Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SKEW-CURVED RC BOX

GIRDER BRIDGES
Vishal S. Jawanjal and Manoj Kumar
Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani
ABSTRACT
Bridges are the key elements in any road network. Use of box girder bridges is gaining
popularity in bridge engineering fraternity because of its better stability, serviceability,
economy, aesthetic appearance and structural efficiency. Its rigidity against torsion under
asymmetrical loads makes it an optimum choice for bridges curved in plan or elevation.
The curved and skew box-girder bridges are common sight nowadays, however, some
times the site situation demands to go for intricate spans geometries such as skewedcurved spans. The present paper deals with the Finite Element Analysis of simply
supported box-girder bridge curved in plan with skewed supports. In this study the finite
element analysis has been carried out using the 9-node degenerated shell element,
however, the geometry of the bridge has been modeled with the help of STAAD Pro. In
order to study the behavior of skewed-curved box-girder bridge, a 20m span Reinforced
Concrete (RC) bridge has been considered and the degrees of curvature and skewness has
been varied to study the effect of curvature and skewness on deflection, longitudinal
bending stress and shear lag.
Keywords: Box Girder, skew-curved bridge, Finite Element Analysis, coefficient of shear
lag
INTRODUCTION
Over the last few decades, the enormous growth in traffic volume has resulted
into the congested roads, reduced speed and long traffic jams specially in areas. In urban
dense areas, for smooth flow of traffic, there is a growing need to place new highways in
existing transportation corridors in order to minimize disruption and land acquisition.
This results in grade-separated intersections where the structures may be curved and
skew. The use of curved and skew spans is common in the flyover construction but
sometimes the situation demands to go for intricate span geometry such as a span, which
is curved in plan and supported on skew supports. In New Delhi, two noted examples
were found out for skew-curved category viz. the Dhaula Kuan Interchange and Mass
Rapid Transit System (MRTS) flyover at GT road [Tandon, 2003]. The analysis of bridge
curved in plan is complex, however, the presence of skewness in the bridge curved in
plan makes the analysis more complicated.
The bridges curved in plan are subjected to high torsional loading in addition to
longitudinal and transverse bending due to eccentric vehicular loading and thus changing
the initial geometry of the structure due to deformations in the section. The use of the
concrete box girders in highway and flyover bridge construction has proven to be very
efficient structural solution. Box girder sectrions are commonly used in curved bridges
due its rigidity and stability to keep the original geometry intact in the presence of high
torsional moments. Moreover, in addition of its structural behavior, economy and

183

Vishal S. Jawanjal and Manoj Kumar

aesthetics makes it an optimum choice for bridges curved in plan or elevation. [Sennah
and Kennedy, 2002]
Present paper is concerned with the investigation of the deflection, longitudinal
bending compressive stress and coefficient of shear lag in curved, skewed, and skewedcurved box-girder bridges due to its self-weight and live load. To this end, single cell
vertical web reinforced concrete (RC) box-girders with various curvature and skewness
have been analyzed using the Finite Element Method. Finite element analysis of the
bridge is carried out using the 9-node degenerated shell element, however, the geometry
of the bridge has been modeled with the help of STAAD Pro.
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF BOX GIRDERS
The structural response of a box girder bridge consists of five primary actions,
viz., longitudinal bending, transverse bending, torsion, distortion or deformation and
warping. Under the self-weight and other symmetrical loadings the section primarily
experiences longitudinal and transverse bending, however, all of the above responses are
combinedly present in case of asymmetrical loads, which is common in box girder
bridges. It may be noted that deformational stresses (resulting from torsion and
distortion) can occur even under symmetrical loading if the supports are skewed or if the
bridge is curved in plan [Chapman, et al., 1971]. In general, the shape of the cross section
deforms by transverse bending of walls arising due to absence or insufficient rigidity of
diaphragms. Deformation of cross section is resisted by diaphragms, which also
significantly effect the distortional moment. Warping is the out of plane displacement of
fibers of the cross sections in longitudinal direction and occurs under torsional loading.
Moreover, in box-girder bridges, the longitudinal bending stresses in the regions close to
the webs are found greater than those in the flange remote from the web due to shear
deformation and this phenomenon is called shear lag. Shear lag is an important parameter
in the study of box girders and is represented in the form of Coefficient of Shear Lag
(CSL). CSL is defined as the ratio of longitudinal stresses obtained by finite element
analysis and those obtained by simple bending theory.
GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATION OF THE BRIDGES ANALYZED
In order to demonstrate the behaviour of curved, skewed and skewed-curved boxgirder bridge, a 20m long two-lane single cell box girder with vertical webs is considered.
The section of the bridge considered is shown in Fig. 1.
In order to study the behaviour of curved, skewed, and skew-curved, six models
of bridge as shown in Figure 2 have been analyzed. The first section is straight without
any curvature and skewness. To investigate the effect of skewness and curvature on
behaviour of box girder, two skew bridges with skew angle 150 (skew-15) and 300 (skew30) and two bridges curved in plan with angle 300 (Cur-30) and 600 (Cur-60) have been
considered. Moreover, to study the behaviour of skew-curved bridge, a 300 curved bridge
with 300 skew (SkCur-30) has been considered. All the bridges have been analyzed for its
self-weight and live load. In this study live load is considered as IRC class 70R tracked
vehicle [IRC-6, 1997] at mid span. It may be added that the issue pertaining the position
of the live load is quiet important for the design point of view the IRC tracked vehicle has
been placed at maximum eccentricity at mid-span as per the guidelines of IRC guidelines
[IRC-21, 1997].
184

Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The linear finite element analysis carried out in this study is based on the threedimensional, degenerated, layered shell element formulation. Each element has nine
nodes with five degrees of freedom at each node (three translation and two rotational
degrees of freedom) [Hinton et al. 1984] and has been used for spatial discretization of
the bridge. All the bridges were discretized into 60 elements. It becomes tedious to
generate the input data for curved and skew bridges; therefore, the geometry of the bridge
was first modeled in STAAD Pro to generate the coordinates of each node point. The
formulation of the element and validation of the computer program used in this study are
given by Kumar [Kumar, 1997].
ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
1

For the analytical investigation of structural behavior of straight, curved, skewed,

and skewed-curved bridges, a two lane bridge of twenty-meter span box-girder as shown
in Fig.1 has been considered. A detailed study on influence of geometry of bridge on its
structural behaviour has been made by Jawanjal [Jawanjal, 2004], however, this paper
deals with the influence of geometry of the bridge on deflection, longitudinal
compressive stress and coefficient of shear lag.
Influence of Geometry on Deflection
Deflection of bridge at mid-span is an important parameter, which governs the
serviceability requirement of the bridge. In this study, the influence of geometry of the
bridge on the deflection under the outer web (i.e. web near the live load) and on inner
web has been investigated. Fig 3 shows the variation of deflection along the span for the
straight, skew, curved, and skew-curved cases for outer and inner webs. Fig 3a shows the
effect of skewness on deflection under outer and inner webs. It is evident from Fig 3a that
the deflection of the bridge under the outer web slightly decreases in the presence of
skewness, however, there is no significant effect of skewness on deflection under the
inner web. The study conducted suggested that deflection is highly influenced by
curvature. As the angle of curvature increases, deflection under both the webs increases.
For the bridge with curved in plan by 600, the deflection under the outer web was found
approximately 2.8 times of that for straight bridge, however, this factor was found to
decrease to 1.6 for inner web [Fig. 3b]. The variation of deflection along the span for
straight, cur30, skew30 and sk-cur30 is shown in Fig 3c. Fig 3c shows that the deflection
at mid-span under the outer web for the bridge curved in plan by 300 is approximately 1.5
times as compared to straight bridge and this factor reduces to approximately 1.3 for
bridge curved in plan by 300 and skewed by 300. In other words, deflection of curved
bridge (under both the webs) decreases in the presence of skewness in the bridge.
Influence of Geometry on Compressive Stress in Top slab
Fig. 4 shows the variation of longitudinal compressive stress along the width of
the top slab. Fig 4a clearly indicates that up to skew angle 150, there was no significant
effect of skew angle on the compressive stresses in top slab. However, at skew angle 300,
the longitudinal compressive stress in the top slab was observed to decrease by
approximately 14% for both the webs i.e. outer web (near the live load) and inner webs.
Fig 4b shows the influence of angle of curvature on compressive stress in the top slab. It

185

Vishal S. Jawanjal and Manoj Kumar

can be observed from the Fig 4b that, the longitudinal stress in top slab is not much
affected by curvature in plan., however, near the inner web the stress was found to
decrease with increase in angle of curvature. It can be easily observed from the Fig 4b
that the compressive stress for 600-curved bridge is 40% lower than that for straight
bridge. A comparison of longitudinal compressive stress for straight, skewed, curved, and
skew-curved bridge is shown in Fig 4c. The figure indicates that longitudinal
compressive stress near outer web for 300 curved bridge is approximately 8% higher in
comparison to straight bridge, however, for 300 skew bridge the stress is 22% lower than
that for straight bridge. For the locations near the inner web, the trend of stress was found
reverse as compared to outer web. For outer web, the stress for curved, skewd and skewcurved bridge was found lower than that for straight bridge.
Influence of Geometry on Coefficient of Shear Lag (CSL)
Figure 5 shows the variation of Coefficient of Shear Lag (CSL) along the width
of the bridge for skew, curved and skew-curved bridges. It can be observed from the Fig
5a, that CSL decreases with increase in the skew angle. On the other hand, Figure 5b
shows that as the angle of curvature increases, CSL near the outer web increases,
however, it decreases tremendously near the inner web. A comparison of CSL for
straight, skew-30, curved-30 and ske-curv-30 is shown in Fig 5c. From the figure, it may
be noted that for curved and skew-curved bridge, CSL near the outer web is close to CSL
for straight bridge, however, for skewed bridge CSL reduces in comparison to straight
bridge. Moreover, the trend for CSL near inner web was observed reverse as compared to
outer web. For the skew-30 bridge the CSL near inner web is found approximately 23%
lower than that for straight bridge, however this factor was approximately 25% for skcur30 bridge.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, finite element analysis of the simply supported reinforced bridge was
carried out to investigate the influence of geometry on deflection, longitudinal
compressive stresses and the Coefficient of Shear Lag (CSL). This limited study can be
concluded with the following significant observations:

On the basis of study made it was observed that the deflection of the bridge is not
much affected by skewness of the bridge supports. However, the angle of curvature
significantly affects the deflection of the bridge. Furthermore, the study suggested
that the deflection of curved bridge decreases in presence of skewness.

For skew bridges with skew angle up to 150, the variation in the longitudinal stress
was not significant, however, it increases for highly skewed supports. For bridges
curved plan the longitudinal stress near the outer web was not much affect by angle
of curvature, however, the stress near the inner web decreases with increase in angle
of curvature. Further, for bridges curved in plan with skewed supports, the
longitudinal stress decreases in near the outer web and increases outer web in
comparison to straight bridge.

The study suggested that the CSL decreases as the skewness of the support increases.
Similar trend was observed for curved bridges near the inner web, however, for outer
web the trend was reverse. Moreover, for bridges curved in plan with skewed

186

Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

supports, CSL is approximately same as for straight bridge, however, near the inner
web, CSL decreases as compared to straight bridge.
REFERENCES
1. Chapman, J. C., Dowling, P. J., Lim, P. T. K., and Billington, C. J., The Structural
Behaviour of Steel and Concrete Bridges, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 49, No. 3,
pp. 111-120, 1971.
2. Hinton E. and Owen, D. R. J. (1984). Finite Element Software For Plates and
Shells Pineridge Press, Swansea, U. K.
3. IRC:6. (1997). Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section II Loads and Stresses, Indian Road Congress.
4. IRC:21. (1997). Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section III Cement Concrete (Plain and Reinforced), Indian Road Congress.
5. Krishnamoorthy, C. S. (1994). Finite Element Analysis Theory and Programming
Tata-Mc-Graw-Hill Publishing Limited, New Delhi.
6. Jawanjal V. (2004) Finite Element Analysis of Skew Curved Box Girder Bridge
ME Thesis, Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani, India.
7. Kumar, Manoj (1997). Analysis of Box-girder Bridges Using Finite Element
Method, M.E Thesis, University of Roorkee, India.
8. Scordelis A.C., Wasti, S. T., and Seible, F. (1982) Structural Response of Skew RC
Box Girder Bridge, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 108, 89-104
9. Sennah, K., and Kennedy, J. (2002). Literature Review in Analysis of Box-Girder
Bridges. J. Bridge Eng., 7(2), 134-143.
10. Tandon M. (2003) Aesthetics and technologies for urban bridges, Indian Concrete
Journal, July 2003, 1191-1196

187

Vishal S. Jawanjal and Manoj Kumar

FIGURES & GRAPHS

Straight

Cur-30

Skew-15

Skew-30

Cur-60

SkCur-30

Figure 2. Models of Skewed (skew), Curved (Cur) and skewedCurved (Sk-Cur) bridges

Deflection
(mm)

-1

-2
-3

Sp an ( m)

Span (m )

0
0

12

0
16

20

12

-1

Straight
Skew-15
Skew-30

-2
-3

-4

Straight
Skew-15
Skew-30

-4
-5

(i) For outer w eb

-5

(ii) For Inner w eb

(a) Influence of skewness

188

16

20

Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

200

E = 3.8 E +4 MPa
= 0.2
= 25 kN/m3

2000

2025

4050

2025

Fig. 1 Section of the bridge considered in study

Span (m)

0
4

12

16

Span (m)

20

-5

-10
Cur-0
cur-30
cur-60
-15

Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

12

16

20

-4

-6

Cur-0
Cur-30
Cur-60

-8

(i) For outer web

-2

(ii) For inner web

(b) Influence of Curvature

Span (m)

Span (m)
4

12

16

-2.5
-4

straight
skew-30
cur-30
skcur-30

-5.5
-7

-0.5 0

20

Deflection (mm)

Deflection

-1 0

12

16

-1.5
-2.5

straight
skew-30
cur-30
skcur-30

-3.5
-4.5

(ii) For inner web

(i) For outer web

(c) Influence of skewness and curvature both

Fig. 3: Influence of geometry of Box-Girder on deflection along the span

189

20

2.5

0.8
CSL

Stress (kN/m2)

Vishal S. Jawanjal and Manoj Kumar

Skew 0
Skew 15
Skew 30

1.5

0.6
Skew-0
Skew-15
Skew-30

0.4
0

4
Width (m)

Width (m)

Fig. 5(a) Influence of Skewness

Fig. 4(a) Influance of Skewness

1.1

2.5
2

0.8

CSL

Stress (kN/m2)

1.5
Curved 0
Curved 30
Curved 60

Cur-0
Cur-30
Cur-60

0.5

0.2

0.5
0

Width 4(m)

4
Width (m)

Fig. 5(b) Influence of Curvature

Fig. 4(b) Influence of Curvature

2.6
1

2.2
0.8

1.8
Curved-30
Sk-cur-30
Straight
Skew-30

1.4
1

straight
skew-30
cur-30
Skcur-30

0.6

0.4

4
Widt h (m )

Fig. 4(c) Influence of Skew ness and

Curvature both

Fig. 4: Influence of geometry on

compressive Stress in top slab

2
4
6
Fig.
5(c)
Influence
of
W id
t h ( m)
Skew ness and Curvature
both

Fig. 5: Influence of geometry on

Coefficient of Shear Lag (CSL)

190