Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 1/13

1 Title Page:
2
3 Modeling & Load Rating of Two Bridges Designed with
4 AASHTO and Florida I-Beam Girders
5
6 F.N. Catbas, H. Darwash and M. Fadul
7
8
9 Dr. F. Necati Catbas, P.E.
10 Associate Professor & Associate Chair
11 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
12 University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816
13 Phone: 407-823-3743; Fax: 407-823-3315 ; e-mail: catbas@ucf.edu
14 (corresponding author)
15
16 Mr. Haider Darwash
17 Ph.D. Student and Research Assistant
18 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
19 University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816
20 Phone: 407-823-4122; Fax: 407-823-4553
21
22 Ms. Manar Fadul
23 Ph.D. Student and Research Assistant
24 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
25 University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816
26 Phone: 407-823-4122; Fax: 407-823-4553
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Word Count:
35 Abstract, Manuscript & References = 3,743
36 Figures and Tables (8+3) = 2,750
37 TOTAL = 6,493

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 2/13

1 ABSTRACT
2 Florida I-Beam (FIB) girders provide a number of advantages such as higher load
3 carrying capacity, more efficient fabrication, safer construction, increased lateral stiffness, larger
4 vertical clearance and reduction in the overall cost of bridges. A comparative study incorporating
5 two bridges, one with AASHTO Type III and the other with new Florida I-Beam (FIB) girders is
6 presented. The first bridge is a 3 span bridge designed with 6 AASHTO Type III girders. The
7 second bridge has the same length, width and girder depth; however, it has 4 FIB girders. Both
8 bridges are analyzed using the conventional AASHTO LRFD girder line analysis method and
9 also with a more sophisticated finite element method using a commercial software. The details of
10 the FE model are also presented with the critical considerations of link elements, boundary
11 conditions, pre-stressing tendons. Based on the FE model results, it is shown that it is possible to
12 expect 20% higher live load capacity for interior girders and 40% higher live load capacity for
13 exterior girders using FIB-45 girders compared to AASHTO Type III girders, while also
14 reducing the cost by about 24%.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

37
38

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 3/13

1 INTRODUCTION
2 Concrete bridges are commonly used in the US. Initially, short and single span bridge
3 superstructures were designed and constructed using concrete girders until the middle of the 20th
4 century when the pre-stressed bridge girders gained more acceptance and longer spans with pre-
5 stressed concrete bridges increased dramatically. Today, almost 50% of all the new bridges built
6 in the US are pre-stressed concrete bridges [1]. Prestressed concrete bridges are considered due
7 to their high strength and durability. Pre-stressed concrete girders perform well for longer spans
8 by the application of a tensile force to reinforcing tendons. This application increases the internal
9 compression in the concrete beam where the tension is anticipated under the given loading
10 conditions. The pre-stressing force can be applied before the concrete is poured (beam is
11 pretensioned) or after the concrete is cured (beam is post-tensioned). There are a number of
12 different pre-stressed concrete girders with a variety of cross-sectional geometries and strands for
13 a required span length and loading. AASHTO I-beams and bulb T-beams have been employed
14 by a many Departments of Transportation as concrete bridge girders.
15 While the AASHTO I-beam and Bulb T-beam girders are commonly used in the state of
16 Florida, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), in collaboration with Prof. M. Tadros,
17 developed a new prestressed beam called the Florida I-beam (FIB) to replace these beams in
18 order to enhance the efficiency, to provide a larger vertical clearance and to reduce the overall
19 cost of bridges. FIBs are designed to have higher load carrying capacity, more efficient
20 fabrication, safer construction, increased lateral stiffness because of thicker top and bottom
21 flanges. In addition, FIBs are more economical in comparison to the prestressed beams that are
22 currently being used [2,3]. FIBs are designed to have high concrete strength, ranging from 8 to
23 10 ksi, and a large bottom flange compared to the traditional AASHTO and Bulb T-beams, to
24 allow a larger space for more prestressing strands that are usually needed in longer span girders
25 or wider girder spacing. The enhanced design of FIBs is expected to allow bridge designers to
26 reduce the number of beams needed and to reduce the bridge cost. FIBs have improved stability
27 during handling, storage and erection than the other prestressed beams due to a significantly
28 wider bottom flange and low center of gravity. One of the advantages is that FIBs with shallower
29 depth may be used in place of their deeper AASHTO equivalents. This in turn provides a larger
30 vertical clearance that has been a concern for many bridges. In addition, FIBs have identical top
31 and bottom flange shapes for their full range of standard sizes, and since the only varied
32 dimension between FIB standard sizes is the height of the web. The option of using adjustable
33 height forms during fabrication process of all FIB standard sizes is applicable for ease of
34 manufacturing. FIBs can accommodate the largest number of prestressing strands in the USA (up
35 to 72 – 0.6 in diameter strands). Based on the development and progressive studies of FDOT on
36 FIBs, the FDOT developed design bulletins for designers and manufacturers. As a result, FDOT
37 recommended FIBs to be used in all new bridges and bridge widening designs where applicable,
38 while AASHTO beams and Bulb T-beams will no longer be used for any new design [2].

39 Objectives and Scope of the Paper

40 FDOT prepared a comparative design of AASHTO Type III beam, which can span
41 approximately 90 feet (6 beams with a depth of 45” and spacing of 7’-6”) with a FIB 45” (4
42 beams with a depth of 45” and a spacing of 11’-9”) which can accomplish the same span by
43 reducing the number of girders. The bridge sections under investigation were used in a
44 comparative cost analysis in the FDOT design bulletin. It was found that estimated savings by

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 4/13

1 using four FIB girders for this specific structure is about 24% of the original cost when
2 AASHTO type III girders are used instead [2,3]. This saving increases when the number of
3 required girders of the bridge increases. Such cost reduction has a significant effect on the
4 overall cost of bridges given that the large number of bridges that are built in Florida state each
5 year.
6 In the study presented in this paper, the structural responses and the load rating factors of
7 these two bridges are presented along with the cost saving information given in the FDOT design
8 bulletin. The first bridge has six AASHTO type III girders (Figure 1) and the second bridge with
9 the same general geometry and load-carrying characteristics has four FIBs (Figure 2). Both of
10 these bridges are analyzed using the standard AASHTO LRFD girder line analysis as well as
11 using finite element (FE) analysis with a commercial software. The critical details for the
12 appropriate FE modeling of the prestressed sections are presented with the necessary
13 assumptions made for this study. The flexural responses and load rating factors from these
14 analyses are presented in a comparative fashion.

15
16 Figure 1: AASHTO Type III Bridge
17

18
19 Figure 2: Florida I-Beam (FIB) 45 Bridge

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 5/13

1 DESCRIPTION OF THE TWO BRIDGES

2 The bridges, which are studied in this paper, consist of three simply supported spans
3 made up of pre-stressed girders. Each span is 90-ft long and supported by a 41.5- ft long beam
4 cap and this beam cap is supported by three circular columns. The 43’-1” wide cross section is
5 the same for both bridges as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Only two 12’-0” lanes are
6 considered to be loaded with an additional 10’-0” emergency lane and another 6’-0” pedestrian
7 lane. Both types of girders are 45 in. deep, the first being AASHTO Type III girders, and the
8 second being Florida I-beams. The FIB bridge utilizes four 45-in. I-beams spaced at 11’-9”.
9 Each FIB contains 42- 0.6 in low-relaxation strands (Figure 3). The AASHTO cross section
10 contains six girders spaced at 7’-6” in each with 26-0.6 in low-relaxation prestressing strands
11 (Figure 4). The deck is 8” thick and topped with a 3” bituminous wearing surface, and has end
12 barriers that are 1 ft-6 ½ in. wide. The pretensioned girders have a 2” thick haunched beam in
13 order to control the camber. The prestressing strands are assumed to be straight with eccentricity
14 equal to 11.65 in for AASHTO bridge and 15.08 in for FIB bridge. These eccentricities are
15 computed by the AASHTO LRFD calculation method and all stresses are checked with the
16 allowable stresses. In addition, the moment capacity is also checked to be within the allowable
17 capacity range. The concrete strength is 8.5 ksi concrete (6 ksi at release) and the ultimate tendon
18 strength is taken as 270 Ksi.
19

20
21
22 Figure 3: Florida I-Beam (FIB) Typical Cross-Section
23

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 6/13

1
2 Figure 4: AASHTO Type III Girder
3
4 A generalized cost calculation for these two bridges (one with AASHTO Type III Girder,
5 and other with FIB-45) are provided in the FDOT Design Bulletin C09-01 [2] as follows:
6
7 3 Span Bridge with 6 AASHTO Type III Beams:
8 Total Linear Foot = (90 ft long beams) x (3 spans) x (6 beams per span) = 1620 LF
9 Approximate Cost = (1620 LF) x ($185 /LF) = $299,700
10
11 3 Span Bridge with 4 Florida I-Beams (FIB-45):
12 Total Linear Foot = (90 ft long beams) x (3 spans) x (4 beams per span) = 1080 LF
13 Approximate Cost = (1080 LF) x ($210 /LF) = $226,800
14
15 Estimated Savings = 24% = ($299,700-$226,800)/$299,700
16
17 It is noted that costs per linear foot were determined using price estimates from
18 manufacturers and contractors. The values above include only bridge items affected by differing
19 beam types. These items include beam fabrication, beam placement, placed bearing pads, placed
20 diaphragms, placed stay-in-place forms and deck rebar seats [2]. While the total cost can vary
21 based on many other factors, this calculation provides a reasonably accurate comparison.

22 MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGES

23 AASHTO Girderline Analysis and Calculations

24 As part of the comparative analysis for the structural responses, the AASHTO methods
25 are utilized as engineers commonly, and in fact, this approach can be used as the first approach
26 in many cases even before detailed modeling methods such as FEMs. In this paper, the authors

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 7/13

1 also conduct calculations and provide results according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
2 Specifications [4]. The same loading considerations and assumptions are employed for the
3 analysis of the bridges, which are designed to carry interstate traffic in Florida. The AASHTO
4 and FIB girder sections are evaluated for HL-93 Design Truck and Design Lane Loads. A
5 dynamic load allowance of 33% is considered, distribution and load rating factors for moment
6 are calculated according to the AASHTO Guide. Strength I and Service I limit states are
7 considered. The load effects, load rating, and the distribution factors results are all shown later in
8 Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively.

9 Overview of the Full Finite Element Model

10 FE Modeling of pre-stressed girder structures has been shown on a number of studies. In
11 one such study, the author and his colleagues presented pre-stressed and post-tensioned monorail
12 guideway structures by accurately modeling using a FE package for load rating and reliability
13 analyses [7,8]. In this current paper, AASHTO Type III and FIB girder bridges are modeled
14 using a commercial FE package (CSiBridge) specifically developed for bridge analysis and
15 design [10,11]. The two lane loaded case is assumed according to the previous study by the
16 FDOT bulletin. Slab thickness is taken as 8 in with 2 in haunch and 3 in bitumen wearing.
17 Compressive strength of 4 ksi is used for the regular concrete, which is used for the deck, the
18 columns, and the beam cap. For the precast girders, 8.5 ksi (6 ksi at release) compressive
19 strength is used. Cross diaphragms with 19 in depth and 12 in width also used every one third
20 points of each span with no cross diaphragms at the abutments. Further list of the assumptions
21 considered for the finite elements models can be seen in Table 1.
22
23 Table 1: List of Parameters and Assumptions
Value
Barrier load 0.32 kips/ft length
Wearing load 0.035 kip/ft2
Column dimension 3 circular column 4.5ft dia. (20 - #8 grade 60 steel)
Beam Cab dimension Depth (56 in), width (60 in)
Prestress steel 0.6 in low relaxation strands
fpu 270 ksi
Diaphragm Dimensions Depth (19 in), Width (12 in)
Jacking force 0.7 𝑓!"

24 Modeling of Deck and Girders

25 Shell elements with three degrees of freedom are chosen to model the deck section.
26 Frame elements are used to model the precast pretension girders, the columns, and the beam cap.
27 For the AASHTO type III Bridge, 18 precast pre-tensioned AASHTO type III girders are defined
28 with one hundred and fifty six tendons for the entire length of the bridge. For the FIB Bridge, 12
29 45” deep precast FIB girders are defined with one hundred and sixty eight tendons. Each bridge
30 has three piers with 41.5 ft long beam cap. The pier and the abutment foundations are assumed to

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 8/13

1 be fixed for both bridges. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the finite elements model of AASHTO
2 type III bridge and FIB bridge, respectively with model characteristics and model statistics.
3

4
5 Figure 5: The FE Model of the Bridge with AASHTO Type III Girders

6
7 Figure 6: The FE Model of the Bridge with Florida I-Beams
8

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 9/13

1 Modeling of the Link Elements

2 The concrete deck and girder connection is a critical detail to be modeled properly for the
3 effective utilization of the composite connection. As a result, rigid links are used to represent the
4 connection between the girders and the deck. The same type of link is used to model the columns
5 and the beam cap connection. Abutment bearings links (link elements) are used to model the
6 abutments by fixing the vertical and transverse translation of the abutment bearings. All other
7 abutment bearing components are modeled as free since the abutment restraint is assumed to be
8 free in the longitudinal direction. Bent bearings links (link elements) are used to model the
9 bearing plates and the connection between the girders and the beam cap by fixing all the
10 translations of the bent bearings. All the other bent bearing components are defined as free,
11 including the rotation along the layout line. To help visualize the abutment geometry, the
12 drawing shown in Figure 7 illustrates the location of the abutment bearings and the substructure.
13 It also shows the location of the action point, which is the location where the bearing will
14 translate or rotate depending on the bearing definitions.
15

16
17 Figure 7: FE Modeling of the Links

18 Modeling of the Tendons

19 Eighteen precast girders are defined in the FE model of the AASHTO type III bridge.
20 Each girder has 26 0.6 in low relaxation pre-tensioned strands. On the other hand, twelve precast
21 girders are defined in the FE model of the FIB bridge. Each girder has 42 0.6 in low relaxation
22 pre-tensioned strands. Pre-tensioned tendons are modeled as separate elements with 44 kips force
23 embedded in the precast girders to satisfy the design criteria, strength limit state check and for
24 checking the tendon stresses. Because the CSiBridge FEM software provides only bonded post-
25 tension tendons, the bonded pre-tensioning tendons are modeled by jacking the post-tensioned

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 10/13

1 tendons from both sides and specifying zero value for the curvature loss coefficient, wobble loss
2 coefficient, and anchorage slip loss coefficient. Figure 8 shows the distribution of the tendons in
3 AASHTO type III beams and Florida I-Beams.
4

5
6 Figure 8: Distribution of the Tendons in AASHTO Type III Beams and Florida I-Beams
7

8 DISTRIBUTION FACTORS AND LOAD RATING

9 Movable Bridge Load Rating

10 After the completion of the FE model and the simple girder line model, the load rating
11 factors of the bridges are computed. Load rating of the bridges is calculated following the
12 AASHTO Guide [5]. The load factors rating procedure is commonly used in identifying the live
13 load carrying capacity of bridges. Bending moment capacity of the bridges under investigation
14 is calculated at the critical position of HL-93 (with design truck and lane load) following the
15 AASHTO Guide. Since each span is considered as a simply supported, the locations of
16 maximum live and dead load moments are located at the midspan section.
17 The load rating can be expressed as the factor of the critical live load effect to the
18 available capacity for a certain limit state. The general formula for the rating factor is [5];
C − γ DC DC − γ DW DW ± γ p P
19 RF = (1)
γ L LL (1 + IM )
20 where C is the factored load carrying capacity, DC is the dead load of structural
21 components, DW is the dead load of the wearing surface, P is a dead load concentrated at a
22 single point, LL is the live load effect, IM is the impact factor, and γ’s are the load factors. The
23 calculated load ratings for the critical locations are presented in the following sections.
24 The load factors values depend on the type of load rating, i.e. inventory or operating load
25 rating. The load rating for the girder is calculated at the critical section, located at the midspan.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 11/13

1 The section moment capacity is calculated for both AASHTO and FIB sections and for the
2 exterior and the interior girders as well. The calculated moment capacity, the moments at the
3 critical section due to live and dead load, and also the load rating factors are all presented in
4 Table 2 and Table 3.
5
6 Table 2: Moment Values Obtained from the FEM and AASHTO LRFD Analyses
FIB Girder
AASHTO Type III Girder
Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder
(K.ft) (K.ft) (K.ft) (K.ft)
Moment Values

AASHTO 5587 5624 8707 8770

Section Capacity
LRFD results 1812 1851 2552 2704
(Girderline Max. D.L

Analysis) 1750 1537 2285 2217

Max. L.L
4659 4715 8229 8320
Section Capacity

FEM results 1672 1716 2484 2762

Max. D.L
902 970 1281 1538
Max. L.L
7
8 Table 2 indicates that the values of the calculated section capacity and the dead load
9 using LRFD method are close to their corresponding values calculated using FEM. The
10 difference in the dead load values is about 4% on the average. However, the live load values
11 show a significant difference and it is about 40% when the AASHTO LRDF and FEM results are
12 compared. This difference (reduction in LL moments in FEM) can be attributed to better load
13 distribution by means of FE software that represents all the elements of the bridge. When the
14 results of the AASHTO and FIB girder bridges are compared, the FIB has much higher load
15 carrying capacity even though the dead and live load responses are higher for the FIB. Table 3
16 presents the load rating factors obtained using the capacity and demand calculations presented
17 previously. The results given in Table 3 imply that AASHTO LRFD girderline analysis
18 underestimate the load rating and provides lower load rating factors than those obtained using FE
19 model. The ratios of load rating factors (FEM/girderline) for all types of girders variy between
20 1.22 to 1.65, meaning a 22% to 65% more live load carrying possibility. It should also be noted
21 that the girderline method underestimates the load rating factors of the FIB girder bridge more
22 than AASHTO Type III girder bridge.
23 A more significant observation is that the bridge with FIB girders has higher load rating
24 factors than the bridge with AASHTO type III girder regardless of the AASHTO LRFD
25 Girderline analysis or FE analysis. When the two bridges are considered, the exterior and
26 interior girders have 17% and 13%, respectively, more live load capacity using AASHTO

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 12/13

1 girderline analysis. When the two bridges are compared using the FE model results, the exterior
2 and interior girders have 41% and 20% more live load capacity, respectively.
3
4 Table 3: Load Rating of the Bridges Using FEM and AASHTO LRFD
FIB Girder
AASHTO Type III Girder
Load Rating
Int. Girder
Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder
AASHTO Inventory 1.36
1.07 1.20 1.36
LRFD results
Operating
(Girderline
1.76
Analysis) 1.50 1.56 1.76
Inventory 1.77
1.59 1.47 2.25
FEM results
Operating 2.30
2.06 1.91 2.91
5

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7 Florida I-Beam (FIB) bridges were developed to be the choice for girder type for new
8 designs in Florida. These girders provide a larger vertical clearance and to reduce the overall cost
9 of bridges. FIBs are designed to have higher load carrying capacity, more efficient fabrication,
10 safer construction, increased lateral stiffness because of thicker top and bottom flanges.
11 In this study, a comparative analysis of two bridges is presented. The first bridge is a 3
12 span bridge designed with 6 AASHTO Type III girders. The second bridge has the same length,
13 width and girder depth; however, it has 4 FIB girders. Both bridges are analyzed using the
14 conventional AASHTO LRFD girderline analysis method and also more sophisticated finite
15 element method using a commercial software. The details of the FE model are also presented
16 with the critical considerations of link elements, boundary conditions, pre-stressing tendons.
17 The cost comparison of these two bridges was presented by FDOT and it is stated that the
18 FIB provides an estimated saving of about 24%. The results provided in this paper also indicate
19 that the bridge with FIB girders has higher load rating factors than the bridge with AASHTO
20 type III girder regardless of the method (AASHTO LRFD Girderline analysis or FE analysis) to
21 calculate the rating factors. The AASHTO girderline analysis underestimates the load rating
22 factors for both AASHTO Type III girder bridge and the FIB bridge. Based on the FE results, it
23 can be stated that it is possible to expect 20% higher live load capacity for interior girders and
24 40% higher live load capacity for exterior girders using FIB-45 girders compared to AASHTO
25 Type III girders, while also reducing the cost by about 24%.

26 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
27 The authors would like to thank Mr. Sam Fallaha, P.E. from FDOT Structures Research
28 Center and Mr. Neil Kenis, P.E. from FDOT D5 Design Office for their feedback and input for
29 the study presented in this paper. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions
30 of Ms. Cara Brown for the FE model development at the initial stages of this study.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Catbas, Darwash, Fadul 13/13

1 The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the
2 authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring or anyother organizations.

3 REFERENCES
4
5 1. PCA (2004), “Market Research-The Bridge Market,” Portland Cement Association, October
6 2004.
7 2. Florida department of Transportation (FDOT). Temporary Design Bulletin C09-01. January.
8 2009.
9 3. Florida department of Transportation (FDOT). Temporary Design Bulletin C09-03. June.
10 2009.
11 4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2007).
12 Standard specifications for highway bridges, AASHTO 4th Ed., Washington, D.C.
13 5. AASHTO Guide (2007). "Guide Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance
14 Factor Rating (LRFR) of Highway Bridges"
15 6. Barr, P. J., Eberhard, M. O. and Stanton, J. F. “Live-Load Distribution Factors in
16 Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE .
17 September/October. 2001.
18 7. Shmerling, R.Z. and Catbas, F.N. (2009), “Load Rating and Reliability Analysis of An
19 Aerial Guideways,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp. 247-256
20 (July/August 2009) ASCE, 2009.
21 8. Shmerling, R.Z. and Catbas, F.N. (2010), “Visualization, Finite Element Modeling and
22 Analysis of Aerial Guideways,” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering Journal, SIE,
23 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design
24 and Performance, Volume 6, Issue 4, First published 2010, Pages 447 – 465
25 9. Barker, R. M. and Puckett, J. A. (2007). Design of Highway Bridges An LRFD Approach,
26 Wiley, N. Y.
27 10. CSiBridge Introduction to CSiBridge. (1995). Computers & Structures, Inc. Berkeley,
28 California 94704 USA. 
29 11. CSiBridge Bridge Seismic Design. (1995). Computers & Structures, Inc. Berkeley,
30 California 94704 USA. 

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.