Practical Design Methods for

Skewed Bridges
Travis Butz, PE
Burgess & Niple, Inc.
Recurring constructability problems during deck pours
Predicted deflections disagree with field results
Decks with exposed rebar, poor finish, inconsistent
thickness
Excessive girder twist in one case, capacity of the
structure was compromised
A study was commissioned to identify causes and to
recommend solutions
- Why is this happening?
- What analysis methods are appropriate?
- How can we prevent these problems?
Ohios Skew Problems:
Skewed Bridge Behavior
Out-of-plane effects occur in skewed bridges that cannot
be predicted by line girder analysis methods (neglecting
crossframe effects).
AASHTO/NSBA Guidelines for Design for
Constructability identifies two separate issues:
Intermediate Crossframe Effects
End Crossframe Effects

FRAMING PLAN
TRANSVERSE SECTION
Test Case, Intermediate Crossframe Effects:
Line Girder
Analysis Results
Crossframe Effects
Ignored
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Length (ft)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)

G2 G1 G3 G4 G5
Crossframe
Locations
Test Structure, Deflection Due to Deck Weight
Results Show:
Large differential
deflections between
interior and exterior
girders
Abrupt changes in
differential
deflection across
the width of the
bridge
D
D
Section D-D
Differential Deflection (in)
Girder Deflection (in)
Deflections Exaggerated x 12
Framing Plan
Line Girder
Analysis Results
Crossframe Effects
Ignored
Problem: If the girders are assumed to stay
vertical, the crossframes will not permit
differential deflections of this magnitude.
Conclusion: Crossframe interaction needs to be
included to accurately model structure behavior.

Line Girder Analysis Results
Crossframe Effects Ignored
Section D-D
Differential Deflection (in)
Girder Deflection (in)
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Differential vertical deflection causes crossframes to
deform if the girders do not twist.
Large forces are needed to create axial deformations
in the crossframe members, so resistance to this type
of deflection is very high.
Lengthened
Shortened
Twisting of the girders allows differential deflection to
occur without deforming the crossframe.
The torsional stiffness of the girders is low compared
to the stiffness of the crossframes, so this behavior
is dominant.
Undeformed
Undeformed
Refined Analysis
Results
Intermediate
Crossframe Effects
Included
Results Show:
More uniform
differential deflection
across the width of
the bridge at
crossframe locations
(compared to line
girder analysis)
Test Structure, Deflection Due to Deck Weight
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Length (ft)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
G2 G1 G3 G4 G5
Crossframe
Locations
Refined Analysis
Results
Intermediate
Crossframe Effects
Included
Section D-D
Differential Deflection (in)
Girder Deflection (in)
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section D-D
Differential Deflection (in)
Girder Deflection (in)
Line Girder
Analysis Results
Crossframe Effects
Ignored
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
A
A
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section A-A
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
B
B
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Section B-B
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section C-C
C
C
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
D
D
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section D-D
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
E
E
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section E-E
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
F
F
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section F-F
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section G-G
G
G
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
H
H
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section H-H
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
J
J
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Section J-J
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
K
K
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Section K-K
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
L
L
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section L-L
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
M
M
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12
Section M-M
Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)
Support Reactions Due to Wet Concrete Weight, Refined Analysis:
Rear Bearings
(Fixed)
Forward Bearings
(Exp.)
Rear
Bearings
(Fixed)
Forward
Bearings
(Exp.)
End Crossframe Effects
To illustrate end crossframe behavior, we will examine a 2-
girder structure with end crossframes only (no intermediate
bracing).
This illustration is adapted from Beckmann & Medlock, 2005
PLAN VIEW
The end diaphragm can be thought of as a pair of rigid
links connecting the top flange of one girder to the
bottom flange of the adjacent girder.
2-Girder Structure:
ISOMETRIC VIEW (PARTIAL)
Deflection of a Cambered Girder:
When a girder deflects, the top flange moves
longitudinally relative to the bottom flange at the
beam ends. We will define this distance as .


The end crossframe of a skewed structure restrains
the longitudinal translation of the top flange.

2-Girder Structure:
PLAN VIEW (PARTIAL)
Dx
GIRDER A
GIRDER B
The end crossframe forces the top flange to move
radially about the adjacent bearing point. The
resulting motion produces twist in the girders.

2-Girder Structure:
PLAN VIEW (PARTIAL)
Dx
D
y

GIRDER A
GIRDER B
The movement of the top flange is approximately
perpendicular to the centerline of bearings.

2-Girder Structure:
PLAN VIEW (PARTIAL)
Dx
D
y

Dx
D
y

GIRDER B
GIRDER A
Test Structure, Girder End Twist
End Crossframes Only:
Intermediate Crossframes Only:
Sign Convention: (+ Clockwise, Looking Forward - Counterclockwise, Looking Forward)
Forward
Sign Convention: (+ Clockwise, Looking Forward - Counterclockwise, Looking Forward)
Forward
Combined Effects: Girder End Twist
End Crossframes Only / Intermediate Crossframes Only:
Combined effects:
Sign Convention: (+ Clockwise, Looking Forward - Counterclockwise, Looking Forward)
Forward
Sign Convention: (+ Clockwise, Looking Forward - Counterclockwise, Looking Forward)
Forward
Evaluation of Analysis Methods
Parametric Study:
Mz
Line Girder Analysis
Girder modeled using
beam elements
Parametric Study, Analysis Methods:
Parametric Study, Analysis Methods:
Study Conclusions:
When the effects of intermediate crossframes are considered,
significant redistribution of shear and moment occurs across
the width of the structure.
For the structures studied, line girder analysis can be used to
conservatively calculate member forces for skews up to 45.
2D Grid Analysis vs. 2D Grid Analysis w/ Truss Crossframes:
Little variation was observed between the girder and intermediate crossframe forces
obtained from 2D grid analysis with truss crossframes.
The use of 2D grid analysis was shown to be generally accurate in the calculation of
moments and shears for the cases investigated.
Note that higher levels of analysis provide more precise results, and are
recommended when higher precision is needed, or with more complex structures
(variable skews, partial length girders, etc.).
2D Grid Analysis w/ Truss Crossframes vs. 3D FEM:
The moment and shear results obtained from 3D FEM analysis show general
agreement with the results obtained from 2D grid analysis with truss crossframes..
Although the 2D grid was found to be generally accurate for calculating moments and
shears for the structures investigated, 3D FEM analysis does provide more precise
results.
3D FEM is recommended for more complex structures.
Erect girders plumb
Install crossframes
Girders rotate out of plumb during deck placement
Girders will be permanently twisted





Question: How much twist is acceptable?
Detailing Methods
Method 1 Steel dead load fit members are detailed to fit with webs
plumb with steel dead load on the structure, but not the deck load
Detailing Methods
Method 2 Full dead load fit members are detailed to fit with webs
plumb with full non-composite dead load of steel and concrete.

Erect girders out-of-plumb
Install crossframes
Girders rotate to vertical during deck placement
Girders webs will be vertical in the finished structure





Detailing Methods
Method 2 Full dead load fit members are detailed to fit with webs
plumb with full non-composite dead load of steel and concrete.

This method is generally recommended for skewed bridges by
industry experts.
ODOT is not comfortable with erecting girders in an out-of-plumb
position. Steel Dead Load fit is required by ODOT policy.




Detailing Methods
Method 3 Lean-on Bracing
Use of an alternative lateral bracing system to minimize or
eliminate intermediate crossframe effects.
Some crossframes are replaced with top and bottom struts only
during the deck pour
Lean-on braces allow differential vertical deflection to occur
between girders without inducing twist.






Lean-on Bracing
Two types: Internal and External
In an Internal Lean-on System, bracing is provided by a
crossframe located within the portion of the structure that is
being loaded.
X X
X
X X
X
A
A
Section A-A
Lean-on Bracing
Internal Lean-on System
In an internal system, crossframe locations can be selected
strategically to minimize twist in the system. Designers
must perform calculations to ensure adequate strength and
stiffness are provided.
Lean-on Bracing
External Lean-on System
In an External Lean-on System, the structure is braced
against an external support or a portion of the structure
that will not be loaded during the deck pour.
Can girder twist be calculated using line girder results?
For low skews, girder twist can be
estimated using line girder analysis.
From AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge
Erection Guide Specification, erection
tolerance = 1/8 per foot of web depth
Data shows this method to be conservative
up to a 45 skew.
ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
Skew > 45
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
No
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
No
Implement External
Lean-on Bracing
Implement Internal
Lean-on Bracing with
Refined Analysis
No
Finish Design
Using Refined Analysis:
Erect Girders Vertical
And Allow To Rotate
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
Yes
Yes
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
30 < Skew 45
Perform Line Girder
Analysis
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
No
No
Design Using Line
Girder Analysis
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Perform
Refined
Analysis
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
30 < Skew 45
Perform Line Girder
Analysis
Design Using Line
Girder Analysis
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
Yes
S

f
f
ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
30 < Skew 45
Perform Line Girder
Analysis
Design Using Line
Girder Analysis
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
Yes
No
Stiffen design: Increase
Optimized steel design
0% to 25% (By Weight)
Increase depth
Increase flange sizes
Add girder(s)
ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
30 < Skew 45
Perform Line Girder
Analysis
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
Finish Design
Using Refined Analysis:
Erect Girders Vertical
And Allow To Rotate
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
No
Yes
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
No
1/8
1
f
Perform
Refined
Analysis
ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
30 < Skew 45
Perform Line Girder
Analysis
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
Finish Design
Using Refined Analysis:
Erect Girders Vertical
And Allow To Rotate
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
No
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
No
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
No Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
Implement Internal
Lean-on Bracing with
Refined Analysis
No
Yes
Perform
Refined
Analysis
ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
30 < Skew 45
Perform Line Girder
Analysis
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
No
Implement Internal
Lean-on Bracing with
Refined Analysis
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
Implement External
Lean-on Bracing
No
No Perform
Refined
Analysis
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
No
ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
Skew > 45
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
No
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?
No
Implement External
Lean-on Bracing
Implement Internal
Lean-on Bracing with
Refined Analysis
No
Finish Design
Using Refined Analysis:
Erect Girders Vertical
And Allow To Rotate
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS
Yes
Yes
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
30 < Skew 45
Perform Line Girder
Analysis
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Differential
Deflections
< S/100
No
No
Design Using Line
Girder Analysis
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel
Perform
Refined
Analysis
ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
Bottom Chord
End Armor
ODOT Policy: End Crossframes
For skews > 30 degrees, do not install end crossframe diagonals
until deck placement in the adjacent span is complete
End Armor
Bottom Chord
Diagonals
Condition at Deck
Placement:
Note that the girder
ends are unbraced.
Temporary bracing
may be required.
Final Condition:
Diagonals installed
Refined Analysis using Midas Civil:
In midas civil user can model the construction sequence considering
the girder lift, installation and the deck pouring sequence.

The shell elements works well in determination of the girder twist. A
study has been done in midas civil for the determination of the girder
twist during the deck pouring.

The following pouring sequence has been assumed:
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
The following Stages were modeled:

1. Stage 1: Steel Girders are installed and self weight of steel is activated.
2. Stage 2: The scaffolding load is activated. The load is activated in the
following fashion for the overhangs:









3. Stage 3: The deck dead load is activated for the deck pour 1.
4. Stage 4: The deck dead load is activated for the deck pour 2.
5. Stage 5: The deck dead load is activated for the deck pour 3.


Deformation Results:
Twisting during deck 1 pouring

Deformation Results:

Twisting during deck 2 pouring

Deformation Results:

Twisting during deck 3 pouring

=> Twisting can be accurately
estimated by Midas Civil so
that proper measures can be
taken
Questions?

travis.butz@burgessniple.com