Wang Dissertation 2013

Copyright
by
Weihua Wang
2013
The Dissertation Committee for Weihua Wang Certifies that this is the approved
version of the following dissertation:
A Study of Stiffness of Steel Bridge Cross Frames
Committee:
Todd A. Helwig, Supervisor
Michael D. Engelhardt, Co-Supervisor
Karl H. Frank
John L. Tassoulas
Mark E. Mear
by
Weihua Wang, B.S; M.S.
Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin

August 2013
Dedication
To my wife, Xiaoqun
for your unlimited love and encouragement.

Acknowledgements
It has been a great honor for me to have a chance to participate some research
projects in Ferguson Structural Engineering Lab. This is the place where many
innovations and breakthroughs in structural engineering have taken place. My research is
one of the decade-lasting efforts on improving structural stability and bracing system
performance for all structures. And this research itself is one of the most comprehensive
and in-depth engineering study I have ever participated in. While I have spent time and
sweat on it, many other people have made their contribution for it to succeed. This
acknowledgement is specially written for them.
First of all, I would like express my appreciation to all members of the
dissertation committee. Dr. Helwig is my advisor during the graduate study and will
continue into be a mentor of the whole career life. He spent tremendous time in planning
the study, guiding through the whole process and reviewing the final document. Dr.
Engelhardt, as the co-advisor also directed me in each step of the study. Only with his
knowledge in structural analysis and laboratory testing, this research can be an interesting
and successful experience. Dr. Frank has proved to have unbelievable knowledge in
bridge engineering and laboratory testing by giving a crucial answer or pointing out an
innovative solution each time whenever I was puzzled by the research. Dr. Tassoulas’s
has contributed important ideas which have become key points of the research. And Dr.
Mear’s instruction is also crucial to my research by giving insight understanding of
mechanics problems.
The staffs of the Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratories at The University
of Texas at Austin were absolutely critical in performing laboratory testing smoothly,

v
accurately and safely. They gave guidance and assistance promptly whenever needed.
Thanks to Blake Stasney, Dennis Fillip, Andrew Valentine, Mike Wason, Eric Schell and
Barbara Howard.
Finally, a special thank should be given to my co-researchers and other students
who have helped in my study. Without their diligent work and unreserved help, this
research cannot be completed. Plus they have made the research a fun and enjoyable job.
Thanks to Anthony Battistini, Craig Quadrato, Rangsan Wongjeeraphat and many others.
Weihua Wang
August 2013
vi
Weihua Wang, Ph.D.
The University of Texas at Austin, 2013
Supervisor: Todd A. Helwig
Co-supervisor: Michael D. Engelhardt
Cross frames are critical components in steel bridge systems. Cross frames brace
girders against lateral torsional buckling and assist in distributing live loads to girders
during the service life of the bridge. In curved bridges, cross frames also serve as
primary structural members in resisting torsion generated by the traffic loads. The
conventional cross frames are often constructed in X- or K- type shapes with steel angle
sections. However, the actual stiffness of these cross frames are not well understood or
quantified, leading to potentially inaccurate prediction of bridge behavior and safety
during construction and in service.
Previous studies have shown the possibility of employing new sections, such as
tubular members and double angles, in cross frame designs. In addition, a type-Z cross
frame, or single diagonal cross frame was also found to be a potential use to simplify the
design. However, the effectiveness of these innovative cross frame types has not been
completely examined. And these new cross frames have yet compared with the
conventional ones in terms of their stiffness and strength capacity.
vii
This dissertation documents the results of a study on the stiffness of various types
of cross frame systems. Full size cross frames were tested to establish actual stiffness of
the cross frames specimens. The tests results revealed a significant discrepancy between
the actual measured stiffness and the stiffness calculated using methods commonly
employed by bridge designers. The research showed that the major source of this
discrepancy was the eccentricity in the connection. The stiffness reduction was quantified
by employing analytical derivation and finite element modeling. As a result, methods
were developed to account for the stiffness reduction.
viii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Conventional Cross Frame ................................................................................ 3
1.3 Single-Diagonal Cross Frames ......................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Tubular Cross Frame .............................................................................. 7
1.3.2 Double Angle Cross Frame .................................................................... 8
1.4 Research Goals and Dissertation outline .......................................................... 9
Chapter 2: Background ..................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Lateral Torsional Buckling ............................................................................. 12
2.3 Bracing Requirements ..................................................................................... 14
2.4 Fundamentals of Beam Bracing ...................................................................... 18
2.5 Beam Bracing Stiffness................................................................................... 21
2.6 Equivalent Stiffness of Cross Frames ............................................................. 25
2.7 Stiffness Reduction Due to the Eccentric Connection .................................... 28
2.8 Beam Bracing Strength ................................................................................... 31
2.8.1 Compressive Strength of Single Angles ............................................... 31
2.8.2 Compressive Strength of Gusset plates ................................................ 33
Chapter 3: Laboratory Tests.............................................................................................. 35
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 35
3.2 Test Setup........................................................................................................ 36
3.2.1 Test Frame ............................................................................................ 36
3.2.2 Loading and Moments Measurement ................................................... 39
3.2.3 Measurement of Rotations.................................................................... 43
3.2.4 Measurement of Member Axial Forces ................................................ 45
3.3 Cross Frame Test Program ............................................................................. 46
3.4 Single Angle X-frame ..................................................................................... 49
ix
3.4.1 Stiffness Test – Single Angle X-frame................................................. 51
3.4.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Single Angle X-frame .................................. 53
3.5 Single Angle K-frame ..................................................................................... 57
3.5.1 Stiffness Test – Single Angle K-frame................................................. 59
3.5.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Single Angle K-frame .................................. 61
3.6 Square Tube Z-frame ...................................................................................... 63
3.6.1 Stiffness Test – Square Tube Z-frame .................................................. 66
3.6.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Square Tube Z-frame ................................... 67
3.7 Double Angle Z-frame .................................................................................... 69
3.7.1 Stiffness Test – Double Angle Z-frame ............................................... 71
3.7.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Double Angle Z-frame ................................. 71
3.8 Single Angle Z-frame ..................................................................................... 73
3.8.1 Stiffness Test – Single Angle Z-frame ................................................. 75
3.8.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Single Angle Z-frame .................................. 76
3.9 Coupon Tension Tests..................................................................................... 81
3.10 Summary of Cross Frame Test Results ........................................................... 82
Chapter 4: Computer Models for Cross Frame Stiffness .................................................. 85
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 85
4.2 Truss Model .................................................................................................... 86
4.3 Shell Element Model....................................................................................... 87
4.3.1 Shell Element ....................................................................................... 87
4.3.2 Plate Joint ............................................................................................. 89
4.3.3 Boundary Conditions ............................................................................ 90
4.3.4 Linear Elastic Analysis ......................................................................... 91
4.3.5 Nonlinear Buckling Analysis ............................................................... 92
4.4 Results of Computer Models .......................................................................... 95
4.4.1 Stiffness Analysis ................................................................................. 95
4.4.2 Nonlinear Buckling Analysis ............................................................... 98
4.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 103
x
Chapter 5: Analytical Solution for Stiffness Reduction ................................................. 104
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 104
5.2 Stiffness Reduction for A Single Angle........................................................ 104
5.2.1 Bending Due to the Eccentric Connection ......................................... 106
5.2.2 Stiffness Reduction Due to Bending .................................................. 109
5.2.3 Maximum Stress Due to Bending ...................................................... 113
5.2.4 Typical Values of ρ, γ and Rmember ...................................................... 114
5.3 Stiffness Reduction for Cross Frames........................................................... 117
5.3.1 Bending Stiffness of Gusset plate ...................................................... 117
5.3.2 Single Angle X-frame ........................................................................ 119
5.3.3 Single Angle K-frame ........................................................................ 124
5.3.4 Single Angle Z-frame ......................................................................... 128
5.3.5 Double Angle Z-frame ....................................................................... 132
5.3.6 Summary of the R-Value in Cross Frames ......................................... 134
5.4 Parametric studies for R-Value by Using Analytical Solutions.................... 135
5.5 Conclusions of the Analytical Solution ........................................................ 137
Chapter 6: FEA Parametric Studies for Stiffness of Single Angle X-frame................... 140
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 140
6.2 Parametric Study with Linear Analysis ........................................................ 141
6.2.1 Parametric Study with Out-of-Plane Bending Constrained ............... 142
6.2.2 Parametric Study with Out-of-Plane Bending Allowed ..................... 143
6.2.3 Stiffness Estimate Using Analytical Stiffness Reduction Factor ....... 145
6.2.4 Stiffness Comparison Using Tension-Only Diagonal Model............. 150
6.2.5 Stiffness Reduction from Regression Method.................................... 152
6.3 Parametric Study with Nonlinear Buckling Analysis ................................... 158
6.4 Parametric Study for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles .................... 161
6.5 Summary of Parametric Studies for Single Angle X-frame ......................... 165
Chapter 7: FEA Parametric Studies for Stiffness of Single Angle K-frame................... 167
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 167
xi
7.2 Parametric Study with Linear Analysis ........................................................ 167
7.2.1 Parametric Study with Out-of-Plane Bending Constrained ............... 168
7.2.2 Parametric Study with Out-of-Plane Bending Allowed ..................... 170
7.2.3 Estimate Stiffness by Using Analytical Stiffness Reduction Factor .. 172
7.2.4 Estimate Stiffness with Regression Method ....................................... 175
7.3 Parametric Study with Nonlinear Buckling Analysis ................................... 178
7.4 Parametric Study with Unequal Legs ........................................................... 180
7.5 Summary of Parametric Studies for Single Angle K-frames ........................ 183
Chapter 8: Impact of Stiffness Reduction on Cross Frame Design and Bridge Behavior
......................................................................................................................................... 186
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 186
8.2 Cross Frame Designs for Stiffness Requirement of Girder Stability ............ 187
8.3 Impact of Stiffness Reduction on Bridge Behavior ...................................... 194
8.3.1 Bridge Girders Buckling Capacity during Construction .................... 195
8.3.2 Bridge Girders Responses during Construction ................................. 199
8.3.3 Analysis for Full Bridge in Service .................................................... 201
8.4 Summary ....................................................................................................... 203
Chapter 9: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 206
9.1 Conclusions and Recommendation ............................................................... 206
9.2 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................ 210
Appendix: Coupon Test Results ..................................................................................... 212
Reference ........................................................................................................................ 228
Vita.................................................................................................................................. 231
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Single Angle X-frame ...................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.2: Single Angle K-frame ...................................................................................... 4
Figure 1.3: Bending Caused by Eccentric Connection in Single Angle Member
(McDonald & Frank, 2009) ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 1.4: Z-frame composed of tubes .............................................................................. 7
Figure 1.5: Connection Details for Tubes ........................................................................... 8
Figure 1.6: Double Angle Section ...................................................................................... 9
Figure 1.7: Z-frame with Double Angle in Diagonal ......................................................... 9
Figure 2.1: Effect of Brace Stiffness for Column Buckling ............................................. 15
Figure 2.2: P vs. for Braced Winter Column with Initial Out-of-straightness .............. 16
Figure 2.3: P vs. F for Braced Winter Column with Initial Out-of-straightness .............. 17
Figure 2.4: Stiffness of a Cross Frame.............................................................................. 22
Figure 2.5: Stiffness Formulas for Twin Girder Cross Frames (Yura, 1992) ................... 23
Figure 2.6 Brace Stiffness for Twin Girders Buckle in Opposite Directions ................... 24
Figure 2.7: Equivalent Stiffness (AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collabration, 2011), ... 26
Figure 2.8: Test Specimen and Instrumentation (Battistini, 2012) ................................... 30
Figure 2.9: Summary of Stiffness Test Results (Battistini, 2012) .................................... 30
Figure 2.10: Whitmore Width ........................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.1: Overall View of Cross Frame Test ................................................................. 36
Figure 3.2: Cross Frame Test Plan Drawing ..................................................................... 37
Figure 3.3: Details of Test Setup ...................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.4: Load Cell for Actuator ................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.5: Strain Gage on Reaction Strut ........................................................................ 39
Figure 3.6: Calibration of Force Measurement ................................................................. 40
Figure 3.7: Free-body of Test Setup ................................................................................. 41
Figure 3.8: Equilibrium of a Load Beam .......................................................................... 42
Figure 3.9: Cross Frame Rotation in Test Setup ............................................................... 43
Figure 3.10: Displacement Measurements ........................................................................ 44
xiii
Figure 3.11: Linear Potentiometers Locations .................................................................. 44
Figure 3.12: Force Measurement of Cross Frame Member .............................................. 45
Figure 3.13: Single Angle X-frame Drawing ................................................................... 50
Figure 3.14: Single Angle X-frame Specimen .................................................................. 50
Figure 3.15: Locations of Strain Gages – Single Angle X-frame ..................................... 51
Figure 3.16: Load and Deflection Relationship of Single Angle X-frame ....................... 52
Figure 3.17: Axial Forces in Single Angle Members – Single Angle X-frame ................ 53
Figure 3.18: Step one - Buckling of the compression diagonal ........................................ 54
Figure 3.19: Step two - Buckling of the top strut ............................................................. 55
Figure 3.20: Fequiv. vs. Rotation θ ...................................................................................... 56
Figure 3.21: Axial Member Force vs. Rotation θ ............................................................. 56
Figure 3.22: Mid-section Out-of-plane Deflection ........................................................... 57
Figure 3.23: Single Angle K-frame Drawing ................................................................... 58
Figure 3.24: Single Angle K-frame Specimen .................................................................. 58
Figure 3.25: Locations of Strain Gages – Single Angle K-frame ..................................... 59
Figure 3.26: Load and Deflection Relationship of Single Angle K-frame ....................... 60
Figure 3.27: Axial Forces in Single Angle Members – Single Angle K-frame ................ 60
Figure 3.28: Buckling of the Single Angle K-frame......................................................... 61
Figure 3.29: Axial Member Force vs. Rotation θ – K-frame............................................ 62
Figure 3.31 Out-of-plane Deflection................................................................................. 63
Figure 3.32: Slotted Tube Connection Fabrication ........................................................... 65
Figure 3.33: Square Tube Z-frame Drawing..................................................................... 65
Figure 3.34: Square Tube Z-frame Specimen ................................................................... 66
Figure 3.35: Load and Deflection Relationship of Square Tube Z-frame ........................ 67
Figure 3.36: Failure of Square Tube Z-frame ................................................................... 68
Figure 3.39: Double Angle Z-frame Drawing .................................................................. 70
xiv
Figure 3.40: Double Angle Z-frame Specimen................................................................. 70
Figure 3.41: Load and Deflection Relationship of Double Angle Z-frame ...................... 71
Figure 3.42: Failure of Double Angle Z-frame ................................................................. 72
Figure 3.45: Single Angle Z-frame Drawing .................................................................... 74
Figure 3.46: Single Angle Z-frame Specimen .................................................................. 75
Figure 3.47: Load and Deflection Relationship of Single Angle Z-frame ....................... 76
Figure 3.48: Failure at Top Strut....................................................................................... 77
Figure 3.49: Failure at Diagonal ....................................................................................... 77
Figure 3.50: Fequiv. vs. Rotation θ – Failure at Top Strut ................................................... 78
Figure 3.51: Axial Member Force vs. Rotation θ – Failure in Top Strut ......................... 79
Figure 3.52: Fequiv. vs. Rotation θ – Failure at Diagonal ................................................... 80
Figure 3.53: Axial Member Force vs. Rotation θ – Failure at Diagonal .......................... 80
Figure 4.1: Computer Models ........................................................................................... 86
Figure 4.2: Truss Element Model ..................................................................................... 87
Figure 4.3: Shell Element Model – Single Angle X-frame .............................................. 88
Figure 4.4: Details in the Shell Element Model ................................................................ 90
Figure 4.5: Sketch of Computer Model ............................................................................ 91
Figure 4.6: Deformed FEA Model .................................................................................... 92
Figure 4.7: Nonlinear Material Model .............................................................................. 93
Figure 4.8: Residual Stress of Angle ................................................................................ 94
Figure 4.9: Deformed Shape – Single Angle X-frame ..................................................... 97
Figure 4.10: Out-of-Plane Deflection – Single Angle X-frame ........................................ 98
Figure 4.11: Buckled Shape - Single Angle X-frame ....................................................... 99
Figure 4.12: Load-deflection Curve - Single Angle X-frame ........................................... 99
Figure 4.13: Buckled Shape - Single Angle K-frame ..................................................... 100
Figure 4.14: Load-deflection Curve - Single Angle K-frame ......................................... 100
Figure 4.15: Buckled Shape – Single Angle Z-frame (Diagonal in Compression) ........ 101
xv
Figure 4.16: Load-deflection Curve - Single Angle Z-frame (Diagonal in Compression)
................................................................................................................................. 101
Figure 4.17: Buckled Shape – Single Angle Z-frame (Struts in Compression).............. 102
Figure 4.18: Load-deflection Curve - Single Angle Z-frame (Strut in Compression).... 102
Figure 5.1: Single Angle with Eccentric Connection in Tension ................................... 105
Figure 5.2: Free Body Diagram for Angle ...................................................................... 107
Figure 5.3: Free Body Diagram for a Gusset plate ......................................................... 107
Figure 5.4: Deflection of Angle and Gusset Plate .......................................................... 107
Figure 5.5: Deflection Due to Eccentric Loading ........................................................... 110
Figure 5.6: FEA Analysis of Single Angle Specimen .................................................... 113
Figure 5.7: Shape Factors for Equal Leg Angles ............................................................ 114
Figure 5.8: Rmember vs. kP ................................................................................................. 116
Figure 5.9: Rmember vs. L .................................................................................................. 116
Figure 5.10: Whitmore Width ......................................................................................... 118
Figure 5.11: Out-of-plane Deflection for X-frame ......................................................... 121
Figure 5.12:Typical TxDOT Cross Frame (Texas Department of Transportation, 2006)
................................................................................................................................. 122
Figure 5.13: Revised Geometry of the Compression-Tension Model ............................ 124
Figure 5.14: Out-of-plane Deflection for K-frame ......................................................... 127
Figure 5.15: Revised Geometry for Tension-only Diagonal Model ............................... 130
Figure 5.16: Analytical Stiffness Reduction Factor of Single Angle X-frame ............... 136
Figure 5.17: Analytical Stiffness Reduction Factor of Single Angle K-frame ............... 137
Figure 6.1: βcomp-ten vs. βFEA-SX-no-bending ............................................................................ 143
Figure 6.2: βcomp-ten vs. βFEA-SX ......................................................................................... 144
Figure 6.3: Errors of βcomp-ten ........................................................................................... 145
Figure 6.4: βana-SX’ vs. βFEA-SX ......................................................................................... 146
Figure 6.5: Errors of βana-SX’ ........................................................................................... 146
Figure 6.6: Errors of βana-SX’ vs.. Thickness of Angle (t) ................................................ 147
Figure 6.7: 0.85βana-SX’ vs. βFEA-SX .................................................................................. 148
xvi
Figure 6.8: 0.5βcomp-ten vs. βFEA-SX .................................................................................... 149
Figure 6.9: Errors of 0.5βcomp-ten ...................................................................................... 150
Figure 6.10: βtension vs. βFEA-SX ......................................................................................... 151
Figure 6.11: Errors of βtension ........................................................................................... 152
Figure 6.12: RFEA-SX vs. ȳ ................................................................................................. 153
Figure 6.13: RFEA-SX vs. S/hb ............................................................................................ 154
Figure 6.14: RFEA-SX’ vs. S/hb .......................................................................................... 155
Figure 6.15: βreg-SX vs. βFEA-SX .......................................................................................... 157
Figure 6.16: Errors of βreg-SX ........................................................................................... 157
Figure 6.17: Example of Load-Deflection Curve ........................................................... 159
Figure 6.18: Histogram of P ........................................................................................... 161
Figure 6.19: RFEA-SX vs. ȳ for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles ......................... 163
Figure 6.20: βreg-SX vs. βFEA-SX for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles .................. 164
Figure 6.21: Rest-SX-adj vs. RFEA-SX for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles ............. 164
Figure 7.1: βK vs. βFEA-SK-no-bending .................................................................................... 169
Figure 7.2: βK vs. βFEA-SK ................................................................................................. 171
Figure 7.3: Errors of βK ................................................................................................... 171
Figure 7.4: βana-SK vs. βFEA-SK ........................................................................................... 172
Figure 7.5: Errors of βana-SK ............................................................................................. 173
Figure 7.6: 0.5βK vs. βFEA-SX ............................................................................................ 174
Figure 7.7: Errors of 0.5βK .............................................................................................. 174
Figure 7.8: RFEA-SK vs. ȳ ................................................................................................... 176
Figure 7.9: RFEA-SK vs. S/hb .............................................................................................. 177
Figure 7.10: βreg-SK vs. βFEA-SK ......................................................................................... 178
Figure 7.11: Histogram of P-value ................................................................................. 180
Figure 7.12: RFEA-SK vs. ȳ for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles ......................... 182
Figure 7.13: βreg-SK vs. βFEA-SK for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles.................. 183
Figure 8.1: Bridge Plan Drawing .................................................................................... 187
Figure 8.2: Composite Girder Cross Section .................................................................. 187
xvii
Figure 8.3: Girder Frame Model ..................................................................................... 195
Figure 8.4: Buckled Shapes of Girders with Various Cross Frame Torsional Stiffness. 197
Figure 8.5: Buckled Shapes of Girders with Various Cross Frame Torsional Stiffness. 198
Figure 8.6: Maximum Twist of All Girders .................................................................... 200
Figure 8.7: Maximum Brace Forces ............................................................................... 200
Figure 8.8: Bridge Plan View ......................................................................................... 201
Figure 8.9: Composite Girder FEA Model ..................................................................... 202
Figure 8.10: Full Bridge Model under Live Load........................................................... 202
xviii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Equivalent Stiffness Example ........................................................................... 27

Table 3.1 Key Parameters in Test Setup ........................................................................... 42
Table 3.2 Cross Frame Test Program ............................................................................... 48
Table 3.3 Average Results from the Tension Coupon Tests ............................................ 81
Table 3.4 Cross Frame Test Results Summary ................................................................. 83
Table 4.1 Summary of Stiffness by Various Methods ...................................................... 96
Table 5.1 Brace Stiffness by Analytical Solution ........................................................... 134
Table 5.2 Variables in the Parametric Study for Analytical R-Value............................. 135
Table 6.1 Variables in the FEA Parametric Study for X-frame ...................................... 142
Table 6.2. Variables in the FEA Parametric Study for X-frame Nonlinear Behavior .... 159
Table 6.3 Parameters of Unequal Legs Angle Members for X-frame ........................... 162
Table 7.1 Variables in the FEA Parametric Study for K-frame ...................................... 168
Table 7.2 Variables in the FEA Parametric Study for K-frame Nonlinear Behavior ..... 179
Table 7.3 Parameters of Unequal Legs Angle Members for K-frame ........................... 181
Table 8.1 Load per Girder of Bridge during Construction ............................................. 188
Table 8.2 Stiffness Components of Bracing System ...................................................... 189
Table 8.3 Design of Various Cross Frames .................................................................... 192
Table 8.4 Eigenvalue Buckling Capacity........................................................................ 196
Table 8.5 Comparison of Bridge Behavior ..................................................................... 203
xix
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The critical phase for the safety of straight or curved steel I-girder systems often
occur during construction before the concrete bridge deck has cured. The stiffness and
strength of the girders during construction are highly dependent on the bracing systems
that are used. The most common bracing system that is used with I-girder systems are
the cross frames that control twist of the girders. For straight girder systems, the cross
frames play the primary role of defining the unbraced length of the girders for lateral
torsional buckling. In horizontally curved girders, the cross frames are designated as
primary structural members that play an important role in defining the stiffness and
strength of the girder system.
On per weight bases, cross frames represent one of the most expensive
components on the bridge due to the complexity in fabrication of the braces. The braces
can also be difficult to install on bridges during erection due to fit up problems. Because
of the large number of welds or bolted fasteners in the cross frames, the brace locations
can represent one of the more difficult regions to inspect for fatigue cracks or other
maintenance issues. Because of the high labor demand for cross frames during
fabrication and long term inspections, the elements should be carefully considered during
design with regards to placement and geometrical detailing.
Although the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2010) specifications do not recommend specific details for the
cross frames, most state Departments of Transportation have standard details for cross
frame and diaphragm systems. Historically, the AASHTO Standard Specification
1
required that cross frames be placed at a maximum spacing of 25 feet. The spacing limit
was removed in the AASHTO Load and Resistance Design Specification (2010), which
instead recommends the cross frame spacing to be based upon a “rational analysis” to
minimize the number of fatigue-prone attachment details on the bridge. Unfortunately,
the specification does not provide guidance on what constitutes a “rational analysis”, and
many states and jurisdictions use rules based on previous experience to set the size and
spacing of cross frames.
The actual behaviors of cross frames are generally not well understood. The
typical details that are frequently utilized by most bridge owners employ angle or WT
sections, both of which result in eccentric connections. The eccentric connections lead to
member bending that result in uncertain behavior for strength, stiffness and fatigue. The
importance of cross frames on bridge behavior justify in-depth study on these important
braces. The study should consider both conventional braces as well as investigating new
details that may result in improved structural behavior and more simple fabrication. This
chapter provides an introduction outlining a TxDOT (Texas Department of
Transportation) sponsored research investigation focused on the behavior of cross frames
for steel I-girder systems. The typical geometries of conventional bracing systems are
discussed first along with some of the potential problems with these details. The
conventional details are those that are utilized by TxDOT; however these details are
similar to the conventional details used by many states DOTs. An overview of some of
the geometries that were investigated on the research study is then provided. The goals
of the research are then outlined followed by an overview of the remainder of the
dissertation.
2
1.2 CONVENTIONAL CROSS FRAME
The most common cross frames that are used in Texas (and other states) are
depicted in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2, which are designated as X-type or K-type,
respectively. The most common structural members that are used in these cross frames
are steel angles. The angles are frequently used since the members can be easily
connected to gusset plates by fillet welding around the edge of one of the legs of the
angle. Despite the relative ease of connecting a single cross frame to a plate, the
fabrication of the entire cross frame requires substantial handling that requires the
member to be flipped to gain access to both sides.
Figure 1.1: Single Angle X-frame
3
Figure 1.2: Single Angle K-frame
The primary cost in the cross frames is the significant labor required in
fabrication. In addition to significant fabrication cost, poor structural performance has
been found related to the use of single angle members. Although the individual members
of the cross frame are often idealized as axially loaded members, the eccentric connection
between the angle and connection plate cause significant bending as shown in Figure 1.3.
The bending in the member reduces the effective axial stiffness of the member (Battistini,
2012). Since the stabilizing capacity of a cross frame is highly dependent on its stiffness,
this reduction in the stiffness can have a measurable impact on the stabilizing effect that
the cross frame has on the girder system.
4
Figure 1.3: Bending Caaused by Ecccentric Connnection in Sinngle Angle M
Member
(McDonalld & Frank, 2009)
The conceerns with the use of sing

gle angle meembers existt in both thee stiffness annd
streng
gth effect on
n the cross frames.
fr The effects on tthe stiffness are focusedd on the effecct
of the bending deformations

d s on the axiial stiffness of the indiividual mem
mbers and thhe
impact on the oveerall stiffnesss of the crosss frame. Thhe cross fram
me depicted in Figure 1..1
is oft
ften idealized
d as a tensiion-only diaagonal systeem in whichh the diagonnal that is iin
comp
pression is co
onservatively neglected due to the reelatively low
w buckling strength of thhe
anglees. The reseearchers on this study were

w not ablle to identiffy any previous tests thaat
have been conduccted to invesstigate the acctual stiffnesss of the crosss frame sysstem.
5
The primary concern with regards to the strength of the cross frames are rooted in
the fatigue performance of the single angle members. The fatigue rating of single angle
are usually assumed to be an AASHTO category E (American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010) (McDonald & Frank, 2009); however the
details that have been tested are not well representative of the connection details used in
the angles.
1.3 SINGLE-DIAGONAL CROSS FRAMES
As noted in the last section, the X-type cross frames are often idealized as
“tension-only” diagonal systems. In computational models for such an idealized cross
frame, a single diagonal is typically specified which uses a 2-node truss element. Since
the truss element is not susceptible to buckling, the stiffness of the idealized cross frame
is the same regardless of whether the diagonal is in tension in compression. Such a
computer representation of the cross frame introduces a potential geometry that might
improve the structural efficiency of the cross frame. Utilizing a single diagonal that has
adequate buckling strength will result in a cross frame that only requires three members:
a single diagonal and a top and bottom strut. In addition, the diagonal can be selected
with a concentric connection to minimize the bending concerns that exist with the
eccentric angle connection. In this study, two possible options were considered for the
diagonals: tubular members and double angle members.
6
1.3.1 Tubular Cross Frame
The large compression buckling strength of tubular members allows the diagonals
to potentially perform well in both tension and compression. Figure 1.4 shows an
example of a single diagonal tubular cross frame.
Either square tubes or circular tubes will serve the purpose, so it is the connection
details that will dictate which one is a better choice. In the building industry, tubes are
frequently used for bracing with a welded connection that consists of a slot to allow the
reception of the connection plate, or a knife plate connection. Other potential connection
details that were considered as part of the research included tubes with a WT end
connection as well as a steel casting (Battistini, 2012).
Figure 1.4: Z-frame composed of tubes
7
(a) Knife Plate (b) T-Stem (c) Cast Connection
Figure 1.5: Connection Details for Tubes
1.3.2 Double Angle Cross Frame
Another potential diagonal configuration that was considered in the project was
the use of double angle members as shown in Figure 1.6. Double angle members that are
connected at intermediate locations behave as members with concentric connections that
do not experience the bending problems associated with single angles. In addition, the
built up members have considerably higher compressive strength compared to single
angles. As shown in Figure 1.7, this cross frame utilizes the same material as the
conventional Single Angle X-frame, but provides much stronger diagonal strength. In
this dissertation, this type of frame is referred as double angle cross frame, but it should
be noted that only the diagonal of the frame is composed of double angle sections.
8
Figure 1.6: Double Angle Section
Figure 1.7: Z-frame with Double Angle in Diagonal
1.4 RESEARCH GOALS AND DISSERTATION OUTLINE
The research outlined in this dissertation is part of a larger study sponsored by
TxDOT. The research was carried out at the Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory
at the University of Texas at Austin. The goals of the research included improving the
understanding of the behavior of cross frame systems used in steel bridges and to
investigate improved details. The study included laboratory tests and parametric finite
9
element investigations. The laboratory experiments consisted of tests on the stiffness,
strengths, and fatigue performance of cross frames. The tests were conducted on both
individual cross frame components as well as full size cross frames. The focus of this
dissertation is on the stiffness and strength of the full size cross frame.
The dissertation is organized into eight chapters including this introductory
chapter. An overview of previous research along with pertinent theoretical background
of stability brace design is provided in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 covers the detailed
experimental program and the results. In Chapter 4 results from the experimental tests
are used to compare with computer models and validate the finite element models that
were used for the parametric studies. Chapter 5 develops analytical solutions of the brace
stiffness as a function of the bending effects introduced by the eccentric connections.
Chapters 6 and 7 provide an overview of the finite element parametric studies for Single
Angle X-frame and K-frame, respectively. In Chapter 8, cross frame design examples are
presented with a variety of different cross frame systems to highlight the advantages and
disadvantages of different systems. And the bridge example is also used to illustrate the
impact of the stiffness in cross frames on bridge behaviors. A summary of conclusions is
provided in Chapter 9 along with recommendations for designers and future research
efforts.
10
Chapter 2: Background
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Steel plate-girders are commonly used in highway bridge construction. The
ability to fabricate, transport, and splice the girders are attractive for applications with
spans larger than approximately 150 feet. The 150 feet span limit is based upon shipping
limitations that often preclude the use of precast concrete beams. Steel members can be
shipped in smaller lengths and spliced together in the field to create longer spans than
possible with precast concrete bridges. Plate-girder bridges are usually composed of
multiple I-beams, concrete slab and other bracing components. In straight bridges, the
girders primarily support vertical loads that cause bending in the members. In
horizontally curved bridges, the geometry also results in significant torsion.
I-shaped sections are very efficient sections for cases where bending is primarily
in one plane. The use of two flanges connected by the web makes efficient use of the
material by maximizing the major axis moment inertia Ix, which gives large flexure
stiffness. However, due to the relatively low lateral stiffness (Iy) the I-shape sections are
susceptible to lateral torsional buckling unless adequate bracing is provided. In the
finished bridge, a composite concrete slab provides continuous lateral and torsional
restraint to the girders and lateral torsional buckling is generally not a major problem.
However, the wet concrete does not provide any restraint to the girder during
construction. Therefore, the critical stage for lateral torsional buckling typically occurs
during construction and adequate stability bracing must be provided. This chapter
outlines the background information on lateral torsional buckling as well as previous
research results on torsional bracing systems for beams. The background information
11
provides a basis for the following chapters that include laboratory test results, parametric
finite element studies, and design recommendations.
2.2 LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING
Timoshenko (Timoshenko & Gere, 1961) derived the buckling solution for
doubly-symmetric sections subjected to uniform moment. The solution was based upon
the assumption that the sections were restrained from twist at the ends; however the end
sections are free to warp as outlined below. The expression for the critical lateral
torsional buckling moment for a beam subjected to uniform moment is given in the
following equation:
(2.1)
where:
Mcr = buckling moment
Lb = unbraced length
Iy = weak-axis moment of inertia
E = elastic modulus
G = shear modulus of elasticity

J = torsional constant
Cw = torsional warping constant

The torsional stiffness of a member can generally be divided into two
components: a uniform torsional stiffness and non-uniform torsional stiffness. The first
term under the radical in Equation 2.1 is often referred to as the St. Venant term, and is
related to the uniform torsional stiffness. The second term under the radical is related to
the non-uniform torsional stiffness and is often referred to as the warping term. The
12
warping term the torsional stiffness that is related to lateral bending of the flanges that
occurs during twisting of the girder. The warping stiffness is significantly affected by the
unbraced length of the flanges as well as the support conditions. Equation (2.1) was
derived with the assumption that the ends of the unbraced length are free to warp.
Although design specifications do not typically include an effective length factor on the
unbraced length to account for warping restraints, the methods of accounting for warping
restraint are outlined in sources such as the SSRC Guide (SSRC, 2010).
In Timoshenko’s original derivation of the beam buckling solution, the stated
assumptions for the support conditions included restraints of torsional and lateral
deformations at the ends of the unbraced length; however only the assumption about twist
restraint was utilized. Provided that a point is restrained from twisting, whether the
section can translate laterally has no impact on the lateral torsional buckling capacity.
Twist of the section can be effectively controlled by either providing bracing that
specifically prevents twist of the cross section (torsional bracing) or by providing braces
that stop lateral movement of the compression flange (lateral bracing). The focus of the
research outlined in this dissertation are cross frames which fit into the category of
torsional bracing since the braces control twist by connecting adjacent beams. Although
sometimes a plate diaphragm may be used, the most common form of bracing in steel
bridges are cross frames that form a truss structure for controlling the girder twist. Some
of the factors that impact the behavior of torsional braces are discussed later in this
chapter; however the next section focuses on the fundamental properties that are
necessary for effective stability bracing.
13
2.3 BRACING REQUIREMENTS
As outlined in Chapter 1, an adequate bracing system must possess both adequate
stiffness and strength. This section describes how these requirements are determined
basic column and beam systems. Although the primary focus of the study is on beam
systems, column bracing requirements are first discussed since the derivation of the
column bracing requirements are relatively easy to convey. In addition, the many of the
basic stability requirements for column bracing are applicable to beam bracing.
The concept of bracing requirements was first developed for column bracing by
Winter (Winter, 1958). For a perfectly straight column with discrete mid-height brace
stiffness βL, the relation between Pcr and βL is shown Figure 2.1. As shown in the figure,
the column will buckle between the brace points if the stiffness of brace, βL, is greater
than 2Pe/Lb. In this case, the column will achieve the full buckling capacity predicted,
Pe=π2EI/Lb2, which is often referred to as the Euler buckling load as a tribute to Leonhard
Euler who was the first individual to recognize column buckling and developed much of
the mathematical theory necessary to derive the buckling load. This minimum stiffness of
the brace for the column to achieve full buckling capacity is referred to as the ideal
stiffness (βi) of the brace. Therefore, the ideal stiffness is the minimum brace stiffness
necessary so that a perfectly straight member will buckle between the brace points.
14
Figure 2.1: Effect of Brace Stiffness for Column Buckling
However, a real column that possesses out-of-straightness, will be unable to reach
the load corresponding to buckling between the brace points if the ideal stiffness is
provided (Winter, 1958), as shown by the large deformation that occur if the ideal
stiffness, i, is provided in Figure 2.2. If instead a value of twice the ideal stiffness is
provided, the amount of deformation that occurs at the brace will be equal to the
magnitude of the initial imperfection, o. Providing stiffness larger than twist the ideal
value results in even smaller deformations at the brace location.
15
Figure 2.2: P vs. for Braced Winter Column with Initial Out-of-straightness
Since the brace forces are a function of the brace stiffness and the amount of
deformation that occurs at the brace, providing the ideal stiffness will also result in very
large brace forces as the buckling load is reached. This is demonstrated in Figure 2.3
which shows the bracing force for an imperfect column (imperfection is in the magnitude
of 1/500 of total column length) and three cases of different brace stiffness that are
referenced relative to the ideal stiffness, i. If only the ideal stiffness is provided, the
brace force will theoretically tend towards infinity when the buckling load is approached.
Therefore, a stiffness larger than the ideal stiffness needs to be provided to control brace
forces. Winter developed a simple rigid link model that could be used for determining the
ideal stiffness requirements (Winter, 1958). Winter’s model also could be used to
determine the brace forces as a function of the magnitude of the initial imperfection and
the stiffness of the brace that was provided.
16
Figure 2.3: P vs. F for Braced Winter Column with Initial Out-of-straightness
Many bracing provisions recommend a stiffness of two times ideal stiffness for
braces to control brace forces and member deformations. Figure 2.3 shows the brace
forces that are predicted using Winter’s model and for a stiffness of twice the ideal value,
the force requirement is 0.8% of Pe of the column. The brace strength requirement that is
published for column discrete (often referred to as nodal) bracing is actual 1.0% of the
column load. The higher requirement comes from finite element solutions of imperfect
columns which result in a brace for of 1.05% of the column load for the case of a single
brace at mid-height and an imperfection of Lb/500 (Helwig T. A., 1994). The larger force
compared to Winter’s model comes from internal forces that develop in the column
member. The case of a single intermediate brace is actually the worst case and for
columns with several intermediate braces, the brace force tends towards 0.8% of the
column load as predicted by Winter’s model.
Although beam bracing systems are generally more complex that axially loaded
columns, the fundamental concepts of stiffness and strength are essentially the same.
17
Like columns, effective beam bracing must possess sufficient stiffness and strength. The
following section provides a discussion of beam torsional bracing with an overview of
the many factors that have an impact on the effectiveness of the bracing.
2.4 FUNDAMENTALS OF BEAM BRACING
The purpose of beam bracing is to improve the lateral torsional buckling capacity
of a member. Lateral torsional buckling is a mode of failure that involves both lateral
movement and twist of the cross section. Effective beam bracing can be achieved by
either preventing lateral movement of the compression flange (lateral bracing) or twist of
the cross-section (torsional bracing). Furthermore the torsional bracing system can be
divided into discrete bracing and continuous bracing. The cross frames or diaphragms
between bridge girders provide torsional restraint to girders at the bracing points, and
therefore are categorized as discrete torsional braces.
Equation (2.2) can be used to quantify the buckling capacity of a beam with
continuous torsional bracing. The expression was developed for doubly symmetric
beams subjected to uniform moment loading (Taylor & Ojalvo, 1966).

̅
(2.2)
where:
M0 = buckling capacity of the unbraced beam, kip-in

̅ = torsional brace stiffness (in-k/rad per in. length)
18
This expression was updated to consider the impact of discrete torsional braces
and general loading conditions as shown in the following expression: (Yura, 1992).
̅ (2.3)
where:
Cbu =Cb factor corresponding to an beam with no intermediate braces
Cbb = Cb factor corresponding to beam fully brace at location of intermediate cross
frames
CT = top flange loading modification factor; CT=1.2 for top flange loading and
CT=1.0 for centroidal loading
̅ = equivalent effective continuous torsional brace stiffness, determined by:
βT n/L
βT = torsional stiffness provided by single cross frame.
n = number of intermediate braces
L = length of span
The torsional stiffness (βT) provided by a single intermediate cross frame is a
major topic of this research and is discussed more in later sections.
The basic concepts of ideal stiffness and strength for the bracing requirements that
were discussed for columns are also applicable for beam bracing. The ideal stiffness of
the torsional bracing can be obtained by rearranging the Equation (2.3). Similar to
columns the stiffness required to control brace forces and deformations are obtained by
using at least twice the ideal stiffness, which is shown in following equation:
̅∗ 2 (2.4)
19
The stiffness in the above equations is expressed for a continuous bracing system and can
be modified as follows for n discretely spaced braces along the girder of length L:
∗ ̅∗ / (2.5)
In the Appendix 6 bracing provisions in the AISC specification (AISC, 2010), the
initial capacity of the girder with no bracing is conservatively neglected. If Mcr is then
set to the design moment and top flange loading is assumed, the required stiffness is
given by the following expression:

2.4
(2.6)
Where:
Mr = the required flexural strength of the beam.

The strength requirements for the torsional braces, are a function of the initial
imperfection. Imperfections that are critical for beams typically involved an initial twist
(θ0) so that the required brace moment can be determined. Similar to columns, if twice
the ideal stiffness is provided the amount of deformation is equal to the initial
imperfection and the resulting brace moment is given by the following expression:
∗
(2.7)
With regards to the critical shape of the imperfection, Wang and Helwig (2008)
studied the shape of the imperfection and found that a shape in which the top flange was
displaced lateral while the bottom flange remained straight tended to give the worst case
for stability induced forces. Following the AISC Code of Standard Practice (2012) for
erection tolerances the amount of sweep of the top flange is taken as Lb/500. Therefore
the magnitude of the twist imperfection is given as 0.002Lb/h. The resulting bracing
moment is given by the following expression:
20
0.024
(2.8)
As shown, the AISC strength equation shown in Equation (2.8) is not the direct
product of To. There have been some simplifying assumptions that are outlined in the
commentary of the AISC specification to get to the form that were shown, however the
basic principles outlined above were used in the development of the expression.
2.5 BEAM BRACING STIFFNESS

The stiffness predicted by Equation 2.6 is the required stiffness to result in twice
the ideal value. The actual stiffness of the cross frame on the bridge is a function of
several components. In general, the stiffness of a beam torsional brace can be divided
into three major parts (Yura, 1992) as expressed in Equation (2.9).
1 1 1 1
(2.9)
Where:
βb = brace stiffness
βsec = web distortional stiffness
βg = girder system stiffness

Previous studies have addressed the impact of the cross sectional distortion and
the in-plane stiffness of the girders. The research outlined in this dissertation has focused
on the brace stiffness denoted by βb in the expression. More detailed information of how
the βsec , βg are quantified can be found in (Yura, 1992).
The stiffness of a torsional brace is sensitive to the buckling mode of the girders.
Because cross frames have a depth that is a significant percentage of the overall depth of
the girder, the buckling mode of the girders usually involve twisting and displacing
21
laterally in the same direction as depicted in Figure 2.4. The loading on the cross frame
from a stiffness and strength demand can be viewed as moments with equal magnitude
and opposite sign (reverse curvature bending) as shown in Figure 2.4. The restraining
moment provided by the cross frame is essentially a torque on the girder, which is why
the brace is referred to as a torsional brace. The effect of the brace moments on the cross
frame can be represented by the force couples (Fhb) as denoted in the figure. The cross
frame will deform under the force couple leading to a girder rotation θ. The brace
stiffness is defined as the ratio M/θ.
Figure 2.4: Stiffness of a Cross Frame
A simplified truss model representation for the cross frame leads to stiffness and
axial force representations as depicted in Figure 2.5.
22
ES 2 hb2
b 
2 L3c S 3 (2.10)

Ac Ah
(a) Tension-only Diagonal System
Ac ES 2 hb2
b  (2.11)
L3c
(b) Compression-tension Diagonal System
2 ES 2 hb2
b 
8 L3c S 3 (2.12)

Ac Ah
(c) K-brace System
Ah= area of horizontal members Lc=length of diagonal members
Ac=area of diagonal members S=spacing of girders
E=modulus of elasticity hb=height of the cross frame
Figure 2.5: Stiffness Formulas for Twin Girder Cross Frames (Yura, 1992)
According to Figure 2.5, the top and bottom struts of the compression-tension
diagonal system are zero force members. And the top strut of a K-brace system is also a
zero force member. However, it does not imply that these members are dispensable for an
23
effective cross frame system. The reason is that these members are only zero force
members when the twin girder buckling mode is as depicted in Figure 2.4. If the twin
girders buckle in the opposite directions instead of the same direction, the top and bottom
struts of these cross frames are actually not zero force members. A sketch of this
condition is shown in Figure 2.6. The corresponding brace stiffness is shown in Equation
(2.13). This equation was derived by conservatively assuming that the two diagonals are
not jointed at the mid-span. The condition depicted by Figure 2.6 will be the controlling
case for top and bottom strut if their sizes are chosen to be different from the diagonal
members. However, for majority of cross frames that all members are in the same size,
the critical condition is the one depicted by Figure 2.4.
EAhb2
b  (2.13)
S
Figure 2.6 Brace Stiffness for Twin Girders Buckle in Opposite Directions
The X-frame comprised by single angles that were introduced in Chapter 1 is
conventionally designed by representing the system as a tension-only diagonal system.
Considering the low compression strength of a single angle member, designers usually
ignore the contribution of the diagonal in compression. On the other hand, the
compression-tension model assumes the compression diagonal contributes as much as the
tension member. The K-frame must have diagonals that have sufficient compression
resistance to be viable.
24
2.6 EQUIVALENT STIFFNESS OF CROSS FRAMES
The method in evaluating bracing stiffness introduced in Section 2.5 is
specifically designed for checking girder stability. However, the stiffness of the cross
frame is also needed in many other occasions. Nowadays engineers often rely on
computer softwares in analyzing bridges for the strength and deflections. One of the
widely used bridge analysis models is the 2-D grillage method, in which the girder lines
and the cross frames are all simplified as beam elements in the same 2-D plane.
Engineering practice has shown that this method can predict bridge behaviors with
relatively low modeling and computation cost if compared with 3-D models. One of the
challenges of this method is to simulate cross frame truss with beam element, which
should possess stiffness equivalent to the cross frame in order to accurately predict the
structural behavior of the whole bridge. According to G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder
Bridge Analysis (AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collabration, 2011), two methods of
obtaining equivalent stiffness for X-frames were traditionally used by bridge designers.
As shown in Figure 2.7, one method is to determine the equivalent stiffness by
calculating the flexural stiffness on a propped cantilever model and another one is by
calculating the shear stiffness on a pure shear model. An equivalent moment of inertia
Iequiv will be then obtained from either method and will be used in the bridge grid
analysis.
25
(a) Flexural Analogy (b) Shear Analogy
Figure 2.7: Equivalent Stiffness (AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collabration, 2011),
It can be seen from the figure that both approaches consider the contribution from
both tension and compression diagonals of the cross frame, so the resulted stiffness from
them should be comparable to the compression and tension diagonal model under double
curvature type of loading computed by Equation (2.11). For the model under double
curvature type of loading, an equivalent moment of inertia can be obtained by using
similar approach. The resulted Iequiv from these three approaches for an example cross
frame are listed in Table 2.1. The geometry in the example is chosen to be consistent with
the laboratory test introduced later in this report.
26
Table 2.1 Equivalent Stiffness Example
Cross Frame: 114.5" (S) x 53.74" (hb), Member:L4x4x3/8
Equivalent Moment of Inertia

Approach
Iequiv ,in4
Flexrual Analogy 1,829
Shear Analogy 1,039
Double Curvature Analogy

1,039
(Compression and Tension Diagonal Model)
As it can be seen from the example, the double curvature analogy gives the same
equivalent stiffness as the shear analogy. The finding suggests that the double curvature
model is only a variant of the pure shear model. This can be also proved by comparing
the deformed shapes. Both the double curvature analogy and shear analogy causes shear
deformation in the cross frame. The deformed shape of the cross frame remains
parallelogram and girder webs are both kept parallel.
The flexural analogy and shear analogy (or double curvature analogy) give
different results and research has been conducted to identify their impact in predicting
bridge behaviors (Chang, 2005) (Ozgur, 2007). However there has not been conclusive
determination if either approach is sufficient. It is commented by G13.1 Guidelines for
Steel Girder Bridge Analysis (AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collabration, 2011):
“None of these approaches is wrong in and of itself but each approach
focuses only on one of several stiffness parameters, while others are neglected. In an
actual bridge, there is the potential that both stiffness parameters may have
noticeable influence on the overall structural response of the bridge. Differential
27
deflection of adjacent girders might primarily engage the shear stiffness of the cross
frames, while differential rotation (twisting) of adjacent girders might be more
likely to engage the flexural stiffness of the cross frames.”
“Regardless of the type of modeling being performed (2D, 3D, others) most
designers will omit refined consideration of the flexibility of connection details such
as bolted gusset plate connections. Instead, for truss-type cross frames, most
designers assume that the chord and diagonals act as pin-ended truss members for
analysis modeling as well as for detailed design checks.”

No matter what type of truss analogy is employed, the current practices always
neglect the flexibility of connection details and the details of connections. However,
previous research experience has found that the connection details have potentials in
significantly affecting the cross frame’s stiffness, one remarkable example of them is the
stiffness reduction due to the eccentric connection, which is presented in next section.
This research is focused in gapping the difference between the detailed model and truss
model, so the findings are regardless of what truss analogy approach is adopted. In this
study, the double curvature truss analogy (or shear analogy) is appropriate for simulating
the situation when adjacent girders are losing their stability and tend to buckle in one
direction or the girders are subject to torsion due to vertical loads. In either situation, the
adjacent girder webs are kept parallel.
2.7 STIFFNESS REDUCTION DUE TO THE ECCENTRIC CONNECTION
The truss analogy employed in Figure 2.5 is based on an assumption that each
truss member provides the full theoretical stiffness without buckling or a reduction in
stiffness due to bending. As part of the research project of which this dissertation is a
28
part of, Battistini (2012) observed that the axial stiffness of angle members are lower than
the stiffness calculated directly from using Hooke’s Law. Figure 2.8 shows a test
specimen loaded under tension with the corresponding graph of the applied forces versus
axial deformation shown in Figure 2.9. Data for graphs of the behavior of a single angle
and a double angle are shown, with the same nominal angle size and length used for the
two specimens. Therefore the double angle member has twice the axial stiffness of the
single angle member. The double angle member has a concentric connection and as a
result there is no global member bending. The single angle member, on the other hand,
has an eccentric connection which results in significant bending that reduces the axial
stiffness of the member. This can be observed by comparing the measured axial
deformations of the two specimens at a load level of 40 kips. Despite the single angle
member having half the axial stiffness of the double angle member, the axial deformation
of the single angle was nearly 3 times that of the double angle specimen (0.027” versus
0.010”). The measured axial stiffness of the single angle member was 1500 ksi, while the
theoretical stiffness of the specimen is 2280 ksi. This result indicated a 34% stiffness
reduction. The reduction in stiffness is attributed to the impact of bending in the member
as a result of the eccentric end connection.
29
Figure 2.8: Test Specimen and Instrumentation (Battistini, 2012)
100
Double Angle Test Stiffness: 4040 k/in
90 Single Angle Test Stiffness: 1500 k/in
80
70
60
Load, kips
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040
Displacement, in
Figure 2.9: Summary of Stiffness Test Results (Battistini, 2012)
30
While the above tests were measured from individual tensile members, the
observed stiffness reduction from eccentric connections will likely have a similar impact
on the stiffness of a cross frame built up from the angle members. If the single angle
members in the cross frame system behave in a similar fashion, the actual cross frame
may be significantly lower than the value predicted from expressions derived using the
truss analogy shown in Figure 2.5. Therefore, laboratory tests on full sized cross frames
are necessary to measure the impact of connection eccentricity on the brace stiffness of
the cross frame system.
2.8 BEAM BRACING STRENGTH
In addition to the stiffness, the cross frames depicted in Figure 2.5 also show the
axial forces resulting using a truss analogy in the different members of the cross frame.
The strength of a given cross frame will be controlled by the weakest member in the
system compared to the resulting member force. The respective member strengths need
to reflect tensile strengths or buckling strengths for members subjected to either tension
or compression. In the following subsections, a few methods necessary for evaluating the
compressive strength of single angle members and gusset plates are summarized.
2.8.1 Compressive Strength of Single Angles
In order to accurately determining the strength of a single angle cross frame, the
compression capacity of a single angle member needs to be determined. Due to the
difficulty in accounting for the end restraints and eccentricity of end connections, the
evaluation of the compressive capacity single angle members have varied in design
31
specifications over the years. Historically the AISC Specification adopted two methods: a
Beam Column Method and Effective Length Method.
When a single angle member is connected with gusset plates at both ends, the
eccentricity of the connection can results in significant bending in the member.
Therefore, a beam column method was traditionally recommended by ASIC. The
expression used to limit the effects of combined bending and axial force is shown in
Equation (2.14). The strength of the member is a function of the factored axial force, P
and the factored moments about two principle axes, Muw and Muz. The nominal strength
of the member as a column is denoted as Pn and nominal strength of the member as a
beam about the respective w and z axes are denoted by Mnw and Mnz. The resistance
factors for column behavior and bending behavior are identified as c and b. The upper
limit of 1.0 on the expression limits the impact of the combined load effects.
8
1.0 (2.14)
∅ 9 ∅ ∅
The evaluation of using the beam column method in the single angle member was
a tedious procedure that often resulted in relatively conservative solutions, which led
AISC 360-05 to adopt a simpler method based upon an effective length method. The
effective length method was developed from a method introduced by Design of Latticed
Steel Transmission Structure (ASCE, 1997). It was based on a review of many years of
tower industry experience and the results of laboratory and full-scale tower tests.
Equations (2.15) and (2.16) can be used to correct the slenderness of the eccentrically
connected single angle in a planar truss. The resulting slenderness could be directly
applied to equations of the compressive strength of column.
When 0 80:
32
72 0.75 (2.15)
When 80
32 1.25 (2.16)
The effective length method provides reasonable predictions for the buckling
resistance of single angle members and is generally much simpler to use than the beam-
column approach.
2.8.2 Compressive Strength of Gusset plates
The thickness of gusset plates for cross frames are usually specified by state
transportation authorities. For example, TxDOT specifies a typical thickness of 0.5 inch.
However, the design of gusset plates based on its strength is difficult due to lack of the
understanding impact of the connection on the buckling resistance due to potentially
complex geometry. The most well-known method in evaluating strength of gusset plate
was proposed by Whitmore (Whitmore, 1952) and this method was adopted by FHWA in
its latest rating guidance of gusset plates (FHWA, 2009). The proposed method
recommends that the gusset plates be checked for strength using the width based on the
connection length as shown in Figure 2.10. It is assumed that the load spreads at an angle
of 30 degrees from the start of the connection and therefore the gusset plate needs to
resist the design load at the end of the connection based on the Whitmore width. This
geometry does not take into the account any gusset plate material that is outside of the
33
Whitm
more width.. Common practice
p has adopted thiss method annd uses it foor welded annd
bolted connection
ns even thou
ugh it was orriginally inteended for bollted connecttions only.
Figure 2.10
0: Whitmoree Width
34
Chapter 3: Laboratory Tests
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The experimental program that is documented in this dissertation consisted of
cross frame tests and tension coupon tests on the cross frame materials. The purpose of
the cross frame tests was to measure the stiffness and the ultimate strength of cross
frames from a stability bracing perspective. The results of these tests provide valuable
insight into the behavior of various cross frame systems, provide data on the performance
of different connections, and also provide validation data for analytical and
computational models. The cross frames that were tested include conventional cross
frame system as well as newly proposed cross frames systems. To achieve the desired
functions, the test setup was designed and fabricated with the following capabilities:
1. Deformations could be applied to the cross frames that were consistent
with buckling deformations of adjacent girders. The deformations were
achieved by applying loads through actuators as shown in Figure 2.4.
Loads and displacements values were monitored throughout the tests.
2. The focus of the tests was the stiffness of cross frame systems including
the flexibilities of the cross frame members and the connections.
Flexibilities discussed in Equation (2.9), such as the web distortion and the
in-plane stiffness of the girders were not to be included in the tests.
Efforts were made to restrain out-of-plane twists of the cross frames.
3. The test setup could be reused to conduct multiple tests.
4. The test setup was designed so that cyclic loading could be applied to
obtain a measure of the stiffness by racking the cross frame in both
directions within the plane of the frame. The tests setup was also designed
35
so that a measure of the ultimate strength of cross frame specimens could
be obtained.
In addition to the cross frame tests, material tests were also conducted on tension
coupons that were removed from the cross frame members to obtain the stress versus
strain characteristic of the material. A discussion of the test setup, the test program, and
corresponding results is provided in the remainder of this chapter.
3.2 TEST SETUP
3.2.1 Test Frame
The loading condition depicted in Figure 2.4 consists of equal but opposite
moments on each side of the cross frame. In order to achieve this loading condition, four
equal forces must be applied to the four corners of the cross frame in the specified
directions such as those depicted in Figure 3.1. The setup was fabricated at the Ferguson
Structural Engineering Laboratory at The University of Texas at Austin. The setup
dimensions are indicated in the plan view drawing in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1: Overall View of Cross Frame Test

36
Figure 3.2: Cross Frame Test Plan Drawing
The members designated “load beams” in the figure represent the cross sections
of two adjacent girders that are connected by the cross frame test specimen. The
deformations that were applied through the actuators were consistent with the lateral
torsional buckling deformations of two adjacent girders. W30x90 sections were used for
the load beams due to the high in-plane stiffness. Bearing stiffeners were used at the
locations of the struts to create a relatively rigid cross section that would not distort so
that the primary stiffness being measured in the tests was the cross frame members. The
cross frame specimen was mounted to the with WT members (WT9x35.5) that were
bolted to the two load beams. The load beams were elevated off the floor using W21x111
supports and were also anchored by top plates (Figure 3.3(a) and (b)). Teflon was placed
between the contact surfaces of the anchoring plate and the beams to create a low-friction
sliding surface as the load beams were displaced by the actuators during testing. . The
37
WT section at both ends of the crosss frame sppecimen (Fiigure 3.3(c)) provides a
reaso
onable simulation of a co
onnection sttiffener that is welded too top and boottom flangees
of th
he girder wh
hich is conssistent with bridge detaailing practiices. The W
WT section is
stiffened at both ends to prev

vent distortio
ons out of thhe plane of thhe cross fram
me. As noteed
abovee, bolted co
onnections were
w used beetween the W
WT sectionns and the looad beams tto
allow
w multiple usse of the testt setup.
Loads weere exerted by tension

n-compressioon actuatorss connectedd to the loaad
beam
ms. Actuatorss were instaalled at threee corners off the test fraame and thee force at thhe
fourth
h corner is provided
p by
y a reaction strut. With minimal fricction restraiints, provideed
equall magnitude forces, F, arre applied by

y the three aactuators, equuilibrium dicctates that thhe
force in the reaction strut will

w be also F.
F Reaction struts at thee bottom of the two loaad
beam
ms were insttalled to sim
mulate rollerr supports. T
To achieve equal loadss in the threee
actuaators, a load
d maintainerr (Figure 3.3(d)) was uused so as to control tthe hydrauliic
pressure to the th
hree differen
nt actuators.. The actuaators have ddifferent com
mpression annd
tensille areas, an
nd the EDIS
SON hydrau
ulic load maaintainer caan be used to adjust thhe
pressures to achieeve equal loaad magnitud

des in the acttuators throuughout the teest.
(a) Teeflon Bearing

g (b) An
nchoring Plate (c) WT
T Connectionn (d) Loadd Maintainerr
Figure
F 3.3: Details
D of Teest Setup
38
3.2.2 Loading and Moments Measurement
The tests were conducted in a load controlled process. The applied load from the
actuator was monitored by LEBOW 150 kips load cells as shown in Figure 3.4. To offer
some redundancy in force measurements, the strains in the three reaction struts were
monitored by strain gages installed at the mid-length on the opposite sides of the round
tubes to account for bending effects (Figure 3.5). In order to obtain accurate force
measurement, the load cells and the reaction struts were calibrated in a test machine
before assembly into the setup. Figure 3.6 shows the calibration tests. Load levels in the
calibration tests were kept in the elastic region with load levels consistent with the
maximum values expected in the tests.
Load Cell
Figure 3.4: Load Cell for Actuator
Figure 3.5: Strain Gage on Reaction Strut
39
Figure 3.6: Calibration of Force Measurement
The effective moment applied to the cross frame specimens can be determined
based on the measured forces. A representative free body diagram of the whole test setup
is depicted in the Figure 3.7. The force, F, shown in the horizontal direction represents
the value measured from the load cells. The force, R, shown in the vertical direction
represents the force in the strut that was determined from the strain gage measurements.
The applied moment at one side of the test frame could be represented as:
1
2 (3.1)
Since there is redundancy in measuring the applied moment, the average of the
results from two calculations was used in later evaluation.
40
Figure 3.7: Free-body of Test Setup
The equilibrium representation of a single load beam is depicted in Figure 3.8,
and the resulting moment applied at the load beam-cross frame interface could be
evaluated as:
1
2 (3.2)
Mframe represents the moment applied to the cross frame for use in evaluating the
cross frame stiffness. Mframe can be also represented as a force couple of Fequiv, which is
equivalent to the applied forces shown in the truss analogy sketch from Figure 2.4. The
key geometric and mechanical parameters related to the test setup are summarized in
Table 3.1
41
Figure 3.8: Equilibrium of a Load Beam
Table 3.1 Key Parameters in Test Setup
Parameter Name Symbol Value
Load Beam Spacing S 144 in
Cross Frame Length (or Girder Spacing) S’ 114.5 in
Loading Spacing D 98 in
Brace Height hb 53.74 in
Depth of Load Beam d 29.5 in
Moment Applied on the Test Frame Mapplied 98F
Reaction R 1.36F
Moment Applied on the Cross Frame Mframe 78F
Equivalent Force Applied on the Cross Frame Fequiv 1.45F

Note: F is the load reading from the actuators.
42
3.2.3 Measurement of Rotations
As defined in Figure 2.4, the angle, θ, represents the deformational rotation at one
end of the cross frame. The deformations in the test setup are slightly different from those
depicted in Figure 2.4, because the additional rotation in the vertical direction must be
considered in the evaluation of total rotation, as illustrated in Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9: Cross Frame Rotation in Test Setup
Total rotation of one load beam is the summation of two rotational components:
(3.3)
Where:
(3.4)
2
(3.5)
′
and 1, 2, …, 6 are measured displacement as indicated in Figure 3.10.
It should be noted that at each location from δ1 through δ4, two linear
potentiometers (Precision of 0.001”) were placed at the top and bottom side of the WT,
43
shown Figure 3.11, so the average of the two reading accounts for measurement error that
may occur due to potential twist of the WT connection member.
Figure 3.10: Displacement Measurements
Figure 3.11: Linear Potentiometers Locations

The expression in Equation 3.6 was used to calculate the stiffness of cross frame.
The rotation θ was the average of the rotations measured from the two load beams.
(3.6)
44
3.2.4 Measurement of Member Axial Forces
Axial forces in the cross frame members were determined from strain gage
measurements from gages placed midway between connection points in the individual
members. Conversion from strain to force is straightforward for symmetric sections such
as square tube member was obtained by averaging two strain readings placed
symmetrically on either side of the center of gravity (CG) of the section.
Estimating the axial force component in members with eccentric connections,
such as single angles, can be more challenging. Previous research has shown a successful
usage of a regression method in angle member force measurement (Helwig & Fan, 2000).
This method was employed in this research. Four strain gages placed as depicted in
Figure 3.12(b) were used to determine the forces in the angles.
(a) Square Tube (b) Angle
Figure 3.12: Force Measurement of Cross Frame Member
45
3.3 CROSS FRAME TEST PROGRAM
As noted earlier, the purpose of the laboratory experiments on full-size cross
frames was to obtain a measure the stiffness and ultimate strength. Five different cross
frames configurations were tested with a total of six specimens. The matrix of test
specimens is shown in Table 3.2. The cross frames consist of both conventional and
proposed details were considered. The conventional details consist of the single angle
X-frame and the single angle K-frame. The other single angle cross frame that was tested
had only a single diagonal and is referred to as a single angle Z-frame. This latter
specimen would not be considered for application in practice and was instead tested to
represent the analytical model that is often used for the X-frame in which the
compression diagonal is conservatively neglected. Two of the single-angle Z-frames
were tested so that the member could be taken to failure with the diagonal in compression
and in tension. The two proposed details that were tested were both Z frames (single
diagonal) with either tubular members or double angle members. Both the double angles
and the tubular members have substantial compression strength and therefore using the
single diagonal to make the Z-shape may have applications in practice. During all tests,
the two load beams were displaced in the same direction to achieve deformations that are
consistent with either lateral torsional buckling of the girders or torsional deformations in
curved girder applications. Two loading stages were applied: 1) Elastic stiffness tests,
and 2) Ultimate load tests. In the stiffness tests, the actuator loads were incremented in 4-
kip load steps to a maximum value of approximately 20 kips which was within the elastic
region of the cross frames. At each 4-kip load step, data from the linear pots, load cells,
and strain gages were recorded by the data acquisition system. The cross frame was then
unloaded by releasing the actuator pressure in approximately 4-kip steps and data was
46
recorded at each step. Once the pressure was released, the direction of loading was
reversed and the cross frames were then loaded in the opposite direction in 4-kip steps to
a maximum actuator load of approximately 20 kips. The specimen was then unloaded to
obtain one complete load cycle. Each cross frame was generally subjected to three
complete load cycles to ensure repeatability in the data.
Following the elastic stiffness tests, ultimate strength tests conducted on each
cross frame. The conventional cross frames (X-frame and K-frame) are symmetrical
systems and these cross frames have identical nominal failure properties in either
direction. However, for single diagonal cross frames, the ultimate strengths of the cross
frames are different depending on whether the diagonal is in compression or tension.
Loading so that the diagonal is in compression will generally result in a lower cross
frame strength.
47
Table 3.2 Cross Frame Test Program
Specimen No. of
Specimen Sketch Type of Test
Name Specimens
Single Angle Stiffness Test

X-frame
1
(SA_X) Ultimate
Strength Test

K-frame
1
(SA_K) Ultimate
Strength Test

Z-frame
2
(SA_Z) Ultimate
Strength Test
Square
Stiffness Test
Tube
Z-frame 1
Ultimate
(ST_Z)
Strength Test
Double
Stiffness Test
Angle
Z-frame 1
Ultimate
(DA_Z)
Strength Test
48
3.4 SINGLE ANGLE X-FRAME
The nominal geometry of the test specimen is shown in Figure 3.13. The cross
frame is designed for a girder spacing (S) of 114.5 in and a brace height (hb) of 53.74 in.
All single angles used were L4x4x3/8 sections. The basic geometry of the cross frame
and size of the gusset plate were determined according to the TxDOT Standard Drawing
– Steel Girder Miscellaneous Details (SGMD) (Texas Department of Transportation,
2006). The two diagonals were connected at mid-span by a spacer plate. All connections
between the cross frame members were made with 5/16 in. fillet welds. Figure 3.14
shows the final specimen installed in test frame.
The effective axial forces in the cross frame members were determined from the
measured data using previously introduced techniques. The locations of the strain gages
are shown in Figure 3.15. Since the diagonals are connected the middle, each diagonal is
divided into two parts on either side of the spacer plate. Therefore, with two diagonals
there are a total of four diagonal segments. The researchers were not sure how the
interconnected diagonals would behave and therefore, three of the diagonal segments
were monitored with strain gages to obtain effective member forces. The remaining
diagonal force was determined from equilibrium of the diagonals about the splice plate.
49
Figure 3.13: Single Angle X-frame Drawing
Figure 3.14: Single Angle X-frame Specimen
50
Figure 3.15: Locations of Strain Gages – Single Angle X-frame
3.4.1 Stiffness Test – Single Angle X-frame
The stiffness test was performed on this specimen with the aforementioned
procedure. A graph of the measured Mframe and θ is plotted in Figure 3.16. The three
markers at each load increment represent the test results during the three cycles of
loading. The close proximity of the data markers at a given load level demonstrates the
repeatability in the data. A linear trend line is graphed through the data. The measured
stiffness of the cross frame, was βbrace =872,105 kip-in/rad as determined from the slope
of the linear trend line.
51
Figure 3.16:
3 Load an
nd Deflectio
on Relationshhip of Singlee Angle X-frrame
Based upon the strain gage read

dings, the efffective axiaal force of thhe four crosss
framee members are

a plotted graphed
g in Figure
F 3.17. IIt can be obbserved from
m the plot thaat
the magnitude
m off axial forcees in the two
o diagonals are essentiaally the samee with one iin
tensio
on and one in compresssion. The ax
xial forces iin the top annd bottom sttruts are verry
close to zero. Wiithin the load

d range that was used foor the stiffneess tests, the contributionns
of thee tension and
d compressio
on diagonalss are essentiaally the samee.
52
Figure 3.17
7: Axial Forrces in Single Angle Mem
mbers – Singgle Angle X
X-frame
3.4.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Singlee Angle X-frrame
The speciimen was lo

oaded to failure after thhe stiffness test was com
mpleted. Thhe
failurre of the speecimen can be

b divided in
nto two sep arate stages as shown inn Figure 3.118
and Figure
F 3.19. The first faailure observ
ved was the bbuckling of tthe compresssion diagonaal
at th
he actuator load of 77..5 kips. The
T largest out-of-planee buckling deformationns
occurrred near thee midpoint of
o the section
n between thhe gusset plaate and spaccer plate. Thhe
diago
onal buckling was follow
wed by the buckling
b of the top struut with no addditional loaad
increm
ment. The maximum
m bu
uckling deforrmations of the top strutt were not aat mid-span aas
expeccted but insttead somewh

hat transverssely (betweeen the load bbeams) linedd up with thhe
locatiion of the maximum

m bucckling deform
mations in th
the compresssion diagonaal. The likelly
explaanation for th
his is that thee buckling of
o the diagonnal lowered tthe end restrraint provideed
53
to the top strut at the right gusset plate. Another important observation from the tests is
that the effective length of the compression diagonal was less than half the length of the
diagonal.
Figure 3.18: Step one - Buckling of the compression diagonal
54
Figure 3.19: Step two - Buckling of the top strut
A graph of Fequiv and  is shown in Figure 3.20 while Figure 3.21 shows the
corresponding member forces. As measured, the ultimate strength of the cross frame
Fequiv is 77.5 kips or in term of moment, Mframe is 4,165 kip-in. From the plotted curve, it
can be found that the stiffness remained relatively constant up to a value of Fequiv of 60
kips, which is about 77% of the ultimate strength. The force in the compression diagonal
when it buckled was 72 kips. The dashed lines in the figures represent the unloading
region of the test.
55
Figure
F 3.20: Fequiv. vs. Rootation θ
Figure 3.21:
3 Axial Member
M Forcce vs. Rotatiion θ
56
During th
he test, significant outt-of-plane ddeflection w
was also observed. Botth
diago
onals had sub
bstantial defformation ou
ut-of-the-plaane of the crooss frame. T
The deflectioon
at thee intersection
n of the two diagonals (llocated at thhe spacer plaate) was monnitored with a
linearr potentiomeeter and the result
r phed againstt the Fequiv inn Figure 3.222. The out-of-
is grap
planee deflection is linear to the applied load beforee failure andd it can be ppresumed thaat
this bending
b is related to thee eccentric loading
l for single anglees. Later chaapters furtheer
invesstigate the im
mpact of the bending.
Figure 3..22: Mid-secction Out-of--plane Defleection
3.5 SINGLE ANGLE

N K-FRA
AME
The desig
gn of the tesst specimen is shown inn Figure 3.223. The cross frame waas
desig
gned for a giirder spacing
g (S) of 114.5 in and a bbrace heightt (hb) of 53.774 in. The K
K-
framee diagonals and struts consisted

c off L4x4x3/8 ssections. Thhe basic geoometry of thhe
cross frame and

d size of thee gusset plaate were deetermined according to the TxDO
OT
Stand
dard Drawin
ng SGMD (Texas
( Dep
partment of Transportattion, 2006). Figure 3.224
show
ws the final sp
pecimen in test
t frame.
57
Figure 3.23: Single Angle K-frame Drawing
Figure 3.24: Single Angle K-frame Specimen
58
The member axial forces were monitored during all tests by the techniques
outlined earlier in the chapter. the location of the strain gages are depicted in Figure
3.25.
Figure 3.25: Locations of Strain Gages – Single Angle K-frame
3.5.1 Stiffness Test – Single Angle K-frame
The stiffness test followed the procedures outlined earlier in the chapter. The
measured Mframe and θ relationship is plotted in Figure 3.26. The cross frame stiffness was
obtained from the linear trend line, with a stiffness, βbrace, of 760,027 kip-in/rad.
The member axial forces are plotted in Figure 3.27. The top strut essentially
showed zero forces as predicted by the K-frame model shown in Figure 2.5(c). Similar to
the behavior exhibited by the Single Angle X-frame, the compression member
contributed nearly as much as the tension member in this case.
59
Figure 3.26:
3 Load an
nd Deflectio
on Relationshhip of Singlee Angle K-frrame
Figure 3.27
7: Axial Forrces in Single Angle Mem
mbers – Singgle Angle K
K-frame
60
3.5.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Single Angle K-frame
The specimen was taken to failure after the stiffness test was completed. Figure
3.28 shows the image of the failed specimen. The compression diagonal (right diagonal)
failed at the mid-span when the cross frame reached its maximum capacity.
Figure 3.29 shows the relationship between Fequiv and rotation θ and Figure 3.30
shows the member forces (only the compression members). As measured, the ultimate
strength of the cross frame Fequiv was 62.7 kips or in term of moment, Mframe was 3,369
kip-in. When the compression diagonal buckles, the ultimate axial force was 83 kips.
Dashed lines in the figures represent unloading region of the test.
Figure 3.28: Buckling of the Single Angle K-frame
61
Fiigure 3.29: Axial
A Member Force vs. Rotation θ – K-frame
Figure
62
The K-fraame exhibiteed significan
nt out-of-planne bending in all membbers similar tto
that observed
o forr the Single Angle
A X-fraame. The midd-span defleection of thee compressioon
diago
onal was mon
nitored and the
t results are shown in Figure 3.31.
Figure 3.31 Ou
ut-of-plane D
Deflection
3.6 SQUARE TUBE

U Z-FRAM
ME
The squarre tube Z-fraame is one of

o the newlyy-proposed ccross frame ttypes that arre
being
g evaluated in
i this researrch investigaation. The crross frame m
members makke a “Z” witth
a sing
gle diagonall and all mem
mbers comp
posed of squuare tubes. T
The connectiion detail thaat
was used at the end of thee tubular meembers conssisted of a slotted tubee, which is a
relatiively commo
on connectio
on for thesee members iin bracing aapplications.. Pictures oof
conneection fabriccation are sh

hown in Figu
ure 3.32. Allthough som
me of the tubuular memberrs
in thee fatigue speecimens thatt will be repo

orted in a latter dissertatiion have sloots cut using a
63
plasma torch, the connection slots for the stiffness tests were cut by a metal saw to
achieve a clean cut. The gusset plates were inserted into the slot and welded around. The
overlap between the tube and the gusset plate was 7.5 in.
This specimen was designed to have similar geometry as the conventional cross
frame specimens to simplify the comparisons between test specimens. The cross frame is
designed for a girder spacing (S) of 114.5 in and a brace height (hb) of 53.74 in. The
dimensional values are provided in Figure 3.33. HSS5x5x3/16 tube was used for all
members. Figure 3.34 shows the specimen as installed in the test frame. The force
measurement was performed by monitoring strains at mid-span of all three members as
outlined for the other cross frame specimens.
64
Figure 3.32: Slotted Tube Connection Fabrication
Figure 3.33: Square Tube Z-frame Drawing
65
Figure 3.34: Square Tube Z-frame Specimen
3.6.1 Stiffness Test – Square Tube Z-frame
The stiffness test was performed following the procedures outlined previously.
The measured Mframe and θ relationship is plotted in Figure 3.35. As the linear trend line
shows, the stiffness βbrace of this frame was 658,320 kip-in/rad.
66
Figure 3.35:
3 Load and
a Deflectio
on Relationshhip of Squarre Tube Z-frrame
3.6.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Squarre Tube Z-frrame
The speciimen was taaken to failu

ure after the stiffness tesst was comppleted. Figurre
3.28 shows the final

fi image of
o the failed specimen. T
The diagonaal buckled ouut-of-plane aat
mid-sspan when th
his cross fram
me reached its maximum
m capacity.
Figure 3.3
37 shows th
he relationship between F equiv and rootation θ andd Figure 3.338
show
ws the corresp
ponding mem
mber forces. As measurred, the ultim
mate strengthh of the crosss
framee Fequiv was 74.3 kips or

o in term off moment, M frame is 3,9993 kip-in. T
The maximum
m
comp
pressive axiaal force in th
he diagonal was 156 kipps and the ffailure modee consisted oof
local buckling in the wall of the

t tube,.
67
Figuree 3.36: Failurre of Squaree Tube Z-fram
me
Figure
68
Figure 3.38:
3 Axial Member
3.7 DOUBLE ANGLE Z-FRA

AME
The Doub
ble Angle Z--frame is another newlyy-proposed ccross frame ggeometry thaat
is being considerred in this research
r inv
vestigation. The Z-fram
me geometryy has a singlle
diago
onal similar to that outliined for the tubular crosss frame. T
The geometryy of the crosss
framee is depicted
d in Figure 3.39 and is th
he same as thhe Single Anngle X-fram
me except botth
diago
onal angles were
w lined up
u back-to-back to form
m a double anngle section. The top annd
bottom struts were

w kept as
a single an
ngles in ordder to simpplify the ddesign. Threee
interm
mediate con
nnectors weere used forr the doublle angle to ensure thee two anglees
functtioned as a single
s unit. Figure
F 3.40 shows the specimen innstalled in thhe test framee.
Strain
n gages weree installed in
n mid-span of
o each anglee member ass previously described foor
the otther cross fraame systemss with angle members.
69
Figure 3.39: Double Angle Z-frame Drawing
Figure 3.40: Double Angle Z-frame Specimen
70
3.7.1 Stiffness Test – Doub
ble Angle Z-frame
Z
The meassured Mframe and θ relattionship is pplotted in Fiigure 3.41. As the lineaar
trend
d line shows, the stiffnesss βbrace of thiis frame wass 592,981 kipp-in/rad.
Figure 3.41: Load an

nd Deflection
n Relationshhip of Doublle Angle Z-fr
frame
3.7.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Doublle Angle Z-fframe
The speciimen was loaded to failu

ure after thee stiffness test was comppleted. Figurre
3.42 shows the final imagee of the failled specimeen. It was oobserved that significannt
deforrmation occu
urred in the left
l gusset pllate and doub
uble angle diaagonal.
Figure 3.4
43 shows th
he relationsh
hip between Fequiv and rrotation θ annd shows thhe
memb
ber forces. As
A measured
d, the ultimaate strength of the crosss frame Fequiiv is 94.6 kipps
or in term of mo
oment, Mframme is 5,084 kip-in.
k Evenn though thee failure happpened at thhe
gusseet plate, the capacity is much higher than the previously tested speciimens. Figurre
71
3.44 shows the relationship between
b member forcess and the rottation. It cann be seen thaat
when
n the cross frame
fr reachees its maxim
mum capacityy, the axial fforce in the double anglle
was 215
2 kips.
Figure 3.42: Failuree of Double Angle Z-fraame
Figure
72
Figure 3.44:
3 Axial Member
3.8 SINGLE ANGLE

N Z-FRAM
ME
The geom
metry of the Single Anglle Z-frame w
was the sam
me as the connventional X
X-
framee except only as singlee diagonal was

w used as shown in F
Figure 3.45. Figure 3.446
show
ws the specim
men installed
d in the test frame.
f Strainn gages weree installed aat mid-span oof
each angle mem
mber similar to the prev
viously descrribed appliccations with single anglle
memb
bers.
73
Figure 3.45: Single Angle Z-frame Drawing
Two specimens were fabricated and tested with this type of cross frame. One
specimen was loaded so that the top strut failed in compression. Another one was loaded
so that the diagonal failed in compression. Since the second specimen had relatively low
strength, the stiffness test was only performed on the first specimen. The primary reason
to test this type of cross frame was to simulate the geometry that is modeled with a
“tension-only” diagonal model where the compression diagonal is conservatively

neglected.
74
Figure 3.46: Single Angle Z-frame Specimen
3.8.1 Stiffness Test – Single Angle Z-frame
The stiffness test was done by only loading in the direction that loads diagonal in
tension, because loading diagonal in compression may possibly lead to early failure. The
measured Mframe and θ relationship is plotted in Figure 3.47. As the linear trend line
shows, the stiffness βbrace of this frame was 351,796 kip-in/rad.
75
Figure 3.47:
3 Load an
nd Deflectio
on Relationshhip of Singlee Angle Z-frrame
3.8.2 Ultimate Strength Test – Singlee Angle Z-frrame
Since botth the strutss and diago

onal membeers have relaatively low compressioon
streng
gths due to the low buckling streng
gths of the siingle angle m
members, tw
wo specimenns
were tested. Thee ultimate sttrength test was
w perform
med in the afforementioneed proceduree.
Figurre 3.48 show

ws the imagee of the specimen with failed top sstruts and Fiigure 3.49 foor
the sp
pecimen with
h the failed diagonal.
d
76
Figure 3.48: Failure at Top Strut
Figure 3.49: Failure at Diagonal
77
For the test
t with the failure att top strut, Figure 3.500 shows thee relationshiip
betweeen Fequiv and

a rotation
n θ. The ultimate strenngth of the cross fram
me Fequiv waas
measured to bee 55 kips or

o in termss of momeent, Mframe was 2,956 kip-in. Thhe
corresponding reelationship between

b mem
mber forces and the rottation is shoown in Figurre
3.51. It can be seeen that wheen the crosss frame reachhed its maxximum capaccity, the axiaal
force in the top sttrut was 56 kips.

k
Figure 3.50
0: Fequiv. vs. Rotation
R θ – Failure at Toop Strut
78
Figure 3.51:
3 Axial Member
M Forrce vs. Rotattion θ – Failuure in Top S
Strut
Figure 3.5
52 shows th
he relationsh
hip between F equiv and rootation θ whhen the singlle
anglee diagonal was

w in compression. Thee ultimate sttrength of thhe cross fram
me Fequiv waas
measured to be 21
2 kips or in terms of mo
oment, Mframme, the strenggth was 1,1229 kip-in. Thhe
corresponding reelationship between

b mem
mber forces and the rottation is shoown in Figurre
3.53. It can be seeen that wheen the crosss frame reachhed its maxximum capaccity, the axiaal
force in the single angle diagonal

d waas 48 kips. Obviously the second specimen is
consiiderably weaker than the

t first onee due to thhe longer ccompression member. IIn
addition, the stifffness during the elastic range was 3557,450 kip-inn/rad.
79
Figure 3.52
2: Fequiv. vs. Rotation
R θ – Failure at D
Diagonal
Figure 3.53: Axial Member Forrce vs. Rotattion θ – Faillure at Diagoonal
80
3.9 COUPON TENSION TESTS
The yield stress of the steel material was determined for consideration of the
inelastic behavior of cross frame members. Tension coupons obtained from the raw steel
were tested to find the yield stresses. A displacement controlled loading process was used
to perform the tests. The data of the tension tests is included in Appendix. The average
properties of the steel for all specimens are presented in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Average Results from the Tension Coupon Tests
Average Yield Average Tensile Coupon

Specimen Elongation
Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) Numbers
SA-1
Single Angle
46 65 37% SA-2
X-frame
SA-3
SAK-1
Single Angle
57 75 34% SAK-2
K-frame
SAK-3
HSS-1
Square Tube Z-
51 57 26% HSS-2
frame
HSS-3
SA-1
Double Angle
46 65 37% SA-2
Z-frame
SA-3
Single Angle
SA-1
Z-frame -
46 65 37% SA-2
Diagonal in
SA-3
Compression
81
Table 3.3 Average Results from the Tension Coupon Tests (cont.)
Single Angle
SA-4
Z-frame -
54 74 35% SA-5
Diagonal in
SA-6
Tension
GP-1
Gusset Plates 56 72 38% GP-2
GP-3
3.10 SUMMARY OF CROSS FRAME TEST RESULTS
A total of five different cross frame types were tested in this series of
experiments. The elastic stiffness of the cross frames and their ultimate strength in the
critical direction were obtained from each cross frame. A summary of the test results is
listed in Table 3.4.
82
Table 3.4 Cross Frame Test Results Summary
Stiffness 1 Ultimate Strength Ultimate Strength

Specimen Name
(kip-in/rad) in Mframe (kip-in) in Fequiv (kip)
Single Angle
872,000 4,165 77.5
X-frame
Single Angle
760,000 3,369 62.7
K-frame
Square Tube
658,000 3,993 74.3
Z-frame
Double Angle
593,000 5,084 94.6
Z-frame
Single Angle
Z-frame
352,000 2,956 55
-Diagonal in
Tension
Single Angle
Z-frame Initial
1,129 21
- Diagonal in 357,000
Compression
Note: 1. Stiffness values are rounded to 1000 kip-in/rad
83
It should be noted that this table is just a summary of test results. Superiority of
different cross frames types can be only judged with further consideration of the size of
the cross frames, the overall cost and other structural performance, such as fatigue life
also need to be considered. The test frame that was designed and fabricated provided a
good means of evaluating the stiffness and strength of full scale cross frame systems.
Based upon the results of the tests, the following conclusions can be made:
1. The stiffness tests showed that the measured values of the stiffness of
cross frames are the same for loading in both directions.
2. Failure of the cross frames usually occurs when one or more of the critical
compressive components lost its stiffness due to instability. The two
instabilities that were observed consisted of buckling of a primary cross
frame member or buckling of a gusset plate.
3. For the Single Angle X-frame, the mid-span spacer plate can be
considered as a bracing point for the compression diagonal.
The next chapter provides a comparison of the test results with the analytical and
computational models. After the models and tools are validated, more geometry options
can be explored to make further observations of the stiffness behavior of the cross
frames.
84
Chapter 4: Computer Models for Cross Frame Stiffness
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Engineers often rely on computer models to analyze structural systems such as
steel bridges. While there are a variety of modeling techniques of varying complexity,
most commercial software makes use of grillage models in which the girders and cross
frames are modeled with line elements. Even in more complex models such as three-
dimensional finite element models of the bridge system, the cross frames are usually
modeled as a truss system with line elements. The accuracy of a computer model can be
significantly affected by the details of the structure. In the case of the cross frame
system, the connections that are often used for the main members often result in an
eccentric connection. The test results presented in the last section clearly showed that the
angle members often experienced a significant amount of out-of-plane bending. Since
laboratory tests were performed in measuring the stiffness of the cross frames specimens,
the test results can be utilized to validate the computer models. A variety of models can
be considered for the cross frame including the use of truss elements and shell elements.
Obviously the complexity of these different models varies; however the accuracy of the
models will also likely be affected. Two types of computer models were considered as
illustrated in Figure 4.1. The models consist of using truss elements that only possess
axial stiffness, and shell elements that not only have axial and bending stiffness, but can
also model the eccentricity of the connection relative to the centroid of the main
members. Models in the chapter are created and analyzed by ANSYS.
85
Figure 4.1: Computer Models
4.2 TRUSS MODEL
Truss elements are widely used to capture the behavior of structural systems that
are predominantly governed by the axial stiffness of the members. The advantage of
using this model is its simplicity in modeling and high efficiency in computation. The
simplification is usually appropriate if the size of the truss members are small compared
with the overall truss dimension. In this case the constraining moments at the connections
are minimal and can be considered as a secondary effect. A truss element model for the
Single Angle X-frame with its deformed shape is shown in the Figure 4.2. The
dimensions and member properties are based on the test specimens that were used. The
loading conditions were applied to simulate the conditions described in Figure 2.4. Node
2 was pinned and the rest of the nodes were constrained in the Y-direction and allowed to
move in X-direction.
The stiffness of the cross frame can be calculated from the deflection the nodes,
height of cross frame (hb) and applied force (F). This model showed a stiffness of
1,572,000 k-in/rad.
86
Figure 4.2: Truss Element Model
4.3 SHELL ELEMENT MODEL
A truss element representation of the cross frames can simulate the in-plane
stiffness of the braces; however the models do not capture the complex behavior of cases
where eccentric connections exist between the primary members and the gusset plate. On
the contrary, shell element models can effectively represent the real geometry of the cross
frames.
4.3.1 Shell Element
Figure 4.3 shows the shell element model for a Single Angle X-frame. Shell
elements were used to model the cross frames due to the computational efficiency
compared to solid elements. The cross frame was modeled using 8-noded Shell 93
87
elements to model all angles, gusset plates and stiffeners. This element has been
successfully used in previous research in modeling plate girders and cross frames
(Quadrato et al., 2010).
Figure 4.3: Shell Element Model – Single Angle X-frame
The shell element allows user to define the thickness of plate at each nodes and
there are six degrees of freedom at each node. In addition, the aspect ratio of the elements
defined in two dimensions needs to be maintained near unity. Because the shape
functions in a quadrilateral element are generally derived for a square element in
isoperimetric coordinates, elements proportioned with an aspect ratio near one provide
the best accuracy; however with good accuracy is often achieved with aspect ratios of 3
or higher. When the meshing option within the ANSYS, APDL macros are used, the
88
program algorithms attempt to mesh the components as close to square elements as
possible. In addition to the element aspect ratios, a mesh density analysis was performed
to ensure computational efficiency and suitable accuracy with respect to the element
sizes.
4.3.2 Plate Joint
Two methods were used to connect the members of the cross frames to the gusset
plate connections: coincident nodes and multi-point constraints. The coincident node
method was used where the plates intersect at their mid-thickness and the mesh densities
of the two elements being connected had coincident nodes were the same. The coincident
node command in ANSYS will combine the selected nodes that are sharing the same
coordinates and in turn join the two plates sharing the nodes. The advantage of this
method is that a rigid connection is achieved between the nodes and the method also
reduces the size of the model by reducing number of nodes (degrees of freedom).
Multi-point constraints elements essentially consist of rigid beams that link
together two or more nodes in the structural system. This method lends itself to problems
in which a rigid connection is desired between two nodes that do not occupy the same
space. An example where this method works well is in connections such as the weld
between gusset plates and an angle leg. Figure 4.4 illustrates the multi-point constraint
elements in the single angle cross frame model between the angle leg and the gusset
plate. The MPC elements provide a rigid beam connector between the nodes of the angle
leg and the gusset plate. The MPC elements force the connecting to experience the same
deformations.
89
Figure 4.4: Details in the Shell Element Model
4.3.3 Boundary Conditions
The boundary conditions that were utilized in this model emulated the support
conditions shown in Figure 4.5. The model was simply supported in the plane of the
frame, which is designated as the X-Y plane. The cross frame members and gusset plates
were free to move in the out-of-plane (Z-direction), but the edges of the stiffeners were
constrained in the out-of-plane directions as depicted in Figure 4.4 . In addition, two rigid
beams (Beam 4 elements) were created and were coupled to the outer edge of the
stiffeners to simulate the load beams in the laboratory tests. Similar to the load beams in
the test setup, the purpose of the rigid beams was to prevent bending and twisting at the
outer boundary of the model.
90
Figure 4.5: Sketch of Computer Model
4.3.4 Linear Elastic Analysis
An elastic analyses with elastic materials was used to obtain a measure of the
elastic stiffness of the cross frames. Point loads were applied at nodes located at the
corners of the cross frames. The nodes that were selected were in the line of the
“working points” for the main members of the cross frame. The elastic stiffness was
determined from the ratio of the applied moments divided by the corresponding rotations
in the plane of the cross frame. As presented in Figure 4.6, unit loads were used to obtain
a measure of the stiffness of the cross frame. The analysis provided the displacements in
91
the “X-direction” at the corners of the cross frames, which were used to compute in-plane
rotations of cross frames so that the stiffness could be calculated.
Figure 4.6: Deformed FEA Model
4.3.5 Nonlinear Buckling Analysis
Results from the laboratory experiments demonstrated that prior to buckling, the
compression diagonal makes a major contribution to the stiffness of the cross frame and
the ultimate strength of a cross frame is also controlled by the strength of the
compression members. For lower loads, the stiffness of the tension and compression
diagonals were essentially the same. However, the stiffness of a compression member
degrades with larger loads and essentially tends to zero as the member approaches the
buckling strength. Accounting for the loss of stiffness in the compression diagonal
92
should be accounted for if both diagonals are to be considered in the stiffness of the cross
frame. The impact of the loss in axial stiffness of the compression diagonal can be
considered by performing nonlinear finite element buckling analysis to determine the
load displacement curve. However, since the diagonal forces may often be in the inelastic
compression range, the impact of material non-linearity needs to be considered.
In the nonlinear buckling analyses, a bi-linear kinematic material model was used
to model nonlinear material properties. An example of a typical material stress-strain
curve is shown in Figure 4.7. The yield stress was determined based on the coupon test
results from the experiments. To account for the geometric non-linearity, ramped loads
were applied in the same pattern as the linear analysis. Load steps were applied to the
model at an interval of 10 kips. The automatic substepping function of ANSYS was also
turned on to add extra load steps if convergence was not obtained in the prescribed steps.
Figure 4.7: Nonlinear Material Model
In addition to material nonlinearity, initial geometric imperfections and residual
stresses are important factors on the buckling strength. Modeling the initial imperfection
93
in a member was done in a two-step process in ANSYS. In this research, an initial
imperfection of 1/1000 of the member length was considered in the modeling all cross
frame members. The first step consisted of specifying a displacement to a node at the
mid-length of the compression diagonal and conducting an analysis to solve for the
resulting geometry of the cross frame members. In the second step, the deformed shape
from the first solution was used to update the geometry of the model to possess an initial
imperfection.
The residual stresses were assumed to have the distribution shown in Figure
4.8(a). Similar distribution has been recommended in several other researches in
nonlinear behavior of single angles (Kitipornchai, 1986) (Usami, 1971). Residual stresses
were accounted for in the model by offsetting the yield stress by the amount of the
residual stress. Similar method to account for residual stress can be also found in
previous research (Earls, 1999). In the example shown in Figure 4.8(b), the desired yield
stress for the steel of an angle was 46 ksi.
(a) Residual Stress Assumed (b) Yield Stress Modeled
Figure 4.8: Residual Stress of Angle
94
4.4 RESULTS OF COMPUTER MODELS
Analyses were conducted using the on both the truss model cross frames and the
shell element cross frames. The analyses that are outlined in this section were conducted
to replicate the cross frame behavior obtained from the laboratory tests. In this section,
comparisons are made between the cross frame stiffness values predicted from the finite
element analysis and the closed form stiffness solutions outlined in Section 2.5 are
compared with the laboratory test results.
4.4.1 Stiffness Analysis
To facilitate a discussion of the calculated versus measured results, a factor R is
used which is defined as the ratio between the measured stiffness values and the predicted
stiffness values. The R-value comparisons are made for both the analytical equations as
well as the finite element predictions. An R-value of less than 1.0 indicates that the
method overestimates the stiffness. Since the R-values were usually found to be less than
1.0 throughout this research, it is also referred as to a stiffness reduction factor.
A summary of stiffness results by different evaluation methods is presented in
Table 4.1 along the results from laboratory tests. The R-values for all analytical methods
or computer methods were also listed besides the stiffness results. It can be observed
from the table that R-value tends to be less than 1.0 when single angle members are used
in the cross frames and analytical equations or truss element method was used to
evaluate. The R-value was found to range from 0.55 to 0.66. When shell elements
methods were used in evaluation, the computer model can always provide accurate
estimation and R-value is around 1.0. When it comes to cross frame with tubes, any
method can predict the stiffness accurately.

95
Table 4.1 Summary of Stiffness by Various Methods
Stiffness, kip-in/rad
Type of Cross Frame
Test Analytical Truss Element Shell Element
R R R
Results Solution Solution Solution
Single
Angle 872,000 1,579,000 0.55 1,572,000 0.55 867,000 1.01
X-frame
Single
Angle 760,000 1,189,000 0.64 1,180,000 0.64 781,000 0.97
K-frame
Double
Angle 597,000 907,000 0.66 905,000 0.66 616,000 0.97
Z-frame
Single
Angle 358,000 575,000 0.62 575,000 0.62 340,000 1.05
Z-frame
Square
Tube 658,000 649,000 1.01 647,000 1.01 657,000 1.00
Z-frame
96
The result comparison certainly raised a question why the analytical equation or
the truss element model seriously overestimates the stiffness of cross frames of single
angles, but they work fine for cross frames with square tubes. The overestimation of
stiffness is definitely dangerous for any structure since these methods are the foundation
of many engineering design and the basic assumption of many engineering softwares.
Reasonably, answering the question leads to a close look on the distinctive shape attribute
of an unsymmetrical section from a symmetrical one.
In Chapter 3, it was mentioned that a significant out-of-plane bending was
observed in many tests on cross frames with single angle members. The out-of-plane
bending behavior is also observed if shell element model is used, as shown in Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.9: Deformed Shape – Single Angle X-frame
In addition, the shell element model predicts a similar the mid-section out-of-
plane deflection as shown in Figure 4.10. Therefore, a reasonable hypothesis is that the
overlook of the bending effect in analytical method or truss element method leads to the
overestimation in cross frame stiffness. Hence, the next a few chapters will try to prove
the supposition, quantify the effect from the eccentric bending and find a way to account
for it in design practice.
97
Fig
gure 4.10: Ou
ut-of-Plane Deflection
D – Single Anggle X-frame
4.4.2 Nonlinea
ar Buckling Analysis
Nonlinearr analyses were

w perform
med on the shell elemeent model too get the fuull
load-displacemen
nt curves fo
or Single An
ngle X-fram
me, K-framee and Z-fram
me. Analysees
were performed on models with nonlin
near materiaal only, withh nonlinear material annd
initiaal imperfection, and with
w nonlineear material and residuual stress. The resulteed
bucklling shape an
nd the load-d
deflection cu
urves are shoown from Fiigure 4.11 too Figure 4.188.
The results
r indiccated that thee shell elem
ment model ccan predict tthe behaviorr of the crosss
framee while buck

kling happen
ns, with sligh
ht conservatiism.
98
Figure 4.11: Buckled Shape - Singgle Angle X--frame
90
80
70
60
50
F, kips
40
30 FEA
FEA with Inittial Imperfectiion
20
FEA with Ressidual Stress
10 Lab
0
0 0.00
02 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
θ,rad
Fiigure 4.12: Load-deflecti

L ion Curve - Single Anglle X-frame
99
Figure 4.13: Buckled Shape - Single Angle K-frame
70
60
50
40
F, kips
30
FEA
20
FEA with Initial Imperfection
10 FEA with Residual Stress
Lab
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
θ,rad
Figure 4.14: Load-deflection Curve - Single Angle K-frame
100
Figure 4.15: Buckled Shape – Single Angle Z-frame (Diagonal in Compression)
30
25
20
F, kips
15
FEA
10 FEA with Initial Imperfection
FEA with Residual Stress
Lab
5
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
θ,rad
Figure 4.16: Load-deflection Curve - Single Angle Z-frame (Diagonal in Compression)
101
Figure 4.17: Buckled Shape – Single Angle Z-frame (Struts in Compression)
60
FEA
FEA with Initial Imperfection
50 FEA with Residual Stress
Lab
40
F, kips
30
20
10
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
θ,rad
Figure 4.18: Load-deflection Curve - Single Angle Z-frame (Strut in Compression)
102
4.5 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions could be drawn from the discussion of this chapter:
1. When there are single angle members in a cross frame, analytical
equations and truss element models usually overestimate the stiffness
capacity of the cross frames. The stiffness reduction factor (R-value)
ranges between 0.55 and 0.65. The discrepancy in the evaluation could be
caused by out-of-plane bending due to eccentric connection of single
angles, and ignoring this impact could lead to significant mistake in
stiffness prediction.
2. For concentric Square Tube Z-frame, both analytical equations and
computer models can accurately predict the stiffness. Therefore,
evaluating stiffness of the cross frames can simply use the traditional truss
analogy method or the line element computer method.
3. Analyses in this chapter have shown that the shell element models can
predict the cross frame’s stiffness quite accurately. The nonlinear analysis
on the shell element model also has the ability in evaluating the full load
and deflection curve and ultimate strength.
4. Despite the merits of the shell element model, it does not make an efficient
daily tool for estimating stiffness because of the enormous time and cost
required to get accurate results. In the following chapters of the report,
studies will focus on quantifying the stiffness reduction from the eccentric
bending and finding a practical way to account for it in design.
103
Chapter 5: Analytical Solution for Stiffness Reduction
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The studies presented in the previous chapters demonstrated that the single angle
members that frequently comprise cross frame braces can lead to substantial reductions in
the torsional brace stiffness due to the large eccentricity of the connections. In this
chapter, the stiffness reduction problem is examined analytically in an attempt to develop
a solution for the reduced stiffness.
The stiffness reduction factor for a cross frame is defined as the ratio between the
actual stiffness and the theoretical stiffness of the cross frame as indicated in the
following expression:
(5.1)
Where:
βa = Actual stiffness of the cross frame
βb = Theoretical stiffness of a cross frame as defined in Section 2.5.
In this chapter, the stiffness reduction factor for a single angle member is derived,
and then included for use in the stiffness expression for the full cross frame system.
5.2 STIFFNESS REDUCTION FOR A SINGLE ANGLE

The results presented in Chapter 4 demonstrated that the reduction in the stiffness
of cross frames is due to the eccentric connections from the single angle members.
Therefore, it is reasonable to approach the cross frame system problem by first
considering the problem on the member level. A simplified model of the problem is
104
illustrated in Figure 5.1, which depicts a single angle with gusset plates that are idealized
with fixed ends. The fixed end boundary condition was chosen to simulate the support
condition of the gusset plates attached to a rigid stiffener that frames into the web of the
girder. The assumed support conditions represent one of the extreme limits; however the
assumption greatly simplifies the derivation. A horizontal tensile force of magnitude F is
applied to the system. The length of the angle is designated as LL, and length of the
gusset plate is LP. In the derivation, the overlap region between the angle and gusset
plates, which would have a combined moment of inertia, is neglected for simplification.
Figure 5.1: Single Angle with Eccentric Connection in Tension
For a concentrically loaded member, the theoretical axial stiffness is defined as:
(5.2)
Where:
E= Elastic modulus of the material
A= Area of the member
L= Length of the member
However, the eccentric connection relative to the geometric centroid of the angle
results in a bending moment that causes additional deflection along the bottom side of the
angle. Based on the increased deflection, the modified axial stiffness is calculated as:
(5.3)
105
Where:
δa = Deflection due to axial load
δb = Deflection due to bending moment
The stiffness reduction factor for a member is defined as follows:
(5.4)
The next section focuses on the formulation of ka so that Rmember can be evaluated.
5.2.1 Bending Due to the Eccentric Connection
In order to solve the stiffness reduction factor of Equation (5.4), the extra
deflection due to the bending is needed. The free body diagrams for the angle and the
gusset plates are shown in Figure 5.2(a) and Figure 5.3, respectively. The axial force and
the bending moment at the angle-plate interface are labeled as F and Mplate, where Mplate
is the restraining moment that the plate applies to the end of the angle. Based on force
equilibrium, the axial force F is equal to the applied tension. In addition, for the angle,
the eccentrically loaded tension, F, and moment, Mplate, (Figure 5.2(a)) can be replaced by
an equivalent force and moment acting at the centroid of the angle, as shown in Figure
5.2(b). Then the total resultant moment at end of the angle is labeled as ML:
(5.5)
Where
ȳ = Distance between center gravity and the outer face of one leg
F = Tension Force
106
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.2: Free Body Diagram for Angle
Figure 5.3: Free Body Diagram for a Gusset plate
To solve the moment, Mploate, between the angle and gusset plates, compatibility
between the deflections of the two parts can be used. Under the applied moment, the
angle and the gusset plates deform as shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 5.4: Deflection of Angle and Gusset Plate
107
By compatibility (continuity of rotation at the interface of angle and gusset plate):
(5.6)
According to beam bending theory, Equation (5.6) can be rewritten as:
(5.7)
2
Where:
Bending stiffness of the angle (5.8)
Bending stiffness of the gusset plate (5.9)
The equation (5.7) can be rearranged to solve for Mplate:
2 (5.10)
1 1
2
The total resultant moment at the angle centroid can be obtained by substituting Equation
(5.10) to Equation (5.5):
(5.11)
1 1
2
The rotation at the angle-plate interface can be calculated by substituting Equation (5.10)
into Equation (5.7):
2 (5.12)
1 1
2
By using a parameter γ, Equation (5.11) and Equation (5.12) can be rewritten as:
108
(5.13)
(5.14)
Where:
1
(5.15)
1
2
At this point, the derivation of the moment and the rotation at the ends of the
angle is complete. The next step is finding the effect of the rotation on the axial stiffness
of the angle.
5.2.2 Stiffness Reduction Due to Bending
The actual axial stiffness of the angle in a cross frame structure is measured at the
leg welded to the gusset plate. The reduction in stiffness is caused by the extra deflection
due to member bending from the eccentric connection. The concept of the deflection
components are depicted in Figure 5.5. The deflection due to axial load F can be
calculated as:
(5.16)
In getting the extra bending deflection, it is assumed at the end of the angle that
plane remains plane under bending and the rotation due to the bending is about the
neutral axis of the section. Then the deformation due to the bending at the bottom should
be proportional to the end rotation:

2 2 (5.17)
2
109
(a) Original Angle
(b) Axial Deflection Due to Tension
(c) Extra Deflection at Bottom Due to Bending
Figure 5.5: Deflection Due to Eccentric Loading
Finally, the derived δa and δb can be substituted into Equation (5.3) to get the reduced
stiffness:
1 1 (5.18)
1
1
And this equation can be simplified by using Equation (5.2):
110
(5.19)
Based on Equation (5.4), the stiffness reduction factor for the angle member is:
1
(5.20)
1
Or:
1
1 (5.21)
Where
ρ = Shape factor for angle member defined as (5.22)
To this point, the analytical equation for the axial stiffness of an eccentrically
loaded single angle is presented by Equation (5.19), and its stiffness reduction factor is
presented by Equation (5.21). The following example demonstrates the use of these
expressions to predict the stiffness of the angle member test specimen described in
Section 2.7
EXAMPLE 5.1
Given:
Angle L4x4x3/8 with 7"x0.75" gusset plate.
LL=36 in
Lp=6.5 in
Solution:
AL=2.86 in2, IL=4.32 in4, ȳ=1.13 in
Ip=0.246 in4
2.86 1.13
0.84 from Eq.(5.22)
4.32
111
29000 4.32
3480 / from Eq.(5.8)
36
29000 0.246
1098 / from Eq.(5.9)
6.5
1
0.86 from Eq.(5.15)
1098
1
2 3480
1
0.58 from Eq.(5.21)
1 0.84 0.86
The predicted axial stiffness of the specimen is:

29000 2.86
0.58 1336 / from Eq. (5.19)
36
The predicted value is 10% lower than the measured value 1500k/in. Additional
verification was done by using FEA model. Figure 5.6 shows an FEA analysis performed
by using ANSYS. Results of this analysis indicated that the axial stiffness of the angle
member is 1288 k/in, which is only 3% higher than the predicted result of the analytical
method.
112
Figure 5.6: FEA Analysis of Single Angle Specimen
5.2.3 Maximum Stress Due to Bending
Stress in the angle member will be increased because of the extra bending too.
Using previously developed relationship, the total stress in the member would be:
1
1
(5.23)
113
Clearly the increase in the stress would be in a relationship of inverse of the
stiffness reduction.
5.2.4 Typical Values of ρ, γ and Rmember
The shape factor ρ is only related to three section parameters: A, ȳ and I. If only
equal leg angles are considered, these three parameters may be interrelated. A statistic
parametric analysis was performed to find the relationship of these parameters for equal
leg angles.
The parametric study included angle members with leg sizes of 3", 4", 5" and 6"
and thicknesses of 1/4", 3/8", 1/2" and 5/8". A, ȳ and I of all 16 sections were calculated
and the relation of Aȳ2 and I is graphed in Figure 5.7.
25
20 y = 1.252x
15
I, , in4
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Aȳ 2, in4
Figure 5.7: Shape Factors for Equal Leg Angles
It is obvious from this plot that the relationship between these two terms is rather
linear. The generalized equation can be found:
114
1.25 (5.24)
According to the relationship, ρ for the equal leg member is 0.8. Equation (5.21)
can therefore be further simplified as:
1
1 0.8 (5.25)
The ρ value for unequal leg angles is not studied here. But the general trend of the
value ρ is not difficult to recognize. When a shorter outstanding leg is used, the
eccentricity ȳ is reduced, which leads to a lower value of ρ.
The value of γ reflects the comparison of stiffness between the angle member and
the gusset plates. A stiffer gusset plate will result in a lower γ and in turn increase the
axial stiffness of the member. On the other hand, if the plate is kept constant and the
bending stiffness of the angle is increased, the stiffness reduction factor decreases.
Example values of Rmember relative to kP are presented in Figure 5.8 for a length of
120 in. It can be observed from the examples that the lower limit of Rmember is 0.55. The
upper limit of the Rmember ranges from 0.8 and 0.9 when the gusset plate is relatively stiff.
By assuming constant gusset plate stiffness, the relation between Rmember and the
length of the angle L can be also established. As shown in Figure 5.9, increasing the
length results in a slight increase in the Rmember value; however the increase is relatively
small.
115
L=120"
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Rmember
0.5
L3x3x0.2
0.4
L6x6x0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
kp,kip‐in/rad
Figure 5.8: Rmember vs. kP
kP=1500 kip‐in/rad
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Rmember
0.4 L3x3x0.2
0.3 L6x6x0.5
0.2
0.1
0
0 50 100 150
L, in
Figure 5.9: Rmember vs. L
116
5.3 STIFFNESS REDUCTION FOR CROSS FRAMES
Any cross frame composed of eccentrically connected single angle members will
be subjected to the stiffness reduction. After the stiffness reduction factor for a single
angle has been derived, it can be further used to develop the stiffness reduction factor for
the entire cross frame.
5.3.1 Bending Stiffness of Gusset plate
One challenge of calculating the stiffness reduction factor of a cross frame is
determining the bending stiffness of the gusset plate (kP). The complicated geometries
and unclear boundary condition of the plates make an accurate estimation very difficult.
But a simplified method will provide a useful approximation. As introduced in the
background information presented in Chapter 2, the Whitmore effective width method is
usually adopted in evaluating the strength of the gusset plate. This method could also be
used to provide an approximate prediction of the bending stiffness of the gusset plate.
A sketch of a gusset plate is presented in Figure 5.10. The width of the gusset
plate can be approximated as the effective width (Whitmore width), which is
approximately three times the size of the angle leg. The thickness can be taken as the
thickness of the stiffener, which is typically 0.5 inch in Texas. This value conservatively
ignores the overlap of the stiffener and gusset plate. According to FHWA-IF-09-
014(2009), the length of the plate can be taken as the average length between the fixed
end and end of the member, which leads to the following expression:
3 (5.26)
117
Figure 5.10: Whitmore Width
Based on the TxDOT Standard drawings (Texas Department of Transportation,
2006), if the minimal 8-in wide stiffener is used for all cases, L1 is approximately 8.5
inches and L2 is approximately 9.5 inches. For most cases, the lower end of the Whitmore
width enters into the bottom strut, so L3 is set to zero, according to FHWA-IF-09-014.
Then, LP can be evaluated as follows:
8.5 9.5 0
6 from Eq.(5.26)
3 3
Based on these assumptions, the plate stiffness for the cross frame is as follows:
3 29000 3 0.5
151
12 6 12
Where:
b – Width of the gusset plate
118
Finally based on the assumed geometry, the bending stiffness of the gusset plate
can be approximated and the stiffness reduction for a cross frame can be determined.
Examples are given to test the accuracy of these assumptions in the following sections.
5.3.2 Single Angle X-frame
The stiffness reduction factor for a Single Angle X-frame (Rana-SX) can be easily
derived by using the compression and tension diagonal model along with Equation (5.25).
Since the top and bottom struts are zero force members in this model and only the
compression and tension diagonals contribute to the stiffness of the cross frame, the
stiffness reduction factor for the cross frame should be the same as for the individual
diagonals.
(5.27)
The Single Angle X-frame test specimen is used to demonstrate the effectiveness
of using the derived analytical method.
EXAMPLE 5.2
Given:
Angle L4x4x3/8, I=4.32 in4, ȳ=1.13 in, E=29000 ksi, Ac=2.91 in2
Cross Frame: Single Angle X-frame:114.5" (S) x 53.76" (hb)
Lc= 126.48 in, Sc/Lc=0.91
Solution:
Calculate the stiffness reduction factor for the diagonal:
29000 4.32
990.5 / from Eq.(5.8)
126.48
151 151 4 604 / from Eq.(5.9)
119
1 1
0.77 from Eq.(5.15)
604
1 1
2 2 990.5
1 1
0.62 from Eq.(5.21)
1 0.8 1 0.8 0.766
The value of γ represents the comparison of bending stiffness between the angle
and gusset plates and it can be used to estimate the bending deflection of the angle
member. According to Equation 5.8, the resultant moment from eccentric loading is:
1
0.77 ȳ 0.85 ȳ from Eq. (5.13)
0.91
The out-of-plane deflection at the mid-span of the diagonals:
0.85 1.13 126.48
0.0153
8 8 29000 4.32
In Figure 5.11, the analytical solution of the mid-span deflection is compared with
the FEA model and measured values from the laboratory tests. The analytical solution
slightly conservative, but has reasonable agreement with the test results and FEA result.
Therefore, the analytical method provides a relatively simple solution for predicting the
behavior of the reduction in stiffness due to angle bending from the eccentric
connections.
120
Figure 5..11: Out-of-p
plane Deflecction for X-fframe
Finally, the
t stiffness reduction value
v for thhe diagonal can be direectly used tto
calcu
ulate the torssional bracee stiffness of the cross frame. Reccalling that for the crosss
framee with the geometry shown in Figure

F 3.133, the analyytical solution from thhe
comp
pression-tenssion model listed in Taable 4.1 givees a stiffnesss of 1,579,,000 in-k/radd.
When
n this stiffneess is correctted to accoun
nt for the ec centric connnections of thhe angles, thhe
follow
wing stiffnesss results:
0.62 1,579,000
979,00
00 /
This estim
mated value is 12% high
her than the ttest result off 872,000 kipp-in/rad. Thhe
overeestimation may
m be causeed by the geeometric diff
fference betw
ween the truuss model annd
the actual cross frame.

f As prresented in Figure 3.13 , the angle ((α) betweenn the diagonaal
and horizontal
h strrut is 22.9º and
a based on
n the truss m
model, the anggle is:
121
53.74
atan atan 25.1°
114.5
Apparently there is discrepancy between the truss model and the actual cross
frame and the actual diagonal is less inclined than it is assumed. This discrepancy is
originated from the congestion at a gusset plate where a diagonal and a strut are
connected. The test specimen was designed according to the TxDOT standard drawings
(Texas Department of Transportation, 2006), where a simplified method was adopted to
determine the design parameter of the gusset plate. As shown in Figure 5.12, typical
values of “T” and “B” were tabulated in the standard drawing and it causes the line of the
diagonal does not pass the working pointing defined by the “S” and “hb”. And usually a
lower angle between these two members would cause a more significant conflict.
Figure 5.12:Typical TxDOT Cross Frame (Texas Department of Transportation, 2006)
In order to more accurately predict the stiffness of the cross frame, the analytical
calculation needs to be revised to account for the possible geometric discrepancy of the
cross frame actually built. According to the revised truss model shown in the Figure 5.13,
the effective height of the cross frame is hb’. Since the top and bottom strut is not
122
contributing in the stiffness of the cross frame, Equation (2.11) can be revised by
replacing hb with the effective height hb’:
(5.28)
If Equation (5.28) is used in example of the stiffness of the Single Angle X-frame
specimen, the analytical stiffness is:
From Eq. (5.28)
2.91 29000 114.5 22.9 22.9
1,348,000 /
0.62 1,348,000
836,000 /
The resulted stiffness of the cross frame is 836,000 kip-in/rad which is 4%
conservative than the tested value 872,000 kip-in/rad. It can be concluded that the
analytical method derived in the section gives a reasonable and accurate prediction.
123
Figure 5.13: Revised Geometry of the Compression-Tension Model
5.3.3 Single Angle K-frame
The stiffness reduction for a Single Angle K-frame (Rana-SK) can be also derived
from the K-frame model (Equation (2.12)) and Equation (5.25). The corrected brace
stiffness can be calculated as follows:

2 ES 2 hb2
 b  SK corrected  (5.29)
8 L3c S3

Rc Ac Rh Ah
Where:
Rc = Stiffness reduction factor of the diagonal
Rh = Stiffness reduction factor of half of the bottom struts between the gusset
plates. The bottom strut should be regarded as two truss members because the forces in
the two branches are in the opposite direction.
124
The stiffness reduction factor of the K-frame can be evaluated by the following
expression:
(5.30)
Since the length of the angle members have small impact on the stiffness
reduction factor and the diagonal of the K-frame is usually only slightly shorter than the
spacing, the stiffness reduction factor for half of the bottom strut can be conservatively
used for the whole cross frame:
(5.31)
The Single Angle K-frame test specimen is used to demonstrate the effectiveness
EXAMPLE 5.3
Given:
Angle L4x4x3/8, I=4.32 in4, ȳ=1.13 inch
Cross Frame: Single Angle K-frame:114.5" (S) x 53.76" (hb)
Lc= 78.5in, Sc/2Lc=0.729
Solution:
Calculate the stiffness reduction factor for the diagonal:
29000 4.32
1596 / from Eq.(5.8)
78.5
151 151 4 604 / from Eq.(5.9)

1 1
0.84 from Eq.(5.15)
604
1 1
2 2 1596
1 1
0.60 from Eq.(5.21)
1 0.8 1 0.8 0.84
125
Then calculate the stiffness reduction factor for the branch of the bottom strut:
29000 4.32
2188 / from Eq.(5.8)
57.25
151 151 4 604 / from Eq.(5.9)

1
0.88 from Eq.(5.15)
604
1
2 2188
1
0.59 from Eq.(5.21)
1 0.8 0.88
The same check can be performed on the accuracy of the γ value. According to
Equation 5.8, the resultant moment from eccentric loading is:

2 1
0.84 1.15 from Eq. (5.13)
0.729
The out-of-plane deflection at the mid-span of the compression diagonal:
1.15 1.13 78.5
0.007 0.008
8 8 29000 4.32
In Figure 5.14, the analytical solution of the mid-span deflection of the
compression diagonal is compared with predictions from the FEA model and the
measured values. The analytical solution and the FEA result showed very good
agreement, while the test results showed lower deflections prior to buckling of the
diagonal. Figure 5.14 can prove that the analytical method can provide reasonable
predictions of the behavior of the bending due to the eccentricity.
126
Figure 5..14: Out-of-p
plane Deflecction for K-fframe
From the numerical example, it iss seen that thhe stiffness rreduction forr the strut annd
diago
onal are pracctically the same.
s Accord
ding to the K
K-frame model results liisted in Tablle
4.2, the
t analyticaal stiffness of this crosss frame is 1,189,000 kkip-in/rad. T
Therefore, thhe
stiffn
ness reductio
on value forr the half bo
ottom strut ccan be direcctly used to calculate thhe
stiffn
ness of the crross frame:
0.59 1,189,000
0
701,5
500 /
ue has reaso
This valu onable agreeement with the tests stiiffness value of 760,0000
n/rad and iss 8% conseervative. It should be nnoted that tthe geometrric differencce
kip-in
obserrved in the Single
S Angle X-frame do
oes not occurr in the Singgle Angle K-frame case. It
is ap
pparently beecause the K-frame arrrangement usually resuults in a m
more inclineed
diago
onal, which has
h less confflict with thee strut. This observationn also suggessts that the K
K-
127
frame has more advantage than X-frame in design cross frame with a relatively wider
spacing.
5.3.4 Single Angle Z-frame
The stiffness reduction a Single Angle Z-frame (Rana-SZ) can also be derived from
the tension-only diagonal model Equation (2.10) and Equation (5.25). The corrected
brace stiffness can be calculated as:

ES 2 hb2
 b SZ corrected  (5.32)
2 L3c S3

Rc Ac Rh Ah
Then the stiffness reduction factor of the Z-frame can be evaluated by:
(5.33)
As shown in the K-frame example, the lengths of a member have only a small
impact on the Rmember and the struts of the Z-frame are usually only slightly shorter than
the diagonals, the reduction factor for the strut can therefore be conservatively used for
the whole cross frame:
(5.34)
The Single Angle Z-frame test specimen is used to demonstrate the effectiveness
EXAMPLE 5.4
Given:
Angle L4x4x3/8, I=4.32 in4, ȳ=1.13 in
Cross Frame: Single Angle Z-frame:114.5" (S) x 53.76" (hb)
Lc= 126.48 in
128
Solution:
Calculate the stiffness reduction factor for the strut:
29000 4.32
1,094 / from Eq.(5.8)
114.5
151 151 4 604 / from Eq.(5.9)

1 1
0.78 from Eq.(5.15)
604
1 1
2 2 1094
1 1
0.62 from Eq.(5.21)
1 0.8 1 0.8 0.78
According to the tension only model results listed in Table 4.3, the analytical
stiffness of this cross frame is 575,000 kip-in/rad. However similar to the Single Angle
X-frame, the theoretical brace stiffness for the Z-frame should be also corrected first to
account for the geometric difference between the truss model and the actual cross frame.
The revised truss model is shown in Figure 5.15. The deformed shape of the cross frame
is shown in dash line. The derivation of the revised torsional brace stiffness is then
presented. The designation used in the derivation is defined in Figure 2.5 and Figure 5.15.
129
Figure 5.15: Revised Geometry for Tension-only Diagonal Model
From equilibrium, the force in the diagonal is calculated as:

2
(5.35)
The axial deformation of the diagonal under the Fc is:
∆ ∆ ∆ (5.36)
Combine Eq. (5.35) and Eq.(5.36), then it can be obtained:

2
∆ ∆ (5.37)
Also the axial deformation of strut under the force F is:
∆ (5.38)
In addition, the following relationships can be obtained from the geometry:
∆ ∆ (5.39)
130
∆ (5.40)
Eq. (5.37) + Eq.(5.38) will give:

2
∆ ∆ ∆ (5.41)
Eq. (5.39) - Eq.(5.40) will give:
∆ ∆ ∆ (5.42)
Equate Eq. (5.41) to Eq. (5.42) and simplify and equation, then the rotation of the cross
frame can be calculated as:
2
(5.43)
Finally, the modified tension-only stiffness would be:
(5.44)
2
Simplifying (5.44) can get:
(5.45)
2
By using Equation (5.45), the revised stiffness of the Single Angle Z-frame can be
calculated as:
2 2

2 1
29000 114.5 22.9 22.9

2 1 114.5
22.9 22.9
2.91 2.91 53.74
131
498,500 kip in/rad
So the stiffness corrected for the reduction can be calculated by:
0.62 498,500 309,000 /

The calculated brace stiffness is 309,000 kip-in/rad, which is about 13%
conservative than the measured stiffness of the specimen. Again, the analytical method
can provide a reasonable and practical prediction.
5.3.5 Double Angle Z-frame
The Double Angle Z-frames that were tested in the laboratory consisted of double
angle for the diagonals and single angles for the struts. The double angle diagonal
consists of a concentrically loaded member and is not subjected to the stiffness reduction.
However the contribution to the stiffness by the single angle struts does need to be
reduced to reflect the eccentric connection. The cross frame stiffness can be calculated
as:
ES 2 hb2
 b  DZ corrected  (5.46)
2 L3c S3

Ac Rh Ah
Similarly if the geometry discrepancy presented in the Double Angle Z-frame,
Equation (5.45) can be used to derive the analytical solution:
(5.47)
2
Or:
2 1 (5.48)
132
The stiffness reduction factor of the Double Angle Z-frame can be evaluated by
the following expression:
(5.49)
Similarly, the stiffness of the tested Double Angle Z-frame can be calculated.
EXAMPLE 5.5
Given:
Angle L4x4x3/8, I=4.32 in4, ȳ=1.13 in
Cross Frame: Double Angle Z-frame:114.5" (S) x 53.76" (hb)
Lc= 126.48 in
Solution:
Same as the previous evaluation of Single Angle Z-frame, the stiffness reduction
factor of the struts Rh is 0.62. The stiffness values are given by the following expressions:
2 1 from Eq. (5.47)
29000 114.5 22.9 22.9

2 1 114.5
22.9 22.9
5.82 2.91 53.74
791,000 /
2 1 from Eq. (5.48)
29000 114.5 22.9 22.9

2 1 114.5
22.9 22.9
5.82 0.62 2.91 53.74
631,000 /
133
If it is needed, the stiffness reduction factor for the cross frame can be calculated
with:
631,000
0.80 from Eq. (5.49)
791,000
According to the laboratory test, the actual stiffness of this cross frame is 597,000
kip-in/rad. The analytical solution slightly overestimates the stiffness by 5.6%.
5.3.6 Summary of the R-Value in Cross Frames
A summary of the results obtained from the analytical solutions is presented in
Table 5.1 along with their measured values. The error resulted by using this method
ranges from -12% to 5.6%, where the negative value represents a conservative prediction.
Overall, the derived analytical method can provide a relatively accurate estimate of the
cross frame’s stiffness in account of the stiffness reduction due to the eccentricity of the
single angle member.
Table 5.1 Brace Stiffness by Analytical Solution
βb’ Rβb’ βb
Error,
Cross Frame R (analytical) (analytical) (measured)
%
kip-in/rad kip-in/rad kip-in/rad
Single Angle X-frame 0.62 1,348,000 836,000 872,000 -4%
Single Angle K-frame 0.59 1,189,000 701,500 760,000 -8%
Single Angle Z-frame 0.62 498,500 309,000 358,000 -13%
Double Angle Z-frame 0.80 791,000 631,000 597,000 5.6%
For those cross frames composed of single angle member only, the stiffness
reduction factors are all near 0.6. And for the cross frame with concentric double angle
134
diagonal, the stiffness reduction is in a much higher value: 0.8. Therefore, this
comparison also suggests that using concentric members can effectively help improve the
stiffness of cross frames.
5.4 PARAMETRIC STUDIES FOR R-VALUE BY USING ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS
The analytical solution derived in Section 5.3 has demonstrated the potential
capability in estimating the torsional brace stiffness of cross frames comprised of single
angles. In this section, Equations (5.27) and (5.30) are used to perform parametric studies
on the Single Angle X-frame and the Single Angle K-frame. The study illustrates how the
stiffness reduction factor changes with different combinations of variables including:
girder spacing(S), brace height (hb), angle leg size (b) and angle leg thickness (t). The
angle members are assumed to be equal leg angles. Values of the parameters used in this
study are shown in the Table 5.2
Table 5.2 Variables in the Parametric Study for Analytical R-Value
hb, in S, in Range of S/ hb b, in t, in
48 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 2–3 3, 4 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
60 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.6 – 2.4 3, 4 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
72 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.3 – 2 4, 5 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
84 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.4 – 1.7 4, 5 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
96 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1 – 1.5 5, 6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
The resulting stiffness reduction factors by the analytical solution are plotted
against the eccentricity of the section ȳ. Figure 5.16 and Figure 5.17 show the plots for
Single Angle X-frame and Single Angle K-frame respectively. As shown in these figures,
135
the analytical
a sollutions clustter in groups. Each grouup representts one anglee section. Foor
exam
mple, the grou
up at the upper left corn
ner representts the resultss from L3x33x1/4, and thhe
group
p at right bottom represeents L6x6x5/8. In generral, with thee increase off both b and t,
the sttiffness redu

uction factor (Rana-SX) deccreases.
In additio
on, for a parrticular mem
mber (b and t are consttant), the varriation of thhe
Rana-SSX is related to the bend

ding stiffness of the anggle or the leength of the angle. If thhe
anglee member is shorter, or th

he bending stiffness
s is hhigher, Rana-SX
SX is reduced
d.
Figure 5.16: Analyticaal Stiffness Reduction

R Faactor of Singgle Angle X-frame
136
Figure 5.17: Analyticaal Stiffness Reduction
R Faactor of Singgle Angle K-frame
5.5 CONCLUSIO
ONS OF THE ANALYTICA
AL SOLUTIO
ON
In this ch
hapter, the analytical
a solution for thhe stiffness reduction faactor of crosss
framee composed of single an
ngles was deerived. Equattion (5.25) ccan be used to predict thhe
axial stiffness reduction fo

or an eccen
ntrically loadded single angle mem
mber. If it is
comb
bined with trraditional tru
uss analogy methods,
m thi s equation ccan also be uused to predicct
the sttiffness redu

uction for a cross
c frame with
w single aangles as welll. Analyses based on this
equattion are donee to investig
gate the behaavior of the stiffness redduction for ddifferent crosss
framees. Several conclusions

c can be draw
wn from the ffindings of thhis chapter:
1. The axiall stiffness reduction facttor (Rmember) of an eccenntrically connnected singlle
angle is significantly
y related to the bendinng stiffness of the anglle kL and thhe
bending stiffness
s of th
he gusset pllate kP. In geeneral, stiffeer angles resuult in a loweer
reduction factor (i.e. a more sig

gnificant redduction in thhe stiffness). In additionn,
137
increasing the stiffness of the gusset plate results in a higher reduction factor (i.e.
a less significant reduction in the stiffness). The bending stiffness of the gusset
plate can be estimated using Whitmore’s method to approximate the geometry.
2. The torsional brace stiffness reduction factor of a cross frame can be derived from
the member axial stiffness reduction factor. In general, the results obtained from
this analytical method provide a reasonable estimate of the stiffness of the cross
frame. In addition, the method can also accurately predict the bending behavior of
the angles due to the eccentric loading.
3. The geometric discrepancy between the truss model and actual cross frame built
also play an important role in finding stiffness of the cross frames. The angle
between the diagonal and strut is usually reduced in design to avoid conflict at the
gusset plate and the reduction of the angle will cause lower cross frame stiffness.
It can be seen from the examples that the reduction in the stiffness is much more
significant for X-frame and Z-frame than K-frame, because the K-frame
arrangement naturally avoid congestion at the gusset plate. This effect was studied
in this chapter and the evaluations are also included in validating the analytical
solutions.
4. Parametric studies by using the analytical solution showed that the stiffness
reduction of the cross frame is significantly affected by the angle member size (b,
t). Increasing the size of the angle members results in a lower magnitude for the
reduction factor. In addition, the reduction factor is also related to the global
geometry of the cross frame primarily in terms of the diagonal length. Longer
diagonals tend to increase the magnitude of Rframe. Based upon the range of
138
parameters considered in this study, typical values of Rframe range from 0.55 and
0.75.
The derived analytical solutions in this chapter have been validated with the
laboratory results. However, the validity of the analytical method to be used in wider
range of geometries is yet unproved. In addition, the analytical method does not include
the geometry of the stiffeners and gusset plates, and the differences in the detail may
cause stiffness of a cross frame differ from its theoretical values. Hence, in the following
chapter, more detailed FEA shell element models will be used in parametric studies to
find the stiffness of cross frames for various geometries and results will be compared
with the solutions obtained from herein derived analytical method.
139
Chapter 6: FEA Parametric Studies for Stiffness of Single
Angle X-frame
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Discussions in the previous chapters have revealed that the analytical models can
lead to significant errors in the stiffness of cross frames comprised of single angle
members. Many of the models that are used significantly overestimate the stiffness of the
cross frames. To account for the unconservative errors, a stiffness reduction factor was
introduced to modify the results calculated from the traditional methods. A derivation of
the stiffness reduction factors was provided in Chapter 5 by including the bending
deflection in the calculation of the axial stiffness. The results from the stiffness reduction
method showed relatively good agreement with the test results.
Due to the significant time and cost required to perform the laboratory
experiments, it is not feasible to perform laboratory tests on the wide range of potential
cross frame geometries. Instead, the results from the laboratory tests that were conducted
were used to verify the finite element models and as well as the analytical solutions.
The FEA shell element models introduced in Chapter 4 were shown to accurately
predict the stiffness of different types of cross frames and simulating the behavior of the
cross frame under specified load pattern. The verified FEA models can then be used to
carry out parametric studies on a wide range of cross frame geometries that can
potentially be encountered in practice. Hence, these models can be used to predict the
stiffness of the cross frames with various geometries.
In this chapter, parametric studies on Single Angle X-frame are introduced and
the parametric studies on Single Angle K-frame are presented in the next chapter. A
140
parametric study was first performed to get elastic stiffness values of the Single Angle X-
frames with a wide range of geometries. A statistic analysis on the variation of the
resulting stiffness reduction factors was performed to identify the major parameters that
should be considered. In addition, the stiffness values estimated from different methods
were compared with the parametric results so that advantages and disadvantages of the
different methods could be considered.
Following the linear parametric study, a nonlinear parametric study was also
performed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential stiffness loss of
cross frames due to the second order effects of the compression members. Finally a
parametric study on unequal leg angles is discussed. The effect of using unequal leg
angle in cross frames is studied.
6.2 PARAMETRIC STUDY WITH LINEAR ANALYSIS
According to the derivation in Chapter 5, the stiffness loss due to the eccentricity
is not a function of the load magnitude, so linear (or elastic) analysis can effectively
predict this effect. The parameters considered in this study included brace height (hb),
angle leg size (b) and angle leg thickness (t). The angle members in the results presented
in this section were assumed to be equal leg angles. Values of the parameters used in this
study are shown in the Table 6.1. The values of the parameters were chosen to cover the
wide range of bridge geometries and cross frame configurations that might be
encountered in practice. The aspect ratio of the cross frame is defined as the ratio of S/hb,
which is in a range of 1 to 3 for the majority of cross frames. The total number of cases
that were analyzed was 160. The results from the parametric studies are discussed in the
following sections.
141
Table 6.1 Variables in the FEA Parametric Study for X-frame
48 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 2–3 3, 4 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
60 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.6 – 2.4 3, 4 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
72 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.3 – 2 4, 5 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
84 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.1 – 1.7 4, 5 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
96 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1 – 1.5 5, 6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
6.2.1 Parametric Study with Out-of-Plane Bending Constrained
Before the actual parametric analysis was carried out, an analysis with bending in
the angles constrained was performed. This analysis does not reflect the actual
deformation of the structure, but it can be used to illustrate the difference between cases
with eccentricity and cases without. This analysis was carried out in an attempt to
identify the source of the reduction in cross frame stiffness compared to the analytical
solutions derived for the truss model representation. The actual reduction in the members
stiffness may come from sources such as bending in the members or in the shear lag
effect since only one leg of the angle is connected. Since the computer models that were
used in this section did have the shear lag effect included, the results presented will
demonstrate the impact of the shear lag on the cross frame stiffness. The out-of-plane
bending restraint was modeled by restraining the out-of-plane displacement for all angle
members. A comparison of the results calculated from the compression and tension
diagonal model and results from the bending constrained FEA model is show in Figure
6.1.
142
Fig
gure 6.1: βcommp-ten vs. βFEAA-SX-no-bending
It can be seen from the compariison that moost data clusster around the line witth
slopee of 1, whiich indicates that the compressionn and tensiion diagonaal model caan
effecttively predicct the stiffn

ness of the cross
c framess that are siimulated byy the bendinng
consttrained FEA model. Thee results also

o demonstraate that the im
mpact of thee shear lag iin
the siingle angle members

m on the cross fraame stiffnesss is relativelyy minimal.
6.2.2 Parametrric Study with Out-of-P

Plane Bendiing Allowed
d
The results presented

d in this sectiion are moree indicative of the actuaal cross fram
me
behav
vior since th
he angle meembers weree free to dissplace in the out of plaane directionn,
similar to the acttual boundarry conditionss from the laaboratory teests. After thhe parametriic
study
y on the acttual model was perform
med, the sttiffness resuulted from tthe analyticaal
equattion using th
he compresssion and ten
nsion diagonnal model (ββcomp-ten) agaainst the FEA
A
resultts are plotted

d in Figure 6.2.
6 The βcommp-ten value asssumes conccentric membbers and doees
143
not reeflect the im
mpact of outt of plane beending. Thhe comparisoon confirmss the previouus
obserrvation that the

t compresssion and ten
nsion diagonnal model siignificantly ooverestimatees
the cross frame stiffness.

s By
y comparing
g Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2, it can be concludeed
that the
t major factor
fa affectiing the stifffness reducttion is the oout-of-plane bending. A
As
show
wn in Figure 6.3, the overrestimation caused
c by neeglecting thee out of plann bending caan
be as high as 95%
%. The error in this figurre is defined as:
,% 100
0% (6.1)
The focuss in this secttion is not the magnitudde of the errrors and what parameterrs
lead to the largest errors, bu

ut instead in
n the source of the errorrs. The ressults from thhe
param
metric studiees are used later
l to deveelop an exprression for tthe R-factor that can takke
into account the impact of the wide raange of the parameterss on the acccuracy of thhe
solutiion.
Figure 6.2:: βcomp-ten vs. βFEA-SX
144
Figure 6.3: Errors of β comp-ten
6.2.3 Stiffness Estimate Using

U Analyttical Stiffnesss Reductioon Factor
If the anaalytical stiffn

fness reductiion factor deerived from Equation (55.27) and thhe
corrected truss model

m in Equ
uation (5.28)) is used, thee modified sstiffness cann be evaluateed
as:
′ (6.2)
The resultting stiffness values from

m the methood are plotted against thee FEA resultts
in Fig
gure 6.4. Errrors caused by this metthod are in a range of -220% to 20%
% as shown iin
Figurre 6.5(negatiive values reepresent consservative esttimates).
145
Figure 6.4:: βana-SX’ vs. βFEA-SX
Figure 6.5
5: Errors of β ana-SX’
146
Based upon a review of the errors of this analytical method, it was apparent that
the primary source of the errors in this method was related to the thickness of the angle
(t). A plot of the errors against t is shown in Figure 6.5. The figure indicates that for
angles with a thickness of 3/8", the error is in the range of -5% to 8%. For angles with a
thickness of 1/4", the range was between -13% and 0% and for an angle with thickness of
5/8", the error range was between 10% and 25%. The variation is likely a result of using
a standard connection thickness (0.5"). The analytical method assumes a simplified truss
model but the actual cross frame stiffness should include the connection stiffness. For
thicker angle members, the connections with 0.5" plate introduce a large flexibility in the
cross frame and results in a lower stiffness. Likewise, the connection can result in a
higher stiffness for cross frames with thinner angles.
30%
25%
t=5/8"
20%
15%
Error, %
t=1/2"
10%
t=3/8"
5%
0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
‐5%
t=1/4"
‐10%
‐15%
t, in
Figure 6.6: Errors of βana-SX’ vs.. Thickness of Angle (t)
147
This error might be solved by including
i thhe stiffness of the connnection in thhe
calcu
ulation; how
wever such an approacch will leaad to increaased compllexity in thhe
calcu
ulations. An easier apprroach may be
b to simplyy find an addditional redduction factoor
accou
unt for the unconservattive nature of the errorr. Figure 6.77 shows thee comparisoon
betweeen results from

f the FE
EA study an
nd the estim
mated resultss with an exxtra reductioon
factorr 0.85.
Figure
F 6.7: 0.85β
0 ana-SX’ v
vs. βFEA-SX
The resullts discussed

d up to this point
p have ffocused on a methodology to includde
the stiffness
s red
duction due to the ecceentricity in the main m
members of cross framee.
Howeever, such a method can be difficu

ult due to the nature of the complexx details of a
cross frame. For practical reaasons, it is therefore woorthwhile to find a univeersal factor oof
safety
y to make up
u the stiffn
ness reductio
on. Accordiing the discuussion in C
Chapter 5, thhe
lowerr boundary of analyticaal stiffness reduction

r faactor was 0.55, so a sim
mple uniform
m
148
stiffn
ness reductio
on factor of 0.5 providess a simple aand conservaative solutioon. Figure 6..8
preseents a compaarison betweeen the FEA

A results andd the estimattes by usingg the stiffnesss
reducction factor of 0.5. It shows thatt the modiffication resuults in consservative annd
relatiively reasonaable estimattes of the acttual stiffnes s. The errorrs in Figure 6.9 showed a
rangee between -3
35% and 0 (n
negative valu
ues representt conservativve estimatess).
Figure
F 6.8: 0.5β
0 comp-ten vss. βFEA-SX
149
Figure 6.9: Errors
E of 0.55βcomp-ten
The simp
plified approach providees a practicall and quick method for reducing thhe
stiffn
ness of the crross frames as
a a result off member ecccentricity. Such a methhod also lendds
itselff well to dirrect applicattions to anallysis resultss. During thhe analysis, the stiffnesss
reducction factor can be incorrporated in the

t model bby simply reducing the aarea of singlle
anglees by half.
6.2.4 Stiffness Comparison Using Ten

nsion-Only Diagonal M
Model
on-only diag
The tensio gonal assump
ption for esttimating the stiffness of Single Anglle
X-fraames was traaditionally co

onsidered co
onservative bbecause it iggnores the coontribution oof
the compression diagonal. On

O the other hand, the teension-only diagonal moodel does noot
consiider the stifffness reductiion due to th

he eccentricaally loaded single anglee member. S
So
the degree
d of con
nservatism of
o the tension-only diagoonal assumpption is unknnown withouut
150
comp
parisons of test
t and com
mputational data.
d In thiss section, thee FEA param
metric resultts
are co
ompared witth results fro
om the tensio
on-only diaggonal model..
The comp
parison of reesults is plottted in Figuree 6.10. It cann be seen thee tension onlly
modeel always provides

p con
nservative estimates
e (bbelow the 11:1 line) relative to thhe
comp
putational results. The errrors of this model are iin a range off -50% to -10% (negativve
valuees represent conservativ

ve estimates). The tensiion-only diaagonal modeel provides a
simplle method of evaluating

g the stiffnesss of the crooss frame syystem that is conservativve
relatiive to the FE
EA stiffness results.
r
0: βtension vs. βFEA-SX

Figure 6.10
151
Figure 6.11: Errors off βtension
6.2.5 Stiffness Reduction from

f Regreession Methood
A regression analysis can be used to deevelop a reppresentativee function iin
estim
mating stiffneess reductio
on factors th
hat considerss the wide rrange of paarameters thaat
were considered. The valuess of stiffness reduction fa
factors from FEA parameetric model is
defin
ned as:
(6.3)
Wherre:
βFEA-SX =S m FEA mode l

Stiffness calcculated from
βcomp-ten = Stiffness by
y using com
mpression annd tension diiagonal moddel in Sectioon
2.5
152
The firstt step in th
he development of a reduction factor consisted of aan
invesstigation of the
t major geometric facttors. A plot between RFE
FEA-SX and ȳ w
was created tto
study
y how the an
ngle size affeects the stiffn
ness reductioon factor. Thhe plot is shoown in Figurre
6.12 and the dataa points reprresent the reesults from tthe FEA parrametric studdy. It appearrs
that the
t trend is similar to th
he analyticall solution shhown previoously in Figuure 5.16. Thhe
RFEA-SX is correlaated to ȳ, b and t. It sho

ould be noteed that the pparameters bb, t and ȳ arre
interd
dependent an
nd any one can
c be deterrmined from
m the other tw
wo. The dataa points werre
separrated by gro
oups of b an
nd t. As the sections beecome largeer, the stiffnness reductioon
factorr becomes smaller.
s Within
W one grroup, the vaariation of thhe data is ccaused by thhe
overaall geometry
y of the cross frame. The range of thhe stiffness reduction iss between 0..4
and 0.8.
0
Figure 6.12:
6 RFEA-SX vs. ȳ
153
The relatiionship betw
ween the RFEEA-SX and the aspect ratio (S/hb) of thhe cross fram
me
was investigated
i and is show
wn in Figuree 6.13. It cann be observved that the ffactor RFEA-SSX
decreeases with th
he increase of
o S/hb ratio. This relationnship can bee potentially explained bby
recallling the disccussion on angle discreepancy in S

Section 5.3.22. In that diiscuss, it waas
show
wn that the congestion
c at
a the gusset plate couldd cause the aactual anglee between thhe
diago
onal and stru
uts lower than that pressumed by a truss modell. This anglee discrepanccy
could
d cause the actual
a stiffneess values to
o be lower thhan the preddicted valuess. In additionn,
when
n the aspect ratio (S/hb) is greater, th
he congestioon at the gussset plate coould get morre
seriou
us, in turn caan cause a ev
ven larger errror.
Figure 6.1
13: RFEA-SX vss. S/hb
uction can be
This dedu b proved by using Equuation (5.288) to correctt the stiffnesss
from analytical model. Th

he following
g equation can derive the correccted stiffnesss
reducction factor:
154
′ (6.4)
′
Wherre:
βFEA-SX =S
Stiffness calcculated from
m FEA mode l
βb-SX ’ = Stiffness
S corrrected for an
ngle discrepaancy, definedd in Equationn (5.28)
The plot of
o the correccted stiffnesss reduction factors are ppresented inn Figure 6.144.
This figure shows that after the

t geometrical differencce is fixed, tthe aspect raatio has a verry
limiteed impact on
n the cross frrames stiffneess.
Figure 6.14: RFEA-SX’ vvs. S/hb
. The inv
vestigations on the paraameters dem
monstrated thhat b, t andd S/hb are thhe
primaary factors that have im

mpact the values
v of thee stiffness rreduction faactor, RFEA-SX
SX.
Thereefore, a morre accurate estimation

e of
o the stiffneess reductionn factor can be generateed
from a regression
n analysis baased on these parameterss. The linearr regression analysis usees
155
the "least squares" method to fit a line through a set of data. The single dependent
variable is referred to as RFEA-SX, with three independent variables: b, t and S/hb. This
regression analysis resulted in a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.95, and a standard
error σ of 0.0178, which indicates good agreement. The resulting coefficients can be used
to form the equation in estimating the dependent variable. This equation is shown in
Equation (6.5) .
1.063 0.087 0.040 0.461 (6.5)
Using Equations (6.5), the estimated stiffness can be evaluated as:
1.063 0.087 0.040 0.461 (6.6)
Additionally, since the parameters b, t and ȳ are interdependent, ȳ instead of b can
be included in the regression analysis:
1.063 0.087 0.159 0.403 (6.7)
Figure 6.15 shows the comparison between the resulting stiffness from Equation
(6.6) and the results from the FEA parametrical study. The values graphed on the
horizontal axis are the FEA results while the values graphed on the vertical axis are the
predicted stiffness using Equation 6.6. A reference line with 1:1 slope is also provided in
the figure. It can be observed that the estimated values are in very good agreement with
the FEA results. The errors between the estimated results are shown in Figure 6.16. The
figure shows that errors are in a range of -10% to 6% (negative values represent
conservative estimates).
156
Figure 6.15: βreg-SX vs. β FEA-SX
8%
6%
4%
2%
Error, %
0%
‐2%
‐4%
‐6%
‐8%
‐10%
0 500 1000 150
00 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
βFEA‐SX
Figure 6.16: Errors off βreg-SX
157
6.3 PARAMETRIC STUDY WITH NONLINEAR BUCKLING ANALYSIS
The discussion up to this point has focused on the elastic stiffness of cross frames.
However, as the load increases, the compression diagonal of a cross frame will go into a
plastic range of stress with large deformation. As a result, the stiffness of the cross frame
will decrease. In this section, the finite element parametric study is used to generalize a
rule of how the stiffness is affected by the load.
The first step of the generalization is to identify the turning point of the elastic
range. The nonlinear buckling analysis outlined in Chapter 4 can be used to generate the
buckling curve of the cross frames. One example is shown in Figure 6.17. Visual
observation on this curve discovered the starting point of nonlinear range to be around F
equals to 60 kips. At this point, the tangential stiffness of the cross frame is 2,143 kip-
in/rad, which is 10% reduction from the initial stiffness. Even though the tangential
stiffness at this point is subject to 10% reduction, the overall stiffness from F=0 to F=60
kips is 2,334 kip-in/rad, which is only 1.9% lower than the initial stiffness. Therefore,
this range can be still considered as an elastic range. It also can be read from the curve
that when force is greater than 60 kips, the stiffness of the cross frame drops
dramatically. Since 60 kips is 65% of the ultimate strength 82 kips, it can be concluded
that for this cross frame example, when the force is lower than 65% of ultimate strength,
the cross frame is still in elastic range.
158
Cross Frame: S (108") x hb (84"), L5x5x1/2
100
90
80
Ultimate Capacity
70 Fultimate=82 kips
60
F, kips
50
F=60 kips
40 β=2143 kip‐in/rad
30
20
βi=2382 kip‐in/rad
10
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Rotation, rad
Figure 6.17: Example of Load-Deflection Curve
Based a similar method, a parametric study can be performed for cross frames
with various geometries. The considered geometric parameters are listed in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2. Variables in the FEA Parametric Study for X-frame Nonlinear Behavior
hb, in S, in Range of S/ hb Angle Size
48 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 2–3 L3x3x1/4, L4x4x3/8
60 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.6 – 2.4 L3x3x1/4, L4x4x3/8
72 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.3 – 2 L4x4x3/8, L5x5x1/2
84 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1.4 – 1.7 L4x4x3/8, L5x5x1/2
96 96, 108, 120, 132, 144 1 – 1.5 L5x5x1/2, L6x6x5/8
159
Similar to the illustrated example problem, 10% of reduction in the tangential
stiffness is selected as the starting point of the nonlinearity. A P-value defined by using
Equation (6.8) is used to normalize the force:
(6.8)
Where:
F10 = the applied force F of the load step when the tangential stiffness is reduced
by 10%
Fult = the applied force F when cross frame reaches its ultimate strength
The P-values were obtained from all cases of the parametric study. A histogram
analysis on the values of P is presented in Figure 6.18. The analysis showed that the
value of P is ranges from 0.60 to 0.85. Results of this study suggested that as long as the
load on the cross frame is limited within 60% of its ultimate strength, the reduction in
stiffness caused by softening of the compression diagonal can be ignored and the initial
stiffness of the cross frame (elastic stiffness) provides a reasonable estimate of the cross
frame stiffness. Such an approach would allow the use of the compression/tension
model for the cross frame instead of the tension-only diagonal system.
160
14
12
10
Counts of Cases
0
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.625
0.675
0.725
0.775
0.825
P‐Value
Figure 6.18: Histogram of P
6.4 PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR CROSS FRAME WITH UNEQUAL LEGS ANGLES
Surveys on current design practices and standard drawings of state transportation
departments suggested that the cross frame systems predominantly utilize equal legs
angles. However, compared with equal leg angles, unequal legs angles have the merit of
smaller eccentricities if the shorter leg is the outstanding leg. The smaller eccentricity
will result in higher cross frame stiffness according to results of the analytical derivation
as well as the regression study. In this section, the stiffness of cross frames comprised of
unequal leg angles is investigated.
A parametric study was performed by changing the angle leg lengths and
thickness. The cross frame size was fixed at a girder spading of 12 ft. (S=144in) and a
cross frame depth of 8 ft(hb=96 in.). The cross section parameters of angle member are
161
shown in Table 6.3. The angle orientation was varied by keeping the leg with the b1
length in the plane of the connection plates and varying the length of the outstanding leg,
b2. The angle leg lengths ranged from 3 to 6 inches in 1 inch increments. Four different
thickness values were considered for the angles.
Table 6.3 Parameters of Unequal Legs Angle Members for X-frame
b1, in b2, in t, in
3 3, 4, 5,6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
4 3, 4, 5,6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
5 3, 4, 5,6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
6 3, 4, 5,6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
Note:
1. b1 is the length of the angle leg in the plane of connection plates.
2. b2 is the length of the outstanding angle leg.
3. t is the thickness of the angle legs.
The results from the parametric study are summarized in Figure 6.19. The
calculated stiffness reduction factors are plotted against the eccentricity for all cross
frame sections that were considered. It can be observed that the stiffness reduction factor
is affected by ȳ and the thickness of the angles t. The trend is similar to that shown in
previously for equal leg angles in Figure 6.12.
162
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
t=1/2"
RFEA‐SX
0.6
t=3/8"
0.55 t=1/2"
t=5/8"
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
ȳ, in
Figure 6.19: RFEA-SX vs. ȳ for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles
Recall in the parametric study performed on equal leg angle cross frames,
Equations (6.5) and (6.7) were generated to predict the stiffness reduction factor.
Equation (6.5) shows the stiffness reduction is dependent on variables of t, b and S/ hb,
while Equation (6.7) shows the stiffness reduction is dependent on variables ȳ, t, and S/
hb. Since Figure 6.19 shows that for unequal leg angle cross frame, ȳ and t are also major
variables, it is reasonable to expect that Equation (6.7) could be also used for unequal leg
angle cross frames. To examine this supposition, the stiffness resulted from Equation
(6.7) is plotted against the FEA results in Figure 6.20. The error of using this method is
presented in Figure 6.21.These figures show that, although there is more scatter in the
data compared to the equal leg angle case, in general Equation (6.7) can provide a
reasonable estimate of the stiffness of cross frames comprised of unequal leg angles.
163
4000 1
3500 1
3000
2500
βreg-SX
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
βFEA-SX
Figure 6.20: βreg-SX vs. βFEA-SX for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles
15%
10%
5%
0%
‐5%
‐10%
Error
‐15%
‐20%
‐25%
‐30%
‐35%
‐40%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
βFEA-SX
Figure 6.21: Rest-SX-adj vs. RFEA-SX for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles
164
6.5 SUMMARY OF PARAMETRIC STUDIES FOR SINGLE ANGLE X-FRAME
In this chapter, parametric studies were performed with the validated FEA Single
Angle X-frame model. The study results were used to compare with several methods in
estimating cross frame stiffness. A conclusion of the analysis and comparisons are
summarized below:
1. The compression and tension diagonal model results in unconservative
estimates of the cross frame stiffness since it does not include the
reduction in stiffness caused by connection eccentricity. The error can be
corrected by applying a stiffness reduction factor, R.
2. The cross frame stiffness expression based upon the tension-only diagonal
system constitutes a viable hand-calculation method in evaluating the
stiffness of the Single Angle X-frame. By ignoring the compression
diagonal, this method provides conservative estimates of the stiffness of
the cross frame. The conservatism ranged from 10% to 50%.
3. An alternative method to the use of the tension-only diagonal system is to
utilize the stiffness expression that considers both diagonals and to apply a
stiffness reduction factor that reflects the impact of the eccentric
connections on the resulting cross frame stiffness. Two methods were
used to obtain the stiffness reduction factor. One method was to derive the
stiffness reduction factor based upon the analytical method presented in
Chapter 5. This method resulted in an approximation that tended to be
unconservative with increasing angle thickness. Because this method
requires a relatively detailed calculation, a simplified method was also
investigated which consisted of a simple reduction factor of 0.5. The
165
reduction factor of 0.5 applied to the analytical compression and tension
diagonal model for the cross frame stiffness was conservative compared to
all of the FEA results, but still had reasonable agreement with the
computer solutions. The value of 0.5 of the stiffness reduction factor is
consistent with the lower boundary 0.55.
4. A more accurate estimate of the stiffness reduction factor was also
developed based upon a regression analysis of the data from the
parametric study results. The resulting expression considers the impact of
cross frame angle and geometrical parameters and had good correlation
with the FEA results. The stiffness reduction factor is applied to the
stiffness of the tension/compression diagonal system stiffness.
5. A cross frame stiffness expression that relies on a compression member
will also experience a reduction in stiffness as the compression diagonal
approaches the buckling capacity. A nonlinear geometrical analysis was
carried out considering a wide variety of parameters. The results showed
that the reduction in cross frame stiffness was minimal provided the forces
in the compression members are kept below 60% of the buckling strength
of the corresponding member of the cross frame. For this reason, it is
concluded that if design load is less than 60% of the strength of the cross
frame, no deduction on cross frame stiffness is necessary.
6. A brief parametric study was also provided for cross frames with unequal
leg angles. The results of analysis showed that regressional Equation (6.7)
derived from equal leg angles also provides reasonable estimates of the
stiffness of cross frames with unequal leg angles.
166
Chapter 7: FEA Parametric Studies for Stiffness of Single
Angle K-frame
7.1 INTRODUCTION
A discussion of the results from a parametric FEA study that was conducted on
Single Angle K-frames is provided in this chapter. Similar to the studies outlined for
Single Angle X-frame in Chapter 6, the studies in this chapter start focusing on the results
from a parametric study using a linear-elastic analysis. The impact of nonlinear geometry
associated with the potential buckling of compression members in the cross frame is then
considered. Finally, the stiffness of K-frames with unequal leg angles is also
investigated.
7.2 PARAMETRIC STUDY WITH LINEAR ANALYSIS
The basic geometry of the K-frame systems that were modeled in the studies
followed typical details employed by TxDOT. The geometries and the force paths in K-
frames differ substantially from the single angle X-frames outlined in Chapter 6. For the
same girder spacing and cross frame depth, K-frames have much shorter diagonal lengths
compared to the X-frame systems. The shorter compression member length makes the K-
frame more suitable for applications with longer cross frames. Such an application with
longer cross frames is for end frames of skewed bridge. Because the end cross frame is
typically parallel to the skew angle, the resulting cross frame length can become
relatively large. Therefore, in this parametric study, higher values of aspect ratio are
167
employed (from 1.3 to 3.75). Table 7.1 summarizes the range of parameters considered in
the study.
Table 7.1 Variables in the FEA Parametric Study for K-frame
48 96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, 180 2 – 3.75 3, 4 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
60 96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, 180 1.6 – 3 3, 4 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
72 96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, 180 1.3 – 2.5 4, 5 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
84 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168,180 1.3– 2.1 4, 5 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
96 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, 180 1.3 – 1.5 5, 6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
7.2.1 Parametric Study with Out-of-Plane Bending Constrained
Similar to the analysis on Single Angle X-frames, an analysis with out-of-plane
bending constrained is also performed to study the stiffness without considering the
bending in single angle members. A plot between results calculated from the K-frame
analytical solution and the results from the bending constrained FEA model is shown in
Figure 7.1. The analytical stiffness solution is graphed on the vertical axis while the FEA
stiffness solution with out-of-plane translation prevented is graphed on the horizontal
axis. The red line that is graphed corresponds to a 1:1 slope which would indicate perfect
correlation between the two solutions. Results that graph below the red line indicate that
the analytical solution is conservative relative to the FEA solution.
168
Figure
F 7.1: βK vs. βFEA-SKK-no-bending
The comp
parison show nalytical stifffness solutioon for the K-frame modeel
ws that the an
is con
nservative compared
c to the FEA model
m with oout-of-plane translationss constrainedd.
The conservatism
c m of the trusss analogy of K-frame m
might be cauused by the ssimplificatioon
of a pin
p connection at the middle of the bottom
b strutt. The actual cross framee is made off a
contin
nuous bottom strut and the connecttion plate foor the diagonnals at the m
middle of thhe
bottom strut may
y also provid
de some stiffe
fening. The m
moment restr
traint and stiffening effecct
of thee connection
n plate may provide som
me increase in the stiffnness of the K
K-frame FEA
A
modeel compared to the analy

ytical solutio
on that was developed bbased upon a truss modeel
representation off the K-fram

me. Similar to
t the X-fram
me comparisson that wass presented iin
Section 6.2.1, th
he effects off shear lag from
f the ecccentric connnection appeear to have a
negligible effect on the stiffn

ness of the crross frame.
169
7.2.2 Parametric Study with Out-of-Plane Bending Allowed
The previous section showed that the shear lag effects of the eccentric
connections had no measurable effect on the stiffness of the cross frame and the
analytical solution was actually conservative relative to the FEA solution. The second set
of analyses that were conducted consisted of parametric studies with out-of-plane
bending allowed. The stiffness estimates by from the analytical K-frame expression (βk)
is graphed versus the FEA results in Figure 7.2. Similar to the results observed for the X-
frame configuration, the K-frame truss model greatly overestimates the stiffness of the
cross frame. As shown in Figure 7.3, the error ranges from 24% to 97%. As discussed in
previous chapters, the source of the error is likely the impact of bending deformations
due to eccentric connections in the primary members of the cross frame. The following
two subsections focus on developing modifications that can be applied to the analytical
stiffness expression. The modifications consist of a reduction coefficient developed
based upon the bending deformations discussed in Chapter 5 as well as a reduction
coefficient that is based upon a regression analysis from the results of the parametric
study.
170
Figure 7.2:
7 βK vs. βFE
FEA-SK
Figure 7.3:
7 Errors oof βK
171
7.2.3 Estimate Stiffness by
y Using Ana
alytical Stiff
ffness Reducction Factorr
Methods of accountiing for the flexural deeformations in the mem

mbers due tto
mom
ments caused from the ecccentric conn
nections werre discussedd in Chapterr 5. Equatioon
(5.29
9) can be useed to derive the cross fraame stiffnesss with consiideration of the analyticaal
stiffn
ness reductio
on factor. Th
he resulting stiffness
s valuues for the w
wide range oof cross fram
me
param
meters from this method
d are plotted against thhe FEA resuults in Figurre 7.4. Errorrs
causeed by this method

m are in
n a range off -20% to 200% as shownn in Figure 7.5 (negativve
valuees represent conservative
c e estimates).
4: βana-SK vs. β FEA-SK

Figure 7.4
172
Figure 7.5
5: Errors of β ana-SK
Similar to
o the metho
od discussed
d for the Sinngle Angle X-frame in Chapter 6, a
univeersal stiffneess reduction

n factor off 0.5 can bbe also em
mployed to simplify thhe
calcu
ulation. Figurre 7.6 presen
nts a compaarison betwe en the FEA results and the estimatees
by using stiffnesss reduction

n factor of 0.5. The errrors in Figuure 7.7 shoowed a rangge
betweeen -38% an
nd 0 (negativ
ve values rep
present conseervative estim
mates).
173
Figure 7.6
6: 0.5βK vs. β FEA-SX
Figure 7.7
7: Errors of 0.5βK
174
7.2.4 Estimate Stiffness with Regression Method
A regression analysis was also carried out on the data from the parametric studies
on the K-frame system to develop a stiffness reduction factor that was representative of
the variables that come into play with the wide variety of cross frame geometries that
may be used in practice. Similar to the reduction factors outlined in Chapter 6, the
stiffness reduction factor based upon the FEA parametric model is defined as:
(7.1)
Where:
βFEA =Stiffness calculated from FEA model

βK= Theoretical stiffness by using K-frame model
The first step in the parametric investigation consisted of determining the major
geometric factors that might impact the behavior. A plot between RFEA-SK and ȳ was
created to study how the angle size could affect the stiffness reduction factor. The plot is
shown in Figure 7.8 and the data points represent the results from the FEA models. It can
be seen that the data points cluster in groups of b and t. Increases in the thickness of the
angles results in a reduction in the stiffness reduction factor gets lower. The stiffness is
also related to width of the members; however the impact is not as obvious as that of
thickness. Overall, the range of the stiffness reduction is between 0.5 and 0.8.
175
Figure 7.8:
7 RFEA-SK vvs. ȳ
The reducction coefficcient, RFEA-SKK, is also relaated to the ooverall geom

metry of crosss
framees. The relattion between
n the RFEA-SKK and the asppect ratio of tthe cross fraame is plotteed
in Fig
gure 7.9. It can
c be obserrved that thee factor RFEAA-SK decreases with the inncrease of thhe
cross frame’s asp
pect ratio, S//hb. Thereforre for a giveen girder spaacing, reduccing the deptth
of thee cross fram
me results in
n a larger red
duction in thhe stiffness. This trendd is similar tto
that observed
o in study of Sin
ngle Angle X-frame.
X Hoowever, the trend for thhe K-frame is
not as
a significan
nt was observed for thee X-frame ssystems. For a K-fram
me, the anglle
betweeen the diag
gonal and strruts are greaater than thatt of the X-frrame with a same overaall
geom
metry. So thee congestion
n at gusset plates is not as serious. T
This findingg also showeed
that K-frame
K mak
kes a more effective
e cro
oss frame whhen long crooss frames iss required, foor
exam
mple for end frames
f of sk
kewed bridgees.
176
Figure 7.9
9: RFEA-SK vss. S/hb
After the major param

meters identiified, the reggression anallysis describbed in Sectioon
6.2.5 could be peerformed on the parametrric results. B

By performinng the regresssion analysis
with the variablees b, t and S/hb, the Eq

quation (7.22) can be coomposed to estimate thhe
stiffn
ness reductio
on factor of the Single Angle
A K-fraame. The R--Square of thhe regressioon
analy
ysis was 0.90
0 and standarrd deviation was 0.0223 .
0.943
3 0.042 0.012 0.438 (7.2)
Based on Equation (7
7.2), the estim
mated stiffneess can be evvaluated as:
0.94
43 0.042 0.012 0.438 (7.3)
Figure 7.10 shows the comparrison betweeen the estiimated valuues from thhe
Equaation (7.3) an
nd the observ
vations from
m the FEA annalysis. The regression bbased R valuue
has good
g correlattion with the finite elem
ment results as indicatedd by the red line with thhe
1:1 sllope.
177
Figure 7.10
0: βreg-SK vs. βFEA-SK
Additionaally, if the regression

r analysis
a is ddone on ȳ, t and S/hb, the stiffnesss
reducction factor can

c be evalu
uated as:
0.943
3 0.042 0.048 0.420 (7.4)
7.3 PARAMETR
RIC STUDY WITH
W NONLINEAR BUCK
KLING ANAL YSIS
A parameetric study fo
ocusing on the
t nonlineaar buckling aanalysis for Single Anglle
K-fraame was also

o carried outt to investigaate the stiffnness reductioon based upoon the force iin
the compression
c members as
a a functio
on of the bbuckling ressistance. Thhe geometriic
param
meters consid
dered in thiss study are liisted in Tablle 7.2.
178
Table 7.2 Variables in the FEA Parametric Study for K-frame Nonlinear Behavior
hb, in S, in Range of S/ hb Angle Size
48 96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, 180 2 – 3.75 L3x3x1/4, L4x4x3/8
60 96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, 180 1.6 – 3 L3x3x1/4, L4x4x3/8
72 96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, 180 1.3 – 2.5 L4x4x3/8, L5x5x1/2
84 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 168,180 1.3– 2.1 L4x4x3/8, L5x5x1/2
96 120, 132, 144, 156, 168, 180 1.3 – 1.5 L5x5x1/2, L6x6x5/8
The P-value defined in Equation (6.8) represents the ratio of the load relative to
the ultimate load where stiffness of the cross frames drops below 10% of the initial
elastic stiffness. The parametric analysis showed that the value of P ranged from 0.59 to
0.81 for the K-frame system. A histogram of values of P is presented in Figure 7.11. The
results for the K-frame are similar to the conclusion (approximately) reached for the X-
frame system in Chapter 6 in that if the load on the cross frame is limited 60% of ultimate
strength, the reduction in stiffness due to softening of the compression members ignored
and initial stiffness of the cross frame (elastic stiffness) can be used.
179
9
6
Counts of Cases
0
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.55
0.575
0.625
0.65
0.675
0.725
0.75
0.775
0.825
0.85
P‐Value
Figure 7.11: Histogram of P-value
7.4 PARAMETRIC STUDY WITH UNEQUAL LEGS
The final parametric study that was undertaken for the K-frame system was to
investigate the use of unequal leg angles to reduce the effects of the eccentric connections
compared to equal leg angles. Section 6.4 summarized a similar study on X-frame
systems and showed that the equation obtained from the parametric study on the equal leg
angle cross frames can be applied to the unequal leg cases. The study for the K-frame
system was achieved by changing the lengths and thickness of the angle legs. The cross
frame size was fixed at a girder spacing of 12 feet (S=144in) and a cross frame depth of 8
feet (hb=96 in). The cross section parameters of the angle members are shown in Table
7.3. The angle orientation was varied by keeping the leg with the b1 length in the plane of
180
the connection plates and varying the length of the outstanding leg, b2. The angle leg
lengths ranged from 3 to 6 inches in 1 inch increments. Four different thickness values
were considered for the angles.
Table 7.3 Parameters of Unequal Legs Angle Members for K-frame
b1, in b2, in t, in
3 3, 4, 5,6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
4 3, 4, 5,6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
5 3, 4, 5,6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
6 3, 4, 5,6 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
Note:
4. b1 is the length of the angle leg in the plane of connection plates.
5. b2 is the length of the outstanding angle leg.
6. t is the thickness of the angle legs.
The stiffness reduction factors were calculated for the cross frames considered in
the parametric studies using Equation (7.1). The resulting stiffness reduction factors are
presented in Figure 7.12 with the corresponding R values on the vertical axis graphed
against ȳ on the horizontal axis. Similar to the observations from Single Angle X-frame,
the stiffness reduction factor for unequal leg angle K-frames is related to ȳ and t.
181
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
t=1/2"
RFEA‐SX
0.6
t=3/8"
0.55 t=1/2"
t=5/8"
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
ȳ, in
Figure 7.12: RFEA-SK vs. ȳ for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles
Figure 7.13 shows the plot between the predicted stiffness from Equation (7.4)
and that from the parametric study. It can be concluded that the regression equation for
the stiffness reduction coefficient, R, has reasonable agreement with the FEA solutions
and can therefore be used in evaluating the stiffness of the unequal leg angle cross
frames.
182
3000 1
1
2500
βreg‐SK, x1000 kip‐in/rad
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
βFEA‐SK, x1000 kip‐in/rad
Figure 7.13: βreg-SK vs. βFEA-SK for Cross Frame with Unequal Legs Angles
7.5 SUMMARY OF PARAMETRIC STUDIES FOR SINGLE ANGLE K-FRAMES
In this chapter, parametric studies were performed with the Single Angle K-frame
systems using the FEA model that had been validated with laboratory test results. Based
upon the parametric FEA studies on the K-frame systems, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The direct use of the analytical K-frame stiffness expression on cross
frames composed of single angle members produces unconservative
estimates of the cross frame stiffness compared to the stiffness from the
FEA studies. The resulting error for the wide range of cross frame
systems that were studied ranged from 24% to 97%. The error can be
corrected by applying a stiffness reduction factor, R, to the analytical
solution that was developed using a truss model.

183
2. Two methods were considered to develop and expression for the stiffness
reduction factor. The first method utilized the analytical model developed
in Chapter 5. This method provided reasonable estimates of the reduction
in stiffness of cross frames compared to the analytical truss model. This
method does require some significant calculations and therefore a
simplified method was also considered in which a universal stiffness
reduction factor of 0.5 was considered. The R=0.5 provided reasonably
estimates of the cross frame stiffness and was conservative compared to
the FEA solutions. A more accurate estimate of the stiffness reduction
factor was also developed based upon a regression analysis on the results
from the parametric FEA study. The resulting expression Equation (7.2)
considers the impact of cross frame angle and geometrical parameters and
had good correlation with the FEA results.
3. A cross frame stiffness expression that relies on a compression member
will also experience a reduction in stiffness as the compression diagonal
approaches the buckling capacity. A nonlinear geometrical analysis was
carried out considering a wide variety of parameters. The results showed
that the reduction in cross frame stiffness was minimal provided the forces
in the compression members are kept below 60% of the buckling strength
of the corresponding member of the cross frame. For this reason, it is
concluded that if design load is less than 60% of the strength of the cross
frame, no deduction on cross frame stiffness is necessary.
4. A brief parametric study is also provided for cross frames with unequal leg
angles. The results of the analysis showed that the regressional Equation
184
(7.4) derived from equal leg angles also provides reasonable estimates of
the stiffness of cross frames with unequal leg angles.
185
Chapter 8: Impact of Stiffness Reduction on Cross Frame
Design and Bridge Behavior
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapters have focused on the stiffness behavior of cross frame
systems for use in bracing steel bridges. The stiffness behavior was studied through both
experimental and parametrical FEA studies. Members with concentric connections were
studied and found to have good agreement with stiffness expression that were developed
utilizing a truss model. However, cross frames comprised of single angle members
experience a reduction in stiffness as a result of bending in the angles due to connection
eccentricities. Stiffness reduction coefficients were developed based upon the results of
parametric finite element studies to account for the bending behavior of the angles as a
result of eccentric connections. An example bridge is considered in this chapter to
illustrate the impact of the stiffness reduction on the design of the cross frames. The
example considers two different loading conditions of the bridge structure: during
construction and during service.
The critical loading stage for the cross frames design generally occurs during
construction when the girders require substantial bracing to support the weight of the wet
concrete and other construction loads. For the purposes of comparison, a variety of cross
frame system are considered for the design of the assumed bridge. The behavior of the
bridge is considered with the designed cross frames to evaluate the impact of the stiffness
reduction factor.
The example bridge is also analyzed considering in-service behavior to highlight
the behavior change due to the stiffness reduction of the single angle cross frame.
186
8.2 CROSS FRAME DESIGNS FOR STIFFNESS REQUIREMENT OF GIRDER STABILITY
The bridge considered in the example is depicted in Figure 8.1. The single-span,
simple-supported bridge utilized four plate girders with 10 feet. spacing. The supports of
the bridges are skewed with the normal direction of girder line at a 45º angle. The cross
frame spacing is assumed to be 25 feet. The layout of cross frames is also shown in the
figure. A prismatic doubly-symmetric girder cross section was used as shown in Figure
8.2. The bridge deck is assumed to have an 8" composite concrete slab.
Figure 8.1: Bridge Plan Drawing
Figure 8.2: Composite Girder Cross Section
187
The most critical stage for the girder stability often occurs during placement of
the concrete slab when the concrete deck has not set and provides no lateral or torsional
restraint to the girders. The girders must support the entire construction load during this
critical stage. Based on the geometry, the structural loads were calculated and are listed
in Table 8.1. The total factored load is computed based on a dead load factor of 1.5. A
live load factor of 1.6 was used for the construction loads according to AASHTO 2011.
The density of steel and concrete are assumed to be 490 lb/ft3 and 150 lb/ft3. For
preliminary evaluation, the weight of the concrete haunch or steel bracing system is
ignored in the total load. The maximum positive moment at mid-span is (Mr) 88,552 kip-
in.
Table 8.1 Load per Girder of Bridge during Construction
Load Type Load Value, kip/in
Steel Dead Load 0.036
Concrete Dead Load 0.083
Total Dead Load 0.119
Construction Live Load 0.025
Total Factored Load 0.218
After determination of the loads, the required torsional stiffness of the cross frame
can be calculated according to the theory introduced Chapter 2. As listed in Table 8.2, the
required stiffness for the cross frame was determined to be 1,316,782 kip-in/rad by using
associated equations.
188
Table 8.2 Stiffness Components of Bracing System
Stiffness Components Stiffness, kip-in/rad Computed from Equation
Total required stiffness, βT 144,032 (2.7)
Web distortional stiffness, βsec 249,867 (2.10)
Girder system stiffness βg 458,439 (2.11)
Required brace stiffness, βb 1,316,782 (2.9)
The required brace stiffness βb was used to size of the cross frame members. The
traditional X-frames using single angle members were designed and are compared with
the other types of frames. The comparison is shown in Table 8.3 and included K-frames
and Z-frames using square tubes, single angles and double angles. The table also lists the
equation used for the calculation. The required area for each cross frame type was first
determined to satisfy the required brace stiffness. A consideration of the stiffness
reduction factor that was developed in the study results in an increase in the required
area. The regressional Equation (6.5) and (7.2) were used to evaluate R-values. The
resulted R-value for Single Angle X-frame is 0.55 and 0.50 for Single Angle K-frame.
Finally the weight of each type of cross frame is presented in the last column of the table.
Before taking consideration of the necessary handling and welding process, the
design weight of a cross frame is an indication of the efficiency in providing the required
stiffness. The comparison of the design weights in Table 8.3 suggested that the Single-
Angle K-frame is the heaviest cross frame, the Single Angle X-frame and two proposed
Z-frames are the next, and the K-frame with concentric members is the lightest. The
following conclusions can be drawn from this comparison:
1. The X-frame is more efficient than the K-frame if the single angle
member sections are used.
189
2. The Z-frame is not efficient in providing stiffness relative to the X-
frame and K-frame. Even when concentric members are used in the Z-
frames, the resulting stiffness values are similar to the stiffness of the
X-frame with eccentric members that included a stiffness reduction
factor. The main reason of this is that the top and bottom struts in the Z-
frame are critical members in the load path, while the top and bottom
struts of X-frame are actually zero force members (as shown in
laboratory test results in Chapter 4). The struts in Z-frame tend to
deform and cause flexibility at the two corners of the Z-frame where no
brace is attached. As a result, the torsional stiffness of Z-frame tends to
lower than that of the X-frame if everything else is kept the same.
3. Obviously the double angle cross frames and square tubes are the most
efficient members in cross frame in providing stiffness. Since there is
difficulty in using a concentric member in the X-frame due to the
conflict at the mid-point, the K-frame makes a better choice. The
comparison shows that the square tube or double angle K-frame is the
most efficient cross frame for providing stiffness.
It should be noted that the most efficient cross frame design does not necessarily
means lowest cost and best performance. For example, the double angle K-frame is the
lightest cross frame; however this section requires substantial handling and fabrication
and as a result – the cost is likely to be relatively high compared to the single angle cross
frames. The cost of a cross frame needs to be evaluated considering the unit cost of the
material and labor cost needed for the fabrication. In addition, the fatigue behavior of the
connection also plays a major role in choosing the right cross frame design. Fatigue tests
190
are underway on full size cross frames and the resulting data will be presented in a future
dissertation. Feedback on the cost of the different cross frames are also being sought
from bridge fabricators.
191
Table 8.3 Design of Various Cross Frames
w/o Considering R Considering R

Required Actual Stiffness Designed
Cross Frame Type Equation Area Design Member R Equation Area Provided Cross Frame
2 2
(in ) (in ) (kip-in/rad) Weight (lbs)
Single Angle X-frame
(2.11) 1.65 L4x4x7/16 0.55 (6.5) 3.3 1,461,300 420
Single Angle K-frame
(2.12) 2.5 L4x4x3/4 0.50 (7.2) 5.44 1,418,745 549
Square Tube Z-frame
(2.10) 4.4 HSS4½x4½x5/16 1 -- 4.68 1,412,143 433
192
Table 8.3 Design of Various Cross Frames (cont.)
w/o Considering R Considering R

Required Actual Stiffness Designed
Cross Frame Type Equation Area Design Member R Equation Area Provided Cross Frame
(in2) (in2) (kip-in/rad) Weight (lbs)
Double Angle Z-frame
(2.10) 4.4 2L3x3x7/16 1 -- 4.87 1,468,625 451
Square Tube K-frame
(2.12) 2.5 HSS4x4x3/16 1 -- 2.71 1,346,340 205
Double Angle K-frame
(2.12) 2.5 2L2x2x3/8 1 -- 2.71 1,418,745 217
193
8.3 IMPACT OF STIFFNESS REDUCTION ON BRIDGE BEHAVIOR
One of the major findings on this research study has been the reduction in
stiffness of braces comprised of members such as angles that have eccentric connections.
This section presents the results of a study on the impact of the reduced stiffness on the
behavior of an example bridge. The focus of the study is the bridge behavior from the
perspective of bracing behavior of the cross frame system and the girder displacements.
The example problem described in Section 8.2 continues in this section except only the
Single Angle X-frame system is considered for following analysis.
As presented in Table 8.3, the required section area is 1.65 in2 without
considering the stiffness reduction factor. The design of cross frame with sections of 1.65
in2 could have been considered as a sufficient design before this research. However, since
findings in this research demonstrated that the stiffness reduction factor must be included
in calculating the stiffness of a cross frame, the presumably designed cross frames with
section of 1.65 in2 could lead to a lower and unexpected performance.
In the following analysis, two cases were modeled and analyzed to compare the
expected and the real performance of the design. Case 1 model represents the presumed
behavior of a bridge with cross frame designed without considering stiffens reduction.
The section area used in the model is 1.65 in2. Case 2 model represents the real behavior
of the design considering the stiffness reduction factor. Since the stiffness of a cross
frame is linearly related to the section area, section area in Case 2 uses 1.65 in2 multiplied
by R-value. Also because no real section was picked in this analysis, a generalized R-
value of 0.5 was assumed, and as a result, the section area in this model is 0.825 in2.
194
Three dim
mensional FEA
F models were devveloped for the exampple bridge iin
ANSY
YS. Many of the modeeling decisio
ons that werre made for the examplee bridge werre
based
d upon prev
vious studiess that have validated thhe models A
ANSYS (Quuadrato et all.,
2010) and (Wang

g, 2011).
8.3.1 Bridge Girders

G Buck
kling Capaccity during C
Constructioon
An eigenv
value buckliing analysis was conduccted to find the bucklingg capacity foor
the diifferent braccing systems. In the AN

NSYS model,, the girders were modelled with Sheell
93 ellements and the cross frame

fr members were moodeled withh Link 10 elements. Thhe
modeel is shown in
i Figure 8.3
3. Distributed line load oof 1 kip/in iss applied to the top of thhe
girders.
Figure
F 8.3: Girder
G Fram
me Model
195
Each eigeenvalue anaalysis on th
he models reesulted in aan eigenvaluue. Then thhe
bucklling capacity
y on the girrder system was calculaated by multtiplying 1 kiip/in with thhe
resultting eigenvaalue. The resulting

r bucckling capaccities for thee two casess are listed iin
omparison shows the Caase 2(A=0.8 25 in2) had a slightly loower bucklinng
Tablee 8.4. The co
capaccity than the Case 1 (A=1.65 in2), bu

ut the differeence is not siignificant.
Tablee 8.4 Eigenv

value Bucklin
ng Capacity
Case 1 C
Case 2
(Ac=1.65 in2) =0.825 in2)

(Ac=
Bu
uckling Capacity, kip/in
n 0.57 0.53
In additio
on, the ressulting buck
kling shape of each ccase was exxamined. A
As
illustrrated in Figu
ure 8.4, for the
t Case 1 model
m (a), thee buckling m
mode of the ggirders occurrs
betweeen the brace points whiile the Case 2 model bucckled in a haalf-sine curvee.
A=1.65 in2)
(a) Case 1 Model 1 (A
196
(b) Case 2 Model (A= =0.825 in2)
Fig
gure 8.4: Bu
uckled Shapees of Girderss with Variouus Cross Fraame Torsionaal Stiffness
The diffeerence in thee buckled sh

hape demonnstrates the ddifference inn the bracinng
effectt. As introd
duced in Chaapter 2, in ord
der to achievve a full brace for girderr stability, thhe
ideal stiffness is required forr the braces.. The ideal stiffness off a bracing system can bbe
obtain
ned by exam
mining the relationship
r between buuckling capaacity and stiiffness of thhe
bracee. From thiss curve depicted in Figu

ure 2.1, the iideal stiffnesss marks thee point wherre
the fu
ull bracing is
i first reach
hed. Similarrly, for this example briidge, multiplle runs of thhe
eigen
nvalue bucklling analysiss with chang
ging brace sttiffness weree performed and gave thhe
curvee in Figure 8.5.
197
Fig
gure 8.5: Bu
uckled Shapees of Girderss with Variouus Cross Fraame Torsionaal Stiffness
As indicaated in the cu
urve, the fulll brace is acchieved at sttiffness arouund 1,000,0000
kip-in
n/rad, which ds to a cross frame sectioon area of 1.2 in2. The C
h correspond Case 1 modeel
(A=1.65 in2) pro

ovides stiffness higher than
t the ideeal stiffness while the C
Case 2 modeel
0.825 in2) do
(A=0 oes not. Theerefore, the case 2 thatt represents the real behhavior of thhe
bridg
ge does not provide
p full bracing.
b
This diffeerence in thee behavior caan be explainned by exam

mining the ddesign processs
introd
duced in thee Section 2.4
4. The Equaation (2.4) iss derived byy using twicee of the ideaal
stiffn
ness, but stiff
ffness reduction due to th
he concentriic connectionn reduced thhe stiffness oof
the brace
b by half. Thereforre, if the stiiffness reduuction factorr was overlooked in thhe
desig
gn, there could have been
n only very little
l or no reeserve stiffness for a fulll bracing.
198
8.3.2 Bridge Girders Responses during Construction
Although the eigenvalue analyses provides and indicator of the critical loads and
the effect of the cross frame stiffness on the girder behavior, the analysis does not
account for the impact of imperfections on the girder deflections or brace forces. A large
displacement analysis on an imperfect girder system is necessary to consider the impact
of imperfections. To study the effect of the cross frame’s stiffness on the brace forces
and deformations, a geometric nonlinear analysis was performed
Results from the large displacement analysis for the example bridge are shown in
Figure 8.6 and Figure 8.7, which represents the maximum twists in all girders and
maximum brace forces in all brace members. As the figures show, the maximum girder
twists and maximum brace forces are much higher for the real case than the assumed one.
This analysis demonstrated that the failure to include the stiffness reduction factor
in the cross frame can lead to lower cross frame stiffness than desired and result in large
deformations and therefore large brace forces of the bridge during construction.
199
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
Load, kips/in
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05 Case 1 Case 2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum Twist, degree
Figure 8.6: Maximum Twist of All Girders
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Load, kips/in
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Case 1 Case 2
0.05
0
0 20 40 60 80
Max Forces in Brace Members, kips
Figure 8.7: Maximum Brace Forces
200
8.3.3 Analysis for Full Bridge in Service
The development of in-service fatigue cracks is a major design concern for steel
bridge systems. Because the truck traffic results in differential deflections between
adjacent girders, the cross frames developed live-load induced forces that can lead to
potential fatigue issues. The live load induced forces are a function of the differential
deflection between the adjacent girders and the stiffness of the cross frame. Although the
reduction in stiffness of the cross frame is undesirable from the perspective of girder
stability during construction, the lower stiffness actually helps the issues with fatigue
since the forces induced in the cross frame will be smaller. This analysis presents an
example to show this effect. A plan view of the example bridge subjected to truck load is
shown in Figure 8.8. The truck load was an HS20-44 live load located at the center of one
lane.
Figure 8.8: Bridge Plan View
The model that was used for the composite slab and steel girder system is
depicted in Figure 8.9. In this model, the concrete is slab was assumed to be an elastic
plate modeled with shell elements. The model can provide an accurate representation of
the bending stiffness of a fully composite girder. A picture of complete model with the
slab is shown in Figure 8.10.
201
Figurre 8.9: Comp
posite Girderr FEA Modeel
Figure 8.10: Full Briidge Model uunder Live L

Load
Static anaalyses were performed

p on the FEA m
models with the full sizee cross framees
and half
h size crross frames. The applieed loading consisted of only the HS 20 trucck
descrribed above.. The max

ximum live load induceed force in brace mem
mbers and thhe
maxim
mum girder deflection are
a summariized in Tablle 8.5. The ccomparison of the resultts
show
wed that the stiffness
s of cross frame has a signifficant effect on the forces induced iin
the cross frames. If the stifffness reduction factor iis not considered in an analysis, thhe
analy
ysis could significantly
s y overestimaate the forrce level inn the cross frames annd
202
underestimate the deflection under live load. For the cases considered in the example, the
using a stiffness reduction coefficient, R, of 0.5 resulted in a reduction in the maximum
cross frame force due to the truck loading of approximately 27%. While the brace force
increased, the deflection was nearly 14% higher with the reduced stiffness in the cross
frame.
Table 8.5 Comparison of Bridge Behavior
Case 1 Case 2
Error
(Ac=1.65 in2) (Ac=0.825 in2)
Max Force in Cross

7.45 5.44 -27%
Frames (kips)
Max Vertical Deflection

0.66 0.75 14%
(in)
8.4 SUMMARY
An example bridge was considered in this chapter to investigate the impact of the
stiffness reduction on the cross frame design and bridge behaviors. Cross frames with
single angle members, square tube or double angles are designed in combination of
different frame types (X-frame, K-frame and Z-frame). The comparison of the designs
gives insight into understanding of efficiency of the cross frames in stabilizing the
girders. In order to discover the impact of the stiffness reduction on the bridge behavior,
FEA analyses were presented from models of the bridge girders with designed Single
Angle X-frame with and without the cross frame stiffness reduction applied. The
following conclusions were drawn from the investigations in this chapter:

203
1. In Section 8.2, cross frames with different members and patterns were
designed to meet the stiffness requirement for bridge stability. The weights of
all designed cross frames were calculated and compared. It was found from
the comparison that among all cross frame types, the K-frame with concentric
members (such as tube or double angle) tended to be the most efficient cross
frame system in terms of weight of the cross frame. The reason for that is, on
one hand, the eccentric member can significantly reduce the stiffness and X-
frame is usually not compatible with concentric members; on the other hand,
Z-frame tends to lose stiffness at the top and bottom struts. Even though the
K-frame with concentric members is more efficient than traditional X-frames
in providing stiffness, it might require higher cost for fabrication and material
handling. This study alone can yet determine which frame is most
economical.
2. Stiffness of cross frames is the key in girder stability during concrete pouring.
Hence the overlook of the stiffness reduction factor in traditional X-frame
could cause insufficient design of cross frame. The example problem
compared bridge models with the cross frames without and without
considering the stiffness reduction factor. The comparisons between these
two models have revealed that ignoring the stiffness factor will lead to lower
buckling capacity of the bridge girder, insufficient bracing and excessive twist
of girders.
3. Without considering the stiffness reduction factor can also cause flawed
evaluation in behavior of bridge during service time. The example bridge
showed that if the stiffness reduction factor is considered in the model, the
204
force in the cross frame members was lowered by 27% and the vertical
deflection in the girders was increased by 14%. While the increased deflection
is usually not desirable, the lowered brace force is actually beneficial for the
structure because the in-service fatigue life of the cross frame member can be
longer as the live load induced force decreases.
205
Chapter 9: Conclusions and Recommendations
9.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Cross frames are important structural members for steel bridges that have a
number of functions including providing lateral stiffness, stabilizing girders, and helping
with live load distribution between the girders. Conventional cross frames generally
employ a few different geometries primarily comprised of angles. The focus of the
research outlined in this dissertation was to evaluate a variety of different cross frame
layouts with different types of members. The primary focus of the studies was in the
stiffness and strength of the cross frame systems.
The study included both laboratory testing and parametric finite element analysis.
The laboratory tests were performed on cross frames with a number of different
configurations with members comprised of single angle members, double angle members
and tubular members. The brace patterns consisted of X-frame, Z-frame and K-frame
patterns. The laboratory tests conducted on each specimen included stiffness tests and
ultimate strength tests. The computer models generally showed good agreement with the
experimental results and the results from the tests and parametric FEA studies served as a
valuable tool in studying the performance of the cross frames.
One of the major findings from the experiments and FEA models leads to a major
find of this research was that the eccentricity present in the connections of the single
angle members resulted in a significant loss of stiffness compared to truss models that are
used in the analytical derivation of the cross frame stiffness. Since this stiffness
reduction caused by the eccentricity has not been previously identified prior to this
research, the impact of the stiffness loss can result in significant unconservative errors in
206
both computer analyses and the resulting designs. To correct these errors, a stiffness
reduction factor (R) is proposed to account for the stiffness loss due to the eccentricity.
Different approaches were proposed in the research in the evaluation of the
stiffness reduction factor. The approaches included an analytical derivation and as well
as derivations based upon results from the FEA parametric studies. The analytical model
presented in Chapter 5, was based upon a model of eccentrically connected single angle
that was used to derive the stiffness reduction factor. The derivation leads to Equation
(5.24), which indicates that the stiffness reduction factor is primarily dependent on the
relative stiffness between the angle members and the end plates.
1
1 0.8 (5.24)
1
(5.15)
1
2
Where,
kP = Bending stiffness of the gusset plates
kL= Bending stiffness of the angle member
The stiffness reduction of a member can be further integrated into that of the
whole cross frames. The difficulty in this operation lies in the determination of the
stiffness of the gusset plates. The approach applied in the research applied a Whitmore
width to approximate the stiffness of the gusset plate. The stiffness resulting from the
analytical method was compared with experimental data and the comparison had
reasonable agreement.
The stiffness reduction factor of cross frames was also investigated using the
FEA models that were validated by comparison with the laboratory results. The
parametric studies using these models made it possible to explore the behavior of the
207
cross frames that was reflective of the wide range of geometries that may occur in
practice. A regression analysis was performed on the parametric results to generate
Equation (6.6) and (7.3) for the stiffness of X-frames and K-frames comprised of single
angle members. The results demonstrated that the stiffness reduction factor (R) is a
function of girder spacing (S), cross frame height (hb) and size of the individual members
(b and t). The modification is applied to the stiffness assuming both compression and
tension diagonal members are effective as shown in the following expressions:
1.063 0.087 0.040 0.461 (6.6)
0.943 0.042 0.012 0.438 (7.3)
Although the equations were developed based upon results from equal leg angles,
FEA solutions comparisons also showed that the expressions provide reasonable
estimates of the stiffness for cross frames comprised of unequal leg angles as well. The
study also showed that a smaller reduction in the stiffness for the cross frames is possible
when unequal leg angles are used instead of equal leg angles. In addition to developing
expressions for the stiffness reduction factor, simplified approaches for accounting for the
stiffness reduction were also evaluated. Results of the research showed that a stiffness
reduction factor of 0.5 provides a reasonable estimate of the cross frame stiffness and
generally gave a lower bound estimate of the reduction.
A parametric study was also performed to examine the rationality of the tension
only model in evaluating stiffness of Single Angle X-frame. The tension-only diagonal
model is often used by designers and it was assumed to be conservative because it
ignores the contribution of the compression diagonal. The results of this study showed
that this model is indeed conservative and this conservatism will generally offset the
208
impact of the connection eccentricity. This approach to the problem would therefore not
consider the impact of the stiffness reduction due to the eccentric connection and just
directly apply the analytical equation of the tension-compression model.
Comparing all of the methods that were used to evaluate the stiffness reduction
factor, the most accurate method is the regression-based equations that were derived
based upon the results from the parametric studies.
Ultimate strength tests of the cross frame specimens exhibited a reduction in the
stiffness as the load was near its ultimate strength. This behavior was more noticeable for
cross frames with single angles because these members have relatively low buckling
strengths. Parametric FEA studies were also performed to study the magnitude of the
reduction in stiffness as the individual members approached the buckling load. These
analyses considered the impact of nonlinear geometrical effects and material inelasticity.
The results of the analyses indicated that second order effects could be ignored provided
the compression member forces were limited to values less than 60% of the ultimate
strength.
Finally in Chapter 8, cross frames designs with different cross sections and
geometrical layouts compared. An example bridge was created to form the basis for the
design and all cross frames were sized so that the bridge girders were stable during
construction. Since the cost of the fabrication of different cross frames has not yet been
evaluated in this study, the total weight of the designed cross frame was used as an
indicator of the efficiency of the design. The study showed that the most efficient cross
frame design based upon the weight of the cross frame was a K-frame with concentric
members, such as double angles and square tubes. The single angle K-frame was the
least efficient cross frame. In general, the Z-frame layout is not efficient, because the top
209
and the bottom struts tend to deform much more than X-frame and K-frame in turn loses
significant torsional stiffness. These comparisons only considered total weight of the
cross frames and did not consider the impact of fabrication costs, which will have a
dramatic effect on the efficiency of the cross frame. The effect of fabrication costs will
be reflected in a later dissertation.
It is evident that neglecting to include the stiffness reduction in the cross frames
due to member eccentricities in the design is an unconservative practice from a stability
perspective that can affect the safety of the bridge. Results presented in Chapter 8
demonstrated that the impact of neglecting the stiffness on cross frames in the finished
bridge results in an overestimate of the forces that are induced in the finished bridge. The
analysis is therefore more likely to report a fatigue problem in the bridge as a result of
larger live load induced forces. Application of the stiffness reduction factor to the cross
frame stiffness will result in a much better estimate of the behavior of the bridge from a
fatigue perspective.
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
1. This study has focused on the stiffness and strength behavior of common cross
frame systems as well as newly proposed cross frames details. While a
number of conclusions were found that can be applied to practice, there are
still a number of areas that require additional work, including the following:
The research in this dissertation provided laboratory data focused on strength
of cross frames; however additional parametric studies are needed to
generalize the failure modes and ultimate strengths of the cross frames. The
strength demand of the cross frame needs to be checked against the

210
requirements for stability bracing and the predicted strength from existing
methods.
2. Additional work is also required on the fatigue performance of the cross
frames and the impact on the final design. Some of this work is ongoing as
part of this same TxDOT sponsored research. Research on fatigue behavior
should be conducted to get the fatigue life of individual connections as well as
the whole cross frames. Additional questions that arise with regard to the
fatigue behavior is the appropriate load and truck position to evaluate the
fatigue performance of the cross frames.
3. It was found in this research that using unequal leg angles is a potential
improvement for cross frame’s stiffness. The lower eccentricity will result in a
stiffer cross frame relative to equal leg angles. Laboratory tests on cross
frame with unequal leg angles need to be done to confirm the deduction as
well as the impact on the ultimate strength. Again, some of these studies are
ongoing in the current TxDOT study; however additional work will likely
need to be done beyond the ongoing work.
4. In bridges with skewed supports, the girders could be twisted due to the bridge
skewed geometry as well as stability forces. The effects of skew complicate
the behavior, particularly from the perspective of cross frame detailing
practices and girder cambering that is required. The impact of the cross frame
stiffness may have some impact on the resulting girder camber. The impact of
the cross frame stiffness for cases with eccentric connection effects should be
considered in cases with skewed supports to see if any of the behavior will be
affected.
211
Appendix: Coupon Test Results
212
Project: ImprovedCrossFrameDesign
Operator: WeihuaWang&AnthonyBattistini
Date: 8/20/2012
SpecimenNo.: GPͲ1 Thickness (T): 0.506 in

GaugeLength (G): 2.004 in Width (W): 0.943 in
PostRupture (G'): 2.822 in Length (L): 18 in
MachinedWidth (B): 0.501 in SectionArea: (A): 0.254 in2
80,000
70,000 TensileStress
60,000
YieldStress
StaticYieldStress
50,000
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Elongation
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 55 ksi
StaticYieldStress: 53 ksi
TensileStress 72 ksi
Elongation: 40 %
213
Date: 8/20/2012

80,000
60,000
YieldStress
StaticYieldStress
50,000
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Elongation
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 55 ksi
Elongation: 37 %
214
Date: 8/20/2012

80,000
60,000
YieldStress
StaticYieldStress
50,000
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 Elongation
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 57 ksi
Elongation: 36 %
215
Date: 8/21/2012
SpecimenNo.: HSSͲ1 Thickness (T): 0.181 in

70,000
YieldStress
50,000
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0.2% Elongation
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 52 ksi
StaticYieldStress: NA ksi
Elongation: 25 %
216
Date: 8/21/2012

70,000
60,000
TensileStress
50,000 YieldStress
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0.2%
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Elongation 0.30
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 51 ksi
Elongation: 27 %
217
Date: 8/21/2012

70,000
60,000
TensileStress
50,000 YieldStress
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0.2%
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Elongation 0.30
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 51 ksi
Elongation: 27 %
218
Operator: WeihuaWang
Date: 6/7/2012
SpecimenNo.: SAͲ1 Thickness (T): 0.380 in

70,000
60,000
50,000
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 46 ksi
Elongation: 37 %
219
Date: 6/7/2012

70,000
60,000
50,000
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 46 ksi
Elongation: 38.0 %
220
Date: 8/6/2012

80,000
70,000
TensileStress
60,000
50,000
Stress,psi
ess,psi
YieldStress
StaticYieldStress
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Elongation
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 46 ksi
Elongation: 35 %
221
Date: 8/7/2012

80,000
TensileStress
70,000
60,000
YieldStress
50,000 StaticYieldStress
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 Elongation
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 54 ksi
Elongation: 36 %
222
Date: 8/10/2012

80,000
TensileStress
70,000
60,000
YieldStress
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 Elongation
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 54 ksi
Elongation: 35 %
223
Date: 8/10/2012

80,000
TensileStress
70,000
60,000
YieldStress
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 Elongation
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 55 ksi
Elongation: 34 %
224
Date: 8/7/2012
SpecimenNo.: SAͲK1 Thickness (T): 0.380 in

90,000
80,000
TensileStress
70,000
60,000 YieldStress
Stress,psi
ess,psi
StaticYieldStress
50,000
40,000
40 000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Elongation
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 57 ksi
Elongation: 34 %
225
Date: 8/7/2012

90,000
80,000
TensileStress
70,000
60,000
YieldStress
Stress,psi
ess,psi
StaticYieldStress
50,000
40,000
40 000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain,in/in Elongation
TestData
YieldStress: 56 ksi
Elongation: 34 %
226
Date: 8/7/2012

90,000
80,000
TensileStress
70,000
60,000
YieldStress
Stress,psi
ess,psi
40,000
40 000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Elongation
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Strain,in/in
TestData
YieldStress: 57 ksi
Elongation: 35 %
227
Reference
AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collabration. (2011). G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder
Bridge Analysis.
AISC. (2010). AISC Steel Construction Manual. Chicago, Illinois.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2010). AASHTO

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
ANSYS Inc. (2010). Elements Reference. Release 11.0 Documentation for ANSYS.
ASCE. (1997). ASCE10-97-Design of Latticed Steel Transmission Structures.
Battistini, A. (2009, December). Skewed Cross Frame Connection Stiffness. Dissertation

presented to The University of Texas. Austin, TX.
Chang, C. S. (2005). Computer Simulation for Steel Bridge Construction. Proc., World
Steel Bridge Symposium.
Earls, C. (1999). Effects of material property stratification and residual stresses on single
angle flexural ductility. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 51, Page 147–
175.
FHWA. (2009). Load Rating Guidance and Examples For Bolted and Riveted Gusset
Plates In Truss Bridges.
Helwig, T. A. (1994, August). Lateral Bracing of Bridge Girders by Metal Deck Forms.
PhD. Dissertation Submitted to University of Texas. Austin, TX.
Helwig, T., & Fan, Z. (2000). Field and Computational Studies of Steel Trapezoidal Box
Girder Bridges, TxDOT Research Report 1395-3. The University of Houston.
Kitipornchai, S. a. (1986). Inelastic Buckling of Single Angle Tee and Double Angle
Struts. Journal of Construction Steel Research, 6, Page 3–20.
228
McDonald, G., & Frank, K. (2009). The Fatigue Performance of Angle Cross-Frame
Members in. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
Ojalvo, M., & Chambers, R. (1977). Effects of Warping Restraints on I-Beam Buckling.
ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 103(ST12), 2351-2360.
Ozgur, C. a. (2007). Behavior and Analysis of a Curved and Skewed I-Girder Bridge.
Proc., World Steel Bridge Symposium.
Quadrato et al., C. (2010). Cross-Frame Connection Details for Skewed Steel Bridges.
Austin, TX: Center for Transportation Research.
SSRC. (2010). Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures (Six ed.). (R. Ziemian, Ed.)
New York: Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, A., & Ojalvo, M. (1966, April). Torsional Restraint of Lateral Buckling. Journal
of the Structural Division, 115-129.
Texas Department of Transportation. (2006). Miscellaneous Details Steel Girders and

Beams, ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot info/cmd/cserve/standard
/bridge/spgdste1.pdf.
Timoshenko, S., & Gere, J. M. (1961). Theory of Elastic Stability. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Usami, T. (1971). Restrained Single Angle Columns under Biaxtal Bending. St. Louis,
Missouri: Ph.D. Thesis,Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, School
of Engineering and Applied Science. Washington University.
Wang, L. (2002, August). Cross-Frame and Diaphragm Behaviour for Steel Bridges with
Skewed Supports. Ph.D. Dissertation Submitted to the University of Houston.
Houston, TX.
229
Wang, W. B. (2011). Staggered Bracing Layout in Skewed Steel Bridges. Annual
Stability Conference of Structural Stability Research Council. Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Whitmore, R. (1952). Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Gusset Plates, Bulletin

No. 16, Engineering Experiment Station,. University of Tennessee.
Winter, G. (1958, March). Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams. Journal of the
Structural Division, 84, 1-22.
Yura, J. B. (1992). Bracing of Steel Beams in Bridges. Austin, TX: Texas Department of
Transportation.
230
Vita
Weihua Wang was born in Daye, Hubei Province of China in the year of 1978.
After graduation from Daye First High School, he moved to Hangzhou, Zhejiang to
attend Zhejiang University. In 1999, he received his Bachelor degree in Civil
Engineering. After graduation, he served as an engineer in Hangzhou Government
Auditing Center. In 2002, he moved to The University of Akron, Ohio, where he
completed his Masters degree in Civil Engineering two years later. In December 2002, he
married Xiaoqun Wei. From 2005 to 2009, he served as a project engineer in Wang
Engineering Inc., Lombard, Illinois. In September 2009, he entered the doctoral program
in the University of Texas at Austin. In August 2012, he started as a structural engineer
in SBM Offshore, Houston, Texas.
Permanent address (or email): weihwang78@gmail.com
This dissertation was typed by the author.
231

Wang Dissertation 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wang Dissertation 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright

A Study of Stiffness of Steel Bridge Cross Frames

Todd A. Helwig, Supervisor

Michael D. Engelhardt, Co-Supervisor

Weihua Wang, B.S; M.S.

The University of Texas at Austin

for the Degree of

The University of Texas at Austin

for your unlimited love and encouragement.

innovations and breakthroughs in structural engineering have taken place. My research is

acknowledgement is specially written for them.

First of all, I would like express my appreciation to all members of the

Mear’s instruction is also crucial to my research by giving insight understanding of

The staffs of the Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratories at The University

of Texas at Austin were absolutely critical in performing laboratory testing smoothly,

Finally, a special thank should be given to my co-researchers and other students

Weihua Wang, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2013

Supervisor: Todd A. Helwig

Co-supervisor: Michael D. Engelhardt

quantified, leading to potentially inaccurate prediction of bridge behavior and safety

during construction and in service.

conventional ones in terms of their stiffness and strength capacity.

by employing analytical derivation and finite element modeling. As a result, methods

were developed to account for the stiffness reduction.

Table 2.1 Equivalent Stiffness Example ........................................................................... 27

strength of the girder system.

design with regards to placement and geometrical detailing.

Although the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and

frame and diaphragm systems. Historically, the AASHTO Standard Specification

minimize the number of fatigue-prone attachment details on the bridge. Unfortunately,

spacing of cross frames.

chapter provides an introduction outlining a TxDOT (Texas Department of

Transportation) sponsored research investigation focused on the behavior of cross frames

member to be flipped to gain access to both sides.

Figure 1.1: Single Angle X-frame

fabrication. In addition to significant fabrication cost, poor structural performance has

the cross frame has on the girder system.

The conceerns with the use of sing

of the bending deformations

anglees. The reseearchers on this study were

are usually assumed to be an AASHTO category E (American Association of State

1.3 SINGLE-DIAGONAL CROSS FRAMES

“tension-only” diagonal systems. In computational models for such an idealized cross

is the same regardless of whether the diagonal is in tension in compression. Such a

diagonals: tubular members and double angle members.

example of a single diagonal tubular cross frame.

connection as well as a steel casting (Battistini, 2012).

Figure 1.4: Z-frame composed of tubes

Figure 1.5: Connection Details for Tubes

1.3.2 Double Angle Cross Frame

connected at intermediate locations behave as members with concentric connections that

built up members have considerably higher compressive strength compared to single

Figure 1.7: Z-frame with Double Angle in Diagonal

1.4 RESEARCH GOALS AND DISSERTATION OUTLINE

The research outlined in this dissertation is part of a larger study sponsored by

The dissertation is organized into eight chapters including this introductory

chapter. An overview of previous research along with pertinent theoretical background

of stability brace design is provided in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 covers the detailed

stiffness as a function of the bending effects introduced by the eccentric connections.

impact of the stiffness in cross frames on bridge behaviors. A summary of conclusions is

Steel plate-girders are commonly used in highway bridge construction. The

horizontally curved bridges, the geometry also results in significant torsion.

susceptible to lateral torsional buckling unless adequate bracing is provided. In the