Article

Advances in Structural Engineering

2016, Vol. 19(3) 513–528
An efficient modelling approach based Ó The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
on a rigorous cross-sectional analysis sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1369433216630121

for analysing box girder bridge ase.sagepub.com

superstructures

Kiana Kashefi, AH Sheikh, MS Mohamed Ali and MC Griffith

Abstract
A novel analysis technique is introduced for efficient modelling of box girder bridge decks. The general three-dimensional equations
used to accurately define the deformation of these complex beam-like slender structures are decoupled into a two-dimensional cross-
sectional problem and a one-dimensional beam problem through decomposition of the three-dimensional strain field. The two-
dimensional cross-sectional problem is solved by a two-dimensional finite element analysis considering in-plane as well as out-of-plane
warping displacements of the beam section. This gives an accurate constitutive relationship of the one-dimensional beam problem
without making any major assumptions as is often done in usual beam theories. The one-dimensional beam problem is solved by a
one-dimensional beam finite analysis and the results obtained are used to recover three-dimensional stress, strain and displacement
fields accurately. Numerical examples of box girder bridge deck systems having thin-walled sections are solved by the proposed
approach to show its performance.

Keywords
box girder, bridge deck, finite element analysis, warping

Introduction design stages. Moreover, all comprehensive FEM soft-

Beam-like slender structures have long been used in
civil engineering. A common application of such struc-
tures is for bridges with box girder deck systems which
are basically thin-walled beams having closed or a
combination of closed and open sections. The beha-
viour of these thin-walled structures under an arbitrary
loading scenario is quite complex, primarily due to the
cross-sectional warping (out-of-plane warping) and the
distortion of the sections (in-plane warping). In recent
years, accurate calculation of warping displacements
has been the subject of many research studies since the
variation of warping displacements over a cross-section
does not follow a standard pattern and it changes from
one case to another depending on the cross-sectional
profile and the loading pattern.
The establishment and development of finite ele-
ment methods (FEMs) have made it possible to more
accurately predict the behaviour of these structures,
but this approach has some disadvantages. For exam-
ple, it is very time-consuming and requires significant
computational resources (i.e. computational and stor-
age memory), especially for elaborate geometries. In
addition, this much effort is excessive in the initial
ware packages are very expensive compared to simpler
beam-modelling tools. The alternative is to model these
structures as a beam which makes the analysis highly
efficient computationally, but a model based on a clas-
sical beam theory such as Euler–Bernoulli hypothesis
cannot predict the behaviour of these structures well
because it assumes that a beam cross-section will
remain plane and perpendicular to beam axis after
deformation and so cannot capture the local deforma-
tions in the form of warping and the effect of shear
deformation. The shear deformation effects are incor-
porated in Timoshenko’s beam theory, but this theory
also cannot capture the warping deformation. Saint
Venant tried to incorporate the effect of torsional
deformation which is absent in the above theories, but
eventually he could only consider the effect of uniform
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of
Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Corresponding author:
MS Mohamed Ali, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering,
The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Email: ali.mohamed@adelaide.edu.au
514
(unconstrained) warping (out-of-plane) without any
shear deformation. A better representation of the
deformation of thin-walled beams is made in Vlasov’s
(1961) theory which addresses the problem of con-
strained warping (out-of-plane), but not the in-plane
warping (distortion) of the beam section. A number of
researchers (e.g. Bauld and Tzeng, 1984; Chandra
et al., 1990; Lee, 2005; Sheikh and Thomsen, 2008)
have used Vlasov’s theory to make some advance-
ments, but these approaches need prior knowledge of
the pattern of warping displacements which can change
from one case to another. Subsequently, the effect of
distortion in thin-walled box girders has been studied
(e.g. Kermani and Waldron, 1993; Razaqpur and Li,
1991, 1994), but the techniques they developed for
modelling the distortion are based on ad hoc assump-
tions and cannot be used in general cases.
In this context, the concept of beam sectional analy-
sis proposed by Giavotto et al. (1983) and later
extended and employed by Borri and Merlini (1986),
Ghiringhelli and Mantegazza (1994) and few others
(e.g. Blasques, 2014) seems to be the most attractive.
In this approach, the complete three-dimensional (3D)
elasticity problem defining the actual behaviour of the
beam-like structures is decomposed to a two-
dimensional (2D) beam section analysis and a one-
dimensional (1D) beam analysis without the need for
any ad hoc assumptions. The method only assumes
that the cross-sectional dimensions are small compared
to the beam length which is true for slender beam
structures. The 2D beam sectional analysis is carried
out using a 2D finite element (FE) discretisation where
the effects of in-plane warping as well as out-of-plane
warping are considered. The 2D FE analysis generates
the exact constitutive matrix (or stiffness matrix) of
the beam cross-section which ensures a proper cou-
pling between the different modes of deformation.
This cross-section stiffness matrix is then used in the
1D beam analysis which can be carried out using a
standard 1D beam FE model. The stress resultants
obtained in the 1D beam analysis together with the
results of the 2D cross-sectional analysis are used in
combination to obtain the warping displacements and
finally recover the 3D stress and displacement fields of
the beam. The computational efficiency of this
approach is remarkable in terms of the prediction of
the 3D response of these structures.
A similar approach employed by Hodges et al.
(1992), called the variation asymptotic method
(VAM), is based on a rigorous mathematical founda-
tion. The VAM was introduced by Berdichevskii
(1979) who applied this method to shell structures
which helped to reduce the 3D problem into a 2D
problem consistently utilising the shell thickness as the
small parameter which is a key concept of this method.
Advances in Structural Engineering 19(3)
Cesnik and Hodges (1997) extended this method for
beam analysis and developed variational asymptotic
beam section (VABS) analysis which is appealing due
to its mathematical consistency, but the method is sig-
nificantly complex with respect to its mathematical
treatment. On the other hand, the approach proposed
by Giavotto et al. (1983) is less complex but with simi-
lar capabilities as that of VABS.
It is interesting to note that these methods so far
have been only applied in the analysis of aerospace-
related structures such as helicopter, wind turbine
blades and so on. To the knowledge of the authors, no
one has attempted to take advantage of such methods
for the analysis of box girder bridge decks and similar
structures.
In this article, an attempt has been made to develop
Giavotto’s technique for the analysis of box girder
bridge decks and similar structures having closed or a
combination of open and closed sections. The 2D
cross-sectional problem is solved using eight-node
quadratic isoparametric elements, whereas three-node
isoparametric linear elements are used to solve the 1D
beam problem. A computer code was developed in
FORTRAN to implement the different steps associ-
ated with the 2D sectional analysis, the 1D beam anal-
ysis as well as the recovery of the beam 3D response.
In order to test the performance of the proposed analy-
sis technique, a number of numerical examples includ-
ing solid and thin-walled box girders with different
cross-sectional configurations have been solved of
which some are reported here. Detailed 3D FE analy-
ses of these beams have been also carried out using the
commercially available FE code, ABAQUS (which has
been recognised to be capable of giving accurate pre-
dictions for box girder response), and the results
obtained are used to validate the results produced by
the proposed technique.
Mathematical formulation
The formulation is based on the assumption that the
beam-like structure has a prismatic slender geometry
and does not have any abrupt variation of the cross-
sectional geometry and material properties. Similarly,
the loading should be such that it will only produce a
small or gradual variation of deformations and strains
along the beam length. The formulation is based on
small deformation theory considering elastic material
behaviour.
2D sectional analysis
Figure 1 shows a typical beam-like structure where the
Cartesian coordinate axes (x-y-z) are used as the refer-
ence system. The displacement vector at an arbitrary
Kashefi et al. 515

(fMg = ½ Mx My Mz T ) which are produced by the

last three components of the stress vector
ftg = ½ t xz tyz sz T treated as tractions acting on
the beam section having an area of A. The stress resul-
tants can be obtained from
ð
fPg = ½HT ftgdA ð5Þ

The strain vector is now expressed in terms of deri-

vatives of the displacements where the derivatives with
respect to x and y (sectional coordinates) are separated
from the derivatives with respect to z (axial coordinate)
as
8 9 2 3
Figure 1. A typical beam-like structure with reference > ex > ∂=∂x 0 0
>
> >
>
coordinate system. > ey > 6 0 0 7
>
>
>
>
>
> 6
∂=∂y 78 9
<g >
> = 6 7> ux >
6 ∂=∂y ∂=∂x 0 7< =
=6 7 uy
xy
point of a beam section fug can be divided into two feg =
> > 6 ∂=∂x 77> : >
components as > gxz >
>
> > 6
> 6
0 0
7 uz
;
> >
> 4 0
> gyz > 0 ∂=∂y 5
>
> >
8 9 8 9 8 9 : ;
< ux = < vx = < wx = ez 0 0 0
2 3 ð6Þ
uy = vy + wy or fug = fvg + fwg ð1Þ 0 0 0
: ; : ; : ; 60 0 07 8 9
uz vz wz 6 7
6 7 > ux >
60 0 07 ∂ < =
where fvg is the displacement vector due to transla- +6 7
6 1 0 0 7 ∂z > uy > = ½∂xy fug + ½Sfug, z
6 7 : ;
tions and rotations of the section without having any 6 7 uz
40 1 05
distortions and fwg is due to the generalised 3D warp-
ing of the beam section. The first component of the 0 0 1
displacement vector fvg can be expressed in terms of
Equations (1)–(3) are substituted in the above equa-
translations fU g = ½ Ux Uy Uz T and rotations
tion which leads to
fug = ½ ux uy uz T of the section as
2 3 feg = ½∂xy ½HfDg + ½S½HfDg, z
1 0 00 0 y   ð7Þ
fU g
fvg = 4 0 1 00 0 x 5 = ½HfDg + ½∂xy ½N fdg + ½S½N fdg, z
fug
0 0 1y x 0
As ½∂xy ½H in the above equation can be written as
ð2Þ
[S][H][T] where [T] is a 6 3 6 square matrix having all
For the warping displacements, the beam section is elements zero except T(1, 5) = 21 and T(2, 4) = 1,
discretised with 2D FEs which help to express these the strain vector can be rewritten as
displacements as
feg = ½S½H½T fDg + ½S½HfDg, z
fwg = ½N fdg ð3Þ ð8Þ
+ ½Bfdg + ½S½N fdg, z
where fdg contains the nodal parameters of wx , wy and
wz and ½N  is their interpolation function (Bathe, 1982). The first two terms of the above equation are rear-
The 3D stress–strain relationship is written as ranged to express the strain vector in its final form as

fsg = ½Dfeg ð4Þ feg = ½S½HfCg + ½Bfdg + ½S½N fdg, z ð9Þ

where the stress and strain vectors are arranged
as fsg = ½ sx sy txy t xz tyz sz T and feg =
½ ex ey g xy gxz gyz ez T , respectively, and ½D is the
corresponding constitutive matrix.
The stress resultants (fPg = ½ fFgT fMgT T ) at a
section of the beam consist of three forces
(fFg = ½ Fx Fy Fz T ) and three moments
where fCg is the sectional strain vector consists of two
shear strains, one axial strain, two curvatures and one
torsional strain. The sectional strain vector can simply
be expressed as
fCg = ½T fDg + fDg, z ð10Þ
516 Advances in Structural Engineering 19(3)

Equilibrium equations. Now the virtual work principle For any arbitrary value of dfdg, dfdg, z , dfCg and
(dWi = dWe ) can be applied to get the equilibrium dfDg, equations (14) is valid if
equations of the beam section. For this purpose, a
small element of the beam in the form of a small slice ½Afdg, z + ½Cfdg + ½EfCg = fQg ð15Þ
having a length of dz is taken. Assuming no variation
of stresses and strains within the small length dz (along ½CT fdg, z + ½Lfdg + ½MfCg = fQg, z ð16Þ
z), the internal virtual work can be written as ½ET fdg, z + ½MT fdg + ½RfCg = fPg ð17Þ
ð
dWi = dz dfegT fsgdA ð11Þ fPg, z = ½T T fPg ð18Þ

Equations (15) and (16) can be replaced with a sin-

The external virtual work will be caused by the gle equation by differentiation of equation (15) with
stresses or tractions ftg acting on the two cross- respect to z and this will lead to the final form of the
sections of the slice and dWe can be written as equilibrium equations for the beam section as
ð ð  
T ∂ T ½Afdg, zz + (½C  ½CT )fdg, z
dWe = dfug ftgdA + dfug ftgdA dz
∂z at (z + dz)
ð19Þ
 ð  + ½EfCg, z  ½Lfdg  ½MfCg = 0
+  dfugT ftgdA
½ET fdg, z + ½MT fdg + ½RfCg = fPg ð20Þ
ð  at z
∂
= dfugT ftgdA dz
∂z Solution of the equilibrium equations. Equations (19) and
ð ð 
T T
(20) have two solutions where the complementary
= dz dfug, z ftgdA + dfug ftg, z dA ð12Þ solution corresponds to fPg = 0 (i.e. self-balanced
condition), which lead to an Eigen problem. The Eigen
So the final form of the virtual work can be written values can be used to estimate the dissipation length of
as end effects which are usually small (in the order of the
ð ð ð largest dimension of the beam section). From this
dfugT, z ftgdA + dfugT ftg, z dA = dfegT fsgdA ð13Þ physical perspective, Giavotto et al. (1983) defined this
as the extremity solution. For the particular solution,
After substitution of equations (1)–(5) and equa- which is defined as the central solution by Giavotto
tions (9) and (10) in the above equation, it can be rear- et al. (1983), equations (19) and (20) along with their
ranged as derivatives with respect to z can be rewritten as

8 9T 2 38 9 ½Lfdg + ½MfCg = ½Afdg, zz

< dfdg, z >
> = ½A ½C ½E >
< fdg, z >= ð21Þ
6 T 7 + (½C  ½CT )fdg, z + ½EfCg, z
dfdg 4 ½C ½L ½M 5 fdg
>
: >
; >
: >
;
dfCg ½ET ½MT ½R fCg ½MT fdg + ½RfCg =  ½ET fdg, z + fPg ð22Þ
8 9T 8 9
< dfdg, z >
> = > < fQg > = ½Lfdg, z + ½MfCg, z = ½Afdg, zzz
= dfdg fQg, z + dfDgT (fPg, z  ½T T fPg) ð23Þ
>
: >
; > : >
; + (½C  ½CT )fdg, zz + ½EfCg, zz
dfCg fPg
ð14Þ ½MT fdg, z + ½RfCg, z =  ½ET fdg, zz + fPg, z ð24Þ
Ð Ð A further derivative of equations (23) and (24) will
where ½A = ½N T ½ST ½D½S½NdA, ½C = ½N T ½ST
Ð Ð eliminate fPg, zz according to the equilibrium equations
½D½B dA, ½E = ½N T ½ST ½D½S½H dA, ½L = ½BT ½D
Ð Ð of the beam which state that the resulting cross-
½B dA, ½M = ½BT ½D½S½H dA, ½R = ½HT ½ST ½D½S sectional forces vary linearly along the beam. This
Ð Ð
½HdA, fQg = ½N T ftgdA and fQg, z = ½N T ftg, z dA. leads to the solutions of fdg and fCg in the form of
It should be noted that the above integrations are car- linear combinations of polynomials in z which may
ried out for the individual elements and the resulting have a highest order of n. If equations (23) and (24)
matrices and vectors for all the elements modelling the are differentiated further up to (n 2 1) times, the
beam section are assembled together to form equation right-hand side of the last two equations will be zero
(14). For simplicity, the notations used for all quanti- since (∂(n + 1) fdg)=(∂z(n + 1) ) = 0 and (∂(n + 1) fCg)=
ties at the element level are the same as those at the sec- (∂z(n + 1) ) = 0 as the highest order of fdg and fCg is n.
tion level. So the solution of the left-hand side quantities
Kashefi et al. 517

(∂(n) fdg)=(∂z(n) ) and (∂(n) fCg)=(∂z(n) ) of these two equa- parameters fdg are also applicable to fdg, z and all
tions will be zero which will again make the right-hand these constraints can be expressed as
sides of the previous two equations zero. If this process
is continued successively, the second and subsequent ½cfdg = f0g, ½cfdg, z = f0g and
higher-order derivatives of fdg and fCg will be found  
½I3  ½I3  . . . ½I3  . . . ½I3  ð30Þ
to be zero. With this information, equations (21) and ½c =
½h1  ½h1  . . . ½hi  . . . ½hn 
(24) can be simplified as
where
½Lfdg + ½MfCg = (½C  ½CT )fdg, z + ½EfCg, z ð25Þ
2 3
T T
0 0 yi
½M fdg + ½RfCg =  ½E fdg, z + fPg ð26Þ ½hi  = 4 0 0 xi 5
yi xi 0
½Lfdg, z + ½MfCg, z = 0 ð27Þ
and ½I3  is the identity matrix of order 3.
½MT fdg, z + ½RfCg, z = fPg, z ð28Þ The Lagrangian multiplier technique is used to
impose the above constraints (equation (30)) with the
For a given value of the stress resultant vector
equilibrium equations (equations (25)–(28)) as
(fPg), fPg, z can simply be calculated using equation
(18) and with this known fPg, z , equations (27) and 2 38 9
½L ½M½cT >< fdg > =
(28) can be solved simultaneously to evaluate fdg, z 6 7
and fCg, z . These will make the right-hand side of 4 ½MT ½R½0 5 fcg
>
: >
;
equations (25) and (26) known which can finally be ½c ½0 ½0 fl1 g
2 3 8 9 ð31Þ
solved to get fdg and fCg. (½C  ½CT ) ½E ( ) > f0g >
< =
6 7 fdg, z
= 4 ½ET ½0 5 + fPg
fcg, z >
: >
;
Constraints. The above equations cannot be solved ½0 ½0 f0g
without some constraints being imposed as the displa- 2 38 9 8 9
cement formulation defined in equation (1) is six times ½L ½M ½cT < fdg, z = < f0g =
4 ½MT ½R ½0 5 fcg = fPg, z ð32Þ
indeterminate. This is due to the use of fvg (equation : ,z
; : ;
(2)) in addition to fwg (equation (3)) to define the dis- ½c ½0 ½0 fl 2 g f0g
placements of a point within the beam section.
Actually, fwg could be used to define the total displa- where fl1 g and fl2 g contain Lagrange multipliers.
cement vector fug through the 2D FE approximation,
but fwg is used only for the warping displacements
Cross-section stiffness matrix. Equations (31) and (32)
and fvg is used in addition to define fug. In the pres-
have solutions which are linear and homogeneous
ent case, the number of constraints is six as fvg is
functions of fPg and can be written as
defined in terms of fDg (equation (2)) which has six
components. The constraints can be defined on the fdg = ½X1 fPg, fdg, z = ½X2 fPg, fcg = ½Y1 fPg,
basis that the warping displacements should not con-
tribute towards any translation or rotation of the fcg, z = ½Y2 fPg, fl1 g = ½L1 fPg, fl2 g = ½L2 fPg
beam section and can be expressed as ð33Þ

X
n X
n X
n
where ½X1 , ½X2 , ½Y1 , ½Y2 , ½L1  and ½L2  are linear
d3i2 = 0, d3i1 = 0, d3i = 0, operators consisting of some constants. With the help
i=1 i=1 i=1
of equations (18) and (33), equations (31) and (32) can
Xn X
n
zi d3i1 + yi d3i = 0, zi d3i2  xi d3i = 0, be written as
i=1 i=1 2 38 9
Xn ½L ½M ½cT > < ½X1  >
=
yi d3i2 + xi d3i1 = 0 ð29Þ 6 7
4 ½MT ½R ½0 5 ½Y1 
i=1 >
: >
;
½c ½0 ½0 ½L1 
where d3i2 , d3i1 and d3i are nodal parameters (ith 2 3 8 9 ð34Þ
(½C  ½CT ) ½E   >< ½0 >
=
node) corresponding to wx , wy and wz , respectively, 6 7 ½X2 
= 4 ½ET ½0 5 + ½I
(xi , yi , zi ) is the nodal coordinate vector and n is the ½Y2  : >
> ;
total number of nodes used to model the beam section. ½0 ½0 ½0
These six constraints for the nodal displacement
518 Advances in Structural Engineering 19(3)

2 38 9 8 9
½L ½M ½cT < ½X2  = < ½0 = and axial deformations. Each element has three nodes
4 ½MT ½R ½0 5 ½Y2  = ½T 
T
ð35Þ which allow a quadratic variation of the six displace-
: ; : ;
½c ½0 ½0 ½L2  ½0 ment components fDg as defined in equation (2). The
sectional stiffness matrix as obtained in equation (40)
This is the final form of the governing equations is used as the constitutive matrix for the derivation of
which are solved to calculate the linear operators and the stiffness matrix of the beam elements where fCg
these are utilised to calculate the sectional stiffness/ (equation (10)) is used as the generalised strain vector
constitutive matrix. of the beam. In order to avoid the shear locking prob-
Using equations (11) and (12), the virtual work lem and give better stress prediction without any oscil-
expression can now be written as lation, the field consistent technique (Prathap and
ð  ð Babu, 1986) has been used. In the 1D FE analysis, the
∂
dfug ftgdA = dfegT fsgdA
T
ð36Þ nodal displacements are first obtained which are uti-
∂z lised to evaluate the generalised strain vector fCg and
The left-hand side of the above equation represents the stress resultant vector fPg( = ½Ks fCg) at any
the external virtual work and may be restated in terms desirable section of the beam. With the stress resultant
of the stress resultant vector fPg and sectional flexibil- vector fPg, the 3D stresses can easily be recovered
ity matrix ½Fs  as using equations (4), (9) and (33).
ð
dfPg ½Fs fPg = dfegT fsgdA
T
ð37Þ Numerical examples
A computer program was developed in FORTRAN to
Considering equations (4), (7) and (33), the above implement the proposed method and solve numerical
equation can be expressed as examples of beams having different cross-sections
(mostly thin-walled box girders commonly found in
dfPgT ½Fs fPg bridge decks) to demonstrate the performance of the
ð 
method. The method has the capability of accommo-
= dfPgT ½Y1 T ½HT ½ST +½X1 T ½BT +½X2 T ½N T ½ST ½D
dating anisotropic and inhomogeneous materials, but
ð½S½H½Y1 +½B½X1 +½S½N ½X2 ÞfPgdA the material properties used in all these examples are
isotropic and homogeneous for simplicity. More spe-
ð38Þ
cifically, the material is steel with an elastic modulus
The integrations in the above equation are carried E = 200 GPa and Poisson ratio n = 0.3. According
out similar to those in equation (14) and it can be to this technique, the cross-section analysis was first
expressed as carried out to evaluate the sectional stiffness matrix
which was then used in the 1D beam FE analyses, and
dfPgT ½Fs fPg = dfPgT the 3D displacement and stress field were finally recov-
2 3T 2 32 3 ered in all the cases. For the validation of the present
½X1  ½L ½C ½M ½X1  results, these structures were also analysed with the
6 7 6 T 76 7 ð39Þ
4 ½X2  5 4 ½C ½A ½E 54 ½X2  5fPg ABAQUS software, where solid elements were used to
½Y1  ½MT ½ET ½R ½Y1  create a detailed 3D FE model of these beams. The
minimum number of elements (or degree of freedom
so that the stiffness matrix of the beam section can be (DOF)) necessary for the convergence of the results is
written as reported for each example and load case.
The following sections give examples of the signifi-
½Ks  = ½Fs 1 = cant reductions in computational effort that can be
02 3T 2 32 311 achieved in terms of the reduced DOFs using the pro-
½X1  ½L ½C ½M ½X1  ð40Þ
B6 7 6 T 76 7C posed method of analysis over those associated with
@4 ½X2  5 4 ½C ½A ½E 54 ½X2  5A detailed 3D FE modelling.
½Y1  ½MT ½ET ½R ½Y1 
A cantilever beam having a solid square section
1D beam analysis and 3D stress recovery The beam has a length of 20 meters (m) while the
The 1D beam analysis is carried out using beam FEs breadth and depth of its cross-section is 1.0 m. In
where a C0 continuous displacement-based formula- order to implement the sectional analysis, a 2D FE
tion is adopted for the derivation of these elements analysis using eight-node quadratic elements is carried
considering bi-axial bending, bi-axial shear, torsion out. The results obtained for the section stiffness
Kashefi et al. 519

Table 1. Section stiffness parameters of the solid section (131 m).

Stiffness component K11 = K22 (N) K33 (N) K44 = K55 (N m2) K66 (N m2)
Presenta (535) 6.598831010 200.003109 16.8053109 11.2043109
Presenta (10310) 6.437831010 200.003109 16.7263109 10.92983109
Presenta (14314) 6.415831010 200.003109 16.6993109 10.8363109
Classical beam theory (kGA)b 6.410231010 (EA) 200.003109 (EI) 16.6673109 (GJ) 10.8153109
Diff. (%) + 0.087 + 0.0 + 0.2 + 0.18
a
Mesh size (number of element in x-direction3number of element in y-direction).
b
(k) shear correction factor (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990).

Table 2. Displacement components (mm) at the free end for example 1 (Load case 1).

Displacement component uy uz (x = 0.5 m, y = 0.5 m) uz (x = 0, y = 0.5 m)

Present 1.598331021 5.982631023 5.983131023

Classical beam theory 1.603131021 5.992831023 5.992831023
ABAQUS 1.597531021 5.987531023 5.988331023

parameters corresponding to three different mesh sizes

are presented in Table 1, which shows a good and
monotonic convergence of all the stiffness parameters.
For the validation of the present results, the stiffness
parameters used in a conventional beam analysis based
on the classical beam theory are presented in Table 1.
The torsional constant (J) in the classical beam theory
is obtained from the analytical solutions based on
membrane analogy (Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970).
The convergence of the present results is achieved by
Figure 2. Normal stress (szz kN/m2) at the mid-span section
196 elements (i.e. 14 3 14 element mesh in Table 1)
(Load case 1): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE model
and they agreed well with the classical beam theory (ABAQUS).
with a maximum difference of 0.2%.
With the converged values of the sectional stiffness
matrix corresponding to a mesh of 14 3 14 elements
(No of DOF = 1935), the 1D beam analysis was car-
ried out for two load cases: (1) a shear force
Fy =  1:0 kN applied at the free end and (2) a tor-
sional moment Mz =  1:0 kN m applied at the free
end. The 1D FE analysis was carried out using 15
three-node beam elements. The displacement compo-
nents at the free end of beam are presented in Tables 2
and 3 and the variations of stress components at the
free end and mid-span sections are plotted in Figures 2
to 6. Figure 3. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at the mid-span
For the validation of the present results, the beam section (Load case 1): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE
was analysed with ABAQUS using 20-node quadratic model (ABAQUS).
hexahedral solid elements (C3D20) with a mesh size of
14 3 14 3 140 (No of DOF = 377,775) with an aspect
ratio of 1 3 1 3 2 for an element. For Load case 1, the constraint (MPC). Timoshenko’s beam theory using
shear force was applied as a uniform surface traction the shear correction factor of k = 10(1 + n)=
at the free end while the twisting moment for Load (12 + 11n) was used to evaluate the transverse displa-
case 2 was applied at the centroid of the free end using cement uy of the beam at its free end for Load case 1.
a feature in ABAQUS known as multiple point Similarly, the axial displacement uz at the top fibre of
520
Figure 4. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at the mid-span
section (Load case 1): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE
model (ABAQUS).
Figure 5. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at the free end
section (Load case 2): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE
model (ABAQUS).
Figure 6. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at the free end
section (Load case 2): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE
model (ABAQUS).
the free end is evaluated using a 2D analytical solution
of Timoshenko and Goodier (1970). The angle of twist
at the free end for Load case 2 is also calculated using
an analytical solution based on membrane analogy
(Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970). The results obtained
from these analytical solutions as well as 3D FE analy-
ses using ABAQUS are presented along with those
obtained by the proposed method similarly in Tables 2
and 3 and Figures 2 to 6. Even with significantly
reduced DOF, the results were found in all the cases to
Advances in Structural Engineering 19(3)
Table 3. The angle of twist at the free end for example 1
(Load case 2).
Component Classical Present ABAQUS
beam theory
Angle of 1.849231026 1.843931026 1.846431026
twist
Figure 7. Thin-walled closed section box beam (dimensions
are in m).
be in excellent agreement with the 3D FE and analyti-
cal solutions. As can be seen from Figures 3 and 4,
there is a variation of transverse shear stresses which
cannot be captured using the classical beam theory. It
is worth mentioning that in all examples stress results
were obtained for each node and reported as they are
and no stress smoothing was conducted as for com-
mercial packages like ABAQUS.
Thin-walled single cell box beam
A thin-walled closed section box beam as shown in
Figure 7 was analysed for three load cases where the
first two load cases are identical to those of the previ-
ous example and the third load case consists of a force
Fy =  1:0 kN acting at the middle of one of the web
plates (right side) as shown in Figure 7. The 2D cross-
sectional analysis was carried out with 196 eight-node
quadratic elements having a size of 0.02 3 0.02 m
(DOF = 2946) while the 1D analysis is carried out
using 15 beam elements (DOF = 186) which ensured
the convergence of results. The beam was also analysed
with ABAQUS using 11,700 numbers of solid elements
(C3D20) where each element has an aspect ratio of
1.25:1:1 and a total number of DOF of 148,980. Note
that the proposed method has roughly 50 times fewer
DOFs than the ABAQUS model. For Load case 1, the
vertical force Fy =  1:0 kN (total) was applied as a
uniform surface traction on two web plates while the
Kashefi et al. 521

Table 4. Displacement components at the free end of the beam (Load cases: 1 and 2).

Load case 1 Load case 2

Component uz (mm) at A (Figure 7) uz (mm) at B (Figure 7) uy (mm) at A and B uz

Present 3.973931022 3.968631022 1.0667 6.815631026
ABAQUS 4.061131022 3.974131022 1.0695 6.652231026

Table 5. Deflection uy (mm) at free end and mid-span section of the beam (Load case 3).

Location (Figure 7) Mid-span section Free end section

A B A B

Present 3.364931021 3.349731021 1.0701 1.0667

ABAQUS 3.355631021 3.355531021 1.0911 1.0695

twisting moment Mz =  1:0 kN m in Load case 2 was

represented in the form of two equal and opposite ver-
tical forces which applied as uniform traction on two
web plates at the free end of the box beam. The vertical
force Fy =  1:0 kN in Load case 3 was also applied
as a uniform traction, but it was only applied on the
right side web plate at the free end (Figure 7). The dis-
placement components at different locations of the
beam obtained from the proposed method and the 3D
FE analysis using ABAQUS are presented in Tables 4
and 5 for the three load cases. Table 4 shows that there Figure 8. Normal stress (szz kN/m2) at the mid-span section
is a variation of the longitudinal displacement (uz) of the beam (Figure 7) (Load case 1): (a) proposed method and
along the flange which is reflected by the displacement (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
values at two critical points, points A and B (Figure 7).
This variation is caused by the warping of the thin-
walled section which cannot be obtained via the con-
ventional beam models. The results obtained by the
present technique have a maximum difference of 2.1%
when compared with the 3D FE results. Table 5 com-
pares the performance of the method in the vicinity of
the load and away from the load for the eccentrically
loaded beam (Load case 3). The maximum difference
between the results obtained for both methods is 1.8%
at the free end while this difference is only 0.28% at the
mid-span.
Similarly, the variations of stress components Figure 9. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at the mid-span
obtained from the proposed method and the 3D FE section of the beam (Figure 7) (Load case 1): (a) proposed
analysis at different sections of the beam are plotted in method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
Figures 8 to 15. In these cases, it can be seen that the
agreement is very good.
For the 2D cross-sectional analysis, a single 2D ele-
ment was used along the thickness direction of all
Thin-walled two-cell box beam flange and web plates while the number of elements
used along the other direction of these plates was 60
A thin-walled two-cell box girder as shown in and 25 for each flange and web, respectively. The 1D
Figure 16 is solved for two load cases as those of the beam analysis was carried out using 15 beam elements.
previous example. This led to a total DOF (DOFs) of 3012 and 186 for
522
Figure 10. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at the mid-
span section of the beam (Figure 7) (Load case 1): (a) proposed
method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
Figure 11. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at a section
5 m away from the free end of the beam (Figure 7) (Load case
2): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
Figure 12. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at a section
5 m away from the free end of the beam (Figure 7) (Load case
2): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
Figure 13. Normal stress (szz kN/m2) at the mid-span section
of the beam (Figure 7) (Load case 3): (a) proposed method and
(b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
Advances in Structural Engineering 19(3)
Figure 14. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at the mid-
span section of the beam (Figure 7) (Load case 3): (a) proposed
method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
Figure 15. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at the mid-
span section of the beam (Figure 7) (Load case 3): (a) proposed
method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
Figure 16. Thin-walled two-cell rectangular box beam
(dimensions are in m).
the 2D sectional analysis and 1D beam analysis,
respectively. On the other hand, the number of DOF
required for the detailed 3D FE model of the beam was
351,051 (more than 100 times the DOFs for the pro-
posed method). For the 3D FE analysis (ABAQUS),
the shear force (Fy =  1:0 kN) was applied as a uni-
form traction on the three web plates at the free end of
the beam, whereas in the other load case, the twisting
moment (Mz =  1:0 kN m) was applied at the cen-
troid of the free end with the use of MPC (ABAQUS).
Kashefi et al.
Table 6. Displacement components (mm) at the free end (Load case 1).
Method of analysis uz (mm) at A (Figure 16)
Present 1.405731022
ABAQUS 1.410431022
Table 7. Displacement components at the free end (Load case 2).
Method of analysis ux (mm) at A (Figure 16)
Present 1.605931023
ABAQUS 1.607131023
Figure 17. Normal stress (szz kN/m2) at the mid-span
section of the beam (Figure 16) (Load case 1): (a) proposed
method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
The displacements at key points of the beam’s free end
obtained by the proposed approach and the 3D FE
analysis are presented in Tables 6 and 7 for the two
load cases. The results are in very good agreement with
a maximum difference of only 0.3%.
Figures 17 to 21 illustrate the distribution of normal
and shear stresses at two representative sections (mid-
span section and a section 5 m away from the free end)
of the beam for the two load cases, respectively. The
stress distributions on the cross-section for both load
cases predicted by the present method agreed very well
with the 3D FE results. In Figure 18, both of the meth-
ods show the localised change of the shear stress distri-
bution at the flange–web junctions.
This beam was also analysed under a uniformly dis-
tributed load of 1 kN/m along the beam length,
523
uz (mm) at B (Figure 16) uy (mm)
1.403431022 3.613631021
1.402731022 3.603331021
uy (mm) at A (Figure 16)
3.762531023
3.765231023
Figure 18. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at the mid-
span section of the beam (Figure 16) (Load case 1): (a)
proposed method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
applied at the centre line of the top flange over the
entire beam axis. The vertical deflection at the free end
of the beam obtained by the proposed approach is
2.73 mm which is in close agreement with the 2.71 mm
calculated by the 3D FE model (0.39% difference).
Thin-walled girder having combined open and closed
sections
Bridge decks having combined closed and open sec-
tions are quite common and such a structure as shown
in Figure 22 was considered in this section.
This problem was also solved under two load cases.
For convergence of results, a mesh of 202 eight-node
quadratic FEs with a total of 3027 DOFs was required
for the 2D cross-sectional analysis. 1D analysis was
524
Figure 19. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at the mid-
span section of the beam (Figure 16) (Load case 1): (a)
proposed method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
Figure 20. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at a section
5 m away from the free end of the beam (Figure 16) (Load case
2): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
performed using 15 beam elements and a total of 186
DOFs. In contrast, the DOF required for the 3D FE
model was 435,351 (almost 150 times more). The same
two load cases were applied as for the previous 3D FE
model example; the shear force (Fy =  1:0 kN) is
applied as uniform traction on the three web plates at
the free end of the beam for the first load case and the
twisting moment (Mz =  1:0 kN m) is applied using
MPC in ABAQUS.
Advances in Structural Engineering 19(3)
Figure 21. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at a section
5 m away from the free end of the beam (Figure 16) (Load case
2): (a) proposed method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).
The displacements at points on the beam’s free end
obtained by both analysis techniques are reported in
Tables 8 and 9. Table 8 shows that the present method
captures the variation of the longitudinal displacement
(uz) (due to distortion as well as out-of-plane warping)
along the flanges. These results also agree well with
those obtained by the 3D FE analysis (maximum dif-
ference = 0.67%). Table 9 shows the performance of
the present approach in estimating the horizontal and
vertical displacements (ux and uy) of the thin-walled
beam section due to the twisting moment (maximum
difference = 2.7%). Since these displacement varia-
tions are due to the in-plane and out-of-plane warping
of the thin-walled sections, they cannot be captured by
conventional beam models. However, the present anal-
ysis technique, which is consistent with the 3D defor-
mation of the structure, can predict the structural
response of the beam in a degree of detail which is not
feasible with a conventional beam analysis method. At
the same time, the degree of computational efficiency
enjoyed by the present approach cannot be achieved in
the 3D FE analysis.
The stress distributions at mid-span section of the
girder obtained by both methods are plotted in Figures
23 to 27 for the two load cases. These results again
emphasise the ability of the present analysis technique
to predict the 3D response of these beams accurately
with a significant reduction in computational effort.
Figure 26 shows that the shear stress in the flange
plates in the open part of the section is close to zero.
This is expected as closed section boxes will absorb the
Kashefi et al. 525

Figure 22. Bridge girder with a combination of closed and open sections (dimensions are in m).

Table 8. Displacement components (mm) at the free end (Load case 1).

Method of uz at A uz at B uz at C uz at D uz at E uy at C
analysis (Figure 22) (Figure 22) (Figure 22) (Figure 22) (Figure 22) (Figure 22)

Present 8.631731023 8.707831023 8.728031023 21.332631022 21.329431022 22.841931021

ABAQUS 8.574631023 8.693331023 8.728431023 21.336331022 21.329231022 22.834431021

Table 9. Displacement component (mm) at the free end (Load case 2).

Method of analysis ux at A (Figure 22) ux at D (Figure 22) uy at A (Figure 22) uy at D (Figure 22)

Present 1.521131023 21.687931023 6.815431023 3.759231023

ABAQUS 1.479931023 21.707131023 6.768831023 3.733431023

Figure 23. Normal stress (szz kN/m2) at the mid-span section of the beam (Figure 22) (Load case 1): (a) proposed method and (b)
3D FE model (ABAQUS).
526 Advances in Structural Engineering 19(3)

Figure 24. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at the mid-span section of the beam (Figure 22) (Load case 1): (a) proposed
method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).

Figure 25. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at the mid-span section of the beam (Figure 22) (Load case 1): (a) proposed
method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).

maximum torsional moment due to significantly higher
torsional rigidity of these boxes.
Conclusion
In this article, an innovative modelling technique is
presented for analysis of thin-walled box girder bridge
deck structures which is consistent with 3D elasticity
solution. The technique is suitable for analysis of any
slender beam-like structure. The method decomposes
the general 3D problem defining the behaviour of
beam-like slender structures into a 2D cross-sectional
analysis and a 1D beam analysis, which are carried out
using a 2D plane FE model and a 1D beam FE model,
respectively. This decomposition makes the presented
approach computationally more efficient than a
Kashefi et al. 527

Figure 26. Transverse shear stress (sxz kN/m2) at a section 5 m away from the free end of the beam (Figure 22) (Load case 2): (a)
proposed method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).

Figure 27. Transverse shear stress (syz kN/m2) at a section 5 m away from the free end of the beam (Figure 22) (Load case 2): (a)
proposed method and (b) 3D FE model (ABAQUS).

conventional 3D FE analysis. For the examples con-
sidered in this article, fewer DOFs (e.g. 150 times) were
required to give similarly accurate predictions.
Importantly, the accuracy of the solution is also not
affected as the method does not adopt any major
assumptions which are quite common in most of the
beam theories. From 2D analysis, a cross-sectional
stiffness matrix is obtained which can account for all
of the geometrical couplings in multi-cell bridge girders
and material couplings in anisotropic beams. Apart
from roto-translational displacements, the 2D sec-
tional analysis can obtain 3D warping displacements
consisting of out-of-plane warping as well as in-plane
warping (i.e. sectional distortion). Once the cross-
sectional stiffness matrix is evaluated using the 2D FE
analysis, it can be repeatedly used for the 1D analysis
528
of the beam for different loading, boundary and other
conditions. This method can be specifically used in the
preliminary design of these structures when the engi-
neer needs to find the contribution of different actions
to the overall response of the structure.
The proposed modelling technique was used to
solve numerical examples of thin-walled steel box gir-
ders which were also analysed via detailed 3D FEM.
An example of a girder having a solid rectangular sec-
tion was also solved at the beginning in order to
demonstrate its general applicability. The results were
shown to have a very good correlation in all situations.
Considering the level of accuracy and efficiency
required for the analysis and design of bridge super-
structures, the presented modelling approach seems to
have very good potential in its application for static
and dynamic analyses of a wide variety of bridge con-
figurations (e.g. straight, curved, composite, etc.).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge that the research
presented in this paper is supported by the Australian
Government through Endeavour Postgraduate Award
bestowed to the lead author of this paper. The authors would
also like to acknowledge that the technical discussions with
Dr. Jose Pedro Blasques from National Laboratory for
Sustainable Energy of Technical University of Denmark at
different stages of the present research have really helped to
complete the work successfully. The authors sincerely thank
Dr. Blasques for his unconditional help.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Bathe KJ (1982) Finite Element Procedures in Engineering
Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bauld NR and Tzeng LS (1984) A Vlasov theory for fiber-
reinforced beams with thin-walled open cross sections.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 20(3):
277–297.
Berdichevskii VL (1979) Variational-asymptotic method of
constructing a theory of shells: PMM vol. 43, no.4, 1979,
Advances in Structural Engineering 19(3)
pp. 664–687. Journal of Applied Mathematics and
Mechanics 43(4): 711–736.
Blasques JP (2014) Multi-material topology optimization of
laminated composite beams with eigenfrequency con-
straints. Composite Structures 111: 45–55.
Borri M and Merlini T (1986) A large displacement formula-
tion for anisotropic beam analysis. Meccanica 21(1):
30–37.
Cesnik CES and Hodges DH (1997) VABS: a new concept
for composite rotor blade cross-sectional modeling.
Journal of the American Helicopter Society 42(1):
27–38.
Chandra R, Stemple A and Chopra I (1990) Thin-walled
composite beams under bending, torsion, and extensional
load. AIAA Journal 27(7): 619–626.
Gere JM and Timoshenko SP (1990) Mechanics of Materials
PWS. Amsterdam: KENT Publishing Company, Elsevier
Science BV.
Ghiringhelli GL and Mantegazza P (1994) Linear, straight
and untwisted anisotropic beam section properties from
solid finite elements. Composites Engineering 4(12):
1225–1239.
Giavotto V, Borri M, Mantegazza P, et al. (1983) Anisotro-
pic beam theory and applications. Computers & Structures
16(1–4): 403–413.
Hodges DH, Atilgan AR, Cesnik CES, et al. (1992) On a sim-
plified strain energy function for geometrically nonlinear
behaviour of anisotropic beams. Composites Engineering
2(5–7): 513–526.
Kermani B and Waldron P (1993) Analysis of continuous
box girder bridges including the effects of distortion. Com-
puters & Structures 47(3): 427–440.
Lee J (2005) Flexural analysis of thin-walled composite
beams using shear-deformable beam theory. Composite
Structures 70(2): 212–222.
Prathap G and Babu CR (1986) Field-consistent strain inter-
polations for the quadratic shear flexible beam element.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineer-
ing 23(11): 1973–1984.
Razaqpur AG and Li H (1991) Thin-walled multicell box-
girder finite element. Journal of Structural Engineering
117(10): 2953–2971.
Razaqpur AG and Li H (1994) Refined analysis of curved
thin-walled multicell box girders. Computers & Structures
53(1): 131–142.
Sheikh AH and Thomsen OT (2008) An efficient beam ele-
ment for the analysis of laminated composite beams of
thin-walled open and closed cross sections. Composites
Science and Technology 68: 2273–2281.
Timoshenko S and Goodier JN (1970) Theory of Elasticity.
New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 51, vol. 19.
Vlasov V (1961) Thin-Walled Elastic Beams. Washington,
DC: Office of Technical Services, U.S. Department of
Commerce.