Surrey ENGM030 Unit 9 Presentation1a

Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Surrey
Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis
UNIT 10: Skew Decks & Integral Bridges
(Study time allocation = 15 hours)
10.1. SKEW BRIDGES - INTRODUCTION

In the very early days of reinforced concrete bridge construction the behaviour of skew decks
was not known and so if a bridge crossing involved an angle of approach less than 90 o then a
right bridge was inserted resulting in either an interruption to the straight alignment using a
chicane (see (1) in Figure 10.1) or an uninterrupted alignment using a longer right bridge with
possibly an intermediate pier (2). The former represents an additional hazard to the driver, and
the latter involves a considerable increase in cost of the deck and pier. Skews up to 15 o were
considered to have little effect. The use of a skew deck (3) was not considered because of the
difficulties in determining the design load effects.
(2)
(1)
(3)
Figure 10.1: Ways of crossing on the skew.
10.2. THE PROBLEM

A slab may be considered as a plate, ie, a flat continuum, capable of resisting lateral loads
mainly by bending.
Plate theory, ie, the equations expressing the structural behaviour of thin plates, was first
propounded by Lagrange in 1811 and forms the basis of the elastic theoretical analysis of
reinforced slabs. The basic assumptions are that:
1. Deflections are small
PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.1

2. Thickness of plate is small compared with the overall dimensions, (not so thin
that membrane forces control and not so thick that shear forces control).
3. Plate is homogeneous, elastic and isotropic.
The general equation defining the deflected shape of a flat plate under the action of a UDL is
given by the following 4th order differential equation:
4 w 4 w 4 w 
N  4 2 2 2  4   p
x x y y 
d 4w
This is analogous to the beam equation EI 4  p
dx
In these equations,
w is the deflection of the slab, a function of (x,y)
p is the applied load, also a function of (x,y)
Eh 3
N is a measure of the stiffness of the slab =
12(1 2 )
E is Young’s modulus
h is depth of slab
and is Poisson’s ratio.
2 2
Introducing Laplace’s operator   
x 2 y 2
then the equation can be written in simplified form as:
w  p / N
or
Nw  p
This equation has to be solved for geometry and boundary conditions of the plate, where
w(x,y) has to be represented by a function which satisfies all the boundary conditions and
p(x,y) has to represent a general loading condition.
The above equation was first solved for simply supported skew slabs by Jensen in 1941 using
a finite difference technique. He obtained values for stress resultants at a few critical points.
Subsequently much research was carried out in America, Germany and the UK until in 1961
Rusch and Hergenroder published tables of influence surfaces based on the results of
laboratory tests carried out on models made from gypsum plaster (= 0.25). The tables
provided a way of determining the bending moments at a number of critical points for a skew
slab under the action of point loads and UDL’s. Since then other researchers have increased
the understanding of skew slabs, notably Andra and Leonhardt, and Mehmel and Weise who
investigated the effect of the number and the stiffness of bearings on the support reactions and
moments, and Cheung and Zienkiewicz who pioneered the finite element methods.
10.3. RIGHT SLABS

A right slab under the action of a UDL behaves essentially as a wide beam with high bending
moments in the longitudinal direction between supports. Transverse moments and twisting
moments are virtually zero. Analysis can be carried out on the basis of a unit strip. Under the

action of point loads it is possible to use influence surfaces in the same way as they are used
for determining local effect moments.
10.4. SKEW SLABS

Skew slabs behave in a completely different manner with significant longitudinal, transverse
and twisting moments throughout the slab.
Under the action of a UDL the load trajectories tend to be aligned perpendicularly to the
support in the middle regions, but parallel to the free edges at those positions. Load, therefore
tends to be concentrated in the obtuse corners. On a line X-X perpendicular to the free edge
through the obtuse corner the remote free edge is displaced downwards under load relative to
point O. This leads to negative transverse bending moments and high twisting moments in the
obtuse corner.
Along the free edge the distribution of moments due to a UDL is similar to that in
Figure 10.2.
X O
Load trajectories for a udl

X
MUV
O A
MU
Figure 10.2: Behaviour of a skew slab.
Live loads complicate the situation, since they can be a significant proportion of the total load.
It is sufficient for the purposes of analysis and design to investigate the moments at a few
critical points and reinforce accordingly.
x u lc
l lx
y C
v

A D B
b l /2

= Skew Angle l = Skew span E
l/b
b/l ф = Aspect ratio
l x = Right span
n = Number of bearings
Figure 10.3: Definitions adopted by Rusch and Hergenroder.

Table 10.1: Parameters considered by Rusch and Hergenroder.
Skew angle Aspect ratio

 b/l
0.4
1.0
15 1.6
0.4
1.0
30
1.6
0.4
1.0
45
1.6
0.4
1.0
60 1.6
The critical points investigated by Rusch and Hergenroder for the purposes of analysis are
shown as A, B, C D and E in Figure 10.3. Table 10.1 shows the range of skew angles and
aspect ratios that they considered.
They produced influence surfaces for determining the moment triads [Mx, My, Mxy] and [M u ,
Mv , Muv] at each point under the action of point or patch loads, and separate charts for
determining the moment triads under the action of a UDL. A sample of the influence surfaces
they produced is provided at the end of this unit.
UDL EXAMPLE 1
A skew slab has an aspect ratio of 1.55 and a skew of 35 o. Determine the moment triad [Mu ,
Mv , Muv] at point C under the action of a UDL (g) and compare with results from a simple
strip analysis. Find also the position of maximum Mu.
Skew slab angle = 35o
From charts Ku = +0.100, Kuv = +0.095, Kv 0.00
Therefore Mu = 0.1 (g lx2 ); Muv = 0.095 (g lx2); Mv 0.
For a unit strip Mu = g lф2/8 = 0.125g (lx / sin 35)2 = 0.38 g lx2
Mv cannot be calculated from a unit strip approach.
From chart lc / lф= 0.26, thus lc = 0.26 lф

(This gives the location of the point C)
Thus the strip method overestimates the moment by nearly 75%.

UDL EXAMPLE 2
Aspect ratio 1.0 and a skew of 45 o. Determine the moment triad [Mu , M v , M uv ] at point C
under the action of a UDL (g) and compare with results from a simple strip analysis.
Answer - Strip method overestimates by nearly 53%.
10.5. POINT LOADS

For skew road bridges, the influence surfaces are invaluable for determining the moments due
to an HB or NB vehicle. Generally the contact area has a negligible effect on the result and
can be considered as a point load. It is only significant when t/Ix ≥0.15 where t = width of the
loaded area. If t/Ix > 0.15 then the load should be consider as a patch load.
Procedure
1. The correct influence surface is chosen relating to the point under investigation, ie, skew
angle and the aspect ratio.
2. The scale of the slab is determined and the kerb lines are drawn on the influence surface.
The HB vehicle is drawn out to the same scale on a transparent sheet with each wheel
position numbered.
3. The transparent sheet is then positioned on the influence surface to maximise the sum of
the ordinates under each wheel. A process of trial and error can be used if the maximum is
not immediately evident.
4. A table is formed with two columns to record the wheel load number and the influence
coefficient X i at each wheel position.
5. The total moment is then determined from M Pi X i / 8 (usually Pi is constant and so
this reduces to M Pi X i / 8).
6.
POINT LOADS EXAMPLE 1 (Task CM54-10.1)

A skew slab with an aspect ratio of 1.0 and a skew angle of 45 o has a square span of 12m.
Determine the moment triad [Mx , My , Mxy ] at point E due to 45 units of HB load. Assume
that the kerb lines are positioned at 2.4m from the free edges (ie, on grid lines 3 and 9).
Axle load = 45 x 10 = 450kN; thus wheel load P i = 450/4 = 112.5kN.
Scale: skew span on chart = 12cm, thus 12cm = 12m or 1cm = 1m.

Table 10.2: Data for point E due to HB vehicle.

Wheel Xi for Mx Xi for My Xi for Mxy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TOTAL =
From table: Mx = 90 x / 8 = ……………(Nm/m)
My = 90 x / 8 = ……………(Nm/m)
Mxy = 90 x / 8 = ……………(Nm/m)
Normal loading can be applied in the same way as a series of point loads at the node (grid
intersection points).
10.6. SLAB REINFORCEMENT

With varying trajectories of the principal bending moments, it is not practicable to orientate
the reinforcement to cater for all combinations of loading. Consequently it is necessary to use
greater volumes of reinforcement than the theoretical minimum. A further limitation on steel
layout is imposed by construction as it is convenient to give the reinforcement a definite
layout based on deck shape. This is particularly the case with tendons in prestressed slabs and
especially so with voided slabs.
The factored elastic moment field method of design is a lower bound collapse method in
which the reinforcement is designed to fit the spatially varying factored elastic moment field.
Influence charts can be used to determine these moments. The reinforcement in predetermined
directions is then designed at a number of points throughout the slab in accordance with the
moments obtained from the analysis. The serviceability criterion in respect of cracking is then
generally automatically satisfied.
In normal non-skew situations reinforcement need only be designed to resist the two bending
moments. This is clearly not sufficient in the case of skew, and a method is necessary which
takes into account the twisting moment as well. Such moments induce supplementary shear

stresses, which in the case of beams is resisted by the provision of extra shear links and
longitudinal reinforcement. In slabs this is dealt with in a different manner.
The most economic solution would be to place the reinforcement in the principal bending
moment directions where the twisting moments are zero. This is, of course, impractical as the
bars would have to be curved in plan and would be relevant to only one loading case.
Wood and Armer investigated the problem in 1968 and adopted the normal moment criterion,
namely:
“the moment of resistance provided by the reinforcement in any direction at a point

should not be less than the applied bending moment in that direction at that point”.
In other words the reinforcement should cater for all possible loading cases, and if at all
possible placed in the principal moment directions.
For given moment triads [M x, My, Mxy] or [Mu, Mv, Muv] at any point they derived simple
rules which are tabulated below. The M* moments are those to be adopted for design of the
elastic moments under the action of factored or ultimate loads.
The two patterns of reinforcement adopted in practise are either orthogonal or skew, and as
general rule a UV or XY orthogonal pattern are the most efficient for narrow or wide slabs
respectively. A UY pattern is the most efficient skew pattern. These are shown in Figure 10.4.
X-Y U-V U-Y

Figure 10.4: Commonly used reinforcement patterns.
The resulting design equations are given at the back of this unit.
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN EXAMPLE

The moment triad at a point in a 45 0 skew slab were determined as Mx = 2500kNm/m; My = -
1000kNm/m and Mxy = -900kNm/m. Determine the design moments to be used for an X-Y
pattern of reinforcement.
Bottom steel
M*x = 2500 + | -900 | = 3400kNm/m
M*y = -1000 + | -900 | = -100 kNm/m <0 thus M*y = 0 and M*x = 2500 + |-9002/-1000|
= 3310kNm/m.
Top steel
M*x = 2500 - | -900 | = 1600kNm/m > 0 thus M*x = 0 and M*y = -1000 - |-9002/2500||
= 1324 kNm/m.

No need to check M*y.
10.6.1. Practical details

As the dead load is very often the most significant load, it is reasonable to consider the
trajectory pattern as a guide to final placement. Orthogonal patterns will inevitably mean that
at the free edges and on the support lines the reinforcement is not at its most efficient and so
an additional band of reinforcement about 2h wide should be added (beware of congestion).
2h
v
Free edge
u
x
2h
Abutment line
y
Figure 10.5: Reinforcement details at edges.
Top reinforcement should reflect the bottom reinforcement where possible as this ensures a
better stress flow in the region.
At the edges, at least one set of orthogonal reinforcement should continue from the top to the
bottom surface in a hairpin: this will prevent diagonal shear cracks occurring due to the
twisting moments.
Mxy
Figure 10.6: Hairpin details at edges.
Some typical reinforcement orientations are shown in Figure 10.7.
or
Bottom Top
Figure 10.7: Typical reinforcement layouts.

In general either X-Y or U-V with edge reinforcement will be efficient, but if Iф/b > 1.5 use
U-V, and if Iф/b < 1.5 use X-Y. For 0.5 < Iф/b <1.5 then the designer can choose.
10.7. REACTIONS
The distribution of the reactions on the support line varies from a maximum at the obtuse
corner to a minimum in the acute corner, and its shape depends upon the angle of skew, the
aspect ratio, the number and stiffness of the bearings and the type of loading. In most cases
where flexible bearings are used the distribution is usually trapezoidal in shape, but in the
case of rigid bearings the distribution is curvilinear (see Figure 10.8a). In certain instances the
reactions can be negative near the ocute corner.
Obtuse Acute
Flexible bearings N>0

Flexible bearings N>0
Rigid bearings N=0 Rigid bearings N=0
(a) (b)
Figure 10.8: Variation of reactions for simply supported and continuous slabs.
The negative reaction usually occurs at the second bearing in from the acute corner. The
distribution of reactions tends to even out along the internal support of a continuous skew
deck as indicated in Figure 10.8b due to symmetry.
0.6
1
0.5
Reaction Ratio R/W
0.4 2
0.3
0.2 3
4
0.1
5
0
0.5 1 1.5 2
Aspect Ratio l/b
Figure 10.9: Variation of obtuse corner reaction with various parameters.
Both Mehmel and Weise, and Andra and Leonhardt have investigated the distribution of
reactions under the influence of a UDL and Figure 10.9 illustrates the effect of skew on the
obtuse corner reaction R in terms of an applied uniformly distributed total load of W.

Table 10.3: Parameter definitions for Figure 10.9.
LINE n N θ
1 9 0 60
2 9 0 30
3 9 0.8 60
4 9 0.8 30
5 9 0.8 0
Lines 1 - 5 refer to parameters as in Table 10.3 where θis the external skew angle. N is a non-
dimensional bearing flexibility coefficient:
N = E h3 / c b 2
where h = thickness of the slab

c = compression stiffness of the bearing
b = the skew width (ie width of the abutment)
E = Young’s modulus of the concrete
If N > 0 then the bearing is flexible: if N = 0 the bearing is rigid.
From the Figure it is clear that:
1. R increases with the aspect ratio and angle of skew in an almost linear fashion.
2. The flexibility has a large effect on the distribution of bearing reactions and decreases
as N increases and the skew decreases.
Mehmel and Weise have shown that for a slab subject to a UDL, then substituting flexible
bearings for rigid ones has the effect of increasing the sagging moment at the centre of the
slab by 20% and reducing the hogging moment in the obtuse corner by up to 47% for a skew
of 600. (These figures become 7% and 38% respectively for a 300 skew). They also show that
a few widely-spaced bearings reduce the hogging moments in the obtuse corner with only a
slight increase in the central sagging moments. A small number of bearings also reduce the
likelihood of negative reactions (or uplift) in the acute corners.
The actual position of the total reaction for a UDL can be determined from Figure 10.10
where ‘soft’ refers to N=0.8 and the total reaction ∑R=0.5 g Ix b.

0.5
Reaction location lr/b

0.4
R
0.3
l/b=0.5 soft
l/b=0.5 rigid
lr
l/b=1.0 soft b
0.2
l/b=1.0 rigid
l/b=2.0 soft
l/b=2.0 rigid
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
External skew angle
Figure 10.10: Eccentricity of total reaction on abutment line.
Once lr is known, and assuming a trapezoidal distribution of reactions, then the value of each
bearing ordinate can be found from simple statics viz:
r1 
R  6e 
1  and r
 
R  6e 
1 

5
b  b  b  b 
Then r 2, r3 and r4 can be calculated by interpolation, and the actual reaction values are
determined by multiplying the ordinates by the distance between bearings.
10.8. BEARING PLACEMENT

Up to an abutment shelf slope of approximately 1 in 30, the most favourable stress
distribution occurs with about five evenly spaced bearings. If super elevation is present, then
it is better either to align the bearings with the slope or to step the bearings.
If a capping beam is used, then because the main rotation vector is forced to be horizontal
then the bearings are expected to accommodate large rotations. If they cannot, then they will
jam. (see Figures 10.11 and 10.12)

Bearings follow line of superelevation

OK
Stepped bearings each one hrizontal

OK
Horizontal bearings and capping beam

NOT OK
Figure 10.11: Possible bearing orientations.
Vertical vector
z

y
Mz
Horizontal vector
Figure 10.12: Rotation vectors for capping beam to skew slab.
10.9. THERMAL MOVEMENT

The movement of a skew slab due to temperature change depends upon the location of the
thermal centre - ie the point from which the slab as a whole expands and contracts. This is
generally at the centre bearing on a fixed support or at the centre of the slab where laminated
rubber bearings are used on each support line. (see Figure 10.13).
La La
T T FX
Lo Lo
Figure 10.13: Thermal movement.
Clearly the slab will expand more on lines La than Lo, and unless the joint is designed to
accommodate skew movement, then there is the possibility of jamming of the expansion joint.

10.10. GENERAL NOTE ON CONTINUOUS SKEW SLABS.

As depicted in Figure 10.8 the reactions (due to a UDL) on the skewed internal support lines
tend to even out provided that flexible bearings are used, thus the total reaction occurs on the
centre line.
l l l
l l l
lx
Figure 10.14: Continuous skew slabs.
For a constant skew span Iф , the skew actually produces a more favourable distribution of
moments than for an equivalent right slab. This is due primarily to the reduction in square
span IX = Iф sin (ф) 
a nd the bearing length on the skew = b / sin (ф)
 , ie a shorter span and a
longer bearing length.
The continuity effect on the moments is more pronounced for skew spans.
If K = moment at mid-span of an outer span / moment at mid-span of the centre span, then K
for a right deck is> than K for a skew deck, thus the skew produces better distribution.
Deflections are generally lower for an equivalent skew deck. The reinforcement is usually
placed parallel and perpendicular to the centre line and augmented with edge steel.
10.11. HOLLOW FILLER UNITS

The use of hollow filler units to produce a voided slab are beneficial in reducing self weight
and can be used where the ratio of the main midspan moment to the transverse moment is
high. The voids tend to swing the principal moment direction to nearly parallel to the centre
line of the slab.

Figure 10.15: Voided slab.
Sawko and Cope used a finite element model to study the effect of providing filler units and
found the effect of ‘orthotropy’ to be considerable. In general as the ratio of the longitudinal
stiffness to the transverse stiffness decreases, then (for all values of skew angle) My and
deflections increase but Mx decreases.
10.12. GENERAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR SIMPLY SUPPORTED

SKEW SLABS
1 Not all skew slab bridges are of a regular rhomboidal shape and so the actual bridge
deck has to be idealised in plan to fit as closely as possible the shapes considered by
Rusch and Hergenroeder.
2. Assume Iф/ h = 20 as a first estimate.
3. Calculate the service loads and ultimate loads due to dead loads and full normal
loading over the entire slab. This is generally the governing case for spans of 8 - 20m
and will cover most practical contingencies involving variations in the live load
pattern.
4. Assume a number of flexible evenly spaced bearings.
5. Determine the bending moments at the free edge; the centre and the obtuse corner.
6. At each point there is a choice of reinforcement fields, namely X-Y; U-V or Principal
moment.[The special clause 5.8.10 in BS 5400-Part 4 gives guidance in this respect.
Basically check M* for X-Y, U-V and U-Y at the centre and select the pattern which
gives the minimum M*]. Engineering intuition and judgement play a large part in the
final reinforcement layout.
7. Once the layout of the bending reinforcement has been decided then checks should be
carried our for actual normal UDL and knife edge loads in each lane, and also for the
abnormal loading.
8. Determine the reactions, and check for punching shear at the bearings in the obtuse
corner.









10.13. CALCULATION OF DESIGN MOMENTS M*X AND M*Y FOR (MX , MY ,

MXY) TRIADS IN SKEW SLAB BRIDGES WITH AN ORTHOGONAL
ARRANGEMENT OF REINFORCEMENT.
x
M*x reinforcement
M*y reinforcement
y
Figure 10.16: Orthogonal Reinforcement.
10.13.1. Positive reinforcement (bottom)

M*x = M x + | Mxy |
M* y = My + | Mxy |
If M* x < 0, then put M*x = 0 and
M xy2
M y M y 
*
Mx
If M* y < 0, then put M*y = 0 and
M xy2
M x M x 
*
Mx
10.13.2. Negative reinforcement (top)

M* x = Mx - | Mxy |
M* y = My - | Mxy |
If M* x > 0, then put M* x = 0 and
M xy2
M y M y 
*
Mx
If M* y < 0, then put M*y = 0 and
M xy2
M x M x 
*
Mx

10.14. TASK
(1) Attempt example 1
(2) Analyse the skew slab of the previous task using a grillage analysis and compare with
the results from using the influence surfaces. (Assume that the slab is 800mm deep).
10.15. INTEGRAL BRIDGES

Integral Bridge loading and analysis presents several challenges when dealing with the soil
structure interaction. The cyclic movements of the deck structure, and in particular the
abutments, result in a build-up of soil pressure far greater than occurs with non-integral
structures.
The following are several examples of different integral bridge arrangements, where the deck
is built into different forms of abutments. The overall structural behaviour varies greatly
between the different abutment types, with a shallow bankseat tending to slide back and forth,
and the piles abutment flexing more easily.
The soil pressures to be taken into the design are described in the Highway Agency’s Advice
Note BA42/96 (with amendments) and are based on the following loading profiles, with a
maximum limit based on K*, an enhanced soil pressure co-efficient based on the soil
parameters and the structural arrangement.

K* is based on the Kp given in Eurocode 7 Part 1 annex C, as reproduced below;

To analysis integral bridges it is usual to set up a computer generated frame analysis with
springs to represent the soil stiffness and it is often necessary to develop several different
frame models to represent the structural behaviour under the different loading conditions.
The springs need to be ‘compression only’ supports, while not taking tension, and are a
function of the soil stiffness present.

Surrey ENGM030 Unit 9 Presentation1a

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surrey ENGM030 Unit 9 Presentation1a

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Surrey

Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis

UNIT 10: Skew Decks & Integral Bridges

(Study time allocation = 15 hours)

10.1. SKEW BRIDGES - INTRODUCTION

Figure 10.1: Ways of crossing on the skew.

10.2. THE PROBLEM

1. Deflections are small

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.1

10.3. RIGHT SLABS

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.2

10.4. SKEW SLABS

Load trajectories for a udl

Figure 10.2: Behaviour of a skew slab.

Figure 10.3: Definitions adopted by Rusch and Hergenroder.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.3

Table 10.1: Parameters considered by Rusch and Hergenroder.

Skew angle Aspect ratio

Skew slab angle = 35o

From charts Ku = +0.100, Kuv = +0.095, Kv 0.00

Therefore Mu = 0.1 (g lx2 ); Muv = 0.095 (g lx2); Mv 0.

From chart lc / lф= 0.26, thus lc = 0.26 lф

Thus the strip method overestimates the moment by nearly 75%.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.4

Answer - Strip method overestimates by nearly 53%.

10.5. POINT LOADS

POINT LOADS EXAMPLE 1 (Task CM54-10.1)

Axle load = 45 x 10 = 450kN; thus wheel load P i = 450/4 = 112.5kN.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.5

Table 10.2: Data for point E due to HB vehicle.

From table: Mx = 90 x / 8 = ……………(Nm/m)

10.6. SLAB REINFORCEMENT

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.6

“the moment of resistance provided by the reinforcement in any direction at a point

X-Y U-V U-Y

REINFORCEMENT DESIGN EXAMPLE

M*x = 2500 + | -900 | = 3400kNm/m

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.7

No need to check M*y.

10.6.1. Practical details

Figure 10.6: Hairpin details at edges.

Some typical reinforcement orientations are shown in Figure 10.7.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.8

Flexible bearings N>0

Rigid bearings N=0 Rigid bearings N=0

Figure 10.9: Variation of obtuse corner reaction with various parameters.

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.9

Table 10.3: Parameter definitions for Figure 10.9.

where h = thickness of the slab

If N > 0 then the bearing is flexible: if N = 0 the bearing is rigid.

From the Figure it is clear that:

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.10

Reaction location lr/b

External skew angle

Figure 10.10: Eccentricity of total reaction on abutment line.

10.8. BEARING PLACEMENT

PG Cert/PG Diploma/MSc in Bridge and in Structural Engineering Page SE1M54.10.11

Bearings follow line of superelevation

Stepped bearings each one hrizontal

Horizontal bearings and capping beam

Figure 10.11: Possible bearing orientations.

Figure 10.12: Rotation vectors for capping beam to skew slab.

10.9. THERMAL MOVEMENT

Figure 10.13: Thermal movement.

10.13. CALCULATION OF DESIGN MOMENTS MX AND MY FOR (MX , MY ,