Transverse design of rc hollow box bridge girder

Esmerald Filaj1, Enio Deneko2, Erdit Leka1, Arian Lako1

1 Polytechnic University of Tirana, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Tirana, Albania
e_filaj@yahoo.com

Abstract
The design of a reinforced concrete hollow box bridge is usually done separately
for the transverse and longitudinal directions. In this paper, only the transverse
behavior will be discussed. At this aim, a simplified 2-D (two dimensional) plane
frame model of unit length, for a considered bridge, is built and analyzed using SAP
2000 software, for two different cases: 1) using linear frame elements connected in
rigid joints as specified by the software (truss model); 2) using shell elements and
so considering quite ideal rigid joint regions. This model allows for load distribution
to the webs and slab members, relative to their stiffness, but, the overall transverse
behavior depends also on how the elements and joints are modelled. In order to
study mainly the joint stiffness effects, especially the upper ones, further
simplification regarding loading conditions are made, considering only the self-
weight and the live load. The live load is applied in different positions, to account
for the worst loading cases for the elements. Analysis results show that the joints
stiffness influence on the transverse bridge behavior must be considered, for
stresses and displacements evaluation also, aiming the rigid conditions that do
represent better the state of the art and the literature recommendations. The model
built with shell elements, gives more reliable results and is more appropriate to be
used for this kind of analysis.
Keywords: rc bridge, hollow box girder, transverse behavior, shell element,
2-D frame model, 2-D shell model, SAP2000

1 Introduction
A box girder bridge is a bridge in which the main girders, one or more, have a hollow
box shape. These type of bridges are commonly used for highway flyovers and for
modern elevated structures of light rail transport. On geometry basis, they can be
classified as: monocellular, monocellular with ribs and struts, double-cell and
composite multiple box girders. The box girders normally can either be prestressed
reinforced concrete, structural steel, or a composite of steel and reinforced
concrete, with a typical rectangular or trapezoidal cross section. Because of high
torsional resistance, a box girder structure is particularly suited to bridges with
significant curvature. This paper is focused on the transverse design of
monocellular reinforced concrete hollow box bridges.
2 Design approach
The design of a hollow box bridge, usually, is
separately done for the transverse and
longitudinal directions [1]. To correctly
represent/ study the box girder (bridge), one
would need to do a three dimensional
analysis and incorporate all loads the box is
subjected to, along with proper boundary
conditions [2]. Due to the complexity of this
type of analysis, in particular the application
of prestressing, to the three dimensional
systems, this is seldom done. In lieu of this
complex analysis, it is common practice to
model the box as a 2-D (two dimensional)
plane frame of unit length, which allows for
load distribution to the webs and slab
members, relative to their stiffness. But, the
overall transverse behavior depends also on
how the elements and joints are modelled.
Typical 2-D frame model is assumed to be
supported at the lower end of the webs. A
more accurate model is based on a partial 3-
D finite element model of the box girder. The
Figure 1. Hollow box bridges
term partial implies that the entire bridge
superstructure need not be modeled; rather it
should be interpreted as a partial length of the
box that will be long enough to include three
dimensional effects. From this model,
influence lines can be generated at any
section of interest. The first presented
approach, can give good qualitative results
regarding the joint stiffness influence on the Figure 2. 2-D frame model
bridge behavior, quite the main interest of this
study, so it is the one chosen to for the
analysis.

3 Case study
The monocellular reinforced concrete box
girder bridge, concrete C35/45 and
reinforcement S500s - Class B or C according Figure 3. Partial 3-D model
to Eurocodes [3] requirements, with the typical
trapezoidal cross section presented below, will be analyzed. The geometry is
simplified not accounting for any variable increase of web or bottom slab thickness,
neither a side longitudinal continuous vehicle barrier. Dimensions are in
centimeters (SI Units).
 Figure 4. RC box girder bridge geometry & loading conditions

4 Design load cases

The design loads considered in transverse design include [4], but not limited to:
dead loads of (non) structural components, wearing surface and utilities
live loads of vehicles and dynamic load allowance (DLA)
primary prestressing forces; creep and shrinkage effect of concrete
thermal gradient (inside-outside box girder temperature difference)
accumulated locked-in force effects resulting from the construction
In order to study mainly the joint
stiffness effects, some simplification
regarding loading conditions can be
made. So, only the self-weight of the
structure is considered as a dead load.
The live load, as a bi-component load
block with load vectors in a 2m of
distance (almost the standard
transverse wheel distance of a design
vehicle like a truck or a tandem [5], [6]),
is applied in different positions, to
account for the worst loading cases
for the elements. Due to the fact that
the side longitudinal continuous
vehicle barrier is not considered as a
part of the model (because of the
barrier discontinuities and uncertain
future quality, this edge stiffening
effect is neglected & not
recommended), the live load can be
assumed to act even on the girder
extremities, practically not possible
(herein is assumed at least 50cm from
the side).
Figure 5. Live load configuration
The value of each load-vector is assumed P=50kN (a mean value between the
maximum wheel load of a truck and a tandem according to EC2 and LRFD
requirements [5], [6] - if load intensity is too small no significative differences can
be noticed between considered analysis cases). However, it must be pointed that
all the above simplifications, do not affect qualitatively the results of this study.

5 Analysis models
Two different models are built using SAP 2000 software, to analyze the
monocellular reinforced concrete box girder bridge:
2-D (two dimensional) plane frame of unit length, built using frame elements,
with variable cross section when needed, connected in rigid joints.
There are two alternatives to interpret the corner regions rigidity:
by default software joint region parameters, which are function of the
intersecting frame elements stiffness and geometry;
for a better interpretation, the nodes in the joint region, created artificially, based
on judgment and also geometry, can be coupled, constrained, so creating a
rigid region - this alternative is closer to the real behavior of the bridge, but a
good care should be made while creating the artificial coupled nodes, trying
not to extend unnecessary the coupling effect, meaning shortening the
effective length of the intersecting frame elements.

Figure 6. 2-D plane frame analysis model with frame/shell elements

Model behavior depends also on the frame elements geometry and intersection
specifics. As stated above, some frame elements have been defined with
variable cross section. The variation law is influenced by the length, meaning
that to get closer to the real box girder geometry, some frame elements should
be modeled with a number of shorter sub-elements - the model will be
complicated. However, it can be noticed that variable girder elements have
short length and the relative error in results derived using the simplified model
(Fig. 6) can be neglected. Intersection specifics are related to the way/ manner
how the frames intersect in the joint. This issue can be addressed to the use of
 section cardinal points. In our case, it is assumed that the frames intersect by
the longitudinal axis - cross section center of gravity.
2-D (two dimensional) plane frame of unit length, built using shell elements thus
considering quite ideal rigid joint regions and no discontinuities, closer to the
state of the art and the literature recommendations.

For both of the models, the above presented

LLC-1
loading conditions (unfactored) will be applied,
and the most important sections will be discussed
regarding normal stresses (bending moments)
and vertical displacements. These sections, in
theory, should correspond in both models, but in LLC-2
reality, due to the differences shown, this isnt
quite true. In the model built using frame
elements, a studied point on the frame element
longitudinal axis, represents also the section,
meanwhile in the model built using shell elements LLC-3
a studied point, with the same abscissa,
represents only a fiber (extreme one in our case)
of the section. Although this physical differences,
the inaccuracy level while comparing the results
to fulfill the goal of this study, would be small.
LLC-4

6 Analysis results for frame

elements model
Analysis results for the 2-D (two dimensional)
model, built using frame elements are presented Figure 7. Bending moment
below for each live load configuration (LLC). diagram

Figure 8. Deck displacements (mm) and Figure 9. Deformed shape

Normal Stress diagram daN/cm2
7 Analysis results for shell elements model
Analysis results for the 2-D (two dimensional) model, built using shell elements are
presented below for each live load configuration (LLC).

LLC-1

LLC-2

LLC-3

LLC-4

Figure 10. Normal stress S11

Figure 11. Deformed shape (mm)
diagram (N/mm2)

8 Comparison of
analysis results
As discussed, box girder
corner rigid regions affect its
overall transverse behavior. To
evaluate somehow these
effects and any possible
qualitative or quantitative
difference between the two
models, the most influenced
element of the section (the
deck) is considered (because
of its role and dimensions).For
a more complete study, all the
elements of the section should
be analyzed. Figure 12. Deck displacements (mm) and
Normal Stress diagram daN/cm2
At this aim, a fine division of the deck is made at quite equal spaces - a total 33
points/ sections - including also the live load application points/ sections. Analysis
results in terms of displacements and normal stress are shown. Bending moments
of 2-D frame elements model are expressed as normal stress, basing of classical
methods (Strength of Materials), and accounting for the section dimensions at each
of the 33 stations. It can be
noticed that deck vertical
displacements follow almost
the same variation law for both
of the models. The shell
elements model presents an
increased stiffness compared
to the model built with frame
elements. Extreme numerical
differences refer to the first and
second LLC, respectively up to
55%/ 64% at midsection, and
72%/ 21% at sides.
Deck normal stress variation is
at a first look, different between
the models. Stress variation of
frame elements model follows
the bending moment law which
is composed by two parts -
cantilever and space - joined
in the corner intersection
region. So in theory normal
stresses with two different
values would be developed in
the intersection corresponding
section.
Meanwhile, as expressed in
(5), there isnt a discrete
intersection point/ section in
the shell model, and this is why
the stress variation is quite
smooth along the deck. The
influence of the corner region
rigidity is more present for the
space segment of the deck, Figure 13. Deck displacement comparison
with no differences in the
cantilevers, and this is quite
logical based on the geometry
conditions and also the fact
that in the cantilever part the
models are identical. So, the
corner regions present an
increased rotational stiffness,
reducing space stress level.
Except for the first LLC, a good
agreement can be seen in the
normal stress distribution.

9 Conclusions
Transverse design analysis of
reinforced concrete hollow box
bridges can be based on
simplified 2-D models built with
frame or shell elements. The
overall transverse behavior
depends on how the elements
and rigid joints are modelled.
The last alternative is more
reliable while better including
on the results the effects of
rigid regions of the girder
section. Thus it gives a more
exact evaluation of normal
stresses especially in rigid
corner regions (in such a case
cannot be exactly calculated
using Bernoulli hypothesis),
and displacements also. The
model built with shell elements,
is more appropriate to be used Figure 14. Deck Normal Stress comparison
for this kind of design analysis.

10 References
[1] Rombach, G.A.: Finite element design of concrete structures, First edition, Thomas
Telford Publishing, Cornwall, 2004.
[2] Theryo, T. S.: Precast Balanced Cantilever Bridge Design Using AASHTO LRFD, Bridge
Design Specifications, Major Bridge Service Center, U.S., 2005.
[3] Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, Part 2: Concrete bridges - Design and
detailing rules, European Standard, CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[4] Eurocode 1, Actions on structures, Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges, European Standard,
CEN, Brussels, 2004.
[5] AASHTO LRFD Bridge, Design Specifications - Customary U.S. Units, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, U.S., 2012.
[6] Bridge Design to Eurocodes, Worked examples, European Commission Joint Research
Centre, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012
[7] Sanpaolesi L., Croce P.: Handbook 4, Design of Bridges, Leonardo da Vinci Pilot Project,
Development of skills facilitating implementation of Eurocodes, Pisa, 2005
[8] Computer and Structures Inc.: CSI Analysis Reference Manual, For SAP2000, ETABS,
SAFE and CSi Bridge, 2014