20-7/Task 107 COPY NO.

_____

SHEAR IN SKEWED MULTI-BEAM BRIDGES

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Board National Research Council
Modjeski and Masters, Inc. NCHRP Project 20-7/Task 107 March 2002

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SPONSORSHIP This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council.

DISCLAIMER This is an uncorrected draft as submitted by the research agency. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research agency. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHAPTER 1 1.1 1.2 CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 4.1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 NCHRP Project 12-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Additional Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 STUDY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.1.1 Live Load Shear Along Exterior Beam Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.1.1.1 Influence of Skew Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.1.1.2 Influence of Beam Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.1.1.3 Influence of Span Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.1.1.4 Influence of Intermediate Cross Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.1.1.5 Influence of Beam Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.1.1.6 Influence of Slab Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.1.1.7 Influence of Bridge Aspect Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.1.2 Live Load Shear Across Bearing Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Simple Span Concrete T-Beam Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.2.1 Live Load Shear Along Exterior Beam Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.2.2 Live Load Shear Across Bearing Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) iv

4.2

4.3 4.4

4.5 CHAPTER 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 CHAPTER 6

Simple Span Spread Concrete Box Girder Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.4.1 Simple Span vs. Two-Span Correction Factors at Obtuse Corners of Abutments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.4.2 Correction Factors at Obtuse Corners of Abutments and Piers . . . . . . . . 81 4.4.3 Live Load Shear Along Exterior Beam Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.4.3.1 Influence of Skew Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.4.3.2 Influence of Beam Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4.4.3.3 Influence of Span Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.4.4 Live Load Shear Across Abutment Bearing Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.4.5 Live Load Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.4.6 Live Load Reactions at Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Skew Correction Factors from LRFD Specifications and Research Results . . . 126 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Simple Span Concrete T-Beam Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Simple Span Spread Concrete Box Girder Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Application of Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B ANALYSIS MATRICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 CROSS SECTIONS AND FRAMING PLANS OF BRIDGE MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Typical Beam and Slab Superstructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Plan View of Typical Skewed Superstructure. Current Application of the Skew Correction Factor for Shear per the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General Truck Placement Pattern used in NCHRP 12-26/1 for Maximum Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Bridge Plan Geometries for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Schematic Diagram of BSDI Finite Element Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Transformation of Concrete Section to Steel Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Procedure for Calculation of the Normalized Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 42 Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 42 Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . 45 Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . 45 Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . 46 Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . 46 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 48 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 48 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 49 Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18.

vi

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Effect of Beam Spacing on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . 54 Effect of Slab Thickness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . 56 Effect of Bridge Aspect Ratio on Exterior Girder Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . 66 Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . 67 Effect of Slab Thickness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Complete Results for End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Average Variation of End Shear Skew Corrections for Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 70 Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Comparison of Simple Span and Two-Span Continuous Skew Correction Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

vii

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure 50. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors at Abutments and Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Along the Length of the Exterior Girders of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Effect of Beam Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Effect of Beam Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the Abutment Bearing Lines of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . 94 Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . . . . 95 Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . 95 Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . 96 Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . . . 96 Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . . . 97 Complete Results Set for End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . . . . 99 Average Variation of End Shear Skew Corrections Across Abutments of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the Pier of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

viii

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 55. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59. Figure 60. Figure 61. Figure 62. Figure 63. Figure 64. Figure 65. Figure 66. Figure 67. Figure 68. Figure 69. Figure 70. Figure 71. Figure 72. Figure 73. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . . 104 Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . 106 Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . 106 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . 108 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . 108 Complete Results Set for Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . 110 Average Variation of Skew Corrections for Shear Across Piers of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors for Reaction at the Pier of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier . . . . . 115 Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier . . . . . 116 Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier . . . . . 117 Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier . . . . . 118 Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier . . . . . 119 Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . . . . 121 Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . 123 Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . 123 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . . . . 125 Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . . . . 125 Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Length of the Exterior Girders of Simple-Span Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

ix

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 74. Figure 75. Figure 76. Figure 77. Average Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Bearing Lines of Simple-Span Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Length of the Exterior Girders of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . 136 Average Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Across Abutments and Piers of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . 138 Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Along the Length of the Exterior Girders in Simple Span Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Sections . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Along the Length of the Exterior Girders in Continuous Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Sections . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Across the Bearing Lines of Simple Span Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Sections . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Across the Abutments and Piers of Continuous Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Sections . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Figure 78.

Figure 79.

Figure 80.

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Correction Factors for Load Distribution Factors for Support Shear of the Obtuse Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Maximum Shear Forces at Pier Support for Three-Lane Bridge with Different Skew Angles Predicted Using Different Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Base Analysis Matrix for Beam and Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . 30 Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Concrete T-beam Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Spread Concrete Box Girder Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Comparison of Maximum Live Load Shears from BSDI and an LRFD Line Girder Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for End Shear of Exterior Girders at the Obtuse Corners of Simple Span and Two-Span Bridge Models . . . . . . . . 80 Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear of Exterior Girders at the Obtuse Abutment Corners and Obtuse Pier Corners of Two-Span Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Correction Factors for Reaction at the Pier of Two-Span Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Comparison of Skew Correction Factors from LRFD Specifications and Research Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Table 10.

Table 11.

xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge and appreciate the assistance provided by Wagdy G. Wassef, Ph.D., during the analysis and interpretation of the finite element models of this research. Additionally, Chris W. Smith assisted in the development of the bridge models and Adnan Kurtovic assisted in the post processing of the bridge models. Their efforts are greatly appreciated. The authors also appreciate the efforts of Dann Hall and Rich Lawin of Bridge Software Development International, LTD., who performed the finite element analysis of the bridge models in this study.

xii

ABSTRACT This report documents an investigation of the skew correction factors for live load shear and the development of design guidelines for the variation of the skew correction factors along the exterior beam length and across the end bearing lines of simple span and two-span continuous beam and slab bridges. The report also documents an investigation of skew correction factors for live load reactions at the piers of two-span continuous bridges. research was performed through finite element analysis of 41 bridge models. The study findings suggest that a reasonable approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior girders of superstructures consisting of concrete decks, filled grids, or partially filled grids on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections is a linear distribution of the factor from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD Specifications), to a value of 1.0 at girder mid-span. Similarly, the skew correction factor variation across the bearing lines of those bridges may be approximated by a linear distribution of the correction factor from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined according to the LRFD Specifications, to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bridge. The variations of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of exterior girders and for shear across both the abutments and piers of continuous bridges are identical to those proposed for simple span bridges. Skew correction factors for reaction at the piers of continuous bridges are present and are unique from those calculated for shear at the piers. From the limited data, however, accurate empirical equations for the correction factor or its variation across the pier could not be derived. Therefore, the development of such equations for continuous bridges is necessary. The

xiii

SUMMARY

This research focused on an investigation of the skew correction factors for live load shear defined in Article 4.6.2.2.3c of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD Specifications)1. The LRFD Specifications stipulate that the skew correction factors for shear, derived in NCHRP Project 12-262 for exterior beams at obtuse corners of skewed, simple span bridges, be applied not only to the end shear of the exterior beams, but also to the end shear of each beam in the bridge cross section. During the development of the skew correction factors, however, variation of the effect of skew on the end shear of interior beams was not investigated. Additionally, the effect of skew on shear along the length of exterior beams of beam and slab bridges was not investigated in NCHRP Project 12-262. The objective of this research, therefore, was the development of design guidelines for the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the exterior beam length and across the end bearing lines of simple span beam and slab bridges. This study also investigated a limited number of two-span continuous bridge models and the variation of the skew correction factor for shear in these bridge types. Additionally, the need for skew correction factors for live load reactions at the piers of continuous bridges was investigated. The research was performed through finite element analysis of 41 bridge models, including 25 simple span beam-slab models, 3 simple span concrete T-beam models, 4 simple span spread concrete box girder models and 9 two-span continuous beam-slab models. The influence of skew angle, beam stiffness, span length, intermediate cross frames, beam spacing, slab thickness and bridge aspect ratio on the skew correction factor variation was investigated.

For the simple span bridge models studied, the research results indicate that: Regardless of changes in the aforementioned bridge parameters, a reasonable approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior girders of simple span beam-slab and concrete T-beam bridges is a linear distribution of the factor from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined according to the LRFD Specifications, to a value of 1.0 at girder mid-span. Regardless of changes in the aforementioned bridge parameters, a reasonable approximation of the skew correction factor for live load shear across the bearing lines of simple span beam-slab and concrete T-beam bridges is a linear distribution of the correction factor from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined according to the LRFD Specifications, to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bridge.

For the two-span continuous bridge models studied, the research results indicate that: The variations of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of exterior girders in each span and for shear across both the abutments and piers of two-span continuous beam-slab bridges are identical to those proposed for simple span bridges. The correction factor variation along the exterior girder may be approximated by a linear distribution of the factor at the obtuse corner to a value of 1.0 at girder mid-span. Likewise, the variation across the abutments and piers is approximated by a linear distribution of the factor at the obtuse corner to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner. The skew correction factor defined by the LRFD Specifications is valid for the girder shear at the obtuse corners of both the abutments and piers of the continuous bridges. Skew correction factors for reaction at the piers of continuous bridges are present and are unique from those calculated for shear at the piers. From the limited continuous bridge model data of this study, however, accurate empirical equations which define the correction factor or define its variation across the pier could not be derived. Therefore, the development of such equations for continuous bridges is necessary and is recommended for further research.

For application of the research findings, the recommendations are as follows: 2

Skew Correction Factor for Shear, Variation Along Exterior Beam Length For superstructure types Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Section, within the applicable ranges of skew angle (), spacing of beams or webs (S), span of beam (L) and number of beams, stringers or girders (Nb) as defined by Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications, the skew correction factor for shear may be varied linearly from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined in accordance with the empirical equation defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, to a value of 1.0 at girder mid-span. This approximate variation is applicable for both simple span structures and continuous structures. For continuous structures, the skew correction factor calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutment per Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 is also valid at the obtuse corners of the interior piers. Likewise, the variation of the correction factor is applicable from both the obtuse corner of the abutment and the obtuse corners of the interior piers to the girder mid-span.

Skew Correction Factor for Shear, Variation Across Bearing Lines For superstructure types Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Section, within the applicable ranges of skew angle (), spacing of beams or webs (S), span of beam (L) and number of beams, stringers or girders (Nb) as defined by Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications, the skew correction factor for shear may be varied linearly from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined in accordance with Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bearing line. This approximate variation is applicable for both simple span structures and continuous structures. For continuous structures, the skew correction factor calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutment per Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 is also valid at the obtuse corners of the interior piers. Likewise, the variation of the correction factor is applicable from both the obtuse corner of the abutment and the obtuse corners of the interior piers to the acute corner of the bearing lines.

Additional suggested research includes an investigation of the effects of torsion on web shear in spread box girder bridges. The study results indicate that although torsion is typically

neglected in right bridges, the introduction of skew may increase torsional effects to levels that are not negligible. Without further research, however, and given the lack of substantial field documentation indicating problems with torsion and shear in skewed spread box girder bridges, the current design practices are considered to be acceptable. Finally, this study investigated only a few types of beam and slab bridges and provides recommendations regarding only superstructures consisting of concrete decks, filled grids, or partially filled grids on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams; or T- and double T sections. Additional research is recommended, therefore, to determine the effects of skew on shear in the remaining beam and slab bridge types included within Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1.1

INTRODUCTION

Beam and slab bridges are basic and common elements of the national system of roadways and bridges. Examples of typical beam and slab superstructures are shown in Figure 1, and include structures such as beam-slab (i.e. steel I-beam, concrete I-beam and concrete Tbeam), box girder, multi-box beam and spread box beam bridges. Design procedures for these structures are well documented and standardized through research, physical testing and development of design codes, especially for right (i.e., non-skewed) bridges. The design of skewed bridges, however, is often based more upon engineering experience and extrapolation of limited analyses, rather than upon extensive research. In fact, for many years, little was done to incorporate the effect of skew on live load distribution, with the result that many skewed bridges were designed as right bridges. This was often the case for shear design in skewed beam and slab structures. Two recent NCHRP research projects, Project 12-26 and Project 12-33, focused on updating and refining the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications, and in doing so, refined the shear design procedures for skewed beam and slab bridges. NCHRP Project 12-262 focused on investigating the live load distribution in beam and slab bridges and on developing refined live load distribution formulas to be incorporated in an updated AASHTO Bridge Design Specification. The objective of Project 12-33 was the development of AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications utilizing the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology. This 5

project culminated with the publication of the first edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD Specifications)3 in 1994 and incorporated the refined shear design procedures for skewed beam and slab bridges developed in NCHRP 12-26.

SUPPORTING COMPONENTS Steel Beam

TYPE OF DECK Cast-in-place concrete slab, precast concrete slab, steel grid, glued/spiked panels, stressed wood Cast-in-place concrete, precast concrete

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION

Precast Concrete I or BulbTee Sections

Closed Steel or Precast Concrete Boxes

Cast-in-place concrete slab

Open Steel or Precast Concrete Boxes

Cast-in-place concrete slab, precast concrete deck slab

Cast-in-Place Concrete Tee Beam

Monolithic concrete

Figure 1. Typical Beam and Slab Superstructures1.

The current design methodology in Section 4 of the LRFD Specifications1 for typical, right beam and slab bridges permits the use of empirical distribution factors for determination of the live load effects in bridge beams. For the mid-span bending moment and end shear of exterior beams in skewed beam and slab bridges, the LRFD Specifications provide correction factors that are to be applied to the moment and shear distribution factors, calculated for the corresponding right bridge. These empirical skew correction factors for end shear in beam and slab bridges, as defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications1 and as shown in Table 1, have been the subject of much discussion following the adoption of the LRFD Specifications in 1993. As stated in the scope of services provided by the NCHRP for this project, Article 4.6.2.2.3c, Skewed Bridges, in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, requires that shear in the exterior beam at the obtuse corner of the bridge shall be adjusted when the line of support is skewed. The Specifications provide correction factors for this adjustment and require that the correction factors be applied to all beams in the cross-section. In the development of these correction factors, the variation of the effect of skew on the individual beam reactions was not considered. In addition, the Specifications provide no guidance on the influence of skew on the shear along the length of the beam. The commentary to the Specifications states that the prescribed corrections are conservative. As a consequence of this conservatism some beams in the bridge are overdesigned. It is not only this conservatism that has been the topic of discussions surrounding the skew correction factors, but also the extent to which the correction factors apply to the shear along the length of the exterior girder.

Table 1. Correction Factors for Load Distribution Factors for Support Shear of the Obtuse Corner1.
Type of Superstructure Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete TBeams, T- and Double T Section Multicell Concrete Box Beams, Box Sections Correction Factor Range of Applicability 0 # 2 # 60 3.5 # S # 16.0 20 # L # 240 Nb $ 4 0 < 2 # 60 6.0 < S # 13.0 20 # L # 240 35 # d # 110 Nc $ 3 0 < 2 # 60 6.0 # S # 11.5 20 # L # 140 18 # d # 65 Nb $ 3 0 < 2 # 60 20 # L # 120 17 # d # 60 35 # b # 60 5 # Nb # 20 Nb = number of beams, stringers or girders Nc = number of cells in a concrete box girder ts = depth of concrete slab (in) Kg = longitudinal stiffness parameter (in4)

Concrete Deck on Spread Concrete Box Beams

Concrete Box Beams Used in Multibeam Decks

Where: 2 = skew angle (degrees) S = spacing of beams or webs (ft) L = span of beam (ft) b = width of beam (in) d = depth of beam or stringer (in)

The development of the skew correction factors for beam and slab bridges in the LRFD Specifications was part of NCHRP Project 12-26. The report for that project, Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges4, indicated that the skew correction factors were derived for only the end shears of the exterior girders at the obtuse corners of simple span bridges. In general, the end shear tends to increase as the skew angle of the supports increases beyond approximately 15 to 20. For the LRFD Specifications, however, the working group for NCHRP 12-33 conservatively extended the applicability of the correction factor to include not only the end shear at the obtuse corner of the exterior beams, but also the end shear of each beam in the bridge cross section5, as shown in the typical skewed bridge plan of Figure 2. The working group for NCHRP 12-33 also assumed that it may be reasonable to extend the correction factors for end shear of the exterior beam to the shear along the length of the exterior beam5, but made no provisions in the LRFD Specifications to do so. During the development of the skew correction factors in NCHRP 12-26, the effect of skew on the shear along the length of the exterior beams was not investigated, and the current LRFD Specifications do not address this issue.

10

C Girder (Typ.) L

Correction Factor Conservatively Applied to End Shear of All Girders (Typ.) Skew Angle

C Abutment (Typ.) L

Correction Factor Calculated for and Applied to End Shear at Obtuse Corner of Exterior Girder (Typ.)

Figure 2. Plan View of Typical Skewed Superstructure. Current Application of the Skew Correction Factor for Shear per the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications1.

11

An additional topic of discussion regarding the design of skewed bridges is the treatment of reactions at interior supports of continuous spans. Based upon the NCHRP 12-33 working groups previous experience with curved and simple-span skewed structures, it was speculated that skew effects also account for the reduced reaction at interior supports, and, in some cases, the uplift at the acute corner of skewed bridges5. Intuition may suggest, therefore, that at the interior supports of continuous spans, where both an obtuse and acute corner exist opposite each other, the skew effects on shear may cancel out for determination of the total reaction. This hypothesis, however, has not yet been investigated and is not addressed in the LRFD Specifications. As a result of these outstanding issues regarding the skew correction factors for shear, this project focuses on investigating and more accurately assessing the effect of skew on end shear across bearing lines and on shear along the length of exterior beams of beam and slab bridges. This research concentrates on simple span bridges, with a cursory evaluation of twospan continuous beam-slab bridges. The importance of this topic lies in the fact that while research has been performed to determine the shear correction factor for end shears at the obtuse corners of skewed bridges, these factors also have been conservatively applied to the end shear of all beams in the cross section and, in some cases, to the shear along the length of the exterior girder, without supporting research. The possibility exists, therefore, that some beams in beam and slab bridges are over-designed for shear. Further research on this topic may enable the use of more precise skew correction factors, and hence, may result in more economical structures.

12

1.2

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to develop practical and reasonably accurate design guidelines for estimating the variation of the skew correction factor for live load shear along the length of exterior beams and across the beam supports of simple-span beam and slab bridges. This study also investigates a limited number of two-span continuous bridge models to address the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams and across the abutments and piers of these bridge types. Additionally, the continuous models are studied to address the need for skew correction factors for live load reactions at piers. The proposed guidelines for the skew correction factors of both simple-span and two-span continuous bridges are intended to be developed in a manner suitable for incorporation into the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

INTRODUCTION

Extensive research has been performed by bridge engineers in an attempt to accurately predict the path of loads through bridges and to present the predictions in reasonably accurate, yet practical load distribution formulas for designers. Specific to beam and slab bridges, much research has been performed to develop approximate, algebraic equations for the distribution of moment and shear in right bridges. A further extension of that work is the area of research devoted to the distribution of moment in skewed beam and slab bridges. Research by Marx, et al.6, Nutt, et al. for the NCHRP Project 12-262, Khaleel and Itani7, Bishara, et al.8 and Ebeido and Kennedy9 has concentrated on moment distributions in skewed, simply-supported and continuous beam and slab bridges. The research devoted to the distribution of shear and bearing reactions in skewed bridges, however, is confined to a rather limited set of sources.

2.2

NCHRP PROJECT 12-26

One of the major comprehensive studies aimed at predicting the effect of skew on the distribution of shear in beam and slab bridges was the work by Zokaie, et. al. for NCHRP Project 12-264. The primary objective of NCHRP Project 12-26 was to investigate the live load distribution in beam and slab bridges and develop, where necessary, more accurate live load distribution formulas to replace those specified in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (Standard Specifications)10. While experiencing only minor revisions since

14

incorporation into the Standard Specifications in 1931, the S/over equations (i.e., S/5.5 or similar equations) for live load distribution provide little guidance on the treatment of skewed bridges. One goal of NCHRP Project 12-26, therefore, was aimed at developing distribution factors that would account for skew effects. The analysis of load distribution and, ultimately, the development of the new load distribution factor formulas for right beam and slab bridges in NCHRP Project 12-26, was initiated by construction of a database of 850 existing beam and slab bridges from a nationwide survey of state transportation officials. From the database, the average beam and slab bridge parameters were defined for five different bridge types: beam-slab (i.e., steel I-beam, concrete Ibeam and concrete T-beam), box girder, slab, multi-box beam and spread box beam. Parametric analyses were performed by varying a single parameter at a time to determine each parameters effect on the distribution of HS20 truck live load. The parametric studies utilized both finite element analyses and grillage analyses with a number of different software packages. From the results, new live load distribution equations for right bridges were derived to incorporate the effects of each parameter that had a significant effect on load distribution. The approximate equations developed in NCHRP Project 12-26 for the skew correction factors were developed for simple span bridges utilizing the programs GENDEK5A11 and FINITE12 for finite element analysis. The skew correction factors were developed such that they could be applied to the newly derived distribution factors of a right bridge with the same geometric parameters as the skewed bridge under investigation. In order to incorporate the effects of each bridge parameter that had a significant impact on the load distribution of right bridges, parametric studies of skewed bridges were completed, similar to those performed for the right bridges. The live load used in the parametric studies consisted of two trucks placed transversely on the bridge cross section to maximize the girder responses. Test models of different live load placements confirmed that two trucks typically produced the governing girder 15

responses. The general loading condition that maximized shear at the obtuse corner of the skewed bridges is shown in Figure 3.

16

Figure 3. General Truck Placement Pattern used in NCHRP 12-26/1 for Maximum Shear.

17

From the parametric analyses, the equations for the skew correction factors for shear were derived from the ratio of the maximum exterior girder shear of a skewed bridge to that of a right bridge, each with the same geometric parameters and live load positioning. These equations, developed for the end shear of exterior beams at obtuse corners of beam and slab bridges, are presented in Article 4.6.2.2.3c of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications1. As discussed in Section 1.1, the LRFD Specifications require that the correction factors be applied not only to the end shear of the exterior beams, but also to the end shear of each beam in the bridge cross section. During the development of the skew correction factors, however, variation of the effect of skew on the end shear of interior beams was not investigated. The application of the skew correction factors to all beams of a cross section is considered to be conservative; therefore, it is suspected that certain beams may be over-designed. Additionally, the effect of skew on shear along the length of exterior beams of beam and slab bridges was not investigated in NCHRP Project 12-26.

2.3

ONTARIO HIGHWAY BRIDGE DESIGN CODE

The treatment of skew and its effects on load distribution are handled differently in the third edition of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC)13 than the method utilized in the LRFD Specifications. Rather than modify the load distribution factors developed for right bridges, the OHBDC defines a limit for the skewness of a bridge, beyond which refined methods of analysis must be used. Prior to the third edition of the OHBDC, the Ontario

18

code implied that the measure of a bridges skewness was only its skew angle, as the skewness limitation was defined by a skew angle of 20E (measured from centerline of bearings to a line normal to the bridge centerline). The third edition of the OHBDC, however, incorporated the work of Jaeger and Bakht14 which indicated that the measure of bridge skewness is also a function of span length, bridge width and girder spacing. Hence, the skew limitation, , was redefined in the third edition to incorporate these effects, as shown in Equation 1. Bridges beyond the skewness limit of 1/18 must be analyzed using a refined method such as grillage analysis, orthotropic plate theory or finite element analysis. Skewed bridges within this limit may be analyzed using the load distribution factors developed for right bridges, with the associated error of this procedure estimated at less than 5%.

S( Tan ) 1 L 18

(Equation 1)

where: S = L = Q =

beam spacing span length skew angle

2.4

ADDITIONAL WORK

Additional work regarding skewed beam and slab bridges was reported by Ebeido and Kennedy15,16. Their research focused on load distribution in skewed composite bridges, both simple span and continuous, and included studies of moment, shear and reactions. Two separate

19

studies were performed regarding the distribution of shear and reactions in skewed bridges: (i) Simply supported composite bridges, and (ii) Continuous composite bridges. The first study analyzed the influence of skew and other bridge geometric parameters on the distribution of shear in simply supported composite steel-concrete bridges. The parameters investigated included: skew angle, beam number and spacing, bridge aspect ratio, number of loaded lanes, number of intermediate diaphragms and the presence of end diaphragms. A parametric study of over 400 bridge cases was completed using ABAQUS17 for the finite element analysis of the bridge models. The results of the computer analyses were verified through physical testing of six scale bridge models. Empirical formulas were developed for end shear distribution factors of both dead load and OHBDC truck live load. The empirical formulas were derived separately for exterior girders at the acute corner of the bridge, exterior girders at the obtuse corner and interior girders. The effect of skew on shear along the length of the girders was not addressed. The second study by Ebeido and Kennedy focused on continuous skewed composite bridges and the distribution of both shear and reactions at interior piers. Similar to the study for simple spans, this research incorporated over 600 two-span continuous bridges with investigation of the aforementioned parameters, as well as the ratio of adjacent span lengths. ABAQUS was again used for the finite element modeling, and verified through physical testing of three scale models of continuous bridges. The live load used in this research, however, was the AASHTO HS20-44 truck. This facilitated comparison of the empirical formulas for distribution of shear at pier supports developed in Ebeido and Kennedys research with those from NCHRP 12-26 and the LRFD Specifications.

20

The comparison of distribution factors was limited to those for shear at interior piers, as NCHRP 12-26 and the LRFD Specifications do not address the distribution of pier reactions in skewed bridges. Ebeido and Kennedy used a three-lane continuous bridge with skew angles of 0, 30, 45 and 60 to compare the maximum shear force determined from the LRFD Specifications, NCHRP 12-26, their empirical formulas and their finite element analyses. The comparison results, shown in Table 2, indicated that the distribution factors developed by the authors result in less conservative shear forces at the piers. These results, the authors state, are due to the fact that NCHRP 12-26 and the LRFD Specifications do not account for intermediate diaphragms and apply the same skew correction factors to both the interior and exterior girders. Additionally, the factors developed by Ebeido and Kennedy account for the effect of skew on the distribution of dead load, an effect not considered in NCHRP 12-26 and the LRFD Specifications. Similar to the first study, however, the effect of skew on shear along the lengths of the girders was not addressed.

21

Table 2. Maximum Shear Forces at Pier Support for Three-Lane Bridge with Different Skew Angles Predicted Using Different Methods17 Skew angle (degrees) (2)
2=0 2 = 30 2 = 45 2 = 60

Shear force (kN) (1) Maximum exterior girder shear force at the pier support

LRFD (1994) (3) 338 376 405 455 423 473 508 569

NCHRP (1988) (4) 440 517 581 657 440 517 581 657

Proposed formulas (5) 296 315 353 391 314 297 275 253

Finiteelement analysis (6) 291 308 349 382 319 288 268 250

Maximum interior girder shear force at the pier support

2=0 2 = 30 2 = 45 2 = 60

22

The effects of skew angle and intermediate transverse cross frames on load distribution in skewed, simple span are investigated by Aggour and Aggour18. Their analysis of 12 single track railway bridges, with superstructures consisting of two steel plate girders, focused on the distribution of bending moments. The authors findings, however, indicate that the variation in number of intermediate cross frames had little impact on the magnitude of reactions at the acute and obtuse corners of the bridges. The girder reactions for models with varying numbers of intermediate cross frames did not differ from those of a model possessing only end cross frames. The research performed by Bell19 in 1998 focused on evaluating the shear and moment distribution factors currently specified in the Standard Specifications and the LRFD Specifications. Bell investigated straight, skewed, simple span and continuous beam and slab bridges, both with and without intermediate diaphragms, using both field test data and finite element analysis with ANSYS20. The research objective was to develop empirical equations for load distribution in continuous bridges, if it was determined that modifications to the existing equations were required to provide more accurate distribution results. Using the AASHTO HS20-44 truck for live load, parametric studies were performed, investigating the effects of the number of spans, span length, span length ratio, skew angle and girder spacing. The results indicated that the distribution factors provided in the LRFD Specifications accurately assess the effect of skew on the distribution of shear, and therefore, no modifications to the current equations for shear distribution were recommended. In his research project Forces At Bearings Of Skewed Bridges, Bishara investigated 36 simply supported composite multi-stringer bridges to evaluate the reaction components at the rocker and bolster bearings under both dead load and HS20-44 live loads21. While most design

23

codes address the vertical and horizontal reaction components at these bearings, Bishara also addressed the remaining three rotational degrees of freedom at the bearings. Using ADINA22 for the finite element analysis, a parametric study was performed to determine the effects span length, deck width and skew angle on the girder reactions. Two field tests were performed, one on a simple span bridge and one on a two span continuous bridge, to validate the results of the finite element analysis. The research conclusions that addressed the live load vertical reactions were: (i) Bearing forces differ substantially between the interior and exterior girders and between the obtuse and acute corners; (ii) The maximum live load reaction for the exterior girder is obtained when the trucks are placed at the obtuse corner; (iii) The maximum live load reaction for the interior girders was about 98% of the value computed per the Standard Specifications; therefore, the design approximations in the Standard Specifications are suitable for design, and; (iv) The maximum live load reaction for the exterior girder was less than that obtained from the AASHTO procedures. El-Ali investigated the internal forces in four 137-foot simply-supported, welded steel plate girder bridges with various skew angles to determine the effect of skew on girder bending moments, torsional moments and shears23. Finite element analyses of the four bridge models, with skew angles of 0, 20, 40and 60, were performed using SAP IV24. The girder spacing of each bridge model was constant and intermediate and end cross frames were included. Four lanes of HS20-44 live load were applied in six different configurations in order to obtain the maximum results. The research conclusions indicated that the live load shears obtained from the finite element models did not have a definite correlation to those calculated using the distribution

24

factors from the Standard Specifications. The ratio of the shear values obtained from the finite element analyses to those calculated according to the Standard Specifications25 varied from 0.45 to approximately 1.

25

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The evaluation of the effect of skew on shear along the length of exterior beams and on shear across bearing lines of beam and slab bridges was performed through a parametric study of a selective group of simple span and two-span continuous beam and slab bridge models. Analysis matrices were developed based on key parameters of simple span and two-span continuous beam and slab bridges. These analysis matrices served to guide the study, to allow for assessment of non-linear variation in the results and to identify the major parameters that have a significant effect on the variation of the skew correction factors. The matrices were constructed based upon bridge plans with span lengths of 42 feet (L), 105 feet (2.5L) and 168 feet (4L), a typical curb-to-curb width of 42 feet and skew angles, , of 30 and 60. The base case analysis matrix and bridge plan geometries are shown in Table 3 and Figure 4, respectively.

26

Table 3. Base Analysis Matrix for Beam and Slab Bridges Beam and Slab Bridges Skew Angle,
2

(I+Ae2)1 L L L 2.5L 2.5L 2.5L 4L 4L 4L L L L

(I+Ae2)2 2.5L 2.5L 2.5L 4L 4L 4L L L L

(I+Ae2)3 2.5L 2.5L 2.5L 4L 4L 4L

0 30 60

Figure 4. Bridge Plan Geometries for Analysis

27

Also included in the bridge analysis matrices were major parameters, such as I+Ae2 (where I = girder stiffness, A = the beam cross sectional area and e = the distance between the centers of the deck and the girder), that have a significant influence on the load distribution of beam and slab bridges. These parameters were identified during the skewed bridge sensitivity studies performed in NCHRP 12-26 for development of the current skew correction factors in the LRFD Specifications, and include skew angle, beam spacing, beam stiffness, span length and slab thickness4. As a result, those same parameters, as well as bridge aspect ratio and the presence of intermediate cross frames, were investigated in a total of 41 bridge models. This group of 41 models was comprised of 25 simple span beam-slab bridges, 3 simple span concrete T-beam bridges, 4 simple span spread concrete box girder bridges and 9 two-span continuous beam-slab bridges. The expanded analysis matrices for each bridge type are provided in Appendix A and the typical framing plans and cross sections of the bridge models are provided in Appendix B. The basic cross section parameters (i.e. number of beams, beam spacing, beam inertia/beam depth, slab thickness) for the beam and slab bridges were selected using the results of NCHRP 12-26 as a guide. The analysis of load distribution, and ultimately, the development of the new load distribution factor formulas for right beam and slab bridges, in NCHRP 12-26 was initiated by construction of a database of 850 existing beam and slab bridges from a nationwide survey of state transportation officials. From the database, the average beam and slab bridge parameters were defined for five different bridge types: beam-slab, box girder, slab, multi-box beam and spread box beam. These average bridge properties were used as a guide in setting the base parameters of the models to be investigated in this project.

28

For the beam-slab bridge types, the average properties calculated in NCHRP 12-262, and the base bridge model parameters used in this study are shown in Table 4. Additional beam-slab bridge parameters, specifically, girder spacings of 4.84 ft., girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4 and 1,870,000 in4, a slab thickness of 9 in. and a 10-girder cross section, were also selected for additional investigations. The two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models were based upon the same base parameters, with the addition of a second, equal span. For the concrete T-beam models, the base bridge parameters utilized in this research were again established using the average properties from NCHRP 12-262, as shown in Table 5. The analysis matrix for the T-beam bridges was developed using typical span lengths for this bridge type, determined from NCHRP 12-26, rather than the base case span lengths defined previously. The matrix also includes a second beam with a stiffness typical of those identified in NCHRP 12-26. The base bridge parameters for the spread box girder bridge models were also developed from the results of NCHRP 12-262. Table 6 contains the average properties from NCHRP 12-26 and the base parameters utilized in this study. The analysis matrix for this bridge type, found in Appendix A, was created by selecting a two additional, typical box girders, one shallower and one deeper than the base case girder.

29

Table 4. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Beam-Slab Bridge Models

Bridge Parameter Beam Spacing, ft. Beam Stiffness (I+Ae ), in Slab Thickness, in. Number of Girders in X-Section
2 4

Average NCHRP 12-26 Parameter 7.8 339,000 7 5.5

Base Model Parameter 7.75 358,000 7 6

Table 5. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Concrete T-beam Bridge Models

Bridge Parameter Girder Spacing, ft. Girder Stiffness (I+Ae ), in Slab Thickness, in. Number of Girders in X-Section
2 4

Average NCHRP 12-26 Parameter 7.77 357,000 7 5

Base Model Parameter 7.75 333,000 7 6

Table 6. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Spread Concrete Box Girder Bridge Models

Bridge Parameter Beam Spacing, ft. Box Depth, in. Box Width, in. Box Web Thickness, in. Box Top Flange Thickness, in. Box Bottom Flg Thickness, in. Slab Thickness, in. Number of Girders in X-Section
30

Average NCHRP 12-26 Parameter 8.83 39 48 5.5 3.8 5.8 7.6 6

Base Model Parameter 8.83 39 48 5 3 6 7.5 5

Investigation of each of the bridge models identified in the analysis matrices was performed using finite element analyses. The services of Bridge Software Development International, Ltd. (BSDI)26 were utilized for the finite element modeling. BSDI allows the user to define the geometry, members, support conditions and loading conditions necessary for construction of the finite element model. The model processing and generation of the live load results was performed by BSDI. The three-dimensional finite element modeling of the bridges by the BSDI software allowed for individual modeling of the deck, beams and cross frames and optimization of the live load placement. The deck slab was modeled with eight-node solid elements, each possessing three translational degrees of freedom. The deck elements were modeled in their actual position with respect to the neutral axes of the beams, which allowed the in-plane shear stiffness of the deck to be considered in the analyses. Composite action between the deck slab and beams was achieved through the use of rigid links prohibiting rotation of the deck with respect to the beams. A combination of plate elements for the webs and beam elements for the flanges were utilized to model the bridge beams. In modeling the flanges as beam elements, the axial and lateral flange stiffness was incorporated into the models. Cross frames, X or K configuration, were modeled with truss elements. Diaphragms were modeled with plate elements for the webs and beam elements for the flanges, similar to the modeling of the girders. All supports for the analysis models were free to translate laterally and longitudinally, with restraint provided as required to ensure global stability. A schematic diagram of the bridge modeling technique for an I-girder bridge is shown in Figure 5.

31

The BSDI software is tailored toward the analysis of steel I-girder and steel box girder cross sections. The analysis of concrete I-girders and concrete box girders was achieved, however, by transformation of the concrete sections into equivalent steel sections. The concrete sections were transformed to produce steel sections which matched both the non-composite and composite section properties of the concrete sections. The haunch depth above the girders was modified as required in order to achieve the required composite section properties. Figure 6 displays the transformation of a concrete I-girder into an equivalent steel I-girder. A similar procedure was utilized for transformation of the concrete box girders into equivalent steel boxes. Transformation of the concrete T-beams was not required, as the BSDI input processor was modified to facilitate the analysis of these bridge types

32

Solid Element for Deck

Rigid Link (Typ.)

Plate Element for Web (Typ.) Beam Element for Flange (Typ.)

C Beam (Typ.) L

Truss Element for Cross Frame (Typ.)

Figure 5. Schematic Diagram of BSDI Finite Element Modeling

7" Slab Haunch

AASHTO 28/63 Concrete I-Beam

Equivalent Steel Beam

(EI)conc beam = (EI)steel beam (EI)composite conc beam = (EI)composite steel beam

33

Figure 6. Transformation of Concrete Section to Steel Section

34

Influence surfaces were generated and utilized by the BSDI software for calculation of the controlling live load effects for each of the bridge beams. The construction of the influence surfaces was achieved by individual application of unit loads at each node of the entire deck surface. From the bridge response under each unit load, influence surfaces were created for each element of the model for each effect under consideration (moment, shear, lateral flange bending, etc.). An automated live loader program placed the specified live loads in the position that created the worst case effects for each of the members. For all models of this investigation, the applied live load was two 12-foot lanes of AASHTO HS20 trucks26, without a concurrent uniform load. While the LRFD Specifications utilize a live load condition that combines the truck loading with a uniform load1, it is assumed that the omission of the uniform load does not have a significant influence on the analysis results. The skew correction factors, based upon normalized live load responses, i.e., live load results based upon one particular live load configuration, are assumed to be relatively insensitive to the exact configuration of the live load. The simultaneous application of the uniform load with the truck load, therefore, was not considered. The application of two lanes of live load was selected based upon previous experience that this configuration typically governs the response of the bridge types investigated in this study. For the continuous span models, an additional live load case of two lanes of 90% of two HS20 trucks spaced 50 feet apart was included for determination of the pier reactions, as stipulated by the LRFD Specifications1. Processing of the live load shear results from the BSDI bridge models attempted to recognize the complexity of the bridge analyses of this study and the likelihood that individual analysts may arrive at unique solutions. Therefore, through consultation with BSDI, it was

35

determined that curve-fitting techniques should be utilized during processing of the BSDI output. The Least Squares Method of curve-fitting was applied to the live load shear diagram of each bridge girder, obtained from the raw BSDI model output. This analysis approach was considered to be a prudent method for obtaining results representative of the range of possible solutions from various analysts and analysis tools. Three-dimensional finite element modeling of even the simplest of bridge structures is a complex task. The skewed bridges studied in this project merely added to the level of complexity in the finite element analysis. To arrive at solutions to these complex bridge models, individual engineers may employ not only different modeling techniques and philosophies, but also different analysis tools and/or software packages. Hence, the final solutions obtained by each analyst for the same bridge may differ slightly, whether it be a result of the modeling philosophy, the technique or the tool. The BSDI software, as one example, is tailored for use in the design of bridge structures. The BSDI modeling techniques and analysis methods, therefore, are geared toward producing accurate solutions, while retaining a high level of confidence that a conservative solution has been obtained for a structure designed for a service life of 50, 75 or possibly 100 years. Hence, curve-fitting the results of the BSDI analyses was viewed as a reasonable method for obtaining results representative of the range of possible solutions. After obtaining the live load results from BSDI and curve-fitting the shear diagrams of each bridge girder, the influence of skew angle and other primary geometric bridge parameters on live load shears along the length of exterior beams of skewed beam and slab bridges was presented in terms of normalized skew corrections. The live load shear diagrams obtained from the bridge models were used to calculate the skew correction factors for the exterior beams at

36

each 10th point along the beam length. The skew correction factors are defined as the ratio of the live load shear at a given location of a skewed bridge to that of a right bridge with identical geometric parameters, VLL,s / VLL,r. The actual skew correction, (VLL,s / VLL,r) -1.0, when positive, represents an additional fraction of the right bridge shear that is present when the same bridge is skewed. The variation of this skew correction, (VLL,s / VLL,r) -1.0, is utilized in this study to depict the variation of the skew correction factor itself. Therefore, the skew correction at each 10th point along the exterior girders was calculated and then normalized to the skew correction at the end of the beam at the obtuse corner of the bridge. Figure 7 illustrates this process for calculating the normalized skew correction at the two-tenth point of an exterior beam.

37

RIGHT BRIDGE Girder 6 Girder 5 Girder 4 Girder 3 Girder 2 Girder 1 VLL 25k 20k C Abutment (Typ.) L Girder 6 Girder 5 Girder 4 Girder 3 Girder 2 Girder 1 VLL Skew Correction Factor Skew Correction Normalized Skew Correction

SKEWED BRIDGE

C Abutment (Typ.) L

30k 22k 1.20 1.10 0.20 0.10 1.00 0.50

Exterior Beam LL End Shear, Right Bridge = Exterior Beam LL End Shear, Obtuse Corner, Skewed Bridge = Skew Correction Factor ( = 30/25) = Skew Correction = Exterior Beam LL Shear, Two-tenth Point, Right Bridge = Exterior Beam LL Shear, Two-tenth Point, Skewed Bridge = Skew Correction Factor ( = 22/20) = Skew Correction = Therefore, Normalized Skew Correction at Two-tenth Point (0.10/0.20) = Thus, the normalized correction indicates that the skew correction at the Two-tenth Point is 50% of the skew correction at the end of the beam.

25 kips 30 kips 1.20 0.20 20 kips 22 kips 1.10 0.10

0.50 (50%)

Figure 7. Procedure for Calculation of the Normalized Skew Corrections

38

This procedure of calculating, and then plotting, the normalized skew corrections enabled graphic visualization of the variation of the skew correction along the length of the exterior beams. It also facilitated direct comparison of this variation between bridges with different geometric parameters, and hence, different magnitudes of skew corrections. A calculated skew correction factor of 1.0 within the length of a beam produces a normalized skew correction of 0.0, indicating that no correction for skew is necessary. A calculated skew correction factor less than 1.0 produces a normalized skew correction less than 0.0, indicating that this point has a negative correction for skew, i.e., the shear in the skewed bridge model is less than the shear in the right bridge model. The normalized skew corrections were plotted at each tenth point along the exterior girders, defining location 0.0 as the beam end at the obtuse corner of the bridge, location 1.0 at the acute corner, exterior girder 1 at the bottom of the bridge plan (Girder 1 in Figure 7) and exterior girder 2 at the top of the bridge plan (Girder 6 in Figure 7). This same procedure of plotting normalized skew corrections was utilized for investigation of both shear across the abutments and piers and reactions across the piers of the beam and slab bridges. The skew correction factors for shear of each beam across the bearing line were calculated as the ratio of the live load shear from the skewed bridge model to that of the corresponding right bridge model with identical geometric parameters. The skew correction of each beam was then normalized to the skew correction for the beam at the obtuse corner of the bearing line. Thus, the variation of the skew correction across the bearing lines could be directly compared for bridge models with varying geometric parameters and magnitudes of correction factors. The data plots of the normalized correction factors were

39

constructed by defining Girder 1 at the obtuse corner of the bearing line and defining the remaining girders in ascending order to the acute corner. A separate comparison of the skew correction factors for bearing reactions and those for end shear of simple span bridges was not performed. That investigation, with the intent of studying the influence of end cross frames and the effects of various load paths present at bearings on end shears and reactions, was not possible due to the analysis procedure employed by BSDI. The influence surfaces for the girder reactions are utilized by BSDI for calculation of the end shears, thus assuming that the end shear is equal to the end reaction. A study of the load paths through end cross frames and diaphragms, and their effect on the end shears and bearing reactions, therefore, was not feasible.

40

CHAPTER 4

STUDY FINDINGS

4.1

SIMPLE SPAN BEAM-SLAB BRIDGE MODELS

4.1.1

Live Load Shear Along Exterior Beam Length

4.1.1.1 Influence of Skew Angle

The influence of skew angle on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams was investigated in two sets of beam-slab bridge models. Each set of models was based upon a 42' span length, a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75ft., a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. The first set of models studied girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4 (I + Ae2) and skew angles of 30 and 60. The second set studied girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 (I + Ae2) and skew angles of 30 and 60. The plots of the normalized skew corrections for these two sets of models display a diminishing influence of the skew correction factor from the end of the exterior beam at the obtuse corner to the acute corner (see Figures 8 and 9). For the models with girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4, the skew correction falls from its normalized value of 1.0 to zero or below zero within the length of the beam span. For both the 30 and 60 skew angles, the correction factor falls rapidly from its normalized value at the end of the span to zero near the four-tenth point of the span length. The model with the 30 skew does have a slight skew correction present at mid-

41

span of approximately 30% of the correction at the end of the beam, but the correction falls to zero by the eight-tenth point of the span length. For the models with girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4, the data displays the same general trend of a diminishing influence of the skew correction factor along the length of the beam; however, at the end of the beam adjacent to the acute corner, a slight skew correction of approximately 20-45% the value at the obtuse corner is present. One of the exterior girders of the 30 skew model also displays a small spike in the correction factor at mid-span. These models, however, were created using an 8-ft. deep beam with a 42-ft. span length. This geometry produces a span length to beam depth ratio 5.25 a ratio well outside the range of typical beam-slab bridges. The occurrence of the correction factor at the acute corner of the bridge and the spike in the correction factor at mid-span is not as prevalent in the models that utilized the girder stiffness of 44,400 in4. These models possess a span to depth ratio of 21, much more representative of actual design situations. For development of design guidelines for the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior girders, therefore, the results of the models with 42-ft. spans and girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 are not considered to be as representative of actual design conditions, as are the results of the models with 42-ft. spans and girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4.

42

E F F E C T O F S KE W AN G LE O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
42' S i m pl e S pan , Be am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 44,400 i n , w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth Point Along S pan Ext. Gird er 1, 30 d eg . Skew Ext. Gird er 1, 60 d eg . Skew Ext. Gird er 2, 30 d eg . Skew Ext. Gird er 2, 60 d eg . Skew

Figure 8. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams

E F F E C T O F S KE W AN G LE O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
42' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 333,000 i n , w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth P oint Along S pan Ext. Gird er 1, 30 d eg . Skew Ext. Gird er 1, 60 d eg . Skew Ext. Gird er 2, 30 d eg . Skew Ext. Gird er 2, 60 d eg . Skew

43

Figure 9. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams 4.1.1.2 Influence of Beam Stiffness

The influence of beam stiffness on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams was investigated in four sets of beam-slab bridge models. Each set of models was based upon a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. The first set of models studied girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4 and 333,000 in4 at a span length of 42-ft. and a skew angle of 30. The second set was the same as the first, except that a skew angle of 60 was used. The third set investigated girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 and 1,870,000 in4 at a span length of 105-ft. and a skew angle of 60. The fourth set studied girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4, 333,000 in4 and 1,870,000 in4 at a span length of 168-ft. and a skew angle of 60. Each of the models displays that the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams is essentially the same among the varying beam stiffnesses at each span length, with the exception of a few anomalies (see Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13). For the majority of the model results, the skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the beam adjacent to the obtuse corner to zero near the three- or four-tenth point of the span length. A change in beam stiffness does not have an appreciable effect on the length along the exterior girder over which a skew correction factor applies. An anomaly in the results occurs, however, in the 168-ft. span models. These models indicate that a substantial percentage of the skew correction at the end of the beams may also be effective near mid-span. The most evident case of this occurs on the 168-ft. spans with beam 44

stiffnesses of 333,000 in4. At mid-span, the skew correction is approximately equal to the end correction. The significance of this data point, however, is amplified by the relatively small magnitude of the shears at mid-span. In this case, for example, the shears in Exterior Girder 2 at mid-span are 22.7 kips and 25.5 kips for the right and skewed bridges, respectively. At the end of the beam (obtuse end for the skewed model), the live load shears are 50.9 kips and 56.7 kips for the right and skewed bridges, respectively. Therefore, the skew correction factors at midspan and at the obtuse end of the beam are 1.12 and 1.11, respectively. Given that shears at midspan are less than one-half of the end shears, and therefore, will not control for design purposes, the presence of this anomaly in these few models will not be considered to have a great impact on the study conclusions. It is recognized that the mid-span shears may be utilized for determination of reinforcing steel and beam stiffener spacing; however, significant correction factors at mid-span occur in a very limited number of study models. Therefore, incorporation of these corrections in a design approximation will not be pursued in detail. The occurrence of a skew correction factor at the acute corner of the models with a span length of 42-ft. and a beam stiffness of 333,000 in4, as evident in Figures 10 and 11, was discussed in the previous section. The geometry of these models is well outside of the typical bridge geometry, and therefore, the anomaly in these few models also will not be considered to have a great impact on the study conclusions.

45

E F F E C T O F G IR D E R S T IF F N E S S O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM
42' S i m pl e S pan , Be am -S l ab Bri dge s, 30 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s

1.20 1.00 Normalized Skew Corrections 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth Point Along S pan Ext. Gird er 1, I+A e2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 1, I+A e2 = 44,400 in 4 Ext. Gird er 2, I+A e2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 2, I+A e2 = 44,400 in 4

Figure 10. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
E F F E C T O F G IR D E R S T IF F N E S S O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM
42' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s

1.20 Normalized Skew Corrections 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth P oint Along S pan Ext. Gird er 1, I+A e2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 1, I+A e2 = 44,400 in 4 Ext. Gird er 2, I+A e2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 2, I+A e2 = 44,400 in 4

46

Figure 11. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams

47

EFFEC T O F GIRD ER STIFFNESS O N SKEW CO RREC TIO NS ALON G EXTER IO R BEAM S

105' S imple S pan, Be am-S lab Bridge s, 60 de g. S ke w, w/o Inte rm e d. C ross Frame s

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 -1.60 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth Point Along S pan Ext. Gird er 1, I+A e2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 1, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 2, I+A e2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 2, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in 4

Figure 12. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
E F F E C T O F G IR D E R S T IF F N E S S O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
168' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ros s Fram e s

Normalized Skew Corrections

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Te nth P oint Along S pan Ext. Gird e r 1, I+A e 2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird e r 1, I+A e 2 = 44,400 in 4 Ext. Gird e r 1, I+A e 2 = 1,870,000 in 4 Ext. Gird e r 2, I+A e 2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird e r 2, I+A e 2 = 44,400 in 4 Ext. Gird e r 2, I+A e 2 = 1,870,000 in 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

48

Figure 13. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams 4.1.1.3 Influence of Span Length

The influence of span length on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams was investigated in three sets of models. Each set of models was based upon a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab, no intermediate cross-frames and a skew angle of 60. The first model set included bridges with beam stiffnesses of 44,400 in4 and span lengths of 42-ft. and 168-ft. The second set investigated models with beam stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 and span lengths of 105-ft. and 168-ft. Similarly, the third set investigated beam stiffnesses of 1,870,000 in4 with span lengths of 105-ft. and 168-ft. The variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams are essentially the same between the models of each set investigated (see Figures 14, 15 and 16). The skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the beam to zero near the three- or four-tenth point of the span length. The longer spans may tend to slightly increase the length along the beam over which the correction factor is effective, but in all cases the correction factor disappears between the three- and four-tenth point of the span length. As discussed in the previous section, a correction factor approximately equal in magnitude to the end correction is present near mid-span of the 168-ft. model with the 333,000 in4 beam stiffness, but the shear values in this region will not govern for design purposes.

49

E F F E C T O F S P AN LE N G T H O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 44,400 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Te n th Poin t A lon g S pan
Ext. Gird er 1, 42' Sp an Ext. Gird er 1, 168' Sp an Ext. Gird er 2, 42' Sp an Ext. Gird er 2, 168' Sp an

Figure 14. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
E F F E C T O F S P AN LE N G T H O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , I+ Ae = 333,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ros s Fram e s
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 -1.60 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth P oint Along S pan Ext. Gird er 1, 105' Sp an Ext. Gird er 1, 168' Sp an Ext. Gird er 2, 105' Sp an Ext. Gird er 2, 168' Sp an

50

Figure 15. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams

51

E F F E C T O F S P AN LE N G T H O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 1,870,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 -1.60 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Normalized Skew Corrections

Tenth P oint Along S pan

Ext. Gird er 1, 105' Sp an Ext. Gird er 1, 168' Sp an Ext. Gird er 2, 105' Sp an Ext. Gird er 2, 168' Sp an

Figure 16. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams

52

4.1.1.4 Influence of Intermediate Cross Frames

The influence of intermediate cross frames on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams was investigated in two sets of models. Models were generated for cases both with and without intermediate cross frames. Each model possessed a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., beam stiffnesses of 333,000 in4, a skew angle of 60, 7-in. slab thickness and span lengths of 105-ft. or 168-ft.. The cross frame spacing was set at 21-ft. for the right bridges and at approximately 13-ft. to 25-ft. for the skewed bridges, contingent upon the model geometry. All intermediate cross frames were contiguous and modeled as K-type cross frames, constructed from single angle members. While the presence of intermediate cross frames produced much more uniform load distribution between the two exterior beams of each model, as depicted by the similarity of the data points for each exterior beam of the models with intermediate cross frames, the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams are essentially the same for models with and without intermediate cross frames (see Figures 17 and 18). The skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the beam to zero near the three-tenth point of the span. Additionally, the correction factor spike near mid-span of the 168-ft. models is occurs regardless of the presence of intermediate cross frames. The magnitude of the spike, however, is much smaller when intermediate cross frames are present. Although the presence of intermediate cross frames did not effect the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams, the magnitudes of the skew correction were in the order of three times greater for models that possessed cross frames than

53

for models without cross frames. Figures 17 and 18 do not display these differences due to the use of normalized data. The magnitude of the skew corrections may not be purely a function of the presence of cross frames, but also of the articulation of the cross frames. The models investigated possessed contiguous cross frames that framed directly into the girder bearings; the effects of staggered cross frames were not investigated.

54

E F F E C T O F IN T E R M E D IA T E C R O S S F R A M E S O N S K E W C O R R E C T IO N S A L O N G E X T E R IO R B E A M S
1 0 5 ' S i m pl e S pa n , B e a m -S l a b B ri dg e s , I+ Ae = 3 3 3,0 0 0 i n , 6 0 de g. S k e w
2 4

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 -1.60 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Te n t h Po in t A lo n g S pa n
Ext. Gird e r 1, N o X -Fra me s Ext. Gird e r 1, X -F ra me s Ext. Gird e r 2, N o X -F ra me s Ext. Gird e r 2, X -F ra me s

Figure 17. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams

Normalized Skew Corrections

55

Figure 18. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams 4.1.1.5 Influence of Beam Spacing

The influence of beam spacing on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams was investigated in one set of models. The models were constructed with a 42-ft. span length, beam stiffnesses of 44,400 in4, a skew angle of 60, 7-in. slab thickness and six beams spaced at 7.75-ft. or nine beams at 4.84-ft. Intermediate cross frames were not included in the models. The variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams is essentially the same for the models with the two different beam spacings (see Figure 19). The skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the beam to zero near the three-tenth point along the span length. The spacing of the beams does not significantly

E F F E C T O F IN T E R M E D IAT E C R O S S F R AM E S O N S K E W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
168' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , I+ Ae = 333,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w
2 4

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Te n th Poin t A lo n g S pan Ext. G irder 1, N o X -F ram es Ext. G irder 1, X -F ram es Ex t. G ird er 2, N o X -F ram es Ex t. G ird er 2, X -F ram es

Normalized Skew Corrections

56

affect this variation.

57

E F F E C T O F B E AM S P AC IN G O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
42' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 44,400 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth P oint Along S pan Ext. Gird er 1, 7.75' Beam Sp a. Ext. Gird er 1, 4.84' Beam Sp a. Ext. Gird er 2, 7.75' Beam Sp a. Ext. Gird er 2, 4.84' Beam Sp a.

Figure 19. Effect of Beam Spacing on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams

Normalized Skew Corrections

58

4.1.1.6 Influence of Slab Thickness

The influence of slab thickness on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams was investigated in one set of models. The models were investigated for slab thicknesses of 7-in. and 9-in. with a 42-ft. span length, a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., beam stiffnesses of 44,400 in4 and a skew angle of 60. Intermediate cross frames were not included in the models. The variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams are nearly identical for the models with the two different slab thicknesses (see Figure 20). The skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the beam to zero near the three-tenth point along the span length. The thickness of the slab does not significantly affect this variation.

59

E F F E C T O F S LAB T HIC KN E S S O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S

42' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 44,400 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth P oint Along S pan Ext. Gird er 1, 7" Sla b Ext. Gird er 1, 9" Sla b Ext. Gird er 2, 7" Slab Ext. Gird er 2, 9" Slab

Figure 20. Effect of Slab Thickness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams

60

4.1.1.7 Influence of Bridge Aspect Ratio

A cursory investigation of the influence of bridge aspect ratio on the variation of shear along the length of exterior girders was completed using a set of two models with 60 skew. Different bridge aspect ratios were obtained by holding a constant span length and varying the number of girders at a fixed spacing, and hence, the bridge width. While the bridge aspect ratio also changes when span length is varied for a constant bridge width, these effects were addressed in the span length investigation. The two bridge models studied had a 42-ft. span length, 44,400 in4 beam stiffness, beam spacing of 7.75-ft., 7-in. slab thickness, no intermediate cross frames and a skew angle of 60. Six girders were included in the first model (Model A) and ten in the second (Model B), yielding bridge aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.74, respectively, calculated as the ratio of the curb-to-curb width to the span length. Comparison of the live load shear diagrams of the exterior girders of these skewed bridge models, shown in Figure 21, displays nearly identical results. For both Models A and B, the shear diagrams of Girder 1 are nearly identical. Similarly, the shear diagrams of Girder 6 of Model A and Girder 10 of Model B are nearly identical. While the accompanying right bridge model was not constructed for each of these skewed bridge models, it is inferred that the live load shear diagrams of the right bridge girders would also be very similar regardless of the number of girders in each model. It is deduced, therefore, that the skew correction factors along the length of the exterior girders would be very

61

similar and are not greatly affected by a change in the number of girders, and hence, a change in the bridge aspect ratio.

62

EFFECT OF BRIDGE ASPECT RATIO ON LIVE LOAD SHEAR OF EXTERIOR GIRDERS

Aspe ct Ratios = 1.0 (Mode l A) vs. 1.73 (Mode l B) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Te nth Point Along Span Le ngth Model A, Girder 1 Model B, Girder 1 Model A, Girder 6 Model B, Girder 10

Figure 21. Effect of Bridge Aspect Ratio on Exterior Girder Shear

Live Load Shear (k)

63

4.1.2

Live Load Shear Across Bearing Lines

For each of the simple span, six girder beam-slab bridge models discussed in Section 4.1.1, plots of the skew correction variation for end shear across each bearing line were constructed (see Figures 22 thru 33). These plots were constructed to investigate the influence of skew angle (Figures 22 and 23), girder stiffness (Figures 24 through 27), span length (Figures 28 through 30), intermediate cross frames (Figures 31 and 32) and slab thickness (Figure 33) on the variation of the end shear correction factor across the bearing lines. Comparison of the skew correction plots does not reveal consistent, distinct relationships between changes in any of these parameters and the variation of the end shear correction factors. Figures 25 through 27 may indicate a slight increase in the presence of a skew correction factor across the bearing lines with an increase in girder stiffness, but the trend is not consistent for all cases. All of the data plots depict, however, a general decline in the influence of the skew correction factor from the obtuse corner to the acute corner of the bearing line. In most cases, the normalized skew correction falls from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the bearing line to a negative value at the acute corner, indicating that the end shear at the acute corner is greater in the right bridge than in the skewed bridge. Figure 34 superimposes the results from each of the models of Figures 22 through 33. Again, the general decline in the skew correction across the bearing line is evident. Additionally, this graph displays that the deviation of the data at each girder bearing location tends to decrease as the girders nearest the acute corner of the bearing line are reached (girders 5 and 6). The deviation in the data points is greatest at the first interior girder adjacent to the

64

obtuse corner. In some isolated cases, this location may have a skew correction greater than that found at the obtuse corner. It is also evident from Figure 34 that girder 4 possesses a number of fairly significant skew corrections; normalized values as great as 1.4 were obtained at this girder. Additionally, girder 6, at the acute corner of the bearing line, possesses a number of positive normalized skew corrections, indicating that a skew correction factor is present at this location. However, the four greatest normalized skew corrections at girder 4 and all of the positive normalized corrections at girder 6 were obtained from the bridge models utilizing 8-ft. deep beams with a 42-ft. span length. As discussed in Section 4.1.1.1, this span to depth ratio is well outside the range of typical beam-slab bridges. Figure 35, nevertheless, condenses all of the results into a single plot of the average variation of the skew correction for end shear across the bearing lines and superimposes on the results a linear variation of the skew correction from its value at the obtuse corner to zero at the acute corner. This figure reveals the conservative nature of applying the skew correction factor at the obtuse corner to the end shear of each girder in the cross section, the current practice defined in the LRFD Specifications. It is suggested, from the data results, that the variation of the correction factor across the bearing lines could approximated by a linear distribution from its value at the obtuse corner to zero at the acute corner. While select data points fall outside of this distribution, the average results fall well within this linear variation.

65

EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
42' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 44,400 in , w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.20 1.00 Normalized Skew Corrections 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, 30 deg. Skew Brg. Line 1, 60 deg. Skew Brg. Line 2, 30 deg. Skew Brg. Line 2, 60 deg. Skew 4 5 6
2 4

Figure 22. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections

EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
42' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, 30 deg. Skew Brg. Line 1, 60 deg. Skew Brg. Line 2, 30 deg. Skew Brg. Line 2, 60 deg. Skew 4 5 6
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

66

Figure 23. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections

67

EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
42' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, 30 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 44,400 in4 Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 44,400 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 4 5 6

Figure 24. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections

EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
42' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 44,400 in4 Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 44,400 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 4 5 6

Figure 25. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections 68

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
168' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 44,400 in4 Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 44,400 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 4 5 6

Figure 26. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections

EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
105' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 4 5 6

Figure 27. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections 69

Normalized Skew CorrectionS

Normalized Skew Corrections

EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 44,400 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, 42' Span Brg. Line 1, 168' Span Brg. Line 2, 42' Span Brg. Line 2, 168' Span 4 5 6
2 4

Figure 28. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections Figure 29. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections
EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, 42' Span Brg. Line 2, 105' Span Brg. Line 2, 42' Span Brg. Line 1, 168' Span Brg. Line 1, 105' Span Brg. Line 2, 168' Span 4 5 6
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

70

EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
S imple S pan, Beam-S lab B ridges , I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. S k ew, w/o Intermed. Cros s Frames 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, 105' Span Brg. Line 1, 168' Span Brg. Line 2, 105' Span Brg. Line 2, 168' Span 4 5 6
2 4

Figure 30. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections Figure 31. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on End Shear Skew Corrections
EFFECT OF INTERMEDIATE CROSS FRAMES ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
105' S imple S pan, Beam-S lab Bridges , I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. S k ew 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, No X-Frames Brg. Line 1, X-Frames Brg. Line 2, No X-Frames Brg. Line 2, X-Frames 4 5 6
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

71

EFFECT OF INTERMEDIATE CROSS FRAMES ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
168' S imple S pan, Beam-S lab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. S k ew 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, No X-Frames Brg. Line 1, X-Frames Brg. Line 2, No X-Frames Brg. Line 2, X-Frames 4 5 6
2 4

Figure 32. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on End Shear Skew Corrections Figure 33. Effect of Slab Thickness on End Shear Skew Corrections
EFFECT OF SLAB THICKNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
42' S imple S pan, Beam-S lab Bridges , I+Ae = 44,400 in , 60 deg. S k ew, w/o Intermediate Cros s Frames 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Brg. Line 1, 7" Slab Brg. Line 2, 7" Slab Brg. Line 1, 9" Slab Brg. Line 2, 9" Slab 4 5 6
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

72

NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES

S imple S pan Beam-S lab Bridges 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6

Figure 34. Complete Results Set for End Shear Skew Corrections
AVERAGE NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges 1.00 1.00 0.80 Normalized Skew Corrections 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 -0.54 0.08 -0.23 0.49 0.25

Normalized Skew Corrections

73

Figure 35. Average Variation of End Shear Skew Corrections for Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges

74

4.2

SIMPLE SPAN CONCRETE T-BEAM BRIDGE MODELS

4.2.1

Live Load Shear Along Exterior Beam Length

A cursory investigation of simple span, monolithic, concrete T-beam bridges was made to determine whether the effects of skew on shear in this bridge type differs significantly from those found in the simple span beam-slab bridge models. The T-beam bridges investigated were based upon a 42' span length, a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate diaphragms. The T-beams utilized were 14 in. wide and 39 in. deep, producing a stiffness of 358,000 in4 (I + Ae2). Two models were analyzed, one with a 30 skew angle and one with a 60 skew angle. The plot of the normalized skew corrections along the length of the exterior girders, shown in Figure 36, are very similar to those created for the beam-slab bridges. The skew correction falls quickly from its initial value at the obtuse corner to zero by the four-tenth point of the span length, regardless of skew angle. Similar to some of the beam-slab model results, there is an isolated spike in the plot of the skew corrections at mid-span. This data point, however, is produced by differences in relatively small shear values at mid-span of the skew and right bridge models. As discussed in section 4.1, the live load shears at mid-span are less than one-half of the end shears, and therefore, will not control for design purposes. The isolated spike in the skew correction at this location, therefore, will not be considered to have a great impact on the study conclusions.

75

E F F E C T O F SKE W AN G L E O N SKE W C O R R E C TIO N S AL O N G E X TE R IO R B E AM L E N G TH

4 2 ' S i m p l e S p a n , C o n c r e t e T- B e a m B r i d g e s , I+A e 2 = 3 5 8 ,0 0 0 i n 4

1.20 1.00 0.80 Normalized Skew Corrections 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0 .0 0.1 0 .2 0 .3 0.4 0 .5 0.6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0 T e n th Poi n t Al o n g S pa n Ext . G ird er 1 , 30 d eg. Sk ew Ext . G ird er 1 , 60 d eg. Sk ew Ext . G irder 2, 3 0 deg. Sk ew Ext . G irder 2, 6 0 deg. Sk ew

Figure 36. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams

76

4.2.2

Live Load Shear Across Bearing Lines

For the two models described previously in section 4.2.1, the variation of the skew correction for end shear across the bearing lines was investigated to determine whether is varied significantly from the results of the beam-slab models. Similar to those results, Figure 37 indicates that the change in skew angle does create a consistent trend in the variation of the skew correction across the bearings of the T-beam models. The diminishing influence of the skew correction from the obtuse corner to the acute corner is again apparent in Figure 37.

77

E F F E C T O F S KE W AN G LE O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S F O R E N D S HE AR AC R O S S B E AR IN G LIN E S
42' S i m pl e S pan , C on cre te T -B e am B ri dge s , I+ Ae = 358,000 i n
2 4

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 1 2 3 Gir de r Be a rin g Lin e 1, 30 d e g . Ske w Be a rin g Lin e 1, 60 d e g . Ske w Be a rin g Lin e 2, 30 d e g . Ske w Be a rin g Lin e 2, 60 d e g . Ske w 4 5 6

Figure 37. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

78

4.3

SIMPLE SPAN SPREAD CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BRIDGE MODELS

The investigation of the skew correction factors for shear in spread concrete box girder bridges was initiated with the analysis of four 105-ft. simple span spread concrete box girder bridges. Each bridge model possessed a cross section of five prestressed concrete spread box girders, spaced at 8'-10" on centers, composite with a 7" concrete deck. Two models utilized 48" wide x 39" deep boxes, while the remaining two models utilized 48" wide x 66" deep boxes. For each box girder type, one model had 0skew and one had 60 skew. For modeling using the BSDI software, the prestressed concrete box girders were transformed into equivalent steel box girders. The bridge models incorporated plate diaphragms both inside and between the boxes at the supports; however, intermediate diaphragms were not included. The live load shear results provided by BSDI for the box girders were the maximum shears for one of the two webs of the box girder, incorporating the effects of torque. The shear values are tabulated for only the controlling web of the box girder; the shear in the second web was not included in the output. Additionally, the torque that contributed to the controlling web shear was not tabulated, only the maximum torque was provided. Separation of the maximum shear into its vertical bending and torsion components, therefore, was not possible. To ensure that the live load shear distribution factors and skew correction factors of the LRFD Specifications were developed using similar shear results (i.e., combined vertical bending shear and shear flow due to torsion), the methodology utilized in NCHRP 12-26 was investigated. Through this investigation, it was discovered that the shear distribution factors and skew correction factors were derived neglecting the effects of box girder torsion. These factors

79

were developed through finite element modeling using the program FINITE. The program MUPDI was utilized for analysis of box girder moments of simple span, right bridges. The program FINITE was used for the investigation of box girder shear, as well as the analysis of skewed and continuous box girder bridges. The box girder shear obtained from the FINITE output was considered to be the shear force in the total box girder system, i.e., the integration and summation of the shear stresses across the effective deck width of the box girder, the box girder flanges and both box girder webs. Thus, a total box girder shear is calculated, assuming that each web is subject to one-half of the total shear, neglecting the effects of torsion. In an effort to quantify the influence of torsion on box girder shear, the controlling live load shears obtained from each of the models analyzed by BSDI were compared to results calculated from a line girder analysis, using the distribution factors and skew correction factors defined in the current LRFD Specifications. The comparison results, shown in Table 7, indicate that the controlling web shears from the BSDI results, incorporating the effects of torsion, may be 4% to 29% more conservative than the LRFD results for the right bridge with the 39" deep boxes. For the right, 66" deep boxes, the BSDI results are closer to the LRFD results, but may still be as much as 20% more conservative. For both bridge models, the differences between the BSDI and LRFD results are greater for the interior girder than for the exterior girder. The disparity between the BSDI and LRFD results increases, however, when the bridges are skewed. For the skewed, 39" deep boxes, the BSDI results are as much as 59% more conservative than the LRFD results; for the 66" deep boxes, the BSDI results are as much as 52% more conservative. Both the interior beams and the exterior beams exhibit differences of

80

these magnitudes. These results indicate that for skewed bridges, the effects of torsion on box girder shear may not be negligible.

81

Table 7. Comparison of Maximum Live Load Shears from BSDI and an LRFD Line Girder Analysis
48/39 SPREAD BOX BEAMS 0 DEGREE SKEW 60 DEGREE SKEW EXTERIOR GIRDER INTERIOR GIRDER EXTERIOR GIRDER INTERIOR GIRDER Tenth Pt. BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD Max V Max V V Max V Max V V Max V Max V V Max V Max V V 0.0 38 31 -18% 46 33 -29% 121 * 50 -59% 85 * 52 -39% 0.1 31 28 -10% 38 29 -23% 38 28 -27% 34 29 -14% 0.2 27 25 -9% 33 26 -22% 41 25 -40% 32 26 -19% 0.3 23 21 -7% 28 22 -20% 39 21 -45% 36 22 -38% 0.4 18 18 1% 22 19 -14% 34 18 -47% 39 19 -51% 0.5 16 15 -8% 16 15 -3% 35 15 -58% 34 15 -55% 0.6 -18 -18 1% -22 -19 -14% -36 -18 -50% -34 -19 -44% 0.7 -23 -21 -7% -27 -22 -17% -40 -21 -47% -35 -22 -36% 0.8 -27 -25 -9% -33 -26 -22% -44 -25 -44% -33 -26 -22% 0.9 -29 -28 -4% -38 -29 -23% -45 -28 -38% -30 -29 -3% 1.0 -38 -31 -18% -46 -33 -29% -107 * -50 -53% -74 * -52 -30%

48/66 SPREAD BOX BEAMS 0 DEGREE SKEW 60 DEGREE SKEW EXTERIOR GIRDER INTERIOR GIRDER EXTERIOR GIRDER INTERIOR GIRDER Tenth Pt. BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD Max V Max V V Max V Max V V Max V Max V V Max V Max V V 0.0 36 33 -9% 41 34 -16% 103 * 58 -43% 85 * 61 -28% 0.1 29 29 1% 33 31 -7% 44 * 29 -33% 38 * 31 -19% 0.2 26 26 0% 28 27 -3% 39 26 -33% 35 27 -22% 0.3 23 23 -2% 30 24 -21% 39 23 -42% 36 24 -34% 0.4 18 19 6% 48 * 20 -58% 34 19 -44% 35 20 -43% 0.5 15 16 4% 19 16 -14% 32 16 -51% 32 16 -49% 0.6 -18 -19 6% -21 -20 -5% -36 -19 -47% -35 -20 -43% 0.7 -22 -23 3% -25 -24 -5% -39 -23 -42% -46 -24 -49% 0.8 -26 -26 0% -28 -27 -3% -42 -26 -38% -38 -27 -28% 0.9 -29 -29 1% -32 -31 -4% -43 -29 -32% -34 -31 -10% 1.0 -36 -33 -9% -41 -34 -16% -86 * -58 -32% -70 * -61 -13% * Denotes that actual shear has this magnitude, but the opposite sign.

82

One final investigation regarding the box girder torsion was performed to compare the torque calculated by BSDI against the threshold limit of 25% of the torsional cracking moment, as specified in Article 5.8.2.1 of the LRFD Specifications. When the factored torsional moment is below this limit, only a small reduction in shear capacity results and the effects of torsion are neglected. Recognizing that the live load used in the BSDI models was two lanes of HS20 trucks, rather than the HL93 loading, and therefore, that this investigation does not produce completely accurate results, it still provides a measure of the torques under investigation. The results indicate that the box girder torsion in the two right bridge models tends to be less than the threshold limit. The torsion in the skewed boxes, however, exceeds the limit at numerous locations along the span of the girders. These results raise an issue regarding the design methodology to be followed in development of the skew correction factors for box girder bridges. While the influence of torque may be negligible in right bridges, skew tends to amplify box girder torsion to levels that may need to be considered in design. Although these bridge models were constructed without intermediate diaphragms, the presence of which may reduce torsional effects by maintaining relatively equal deflections among the boxes, the premise of equal deflections among girders of skewed bridges may not be valid. Regardless of whether torsion is or is not included in the determination of the box girder shear, the data obtained from BSDI is not conducive to the development of skew correction factors for the box girders. It is incongruous to apply a skew correction factor, derived from analyses that incorporate the effects of torsion, to distribution factors derived from models that do not incorporate the effects of torsion.

83

4.4

TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BEAM-SLAB BRIDGE MODELS

4.4.1

Simple Span vs. Two-Span Correction Factors at Obtuse Corners of Abutments

One of the first tasks undertaken in the analysis of the two-span continuous beam-slab bridges was a comparison of the skew correction factors calculated for the exterior girders at the obtuse corner of the abutments versus those calculated from similar simple span bridge models, as shown in Figure 38. The skew correction factors developed in NCHRP Project 12-26 were determined from simple span bridge models, but no guidance was provided regarding application of the skew correction factors to continuous bridges. The report for Project 12-26, however, did propose that when dealing with shear at the piers of right, continuous bridges, correction factors should be applied to the empirical shear distribution factors developed for right, simple span bridges. The LRFD Specifications, however, do not incorporate these continuity corrections. The corrections suggested in Project 12-26 were in the range of 5%, i.e., 1.05, and commentary article C4.6.2.2.1 of the 1998 LRFD Specifications indicates that corrections of this magnitude may misrepresent the level of accuracy in the approximate, empirical distribution factors1. Although it was not anticipated in this study that the skew correction factors at the abutments of simple span and continuous bridges would differ greatly, the influence lines for shear in simple span and twospan beams are not identical. As a result, it was necessary to confirm that the skew correction factors calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutments were similar in the simple span and twospan models.

84

The skew correction factors from four simple span and four corresponding two-span bridge models were compared. Each of the four pairs of simple span and continuous span models were identical except for the addition of a second, equal span in the continuous models. As shown in Table 8, the skew correction factors calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutments of the simple span and two-span models were within approximately 4%. These results indicate that the skew correction factors for shear, developed in Project NCHRP 12-26 for exterior girders of simple span bridges, are also valid at the obtuse corner of abutments of continuous bridges.

85

Abutment 2 Girder (Typ.) Abutment 1

SIMPLE SPAN BRIDGE Are Skew Correction Factors similar at these locations (Typ.)? Abutment 2 Girder (Typ.) Abutment 1 C Pier L Span 1 TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BRIDGE Span 2

Figure 38. Comparison of Simple Span and Two-Span Continuous Skew Correction Factors

Table 8. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for End Shear of Exterior Girders at the Obtuse Abutment Corners of Simple Span and Two-Span Bridge Models.
Span Length (ft) 105 105 168 168 Beam Stiffness (in ) 333,000 1,870,000 333,000 1,870,000
4

Skew Angle (deg) 60 60 60 60

Skew Correction Factors Simple Span Models Two-Span Cont. Models Abutment 1 Abutment 2 Abutment 1 Abutment 2 1.09 1.10 1.12 1.16 1.07 1.10 1.11 1.16 1.08 1.14 1.10 1.17 1.07 1.13 1.09 1.15

Percentage Difference Abut. 1 -0.9% 3.6% -1.8% 0.9% Abut. 2 0% 2.7% -1.8% -0.9%

86

87

4.4.2

Correction Factors at Obtuse Corners of Abutments and Piers

The examination of the two-span beam-slab bridge results also included a comparison of the skew correction factors for shear in the exterior girders at the obtuse corners of the abutments and the pier, as shown in Figure 39. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, NCHRP Project 12-26 did not provide explicit guidance regarding application of the skew correction factors at the piers of continuous bridges. Furthermore, the current LRFD Specifications are silent on this issue. Hence, it was necessary to determine whether the skew correction factors for shear, developed in Project NCHRP 12-26 for exterior girders of simple span bridges, and found in this study to be valid at the obtuse corners of abutments of continuous bridges, are also valid for exterior girders at the obtuse corners of piers of continuous bridges. For each of the two-span continuous models investigated in this study, the skew correction factors for the exterior girders were calculated at the obtuse corners of both abutments and at the girder location adjacent to the obtuse corner of the pier. Comparison of the results, shown in Table 9, indicates that the correction factors at the pier are typically greater than those at the abutments. Additionally, increases in the skew angle and the girder stiffness tend to increase the differences between the correction factors at the pier and abutments. With the limited number of data sets, however, it is difficult to accurately predict a trend in the results. Most of the bridge model results yield differences between the abutment and pier correction factors of less than 5%. Given that the LRFD Specifications have regarded corrections of this magnitude to imply misleading accuracy in approximate methods, the skew correction factors of

88

the exterior girders at the obtuse corner of the abutments are considered to be representative of those that occur at the piers. Therefore, the skew correction factors developed in Project NCHRP 12-26 for exterior girders of simple span bridges, found to be valid at the obtuse corners of abutments of continuous bridges, are also considered to be applicable to the exterior girders at the obtuse corners of piers of continuous bridges.

89

Exterior Girder 2

Are Skew Correction Factors similar at these locations (Typ.)? Abutment 2 Girder (Typ.) Girder location adjacent to Pier (Typ.)

Abutment 1 C Pier L Span 1 Exterior Girder 1

Span 2

Figure 39. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors at Abutments and Pier

Table 9. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear of Exterior Girders at the Obtuse Abutment Corners and Obtuse Pier Corners of Two-Span Bridge Models.
Span Length (ft) 105 105 168 168 168 Beam Stiffness (in ) 333,000 1,870,000 333,000 333,000 1,870,000
4

Skew Angle (deg) 60 60 30 60 60

Skew Correction Factors Abutment 1 Abutment 2 1.08 1.14 1.03 1.10 1.17 1.07 1.13 1.03 1.09 1.15 Pier 1.07 1.19 1.02 1.13 1.24 Pier 1.09 1.25 1.03 1.12 1.24

Percentage Difference -0.9% 4.4% -1.0% 2.7% 6.0% 1.9% 10.6% 0.0% 2.8% 7.8%

Ext. Girder 1 Ext. Girder 2 Ext. Girder 1 Ext. Girder 2 Ext. Girder 1 Ext. Girder 2

90

4.4.3

Live Load Shear Along Exterior Beam Length

4.4.3.1 Influence of Skew Angle

The influence of skew angle on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams of two span continuous bridges was investigated in one set of beam-slab bridge models. The bridge models were based upon two equal spans, 168-ft. in length, a sixbeam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 (I + Ae2), a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. Skew angles of 30 and 60 were studied. The variation of the skew correction was investigated along the length of each of the four exterior girders: exterior girders 1 and 2 in each of span 1 and span 2. This nomenclature is shown in Figure 40. The plot of the variation of the skew correction for each girder was created by defining location 0.0 as the end of the girder at the obtuse corner created with its support. The skew corrections at each tenth point along each girder were normalized against the correction at the girders obtuse corner. Plotting each girder simultaneously enabled direct comparison of the variation of the skew correction along the length of each girder.
Exterior Girder 2 C Pier L C Abutment (Typ.) L

Span 1 Exterior Girder 1

Span 2

91

Figure 40. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Along the Length of the Exterior Girders of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models

92

The plots of the normalized skew corrections for these models display a diminishing influence of the skew correction from the end of the exterior beams at the obtuse corners to the acute corners (see Figure 41). The results indicate that the variation of the skew correction along the girder length is similar regardless of whether the obtuse corner is located at the abutments or pier. Additionally, the variation of the skew correction factor is not sensitive to changes in the skew angle, as 30 and 60 skew angles both produce variations in which the correction factor falls rapidly from its normalized value at the obtuse corner to zero near the three-tenth point of the span length. The results from the model with 30 skew display the presence of a correction factor at mid-span that exceeds the correction factor at the obtuse corner. Further investigation of the girder shears from this model, however, reveal that the plotted data greatly amplifies the actual analysis results. The shears at the obtuse corner of this exterior girder are 50.2 kips and 51.6 kips, for the right and skewed bridge, respectively. This produces a correction factor of approximately 1.03 at the end of the girder. At mid-span, the shears are 28.95 kips and 30.0 kips, for the right and skewed bridge, respectively, producing a correction factor at this location of 1.04. When normalized to the skew correction of 0.03 at the end of the girder, the correction of 0.04 at mid-span produces a normalized value of 1.32. Incorporation of this isolated correction factor into a design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor is not considered to be necessary. The shears at this location of the girders do not control for design purposes and the minimal differences between the skewed bridge and right bridge model results are amplified by the manner in which the results are presented. As a result, the mid-span skew correction will be neglected in the design approximation for the variation of the skew

93

correction factor.

94

E F F E C T O F S KE W AN G LE O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
T wo-S pan C on ti n u ou s, B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, 168' S pan s, I+ Ae = 333,000 in , w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 -1.75 -2.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth P oint Along S pan Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 1, 30 d eg . Skew Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 1, 30 d eg . Skew Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 1, 60 d eg . Skew Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 1, 60 d eg . Skew Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 2, 30 d eg . Skew Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 2, 30 d eg . Skew Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 2, 60 d eg . Skew Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 2, 60 d eg . Skew

Normalized Skew

Figure 41. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models

Corrections

95

4.4.3.2 Influence of Beam Stiffness

The influence of beam stiffness on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams was investigated in two sets of two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models. Each set of models was based upon a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. The first set of continuous models studied girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 and 1,870,000 in4 with two equal spans of 105-ft. and a skew angle of 60. The second set of models was similar to the first; however, two equal spans of 168-ft. were used. Each set of results, shown in Figures 42 and 43, displays that the variation of the skew correction along the length of the exterior beams is similar between the varying beam stiffnesses, with the exception of a few anomalies. For the majority of the model results, the correction factor quickly drops from its value at the end of the beams at the obtuse corner to zero near the three- or four-tenth point of the span length. For the models with 105-ft. spans, the increase in beam stiffness may tend to increase the length along the girder over which the correction factor is effective, but in most cases, the correction factor falls to zero near the four-tenth point of the span length. Some of the model results again produce a skew correction factor mid-span of the girders. Investigation of the largest skew correction of Figures 42 and 43 leads to the same conclusions discussed in section 4.2.3.1. The corrections at mid-span are created by amplification of relatively small differences between the right and skewed bridge mid-span girder shears. The amplification occurs when these small differences are normalized against a

96

small skew correction at the end of the girder. While the mid-span shears in the right and skewed bridge models do differ, the magnitude of the shears at this location and the magnitude of the difference do not warrant special consideration in a design approximation. Therefore, the mid-span skew corrections will be neglected in the development of the design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor.

97

E F F E C T O F G IR D E R S T IF F N E S S O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
T wo-S pan C on ti n u ou s , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , 105' S pan s , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ros s Fram e s

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 -1.75 -2.00 -2.25 -2.50 0.0 Sp a n Sp a n Sp a n Sp a n 0.1 0.2 = = = = 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Te nth P oint Along S pan 333,000 in 4 Sp an 1, Ext. Gird . 2, I+A e 2 333,000 in 4 Sp an 2, Ext. Gird . 2, I+A e 2 1,870,000 in 4 Sp an 1, Ext. Gird . 2, I+A e 2 1,870,000 in 4 Sp an 2, Ext. Gird . 2, I+A e 2 0.3 0.9 = = = = 1.0

Normalized Skew Corrections

1, Ext. Gird . 1, I+A e 2 2, Ext. Gird . 1, I+A e 2 1, Ext. Gird . 1, I+A e 2 2, Ext. Gird . 1, I+A e 2

333,000 in 4 333,000 in 4 1,870,000 in 4 1,870,000 in 4

Figure 42. Effect of Beam Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models
EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS ALONG EXTERIOR BEAM S
Two-S pan C ontinuous, Be am-S lab Bridge s, 168' S pans, 60 de g. S ke w, w/o Inte rme d. C ross Frame s

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 0.0
Span Span Span Span

Normalized Skew Corrections

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Te nth Point Along Span

Sp an Sp an Sp an Sp an

0.8

0.9

1.0

1, Ext. Gird. 1, I+A e2 = 333,000 in4 2, Ext. Gird. 1, I+A e2 = 333,000 in4 1, Ext. Gird. 1, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in4 2, Ext. Gird. 1, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in4

1, Ext. Gird. 2, I+A e2 = 333,000 in4 2, Ext. Gird. 2, I+A e2 = 333,000 in4 1, Ext. Gird. 2, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in4 2, Ext. Gird. 2, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in4

Figure 43. Effect of Beam Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models

98

4.4.3.3 Influence of Span Length

The influence of span length on the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of exterior beams was investigated in two sets of two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models. Each set of models was based upon a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. The first set of continuous models compared span lengths of 105-ft. and 168-ft. with girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 and a skew angle of 60. The second set of models was similar to the first, except that the girder stiffness was increased to 1,870,000 in4. Similar to the findings in Sections 4.4.3.1 and 4.4.3.2, the results indicate that the variation of the skew correction along the length of the exterior girders is not significantly affected by changes in span length. As shown on Figures 44 and 45, regardless of span length, the skew corrections drop from their value at the obtuse corner of the girder to zero near the three- or four-tenth point of the span length. The mid-span skew corrections were discussed previously and will not be considered in the development of the design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor.

99

E F F E C T O F S P AN LE N G T H O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
T wo-S pan C on ti n u ou s, B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , I+ Ae = 333,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 -1.75 -2.00 -2.25 -2.50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth P oint Along S pan Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 1, 105' Sp an s Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 1, 105' Sp an s Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 1, 168' Sp an s Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 1, 168' Sp an s Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 2, 105' Sp an s Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 2, 105' Sp an s Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 2, 168' Sp an s Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 2, 168' Sp an s

Figure 44. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models
E F F E C T O F S P AN LE N G T H O N S KE W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
T wo-S pan C on ti n u ou s, B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 1,870,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections Normalized Skew Corrections

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth P oint Along S pan Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 1, 105' Sp an s Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 1, 105' Sp an s Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 1, 168' Sp an s Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 1, 168' Sp an s Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 2, 105' Sp an s Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 2, 105' Sp an s Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 2, 168' Sp an s Sp an 2, Ext. Gird er 2, 168' Sp an s

Figure 45. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models

100

4.4.4

Live Load Shear Across Abutment Bearing Lines

For each of the two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models discussed in Section 4.4.3, the skew correction factors were calculated for the end shear of each girder across each of the abutment bearing lines. Similar to the investigation of the simple span models, data plots were then created to investigate the variation of the end shear skew corrections across the abutments and the effects of skew angle, girder stiffness and span length on this variation. For generation of these plots and for direct comparison of the girders at each abutment, the girders at the obtuse corner of the bearing lines were defined as girder 1, as shown in Figure 46. The influence of skew angle on the variation of the end shear correction factor is shown in Figure 47, the influence of girder stiffness is shown in Figures 48 and 49, and the influence of span length is shown in Figure 50. Investigation of these figures does not reveal distinct relationships between changes in any of these parameters and the variation of the end shear skew correction. Similar to the results from the simple span models, each data plots depicts a general decline in the end shear skew correction from the obtuse corner to the acute corner of the abutment bearing line. In all cases, the normalized skew correction falls from its initial value at the obtuse corner to a negative value at the acute corner, indicating that the end shear at the acute corner is greater in the right bridge than in the skewed bridge.

101

C Pier L Girder 6 Girder 5 Girder 4 Girder 3 Girder 2 Girder 1 Span 1 Girder 1 Girder 2 C Abutment (Typ.) L Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5 Span 2 Girder 6

Figure 46.

Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the Abutment Bearing Lines of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models

102

EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENT BEARING LINES
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 168' Spans, I + Ae = 333,000 in , w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 1 2 3 Girder Abut. 1, 30 deg. Skew Abut. 1, 60 deg. Skew Abut. 2, 30 deg. Skew Abut. 2, 60 deg. Skew 4 5 6
2 4

Figure 47. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments
EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENT BEARING LINES
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 105' Spans, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 1 2 3 Girder Abut. 1, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Abut. 1, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Abut. 2, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Abut. 2, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 4 5 6

Figure 48. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

103

EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENT BEARING LINES
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 168' Spans, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 1 2 3 Girder Abut. 1, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Abut. 1, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Abut. 2, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Abut. 2, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 4 5 6

Figure 49. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments
EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENT BEARING LINES
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 1 2 Abut. 1, 105' Spans Abut. 1, 168' Spans 3 4 Girder Abut. 2, 105' Spans Abut. 2, 168' Spans 5 6

Figure 50. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments

104

EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENT BEARING LINES
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 1 2 Abut. 1, 105' Spans Abut. 1, 168' Spans 3 Girder Abut. 2, 105' Spans Abut. 2, 168' Spans 4 5 6

Figure 51. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments

105

Figure 52 superimposes the results from each of the models of Figures 47 through 51. Again, the general decline in the skew correction across the abutment bearing lines is evident. This figure also displays that in some cases, the skew correction at Girder 2, the first interior girder adjacent to the obtuse corner, is equal to or greater than the skew correction at the obtuse corner of the abutment bearing line.

106

NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENT BEARING LINES
Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges 1.25 1.00 Normalized Skew Corrections 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6

Figure 52. Complete Results Set for End Shear Skew Corrections at Abutments

107

Figure 53 condenses all of the results into a single plot of the average variation of the skew correction for end shear across the abutment bearing lines. Superimposed on the results is a linear variation of the skew correction from its value at the obtuse corner to a value of zero at the acute corner. While the study results reveal that some bridge models have skew corrections at Girder 2 in excess of that predicted by the linear variation from the obtuse corner, a close inspection of the data indicates that the linear variation is a reasonable design approximation. For example, conservatively assume that the skew correction factor for end shear at the obtuse corner of an abutment is 1.75, a correction factor exceeding any determined in this study. According to the proposed linear approximation of the correction factor variation, the skew correction at the first interior girder adjacent to the obtuse corner is 80% of the obtuse corner correction, for a six girder cross section. This produces a skew correction of 0.60 (0.80*0.75 = 0.60) at the first interior girder. Using the average results from this study, shown in Figure 53, the skew correction at this same girder was found to be 89% of the obtuse corner correction. Thus, from the study results, the skew correction at the first interior girder is 0.6675 (0.89*0.75 = 0.6675). If the skew correction factor of 1.60 from the linear approximation was used rather that the correction factor of 1.6675 from the average results, a 4% difference is produced in the calculated girder shear. This difference is within expected levels of accuracy of a design approximation. Furthermore, as the magnitude of the skew correction at the obtuse corner decreases to more typical values found in this study, the percentage difference between the approximated skew correction at the first interior girder and that predicted by the study results decreases. As a result, it is suggested that the variation of the correction factor across the

108

abutment bearing lines can be reasonably approximated by a linear distribution from its value at the obtuse corner to zero at the acute corner, an approximation identical to that proposed for the simple span bridges.

109

Figure 53.

Average Variation of End Shear Skew Corrections Across Abutments of Two-Span

AVERAGE NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENT BEARING LINES
Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges 1.00 1.00 0.80 Normalized Skew Corrections 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 -1.06 -0.44 0.29 0.00 0.89

Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges

110

4.4.5

Live Load Shear Across Pier

Similar to the investigation regarding the variation of the end shear skew correction factor across each of the abutment bearing lines, the variation of the correction factor for shear across the piers of the two-span continuous models was investigated. The girder shear directly adjacent to the pier was investigated in both span 1 and span 2. Again, data plots were created to study the effects of skew angle, girder stiffness and span length on the variation of the skew correction across the pier. For generation of these plots and for direct comparison of the results on either side of the pier, girder 1 was defined in each span as the exterior girder that created an obtuse corner with the pier, as shown in Figure 54. The influence of skew angle on the variation of the skew correction across the pier is shown in Figure 55. Investigation of this figure does not reveal a distinct relationship between a change in skew angle and the variation of the skew correction across the pier. This figure does, however, display the presence of a significant skew correction, with respect to girder 1, at girder 5 in the model with 30 degree skew. In span 2 of this model, the shear in girder 1 is 56.2 kips and 57.5 kips in the right and skewed bridge models, respectively. This yields a skew correction factor of 1.02 for girder 1, span 2. For girder 5, the shear is 57.4 kips and 61.0 kips in the right and skewed bridge models, respectively. This yields a correction factor of 1.06. When the skew correction of 0.06 is normalized against 0.02 at girder 1, a value of approximately 2.75 is produced. In comparison to the results of all of the models studied, this data point appears to be an anomaly. The large normalized skew correction is produced by the small skew correction at the obtuse corner.

111

C Pier L Girder 1 Girder 6 Girder 2 Girder 5 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 4 Girder 3 Girder 2 Girder 6 Span 1 Girder 1 Span 2 C Abutment (Typ.) L

Girder 5

Figure 54.

Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the Pier of TwoSpan Continuous Bridge Models

EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR ACROSS PIER

Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 168' Spans, I + Ae = 333,000 in , w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 1 2 3 Girder Span 1 @ Pier, 30 deg. Skew Span 1 @ Pier, 60 deg. Skew Span 2 @ Pier, 30 deg. Skew Span 2 @ Pier, 60 deg. Skew 4 5 6
2 4

Figure 55. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier

Normalized Skew Corrections

112

The influence of girder stiffness on the variation of the correction factor across the pier is shown in Figures 56 and 57. The results indicate that an increase in girder stiffness may tend to diminish the influence of the skew correction across the pier. As the girder stiffness increases, the skew correction of girders 2 through 5 become a smaller percentage of the skew correction of girder 1. All of the results display, however, a general decrease in the magnitude of the skew correction across the pier. The pronounced correction found at girder 5 in Figure 55, is not present in Figures 56 and 57.

113

EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR ACROSS PIER

Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 105' Spans, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 -1.75 1 2 3 Girder Span 1 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Span 1 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Span 2 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Span 2 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 4 5 6

Figure 56. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier
EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR ACROSS PIER
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 168' Spans, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 1 2 3 Girder Span 1 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Span 1 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Span 2 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Span 2 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 4 5 6

Normalized Skew Corrections

Normalized Skew Corrections

114

Figure 57. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier The influence of span length on the variation of the correction factor across the pier is shown in Figures 58 and 59. The results indicate that an increase in span length may tend to increase the influence of the skew correction across the pier. As the span length increases, the skew correction of girders 2 through 5 become a larger percentage of the corrections of girder 1. When studying these results in conjunction with those from the investigation of girder stiffness, it appears that an increase in the flexibility of the structure, caused by either a decrease in beam stiffness or an increase in span length, results in a greater presence of a skew correction across the piers of continuous bridges. All of the results for the investigation of span length display, however, a general decrease in the magnitude of the skew correction across the pier. Again, the pronounced skew correction at girder 5 in Figure 55, is not present in these models (Figures 58 and 59).

115

EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR ACROSS PIER

Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 -1.75 1 2 3 Girder Span 1 @ Pier, 105' Spans Span 1 @ Pier, 168' Spans Span 2 @ Pier, 105' Spans Span 2 @ Pier, 168' Spans 4 5 6

Figure 58. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier
EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR ACROSS PIER
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
2 4

Normalized Skew Corrections

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 1 2 3 Girder Span 1 @ Pier, 105' Spans Span 1 @ Pier, 168' Spans Span 2 @ Pier, 105' Spans Span 2 @ Pier, 168' Spans 4 5 6

116

Figure 59. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier Figure 60 superimposes the results from each of the models of Figures 55 through 59. Except for a few isolated data points, the general decline in the correction factor across the abutment bearing lines is evident. Similar to the results for the end shear correction factors across the abutments of the continuous bridges, certain models produce correction factor at Girder 2, the first interior girder adjacent to the obtuse corner, equal to or greater than the correction factor at the obtuse corner of the pier. Figure 61 condenses all of the results into a single plot of the average variation of the skew correction for shear across the pier. Superimposed on the results is a linear variation of the correction factor from its value at the obtuse corner to a value of zero at the acute corner. Except for the data point at girder 5, all of the average results fall within this approximation. The average data point of 0.55 at girder 5 includes the normalized value of approximately 2.75 from Figure 55. When this value is not included in the pool of results, an average value of 0.12 is produced at girder 5. This value falls well within the linear approximation. The data point of 2.75 is considered to be an isolate value, not representative of the results anticipated from typical beam-slab bridges. As a result, it is suggested that the variation of the correction factor across the pier can be reasonably approximated by a linear distribution from its value at the obtuse corner to zero at the acute corner, identical to the variation suggested across the abutments.

117

NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR ACROSS PIER

Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 -1.25 -1.50 -1.75 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6

Figure 60. Complete Results Set for Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier
AVERAGE NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR ACROSS PIER
Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges 1.00 1.00 0.80 Normalized Skew Corrections 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 -0.61 0.04 -0.14

Normalized Skew Corrections

0.76 0.55

Figure 61. Average Variation of Skew Corrections for Shear Across Piers of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges 118

4.4.6

Live Load Reactions at Pier

Intuition suggests that at the piers of skewed, continuous bridges, where an obtuse corner and acute corner adjoin on opposite sides of a girders bearing, a skew correction for reaction may not be necessary. It is speculated that the effects of the obtuse and acute corners on the girder shear on either side of the bearing may tend to negate each other and eliminate the skew correction. The current LRFD Specifications, however, do not address skew correction factors for reactions at the piers of continuous bridges. As a result, a number of questions were investigated as part of this study: Is there a skew correction factor for girder reaction at piers, i.e., do the effects of acute and obtuse corners negate each other? If a correction factor for reaction does exist, it is the same as the correction factor for shear at the pier? If the correction factor exists, how does it vary across the pier, and what bridge parameters influence the variation? For investigation of these questions, the girders of the bridge models were labeled as shown in Figure 62, with girder 1 located at the bottom of the plan view. The same two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models used for the investigation of the skew correction factors for shear were used for the investigation of correction factors for pier reactions. As shown by the results in Table 10, correction factors for reaction at the interior pier of the continuous bridge models were present, and were greater than 1.0, for almost every girder in each model. This indicates that the effects of the girders obtuse and acute corners on either side of the bearings do not offset each other for determination of the girder reaction. In fact, the data suggests that any reduction in shear due to the acute corner is less than the increase in shear due

119

to the obtuse corner. Therefore, the development of skew correction factors for reaction at the piers of continuous beam-slab bridges is necessary.

120

Girder 6 Girder 5 Girder 4 Girder 3 Girder 2 Girder 1

C Pier L

Abutment (Typ.)

Span 1

Span 2

Figure 62.

Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors for Reaction at the Pier of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models

Table 10. Correction Factors for Reaction at the Pier of Two-Span Beam-Slab Bridge Models

Girder 1 2 3 4 5 6

Skew Correction Factors for Reaction at Pier Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 1.01 1.02 1.09 1.11 1.06 1.08 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.25 1.22 1.05 1.19 1.22 1.22 1.06 1.06 1.08 1.20 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.09 1.13

Model 5 1.27 1.07 1.21 1.20 1.07 1.27

121

The presence of correction factors for reaction at the pier leads to a comparison to the correction factors calculated for shear at the pier. As shown by Figures 63 through 67, the correction factors for reaction are not identical to the correction factors for shear. In three of the five sets of results (Figures 63, 64 and 67), the correction factors for reaction at the exterior girders, girders 1 and 6, are similar to the correction factor for shear at the obtuse corner of the pier. For the remaining two sets of results (Figures 65 and 66), the correction factors for reaction at the exterior girders are appreciably less than the correction factor for shear at the obtuse corner. In all cases, the correction factors for reaction are essentially symmetrical about the centerline of the bridge. At the interior girders, girders 2 through 5, the correction factors for reaction are typically greater than those for shear at the same girder. Additionally, the correction factors for reaction at these girders may be greater than those for reaction at the exterior girders, and also greater than those for shear at the obtuse corner of the pier. An attempt, therefore, to simply use the correction factor for shear at the obtuse corner also for reaction at each girder of the pier is not conservative for each model of this study. These results indicate that there is no well-defined relationship between the correction factors for reaction and for shear at the piers of continuous bridges. It may be necessary, therefore, to develop a set of skew correction factors specific to the reaction at the piers of continuous bridges.

122

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT THE PIER

Two S pan Continuous Beam-S lab Bridge, 168' S pans, 1.30 1.25 Skew Correction Factors 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 w/o Intermed. X-Frames, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 30 deg. S kew
2 4

Span 1 Shear

Span 2 Shear

Reaction

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT PIER Girder Span 1 Shear Span 2 Shear Reaction 1 0.99 1.02 1.02 2 1.05 1.01 1.08 3 0.98 1.02 1.25 4 1.03 1.00 1.22 5 1.02 1.06 1.08 6 1.03 0.99 1.04

Figure 63. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier

123

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT THE PIER

Two S pan Continuous Beam-S lab Bridge, 168' S pans, 1.25 1.20 Skew Correction Factors 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 w/o Intermed. X-Frames, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. S kew
2 4

Span 1 Shear

Span 2 Shear

Reaction

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT PIER Girder Span 1 Shear Span 2 Shear Reaction 1 0.91 1.12 1.09 2 1.07 1.16 1.20 3 1.04 1.05 1.22 4 1.07 1.04 1.22 5 1.17 1.09 1.20 6 1.13 0.90 1.09

Figure 64. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier

124

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT THE PIER

Two S pan Continuous Beam-S lab Bridge, 105' S pans, 1.25 1.20 Skew Correction Factors 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 w/o Intermed. X-Frames, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. S kew
2 4

Span 1 Shear

Span 2 Shear

Reaction

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT PIER Girder Span 1 Shear Span 2 Shear Reaction 1 0.87 1.07 1.01 2 0.99 1.10 1.06 3 0.96 0.94 1.20 4 0.96 1.00 1.19 5 1.09 0.99 1.06 6 1.09 0.88 1.01

Figure 65. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier

125

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT THE PIER

Two S pan Continuous Beam-S lab Bridge, 105' S pans, 1.30 1.25 1.20 Skew Correction Factors 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 w/o Intermed. X-Frames, I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. S kew
2 4

Span 1 Shear

Span 2 Shear

Reaction

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT PIER Girder Span 1 Shear Span 2 Shear Reaction 1 0.94 1.19 1.11 2 0.95 1.04 1.00 3 0.86 0.90 1.05 4 0.90 0.94 1.06 5 1.03 0.95 1.00 6 1.25 0.95 1.13

Figure 66. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier

126

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT THE PIER

Two S pan Continuous Beam-S lab Bridge, 168' S pans, 1.30 1.25 Skew Correction Factors 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 w/o Intermed. X-Frames, I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. S kew
2 4

Span 1 Shear

Span 2 Shear

Reaction

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT PIER Girder Span 1 Shear Span 2 Shear Reaction 1 0.96 1.24 1.27 2 1.03 1.19 1.07 3 0.98 1.01 1.21 4 0.99 0.99 1.20 5 1.16 1.03 1.07 6 1.24 0.95 1.27

Figure 67. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier

127

Using the limited number of continuous model data sets of this study, the effects of skew angle, girder stiffness and span length on the variation of the correction factor for reaction across the pier were investigated. By normalizing the skew correction of each girder against the correction at girder 1, and plotting the results, the effects of skew angle, girder stiffness and span length were investigated. Figure 68 displays the effects of a 30 and 60 skew angle on the variation of the skew correction for reaction at the pier. An increase in skew angle produces much more uniform skew corrections across the pier. The 30 skew angle produced skew corrections at the interior girders that are substantially greater than those at the exterior girders. The data indicates that the interior girder corrections may be over 10 times greater than those at the exterior girder. For example, a normalized value of approximately 10.7 is produced when normalizing the correction of 0.247 at girder 3 against the correction of 0.023 at girder 1. With both the 30 and 60 skew angle, however, the variation of the skew correction is essentially symmetrical.

128

EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR REACTION ACROSS PIER

Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 168' Spans, I + Ae = 333,000 in , w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 12.0 Normalized Skew Corrections 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1 2 3 Girder 30 deg. Skew 60 deg. Skew 4 5 6
2 4

Figure 68. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier

129

The influence of girder stiffness on the variation of the skew correction for reaction is displayed in Figures 69 and 70. Again, the variation of the correction factor is symmetrical across the pier for each of the data sets. The results indicate that an increase in girder stiffness decreases the magnitude of the correction at the interior girders, with respect to the correction at girder 1. In fact, for the models with greater girder stiffness, the corrections at the interior girders are less than those for the exterior girders.

130

EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR REACTION ACROSS PIER

Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 105' Spans, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 16.0 Normalized Skew Corrections 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1 2 3 Girder I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 4 5 6

Figure 69. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier
EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR REACTION ACROSS PIER
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 168' Spans, 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 3.00 Normalized Skew Corrections 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1 2 3 Girder I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 4 5 6

131

Figure 70. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier Finally, the influence of span length on the variation of the skew correction for reaction is displayed in Figures 71 and 72. Again, the variation of the correction factor is symmetrical across the pier for each of the data sets. These results, however, do not yield a correlation between the change in span length and the variation of the skew correction across the pier. Figure 71 displays that an increase in span length tends to decrease the magnitude of the correction at the interior girders, with respect to the correction at girder 1. Furthermore, each data set of Figure 71 produces a greater skew correction at the interior girders than at the exterior girders. Figure 72, however, indicates that the corrections at the interior girders are less than those at the exterior girders. Additionally, the increase in span length increases the magnitude of the correction at the interior girders, with respect to the correction at girder 1. Figures 71 and 72, therefore, do not reveal a definite trend between the change in span length and the variation of the skew correction for reaction at the pier.

132

EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR REACTION ACROSS PIER

Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I + Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 16.0 Normalized Skew Corrections 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1 2 3 Girder 105' Spans 168' Spans 4 5 6
2 4

Figure 71. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier
EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR REACTION ACROSS PIER
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I + Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames 2.0 Normalized Skew Corrections 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1 2 3 Girder 105' Spans 168' Spans 4 5 6
2 4

133

Figure 72. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier

134

4.5

SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FROM LRFD SPECIFICATIONS AND RESEARCH RESULTS

Although not included in the objectives of this research, a cursory evaluation of the skew correction factors calculated according to Article 4.6.2.2.3c of the LRFD Specifications and those determined from the analysis models was performed. Table 11 indicates that the empirical equations of the LRFD Specifications typically corresponded well with the research results. The research results are within 14% of the empirical equations, with the empirical equations typically producing more conservative correction factors. In cases where the research models produced skew correction factors greater than the empirical equations, the greatest differences were found in bridge models with the extreme 60 skew or with intermediate cross frames. Nevertheless, the bridge models of this study produced skew correction factors that compare reasonably well to those calculated according to the LRFD Specifications.

135

Table 11. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors from LRFD Specifications and Research Results
Model Type Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab T-Beam T-Beam Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Beam-Slab Span Type Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple Simple 2-Span Cont. 2-Span Cont. 2-Span Cont. 2-Span Cont. 2-Span Cont. BRIDGE MODEL DATA Intermed. Span (L) # of X-Frames? No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No (ft) 42 42 42 42 168 42 42 105 168 105 168 105 168 42 42 168 105 168 105 168 Beams 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Kg (in ) 336152 336152 336152 357639 336152 2522195 2522195 2522195 2522195 2649798 2649798 2522195 2522195 358040 358040 2522195 2522195 2522195 2649798 2649798
4

ts (in) 7 7 7 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

(deg) 30 60 60 60 60 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 30 60 30 60 60 60 60

LRFD Correction Factor 1.09 1.28 1.28 1.35 1.43 1.05 1.16 1.20 1.23 1.20 1.23 1.20 1.23 1.09 1.28 1.08 1.20 1.23 1.20 1.23

Research Correction Factor 1.13 1.15 1.11 1.19 1.57 1.11 1.12 1.09 1.12 1.10 1.16 1.27 1.35 1.09 1.45 1.03 1.08 1.10 1.14 1.17

3% -10% -14% -12% 10% 6% -3% -9% -9% -8% -6% 5% 9% 0% 13% -4% -10% -11% -5% -5%

Definition of Variables: 4 Kg = Longitudinal Stiffness Parameter (in ) ts = Depth of Concrete Slab (in) = Skew Angle measured from a line normal to the CL of Bridge LRFD Empirical Skew Correction Factor = 1.0 + 0.20 * ( 12.0 L ts / Kg )
3 0.3

tan

136

CHAPTER 5

INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION

5.1

SIMPLE SPAN BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES

With respect to simple span beam-slab bridges, the results of this study indicate that: The variation of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of the exterior girders of simple span beam-slab bridges is not significantly influenced by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness, span length, beam spacing, slab thickness, bridge aspect ratio, or by the presence of intermediate cross frames. While the magnitude of the correction factors may change in concert with changes of these parameters, the variation of the correction factor along the exterior beam length is not significantly altered. The skew correction factor typically falls quickly from its initial value at the end of the exterior girder at the obtuse bridge corner to zero by the four-tenth point of the span, independent of changes in the aforementioned bridge parameters. An appropriate, conservative design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the length of the exterior girder is a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the bridge plan to zero at some point within the girder span.

Regarding the last conclusion, Figure 73, a plot of the results from all models that represent realistic bridge designs (span-to-depth ratios range from 13 to 21), displays that a reasonable approximation for the skew correction factor variation is a straight line from its value at the obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span. In isolated cases, a correction factor is present near mid-span of the exterior girders, but the magnitudes of the shears near midspan are still much less that the magnitudes of the end shears. It is suggested, therefore, that these corrections near mid-span may be neglected as the shear values at these locations will not

137

govern for typical design applications. It is recognized that design cases in which the web depth, thickness, yield strength, stiffener spacing, etc. vary along the beam length, the controlling region for shear design may not be at the typical end of beam location. The correction factor spikes found at mid-span in a limited number of the data sets, however, were amplified by the manner of data reduction. Given that the magnitude of the mid-span shear is small, any slight deviations between the right bridge and skewed bridge mid-span shears may produce appreciable correction factors in terms of percentages. To illustrate, the data displays some mid-span skew correction factors between 1.03 to 1.13. The actual difference between the mid-span shears in the right and skewed bridge models for the correction factor of 1.13 is only 2.8 kips (22.7 k right bridge; 25.5 k skewed bridge). Attempts to pinpoint design corrections to this level of accuracy may be misleading in terms of the accuracy of the approximation itself. Furthermore, the bridge models which possess these mid-span spikes are predominately models with a 168 span length and a 60 degree skew. Given the small number of occurrences of the mid-span spikes and the extreme skew angle of the models in which it did occur, the inclusion of the spikes in a general design approximation was not considered necessary. Additionally, select model results yielded a correction factor greater than 1.0 at the acute corner of the exterior girders. These results, however, were obtained from bridge models with a span-to-depth ratio of 5.25, well outside ratios of practical design applications. It is suggested, therefore, that these corrections at the acute corner may be neglected given the fact that these results did not occur in models that are more representative of actual design cases.

138

NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR IN EXTERIOR GIRDERS of SIMPLE SPAN BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
2.00 1.50 Normalized Skew Corrections 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 -1.00 -1.50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth Point Along Span

Proposed Design Approximation for the Variation of the Skew Correction Factor

Figure 73.

Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Length of the Exterior Girders of Simple-Span Beam-Slab Bridges.

139

The study results also indicate that: The variation of the skew correction factors for end shear across the bearing lines of simple span beam-slab bridges is not significantly altered by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness, span length, beam spacing, slab thickness, or by the presence of intermediate cross frames. A reasonable, conservative approximation of this variation across the bearing lines is a linear distribution of the correction factor from its value at the obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0 at the acute corner.

The average variation of the skew correction for end shear across the bearing lines of the models studied is depicted in Figure 74, indicating that the linear distribution across the bearing lines is conservative and encompasses the average results.

140

AVERAGE NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES of SIMPLE SPAN BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
1.00 1.00 0.80 Normalized Skew Corrections 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 1 2 3 Girder 4 5 6 -0.54 0.08 -0.23 0.49 0.25

Proposed Design Approximation for the Variation of the Skew Correction Factor

Figure 74.

Average Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Bearing Lines of Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges.

141

5.2

SIMPLE SPAN CONCRETE T-BEAM BRIDGES

The cursory investigation of simple span, monolithic, concrete T-beam bridge models indicated that: The variation of the skew correction factors along both the length of the exterior beams and across the beam supports is very similar to that obtained from the simple span beam-slab bridge models. Regardless bridge model skew angle, the variation of the skew correction factors along the length of the beams can be approximated reasonably by a linear distribution of the correction factor at the obtuse corner of the exterior girder to a value of 1.0 at mid-span of the exterior girder. Across the bearing lines, the skew correction factor variation can be approximated by a linear distribution of the correction factor at the obtuse corner of the bearing line to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner.

Although only the effect of skew angle on the correction factor variation was investigated, it is presumed that changes in other bridge parameters will produce similar results. Therefore, the design approximations developed for the beam-slab bridges are considered to be valid for concrete T-beam bridges.

5.3

SIMPLE SPAN SPREAD CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BRIDGES

The analysis of the spread concrete box girder bridge models raised an issue regarding the influence of torsion on the maximum shear in box girders and the design methodology to be followed in the development of skew correction factors for this bridge type. Although typically neglected in right bridges due to the premise of equal deflections of the bridge girders and 142

negligible differential shears between the webs of the box girders, the effects of torsion on box girder shear may be amplified due to the introduction of skew. The box girder shear data obtained in this study, which incorporates the effects of torsion, indicates that torsion may not be negligible in skewed bridges. Without further conclusive research, however, and given the lack of substantial field documentation indicating problems with torsion and shear in skewed spread box girder bridges, the current design practices of neglecting torsion are considered to be acceptable. It is recommended, however, that further studies of box girder shear in skewed bridges be performed to investigate the influence of torsion. Such studies may help determine whether torsion should be included in approximations for the variation of the skew correction factors for shear.

5.4

TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES

The investigation of the two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models reveals that: The skew correction factors for shear at the obtuse corner of skewed, simple span beam-slab bridges are valid for the shear at the obtuse corner of the abutments of skewed, continuous beam-slab bridges. The skew correction factors for shear at the obtuse corner of skewed, simple span beam-slab bridges are also valid for shear in exterior girders of continuous bridges at the obtuse corner created by the girders and the piers. The variation of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of the exterior girders is not significantly influenced by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness and span length. The variation of the correction factor along the length of the exterior 143

girder is similar when the obtuse corner is located at the abutment and when it is located at the pier. As a result, each span of the continuous exterior girders possesses the same correction factor at its obtuse corner, as well as the same variation of the correction factor along the span length.

While the magnitude of the correction factors may change in concert with changes of skew angle, beam stiffness and span length, the variation of the correction factor along the span length is not significantly altered. The skew correction factor typically falls quickly from its initial value at the end of the exterior girder at the obtuse corner to zero by the four-tenth point of the span, independent of changes in the aforementioned bridge parameters. An appropriate, conservative design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the length of each span of the exterior girder is a linear variation from its initial value at the girders obtuse corner to 1.0 at some point within the girder span, very similar to the results from the simple span models.

Regarding the last conclusion, Figure 75 displays that a reasonable approximation for the skew correction factor variation is a straight line from its value at the obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span. Similar to the simple span model results, a correction factor is present near mid-span of the exterior girders in isolated cases. However, the manner in which the data is presented tends to amplify the results and the magnitudes of the shears near mid-span are still much less that the magnitudes of the end shears. It is suggested, therefore, that these corrections near mid-span may be neglected as the shear values at these locations will not govern for typical design applications.

144

NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR IN EXTERIOR GIRDERS of TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
2.00 1.50 Normalized Skew Corrections 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 -1.00 -1.50 -2.00 -2.50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Tenth Point Along Span

Proposed Design Approximation for the Variation of the Skew Correction Factor

Figure 75.

Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Length of the Exterior Girders of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges.

145

The study results also indicate that: The variation of the skew correction factors for shear across the abutments and pier of two-span continuous beam-slab bridges is not significantly altered by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness and span length. A reasonable approximation of this variation across both the abutments and pier is a linear distribution of the correction factor from its value at the obtuse corner of the abutments and pier to a correction factor of 1.0 at the acute corner.

The average variation of the skew correction factor for shear across the abutments and the piers of the models studied is depicted in Figure 76, including the proposed design office approximation.

146

AVERAGE NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENTS AND PIERS of TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 1 2 3 Girder Abutment Pier

Normalized Skew Corrections

Proposed Design Approximation for the Variation of the Skew Correction Factor

Figure 76. Average Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Across Abutments and Piers of Two-Span Beam-Slab Bridges.

147

The investigation of the two-span models does reveal that skew correction factors for reaction at piers of continuous bridges are present at each girder, and that these correction factor are unique from those required for the shear at the pier. However, the variation of the correction factor across the pier with changes in the bridge parameters is not clearly understood from the limited number of data sets in this study. Although changes of skew angle and girder stiffness in the study models did provide insight into possible effects on the correction factors, it is difficult to define that variation from the small pool of data sets. The study results do indicate, however, that further research is required to develop empirical equations for both the skew correction factors for reactions at piers and the variation of those correction factors across the pier.

5.5

APPLICATION OF STUDY FINDINGS

From the study findings, it was determined that regardless of bridge parameters, a reasonable design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the length of the exterior girder of simple span beam-slab and monolithic concrete T-beam bridges is a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span. Similarly, regardless of bridge parameters, the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the length of the exterior girders in each span of two-span continuous beam-slab bridges may be reasonably approximated with a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the girder to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span. Therefore, for

148

application of the research findings regarding the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the length of exterior girders, the recommendations are as follows: For superstructure types Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Section, within the applicable ranges of skew angle (), spacing of beams or webs (S), span of beam (L) and number of beams, stringers or girders (Nb) as defined by Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications, the skew correction factor for shear may be varied linearly from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined in accordance with the empirical equation defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, to a value of 1.0 at girder mid-span, as shown in Figure 77. This approximate variation is applicable for both simple span structures and continuous structures. For continuous structures, the skew correction factor calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutment per Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 is also valid at the obtuse corners of the interior piers. Likewise, the variation of the correction factor is applicable from both the obtuse corner of the abutment and the obtuse corners of the interior piers to the girder mid-span, as shown in Figure 78.

Although this study did not investigate each superstructure type within the group Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete TBeams, T- and Double T Section, the bridge models studied are representative of this class of superstructure, with the bridge parameters as defined by Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications. The study findings and proposed design approximations, therefore, are considered to be valid for each type of structure within this class.

149

Mid-Point of Girder Span (Typ.) 1.0 C Girder (Typ.) L C Abutment (Typ.) L Skew Angle

1.0 Linear Variation of the Correction Factor (Typ.)

Calculated Skew Correction Factor at Obtuse Corner (Typ.)

Figure 77.

Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Along the Length of the Exterior Girders in Simple Span Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, TSkew Correction Factor also Applied at Obtuse Corner of Pier (Typ.) 1.0

Mid-Point of Girder Span (Typ.) 1.0 C Girder (Typ.) L C Abutment (Typ.) L Skew Angle

C Pier L

1.0 Linear Variation of the Correction Factor (Typ.)

1.0

Calculated Skew Correction Factor at Obtuse Corner of Abutment (Typ.)

and Double T Sections Figure 78. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Along the Length of the Exterior Girders in Continuous Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, 150

or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Sections

151

The study findings also reveal that regardless of bridge parameters, a reasonable design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factors for end shear of each girder across bearing lines of simple span beam-slab bridges and monolithic concrete T-beam bridges is a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the bearing line to a correction factor of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bearing line. Similarly, regardless of bridge parameters, the variation of the skew correction factor for shear of each girder across the abutments and piers of two-span continuous beam-slab bridges may be reasonably approximated with a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the bearing line to a correction factor of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bearing line. Therefore, for application of the research findings regarding the variation of the skew correction factor for shear across bearing lines, the recommendations are as follows: For superstructure types Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Section, within the applicable ranges of skew angle (), spacing of beams or webs (S), span of beam (L) and number of beams, stringers or girders (Nb) as defined by Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications, the skew correction factor for shear may be varied linearly from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined in accordance with Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bearing line, as shown in Figure 79. This approximate variation is applicable for both simple span structures and continuous structures. For continuous structures, the skew correction factor calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutment per Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 is also valid at the obtuse corners of the interior piers. Likewise, the variation of the correction factor is applicable from both the obtuse corner of the abutment and the obtuse corners of the interior piers to the acute corner of the bearing lines, as shown in Figure 80.

152

As discussed previously, this study did not investigate each superstructure type within the group Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Section. The bridge models studied, however, are representative of this class of superstructure, with the bridge parameters as defined by Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications. The study findings and proposed design approximation, therefore, are considered to be valid for each type of structure within this class.

153

1.0

C Girder (Typ.) L C Abutment (Typ.) L Skew Angle 1.0 Linear Variation of the Correction Factor (Typ.)

Calculated Skew Correction Factor at Obtuse Corner (Typ.)

Figure 79.

Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Across the Bearing Lines of Simple Span Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Sections
Skew Correction Factor also Applied at Obtuse Corner of Pier (Typ.) C Abutment (Typ.) L 1.0 C Pier L

C Girder (Typ.) L 1.0

Skew Angle 1.0 Calculated Skew Correction Factor at Obtuse Corner of Abutment (Typ.) 1.0 Linear Variation of the Correction Factor (Typ.)

Figure 80.

Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Across the Abutments and Piers of Continuous Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, Tand Double T Sections

154

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH

The variation of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of the exterior girders of simple span beam-slab bridges is not significantly influenced by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness, span length, beam spacing, slab thickness, bridge aspect ratio, or by the presence of intermediate cross frames. It is recommended that a reasonable design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the length of the exterior girder of simple span beam-slab bridges is a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span, as shown in Figure 77. Regardless of the aforementioned bridge parameters, therefore, the skew correction factor may be calculated for the obtuse corner as defined in the LRFD Specifications and varied linearly to a value of 1.0 at the mid-point of the girder span. This approximation is recommended for simple span superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections, within the geometric limitations defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications. Additionally, the variation of the skew correction factors for end shear of each girder across bearing lines of simple span beam-slab bridges is not significantly altered by changes in span length, beam spacing, slab thickness, skew angle and beam stiffness, or by the presence of intermediate cross frames. Therefore, it is recommended that the skew correction factor be calculated for the end shear of the exterior girder at the obtuse corner of the bridge, as defined in the LRFD Specifications, and varied linearly across the bearing lines to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner, as shown in Figure 79. Again, this approximation is reasonable for simple span

155

superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections, within the geometric limitations defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications. The skew correction factors for shear defined in the current LRFD Specifications at the obtuse corner of skewed, simple span beam-slab bridges are also valid for the shear at the obtuse corner of the abutments of skewed, continuous beam-slab bridges. Furthermore, these same skew correction factors are also valid for shear in exterior girders of continuous bridges at the obtuse corner created by the girders and the piers. Similar to the conclusions regarding the variation of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of the exterior girders of simple span bridges, the variation of the correction factors for two-span continuous beam-slab bridges is not significantly influenced by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness and span length. The same design approximation proposed for the correction factor variation in the simple span bridges is also recommended for each span of the continuous bridges. A reasonable design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the length of the exterior girders in each span of continuous beam-slab bridges is a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the girder to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span, as shown in Figure 78. Regardless of the aforementioned bridge parameters, therefore, the skew correction factor may be calculated for the end shear of the exterior girder as defined in the LRFD Specifications, applied at the obtuse corners of both the abutments and piers, and varied linearly to a value of 1.0 at the mid-point of the girder span. This approximation is appropriate for continuous superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or

156

partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections, within the geometric limitations defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications. Additionally, the variation of the skew correction factors for shear of each girder across the abutments and piers of continuous beam-slab bridges is not significantly altered by changes in skew angle, girder stiffness and span length. The recommended design approximation for the simple span bridges is also valid across the abutments and piers of continuous bridges. Therefore, the skew correction factor can be calculated for the end shear of the exterior girder, as defined in the LRFD Specifications, applied at the obtuse corners of both the abutments and piers, and varied linearly across the abutments and piers to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner, as shown in Figure 80. Again, this approximation is appropriate for continuous superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections, within the geometric limitations defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications. The results of this study lead to the following recommendations for further research: Skew Correction Factors for Reaction at the Piers of Continuous Bridges: It was determined that these correction factors are present and are unique from those calculated for shear at the pier. The effects of the obtuse and acute corners on the girder shear on opposite sides of the bearings do not eliminate a correction factor for reaction. From the limited continuous bridge model data pool of this study, however, it was not feasible to develop empirical equations that define the correction factor or define its variation across the pier. Therefore, the development of such equations for continuous bridges is suggested as further research. Skew Correction Factors of Other Beam and Slab Bridge Types: This research focused primarily on the skew correction factors for shear in simple-span and two-span continuous beam-slab bridges and provides recommendations for only superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or 157

partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections. These bridges, however, comprise only one type of the larger genre of beam and slab bridges. The LRFD Specifications provide empirical equations for skew correction factors of multi-cell concrete box beam, spread concrete box beam and multi-beam bridges. It is recommended that further research be performed to investigate the behavior of the skew correction factors for shear in these additional bridge types. Torsion in Skewed Box Beam Bridges: Additional work could be performed to investigate torsion in skewed, spread box beam bridges and the magnitude of its effect on shear in box girder webs. Given the lack of substantial field documentation indicating problems with torsion and shear in skewed spread box girder bridges, however, the current design practices which neglect torsion are considered to be acceptable.

158

REFERENCES
1. 2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Second Edition, (1996). Nutt, R. V., Schamber R. A. and Zokaie T., Distribution of wheel loads on highway bridges. Project No. 12-26, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., (1988). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. First Edition, (1994). Zokaie, T., Osterkamp T. A. and Imbsen R. A., Distribution of wheel loads on highway bridges. Project No. 12-26/1, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., (1991). Kulicki, J. M., Shear in Skewed Multi-Beam Bridges. Proposal for NCHRP 207/Task 107, Modjeski and Masters, Inc., Mechanicsburg, PA, (1999). Marx, H. J., Kachaturion N. and Gamble W. L., Development of design criteria for simply supported skew slab-and-girder bridges. Report No. 522, Civil Engineering Studies, Struct. Res. Ser., University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, (1986). Khaleel, M. A., and Itani, R. Y., Live-load moments for continuous skew bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(9), (1990) pp. 23612373. Bishara, A. G., Liu, M. C. and El-Ali, N. D., Wheel Load Distribution on Simply Supported Skew I-beam Composite Bridges. Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(2), (1993) pp.399-419. Ebeido, T. and Kennedy, J.B., Girder moments in continuous skew composite bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 1(1), (1996) pp. 37-45. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Fifteenth Edition, (1989). Powell, G. H. and Buckle, I. G., Computer Programs for Bridge Deck Analysis. Report No. UC SESM 70-6, Division of Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, (1970).

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

159

12.

Dodds, R. H. and Lopez, L. A., A Generalized Software System for Nonlinear Analysis. International Journal for Advances in Engineering Software, 2(4), (1980), pp. 161-168. Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Ontario highway bridge design code. Third Edition, Highway Engineering Division, Downsview, Ontario, (1992). Jaeger, L. G. and Bakht B., Bridge Analysis by Microcomputer. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, (1989). Ebeido, T. and Kennedy, J.B., Shear distribution in simply supported skew composite bridges. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Ottawa, Canada, 22(6), (1995) pp. 1143-1154. Ebeido, T. and Kennedy, J.B., Shear and reaction distributions in continuous skew composite bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 1(4), (1996) pp. 155-165. Hibbitt, H.D., Karlson, B.I., and Sorensen, E.P., ABAQUS Version 4-8, Finite Element Program. Hibbitt, Karlson & Sorensen, Inc., Providence, RI, (1989). Aggour, M. Sherif and Aggour, M. Shafik, Skewed bridges with intermediate transverse bracings. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 105(8), (1979), pp.1621-1636. Bell, N. B., Load distribution of continuous bridges using field data and finite element analysis. Masters Thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, (1998). ANSYS, Incorporated, ANSYS Reference Manuals. (2000). Bishara, A. G., Forces at bearings of skewed bridges. Report No. FHWA/OH91/002, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., (1990). ADINA Engineering, ADINA, Theory and Modeling Guide. Report AE 84-6, (1984). El-Ali, N. D., Evaluation of internal forces in skew multi-stringer simply supported steel bridge., PhD thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, (1986). SAP IV, A Structural Analysis Program for Static and Dynamic Response of Linear Systems. EERC Report No. 73-11, University of California, Berkeley, CA, (1974). 160

13.

14. 15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20. 21. 22. 23.

24.

25. 26.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Sixteenth Edition, (1996). Bridge Software Development International, Ltd., Bridge-SystemSM. Coopersburg, PA, (1988).

161