Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal - Himanshu 1olaug14esr PDF
Journal - Himanshu 1olaug14esr PDF
ABSTRACT
In spite of increases in computing power, analysis of skew bridge deck has not changed to the same extent.
Therefore, there is a need for more research to study the skew bridges using Grillage analogy method. Grillage
analyze is a fast and simpler approach compared to the other method, and has been used by engineers to
analyses bridge deck over a long time. In this present study, a bridge deck consists of beam and slab is defined
and modeled using grillage analogy method. The effect of grid spacing on different skew angles on same-span
of reinforced concrete bridges using the grillage analogy method. Maximum reactions force, deflection, bending
and torsional moments is calculated and compared for different angles with different span. A total 11 Gridlines,
3-T sections, and 7- rectangular sections of two different sizes have been studied on skew angles 00, 150, 300,
450 and 600 ° to determine the most appropriate and efficient grid size. For this purpose a parametric study of
Simply Supported 3-Lane T-Beam Bridge has been performed in STAAD PRO. The parameters varied were
span and skew angle. The effect of same was observed on maximum live load bending moment, maximum live
load shear force and maximum live load reaction at critical locations. Live Load “Class A Vehicle” were applied
as per IRC 6 guidelines. The spans used were 10 m, 15 m, 20 m and 25 m. The skew angles were taken at an
interval of 150 starting from 00 up to a maximum of 600. Bridges with skew angle more than 450 are rare.
Keywords: Bridges, T-beam bridge decks, skew angle, span length, Grillage Analogy method, Grid size Class
A Vehicle.
1. INTRODUCTION
Generally, grillage analysis [8] is the most common method used in bridge analysis. In this method the deck is
represented by an equivalent grillage of beams. The finer grillage mesh, provide more accurate results. It was
found that the results obtained from grillage analysis compared with experiments and more rigorous methods are
accurate enough for design purposes. In the skew bridges, the effects of skew on the response of completed
structures have been well documented [1, 7, 9] with effects being shown to be more significant for skew angles
greater than 30◦. Critical values for vertical deflections and bending moments within in-service skewed bridges
have been shown to be lower when compared against those in similar right bridges. Conversely, torsional
rotations, shears and moments have been shown to be larger for skewed bridges. In addition, studies have also
demonstrated that interaction between main support girders and transverse bracing members (diaphragms and
cross frames) influences skewed bridge load distribution due to an increase in torsional rotations at certain
sections of the longitudinal girders. Additional work has shown that the magnitude of torsional shear rotations at
skewed bridge supports is largest at the obtuse corners [2, 3].
A bridge is said to be skew if the longitudinal axis of the bridge is not at right angles to the abutment. Skew
angle is defined as the acute angle between the center line (or axis) of the bridge and the normal to the flow of
river. Alternatively it can also be defined as the angle between the free edge of the bridge and perpendicular to
the abutment. Mathematically it can be found by subtracting the acute angle of the parallelogram from 90o. The
perpendicular distance between the abutments is defined as the right span, while the span along the free edge of
the bridge is defined as the skew span [9]. The word span in this thesis report is synonymously used for the
skew span.
Fig 3: Plan of Grillage Model of 10 m span, Fig 4: Plan of Grillage Model of 10 m span, 15° skew
skew Bridge 00 Bridge
Fig 5: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 10 m Fig 6: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 10 m
30° skew 45°skew
Fig 8: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m span Fig 9: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m
0° skew 15° skew
Fig 10: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m span Fig 11:Typical plan of Grillage Model of 15 m 45°
30° skew skew
Fig 13: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span Fig 14: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20
0° skew m span 15° skew
Fig 15: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m span Fig 16: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 20 m
span 30° skew 45° skew
Fig 18: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span Fig 19: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m
span 0° skew 15° skew
Fig 20: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m span Fig 21: Typical plan of Grillage Model of 25 m
span 30° skew 45° skew
Front Axle
2.4 Impact Factor
Provision for impact or dynamic action shall be made by an increment of the live load by an impact allowance
expressed as a fraction or a percentage of the applied live load [10].
(1) For Class A Loading: according to IRC: 6-2000 Clause 211.2, the impact factor shall be determined from the
following equation which is applicable for spans between 3m and 45m.
I.F = 4.5 / (6+L).
Where L is length in meters of the span as specified in IRC: 6-2000 Clause 211.5.
Table 1: Impact factor
Span (m) 10 m 15 m 20 m 25 m
Class A 0.28 0.21 0.17 0.14
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Bridges of span 10 m, 15 m, 20m, and 25m were analyzed for skew angles 00, 150, 300, 450 and 600. The results
are shown below [7]. All the moment values are for live load only and the word “moment” is synonymously
used for “maximum moment” at many places of this chapter [5]. Also the abbreviation G1, G2, G3, G4, & G5
are shown in Results and Discussions (Figure 23).
Fig 24: Maximum Shear Force Three Lane of Fig 25: Maximum Bending Moment Three
Class A Lane of Class A
Fig 27: Maximum Positive Reaction Three Lane Fig 28: Maximum Negative Reaction Three
Lane of Class A Class A
4. CONCLUSION
The analysis of bridges and comparisons of the results of different span and skew angles have led to the
following conclusions.
1. For skew bridges the arrangement of cross girders perpendicular to the longitudinal girders is more
effective in transverse load distribution as compared to the arrangement in which the cross girders are parallel to
the abutments.
2. Grillage analogy method, based on stiffness matrix approach, is a reliably accurate method for a wide range
of bridge decks. The method is versatile, easy for a designer to visualize and prepare the study for a grillage.
3. The increase in BM up to 40 degree skew angle is less. At higher skew angle sharp increase is observed.
Results show that end girder placed in centre of skew span has maximum BM.
4. Torsion, with increase of skew angle increases appreciably in all directions.
5. Maximum positive and negative reactions are noted in skew bridges ,very close to each other
6. Results of SF shows mixed pattern i.e. value of maximum SF does not follow a regular pattern. However
the difference of SF, as the span increases, decrease.
REFERENCES
[1] Menassa C, Mabsout M, Tarhini K, Frederick G. Influence of Skew Angle on Reinforced Concrete Slab
Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE) 2007; 12.
[2] Jenkins D. Bridge Deck Behaviour Revisited; MEngSci MIEAust MICE. 2004;13.
[3] O'Brien EJ, Keogh DL. A discussion on neutral axis location in bridge deck cantilevers. Department of Civil
Engineering, University College, Dublin, Ireland, 1998; 46.
[4] Khalo AR, Mirzabozorg H. Load Distribution Factors in Simply Supported Skew Bridges. Journal of Bridge
Engineering (ASCE), 2003; 8(4).
[5] Ibrahim S, Harba I. Effect of Skew angle on Behavior of Simply Supported R. C. T-Beam Bridge Decks.
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2011; 6(8).
[6] Singh A. Analysis of skew effects on slab bridges, M.Tech Dissertation, IIT Roorke, 2006; 26.
[7] Vasant P, Rao U. Analysis of skew effects on T-Girder Bridges, M.Tech Dissertation, IIT Roorkee, 2006; 9.
[8] Victor DJ. Essential’s of Bridge Engineering, Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi;250.
[9] Surana CS, Agarwal R. Grillage Analogy in Bridge Deck Analysis, Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi,
329.
[10] IRC 6-2000. Standard Specification and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section II, Loads And Stresses,
Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, 22-24.