and this causes premature failure of bridge. In other hand if the earth pressure
is very high, the concrete abutment and piers will be the one that takes this
pressure. In such case, the piles may not show any signicant movement and
consequently do not deform plastically. Though, the life of the abutment and
pier will get reduced because the concrete of abutment and bridge experiences
a large number of high-amplitude cyclic loads. If the earth pressure in
embankment or backll soil is not too high, the abutments and piers have
exibility to move as a result of expansion of the bridge that are generated due
varies over a short time interval. A transient load may have referred to any load
that will not remain on the bridge forever. Mostly, these loads include vehicular
force, centrifugal force (caused in curved section only), and live load surcharge.
Additionally, there also exist pedestrian live loads, force effects due to uniform
temperature, and temperature gradient, force effects due to settlement of piers,
water loads and stream pressure on piers, wind loads on structure, wind on live
load, friction forces that are generated between vehicle and deck pavement, ice
loads in some areas, vehicular collision forces occurs during accidents, vessel
For most ordinary bridges case, there are a few transient loads that are
likely to be considered. That are live loads of vehicle and their subsequently
effects including braking force, centrifugal force, and dynamic load allowance
are the most vital to consider. These subsequently effects shall always be
collective considered with the gravity effects of live loads.
For this study ,only the vehicular load is provided according to Indian
deck are considered ,For simplicity down drag forces, horizontal earth pressure
effects due to creep ,shrinkage, secondary forces that are generated from post-
tensioning of members, and other miscellaneous locked-in force effects
resulting from the construction process are ignored.
expend and other parts of bridge also shows such tendency of deflection and
expansion. This deflection and expansion will create on the deck and girder that
are xed in to the piers. The girder in this transient case as a fixed beam,
generating a similar type of deformation a consequential from force on the tip
of a beam. If the amount of this deformation is very large, it will result in plastic
deformation of the deck girder. Depending on this system cong and
connections, the mechanical response of the integral bridge may differ
(Baptisteetal.2011; Dicleli and Erhan, 2011; Wagle and Watt ,2011; Kalayci, et
al. 2011).

1.2 Objective
To make an effort to estimate the fatigue life of an integral bridge
subjected to transient loads using ANSYS 17.1.

## To assess the influence (importance) of total length and maximum

span of bridge on the fatigue life estimation of the integral bridge.
To determine the maximum deflection, its location in the length of the
bridge, its variation with loading history and its influence on fatigue life.

## To validate the assessed fatigue life by comparing with formula from

existing literature.
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Integral bridges are joint less bridges that are used to avoid and eliminate the
characteristic problems related with installing, maintaining, and repairing deck
joints and bearings. As a consequence of having no joints in integral bridge
the problem of replacing and maintaining can be solved,

## 2.1 INTEGRAL BRIDGES

The concept of integral abutment bridge completely based on the theory that
due to the flexibility provided by piling, stresses generated are transferred to
the substructure by the rigid connection between the substructure and
superstructure. When The earthquake forces are main cause to failure or when
there is requirement of consideration like increased resistance during blasts the
integral bridge, concept is an outstanding option.
The integral bridges are less expensive, having improved durability and
easy to design than other bridge.

## 2.1.1 COMPLICATIONS WITH THE BEARING AND EXPANSION JOINTS

In the most of the cases of bearing and expansion joints may leak and the
provides a seal to permit the surface run-off water from roadway of deck, the
these heavily loaded commercial vehicle will create the adverse effect on the
bridge substructure and superstructure.
Due to result of repeated loading the elastomeric bearings or other type
of bearing may split and rupture due to unanticipated movements generated, or
pawl out of original position provided on construction. This failure in the function
of bearings can lead to unanticipated damage in structural components like
joints.
2.1.2 INTEGRAL ABUTMENT BRIDGES
In the integral abutment bridges shortly pronounced as IAB may be defined as
bridge in which abutment is connected with the bridge deck without provision
of any movement joint for expansion or contraction of the deck.

## 2.1.3 BENEFITS OF INTEGRAL ABUTMENTS BRIDGES (IAB)

Integral bridges are simple in design, having less construction joints. It shows
an excellent resistance to pressure. In integral abutment bridge, embankment
can be constructed easily and rapidly. It requires no cofferdams and no battered
piles. Only Vertical piles are required. It requires only few construction joints,
because of removal of bearing element, it reduced the work of removal of
existing elements.
The construction costs and future maintenance costs is reduced for
these bridges and it provides the improved quality of riding for riders. Moreover,
it improves the redundancy and capacity for catastrophic events, shows the
improved distribution of load and enhance the weathering position for steel
girders.

## 2.1.4 CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION

For the construction of integral bridge the geometrical consideration like length
of structure, type of super structure, abutment, foundation and the subsoil
condition are to be considered.
Some climatic condition like temperature, rainfall, moisture and the load
causing by snow, water and the wind are also need to be considered in few
areas
The economic considerations for these types of bridges are vital
because they are more economical than other type of bridges of same class
because they need less maintenance cost for future repairing and maintaining
and because there is no requirement of bearing, so it reduced drastically.

## 2.1.5 RECOMMENDEDATION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY FOR

INTEGRAL BRIDGES
According to the requirement of bridges to fulfill the requirement of public there
is need to practice for the requirement and the raised requirement for the design
period of bridge. In some of the cases the bridge requires the approach slab it
should be constructed as per as requirement. the evolvement of public, design
people and the consultation with the geotechnical are require to exchange the
information.

## 2.1.6 BENEFITS OF INTEGRAL BRIDGES OVER CONVENTIONAL TYPES

OF BRIDGES
Conventional bridges required bearing between sub structure and super
structure, these bridges are not constructed monolithically as they have
separate sub structure and super structure. Conventional bridges have
relatively high construction and maintenance cost, slower construction, less
comfortable for riders because it has freely moveable vertical slabs in piers.
Due to the leakage of water to the bearing the bearing and different warts erode.
In Integral abutment bridges the construction is simple, rapid and
economical. These types of bridges add redundancy for seismic performance
due to construction of integrated abutment .in compare to conventional bridge
it eliminated the leakage of water on the critical elements. integral bridges have
improved riding comfort.
Integral bridges getting popular due to above merits but there are more
aspects required to be analyzed and explored for further before construction in
2.2 Fatigue
At the initial stage, many parts may work well as per as their requirement buy
they often fail to fulfill their requirement in service. The 50% to 90% of this failure
is classified as fatigue failure. This Fatigue failure caused by repeated cyclic
loading on parts. To find out the capability of a material to withstand in repeated
loading fatigue analysis, it is required to carry out the fatigue analysis.
There are three methods of analyzing the fatigue life
Strain Life
Stress Life, and
Fracture Mechanics;
In ANSYS 17.1 Fatigue Module, only strain life and stress life methods are
available.
At present, the approach of Strain Life is commonly used the. For
describing low-cycle fatigue, Strain can be directly measured and can be shown
up to admirable quantity. Strain Life is mostly concerned with initiation of crack.
On the other hand, Stress Life is concerned with total life and it fails to
differentiate between initiation and propagation of crack. In terms of cycles,
Strain Life mostly deals with a relatively less number of cycles, therefore it
reports Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF). Low Cycle Fatigue typically refers to less than
105 cycles, where High cycle fatigue refers for more than 105 cycles.

Table No. 1 Comparison between stress life and strain life approach
S.N. Strain life Stress life
1 Strain Life is excellent for Stress life is widely used for the high
characterizing for low cycle cycle fatigue.
fatigue
2 Strain life is concerned with Stress life is based on total life not
the initiation of crack and its with the crack propagation and
propagation up to failure initiation.
3 Strains typically deals with low Used only for High cycle fatigue
number of cycle, therefore it
fatigue, but also work fine with
high cycle fatigue.

## Third fatigue criteria is fracture mechanics, it is based on the crack generation

and its propagation up to Sevier effect and complete time taken to grow this
crack up to critical condition is find out and this time taken is called fatigue life.
In fracture Mechanics, mechanics starts with a flaw of known size and
determines the growth of crack as it sometimes called as Crack Life. Facture
Mechanics is commonly used to find inspection intervals. For a given technique
of inspection, the smallest size of detectable flaw is find out and from this flaw
size, the time required to grow this crack to a critical size is calculated. In some
of the situation, Strain Life methods can be used to find out crack initiation and
further fracture mechanics used to find out the crack life. In such condition, total
life is equals to the crack initiation plus crack life.
Usually stress life is based on S-N curves (Stress Cycle curves)
approach, dealt with comparatively large numbers of cycles and thus addresses
as High Cycle Fatigue (HCF), and it is greater than 105 cycles including infinite
life.
The concept of Fatigue and fracture mechanics is purely based on
empirical theory and formula, though it allows for prediction of life and design
pledge, life prediction or optimization of design may be improved using Fracture
mechanics. Fatigue of materials in fracture mechanics may be defined as
having following four phases.
1. Crack nucleation,
2. Stage I crack-growth,
3. Stage II crack-growth,
4. Ultimate ductile failure.

Unlike static stress, which is analyzed and calculations for a single state of
stress, fatigue damage will arise when stress at a point changes over time
spam.
In ANSYS 17.1, for stress type fatigue life calculation, only first three are
is not available in ANSYS 17.1
Whereas for Strain type life determination only above two are available,
life cannot be calculated.

Propo is the classical approach, the loading varies in a fixed manner for lowest
to the highest values, in a fixed time cycle. It is required to define loading ratio.
set of FE results are required as principal stress axes remain unchanged over
time. Most common types of constant amplitude loading is fully reversed, in fully
ratio of 1 and for zero-based load is applied and removed in this case load is
results can recognize critical fatigue locations. Similarly, since there are only
two loadings provided, so there is no need for cycle counting or calculations of
cumulative damage.

In this case, principal stress or strain axes are permitted to change between
possibly will occur at a spatial location, that is not straightforwardly identifiable
Alternate between two distinct load cases. Applying an alternating load that is

## Fig 2 Non-Constant Amplitude load

only one set of FE results. But in its place of using a single load ratio to compute
alternating and mean values, the load ratio differs over time. Because of the
loading provided is proportional, the location of critical fatigue can be found by
observing at a single set of FE results. Though, maximum damage caused by
calculations with cycle counting need to be done to compute the total amount
of damage caused by fatigue and type of cycle combinations which causes that
damage. Cycle counting is used to reduce a complex load history into a number
of events, that can be likened to the existing constant amplitude test data.

For Stress Life, there is another option available, if the alternating stress is
lesser than the least alternating stress on fatigue curve, the fatigue result will
find at the last point. Though, in loading of non-constant amplitude, some cycles
may be obtainable with very small alternating stresses. In order to control this,
the infinite life value or the endurance limit is need to be defined that will be
required in case of the alternating stress increases beyond the limit of the SN
curve..

## 2.2.2 Mean Stress Correction

After deciding the type of fatigue analysis to perform. Weather it is Stress Life
or Strain Life, and loading type, next thing that is need to apply is mean stress
correction. A material cyclic fatigue properties are usually obtained from
completely reversed, constant amplitude tests. In actual condition, components
rarely experience this pure type of loading, since some mean stress is typically
present. So there is a requirement of mean stress corrections in case of the

## 2.2.2.1 Mean Stress Corrections for Stress Life

For Stress Life, if experimental data is available at different mean stresses or
r-ratios, mean stress can be taken directly by doing interpolation between
material curves. In case experimental data is not available the several
empirical options can be taken including Gerber, Goodman and Soderberg
theories. These theories use static material properties like yield stress, tensile
strength along with S-N data to find out any mean stress. Two cycle stress
and strain parameter are part of

Strain Life
To calculate Strain Life, the total strain (elastic + plastic) is the required input.
But, running an FE analysis to govern the total response may differ.
f
(2 N )b (2 N )c
2 E f f f
where,

## Total strain Amplitude

2
2 the stress amplitude
E Modulus of elasticity
N Number of cycle to failure
f
2N Nimber of reversals to failure
f

To calculate Strain Life, the total strain (elastic + plastic) is the required input.
But, running an FE analysis to govern the total response may differ.
So, an accepted method is to adopt a nominally elastic response and then by
using Neubers equation to relate local stress/strain to nominal stress/strain at
a location of stress concentration.
Neubers equation

K t2 eS (2)
Local (total ) starin
Local Stress
K Elastic stress Concentration factor
t
e No min al Elastic Strain
S No min al Elastic stress
Thus by solving Eqs (1) and (2) simultaneously, local stress and strain can be
calculated for given elastic inputs. Both the above equation will generate a
nonlinear equation and are required to be solved by iterative method.

## Stephens and Fatemi 2001

The Fatigue is the main reason behind the failure of approximately 5090% of
all metallic parts .The fatigue failure occurs due to the progressive
propagation of flaws like crack, in material that is subjected to cyclic loading.

Baptiste et al. 2011; Dicleli and Erhan 2011; Wagle and Watt 2011; Kalayci
et al. 2011

There are two types of fatigue failure, namely, high-cycle and low-cycle fatigue
failures, depending on the number of cycles resulting before failure. Normally,
low-cycle fatigue life is experienced by many of bridges. The mechanism for
transfer of load is very complex for bridges and the mechanical response may
vary from structure to structure .

## Arsoy 2000; Hallmark 2000; Dicleli et al. 2003

Because of the random nature of loading that occurs in real condition it is very
difficult to show the real loading, some of the data is fabricated and some of the
loading history is applied, these data may not be easily applied to the model.
Typically, a mathematical model needs to be created based on historical data.
There are several different techniques that can be used to model historical data.
Polynomial or sinusoidal types of models can be fit to historical data. However,
sinusoidal models are more common because of their cyclic nature and the fact
that they can easily be fit to the extreme values of load. The extreme values
have a much more pronounced effect than the other parameters in the model.

Basquin (1910)

## In stress based fatigue model, the fatigue life is represented as function of a

strength. Basquin proposed the equation below:
a f , (2 N f )b

where
a stress amplitude;
f , fatigue strength coeffcient ,
N f number of cycles to failure, and
b fatigue strength exp onent.

## Coffin 1954; Manson 1965

An integral abutment bridge generally goes under cyclic loading and the strain
is well-defined by the length of the bridge and loading. If only plastic strain is
taken into consideration, Coffin-Manson shows a relation that correlates the
number of cycles with plastic strain and the function is called the Coffin-Manson
relation and is as follows:

,f (2 N f )c
2

where
= plastic-strain amplitude,
,f = fatigue ductility coefficient, and
c = fatigue ductility exponent.

## Kilinski et al. 1991; Mander et al. 1994

In order to obtain a general fatigue model based on total strain sometimes the
Basquin equation Coffin-Manson equation is combined with the Basquin
equation a as follows (Kilinski et al. 1991)

:
t f
'

(2 N f )b 'f (2 N f )c
2 E

where
t total strain amplitude,
'f fatigue strength coefficient,
'f fatigue ductility coefficient,
E Young's modulus,
N f number of cycles to failure, and
b and c = damage model constants.

The Coffin-Manson equation is very useful and it shows good relationship with
experimental result

## The von-Mises yield criterion can be represented typically in terms of the

equivalent stress or von-Mises stress eq , and it can be computed from:

1
eq ( xx yy )2 ( yy zz ) 2 ( xx zz ) 2 6( yz2 xz2 xy2 )
2

Where,
xx , yy and zz are normal-stress;
xy , xz and xy are shear stress.

## represented in terms of principal stresses as follows:

1
eq ( 1 2 ) 2 ( 2 3 ) 2 ( 1 3 ) 2
2
Where,
1 , 2 and 3 principal stresses.
when the von-Mises stress eq reaches up to a critical value material starts

yielding and deform plastically and this stress is termed as yield strength .

## Similarly, equivalent strain can be represented in general form as,

1 3
eq ( xx yy )2 ( zz xx )2 ( xx zz ) 2 ( xy2 yz2 xz2 )
2(1 ) 2

Where,
=Poissons ratio ;
xx , yy , and zz are normal-strain and
yz , xz , and xy are shear-strain.

## Simarlily, the above equation of equivalent can be written in terms of

principal-strain components ,

1
eq (1 2 ) 2 ( 3 1 ) 2 ( 2 3 ) 2
2(1 )

Where
1 , 2 , and 3 are principal strains

## 2.2.3 STUDY OF IS CODES

In IRC code, some standard specification and code of practice for road
bridges are given at section 2
Clause no:201.1
municipal limits, in certain contemplated or existing industrial areas, in other
specified areas, and also along certain specified highways. All those bridges
that are designed for class AA loading should also be checked for class A
heavier stresses may be obtained,
roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are built.
temporary structure like bridges in specified areas.
The clause 207.1.1. shows the guidelines for bridge that are classified under
the clause 201.1, the designed live load for these bridges shall consist of
standard wheeled or tracked vehicles.
In the clause 207.1.2, the standard vehicle or train shall be supposed to
parallel to the length of bridge, within the kerb to kerb, and it can occupy any
position, where it will produce maximum stresses for provided minimum
clearances two passing or crossing vehicle of 9m.
In the clause 207.1.3 each standard vehicle, all the axles of a unit of
vehicle shall be considered to be acting simultaneously in position to cause
maximum stresses.
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Any bridge that is designed and constructed for carrying a single monotonically
increasing static load may fracture and fail on same load or an even smaller
load due to cyclic application of this load. For instance, a thin metallic member
may fail after a few cycles of repeated back and forth bending. This failure is
termed fatigue failure. This Fatigue is the main reason behind the failure of
approximately 5090% of all metallic parts (Stephens and Fatemi 2001) The
fatigue failure occurs due to the progressive propagation of flaws like crack, in
material ,that is subjected to cyclic loading. Fatigue is normally represented by
number of cycles, and therefore the time taken to reach a failure criterion can
be computed.

There are two types of fatigue failure, namely, high-cycle and low-cycle
fatigue failures, depending on the number of cycles resulting before failure.
Normally ,low-cycle fatigue life is experienced by many of bridges. The
mechanism for transfer of load is very complex for bridges and the mechanical
response may vary from structure to structure(Baptiste et al. 2011; Dicleli and
Erhan 2011; Wagle and Watt 2011;Kalayci et al. 2011).

## Complex structures like bridges are constructed by many different materials;

therefore, it is not straight forward to determine their effective properties,
moreover, it requires complex simulation and numerical techniques to
determine and quantify the stresses and loads in each component. Because
integral bridge is complex structure, so it is also very difficult to determine the
plastic yielding location and thus fatigue cracking in deck, just by using simple
analysis and analytical calculations. However, it is very difficult to estimate how
long it will take before bridge fails. Currently, any universal guidelines do not
exist to determine the maximum fatigue life and length of integral bridge.
Fatigue analyses is not conducted by bridge engineers for ensuring the long-
term safety and reliability of the parts of integral bridge.

## This report presents a procedure that can be used to determine fatigue

life of integral bridges at the stage of design, as well as for existing integral
bridges.
3.1Steps for Fatigue-Life Analysis Procedure

## 1. Design Consideration of exiting integral bridge:

(Kalkaji Flyover, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, Delhi)
2. Selection of Software used For Fatigue Analysis: ANSYS 17.1
3. Generating a Software based Model
4. Applying the transient Loads using ( IRC:6-2014 70-R )
5. Perform Analysis
6. Extract stress and strain from finite element model
7. Validation of result obtained from Software with mathematical
approach.
8. Determine fatigue life of Integral Bridge

## 3.2 DESIGN CAPTURE

The analysis procedure starts with design capture. This includes obtaining
information on the bridge. Like bridge geometry, dimensions, materials used for
construction, architecture, and properties of foundation. (e.g., soil type, pile
depth, type of pile, pile materials, etc.). This gathered information are required
for constructing a software based finite-element (FE) model. For general
consideration, a widely adoptable range of design criteria is used in this paper.
In this paper, after the analysis, the properties like different grade of concrete ,
different span of bridge and different web thickness of girder are considered
and analyzed further.

## For design consideration, there is requirement of choosing a bridge one

which is simply to construct and currently exists. Kalkaji Flyover at Okhla
Industrial Area, New Delhi is one of them. Kalkaji Flyover is 150m integral
flyover that has been constructed at the vital T-junction on Ring Road near
Kalkaji Temple. It has typically five continuous span and deck of (25m + 30m +
40m + 30m + 25m) between piers, and it has an voided reinforced concrete
slab deck of depth 1.70m that is hunched and increased to 2.20m at the piers
for supporting the 40.0m obligatory main span. In this paper soil properties are
not considered and piles are assumed to be fixed.

## The difference between Flyover and bridge is completely based on

the its purpose of construction or usage and its construction location
where it is built.

## Bridges are generally constructed over valley, rivers, sea or any

other water bodies that separates two points on ground and its length
depends upon the distance between these two points in ground. Usually
bridges are constructed for trains, buses, cars, motorcycle, cycle and
pedestrians.

## Whereas, Flyover is constructed between two or more points that

are separated by accessible route in the ground. Flyover are constructed

## Fig 5 Integral bridge

Integral RC Bridge is modeled of total span of 156 m. Bridge is divided into five
spans of 25m, 30m, 40m, 30m and 25m and 6 piers of 1m width and the height
of bridge is taken as 10 m. Figure shown below shows the length of bridge.
Table 2 Dimensions

## Overall Length of bridge 156m

Height 6m
Width of bridge 7.5057 m

## 3.2.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Material properties of steel, concrete, and soil are needed to model the
superstructure and substructure. These properties are provided in Table 1. As
mentioned earlier, material nonlinearity should be included, particularly for the
material being investigated for fatigue.
Table 3 Material Properties
S.n. Material Density(Kg/m3) Modulus of elasticity(MPa)
1 Reinforced concrete 2500 50000
2 Steel fe415 7850 200000

## To study the fatigue in an integral bridge deck that is subjected to transient

to be considered for the purpose of computation of stresses, wherever they are
applicable, some type of loading that is subjected in a bridge are:
Longitudinal force
Thermal force
Frictional resistance of expansion bearings
Erection forces
Racking force
Forces due to curvature.
Forces on parapets

according to IRC standard. Further, Impact forces, thermal forces,
frictional resistance of expansion bearings, erection forces, wind load,
seismic load, racking force, force due to curvature and forces due to
parapets are not considered. For live load, standard load case that is
provided by Indian Road Congress (IRC:6-2000) is considered.
Environmental conditions are kept fixed to normal of 34 C in the
modeling of FE model. Thermal expansion and contraction is not
also neglected.

## IRC:6-2000 recommendation that are considered for load analysis.

The Indian Road Congress (IRC) specifies three types of design loads, being

For the clear distance of 7.5 m between curb a simplified method was
established for slab-on-girder bridges, in order to get the width of each lane of
3.75m. In modeling of bridge the lane width was taken as 3.75 m ,resulting in a
total bridge width of 7.5 m.
The bridges is analyzed for 70-R and Class A loadings by the orthotropic
plate method of Cusens and Pama (1975), which is unified into computer
program ANSYS.
The carriageway live load combination shall be considered for the design as
shown in table below.
Table 3 : Combinations of loads for designing

## 1 Lesser than 5.3m 1 One lane of class a considered to

occupy 2.3m.the remaining width
of carriageway shall be loaded with

500Kg/m2.
2 From 5.3m to 9.6m 2 One lane of class 70R or two lanes
of class A
3 From 9.6m to 13.1m 3 One lane of class 70R for every
two lanes with one lane of class A
on the remaining lane or 3 lanes
of class A.
4 From 13.1m to 16.6m 4 One lane of class 70R for every
two lanes with one lane of class A
5 From 16.6m to 20.1m 5
for remaining lanes, if any, or one
6 from 20.1m to 23.6m 6 lane of class A for each lane.

## 3.4 Development of the Numerical Model

There are several different techniques that can be used to model historical data.
Polynomial or sinusoidal types (Arsoy 2000; Hallmark 2000; Dicleli et al. 2003)
of models can be fit to historical data. However, sinusoidal models are more
common because of their cyclic nature and the fact that they can easily be fit to
the extreme values of load. The extreme values have a much more pronounced
effect than the other parameters in the model.
In this study, a FE model of the superstructure and substructure of the integral
bridge has been generated. It is important to model a three dimensional (3D)
bridge so that the state of stress can be determined as well as the location of
maximum stress or strain and their amplitude. Some commercial software or
programming languages can be used to model and further to analyze the
designed FE model. In order to determine the fatigue life, it is essential for
modeling of the nonlinear and plastic behavior of the materials. Most of the
bridges are constructed with steel and concrete.so, it is typically sensible to
include only the inelastic performance of the steel because in concrete, plastic
deformation is typically insignificant compared to steel. Loads such as transient
loads are modeled according to IRC standards, using a mathematical model,
FE modeling. For complete modeling of bridge superstructure and substructure,
more than hundreds of thousands of elements are required to be modeled and
model having millions of degrees of freedom.

## Fig 7 Model developed in ANSYS 17.1

3.5 Meshing
One of the most important steps in FE modeling is meshing. The elemental type
that are considered for meshing depends on various factors like, material type

## The main goal of accompanying FE modeling is to determine the stress

distribution and strain distribution, history of the entire model and further stress
and strain history are used to determine fatigue life.

As stated previously, for study an integral bridge of 156.2 meters long and
having 6 piers of 1m thick are taken. Further, length of long mid span is varied
to 45m, 50m, 55m, 60m, 65m and 70m. The deck is fabricated over 4 main
girder.

## 3.6 Extraction of Stress and Strain History from Finite-Element Model

Finite element modeling is done using ANSYS 17.1. In most of the cases the
material is experiencing a 3D state of stress. So, a yield criterion like von-Mises
(1996) or Tresca (1864) is required to be determined in order to determine the
state of deformation weather it is elastic or plastic. Either stress, strain, or
energy-based fatigue model is used for determining the fatigue life of integral
bridge depending upon the state of deformation. Typically, bridge substructure
consists of many elements so to determine the fatigue life, it is required to be
identified the section of the bridge deck in which largest amount of energy
released in one cycle of loading or that experiences the largest amount of cyclic
stress or strain amplitude. These values of stress amplitude, strain amplitude
or strain energy released over one cycle of load is used to evaluate fatigue life
of the fatigue model.

3.6.1Fatigue-Damage Model

## In the most of the cases, fatigue behavior of material is governed by two

regimes, low- and high-cycle fatigue. It has been seen that low-cycle fatigue will
occurs where the cyclic-deformations are large and material shows
predominantly inelastic deformation like plastic or creep. In the high cycle
fatigue the cyclic-deformations are small enough that is predominately elastic
deformation. Thus, an appropriate type of fatigue model is required to be
selected according to the type of deformation. There are many different types
of fatigue-damage models that are used for fatigue analysis but most of them
are divided into three basic damage models of stress, strain, and energy-based
approach. Stress based fatigue modeling is oldest method for fatigue life
prediction (Frear et al. 1991), In stress based fatigue model, the fatigue life is
represented as function of a strength. Basquin (1910) proposed the equation
below:

a f , (2 N f )b

where
a stress amplitude;
f , fatigue strength coeffcient ,
N f number of cycles to failure, and
b fatigue strength exp onent.

In the different type of structure for low cycle fatigue calculation, strain-based
approach to fatigue modeling is most widely used because it uses plastic strain
amplitude. The strain based approach for fatigue life calculation has been used
in various researches for fatigue-life analysis of bridges and structures (Srinivas
et al. 2011; Schulz et al. 1998; Gea and Luo 2004). An integral abutment bridge
generally goes under cyclic loading and the strain is well-defined by the length
of the bridge and loading. If only plastic strain is taken into consideration, Coffin-
Manson shows a relation that correlates the number of cycles with plastic strain
and the function is called the Coffin-Manson relation (Coffin 1954; Manson
1965) and is as follows:

,f (2 N f )c
2

where
= plastic-strain amplitude,
,f = fatigue ductility coefficient, and
c = fatigue ductility exponent.

In order to obtain a general fatigue model based on total strain sometimes the
Basquin equation Coffin-Manson equation is combined with the Basquin
equation a as follows (Kilinski et al. 1991)

t f
'

(2 N f )b 'f (2 N f )c
2 E

where
t total strain amplitude,
'f fatigue strength coefficient,
'f fatigue ductility coefficient,
E Young's modulus,
N f number of cycles to failure, and
b and c = damage model constants.

The Coffin-Manson equation is very useful and it shows good relationship with
experimental result (Mander et al. 1994)
Practically there is no method that disunite plastic strain from total strain during
a typical test so Engelmaier (1983) Uses total strain rather than plastic strain
and proposed a new formula that is based on the Coffin-Manson equation
1
1 c

N f '
2 2 f

where
'f fatigue ductility coefficient,
N f mean cycles to failure,
total shear-strain amplitude, and
c fatigue ductility exponent.

Another fatigue models that are energy-based models are also used for fatigue
modeling (Lee et al. 2000)

For prediction failure caused by fatigue on the basis of hysteresis loops, energy-
based model may be used because cyclic hysteresis energy comprises of both
the stress and the strain hysteresis and is supposed to be a complete metric of
cyclic fatigue damage. One of the model that is commonly used is model of
Akay et al. (1997) and that is based on total energy which was proposed as

1
W k
N f total
W0

where
N f mean cycles to failure, and W0 and k fatigue coefficients.

on the basis of deformation type (i.e., elastic, plastic, or creep) fatigue life can
be calculated for a model.
Chapter 4
Analysis of bridge model
To determine the fatigue life, the values of stress, strain, or energy obtained
from the FE model are substituted the fatigue model. The average values of
stress, strain, or energy may be substituted depending on how the failure is
defined, in the critical section of deck over the elements across a section and
fatigue life can be calculated by using simply stress, strain, or energy in a
certain element.

## 4.1 Design Capture

A Cross section of the bridge is shown in
figure. Bridge consist of a 0.24 m
concrete slab that is supported by 4
rectangular girders of 1.8mX0.67m.

## Table 4 Model dimensions and properties

Length X 156.2 m 156. m
Length Y 1.0122 m 1. m

Properties
Volume 117.04 m 38.349 m 38.347 m
Mass 9.188e+005 kg 3.0104e+005 kg 3.0102e+005 kg
Centroid X 78. m
Centroid Y -0.9061 m 0.34495 m
Centroid Z 4.6739 m 6.5239 m 7.3472 m 0.15284 m
Moment of Inertia Ip1 1.2041e+005 kgm 28444 kgm
Moment of Inertia Ip2 1.8681e+009 kgm 6.169e+008 kgm
Moment of Inertia Ip3 1.8682e+009 kgm 6.1692e+008 kgm
Statistics
Nodes 536 716 738
Elements 44 84 105
Mesh Metric None

## 4.2 Finite-Element Modeling of Superstructure and Substructure

Three-dimensional nonlinear FE analysis is model is prepared by using ANSYS
17.1. The entire model was meshed using a quadratic or hexahedral element.
There are 102147 numbers of nodes and 35662 meshed elements.

.
Fig 10 Meshed top surface

consist of a combination of the design load as per as 70R load of tracked vehicle
or wheeled vehicle. A design load for wheeled vehicle load were used in this
analysis. two design vehicle was placed in each lane of the bridge to maximize
the moment on the piles. A large number of field investigation comprises of
considered positive on the fatigue life (Fleck et al. 1985)

## 4.3 Analysis procedure

For analyzing the fatigue performance of integral RC bridge, two vehicle of 100
ton moves from one end to other in both lanes. These types of small bridges
are usually constructed for city traffic so they travel between 40 km/h to 60
km/h. so as per above speed consideration of 40 km/h, To travel this 156 m
distance both vehicle will take 14.01s.
4.4 Reaction at supports
Maximum, minimum and resultant reactions are extracted from the model in
each of six supports.

## 4.4.1 Force Reaction at support 1

Table 5 : Reaction at support 1
Time [s] Force Reaction Force Reaction Force Force Reaction
(X) [N] (Y) [N] Reaction (Total) [N]
(Z) [N]
0.50143 -8.907e+005 1.5246e+006 -265.27 1.7657e+006
1.0029 -1.0447e+006 1.1133e+006 -155.66 1.5267e+006
1.5043 -7.8452e+005 6.0739e+005 -313.59 9.9216e+005
2.0057 -3.7302e+005 2.405e+005 17.434 4.4383e+005
2.5071 19819 4558.4 -115.41 20337
3.0086 2.0635e+005 -74651 138.77 2.1944e+005
3.51 2.0835e+005 -1.0137e+005 -205.57 2.317e+005
4.0114 85001 -62168 135.53 1.0531e+005
4.5129 -11659 -33261 62.415 35245
5.0143 -17357 -2540.6 223.49 17543
5.5157 70577 -8924.5 -145.09 71140
6.0171 1.1813e+005 -5050.6 -47.262 1.1824e+005
6.5186 91076 -3371. -197.72 91139
7.02 25381 8484.8 -60.06 26762
7.5214 -40984 12537 -126.29 42859
8.0229 -82498 17035 -12.071 84238
8.5243 -52193 8393.8 -55.528 52864
9.0257 22533 -2747.7 15.704 22700
9.5271 62399 -9871.3 -24.696 63175
10.029 39741 -6211.5 18.314 40224
10.53 -11602 944.14 3.9046 11641
11.031 -39485 5443.7 29.42 39859
11.533 -14592 1957.6 1.7359 14723
12.034 33770 -4786.2 -5.4506 34108
12.536 42471 -6044.7 -15.403 42899
13.037 3435.2 -454.22 3.4038 3465.1
13.539 -29635 4267. 10.331 29940
14.04 -20150 2883.1 7.378 20355

## Force Reaction (X)

2000000 Force Reaction (Y)
1800000 Force Reaction (Z)
1600000 Force Reaction (Total)
1400000
1200000
1000000
Force Reaction (N)

800000
600000
400000
200000
0
-200000
-400000
-600000
-800000
-1000000
-1200000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [s] (s)

## Fig 11 Force Reaction at support 1

Force reaction at support on is maximum in Y axis which is vertically downward,
This is due the vehicles are approaching towards bridge and reaction is
captures at support 1, which is the first support of bridge.
4.4.2 Force reaction at support 2
Table 6 Force reaction at support 2
Time [s] Force Reaction Force Reaction Force Force Reaction
2 (X) [N] 2 (Y) [N] Reaction 2 2 (Total) [N]
(Z) [N]
0.50143 6.7454e+005 3.7797e+005 450.6 7.7321e+005
1.0029 1.1484e+006 9.1353e+005 222.73 1.4674e+006
1.5043 1.2155e+006 1.4175e+006 266.47 1.8672e+006
2.0057 7.0359e+005 1.7746e+006 160.94 1.909e+006
2.5071 -2.9168e+005 1.8576e+006 -120.67 1.8804e+006
3.0086 -1.0922e+006 1.6972e+006 -188.94 2.0182e+006
3.51 -1.4089e+006 1.317e+006 -8.6825 1.9286e+006
4.0114 -1.2264e+006 8.6102e+005 -86.268 1.4985e+006
4.5129 -7.9808e+005 4.157e+005 -346.3 8.9986e+005
5.0143 -2.3391e+005 1.1053e+005 -194.73 2.5871e+005
5.5157 2.318e+005 -53987 147.54 2.3801e+005
6.0171 4.7071e+005 -1.1709e+005 234.39 4.8505e+005
6.5186 4.5962e+005 -1.4619e+005 177.64 4.8231e+005
7.02 3.1594e+005 -1.3166e+005 231.87 3.4227e+005
7.5214 1.1143e+005 -97232 238.9 1.4789e+005
8.0229 -51090 -52742 285.59 73431
8.5243 -63605 -18985 166.18 66378
9.0257 44780 -429.73 20.462 44782
9.5271 1.0621e+005 6827.7 -64.533 1.0643e+005
10.029 59138 8514.8 -55.537 59748
10.53 -36816 7492.3 -79.454 37571
11.031 -84563 4034.2 -74.842 84660
11.533 -30312 1390.8 -41.835 30344
12.034 66103 -971.34 23.336 66110
12.536 83804 -938.73 27.242 83809
13.037 7214.5 -783.61 8.9394 7256.9
13.539 -57435 265.17 -9.0349 57436
14.04 -39344 65.655 -2.8557 39344

## Force Reaction 2 (X)

Force Reaction 2 (Y)
2000000 Force Reaction 2 (Z)
Force Reaction 2 (Total)
1500000

1000000
Force Reaction (N)

500000

-500000

-1000000

-1500000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [s] (s)

## Fig 12 Force reaction at support 2

4.4.3 Force Reaction at support 3
Table 7 Force reaction at support 3
Time [s] Force Reaction Force Reaction Force Force Reaction
3 (X) [N] 3 (Y) [N] Reaction 3 3 (Total) [N]
(Z) [N]
0.50143 50210 -21248 -224.4 54521
1.0029 -1.0676e+005 -58100 -90.582 1.2155e+005
1.5043 -2.4675e+005 -73417 -102.21 2.5744e+005
2.0057 -1.6649e+005 -41845 -121.19 1.7167e+005
2.5071 2.0055e+005 88915 233.44 2.1938e+005
3.0086 7.3246e+005 3.6652e+005 356.99 8.1904e+005
3.51 1.2093e+006 7.746e+005 277.6 1.4361e+006
4.0114 1.4407e+006 1.2266e+006 211.53 1.8922e+006
4.5129 1.1964e+006 1.6181e+006 343.25 2.0123e+006
5.0143 3.6941e+005 1.858e+006 152.24 1.8943e+006
5.5157 -7.6725e+005 1.8987e+006 -78.39 2.0478e+006
6.0171 -1.5737e+006 1.7542e+006 -53.659 2.3566e+006
6.5186 -1.8287e+006 1.4726e+006 31.14 2.3479e+006
7.02 -1.7165e+006 1.1067e+006 -97.764 2.0424e+006
7.5214 -1.3547e+006 7.1906e+005 -284.31 1.5337e+006
8.0229 -8.6695e+005 3.678e+005 -436.82 9.4174e+005
8.5243 -3.583e+005 1.2558e+005 -283.33 3.7967e+005
9.0257 45776 1763.3 56.772 45810
9.5271 2.2495e+005 -43636 170.85 2.2915e+005
10.029 1.9922e+005 -56664 113.78 2.0712e+005
10.53 65280 -45680 124.3 79675
11.031 -35655 -26536 187.51 44446
11.533 -18843 -6604.4 106.13 19967
12.034 65981 3954.4 -24.146 66100
12.536 80207 6778. -44.63 80493
13.037 -2618.5 4406. -11.27 5125.4
13.539 -67580 659.01 -32.091 67583
14.04 -43985 -543.19 -33.34 43989

## Force Reaction 3 (X)

Force Reaction 3 (Y)
Force Reaction 3 (Z)
2500000
Force Reaction 3 (Total)
2000000

1500000

1000000
Force Reaction (N)

500000

-500000

-1000000

-1500000

-2000000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## Fig 13 Force reaction at support 3

4.4.5 Force Reaction at support 4
Table 8 Force Reaction at support 4
Time [s] Force Reaction Force Reaction Force Force Reaction
4 (X) [N] 4 (Y) [N] Reaction 4 4 (Total) [N]
(Z) [N]
0.50143 71696 472.2 41.851 71697
1.0029 10637 4351. 77.949 11493
1.5043 -75990 6434.5 125.66 76262
2.0057 -61114 4103. 59.639 61252
2.5071 17441 -6834.1 -134.63 18732
3.0086 38873 -25938 -315.3 46733
3.51 -66219 -46022 -299.72 80642
4.0114 -1.9616e+005 -56005 -277.06 2.0399e+005
4.5129 -2.2722e+005 -44562 -240.34 2.3154e+005
5.0143 -44790 2808. -91.333 44878
5.5157 3.5556e+005 1.2681e+005 128.79 3.775e+005
6.0171 8.7081e+005 3.7174e+005 140.53 9.4683e+005
6.5186 1.3611e+006 7.2299e+005 100.53 1.5412e+006
7.02 1.7314e+006 1.1112e+006 207.19 2.0573e+006
7.5214 1.8457e+006 1.4769e+006 385.35 2.3638e+006
8.0229 1.5975e+006 1.757e+006 538.21 2.3746e+006
8.5243 7.8297e+005 1.9015e+006 317.04 2.0564e+006
9.0257 -3.6191e+005 1.8583e+006 -236.89 1.8932e+006
9.5271 -1.1981e+006 1.6213e+006 -469.99 2.016e+006
10.029 -1.4428e+006 1.229e+006 -328.45 1.8953e+006
10.53 -1.2138e+006 7.7831e+005 -292.61 1.4419e+006
11.031 -7.348e+005 3.687e+005 -354.15 8.2212e+005
11.533 -2.0266e+005 90164 -177.35 2.2181e+005
12.034 1.7109e+005 -41752 14.223 1.7611e+005
12.536 2.5562e+005 -74316 -112.95 2.662e+005
13.037 1.1756e+005 -58764 -280.64 1.3143e+005
13.539 -42481 -22441 57.309 48044
14.04 -54994 -789.84 251.27 55000

## Force Reaction 4 (X)

Force Reaction 4 (Y)
2500000 Force Reaction 4 (Z)
Force Reaction 4 (Total)
2000000

1500000
Force Reaction (N)

1000000

500000

-500000

-1000000

-1500000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## Fig 14 Force Reaction at support 4

4.4.6 Force Reaction at support 5
Table 9 Force Reaction at support 5

## Time [s] Force Reaction Force Reaction Force Force Reaction

5 (X) [N] 5 (Y) [N] Reaction 5 5 (Total) [N]
(Z) [N]
0.50143 61131 177.29 4.6434 61131
1.0029 243.38 -536.86 -40.604 590.85
1.5043 -79930 -1190.5 -66. 79939
2.0057 -61485 -735.47 -48.069 61489
2.5071 28817 1135.5 59.054 28839
3.0086 87125 4329.6 142.97 87233
3.51 36115 7276.3 173.04 36841
4.0114 -56237 8637.6 141.65 56896
4.5129 -1.069e+005 6707.6 96.531 1.0712e+005
5.0143 -44924 -558.12 -15.586 44928
5.5157 55976 -19082 -184.64 59140
6.0171 43194 -53710 -311.28 68924
6.5186 -1.2296e+005 -97378 -371.78 1.5685e+005
7.02 -3.2336e+005 -1.3371e+005 -467.76 3.4991e+005
7.5214 -4.7036e+005 -1.4566e+005 -550.15 4.924e+005
8.0229 -4.752e+005 -1.1988e+005 -566.43 4.9009e+005
8.5243 -2.405e+005 -51932 -293.14 2.4605e+005
9.0257 2.3518e+005 1.0596e+005 310.53 2.5795e+005
9.5271 7.8907e+005 4.1629e+005 567.05 8.9214e+005
10.029 1.229e+006 8.5321e+005 330.29 1.4961e+006
10.53 1.3965e+006 1.318e+006 179.67 1.9203e+006
11.031 1.0997e+006 1.6898e+006 206.69 2.0161e+006
11.533 2.8233e+005 1.863e+006 80.463 1.8843e+006
12.034 -6.9737e+005 1.7732e+006 -80.213 1.9054e+006
12.536 -1.2341e+006 1.4295e+006 230.11 1.8885e+006
13.037 -1.1488e+006 9.1839e+005 653.33 1.4708e+006
13.539 -6.8418e+005 3.8649e+005 160.58 7.858e+005
14.04 -1.8954e+005 64123 -321.49 2.001e+005
Force Reaction 5 (X)
Force Reaction 5 (Y)
2000000
Force Reaction 5 (Z)
Force Reaction 5 (Total)

1500000

1000000
Force Reaction (N)

500000

-500000

-1000000

-1500000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## 4.4.7 Force Reaction at support 6

Tabe 10 Force Reaction at support 6

## Time [s] Force Reaction Force Reaction Force Force Reaction

6 (X) [N] 6 (Y) [N] Reaction 6 6 (Total) [N]
(Z) [N]
0.50143 31069 4492.4 -3.3769 31392
1.0029 539.07 66.242 12.961 543.28
1.5043 -40242 -5658.2 10.105 40638
2.0057 -30862 -4475.1 16.591 31184
2.5071 13486 1931.7 -14.375 13623
3.0086 40541 5438.9 -22.03 40904
3.51 11029 1075.9 -39.906 11081
4.0114 -37754 -6214.8 -26.12 38262
4.5129 -62009 -9456.1 -19.911 62726
5.0143 -22532 -3252.6 9.763 22766
5.5157 48416 8566.2 55.879 49168
6.0171 77232 15456 123.89 78764
6.5186 36148 13089 188.88 38445
7.02 -30036 6411.5 250.46 30714
7.5214 -93266 -1724.2 279.5 93283
8.0229 -1.2161e+005 -7859. 232.62 1.2187e+005
8.5243 -70529 -5988.4 98.123 70782
9.0257 15247 -6233.3 -125.38 16472
9.5271 16717 -28200 -196.46 32783
10.029 -84104 -66757 -55.849 1.0738e+005
10.53 -1.995e+005 -94727 46.333 2.2084e+005
11.031 -2.0715e+005 -81059 8.2391 2.2244e+005
11.533 -15885 10520 16.064 19053
12.034 3.6067e+005 2.2968e+005 78.903 4.2759e+005
12.536 7.7447e+005 6.0751e+005 -74.785 9.8431e+005
13.037 1.022e+006 1.1005e+006 -363.59 1.5019e+006
13.539 8.8093e+005 1.5225e+006 -175.44 1.759e+006
14.04 3.4662e+005 9.1315e+005 48.343 9.7672e+005

## Force Reaction 6 (X)

Force Reaction 6 (Y)
1800000 Force Reaction 6 (Z)
Force Reaction 6 (Total)
1600000

1400000

1200000
Force Reaction (N)

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

-200000

-400000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## 4.4.8 Moment Reaction in supports

Moment Reaction at support 1
Table 11 Moment Reaction at support 1
Time [s] Moment Moment Moment Reaction Moment Reaction
Reaction (X) Reaction (Y) (Z) [Nm] (Total) [Nm]
[Nm] [Nm]
0.50143 -4351. 4100.5 8.0623e+005 8.0625e+005
1.0029 -9617. 5822.3 1.076e+006 1.0761e+006
1.5043 -7481.8 5180.1 9.9198e+005 9.9202e+005
2.0057 -1794.5 2702.5 5.3768e+005 5.3769e+005
2.5071 -1015.2 -485.2 -92213 92219
3.0086 -243.38 -2307.3 -4.5105e+005 4.5106e+005
3.51 -1652.5 -2325.2 -3.8554e+005 3.8555e+005
4.0114 -468.26 -1161.8 -77532 77542
4.5129 -639.36 -116.05 1.4546e+005 1.4546e+005
5.0143 557.1 93.707 73550 73552
5.5157 140.72 -482.94 -2.192e+005 2.192e+005
6.0171 1020.3 -836.55 -3.8921e+005 3.8921e+005
6.5186 263.58 -619.32 -3.0928e+005 3.0928e+005
7.02 169.8 -169.02 -1.1717e+005 1.1717e+005
7.5214 -706.44 308.42 93855 93858
8.0229 -725.99 585.69 2.2631e+005 2.2631e+005
8.5243 -649.76 377.4 1.4933e+005 1.4933e+005
9.0257 245.86 -161.72 -67378 67379
9.5271 456.28 -436.79 -1.8202e+005 1.8202e+005
10.029 403.22 -288.3 -1.1501e+005 1.1501e+005
10.53 -85.406 73.567 36599 36599
11.031 -240.53 267.32 1.1805e+005 1.1806e+005
11.533 -113.58 105.27 43546 43546
12.034 273.74 -227.33 -99833 99833
12.536 323.31 -276.72 -1.257e+005 1.257e+005
13.037 51.663 9.9647e-002 -9784.2 9784.4
13.539 -208.51 224.3 87948 87949
14.04 -147.55 144.01 59808 59808
Moment Reaction (X)
Moment Reaction (Y)
1200000
Moment Reaction (Z)
Moment Reaction (Total)
1000000

800000
Moment reaction (Nm)

600000

400000

200000

-200000

-400000

-600000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## Fig 17 Moment Reaction at support 1

4.4.9 Moment Reaction at support 2
Table 12 Moment Reaction at support 2
Time [s] Moment Moment Moment Moment
Reaction 2 Reaction 2 Reaction 2 (Z) Reaction 2
(X) [Nm] (Y) [Nm] [Nm] (Total) [Nm]
0.50143 3350.6 -6298.5 -9.4874e+005 9.4877e+005
1.0029 7067. -12062 -1.3514e+006 1.3514e+006
1.5043 4710.4 -10309 -1.2425e+006 1.2425e+006
2.0057 1794.4 -4378.7 -6.7898e+005 6.7899e+005
2.5071 3083.6 154.88 2.7677e+005 2.7679e+005
3.0086 6127.2 1799.8 1.0585e+006 1.0585e+006
3.51 7217.8 2791.8 1.4934e+006 1.4934e+006
4.0114 6693.5 3156.3 1.4565e+006 1.4565e+006
4.5129 5184.8 2860.7 1.0777e+006 1.0778e+006
5.0143 2323.6 1011.3 3.3295e+005 3.3296e+005
5.5157 -1166.2 -1003.9 -4.2629e+005 4.263e+005
6.0171 -3223. -2183.4 -8.3382e+005 8.3383e+005
6.5186 -3679.7 -2141.3 -7.6632e+005 7.6633e+005
7.02 -2577.6 -1549.7 -4.6679e+005 4.668e+005
7.5214 -982.33 -639.52 -76851 76860
8.0229 561.36 94.949 2.0831e+005 2.0831e+005
8.5243 699.95 227.55 1.7498e+005 1.7498e+005
9.0257 -156.31 -171.61 -98965 98965
9.5271 -633.57 -399.47 -2.4836e+005 2.4836e+005
10.029 -394.5 -215.51 -1.4722e+005 1.4722e+005
10.53 -52.131 143.71 69156 69156
11.031 94.097 320.06 1.8059e+005 1.8059e+005
11.533 -24.47 112.71 65567 65567
12.034 -224.38 -244.47 -1.4594e+005 1.4594e+005
12.536 -279.48 -310.58 -1.8445e+005 1.8445e+005
13.037 -29.704 -11.965 -14999 14999
13.539 216. 230.35 1.278e+005 1.2781e+005
14.04 161.56 154.89 87221 87221

## Moment Reaction 2 (X)

Moment Reaction 2 (Y)
Moment Reaction 2 (Z)
1500000 Moment Reaction 2 (Total)

1000000
Moment Reaction (Nm)

500000

-500000

-1000000

-1500000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## Fig 18 Moment Reaction at support 2

4.4.10 Moment Reaction at support 3
Table 13 Moment Reaction at support 3
Time [s] Moment Moment Moment Moment
Reaction 3 Reaction 3 Reaction 3 (Z) Reaction 3
(X) [Nm] (Y) [Nm] [Nm] (Total) [Nm]
0.50143 642.12 -256.31 -1.7465e+005 1.7465e+005
1.0029 2786.6 -174.95 1.2207e+005 1.221e+005
1.5043 2574.9 162.18 4.338e+005 4.3381e+005
2.0057 658.1 259.63 3.089e+005 3.089e+005
2.5071 -2513.9 -19.016 -2.8431e+005 2.8432e+005
3.0086 -5920.4 -651.26 -1.0001e+006 1.0001e+006
3.51 -7261.8 -1349. -1.452e+006 1.452e+006
4.0114 -7038.9 -757.26 -1.5505e+006 1.5505e+006
4.5129 -5335.5 1203.6 -1.1889e+006 1.1889e+006
5.0143 -1326.2 3328.4 -3.611e+005 3.6112e+005
5.5157 5042.2 6229.5 7.0857e+005 7.0861e+005
6.0171 9611.8 8949. 1.4872e+006 1.4872e+006
6.5186 10649 8585. 1.8265e+006 1.8265e+006
7.02 9530.3 7181.7 1.8509e+006 1.851e+006
7.5214 7044.1 5204.6 1.6195e+006 1.6195e+006
8.0229 4906.9 3258.2 1.1794e+006 1.1794e+006
8.5243 2582.1 1403.7 5.3627e+005 5.3628e+005
9.0257 536.59 -34.839 -1.1103e+005 1.1103e+005
9.5271 -510.15 -669.07 -4.1387e+005 4.1387e+005
10.029 -894.84 -667.65 -3.2607e+005 3.2607e+005
10.53 -448.13 -302.75 -41551 41554
11.031 288.65 26.61 1.4403e+005 1.4403e+005
11.533 331.9 50.441 59588 59589
12.034 -52.609 -135.58 -1.621e+005 1.621e+005
12.536 -84.549 -171.61 -2.0083e+005 2.0083e+005
13.037 18.443 -9.9769 -5292.8 5292.8
13.539 -130. 115.4 1.5386e+005 1.5386e+005
14.04 -158.45 73.466 1.0232e+005 1.0232e+005

## Moment Reaction (X)

Moment Reaction (Y)
Moment Reaction (Z)
2000000 Moment Reaction (Total)

1500000

1000000
Force Reaction (Nm)

500000

-500000

-1000000

-1500000

-2000000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## 4.4.11 Moment Reaction at support 4

Table 14 Moment Reaction at support 4
Time [s] Moment Moment Moment Moment
Reaction 4 Reaction 4 Reaction 4 (Z) Reaction 4
(X) [Nm] (Y) [Nm] [Nm] (Total) [Nm]
0.50143 178.97 -143.87 -1.6337e+005 1.6337e+005
1.0029 127.26 -13.582 -13755 13756
1.5043 174.22 155.18 1.9091e+005 1.9091e+005
2.0057 48.225 126.51 1.5043e+005 1.5043e+005
2.5071 -239.58 7.7858 -56021 56022
3.0086 -67.596 -34.705 -1.5113e+005 1.5113e+005
3.51 853.76 131.47 43589 43598
4.0114 1199.2 387.98 3.1879e+005 3.1879e+005
4.5129 562.6 509.25 4.175e+005 4.175e+005
5.0143 -1127.9 232.31 1.101e+005 1.101e+005
5.5157 -4696.1 -468.3 -5.2421e+005 5.2423e+005
6.0171 -8688.8 -1795.8 -1.1748e+006 1.1748e+006
6.5186 -10309 -3666. -1.6154e+006 1.6155e+006
7.02 -10582 -5244.9 -1.861e+006 1.861e+006
7.5214 -9328.5 -5766.5 -1.8383e+006 1.8383e+006
8.0229 -7048.8 -3039.8 -1.5123e+006 1.5123e+006
8.5243 -3390.3 92.495 -7.2238e+005 7.2239e+005
9.0257 997.43 903.36 3.5116e+005 3.5116e+005
9.5271 3966.7 1073.9 1.1921e+006 1.1921e+006
10.029 4829.3 1471.8 1.5481e+006 1.5481e+006
10.53 4946. 1750.9 1.4577e+006 1.4577e+006
11.031 4491.8 1475.5 9.986e+005 9.9861e+005
11.533 2333.2 602.33 2.8872e+005 2.8873e+005
12.034 -792.84 -313.57 -3.2223e+005 3.2223e+005
12.536 -2677.7 -662.55 -4.5213e+005 4.5214e+005
13.037 -3110.4 -527.09 -1.481e+005 1.4813e+005
13.539 -802.14 -103.28 1.5878e+005 1.5878e+005
14.04 922.34 128.44 1.3813e+005 1.3813e+005

## Moment Reaction 4 (X)

Moment Reaction 4 (Y)
Moment Reaction 4 (Z)
2000000
Moment Reaction 4 (Total)
1500000

1000000
Moment Reaction(Nm)

500000

-500000

-1000000

-1500000

-2000000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## Fig 20 Moment Reaction at support 4

4.4.12 Moment Reaction at support 5
Table 15 Moment Reaction at support 5
Time [s] Moment Moment Moment Moment
Reaction 5 Reaction 5 Reaction 5 (Z) Reaction 5
(X) [Nm] (Y) [Nm] [Nm] (Total) [Nm]
0.50143 -279.66 -86.529 -1.3597e+005 1.3597e+005
1.0029 -204.69 22.235 -1717.3 1729.6
1.5043 52.943 150.66 1.7626e+005 1.7626e+005
2.0057 62.276 111.11 1.3555e+005 1.3555e+005
2.5071 90.947 -54.737 -62036 62036
3.0086 123.48 -170.14 -1.8675e+005 1.8675e+005
3.51 364.94 -97.467 -67427 67428
4.0114 583.88 51.553 1.4061e+005 1.4061e+005
4.5129 668.02 143.03 2.5035e+005 2.5035e+005
5.0143 170.67 72.115 99131 99131
5.5157 -353.16 -50.608 -1.5867e+005 1.5867e+005
6.0171 310.41 -17.223 -1.9177e+005 1.9177e+005
6.5186 2149.7 235.63 1.0096e+005 1.0098e+005
7.02 3815.9 535.74 4.8292e+005 4.8294e+005
7.5214 4654.8 729.55 7.8881e+005 7.8883e+005
8.0229 3796.2 720.79 8.4482e+005 8.4483e+005
8.5243 1448.8 385.37 4.4351e+005 4.4351e+005
9.0257 -1789.1 -654.63 -3.3639e+005 3.364e+005
9.5271 -4998.1 -2855.9 -1.0678e+006 1.0678e+006
10.029 -6830.3 -5869.2 -1.4655e+006 1.4655e+006
10.53 -7563.6 -6639.3 -1.4777e+006 1.4777e+006
11.031 -6665.4 -3833.1 -1.0704e+006 1.0704e+006
11.533 -3753.1 -1469.4 -2.6268e+005 2.6271e+005
12.034 -1307.2 -3143.9 6.6443e+005 6.6443e+005
12.536 -1570.8 -5386.4 1.2566e+006 1.2566e+006
13.037 -2004.3 -4484.3 1.3373e+006 1.3373e+006
13.539 866.23 -1638.6 9.5196e+005 9.5196e+005
14.04 2324.9 173.36 3.2335e+005 3.2336e+005
Moment Reaction 4 (X)
Moment Reaction 4 (Y)
Moment Reaction 4 (Z)
1500000 Moment Reaction 4 (Total)

1000000
Moment Reaction (Nm)

500000

-500000

-1000000

-1500000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## Fig 21 Moment Reaction at support 5

So, from the above reference, total force reaction is calculated in each supports
and moment reaction at each support is extracted and tabulated below
Table 16 force reactions and moment extracted for modeling
Ob
Mome Mome Mome Mome Mome
jec Force Force Force Force Force Force
nt nt nt nt nt
t Reacti Reacti Reacti Reacti Reacti Reacti
Reacti Reacti Reacti Reacti Reacti
Na on on 2 on 3 on 4 on 5 on 6
on on 2 on 3 on 4 on 5
me
Results
-
X - - - - 3.4662 - -
1.8954 161.56 922.34 2324.9
Axi 20150 39344 43985 54994 e+005 147.55 158.45
e+005 Nm Nm Nm
s N N N N N Nm Nm
N
Y - - 9.1315
2883.1 65.655 64123 144.01 154.89 73.466 128.44 173.36
Axi 543.19 789.84 e+005
N N N Nm Nm Nm Nm Nm
s N N N
Z - - 1.0232 1.3813 3.2335
7.378 -33.34 251.27 48.343 59808 87221
Axi 2.8557 321.49 e+005 e+005 e+005
N N N N Nm Nm
s N N Nm Nm Nm
2.001e 9.7672 1.0232 1.3813 3.2336
Tot 20355 39344 43989 55000 59808 87221
+005 e+005 e+005 e+005 e+005
al N N N N Nm Nm
N N Nm Nm Nm
Maximum Value Over Time
X 2.0835 1.2155 1.4407 1.8457 1.3965 1.022e
1020.3 7217.8 10649 4946. 4654.8
Axi e+005 e+006 e+006 e+006 e+006 +006
Nm Nm Nm Nm Nm
s N N N N N N
Y 1.5246 1.8576 1.8987 1.9015 1.863e 1.5225
5822.3 3156.3 8949. 1750.9 729.55
Axi e+006 e+006 e+006 e+006 +006 e+006
Nm Nm Nm Nm Nm
s N N N N N N
Z 1.076e 1.4934 1.8509 1.5481 1.3373
223.49 450.6 356.99 538.21 653.33 279.5
Axi +006 e+006 e+006 e+006 e+006
N N N N N N
s Nm Nm Nm Nm Nm
1.7657 2.0182 2.3566 2.3746 2.0161 1.759e 1.0761 1.4934 1.851e 1.861e 1.4777
Tot
e+006 e+006 e+006 e+006 e+006 +006 e+006 e+006 +006 +006 e+006
al
N N N N N N Nm Nm Nm Nm Nm
Minimum Value Over Time
- - - - - -
X - - - -
1.0447 1.4089 1.8287 1.4428 1.2341 2.0715 -9617.
Axi 3679.7 7261.8 10582 7563.6
e+006 e+006 e+006 e+006 e+006 e+005 Nm
s Nm Nm Nm Nm
N N N N N N
- - -
Y - - - - - - -
1.0137 1.4619 1.4566 -1349.
Axi 73417 74316 94727 2325.2 12062 5766.5 6639.3
e+005 e+005 e+005 Nm
s N N N Nm Nm Nm Nm
N N N
- - - - -
Z - - - - -
-346.3 4.5105 1.3514 1.5505 1.861e 1.4777
Axi 313.59 436.82 469.99 566.43 363.59
N e+005 e+006 e+006 +006 e+006
s N N N N N
Nm Nm Nm Nm Nm
Tot 3465.1 7256.9 5125.4 11493 590.85 543.28 9784.4 14999 5292.8 13756 1729.6
al N N N N N N Nm Nm Nm Nm Nm
Information
Ti
14.04 s
me

4.5 Deformation

## Fig 22 Total Deformation

From FEM model, Maximum deflection will occur at the mid of bridge as shown
in above figure and values are tabulated below. Maximum deformation will
occur at mid position of bridge.

## Table 17 Deformation data

Time [s] Deformation Probe (X) [m]
0.50143 3.7604e-005
1.0029 1.1641e-004
1.5043 1.5278e-004
2.0057 9.3709e-005
2.5071 1.5015e-005
3.0086 5.8844e-005
3.51 1.3735e-004
4.0114 1.8959e-004
4.5129 1.5936e-004
5.0143 5.5085e-005
5.5157 3.4964e-005
6.0171 1.1386e-004
6.5186 2.333e-004
7.02 3.2769e-004
7.5214 3.3724e-004
8.0229 2.6634e-004
8.5243 1.2012e-004
9.0257 1.677e-005
9.5271 6.8519e-005
10.029 1.4576e-004
10.53 1.8084e-004
11.031 1.4253e-004
11.533 4.8933e-005
12.034 3.5971e-005
12.536 9.7351e-005
13.037 1.4355e-004
13.539 1.2065e-004
14.04 4.5173e-005
Deformation (X)

0.00035

0.00030

0.00025
Deformation (X) (m)

0.00020

0.00015

0.00010

0.00005

0.00000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [s] (s)

## Fig 23 Deformation occurrence at bridge

The von-Mises yield criterion can be represented typically in terms of the
equivalent stress or von-Mises stress eq , and it can be computed from:

1
eq ( xx yy )2 ( yy zz ) 2 ( xx zz ) 2 6( yz2 xz2 xy2 )
2

Where,
xx , yy and zz are normal-stress;
xy , xz and xy are shear stress.

## represented in terms of principal stresses as follows:

1
eq ( 1 2 ) 2 ( 2 3 ) 2 ( 1 3 ) 2
2
Where,
1 , 2 and 3 principal stresses.
when the von-Mises stress eq reaches up to a critical value material starts

yielding and deform plastically and this stress is termed as yield strength .

## Similarly, for equivalent strain can be represented in general form as,

1 3
eq ( xx yy )2 ( zz xx )2 ( xx zz ) 2 ( xy2 yz2 xz2 )
2(1 ) 2

Where,
=Poissons ratio ;
xx , yy , and zz are normal-strain and
yz , xz , and xy are shear-strain.

## Simarlily, the above equation of equivalent can be written in terms of

principal-strain components ,

1
eq (1 2 ) 2 ( 3 1 ) 2 ( 2 3 ) 2
2(1 )

Where
1 , 2 , and 3 are principal strains

## 4.6 Strain at mid-span of longer span

Table 18 Equivalent strain
Time [s] Equivalent strain [m/m]
0.50143 1.5367e-005
1.0029 2.5321e-005
1.5043 2.5543e-005
2.0057 1.237e-005
2.5071 6.6821e-006
3.0086 2.1025e-005
3.51 2.6379e-005
4.0114 3.0055e-005
4.5129 2.1023e-005
5.0143 6.7231e-006
5.5157 1.3175e-005
6.0171 2.9279e-005
6.5186 4.2972e-005
7.02 4.2172e-005
7.5214 4.2825e-005
8.0229 2.8185e-005
8.5243 1.2656e-005
9.0257 6.6835e-006
9.5271 2.1137e-005
10.029 3.039e-005
10.53 2.5916e-005
11.031 2.0752e-005
11.533 6.586e-006
12.034 1.2221e-005
12.536 2.587e-005
13.037 2.5615e-005
13.539 1.5421e-005
14.04 5.152e-006
Equivalent strain
0.000045

0.000040

0.000035
Equivalent strain (m/m)

0.000030

0.000025

0.000020

0.000015

0.000010

0.000005

0.000000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s)

## 4.7 Data execrated from Analysis of FEM model

Total deformation, Maximum principal strain, Minimum principal strain,
Maximum shear strain, Equivalent strain and data are extracted from FEM
model.
Table 19a Strain Data extracted
Maxi Mini Maxi Maxi Mini Maxi
mum mum mum Equiv mum mum mum Elas She
Directi Princ Prin Shea alent Princ Prin Shea tic ar
Total
onal ipal cipal r Elasti ipal cipal r Strai Elas
Type Defor
Defor Elast Elast Elast c Elast Elast Elast n tic
mation
mation ic ic ic Strai ic ic ic Inte Strai
Strai Strai Strai n Strai Strai Strai nsity n
n n n n n n
Results
- - - - -
- 8.10 6.550
2.15 5.18 2.15 5.18 4.66
Mini 3.436 82e- 2e- 8.1082e-
0. m 5e- 31e- 5e- 31e- 47e-
mum 4e- 010 010 010 m/m
009 006 009 006 006
003 m m/m m/m
m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m
3.37 2.04 6.83 3.37 2.04 1.88
5.867 3.443 5.152
Maxi 18e- 8e- 42e- 18e- 8e- 6.8342e- 34e-
5e- 6e- e-006
mum 006 008 006 006 008 006 m/m 006
003 m 003 m m/m
m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m
Minimum Value Over Time
- - - - -
- 8.47 6.378
2.87 4.30 2.87 4.30 2.22
Mini 3.436 4e- 7e- 8.474e-
0. m 64e- 07e- 64e- 07e- 84e-
mum 4e- 011 011 011 m/m
007 005 007 005 005
003 m m/m m/m
m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m
- - - - -
- 5.07 6.820
2.15 5.18 2.15 5.18 2.22
Maxi 4.050 76e- 2e- 5.0776e-
0. m 5e- 31e- 5e- 31e- 53e-
mum 7e- 009 009 009 m/m
009 006 009 006 006
004 m m/m m/m
m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m
Maximum Value Over Time
3.37 4.41 6.83 3.37 4.41 1.88
5.059 8.161 5.152
Mini 18e- 9e- 42e- 18e- 9e- 6.8342e- 34e-
5e- 5e- e-006
mum 006 011 006 006 011 006 m/m 006
004 m 005 m m/m
m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m
4.04 1.48 5.58 4.297 4.04 1.48 2.06
5.867 3.443
Maxi 58e- 02e- 95e- 2e- 58e- 02e- 5.5895e- 09e-
5e- 6e-
mum 005 007 005 005 005 007 005 m/m 005
003 m 003 m
m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m m/m

## Table 19b Extrated stress and strain

Vec
tor Equi Equi Equiv
Maxi Minim Nor
Prin vale vale alent Maxi
mum um Stres Norm mal
cip nt nt (von- mum Shear
Typ Princi Princi s al Ela
al Plas Tota Mises Shear Stres
e pal pal Intens Stres stic
Ela tic l ) Stres s
Stres Stres ity s Stra
stic Strai Strai Stres s
s s in
Str n n s
ain
Results
-
4.5
6.55 - - - -
Mini 192
0. 02e- 120.3 3.211 1.201 62.37 124.7 3.588 9.033
mu e-
m/m 010 Pa 3e+0 2e+0 1 Pa 4 Pa 3e+0 7e+0
m 006
m/m 05 Pa 06 Pa 05 Pa 05 Pa
m/
m
3.3
5.15 586
Max 1.029 7.167 2.086 5.257 1.051 1.448 7.143
0. 2e- e-
imu 9e+0 3e+0 e+00 1e+0 4e+0 8e+0 3e+0
m/m 006 006
m 06 Pa 05 Pa 5 Pa 05 Pa 06 Pa 05 Pa 05 Pa
m/m m/
m
Minimum Value Over Time
-
4.3
6.37 - - - -
Mini 007
0. 87e- 11.35 1.555 8.613 6.518 13.03 1.714 8.613
mu e-
m/m 011 1 Pa 3e+0 e+00 5 Pa 7 Pa 1e+0 e+00
m 005
m/m 06 Pa 6 Pa 06 Pa 6 Pa
m/
m
-
4.5
6.82 - - - -
Max 192
0. 02e- 700.1 3.211 1.201 390.5 781.1 1.711 9.033
imu e-
m/m 009 9 Pa 3e+0 2e+0 9 Pa 7 Pa 8e+0 7e+0
m 006
m/m 05 Pa 06 Pa 05 Pa 05 Pa
m/
m
Maximum Value Over Time
3.3
5.15 586
Mini 1.029 7.167 1.872 5.257 1.051 1.448 7.143
0. 2e- e-
mu 9e+0 3e+0 7e+0 1e+0 4e+0 8e+0 3e+0
m/m 006 006
m 06 Pa 05 Pa 05 Pa 05 Pa 06 Pa 05 Pa 05 Pa
m/m m/
m
4.0
4.29 458
Max 8.593 8.115 1.259 4.299 8.599 1.585 8.115
0. 72e- e-
imu 7e+0 3e+0 7e+0 6e+0 2e+0 3e+0 3e+0
m/m 005 005
m 06 Pa 06 Pa 06 Pa 06 Pa 06 Pa 06 Pa 06 Pa
m/m m/
m

## Table 20 Summary of result obtained

Maximum Principal stress 7.1673e+005 Pa
Equivalent (von-Mises) 1.0299e+006 Pa
Strain 1297.7 J
Maximum Value Over Time
Maximum Principal 8.1153e+006 Pa
Equivalent (von-Mises) 8.5937e+006 Pa
Strain 3657.8 J
Minimum Value Over Time
Maximum Principal 7.1673e+005 Pa
Equivalent (von-Mises) 1.0299e+006 Pa
Strain 222.23 J
Analysis Time and steps
Time 14.04 s
Substep 28
Iteration Number 73

## 4.8 Appropriate model for Fatigue Damage

There are various different types approaches that are used to forecast the
fatigue life of a bridge. There are many factors over which the type of used
approach depends, such as type of material used, types of deformation and
The fracture mechanics approach is also one of the approach that is
being used for fatigue life prediction. This technique is more appropriate for
modeling cracks where plasticity is negligible, like in brittle materials. Where
plasticity is not negligible and material suffers plastic deformation or distributed
damage, the fracture-mechanics approach becomes inappropriate technique
for modeling of damage and cracks. Because the integral bridge experience
plastic deformation and it experiences low-cycle fatigue,so a strain-based
model is used for fatigue modeling and fatigue life of integral bridge is
calculated using the formula given as (Mander et al. 1994; Koh and Stephens
1991):
Where,
a = strain amplitude in single cycle of load and
N f = number of cycles to before failure.

This model was projected by Koh and Stephens (1991) for determining
of the low-cycle fatigue life and the method was reconsidered (Mander et al.
1994) and correlated with experiments, it showed 98% correlation.

## Mostly, uniaxial test id used for fatigue modeling. It is unreasonable to

conduct a fatigue behavior of material in a 3D state of stress. Though, a 3D
state of stress in real situation is very common. Therefore, for calculation of
fatigue life an concept of equivalent stress and strain is developed (Stephens
and Fatemi 2001). The fatigue life will be computed by using equivalent strain
amplitude and the number of cycles to failure will be calculated using value of
eq . The principal-strain amplitudes can be used in placed of principal strain as

## follows (Stephens and Fatemi 2001):

1
eq ( a1 a 2 ) 2 ( a 3 a1 ) 2 ( a 2 a 3 ) 2
2(1 )

## is used in a 0.0795(2 N f )0.448 in order to calculate the number of cycles to

failure.

For prediction failure caused by fatigue on the basis of hysteresis loops, energy-
based model may be used because cyclic hysteresis energy comprises of both
the stress and the strain hysteresis and is supposed to be a complete metric of
cyclic fatigue damage. One of the model that is commonly used is model of
Akay et al. (1997) and that is based on total energy which was proposed as

1
W k
N f total
W0

where
N f mean cycles to failure, and W0 and k fatigue coefficients.
on the basis of deformation type (i.e., elastic, plastic, or creep) fatigue life can
be calculated for a model.
Table 21 Strain Energy
Time [s] Strain Energy [J]
0.50143 308.91
1.0029 796.84
1.5043 712.22
2.0057 327.31
2.5071 222.23
3.0086 641.17
3.51 1214.7
4.0114 1298.7
4.5129 847.91
5.0143 433.09
5.5157 609.11
6.0171 1603.1
6.5186 2955.8
7.02 3657.8
7.5214 3163.
8.0229 2011.7
8.5243 1149.3
9.0257 1014.5
9.5271 1492.3
10.029 2040.2
10.53 2043.
11.031 1565.5
11.533 1200.2
12.034 1333.4
12.536 1796.3
13.037 1939.1
13.539 1548.2
14.04 1297.7
strain Energy
4000

3500

3000

2500
strain Energy (Nm)

2000

1500

1000

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [s] (s)

Hysteresis curve

## Fig 25 Hysteresis curve

Table 22 Fatigue life result and validation

Total Maximum Equivalent Fatigue life in Fatigue life Fatigue life from
length Span(mid) strain number of cycles (in years) ANSYS 17.1
of Amplitude using (In years)
bridge a 0.0795(2 N f )0.448
156 40m 7.67E-04 1.58E+06 76 79.342
161 45m 8.88E-04 1.14E+06 63 63.964
166 50m 1.01E-03 8.58E+05 54.6 53.234
171 55m 1.13E-03 4.72E+05 43.14 42.234
176 60m 1.25E-03 3.23E+05 37.58 35.8974
181 65m 1.37E-03 2.47E+05 21.75 17.954
186 70m 1.49E-03 9.06E+04 15.24 12.134

Fatigue life was found to be about 76 years in a 156-m-long bridge, and the
fatigue life decreases to 15.24 years in a 186-m-long bridge.
CHAPTER 5
Summary and Conclusion
In this paper, a guideline for conducting fatigue-life analysis for integral bridge
is presented and for the demonstration of the analysis, a parametric study was
presented in which analysis of fatigue life was conducted for span in integral
bridge with different lengths. A variation for the length of the bridge is taken
between 156 and 186 m and the fatigue life was calculated and obtained using
a strain-based fatigue damage modeling. As expected, the fatigue life of bridge
will reduce exponent when the total strain amplitude increases due to increase
in the length of bridge.
Further, the behavior of integral bridge of 156m that was subjected to
transient loading of 70-R as per as IRC:6-2000 is studied. Total 18 types of
variation are considered in length of longer span and model is prepared in
ANSYS 17.1 design modeler.

Fatigue life was found to be about 76 years in a 156-m-long bridge, and the
fatigue life decreases to 15.24 years in a 186-m-long bridge. As the length of
span between two piers increases the fatigue life decreases.
Further Scope

## The study is purely based on the computer based simulation model. To

validate the working of this study, there is need of applying this on physical
model.

Further it this study can be extended for the other types of bridges like
steel box girder bridge, conventional stone bridge with a more longer span to
predict the fatigue life.

In this study, Integral bridge taken have only two lanes, this study can
further used for multilane bridge subjected to more adverse traffic condition.
The temperature variation due to seasonal and daily variation is not taken into
consideration, that is also an important factor and should be considered for
further progress of this project.