STATE-OF-THE-ART IN DESIGN OF CURVED BOX-GIRDER BRIDGES

By Khaled M. Sennah,1 Member, ASCE, and John B. Kennedy,2 Life Fellow, ASCE

ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to provide highlights of the most important references related to
the development of current guide specifications for the design of straight and curved box-girder bridges. Subjects
discussed in this review include (1) different box-girder bridge configurations; (2) construction issues; (3) deck
design; (4) load distribution; (5) deflection and camber; (6) cross-bracing requirements; (7) end diaphragms; (8)
thermal effects; (9) vibration characteristics; (10) impact factors; (11) seismic response; (12) ultimate load-
carrying capacity; (13) buckling of individual components forming the box cross section; (14) fatigue; and (15)
curvature limitations provided by the codes for treating a curved bridge as a straight one. The literature survey
presented herein encompasses (1) the construction phase; (2) load distribution; (3) dynamic response; and (4)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ultimate load response of box-girder bridges.

INTRODUCTION question the basis for design of box-girder bridges. McDonald

The construction of curved box-girder bridges in inter-
changes of modern highway systems has become increasingly
popular for economic and aesthetic reasons. Box-girder cross
sections may take the form of single cell (one box), multispine
(separate boxes), or multicell with a common bottom flange
(contiguous boxes or cellular shape) as shown in Fig. 1. The
current design specifications in North America [Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) 1988; Ontario Ministry of Trans-
portation and Communications (OMTC) 1992; American As-
sociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) 1996, 1998], along with the forthcoming Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code (OMTC 1998), recommend few
analytical methods for the analysis of certain types of straight
box-girder bridges as well as load-distribution factors for lon-
gitudinal moment and shear. These specifications also provide
some recommendations for enhancing the torsional resistance
of box-girder bridges, but without specific provisions that can
be used directly in design. The North American specifications
for horizontally curved bridges (AASHTO 1993) pertain to
only one type of box-girder configuration, namely the curved
composite concrete deck-steel multiple-spine box girders. A
recent review of available work on curved steel bridges was
presented by Zureick et al. (1994).
The objective of this paper is to summarize the most im-
portant references in design of straight and curved box-girder
bridges that (1) would provide the groundwork for the devel-
opment of the current bridge specifications; (2) could play an
important role in the enhancement of these current specifica-
tions; and (3) would assist in determining the gaps that may
require further research. A paper by Sennah and Kennedy
(2001) presented the literature pertaining to the analysis meth-
ods of curved box-girder bridges.
BOX-GIRDER BRIDGES AT CONSTRUCTION PHASE
In 1969, the fourth Danube Bridge in Vienna was damaged
during construction. Later, the Milford Haven Bridge in Wales;
the Yarra Bridge near Yarram in Australia; and the Rhine River
Bridge in Koblenz, Germany, all suffered disasters due to fail-
ures during erection. These failures led bridge engineers to
1
Asst. Prof., Civ. Engrg. Dept., Ryerson Polytechnic Univ., Toronto,
ON, Canada M5B 2K3.
2
University and Emeritus Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ.
of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada N9B 3P4.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2001. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on January 13, 2000; revised May 31, 2000. This
paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, May/
June, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/01/0003-0159–0167/$8.00 ⫹ $.50
per page. Paper No. 22196.
et al. (1976) elastically tested two single-cell steel girder mod-
els with different numbers of cross bracings and under con-
centric and eccentric loadings. Top lateral bracing was used in
the models. The open cross section with top lateral bracing
was analyzed as a closed section with an equivalent top plate,
utilizing the equivalent box section concept introduced by
Dabrowski (1968). U.S. (1978) reported some difficulties en-
countered in box-girder construction such as changes in ge-
ometry and excessive rotation of girders before and during the
placement of the concrete deck. Fabrication and erection pro-
cedures were recommended based on various fabricators/erec-
tors organizations as well as early research work on curved
composite box-girder bridges (Heins 1978). Branco and Green
(1982, 1985) undertook a series of scale model studies of sim-
ple-span torsionally open and quasi-closed cross-section beams
to examine the effects of construction loadings, as well as the
bracing configurations on the overall stability and deformation
of box-girder bridges. The results from these tests were used
to check those from an analytical study based on both the
finite-strip method and the torsion-bending analysis of open
and quasi-closed sections. Sennah and Kennedy (1999b) stud-
ied the effect of the number of bracing systems, number of
cells, top steel flange width, and span length in reducing the
longitudinal warping stresses in the top steel flanges due to
construction loading before hardening of the concrete deck
slab. Fan and Helwig (1999) developed expressions to estimate
the forces in the top flange bracing systems for straight box
girders subjected to bending.
LOAD DISTRIBUTION
Cross sections of composite box-girder bridges may take the
form of multiple spines or multicells (Fig. 1). The latter pro-
vides greater torsional stiffness than the former due to the high
efficiency of the contiguous cells in resisting eccentric loading.
Few authors (Goodall 1971; Grant 1993; Dean 1994) derived
solutions to the torsional stiffness and shear flows of regular
multicellular sections that are frequently used in modern
curved highway bridges. Fu and Yang (1996) extended the
solution to torsional design of multiple box and multicellular-
reinforced concrete bridges. The following provides a sum-
mary of the research work done on load distribution and de-
sign of such bridge types.
Multiple Spine Box-Girder Bridges
Johanston and Mattock (1967) and Fountain and Mattock
(1968) used a computer program for the analysis of folded
plate structures to study the lateral distribution of load in sim-
ple-span composite multiple-spine box-girder bridges without
intermediate diaphragms. To verify their analysis and com-
puter program, two-box and three-box bridge models were
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001 / 159

J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 1. Box Girder Cross Section Types: (a) Single Cell; (b) Multiple Spine (Multibox); (c) Multicell (Cellular)
built and tested under AASHTO truck loadings. The results
were used to develop an expression for the live load bending-
moment distribution factor for each box girder as a function
of the roadway width and number of boxes. Their findings
formed the basis for the lateral distribution of loads for bend-
ing moments currently used by AASHTO (1996), OMTC
(1983), and CSA (1988), for the multispine box-girder bridges.
However, this expression does not account for the beneficial
effect of cross bracing inside and between the boxes. More-
over, it limits its application to bridges with a number of spines
equal to the number of lanes. AASHTO (1998) provides an-
other expression for load distribution for the ultimate limit
state to obtain the live load-bending moment and shear force
in each box of the cross section.
Tung and Fountain (1970) presented an approximate method
to determine the torsional moments and angle of twist in
curved box girders of single and multiple spans. The box gird-
ers were assumed to be adequately stiffened by internal trans-
verse diaphragms so that both warping and distortion stresses
were considered negligible. Ho (1972) developed the stiffness
matrices for single-span simply supported curved box-beam
bridges using the unit-load theorem. Two design parameters
resulted from a parametric study: (1) moment distribution fac-
tors for proportioning wheel loads to a given box; and (2)
modification factors for predicting bending and torsional ef-
fects. Heins (1978) developed two expressions for the live load
longitudinal bending moment and torsional moment in a
straight box girder, with two modification factors to account
for curvature. These expressions were developed from data
(Ho 1972) resulting from a thorough system analysis of 90
curved multispine box-girder bridges. Heins (1978) simplified
the modification factor for curvature. He applied it to the
straight multiple box-girder moment distribution equation pro-
vided by Fountain and Mattock (1968) to design horizontally
curved composite multiple box-girder bridges. The work also
included approximate formulas (Heins 1978) for the box sec-
tion geometry, calculation of internal forces, and top chord and
cross-bracing requirements. A computer program was written
(Heins and Stroczkowski 1976) for the design of continuous
curved tubular girders.
Bakht and Jaeger (1985, 1992) presented a method to ana-
lyze a particular case of multispine bridges having at least
three spines, zero transverse bending stiffness, with the load
transfer between the various spines through transverse shear.
Based on these simplifications, they proposed load distribution
factors for bending moment and shear. These formed the basis
for live load distribution (OMTC 1992) for multispine bridges.
Salaheldin and Schmidt (1991) reported a detailed study, using
the finite-element method, of the flange transverse membrane
stresses of a simply supported box girder reinforced with a
rigid end diaphragm under symmetric concentrated loads act-
ing at the midspan. Empirical expressions were formulated to
160 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001
J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.
predict the distribution and magnitude of the transverse flange
stresses. Normandin and Massicotte (1994) presented the re-
sults of a refined finite-element analysis to determine the dis-
tribution patterns in multispine box-girder bridges with differ-
ent characteristics and geometry. Results indicated that, in
some cases, both the AASHTO (1996) and OMTC (1992) dis-
tribution factors underestimate the live load effects by a sig-
nificant margin. Two empirical equations for longitudinal
bending moment and shear in each box were developed for
simply supported bridges when the width of the steel section
is of the same order of magnitude as the lane width.
AASHTO (1993) included specifications for load distribu-
tion for both curved I-girders and multiple box girders; they
are based on design-oriented research work reported by Heins
and Jin (1984) on live load distribution in single and contin-
uous curved composite I-girder bridges. Appropriate design
equations were presented for use in conjunction with a plane
grid solution. Using the finite-strip method, Cheung and Foo
(1995) proposed expressions for the ratio of the moment dis-
tribution factor of the curved composite multiple box-girder
bridge to that of the straight one. The disadvantage of this
study is that it did not take into account the beneficial effect
of diaphragms inside the boxes or cross bracings between
boxes. Furthermore, the effect of the number of boxes and
dead load distribution were not included. Foinquinos et al.
(1997), using the finite-element method, assessed the influence
of intermediate diaphragms on the live load distribution of a
straight three-spine steel box-girder bridge, within the context
of AASHTO (1998).
Multicell Box-Girder Bridges
Prior to 1959, design of straight reinforced concrete multi-
cell box-girder bridges for live load was based on a distribu-
tion factor approach in which individual I-sections were as-
sumed loaded with S/5 wheel lines of standard H-series
AASHTO vehicles, where S represents the spacing (in feet)
(0.305 m) between centerlines of the webs. In 1959, California
design engineers, who appreciated the large torsional rigidity
of closed cellular sections, suggested to the American Asso-
ciation of State Highway Officials a change in this distribution
factor. Based on this, the current AASHTO code (AASHTO
1996) specified the following load distribution factors for
bending moment in straight reinforced concrete box-girder
bridges—S/8 for one-lane traffic and S/7 for two or more traf-
fic lanes—where S represents the cell width in feet (0.305 m).
These specified load distribution factors, however, do not give
the designer much information on the behavior of the bridge
or the parameters influencing its response (Davis et al. 1982).
The National Standards of Canada for the Design of Highway
Bridges (CSA 1988) adopted the above specified moment dis-
tribution factors for straight multicell bridge cross sections.
 Turkstra and Fam (1978) investigated the effect of warping
on the longitudinal normal stresses as well as on the transverse
normal stresses in single-cell curved bridges. Mukherjee and
Trikha (1980), using the finite-strip method, developed a set
of design coefficients for two-lane, twin cell, curved box-
girder reinforced concrete bridges as an aid to practical design
of such bridges. The effect of intermediate diaphragms was
not considered in this study. Davis and Bon (1981) presented
a correction factor for curvature for load distribution in con-
crete and prestressed concrete multicell box-girder bridges.
The drawback of this method is that the beneficial effect of
the intermediate diaphragms was not taken into consideration.
In the first phase of the AASHTO-sponsored National Co-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
operative Highway Research Program, Nutt et al. (1988) pro-
posed a set of equations for moment distribution in straight,
reinforced, and prestressed concrete multicell box-girder
bridges. In the second phase, other moment and shear distri-
bution factors were proposed [National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) 1991; Zokaie et al. 1991; Trans-
portation Research Board (TRB) 1992]. Their findings form
the load distribution factors for moment and shear currently
used by AASHTO (1998) for straight concrete multicell
bridges. Ho et al. (1989) used the finite-strip method to ana-
lyze straight simply supported, two-cell box girder and rectan-
gular voided slab bridges without intermediate diaphragms.
Empirical expressions and design curves were deduced for the
ratio of the maximum longitudinal bending moment to the
equivalent beam moment. Brighton et al. (1996) described a
study to determine a live load distribution factor for a new
type of precast concrete double-cell box girder that was pro-
posed for a prefabricated bridge system with shear keys for
rapid construction of short-span bridges.
Sennah and Kennedy (1998a,b, 1999a,c) presented empiri-
cal expressions for moment, shear, and deflection distribution
factors as well as for the maximum design force in bracing
members of simply supported curved composite concrete
deck-steel cellular bridges of typical cross sections. AASHTO
(1996) and CSA (1998) provide a geometrically defined cri-
terion to establish when a horizontally curved bridge may be
treated as a straight one. Sennah and Kennedy (1998b, 1999c)
examined these limitations in the case of moment and shear
in curved composite multicell bridges. Further examination
may be required for other types of curved box-girder bridges.
Bazant and Kim (1989) developed, based on experimental
investigation, probabilistic prediction of the confidence limits
for long-term load deflections and for internal forces in pre-
stressed concrete segmental box-girder bridges. Shiu and Ta-
batabai (1994) measured the thermal strains and temperature
of single-cell nonprismatic concrete box-girder bridges con-
structed using the balanced cantilever method to examine the
current AASHTO recommendation. A modified temperature
correction procedure was presented. Farkas and Jarmai (1995)
presented a multiobjective optimal design method for welded
box beams with respect to the material and fabrication cost,
mass, and maximum deflection. Ragon et al. (1994) performed
a similar study for minimum mass design based on buckling
constraints of a simple box beam subjected to both pure tor-
sion and bending.
DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF BOX-GIRDER BRIDGES
Free and Forced Vibrations
Komatsu and Nakai (1966, 1970) conducted several studies
on the free vibration and forced vibration of horizontally
curved single, and twin box-girder bridges using the funda-
mental equation of motion along with Vlasov’s thin-walled
beam theory. Field tests on bridges excited either by a shaker
or by a truck traveling at various speeds showed reasonable
J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.
agreement between the theory and experimental results.
Cheung and Cheung (1972) described the application of the
finite-strip method for the determination of the natural fre-
quencies and mode shapes of vibration of straight and curved
beam-slab or box-girder bridges.
Tabba (1972) utilized the thin-walled beam theory to esti-
mate the natural modes and frequencies of a curved simply
supported girder of asymmetric multicell section. Results from
testing two curved cellular plexiglass models were used to
verify the proposed method. Fam (1973) studied the behavior
of curved box-girder bridges using the finite-element method
for applied dynamic loads. Results from testing a single-cell
plexiglass model having high curvature were used to verify
the proposed method. Armstrong and Landon (1973) and
Greig and Armstrong (1973) reported the results of a field
study of a curved twin-spine composite box-girder bridge in
Springfield, Mass. Buchanan et al. (1974) conducted an ex-
perimental field investigation on the impact factor of a twin-
cell box-girder bridge with a composite deck near Baltimore.
Rabizadeh and Shore (1975) presented a finite-element method
for the dynamic analysis of curved multiple box-girder
bridges, which formed the basis for the impact factor adopted
by AASHTO (1980). The vehicle was simulated by two sets
of concentrated forces having components in the radial and
transverse directions, and moving with constant angular ve-
locities on circumferential paths of the bridge. Chu and Jones
(1976) extended the developed finite-element formulation of
curved box-girder bridges (Chu and Pinjarkar 1971) to the
dynamic analysis of such bridges. Heins and Sahin (1979)
evaluated the first natural frequency of straight and curved,
simply supported and continuous, multispine box-girder
bridges using a finite-difference technique to solve the differ-
ential equations of motion based on Vlasov’s thin-walled beam
theory. Heins and Lee (1981) presented the experimental re-
sults obtained from vehicle-induced dynamic field testing of a
two-span continuous curved composite concrete deck-steel
single-cell bridge, located in Seoul. Cheung et al. (1982) pub-
lished results of experimental tests for moment impact factors
for box girders with straight alignments.
Mirza et al. (1985) and Cheung and Mirza (1986) investi-
gated experimentally and theoretically, using the finite-element
method, the influence of the bracing systems on the funda-
mental frequency of a composite concrete deck-steel twin box-
girder bridge model continuous over two spans, with a varying
depth at the intermediate support. Balendra and Shanmugam
(1985) and Shanmugam and Balendra (1986) studied the free-
vibration response of straight multicell structures with solid
webs and with web openings. Inbanathan and Wieland (1987)
presented an analytical investigation on the dynamic response
of a simply supported box-girder bridge due to a vehicle mov-
ing over a rough deck.
Galdos (1988), Galdos et al. (1993), and Schelling et al.
(1992) studied the dynamic response of horizontally curved
composite multispine box-girder bridges of different spans,
based on a planar grid finite-element analysis. The moving
vehicle was represented by two constant forces with no mass,
traveling with constant angular velocity in a circumferential
path. Bridge damping was neglected. Their findings form the
basis for the impact factors currently used by AASHTO (1993)
for curved multispine box-girder bridges. Mirza et al. (1990)
conducted free-vibration tests on prestressed concrete simply
supported one- and two-cell box-girder bridge models. Cheung
and Li (1991) extended the application of the spline finite-
strip method to free-vibration analysis of curved box-girder
bridges to reduce the computational effort when compared to
the finite-element method. Cheung and Megnounif (1991) con-
ducted an analytical investigation using the finite-element
method to study the influence of diaphragms, cross bracings,
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001 / 161
 and bridge aspect ratio on the dynamic response of a straight
twin box-girder bridge of 45 m span. Kashif (1992) developed
a finite-element technique to analyze the dynamic response of
simply supported multiple box-girder bridges considering ve-
hicle-bridge interaction.
Kou et al. (1992) presented a theory that incorporates a spe-
cial treatment of warping in the free-vibration analysis of con-
tinuous curved thin-walled girder bridges. Also, Kou (1989)
examined the dynamic response of curved continuous box-
girder bridges. Huang et al. (1995) presented a procedure for
obtaining the dynamic response of thin-walled box-girder
bridges due to truck loading over a rough road surface, based
on a thin-walled beam finite-element model considering warp-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing torsion and distortion. Later, this procedure was extended
(Wang et al. 1996) to study the free-vibration characteristics
and the dynamic response of three-span continuous and can-
tilever thin-walled single-cell box-girder bridges when sub-
jected to multivehicle load moving across a rough bridge deck.
Most recently, this procedure was also extended (Huang et al.
1998) to curved box-girder bridges to obtain their impact fac-
tor characteristics. Senthilvasan et al. (1997) combined the
spline finite-strip method of analysis and a horizontally curved
folded-plate model to investigate the bridge-vehicle interaction
in curved single- and multicell bridges. An in-depth study was
conducted by Sennah and Kennedy (1997, 1998c) on the free-
vibration response of simply supported and continuous curved
composite cellular box-girder bridges, resulting in empirical
expressions for the dominant frequency for such bridges.
Seismic Response
Heins and Lin (1983) developed a method in which equiv-
alent stiffnesses that correspond to one rotational and three
translational degrees of freedom were calculated for the entire
bridge structure. These stiffnesses were then used to calculate
the natural frequencies of a single-degree-of-freedom system.
These results were utilized to develop empirical design equa-
tions. Yilmaz et al. (1984) discussed the analysis techniques
(single-mode spectral and multimode spectral methods) along
with a proposed design guide for curved steel box-girder
bridges, incorporating the interaction between bending and tor-
sional forces. Using a special 3D frame element, Chang et al.
(1985) and Abdel-Salam and Heins (1988) predicted the seis-
mic response of curved composite girder and multiple box-
girder bridges, respectively. Richardson and Douglas (1993)
presented the results of a field test using simulated earthquake
loads on a curved highway overpass of single-cell prestressed
concrete cross section. The experimental vibration modes were
used to verify a 3D finite-element model of the dynamic re-
sponse of the bridge.
Fatigue Response
Inukia et al. (1978) investigated the stress history data of a
field test on a three-span continuous curved composite box-
girder bridge in Pittsburgh to examine its fatigue strength.
Daniels et al. (1979) presented the results of a finite-element
study on the effect of spacing of rigid interior diaphragms on
the fatigue strength of curved steel box girders. Also, Daniels
and Batcheler (1980) evaluated the fatigue performance of
eight types of welded details, categorized by the AASHTO
specifications by testing three full-scale curved box girders
under cyclic loading. Fisher et al. (1982) studied the displace-
ment-induced fatigue cracking of a box-girder bridge. Fuku-
moto and Kusama (1985) tested thin-walled welded box beams
under cyclic bending loads. Ghavami (1986) examined exper-
imentally the fatigue behavior of different types of fillet-
welded joints as used in box girders. Pessiki and Derrah (1994)
performed cyclic loading tests to monitor fatigue crack growth
162 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001
J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.
in four large-scale steel box beam models. Rao and Frantz
(1996) carried out fatigue testing on two precast, prestressed
concrete box beams. The beams were purposely precracked
prior to fatigue loading with periodic overloads applied.
ULTIMATE RESPONSE OF BOX-GIRDER BRIDGES
Stability
Culver and Nasir (1970) and Culver and Mozer (1970,
1971) studied analytically the elastic and inelastic buckling
behavior of an unstiffened flange of a curved box girder. Ab-
del-Sayed (1973) examined the problem of prebuckling be-
havior as well as the critical limit of loading for webs of
curved I- and box girders under combined actions of shear and
normal stresses. Corrado and Yen (1973) tested up-to-failure
two slender-web steel box-girder models under different com-
binations of bending, shear, and torsional loads to provide in-
formation on the postbuckling behavior of such members.
Yonezawa et al. (1978) and Dogaki et al. (1979) examined
experimentally the ultimate behavior of two horizontally
curved steel single-cell box-girder bridge models with a lon-
gitudinally stiffened steel deck plate. The models were tested
under two concentrated loads and the top flange failed due to
inelastic buckling. Vandepitte and Verhegge (1983) proposed
a method for the evaluation of the ultimate strength in circum-
ferential tension or compression of curved flanges in curved
box-girder bridges, taking into account the loss in strength due
to transverse bending stresses. Harik and Ekabaram (1984)
used the classical linear theory of buckling of sector plates in
the stability analysis of horizontally and vertically curved box
members. The Fourier series and finite-difference technique
were applied to estimate the critical buckling stresses. Yone-
zawa et al. (1985) presented an analytical method to predict
the elastic buckling of orthogonally stiffened sector plates un-
der uniaxial compression uniformly distributed at the straight
edges.
Mikami et al. (1985) developed an approach, using a finite-
difference technique, to predict deflections and stresses in the
bottom flange of the cylindrical plate in tapered box girders,
stiffened in the circumferential direction, under an in-plane-
load in the circumferential direction of the cylindrical panel.
Later, Mikami et al. (1987) tested, under bending and up-to-
failure, three straight steel box models with longitudinally
stiffened top flange. The overall behavior of box girders after
local buckling of one component (i.e., web plate or flange),
was carefully observed until failure of the girder. The test re-
sults showed the undesirable sudden collapse of the box girder
after local buckling of only one component. Mikami and Niwa
(1993) extended this experimental study by testing, up-to-col-
lapse, three welded steel box-girder models with unsymmet-
rical cross sections under pure bending; combined bending and
shear; and combined bending, shear, and torsion, respectively.
In the negative moment regions over the interior piers of
continuous box-girder bridges, the bottom flanges are sub-
jected to high compressive forces and buckling of the steel
flange plates is a governing factor for design. Yen et al. (1986)
strengthened these compression flange plates by a concrete
slab acting compositely with them. The strength and behavior
of such bridge segment with such composite compression
flanges were examined. A similar study was conducted by
Evans et al. (1994). Dogaki et al. (1986) utilized a finite-dif-
ference technique to analyze the support diaphragms with a
rectangular hole in steel box-girder bridges under shear stress
distributed uniformly along the vertical edges to determine the
stress distribution at prebuckling and to evaluate the corre-
sponding elastic critical buckling loads. Korol et al. (1988)
tested a single-cell steel model up-to-failure to investigate the
effect of geometric imperfection on the strength of steel box
 girders. Usami (1990) presented a simple yet accurate method
for computing the ultimate strength of stiffened box members
in combined compression and bending based on the strut ap-
proach. Thimmhardy (1991) performed a geometrically and
materially nonlinear analysis to predict the buckling behavior
and ultimate strength of stiffened compression plates used in
continuous box-girder bridges. Benussi and Mele (1994) pro-
posed a semiempirical method to evaluate the shear-carrying
capacity of box girder webs with an aspect ratio up to 1.0.
The proposed method was validated by results from a series
of experiments on models and by a comparison with other
theoretical methods in evaluating the ultimate shear strength.
Salahuddin (1994) presented a modified design procedure for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the ultimate load-carrying capacity of steel box-girder bridges
with longitudinally stiffened flanges subjected to flexural
loads. This method, based on the nonlinear theory of plate
buckling, incorporates geometric nonlinearity representing the
change of geometry effect on the postbuckling strength of box
girders, the nonlinearity of material due to yielding of certain
portions of the girder, interaction between the walls compris-
ing the periphery of the box girder, and the number of longi-
tudinal stiffeners attached to the compression flanges of the
box girder.
Machacek et al. (1994) investigated the negative shear lag
phenomenon and its interaction with local buckling of indi-
vidual plates of box girders. The analysis included geometric
nonlinear effects on behavior. Yabuki et al. (1995) presented
a numerical method for predicting the influence of local buck-
ling in component plates and of distortion on the ultimate
strength of thin-walled welded steel box girders curved in plan
and stiffened by intermediate diaphragms. Theoretical predic-
tions were compared to results obtained from testing two
large-scale curved steel box girders up-to-collapse. Barbero et
al. (1995) presented a convenient formulation for the stability
analysis of composite plate assemblies using the finite-element
method for postbuckling analysis. Megason and Hallak
(1995a–d) carried out a parametric study using the finite-ele-
ment method to determine the optimum design of load-bearing
box diaphragms with different support locations. Shimizu
(1995) used the finite-element method to investigate the local
buckling behavior of steel box-girder support diaphragms. The
arc-length increment technique was used for the elastoplastic
large deflection analysis. Krolak and Mlotkowski (1996) tested
to collapse a large-scale thin-walled steel box beam subjected
to pure bending. The test results for the buckling and ultimate
loads were compared with the results from the theoretical anal-
ysis.
Overall Nonlinear Behavior
Maisel and Roll (1974), Danesi and Edwards (1982), and
Kermani and Waldron (1993) studied experimentally the pre-
cracked behavior of single-cell deformable concrete box sec-
tions under eccentric loads. Trikha and Edwards (1972) carried
out numerical and experimental studies on the behavior of con-
crete box girders before and after cracking. Spence and Morley
(1975) dealt with the plastic behavior of deformable concrete
single-cell box beams. In their study, 13 deformable box sec-
tions were tested experimentally under different combinations
of symmetrical and antisymmetrical loads. Based on the ex-
perimental results, a method to predict the collapse load of
concrete box girders of deformable cross sections was devel-
oped. Heins and Humphreys (1979) tested to failure a series
of box beam models, composed of steel top flanges, steel
webs, steel bottom flange, and cross bracings, with some mod-
els with a concrete deck slab. Based on the test results, a
nondimensional interaction equation was developed to expe-
dite the load factor design of curved steel box girders. Danesi
and Edwards (1983) presented the behavior to failure of pre-
J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.
stressed concrete box beams of deformable cross sections sub-
jected to eccentric load. Seible and Scordelis (1984) developed
a 3D grillage model and a computer program to trace the non-
linear response of multicell-reinforced concrete box-girder
bridges under increasing static loading. The results from this
technique compared well with results from a two-span, four-
cell, reinforced concrete box-girder bridge tested to collapse
by Scordelis et al. (1974). Perry et al. (1985) and Pinkney et
al. (1985) tested to collapse a 1/12 scale, highly curved in plan,
prestressed concrete continuous bifurcated box-girder bridge
model. The model represented a four-lane carriageway bifur-
cating into three- and two-lane spans, and was of typical sin-
gle- and two-cell box girder construction. A similar study was
conducted by Owens et al. (1982) but on curved composite
concrete-deck steel multispine box-girders assemblage. Dan-
iels (1985) carried out a full-scale test on a horizontally curved
composite single-cell girder bridge. The bridge model was
tested elastically before and after casting the concrete slab and
then tested to failure. A premature failure in the concrete slab
had occurred, rendering the results pertaining to the ultimate
strength inconclusive.
Choudhury and Scordelis (1988) developed a curved non-
prismatic thin-walled single-cell box beam element for nonlin-
ear material analysis of reinforced and prestressed concrete
box-girder bridges. While Mari et al. (1988) presented a
straight box-beam element of nondeformable cross section
composed of concrete panels with steel layers to model ma-
terial nonlinearity and time-dependent effects due to load his-
tory, creep, shrinkage, aging of concrete, and relaxation of
prestressing steel. A continuous three-span single-cell pre-
stressed concrete bridge with side cantilevers constructed near
Cordoba, Spain was used to show the capabilities of the ana-
lytical model. Hachim (1988) utilized a material nonlinear
technique in the ADINA finite-element program to study the
elastoplastic response of a small-scale curved composite con-
crete deck four-cell aluminum bridge model, continuous over
two spans with central support. Razaqpur et al. (1989) con-
structed a finite-element computer program to predict the ma-
terial nonlinear behavior up to collapse of structures made of
plain concrete, reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, steel,
and composite concrete-steel. Models of 1/7 scale of single-
and two-cell prestressed concrete box-girder bridges, tested to
destruction by Mirza et al. (1990) were analyzed using the
proposed nonlinear technique. López and Aparicio (1989) de-
veloped a similar mathematical model for nonlinear analysis
of reinforced concrete structures. A prestressed concrete five-
span continuous curved bridge with a double-trapezoidal-cell,
located in Madrid, Spain, was used to verify the application
of the proposed model. Nakai et al. (1990) conducted an ex-
perimental study on the ultimate strength of thin-walled box
beams subjected to bending and torsion. Ng et al. (1993) de-
veloped a similar finite-element program to trace the nonlinear
response of reinforced concrete structures, and used it to an-
alyze a two-span, four-cell, reinforced concrete box-girder
bridge, previously tested by Scordelis et al. (1974). Hand and
Kostem (1993) presented a specialized finite-element model to
predict the overall inelastic flexural response of prestressed
concrete box beams, including the prediction of the location
and mechanism of material damage initiation and propagation.
Practical and realistic reliability models were developed by
Cho et al. (1994) for the evaluation of system reliability and
system reliability-based capacity rating of various types of
box-girder bridges. Soliman (1994) conducted experimental
studies on reinforced concrete single-cell box-girder bridge
models to study the effect of diaphragms on the deformation
behavior of reinforced concrete straight and curved single-cell
box-girder bridges. Soliman and Ghali (1994) extended the
theoretical study using a nonlinear finite-element technique to
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001 / 163
 examine the effect of the intermediate diaphragms and end
diaphragms on the behavior of short, medium, and long-span
concrete single-cell box-girder bridges. Hindi et al. (1995)
tested a three-span segmental box-girder bridge model post-
tensioned with external tendons to determine the effect of ex-
ternal tendons on the ultimate strength and ductility of such
bridges. Rahai (1996) presented a nonlinear analysis of the
effects of temperature differences on the behavior of contin-
uous concrete box-girder bridges. A diagram for temperature
distribution along the vertical bisection was then proposed for
bridge design. Labia et al. (1997) tested, up-to-collapse, two
full-scale, precast, pretensioned box girders, removed from an
existing bridge in Reno, Nev., after 20 years in service. Ulti-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mate moments, level of prestress, and ductility were compared
to American Concrete Institute code specifications. Rasmussen
(1996) and Rasmussen and Baker (1998) developed an elas-
toplastic finite-element model to evaluate the plastic behavior
and collapse load of deformable reinforced concrete box sec-
tions. Later, eight large-scale straight reinforced concrete sin-
gle box beams of deformable cross section were tested to fail-
ure (Rasmussen and Baker 1999) under eccentric loads. This
study provided experimental evidence for the analytical mod-
eling performed earlier for crack propagation, ultimate load-
carrying capacity, and failure mechanisms in deformable thin-
walled box sections. Boswell (1998) presented a method for
the ultimate load analysis of thin-walled concrete beams uti-
lizing a rigid plastic analysis for the determination of the yield
criterion for the reinforced concrete elements forming a box.
Results from four box-beam models made of microconcrete
were used to verify the proposed method. Sennah (1998d)
tested to collapse five composite concrete deck-steel cellular
bridge models with different curvature ratios, number of cross-
bracings, and span continuity to investigate the effect of var-
ious parameters on the nonlinear behavior and ultimate load-
carrying capacity of such bridges.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
From the published literature on the design of straight and
curved box-girder bridges, the following comments and rec-
ommendations deserving immediate attention are made:
1. The current North American codes as well as the pub-
lished literature do not provide the design engineer with
adequate information on the behavior of the unshored
straight and curved box-girder bridges during the con-
struction phase. Further research work is required using
3D finite-element analysis to investigate the behavior of
straight and curved box girders at this phase and avoid
possible failure.
2. The study of load distribution in curved box-girder
bridges due to dead load and truck loads was not covered
for all cross-section configurations, span continuity, and
different support conditions.
3. Since the dynamic characteristics of curved bridges of
cellular cross sections are different from those of multi-
ple-spine cross sections, further research should be di-
rected toward the study of the impact factors for curved
cellular bridges. This is important since the research
would provide the design engineer with reliable esti-
mates of the dynamic load factors for an economic
bridge design.
4. The study of fatigue response of curved box-girder
bridges needs further investigation since only a limited
number of publications are available on this important
design aspect. Fatigue has been known historically to
trigger sudden failures in bridges.
5. Simple expressions for the load-carrying capacity, or for
the ultimate load distribution in straight and curved box-
164 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001
J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.
girder bridges are still required since the published lit-
erature on this subject is not yet conclusive.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Salam, M. N., and Heins, C. P. (1988). ‘‘Seismic response of
curved steel box-girder bridges.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(12),
2790–2800.
Abdel-Sayed, G. (1973). ‘‘Curved webs under combined shear and nor-
mal stresses.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 99(3), 511–525.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1980). Guide specifications for horizontally curved high-
way bridges, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1993). Guide specifications for horizontally curved high-
way bridges, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1996). Standard specifications for highway bridges,
Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1998). LRFD bridge design specifications, Washington,
D.C.
Armstrong, W. L., and Landon, J. A. (1973). ‘‘Dynamic testing of curved
box beam bridge.’’ Fed. Hwy. Res. and Devel. Rep. No. 73-1, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Bakht, B., and Jaeger, L. G. (1992). ‘‘Simplified methods of bridge anal-
ysis for the third edition of OHBDC.’’ Can. J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa,
19(4), 551–559.
Bakht, B., and Jaeger, L. G. (1985). Bridge deck simplified, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Balendra, T., and Shanmugam, N. E. (1985). ‘‘Vibrational characteristics
of multicellular structures.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 111(7), 1449–
1459.
Barbero, E. J., Raftoyiannis, I. G., and Godoy, L. A. (1995). ‘‘Finite
elements for postbuckling analysis. II—Application to composite plate
assemblies.’’ Comp. and Struct., 56(6), 1019–1028.
Bazant, Z. P., and Kim, J. (1989). ‘‘Segmental box girder: Deflection
probability and Bayesian updating.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(10),
2528–2547.
Benussi, F., and Mele, M. (1994). ‘‘Shear strength of webs in box-girder
bridges.’’ J. Constr. Steel Res., 31(1), 91–101.
Boswell, L. F. (1998). ‘‘Ultimate load analysis of thin-walled concrete
box beams.’’ Thin-Walled Struct., 30(1–4), 181–198.
Branco, F. A., and Green, R. (1982). ‘‘Construction bracing for composite
box-girder bridges.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Short- and Medium-Span
Bridges, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Quebec,
Vol. 1, 451–462.
Branco, F. A., and Green, R. (1985). ‘‘Composite box-girder bridge be-
havior during construction.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 111(3), 577–593.
Brighton, J., Newell, J., and Scanlon, A. (1996). ‘‘Live load distribution
factors for double-cell box girders.’’ Proc., 1st Struct. Spec. Conf., Ca-
nadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, 419–430.
Buchanan, J. D., Yoo, C. H., and Heins, C. P. (1974). ‘‘Field study of a
curved box-girder bridge.’’ Civ. Engrg. Rep. No. 59, University of
Maryland, College Park, Md.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (1988). ‘‘Design of highway
bridges.’’ CAN/CSA-S6-88, Rexdale, Ont.
Chang, P. C., Heins, C. P., Li, G., and Shu, D. (1985). ‘‘Seismic study
of curved bridges using the Rayleigh-Ritz method.’’ Comp. and Struct.,
21(6), 1095–1104.
Cheung, M. S., Chan, M. Y. T., and Beauchamp, T. C. (1982). ‘‘Impact
factors for composite steel box-girder bridges.’’ Proc., Int. Assn. for
Bridges and Struct. Engrg. IABSE Colloquium, Zurich, 841–848.
Cheung, M. S., and Foo, S. H. C. (1995). ‘‘Design of horizontally curved
composite box-girder bridges: A simplified approach.’’ Can. J. Civ.
Engrg., Ottawa, 22(1), 93–105.
Cheung, M. S., and Megnounif, A. (1991). ‘‘Parametric study of design
variations on the vibration modes of box-girder bridges.’’ Can. J. Civ.
Engrg., Ottawa, 18(5), 789–798.
Cheung, M. S., and Mirza, M. S. (1986). ‘‘A study of the response of
composite concrete deck-steel box-girder bridges.’’ Proc., 3rd Int. Conf.
on Computational and Experimental Measurements, Pergamon, Ox-
ford, 549–565.
Cheung, Y. K., and Cheung, M. S. (1972). ‘‘Free vibration of curved and
straight beam-slab or box-girder bridges.’’ IABSE Periodica, Zurich,
32(2), 41–52.
Cheung, Y. K., and Li, W. Y. (1991). ‘‘Free vibration analysis of longi-
tudinal arbitrary curved box-girder structures by spline finite-strip
method.’’ Proc., Asian Pacific Conf. on Computational Mech., Perga-
mon, Oxford, 1139–1144.
 Cho, H. N., Lee, S. J., and Kang, K. K. (1994). ‘‘Assessment of system
reliability and capacity rating of composite steel box-girder highway
bridges.’’ Struct. Engrg./Earthquake Engrg., Tokyo, 11(2), 855–925.
Choudhury, D., and Scordelis, A. C. (1988). ‘‘Structural analysis and
response of curved prestressed concrete box-girder bridges.’’ Transp.
Res. Rec. 1180, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 72–
86.
Chu, K. J., and Jones, M. (1976). ‘‘Theory of dynamic analysis of box-
girder bridges.’’ Int. Assn. of Bridge and Struct. Engrg., Zurich, 36(2),
121–145.
Chu, K. J., and Pinjarkar, S. G. (1971). ‘‘Analysis of horizontally curved
box-girder bridges.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 97(10), 2481–2501.
Corrado, J. A., and Yen, B. T. (1973). ‘‘Failure tests of rectangular model
steel box girders.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 99(7), 1439–1455.
Culver, C. G., and Mozer, J. D. (1970). ‘‘Stability of curved box girder.’’
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Rep. No. B1, Consortium of Univ. Res. Teams, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity, Pittsburgh.
Culver, C. G., and Mozer, J. D. (1971). ‘‘Stability of curved box girder.’’
Rep. No. B2, Consortium of Univ. Res. Teams, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity, Pittsburgh.
Culver, C. G., and Nasir, G. (1970). ‘‘Buckling of unstiffened curve
plates.’’ Rep. No. 68-32, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Pub-
lic Roads, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Dabrowski, R. (1968). Curved thin-walled girders—Theory and analysis,
Springer, New York.
Daniels, J. H. (1985). ‘‘Ultimate strength tests of a horizontally curved
composite box girder.’’ Fritz Lab Rep. 454.3, Civ. Engrg. Dept., Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, Pa.
Daniels, J. H., Abraham, D., and Yen, B. T. (1979). ‘‘Fatigue of curved
steel bridge elements—Effect of internal diaphragms on fatigue
strength of curved box girders.’’ Rep. No. FHWA-RD-79-136, Fed.
Hwy. Admin., Washington, D.C.
Daniels, J. H., and Batcheler, R. P. (1980). ‘‘Fatigue of curved steel bridge
elements—Fatigue tests of curved box girders.’’ Rep. No. FHWA-RD-
79-134, Fed. Hwy. Admin., Washington, D.C.
Danesi, R. F., and Edwards, A. D. (1982). ‘‘Bending, torsion, and distor-
tion of prestressed concrete box beams of deformable cross section: A
comparison of experimental and theoretical results.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ.
Engrs., London, 73(Part 1), 789–810.
Danesi, R. F., and Edwards, A. D. (1983). ‘‘The behavior up-to-failure
of prestressed concrete box beams of deformable cross section sub-
jected to eccentric load.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., London, 75(Part 2),
49–75.
Davis, R. E., and Bon, V. D. (1981). ‘‘Transverse distribution of loads in
box-girder bridges (Vol. 7): Correction for curvature.’’ Final Rep. No.
FHWA-CA-SD-81/16, California Department of Transportation, Sacra-
mento, Calif.
Davis, R. E., Bon, V. D., and Semans, F. M. (1982). ‘‘Live load distri-
bution in concrete box-girder bridges.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 871, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 47–52.
Dean, D. L. (1994). ‘‘Torsion of regular multicellular members.’’ J. Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 120(12), 3675–3678.
Dogaki, M., Harada, M., and Yonezawa, H. (1986). ‘‘Elastic buckling of
support diaphragms with rectangular holes in steel box girders.’’ Tech-
nol. Rep. No. 27, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan.
Dogaki, M., Mikami, I., Yonezawa, H., and Ozawa, K. (1979). ‘‘Further
test of the curved girder with orthotropic steel plate deck.’’ Tech. Rep.
No. 20, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan.
Evans, H. R., Kristek, V., and Skaloud, M. (1994). ‘‘Strengthening steel
box-girder bridges by controlling the effects of shear lag.’’ Proc., Instn.
of Civ. Engrs., Struct., and Build., London, 104(4), 483–488.
Fam, A. R. M. (1973). ‘‘Static and free-vibration analysis of curved box
bridges.’’ Struct. Dyn. Ser. No. 73-2, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Appl.
Mech., McGill University, Montreal.
Fan, Z., and Helwig, T. A. (1999). ‘‘Top flange bracing systems for box
girders.’’ Proc., 1999 Struct. Congr., ASCE, Reston, Va., 235–238.
Farkas, J., and Jarmai, K. (1995). ‘‘Multiobjective optimal design of
welded box beams.’’ Microcomputers in Civ. Engrg., Oxford, 10(4),
249–255.
Fisher, J. W., Mertz, D. R., and Wu, K. C. (1982). ‘‘Displacement-induced
fatigue cracking of a box-girder bridge.’’ IABSE Periodica, Zurich, 39,
71–76.
Foinquinos, R., Kuzmanovic, B., and Vargas, L. M. (1997). ‘‘Influence
of diaphragms on live load distribution in straight multiple steel box-
girder bridges.’’ Proc., 15th Struct. Congr., Vol. 1, ASCE, New York,
89–93.
Fountain, R. S., and Mattock, R. S. (1968). ‘‘Composite steel-concrete
multibox-girder bridges.’’ Proc., Can. Struct. Engrg. Conf., Canadian
Civil Engineering Society, Montreal, Quebec, 19–30.
Fu, C. C., and Yang, D. (1996). ‘‘Designs of concrete bridges with mul-
J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.
tiple box cells due to torsion using softened truss model.’’ ACI Struct.
J., 93(6), 696–702.
Fukumoto, Y., and Kusama, H. (1985). ‘‘Cyclic bending tests of thin-
walled box beams.’’ Proc., JSCE, Tokyo, 356/I-3, 141–151.
Galdos, N. H. (1988). ‘‘A theoretical investigation of the dynamic be-
havior of horizontally curved steel box-girder bridges under truck load-
ings.’’ PhD thesis, University of Maryland at College Park.
Galdos, N. H., Schelling, D. R., and Sahin, M. A. (1993). ‘‘Methodology
for impact factor of horizontally curved box bridges.’’ J. Struct. Engrg.,
ASCE, 119(6), 1917–1934.
Ghavami, K. (1986). ‘‘Fatigue performance of welded joints in closed-
section structures.’’ J. Pipelines, London, 5(4), 289–299.
Goodall, J. K. (1971). ‘‘Torsional stiffness of multicellular box sections.’’
Proc., Conf. on Devel. of Bridge Des. and Constr., Lockwood, London.
Grant, C. (1993). ‘‘Shear flow in multicell sections.’’ Proc., Instn. Mech.
Engrs., London, 207(4), 247–253.
Greig, R. A., and Armstrong, W. L. (1973). ‘‘Behavior of a curved steel
box-beam bridge.’’ Public Roads, 37(7), 262–266.
Hachim, M. H. (1988). ‘‘Structural response of curved box-girder
bridges.’’ MSc thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Ottawa, Ot-
tawa.
Hand, T. D., and Kostem, C. N. (1993). ‘‘Modeling beam torsion in pre-
stressed concrete box-beam bridges.’’ Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Com-
puting in Civ. and Build. Engrg., ASCE, New York, 17–24.
Harik, I., and Ekabaram, R. (1984). ‘‘Local buckling in curved box mem-
bers.’’ Proc., 7th Int. Spec. Conf. on Cold-Formed Steel Struct., Cold-
formed Steel Institute, Pittsburgh, 565–577.
Heins, C. P. (1978). ‘‘Box girder bridge design state-of-the-art.’’ AISC
Engrg. J., 15(4), 126–142.
Heins, C. P., and Humphreys, R. S. (1979). ‘‘Bending and torsion inter-
action of box girders.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 105(5), 891–904.
Heins, C. P., and Jin, J. O. (1984). ‘‘Live load distribution on braced
curved I girders.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 110(3), 523–530.
Heins, C. P., and Lee, W. H. (1981). ‘‘Curved box-girder bridge test:
Field test.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 107(2), 317–327.
Heins, C. P., and Lin, I. C. (1983). ‘‘Seismic design of curved box
girders.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 903, Transportation Research Board, Wash-
ington, D.C., 8–15.
Heins, C. P., and Sahin, M. A. (1979). ‘‘Natural frequency of curved box-
girder bridges.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 105(12), 2591–2600.
Heins, C. P., and Stroczkowski, J. P. (1976). ‘‘Computerized design of
continuous curved tubular girders.’’ Comp. and Struct., 6(4–5), 273–
280.
Hindi, A., MacGregor, R., Kreger, M. E., and Breen, J. E. (1995). ‘‘En-
hancing strength and ductility of posttensioned segmental box-girder
bridges.’’ ACI Struct. J., 92(1), 33–44.
Ho, S., Cheung, M. S., Ng, S. F., and Yu, T. (1989). ‘‘Longitudinal girder
moments in simply supported bridges by the finite strip method.’’ Can.
J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa, 16(5), 698–703.
Ho, Y. S. (1972). ‘‘Analysis and design of curved composite box-girder
bridges.’’ PhD thesis, University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Huang, D., Wang, T., and Shahaway, M. (1995). ‘‘Vibration of thin-walled
box-girder bridges exited by vehicles.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
121(9), 1330–1337.
Huang, D., Wang, T., and Shahaway, M. (1998). ‘‘Vibration of horizon-
tally curved box-girder bridges due to vehicles.’’ Comp. and Struct.,
68(5), 513–528.
Inbanathan, M. J., and Wieland, M. (1987). ‘‘Bridge vibration due to
vehicle moving over rough surface.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 113(9),
1994–2008.
Inukia, G. J., Yen, B. T., and Fisher, J. W. (1978). ‘‘Stress history of a
curved box bridge.’’ Rep. No. FHWA-RD-79-S0831, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Johanston, S. B., and Mattock, A. H. (1967). ‘‘Lateral distribution of loads
in composite box-girder bridges.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 167, Transporta-
tion Research Board, Washington, D.C., 25–33.
Kashif, A. M. (1992). ‘‘Dynamic response of highway bridges to moving
vehicles.’’ PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Carleton University,
Ottawa.
Kermani, B., and Waldron, P. (1993). ‘‘Analysis of continuous box-girder
bridges including the effects of distortion.’’ Comp. and Struct., 47(3),
427–440.
Komatsu, S., and Nakai, H. (1966). ‘‘Study on free vibrations of curved
girder bridges.’’ Trans. JSCE, Tokyo, (1)36, 35–60.
Komatsu, S., and Nakai, H. (1970). ‘‘Fundamental study on forced vi-
bration of curved girder bridges.’’ Trans. JSCE, Tokyo, 2(I), 37–42.
Korol, R. M., Thimmhardy, E. G., and Cheung, M. S. (1988). ‘‘An ex-
perimental investigation of the effects of imperfections on the strength
of steel box girders.’’ Can. J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa, 15(3), 443–449.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001 / 165
 Kou, C. (1989). ‘‘Static and dynamic analysis of curved continuous box-
girder bridges.’’ PhD thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Kou, C., Benzely, S. E., Huang, J., and Firmage, D. A. (1992). ‘‘Free
vibration analysis of curved thin-walled girder bridges.’’ J. Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 118(10), 2890–2910.
Krolak, M., and Mlotkowski, A. (1996). ‘‘Experimental analysis of post-
buckling and collapse behavior of thin-walled box-section beam.’’
Thin-Walled Struct., 26(4), 287–314.
Labia, Y., Saiidi, M. S., and Douglas, B. (1997). ‘‘Full-scale testing and
analysis of 20-year-old pretensioned concrete box girders.’’ ACI Struct.
J., 94(5), 471–482.
López, A., and Aparicio, A. C. (1989). ‘‘Nonlinear behavior of curved
prestressed box-girder bridges.’’ IABSE Periodica, Zurich, 132(1), 13–
28.
Machacek, J., Studnicka, J., and Kristek, V. (1994). ‘‘Coupled instability
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and negative shear lag phenomenon in box girders.’’ Proc., Thin-Walled
Struct., Part 2, Pergamon, Oxford, Vol. 20, 73–82.
Maisel, B. I., and Roll, F. (1974). Methods of analysis and design of
concrete box beam with side cantilevers, Cement and Concrete Asso-
ciation, London.
Mari, A. R., Carrascón, S., and López, A. (1988). ‘‘Beam models for
nonlinear and time-dependant analysis of curved prestressed box-girder
bridges.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 1180, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 59–71.
McDonald, R. E., Yen, B. T., Yilmaz, C., and Chen, Y. (1976). ‘‘Open
steel box sections with top lateral bracing.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
102(1), 35–49.
Megason, T. H. G., and Hallak, G. (1995a). ‘‘Finite-element modeling of
box-girder diaphragms at supports.’’ Thin-Walled Struct., 22(1), 25–37.
Megason, T. H. G., and Hallak, G. (1995b). ‘‘Optimum design of load-
bearing box-girder diaphragms having supports at the flange/web junc-
tions.’’ Thin-Walled Struct., 22(1), 39–49.
Megason, T. H. G., and Hallak, G. (1995c). ‘‘Optimum design of load-
bearing box-girder diaphragms having a central support.’’ Thin-Walled
Struct., 22(4), 275–289.
Megason, T. H. G., and Hallak, G. (1995d). ‘‘Optimum design of load-
bearing box-girder diaphragms having supports at the flange/web junc-
tions.’’ Thin-Walled Struct., 22(3), 203–215.
Mikami, I., Morisawa, Y., Fukuzumi, T., Yoshizawa, A., and Nakamura,
T. (1987). ‘‘Ultimate strength tests on steel box girders under bending.’’
Technol. Rep. No. 29, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan.
Mikami, I., Morisawa, Y., Yomashina, J., and Tanaka, K. (1985). ‘‘Linear
analysis of discretely stiffened cylindrical panels under circumferential
in-plane load.’’ Technol. Rep. No. 26, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan.
Mikami, I., and Niwa, K. (1993). ‘‘Ultimate strength test of steel box
girders with unsymmetrical cross section.’’ Technol. Rep. No. 35, Kan-
sai University, Osaka, Japan.
Mirza, M. S., Ferdjani, A., Hadj-arab, A., Joucdar, K., and Khaled, A.
(1990). ‘‘An experimental study of static and dynamic responses of
prestressed concrete box-girder bridges.’’ Can. J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa,
17(3), 481–493.
Mirza, M. S., Manatakos, C. K., Murali, R. D., Igwemezie, J. O., and
Wyzykowski, J. (1985). ‘‘An analytical-experimental study of the be-
havior of a composite concrete deck-steel box-girder bridge.’’ Rep.,
Public Works Canada, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Appl. Mech., McGill
University, Montreal.
Mukherjee, D., and Trikha, D. N. (1980). ‘‘Design coefficient for curved
box-girder concrete bridges.’’ Indian Concrete J., Bombay, 54(11),
301–306.
Nakai, H., Murayama, Y., and Kitada, T. (1990). ‘‘An experimental study
on ultimate strength of thin-walled box beams subjected to bending
and torsion.’’ Trans. JSCE, Tokyo, 38A, 155–165 (in Japanese).
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (1991).
‘‘Distribution of wheel loads on highway bridges.’’ NCHRP 12-26/1,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Vols. 1 and 2.
Ng, S. F., Cheung, M. S., and Zhao, J. Q. (1993). ‘‘A materially nonlinear
finite-element model for the analysis of curved reinforced concrete box-
girder bridges.’’ Can. J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa, 20(5), 754–759.
Normandin, P., and Massicotte, B. (1994). ‘‘Load distribution in com-
posite steel box-girder bridges.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Short- and
Medium-Span Bridges, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Mon-
treal, Quebec, 165–176.
Nutt, R. V., Schamber, R. A., and Zokaie, T. (1988). ‘‘Distribution of
wheel loads on highway bridges.’’ National Cooperative Highway Re-
search Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications (OMTC).
(1983). Ontario highway bridge design code, OHBDC, 2nd Ed.,
Downsview, Ont.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications (OMTC).
166 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001
J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.
(1992). Ontario highway bridge design code, OHBDC, 3rd Ed.,
Downsview, Ont.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications (OMTC).
(1998). Canadian highway bridge design code, CHBDC draft, Downs-
view, Ont.
Owens, G. W., Dowling, P. J., and Hargreaves, A. C. (1982). ‘‘Experi-
mental behavior of a composite bifurcated box-girder bridge.’’ Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Short- and Medium-Span Bridges, Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, 1, 357–374.
Perry, S. H., Waldron, P., and Pinkney, M. W. (1985). ‘‘Design and con-
struction of model prestressed concrete bifurcated box-girder bridges.’’
Proc., Inst. Civ. Engrs., London, 2(79), 439–454.
Pessiki, S., and Derrah, S. (1994). ‘‘Acoustic emission monitoring of
fatigue crack growth in HSLA-80 steel box beams.’’ Proc., 12th Struct.
Congr., ASCE, Reston, Va., 1334–1339.
Pinkney, M. W., Perry, S. H., and Waldron, P. (1985). ‘‘Elastic analysis
and experimental behavior to collapse of 1:12 scale prestressed con-
crete bifurcated bridges.’’ Proc., Inst. Civ. Engrs., London, 2(79), 454–
481.
Rabizadeh, R. O., and Shore, S. (1975). ‘‘Dynamic analysis of curved
box-girder bridges.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 101(9), 1899–1912.
Ragon, S. A., Gurdal, Z., and Starnes, J. H., Jr. (1994). ‘‘Optimization of
composite box-beam structures including the effect of subcomponent
interaction.’’ Proc., 35th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Struct., Struct.
Dyn., and Mat. Conf., Part 2, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, N.Y., Vol. 2, 818–828.
Rahai, A. (1996). ‘‘Nonlinear analysis of box-girder bridges under ther-
mal loads.’’ J. Sci. and Technol., London, 8(32), 206–217.
Rao, C., and Frantz, G. C. (1996). ‘‘Fatigue tests of 27-year-old pre-
stressed concrete bridge box beams.’’ PCI J., 41(5), 74–83.
Rasmussen, L. J. (1996). ‘‘Plastic behavior of deformable reinforced con-
crete box sections under eccentric load.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civ.
Engrg., University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Rasmussen, L. J., and Baker, G. (1998). ‘‘Stress resultant plasticity model
for the analysis of reinforced concrete shell and box structures.’’ Proc.,
Instn. of Civ. Engrs., London, 128(2), 177–187.
Rasmussen, L. J., and Baker, G. (1999). ‘‘Large-scale experimental in-
vestigation of deformable RC box sections.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
125(3), 227–235.
Razaqpur, A. G., Nofal, M., and Mirza, M. S. (1989). ‘‘Nonlinear analysis
of prestressed concrete box-girder bridges under flexure.’’ Can. J. Civ.
Engrg., Ottawa, 16(6), 845–853.
Richardson, J. A., and Douglas, B. N. (1993). ‘‘Results from field testing
a curved box girder bridge using simulated earthquake loads.’’ Earth-
quake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., 22(10), 905–922.
Salaheldin, M., and Schmidt, L. C. (1991). ‘‘Prediction of transverse
flange stresses in a simple box girder.’’ J. Constr. Steel Res., 19(3),
183–202.
Salahuddin, A. (1994). ‘‘Design of box girder bridges by nonlinear the-
ory.’’ Proc., Struct. Congr. ’94, ASCE, New York, 491–496.
Schelling, D. R., Galdos, N. H., and Sahin, M. A. (1992). ‘‘Evaluation
of impact factors for horizontally curved steel box bridges.’’ J. Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 118(11), 3203–3221.
Scordelis, A. C., Bouwkaup, J. C., and Larsen, P. K. (1974). ‘‘Structural
behavior of a curved two-span reinforced concrete box-girder bridge
model; Volumes I, II, and III.’’ Rep. Nos. US/SESM74-5, US/SESM 74-
6, and US/SESM 74-7, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Seible, F., and Scordelis, A. C. (1984). ‘‘Nonlinear behavior and failure
analysis of multicell reinforced concrete box-girder bridges.’’ Can. J.
Civ. Engrg., Ottawa, 11(3), 411–422.
Sennah, K. M. (1998d). ‘‘Load distribution and dynamic response of
curved composite concrete deck-steel cellular bridges.’’ PhD disserta-
tion, Civ. and Envir. Engrg. Dept., University of Windsor, Windsor,
Ont.
Sennah, K. M., and Kennedy, J. B. (1997). ‘‘Dynamic characteristics of
simply supported curved composite multicell bridges.’’ Can. J. Civ.
Engrg., Ottawa, 24, 621–636.
Sennah, K. M., and Kennedy, J. B. (1998a). ‘‘Moment and shear distri-
bution factors for straight composite multicell bridges under the Ca-
nadian truck loading.’’ Proc., 5th Int. Conf. of Short- and Medium-
Span Bridges, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada, 345–357.
Sennah, K. M., and Kennedy, J. B. (1998b). ‘‘Shear distribution in simply
supported curved composite cellular bridges.’’ J. Bridge Engrg., ASCE,
3(2), 47–55.
Sennah, K. M., and Kennedy, J. B. (1998c). ‘‘Vibration of curved con-
tinuous composite multicell bridges.’’ Can. J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa, 25,
139–150.
Sennah, K. M., and Kennedy, J. B. (1999a). ‘‘Load distribution factors
for composite multicell box-girder bridges.’’ J. Bridge Engrg., ASCE,
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.

4(1), 71–78.
 Sennah, K. M., and Kennedy, J. B. (1999b). ‘‘Response of simply sup-
ported composite concrete deck-steel multicell bridges at construction
phase.’’ Proc., 27th Can. Conf. for Civ. Engrs., Vol. 1, Canadian So-
ciety for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 175–194.
Sennah, K. M., and Kennedy, J. B. (1999c). ‘‘Simply supported curved
composite cellular bridges: Simplified design method.’’ J. Bridge
Engrg., ASCE, 4(2), 85–94.
Sennah, K. M., and Kennedy, J. B. (2001). ‘‘State-of-the-art analysis of
curved box-girder bridges.’’ J. Bridge Engrg., ASCE, in press.
Senthilvasan, J., Brameld, G. H., and Thambiratnam, D. P. (1997).
‘‘Bridge-vehicle interaction in curved box-girder bridges.’’ Microcom-
puters in Civ. Engrg., Oxford, 12(3), 171–181.
Shanmugam, N. E., and Balendra, T. (1986). ‘‘Free vibration of thin-
walled multicell structures.’’ Thin-Walled Struct., 4(6), 467–485.
Shimizu, S. (1995). ‘‘Elastoplastic large deflection analysis on steel box
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Engineering University on 11/26/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
girder support diaphragms.’’ J. Constr. Steel Res., 32(2), 191–206.
Shiu, K. N., and Tabatabai, H. (1994). ‘‘Measured thermal response of
concrete box-girder bridge.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 1460, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 94–105.
Soliman, M. I. (1994). ‘‘Different aspects affecting the torsional stiffness
of RC straight and curved box-girder bridges.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on
Short- and Medium-Span Bridges, Canadian Society for Civil Engi-
neering, Montreal, Quebec, 129–140.
Soliman, M. I., and Ghali, M. K. (1994). ‘‘Effect of diaphragms on the
behavior of RC box-girder bridges.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Short-
and Medium-Span Bridges, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
Montreal, Quebec, 211–222.
Spence, R. J. S., and Morley, C. T. (1975). ‘‘The strength of single-cell
concrete box girders of deformable cross section.’’ Proc., Instn. of Civ.
Engrs., Part 2, London, 59, 143–161.
Tabba, M. M. (1972). ‘‘Free-vibration of curved box-girder bridges.’’
MEng thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Appl. Mech., McGill University,
Montreal.
Thimmhardy, E. G. (1991). ‘‘Nonlinear analysis of buckling behavior of
steel box-girder components.’’ Comp. and Struct., 40(2), 469–474.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). (1992). ‘‘Distribution of wheel
loads on highway bridges.’’ Res. Results Dig. 187, National Coopera-
tive Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C.
J. Bridge Eng. 2001.6:159-167.
Trikha, D. N., and Edwards, A. D. (1972). ‘‘Analysis of concrete box
girders before and after cracking.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., Part 2,
London, 59, 743–761.
Tung, D. H., and Fountain, R. S. (1970). ‘‘Approximate torsional analysis
of curved box girders by the M/R method.’’ Am. Inst. Steel Constr.
Engrg. J., 7(3), 65–74.
Turkstra, C. J., and Fam, A. R. M. (1978). ‘‘Behavior study of curved
box bridges.’’ J. Structural Div., ASCE, 104(3), 453–462.
United States Steel. (1978). Steel/concrete composite box-girder bridges
—A construction manual, Pittsburgh.
Usami, T. (1990). ‘‘Simplified analysis of the strength of stiffened box
members in compression and bending.’’ J. Constr. Steel Res., 17(3),
237–247.
Vandepitte, D., and Verhegge, B. (1983). ‘‘Ultimate strength of curved
flanges in box girders.’’ Proc., Michael R. Horne Conf. Instability and
Plastic Collapse of Steel Struct., Pergamon, Oxford, Vol. 20–22, 446–
454.
Wang, T., Huang, D., and Shahawy, M. (1996). ‘‘Dynamic behavior of
continuous and cantilever thin-walled box-girder bridges.’’ J. Bridge
Engrg., ASCE, 1(2), 67–75.
Yabuki, T., Arizumi, Y., and Vinnakota, S. (1995). ‘‘Strength of thin-
walled box girders curved in plan.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 121(5),
907–914.
Yen, B. T., Huang, T., Wang, D., Chuang, C. K., and Daniels, J. H. (1986).
‘‘Steel box girders with composite bottom flanges.’’ Proc., 3rd Annu.
Int. Bridge Conf., ASCE, Reston, Va., 79–86.
Yilmaz, C., Tanvir, W. S., and Heins, C. P. (1984). Seismic design of
highway bridges, Pergamon, Oxford, 343–373.
Yonezawa, H., Dogaki, M., and Adachi, H. (1985). ‘‘Elastic buckling of
orthogonally stiffened sector plates under circumferential compres-
sion.’’ Tech. Rep. No. 26, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan, 183–192.
Yonezawa, H., Mikami, I., Akamatsu, Y., and Dogaki, M. (1978). ‘‘Test
of a curved girder with orthotropic steel plate deck.’’ Tech. Rep. No.
19, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan, 115–125.
Zokaie, T., Imbsen, R. A., and Osterkamp, T. A. (1991). ‘‘Distribution of
wheel loads on highway bridges.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. 1290, Transpor-
tation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 119–126.
Zureick, A., Naqib, R., and Yadlosky, J. M. (1994). ‘‘Curved steel bridge
research project, Vol. I.’’ Interim Rep. (Synthesis), FHWA-RD-93-129,
Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Va.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY/JUNE 2001 / 167