You are on page 1of 36

11/16/2021

Photo: 2020 Prize Bridge National Winner – Manning Crevice (Idaho) – Photo Credit: Ken Saindon

All You Need to Know about Cross-Frames


Brandon Chavel, PhD, PE - NSBA
ABCD Northeast Ohio – November 16, 2021

Why do we care about cross-frames?

• Cross-frames are the most expensive part of fabrication on a girder


bridge (on a $/LB basis)
• More detailing, and then manual labor and handling than girder pieces
• Many more cross-frames than girder pieces
• So, let’s design them for maximum efficiency!

1
11/16/2021

Why do we care about cross-frames?

Photo Credit: High


Steel

Photo Credit: High Steel

Presentation Outline

• Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


• Current Design Trends
• Cross-frames are getting bigger
• What is causing larger Cross-Frames?
• Strategies for Cost-Effective Cross-Frames
• Framing Plan Choices in Skewed Bridges
• Analysis Strategies
• Design Considerations
• Summary

2
11/16/2021

Objective of Presentation today….

• Help you clear obstacles to designing efficient cross-frames & diaphragms

Presentation Outline

• Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


• Current Design Trends
• Cross-frames are getting bigger
• What is causing larger Cross-Frames?
• Strategies for Cost-Effective Cross-Frames
• Framing Plan Choices in Skewed Bridges
• Analysis Strategies
• Design Considerations
• Summary

3
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

Cross-frame Diaphragm

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


End Cross-frame Intermediate Cross-frame

4
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

• Primary Functions – Intermediate Cross-frames


• Transfer wind loads from bottom of girder to the deck
• Provide stability
• Bottom Flange in Compression
• Top Flange in Compression before deck hardens
• Lateral Torsional Buckling Resistance
• Help distribute dead and live loads within the system
• Provide geometric control during erection
• Resist flange lateral bending effects

• Horizontally Curved Bridges


• Primary force member

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

• Primary Functions – End Cross-frames


• Transfer wind loads the deck down to the bearings
• Provide global stability to the girder span
• Provide end support for the deck and expansion joint
• Including wheel loads
• Provide future jacking location to allow for bearing replacement

10

5
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

K-Type X-Type

Diaphragm Z-Type (Alternate)

11

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

• Not recommended:

V-Shaped Cross-Frames

“Knock-Down” Cross-frames
Double-angle members
12

6
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


S = Girder Spa.

• X-type typically used:

D = Girder Depth
• S/D ≤ 1.0

• K-type typically used:


• S/D ≥ 1.5
X-Type
• Either when:
• 1 < S/D < 1.5

• Generally, Diagonal ~ 45°


K-Type
13

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


• Depth Requirements (CFs & Diaphragms)
• Article 6.7.4.2
• 0.5 Beam Depth for Rolled beams
• 0.75 Beam Depth for Plate Girders
Channels or Wide-Flange Beams

Bent Plate Diaphragm Plate Girder Diaphragm

14

7
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

• Primary vs. Secondary Members


• AASHTO Table 6.6.2.1-1

15

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

• Design Requirements (Article 6.7.4.2)


• Minimum
• Transfer Wind Loads (Article 4.6.2.7)
• Slenderness Requirements (Articles 6.8.4 and 6.9.3)
• Stability – Strength & Stiffness (UT Austin research, NCHRP Report 962) **

• If cross-frames / diaphragms included in structural analysis model:


• Design for all applicable limit states & calculated force effects

16

8
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame Design

• What should I design a cross-frame for?

• Bridges that use a line girder analysis


• Straight I-Girder bridges with Skew Index ≤ 0.30
• Curved bridges that satisfy Article 4.6.1.2.4b

• Cross-frames are not modeled

• Design requirements: a) No Skew


• Transfer of wind forces
• Slenderness effects
• Stability forces and stiffness**
b) Skew Index ≤ 0.30

17

Cross-Frame Design

• What should I design a cross-frame for?

• Bridges that use a 2D or 3D analysis for design


• Straight I-Girder bridge with Skew Index > 0.30
• Curved bridges that DO NOT satisfy Article 4.6.1.2.4b

• Cross-frames are modeled

• Design requirements:
• All Applicable limit states
• Dead, Live, Fatigue, Wind, etc.
• Slenderness effects Skew Index > 0.30
• Stability forces and stiffness**

18

9
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

• Slenderness Requirements

• Tension (AASHTO LRFD Article 6.8.4)


• For primary members l /r ≤ 200
• For secondary members l /r ≤ 240

• where:
• l = unbraced length
• r = radius of gyration

19

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics

• Slenderness Requirements

• Compression (AASHTO LRFD Article 6.9.3)


• For primary members K l /r ≤ 120
• For secondary members K l /r ≤ 140

• where:
• K = effective length factor specified in Article 4.6.2.5
• l = unbraced length
• r = radius of gyration

20

10
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Detailing

• Cross-Frame Member Selection


• Angles preferred over WTs
• Angles are produced at steel mills
• WTs need to be cut/split from Wide Flange beams

• A note on Angles:
• Avoid 1/16” gages
• These typically require a mill order
• Tonnage requirement is typically much greater than that
required for the project

21

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Detailing

• Work Point Locations

Preferred Not Preferred


WP located @ Bolt / on Gusset WP is on Girder

22

11
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Detailing


Gusset Plate on Cross-frame
• Work Point Locations Fabrication “table”

23

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Detailing

• Work Point Locations

Allow some variance in


this dimension, possibly
+/- 1 inch.

24

12
11/16/2021

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Detailing

• Welding Cross-Frame Member Ends

Correct use of welding symbol Incorrect use of weld-all-around symbol


(no backside weld)

25

Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Detailing

• Welding Cross-Frame Member Ends

Correct use of welding symbol Incorrect use of weld-all-around symbol

Graphics Credit: Annotated from the FHWA Bridge Welding Reference Manual
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/pubs/hif19088.pdf

26

13
11/16/2021

Fit Condition

27

Fit Condition

• Fit Condition – deflected girder geometry associated with a targeted dead


load condition for which the cross-frames are detailed to connect to the
girders.
• Affects fabrication and steel erection.
• Can affect rotation demands on the bearings, and internal force effects.
• The fit condition should be selected by the Engineer.
• See AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 6.7.2

29

14
11/16/2021

Fit Condition
Loading Condition Fit Construction Description
Stage Fit
No-Load Fit (NLF) Fully-Cambered The cross-frames are detailed to fit to the
Fit girders in their fabricated, plumb, fully-
cambered position under zero load.
Steel Dead Load Fit Erected Fit The cross-frames are detailed to fit to the
(SDLF) girders in their ideally plumb as-deflected
positions under the self-weight of the steel
at the completion of the erection.
Total Dead Load Fit Final Fit The cross-frames are detailed to fit to the
(TDLF) girders in their ideally plumb as-deflected
positions under the total dead load.

30

Fit Condition

• NSBA White Papers - Skewed and Curved Steel I-Girder Bridge Fit
• Standalone Summary (6 pages)
• Full Document (47 pages)

• Explains Fit Conditions


• No Load Fit
• Steel Dead Load Fit
• Total Dead Load Fit

• Provides Recommended Fit Conditions for


• Skewed Bridges
• Curved Bridges
• Curved Bridges with Skewed Supports

31

15
11/16/2021

Presentation Outline

• Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


• Current Design Trends
• Cross-frames are getting bigger
• What is causing larger Cross-Frames?
• Strategies for Cost-Effective Cross-Frames
• Framing Plan Choices in Skewed Bridges
• Analysis Strategies
• Design Considerations
• Summary

32

Cross-frames are getting Bigger

Does the end of this


L4x4 need 6 bolts?

Looked good on paper!


Maybe a Bent Plate
diaphragm instead?

33

16
11/16/2021

Cross-frames are getting Bigger

• Big connections!!!
27 Bolts

15 Bolts

34

Cross-frames are getting Bigger

Photo Credit: High


Steel

Photo Credit: High Steel

35

17
11/16/2021

Cross-frames are getting Bigger

• October 2020 issue of Modern Steel Construction


• “Keeping Cross-frames in Check”
• Analysis Strategies
• Design Strategies
• Using the right cross-frame or diaphragm?

• Why do we care?
• Cross-frames are the most expensive part of fabrication
on a girder bridge (on a $/LB basis)
• More manual labor and handling
• Bolted member end connections can be more expensive

36

Current Design Trends

• What are some of the contributing factors to larger CFs?


• AASHTO LRFD Fatigue Design
• Framing Plan Decisions
• Analysis Decisions, Strategies, or Assumptions
• Design Decisions

37

18
11/16/2021

AASHTO LRFD - Fatigue

• What happened in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications?


• General Equation to satisfy:
• γ (∆f) ≤ (∆F)n
• Article 6.6.1.2.2

38

AASHTO LRFD - Fatigue

• What happened in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications?


• γ (∆f) ≤ (∆F)n
AASHTO LRFD BDS Edition γ (∆F)n (ksi)
4th, 2008 & 2009 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category D = 7 ksi
5th, 2010 Fatigue II = 0.75 Category E = 4.5 ksi

39

19
11/16/2021

AASHTO LRFD - Fatigue

• What happened in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications?


• γ (∆f) ≤ (∆F)n
AASHTO LRFD BDS Edition γ (∆F)n (ksi)
4th, 2008 & 2009 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category D = 7 ksi
5th, 2010 Fatigue II = 0.75 Category E = 4.5 ksi
5th, 2010 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category E = 4.5 ksi
6th, 2012 (No Detail 7.2!) Fatigue II = 0.75
6th, 2012 Errata!, 2013 Int.
7th, 2014, 2015 Interims

40

AASHTO LRFD - Fatigue

• What happened in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications?


• γ (∆f) ≤ (∆F)n
AASHTO LRFD BDS Edition γ (∆F)n (ksi)
4th, 2008 & 2009 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category D = 7 ksi
5th, 2010 Fatigue II = 0.75 Category E = 4.5 ksi
5th, 2010 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category E = 4.5 ksi
6th, 2012 (No Detail 7.2!) Fatigue II = 0.75
6th, 2012 Errata!, 2013 Int.
7th, 2014, 2015 Interims
7th, 2016 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category E′ = 2.6 ksi
Fatigue II = 0.75

41

20
11/16/2021

AASHTO LRFD - Fatigue

• What happened in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications?


• γ (∆f) ≤ (∆F)n
AASHTO LRFD BDS Edition γ (∆F)n (ksi)
4th, 2008 & 2009 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category D = 7 ksi
5th, 2010 Fatigue II = 0.75 Category E = 4.5 ksi
5th, 2010 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category E = 4.5 ksi
6th, 2012 (No Detail 7.2!) Fatigue II = 0.75
6th, 2012 Errata!, 2013 Int.
7th, 2014, 2015 Interims
7th, 2016 Interims Fatigue I = 1.50 Category E′ = 2.6 ksi
Fatigue II = 0.75
8th, 2017 Fatigue I = 1.75 Category E′ = 2.6 ksi
9th, 2020 Fatigue II = 0.80

42

What is next?

• NCHRP Report 962 – Proposed Modification to AASHTO Cross-Frame


Analysis and Design
• Research by UT Austin

• Reduced fatigue load factors for cross-frames


• Multiply current Fatigue I and II load factors by 0.65 for CFs only

• Codified stability bracing considerations

• Approved Ballot item for AASHTO LRFD BDS 10th Edition!

43

21
11/16/2021

Presentation Outline

• Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


• Current Design Trends
• Cross-frames are getting bigger
• What is causing larger Cross-Frames?
• Strategies for Cost-Effective Cross-Frames
• Framing Plan Choices in Skewed Bridges
• Analysis Strategies
• Design Considerations
• Summary

44

Framing Plan Layout

• AASHTO LRFD Article 6.7.4.2


• Skew ≤ 20°, cross-frames can be placed parallel to skew

45

22
11/16/2021

Framing Plan Layout

• AASHTO LRFD Article 6.7.4.2


• Skew ≤ 20°, cross-frames can be placed parallel to skew

• Skews > 20 degrees, must be placed perpendicular to girders and may be


placed in contiguous or discontinuous lines

46

Framing Plan Layout

• AASHTO LRFD Article 6.7.4.2 (Commentary)


• Recommended minimum offset of cross-frames adjacent to skewed
supports (discontinuous cross-frames)
O Lb Offset, O ≥ Larger of 4bf and 0.4Lb

O Lb

47

23
11/16/2021

Framing Plan Layout

• AASHTO LRFD Article 6.7.4.2


• For skews > 20 degrees, it may be advantageous to stagger the cross-
frames (discontinuous cross-frames)

48

Framing Plan Layout

• AASHTO LRFD Article 6.7.4.2


• For skews > 20 degrees
• Continuous bridges, skewed interior support

A)

B)

49

24
11/16/2021

Framing Plan Layout

• AASHTO LRFD Article 6.7.4.2 (Commentary)


• Cross-frames adjacent to the bearing lines are placed at the same offset distance
relative to the bearing lines.
• Other intermediate cross-frames placed at constant spacing.
• Every other cross-frame intentionally omitted within the bays between the
interior girders.

50

Lean-On Bracing

• What is Lean-on Bracing System?

Conventional
X-Bracing

Lean-On
Bracing

52

25
11/16/2021

Lean-On Bracing

• What is Lean-on Bracing System?

Lean-On Bracing in Lean-On Bracing in


Frames Beams

53

Lean-On Bracing

• Benefits of Lean-On Bracing


• Fewer cross-frames
• Decrease fabrication costs
• Decrease erection costs
• Reduce potential fit up issues
• Reduced construction timeline
• Simplifies future inspections
• Fewer connections subjected to Fatigue Jamie Farris/TxDOT

Stress Ranges
Jamie Farris/TxDOT

• Need to consider erection

55

26
11/16/2021

Cross-frame Analysis Strategies

• Use the appropriate level of analysis


• 1D Line Girder
• 2D Grid or Plate & Eccentric Beam
• 3D FEM

• Recommendations in AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge


Collaboration Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis
G13.1-2019

57

Cross-frame Analysis Strategies

• Modeling of Cross-frames
• When using:
• 2D Grid or Plate & Eccentric Beam
• 3D FEMs with Single Cross-frame element representing truss

• AASHTO LRFD C4.6.3.3.4


• Use a shear-deformable (Timoshenko) beam element representation of cross-
frames and for developing their stiffness and member area.

58

27
11/16/2021

Cross-frame Analysis Strategies

• Modeling of Cross-frames (cont’d)


• Shear-deformable (Timoshenko) beam element representation of
cross-frames and for developing their stiffness and member area
• AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration Guidelines for Steel Girder
Bridge Analysis G13.1 Article 3.11.3

Force Couple for Rotation, Obtain Ieq Vertical Load for Deflection, Obtain Aeq

59

Cross-frame Analysis Strategies

• Reduce individual member stiffness to 0.65AE


• AASHTO LRFD Article C4.6.3.3.4
• Accounts for member end eccentricity
• Accounts for reduced stiffness at member end

60

28
11/16/2021

Cross-frame Analysis Strategies

• Fatigue Live Load


• AASHTO LRFD Article C6.6.1.2.1
• 2D or 3D Analysis

• Fatigue truck positioned to determine the maximum range


of stress or torque, as applicable, with the truck confined
to one critical transverse position per each longitudinal
position throughout the length of the bridge in the
analysis.

• Fatigue loading for Cross-frames is not the same as for


Girders

61

Fatigue Truck for Cross-Frames


Force Range

6.2 kips

0.2 (T)
Transverse Position (ft)

-13
Influence (kip/kip)

13
-25
00 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
180 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
360 375 -0.2 (C)
Longitudinal Position (ft) University of Texas at Austin (Helwig et al.)

66

29
11/16/2021

Fatigue Truck for Cross-Frames

Force Range
Force Range

Force Range
5.7 kips 5.0 kips 4.3 kips
0.2 (T)
Transverse Position (ft)

-13

Influence (kip/kip)
0

13
-25
00 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
180 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
360 375 -0.2 (C)
Longitudinal Position (ft) University of Texas at Austin (Helwig et al.)

67

Cross-frame Analysis Strategies

• Consider support stiffness in the analysis model


• 2D or 3D Analysis model for girder design
• Transverse and Longitudinal
• Use spring elements to represent stiffness at bearing location
• Account for skew

∆=
3

Transverse Longitudinal
68

30
11/16/2021

Cross-frame Design Considerations

• Does Fatigue II (finite life) apply?


• If low volume truck traffic and the details being
considered are not on fracture-critical members, the
Fatigue II load combination and its lower load factor
may be permissible

• 75-year single-lane ADTT is less than or equal to the


applicable value specified in AASHTO Table 6.6.1.2.3-2

• 0.80 load factor instead of 1.75

69

Cross-frame Design Considerations

• Grouping of Cross-frames
• Don’t just design members for all the Max/Min’s
• Low forces / fatigue range
• Medium forces / fatigue range
• High forces / fatigue range
Medium

High

70

31
11/16/2021

Cross-frame Design Considerations

• NEW!!!
• NCHRP Report 962 – Proposed Modification to AASHTO Cross-Frame
Analysis and Design
• Research by UT Austin
• Reduced fatigue load factors for cross-frames
• Codified stability considerations
• Approved Ballot item for AASHTO LRFD BDS 10th Edition

72

Cross-frame Design Considerations

• In Progress…..
• AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration TG11
• Guidelines for Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Design
• Expected release is early 2022 as an NSBA Publication

73

32
11/16/2021

Presentation Outline

• Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


• Current Design Trends
• Cross-frames are getting bigger
• What is causing larger Cross-Frames?
• Strategies for Cost-Effective Cross-Frames
• Framing Plan Choices in Skewed Bridges
• Analysis Strategies
• Design Considerations
• Summary

74

Summary

• Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Basics


• Types

• Type Selection

• Primary vs. Secondary Members

• Design Considerations

• Detailing Considerations

• Fit Condition

75

33
11/16/2021

Summary

• Current Design Trends


• Cross-frames are getting bigger

• Causes of larger cross-frames

76

Summary

• Strategies for Cost-Effective Cross-Frames


• Framing Plan Choices in Skewed Bridges

• Analysis Strategies

• Design Considerations

77

34
11/16/2021

References

• October 2020 issue of Modern Steel Construction


• “Keeping Cross-frames in Check”

• NCHRP Report 962 – Proposed Modification to AASHTO


Cross-Frame Analysis and Design

• AAHSTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration TG11


• Guidelines for Cross-Frame & Diaphragm Design
• Expected release is early 2022 as an NSBA Publication

• Skewed and Curved Steel I-Girder Bridge Fit


• NSBA White Paper

• FHWA Bridge Welding Reference Manual

78

Future Questions

• Reach out to NSBA or a regional steel fabricator


• Vin Bartucca – bartucca@aisc.org
• Brandon Chavel, PhD, PE – chavel@aisc.org

79

35
11/16/2021

Photo: 2020 Prize Bridge National Winner – Manning Crevice (Idaho) – Photo Credit: Ken Saindon

All You Need to Know about Cross-Frames


Brandon Chavel, PhD, PE - NSBA
chavel@aisc.org

80

36

You might also like