GOALS/PRE-TEST

• WHAT DO TERMS LIKE “LINE,” “GRID,” AND “3D” MEAN WHEN DISCUSSING ANALYSIS PROCEDURES?
• WHEN SHOULD YOU USE A LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS?
• DO YOU NEED TO WORRY ABOUT CROSS-FRAME DESIGN AND/OR LATERAL STRESSES WHEN PERFORMING
A LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS?
• DOES A 2-D GRID ANALYSIS GIVE ACCURATE RESULTS FOR LATERAL FORCE EFFECTS?
• WHY ARE WE NOW REQUIRING BEARING STIFFENERS AT ABUTMENTS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES? WHAT
ABOUT PIERS?
INTRODUCTION
• AASHTO INITIALLY SET UP TO ALLOW HAND CALCULATIONS, SIMPLE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
• UNTIL LAST 20 YEARS, HIGHER-LEVEL ANALYSIS WAS COSTLY AND TIME-CONSUMING
• HIGHER-LEVEL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES BECOMING FASTER, MORE USER-FRIENDLY, AND MORE COMMON
• HOW ACCURATE ARE THEY, THOUGH?

• NCHRP 12-79 WAS PERFORMED TO REVIEW AND “SCORE” VARIOUS ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
• IDOT CONTRACTED URS TO PERFORM OUR OWN STUDY TO CONFIRM
• IDOT ANALYSIS PROCEDURES- WHEN HIGHER LEVEL ANALYSIS METHODS ARE REQUIRED
• REQUIREMENTS BASED ON SKEW AND CURVATURE
• LATERAL FLANGE STRESSES

• IDOT DETAILS
• CROSS-FRAME ORIENTATION
• BEARING STIFFENERS AT ABUTMENTS
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
• NCHRP PROJECT 12-79, REPORT 725
• GUIDELINES FOR ANALYSIS METHODS AND CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING OF CURVED AND SKEWED STEEL GIRDER
BRIDGES
• CONTRASTED VARIOUS ANALYSIS TYPES
• LINE GIRDER
• 2-D GRID ANALYSIS
• 3D FEM ANALYSIS
NCHRP 12-79
• 3D FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IS CONSIDERED THE MOST
ACCURATE
• ANALYSIS PROCEDURES WERE COMPARED TO 3D FINITE
ELEMENT ANALYSIS, AND A GRADE (A-F) WAS GIVEN
• LOTS OF FAILING GRADES, ESPECIALLY IN LATERAL
FLANGE STRESSES AND CROSS-FRAME FORCES,
MEANING CERTAIN ANALYSIS TYPES ARE NOT ACCURATE
FOR CAPTURING THESE FORCE EFFECTS
ANALYSIS TYPES

• BRIEF OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENT ANALYSIS TYPES AND RESULTS IN NCHRP 12-79

• 3-D FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
• 1-D LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS
• 2-D GRID OR PLATE-AND-ECCENTRIC-BEAM ANALYSIS
3D FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
• WHY IS THIS THE MOST ACCURATE?
• ALL ASPECTS OF DECK, STEEL, ETC. MODELED
AS ELEMENTS.
• NO REAL ASSUMPTIONS ON A DIMENSIONAL
SCALE

• GIVEN USER HAS GOOD EXPERIENCE, THIS

WILL BE THE MOST ACCURATE
• ALSO WILL BE MOST TIME-CONSUMING
1-D LINE GIRDER
• 1-D ANALYSIS (ONLY DIMENSION IS
ALONG BEAM)
• ONE GIRDER IS DESIGNED, AND THAT
BEAM IS COPIED TO ALL OTHER
GIRDERS.
• USES AASHTO LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION
FACTORS
LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS
PROS
• SIMPLE AND FAST
• ALLOWS FOR LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTOR
HAND CALCULATIONS
• GENERALLY MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN ALL
OTHER ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS
CONS
• SIMPLIFIES BRIDGE TO ONE BEAM, AND ONLY
GENERATES VERTICAL LOADS FOR THAT BEAM.
• LATERAL STRESSES AND CROSS-FRAME FORCES
CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM ANALYSIS, AND
REQUIRE ESTIMATED VALUES IN AASHTO
COMMENTARY.
• LIMITED TO AASHTO LIMITATIONS (240 FEET MAX
SPAN, 4 GIRDERS MIN.)
2-D GRID ANALYSIS (GRILLAGE)
• 2-D ANALYSIS (DIMENSIONS LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE)
• FRAMING SYSTEM, INCLUDING DIAPHRAGMS AND CROSS-FRAMES, ENTERED IN AS LINE ELEMENTS
• INSTEAD OF AASHTO DISTRIBUTION, SOFTWARE DETERMINES LOAD DISTRIBUTION
• EXAMPLES OF SOFTWARE:
• MDX
• LEAP STEEL
• MIDAS
• AASHTOWARE
2-D GRID ANALYSIS (PLATE-AND-ECCENTRIC
BEAM)

• BRIDGE MODELED AS DECK PLATES

• SOME PLATES HAVE ALTERED MOI TO HAVE LINE
ELEMENTS “ECCENTRICALLY ATTACHED” TO THEM
• ALL 2-D DESIGN PRODUCTS SHOULD ALSO DO THIS
GRID ANALYSIS PROS
• BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS NOW 2-D,
EFFECTS OF ADJACENT BEAMS CAN BE
DETERMINED
• LATERAL STRESSES MAY BE
DETERMINED
• CROSS-FRAME FORCES MAY BE
DETERMINED
GRID ANALYSIS PROS

• GENERALLY MORE ACCURATE THAN 1-D

LINE GIRDER
GRID ANALYSIS CONS

• DESIGNER RELIES ON SOFTWARE

FOR DISTRIBUTION
• ERRORS NOT ALWAYS APPARENT
• DIFFERENT SOFTWARE GIVES
DIFFERENT RESULTS
GRID ANALYSIS CONS
• IDOT USES AASHTOWARE TO RATE BRIDGES,
WITH 1-D LINE GIRDER IN MOST CASES
• IF GRID ANALYSIS USED BY DESIGNER,
SMALLER BEAMS MAY RESULT, RESULTING IN
BRIDGE NOT RATING.
• DESIGN AND LOAD RATING SHOULD BE
CONSISTENT
GRID ANALYSIS CONS
• LATERAL STRESSES AND
CROSS-FRAME FORCES ARE
VERY INACCURATE
• WHY SO INACCURATE?
WHY SO INACCURATE?
• SOFTWARE SIMPLIFIES CROSS-FRAME INTO LINE ELEMENT,
BUT IN REALITY IT IS NOT. LINE ELEMENT USED TO GENERATE
END REACTIONS AND MOMENTS.
• SOFTWARE THEN “UN-SIMPLIFIES” LINE ELEMENT TO COME UP
WITH FRAME REACTIONS
• SEVERAL DIFFERENT SIMPLIFICATIONS ARE COMMONLY USED,
MEANING DIFFERENT SOFTWARE WILL GIVE DIFFERENT FRAME
REACTIONS
• THEREFORE, LATERAL STRESSES AND CROSS-FRAME FORCES
WILL NOT BE CONSISTENT FROM ONE PIECE OF SOFTWARE TO
ANOTHER
WHY SO INACCURATE?

• MODEL DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR GLOBAL TORSIONAL

DEFLECTIONS VERY WELL
• THIS FURTHER EXACERBATES INACCURACY OF CROSS-
FRAME FORCES AND LATERAL STRESSES
• FORTUNATELY, TYPICALLY VERY CONSERVATIVE
(GOOD NEWS)
• NCHRP 12-79 GIVES METHODS OF CHECKING
CROSS-FRAMES AND TORSIONAL MOI
• SOFTWARE IS IMPROVING.
• GRID ANALYSIS SOFTWARE COMPANIES ARE AWARE
OF NCHRP 12-79, AND ARE ADJUSTING ACCORDINGLY
• ALLOWING USER TO INPUT GLOBAL TORSIONAL
MOMENT OF INERTIA
• MORE ON THAT LATER
• ALLOWING USER TO CHECK DIFFERENT CROSS-
FRAME MODELS
NCHRP 12-79 PROMPTED IDOT STUDY
WITH URS
• WHY LIMIT USE OF GRID ANALYSIS?
• GRID ANALYSIS IS LESS CONSERVATIVE THAN LINE GIRDER, MAKING STRUCTURES NOT
RATE IN AASHTOWARE
• LATERAL STRESSES AND CROSS-FRAME FORCES GOT AN “F.” EVEN IF THEY ARE FAILING ON
THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE, THAT STILL IS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM
• IDOT NEEDED TO NAIL DOWN WHEN EXACTLY A GRID ANALYSIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED
• URS CONTACTED TO PERFORM STUDY
URS STUDY
• ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
• WHEN IS A LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS NOT ACCURATE OR
CONSERVATIVE?
• PARAMETRIC STUDY WHERE LINE GIRDER CHECKED AGAINST
3D ANALYSIS
• SKEWS
• BEAM SPACINGS
• ASPECT RATIOS

• LATERAL STRESSES
• WHEN CAN SIMPLIFIED FORCES IN AASHTO BE USED?
• DIAPHRAGM FORCES AND DETAILS
CHECK #1: ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES
• PARAMETRIC STUDY COMPARING RESULTS OF LINE
GIRDER ANALYSIS TO 3D ANALYSIS
• SPAN LENGTH, BEAM DEPTH
• BEAM SPACINGS FROM 5 FT. – 8 FT.
• SKEWS FROM 20 DEGREES TO 60 DEGREES
• SOME WIDER BRIDGES CHECKED TO SEE IF ASPECT
RATIO MAKES A DIFFERENCE

• IF A LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS IS CONSERVATIVE OR

ACCURATE, IT IS OK TO USE
LINE GIRDER VS. 3D ANALYSIS
• FORCE EFFECTS ARE TYPICALLY CONSERVATIVE FOR A LINE GIRDER VS. 3D ANALYSIS
• FORCE EFFECTS BECOME NON-CONSERVATIVE AT SKEWS OF AROUND 60 DEGREES,
MAKING A 2-D GRID ANALYSIS MORE DESIRABLE
 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES IN ABD 19.4
• USE A LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS FOR
STRAIGHT BRIDGES WITH SKEWS
UP TO AND INCLUDING 60 DEGREES
• RATINGS UNIT USES LINE GIRDER
ANALYSIS WHENEVER POSSIBLE
• USING A GRID ANALYSIS WHEN IT’S
NOT NECESSARY MAY CAUSE THE
BRIDGE TO NOT RATE.
“HIGHER LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
SUCH AS 2D GRID”

• WHEN OVER 60 DEGREES, MEMO STATES USE A

“HIGHER LEVEL OF ANALYSIS SUCH AS 2D
GRID”
• WHY ALLOW 2-D ANALYSIS, IF IT DOESN’T
APPEAR TO WORK?
 ANALYSIS FOR CROSS-FRAME DESIGN
• 2-D IS A MINIMUM, DESIGNERS CAN ALWAYS DO MORE
• RESULTS FROM MDX ARE KNOWN TO BE CONSERVATIVE
• IF YOU TRY CHECKING A STANDARD CROSS-FRAME WITH VALUES FROM MDX, IT DOES NOT WORK.

• DESIGNED CROSS-FRAMES SHOULD NEVER BE SMALLER THAN STANDARD ONES, SO IF YOU GET SOMETHING SMALLER THAN
THE STANDARD, YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS UP
• ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY CROSS-FRAME OVERSTRESS
• SOFTWARE IS CONSTANTLY IMPROVING. MOST WORK ON 12-79 WAS DONE IN EARLY 2010’S. IT’S 2020. CURIOUS TO SEE
UPDATED SCORES.
 WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN
DESIGNING CROSS-FRAMES
USING 2-D GRID
• TOP CHORD REQUIRED AS PER 6.7.4- IF YOU
SEE THIS YOU KNOW THE CROSS-FRAME
WAS DESIGNED.
• MEMBER SIZES NOT VERY DIFFERENT.
TYPICAL CROSS-FRAMES DESIGNED USING A
2-D ANALYSIS WILL CONSIST OF L5X5’S OR
SMALL WT’S
• BOLT GROUPS ARE TYPICALLY 2 COLUMNS OF
3 TO 5 BOLTS.
CHECK #2: LATERAL
FLANGE STRESSES
WHEN CAN SIMPLIFICATIONS IN AASHTO BE
USED?
• LRFD C6.10.1 SUGGESTS USING 10 KSI FOR
LATERAL STRESSES IF NONE CALCULATED
• THIS HAS BEEN IDOT POLICY FOR SKEWS > 45
• URS ANALYZED LATERAL FLANGE STRESSES FOR
THE SAME BEAM SPACINGS AND SKEWS
LATERAL FLANGE
STRESSES
• URS STUDY SHOWS
LATERAL FLANGE
STRESSES DO NOT
EXCEED 10 KSI AT 45
DEGREES, BUT THEY
COME PRETTY CLOSE
(9.4 KSI)
 LATERAL FLANGE STRESSES IN ABD 19.4
• IDOT POLICY ON LATERAL
STRESSES:
• TWO “CUTOFF” SKEWS
• 45 DEGREES – 10 KSI WITH NO
CALCULATIONS
• 60 DEGREES- USE RESULTS OF
HIGHER LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

• WHAT ABOUT 44 DEGREES?

• 1/3 RULE
• ANECTODAL EVIDENCE
 LATERAL FLANGE STRESSES FROM GRID
ANALYSIS?
• THE LATERAL FLANGE BENDING STRESSES
ARE INACCURATE DUE TO THE GLOBAL
MODELING
• NCHRP 12-79 GIVES METHOD FOR
“TRICKING” SOFTWARE BY MANUALLY
ENTERING GLOBAL TORSIONAL CONSTANT
• SOME SOFTWARE ALREADY DOES THIS FOR
YOU
CHECK #3: DIAPHRAGM
FORCES
• OLD DIAPHRAGM DETAIL USED ANGLE TO CONNECT
DIAPHRAGM TO WEB
• THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH NSBA STANDARDS,
WHICH USE FULL-DEPTH CONNECTING PLATES
• DIAPHRAGM CONNECTION DETAIL WAS EXAMINED,
AS WELL AS FORCE TO DESIGN DIAPHRAGM
• OLD DETAIL PERFORMED WELL
• IDOT OPTED TO USE NSBA STANDARDS ANYWAYS
(MORE ON THAT IN A MINUTE)
WISDOT REPORT
• WISDOT PERFORMED THEIR OWN STUDY
AND CAME TO MANY OF THE SAME
CONCLUSIONS
• LOOKED MORE INTO BEARING FORCES
• HTTPS://WISCONSINDOT.GOV/PAGES/ABO
UT-
WISDOT/RESEARCH/STRUCTURES.ASPX
UPDATED DIAPHRAGM AND BEARING
STIFFENER DETAILS

• ADOPTED NSBA STANDARD DIAPHRAGMS

• ADOPTED AASHTO DIAPHRAGM AND CROSS-FRAME ORIENTATION WRT SKEW
• ADDED BEARING STIFFENERS AT ABUTMENTS
NSBA STANDARDS
• NSBA HAS “BASE SHEETS” FOR STEEL
STRUCTURES
• RECOMMEND FULL-DEPTH CONNECTION PLATES
FOR ALL ROLLED SECTIONS AND PLATE GIRDERS
• CONSISTENT WITH AASHTO 6.7.4
• VALUE IN USING THESE: FABRICATORS HAVE THE
SAME DETAILS FROM STATE TO STATE, LESS
VARIABILITY = LESS ERRORS
CROSS-FRAME ORIENTATION

• AASHTO SUGGESTS THAT CROSS-FRAMES NOT BE

MADE DISCONTINUOUS UNTIL SKEWS EXCEED 20
DEGREES (6.7.4)
• IDOT POLICY WAS 10 DEGREES PRIOR TO ABD 19.4
• IDOT SWITCHED TO FOLLOW AASHTO
NSBA STANDARDS
• DETAILS FOR CONNECTING PLATES TAKEN
FROM NSBA STANDARDS
• FABRICATORS CONTACTED
BEARING STIFFENERS
AT ABUTMENTS
• PRIOR TO ABD 19.4, WIDE FLANGE BEAMS
DID NOT REQUIRE BEARING STIFFENERS
• THIS IS OK, AS PER AASHTO 6.10.11.2.1
• IN THEORY, THE WEB SHOULD BE ABLE TO
HANDLE THE VERTICAL REACTION…
BEARING STIFFENERS AT
ABUTMENTS

• IN PRACTICE… THERE IS NO WEB…

• THERE NEEDS TO BE A BEARING STIFFENER.
BEARING STIFFENERS AT
ABUTMENTS

• IN PRACTICE, EVEN IF THERE IS A BEARING

STIFFENER, IT MAY NOT BE EFFECTIVE IF IT
ISN’T WIDE ENOUGH TO HANDLE SOME
CORROSION
BEARING STIFFENERS AT
ABUTMENTS- LOAD RATING
• LOAD RATING POLICY: 10% SECTION LOSS ON ANY MEMBER WILL
RESULT IN A REQUIRED LOAD RATING
• IF A BEARING STIFFENER IS ONLY ½”, THAT ONLY ALLOWS 0.05” OF
SECTION LOSS
• OVERSIZED BEARING STIFFENERS SUGGESTED BY BRIDGE
MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS
• 1” CHOSEN, ASSUMED TO BE LARGEST PLATE THAT IS READILY
AVAILABLE THAT CAN BE CUT BY ALL FABRICATORS.
• “NOW THE WEBS CONTROL…” WE’RE WORKING ON THAT.
ADDING BEARING STIFFENERS AT
ABUTMENTS- LOAD RATING
• ANOTHER REASON FOR ADDING BEARING STIFFENERS IS COST.
• 1” BEARING STIFFENER ON A 36” DEEP WEB WITH 12” WIDE FLANGES = 60 LBS.
• 24 BEARING STIFFENERS PER BRIDGE = 1440 LBS.
• $1.50 / LB. = $2160
• WE KNOW THAT WITHOUT BEARING STIFFENERS, A LOAD RATING IS INEVITABLE.
• COMPARE TO AMOUNT CHARGED FOR INSPECTION, LOAD RATING, AND REPORTING…
BEARING STIFFENERS AT
ABUTMENTS
• REQUIRED FOR INTEGRAL ABUTMENTS ALSO.
• DECISION WAS MADE TO MAKE ALL BEAMS THE
SAME, FOR FABRICATION PURPOSES
• THE HOLES IN THE STEEL WITH REBAR GOING
THROUGH THEM WERE REMOVED
• THE BEARING STIFFENER IS ASSUMED TO
RESIST THE PULLOUT
BEARING STIFFENERS AT PIERS W/O JOINTS

• TECHNICALLY NOT REQUIRED

• IF DESIGNER WANTS TO ADD THEM FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ABUTMENTS, THAT IS OK.
• IF YOU ADD THEM, WE WON’T TELL YOU TO REMOVE A BEARING STIFFENER
FUTURE GUIDELINES FOR CROSS-FRAME
DESIGN

• AASHTO IS RELEASING GUIDELINES FOR DIAPHRAGM AND CROSS-FRAME DESIGN

 SUMMARY
• ABD 19.4 WAS PROVIDES GUIDANCE FOR WHAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS TO USE.
• STEERS DESIGNERS TOWARDS A 1-D DESIGN
• FOR HIGHER SKEWS (45-60 DEGREES), LATERAL STRESSES ARE ADDED
• FOR SKEWS ABOVE 60 DEGREES, USE HIGHER LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
• UPDATED STEEL DETAILS FOR NSBA STANDARDS
• ADDED BEARING STIFFENERS AT ABUTMENTS
 GOALS/PRE-TEST
• WHAT DO TERMS LIKE “LINE,” “GRID,” AND “3D” MEAN WHEN DISCUSSING ANALYSIS PROCEDURES?
• THE NUMBER OF DEGREES OF FREEDOM. LINE = BEAM IS ONE-DIMENSIONAL LINE, GRID = SUPERSTRUCTURE SYSTEM IS 2D GRID, ETC
• WHEN SHOULD I USE A LINE GIRDER ANALYSIS TO DESIGN MY BRIDGE?
• STRAIGHT SKEWED BRIDGES UP TO AND INCLUDING 60 DEGREES
• DO YOU NEED TO WORRY ABOUT CROSS-FRAME DESIGN AND/OR LATERAL STRESSES WHEN PERFORMING A LINE GIRDER
ANALYSIS?
• CROSS-FRAME DESIGN, NO. LATERAL STRESSES, USE THE PROCEDURE IN ABD 19.4
• DOES A 2-D GRID ANALYSIS GIVE ACCURATE RESULTS FOR LATERAL FORCE EFFECTS?
• MAYBE. SOFTWARE HAS IMPROVED SINCE NCHRP 12-79 WAS COMPLETED. ALSO, YOU CAN MODIFY THE GLOBAL TORSIONAL MOMENT
OF INERTIA USING THE PROCEDURE IN NCHRP 12-79. DESIGNER SHOULD RUN A “SANITY CHECK.”
• WHY ARE WE NOW REQUIRING BEARING STIFFENERS AT ABUTMENTS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES? WHAT ABOUT PIERS?
• LOAD RATINGS ARE TRIGGERED AT 10% SECTION LOSS. IT’S ACTUALLY CHEAPER TO PUT A 1” BEARING STIFFENER IN THAN IT IS TO PAY
SOMEONE TO RE-RATE THE BRIDGE. STIFFENERS AT PIERS FOR ROLLED SHAPES ARE AT DISCRETION OF DESIGNER.
ADDITIONAL READING

• NCHRP REPORT 725: HTTP://WWW.TRB.ORG/PUBLICATIONS/BLURBS/167646.ASPX

• WISCONSIN DOT REPORT: HTTPS://WISCONSINDOT.GOV/PAGES/ABOUT-
WISDOT/RESEARCH/STRUCTURES.ASPX
• NSBA STANDARDS: HTTPS://WWW.AISC.ORG/GLOBALASSETS/NSBA/AASHTO-NSBA-COLLAB-DOCS/G-
1.4-2006-GUIDELINES-FOR-DESIGN-DETAILS.PDF