REFINED ANALYSIS OF A CURVED BRIDGE & COMPARISON WITH SPINE ANALYSIS

“AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE”

A Project

Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Civil Engineering

(Structural Engineering)

by

Ivan Saad Abughneam

FALL
2019
REFINED ANALYSIS OF A CURVED BRIDGE & COMPARISON WITH SPINE ANALYSIS

“AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE”

A Project

by

Ivan Saad Abughneam

Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair

Benjamin Fell, Ph.D., P.E.

__________________________________, Second Reader

Toorak Zokaie, Ph.D., P.E.

___________________________
Date

ii
Student: Ivan Saad Abughneam

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format

manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for

the project.

__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________

Ghazan Khan, Ph.D. Date

Department of Civil Engineering

iii
 Abstract

of

REFINED ANALYSIS OF A CURVED BRIDGE & COMPARISON WITH SPINE ANALYSIS

“AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE”

by

Ivan Saad Abughneam

The purpose of this study is to illustrate the 3-D modeling of typical bridges by using the N215-

W210 connector bridge in San Bernardino, California as an example structure. The bridge was

analyzed with a 3-D model and also with a 2-D spine analysis that is more commonly used in

practice. Internal force and moment demand from imposed dead and live loads in the superstructure

and substructure were compared between the 2-D and 3-D analyses. The results focus on a

comparison between shear forces and bending moments along the entire length of the bridge

superstructure, at the bent caps, and axial loads and moments in the bridge columns. For the

superstructure, the analysis results were reviewed for the entire bridge length at each span, while

the substructure, only two bents and two columns were selected in this study. The two bents that

were considered – Bent 8 is on the curved alignment of the bridge and Bent 9 is on a straight

alignment. The 2-D spine analyses were performed with CT-bridge and CT-bent, while the 3D

analyses were performed with CSI-Bridge. All loads are based on AASHTO LRFD specifications.

The results illustrate that spine analysis may be highly conservative, especially when considering

substructure demands.

_______________________, Committee Chair

Benjamin Fell, Ph.D., P.E.

______________________
Date

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………..ix

Chapters

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………......1

1.1 Overview….………….…………………………………………………….…………...….1

1.2 Analysis Models.……………………………………………………...................................2

1.3 Model Analysis Procedure…………………………………………....................................5

1.4 Benefit and Risks……………………………………………………………………........ 5

1.5 Objective and Scope……….……………...……………………………….…………..…..6

1.6 Loading Considerations……………………………………............................................... 6

1.7 Review Analysis Results.………………………………………………...………….……..7

2. BRIDGE DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………………..8

2.1 General Bridge Description………………………………………………………………..8

2.2 Post-Tension ……………………………………………………………………………. 11

2.3 Layout …………………………………………………………………………………....11

2.4 Live Load Lanes ………………………………………………………………………….13

2.5 Checking Bridge Curvature Range ………………………………………………………14

2.6 Introduction of Software Programs ………………………………………………….........15

3. SUPERSTRUCTURE ANALYSIS RESULTS…………………………..……………….….18

3.1 Superstructure Dead Load Shear Force Comparison …………………..…………………18

3.2 Dead Load Bending Moment Comparison……………………………………….……….18

3.3 Overall Findings about Dead Load Case Study……………………………………..……20

v
 3.4 Soundwall and Barrier Loading Alignment ………………………………………..…….20

3.5 Post-Tensioning………………………………………………………………………….. 22

3.6 Design Consideration for Post-Tensioned Curved Bridges ………………………..….… 23

3.7 Pre-Stress Distribution Recommendations……………………………………….…..…..24

3.8 Distribution of the Prestressing Force to Girders due to Curvature …………………......25

3.9 Live Load check …………………………………………………………………………26

4. BENT CAP ANALYSIS RESULTS …………………………………………………………33

4.1 Dead Load Shear Comparison of Bent 8………………………………………………....33

4.2 Dead Load Bending Moment Comparison of Bent 8………………………………….…34

4.3 Dead Load Shear Comparison of Bent 9 …………………………………………….…..35

4.4 Dead Load Bending Moment Comparison of bent 9………………………………….…36

4.5 Overall Findings about Dead Load Case Study…………………………………….…….37

4.6 Vehicular Live Loads……………………………………………………….…………….40

4.7 Design Truck HL-93 Calculation Results …………………………………………….….42

4.8 Permit Truck P15 Calculation Results …………………………………………..……….46

5. COLUMN ANALYSIS RESULTS…………………………………………………………..49

5.1 Column 8 Analysis Results …………………………………………………………...….49

5.2 Column 9 Analysis Results …………………………………………………………..…..50

5.3 Column Analysis Procedure …………………………………………………………..…51

5.4 Maximum Transverse Moment (MT)max Case ………………………………………....53

5.5 Maximum Axial Force Pmax Case ………………………………………………….……54

5.6 Combining Longitudinal and Transverse Moments ……………………………………...54

5.7 Analyzing 3-D Structure by CSI-Bridge Software ……………………………………….54

vi
 5.8 Column Combined Axial and Flexural Strength ………..………………………………..54

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS………….…………………………………56

6.1 Superstructure…………………………………..………………………………......…….56

6.2 Substructure ……………………………………..……………………………………….56

Appendix A LOADS AND DEFINITIONS……..……………………………………………….58

Appendix B TABLES AND DATA ……………………………………………………………..66

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………..79

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

3-1 Spine-Shell Max Dead Load Shear Comparison………………………………………... 18

3-2 Spine-Shell Max Dead Load Bending Moment Ratio…………………………………... 19

3-3 Spine-Shell Max Column Dead Load Reaction Ratio…………………………………... 19

3-4 Distribution of Barriers Weight……………………………………………………………21

3-5 Spine-Shell Max P.T Bending Moment of Post-Tension …….…………………………. 22

3-6 PT-Top Stresses Demand Comparison-Frame 2 ……………………………………….... 23

3-7 Vehicular Live Load Position in Longitudinal Direction………………………………….27

3-8 Vehicular Live Load Position in Transverse Direction…………………………………….28

3-9 Spine-Shell HL-93 Bending Moment Ratio at the Mid-Span ……………………………..29

3-10 Spine-Shell HL-93 Shear Force Ratio……………………………………………………. 29

3-11 Spine- Shell HL-93 Ratio of the Negative Bending Moment……………………………..30

3-12 Spine-Shell HL-93 Shear Force Ratio at the Pier Location ……………………………... 30

3-13 Permit Truck (p15)…………………………………………………………………..……31

3-14 Permit Truck Positioned Transversely………………………………………………….....31

3-15 Spine-Shell P15 Bending Moment Ratio …………………………………………………32

3-16 Spine-Shell P15 Shear Force Comparison………………………………………………. 32

4-1. 2-D & 3-D Dead Load Shear force comparison (Bent-8) ……………………………….. 33

4-2. 2-D &3-D Dead Load Bending Moment comparison (Bent-8) ………………………….. 34

4-3 Total Bending Moment Comparison (Bent-8) …………………………………………… 35

4-4. 2-D &3-D Dead Load Shear Force Analyses Comparison (Bent-9) ……………………… 35

4-5. 2-D & 3-D Dead Load Bending Moment Analyses Comparison ………...………………..36

viii
4-6 Total Bending Moment Comparison………. ………………………………………..…… 37

4-7 Plate with Eccentric Beam Model………………………………………………………....38

4-8 Stresses Contour (CSI-Bridge) ……………………………………………………………39

4-9 HL-93 Lane Loads Positioned Transversely………………………………………………41

4-11 HL-93 Shear force comparison (Bent 8) ………………………………………………… 43

4-12 Design Truck HL-93 Bending Moment (Bent 8) …………………………………………44

4-13 HL-93 Shear Force Response (Bent 9) …………………………………………………. 45

4-14 HL-93 Bending Moment Response (Bent 9) ……………………………………………..45

4-15 Permit Truck Shear Force Response (Bent 8) …………………………………………….46

4-16 Permit Truck Bending Moment Response (Bent 8) ……………………………………. 47

4-17 Permit Truck Shear Force Response (Bent 9) …………………………………………. 47

4-18 Permit Truck Bending Moment Response (Bent 9) …………………………………… 48

5-1 Column 8 Interaction Diagram (Bottom) ……………………………………………....... 49

5-2 Column 8 Interaction Diagram (Top) …………………………………………………........50

5-3 Column 9 Interaction Diagram (Bottom)…………………………………………………..50

5-4 Column 9 Interaction Diagram (Top) ……………………………………………………...51

ix
 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

The main objective of structural analysis is to determine internal forces, stresses and

deformations of structures under various load effects. To perform the analysis, structural modeling

should be done by using verified software and checked against another independent software and

hand calculations or simplified methods. Structural model typically includes (1) a computer model

consisting of three basic components: structural members, joints (nodes, connecting edges or

surfaces), and boundary conditions (supports and foundations); (2) a material model; and (3) a load

model.

The engineers can model a bridge using beam and spring elements (also known as two-

dimension model or Spine model) or use beams, springs, and shells (also known as Three-

dimensional model or Refined Model). In this project CSI-Bridge is used for three-dimensional

model, Caltrans software CT-Bridge is used for bridge superstructure in two dimensions (spine),

and another Caltrans program, CT-Bent, is used for two-dimensional model of bent (caps and

columns). Load cases include dead load and live load, where the live load is modeled based in the

HL-93 & P-15 loading scenarios.

The following models are used to compare results:

a) Superstructure:

• 2-D spine model with CT-Bridge for the longitudinal analysis only where the

superstructure is modeled as a line of beam elements and the bent cap is modeled as a rigid

beam.
 2

• 3-D model by CSI-Bridge for both the longitudinal and transverse directions of entire

bridge (full width) using shell elements for the superstructure.

b) Substructure:

• 2-D substructure modeled using beam line elements for both the columns and bent cap.

This model is generated using CT-Bent and is not connected to the superstructure model

described previously.

• 3-D model is composed of beam elements for the bent cap and column, with rigid links to

connect to shell elements as part of the single model of the entire bridge.

1.2 Analysis Models

This project was done for one of the California Bridges located in San Bernardino County. The

bridge is curved in plan, has 13-spans, CIP/RC-PT Box Girder cross section, single column bents,

and two seat-type abutments. It is 2056 feet long, and 41 feet and 3 inches wide. This type of bridge

is typically analyzed by spine model using software programs CT Bridge and CT-Bent. The

superstructure spine model was represented as a series of beam elements in longitudinal direction

as shown in fig (1-1) (b) &(c).

(a)
 3

(b) (c)

Figure 1-1 (a) Example curved bridge, (b) Longitudinal Spine Model by CSI-Bridge and (c)

Longitudinal Spine Model by CT-Bridge

a) 2-D Model of Substructure:

A transverse model of bent cap and columns is needed to obtain maximum bending moment and

shear force along bent cap. Dimension of the bent cap should be considered along the skew.

Individual bent model should include foundation flexibility effects and can be combined in frame

model by geometric constraints. The 2-D model of bent cap and column was done with CT-Bent

which assumes the load-path form superstructure to substructure is through girders. In order to

perform substructure analysis with CT-Bent, the bridge superstructure should be analyzed first with

CT-Bridge spine analysis then certain analysis results are transferred to CT-Bent. To avoid errors

during this step, one should pay attention to the local and global axes in each software. Fig (1-2)

shows 2-D substructure model by CT-Bent software.

 4

Figure 1-2 Substructure Model (CT-Bent)

b) 3-D model of superstructure:

Shell model or 3-D model of the curved bridge was done by CSI-bridge software that defined box

girder, deck, soffit, and web are shell elements. However, bridge columns and bents caps were

beam elements. The bridge supports were represented as spring elements and shaft with p-y springs

for soil-structure interaction (SSI). The bridge post-tensioning was modeled as an equivalent load

or truss element.

Fig (1-3) shows three-dimensional model by CSI-Bridge:

Figure 1-3 Three-Dimension Model by CSI-Bridge

 5

c) 2-D model by CSI-Bridge

The 2-D model by CSI-Bridge was only used to compare internal forces (axial force and shear

force) and bending moment demand in superstructure to CT-Bridge analysis results. This was done

to check the validity of CT-Bridge spine analysis. The results match closely, however aren’t

included in the report. see fig. 1-1 (b).

1.3 Model Analysis Procedure

Bridge analysis procedure for typical design is based on the 2-D model explained in part 1-2 (a),

i.e, as a spine (line) model of the structure in longitudinal direction which leads to creating sperate

models for superstructure and substructure. Support skew is typically ignored in spine model.

Substructure (Bent and Column) can be modeled as plane frame, Supports are modeled as fixed or

springs. Live loads distribution factors are used to calculate superstructure response, but individual

trucks are used in substructure. Refined Analysis method is referenced in Article 4.4 (AASHTO

LRFD) and requires more complex computer models. The finite element methods have been the

most common for the refined analysis.

1.4 Benefit and Risks

The benefit of Refined Analysis is getting more accurate analysis results than 2-D spine analysis.

But the process of Refined Analysis is more complicated and therefore more prone to user mistakes.

Performing spot-checks and comparing refined analysis results with simplified models helps to

avoid major mistakes.

 6

1.5 Objective and Scope

This report explains a detailed 3-D and 2-D analyses example for N215-W210 connector bridge

starting with some guidance on how to create the model, following with review and discussion of

analysis results. This example also points out the similarity and differences in assumptions in two

analysis methods. According to AASHTO LRFD Specification (4.6.1.2.3), Curved bridges with

central angle between 12 and 34 degrees may be modeled with multiple linear segments (Beams)

with each beam corresponding to central angles 3.5 degrees or less. Curved bridges with central

angles exceeding 34 degrees need to be analyzed using more refined approach. In this example, the

central angle is 12 degrees, therefore the bridge may be modeled with a curved model for design

purposes.

Figure 1-4 Curvature of Concrete Box Girder Bridge

1.6 Loading Considerations

Usually, there are several load cases that are applied on superstructure and substructure. The most

significant Loads for superstructure are:

Dead Load (permanent loads)

These load effects are typically captured well-enough by spine models. However, for bridges with

significant skew or horizontal curve, 3-D models can be more accurate.

 Post-tension that causes an additional stress on top and bottom of the bridge.
 7

 Creep, shrinkage, and temperature.

 Sound wall: These load effects are captured more accurately in a three-dimensional

model.

 Vehicular live load: HL93, P15, Fatigue loads.

 Other less significant load effects such as centrifugal, wind, etc. are not included in this

example.

The maximum number of live load lanes in 3-D model needs to be specified and is found as follows:

𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)

Number of lanes= 12
For the bridge spine model, a single lane of live load is applied to get the maximum response value

(bending moment and shear force), and code specified factor (live load distribution factor) was

used to account for number of lanes. CT-Bridge software can efficiently analyze the superstructure.

In 3-D bridge analysis, CSI-Bridge has the capability to place live loads as moving loads within

defined lanes. Lanes must be in such a way as to maximize the response at a specific point. Some

software programs use the influence surface which gives the range of response values in a bridge

surface without a need for determining the lane location. CSI-Bridge also added this capability

recently.

1.7 Review Analysis Results

Superstructure analysis results including the demand of stresses, bending moment, and shear force

due to dead load, Post-tensioning, and live load, all the analysis results are covered in chapter 3.

Substructure analysis results including bent cap the demand of shear force and bending moment

from applying dead load and live load are covered in chapter 4. Bridge column analysis results

including bending moment and axial force in addition to the column interaction diagram are

covered in chapter 5.
 8

CHAPTER TWO

BRIDGE DESCRIPTION

2.1 General Bridge Description

Cast in Place/Reinforced Concrete-Post tensioned (CIP/RC- PT) curved bridge (885’ 10” radius

and 12o curvature angle) with box girder of three cells, single column bent and two seat-type

abutments. The bridge is 2056 feet long, 41’ 3” wide and 7’ 3” box girder depth. It has 13 unequal

spans length with three expansion joints and four frames along the bridge superstructure. The bridge

has similar columns cross section (Octagon - 4’ radius) see fig. (2-4). The bridge was designed

according to 1996 AASHTO with INTERIMS and revision by Caltrans. See fig. (2-1) & (2-2) for

general elevation and plan, and fig (2-3) for bridge typical section, note that the plan dimensions

are in metric (SI)units.

See table (2-1) for other bridge details

Additional Dead Load 35 lbf/ft2 (future wearing service).

Deck Reinforced Concrete Steel reinforcement.: Specified minimum yield stress (fy) = 60 ksi,
Concrete: Specified minimum compressive strength (f’c) = 3.6 ksi.
Soundwall load distribution, sound-Wall dead load applied as follow:
0.00-104ft =2.9 kips, 104-432ft = 2.25 kips
432-521ft =1.57 kips, 521-544ft=1.124 kips
Barrier Load Space 0.5 kips/ft on the left and right side.
Post-tensioning (PT) Strands
270 ksi low relaxation.
Anchor set = 0.4”, Pjack= 12.185 kips
Concrete:
Specified minimum compressive strength (f’c) = 5.0 ksi.
Bridge Columns height (ft) 51, 51, 51, 49, 49, 24.6, 24.6, 20, 36, 36, 36,36, 36.

Table 2-1 Bridge Description

 9

Figure 2-1 Bridge Elevation

Figure 2-2 Bridge Plan

 10

Figure 2-3 Superstructure Typical Section

Figure 2-4 Column Section

 11

2.2 Post-Tension

A416Gr270 Tendons with tensile strength (Fu) of 270 ksi, minimum yield stress of 245 ksi,

modulus of elasticity of 28500 ksi and unit weight of 490 PCF are used. P-jack force of 3046.2

kips is used on each group tendon in a girder on both ends of frame. Long term loss is 20 ksi based

on Caltrans practice, friction coefficient of 0.15, wobble factor of 0.0002/ft, and anchor set of 0.4

inches are used in analysis. Tendon path is shown in girder layout, see fig (2-5). Area of Tendons

calculated based on this information is:

P−jack(kips) 3046.2 kips

Area of Tendon = = =15.04 in2
fpj=0.75fpu 0.75∗270 ksi

2.3 Layout
The bridge starts on a straight alignment for the first 91 ft and continues curved alignment with

radius of 886 ft and initial bearing of N294906E. See Fig (2-5).

12
 13

Figure 2-5 Prestress Profile

2.4 Live Load Lanes

When designing a bridge for live load, the bridge engineer must determine the number of design

lanes acting on bridge as it was explained in part (1-6). The number of design lanes that resist live

load were three lanes based on LRFD specifications with a minimum lane width of 12ft. Based on

LRFD (8th ed.). multiple presence factors are applied for live loading in 3D model and live load

Distribution factors are used for spine analysis.

 14

2.5 Checking Bridge Curvature Range

According to AASHTO-LRFD 8th edition, the L/R of 0.2 which corresponds to central angle of 12

degree, is the limit for the straight model analysis and L/R of 0.6 which corresponds to 34-degree

central angle, is the limit for spine model.

In this example, all spans have central angle less than 12 degree, so the bridge can be designed as

straight model. However, the bridge was modeled as a curved model in order to better capture the

differences between spine and shell model.

Span L(m) R(m) L/R Central Angle

(degree)

1 40.5 270 0.15 8.5

2 43.5 270 0.16 9.2

3 45.34 270 0.17 9.5

4 49.44 270 0.18 10.4

5 55 270 0.20 11.5

6 55 270 0.20 11.5

7 51.3 270 0.19 10.8

8 52 270 0.19 10.9

9 48.5 270 0.18 10.2

10 48.5 270 0.18 10.2

11 48.5 270 0.18 10.2

12 48.5 270 0.18 10.2

13 40.5 270 0.15 8.5

Table 2-2 Bridge Curvature

 15

2.6 Introduction of Software Programs

For this specific example three different program were used:

CT-Bridge and CT-Bent for spine model and CSI-Bridge for Three-Dimensional structure model.

2.6-1 CT-Bridge:

CT-Bridge is a Finite Element Analysis and Design software using a 3-D spine model for the bridge

superstructure. This allows description of skewed supports, horizontal and vertical curves, and

multi-column bents, see fig (1-1) & (2-6)

Figure 2-6 Superstructure Data (CT-Bridge)

2.6-2 CT-Bent

CT-Bent is a Finite Element Analysis and Design software using a 2-D model for the bridge

substructure. Currently under development at Caltrans. See fig (1-2), (2-7), (2-8) and (2-9).
 16

Figure 2-6 Bent Cap Section Data (CT-Bent)

Figure 2-7 Column-8 Data (CT-Bent)

Figure 2-7 Column-9 Data (CT-Bent)

2-6.3 CSI-Bridge

CSI-Bridge is a well-known Finite Element Program commercially available from CSI. It can

create a 3-D Model that can be used in both longitudinal and transverse analysis of entire bridge
 17

(full width). The model uses shell elements for superstructure and beam element for substructure.

See fig (2-9).

Figure 2-9 Bridge Data (CSI-Bridge)

 18

CHAPTER THREE

SUPERSTRUCTURE ANALYSIS RESULTS

3.1 Superstructure Dead Load Shear Force Comparison

Fig (3-1) shows the variance of shear force between two models, CSI-Bridge-shell and CT-Bridge
spine model.

1.20
Ratio of 2D to 3D results:
Dead Load Shear Force

1.15
1.10 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Length of the bridge (ft)

Figure 3-1 Spine-Shell Max Dead Load Shear Force Comparison

Vertical axis shows ratios of Shear 2-D/3-D and horizontal axis shows the distance from the

beginning of the bridge. Based on these demand results, the ratio of shear force values of 2-D and

3-D are almost the same, with the most percentage difference of 4%. This is acceptable and minor

differences in computer models can always be expected.

3-2 Dead Load Bending Moment Comparison

3-2.1 Superstructure
Fig. (3-2) shows the Spine-Shell bending moment ratio due to dead load
 19

Figure 3-2 Spine-Shell Max Dead Load Bending Moment Ratio

Comparing spine and shell model shows there is at most 6.5% difference in bending moment

demands value. The difference in self weight shear force and bending moment are not considered

significant enough in this case to justify 3-D analysis.

3-2.2 Column Reaction

Fig (3-3) shows the force reactions ratios at the bottom of bridge columns between both models

CSI-Bridge-shell and CT-Bridge spine model due to superstructure dead load.

Figure 3-3 Spine-Shell Max Column Dead Load Reaction Ratio

 20

Vertical Axis (P) shows axial force ratios (2D/3D) and horizontal axis (location) shows distance

from the beginning of bridge.

These results indicate that 2-D analysis gives higher value of axial force by about 3% along the

bridge. This minor difference from the models also can’t justify using 3-D model.

3.3 Overall Findings About Dead Load Case Study

Although both models were symmetrical, small load disturbance in the direction normal to plan

may cause variances in shear force and bending moment demands. For instance, in this bridge

there is a Soundwall at the beginning of the bridge (first three span) therefore there is up to 6%

spine-shell variances in these areas.

Considering the minor differences between spine model and shell model shear and moment

responses in case of dead load study 2-D, spine analysis is acceptable.

3.4 Soundwall and Barrier Loading alignment

When using spine analysis, Sound-wall and barrier loads are recommended by Caltrans to be

distributed to various girders as follows:

3.4-1 Barriers

Barrier loads are generally distributed equally to all girders in the superstructure section. The

weight of the barrier is light enough that a more detailed method of distribution is not warranted.

For the example bridge, DC load for barriers is 0.86 k/f for two barriers. The barrier load to each

girder is simply 0.86/4 = 0.215 k/f. In other words, 0.86 k/ft is applied to the spine model and
 21

girders share the load equally.

Figure 3-4 Distribution of Barriers Weight

3.4-2 Soundwalls

Since a Soundwall is a much heavier than a barrier, more refined analysis should be performed to

obtain more accurate distribution. In spine analysis, Soundwall distribution is simplified by

applying 100% of the Soundwall shear demand load on the exterior girder and applying an

additional 1/n to the first interior girder; where n = number of girders. For moment, 60% to the

exterior girder and 1/n to the first interior girder. For the example bridge, assume a sound-wall 10

ft tall using 8-inch blocks on the north side of the bridge. The approximate weight per foot assuming

solid grouting is 88 psf × 10 ft = 880 plf. In other words, for the shear calculation 1*880plf=880plf

is applied on the exterior girder, 0.25*880=220plf is applied on the first interior girder. Another

load case which moment is, 0.6 ×880=528plf applied on the first interior girder, and ¼*880plf=220

applied on the first interior girder. This load response is added for the design of the girder closest

to the sound-wall only.

 22

3.5 Post-Tensioning

The demand of bending moment and stresses were checked and compared in two programs CT-

Bridge-spine and CSI-Bridge-Shell for Post-tensioning, see fig (3-5) & (3-6). Also, since Spine

model was modeled as one single beam, tendons were centralized as one group and total P-jack

force applied to that. However, in the Shell model there are four discrete group of tendons in

Girders. Stresses are checked in all Girders.

Figure 3-5 Spine-Shell Max P.T Bending Moment of Post-Tension

In fig (3-5), Vertical axis shows bending moment ratio and horizontal axis (distance) illustrates the

distance from the beginning of bridge.

The results between the models of CT-Bridge-spine and CSI-Bridge-shell show percentage

differences up to 10%. These variations are relatively small and do not justify the use of 3-D

analysis.

Center top stresses are checked for shell model for all girders. Fig (3-6) shows a close look at Frame

number 2 of the bridge. Note that the stresses are decreasing from right to left girder but are

relatively close to each other.

 23

Figure 3-6 PT-Top Stresses Demand Comparison-Frame 2

3.6 Design Consideration for Post-Tensioned Curved Bridges

Bridge superstructures on curved alignments experience a torsion induced by the geometric effect

of the curve. This torsion results a higher shear force in girders towards the outside of the curve.

Typically, the effect of torsion has been either ignored (for bridges with central angles less than 12

degrees) or considered via shear and torsion equations in AASHTO-LRFD (LRFD 5.8.2.1-7). A

parametric study of number of single and multi-span curved bridges has shown that this equation

underestimates the effect of torsion in most multi-cell box girder bridges. Therefore, a more

realistic estimate of the increased shear is proposed here.

A curved alignment also results in the variation of individual girder lengths regardless of skew;

girders toward the outside of the curve being longer than those towards the inside of the curve.

When the same prestress force is applied to a longer girder with the same relative prestress profile,

it results in lower prestress equivalent vertical loads, while the dead load is comparable in each

girder. As a result, the prestressing becomes less effective in counteracting the dead load in girders

located towards the outside of the curve. In order to have a more uniform prestress affect throughout
 24

the cross section, the prestress force should be distributed to various girders such that longer girders

receive more prestressing than shorter girders

3.7 Pre-Stress Distribution Recommendations

In order for the prestress force to cause stresses that are distributed in a similar manner as applied

loads (mainly dead load), the prestressing (Pjack) applied to longer girders should be larger than

that applied to shorter girders. The girder length is the main factor affecting the equivalent load of

prestressing. Since the post-tensioning cable is usually applied to more than one span, the

distribution is shown to be based on tendon length rather than span length.

𝐿𝐿𝑖𝑖 2
𝑃𝑃𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 = 𝑃𝑃𝑗𝑗0 ∗ � �
𝐿𝐿0
 25

Where:

𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃𝑗𝑗 ∑𝑗𝑗 𝑔𝑔 𝐿𝐿2𝑗𝑗
𝑃𝑃𝑗𝑗0 = 𝑁𝑁𝑔𝑔
and 𝐿𝐿0 = � 𝑁𝑁𝑔𝑔

Pj = Total prestress jacking force

Li = Length of tendon i

Ng = Number of girders

3.8 Distribution of the Prestressing Force to Girders due to Curvature

The girders with longer length should receive a larger proportion of the jacking force compared to

shorter girders.

Frame- Pj(kips) NO of Gir. Pj0=Pj/# of Gir.

No.
1 12184.6 4 3046.2
2 10150.1 4 2537.5
3 9770.2 4 2442.6
4 6710.5 4 1677.6

Frame1
Gir. No. Internal girder 2 3 Outer girder Total

Li(ft) 620.9 614.8 608.6 602.5

L0(ft) 611.7 611.7 611.7 611.7
Pj0(kips) 3046.2 3046.2 3046.2 3046.2
Pji(kips) 2955.2 3015.4 3077.1 3138.5 12186.1
 26

Frame1
Frame2
Gir. No. Internal girder 2 3 Outer girder Total
Li(ft) 349.1 353.2 357.4 361.5
L0(ft) 355.3 355.3 355.3 355.3
Pj0(kips) 2537.5 2537.5 2537.5 2537.5
Pji(kips) 2449.7 2507.6 2567.6 2626.9 10151.8

Frame3
Gir. No. Internal girder 2 3 Outer girder Total
Li(ft) 482.9 488.6 494.4 500
L0(ft) 491.5 491.5 491.5 491.5
Pj0(kips) 2442.6 2442.6 2442.6 2442.6
Pji(kips) 2357.8 2413.8 2471.5 2527.8 9770.9

Frame4
Gir. No. Internal girder 2 3 Outer girder Total
Li(ft) 557.8 563.5 569.9 575.7
L0(ft) 566.8 566.8 566.8 566.8
Pj0(kips) 1677.6 1677.6 1677.6 1677.6
Pji(kips) 1624.8 1658.1 1696.0 1730.7 6709.7

3.9 Live Load check

Bending moments and stresses were compared in three models (CT-Bridge, CSI-Bridge-Spine and

CSI-Bridge-Shell) for Live load. Live load is checked in two cases HL-93 & P15:

3.9-1 HL-93 Design Load

The AASHTO HL-93 includes variations and combinations of truck, tandem, and lane loading. The

design truck is a 3-axle truck with variable rear axle spacing and a total weight of 72 kips (Figure

3.7). The design lane load is 0.64 k/ft (Figure 3.4-2). The design tandem is a two-axle vehicle, 25

kips per axle, spaced 4 ft apart (Figure 3.4-2). Trucks shall be placed transversely in as many lanes
 27

as practical. Multiple presence factors shall be used to account for the improbability of multiple

fully loaded lanes side by side.

The following 4 cases represent, in general, the requirements for HL-93 loads as shown in Figure

• HL-93K: design tandem and design lane load

• HL-93M: design truck and design lane load

• HL-93S: 90% of two design trucks and 90% of the design lane load

• HL-93LB: pair of one design tandem and one design lane load.

Cases 1 and 2 are for all responses while cases 3 and 4 are for negative moments and bent

reactions only.

Figure 3-7 Vehicular Live Load Position in Longitudinal Direction

 28

In spine model the analysis can maximize responses for the live load positions on the longitudinal

direction only; however, in shell model, analysis considers live load positions in transverse

direction in addition to the longitudinal direction as the following:

HL-93 Design Truck Positioned Transversely HL-93 Lane Loads Positioned Transversely

Figure 3-8 Vehicular Live Load Position in Transverse Direction

Bending moments and shear force were compared in three models (CT-Bridge, CSI-Bridge shell,

CSI-bridge spine) for Live load. Live load is checked in two cases:

a) At the Mid-Span

The positive bending moment demand ratio (2D/3D) was obtained to compare CT-Bridge model

analysis result and CSI-Bridge model analysis values.

Fig (3-8), shows the moment demand ratio of the positive moment along the bridge. The graph

indicates that the difference between the two analyses ranges between 7% to 9%. These minor

differences can be expected due to analysis procedure and they don’t justify 3-D analysis.
 29

Figure 3-9 Spine-Shell HL-93 Bending Moment Ratio at the Mid-Span

For the shear force ratio between 2D & 3D at the mid-span:

Fig (3-10) shows the ratio (2D/3D) of Shear force value at the middle of the span. Vertical Axis

shows ratio of spine to shell shear force value and horizontal axis (distance) illustrates the

distance from the beginning of the bridge. There is a variation up to 10% for shear between 3D

and 2D analyses, which is partly due to analysis procedure, i.e. individual lanes 3D vs distribution

factor in 2D.

Figure 3-10 Spine-Shell HL-93 Shear Force Ratio

b) At the Pier Location

Figure (3-11) shows the negative bending moment ratio (2D/3D) at all pier locations along the

bridge. The results show the maximum difference between 2D & 3D analyses along the bridge is
 30

9%. This minor variance is expected due to conservativity in 2-D analysis and the difference in

modeling procedure.

Figure 3-11 Spine- Shell HL-93 Ratio of the Negative Bending Moment

Also, shear force was calculated in 2-D and 3-D at all the piers locations and the ratio values as

shown in fig (3-12). The figure shows the ratio (2D/3D) of shear value at each pier location along

the bridge, the results shows the 2-D analysis of shear force due to HL-93 has higher value than 3D

up to 17%. This variation is larger than other results and is expected due conservativity factors in

2-D analysis and the difference in modeling procedure. However, since spine model results are

more conservative, the designers may decide to use the spine model for its convenience

Figure 3-12 Spine-Shell HL-93 Shear Force Ratio at the Pier Location
 31

3.9-2 California Permit Truck (P15) result check

The California P-15 permit (CA 3.6.1.8) vehicle figure (3-12) is used for superstructure design,

either 1 or 2 permit trucks shall be placed on the bridge at a way to create the most severe condition,

whichever controls see fig. (3-13). Fig (3-13) shows two permit trucks occupying two adjacent

lanes. However, the lanes may be positioned apart if that results in maximum force effects.

Figure 3-13 Permit Truck (p15)

Figure 3-14 Permit Truck Positioned Transversely

Maximum and minimum bending moment response from P15 truck are compared for spine and

shell model as shown in fig. (3-15). Vertical Axis shows the ratio of spine to shell max. and min.

of bending moment response values and horizontal axis (distance) illustrates distance from the
 32

beginning of the bridge. The upper ratio values in the graph refer to the moment or shear ratio in

the middle of the span, the lower values refer to the moment or shear ratio at the pier’s location.

Note: the nagative sign in the graph refers to the moment direction only however the moment ratio

is positive.

the results show that there is a minor difference in the two analyses for the positive moment

values at the middle of the span up to 11% and the moments ratio at the piers locations range

between 4% to 10%.

Figure 3-15 Spine-Shell P15 Bending Moment Ratio

Fig (3-16) shows 2-D to 3-D Shear force ratios, there are variations up to 14% for shear from 3-D

and 2-D. Again, these are partly due to the different procedure used for 3-D and 2-D analysis.

Besed on these difference ratios in moment and shear force, 3-D analysis is not justified.

Figure 3-16 Spine-Shell P15 Shear Force Comparison

 33

CHAPTER FOUR

BENT CAP ANALYSIS RESULTS

In this chapter, substructure analysis in 2D and 3D models of bent cap 8 and bent cap 9 will be

reviewed. In this study, 2D analysis was done by CT-Bent and verified by hand calculation; 3D

analysis was done by CSI-Bridge.

4.1 Dead Load shear Comparison of Bent 8

The first comparison between 2-D and 3-D analysis is the shear force analysis from dead load. Fig

(4-1) shows shear force values in 2-D and 3-D models at different locations along one side of the

bent. In 2-D analysis, shear force diagram is shown as a straight line; however, shear force diagram

of 3-D analysis has abrupt changes in shear on the discrete element 5.3ft away from the center of

the column where a girder is framed. The graph indicates that the 3-D analysis by CSI-Bridge at

the center of column is 8.5% higher than 2-D, face of column has 23%, and at 6.3ft away from the

center the difference is 26%.

Figure 4-1 2-D & 3-D Dead Load Shear force comparison (Bent-8)
 34

4.2 Dead Load Bending Moment Comparison of Bent 8

Fig. (4-2) shows comparison in bending moment values between 2-D and 3-D analysis along the

bent cap. Moment in 3-D analysis is smaller than 2-D analysis by about 47% at the center of

column, 84.6% at the face of column, 85% at 6.3 ft away from the center of column. This difference

is considered very high and not realistic. The 3-D moments in this case are reported from beam

element only since CSI-Bridge usually represents bent cap as a beam. There is an additional

moment value from top and bottom shells that should be added to obtain the total values for the

moment.

Figure 4-2 2-D &3-D Dead Load Bending Moment Comparison (Bent-8)

Fig (4-3) shows how the moments improve after adding the shell element moment to beam

element in 3-D model. The moment at the center of the column has increased about 48% which

cannot be ignored. Other points also gain more moment from the top and bottom plates.
 35

Figure 4-3 Total Bending Moment Comparison (Bent-8)

4.3 Dead Load Shear Comparison of Bent 9

Fig (4-4) shows shear values in 2D and 3D models analysis results in different location along one

side of the bent. In 2D analysis, shear diagram is shown as a straight line; however, shear force

diagram of 3D analysis has a difference in shear on the discrete element 5.3ft away from the center

of the column. The graph indicates that the 3D analysis by CSI-Bridge at the center of column is1%

higher than 2D, face of column has 19%, and at the 6.3ft away from the center the difference is

31.75%.

Figure 4-4 2-D & 3-D Dead Load Shear Force Analyses Comparison (Bent-9)
 36

4.4. Dead Load Bending Moment Comparison of Bent 9

Once again if the moments in 3-D model are taken from the beam element only, these results are

underestimated. The values on fig (4-5) indicate that the moment in 2D analysis is higher than 3D

analysis by 55.5% at the center of column, at the face of column 2D analysis higher than 3D in

89.72%, the last point indicates 87.9% difference between 2D and 3D. These percentages are

considered very high and need to be corrected.

14000
11363.1
12000
10000
7263.65
8000
Moment k-ft

60005060.2928 3861.14 2D
4000
1130.4 3D
2000 746.917 467.1416 0 0
0 -1411.5
-2000 0 5 10 15 20 25
-4000
Distance from the Center of Column(ft)

Figure 4-5 2-D & 3-D Dead Load Bending Moment Analyses Comparison

After considering shell bending moment value in the final bending moment calculation, the total

demand of bending moment will be as showing in fig. (4-6).

 37

Figure 4-6 Total Bending Moment Comparison

Fig (4-6) shows the total bending moment was improved after considering shell moment value. The

center of column had moment value 5060.3 k-ft that from the beam element and the shell moment

added 3780.6k-ft to the beam element. Considerable increase shell moment accounts for 42% of

the total moment and cannot be ignored. Other locations also show moments after adding shell

moment. In comparing 2D analysis with 3D analysis, it is clear that adding shell moments improves

the results and the differences between 2D and 3D results become less than 20%.

4.5. Overall Findings about Dead Load Case Study

In comparison of moment values of bent Cap 8 at the face of column, we noticed that the value of

moment in CSI-Bridge (3D Model) is equal to -1127 k.ft, while the value of moment in CT-Bent

(2D Model) is -7328 k.ft the difference between these two values is about 84%,. In this case, it is

clear that the moment value from CSI-bridge just from beam element is not adequate and we need

to add the moment contribution from top and bottom plates (shell element).

The procedure for calculating moment from top and bottom plates is to find the stresses and to

multiply them by the area of the plate to get the concentrated force on the center of top and bottom
 38

plates. Then, calculate the moment by multiplying the force by the distance from center of plates

to center of bent.

Finally, calculate the total moment by adding moments from top and bottom slab to the moment of

beam element. The same procedure is followed for various points on the bent.

The following figure is a simple model by CSI-Bridge that shows the bent (beam element) with top

and bottom plates (shell element). This model is used to quantify the missing moment from shell

and provide a sample of magnitude of this moment.

Figure 4-7 Plate with Eccentric Beam Model

The following hand calculations illustrate the method of finding the final moment by using stress

contour values from CSI-Bridge

 39

Figure 4-8 Stresses Contour (CSI-Bridge)

Bent Cap Section

f top= 66.67 k/ft²
f bot= 41.34 k/ft²
F top= 66.67 k/ ft² *14.51 ft²= 967.33 k A top=14.51 ft2

F bot=41.34 k/ft² *12.1875 ft²=503.83 k A bot = 12.1875 ft2

M top=967.33 k *3.93 ft =3801.606 k-ft Arm top = 3.93 ft

M bot=503.83 k*3.9 ft =1964.937 k-ft Arm bot =3.93 ft

Total moment=M beam+ M top shell+ M bot shell
=1127 k-ft + 3801.606 k-ft +1964.937 k-ft = 6894.041 k-ft
 40

Now, the total bending moment from 3D analysis is 6894.041 k-ft, while the value of bending

moment from 2D (CT-bent) analysis is 7328.3 k-ft, the deference as percentage between 2D and

3D analysis is about 6%.

The demand of shear force was also checked in both software programs, the results of shear force

on both analyses showed almost 20% difference.

The same procedure should be followed to check more points on the bent and for live load.

Analysis results from the bridge and the bent model are shown in table (4-1):

Bending Moment at the Face of

Column
Bent Model Bridge Model
Plate Moment (k-ft) 3447.622 5766.54
Beam Moment (k-ft) 1514.456 1127.501
% plates 69.48% 83.65%

Table (4-1) Analysis Results of the Bridge and Bent Model

The tabular values indicate that plate elements carry more than 50% from the total bending moment.

4.6 Vehicular Live Loads

Substructure elements include bent cap and column. To calculate the force effects on these elements

using the 2D analysis procedure, a “transverse” analysis shall be performed. Bent transverse

analysis aims to get maximum shear force and bending moment by placing vehicles in a way to

maximize the response.

Substructure analysis shall be multiplied by multiple presence factor MPF. MPFs are applied as

follows by CSI Bridge for multi lane bridges. Two live loads cases are considered in this study:

I. HL-93 consists of design truck, and design lane load. Figure (4-9) shows one of two

alternatives for a design truck, or wheel lines, transversely placed within a 12-ft live load
 41

lane. Another alternative is a mirror image of this configuration. The wheel lines may move

anywhere within the 12-ft lane as long as AASHTO 3.6.1.3.1 is satisfied. Lanes and wheel

lines shall be placed to produce maximum force effects in the bent cap.

Figure 4-9 HL-93 Lane Loads Positioned Transversely

II. Permit Truck P15: Per CA 3.4.1 (Caltrans 2014), for bent cap design, a maximum

of two permit trucks shall be placed in lanes that are positioned to create the most

severe condition. However, the lanes may be positioned apart if that results in

maximum bent cap force effects.

 42

Figure 4-10 Permit Truck(P15) Positioned Transversely

Table (4-2) Multiple Presence Factor (MPF)Value

Bending moment and Shear Force were checked and compared in two software programs (CT-

Bent, CSI-Bridge), in addition to hand calculation for Live load. Live load was checked in two

cases for two bents.

4.7 Design Truck HL-93 Calculation Results

• Bent Cap 8

Fig (4-11) shows the HL-93 shear force. In 2-D analysis shear force value at the center of column

is similar to the shear force value at the face of column since the position of truck that maximize

shear value is the same for these two spots, the same issue with the 3-D analysis as well. There is

4% difference between 2-D and 3-D at the column location (center and the face). In 3-D analysis
 43

the element between 5ft and 5.3ft indicates a big difference in value between these two nodes as a

result this issue affects the comparison between 2D and 3D analyses for this location, i.e., 2D

analysis gives almost double the value of 3-D in this location.

Figure 4-11 HL-93 Shear Force Comparison (Bent-8)

Fig (4-12) illustrates bending moment values comparison, 2-D and 3-D analysis results show a

big difference if the shell moment is ignored on 3-D analysis. The third curve (Shell+Beam)

indicates that the shell moment adds more than 50% to beam moment and as a result the total

moment is more than 2-D analysis by about (10%-20%) at each point.

 44

Figure 4-12 Design Truck HL-93 Bending Moment (Bent-8)

• Bent Cap 9

Fig (4-13) shows the HL-93 shear force at bent 9. Some points along the bent were verified in 2-D

and 3-D analysis. In both 2D and 3-D analyses shear force value at the center of column is similar

to the shear force value at the face of column since the position of truck that maximizes shear value

is the same for these two locations. There is 4.7 % difference between 2D and 3D at the column

location (center and the face). In 3-D analysis the element between 5ft and 5.3ft indicates a large

difference in values between these two nodes as a result this issue affects the comparison between

2-D and 3-D analyses for this location, the 3-D analysis shows almost 50% of 2-D analysis value

at this location only.

 45

Figure 4-13 HL-93 Shear Force Response (Bent 9)

Fig (4-14) shows moments comparison, 2-D and 3-D analysis results show a big difference if the

shell moment is ignored in 3-D due to missing shell moment values on 3-D analysis. The third

curve (Shell+Beam) indicates that the shell moment adds more than 50% to beam moment and as

a result the total moment is more than 2-D analysis by about (10%-20%) at each point.

Figure 4-14 HL-93 Bending Moment Response (Bent 9)

 46

4.8 Permit Truck P15 Calculation Results

• Bent 8

Fig (4-15) shows the P15 shear value of 2-D and 3-D analysis. 2-D analysis shear values along

selected spots on bent plotted a straight line, however 3-D analysis shear force plot has an abrupt

jump in values between 5ft and 5.3ft, the values decrease from 631.892k to 255.64k. In comparing

these two analyses all the locations except the element between 5 ft and 5.3 ft have minor

difference, i.e. less than 6%.

Figure 4-15 Permit Truck Shear Force (Bent 8)

Fig (4-16) shows moments comparison between 2-D and 3-D analyses results show a large

difference if the shell moment is ignored in 3-D analysis. The third curve is the total moment

(Shell+Beam) indicates that the shell moment adds more than 50% to the beam moment.
 47

Figure 4-16 Permit Truck Bending Moment Response (Bent 8)

• Bent Cap 9

Fig (4-17) shows a comparison of permit truck shear force demand of 2-D and 3-D analyses. 2-D

analysis shear values along selected locations on bent are plotted as a smooth curve, however 3-D

analysis shear force plot has an abrupt jump in values between 5ft and 5.3ft, the value decreases

from 631.892k to 255.64k. i.e. there is almost 60% difference between 2-D &3-D analysis, while

other locations have almost 4% difference between two analyses.

Figure 4-17 Permit Truck Shear Force Response (Bent 9)

 48

Fig (4-18) shows the P15 moments comparison at bent 9. The 2-D and 3-D analysis results show

a large difference due to missing shell moment values in 3D analysis. The third curve total

moment (Shell+Beam) indicates that the shell moment adds more than 50% to beam moment. As

the result, the moment values along the bent reduced the differences between 2-D and 3-D

analyses up to 5%.

3D 2D Total Moment (Beam+Shell)

8000
7000
6000
moment k-ft

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from the center of column ft

Figure 4-18 Permit Truck Bending Moment Response

 49

CHAPTER FIVE

COLUMN ANALYSIS RESULTS

5.1 Column 8 Analysis Results

Fig (5-1) and (5-2) shows column analysis results (axial force and total bending moment) from 2-

D and 3-D analyses along with P-M Interaction Diagram. Note that in most cases, results of 3-D

analysis show slightly higher axial force and considerably lower moment values compared to 2-D

analysis. See Appendix II for tabular data. At the bottom of column, the worst case of moment from

2-D analysis has almost three times the moment from 3-D analysis. Max Axial force, max moment,

and their associate values from the dead load and live load were considered in both analyses’

procedure. The points inside the diagram refer to the demand using load combination (strength I,

strength II).

In 2-D column analysis 9 sets of values compared to 6 sets of values from 3-D analysis. The

difference in the number of set of values is a result the difference of analysis procedures, explained

in section 5.3.

Figure 5-1 Column 8 Interaction Diagram of (Bottom)

 50

Figure 5-2 Column 8 Interaction Diagram of (Top)

5.2 Column 9 Analysis Results

Fig (5-3), (5-4) shows the demands of top and bottom column 9 from both analyses are less than

the capacity. 3-D analyses give a lower moment response in all load cases. The worst case of

moment from 2-D has almost three times as the moment from 3-D analysis.

Figure 5-3 Column 9 Interaction Diagram (Bottom)

 51

Figure 5-4 Column 9 Interaction Diagram (Top)

5.3 Column Analysis Procedure

Analyzing a 3-D structure with 2-D models:

5.3-1 Longitudinal Structural Analysis (LSA)

Perform a longitudinal analysis of the bridge under consideration using Caltrans CT-Bridge

software. Results will determine:

• Axial load (Ax) and longitudinal moment (Mz) at top and bottom of the column for dead

load

• Maximum unfactored axial load (Ax) and associated longitudinal moment (Mz) of design

vehicular live loads for one lane per bent (all columns)

• Maximum and minimum unfactored longitudinal moment (Mz) and associated axial load

(Ax) of design vehicular live loads for the one lane per bent. (all columns)

5.3-2 Transverse Analysis for Substructure

Perform a transverse analysis of the column by using a 2-D bent model. Transverse analysis results

are used to determine:

 52

• Column axial load (P) and transverse moment (MT) for dead load.

• Maximum axial load (P) and associated transverse moment (MT) for design

vehicular live loads.

• Maximum and minimum transverse moment (MT) and associated axial load (P)

for design vehicular live loads.

Column live load axial force and moment for one lane from longitudinal structural analysis (CT-

Bridge) are summarized in Table (5-1).

Table (5-1) Longitudinal Structural Analysis (CT-Bridge)

 53

Live loads (HL-93&P15) longitudinal forces (axial and moment) must be multiply by Impact

Factor, Dynamic Load Allowance IM (Increase in static forces).

• Deck Joints-all limit states 75%

• Fatigue limit state 15%

• All other limit states 33%

• Permit Loading 25%

5.4 Maximum Transverse Moment (MT)max Case

To obtain the moments in the transverse direction, the axial forces due to one lane of live load

that was obtained from LSA are placed on the bent to produce maximum and minimum effects.

Note that wheel lines must be placed 2 ft from the face of the barrier. The longitudinal and

transverse moment from LSA are distributed to various column in proportion to the axial force.
 54

This results in 2 cases of P and M for each case of LSA (max axial, max and min longitudinal

moment), i.e. total of 6 sets.

5.5 Maximum Axial Force Pmax Case

To maximize axial forces on the column, place as many lanes as can fit on the bridge. In this

example three lanes are required for HL-93 and two lanes are required for Permit Truck (Article

CA 3.6.1.8.2). This results in a set of P and M in each case of LSA, i.e. 3 sets.

5.6 Combining Longitudinal and Transverse Moments

In each of the above 9 cases the results include axial force, transverse and longitudinal moments.

The total column moment is calculated as follow:

Mtotal = �(𝑀𝑀𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 )2 + (𝑀𝑀(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ) + 𝑀𝑀(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (LSA)) )2

Where:

Mlong= Longitudinal column moment.

Mtransverse= Transverse column moment from the transverse analysis.

Mtransverse (LSA)= Transverse column moment from LSA.

5.7 Analyzing 3-D Structure by CSI-Bridge Software

The 3-D analysis value sets are obtained from CSI bridge analysis tables. Six cases included axial

force, transverse moment and longitudinal moment, along within concurrent values.

5.8 Column Combined Axial and Flexural Strength

To check the demand value, STR-I, STR-II Should be calculated:

Strength-I

This combination was used with HL-93

 55

As:

Mu (HL93) = 1.25(MDC) + 1.5(MDW) + 1.75(MHL93)

Pu (HL93) = 1.25(PDC) + 1.5(PDW) + 1.75(PHL93)

Strength-II

This combination was used with P15

Mu(P15) = 1.25(MDC) + 1.5(MDW) + 1.35(MP15)

Pu(P15) = 1.25(PDC) + 1.5(PDW) + 1.35(PP15)

Strength I & II values should be applied on the interaction diagram to ensure the demand is less

than the capacity and compare analyses values.

 56

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Superstructure

After analyzing bridge in both models (2-D and 3-D) with the consideration of difference in stresses

responses between two analyses, it has been concluded:

• The 3D analysis provides more accurate distribution of force effects in the girders,

however, in most of cases, the 2D analysis gave results in an acceptable range. In most

critical case (live load) results seemed conservative (up to 14%) in 2D analysis due to using

distribution factor.

• It is recommended that Spine model can be used for superstructure analysis. However, if

an engineer has enough knowledge and time to perform 3-D modeling, it is recommended

to perform 3-D analysis for long span bridges.

• It is recommended that for 2-D modeling and analysis, following issues be considered in

order to get more reasonable results and closer to 3-D analysis:

1. Dead Load: considering torsion for not evenly distributed dead loads like sound wall and

barriers.

2. PS: Post-Tension jack force distribution to various tendons.

6.2 Substructure

6.2-1 Bent Cap Analysis

The results of 2D and 3D analysis of bent for shear and moment response show:

• The shear force values in the two models have minor difference (less than 10%),

which is considered acceptable.

 57

• Moment response also shown a difference (around 20%) between 2-D and 3-D

and can be considered acceptable as well.

• Based on both analyses results, it’s not recommended to use 3-D analysis since

the 2-D analysis is more conservative and more efficient. Also, 2-D analysis is

preferable and recommended since the model has smooth transition in shear and

moment values on the selected point along bent caps.

6.2-2 Column Analysis

According to the interaction diagrams of column 8 &9,

• Both of 2-D and 3-D demands were within acceptable column capacity, however

2D gives a higher moment value than 3D analysis, which indicates that there may

be opportunity for more efficient column design.

• There is a large difference between the two worst cases (Mmax). In column 8, 3-

D moment value is %63 lower than 2-D moment, in column 9, 3-D moment is 77%

lower than 2-D moment.

• It is not practical to compare specific load cases in the two analyses since the 2-D

& 3-D procedures do not have corresponding load cases.

• Since the 3-D analysis gives less moment values, the column should be designed

for smaller section.

• Its recommended to use 3-D analysis for the column to get smaller and ductile

cross section to meet the requirements of seismic design as per Caltrans.

 58

APPENDIX A

LOADS AND DEFINITIONS

1. Permanent Loads:

Permanent loads are defined as loads and forces that are either constant or varying over a long-time

interval upon completion of construction. They include dead load of structural components and

nonstructural attachments (DC), dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities (DW).

2. Transient Loads:

Transient loads are defined as loads and forces that are present over a short time interval. A transient

load is any load that will not remain on the bridge indefinitely. This includes vehicular live loads

(LL) and their secondary effects including dynamic load allowance (IM).

a) HL-93 Design Load:

The AASHTO HL-93 (Highway Loading adopted in 1993) load includes variations and

combinations of truck, tandem, and lane loading. The design truck is a 3-axle truck with variable

rear axle spacing and a total weight of 72kips Figure (I-1). The design lane load is 640plf. When

loading the superstructure with HL-93 loads, only one vehicle per lane is allowed on the bridge at

a time.
 59

b) Permit Load

The California P-15 permit (CA 3.6.1.8) vehicle is used in conjunction with the Strength II limit

state. For superstructure design, if refined methods are used, either 1 or 2 permit trucks shall be

placed on the bridge at a time, whichever controls. If simplified distribution is used (AASHTO

4.6.2.2), girder distribution factors shall be the same as the design vehicle distribution factors.

3. Live Load Distribution Factor (LLDF)

Live load distribution factors (LLDFs) are used to calculate the live load bending moment and shear

force on Bridge girders caused by moving loads. LLDFs make not only live load analysis simpler

but also keep designers away from having to develop complex 3-D models of simple Bridges.

Below table indicates live load moment distribution factor as per AASHTO-LRFD 2018
 60

Range of
Type of Superstructure Moment Distribution Factors
Applicability

Cast-In-Place Concrete

multi cell box

Where,

𝑆𝑆 = spacing of webs (ft.)

𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 =Number of cells.

𝐿𝐿 = span length (ft).

4.Box Girder

A box or tubular girder is a girder that forms an enclosed tube with multiple walls, rather than

an I or H-beam. Originally constructed of riveted wrought iron, they are now found in rolled or

welded steel, aluminum extrusions or prestressed concrete.

Compared to an I-beam, the advantage of a box girder is that it better resists torsion. Having

multiple vertical webs, it can also carry more load than an I-beam of equal height (although it will

use more material than a taller I-beam of equivalent capacity).

 61

5.Central Angle

The angle between start and end of span on curved bridge.

6.Substructure

A substructure is any structural, load–supporting component generally referred to by the term’s

abutment, bent, pier, retaining wall, foundation or other similar terminology. This portion of the

bridge is below the beam and/or deck elements.

 62

7.Superstructure

The portion of the bridge that is above substructure. It typically includes beams, girders, trusses,

and the bridge deck.

8. Bent cap

A bent cap beam is an intermediate support between bridge spans that transfers and resists vertical

loads and lateral loads such as earthquake and wind from the superstructure to the foundation. The

bent cap beam supports the longitudinal girders and transfers the loads to the bent columns.

Concrete bent cap beams may be cast-in-place or precast and may be either conventionally

reinforced or prestressed.
 63

9. Columns

Columns are defined as a single support member having a ratio of clear height to maximum width

of 2.5 or greater. The columns may be supported on a spread- or pile-supported footing, or a solid

wall shaft, or they may be extensions of the piles or shaft above the ground line.

10. Plate Element

A plate element is a two-dimensional solid element that acts like a flat plate. There are two out-of-

plane rotations and the normal displacement as Degree of Freedom (DOF). These elements model

plate-bending behavior in two dimensions.

9.Shell Element

A shell element is a three-dimensional solid element (one dimension is very small compared with

another two dimensions) that carries plate bending, shear and membrane loadings.

10. Beam Element

A beam element is a slender member subject to lateral loads and moments. In general, it has six

degrees of freedom at each node including translations and rotations. A beam element under pure

bending has only four degrees of freedom.

11. Dead Load of Components, DC

The dead load of the structure is a gravity load and is based on structural member geometry and

material unit weight. It is generally calculated by modeling the structural section properties in a
 64

computer program such as CTBRIDGE. Additional loads such as intermediate diaphragms, hinge

diaphragms, and barriers must be applied separately.

12. Dead Load of Wearing Surfaces and Utilities, DW

Future wearing surfaces are generally asphalt concrete. New bridges require designing for a

thickness of 3 in., which results in a load of 35 psf as specified in MTD 15-17 (Caltrans, 1988)

13. Forces from Post-Tensioning, PS

Post tensioning introduces axial compression into the superstructure. The primary post-tensioning

forces counteract dead load forces

14. Interaction Diagram

Flexural resistance of a concrete member is dependent upon the axial force acting on the member.

Interaction diagrams for a reinforced concrete section are created assuming a series of strain

distributions and computing the corresponding moments and axial forces. The results are plotted to

produce an interaction diagram as shown in the figure:

 65

When combined axial compression and bending moment act on a member having a low slenderness

ratio and where column buckling is not a possible mode of failure, the strength of the member is

governed by the material strength of the cross section. For this so–called short column, the strength

is achieved when the extreme concrete compression fiber reaches the strain of 0.003. In general,

one of three modes of

failure will occur tension controlled, compression controlled, or balanced strain condition

(AASHTO 5.7.2.1). These modes of failure are detailed below:

• Tension controlled: Sections are tension controlled when the net tensile strain in the

extreme tension steel is equal to or greater than 0.005 just as the concrete in compression

reaches its assumed strain limit of 0.003.

• Compression controlled: Sections are compression controlled when the net tensile strain in

the extreme tension steel is equal to or less than the net tensile strain in the reinforcement

(εy = 0.002) at balanced strain condition at the time the concrete in compression reaches

its assumed strain limit of 0.003.

• Balanced strain condition: Where compression strain of the concrete (εc = 0.003) and yield

strain of the steel (for Grade 60 reinforcement εy = 0.002) are reached simultaneously, the

strain is in a balanced condition.

 66

Appendix B

TABLES AND DATA

BENT 8 DATA

1.Dead Load

• 2D

location V(kips) M(K.ft)

0.00 1136.4 11416.69
4.00 907.6 7328.3
8.34 659.32 3921.39
14 339.612 1160.1
20.63 0 0

• 3D

location V M
0 1242.106 5988.665
4 1190.506 1127.501
5 1177.187 -58.317
5.33 522.309 2087.974
8.34 483.609 583.2614
12.753 426.462 1437.598
14.6325 0 0

• 3-D Moment Adjustmen

location (ft) f shell top f shell bot. Area top Area bot. Force top Force bot top arm bot. arm M top Mbot. M total M tot+M beam
0 Col Cent. 56.66667 20 14.511 12.1875 822.29 243.75 3.94 3.9 3239.823 950.625 4190.448 10179.11 12.16%
4 Col Edge 64.66667 93.333333 14.511 12.1875 938.378 1137.5 3.94 3.9 3697.209 4436.25 8133.459 9260.96 20.87%
8.34 30 33.333333 14.511 12.1875 435.33 406.25 3.94 3.9 1715.2 1584.375 3299.575 3882.837 0.98%
12.753 20 20 14.511 12.1875 290.22 243.75 3.94 3.9 1143.467 950.625 2094.092 2094.092
14.6325 0 0 14.511 12.1875 0 0 3.94 3.9 0 0 0 0
 67

2. HL-93

• 2D Analysis

Live load HL93(truck+Lane Load) CT_BENT

Location (ft) MAX_Mz Ass Vy MAX_Vy Assoc Mz
0.00 Col.Cent 3,449.734 313.612 313.612 3,818.205
4.00 Col. Edge 2,195.285 313.612 313.612 2,577.380
8.34 1,422.545 294.558 249.810 1,664.256
14 376.33464 124.9049 124.9049 376.335
20.63 0 0 0 0

• 3D Analysis

Live load HL93 CSI

location MX_MZ Ass Vy MAX_Vy Assoc Mz
0 COL Cent. 2209.88 374.599 327.102 2143.413
4 COL Edge 1059.5039 293.11 327.102 885.857
5 771.909 327.102
5.33 861.9072 141.937
8.34 539.5239 93.258 141.973 440.229
12.753 344.847 0 141.976 0
14.6325 0.00 0

• 3D Moment Adjustment

HL93 Shell element moment(LL)

location (ft) f shell top f shell bot. Area top Area bot. Force top Force bot top arm bot. arm M top Mbot. M total M tot+M beam %Diff
0 Col Cent. 15.333333 20 14.511 12.1875 222.502 243.75 3.94 3.9 876.6579 950.625 1827.283 4037.163 14.55%
4 Col Edge 16.666667 11.333333 14.511 12.1875 241.85 138.125 3.94 3.9 952.889 538.6875 1491.577 2551.08 13.95%
8.34 16.666667 6 14.511 12.1875 241.85 73.125 3.94 3.9 952.889 285.1875 1238.077 1777.6 19.97%
12.753 10.666667 3 14.511 12.1875 154.784 36.5625 3.94 3.9 609.849 142.5938 752.4427 752.4427
14.6325 0 0 14.511 12.1875 0 0 3.94 3.9 0 0 0 0
 68

3. Permit Truck P15

• 2D

P15 Permit CT_BENT

Location (ft) MX_MZ Ass Vy MAX_Vy Assoc Mz
0.00 Col.Cent 7,008.889 675.881 675.881 7,008.889
4.00 Col. Edge 5,540.350 675.881 675.881 5,540.350
8.34 3,054.983 540.705 540.000 3,054.983
14 810.00 270
20.63 0 0

• 3D

P15 Truck CSI

Location (ft) MAX_MZ Ass Vy MAX_Vy Assoc Mz
0.00 COL Cent. 3818.3044 631.3411 631.893 3807.799
4.00 COL Edge 1578.393 477.22 631.8925 1252.606
5 972.664 631.8925
5.33 1378.828 255.646
8.34 858.043 137.292 255.646 607.883
12.753 545.0474 255.646
14.6325 0 0

• 3-D Moment Adjustment

P15 Shell element moment

location (ft) f shell top f shell bot. Area top Area bot. Force top Force bot top arm bot. arm M top Mbot. M total M tot+M beam %Diff
0 Col Cent. 24.666667 12 14.511 12.1875 357.938 146.25 3.94 3.9 1410.276 570.375 1980.651 5798.96 17.26%
4 Col Edge 67.333333 0.6666667 14.511 12.1875 977.074 8.125 3.94 3.9 3849.672 31.6875 3881.359 5459.752 1.45%
8.34 40 13.333333 14.511 12.1875 580.44 162.5 3.94 3.9 2286.934 633.75 2920.684 3778.727 19.15%
12.753 21.333333 2 14.511 12.1875 309.568 24.375 3.94 3.9 1219.698 95.0625 1314.76 1859.808
14.6325 0 0 14.511 12.1875
 69

COLUM-8 ANALYSIS DATA

1. 2-D Analysis Result

• Dead Load

loc. P ML MT MTL Mtot

0 -2183.6 561.8 -6987.52 244.6 6766.28
20 -2024.2 -728 -6477.44 57 6461.58

• HL-93

Case 1 (3 Lanes)
location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
0 Pmax -472.923 730.626 -945.846 40.137 1163.67
ML max -330.455 1484.712 -660.909 -5.7375 1627.51
ML min -88.8675 -1823.53 -177.735 830.79 1936.94
20 Pmax -472.923 39.1935 -945.846 -31.4925 946.66
ML max -280.118 4117.307 -560.235 -96.1095 4155.25
ML min -265.889 -4334.08 -531.777 98.9145 4366.58

Case 2 (1 lane)
location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
0 Pmax -222.552 343.824 -3115.73 18.888 3115.87
ML max -155.508 698.688 -2177.11 -2.7 2289.05
ML min -41.82 -858.132 -585.48 -143.796 1126.16
20 Pmax -222.552 18.444 -3115.73 -14.82 3130.60
ML max -131.82 1937.556 -1845.48 -45.228 2707.19
ML min -125.124 -2039.57 -1751.74 46.548 2658.48
 70

Case 3 (1 Lane)
location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
0 Pmax -222.552 343.824 3115.728 18.888 3153.42
ML max -155.508 698.688 2177.112 -2.7 2283.91
ML min -41.82 -858.132 585.48 -143.796 965.13
20 Pmax -222.552 18.444 3115.728 -12.35 3103.43
ML max -131.82 1937.556 1845.48 -37.69 2649.95
ML min -125.124 -2039.57 1751.736 38.79 2714.00

• P15 Analysis Results

Case 1 (2 Lanes)
location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
0 Pmax -612.799 418.608 -3125.27 -16.864 3169.90
ML max -416.109 1307.776 -2122.16 -720.783 3129.31
ML min 1.071 -1908.88 5.4621 -619.667 2005.26
20 Pmax -612.799 501.296 -1838.4 -13.838 1918.87
ML max -416.109 5261.381 -1333.32 -144.483 5464.98
ML min -400.945 -5938.97 -1174.24 48.62 6044.70

Case 2 (1 Lane) Max

location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
0 Pmax -432.564 295.488 -6055.9 -11.904 6074.99
ML max -293.724 923.136 -4112.14 -508.788 4712.23
ML min 0.756 -1347.44 10.584 -437.412 1413.43
20 Pmax -432.564 353.856 -6055.9 -9.768 6075.98
ML max -293.724 3713.916 -4112.14 -101.988 5617.12
ML min -283.02 -4192.21 -3962.28 34.32 5744.87

Case 3 (1 lane) Min

location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
0 Pmax -432.564 295.488 6055.896 -11.904 6051.21
ML max -293.724 923.136 4112.136 -508.788 3719.72
ML min 0.756 -1347.44 -10.584 -437.412 1419.97
20 Pmax -432.564 353.856 6055.896 -9.768 6056.47
ML max -293.724 3713.916 4112.136 -101.988 5465.75
ML min -283.02 -4192.21 3962.28 34.32 5792.02
 71

• Column Load Combination

Str-1 Str-1
bot Top bot Top
P1 -3557.12 -3357.87 M1 10494.27 9733.628
P2 -3307.8 -3020.46 M2 11306 15348.66
P3 -2885.02 -2995.55 M3 11847.5 15718.5

Str-1 Str-1
bot Top bot Top
P1 -3118.97 -2919.72 M1 13910.62 13555.53
P2 -3001.64 -2760.94 M2 12463.69 12814.57
P3 -2802.69 -2749.22 M3 10428.63 12729.31

Str-1 Str-1
bot Top bot Top
P1 -3118.97 -2919.72 M1 13976.33 13507.98
P2 -3001.64 -2760.94 M2 12454.69 12714.39
P3 -2802.69 -2749.22 M3 10146.83 12826.48

Str-II Str-II
bot Top bot Top
P1 -3556.78 -3602.65 M1 14005.18 11435
P2 -3291.25 -3258.44 M2 13934.15 17640.69
P3 -2728.05 -3231.9 M3 11967.06 18655.19

Str-II Str-II
bot Top bot Top
P1 -3313.46 -3287.24 M1 19089.09 18709.94
P2 -3126.03 -3044.27 M2 16704.26 17906.93
P3 -2728.48 -3025.54 M3 10931.36 18130.5
 72

Str-II Str-II
bot Top bot Top
P1 -3313.46 -3287.24 M1 19047.47 18675.81
P2 -3126.03 -3044.27 M2 14967.36 17642.04
P3 -2728.48 -3025.54 M3 10942.8 18213.01

BENT-9 ANALYSIS DATA

1. Dead Load

• 2-D Output Analysis

location V(kips) M(K.ft)

0.00 1140.97 11363.1
4.00 908.76 7263.65
8.34 656.34 3861.14
12.753 372.07 1474.75
14 332.537 1130.4
20.63 0 0

• 3D Output Analysis

location V M
0 1128.568 5060.293
4 1122.9 746.917
5 1112.15 -372.075
5.33 480.197 1860.4
8.34 447.947 467.1416
12.753 400.421 -1411.5
14.6325 0 0
 73

• 3D Analysis Adjustment

location (ft) f shell top f shell bot.Area top Area bot.(fForce top Force bot top arm bot. arm M top Mbot. M total M tot+M beam
0 Col Cent. 56.66667 13.33333 13.09 11 741.7667 146.6667 3.94 3.9 2922.561 572 3494.561 8815.693 22.42%
4 Col Edge 55 75 13.09 11 719.95 825 3.94 3.9 2836.603 3217.5 6054.103 6801.02 6.37%
8.34 8 49.33333 13.09 11 104.72 542.6667 3.94 3.9 412.5968 2116.4 2528.997 3001.647 22.26%
12.753 20 42 13.09 11 261.8 462 3.94 3.9 1031.492 1801.8 2833.292 1421.792 3.59%
14.6325 0 0 13.09 11 0 0 3.94 3.9 0 0 0 0

2. HL-93

• 2D Analysis

Live load HL93(truck+Lane Load)

Location (ft) MAX_Mz MAX_Vy
0.00 Col.Cent 3,425.384 311.418
4.00 Col. Edge 2,179.790 311.418
8.34 1,410.012 249.119
14 373.6782 124.5594
20.63 0 0

• 3D Analysis

Live load HL93 (CSi)

location MX_MZ MAX_Vy
0 COL Cent. 2209.88 327.102
4 COL Edge 1059.504 327.102
5 771.909 327.102
5.33 861.9072 141.937
8.34 539.5239 141.973
12.753 344.847 141.976
14.6325 0.00 0
 74

• 3D Analysis Moment Adjustment

HL93 Shell element moment(LL)

location (ft) f shell top f shell bot.Area top Area bot. Force top Force bot top arm bot. arm M top Mbot. M total M tot+M beam %Diff
0.00 Col Cent. 23.33 20.00 14.51 12.19 338.59 243.75 3.94 3.90 1334.04 950.63 2284.67 4494.55 23.79%
4.00 Col Edge 26.67 11.33 14.51 12.19 386.96 138.13 3.94 3.90 1524.62 538.69 2063.31 3122.81 30.20%
8.34 16.67 6.67 14.51 12.19 241.85 81.25 3.94 3.90 952.89 316.88 1269.76 2041.67 30.94%
12.75 10.67 3.00 14.51 12.19 154.78 36.56 3.94 3.90 609.85 142.59 752.44 1097.29
14.63 0.00 0.00 14.51 12.19 0.00 0.00 3.94 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Permit Truck (P15)

• 2D Analysis

P15 Permit
Location (ft) MX_MZ MAX_Vy
0.00 Col.Cent 7,332.81 666.619
4.00 Col. Edge 4,666.33 666.619
8.34 3,018.45 533.295
14 799.94 266.6475
20.63 0.00 0
• 3D analysis

P15 Truck (CSI)

Location (ft) MAX_MZ MAX_Vy
0.00 COL Cent. 3818.304 631.893
4.00 COL Edge 1578.393 631.8925
5 972.664 631.8925
5.33 1378.828 255.646
8.34 858.043 255.646
12.753 545.0474 255.646
14.6325 0 0
 75

• 3D Analysis Moment Adjustment

P15 Shell element moment

location (ft) f shell top f shell bot.Area top Area bot. Force top Force bot top arm bot. arm M top Mbot. M total M tot+M beam %Diff
0.00 Col Cent. 24.67 18.00 13.09 11.00 322.89 198.00 3.94 3.90 1272.17 772.20 2044.37 5862.68 20.05%
4.00 Col Edge 70.67 2.67 13.09 11.00 925.03 29.33 3.94 3.90 3644.61 114.40 3759.01 5337.40 12.57%
8.34 44.67 6.67 13.09 11.00 584.69 73.33 3.94 3.90 2303.67 286.00 2589.67 3447.71 12.45%
12.75 16.67 5.33 13.09 11.00 218.17 58.67 3.94 3.90 859.58 228.80 1088.38 1633.42
14.63 0.00 0.00 13.09 11.00 0.00 0.00 3.94 3.90 0.00

COLUMN-9 ANALYSIS DATA

The following tables are CT-Bridge output of the longitudinal analysis:

live load forces (one lane) Bottom of the column CT-Bridge

Vehicle Class Case p ML MTL
p max -71.31 -18.54 3.48
Design truck ML max -43.16 523.74 88.51
ML Min -40.9 -610.85 88.9
p max -112.77 -145.45 205.89
Design Lane ML max -51.84 843.31 26.71
ML MIN -53.74 -887.32 -20.32
p max -355.53 -90.65 170.32
Permit truck ML max -216.39 2251.9 418.81
ML MIN -214.16 -2740.33 403.41
bot -2239.5 -811.7 -811.8
Dead Load
top -1950.1 1635.1 -34.0
 76

live load forces (one lane) Top of the column CT-Bridge

vehicle class Case p ML MTL
p max -71.31 35.2 -1.5
Design truck ML max -47.79 963.87 -9.38
ML Min -49.1 -887.95 -0.94
p max -112.77 149.5 -7.26
Design Lane ML max -53.73 1211.66 -6.57
ML min -51.84 -1122.96 4.75
p max -355.53 104.64 -13.55
Permit truck ML max -227.78 4196.4 -46.09
ML Min -230.33 -3703.59 -7.71

• Column Analysis Result

The following tables are the transverse analysis (2-D) data from hand calculation:

• Dead Load
loc. p ML MT MTL MTot.
0 -2239.5 -811.7 -7166.4 -811.8 8019.38
20 -1950.1 1635.1 6240.32 -34 6483.88

• Live Load

HL-93
Case 1 (3 Lanes)
location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
Pmax -469.404 -418.175 -938.808 533.8935 582.09
0 ML max -242.25 3485.978 -484.5 293.811 3491.19
ML min -241.332 -3820.33 -482.664 174.879 3832.71

Pmax -469.404 470.985 -938.808 -22.338 1050.33

36 ML max -258.876 5547.602 -517.752 -40.6725 5571.71
ML min -257.397 -5127.82 -514.794 9.7155 5153.60
 77

Case 2 (1 lane)
location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
Pmax -220.896 -196.788 -3092.54 251.244 2848.11
0 ML max -114 1640.46 -1596 138.264 2194.56
ML min -113.568 -1797.8 -1589.95 82.296 2346.30
Pmax -220.896 221.64 -3092.54 -10.512 3110.96
36 ML max -121.824 2610.636 -1705.54 -19.14 3128.89
ML min -121.128 -2413.09 -1695.79 4.572 2946.73

Case 3 (1 Lane)
location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
Pmax -220.896 -196.788 3092.544 251.244 3349.57
0 ML max -114.000 1640.46 1596 138.264 2387.21
ML min -113.568 -1797.8 1589.952 82.296 2455.30
Pmax -220.896 221.64 3092.544 -10.512 3089.99
36 ML max -121.824 2610.636 1705.536 -19.14 3107.95
ML min -121.128 -2413.09 1695.792 4.572 2951.99

P15
Case 1 (2 Lanes)
location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
Pmax -604.401 -154.105 -1813.2 289.544 1531.43
0 ML max -367.863 3828.23 -1103.59 711.977 3848.21
ML min -364.072 -4658.57 -1092.22 685.797 4676.26
Pmax -604.401 177.888 -1813.2 -23.035 1844.83
36 ML max -387.226 7133.88 -1161.68 -78.353 7240.85
ML min -391.561 -6296.1 -1174.68 -13.107 6407.16

Case 2 (1 Lane) Max

location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
Pmax -426.636 -108.78 -5972.9 204.384 5769.55
0 ML max -259.668 2702.28 -3635.35 502.572 4137.22
ML min -256.992 -3288.4 -3597.89 484.092 4528.72
Pmax -426.636 125.568 -5972.9 -16.26 5990.48
36 ML max -273.336 5035.68 -3826.7 -55.308 6358.31
ML min -276.396 -4444.31 -3869.54 -9.252 5898.89
 78

Case 3 (1 lane) Min

location Case p ML MT MTL Mtotal
Pmax -426.636 -108.78 5972.904 204.384 6178.25
0 ML max -259.668 2702.28 3635.352 502.572 4942.14
ML min -256.992 -3288.4 3597.888 484.092 5241.77
Pmax -426.636 125.568 5972.904 -16.26 5957.97
36 ML max -273.336 5035.68 3826.704 -55.308 6291.38
ML min -276.396 -4444.31 3869.544 -9.252 5886.74
 79

References

1. AASHTO, (2012). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units,

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

2. California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications— 8th Edition,

California Department of Transportation.

3. USCS Fall 2016 class CE268- Prestress Concrete Bridge Design.

4. Prestress Losses in Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders

5. BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE (FEBRUARY 2015). B. CHAPTER 3(Substructure Analysis).

6. CT-Bridge (Caltrans 2014). B.

7. CT-Bent (Caltrans).

8. CSI-Bridge-2017.

9. Caltrans Report “Effect of Curved Alignment on CIP-PT Box Girder Bridges”, by Toorak Zokaie,

November 2015.