See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327701765

Flexural Capacity of Steel-Reinforced Concrete TL-5 Bridge Barrier Using

Modified Trapezoidal Yield-Line Failure Equations

Conference Paper · July 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 562

3 authors:

Morteza Fadaee Khaled Sennah

Ryerson University Ryerson University
8 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS 159 PUBLICATIONS 672 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hamidreza R. Khederzadeh
Ryerson University
8 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thesis View project

Crashworthiness of Child Restraints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Morteza Fadaee on 17 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 10th International Conference on Short and
Medium Span Bridges
Quebec City, Quebec, Canada,
July 31 – August 3, 2018

FLEXURAL CAPACITY OF STEEL-REINFORCED CONCRETE TL-5 BRIDGE

BARRIER USING MODIFIED TRAPEZOIDAL YIELD-LINE FAILURE
EQUATIONS
Fadaee, Morteza1,4, Sennah, Khaled2 and Khederzadeh, Hamid Reza3
1 PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto ON, Canada
2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto ON, Canada
3 Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto ON, Canada
4 morteza.fadaee@ryerson.ca

Abstract: Reinforced concrete bridge barriers are designed based on the specifications of the test levels
provided in the bridge design codes. The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) introduces
barrier crash test levels for various cases of traffic conditions on bridges, in the form of vehicle speed,
impact angle and the mass of the vehicle. CHBDC specifies equivalent vehicle impact loading for barrier
design in the form of vertical, transverse and longitudinal impact loads, distributed over a specified barrier
length and at a specified height from the deck slab. In order to evaluate the flexural resistance of a barrier
due to these impact loads, AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications specify triangular yield line
pattern within the barrier height. Most recently, researchers developed trapezoidal yield-line failure
equations based on the recorded crack pattern on TL-5 bridge barriers tested to-collapse, resulting in
lower barrier capacity than that obtained from AASHTO-LRFD triangular yield-line failure equations. In
this study, the trapezoidal as well as the triangular yield line equations were utilized for designing TL-5
bridge barrier. The analysis was conducted for both interior and end locations of the barrier. Barrier
flexural capacities were determined for different spacing between the vertical steel bars as well as
horizontal steel bars in the barrier wall (i.e. 100 to 300 mm spacing). The research outcome will assist
design engineers in better understanding possible failure modes and crack patterns in TL-5 barriers.

1 INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete barriers are one type of barriers specified in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code, CHBDC, (CSA 2014) to be utilized in bridges to resist impact load resulting from vehicle collision
and to prevent overturning of vehicles and falling over traffic under the bridge. AASHTO-LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications (AASHTO 2017) specify impact loads for the design of steel-reinforced bridge
barriers. CHBDC has similar load configurations but with reduced values, taking into account concrete
behavior under dynamic loading. AASHTO-LRFD Specifications considers the yield-line theory to
determine the transverse capacity of the barrier wall under vehicle impact loading. The theory is based on
considering a failure pattern due to the impact load, and the capacity is calculated with the equality of the
internal and external work (Fadaee et al. 2013). The concept of the yield-line method is based on
assuming a failure pattern that is evaluated using experimental analysis. Figures 1 and 2 show the
AASHTO-LRFD yield line failure patterns due to vehicle collision at interior and end locations,
respectively.

143-1
 Figure 1: AASHTO-LRFD yield line failure pattern due to vehicle collision at interior region of the barrier
(adopted from AASHTO 2017)

Figure 2: AASHTO-LRFD yield line failure pattern due to vehicle collision at end location of the barrier
(adopted from AASHTO 2017)

Recent studies (Jeon et al. 2008 & 2011, Khederzadeh and Sennah 2014a & 2014b) have shown that the
triangular failure pattern shown in Figures 1 and 2 did not exist in the tested steel-reinforced concrete
Instead, a trapezoidal crack pattern exists at barrier failure. The trapezoidal failure pattern for yield-line
analysis was initially suggested by Jeon et al. (2008, 2011) and later developed by Khederzadeh (2014).
It was shown that the trapezoidal failure pattern provides with a lower impact resistance of the barrier that
the AASHTO-LRFD triangular yield-line pattern. Bridge barriers are classified in different test levels as
provided in bridge design codes. CHBDC defines the Test Levels 1 through 5 as TL-1, TL-2, TL-4 and TL-
5 that were formerly known as performance levels (PL). Fadaee and Sennah (2018) investigated the
modified yield-line analysis for steel-reinforced concrete bridge barrier design for TL-1 and TL-2
configurations.

This paper presented the analysis of TL-5 bridge barrier based on the developed trapezoidal yield line
failure patterns and compare the results with those obtained using the triangular AASHTO-LRFD yield
line failure pattern. The analysis was conducted considering different steel bar spacing in both the
horizontal and vertical directions at the interior and end locations of the TL-5 barrier wall.
Recommendation for the optimum amount of reinforcement was deduced based on the findings of this
research.

2 DEVELOPED ANALYSIS METHOD USING TRAPEZOIDAL FAILURE

The current triangular yield-line failure pattern for barrier design available in AASHTO-LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications, shown in Figure 1, consists of (i) diagonal yield-lines meeting at the barrier-deck
connection with tension crack on the traffic side of the wall and (ii) a vertical yield line at the back face of
the barrier wall centered at the vehicle impact point. Jeon et al. (2008 & 2011) suggested a trapezoidal
failure pattern with an additional horizontal yield-line at the bottom of the barrier as shown in Figure 3 for

143-2
vehicle collision with the barrier at interior locations. This trapezoidal yield line pattern is characterized by
two diagonal yield-lines, one on each side of the transverse line loading, meeting with the horizontal yield
line at the barrier-deck connection, all with tension cracks on the traffic side of the barrier wall. This is in
addition to two vertical yield lines, one on each side of the loaded length of the barrier, with tension cracks
on the back side of the barrier wall.

Figure 3: Proposed trapezoidal yield line pattern for bridge barrier by Jeon et al. (2011) at interior location

The study by Jeon et al. (2008 & 2011) assumed that the horizontal yield line length, X, at the barrier
deck connection, shown in Figure 3, is greater than the length of the transverse line load, L t . However,
based on the study by Khederzadeh and Sennah (2014b), three different scenarios may be assumed,
namely:
(a) The length of horizontal yield-line at the base, X, is greater than the loaded length, L t (X > L t )
(b) The length of horizontal yield-line equals the loaded length (X = L t )
(c) The length of horizontal yield-line is less than the loaded length (X < L t ).
Khederzadeh and Sennah (2014b) developed modified trapezoidal yield-line capacity equations to
consider the above mentioned failure scenarios, considering barrier moment capacities at its base
(M c,base ) and throughout the height of the barrier wall (M c ). These developed equations for the trapezoidal
yield-line analysis of bridge barriers are explained as follows:

2.1 Yield Line Pattern with X ≥ Lt (Interior Location)

The length of the applied load is indicated with L t , and the length of the horizontal yield-line at the bottom
of the barrier is showed with X. As mentioned in the three scenarios, the first case is where the length of
the base horizontal yield-line to be considered larger that the applied load length. This can be assumed
with a factor, n 1 (i.e. X = n 1 .L t ), where n 1 is considered any value between 1 and 2(i.e. 1 ≤ n 1 ≤ 2). The
external work is produced by the applied load and the lateral displacement. The deformed shape is
shown in Figure 4. The shaded area represents the total external work due to applied distributed load of
w t (wt = F t / L t ). Consequently, the external work can be calculated as W E = W t . (Deformed area) = F t . ∆.
Given the fact that the external work is equal to the internal work (produced from yielding moment of the
reinforcement at yield lines), the following formulas can be derived for calculation of the impact load (F t ),
the critical length (L c) and the minimum transverse load (R w ):

8M b .H + 8M w .H 2 − M c , w .(n1.Lt ) 2
[1] Lc =
n1.Lt + (n1.Lt ) 2 + ,for 1 ≤ n 1 ≤ 2
M c,w

1 M .( Lc 2 − n1.Lt .Lc ) ( M c ,base − M c , w ).(n1.Lt .Lc − n12 .Lt 2 )

=
[2] Rw ( )(8M b .H + 8M w .H + c , w + ),
Lc − n1.Lt H H
for 1 ≤ n 1 ≤ 2

143-3
 where the variables are defined as follows (Khederzadeh et al., 2014; LRFD Bridge Design Manual,
2016):
M b : Flexural capacity of the cap beam (if applicable)
M w : Flexural capacity of the barrier about its vertical axis
M c, w : Flexural capacity of the barrier about its horizontal axis at the wall
M c, base : Flexural capacity of the barrier about its horizontal axis at the base
H: Height of the transverse impact load application

Figure 4: Trapezoidal yield-line failure pattern at interior location for X ≥ L t (Khederzadeh and Sennah
2014)

2.2 Yield Line Pattern with X < Lt (Interior Location)

With the similar concept, the equations for the second and third yield line failure scenarios can also be
derived for finding the critical length (L c ) and minimum transverse impact load (R w ) when the length of the
horizontal yield line at the base of the wall (X) is less than the length of the applied load, as shown in
Figure 5. In this case, another factor is defined (n 2 ) for multiplying by L t which is between 0 and 1 (i.e. X =
n 2 .L t , 0 ≤ n 2 < 1).
[3] L=
c 0.5 Lt (1 + n22 ) +

16 M b .H + 16 M w .H 2 − M c , w .(n2 .L2t + n23 .L2t ) − ( M c ,base − M c , w ).(2n22 L2t − n2 .L2t − n23 .L2t ) ,
0.25 L2t (1 + n22 ) 2 +
2M c,w

for 0 ≤ n 2 < 1

1 2 M c , w .( Lc 2 − n2 .Lt .Lc ) 2( M c ,base − M c , w ).(n2 .Lt .Lc − n22 .Lt 2 ) ,

=[4] R ( )(16 M . H + 16 M . H + + )
2 Lc − Lt − n22 .Lt
w b w
H H

for 0 ≤ n 2 < 1

Figure 5: Trapezoidal yield-line failure pattern at interior location for X < L t (Khederzadeh and Sennah
2014)

143-4
 2.3 Yield Line Pattern with X ≥ Lt (End Location)
The same scenarios should be also applied to the exterior location of bridge barriers. As mentioned
above, the same trapezoidal yield-line pattern is applied, however, there will not be an inclined yield-line
at the end location of the barrier (Figure 6). The basis of the pattern was provided by Hirsch (1978) with a
triangular scheme at the end location of the barrier. His work concluded with the AASHTO-LRFD current
equations as mentioned above. However, in recent studies (Khederzadeh et al. 2014) the modified yield-
line pattern and formulas for determining the barrier resistance was provided as follows:

M b .H + M w .H 2 − M c , w .(n1.Lt ) 2
[5] Lc =
n1.Lt + (n1.Lt ) 2 + , for 1 ≤ n 1 ≤ 2
M c,w

1 M .( Lc 2 − n1.Lt .Lc ) ( M c ,base − M c , w ).(n1.Lt .Lc − n12 .Lt 2 ) , for 1 ≤ n ≤ 2

=
[6] R ( )( M b .H + M w .H + c , w + ) 1
Lc − n1.Lt
w
H H

Figure 6: Trapezoidal yield-line failure pattern at end location for X ≥ L t (Khederzadeh and Sennah 2014)

2.4 Yield Line Pattern with X < Lt (End Location)

The last series of equations are derived for end location and when the length of the horizontal yield line at
the base of the wall (X) is less than the length of the applied load (Figure 7). In this case the following
formulas can be used for finding the critical length (L c ) and the impact load resistance (R w ) of the barrier:
[7] L=
c 0.5 Lt (1 + n22 ) +

2 M b .H + 2 M w .H 2 − M c , w .(n2 .L2t + n23 .L2t ) − ( M c ,base − M c , w ).(2n22 L2t − n2 .L2t − n23 .L2t ) ,
0.25 L2t (1 + n22 ) 2 +
2M c,w

for 0 ≤ n 2 < 1

[8] R ( 1 2 M c , w .( Lc 2 − n2 .Lt .Lc ) 2( M c ,base − M c , w ).(n2 .Lt .Lc − n22 .Lt 2 ) ,

= )(2 M b .H + 2 M w .H + + )
2 Lc − Lt − n2 .Lt
w 2
H H

for 0 ≤ n 2 < 1

143-5
Figure 7: Trapezoidal yield-line failure pattern at end location for X < L t (Khederzadeh and Sennah 2014)

3 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

3.1 Analysis Cases

The provided equations in the previous section is applied to the TL-5 RC bridge barriers as per defined in
CHBDC. In order to evaluate all possible cases for the analysis, various parameters are changed and
considered in the analysis. The parameters for the analysis process include the rebar spacing in both
horizontal and vertical directions ranging from 100 to 300 mm (5 iterations), interior or exterior location of
the barrier, the height of the vertical yield line (full height or top height) and 21 iterations for each of the n 1
and n 2 factors as mentioned in the scenarios in previous section. The height (H) can have two values;
from top of the barrier to top of asphalt (full-height) or from top of the barrier to top of the tapered part of
the barrier (top-height). All cases and parameters are given in Table 1. The analysis was conducted for all
aforesaid cases with following material properties: concrete compressive strength (f’ c ) = 30 MPa, 15M
steel bar yield stress (f y ) = 300 MPa and 60 mm clear cover.

Table 1: Breakdown of analysis cases and parameters

n Horizontal Rebar Vertical Rebar

Test Height Total
Item Location Spacing - S h Spacing - S v
Level Evaluated (n 1 or n 2 ) Cases
(mm) (mm)

n 1 : 0.05 100 100

Full- increments
Interior
Height from 1 to 2
150 150
(21 cases)
TL-5
200 200
n 2 : 0.05
Top
increments
Exterior tapered 250 250
from 0 to 1
portion
(21 cases)
300 300

No. of
1 2 2 42 5 5 4200
cases:

3.2 Analysis Results

The analysis results of the trapezoidal yield-line equations for TL-5 barrier include the minimum impact
load resistance and the corresponding n value (n 1 or n 2 ) which indicates the critical yield-line pattern
(Tables 2 through 5). It was concluded that the full-height gives lower values for the impact resistance
(R w ) rather than the top tapered portion of the barrier. Therefore, only full-height results are provided in
the following tables.

143-6
Table 2: Impact load resistance (R w ) of TL-5 barrier at interior location
S h (mm)
R w (kN)
100 150 200 250 300
100 1270 1145 1070 1020 985
150 928 827 766 725 696
S v (mm) 200 832 738 682 644 617
250 728 643 592 558 533
300 613 539 495 464 442

Table 3: Corresponding n values of TL-5 barrier at interior location

S h (mm)
n
100 150 200 250 300
100 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
150 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25
S v (mm) 200 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25
250 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25
300 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25

Table 4: Impact load resistance (R w ) of TL-5 barrier at exterior location

S h (mm)
R w (kN)
100 150 200 250 300
100 773 739 719 706 696
150 519 489 472 461 452
S v (mm) 200 452 424 407 397 389
250 382 356 340 330 323
300 308 285 271 262 256

Table 5: Corresponding n values of TL-5 barrier at exterior location

S h (mm)
n
100 150 200 250 300
100 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.50
150 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45
S v (mm) 200 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.45
250 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.40
300 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40

143-7
4 TL-5 STEEL-REINFORCED CONCRETE BARRIER DESIGN
In barrier design, CHDBC specifies minimum impact resistance required for each of the test levels. The
impact load resistance given in the codes are in the form of applied static loads based on previous crash
test results. The minimum specified impact resistance for TL-5 bridge barrier in CHBDC is given as 210
kN without the live load factor. Thus, by adding the 1.7 live load factor, a minimum impact resistance of
210x1.7 = 357 kN is required for TL-5 bridge barrier.
Considering CHBDC requirements, barrier design, including the steel bar spacing for horizontal and
vertical directions, can be recommended based on the modified trapezoidal yield-line analysis. The
analysis results (Tables 2 through 5) show that the end location of the barrier provides with lower impact
resistances compared to interior locations. One may observe that 15M steel bars at 300 mm spacing in
the vertical and horizontal direction as depicted in Figure 8 provides the optimal design since its ultimate
transverse resistance of 442 kN is greater than the 357-kN CHBDC design value. At end location,
considering the horizontal bar spacing maintained as 300 mm spacing, a 200 mm bar vertical spacing will
provide a transverse capacity of 389 KN which is greater than the 357-kN CHBDC design value.

Figure 8: Design recommendation for TL-5 concrete bridge barrier at interior location based on the yield-
line theory

5 CONCLUSIONS
This study presents the analysis of a TL-5 steel-reinforced concrete bridge barrier using the yield-line
theory. The developed transverse resistance of the barrier based on the trapezoidal yield-line failure

143-8
 pattern was considered in barrier analysis conducted in this study. Results showed that to obtain the
critical transverse capacity of the TL-5 barrier wall, the length of the horizontal yield line portion of the
trapezoidal yield line pattern at the barrier-deck connection should be less than the 2400 mm distributed
length of the transverse line loading simulating vehicle collision with the barrier wall. For a given TL-5
barrier dimensions similar to those shown in the 2014 CHBDC Commentary, 300 mm vertical and
horizontal spacing for 15M steel bars at interior segments of the barrier wall is adequate to ensure that
the barrier transverse resistance based on the yield-line theory is more than the CHBDC design value.
Also, reducing spacing of vertical bars from 300 to 200 mm at the end segment yields capacity-to-
demand ratio more than 1.

References
AASHTO. 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., USA.
CSA. 2014. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CAN/CSA S6-14. Canadian Standards Association,
Rexdale ON, Canada.
Fadaee, M., Iranmanesh, A. and Fadaee, M.J. 2013. A Simplified Method for Designing RC Slabs under
Concentrated Loading. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, IJET, 5(6): 675-679.
Fadaee, M. and Sennah K. 2018. Flexural Resistance of TL-1 and TL-2 Concrete Bridge Barriers using
the Yield-Line Theory. 6th International Structural Specialty Conference, Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering, Fredericton NL, Canada, pp. 1-10.
Fadaee, M. and Sennah K. 2017. Investigation on Impact Loads for Test Level 4 of Concrete Bridge
Barriers. 6th International Conference on Engineering Mechanics and Materials. Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering, Vancouver BC, Canada, pp. 1-10.
Jeon, S.J., Choi, M.S. and Kim, Y.J., 2011. Failure Mode and Ultimate Strength of Precast Concrete
Barrier. ACI Structural Journal, 108(1): 99-107.
Jeon, S.J., Choi, M.S. and Kim, Y.J., 2008. Ultimate Strength of Concrete Barrier by the Yield Line
Theory. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 2(1), 57-62.
Khederzadeh, H. 2014. Development of Innovative Designs of Bridge Barrier System Incorporating
Reinforcing Steel or GFRP bars. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Ryerson University,
Toronto, Canada.
Khederzadeh, H. and Sennah, K. 2014a. Experimental Investigation of Steel-Reinforced PL-3 Bridge
Barriers Subjected to Transverse Static Loading. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Short and Medium Span Bridges, Calgary, AL, pp. 1-9.
Khederzadeh, H. and Sennah, K. 2014b. AASHTO-LRFD Yield-line Analysis for Flexural Resistance of
Bridge Barrier Wall: Re-visited. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Short and Medium
Span Bridges, Calgary, AL, pp. 1-10.

143-9

View publication stats