Paper Kamlesh Parihar

1
Effect of Skewness on Different Design Parameters In Simply

Supported RC T- Beam Bridges
Kamlesh Parihar [M.Tech (Structural Engg. student.), Civil Engg. Dept., IIT Roorkee]
&
Dr. N M Bhandari [Professor, Civil Engg. Dept, IIT Roorkee]
(1) ABSTRACT
A very limited study has been carried out in the field of skew bridges and even that does not hold
much relevance in Indian perspective due to difference in design live load standards and type of
bridges being built there. Therefore it does not provide any help to designers regarding the quick
estimation of design bending moments and shear forces which are of prime interest. In this paper an
attempt has been made to study the effect of skewness directly on the design parameters i.e. B.M,
Shear Force and Maximum Reaction in simply supported RC T-Beam 2 lane bridges. For this study
bridges of practical dimensions and span range are considered. The paper present design factors for
quick estimation of forces thus obviating the need of struggling with theories. Further to facilitate
estimation of design forces i.e. BM, shear force and reaction, at critical locations design charts have
been proposed.
For this purpose a parametric study of Simply Supported 2-Lane T-Beam Bridge has been performed
in STAAD PRO. The parameters varied were span and skew angle. The effect of same was observed
on maximum live load bending moment, maximum live load shear force and maximum live load
reaction at critical locations in terms of Moment Distribution Factor (MDF), Shear Coefficients
and Reaction Coefficients. Live Load Class 70R Tracked, Class 70R Wheeled and Class A
were applied as per IRC 6 guidelines. The spans used were 12 m, 15 m, 18 m and 21 m. The skew
angles were taken at an interval of 10
0
starting from 0
0
up to a maximum of 40
0
. Bridges with skew
angle more than 40
0
are rare.
From the study it was observed that as the skew angle increases from 0
0
to 40
0
there is a consistent
reduction in Moment Distribution Factor (MDF) of the outer longitudinal girder of bridge. For 12 m
span and class 70R wheeled loading the reduction in MDF of outer girder on eccentric side of
loading was 17.5 % at a skew angle of 40
0
with respect to the straight bridge (i.e. no skew). For Class
70R Tracked, the reduction was 14.57 % where as it was 10.08 % for Class A loading. Similar
trend of reduction in MDF were observed for 15m span, 18 m span and 21 m span. This suggests that
skew bridges designed, ignoring the skew effect are conservative with respect to the bending moment.
The effect of skew angle was also studied on the shear coefficients and reaction coefficients and the
results were surprising. The shear coefficients and reaction coefficients increases almost linearly with
skew angle and span. The increase in the reaction coefficient is as high as 61 % for Class A loading
at a skew angle of 40
0
and span 12 m. For Class 70 R Tracked and 70 R Wheeled loading, the
increase in reaction coefficients is around 40 % for all spans. Similarly increasing trends were
obtained for shear coefficients. Hence it can be concluded that proper estimation should be made in
the live load shear and live load reactions when designing skew bridges. Further, the forces estimated
for a right bridge, ignoring skew angle would under estimate the same and hence could lead to failure.
Keywords: Skew angle, distribution factor, T Beam Bridge, grillage analogy, bending moment, shear
force, and support reaction
2

(2) INTRODUCTION
Most of the bridges in older days were straight, and skew bridges were averted as far as possible.
Lack of knowledge about the structural behavior and construction difficulties were obvious reasons
contributing to the designers choice to favor straight bridges rather than skew bridges. But in the
current scenario, with the increasing population, high cost of land acquisition for approach roads and
other practical constraints, there is an increasing trend of providing skew bridges at oblique
intersections. Also, in congested cities due to lack of space, bridges have to be skew in nature if the
intersection is not orthogonal. Hence there is need to study the behavior of skew bridges so as to
facilitate quick estimation of design BM, shear force and support reactions and thus obviating the
need of a rigorous analysis. The results have been presented in the form of ready to use design charts.
(3) METHODOLOGY
With the advancement in modeling and computing facilities world over, it has now become possible
to perform a near exact analysis of any kind of bridge. The commercially available software packages
like ANSYS, ABAQUS, SAP etc has made it possible to use the methods of Finite Element Analysis,
etc with much ease. In spite of the fact that these methods are highly efficient and accurate, these
methods are often criticized also for the reason that the efficiency is achieved at the cost of exorbitant
computations and time requirement. Hence, care must be taken in selection of the appropriate method
of analysis, appropriate to the type of bridge depending upon the required accuracy in the parameters
under investigation.
Grillage Analogy on the other hand presents a sufficiently accurate method to analyze slab-beam
bridges for estimation of design bending moment, torsion, shear force etc. It is a comparatively
simpler method to analyze the bridge decks and gives an excellent visualization of distribution of
forces among different longitudinal and transverse girders in a bridge. It can easily handle
complicated geometric features of a bridge such as skew, edge stiffening, and deep haunches over
support, continuous and isolated supports etc with ease. It is a versatile method and can also take into
account the contribution of kerb beams, footpaths and the effect of differential sinking of girder ends
over yielding supports. The method has proved to be reliable and versatile for a wide variety of bridge
decks. It do possess some limitations such as inability to take into account the effects like shear lag,
warping and distortional effects for which more sophisticated methods like FEM have to be used.
Basically grillage analogy method uses stiffness approach for analyzing the bridge decks. The whole
bridge deck is divided into no of longitudinal and transverse beams. The intersection of longitudinal
and transverse beams is called as node. Each node has six degrees of freedom, namely 3 rotations and
three translations. But if we assume the slab to be highly stiff in its own plane, which is actually the
case in most of the bridges, the degrees of freedom are reduced to three i.e. 1- vertical translation and
2-rotations about the axes in plane of the bridge deck. The properties of cross-section such as beam
moment of Inertia about their principal axes, Torsional constant, Effective Area etc are calculated and
the grid is solved for the unknown degrees of freedom using the matrix stiffness method. After the
nodal displacements are known, the forces in the grid members are calculated using the force
displacement relationship. The overall equations of equilibrium are given below.
{F} = [K]{ U} For Structural Level
{f} = [k]{ u} For Member Level
3

Where, F represents the unknown reaction/load vector (BM, Torsion, SF), K is the structure stiffness
matrix and U is the vector of nodal displacement.
Conceptually, grillage analogy method attempts to disretize the continuous or dispersed stiffness of
bridge and concentrates it into discrete longitudinal and transverse members. The degree of structural
similarity between the original bridge and grillage so formed depends on the fineness of the grid
formed. But practically it is observed that after a certain degree of fineness in the grillage mesh, law
of diminishing returns is followed and further reducing the size of grillage doesnt significantly add to
the accuracy. The choice of the designer is the best judge to decide grid fineness.
The solution of grillage mesh involves a large no. of equations, which is beyond the scope of the
manual solution. Hence it becomes mandatory to take aid of computer programs in the grillage
analogy method. Commercially available software package like Staad Pro, are very helpful in
analyzing bridges with grillage analogy method considering all the 6-DOFs i.e. 3 translations and 3
rotations per node. The use of same has been made in this study.
Gridlines, their locations, direction and properties:
Gridlines are the beams representing the discretized stiffness and other structural properties of the slab
portions which it replaces. Strictly speaking, gridlines represents the lines of strength. So they must
be provided at all the locations where there is concentration of stiffness. Therefore gridlines must be
provided at the centre of each longitudinal and transverse girder, running along them. Where isolated
bearings are provided, gridlines should also be provided along the lines joining the bearings.
Generally gridlines must coincide with the centre of gravity of the section but some shift may be
permitted for the ease of calculation. A few guidelines for the Grillage Idealizations for slab T beam
bridges are as follows.
(a) Generally longitudinal gridlines are parallel to the free edge of Deck. (For straight bridges
without skewness)
(b) For skew Bridges with skew angle less than 15
o
the transverse girders are provided parallel to
the support lines so the gridlines should also be parallel to the support lines. But for skew
angles exceeding 15 degrees, where transverse diaphragms perpendicular to the longitudinal
girders are provided as they are found to be more efficient in transverse load distribution
amongst longitudinal Girders. Hence gridlines should be along the transverse diaphragms i.e
perpendicular to the longitudinal beams.
(c) End transverse gridlines must be provided along the center lines of bearings on each side of
span.
(d) For determining the sizes of gridlines aid form relevant IRC code can be taken.
(4) Parametric study of RC T Beam Bridge
A 2 lane RC T-Beam Bridge has been chosen for the study. Spans have been varied from 12m to 21 m
with an increment of 3m. The no. of longitudinal girders has been kept as three. Cross Girders are
hindrance in the speed of construction as they pose practical problems in construction. So their
spacing is generally kept not less than 4 m and for this reason the spacing of cross girders is kept
between 4.5 m to 6 m. For skew bridges of 0
0
and 10
0
, the cross girders (& transverse gridlines) are
parallel to the abutment, while for 20
0
, 30
0
, and 40
0
, the cross girder (& transverse gridlines) are
provided orthogonal to longitudinal girders for the reason explained in above section. The cross-
section shown in Fig 1 has been chosen. The sizes of longitudinal and cross beams is given in Table 1
4

Figure 1
Table 1. Dimensions of Longitudinal and Transverse girders
Longitudinal Beam

Transverse Beams
S.No Span(m) B (mm) D (m)

Intermediate Cross Beam End Cross Beam
B (mm) D(m) B(mm) D(m)
1 12 350 1.2

300 0.96 300 1.2
2 15 350 1.5

300 1.2 300 1.5
3 18 400 1.8

300 1.44 300 1.8
4 21 400 2.1

300 1.68 300 2.1

GRILLAGE IDEALIZATION OF BRIDGE:
In grillage analogy method, the continuous bridge deck is discretized into a no of longitudinal and
transverse beams. Since the distribution of bending stress in the flange of the T-Beam bridge is not
uniform as suggested by the simple bending theory, so the effective width concept is used to define
the flange of the T-section. For this purpose assistance from IRC 21: 2000 clause 305.15 was sought
in the selection of sizes of T-Beam. It suggests
b
e
= b
w
+ l
o
/ 5 IRC 21: 2000 clause 305.15
b
e
is effective width of T-Beam; b
w
is width of T-Beam
l
o
is distance between the points of contraflexure.
Exact modeling of bridge is difficult so some approximations were made in grillage idealizations and
the slab was assumed to be of uniform thickness taking partially into account the effect of kerbs.
Figure 2 shows the grillage idealization of the bridge in longitudinal direction. Same method was used
for discretizing the bridge in transverse direction also.
5

Figure 2 Grillage idealization in Longitudinal Direction All dimensions in mm
(5) LIVE LOAD (LL) APPLICATION ON THE BIRDGE
The Bridge deck was analyzed for Class A, Class 70R Tracked and Class 70R Wheeled
vehicles. As per IRC 6: 2000 Table 2, a two lane bridge should be loaded with either one lane of
Class 70R or two lanes of Class A. For the transverse placement of the vehicle, guidelines of IRC
6: 2000 clause 207 were followed which suggests that the minimum spacing of vehicle form the face
of the kerb is 1.2 m for Class 70R and 0.15 m for Class A loading. Many other trials of the
transverse placement of vehicles were also made to obtain the maximum LL moments and maximum
LL shear force and maximum LL reactions in the bridges. Following observations were made during
these trials.
(a) For Class A, Class 70R Wheeled and 70R Tracked the maximum bending moment in
the bridge is always obtained in the outer girder when the vehicle is placed at minimum
spacing from the kerb.
(b) For maximum bending moment in the middle girder the vehicle is placed both eccentrically
and centrally as it does not always occur for same transverse placement loads.
(c) For all Class of loading, the maximum LL shear occurs in the outer girder, near the obtuse
corner.
(d) For Class 70R Wheeled and 70R Tracked the maximum LL support reaction occurs in
the middle girder when the vehicle is placed centrally.
(e) For Class A the maximum LL support reaction is obtained in the outer girder when the
vehicle is placed at minimum spacing form the kerb.
The loads were placed accordingly to obtain maximum bending moment, maximum shear and
reaction in the bridge.
Idealization of Vehicle
The details of vehicles have been given in IRC 6: 2000. The Class 70 R Tracked vehicle has been
simulated as train of 20 equal point loads as shown below in figure 3. The load values shown in
the longitudinal details are the axle loads and since there are two wheels on each axle, so the
values are halved when seen in the transverse view.

6

Figure 3 Idealized 70R Tracked
(6) Results and Discussion:
Bridges of span 12 m, 15 m, 18 m and 21 m were analyzed for skew angles 0
0
, 10
0
, 20
0
, 30
0

and 40
0
. The vehicles were placed as explained section 5 and maximum moment and maximum shear
forces were obtained in G1, G2 and G3, where
G1 is the outer longitudinal girder on the eccentric side near to live load vehicle.
G2 is the middle longitudinal girder
G3 is also the outer longitudinal girder on the other side of eccentrically placed load.
The moments, shear force and reactions so obtained are converted into MDF, shear coefficients, and
reaction coefficients as explained below.
The Moment Distribution Factor (MDF) has been defined as

The maximum moment in the girder is the maximum live load moment in that girder due to specified
vehicle.
The maximum span moment of right bridge can be obtained by carrying out a simple beam analysis of
same span and running the specified IRC vehicle over it.
The SHEAR COEFFICIENTS and REACTION COEFFICIENTS are obtained by dividing the
maximum LL shear and maximum LL reaction with total load of the respective vehicle. For 70 R
Tracked and 70 R Wheeled vehicles the maximum shear and reactions are divided by 700 kN and
1000 kN respectively, while for class A loading it is to be divided by 2x 554 kN = 1108 kN as two
Class A trains can be accommodated in the bridge.
12 m span
Effect of Skew on MDF
Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 shows the variation of MDF of G1, G2 and G3 with skewness. The
MDF for G1 and G3 are obtained by placing the vehicle eccentrically, while For G2 it is obtained by
picking the severe values of eccentric and central placement of load. It is observed that for G1 the
7

MDF falls consistently in a non linear fashion for all class of loading, while the MDF of G2 remains
nearly constant for 70 R Tracked and Wheeled loading. For G3 there is a marginal increment with
skew angle. At 40
0
skew the MDF in G1 due to 70 R tracked vehicle decreases from 0.482 to 0.412
which is 14.5 % while for 70 R wheeled it decreases from 0.491 to 0.405 which is 17.5 %. For Class
A loading the reduction was 10 % at 40
0
skew.

Figure 4: Variation of MDF with Skew Angle (12m span 70 R TR) Figure 5: Variation of MDF with Skew Angle (12m span 70 R WH)

Figure 6: Variation of MDF with Skew Angle (12m span Class A)
Effect of Skew on Shear Coefficients and Reactions Coefficients
There is a increase in shear coefficient and reaction coefficient with skewness as depicted in the
figure7 and figure 8. The maximum increases in reaction coefficient is observed in class A 61 %
while for 70 TR and 70 Wheeled it is around 40 % at a skew of 40
0
. For Class A, Class 70 Tracked
and Class 70 R wheeled the increase in shear coefficients is 38.3 %, 30.66% and 27.6%.
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0 10 20 30 40
M
D
F

Skew Angle
Variation of MDF with Skew Angle ( 12m span 70 R TR)
G1
G2
G3
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0 10 20 30 40
M
D
F

Skew Angle
Variation of MDF with Skew Angle ( 12m span 70 R WH)
G1
G2
G3
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
D
F

Skew Angle
Variation of MDF with Skew Angle ( 12m span Class A)
G1
G2
G3
8

Figure 7: Variation of shear coefficient with Skew Angle (12m) Figure 8: Variation of reaction coefficient with Skew Angle (12m)
15 m span
The placement of live load is similar to 12 m span (also explained in section 5). The MDF in G1 falls
consistently in a non-linearly manner with skew while for G2 it is almost constant up to 30
0
skew and
at 40
0
skew a decrease is observed for 70 R Tracked and 70 R wheeled. The MDF in G2 falls in similar
manner to G1 for Class A loading. The reduction in MDF for G1 at 40
0
skew is 10.1% for 70 R Tracked,
12.36 % for 70 R Wheeled and 7.69 % for Class A vehicle. There is a increase in MDF of G3 with skew.

0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x

S
h
e
a
r

C
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Skew Angle
Variation of Shear Cofficients with skew angle (12m )
70 R TR
70 R Wh
Class A
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x

R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Skew Angle
Variation of Reaction Cofficients with skew angle (12 m)
70 R TR
70 R Wh
Class A
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
9

Fig 11 Variation of MDF with Skew Angle (15m span Class A)
Both shear and reaction coefficients increases with skew in a linear fashion. The increase in shear
coefficients is 25.2 %, 28.4% and 21.65% at a skew angle of 40
0
for class 70 R tracked, class A and
Class 70 R wheeled vehicles. For reaction coefficients the increase is 40.6 % for 70 R Tracked, 49.9 %
for Class A and 43.1 % for Class 70 R loading.

18 m span
Similar trends have been observed as in 15 m span. The MDF of G1 for all class loadings decreases
with increasing skew with a maximum fall of 10.5 % for class 70 R Wheeled vehicle. For G2, the MDF
almost remains constant for 70 R Tracked and 70 R Wheeled loading. For class A loading the MDF for
G2 starts falling steeply after 20
0
.
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x

S
h
e
a
r

C
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Skew Angle
Variation of Shear Cofficients with skew angle (15 m )
70 R TR
70 R
Wh
Class A
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x

R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Skew Angle
70 R TR
70 R Wh
Class A
10

Figure 14: Variation of MDF with Skew Angle (18m span 70 R TR) Figure15: Variation of MDF with Skew Angle (18m span 70 R WH)

The shear coefficients and reaction coefficients shows similar increasing trend as of other spans. The
maximum increase in reaction coefficients is 44.2 % for 70 R wheeled loading and for shear
coefficient it is 26.5% for class A loading.
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
11

Figure 17: Variation of shear coefficient with Skew Angle (18m) Figure18: Variation of reaction coefficient with Skew Angle (18m)
21 m span
The effect of skew on MDF is less as compared to 12 m span. The fall in MDF for G1 is small and its
maximum value is 9.9% for 70 R wheeled loading at a skew of 40
0
. For G2 the MDF almost remains
constant for 70 R tracked and 70 R wheeled vehicle. For class A it shows a fall after 30
0
. The
reduction in MDF is higher at higher skew.

0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x

S
h
e
a
r

C
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Skew Angle
Variation of maximum Shear Cofficients with skew angle (18 m )
70 R TR
70 R Wh
Class A
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x

R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Skew Angle
70 R TR
70 R Wh
Class A
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0 10 20 30 40
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
12

Here also the shear and reaction coefficients increase linearly. The maximum increase in shear
coefficient and reaction coefficient is 27.5 % and 38.8 % for class 70 R Wheeled loading.

6.1 Variation of Span Moment with span
To know the behavior of bending moment with span, the span moment are plotted against the span.
The span moments are used to normalize the girder moment and convert to MDF. It is obtained by
carrying out simple beam analyses of same span with specified vehicle and observing the maximum
moment. The spans moments are calculated for at 12m, 15m, 18m and 21m spans and plotted below
(Figure 24). Figure shows that the variation of moment with respect to span is linear.

0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
D
F

Skew Angle
G1
G2
G3
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x

S
h
e
a
r

C
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Skew Angle
Variation of maximum Shear Cofficients with skew angle (21 m )
70 R TR
70 R Wh
Class A
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x

R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Skew Angle
Variation of maximum Reaction Cofficients with skew angle (21m)
70 R TR
70 R Wh
Class A
13

Figure 24
6.2 Variation of Shear coefficients and Reactions coefficient with span
Shear coefficients and reaction coefficients have a linearly increasing trend with span also. A typical
plot has been given in figure 25 and 26 to substantiate this. Table 3 gives the values of shear and
reaction coefficients for all spans and skew angle.

Figure 25: Variation of shear coefficient with span (70 R wheeled) Figure 26: Variation of reaction coefficient with Span (Class A)
6.3 Variation of percentage reduction in MDF with span
As the span increases the percentage reduction in MDF (between 0
0
skew and 40
0
skew) for G1 also
reduces. Table 2 gives the values of percentage reduction in MDF for different class loadings with
span.
Table 2 Percentage Reduction in MDF (in G1) b/w 0
0
& 40
0
skew
1701
2225
2750
3275
1495
2185
2877
3627
1400
1942
2568
3244
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
9 12 15 18 21
s
p
a
n

m
o
m
e
n
t

Span
Variation of Span Moment with span
70 R TR
70 R Wh
Class A
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
12 15 18 21
S
h
e
a
r

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

span
Variation of Shear coefficient with span (Class 70 R wheeled)
0
10
20
30
40
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
12 15 18 21
S
h
e
a
r

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

span
Variation of Reaction coefficient with span (Class A)
0
10
20
30
40
Span Class A 70 R TR 70 R WH
12 m 10.08 14.57 17.5
15 m 7.69 10.1 12.36
18 m 7.43 9.4 10.49
21 m 6.34 8.16 9.93
14

6.4 Design Procedure to Estimate maximum LL moment in girder, maximum LL shear and
maximum LL reaction in skew Bridges.
In the design of any skew bridge, analyses are done for dead loads and live loads. Skew angle has
little effect on dead load analyses, and hence it can be carried out in the routine way as for right
bridges. For live load analyses the study conducted above can be used to directly estimate the key
parameters i.e. maximum live load moment, maximum live load shear and maximum live load
reaction in bridge of same configuration and cross section, span in between 12 to 21 m and skew
angle between 0
0
and 40
0
. This is explained below.
Suppose in a bridge of skew angle say and span L, the maximum LL moment in G1 and G2, and
maximum LL shear and maximum LL reaction is to be obtained. Following steps are to be followed.
(1)From Figure 4 to 21, obtain values of MDF at required skew angle and for specified vehicle class
at control points (i.e. 12 m, 15m, 18m and 21m) between which L lies.
(2) Multiply the MDF of control points with respective span moment given in Fig 24.
(3) From the values at control points, interpolate the value of maximum LL moment at span L.
(4) To obtain the maximum LL shear and maximum LL reaction perform double interpolation at
required span and skew angle form the values of shear coefficients and reactions coefficients given in
table 4.
To substantiate the validity of the proposed distribution factors three bridges were taken whose span
and skew angles were different from those considered in the parametric study. They were analyzed in
STAAD PRO using grillage analogy method and the results were compared with those obtained from
charts and tables proposed in the study (Kamlesh, 2011). A linear interpolation of coefficients has
been done within the two nearest values for which the distribution factors are given in the charts.
Comparisons of results are given below.

15

Table 3: Comparison of Analytical and Predicted Values of Design Forces.
Case 1
Span = 20, Skew angle = 20
70 R Tracked Class A 70 R Wheeled
Parameter
Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Moment (kN-m) 1471 1462.6 -0.57

1265 1271 0.47

1621 1613.6 -0.46
Shear (kN) 308 310.8 0.91

301 306.9 1.96

369.1 371 0.51
Reaction (kN) 460.4 453.6 -1.48 380 384.5 1.18 460 450 -2.17
Case 2
Span = 19, Skew angle = 35
Parameter
Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Moment (kN-m) 1345.8 1321 -1.84

1143.4 1136 -0.65

1449 1413.2 -2.47
Shear (kN) 338 338 0.00

334.4 331 -1.02

408.3 400 -2.03
Reaction (kN) 505.25 503.3 -0.39 415.8 433.3 4.21 508.9 509 0.02
Case 3
Span = 13.5, Skew angle = 25
Parameter
Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Staad
Analysis
Charts
&
Tables
%
Error

Moment (kN-m) 896.8 905.4 0.96

678.8 688.6 1.44

845.8 849.9 0.48
Shear (kN) 293.9 294.7 0.27

257.5 251.5 -2.33

307.5 307 -0.16
Reaction (kN) 475.9 473 -0.61 346.2 356.8 3.06 440.7 434 -1.52

Design SF/ Reaction = Appropriate coefficient x Total Live Load of the train without impact.
The above results are in good agreement and the maximum error is 4.2 % for 19 m span and 35
0
skew
and that also in the safer side. But if we observe the governing forces, the error is further reduced
within 2.5%.

16

Table 4: Reaction and Shear Coefficients in skew Bridges
Span
(m)
Skew
Angle
Degree
Design IRC Loads
70 R TR

CLASS A

70 R WH
Reaction Shear

Reaction Shear

Reaction Shear
12
0 0.537 0.346

0.231 0.174

0.352 0.240
10 0.603 0.354

0.260 0.178

0.389 0.244
20 0.636 0.405

0.286 0.208

0.398 0.281
30 0.703 0.420

0.329 0.230

0.434 0.293
40 0.739 0.452

0.372 0.241

0.498 0.306

15
0 0.529 0.380

0.260 0.203

0.362 0.291
10 0.595 0.389

0.288 0.207

0.396 0.296
20 0.654 0.419

0.316 0.228

0.432 0.320
30 0.709 0.436

0.353 0.240

0.470 0.333
40 0.745 0.476

0.390 0.261

0.519 0.354

18
0 0.516 0.406

0.287 0.235

0.371 0.328
10 0.582 0.414

0.311 0.238

0.402 0.332
20 0.643 0.440

0.339 0.260

0.435 0.355
30 0.700 0.464

0.371 0.282

0.475 0.377
40 0.738 0.494

0.401 0.297

0.535 0.400

21
0 0.540 0.409

0.307 0.255

0.393 0.346
10 0.598 0.417

0.328 0.259

0.423 0.352
20 0.650 0.446

0.351 0.285

0.457 0.379
30 0.699 0.470

0.380 0.302

0.491 0.400
40 0.736 0.514 0.419 0.323 0.545 0.441

(7) Conclusions: Following conclusions can be drawn from the above parametric study.
1) With the increase in skew angle, the maximum Bending moment in the girder G1 reduces for all
class of loadings. The reason is that with the increasing skew angle the rectangular bridge takes the
shape of parallelogram and load follows the shorter path along the shorter diagonal. This can also be
called as reduction of effective span. Hence simply supported T-Beam skew bridges are found to be
conservative with respect to the moments even if the skew angle is ignored.
2) For class 70 R Tracked and Wheeled vehicle the maximum BM in girder G2 nearly remains
constant irrespective of skew. For Class A there is fall in maximum LL BM.
3) The reduction in maximum LL BM is parabolic in nature. At higher skew angle more reduction is
observed.
4) The maximum support reactions and shear increases significantly with the increase in skew angle,
and thus the design based upon right bridge analysis is unsafe. The increase can be as high as 60% at
about 40
0
of skew. The increase in support reaction approximately follows a linear trend.
17

5) With the increase in span the maximum BM increases linearly.
6) With the increase in span there is a fall in the percentage reduction in maximum BM of the
Bridge, yet no co-relation could be established.
(8)References:

Trilok Gupta and Anurag Misra (2007) Effect of Support Reaction of T-Beam Skew Bridges
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol 2, No.1, Feb (2007)
C. Menassa, M. Mabsout, K. Tarhini, and G. Frederick, Influence of Skew Angle on Reinforced
Concrete Slab Bridges Journal of Bridge Engineering(ASCE) Vol. 12 (2007)
S. Maleki and V Bisadi, Orthogonal effects in seismic analysis of skew bridges. Journal of Bridge
Engineering(ASCE) Vol. 9 (2006)
Haoxiong H., Shenton, H. W and Chajes M. J., Load Distribution for a Highly Skewed Bridge:
Testing and Analysis Journal of Bridge Engineering(ASCE) Vol. 9 No.6, Nov1(2004)
Khalo, A.R., and Mirzabozorg H Load Distribution Factors in Simply Supported Skew Bridges.
Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE), Vol. 8, No.4, July 1(2003).
Bakht B. Analysis of some skew bridges as right bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol
(10) (1998)
IRC 21-2000 Standard Specification and Code of Practice for Bridges, Section III-Cement Concrete
(Plain and Reinforced). Indian Road Congress, New Delhi
IRC 6-2000 Standard Specification and Code of Practice for Bridges, Section II-Loads and Stresses.
Indian Road Congress, New Delhi
Harrop J, Ultimate Load Design of Skew Slabs by the Strip Method Building Science Vol. 5 pp
117-121 (1970)
Alfred G. Bishara, Wheel Load Distribution on simply supported Skew I Beam composite
Bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering,(1993)
Ajit Singh, Analysis of skew effects on slab bridges, M.Tech Dissertation (2006) IIT Roorkee.
Kamlesh Parihar, Effect of Skewness on Simply Supported Girder Bridges, M.Tech Dissertation
(2011) IIT Roorkee.
Surana, C.S. and Aggarwal, R. 1998. Grillage Analogy in Bridges Deck Analysis. Narosa Publishing
House, New Delhi, First Edition.

Paper Kamlesh Parihar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper Kamlesh Parihar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Effect of Skewness on Different Design Parameters In Simply

You might also like